| From: | Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | SR Narrowing of focus |
| Date: | Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:33:14 -0700 (PDT) |
events have taken place, especially in Shadowrun, it makes older stuff
redundant. The essence of Shadowrun is secrets - and once the cat's out
of the bag, there's little or no point continuing the older stuff.
> >
> Well, not only FASA make time critical games. There are others.
Examples, pliss?
> > Bad examples, Kevin. With both AD&D and Star Wars,
> the "older events"
> > take place centuries, if not millenia, prior to
> current events. Over
> > that long a time frame, events in the older
> setting aren't likely to
> > change anything in the newer one. In, what, 10
> years(?), that's about
> > as far as Shadowrun has aged. They CAN'T continue
> to support 2050
> > games, because if they did and any discrepancies
> cropped up, it could
> > possibly be disastrous (for the setting at least).
>
> >
> Whenever that first sourcebook came out, Street Samurai Catalog, FASA
made a conscious decision to set if AFTER the rulebook. If they had not
done that, none of the "time-critical" things you mentioned would have
mattered. They can continue to support 2050 games if they wanted to.
They just don't because of a decision made 10 years ago.
You may be right about that (and I can't disprove it), but that was a
very sound marketing decision. As for me personally, I simply don't see
the sense of putting out more and more game products set in the year
2050 when everything else is set after that.
Hell, there's only so much that can happen in one place in one year. If
every single Shadowrun product had been set between, say, 2050 to 2052,
the game would look RIDICULOUS.
> This point about selling well really isn't valid.
Why not? My point to you is that FASA is doing well with a dynamic game
system. I think sales are a pretty good measure of that. As far as
whether the game is good or not, I think it is. Obviously you do as
well, to a large extent, or you wouldn't be on this list.
> Just because a game sells well doesn't mean that everyone likes it.
M:tG sells like crack and I hate it. But, according to this argument,
I'm in the wrong. I don't think so, I just don't like card games. (The
truth is I never learned how to shuffle. *Sniff*)
Ummm...I can just say one thing here...duh?? If a game is selling like
Magic, that means a HELL of a lot of people like it. It doesn't mean
it's a good game, but it means it's a popular game. I personally hate
Magic too - but it SELLS! No, not everyone likes it - but it seems the
majority do. I don't even know what you're trying to say here - a game
that sells well isn't necessarily popular? That just doesn't make
sense, Mark.
> > Oh, and you mentioned that a number of them are very "time-stable".
No offense, but HOW ON EARTH is that a good thing???
> >
> Because you don't have to buy every damn book that comes out to keep
up with what the hell's going on, even if it interests you not at all??
Okay, that's a good thing for a GM on a budget. But it a) isn't a good
thing for a gaming company and b) isn't a good thing as far as the
development of the game goes.
Btw, if you ARE on a budget, but you have a regular group, why not try
the team karma pool idea? If you want to get something for the group,
have everyone chip in a bit. The GM holds onto the book, as he's the
one who's going to be using it most (probably), but everyone has access
to it. That way no single person has to bear the brunt of the costs.
Just an idea.
==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
