Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7172675" data-attributes="member: 22779">The lack of Warlords is an easy one.&nbsp; There simply weren't enough 4e players to make a difference.&nbsp; That's the hard and fast truth.&nbsp; Instead of being 10% of players being pissed that warlords were excluded, it's 1% (totally made up number) simply because so few fans were 4e hold outs.&nbsp; So, you don't get the gnome effect.However, if you exclude monks, barbarians, and a bunch of other stuff, it's pretty darn likely that you're going to run into it.&nbsp; At least a LOT more likely anyway.And, so what if it was one of the top 5 TSR settings?&nbsp; Woohoo?&nbsp; That's like being Valedictorian in Summer School.&nbsp; Sure, you're the best in the class, but, the class is made up of those that couldn't actually make the grade.&nbsp; Again, that's the hard truth.There's Forgotten Realms and then there's everyone else.&nbsp; The space between 1st place and everyone else is so large that everyone else is a rounding error.&nbsp; And, quite frankly, WotC appears to have zero interest in appealing to any niche products.&nbsp; If it's not going to break that 100k sales bar, it's not going to get published.&nbsp; Which means that any published product has to appeal as broadly as possible.Dinosaur people in the far future fits, but, not cat people or coyote people?&nbsp; Seriously?&nbsp; Look, I've got no horse in this race.&nbsp; I really, really don't care what they include in the book since I'll most likely never buy it and most likely won't play it.&nbsp; But, I also recognize that marketing and business has to play a bigger role here or the product goes in the toilet.&nbsp; No, highly restrictive settings are not popular enough to make the product line.&nbsp; They just aren't.&nbsp; I'm sorry, but, that's the bottom line.&nbsp; There is zero chance that any WotC published setting will not make full use of every other published book.&nbsp; The days of setting for setting's sake books are long behind us.&nbsp; It's just not going to happen.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7172675, member: 22779"] The lack of Warlords is an easy one. There simply weren't enough 4e players to make a difference. That's the hard and fast truth. Instead of being 10% of players being pissed that warlords were excluded, it's 1% (totally made up number) simply because so few fans were 4e hold outs. So, you don't get the gnome effect. However, if you exclude monks, barbarians, and a bunch of other stuff, it's pretty darn likely that you're going to run into it. At least a LOT more likely anyway. And, so what if it was one of the top 5 TSR settings? Woohoo? That's like being Valedictorian in Summer School. Sure, you're the best in the class, but, the class is made up of those that couldn't actually make the grade. Again, that's the hard truth. There's Forgotten Realms and then there's everyone else. The space between 1st place and everyone else is so large that everyone else is a rounding error. And, quite frankly, WotC appears to have zero interest in appealing to any niche products. If it's not going to break that 100k sales bar, it's not going to get published. Which means that any published product has to appeal as broadly as possible. Dinosaur people in the far future fits, but, not cat people or coyote people? Seriously? Look, I've got no horse in this race. I really, really don't care what they include in the book since I'll most likely never buy it and most likely won't play it. But, I also recognize that marketing and business has to play a bigger role here or the product goes in the toilet. No, highly restrictive settings are not popular enough to make the product line. They just aren't. I'm sorry, but, that's the bottom line. There is zero chance that any WotC published setting will not make full use of every other published book. The days of setting for setting's sake books are long behind us. It's just not going to happen. [/QUOTE]

Verification