One setting per year?

[olshanski]

I've see mentioned that they will release one new setting per year. Considering that 4e will probably be around for 8 years, prehaps the release schedule will look something like this:

2008- Forgotten Realms
2009- Eberron
2010- Greyhawk
2011- Planescape
2012- Dragonlance
2013- Dark Sun
2014- Mystara
2015- Ravenloft

Except that 5E will be published on or before 2013, which throws a wrench in your calculations.

 

[Imaro]

Why is WotC even doing this? Didn't having a bunch of settings segment their market in the 2e days? I specifically remember reading how they wanted to not repeat that in 3e by keeping the official line down to 2.5 settings (FR, Eberron, plus random GH content through RPGA and other venues).

I can't believe that the market realities have changed that much. That, and that would mean WotC will have to compete with itself plus all the third party OGL settings like Scarred Lands (is it being updated?) et al.

C.I.D.

Edit: Aristotle brought up some of my points earlier. I missed his post.

I've actually come to see this line of thinking (and remeber this is all IMHO) that settings segment the market, proven false with 3e. In fact the success of so many D&D settings (Midnight, Scarred Lands, Iron Kingdms, etc.) by 3rd party publishers, and OGL/d20 games like Conan (which is really just another "setting") is what I think galvinized this idea for WotC. It can be done succesfully...if done right.

In the end I think 2e had way more financial problems due to management that the failure or success of it's settings can't be summed up as simply as " caused by splitting of fan base".

 

[dmccoy1693]

I also doubt Ravenloft would be that low in priority, given the new novels, the success of EtCR and its years of cool material WotC could update.

In a poll where many many online people did vote, Ravenloft was third.

I'd suspect Ravenloft to be relatively early, but I'd suspect that Dragonlance be earlier. WotC did say in their official press release when they "extended" MWP's licence of Dragonlance that they plan on doing something special for the anniversary.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

2011- Planescape

Ick Ick ick.
I absolutely detested that setting. Replace that with Spelljammer in your line up, and I'd be a happy camper.

 

[drothgery]

I don't think Ravenloft and Planescape will see the light of day as full-featured settings; they seem better suited as adjuncts to settings.

So I'd guess something more like (if the one setting/year thing holds up, which, like the PHB/MM/DMG every year thing, I kind of suspsect won't)...

2008 FR
2009 Eberron
2010 Greyhawk
2011 New Setting 1
2012 Dragonlance
2013 New Setting 2
2014 Dark Sun

 

[The Little Raven]

I've actually come to see this line of thinking (and remeber this is all IMHO) that settings segment the market, proven false with 3e.

I think Ryan Dancey's tale of the acquisition of TSR, in which they started doing customer surveys of TSR customers for the first time is accurate. In that story, he talks about how two of the top customer complaints were "too many products" and "you spend too much time on campaign settings."

Our customers were telling us that we produced too many products, and that the stuff we produced was of inferior quality? We can fix that. We can cut back on the number of products we release, and work hard to make sure that each and every book we publish is useful, interesting, and of high quality.

Our customers were telling us that we spent too much time on our own worlds, and not enough time on theirs? Ok - we can fix that. We can re-orient the business towards tools, towards examples, towards universal systems and rules that aren't dependent on owning a thousand dollars of unnecessary materials first.

...

We listened when the customers told us that Alternity wasn't what they wanted in a science fiction game. We listened when customers told us that they didn't want the confusing, jargon filled world of Planescape. We listened when people told us that the Ravenloft concept was overshadowed by the products of a competitor. We listened to customers who told us that they want core materials, not world materials. That they buy DUNGEON magazine every two months at a rate twice that of our best selling stand-alone adventures.

So yeah, it does sound like overproduction of multiple campaign settings was a big part of TSR's failure, and this comes from someone who actually knows all the numbers and facts associated with this claim.

 

[Imaro]

I think Ryan Dancey's tale of the acquisition of TSR, in which they started doing customer surveys of TSR customers for the first time is accurate. In that story, he talks about how two of the top customer complaints were "too many products" and "you spend too much time on campaign settings."



So yeah, it does sound like overproduction of multiple campaign settings was a big part of TSR's failure, and this comes from someone who actually knows all the numbers and facts associated with this claim.

Yet when it came down to it...multiple settings did pretty good under 3.x. Meh, show me the numbers and actual data, otherwise, IMHO, it didn't work out that way.

 

[Cyronax]

Yet when it came down to it...multiple settings did pretty good under 3.x. Meh, show me the numbers and actual data, otherwise, IMHO, it didn't work out that way.

I hope you're right! I enjoyed the 2e family of settings. As for 3rd party settings, I was under the impression that most have tanked and/or are successful as a limited print run.

What are the most successful settings outside of WotC? I'd say anything put out by Monte Cook, Scarred Lands, and Conan. What are the others that have big followings?

(I say this from someone who's thought most of the non-Wotc stuff was kind of poor)

C.I.D.

 

[The Little Raven]

Yet when it came down to it...multiple settings did pretty good under 3.x.

I think you're missing the point.

TSR fragmented their own customer base by trying to support something like a dozen settings, several of which were only slight variations on the tradition Eurocentric D&D style. By producing many products for those lines, they reduced the amount of people buying each product, and thus split their customer base, because TSR produced more world material than any other kind of material during that time.

3rd Edition is completely different, because WotC wasn't producing tons of campaign settings. Instead, they made their books suitable for general use and left the other 3rd-party companies to product campaigns and such. Thus, WotC didn't split their own customer base, since they didn't produce a glut of world materials.

And only a few 3rd-party campaign settings were successful, and you didn't see those 3rd-party companies producing a dozen different settings each, all with multi-book support, which is what TSR did. More products that are targetted towards a niche of your own customer base means less sales.

Meh, show me the numbers and actual data, otherwise, IMHO, it didn't work out that way.

Well, if it comes to picking your opinion or Dancey's facts as truth, I'd have to go with the guy that was actually involved in all this stuff, rather than just a forum poster. I have no reason to disbelieve Ryan Dancey, as he's not trying to "prove his point" on a message board or anything.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yet when it came down to it...multiple settings did pretty good under 3.x. Meh, show me the numbers and actual data, otherwise, IMHO, it didn't work out that way.

That's an impossible standard of proof. The companies simply are not going to open up their books for the sake of winning on the Internet.