NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 2262527" data-attributes="member: 6777">LOTR was not a d20 product, WoT was not a variant PHB (it was a self contained d20 game), and AU still requires the DMG and MM. Also, plaing AU != playing D&D, per se. If you want to play D&D, you need either a copy of the PHB or access to the SRD. If you want to DM D&D, you need the DMG and PHB, unless you choose to use an alternate level progression and CR system from an OGL product or one you created yourself.LotR is essentially dead becasue of Decipher's lack of support. Their production of an entire Moria boxed adventure set didn't do anything to compensate for poorly edited and unsupported products.WoT was intended from the get-go as a one-off product. Barring massive sales, the core book and the Prophecies of the Dragon adventure (!) were all that were planned for the line, IIRC.As for your hypothesis, I don't see that the lack of published adventures for, say, V:tM hampered it's becoming the second most popular RPG on earth, or Shadowrun becoming as popular as it was in the day. Or M&M's usurping the SHRPG  crown. I dunno; I don't think there's a dreict correlation.Sure, but these are a hadnful out of the 220+ modules published for Basic/1e. How well did the others sell? Did "Midnight on Dagger Alley" or "Skarda's Mirror" do anything to contribute to D&D's success?There are extensive accounts of the fall of TSR avaiable on the Web from people ionvolved with the company. We also have had, time and again, publishers come to these forums and state explicitly that adventures don't make any money. We also know that WotC's current business model has been extremely successful. This is what we have available to us. I can only assume that the various publishers who confirm all this know what they're talking about.Understood. I just don't really agree and don't feel the theory holds up to scrutiny. I don't think I have ever read commentary from anyone invovled with D&D in it's heyday that attributed its success to quality modules. (Which in no way implies that there were not quality modules, nor that modules may, at one time, have been profitable to produce.)</blockquote>

Verification