Full Version: Street Magic
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| heh, same here. i didn't like the idea when i first heard it, but it's grown on me. |
I have broadened your horizons!
The concept of people being able to eventually gain magical potential later in life gets easier and easier to comprehend/agree with stuff like SURGE and the steadily increasing mana level. Groan if you want, general DS population, but (with my other players' and GMs' permission) I just "bought" Adept ability for a long-standing street sammie of mine. He'd SURGEd previously (much to my chagrin) and ended up with astral vision; it wasn't a far stretch for me to sit and think, a hundred karma later, that maybe taking the plunge would be both cool and possible. SURGE was described as the mana level rising, and in a way sort of "lowering the bar" for who made the cut to become a metahuman of some sort, weakly Talented in some way, or otherwise mutated/changed by magic taking root in them. How big of a stretch is it to go "well, this guy spontaneously changed into a metahuman when SURGE hit...who's to say this metahuman couldn't become an Adept as a result?"
But, that's just me. That's just how I see it. I spent a bucket of karma on it, squeaked by with 1.1 essence (just enough for a single magic point), and now have a ton of different directions I can take with a character that was otherwise in danger of becoming -- dare I say it, at 250 or so karma -- a little stagnant and predictable. I'll never feel like I'm running out of stuff to spend karma on, never feel IC like he's done learning, blah blah blah, on and on. No one had a serious issue with me doing it, and I'd say the character's far from game breaking (or, if he is, he was at least as game breaking before as he is now, and either way it just had to do with him being an experienced, high-nuyen and karma, character).
I'd love some official rules for this sort of thing, all the same. Given they've mentioned over and over again (both in fiction and in sourcebooks) that even the rigorous Tir Tairngire (for instance) magical ability tests miss people, that many people Awaken well after their teens, etc, etc...it'd be cool to have some rules somewhere, even optional ones, to show how to handle that sort of thing if it comes up in a game.
| QUOTE (UpSyndrome) |
| EDIT: Also, I hope they don't do it like WOTC, who seems to think that they won't sell books unless they add in slightly more powerful feats/new races/base classes that completely escalate the game over time. A number of people I know have come to hate that style (mostly DMs). -Joe |
Echo that
I agree that magic should be bought by the point. But I think that some abilities should come automaticly to anyone with astral senses (eccept in special cases). Only if your a weak magican, you´ll not be able to use those abilities very well. For example all magicans would be able to astraly project (again, if your tradition allows it), but if you have only 1 magic point it will be lethal to stay projected more than an hour. When you get magic 2 you´ll automaticly be able to conjur force one watchers. All magicans should be able to use spell defence, warding, despelling, banishing and so forth, even though they are limited by your magic rating either directly or through a skill that is connected to magic rating. It makes more sense that some things are more or less instinctive when you gain magical senses, and you can get better at using them with the help of a handfull of skills or simply by improving your magic rating. I would hate to see a system were all powers are essentially spells you have to choose.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| But, that's just me. That's just how I see it. I spent a bucket of karma on it, squeaked by with 1.1 essence (just enough for a single magic point), and now have a ton of different directions I can take with a character that was otherwise in danger of becoming -- dare I say it, at 250 or so karma -- a little stagnant and predictable. |
I think that a logical corollary to your statement here is that if you drop below 1 essence you cannot buy magic on a per point basis. Or do you think that gaesing should be able to take care of that?
| QUOTE (mintcar) |
| I agree that magic should be bought by the point. But I think that some abilities should come automaticly to anyone with astral senses (eccept in special cases). Only if your a weak magican, you´ll not be able to use those abilities very well. For example all magicans would be able to astraly project (again, if your tradition allows it), but if you have only 1 magic point it will be lethal to stay projected more than an hour. When you get magic 2 you´ll automaticly be able to conjur force one watchers. All magicans should be able to use spell defence, warding, despelling, banishing and so forth, even though they are limited by your magic rating either directly or through a skill that is connected to magic rating. It makes more sense that some things are more or less instinctive when you gain magical senses, and you can get better at using them with the help of a handfull of skills or simply by improving your magic rating. I would hate to see a system were all powers are essentially spells you have to choose. |
Interesting thoughts. I like the limits you are imposing, but why should a mage be able to summon a watcher "automatically"?
| QUOTE (Jrayjoker) |
| I think that a logical corollary to your statement here is that if you drop below 1 essence you cannot buy magic on a per point basis. Or do you think that gaesing should be able to take care of that? |
I've always been under the impression that once your Essence dropped to .99 or lower, you were out of luck, Geasa or not. I've never had it be an issue before, mind you, so haven't bothered to really read up on it -- but it's been my assumption from the get-go. I'm not sure if it's the actual rule or not, just my gut feeling. If your Essence is 1.0 or more, you can Geasa 'till you're blue in the face and whallop people with Force Hojillion mojo (if you've got the Geasa, etc, to cover it), just fine. Once it drops below 1.0, though, poof goes the mana (in my mind, at least).
One thing that never sat well with me, and that I have never personally used, was the ability to pre-decide that some of your Sorcery skill is being used for purposes of boosting your spell defense. I think that one's Spell Pool ought to be calculated similarly to Combat Pool (i.e. a (1+2+3)/2 instead of a (1+2+3)/3) and that only spell pool, not spell pool plus an arbitrary number of Sorcery dice, ought to be the sole determination for spell defense and shielding.
I've managed to get along well enough avoiding the complexity of having to keep track of what my actual effective Sorcery is, by having my characters rely on spell pool for defense (much like in physical combat, I rarely use available dicepools to augment attacks, keeping conservative so that I'm prepared in case someone steps out of left field with a tremendously hard to dodge/resist spell or attack). I hope part of the streamlining process addresses this. It seems to unnecessarily complicate spellcasting, as well as making it work less like shooting or punching.
I like it when things work pretty similarly on the base level, as it makes learning new-but-similarly-rooted situational rules that much less painful. It's the fact that decking and rigging are so totally divorced from any other rules subset in Shadowrun that has made me hesitant to really crack open the books and spend what would be an inordinately large amount of time learning the intricacies of the systems.
I've managed to get along well enough avoiding the complexity of having to keep track of what my actual effective Sorcery is, by having my characters rely on spell pool for defense (much like in physical combat, I rarely use available dicepools to augment attacks, keeping conservative so that I'm prepared in case someone steps out of left field with a tremendously hard to dodge/resist spell or attack). I hope part of the streamlining process addresses this. It seems to unnecessarily complicate spellcasting, as well as making it work less like shooting or punching.
I like it when things work pretty similarly on the base level, as it makes learning new-but-similarly-rooted situational rules that much less painful. It's the fact that decking and rigging are so totally divorced from any other rules subset in Shadowrun that has made me hesitant to really crack open the books and spend what would be an inordinately large amount of time learning the intricacies of the systems.
I have no problems with the idea of 'purchasing' Magic at chargen on a point-by-point basis. I just don't want to see 'in-game purchasing' of Magic by previously non-Awakened characters. In my opinion, if you want to play someone that Awakened later on in life, just play an older character. Magic should be solely a choice made at chargen. I have never seen any PCs, Awakened or not, that have absolutely nothing on which to spend their Karma.
i don't think it's fair to take away a player's chance to play through the drama of Awakening. that can be some really, really good roleplaying--why relegate it to a one-page history that nobody every reads?
| QUOTE (Wireknight) |
| One thing that never sat well with me, and that I have never personally used, was the ability to pre-decide that some of your Sorcery skill is being used for purposes of boosting your spell defense. I think that one's Spell Pool ought to be calculated similarly to Combat Pool (i.e. a (1+2+3)/2 instead of a (1+2+3)/3) and that only spell pool, not spell pool plus an arbitrary number of Sorcery dice, ought to be the sole determination for spell defense and shielding. |
That's how I always run things (except I don't recalculate the Spell Pool in a manner similar to the Combat Pool). Spell Defence, in my opinion, should be solely a factor of the Spell Pool, and Sorcery shouldn't have to be split in a way unlike any other skill in the game.
| QUOTE (mfb @ Mar 18 2005, 10:50 AM) |
| i don't think it's fair to take away a player's chance to play through the drama of Awakening. that can be some really, really good roleplaying--why relegate it to a one-page history that nobody every reads? |
That's fine, and easily workable. Just purchase (latent) Magic ability at chargen, and then Awaken 'in-game' and improve it from there.
I think they should be able to buy magic post chargen (now), but the price should be very heavy and might even require bonding with a spirit or similar. Maybe for them it costs karma each time they cast a spell, or makes their Essence unstable.
which punishes the player for good role-playing; 30 build points is a lot to be spending on something that isn't of immediate use to your character. it also locks the player into playing a certain type of character--a restriction which doesn't exist for any other character type. a character that starts out as a decker can easily build himself into a street sam, or a rigger, or a face--and vice-versa. with the Awakened, you're locked into or out of it from the get-go, which makes for static characters with less opportunity for development.
And the ability to purchase Magic ability later in the game punishes the player that wants to start as a Mage, because Build Points do not equate in any logical way to Karma Points. I think you should have to pay the cost for the ability to use Magic, whether or not you actually start out as a Mage or not.
Hopefully this is something that will be addressed in the new (and improved?) rules. I do think it would make more sense to have Magic be purchaseable incrementally in SR4 though.
Hopefully this is something that will be addressed in the new (and improved?) rules. I do think it would make more sense to have Magic be purchaseable incrementally in SR4 though.
build points don't currently equate in any logical way to karma.
Hence my statement ...
| QUOTE |
| Hopefully this is something that will be addressed in the new (and improved?) rules. |
Who can say that you can't run shadowrun out the main book? Yes, you can use otehr books,and they do add a lot of detail to the world, but you do not need them. You just would like them.
Jrayjoker: ...if he has the conjuring skill, the conjurer would have the ability to conjure a force 1 watcher when reaching 2 points of Magic attribute. It would still require a roll.
| QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0) |
| The problem is the utter lack of basis for most of the newer totems (I'd say at least half of the totems listed in MitS) in NA beliefs. |
No one ever said those totems were for characters from NA.
Incidentally, for further streamlining of the rules, why not create a single set of rules for both ritually and spontaneously summoning spirits, which magicians of all traditions can use?
I don't see any real reason why a Hermetic, who can spontaneously cast spells, shouldn't be able to spontaneously conjure an elemental for immediate service.
I also see no reason why a shaman, who can use ritual Sorcery, shouldn't be able to ritually summon a nature spirit for extended service.
I see no reason why the two traditions need different rules or associated summoning costs.
YMMV.
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
Hence my statement ...
|
| QUOTE |
| mfb said: build points don't currently equate in any logical way to karma. |
I've been trying to convince The Powers That Be that SR4 should use a system where build points and experience (ie advancement) points work the same way.
I'm glad to see a few more people agreeing with me.
I've always felt that you can run anything in shadowrun (With the possible exception of a rigger) without the expansion books. You might not have as many options, and might have to impovise a fair amount, but you don't need them.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| build points don't currently equate in any logical way to karma. |
I does quite agree : they should !
-> more simple and logical
-> doesn't push player to min/max as SR3 did (some will still continue min/maxing - but they wouldn't be abusively advantaged as before)
And I still maintain that min/maxing isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with the player.
| QUOTE (Patrick Goodman) |
| And I still maintain that min/maxing isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with the player. |
Is it really a problem? If you use the rules to get the character you want to play are you a bad player? No.
If you use the rules to create a combat monster, so what? If it really doesn't fit the style of the group you play with, it is of course a problem, but it doesn't have to be.
Is min-max-ing unbalancing? Depends on the style of play and the GM. If the max's outdo the min's that's has something to do with the style of play, or it's because the GM doesn't enforce the min's.
Min-maxing is not really a problem IMO.
Min-Maxing might be a player-related problem but it's still much worse for some systems than others.
Shadowrun is one of the worst as it massively encourages min-maxing, as opposed to games like Nobilis where munchkining is pretty much impossible, with the proviso that a player who is smarter and more imaginative than the GM is going to be a problem.
Shadowrun is one of the worst as it massively encourages min-maxing, as opposed to games like Nobilis where munchkining is pretty much impossible, with the proviso that a player who is smarter and more imaginative than the GM is going to be a problem.
| QUOTE (Moonstone Spider) |
| Min-Maxing might be a player-related problem but it's still much worse for some systems than others. Shadowrun is one of the worst as it massively encourages min-maxing, as opposed to games like Nobilis where munchkining is pretty much impossible, with the proviso that a player who is smarter and more imaginative than the GM is going to be a problem. |
Smart and imaginative people are always a problem. That's why when a revolution starts they are first up against wall.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| Smart and imaginative people are always a problem. That's why when a revolution starts they are first up against wall. |
Really smart and imaginative people will convince you to line up against the wall and do the shooting.
i think there are two distinct trends which are being painted with the same brush, here. one trend is min-maxing. min-maxing is okay. it just means you're making a character that's good at what he or she does. excessive min-maxing can be problematic, and the problem there stems from the player.
the other trend is exploiting--finding a chink in the rules that allows your character to become unbalancingly good. an example of this in SR3 might be the Validate program and the Validate Account operation. validating an account is an incredibly exploitable activity in SR3, if you know how to use it. the power it can grant a player is far, far out of whack with the difficulty there is in achieving it. a better example of exploitation would be building an insanely good firearm using the CCFCG. conceal 6, 8M, FA, 10 points of RC--yeah, exploit. sure, the GM can use GM fiat to ban such a weapon from their game--but the GM can use GM fiat for anything. the need for a GM to use that power should not come up almost every time a certain rule is used. exploiting is not a player problem, it's a system problem.
the other trend is exploiting--finding a chink in the rules that allows your character to become unbalancingly good. an example of this in SR3 might be the Validate program and the Validate Account operation. validating an account is an incredibly exploitable activity in SR3, if you know how to use it. the power it can grant a player is far, far out of whack with the difficulty there is in achieving it. a better example of exploitation would be building an insanely good firearm using the CCFCG. conceal 6, 8M, FA, 10 points of RC--yeah, exploit. sure, the GM can use GM fiat to ban such a weapon from their game--but the GM can use GM fiat for anything. the need for a GM to use that power should not come up almost every time a certain rule is used. exploiting is not a player problem, it's a system problem.
I'm with you mfb on min-maxing vs. exploit. It isn't a mortal sin in my books either. It might be asthetically unpleasing in some ways, but not the end of the world.
I do disagree on the matter of the CCFCG The fact that is so easy to explicit isn't so much a problem as a design tradeoff. It says right up front that the system is exploitable, and put up big, flashing warning signs around itself. That's different than the Validate issue, which appears simply to be an oversight.
I do disagree on the matter of the CCFCG The fact that is so easy to explicit isn't so much a problem as a design tradeoff. It says right up front that the system is exploitable, and put up big, flashing warning signs around itself. That's different than the Validate issue, which appears simply to be an oversight.
| QUOTE (mfb @ Mar 16 2005, 07:38 PM) |
| heh, same here. i didn't like the idea when i first heard it, but it's grown on me. |
This idea, of being able to buy magic by points and even after chargen I like. I don't, hewever, like the idea of "package deals" for magic, as that just punishes the player who wants to gradually pick up his magic, unless you have the last bits of the package come all at once or something which makes even less sense.
IMO a point-by-point system, if it ever is made to exist, should be designed so that it is seamless with the current rules. If you buy six points of magic for 30 build points then you shouldn't have to resort to special packages to get the same things you get under the current rules.
| QUOTE (mmu1) |
| The difference between SR and, say, D&D 3.0 is that while WotC released tons of new material for D&D - regional books, books with new spells, new feats, new prestige classes, etc., which could and did result in power creep and general clutter, it didn't actually release very many new rules. In SR, magic, rigging and decking are not expanded in the "supplements", they're changed in major ways. And while SR should get some slack because of how many different facets it has, this sort of massive rules-bloat is an indication of a poor design. |
This needs to be repeated. I have no problem with additional books for the purposes of "Hey, here's some neat toys and tricks for a character who's specialized in _____", but it's annoying to be told "Hey, you want to play a character who's specialized in ______? Then you need book _____ in order to be at all effective."
It's like if standard D&D had a Paladin class that was mechanically described as "A good guy with mounted combat skills", and you had to buy another book to find the rules for paladins spellcasting, turning undead, and summoning their magical horses.
Bitchy, bitchy, bitchy.
| QUOTE (Bölverk) |
| It's like if standard D&D had a Paladin class that was mechanically described as "A good guy with mounted combat skills", and you had to buy another book to find the rules for paladins spellcasting, turning undead, and summoning their magical horses. |
D&D is not the game you want to be comparing to in terms of supplemental books adding power-creep, or for making certain classes unplayable before the supplements. Have you even seen some of the insanity in those "Complete X" books, let alone the Eberron or FR campaign setting books? Before Complete Warrior noone would even consider playing a straight fighter after level 4 (baring certain racial substitution levels, but those are also in different books); afterward with all the feat-intensive Tactical Feats you actually can, and make a fairly decent chain-tripper build at that (though it's still better with a few levels of Exotic Weapons Master and such, etc). After Complete Arcane and Complete Adventurer you'd be a fool to make a straight Bard-20; Sublime Chord and Seeker of the Song are so much more powerful it's not even funny. Many multiclass characters are suddenly made viable with certain feats in Complete Adventurer, and Complete Divine makes clerics so insanely broken with Divine Metamagic and Persistant Spell it's not even funny.
So yeah, let's not bring that Other Game into this, hmm?
Briefly back to the topic of the totems, my problem isn't that all this odd totems exist, it's that the totems are not properly weighted. Totems are presented in SR as little more than stat boxes, where Bear and Prairie Dog have about equal presentation, despite the former having immense socio-historical momentum and the latter being basically non-existent, mythologically. Magic is very personal in Shadowrun, in that you can believe in whatever you want and your magic will basically function. But in terms of what appears in the word count of books, I'd prefer to see the weight behind the material that has some sort of signficant impact on the world.
That's why I really liked Synner's stuff on the Old World hermetic traditions in SOTA64. You got a real sense of the social and historical weight behind certain strains of hermeticism in the world (specifically, but not limited to, Europe). An equivalent does not really exist for shamanism, especially North American shamanism, in the material, which waters down the importance of some totems, medicine societies, and lodges when put next to really random totem ideas.
That's why I really liked Synner's stuff on the Old World hermetic traditions in SOTA64. You got a real sense of the social and historical weight behind certain strains of hermeticism in the world (specifically, but not limited to, Europe). An equivalent does not really exist for shamanism, especially North American shamanism, in the material, which waters down the importance of some totems, medicine societies, and lodges when put next to really random totem ideas.
That's a good point. Honestly instead of all the pages and pages spent on new totems and such like in MitS I'd have liked to see more pages explainning how certain tetems like Bear and Coyote end up being so ubiquitous--seemingly because the ideals represented by the totem are so central to a particular culture--with maybe a couple of pages at the end dedicated to creating your own "personal" totems for those who want to break the mold.
| QUOTE (Ancient History) |
| Bitchy, bitchy, bitchy. |
Yeah, but you gotta remember that we're lemmings, AH. *makes lemming noises*
You know what I remember, Padraig? I remember Nigel D. Findley left on his lonesome one article fleshing out totems and ending up with a chipmunk totem.
Also, I remember how in many villages they left a lot open for the devil. Except they rarely called it Satan's Lot, because naming him could invoke him. So often they called it Goodman's Lot. Yeah, that's what I remember.
Also, I remember how in many villages they left a lot open for the devil. Except they rarely called it Satan's Lot, because naming him could invoke him. So often they called it Goodman's Lot. Yeah, that's what I remember.
| QUOTE (Aes) | ||
Browsing the FanPro 2005 catalogue from Battlecorps in pdf format, this just sprung to my eye:
Emphasis mine. So not only do we get a new streamlined book, but we also get the extra advanced rules announced at the same time? Am I the only one feeling a sense of deja vu here? |
Bleh. "Advanced magic" for who? Considering the large base of existing players, you'd think they'd include this shit in the core system, and for that matter, core SR4 better not have a fuck-ton of fluff. I've got 3 other versions of SR (hardcover and soft) full of fluff already. I suppose they are hoping to hedge all the bitching by releasing it as the first supplement after SR4, but it's still very lame IMO.
This reminds me of how some of the MMOG's (Everquest for this example) include new game options and functions, but only if you buy additional expansions. Than means if you don't buy their "Legacy of Yekesa" expansion, you don't get the cool automapper, even if you buy additional expansions "beyond" the one the option was released in.
Let me take a shot at all of Fanpro's new SR products and supplements coming soon:
SR4 core
"Advanced" magic ...bleh
"The good" cyberware ...bleh
hack/rigg(er) ...bleh
book 'o guns ...bleh
...
hacker 2.0! ...inevitable.
/rant off.
given the massive revamp, i'd be surprised if some of the SR3's "advanced" rules don't magically turn into "basic" rules in SR4.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| given the massive revamp, i'd be surprised if some of the SR3's "advanced" rules don't magically turn into "basic" rules in SR4. |
...I was hoping for that too, but it sounds like they are setting up the suppliments similar to previous versions, so aside from a general conversion from SR3, I doubt we'll see much (if any) big magical categories added to Core SR4 Magic. Looks like no initiation or enchanting in Core and those cover alot of ground.
| QUOTE (Ancient History) |
| Also, I remember how in many villages they left a lot open for the devil. Except they rarely called it Satan's Lot, because naming him could invoke him. So often they called it Goodman's Lot. Yeah, that's what I remember. |
So you're saying I really AM Satan? That's not just an epithet that gets thrown at me on occasion by my players?
Wow. You just made their lives harder, didn't ya, chummer?
I'm sure they look at it as a challenge. Or a dry run for later on, at least. 
If there's one complaint I don't hear about SR3 often, it's that it has "too much fluff" ...
| QUOTE (Patrick Goodman @ May 3 2005, 04:49 PM) | ||
So you're saying I really AM Satan? That's not just an epithet that gets thrown at me on occasion by my players? |
Ha! You might want to have a discussion with the Dictator Tot before you assume that anyone thinks you are the devil. I mean, hell, he went to law school, which should automatically bump him way up on the hierarchy of evil.
| QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll) |
| I've got 3 other versions of SR (hardcover and soft) full of fluff already. |
Like what?
| QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll) | ||||
Bleh. "Advanced magic" for who? Considering the large base of existing players, you'd think they'd include this shit in the core system, and for that matter, core SR4 better not have a fuck-ton of fluff. I've got 3 other versions of SR (hardcover and soft) full of fluff already. I suppose they are hoping to hedge all the bitching by releasing it as the first supplement after SR4, but it's still very lame IMO. This reminds me of how some of the MMOG's (Everquest for this example) include new game options and functions, but only if you buy additional expansions. Than means if you don't buy their "Legacy of Yekesa" expansion, you don't get the cool automapper, even if you buy additional expansions "beyond" the one the option was released in. Let me take a shot at all of Fanpro's new SR products and supplements coming soon: SR4 core "Advanced" magic ...bleh "The good" cyberware ...bleh hack/rigg(er) ...bleh book 'o guns ...bleh ... hacker 2.0! ...inevitable. /rant off. |
Yes, becuase no one new would ever want to get into SR.
Look, I can take my basic shadowrun book, let some read the fluff out of the book and then teach them how to play shadowrun. All in one book. I can run a game out of it.
The other game, has no fluff,and needs at least three book to even run the game.Then you need to look for fluff.
So what if you don't have all the cyberware,magic and rigging shit in one book. You at least can take one book and run a game from it. Yes, you will have slight problems when latter books come out and you find out that they printed a btter or diffrent piece of cyberware,or what not. They do that in jsut about evry game I know. They do that way more so in the game that will not be named.
Can I make a request?
Can we finish off the conversion from SR3 to SR4 (ie, release all the damned rulebooks) in UNDER a year?
Can we finish off the conversion from SR3 to SR4 (ie, release all the damned rulebooks) in UNDER a year?
| QUOTE |
| If there's one complaint I don't hear about SR3 often, it's that it has "too much fluff" ... |
I play shadowrun maybe twice a year if I'm lucky, yet I purchase almost every SR book.
Why? Fluff, its THE best part of the game imho.
I think the main complaint is that all the rules and the fluff are widely distributed across a boatload of sourcebooks, and that folks would rather have as much of the rules as possible condensed into a couple of books, and the fluff moved to other books. Ideally, one would only have to have SR3 for the rules and another setting book for the city the runners are going to be running in.
| QUOTE (Penta) |
| Can I make a request? Can we finish off the conversion from SR3 to SR4 (ie, release all the damned rulebooks) in UNDER a year? |
While that may sound like a great idea, the real problem (aside from production schedules) is that if a company releases too many books too quickly they will essentually be competing with themselves for the customers' dollars. Better (for the company) to release books a couple of months apart so that those who buy them don't have to choose which one to buy.
Also I'd rather see a well developed book every 4 to 6 months than a bunch of crap every month....
| QUOTE (Phantom Runner) |
| Also I'd rather see a well developed book every 4 to 6 months than a bunch of crap every month... |
Erm, I think everyone would want that. Not much of a decision there, the way that you phrased it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.