Future of Scarred Lands and other 3rd party settings

[johnsemlak]

With the announcement of the closing of the Scarred Lands line at S&SS (at least for now), I've got to thinking what kind of impact it had on the D&D scene.

Also, what settings that have been launched since the beginning fo the d20 era are going to have some sort of staying power that keeps the, alive either as published product lines, or as popular fan-supported settings?

It seems to me that as far as other settings go, the ones that are really established include Oathbound, Midnight, Arcana Unearhted/Diamond Throne, Arcanis, Sovereign Stone, Freeport, and the to-be-revived Bluffside. Plus there's Kalamar, which dates back before the d20 era. There may be some others I'm forgetting/leaving out of course. I'm not including licensed settings like OA/Rokugun, Ravenloft, or Dragonlance.

There have been some newer settings recently released that might achieve a similar level--Dawnforge, Warcraft, the new Wilderlands setting, etc. Time will tell.

Anyway, some questions I have to people out there are: Which settings will also be stopped in the near future?; Which settings will have some sort of 'staying power' of the sort that will keep people playing the settings 5+ years from now?; What is it about settings that keeps them afloat while others get canned (I assume Scarred Lands was significantly more popular in terms of sales than many settings with a smaller fan base which are still being continued)?; What will happen long term to settings like the Scarred Lands and others that get discontinued?

 

[Starman]

I think we'll see more campaign settings follow one of two paths.

1) One-shot (Mythic Vistas, Horizon)

2) Core Book plus two to three supplements (Midnight, Dawnforge)

The cool thing about Midnight is that FFG decided sales were good enough for the first books to justify extending the line. We haven't heard anything similar about Dawnforge, which is unfortunate.

Starman

 

[MonsterMash]

Well the Wilderlands does have staying power from the first time around - there are still a lot of users from back in the 70s and 80s, so I'd expect it to have some sort of success and it appears Judges Guild will start releasing some new product for it which might help it get more established.

I think that the discontinued settings will still be used, but with a diminishing userbase, unless someone else takes up the setting and revives it (e.g. Wilderlands, Blackmoor).

 

[sir_ollibolli]

Everquest, Mutants & Masterminds, Spycraft are also very healthy.

New settings to watch out how they are doing: Dragon Mech and Blackmoor.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It will probably make Nightfall rather disappointed.

I wonder how Wheel of Time d20 and Call of Cthulhu d20 are doing in gaming circles? They are both examples of one-off campaign settings which were pretty well recieved at the time but have had little or no subsequent support (due to the terms of their license, I guess).

I imagine that those who already use these settings will continue to use them and their disappearance from the market will primarily mean that the settings don't grow as much as they otherwise might have done.

I wonder whether manufacturers will find it easier to sell stand-alone settings rather than expansions to an existing setting? I've got no idea about that though.

Cheers

 

[Desdichado]

Kalamar is actually a licensed setting, contrary to what you put up there.

I also think Iron Kingdoms will have staying power -- heck, it's already got staying power. With the success of the Warmachine game especially, that one'll be running for quite a while, I suppose, even if they don't print anything after the second setting book.

 

[DragonLancer]

I think the problem with Scarred Lands was that it got too big, too quickly and due to the way it was expanded the setting lost the initial feel. Shame because in the beginning SL had a great set up, and I could see it being one of the best settings on the market.

I only use Dragonlance these days so I can't comment on others in the market, but IMO I think that a setting has to be popular from the get go (which I don't think most are), and need regular and consistant setting material that doesn't contradict what has already been said about the setting.

Then again, it does seem that the majority prefer a homebrew game over buying a published setting.

 

[nothing to see here]

Back to the original question -- it might be worth considering what qualities give a setting staying power.

Since the market for campaignsettings seems, anecdotally, smaller than other supplements -- unless you have WOTC's marketing budget, you are unlikely to have a runaway hit on your hand (mind you -- runaway hits are rare in any form of supplement -- but just seem particularly unlikely in campaign settings)

But in general - I'd look for three things.

1) Is it Produced by, or under the imprint under, an 'established' publisher.

-- This is not to say that small publisher's can't produce a good campaign setting -- instead that they're the lowest percentage bet for a quality but. Speaking as a guy who has, on occassion taken a chance on smaller start up publisher's rules supplements. I have to admit I would not put similar money down on some guy's campaign setting. It is much harder to divine quality of these kind of products. Usually when the 'big guys' put out a setting it's intended to be adaptable to different groups and style of play. The design assumption for a self-published homebrew would seem quite the opposite. I might be an outlyer here -- but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a general market suspiscion towards this niche of products.

2) Is it the recipient of focussed (i.e. exclusive) support from that publisher.

-- I don't mean whether the publisher hoards the rights to a setting -- but instead whether the publisher focusses on this one line above all others -- and whether, during the design process -- the setting is intended for future support. If a publisher does not intend future support -- than the publisher has little faith in the setting's staying power...in which case neither should we. One-off's are intended to make money for you this month -- on going settings have a goal of producing revenue for years.

3) Does it present new innovations in rules mechanics that prompt sales even from those who don't plan to use the setting itself?

-- Given that most players play casually and therefore can only really play in one setting -- your pitching to the smallest fragment of markets if your setting is an all or nothing proposition. And, as compelling as some so called 'fluff elements' are to ripping off for your local homebrew setting -- the easiest and most attractive elements to port over -- are rules. And I'm not just talking about new feats and prestige classes either.

Obviously there are other elements that make a setting attractive. The prescence of a licence. Portability with the base rules of the system. The existence of online support. Whether it fills a niche for a particulary style of gaming. Modularity...whether it can be easily linked into existing homebrews.

And of course, obviously the quality of creative content and marketing support makes a big difference.

But the three above seem to be a big three that the 'staying power guys have'

 

[Scribble]

I wonder if there is a significant population of gamers who use no setting at all. Could that effect setting support?

 

[The_Universe]

I am sure that lots of gamers don't use a setting in its entirety. I, in fact, use a total homebrew. But I have a bunch of Forgotten Realms supplements, and I get a lot of use out all of the Iron Kingdoms and Scarred Lands stuff I have - all for my homebrew. As long as campaign settings are a good mix of fluff and crunch, they can be great sellers. Often moreso than splatbooks, since even if you don't end up using a lot from a setting, it's a lot more fun to read on its own.