Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How WotC will approach the campaign settings?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 6539007" data-attributes="member: 5100"><p>Fair enough, which is why I didn't complain about it when it was released. I genuinely appreciated (and still do) the bone they threw us. It's only an issue in context with the "we're focusing on the Realms" comment. Together, that makes it feel like there really isn't a plan to do any more and they can use it as a technicality to dodge the pitchforks of Eberron fans.</p><p></p><p>In fairness, there may be additional context that's missing. It could be that they're short-staffed enough that they've only got the pipeline to work on one setting book at a time (almost certainly true) and they want and intend to work on another setting after that release, but they're too heads-down to really make a commitment on their next project. <u>That</u> I get. I'm a software developer and I get hammered all the time about what I'm going to work on "next", when I'm still trying to plan out the current six-to-nine-month project.</p><p></p><p>If that's the case, I get that. Personal feelings aside, the Realms are the most popular setting and will sell the most books. Cool. Carry on. I'd like to see the adventures more generic, but I've also advocated that each setting release comes with a single, tightly-coupled adventure to get folks going on it.</p><p></p><p>That's not the way I understood it, though. The quote sounds more like they're going to have some level of formal support for the Realms, but won't be revisiting other settings until/unless something changes. Evidence from HotDQ indicates that the third-party adventures will be pretty hard to decouple from the Realms. If the internal effort is also focused on the Realms, then it's not just a matter of no setting getting first-class treatment, but of one setting taking all the resources to the point where not only do the other settings get left in the cold, but DMs who want to home brew (the norm, IME) lack support.</p><p></p><p>In this case, it's not just a matter of prioritizing limited resources. It's that, but it's prioritizing in a way that I believe is detrimental to the game. I'll change my behavior in such a way as to most effectively send that message (i.e. reduce the fiscal viability of the proposed course) and would encourage others to do the same.</p><p></p><p>Again, if they're going to have reasonably setting-agnostic adventures, my statement doesn't hold. The priority should be 1) home brew or generic setting, 2) basic support for best-selling setting, 3) basic support for premier (i.e. sufficient to break-even or turn profit, with the idea of encouraging core/generic sales) settings, 4) deeper support for higher-profit lines. FWIW, this is why I think a reimagining of Dragon and Dungeon, with occasional hardcover releases, would be the best support model.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 6539007, member: 5100"] Fair enough, which is why I didn't complain about it when it was released. I genuinely appreciated (and still do) the bone they threw us. It's only an issue in context with the "we're focusing on the Realms" comment. Together, that makes it feel like there really isn't a plan to do any more and they can use it as a technicality to dodge the pitchforks of Eberron fans. In fairness, there may be additional context that's missing. It could be that they're short-staffed enough that they've only got the pipeline to work on one setting book at a time (almost certainly true) and they want and intend to work on another setting after that release, but they're too heads-down to really make a commitment on their next project. [U]That[/U] I get. I'm a software developer and I get hammered all the time about what I'm going to work on "next", when I'm still trying to plan out the current six-to-nine-month project. If that's the case, I get that. Personal feelings aside, the Realms are the most popular setting and will sell the most books. Cool. Carry on. I'd like to see the adventures more generic, but I've also advocated that each setting release comes with a single, tightly-coupled adventure to get folks going on it. That's not the way I understood it, though. The quote sounds more like they're going to have some level of formal support for the Realms, but won't be revisiting other settings until/unless something changes. Evidence from HotDQ indicates that the third-party adventures will be pretty hard to decouple from the Realms. If the internal effort is also focused on the Realms, then it's not just a matter of no setting getting first-class treatment, but of one setting taking all the resources to the point where not only do the other settings get left in the cold, but DMs who want to home brew (the norm, IME) lack support. In this case, it's not just a matter of prioritizing limited resources. It's that, but it's prioritizing in a way that I believe is detrimental to the game. I'll change my behavior in such a way as to most effectively send that message (i.e. reduce the fiscal viability of the proposed course) and would encourage others to do the same. Again, if they're going to have reasonably setting-agnostic adventures, my statement doesn't hold. The priority should be 1) home brew or generic setting, 2) basic support for best-selling setting, 3) basic support for premier (i.e. sufficient to break-even or turn profit, with the idea of encouraging core/generic sales) settings, 4) deeper support for higher-profit lines. FWIW, this is why I think a reimagining of Dragon and Dungeon, with occasional hardcover releases, would be the best support model. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How WotC will approach the campaign settings?
Top