Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Haffrung" data-source="post: 7775494" data-attributes="member: 6776259">Savage Worlds campaigns use a concise writing style with flexible approach (my experience is with the Savage Worlds of Solomon Kane).Deep Carbon Observatory (an OSR adventure) uses a concise writing style and flowcharts. Stonehell Dungeon and the Maze of the Blue Medusa are megadungeons where essential content is presented in single-page graphical format for each level or area. For the most part, these are small companies with designers employing innovative layouts. WotC certainly has the expertise and the resources to integrate some of these innovations. But it's clear to me that they see that as hurting their market of non-playing readers. The reasoning seems to be that actual play users will make their own summaries, or download user-generated content from the internet, in order to make the games playable at the table. And this is preferable to readers not buying the books altogether.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Haffrung, post: 7775494, member: 6776259"] Savage Worlds campaigns use a concise writing style with flexible approach (my experience is with the Savage Worlds of Solomon Kane). Deep Carbon Observatory (an OSR adventure) uses a concise writing style and flowcharts. Stonehell Dungeon and the Maze of the Blue Medusa are megadungeons where essential content is presented in single-page graphical format for each level or area. For the most part, these are small companies with designers employing innovative layouts. WotC certainly has the expertise and the resources to integrate some of these innovations. But it's clear to me that they see that as hurting their market of non-playing readers. The reasoning seems to be that actual play users will make their own summaries, or download user-generated content from the internet, in order to make the games playable at the table. And this is preferable to readers not buying the books altogether. [/QUOTE]

Verification