One setting per year?

[Imaro]

Well let me throw this tidbit out there. I've seen numerous accusations that Lorraine Williams obssession and shady business practices as pertained to her holding the license to Buck Rogers and continuing to pump money into the game, even though it was a failure, so that she could collect royalties on it had more to do with TSR's failure than too many settings.

Or the fact that many of the box sets cost more to produce (sadly Planescape was one of the main culprits here) than they were selling them for.

Or maybe that too many supplements, not worlds, was actually the problem.

Like I said, if anyhing too many settings may have contributed to it, but it wasn't the reason TSR went under. It's way more complicated than that.

 

[Minicol]

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.

C.I.D.

Which is exactly fine. That's the point of a setting. If you don't dig it, don't buy it.

not every book has to sell at the same numbers to be a success. After all, not all magazines sell with the same print rate, so why not ?

of course, it may mean that the price of the setting may have to go up to compensate for lower sales, but that's Okay to me.

 

[The Little Raven]

It's way more complicated than that.

Yeah, it is way more complicated than that. However, the biggest indication in the mid-1990s of the mismanagement was the fact that the creative people were never reined in, and thus were producing pet campaign settings that often cost more money to produce than they made in sales. Hell, there were books that would never be able to make a single cent in profit because their production cost was way higher than the retail price they could get.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040530094717/http://atlasofadventure.com/Archive/TSR1997Buyout.asp

Read that, in case you haven't before. It's really interesting stuff. Basically, it comes down to a single primary fact that buried TSR: They didn't listen to their fans, and felt they had no need to do so because "TSR leads, we don't follow." Campaign setting glut was just a symptom of that overarching problem.

 

[Imaro]

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.



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.

What facts. He took a poll of a limited (by necessity) subset of people who were TSR customers.

Also of note is, nowhere in your post does he say too many worlds are the problem. In fact it seems he's saying pushing out too many supplements for each world was a major problem. And I think this is why these worlds will be limited run and support.

 

[The Little Raven]

not every book has to sell at the same numbers to be a success.

No, but dying off is a sign of lack of success. Forgotten Realms has been going strong since 1987... that's a success. Midnight has been going strong since 2003, so far as to get a 2nd edition in 2005, and now they're talking about whether they'll go to 4e with it or not... that's a success. Scarred Lands was a success, but isn't anymore, since it's dead.

I suspect that this "one setting a year" thing will be similar to how White Wolf is doing the new World of Darkness. There will be settings that will have open-ended support, such as Forgotten Realms and (probably) Eberron. Then, there will be others that are limited book series, which will get a corebook and (maybe) a few supplements, but they won't be open-ended.

 

[The Little Raven]

What facts.

Corporate logs. Inventory reports. Sales records. Financial projections of cost versus income.

He took a poll of a limited (by necessity) subset of people who were TSR customers.

Any poll is more than TSR had done, since they had ZERO customer data in their records.

Also of note is, nowhere in your post does he say too many worlds are the problem.

"Our customers were telling us that we spent too much time on our own worlds, and not enough time on theirs?"

"We listened to customers who told us that they want core materials, not world materials."

"Why did TSR create not once, not twice, but nearly a dozen times a variation on the same, Tolkien inspired, eurocentric fantasy theme?"

"Why had it constantly tried to create different games, poured money into marketing those games, only to realize that nobody was buying those games?"

"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."

All of these are indications that producing worlds was costing TSR money they weren't getting back, because people weren't buying their material.

 

[Minicol]

Hello Mourn we meet again.

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..

I can't really agree with you here, as Spelljammer, Planescape and especially ... Al-Qadim ... are not very eurocentric

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.].

This also made for a lot of boring books I am now ashamed of owning in light of (...) while I still cherish my old setting books.

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.
.

Yes, here I agree somewhat more with you. So that's why there should be a 4e SRD so that it can continue. if the setting was a success, such as ... Midnight (?) it deserves to be in 4e. If not, it's not a competition to WOTC anyways.

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.

Everybody can have motives to say something. I have been registered for a "corporate communication" course early next year...

Though, yes, I'd also agree with you on this ... if a new setting means what was done towards the end of 2e. Let's take the example of what not to do : Birthright.

Birthright : great idea at start. Great limited setting.
Error : most of the supplements were filler.

Alternative Solution : Make Birthright a bigger book at the start, and ditch the rest.

Anyways, regards and all that

 

[The Little Raven]

I can't really agree with you here, as Spelljammer, Planescape and especially ... Al-Qadim ... are not very eurocentric

Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Mystara, Greyhawk, Birthright, Ravenloft are very Eurocentric, and are prime examples of the glut of which both I and Ryan Dancey speak.

 

[Minicol]

Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Mystara, Greyhawk, Birthright, Ravenloft are very Eurocentric, and are prime examples of the glut of which both I and Ryan Dancey speak.

Yes, quite true; my post was a bit short, and i meant to say eurocentrism was not the only problem at the time.

Splitting is not either : you may split the market, yes maybe.

There was another flaw in this strategy : they were not able to support the settings adequately enough. There were either no supplements (Greyhawk, Mystara), or too many LOW-QUALITY supplements (FR, DL, Birthright).

Anyone remembers "Demi-humans of the realms" ?
Or "Havens of the Great Bay" ?

Both can drive away even the dedicated fans of the settings.

Not to mention some really crappy ideas in some of the supplements : such as the audio CDs for Mystara. They must really have lost a fortune hiring these bad actors to do these atrocious voices and sound effects.

I believe you can have multiple settings, if you do not create an endless flow of supplements, and if you maintain a decent quality.

 

[Cyronax]

Which is exactly fine. That's the point of a setting. If you don't dig it, don't buy it.

not every book has to sell at the same numbers to be a success. After all, not all magazines sell with the same print rate, so why not ?

of course, it may mean that the price of the setting may have to go up to compensate for lower sales, but that's Okay to me.

Yeah I agree totally. It goes back to the point about segmentation and knowing how to adapt to it.

Look at Ptolus for example ..... as far I understand, its a great setting that is very expensive, but delivers a lot to a few. Its a niche setting for people that usually frequent EN World, more than say Wotc's sites exclusively.

And back to the point that TSR didn't care about their customers ...... I'd say this is accurate.

I remember reading messages from Gary Holian, Erik Mona, and all of the self-described 'old guard' of Greyhawk on AOL in the mid-90s. They were often bitter and railed against TSR constantly about the path that GH took.

Wotc comes along and BAM, GH is reborn into several awesome late-2e products, and will become the default setting for the core books and many adventures in DUNGEON magazine.
Also don't forget Living Greyhawk, which essentially keeps GH alive.

That said, I think Wotc deserves credit for really doing what they can to appeal to a number of fan bases.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but the end point is that I think Wotc understands the situation they've created with 4e better than many on these boards give them credit for.

They did a pretty good job with 3e, despite some criticisms, and they also helped create a market for innovation using a common mechanic for rules.

Done rambling.

C.I.D.