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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tx7321" data-source="post: 3323220" data-attributes="member: 43146">Its true, board games are different then FRPGs in the time investment required. Merric: "If it were merely a fad, there wouldn't be so many supplements overloading your senses, as the lifespan would be shorter.  Wizards produce about 2 books a month, which while a lot from an AD&D perspective, isn't really that much (certainly not from a 2E perspective!)"I think to exist at all (in a profitable way) in this present market you have to use qualities associated with what we think of as fads (flashy popping art, gimmicky advertising etc.).  Also, building pre-sales hype is more important then ever (esp. on the net).  Could 1E have survived 25 years unchanged in its core (like Monopoly)?  I think yes and no.  The game works (esp. if a reprint had been done like OSRIC that clearly explains the rules).  In that form it would have stabilized but sales would be lower.  Another point that should be made is that 1E didn't have to get worse with 2E (to those that preferred the 1E style).  It could have gotten better, but TSR employees didn't really "get" 1E.  The people in charge  had a different vision, and thats what we got.  Hell, it shows in the art (what happened to Trampier for instance?)  We go from loose generic fantasy to specific characters posing in tight photo-real style. Oh BTW, to get back to the original question.  Although you don't see many people supporting 2E, you see alot of people preferring 2E style artwork to all others. Personally, I had zero desire for new rules.  All I wanted back then were new modules, new classes and new magic items and spells, and of course monsters.  The last thing I wanted were new rules or series of modules with back story (as these interfered with my own world).</blockquote>

Verification