Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khur" data-source="post: 369757" data-attributes="member: 5583">It's good to be... ah nevermind! Thanks for the info. I actually read the same info from another source last night, because your statement intrigued me. I appreciate your informing me again, nonetheless. It is sad that Master Tools got cut back, but the mapper wasn't just cut because of the Infogrames agreement. It was also the investment ... the mapper was going to be big bucks. I have to agree with much of what you say, but consider the value of some material as examples to new players. My players and I have all used at least a few items from each of the splatbooks.The core books really facilitate play, even though not everything is to my taste. I change what I want, per Monte Cook's admonition in the DMG and the customization suggestions in the PHB.The Sunless Citadel was one of the first modules I played in 3E, but of course I changed it to fit my campaign. What experienced DM doesn't? The point is that I had enough info to make something really good, instead of having to make something from scratch. Further, the plot hooks in the module, coupled with some of my own material and stuff from other sources made the simple question "Where did these kobolds come from?" into a whole other story. Comparing what I got out of the module to other forms of entertainment, I'd say I got a whole heck of a lot of value.The other materials have the good and the bad. Like everything else, personal mileage may vary. I understand the problem with the website (which I've never had, even though I visit only a little more often than you.) Your statement about e-tools, however, seems to indicate you haven't actually used it. If not, how can you say it's bad or have any valid opinion at all? I'm not trying to be insulting, your opinions are as valid and valuable as anyone else's, but I see a lot of blather on message boards about how something or another sucks, by people who haven't read or used the material in question. Those opinions are neither valuable, nor valid.  Actually, I can't agree with these statements. I think WotC does realize who gamers are, but I think Hasbro, like most corporations, cares more about bottom line than anything else. Further, they're interested in eliminating competition, and only selling what makes good money for a long time. In my earlier post, I think I showed how Hasbro could turn WotC into this type of organization, without hurting the d20 market at all. But, it's not that Hasbro doesn't know, it's that caring about such things doesn't fit into their corporate culture. Look back to the time when Hasbro bought Microprose (the makers of Civilization II) and closed them down or the Avalon Hill incident. Hasbro is not in the business of making games, my friend. They are in the business of making money in a specific market, a goal they strive for by buying hot items, eliminating the creative end, and remarketing said items over and over. Star Wars Monopoly was not innovation so much as it was wrapping an old stand-by in new and novel clothing, hoping to sell more copies and sell to those who already own Monopoly proper.I assure you that Hasbro understands perfectly how the RP gaming industry uses artists and writers. They just want to streamline by not having to pay $45k a year for one of those guys (that figure may be high, but is meant to include benefits, and etc.). If you were running a company and you could maintain streamlined and experienced R&D, business, and legal departments (for the OGL), and then dip into an extremely talented pool of contractors for, say, $100k a year less than it would cost you to maintain a large staff of creatives, what would you do? By streamlining WotC, Hasbro will save more that $100k a year, I assure you. They'll probably save like half a million or more. Despite how you or I feel about the great staff at WotC getting canned, it wasn't an emotional decision on the part of Hasbro; it was a numbers decision. It always is.If Hasbro/WotC stopped making any fluff books and focused on evergreen products, the gaming industry would be better for it, not worse. That means WotC's product line expands only very slowly, and then it's mostly crunchy bits of rules and "official example" material, like splatbooks. These things are true, however, only if Hasbro opens the door to licensing for certain product lines so others can produce support material. They've proven they're willing to do this with Ravenloft and Dragonlance 3E. I, for one, would love to see Forgotten Realms go this route too – I think it'd be a better product line if a small press owned it. Then Hasbro wouldn't have to make decisions like, "Should we do things like Silver Marches?" They make money if someone else does it for them through a license, without any of the risk.(Evergreen – a product that sells reliably, over and over again, and over a long period of time, without the need for creative maintenance or large investment. Like a slinky, or play-doh, or the PHB.)People need to remember that Hasbro is about making money, not about making games or toys. I'd be glad to see them facilitate the industry that is now supporting WotC's core d20 products by following Hasbro's evergreen policy, and leaving the real creative work to those who DO care about making games. The OGL and other licenses give them the opportunity to make a whole lot of scratch, with little investment on their own end. You're absolutely right. Hasbro wanted to make money. They're a corporate entity, not some game-loving geeks who want to make things so everyone has fun. We're the game lovers. Firms like Necromancer Games, Green Ronin, Privateer Press, Mystic Eye, Dark Quest, and etc. are the game lovers. They work long and hard to make games to make money, but also for the sake of making games at all.It's likely that Hasbro publicly denounced D&D because:a) They didn't own it at the time, so it wasn't making them any money.b) It endeared them to a sector of the population that is against D&D. In other words, it was a PR stunt.Hasbro won't destroy D&D, if it can make them money. They'll sell it, if they think it won't make them enough. As a corporate entity, they do what's in the interest of their annual earnings and stock prices, not what's good according to the morals of what could only be a few of their employees.The love of money is as sinister as it gets with corporations. That's sinister enough. I'm in the same boat with how my old company bit it, and I also agree that Hasbro/WotC are the best managers D&D has had in a while.As for selling the magazines, it's very smart if...a) ...you don't want the expense and headache of maintaining a magazine's staff and distribution (WotC doesn't).b) ...you have a contract that lest you make licensing fees off the magazine (WotC does).c) ...you have a contract that maintains some control over content (WotC does ... the contents of Dragon have to pass R&D inspection).d) ...your contract makes sure the magazine's content still supports your products (Dragon supports D&D exclusively, although they may expand material to include general d20 fantasy).As for Dragon 300, it's the best Paizo run issue so far, despite <a href="http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24200" target="_blank">Tracy Hickman's ill-advised rant.</a> It has far less typos and production defects. The "vile" content is tastefully presented (acknowledging the younger members of the audience), but interesting and makes for a great October/Halloween issue. As for design and art, they've remained top-notch. The page count is a little slimmer than, say, issue 275, but only by 14 pages. The magazine is worth the subscription, for sure.Further, Paizo will be starting to include OGC in Dragon more and more, and that can only be a good thing.Cheers!<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification