Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1651971" data-attributes="member: 151">The DM wouldn't?  I can't speak for others, but I know that I would be forced to do so, so I could build NPCs and review all the information in it for my own use.  If I run Eberron, I'll need to read all about the Aritificer, to know how to handle a PC, NPC or monster.  So I just bought it.  And my players will want the setting book for the maps, data about various countries and histories, not just the crunchy parts.  How else can they roleplay in the setting?  They need that information just as much as the DM does.     Well, I'm not sure that that's even a valid comparison or not.  Under 2e, there were far fewer options under the core rules, so there were less need for crunch, I would expect.  But I can't really comment for certain, either way, as I have very little from 2e.  What I do recall, though, is that 2e engaged in the reprehensible cross-referencing practice, where a piece of crunch from one place was referenced, and not actually given.  So if you want details on Spellfire or the Shadowweave, you'll need to buy a separate product...this module just mentions it tangentially, and assumes you know about it.  3e ran far, far away from this practice, for which I am glad.     The fact is that none of those settings did that well after the initial release.  Ryan Dancey referred to this as "the treadmill"...essentially, only the core books had any lengthy profitability.  In the 1990s, TSR fell victim to releasing tons of front-list material that had no shelf-life past the first few weeks of sales.  Material would be returned, and they would take a bath.  Further supplements would continue to decline in sales, and TSR would attempt to flood the market with materials, hoping to prop up badly flagging lines with only moderately profitable ones.  After a few months, the retailers would return the unsold product, and TSR took another bath.  The only people making any money at this strategy were the distributors.  [quotereanjr]to freely multiclass). Eberron is a product of marketing, not creative inspiration. The only long term success Wizards/TSR has ever had with this approach was Dragonlance. Most of the settings that are still alive today (FR, GH, DS [if you include the recent Dragon/Dungeon rules update], RL) were made by enormously talented people who labored for love of the idea.</blockquote>Actually, I'd guess that Eberron is a product of marketing AND creative inspiration.  And that's a good thing, in my book.  TSR NEVER, EVER actually listened to their fan base, or did market research to see what they wanted...they just proceeded on gut feelings.  That was true from the first day to the last.  WotC submitted for a campaign setting that met certain criteria, and then selected the one that was the best compromise of creativity and long-term profitability.  I hear they even paid Keith for it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  There's no question the various settings under 2e were interesting and creative.  There's no question that they had very dedicated diehard fans.  Thanks the OGL and a very generous WotC licensing the material to people willing to do them justice on small print runs, they live again.  That's a win/win, I think.  WotC couldn't make money printing them.  If Eberron being designed to meet the needs of the greatest majority of gamers is wrong, I don't wanna be right. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />[/QUOTE]

Verification