Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dmccoy1693" data-source="post: 6620181" data-attributes="member: 51747">Funny thing, before 4e's official announcement, I remember Scott Rouse coming on these board and asking that if you were in charge of D&D's fluff division, what would you do. One popular idea in that thread (IIRC, I argued for it as well) was for yearly campaign settings. And that was exactly what they did with 4e. It did not turn out well. IMO, it was the execution that killed it. I did not figure that Wizards would treat the Forgotten Realms in that way. I thought it would be their one setting that would get support every year. I also suggested (IIRC) that after their first year, the settings should be licensed off to D&D Compatible publishers to continue their support after the highest profit period for that setting was over, which didn't happen. Instead we got a campaign setting book, a short adventure, and either a player's guide or a monster book (in dark sun's case). We got generic supplements, but all in all the campaign settings themselves did not receive much support. So it is down to an execution problem, not an idea problem.When people argued for a long campaign, I don't think that they meant for that being the only support the game gets. I think those that argued for it felt that their campaigns should be the focus point for a series of supplements: a campaign setting book for the general area for game masters (that can also be used to make your own adventures), player's supplement(s) that may or may not have anything to do with the campaign, and a number of short adventures that could be used with that particular campaign if it went off the rails or could just as easily be used in someone's home campaign. So again, we come down to execution, not the idea. Elemental Evil's Player's Companion is a great start for the player's supplement, but more is desired.</blockquote>

Verification