| From: | Mark Fender markf@******.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | SR Narrowing of focus |
| Date: | Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:43:44 -0500 |
> 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?
>
> 7th Sea. Torg (and coming soon, Torg 2nd ed.), All the White Wolf games
> now. Tribe 8. Heavy Gear. Many, many more (that I can't think of right
> now).
>
> > > 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.
>
> I think you misunderstood. I meant that if every book after the first had
> been set in the same year, it wouldn't have mattered with the timeline
> stuff.
>
> 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.
>
> Would it? Many games don't change in-game years until a new edition. I
> don't think this really screws with the time that much.
>
> > 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.
>
> Right. But whether a dynamic game system is a good idea or not is my
> point. It seems to be working for FASA, but everyone could turn on it
> shortly. Who knows? The Spice Girls were horribly popular a couple years
> ago. Don't even know where they are now.
>
> > 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.
>
> I didn't say popular. I said Good. There's a difference.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Hah hah hah hah hah. This is a nice idea, but falls horribly apart in
> practicality. My little gaming group has to be roped into playing. Of all
> the role -playing books they own, I own them ALL. No one but me GMs, so no
> one else buys the books. I'd like it if they toss in, but they'd all say,
> "It's not important to me. Why should I?" Besides, if the last 10 years of
> my life are an indication, I move every three years. I'd miss the books I
> didn't buy.
