D&D General 2E Setting Product lines

[Parmandur]

Sort of, yes. But again, some of the specifics I mentioned were lacking: setting supplements beyond a very few, and the same kind of branding of distinct product lines. There were Greyhawk adventures, the DL series, a few odds and ends, but not really "setting product lines" in a meaningful way.

Yes, but they aren't "supported" in the same way, unless you consider DM's Guild support - but that is really just crowd-sourcing. Most of them are one-and-done, with a few having an adventure added on.

DMsGuild is such a game changer that I'd hesitate to compare it directly: the cultural and economic context is radically different. I wouldn't say that what 2E era TSR was putting out was necessarily more polished game content than much of the DMsGuild.

 

[deganawida]

Wasn't Maztica its own boxed setting and campaign setting (though bolted-on)? I could have sworn it had a few releases.

 

[Parmandur]

I'd certainly like to have been a fly on the wall and find out why Lankhmar got such long-standing support - I mean, it goes all the way back to content in Deities & Demigods in 1E. Not that it's bad (I have all the books), I'm just curious why there was such a push for books on it up until the final boxed set. I mean, it's got more content than even the Buck Rogers game got, and I doubt there's anyone who started D&D post 2E who knows about Lankhmar (and even then, back in 1E/2E no one I knew was familiar with any of the books).

Well, it's central to the development of the very genre that D&D emulates, and on top of that Fritz Leiber was under pretty extreme financial duress in his old age, so the license was available for sale.

 

[Malmuria]

I think they write every 5e book so that all you need to play is the core 3. Whereas, in 2e, the adventures for, say, Planescape, would reference the setting box set (and possibly the expansion box sets) for necessary information. Not only that, but there was a meta plot to follow! This sort of thing appeals to enthusiasts and completionists, but confuses casual players.

 

[TwiceBorn2]

I think they write every 5e book so that all you need to play is the core 3. Whereas, in 2e, the adventures for, say, Planescape, would reference the setting box set (and possibly the expansion box sets) for necessary information. Not only that, but there was a meta plot to follow! This sort of thing appeals to enthusiasts and completionists, but confuses casual players.

And also turns off casual players with limited budgets...

 

[Gradine]

Yes, but they aren't "supported" in the same way, unless you consider DM's Guild support - but that is really just crowd-sourcing. Most of them are one-and-done, with a few having an adventure added on.

My point is, this is a feature, not a bug. They aren't fracturing their fanbase anymore by creating dozens of mutually exclusive supplements anymore. The 5e setting books all have content that anyone can use. They aren't putting out dozens of lore-dump FR or Greyhawk that nobody will buy except for their respective setting diehards.

 

[Mercurius]

My point is, this is a feature, not a bug. They aren't fracturing their fanbase anymore by creating dozens of mutually exclusive supplements anymore. The 5e setting books all have content that anyone can use. They aren't putting out dozens of lore-dump FR or Greyhawk that nobody will buy except for their respective setting diehards.

Oh, I agree. It is obviously intentional and, as I think I implied, it seems like they've combined the best elements of previous editions: The diversity of worlds of 2E, the production value of 3E/4E, and the minimalism of 1E (as far as setting material is concerned).

 

[Echohawk]

Yeah. That makes me think that someone at TSR really liked Lankhmar. Or it could just be that it was part of their shotgun and more-is-better approach to publication.

I seem to recall reading somewhere [citation needed], that publishing new products with a certain frequency was a requirement for TSR to keep the Lankhmar licence. That doesn't explain the gap in 1994, unless the requirement wasn't necessarily based on a calendar year. It does explain the pretty low quality of some of those releases.

 

[Mannahnin]

I seem to recall reading somewhere [citation needed], that publishing new products with a certain frequency was a requirement for TSR to keep the Lankhmar licence. That doesn't explain the gap in 1994, unless the requirement wasn't necessarily based on a calendar year. It does explain the pretty low quality of some of those releases.

That could make sense. I wonder if the license went back all the way to TSR's founding? I remember that Leiber was involved directly with TSR at the beginning, and attended a few D&D conventions in the 70s, and TSR originally adapted a board game about Lankhmar for publication in '76.

Lankhmar (board game) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Before that, there were sprinklings of setting products, but no real setting expansions. The default setting for D&D, both OD&D and 1E, had been Greyhawk, but there were no setting books published beyond the Folio (1980) and World of Greyhawk box set (1983); even the Greyhawk Adventures hardcover (1988) wasn't really a setting book, but more of a splat.

I think Greyhawk Adventures is still more of a setting book than a splat. There are some rules expansions in there, like zero-level characters, but as I recall most of the book is still about places and NPCs in the setting.

 

[LordEntrails]

Interesting analysis. But I think the context of why such was being done, and more importantly the impacts it had on the game and company is of critical importance to keep in mind.

In short, 2E was a "bad" business model and was probably a "technique" to exploit their publishing deal. I hope it is not adopted for 5E.