I hope and pray for a new setting. The others have all been done enough.
I don't think they needed to talk to Keith Baker at all about Eberron. I am pretty sure that part of the deal when entering the setting contest that Eberron won was that WoTC owned your ip out right.
Maybe they will do a new setting contest.
Ah. That sounds a lot like someone who says there's been no Forgotten Realms support, because they don't like anything after (Time of Troubles, Spellplague, Sundering, etc).
Exactly. WotC owns all the previously mentioned setting and doesn't need any agreement with the original authors. This story (if confirmed) would be about having the authors on board in order to have a version faithful to the original spirit.It's not so much about legal rights as it is about hiring the right man for the job.
That'd be AWESOME, last time they did this, we got an amazing setting!It's not so much about legal rights as it is about hiring the right man for the job.
I guess I just don't consider LG that bad a resource. Many campaigns could beg for hundreds of adventures and hundreds more articles on wotc's website. In addition to official sourcebooks, adventures, and various setting mentions in almost every published product. Generic or otherwise, saying it hasn't appeared since 2e is crazy. It's fine to say you didn't like the treatment of it in 3e, though, sure. I don't like the treatment of many campaign settings during many editions. Or, for that matter, after the primary source drops like when Dark Sun's 2nd box set was retconned away entirely.Um, not at all. LG material is/was unavailable outside of the LG. Official mentions of Greyhawk IP were usually restricted to a name, and when it was more in-depth, often served to make Greyhawk more generic, rather than distinctive. Jester Canuck is absolutely correct in his statement.