Less is More? Less books per setting equal more enjoyment?

[Holy Bovine]

It was a big part of it. The biggest contributor was probably the debt racked up by the Blumes way back in the day as by all later accounts, spending was off the charts crazy.

There are also several former TSR and WotC employees who pointed to the fact that TSR had been overprinting and underselling for quite a while. From Ryan Dancey:

A link to the whole article is here. The thing that seems to be consistently mentioned, however, is Random House calling in their markers for unsold books (most of which were D&D books). I'm certain that things like Buck Rogers and Dragon dice played roles, as well, but they were apparently very small roles.

Thanks for digging all that up jdrakeh. I remembered reading it back when it was written but couldn't find links to it now.

 

[Holy Bovine]

One of the reasons I based my FR campaign in the Gray Vale was aside from a couple of modules and books, it was fairly untouched by anyone but me.
I had my npc characters running inns or smithys, pc's retired there providing training or that little bit of extra 'muscle' for an adventure. One of FR 4E's tenets was to explore some little used areas and wouldn't you know it, but my base of operations Loudwater, was there new sample town.
So, all my history get's wiped out.

Bel

Uh, why? You actually trashed your campaign because of what was written in a book? That is more than a little bizarre to me.

 

[TheYeti1775]

Uh, why? You actually trashed your campaign because of what was written in a book? That is more than a little bizarre to me.

Because many players/GM's especially those in public games where folks join in at gamestores try to stick specifically to canon to solve the problems of players being able to point and reference a page number.

I kind of like the 3 and out method. It allows them the option of more books if there is a large enough demand, but keeps the 'book' support minimal in that their investment in trying something new or reviving an old setting more plausible.
Under the 3.5E method a Spelljammer supplement would have had to run several books to fit their model they used on FR and Eberron. Whereas a 3 & out model would be a Campaign Guide, a Players Guide, and a Ship & Monsters Guide.
It allows for the Darksun to make a comeback in the same way, with it helping push sales of the Psionic book (from the General Line) to come out as well.

Main reason for asking the question was, knowing it's a 3 & out model. I think I would be more likely to pick up a setting, regardless of it's edition.

 

[Asmor]

Yes, although there's a somewhat crazy revisionist theory going around that says basically the opposite, too.

-O

Everyone knows TSR failed because they wasted all that money on faking the moon landing.

 

[SSquirrel]

jdrakeh>Curses, beat me to posting that article BTW, for anyone curious, searching for "ryan dancey tsr warehouse" will pull that up as the first hit on google.

I really don't know how anyone could read that and try to come up w/some version where that didn't have anything to do with TSR's bankruptcy. The insane spending and nepotism mention about the Blume's sure didn't help tho.

 

[Mistwell]

Telling, from that article:

Our customers were telling us that we produced too many products, and that the stuff we produced was of inferior quality? We can fix that. We can cut back on the number of products we release, and work hard to make sure that each and every book we publish is useful, interesting, and of high quality.

Our customers were telling us that we spent too much time on our own worlds, and not enough time on theirs? Ok - we can fix that. We can re-orient the business towards tools, towards examples, towards universal systems and rules that aren't dependent on owning a thousand dollars of unnecessary materials first.

...We listened when customers told us that they didn't want the confusing, jargon filled world of Planescape. We listened when people told us that the Ravenloft concept was overshadowed by the products of a competitor. We listened to customers who told us that they want core materials, not world materials.

 

[Belorin]

Uh, you know you don't *have* to use their version? You could have kept your own Loudwater, maybe importing anything you liked from theirs.

Uh, why? You actually trashed your campaign because of what was written in a book? That is more than a little bizarre to me.

The truth was, I was burning out on the Gray Vale, after running two 5+ year campaigns plus mini campaigns (for trying out new classes, races or Neat Ideas) I was kind of painted into a corner, it's hard to retcon your own lore. So, I have always been intrigued by the Moonshaes, ever since 'Darkwalker on Moonshae'. The fact that Loudwater was in the FRCG was an amusing coincidence that helpd me make the move.
I did take things I liked from new editions, I thought the Specialty Priests of 2E were a terrific idea, though they needed more testing. The fact that they were converted to PrC's in 3.x was a change that never got made in my campaign.


Bel

 

[Shemeska]

It was a big part of it.

Thanks for the quotes and such, it's appreciated. I'm still not convinced though that heavy setting support was any real part of TSR's downfall though, mostly because none of the quotes mention it at all. There's talk of unsold books, but it could very well be tons of copies of the generic stuff like Wilderness Survival Guide or Complete Priest's Handbook, etc.

Of course a source addressing this directly would sway me, but while many people seem quick to attribute multiple settings and their support as a reason for TSR's fall, it seems to almost always be said by folks who don't want heavy setting support. It seems repeated with sourcing and I haven't seen anything that actually supports the notion. TSR was horribly mismanaged near the end, and they also supported lots of different, potentially competing settings, but the latter doesn't have anything to directly tie it into the first.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Of course a source addressing this directly would sway me, but while many people seem quick to attribute multiple settings and their support as a reason for TSR's fall, it seems to almost always be said by folks who don't want heavy setting support.

Read the "30 Years of D&D" book that came out a few years ago. IIRC, it talks a bit about this.

Or next time he's around, ask Charles Ryan.

Or, for that matter, just consider the economic realities of books aimed at a niche of a niche, versus those aimed at the whole.

I love setting support. Settings are some of my favorite parts of D&D. But yes, the glut of settings absolutely helped bring down TSR. I'm sorry that you don't like that fact--I don't care for it much myself--but it is fact.

 

[Shemeska]

Read the "30 Years of D&D" book that came out a few years ago. IIRC, it talks a bit about this.

*nodnod* I'll have to find a copy.