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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khur" data-source="post: 1316516" data-attributes="member: 5583">Thanks for your input Treebore.Is what I hear you saying is that most of the time the setting-specific adventure was useable? The fact that the WotC 3e modules are more useful outside of GH or FR, in your opinion, actually supports my position that making the modules setting-specific (the WotC 3e modules were for GH) won't hurt most DMs. Thanks. <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=":)" />I never said Necromancer's modules were not generic enough, I said they weren't totally generic. I will say that being totally generic is nearly impossible. There'd be no need to be condescending (breaking fingers), even if I had said they weren't generic. Every Necromancer module I've read (Rappan Athuk, Demons & Devils, The Wizard's Amulet, Tomb of Absythor, Daughters of Set) was primarily a dungeon crawl. There's nothing wrong with this, as I said in the previous post on this subject—I own(ed) the modules. I like Necromancer's attitude, especially as a reflection of Clark Peterson, of whom I also think highly. I apologize if I touched a "Necromancer" nerve, but I never said anything disparaging enough about Necromancer Games to warrant a rant.It doesn't really matter why someone wants a product, at least insofar as a businessperson is concerned. (And let's not get into the logic of that statement when applied to industries other than games. We're talking about games.) It only matters that they do want it, so it will sell. Thanks for your agreement that the business model would probably work.Thanks again arnwyn.I had no reason to believe you used TSR as an example, other than you felt it was relevant. I was merely stating disagreement. It's unfair to compare something that hasn't been done yet, by a company that is yet to be named, to something done in the past, by a company whose practices are well known. You have every right to feel the way you do, but the unfairness remains. And we were talking about TSR, not WotC. If you have no reason to believe a third party would do better than TSR, what reason do you have that they wouldn't? If you have none, then your opinion, while valid on a personal level, and valuable for setting a "tone" for a sector of the market, has no other real bearing on the discussion, because it is mere speculation and not even a reasonable jump of logic.I assumed, perhaps erroneously, that Damara and Vaasa were already FR lands. Those lands are in the first module, so I did assume a FR setting. If I was in error for that assumption, then my example is faulty. However, my assertion that TSR's performance is largely irrelevant to the argument, or at least an unfair bias, still stands. I had the privilege of playing through these modules as a youngster, but I didn't own one until recently. Thus my historical context may be out of whack. Thanks for this. Now I understand better. My opinion is, once again, that one can't compare TSR's modules to what third parties "might" do preemptively like this. It's unfair. A Forgotten Realms product by a third party might just be set in the Silver Marches, with a nod towards that locale's particulars. It needn't have deux ex Elminster or any other traditional FR meta-plot in it to be set in the Realms.You seem to agree with the core assertion I've made. Isn't it reasonable to assume that a responsible handling of the situation what put certain events and changes to the core game world off limits to third parties? Even if one doesn't assume this, as I've said before, the core world stands always as WotC creates it—noting that they themselves have stayed away from many possible meta-plots. WotC need not be any more responsible for how a particular DM's version of the Realms changes via third-party material than they are for how the same thing happens via a DM's original material. In other words, if my players' party kills Szass Tam in an Unapproachable East scenario I created, need WotC be concerned with that turn of events in my personal campaign? Further, can I as a consumer no longer enjoy the official take WotC presents with their products (games, adventures, and novels)? Am wrong here?Let me just say that I appreciate all points of view. As some may know who have had discussions with me before, I'm here to gather information and hear what others have to say on the subject. I'm not claiming to be right here, I just want to see how the discussion unfolds so I can be more informed in the end. Don't take my standing by my own points as immovability. I want to be convinced of other points, but the reasoning for those points needs to be more than speculation or feeling. Is that wrong?Thanks to everyone for taking the time to post and respond to my queries and assertions. I'm interested in what you have to say. As valuable as those things are, I really wish that more industry professionals (*nods* Mark of CMG, Ed Cha, Darrin Drader) would chime in and let us know how they feel.<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" /></blockquote>

Verification