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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darrin Drader" data-source="post: 1075523" data-attributes="member: 7394">Looks like I came late to this controversy, which is probably for the best. What's with pitching so much heat SKR's way lately anyway? First the cat, now whatever this was.Anyway, besides the remarks that amounted to little or nothing earlier (except for some good natured ribbing Nightfall's way), I would like to say that I don't think other companies have jumped on the D20 bandwagon willy nilly. They simply had different strategies. While I could go one about the different companies' strategies for a few pages, I'll just look at the Scarred Lands since it seems to be the one under attack here.First of all, the original focus of the D20 license was to get new rules from different people out there (and please don't bring up the argument of everyone else supporting WotC's core rulebooks, I'm well aware of that). SSS comes along and puts out a monster book. At first it was viewed in its own right rather than being attached to anything larger. But hey, what is this Scarred Lands thing they keep mentioning? It keeps you guessing. Then comes Relics and Rituals - another book that stands alone in any D&D campaign, plus there's a lot of really cool stuff that found its way into that particular book. There's lots of spells, different types of magic, prestige classes, rituals, and so on. Its all good stuff, and I would challenge anyone who plays D&D to not find something in that book they can't use. Finally, a few books later, we finally get the Scarred Lands as an actual campaign setting instead of just a tease.I would argue that had SSS not planned their product line out in this way; had they instead jumped in feet first with the setting and then done the support material, their D20 "larger conept" books would not be nearly as successful as they are. I would argue that they had the right idea, and I would also guess that they're still riding high on the success of their initial strategy.Now, the Forgotten Realms is a different story. People already know it, but they wanted to know how the setting translated into 3rd edition. There's all kinds of crunchy goodness in that first book, but there was also a need to start again with a "year 0" for that setting so that it could be accessible for people who want to get into it for the first time. Its a different strategy than what SSS was implementing, and I would argue that they both succeeded.Finally, do people care about the non-WotC setting books? Well, as someone who has done some work for WotC (in fact I did just finish working on something I can't talk about yet relating to the Forgotten Realms), and I also work quite a bit on Bastion's Oathbound, I would hope that the answer is yes. What WotC is able to do is give you the D&D you know in a new and exciting package. The tweaks to the rules will probably be minimal so that you don't have to relearn the entire game. And this is a good thing. I don't want WotC to hand me something that has a brand new custom magic system, different character classes, and alternate rules (except for Unearthed Arcana, but that's going to be a core product), I would rather have Monte Cook or Bastion Press hand me that type of alternate setting. If you buy an alternate setting, you should go in with the attitude that you may need to tweak the rules a bit to play in the way it was intended. When you do buy into a system like that, and it ends up being good, it will be a new and refreshing experience.edit: By the way, I've met Ed Greenwood personally, and he is one of the kindest, most unassuming people I've had the pleasure to meet; though he definitely does have a thing for the ladies. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification