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: 1317848" data-attributes="member: 5583">Interesting points.I couldn't agree more. Your disdain doesn't seem misplaced. In fact, it actually seems that you care enough to want others not to miss out on a rich gaming experience. That's pretty cool of you, if you don't mind me saying it. I only have one caveat, and that is that persons who want just to play hack-n-slash, level-up, kick-in-the-door D&D are having fun too. That may not be the way you and I play, in fact you and I may think very little of that style, but it's a valid way to play is it not? It has been said that it ain't braggin' if it's true. (It's also been said, by a supposedly very wise man, that one should rely on others to point out one's virtues.) Your game sounds like a game I'd like to be a part of. It sounds much like my own gaming table. Congratulations on your skill as a DM. I agree totally. However, one usually has to do some work to make a story continuous when inserting prepared modules into one's own game, even if the game is the setting for which the module was prepared. No?What you've said here is valuable, Treebore, but not totally applicable to the topic. That's fine. I love philosophical digressions. Could it be also that DMs invest more emotionally into their homebrew worlds, and that emotional investment shows through to the players?Ah, but newer DMs can use examples, can they not? To me, as you've said about Necromancer's products, a good module encourages innovation. A good product should also show you how to do that innovation. It's a daunting task for a newbie. I realize that I have 24 years of experience as a DM/GM, so I've honed my skills. Greenhorns need some showin'. Too bad an experienced mentor doesn't come packaged with the game. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />A laudable driving force, indeed! I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me more about this, and may I say you did a great job not "being insulting". <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=":)" /> You and I have very similar views on actual game play and its highest value. It's good to meet someone else like that. I was beginning to think we were too rare a breed.With this reasoning, your argument is indeed a reasonable jump of logic. Thanks for sharing it. Setting experience is important. We have to remember that certain companies have key members who were employed by TSR/WotC, as well as access to a wide pool of freelancers who have written setting material for years (this may be a possible negative aspect too, if those same people are the ones who made lousy product). For example, Green Ronin's Chris Pramas, and his intimate connections with WotC and Paizo Publishing, is a good candidate. So is Jim Butler of Bastion Press, who was also a managing factor in FRCS. (Hopefully Bastion will get better art and design, but that's another issue.)As an aside, The "Adventure Path" modules were to be set in the core D&D setting (Greyhawk), or am I wrong? They were just left vague enough to be placed in that setting as the DM wanted. The same can be done for third-party adventures.This is a very important issue, thanks for bringing it up. I think responsible management could mitigate any real problems the public would have. It's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical that responsible management will occur, but that's another preemptive assumption. The branding issue can be taken care of the same way d20 is handled ... a special logo for compatible adventures.This is a valid and important point too. It is, once again, unfair to assume that what happens with another company besides WotC is any determiner for what will happen with WotC. Another caveat is that Bloodspeakers is a sourcebook for Oriental Adventures, not just an adventure. However, this is an obstacle to successful marketing. There are "middle road" solutions that can streamline the process, however. One is allowing third parties to make suggestions for tailoring a generic adventure to a specific WotC setting. Another is, simply don't use major setting figures in your adventures, except as background. Greyhawk can hardly be "hurt" by any reasonable addition. FR is a bit more closed, as Eberron will likely be.It would be interesting to get some numbers on how successful Bloodspeakers was/is compared to other Paradigm products.I think a real reason for not doing setting-specific adventures is that it could be a limiting factor on sales if public perception isn't correct and/or the marketing of the product isn't good. It's my opinion that every such module should have a small bit of conversion notes for tailoring the module to fit other campaigns. Suggestions for alternate feats and spells for an NPC, replacement magic items, and so on. It's not too hard.Thanks for putting up with me guys. You have some valuable things to say, and I'm glad we're hearing them.<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