Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 2731277" data-attributes="member: 6777">So, unless your'e trying to objectively prove that there's a lack of good product out there, your hypothesis is: "There's a decline in RPG sales because there's not much out right now that I like."Again, I don't buy this, and I don't think the market reflects it. Show me the trend of publishers making "more of" DMG2, HoB, HoH, WoL, Stormwrack, MoI, Fantastic Locations, and the Spell Compendium. Show me the Eberron and FR clones.What I'm seeing is:Atlas Games's Northern CrownFFG's MidnightMalhavoc's Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved and PtolusGreen Ronin's Thieve's World, Black Company, and Advanced guidesGoodman Games's Power Gamer guides, Blackmoor, and classic adventure seriesNecromancer Games's ToH books, Wilderlands setting, and "1st edition feel" adventure seriesMongoose having completely dropped their generic d20 support in favor of Conan, Wars, Starship Troopers, B5, and ParanoiaRonin Arts prodcuing, in general, products nothing like what WotC providesSword & Sorcery Studios focusing on Warcraft and supporting releases of Malhavoc, Necromancer, Goodman, etc.Privateer Press's Iron Kingdoms settingKenzer focusing on HackMaster and card gamesAEG dropping d20 RPGs entirelyWhat I an not seeing is "more of the same" stuff that WotC is doing. The days of Mongoose, S&SS, and FFG pumping out splats is gone.Campaign settings do not expand the market. Campiagn settings are only of use to people already in the market. All campiagn settings do is cannibalize sales from other campaign settings.So, it's marketing, not settings, that matter.I think everyone would agree that if Bill Slavicsek praying to an elephant idol increased the market, that would be a good thing. Your second sentence doesn't follow your first. The key is finding out how to increase sales. WotC releasing 10 new settings, based on past precedent and basic knowledge of marketing, would be a phenomenal mistake.This is anecdotal and illogical. Besides collectors, setting products are of primary appeal to people actually playing in the setting, and of them, of even more appeal to the person running the campaign. A setting-neutral book, like the Spell Compendium appeals to everyone who plays D&D.It is to your argument. The quality of the various settings certainly didn't keep TSR from going out of business. You were arguing above that it wasn't the quality of the settings that TSR got wrong.It makes more sense than your argument.WotC is supporting the number of settings for which they have resources to do profitably. If it were profitable or advantageous to support more than they do, they'd be doing it; the bean-counters would be making sure of that. WotC has access to more and better market research and buisness expertise than all other RPG publishers combined. If they're not doing something, there's a damn good reason.So, your'e talking about expanding the hobby as a whole, and you're trying to put forward the idea that more people would play tabletop RPGs if only WotC would heavily market more campign settings? This makes absolutely no sense. People not yet in the hobby don't even know what a campaign setting is.Heck, in the 2e days when TSR was flooding the marklet with campign settings was when interest in TRPGs was at its lowest.I'm also still not sure how setting material, i.e., the kind of thing that would never in a million years be open content, is of any benefit to the d20 publishing world.WotC focuses on providing products they believe will appeal to their fanbase. They also heavily promote the D&D brand, which is effectively general promotion of tabletop RPGs as a hobby. These actions make them a profitable business, and apparently provide them with record-breaking years even when the industry as a whole is in a slump.The notable absence of a "flooding the market with campaign settings" strategy in WotC's business plan is telling. It's a stupid idea, one that's proven to be bad business.</blockquote>

Verification