Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rygar" data-source="post: 7997769" data-attributes="member: 6756765">I think that's a bit revisionist.&nbsp; To counterpoint...<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Dragonlance wasn't the cause of &quot;Crap adventure design&quot;, and I don't think that's a universally held fact.&nbsp; It was a period of shifting to a new view of how to create adventures.&nbsp; Yes, the business plan wasn't great and ended up killing TSR, but that wasn't due to Dragonlance.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">One could argue that good adventures didn't really return until late 3rd edition, and then only under Paizo's guidance.&nbsp; TSR was spamming product as fast as it could to try and generate revenue, and WOTC's material even today is pretty bad when compared to Pathfinder.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">It's interesting you state that Paizo started the good adventure revival, as most of their adventure paths are as railroaded as Dragonlance was.&nbsp; Your party has no choice but to fight a battle and win in Skulls and Shackles to get a map to find an island, you cannot proceed the adventure without doing that.&nbsp; You have to search several libraries in Mummy's Mask to progress the adventure, there's no way to bypass it, and it's built on a system guaranteed to bore many parties.&nbsp; If anything, Paizo copied Margaret and Tracey, and tossed in a few semi-open spaces in most of their paths.</li>
</ul>Dragonlance is probably their strongest potential offering at this point.&nbsp; It aligns much more closely with the current climate in RPGs than any other setting, it features classes that have a lot of general appeal, it has a metric ton of lore upon which to base the setting, it has a rational explanation for Dragonborn, it's marketable to Hollywood for wide demographic appeal, and it's presently set up for a compelling storyline.Quite frankly, it's mind boggling to me why they haven't released it yet.&nbsp; I'm firmly convinced WOTC hates money and success.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rygar, post: 7997769, member: 6756765"] I think that's a bit revisionist. To counterpoint... [LIST] [*] Dragonlance wasn't the cause of "Crap adventure design", and I don't think that's a universally held fact. It was a period of shifting to a new view of how to create adventures. Yes, the business plan wasn't great and ended up killing TSR, but that wasn't due to Dragonlance. [*]One could argue that good adventures didn't really return until late 3rd edition, and then only under Paizo's guidance. TSR was spamming product as fast as it could to try and generate revenue, and WOTC's material even today is pretty bad when compared to Pathfinder. [*]It's interesting you state that Paizo started the good adventure revival, as most of their adventure paths are as railroaded as Dragonlance was. Your party has no choice but to fight a battle and win in Skulls and Shackles to get a map to find an island, you cannot proceed the adventure without doing that. You have to search several libraries in Mummy's Mask to progress the adventure, there's no way to bypass it, and it's built on a system guaranteed to bore many parties. If anything, Paizo copied Margaret and Tracey, and tossed in a few semi-open spaces in most of their paths. [/LIST] Dragonlance is probably their strongest potential offering at this point. It aligns [I]much[/I] more closely with the current climate in RPGs than any other setting, it features classes that have a lot of general appeal, it has a metric ton of lore upon which to base the setting, it has a rational explanation for Dragonborn, it's marketable to Hollywood for wide demographic appeal, and it's presently set up for a compelling storyline. Quite frankly, it's mind boggling to me why they haven't released it yet. I'm firmly convinced WOTC hates money and success. [/QUOTE]

Verification