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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2262259" data-attributes="member: 4937">Arguably, that's a statement that just isn't true and hasn't been for some time.  The minute that someone releases a variant player's handbook, whether it be for LotR, Wheel of Time, or Diamond Throne, you are no longer married to WotC products.So the question is, why do inarguably valuable IP's like LotR or WoT not successfully compete, and the answer that satisfies me is that quality published adventures are required to keep a large base of players hooked into a setting.  As I said, near universal.  I couldn't possibly guess at numbers, but I'm fairly certain that there are examples of fantastically successful early modules where the appelation 'near universal' applies - afterall, many of these had 6+ printings.I can't help but feel that to at least some extent, both those things were driven by the availability of quality modules.  Getting started in 1st edition was easy.   Getting started in 2nd edition without a 1st edition DM to guide you was not so easy.Data?  Data?  We don't have data.   We have a bunch of settings which failed, but we can't prove one way or the other why they failed until we have several counter examples of settings which succeeded.   We could bring lots of different successes and failures of past game systems into this, but that just makes things more complicated.  We probably will never end up with a single simple explanation.   If you are looking for me to prove anything of this complexity, then I'm sorry but nothing this complex and abstract in nature is provable.   All I can try to be is compelling, and as far as compelling arguments for me go I believe that the strength of D&D has been modules and 'network utility'.</blockquote>

Verification