Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 5963160" data-attributes="member: 18182">I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it seems to me that Eberron did very well for WotC and was a &quot;success&quot;.&nbsp; I certainly loved the setting and collected the entire line of books.&nbsp; However, publishing a campaign setting and having it be a &quot;success&quot; doesn't mean it will be published forever.&nbsp; Eberron uses a lot of classic D&amp;D tropes, but turns them at an oblique angle to deliver something new.&nbsp; Very cool.&nbsp; But Eberron is no longer &quot;new&quot; and it certainly doesn't have the staying power of the Realms.&nbsp; That's not an indicator of quality or worth, just the way publishing (and consumers) work.&nbsp; If WotC felt they could have made good money on a full Eberron line for 4E, they would have done so.&nbsp; Eberron was pretty much over before 3E was, as a published setting, because . . . well, what else would you put out for it that enough folks would buy?New Eberron material is still being published through DDI, and we might just see an Eberron book for 5E . . . . but I doubt the setting will ever get the support it did when first published for 3E.If WotC repeated the experiment and released another new setting to offer fans something different . . . we might see a repeat of the same success, followed by the eventual decline and end to the &quot;new&quot; setting's published life.&quot;Standard&quot;, &quot;Core&quot;, &quot;Classic&quot;, &quot;Generic&quot; fantasy settings like the Realms, Greyhawk, Mystara, and even Dragonlance are like comfort food.&nbsp; They may not be all that distinct from one another, may not be terribly innovative as a whole . . . but offer a satisfying, comfortable gaming experience that we keep coming back to after we've tried something more exotic like Eberron or Dark Sun.&nbsp; Nothing wrong with that, IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dire Bare, post: 5963160, member: 18182"] I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it seems to me that Eberron did very well for WotC and was a "success". I certainly loved the setting and collected the entire line of books. However, publishing a campaign setting and having it be a "success" doesn't mean it will be published forever. Eberron uses a lot of classic D&D tropes, but turns them at an oblique angle to deliver something new. Very cool. But Eberron is no longer "new" and it certainly doesn't have the staying power of the Realms. That's not an indicator of quality or worth, just the way publishing (and consumers) work. If WotC felt they could have made good money on a full Eberron line for 4E, they would have done so. Eberron was pretty much over before 3E was, as a published setting, because . . . well, what else would you put out for it that enough folks would buy? New Eberron material is still being published through DDI, and we might just see an Eberron book for 5E . . . . but I doubt the setting will ever get the support it did when first published for 3E. If WotC repeated the experiment and released another new setting to offer fans something different . . . we might see a repeat of the same success, followed by the eventual decline and end to the "new" setting's published life. "Standard", "Core", "Classic", "Generic" fantasy settings like the Realms, Greyhawk, Mystara, and even Dragonlance are like comfort food. They may not be all that distinct from one another, may not be terribly innovative as a whole . . . but offer a satisfying, comfortable gaming experience that we keep coming back to after we've tried something more exotic like Eberron or Dark Sun. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification