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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arnwyn" data-source="post: 1316053" data-attributes="member: 7701">I have no reason to believe that a third-party company will be able to do better designing a module with a TSR-now-WotC-owned setting than TSR/WotC themselves. I think my use of TSR in an example is very relevant.I had a bit of a chuckle when you used the Bloodstone series - the only modules that were *not* originally written for the Realms (and only Part 4 actually had the FR logo), and were instead shoe-horned into FR after the fact. It's no wonder that the Bloodstone series is "one of the most popular and best-selling module series" - they're generic modules!No, we can't, because in the end it's subjective. However, I will use two quick examples: the Marco Volo trilogy, and the Sword of the Dales trilogy. Both these modules have been considered sub-par by people out there (look both at this site for some disparaging remarks, as well as REALMS-L mailing list). Both have been rightly condemned as having major railroading, PC-dragging events, with the FR "big names" showing up inappropriately.Compare these to the superior generic modules such as Axe of the Dwarvish Lords and Gates of Firestorm Peak.I totally agree with you there.I think that the base business model would work. Like you said above, WotC sells the most - so I would assume that it would include their campaign settings as well. Selling adventures for these settings would seem to imply better sales than just generic adventures from some third party.However, when you begin to consider things like control, IP issues, licensing - as well as the fact that the quality and flexibility (including how easily insertable into other campaign setting they are) would be questionable - the business model would fall apart, IMO.</blockquote>

Verification