Logic behind sales of "Expedition to Castle Greyhawk"?

[GVDammerung]

We know how many people play LG and we have a good idea of the market size for the setting. We don't sit around creating plots to screw over Greywhawk fans. Quite the contrary most discussion around the setting focus on how we can make it a viable for sale product line.

Yes Expedition to The Ruins of Greyhawk is a test but it is not the end all be all factor determining support/future products for the setting

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.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Yes Expedition to The Ruins of Greyhawk is a test but it is not the end all be all factor determining support/future products for the setting

Okay. What type of test is it and what criteria will determine the success? Is there going to be a meter that we can see? Is there going to be an ongoing "Greyhawk Check In" so that people can see how well it's selling?

Of it is just more lip service?

 

[Mouseferatu]

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

I disagree. I think that some settings can be supported through the use of regular adventures (and related sourcebooks), without the initial need for a setting book. In fact, that's what Greyhawk was throughout the early years of 1st edition. As long as those books contain setting, historical, political, and cultural info, they should suffice at least for a time.

 

[Mouseferatu]

In addition, if WotC had decided that three settings (or four, or however many) were as sustainable as two, or if they'd decided to let one of the two existing settings go on hiatus for a while, why would you assume that we'd have heard about it? It seems to me that's exactly the sort of market knowledge/research that any smart company keeps to itself until/unless they choose to act on it.

 

[Mortellan]

Well articulated post GVD, it says what I was thinking but in more words as usual. The rule of 2 has a very Sith-feel to it I might add

Since Rouse is reading this thread I will throw in my biggest desire for GH and that is not a new setting book primarily. It is ending the use of GH as the Core world-proper noun pool. Every obscure GH reference in your products trivializes the canon alot of GH fans have accumulated over the editions. Some are spot on yes, but most are slipshod throw-away references that do no service to the GH crowd and carry little weight to people like me who have long running GH campaigns. Removing GH as the Core world then would put the emphasis on GH development where it should be, and that is best, currently mind you, through Living Greyhawk.

 

[Nepenthe]

In addition, if WotC had decided that three settings (or four, or however many) were as sustainable as two, or if they'd decided to let one of the two existing settings go on hiatus for a while, why would you assume that we'd have heard about it? It seems to me that's exactly the sort of market knowledge/research that any smart company keeps to itself until/unless they choose to act on it.

Well, it sure is looking like Dragonlance will be going on a hiatus...

But I do agree on your point about (good) adventures not necessarily needing campaign settings.

 

[GVDammerung]

I disagree. I think that some settings can be supported through the use of regular adventures (and related sourcebooks), without the initial need for a setting book. In fact, that's what Greyhawk was throughout the early years of 1st edition. As long as those books contain setting, historical, political, and cultural info, they should suffice at least for a time.

Well, let's look at that for a moment.

Prior to the Folio, Greyhawk existed as a reference in some adventures. It did not exist as a fully functional setting. One had only bits and pieces to work with. Context beyond a purely local nature was almost totally lacking. Interrelationships between the pieces was similarly lacking. Greyhawk only became a functional setting with the Folio. Certainly, the earlier adventure references whetted the appetite but the payoff - the meal - was the full setting treatment of the Folio.

If we want to imagine a contemporary equivalent, Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk might beget another adventure or two, or three that used Greyhawk as background but the payoff would not be there until a new setting treatment was presented. So far, just what Wotc imagines as the payoff for good sales of Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk remains unclear. The "three's a crowd" setting limit strongly suggests that appetites whet by adventures, no matter how well they sell, cannot be paid off with a full setting treatment because there are only two slots for settings and they are filled.

Nothing indicates Greyhawk can get paid off with a new setting treatment. Of course, Wotc might have a new setting treatment in mind but nothing suggests it and, in fact, all empirical evidence is to the contrary as the two setting rule has not even been hinted at being revisited, let alone revised.

Knowing what is publically available to know, I don't see any conclusion other than that the sales of Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk are irrelevant to the Greyhawk setting and can at best see only the publication of some more adventures that use Greyhawk as a backdrop.

I'm sure you recognize that Greyhawk's use as the backdrop for an adventure, even allowing for some explaination of the particulars of the backdrop necessary to frame the adventure, is distinct from the presentation of Greyhawk as a functional setting.

The desire (at least by many) is for a setting that can support published or home brew adventures within a consistent context. That is not achieved with adventures alone, no matter how well grounded in the setting. I think it worth noting that this desire is born, not just out of personal desire by established fans of Greyhawk, but out of an equal desire of many of those fans to see _new_ fans become drawn to Greyhawk so that it may be profitable for Wotc to more regularly support the setting. In this, I think Wotc's interests and those of a goodly portion of Greyhawk fandom should align. Along this line, I think Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk will be well met but would be more enthusiastically looked forward to if there was some thought that its success could potentially be paid off in a new setting treatment. Talk of "tests" without more rings somewhat hollow otherwise.

 

[mattcolville]

I remember reading someone from WotC or Paizo, not sure which (it might've been Erik Mona, but don't quote me on that) that said they're basing the worth of coming out with more Greyhawk material if Expedition to Castle Greyhawk sells well.

Don't take those guys too literally. I do not interpret that statement as part of a larger plan for Greyhawk.

The fact of the matter is; the folks in charge at WotC don't see Greyhawk as a flashship line. Nor do they see any benefit into developing it into one. Obviously there are some folks there who love it, and so we see some stuff for it every once in a while.

Probably the head guys just repeat "it IS the default setting after all" to the folks there who want to see more for it, and consider the argument closed.

Of course, from our point of view, if they developed it and supported it, it would succeed. But only if it were developed specifically into an alternative to the existing settings. 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. 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?

 

[GVDammerung]

. . . my biggest desire for GH and that is not a new setting book primarily. It is ending the use of GH as the Core world-proper noun pool.

I agree 110% that the use of Greyhawk as "core" or "default" should end. Personally, I treat all 3X Greyhawk references as canon, as much as any other prior, published Greyhawk specific references. Moreso, given the statements in the D&D Gazateer. To that end, and seeing no one else doing so, I've been cataloging the 3X GH references for my own use, following Jason Zavoda's previous, and phenominal, example. Doing so has been unsettling from a contextual standpoint. 3X Greyhawk references rarely support each other in a consistent fashion. In slightly more cases, they are contradictory. However, in the vast majority of cases, they simply ignore one another, going off in myriad directions simultaneously and aimlessly. The result is like an increasingly overgrown hedge that I despair ever being pruned. A hedge that threatens to swallow up the other landscaping.

First things first. IMO, the "core" or "default" use of Greyhawk needs to come to a halt. Then, a new setting treatment is essential, if for no other reason than to deal with the shaggy dog the "core" or "default" designation has created in Greyhawk. While the impulse might be to try to pull Greyhawk together, shape it up and move it forward, having wandered into the thicket of 3X Greyhawk canon, my thought is that Greyhawk should be entirely reimagined, only beholding to that "canon" that is useful to a successful presentation of the setting. Restart the setting unbeholding to the accumulated past, except where such works for the design. IMO, GH canon has reached the point of no return. It is hopelessly bloated and scattered. Best to take a few steps back, IMO, see what is worth keeping, what should be added and forget the rest. I know that is heretical to many but I believe, from a commercial standpoint, it is likely the only way to revive the setting in a commercially viable form, the thought being to look for new fans primarily, accepting that there will be prior fans who can make the jump to light speed but also those who cannot or will not.

 

[amethal]

1. People who don't like the adventures WoTC does due to format, pricing, etc...

2. People who only home brew and find it more trouble some them worthwhile to read through adventurers and steal the elements they want.

3. People who feel that for the price tag, that it should be a sourcebook, not an adventure (I believe many FR fans picked up that one with a few of the adventure hardcovers lately.)

4. People (like me) who normally buy adventures but who are still sulking over the cancellation of Dungeon and are not inclined to send any money WotC's way at the moment and / or have signed up to Pathfinder.