Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7716085" data-attributes="member: 37579">It was an example. Lots of people opt to run in literary settings, irregardless if they're a "bad fit for D&D" or not, as the intent is to run the setting first and not D&D, which is just being used as a generic RPG ruleset (four better or worse).So? WotC owns lots of things, both D&D and other settings.No other company can publish Dreamblade or Heroscape, but they're not obligated to release those.Y'know, except that only 38% *play* in the Realms, and that's skewed heavily by the published adventurers. Not everyone who plays the adventures would buy a campaign setting or have any interest in the Realms for homebrew games.It's really not "no one buys anything except Forgotten Realms" but closer to "no one buys anything, but Forgotten Realms sells the least bad". Or "... but Forgotten Realms doesn't lose money."I imagine Golarion would be covered by the 300-odd people who chose "non-D&D setting". Which is roughly the same number as "non-FR D&D settings". So, really, Golarion could very easily be the second most popular setting in fantasy RPGs, since that 300 is drawing from a smaller pool.Campaign settings will always be a niche product, regardless of publisher. Golarion sells well for Paizo (most of the time), but Pathfinder sells a fraction of the number of books as D&D. A bestseller for Paizo is barely worth printing for WotC.I wouldn't say "not capable". Instead i would say that it's "more efficient digging a big hole, filling it with money, and lighting it on fire".Again, with Golarion potentially being as popular as Dragonlance or Eberron, then WotC really doesn't need to do the heavy lifting. Paizo and Kobold Press and Green Ronin can reach just as many fans and sell almost as many copies as WotC. Simply because the audience for that material is so small.</blockquote>

Verification