What didn't people like about Greyhawk From the Ashes?

[grodog]

Have the GH enthusiasts here had a look at Thunder Rift? It's a lot smaller (and therefore much easier to develop and keep tabs on), and a lot more "generic D&D" than even GH, Mystara et al. It's also very easy for players to get a grasp of, with only two towns, one city, a castle and a dwarven hold for the population centres. If you want a map with some names and a D&D-game-supporting history, that's it right there.

Sounds interesting, rounser; is Thunder Rift a TSR product, or a d20 product, etc.?

 

[Krolik]

Ah, but per Lisa Stevens @ that's a myth:

Then I would say it's quite odd that Erik was posting in another Greyhawk thread about how the sales of the upcoming Greyhawk module will determine whether resources will be put into future Greyhawk products.

 

[Shadeydm]

To sell the needed volume Greyhawk products need to be broad enough to be attractive to non-Greyhawkers but there aren't enough Greyhawkers to support the line on their own.

I think this is a fundamental flaw in your position. I completely reject the idea that there aren't enough "Greyhawkers" and have never seen any imperical evidence to support this position.

 

[Krolik]

I think this is a fundamental flaw in your position. I completely reject the idea that there aren't enough "Greyhawkers" and have never seen any imperical evidence to support this position.

WotC is a business with X amount of resources. They are going to put those resources where they believe they are going to get the most ROI. If Greyhawk material routinely outsold Forgotten Realms material you would see the two campaign worlds in opposite positions with the Realms fans asking why the sale of a single adventure will determine the fate of their favorite world. There might be one million Greyhawkers out there but if only 5,000 are buying the material, whereas 8,000 Realms fans are buying their world's material, WotC is going to cater to the 8,000 every single time.

 

[00Machado]

Then I would say it's quite odd that Erik was posting in another Greyhawk thread about how the sales of the upcoming Greyhawk module will determine whether resources will be put into future Greyhawk products.

Not necessarily odd. Perhaps the people concerned with not starting a proliferation of settings are now gone and replaced by people who only care about the dollars and cents, i.e. proliferation of revenue and profit.

 

[rounser]

is Thunder Rift a TSR product, or a d20 product, etc.?

TSR. It's the introductory OD&D setting for most of those old level 1-3 boxed sets. Paizo sells the pdf. I think it suits the scope of 3E better than it does OD&D, because the number of areas seems to approximately echo the needs of a 3E "adventure path".

 

[grodog]

Then I would say it's quite odd that Erik was posting in another Greyhawk thread about how the sales of the upcoming Greyhawk module will determine whether resources will be put into future Greyhawk products.

They're two separate issues:

1. Per Lisa, historically, WotC didn't kill GH setting support because GH wasn't selling, they killed GH as a marketing decision to focus on the FR and Eberron settings (i.e., GH can pull its own weight in sales). The market perception, however, has been that GH can't pull its own weight (especially in comparison to FR, and by extention Eberron [since, afterall, WotC published this new setting instead of reviving an older one]), which is why it was dropped like an Amazing Engine hot potato. Your post above sums up this perception nicely:
   
   

   WotC is a business with X amount of resources. They are going to put those resources where they believe they are going to get the most ROI. If Greyhawk material routinely outsold Forgotten Realms material you would see the two campaign worlds in opposite positions with the Realms fans asking why the sale of a single adventure will determine the fate of their favorite world. There might be one million Greyhawkers out there but if only 5,000 are buying the material, whereas 8,000 Realms fans are buying their world's material, WotC is going to cater to the 8,000 every single time.

   
   Lisa's quotation clearly refutes the perception that GH can't equal FR sales as 100% false. I have no argument with your contention that WotC will always go with the higher-ROI product (hence their plastic miniatures lines...), just the assumption underlying it that GH is a second-class setting that can't go toe-to-toe with FR. WotC testing those waters with a product like EttRoG obviously shows that they're willing to roll the dice with one book, at least, which segues to point #2 that
2. Obviously GH has an audience (Paizo's run-away success with Age of Worms, Maure Castle, Savage Tides, etc.), and WotC wants every possible member of that audience to buy the new Expedition to the Ruins of GH book, which---if it sells well/better than expected/goes OOP immediately/whatever the WotC success criteria beyond immediate ROI are for the book---may mean that WotC revisits decision #1 and begins to support GH as a setting once more (it happened before in 1998, so it can certainly happen again). That's my positive-spin on WotC's D&D Experience comments; my negative-spin is WotC's trying to get everyone to possible buy the book and to do so they're tossing out this "buy this book or else no more GH, ever" veiled threat to drive fans into buying additional copies as a show of faith or support for the setting they love).

So, I'm certainly hoping that EttRoG sales skyrocket, and that Paizo continues to support the setting, and that WotC begins to do so once more.

 

[grodog]

TSR. It's the introductory OD&D setting for most of those old level 1-3 boxed sets. Paizo sells the pdf. I think it suits the scope of 3E better than it does OD&D, because the number of areas seems to approximately echo the needs of a 3E "adventure path".

Thanks, I'll have to check it out.

 

[MerricB]

[*]Obviously GH has an audience (Paizo's run-away success with Age of Worms, Maure Castle, Savage Tides, etc.), and WotC wants every possible member of that audience to buy the new Expedition to the Ruins of GH book, which---if it sells well/better than expected/goes OOP immediately/whatever the WotC success criteria beyond immediate ROI are for the book---may mean that WotC revisits decision #1 and begins to support GH as a setting once more (it happened before in 1998, so it can certainly happen again). That's my positive-spin on WotC's D&D Experience comments; my negative-spin is WotC's trying to get everyone to possible buy the book and to do so they're tossing out this "buy this book or else no more GH, ever" veiled threat to drive fans into buying additional copies as a show of faith or support for the setting they love).

My feeling is that people want Greyhawk adventures much more than they want Greyhawk supplements, but, even so, I suspect Paizo's "run-away success" with the Adventure Paths is due to them being, er, well-designed adventure paths than Greyhawk material (only Age of Worms is actually a Greyhawk AP); and Maure Castle - at least the first part - is exceptional as being an entire issue devoted to just one adventure.

Cheers!

 

[jensun]

Forgotten Realms = too many restrictions

I see this bandied about a fair amount but I am not at all convinced it is true.

Which part of FR makes you think it has too many restrictions. Which parts of it scream too much detail.

Take a look at pretty much any published FR map and you will find huge blank areas on the map entirely suitable to whatever game you want to drop into it.