Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andy_Collins" data-source="post: 1693235" data-attributes="member: 1982">If I actually described Planescape as a "failed" setting, then mark that down as a colossal example of misspeaking, and accept my apologies. Just because a setting doesn't exist any more doesn't make it "failed," any more than the fact that we don't call the current year "2003" makes last year a "failed" year.There have been many succesful campaign settings over the lifespan of D&D; the simple truth is that settings (like virtually all product lines) come and go. There are precisely two D&D settings that have been published without interruption since their debut in a published format.One is Forgotten Realms, which has enjoyed a massive line of support (game products, novels, computer games, novels, living campaigns, and oh did I mention novels?) that sustains it well beyond those who actually use the setting for their home game. It's a powerful intellectual property.The other is Eberron, whose lifespan currently measures at 2 months and counting.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> What I meant (and what I certainly tried to say), was that when we're looking to add a campaign setting (or any product line) to our mix of products, we generally favor new lines over returns to old lines. That's because we believe that we have a better chance of hooking a larger audience with a new approach then by reviving an old one.Look at it this way: If you're trying to sell a new product line to a fan base that has a significant "memory" of the past, why try to change opinions that have already been made about a previous version of the line? It's much easier to build an opinion about something brand new.And anyway, it's not like Planescape was a world-beating brand that was embraced by the entirety (or even a majority) of the D&D-buying market. At its height, I'd guess there were no more than a few thousand active Planescape campaigns in the entire world. That's no slam on Planescape--it's really more of a commentary on the weak and fractured market of D&D gamers that existed in the mid- to late 90s. While I don't want to stretch this comparison too far, it's one thing when Hollywood revamps an old intellectual property that's remembered by millions of people in a key moviegoing demographic--the same logic doesn't necessarily apply to a property that appealed to only a few thousand players. The financial reward just isn't there, frankly. You can chalk that up as crass commercialism if you will, but remember that the opposite approach--publish a nigh-infinite number of product lines regardless of profits--helped put TSR (and, almost, D&D) out of existence.</blockquote>

Verification