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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GVDammerung" data-source="post: 3590591" data-attributes="member: 33060">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.</blockquote>

Verification