Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5953912" data-attributes="member: 22424">I will be extremely surprised if we see anything from 3e beyond the core rulebooks reprinted. Virtually everything else is easily available on eBay, and in many cases the business case for publishing those items in the first place was borderline; doing a second printing at this point seems unlikely.The case for the 1st Ed books seems stronger, but even so I would expect interest to drop off sharply after the core rules. I guess reprints of the Greyhawk box or the Forgotten Realms "grey box" may happen.The other thing I think there would be a market for is reprints of the classic modules. However, I can only see these being done in some sort of compiled form, and there's potentially an issue there.(Warning: what follows is pure speculation. I have no evidence to back any of this up; it's just a possibility that occurs to me. So don't take it as anything more than that. And, since it needs said: IANAL.)The potential issue that occurs: we've been assuming WotC own the full rights to all the old material lock, stock and barrel. But we also know from the days of the Dragon Archive that this isn't certain. A lot of the work done for TSR was done on custom contracts, and in many cases those contracts no longer exist. We don't know whether that applies only to the magazine content, or to everything (WotC may, of course).Now, if WotC own full rights, then a compilation of the modules would seem to be a no-brainer. But if they don't, or if they don't know, then their only safe option may be a direct reprint*. Which may well make the modules impractical, as no individual module is likely to do well enough to justify it.*And not even a PDF version, since that was exactly the rationale they used for the Dragon Archive, and it failed there.(Incidentally, that would also explain why the PDFs disappeared so suddenly, and why they haven't reappeared (and never will). WotC got hit hard over the Dragon Archive, but they may not have realised that the same issue applied to their PDFs. If one of their legal team spotted the issue, that would have necessitated an urgent recall...)Again, as I noted above, all that is speculation. I stand ready to be corrected. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification