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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="reanjr" data-source="post: 1652034" data-attributes="member: 20740">I suppose it's an issue of how you run a campaign.  While I agree the Player's Book would be useful for the DM, it shouldn't be necessary.  If a campaign can't stand without it's rules, there's a problem.  And as far as the players knowing about the world, I often start out campaigns where the players are country bumpkins who don't know anything about the world.  If there is something they should know I will explain it to them.  I think it's better that the DM select the bits of the setting that players should and shouldn't know.  I suppose I forgot to mention that I think the Player's Book should give a brief primer on what the world is about, and anything EVERYONE knows to get them acclimated. I guess, again, it's due to difference of opinion.  I absolutely HATE spending $40 on a book to find that material is repeated.  I'd rather get a new $20 book with the info plus a bunch of new info.  Sometimes it isn't entirely what I want, but overall I think it saves me money, as I buy alot of products that have alot of wasted space by repeating things.  I think if designed well, the books can do without REQUIRING the referenced books, but benefiting from them and supporting them.  It's due to this policy of not cross referencing that Psionics is an unmentioned part of the system in almost every book.While I agree on certain points, I think they could have made the settinfgs more profitable by doing other things, such as raising prices (TSR was only making like $1-2 a book) and cutting down on some of the production cost (for instance releasing a full-sized map for a campaign as a separate product for $6.95) and not including handouts for campaigns that could be used once.  I think they failed profitability not on the design or ideas, but on the publishing end of the business.  I could be wrong, I'm not in that profession.  Also as stated, they would flood the market.  That's never a good idea.  A few high-quality, high-priced supplements, I believe, would have done much better.  And anyway, I was talking about the campaign settings, not the supplements (the campaign settings were relatively profitable IIRC; it was the continuing revenue from supplements that failed).</blockquote>

Verification