I'm going to pitch in here, not to back up the OPs opinion that it's characters using 'exotic' shader setups that are the problem, but rather to suggest that it's usually background props not set up with mathmatically correct shaders that are the issue. I don't think render settings are really the problem.

I'm not a prolific buyer of content, but just about every prop I have bought and those I use from the Poser runtime have little more than a diffuse texture and perhaps a bump map attached. While I'm often surprised that these render as well as they do, they're not going to have the finesse in the final calculations that a skin setup like bb produces will have. Is that a fair comment?

A glance at my gallery here will show that I almost always render characters against a simple neutral prop (a photo studio type setup). That's because I'm primarily focused on the characters ATM and so have little interest in the background (kinda boring I know). This allows me to put all my efforts into the characters morph, pose skin and basic clothing/hair props (if used).
Now, I'm a self confessed bodger - I get there with the render by any means I know, and certainly not with any kind of  mathmatical prowess (unless borrowed from others in an adapted shader setup). This is fine for a single figure against a white backdrop, but as soon as I introduce any kind of complexity into the scene - well, that's where my approach usually crumbles.

OK, so recently I decided to take a look at bb's VSS skin shaders (PR3 - which I love btw). I've also been keeping up with some of the shader threads here which are just mind boggling from a non math mind perspective - I can just about keep up if I at least have an idea about what surface or effect someone is attempting to simulate. It's got me excited for the first time about the possibility of creating complete scenes in Poser where all the materials might be constructed on some sort of methodical principles about how light interacts with surfaces similar to how they do in the real world (limited of course by this being 3d simulation).
Problem for me is that since I can't honestly say I understand a lot of the math involved with material nodes or how they relate to simulation of RW surfaces (or understand the science of how light interracts with RW materials), making all my shaders for all the potential surfaces in, for example a typical living room, presents a few problems - especially if they are going to work well with each other given any particular lighting setup .

I guess what I'm getting at in my own rather clumsy way is that I kind of sympathise with what I think was the OP's frustration of multiple objects in a scene not playing well together in the final render. I don't agree with the suggested solution (to dumb down marketplace shader setups). Rather, if there is a systematic approach to material construction where materials can more closely simulate their RW counterparts, I'd suggest that ALL marketplace items are made that way so that when placed in a scene and rendered they all work well together.
This is problematic I think in that I suspect there arn't too many people with anywhere near the level of understanding of this stuff as bb has.

Some might say that this would be doing all the hard work for people, but some well conceived, mathmatically correct (as near as possible) shader presets for common materials would certainly speed things up and free up the creative juices for the really fun stuff like image conception and composition etc.

My apologies if I've got the wrong idea here.

 

PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.

                                      www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com