From:	Number Ten Ox number_10_ox@**********.com
Subject:	Why ED failed (Was - Deciper press release link)
Date:	Mon, 13 Sep 1999 06:33:37 -0700 (PDT)

---"Steven A. Tinner" <bluewizard@*****.com> wrote:
>
> ED was a good game.
> However it was hampered by a rules system that while VERY elegant, and far
> more balanced than most other rpg's on the market - had too steep a
> learning curve.

Huh? Uhm... that has not been my experience at all.

I run two games with the same gaming group: Earthdawn and Shadowrun. Most
of the people in my gaming group -- 4 out of 6 -- are in the games for
the sake of roleplaying: thus, one of the most common comments during the
Shadowrun game is "What the hell do I roll for that again?"

There hasn't been a single comment of that sort in the Earthdawn game.
Not a single one. Everyone understands the system.

I look at Earthdawn. Then I look at the learning curve for both GM and
player for something like... Shadowrun decking. Or Shadowrun magic. Or the
Shadowrun combat system. Compared to them, Earthdawn's learning curve is
downright *flat*.

> If you're going to compete with AD&D you can't afford to have potential
> customers look at your rules and say, "Ahhh .... screw it. I'll just run
> Keep on the Borderlands again."

Mmmm. I see. Earthdawn's learning curve was indeed steeper than AD&D's.
Not by much, but steeper. In that, I'll agree with you. Still, the sheer
elegance of the system should have made sure it sold better than it did.

Ah well.

> Steven A. Tinner
> bluewizard@*****.com

--Number 10 Ox.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com