Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7172652" data-attributes="member: 22779">Like I said, it seems a bit off to say, &quot;Well, no animal people&quot; when the baseline setting has bug people and bird people.&nbsp; Oh, and dragon people with Dray.&nbsp; Oh, and winged dinosaur people with Pterrans.&nbsp; Umm, what's the problem with anthropomorphic-races again?Look, I totally get wanting to take a setting and mold the game around that setting.&nbsp; I'm doing that right now.&nbsp; My Primeval Thule campaign has all sorts of major restrictions - no full casters, 4 playable races, just to name a couple.&nbsp; Great, fantastic.&nbsp; make the setting stand out.&nbsp; BUT, don't expect the publisher to do that.&nbsp; That's totally unrealistic.&nbsp; No publisher is going to cut off their own nose to spite their face.&nbsp; If they publish a restricted setting like you want, no one will buy it.&nbsp; And certainly no one will buy later supplements for that setting.&nbsp; Basically, by making a setting that restricted at the outset, you're closing off the setting from far too many potential customers.&nbsp; You slam right into the Gnome Effect.&nbsp; How many people want to play a monk or a barbarian?&nbsp; If it's 10%, then you've just lost half the tables out there, because, out of every two tables, you're pretty much guaranteed to have at least one player who wants to play something that's not on the list.Who then bitches and complains because they can't get what they want because your vision of the setting doesn't match their's.&nbsp; Never minding that they aren't even playing at your table.&nbsp; So, the DM scraps that idea and goes on to another setting where everyone at the table is happy.And Dark Sun dies.&nbsp; Same as every other highly restrictive setting.&nbsp; Relegated to backwater niche products that only a handful of people ever buy.&nbsp; No thanks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7172652, member: 22779"] Like I said, it seems a bit off to say, "Well, no animal people" when the baseline setting has bug people and bird people. Oh, and dragon people with Dray. Oh, and winged dinosaur people with Pterrans. Umm, what's the problem with anthropomorphic-races again? Look, I totally get wanting to take a setting and mold the game around that setting. I'm doing that right now. My Primeval Thule campaign has all sorts of major restrictions - no full casters, 4 playable races, just to name a couple. Great, fantastic. make the setting stand out. BUT, don't expect the publisher to do that. That's totally unrealistic. No publisher is going to cut off their own nose to spite their face. If they publish a restricted setting like you want, no one will buy it. And certainly no one will buy later supplements for that setting. Basically, by making a setting that restricted at the outset, you're closing off the setting from far too many potential customers. You slam right into the Gnome Effect. How many people want to play a monk or a barbarian? If it's 10%, then you've just lost half the tables out there, because, out of every two tables, you're pretty much guaranteed to have at least one player who wants to play something that's not on the list. Who then bitches and complains because they can't get what they want because your vision of the setting doesn't match their's. Never minding that they aren't even playing at your table. So, the DM scraps that idea and goes on to another setting where everyone at the table is happy. And Dark Sun dies. Same as every other highly restrictive setting. Relegated to backwater niche products that only a handful of people ever buy. No thanks. [/QUOTE]

Verification