| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Seravin
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1288 Posts |
 Posted - 31 Aug 2015 : 01:48:28
|
| SO um...Drizzt versus Demogorgon? What did I just watch? |
 |
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2015 : 01:54:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
What about variety? That's the main point I tried to make. The Realms offer a huge variety of stories to be told, why must they all be about stopping BBEGs#12634667252 from conquering/destroying everything. What about trying to mix various kinds of stories/quests in those self-contained campaigns that you are talking about? Just to keep things fresh and to avoid repetitivity (and to make books more usable).
Personally, I'd love to see more variety, and I think a lot of us here at the Keep would as well. The golden age had a ton of variety, with modules, Dungeon magazine, the occasional AP or even a regional sourcebook.
But variety requires several things they might not have at the moment: staff, funds, and a vision for sandbox-style play.
It's hugely easier to develop a single, long adventure path. It's easier in terms of staff, it's easier in terms of branding, it's cheaper in terms of advertising, and it falls in line with their vision to diversify into multiple medias. It's not hard to notice that literally everything right now is focused on the Sword Coast, whether it's their MMO, their iso-cRPGs, comic, tabletop RPG, and so on. Brand once, advertise once, attempt to capture a wide audience by using multiple nets.
quote:
Also, I don't get why level 15 implies dealing with world destruction or whatever. If a group of characters reach high levels, they aren't automatically supposed to stop gods from destroying the worlds. As I said, that isn't the only kind of story that you can tell.
Adventure Paths culminating in a world threat are certainly overused, but they tend to sell better than unconnected, highly varied content. They also match the classic model of tension-building in adventure novels. Whether we like it or not, the world threat as part of an ongoing AP is now THE model from which they get the most bang for their buck.
quote:
Now we have this ''a world ending threat per year'' (or 2-3 storylines about saving the world per RW year) thing, which is rather ridiculous, if you look at it from an in-world perspective (especially if they all focus on the Sword Coast). It also leads to even more cheese, because every world ending threat is inevitably defeated by some band of random adventurers. It really breaks immersion, when you look at the setting.
I think the thing most people are not wanting to see, not wanting to acknowledge, is that at this point the Realms are defined by that metastory cheese.
There's more Realms content done in the RSE/BBEG style than there is of the varied, low-power kind.
quote:
Finally, modules are supposed to support people's games. They could be used as a campaign, but there are many players and DMs who don't like to run over a binary set by WotC's story. Also, some groups want to make their own stuff, and then take something from modules to enrich their game, if they wish. WotC received a lot of feedback about this and they have recognized that people *want* different kind of stories, so this is a rather shared sentiment over their customer base.
I think that's reflective of "old model" thinking, really. It's certainly the classic, highly varied, lower powered content that I want, but I personally identify with the "old model" where DMs bought modules and supplements for support - just as you're saying.
And even though surveys and the grapevine, and certainly people at the 'Keep say they want the old model - it's just not what they buy. In other threads, I talked about the mixed messages we send: we insist we want one thing, then we don't buy it. Even during the old days of late 1E and early 2E, I'm told that people didn't buy wonderful products like the Volo Guides - not at the volume of sales that made profit for the company.
What does appear to make profit are these APs with a growing threat that end in saving the world. They are plug-n-play, they fit people who prefer Encounters-style play, they're great for people who don't have a lot of time to weave together a bunch of really cool but individual varied modules or plot hooks from sourcebooks.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2015 : 02:39:27
|
@Etheron.
I know that WotC's choices are led by what they see as the most profitable product to make (every company's choices are), I was just pointing out why I dislike the current model.
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
I think the thing most people are not wanting to see, not wanting to acknowledge, is that at this point the Realms are defined by that metastory cheese.
There's more Realms content done in the RSE/BBEG style than there is of the varied, low-power kind.
Oh, I acknowledged this when they stated ''no reboot'' and took adamant position over it. I was willing to put up with the Sundering because we were promised that it was the last deus-ex-machina to restore the cool elements that the FR had lost along the edition. I was willing to ignore the metastory because WotC basically said that it was the ''RSE to end them all'' and I was hoping what this last cataclysm would bring use a FR with the organizations, deities, nations and so on that define it, but starting anew and going onwards without the cheese of one RSE after another.
quote:
I think that's reflective of "old model" thinking, really. It's certainly the classic, highly varied, lower powered content that I want, but I personally identify with the "old model" where DMs bought modules and supplements for support - just as you're saying.
And even though surveys and the grapevine, and certainly people at the 'Keep say they want the old model - it's just not what they buy. In other threads, I talked about the mixed messages we send: we insist we want one thing, then we don't buy it. Even during the old days of late 1E and early 2E, I'm told that people didn't buy wonderful products like the Volo Guides - not at the volume of sales that made profit for the company.
What does appear to make profit are these APs with a growing threat that end in saving the world. They are plug-n-play, they fit people who prefer Encounters-style play, they're great for people who don't have a lot of time to weave together a bunch of really cool but individual varied modules or plot hooks from sourcebooks.
I don't think that this model is so old. I started playing/running the game in late 2011 and I too identify in it. I can't understand what people see in the new encounters model: If I mainly wanted the fighting, I would rather play a VG. It's cheaper, it has the same result, requires less work and is less time consuming.
Personally, I did what I could to tell them what I want (and I bought the one thing that they made and was an example of what I wanted: the latest Ed's sourcebook). |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 31 Aug 2015 02:40:02 |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2015 : 02:58:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I know that WotC's choices are led by what they see as the most profitable product to make (every company's choices are), I was just pointing out why I dislike the current model.
I understand. I'm just saying you're in good company and sympathizing, really.
quote:
Oh, I acknowledged this when they stated ''no reboot'' and took adamant position over it. I was willing to put up with the Sundering because we were promised that it was the last deus-ex-machina to restore the cool elements that the FR had lost along the edition. I was willing to ignore the metastory because WotC basically said that it was the ''RSE to end them all'' and I was hoping what this last cataclysm would bring use a FR with the organizations, deities, nations and so on that define it, but starting anew and going onwards without the cheese of one RSE after another.
They did say all that, but apparently delivering it was much harder to do with their current resources.
What I think is interesting is they always seem to nod knowingly and say, "wait and see" while smiling. I sometimes wonder if they actually don't understand, or if they're just trying to placate the person talking to them so they just go away.
quote:
I don't think that this model is so old. I started playing/running the game in late 2011 and I too identify in it. I can't understand what people see in the new encounters model: If I mainly wanted the fighting, I would rather play a VG. It's cheaper, it has the same result, requires less work and is less time consuming.
Personally, I did what I could to tell them what I want (and I bought the one thing that they made and was an example of what I wanted: the latest Ed's sourcebook).
I really just meant "old" model in the sense that it's definitely not their current model. I agree it wasn't so long ago time-wise that we had Dungeon magazine and one-shot modules. But it's definitely not on their plan-book any more - or at least it seems not to be. It's just AP after AP.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Rage of Demons trailer
