Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6653989" data-attributes="member: 59082">[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION], sorry for the delayed reply. Let's get back to it.Let's not nitpick too much. Here's a question for you: What is your preferred release schedule? Are you happy with only two story arc books per year? (I'm going to guess that we're going to see two story arcs plus one other book, either a campaign setting or Monster Manual or splat/theme book like Psionics, but who knows).Clearly.All of which I agree with, although feel that it is lamentable in that I wish D&D was owned by a company that saw it as a labor of love, rather than another line of potential profit. I know, wishful thinking.Yes, again, all of which I agree with - and also agree that glut is a bad thing for the game. But what you and I are disagreeing on, presumably, is what is the right amount of "calories," or rather what amount of product is the right amount of calories (the equivalent of, say, 2-3,000 calories). Yes, I agree. Again, I wasn't "mandating" anything. I was suggesting a product line-up that I personally would like to see, recognizing that it is unlikely to happen.Yes, but you are still equating what I'm talking about with glut. Why the black and white thinking? Isn't there a middle ground? Yes, I agree, but the reason I asked that is that we disagree on what "glut" is. Sure, a 4,000 calorie diet will eventually lead to obesity, but in my mind 8-10 total products a year is not a 4,000 calorie diet. Maybe it is a 3,000 calorie diet and we want to slim down a bit from that. What about 6-8 products? Is that glut in your mind? Why do you insist on a 1,000 calorie diet?I will try to check it out.Looks about right to me for five years into the cycle! Consider that in 2005 you'd have many more books, or that entire three and half year run of 4E was quite a bit more than that.Well again, one thing to consider is that some of the products I advocated for are one-shot adventures, which could be 32 or 64 pages. So when I said 8-10 products, or whatever amount, I'm including ALL products - not just 200 page hardcovers. Maybe 3-4 are big hardcovers and the rest are smaller paperbacks or folios.It doesn't have to be. One mistake I feel like a lot of folks, and WotC, make is that "If it didn't work in the past, it won't work in the future" - without asking, "But WHY didn't it work?" The evergreen product is a great idea, a starter set that can be found everywhere. Maybe ever product has an "Introduction to Dungeons & Dragons" first page, with clear instructions on where to start, how to proceed. It isn't that hard. Well again, I'm not suggesting that anything is "mandated"! I just want to see more product than two story arcs a year. How much more is really flexible. It really is that simple, Jester Canuck. I don't "need" more, and "more" can mean a lot of things. I just WANT more than two story arcs per year that I may or may not use. I like D&D books, part of the hobby is buy and reading, not only playing. I think that's true for a lot of folks.In the end, though, it remains a mystery what the actual plans for D&D are. Some say they've already stated that what we see is what we're going to get - it is going to be two story arcs per year and not much else. But what about the Psionics tease? Are we going to see regular GenCon releases? Any kind of setting books? I can't imagine that come three years from now all we've seen are more story arcs. One route I could see them taking is doing one big release every year and tying at least one of the story arcs to it. I don't think we're getting a GenCon release, but imagine if we were - maybe a big theme book, like Psionics or the Planes. Then the fall story arc can be based on that, while the spring story arc can be more general, or more "Realmsian." The formula just makes too much sense NOT to do. Of course that would mean only 3 products, but at least it is something beyond story arcs. Add in a couple one-shot adventures and a surprise product and all of sudden the calorie count is much more pleasing, but still not gluttonous.</blockquote>

Verification