Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm
I am sorry that you found my reply unfair. It was not, however, an attack. It was a statement of fact: - The Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game, while based on GURPS, isn't GURPS . . . it's the Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game. Its success or failure shouldn't be taken as GURPS' success or failure.
- What sells profitably, what sells unprofitably, and what doesn't sell at all isn't knowable so much as discoverable. I was sharing our latest discoveries.
- What we've discovered that would affect GURPS is that a specific format isn't particularly viable right now. That format is inherently prone to the sorts of things that made the Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game costly, and would probably have the same problems if used for GURPS.
My comment that people have the right to a choice is the opposite of an attack – it's an endorsement! I'm all for respecting others' choices. It's just that we can't always deliver those.
And as I confessed, I have a vested personal interest in making sure "we can't deliver choice X for GURPS" isn't read as "we can't deliver GURPS," as the latter leads to rumors that could actually end my livelihood. |
Everything about this post is reasonable. Except for the last paragraph (and the corresponding comment in your original response). A customer who spends $50 and reads almost immediately that the DFRPG was a “failure” should be able to reasonably ask about the GURPS line’s viability without being told that the Line editor is personally upset by the question.
Admittedly, I was excited about the DFRPG (it was the only Christmas present I asked for) and am upset that it was so quickly abandoned by SJG. So I probably don’t have the best attitude. I’m glad that you and Phil have clarified that GURPS is still viable. I will try to sell the DFRPG + ongoing PDFs to my group.