One new setting a year?

[Ranger REG]

I think I read something about the yearly PHB, MM, and DMG supporting the showcased campaign setting of that year.

So as we know Eberron is coming out in 2009, maybe the PHB of that year will have psionics and warforged etc?

Say what? If I read your statement right, they're making campaign-themed PHB every year.

It was a stoopid decision to release a new version of PHB every year, but to make it campaign-themed (like how Sony put out PSP Star Wars: Battlefront Edition hanheld console)?

 

[Daztur]

Here's how I guess that WotC will do settings (with the big ones like FR being the exception) in 4ed:

Most worlds will have a theme that can be used in more than one world (Asian, Horror, Steampunk, Extreme environments, Kingdom management, whatever).

In the player's guide to the setting book they'll be a lot of that crunch, some specific setting information and a good bit of information about how to use the crunch that fits around the setting's main theme in other campaign worlds.

In the DM's guide to the setting they'll be mostly fluff with a few monsters and things. But they'll also be information about how to incorporate that setting's fluff into homebrew and other published worlds.

Basically I think that stuff like Heroes of Horror, Heroes of Battle, Frostburn, etc. will be incorporated into the yearly setting books. So that way the people would want Heroes of Horror-style crunch but don't want to play in Ravenloft will still be able to use the crunch for their own worlds.

And then since splatbooks on specific locations inside of campaign worlds and campaign world specific modules don't sell well, stick all of them into DI but don't waste money publishing them in any way beyond that.

Seems like that'd work.

 

[Hussar]

You can slap a Dungeon adventure into any setting. I can't imagine a new setting will be so different -- all characters are intelligent waveforms differentiated by their frequency! -- that you can't do that.

Really? I could slap Here There Be Monsters into Ravenloft? Without any problem? I don't think so. How about Planescape?

Whizbang - what you are saying runs counter to what Paizo has been saying for years - that setting specific modules are no different than generics. They've repeatedly stated that this isn't true.

Sure, you can put any module into FR or Greyhawk, but, that's because those are vanilla settings. Try putting a standard generic Dungeon adventure into Spelljammer.

As to setting books giving me more work - yes they do. With a pure homebrew, while I do have to create some of the background material, I only have to create what I need. With a published book, assuming I'm actually going to use it, not only do I have to make all the adventures, but, I also have to make sure that those adventures fit within the canon established within the setting book. In other words, I'm working for two masters instead of one.

Unless the DI is going to publish a Hell of a lot more than 3 modules a month, you're dreaming if you think these one off settings will get module support. 'Cos it's not 3 modules, it's 2 since WOTC's already stated they are going to do Adventure Paths. Figure on 24 modules/year, 5 FR, 5 Eberron, 10 generic, that leaves 4 extra modules. You MIGHT get one module/year supporting a one off setting book. Whoopee. That's not support, that's barely a scrap.

 

[Baby Samurai]

It was a stoopid decision to release a new version of PHB every year

I think it's a lovely little decision, as I would like to see a fat, concentrated PHB, MM and DMG every year than the scattered, often mostly filler, crap splat books we’ve been getting by the dozen every year.

Would you like to keep buying books such as Complete Gnome Janitor Handbook?

 

[Ranger REG]

It would be great to see WotC do something daring like DS or PS again.

They did. It was Ghostwalk.

If they do revisit any old settings, I would love to see a full re-imagining of Spelljammer that loses the goofy stuff and emphasizes the dangerous space fantasy and swashbuckling elements.

By "goofy stuff," I would interpet them as phlogistons and crystal shells. I want a specific standalone setting for Spelljammer with its own unique flavor, not some "bridge-crossing" setting to connect Krynn to Faerun, for example.

 

[Nellisir]

It won't last. FR and Eberron are the golden geese right now, or the cash cows - your choice. And print products still outsell pdfs by a scale of...thousands? Close to that. It's one thing for a bunch of us to wax nostalgic online about Spelljammer and Mystara -- it's another to convince the other 99% of the market that they want a book with gun-toting hippos instead of good ol' Drizzt Do'Urden. Even if they release one setting a year in addition to FR/Eb material, sales on the one-shots will drift lower and lower every year.

Taladas. Jakanador. Ghostwalk.

(And honestly...been to Ravenloft, have the t-shirt. Ditto Planescape. Ditto Dark Sun. Ditto Spelljammer. It'd be a shame if WotC had nothing better to do for the next decade than rerun old hits, like a RPG version of a golden-oldies radio station.)

 

[Joël of the FoS]

Turns out that maybe Ravenloft and other classic names do have some selling power, huh?

Yes! If the decision isn't already made, which I doubt at this point, I also hope that WotC's new RL novels for next year is a test on the popularity of RL. If they sell well, we'll have RL in 4e.

But I'd like to note that one book to introduce/re-introduce a new setting a year can be tricky to make (how do you condense RL or PS or DS into just one book?), and can be a cruel disapointment/subject of bad comments, if it is severely flawed according to old time fans.

Joël

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Really? I could slap Here There Be Monsters into Ravenloft? Without any problem? I don't think so. How about Planescape?

I have no idea what that adventure is.

Whizbang - what you are saying runs counter to what Paizo has been saying for years - that setting specific modules are no different than generics. They've repeatedly stated that this isn't true.

I think Mona and company are as swell as the next guy, but I don't think even they would say they're infallible.

Sure, you can put any module into FR or Greyhawk, but, that's because those are vanilla settings. Try putting a standard generic Dungeon adventure into Spelljammer.

"This dungeon is on a world you reach via spelljamming. Done."

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Would you like to keep buying books such as Complete Gnome Janitor Handbook?

If it's the first time we get gnomes with a full PC racial write-up, yes.

(And honestly...been to Ravenloft, have the t-shirt. Ditto Planescape. Ditto Dark Sun. Ditto Spelljammer. It'd be a shame if WotC had nothing better to do for the next decade than rerun old hits, like a RPG version of a golden-oldies radio station.)

Very well put. Having said that, classic rock stations are pretty darn popular.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have no idea why they'd want to revisit the settings of aeons past when they have an entire community posting about their home settings on Gleemax, ready for free and easy publication because All Your Posts Are Belong to Gleemax.

Seriously. Community pipeline = a new Eberron (a setting harvested from the fans) every year.

I think they WILL revisit some old settings. OA. Ravenloft. FR, Eberron, Dragonlance (maybe). Greyhawk (maybe). Sigil is becoming less and less likely with the new cosmology rendering most of PS incompatible, meta-plot-wise with 4e (You could still do it, but one key aspect of PS was the planar arrogance over "primes" who thought they knew how the planes worked, and you'd loose that). Dark Sun is a possibility, it's very much in line with a Points of Light feel, and they might tackle it for a 4e Psionics HB.

I'd seriously doubt the rest, and I think they'd be much more interested in making new settings than in re-hashing the old ones and annoying the purists in the process.