D&D 5E Settings played in D&D: cause or effect?

[Doc_Klueless]

That is exactly how Wizards works when trying to justify what they want to do instead of what the customers actually want.

But they're giving me exactly what I want and I'm a customer. So they're giving customers actually what they want. They're not giving ALL the customers exactly what they want, but NO business does that. That's an impossible standard.

The real questions are: Are they giving the majority of the customers what they want? Could they gain more customers by doing something different? Would the results be worth the expense? Having never published a RPG nor run a multi-million dollar company and not having access to data to make an informed decision, I don't know the answers to these questions.

I'm just really happy with what WotC is doing. For example, even though I've been playing and running games for 30+ years I'm definitely the target audience for SCAG. Simply because I've avoided running in the Realms because there is so... much... information. Having a smaller guide that I have handed to my players and said: This is the Lore for the Campaign has greatly reduced my anxiety over running the Realms. Even with a couple of players who know so much more about the Realms than I do because we've all agreed on that caveat. For the first time since it was published, I'm running a Realms game and it's going very, very well.

 

[Mercule]

I'm overjoyed that homebrew holds a majority share. IMO, that's a core aspect of what makes D&D important. What I'd actually like to see is a chart that broke down the 45% "published setting" side in more detail. That would look like this (hopefully with more detail on "other"):
- Forgotten Realms: 78%
- Greyhawk: 11%
- Other: 11%

The core rules of D&D are generic pseudo-Medieval fantasy. There should be no question about whether the most popular published setting is going to be pseudo-Medieval fantasy. Given that the options under the WotC umbrella are the Realms, Greyhawk, Mystara, Dragonlance, and (maybe) Birthright, it doesn't surprise me in the least that the Realms are in the lead. I'm actually more surprised that Greyhawk is in second place.

That actually speaks volumes to me. It was clear, even at the time, that TSR was waging an intentional campaign to remove as much of the Gygax signature from AD&D as it could without destroying the game. While Ed's ready-made, well developed setting was an undeniable treasure trove of IP, I think the zeal with which it was pushed was more related to the scrubbing of Gygax. The Realms would have survived and thrived as a setting entirely on its own merits, but its huge mind share has a lot to do with the marketing. Unless WotC has some weird fit and decides to actively sink the Realms in favor of something else, we'll never know for sure. That's my belief, though.

If Greyhawk still holds 1/8 of the combined FR/Greyhawk market after 25 years of near abandonment vs. a marketing machine, there's something there. I think the Realms would have eventually passed Greyhawk, just due to the amount of information available for DMs who wanted to have a super-detailed setting (something Greyhawk was never going to be). But... who knows what would have happened if "Eye of the Beholder" had been set in Greyhawk? Instead of "Baldur's Gate", we may have had a game about a child of Iuz. I can't even imagine how the trickle-down would have worked. I can safely say that I'd have been more inclined to have bought the games.

Setting aside things like production costs and dilution of revenue, if a "Free City Adventurers Guide", "Korvaire Adventurers Guide", "Sands of Athas Adventurers Guide", "Dread Realms Adventurers Guide", and "DragonLance Adventurers Guide" were dropped on the shelf right now, here's what I'd expect things to look like for published settings in ten years (more or less):
- Forgotten Realms: 50%
- Greyhawk: 20%
- Eberron: 13%
- DragonLance: 7%
- Ravenloft: 5%
- Dark Sun: 5%

I just grabbed the first five settings that came to mind. I doubt that's accurate, but it'd be even worse if I threw in too many variables. The point is that, even as someone who despises the Realms, I think it'll always have more share because there's more available to people who really want to dig into someone else's world. It has an engaging (at least to some segment) story line. As such, it makes sense to continue to support it.

So, the Realms is the most popular setting because it's got a lot to offer. It's so far on top because it sees the most support.

If I was at the helm of WotC, I'd be tempted to intentionally move the FR market share, because I'd think there's long-term benefit in provided visibility to the other world IPs. I think you could probably set at least half the adventures in a setting other than the Realms without negatively impacting revenue from the Realms. The net impact would probably be to widen the pipeline to fit not only the current Realms novels, etc. but one or two other settings -- maybe at a slower pace for non-Realms stuff. The adventures are likely to drive some sales of other Adventurers Guides, as well.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think FR probably gained an unassailable position because of three key advantages it had in the mid/late-eighties:

- It was given a big push by TSR as their 'main' setting because at about the same time they were looking to de-emphasise Greyhawk (because Gary had left, but retained at least some IP rights in the setting). At that time, the choice was between FR and Dragonlance, but DL always had that one big story overshadowing everything else, while FR was more open - and so a better candidate for the main setting going forward.

- FR also benefited from Ed's absurdly-prolific imagination - any time TSR wanted to publish something, Ed could just open his files and there it was. By contrast, another setting needed material generated for it, which meant that FR felt more organic rather than manufactured.

- And then FR had the massive breakout hit "The Crystal Shard", and the Legacy of Drizzt that that spawned. (And Drizzt became even bigger in the nineties.)

Having attained that dominant position, FR simply retained it. New settings came and went, but none supplanted it - despite Dark Sun getting a big push back in 2nd Ed and Eberron in 3e.

(That said, that's possibly inevitable - FR is much closer to generic fantasy, and so more suitable for idea-harvesting by homebrew DMs. The others are much more idiosyncratic, which is actually a good thing for the settings, but probably makes it inevitable that they're lesser lights.)

At least, that's my thinking. I could, of course, be wrong.

Number 4- it's very generic as far as being a "traditional" fantasy world. Makes it accessible to many folks and a variety of play styles and so forth.

Whereas many of the other settings are a little more niche in what they offer, maiming they are limiting the potential audience right out of the gate.

Yes and No.

This might have happened but you can't accurately use this because of several factors.

1: Buy the time Dark Sun and Eberron came out, people were walking away from 4th edition so naturally they wouldn't purchase anything after.

2: Forgotten Realms was the first setting published so of course it would have the most sales.

3: Lot's of people didn't like the two book format.

All this stuff is connected and can't be ignored. That is exactly how Wizards works when trying to justify what they want to do instead of what the customers actually want.

Do you honestly think that you know what the fans want more than they do? Or do you know what your circle of friends and online a quaintances want and assume that's the same for everyone?

I can understand you not liking their approach, or the lack of support for other settings. I can understand those complaints. But to say they need to change their approach to match what you would prefer?

You don't see how that's just what you would prefer?

If they were to release an equal amount of support material for three settings right at the time of launch, they'd already be dividing up their target audience. Yes, some folks would buy all the books. But there would be many who would immediately not buy a given book based on the setting. If the numbers Perkins cited are even remotely accurate, they'd be stupid to do that.

They're far better served building a solid brand and a good version of the game first, and branching out later on after they have more market data to review.

The Forgotten Realms was just the safest play to appeal to the widest audience. I don't see how anyone could even argue otherwise.

 

[FedeII]

Well they say that 5e made a lot of new players join d&d. I think it's likely that most of them only know the FR, because 5e material is only there and while yes one could adapt any other setting to 5e it's much more of a bother for a new player/master. I think the first question in a survey should be: "Do you KNOW the other settings?", is your chosen setting a conscious choice, or you simply started to play what was there?
Still, with a small team and a very slow release schedule wotc must be really careful with the books, so who can blame them for starting the edition with the strongest (as a brand) setting?
Half of our group started playing d&d with 5e, and we only played official content up until now!

ps. I would really like Eberron or Ravenloft

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's kinda presented as "we produce for the Realms because everybody plays in it"; but is there an element of "everybody plays in the Realms because we produce for it"?

Sure. Plus it's had those successful fiction series going for many years.

If the three adventures so far had all been set in Greyhawk, would the survey result say that 35% of people play Greyhawk?

Probably. It was the default setting in 3e, too, for instance, so a lot of people were playing in Greyhawk without knowing much about it beyond what was in the PH (little more than the list of deities, really).

I run FR because AL is FR-only, but I've never cared for the setting and don't run it in any other context (when I run non-AL 5e at conventions, I run old-school modules that happen to be set in Greyhawk or Blackmoor, but, I don't really run the setting, just the module).

When I run campaigns, they're generally homebrew or generic.

I am still running a 4e campaign set in the Feywild, though - that could be a setting in the same sense the Underdark is.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Do you honestly think that you know what the fans want more than they do? Or do you know what your circle of friends and online a quaintances want and assume that's the same for everyone?

I can understand you not liking their approach, or the lack of support for other settings. I can understand those complaints. But to say they need to change their approach to match what you would prefer?

You don't see how that's just what you would prefer?

If they were to release an equal amount of support material for three settings right at the time of launch, they'd already be dividing up their target audience. Yes, some folks would buy all the books. But there would be many who would immediately not buy a given book based on the setting. If the numbers Perkins cited are even remotely accurate, they'd be stupid to do that.

They're far better served building a solid brand and a good version of the game first, and branching out later on after they have more market data to review.

The Forgotten Realms was just the safest play to appeal to the widest audience. I don't see how anyone could even argue otherwise.

Because I recognize these types of surveys and BS because we do it at where I work.

I am not going to disclose any information but I can tell you these types of surveys are the corporate norm. What happens is a company comes up with a cost saving plan and then they issue out a survey in order in minimize the backlash. They get the public involved in the surveys in order to make them think a majority of people want XYZ when in fact they don't. You see this works two ways both internally and externally. This allows the company to tell the customers what the supposed majority of customers want and then internally when they need to lay people off they tell them this is what the majority of customers want.

These surveys are also worded in a specific way for a reason.

I just don't buy into it when I see the likes of it on a daily basis.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Because I recognize these types of surveys and BS because we do it at where I work.

I am not going to disclose any information but I can tell you these types of surveys are the corporate norm. What happens is a company comes up with a cost saving plan and then they issue out a survey in order in minimize the backlash. They get the public involved in the surveys in order to make them think a majority of people want XYZ when in fact they don't. You see this works two ways both internally and externally. This allows the company to tell the customers what the supposed majority of customers want and then internally when they need to lay people off they tell them this is what the majority of customers want.

These surveys are also worded in a specific way for a reason.

I just don't buy into it when I see the likes of it on a daily basis.

Well, it seems to be working, because I haven't seen your insight into what "we" want for D&D to have changed too many minds. So I guess WotC's just doing a better job at it that you are.

 

[JohnLynch]

So in a thread that is specifically about if FR is popular because it's good or because it has a lot of support, it's IRRELEVANT to show it has a lot of support over time?

Ooookay.

I had read this thread as: Only setting extensively* supported in 5th ed = most popular setting. If the premise is: 4 editions of extensive support = most popular setting then that's a good thing from WotC's perspective. They can capture a much larger share of the market with less product. If the split was 25% across four settings they'd have a harder time getting 75% of the market to buy FR products.

* For some values of extensively.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because I recognize these types of surveys and BS because we do it at where I work.

I am not going to disclose any information but I can tell you these types of surveys are the corporate norm. What happens is a company comes up with a cost saving plan and then they issue out a survey in order in minimize the backlash. They get the public involved in the surveys in order to make them think a majority of people want XYZ when in fact they don't. You see this works two ways both internally and externally. This allows the company to tell the customers what the supposed majority of customers want and then internally when they need to lay people off they tell them this is what the majority of customers want.

These surveys are also worded in a specific way for a reason.

I just don't buy into it when I see the likes of it on a daily basis.

Do you think the surveys are all that they are using to make their decisions? Surveys are not perfect, but they serve a purpose. I agree they can be skewed...either intentionally or unintentionally....but that doesn't totally invalidate the results.

Is there a reason you suspect that the surveys are not accurate? Beyond your general suspicion of surveys that you already mentioned?

And other than the surveys, what other factors do you think they are likely observing and taking into consideration?

 

[Lanefan]

Which does the average gamer know more lore of?

The Forgotten Realms (D&D)
Azeroth and Draenor (World of Warcraft)

I guess I'm not an average gamer then because before this post I had never heard of either Azeroth or Draenor, never mind any associated lore thereof.

Lan-"Dominaria, on the other hand..."-efan