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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Razz" data-source="post: 3589367" data-attributes="member: 3014">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.I am really stumped by that logic.That would just be downright stupid of WotC to do, personally. Base how popular a setting is by how well a super-adventure tied to it does? That doesn't say anything about how popular Greyhawk is, it would just tell them how popular huge adventures might or might not be. It also still won't say if it was popular because the huge adventure was set in Greyhawk or if it just appealed to DMs that needed to get a good game going.People who haven't heard of, care for, or even want to know about Greyhawk may still get the book anyway just because it's a huge adventure to run their game in. If they want to know if Greyhawk has any appeal anymore, they need to come out with something that's NOT an adventure supplement.This same logic would apply to the trilogy of super-adventures coming out for Forgotten Realms. Why would they think that if many people bought those adventures, it would mean many people want more Forgotten Realms material? It would just mean many people want more Forgotten Realms adventures, not more FR material.What about Expedition to Castle Ravenloft? Did it do well? If so, does that mean Ravenloft 3.5E is coming back? Why wouldn't it if it did well? What makes Greyhawk trump Ravenloft if such a scenario were ture? If Expedition to the Demonweb Pits did well, does that mean we'll see more planar adventures or a return of the Planescape setting? If not, why so? I don't understand their logic. My conclusion is I don't think they should base Greyhawk's popularity on a nostalgic adventure updated to 3.5E.  :\</blockquote>

Verification