One new setting a year?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I would define a successful setting as one which continues to be supported. A setting that has fallen by the wayside, is, by definition, not successful, since, if it were successful, it would be popular enough to receive continued support.

So a setting that was, by design, going to be one fat sourcebook and that's it, could not be a success?

I think your definition is a little narrow.

 

[Nellisir]

I feel that, man. The question becomes, should it be a pre-Prism Pentad book, or take place after the changes?

Whichever it is, 60% of the posters will want the other one.

 

[exile]

I'm just catching the tail end of this discussion, but if they're going to make one big, fat Drak Sun hardcover campaign setting (which I would love beyond words that I can type here), it should be big enough to cover pre- and post- Prism Pentad periods. It could ignore the work done in Dungeon and Dragon a few years ago though so far as I am concerned.

Chad

 

[Hussar]

SSquirrel - Y'know, I never thought about that. Setting books, to me, have always been the domain of the DM. Why would players buy them since even adventureless setting books are still loaded with spoilers? But, I suppose, lots of players buy something like the Oriental Adventures book as well.

Hrm, I think I may have found why no one ever listens to my brilliant idea.

Well, no one except Paizo that is. There's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Look at the Pathfinder series and that's precisely what I think setting books should look like.

 

[Ranger REG]

4.0. Heroes of Chivalry, incl. some rules (spells, items, classes), generic talk about how to be a "proper knight/noble king" in D&D, a little setting (may or may not include Birthright elements), a short scenario.

Actually, I prefer Heroes of Honor that showcase not only Western knights but also Eastern knights as well.

 

[SSquirrel]

SSquirrel - Y'know, I never thought about that. Setting books, to me, have always been the domain of the DM. Why would players buy them since even adventureless setting books are still loaded with spoilers? But, I suppose, lots of players buy something like the Oriental Adventures book as well.

Hrm, I think I may have found why no one ever listens to my brilliant idea.

Well, no one except Paizo that is. There's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Look at the Pathfinder series and that's precisely what I think setting books should look like.

See but the Adventurepath books tell details of a small corner of a world, frequently it has been of Greyhawk. Setting books typically cover an entire continent or planet. I would not want to ty and condense a setting like FR to 100 pages. It has existed too long and had way too many stories told by too many people.

Players buy campaign settings b/c they're neat nifty things. In the past, these were the cool boxed sets. It was actually easier in my experience if several of the players already owned the campaign setting. I can make up my own secrets of the world that the other players don't know and it helps them be more immersed in the world. If someone says to you that you are near the ruins of Myth Drannor and you have never read anything from FR, you would assume it was probably someplace important, but what would you really glean from that? If you own the campaign setting and have read that it was one of the Elves strongholds, it was overrun in a war, etc etc, then when the DM mentions that, you instantly get excited that you're actually going to be going THERE!

Setting books didn't used to be entirely the domain of the DM, at least half the product would typically be listed as Player's Guide or World information of some sort. If a typical group has 4 players and 1 DM and you're trying to sell at least 1/3 of your products to 1 individual, you won't have nearly as many sales as if you tailor the information a bit more and make it interesting enough that maybe another 2 of those people at the table end up with the same book. More sales equal more profits equal the lengthening of the lifespan of whatever the current edition of D&D is.

 

[Hussar]

See but the Adventurepath books tell details of a small corner of a world, frequently it has been of Greyhawk. Setting books typically cover an entire continent or planet. I would not want to ty and condense a setting like FR to 100 pages. It has existed too long and had way too many stories told by too many people.

Meh. Many, many setting books cover one country, or even one city. Actually, the number of setting books that cover the entire setting vs setting books which cover a small part of that setting is a pretty small ratio.

Like I said, I've realized a while ago that I'm not the target audience for setting books. I find most of them entirely irrelavent to a given game. I'd much rather buy a book that is actually going to see use than one that sits on my shelf gathering dust.

I have way too many of the latter for comfort.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Hey, wait a minute, am I the only one who liked Ghostwalk? Hello? Anybody here? Where did everybody go?

*Walks quietly back in the room and stands next to you*

I too liked Ghostwalk and would love it if every single campaign setting WotC released were given the same one-shot treatment. I think a setting can become polluted and/or watered down when too much material is released for it (FR/DL etc).

 

[Zweischneid]

Actually, I prefer Heroes of Honor that showcase not only Western knights but also Eastern knights as well.

But than it would cease to be a setting (i.e. everything you need to play at an Camelot-like court, including to but not limited to arthurian knights) and turn into a concept book (knightly/honorable characters of all sort of varieties, not linked to a specific setting).

Two very different things. And I'm not fond of the latter. I'd rather see the eastern knights treated in an eastern-flavored campaign setting where they are presented in context.

 

[Ranger REG]

But than it would cease to be a setting (i.e. everything you need to play at an Camelot-like court, including to but not limited to arthurian knights) and turn into a concept book (knightly/honorable characters of all sort of varieties, not linked to a specific setting).

You were going for a setting book? I was going for a themebook, like 2e's Castle Guide.

Two very different things. And I'm not fond of the latter. I'd rather see the eastern knights treated in an eastern-flavored campaign setting where they are presented in context.

Perhaps to you, it would be a waste of ink and page. To me, two great themes in one affordable book.