| From: | Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | SR Narrowing of focus |
| Date: | Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:14:27 -0700 (PDT) |
place in Seattle, wherein our GM ignored every sourcebook that ever
came out. It was fun. It didn't advance according to SR's timeline, but
it was fun.
> > <Mark Fender>
> >
> > Mark, there's nothing wrong with that - for a campaign. But it sure
isn't a good idea for a game system.
> >
> Why not? I don't see any world advancing plots in many AD&D game
lines and they do quite well for themselves.
>
> Perhaps you could provide me with some examples of how this is bad
and we could continue to debate this like gentlemen.
I would, but I'm getting bored with this.
As far as AD&D goes, it's NAME RECOGNITION. It's not that the games are
particularly good or interesting, although some are. To a great extent,
they sell because AD&D is the big granddaddy of them all. Many (or
most) roleplayers start out with AD&D because of that fact and they
stay with it out of loyalty and because it's usually a pretty fun game.
But that's it.
I for one started out with AD&D. I was an absolute freak. I bought
literally hundreds of their books (inc. novels). Then I was introduced
to Shadowrun. I ended up selling most of my AD&D gamebooks (I probably
have about 5 now) and the only thing I've bought for it in the past 5
years now has been ONE SINGLE NOVEL.
Shadowrun and BattleTech are the games that are on the rise at the
moment - and they're the ones with the least static worlds.
'Kay?
I'm not saying that static is bad entirely - but as other people have
also pointed out, the gaming industry on the whole is in a slump, and
it isn't the static settings that are rising above that.
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)
.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
