So nobody bought the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Dark Sun books for 4e? I can see an argument for not producing a new Mystara setting or leaving Jackandor alone, but WotC literally is throwing money away to discuss old settings?
Jeez, I guess the Christmas layoffs must have paid for that UA Eberron article then.
I'm sure plenty of people bought those 4E setting books. The question is: did
enough people buy those books? I don't have Wizards' sales figures, but only a fraction of the player base is ever going to buy a Forgotten Realms book, or an Eberron book, or a Dark Sun book. It doesn't even matter how big a fraction - those books still cost them as much as a core book to produce, even though it's not going to sell anywhere near as many copies as said core book. So even if it's not a money
loser - even if it earns a profit on top of making back whatever it had cost to produce it - it still might not make economical sense for them to go down that route. If nothing else they could allocate that budget to marketing Magic and likely see a far greater return on their investment.
Again, I don't ever expect a Darokin Gazetteer book, or The Factol's Manifesto, or even Scarlet Brotherhood sourcebook. But SOMETHING to refresh. Give me a web article, or the oft-mentioned "Worlds of D&D" book. Don't tell me D&D's strength is its settings, then say "but we're not touching that strength, you're on your own."
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're not expecting a Darokin or Scarlet Brotherhood sourcebook because those products are probably niche products that won't sell as well as a big campaign setting book. But what Wizards' actions are leading me to believe is that
even a big campaign setting book is too niche. If they thought it would sell well, they'd put one out. As it stands, D&D doesn't have a terribly big budget for such products, so they're not going to allocate resources to anything that won't be a huge seller.
I'd like to see web articles myself. Actually, what I'd
really like to see is the return of Dragon and Dungeon. That would solve most everyone's complaints. With the recent Fantasy Grounds announcement coming out of left field, it's entirely possible that they
are working on getting them off the ground.
But ultimately I enjoy the game whether there are articles or not, so it doesn't really affect me if they're
not in the works. Personally I do think the settings should see the support you're asking for, but I don't think it's particularly harmful to the game to wait a year or two to come out with it. Most players don't play in a given setting, and I'd wager that there's a significant portion who do so but are ultimately indifferent to setting entirely - they are just using the Sword Coast because it's where the adventure paths are set.
I don't want Princes of the Apocalypse or Hoard/Rise of Tiamat. Guess they shouldn't have produced them.
Personally, neither do I, though I was pretty stoked to get the free Player's Companion with the elemental races and spells. But you're ignoring pemerton's point there, that what is going to determine what gets produced is going to rely on how well they'll sell.
Judging by the size of the D&D team and the product release schedule so far, I don't think it's a matter of producing a campaign setting book
in addition to the adventure paths - it's a matter or producing one
instead of the other.
Whether you or I like the APs is besides the point - they still sell better than campaign sourcebooks, so that's what's going to get made.
Ah yes. The time-honored "do it yourself" Well thank's WotC. I guess I don't need to buy another book from you since I can just "make it up myself." Except for the fact that their stuff is playtested (at least somewhat) and has some of the kinks worked out.
Wizards' doesn't have infinite time and money, dude - and the D&D has even less. Whatever's going to get produced is going to have to be prioritized. Do they release the Mul racial stats and Dark Sun subclasses first thing, when players have been screaming for the Warforged and Artificer, or the mass combat rules that were cut from the DMG?
They're working on one thing at a time, and you're perfectly entitled to express your differences of opinion on how things get prioritized, but one way or another, the trade off for expecting Wizards' to do something for you instead of doing it yourself is that you will have to
wait for it.
Possibly indefinitely - at the rate they're going, they might never get around to Spelljammer, for example.
It'd be nice if they announced that's what they are doing so I can expect that there will be a Ravenloft UA or a Dragonlance UA. Instead, we get these vague "non-announcements" for D&D's future that leaves one wondering exactly what ARE they supporting. Its never a good sign that 10 months after a major release we have no idea as to what support this game is getting beyond a monthly pseudo-playtest document and two annual Adventures (with possible accompanying 25 page player document).
What leads you to believe there is going to be anything
other than a monthly pseudo-playtest document and two annual adventures with possible accompanying 25 page player document? That's all they've committed to publicly.
I don't want the glut of 3e. I don't want 4e's book-of-the-month club. I don't want 2e's constant churn of material. But I want something. The vague pronouncements were fine in January, its April now. I just want to know what, going forward, is the status of non-Realms D&D settings: occasional name drops, web support, printed, or silence.
God, I want that jury duty to be over...
Everyone's definition of "something" is different. You're asking for setting stuff. What happens if they release Eberron first? The Dark Sun fans will scream bloody murder. Put out Dark Sun next? Now the Planescape fans are upset. Release Planescape? Now the old-school crowd is hammering them for abandoning they've been neglecting Greyhawk this whole time. And the Dragonlance crowd... are honestly probably used to being the red-headed stepchild by this point and have just adapted the old adventures to 5E themselves, so good on them I guess.
And that's
just the settings. Other folks on the boards are demanding the return of prestige classes. Others want smaller plug-in adventures as opposed to big APs. Others want the MMII, and they want it now. Still others are insisting that what Wizards
needs to do is introduce 4E-style tactical combat and bring the Warlord back. And how could Wizards' have possibly been so arrogant to ignore the demands of the fans who wanted to see psionics rules in the PHB on day one?
The only way they can cater to all of the above
is 3.5 style glut, and it's not even the fact that 3.5 style glut is bad for the long-term prospects of the game that's preventing them from doing that.
It's that there's only ~8 developers working on D&D right now, and they don't have the
ability to work on more than 1 or 2 things at a time. They could spell out for us exactly what those things will be a year in advance, but why enrage the most vocal forum-ites by telling them they're not getting the Complete Guide to Illuskan Dairy Farmers for at least another year, when they can just release an adventure path and enrage the most vocal forum-ites
then?
It's a strange game, this "communication" you're asking for. The only winning move is not to play.
