Logic behind sales of "Expedition to Castle Greyhawk"?

[caelum]

First of all, it seems pretty obvious to me that this is a "test" for Greyhawk. But of course it's a test - every product that every company ever puts out is, because it helps them decide what to make next! And I'm quite sure that Mr. Rouse and others (who have been kind enough to participate in this thread) are well aware of the many ways in which it is an imperfect test (not everyone buys adventures, not everyone who buys the adventure will do so because of Greyhawk, etc.). But I am quite sure that, to the best of their ability, they will try to interpret the data that comes in use it to make sensible decisions about Greyhawk.

Second, I was around for Greyhawk the first time, and if all you want is the folio...well, all that information is already out there! It really didn't contain much detail, after all. Continuing support for Greyhawk, almost until Second Edition, was entirely through adventures. Paizo has taken this to heart with their new setting and will build it entirely through adventures. Obviously that is not the usual way these days, and I don't know that it will work, but I am really interested to see how it turns out!

Finally, it is not clear to me that WotC ever really thought two settings was the maximum. Really we've had 2.5 or so, because Paizo has stepped in and supported Greyhawk reasonably well (thus pulling people from WotC products, with their tacit approval). Now that WotC has pulled that content back in house, it may well be that they want to support more settings. In fact, the Digitial Initiative may be a great outlet for sporadic but continuing support for many of the old settings, or even new ones. Online delivery has (supposedly) made the "long tail" of niche products profitable again, because delivery/storage is so cheap. I've no idea if that's actually true, but the idea is a big deal in the business world now. I personally was very upset to see Dragon/Dungeon go, but if WotC takes the content in this direction, I think that would be great.

 

[amethal]

In the end, I'll probably pass on Expedition to Castle Greyhawk. I'm not happy about it, but I'm not the sort of person to buy something just to stick it on a shelf.

Me neither. My shelves are full. Most of the stuff I buy gets read once then put in a box in the attic

 

[amethal]

Finally, it is not clear to me that WotC ever really thought two settings was the maximum. Really we've had 2.5 or so, because Paizo has stepped in and supported Greyhawk reasonably well (thus pulling people from WotC products, with their tacit approval). Now that WotC has pulled that content back in house, it may well be that they want to support more settings. In fact, the Digitial Initiative may be a great outlet for sporadic but continuing support for many of the old settings, or even new ones. Online delivery has (supposedly) made the "long tail" of niche products profitable again, because delivery/storage is so cheap. I've no idea if that's actually true, but the idea is a big deal in the business world now.

In theory, there's no reason why the digital initiative couldn't have a weekly (or more often) article on Greyhawk by Eric Mona, on Eberron by Keith Baker, on the Realms by Ed Greenwood, on Dragonlance by Margaret Weis, on all the other settings by anyone who cared to contribute and met WotC quality control standards, plus all the best bits from the top entries to the setting search.

Stick the best bits from each setting as a print on demand book on a (more or less) annual basis and we'll all be happy.

 

[GVDammerung]

. . . Just being Greyhawk isn't enough, it needs to fill a need that the other settings don't fill.

WotC seems to have a hard time with settings. They don't seem able to design settings to fill needs. . . .

QFT. Being Greyhawk alone is not enough. As much as that may be unpleasant for some long time fans to hear. Greyhawk needs to have a sense of identity over and above merely being the Grand Old Man of D&D settings. It needs such an identity to profitably sell to a new generation of Greyhawk fans, fans to be. It has to be marketed to be profitably sold and needs an identity that can be conveyed to a potential audience to be successfully marketed. That said, the baby need not necessarily be entirely thrown out with the bathwater. Reimagine the setting but keep it recognizable as Greyhawk, even if not one's father's or grandfather's Greyhawk exactly.

I will demure with respect to Wotc's ability with settings. Wotc has produced only one setting - Eberron. Everything else was inherited from TSR. Eberron is very much an intentionally designed setting. And a pretty good one, IMO, although I prefer Greyhawk as it is more classically "medieval fantasy." Still, I steal bits I like from Eberron for my GH campaign. Point being, Wotc has only designed Eberron and I will not fault them in the setting design department with only one design, especially as I think it is pretty good effort.

 

[GVDammerung]

Second, I was around for Greyhawk the first time, and if all you want is the folio...well, all that information is already out there! It really didn't contain much detail, after all.

That the"information is "out there," some where, misses the point. If Greyhawk is to attract new fans one of the attractions is not going to be that you have to conduct a scavenger hunt to find the basics of the setting. The basic setting information needs to be in print, readiably available. What's more, the previous comprehensive GH setting treatments (Folio, 83 Box, FtA, LGG) are all dated in terms of GH canon. The setting has advanced beyond each of these. Thus, the general information that is "out there" is not current with the subsequently developed details of the setting. LGG comes the closest but it has been passed by by degrees by 3X Wotc references, Paizo-Hawk and certainly by Living Greyhawk.

What's more, if there was a Gaming Product Hall of Fame, the Folio would be in it, and not just because it was the first. Gary Gygax, in relatively few pages, provied a staggering amount of detail in the Folio, to include any number of seemingly throwaway bits that have inspired other Greyhawk designers for years. And there remain bits that still await exploration for the GH fan. The Folio is nothing short of a masterpiece of design even by todays standards and too look solely at its page length misses the forest for the trees. IMO. YMMV.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

WotC seems to have a hard time with settings. They don't seem able to design settings to fill needs. The Realms is a huge, sprawling, high magic realm. Why isn't there a smaller, low-magic setting that's easier for a GM to master?

To be fair, when TSR explicitly did this with Thunder Rift, the audience responded with a thunderous yawn, despite the line getting a lot of support, in terms of the number of products.

Now, if everyone and their brother picked up the Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde (which in many ways is a comparable setting) and demanded more support for it, things might be different. But that doesn't seem to have happened, despite mostly good reviews.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In theory, there's no reason why the digital initiative couldn't have a weekly (or more often) article on Greyhawk by Eric Mona, on Eberron by Keith Baker, on the Realms by Ed Greenwood, on Dragonlance by Margaret Weis, on all the other settings by anyone who cared to contribute and met WotC quality control standards, plus all the best bits from the top entries to the setting search.

Stick the best bits from each setting as a print on demand book on a (more or less) annual basis and we'll all be happy.

The DI will make it easy to track which settings get the most interest, since they can count unique visitors to each page. If, over time, it becomes clear that everyone's reading all the Greyhawk stuff (and since they're counting uniques, they won't have to worry about 10 GH fans clicking each link 10,000 times each), getting an annual compilation seems like a pretty good bet for the truly popular settings. (I love me some Mystara and Al-Qadim, but have no illusions about their relative popularity.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That the"information is "out there," some where, misses the point.

I agree. The LGG book needs to return to print, at a minimum.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

See here's the thing.

Wotc has long and well articulated the premise that the D&D brand can only support so many settings or else the audience for the brand becomes fractured and sales falter as a consequence. Indeed, this is the most often (though not exclusive) cited reason for the "Fall of TSR" that allowed Wotc to buy the brand.

Wotc has pegged, to this point, the magic number of sustainable settings at two - the Forgotten Realms and Eberron. Has this thinking changed? Is a third setting now seen as supportable? That has not been articulated and, absent such articulation there is no reason to suppose the magic number is still not at two, as it has been throughout 3X Edition.

So. Let's say Expedition the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk sells through the roof and every other factor that would auger for a revived Greyhawk campaign setting is positive or at least neutral. Now what? If only two settings can be sustained for the D&D brand and those two spots are filled, everything else being positive or even, there is no slot open for Greyhawk.

Going to move aside either Eberron or FR for Greyhawk? I don't think so. Going to now say that three setting are sustainable? That would be great but there has been no indication that the "three's a crowd" thinking has changed.

Thus, no matter how well Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk does, it will have zero impact on whether Greyhawk gets setting support because the two slots for supported settings are occupied by Eberron and FR.

The best that outstanding sales might allow would be for another Greyhawk based adventure. That's okay but it is nowhere near genuine setting support. Holding out the sales of Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk as being potentially related to the fate of the _setting_ is disengenuous, unless Wotc's thinking on sustainable settings has radically changed.

While Greyhawk fans will welcome Greyhawk material, if you are familiar with the conversations on Greyhawk specific fourms, what you will see is that Greyhawk fans, at least a vocal plurality, desire a new articulation of the Greyhawk setting, mostly because such a foundation is believed necessary to attract new fans to make sustained setting support viable. Greyhawk themed adventures are nice but they don't feed the need.

" . . . most discussion around the setting focus on how we can make it a viable for sale product line." Perhaps you meant to say more clearly whether some additional Greyhawk themed adventures would be profitable? That could certainly constitute a "product line" grounded in the "setting." It is, however, far from genuine setting support. That distinction matters, as noted above.

The last full articulation of the Greyhawk setting was the Living Greyhawk Gazateer and that was going on 8 years ago. The LGG is still available but out of print.

Adventures for a setting whose basic outline is well out of print will have sales limited to some degree to those already familiar with the setting. Such an adventure preachs to the choir, as it were. That choir is then Living Greyhawk fans, supposing that they are as much Greyhawk fans as fans merely of a well constructed and run "living" campaign. Plus the Greyhawkers who exist outside the confines of the RPGA campaign, of course.

This is where a GH adventure as opposed to a setting articulation makes sense and I believe is where Wotc is hanging its hat. The thought is not to revive Greyhawk support to the level of an Eberron or Realms, no matter how well the adventure sells, but rather to see if some dollars can't be generated by sales to the Living Greyhawk and Greyhawk grognard faithful. That's fine but don't confuse it with "setting" support as that at best confuses the issue. Adventure support is, I believe, a better term for what is possibly at stake with the success of Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk.

As a setting, supported in some manner to be comparable to Eberron or FR , at least to the degree of having an in print setting sourcebook, the success or failure of Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk will be irrelevant. I believe the actual thought at Wotc is "can we sell some Greyhawk themed adventures?" That is a world away from true setting support for Greyhawk because Greyhawk does not have a setting product in print and hasn't had one for years. You can't have true setting support, support going beyond adventures, even one including background material, without an in print setting.

You indicate Wotc is interested in Greyhawk at least to the extent of having discussions "on how we can make it a viable for sale product line." Toward this end, we will see Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk. Please allow me to suggest that if you wish to maximize the potential of Greyhawk themed adventures, a fresh articulation of the Greyhawk setting itself is a necessary part of this calculus. Without meaning to be snarky, anything less is going to leave a great number of Greyhawk fans feeling the effort by Wotc is half-hearted at best, with a likely negative impact on sales as a great many gamers look for a supported setting as a going concern before they really engage with that setting, particularly an adventure heavily grounded in such setting. By some measure, I believe Wotc is putting the cart before the horse, offering adventures without an in print setting articulaton.

Setting first. Adventures second. Or, all due respect, don't try to convince me you are serious about supporting the setting.

I would argue that the "two setting" notion is incorrect since currently we support Forgotten Realms, Eberron, & Dragonlance (licensed to MWP). Core D&D should be considered a setting as well just on the sheer amount of content. There is a belief that TSR in the 2nd edition days over-saturated the market with settings that split the market into to many smaller customer groups but that was with 9 plus settings. There is no belief that the rule is "2 only".

Now does that mean every setting gets a setting 300 page campaign setting book, 12 supplements a year, plus adventures? No. But there certainly is a room to provide varying levels of support.

When we have discussions about settings support Greyhawk is usually on the table.

 

[danzig138]

It's the new adventure format seen in all recent WotC adventures, starting (I think) with "Scourge of the Howling Horde".

That's how advetures should be set up. I do mine in a similar way, except for maps in my documents. I hate flipping pages in a module.