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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3932430" data-attributes="member: 22779">How many settings, other than FR have ever stayed in print?  2e saw a raft of settings, all have vanished or at least greatly reduced in presence.What's your point?  You said that there were not many settings out there.  There's as many settings for 3.5 as there was for 2e and FAR more than there was for 1e.  Najo - about the RPGA.  You do realize that RPGA has DM's right?  That of those 150 k players, 1/5th are DM's (or thereabouts?).  I question your assumption that world building DM's are a large group in D&D.  I think the far larger group is the patchwork DM who steals and borrows whenever he wants and only creates setting material when forced to.  There's also a sizable section of the hobby that uses pre-published settings.I would hazard a guess, based on what WOTC is doing, that the world building DM is actually a very small minority of the hobby.  That possible losses in this group will be offset by potential gains in the patchwork DM group.  The problem is, catering to the worldbuilding DM makes the game harder for new DM's.  After all, why would I spend all the money getting into D&D, only to have to spend dozens, if not hundreds, of hours detailing a world before I can even start to play?  The new DM just wants to play.  But, the 3.5 DMG tells me, as a new DM, that I should create an entire world (either top down or bottom up - doesn't matter).  It goes into pretty large detail - demographics, political entities, economics etc.  That's very, very daunting to a new DM.Why not make D&D much easier to play out of the box?  Why cater to a small section of the fans, when those who use published settings, and those who use patchwork settings, couldn't care less about the level of flavour in the core rules?</blockquote>

Verification