Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merova" data-source="post: 1294734" data-attributes="member: 2505">Quality vs. QuantityHi all!Normally, I consider it extremely rude to inflict conversation upon someone who has clearly expressed that they do not desire to engage with you in such. However, Darrin has misrepresented my position to a degree that I feel obligated to respond. My apologies for this display of poor etiquette. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Darrin is absolutely correct. In his opinion the list of product from TSR was deficient of quality, as can be inferred from his contrast to 2003's product list from WotC. My opinion is that anybody with even a shred of discernment can find outstanding quality on the TSR list, especially "in terms of setting."My opinion is that anybody who cannot discern the items of quality on the TSR list is displaying ignorance. Harsh, but, IMO, true.I agree with Darrin again. Flooding the market is not a good thing. I expressed this opinion twice in my previous post. Obviously, statements like "Was there too much product? Yeah," are too subtle for the displayed level of reading comprehension. My apologies for the confusion.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> Moreover, I never implied that I thought that allowing the 3rd party publishers to handle non-core products was a bad idea. In fact, I don't know where Darrin came up with this fabricated objection, because it is certainly not one that I would ever proclaim.Fair enough. Considerable numbers of players disagree with Darrin, but he's entitled to his opinion. Obviously, White Wolf disagrees with him regarding the lasting quality and appeal of Ravenloft products, which seem to sell quite well for them.Moreover, as design models for worldbuilding, their influence is undeniable. Ravenloft made two important steps in gaming:1) Exploration of "theme" through "setting/mood" rather than "plot/situation," a departure in game play from previous attempts at horror, such as Call of Cthulhu or Beyond the Supernatural. Ravenloft used the baseline D&D paradigm of game play, but altered it in a non-invasive manner through techniques of worldbuilding. The influence of this innovation can be found in almost every good d20 setting, from Dragonstar to Nymabe to Midnight.2) The "capstone" world concept. Ravenloft was a spice to add to your campaign for variety, a place to visit for a few evenings of play. This concept has been less influencial, but still can be found aplenty, from Redhurst to Nyambe to Oathbound. Play begins in your campaign world, then the opportunity to experience to "new" is introduced.Dark Sun also made lasting contributions to game design. Most notable, it explored the "power up" paradigm of D&D play, which has led us to things like Epic-level play and the Oathbound campain setting. The use of "metaplot" within setting advancement is also worth noting. I'm always happy to promote quality. <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" />Moreover, I am aware of the economic realities of setting sales. I understand and respect WotC's publishing decisions. I never expressed otherwise. Darrin must be enjoying bashing on this strawman.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> Again, I agree with Darrin. Tools for utilization in actual play are good things; I'm happy that WotC is focusing on this aspect of design.Personally, I like games of exploration. Therefore, settings are of high utility for me, while another book of "splat-craft" isn't. YMMV. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />However, my position in the initial argument was that the TSR list had many things of quality in it. The statement of "quality vs. quantity" was incorrect. It appears that Darrin lost sight of our point of contention, choosing to bash on this handy strawman instead of expressing his opinion on why the TSR list was of low quality.After all, there is a difference between "low quality" and "low sales," right? Just because a product sells more doesn't mean that it's of higher quality. Look at the Ghostwalk book; it's got great new ideas and is filled with quality design. However, it probably didn't sell anywhere as well as the BoED, a book that I found somewhat lacking in imaginative value. BTW: both are WotC products.I have Midnight and I have played it as well. It is an excellent game, but it's paradigm of play is radically different to Dark Sun and Maztica. Honestly, I like it more as well, and game mechanics have advanced over the last decade. Is it "head and shoulders" above the others? Maybe, but that's a matter of personal evaluation.Regarding ignorance, perhaps I was too harsh. How about undiscerning? The fact that quality game design exists today in no way negates the quality of game design from yesterday. The fact that this seems to be Darrin's stance indicates a severe lack of discernment on his part.Looks like more kicks to the strawman.To be honest, I love the d20 movement with its vast creativity and innovation. I totally agree that the gaming possibilities dwarf those of the early 90's. Howver, that isn't the point of contention. Discerning quality amidst a vast quantity is as much a problem today as it was back then, except that there are now more publishers involved.I love Ignore Lists. Over at RPGnet, I've got nearly 200 names on my list. However, announcing the placement of someone on the list is tacky and indicative of poor manners, as well as being the height of "drama queening."Well, since Darrin isn't reading this, I don't feel bad to say that the theme of exploration was a primary focus on the '92 TSR list. There's is a lot to learn from these quality game products, as I indicated in my previous post.The example of creating explorative situations into the unknown was honed and intelligently discussed in many of these products. I think Darrin's adventure for the Oathbound campaign setting, "Waters of Akaya," could have been vastly improved, if he had taken note of the techniques to be found in this era of game design. Unfortunately, he didn't; it's a rather mediocre adventure as a result, which fails in its setting introductory premise. But it's a free pdf product, so you get what you pay for. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />In any case, thanks for your patience and your time. My apologies for this tangent. Good gaming! <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" />---Olivia</blockquote>

Verification