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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 2869557" data-attributes="member: 172">This is really a bunch of different questions rolled into one. Are great campaign settings just those that continue to receive support? Planescape is a fan favorite, yet WotC refuses to support it directly. Can there only be one reason a given setting fails or suceeded?I can offer my reasons that I think those two particular settings "failed".Scarred Lands<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">S&SS dove into it before any authors had developed any real proficiency with the system. This was a bit of a gambit that had the opportunity to earn them some early market share, but it didn't pay off.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Overpublished. You mention freeport as "successful"; I think you will find that there are several times as many books published for it. For a third party setting, that was too many books for a setting. That made it too hard for fans to absorb. (I was stunned they went on to make other continents before Ghelspad was really fleshed out.) When asking some fellows why they didn't get into the setting, they relayed that they felt like the setting was too much to buy into. And I can understand why. I'm probably the second most rabid SL fan on this board, but I still have 3 books to get.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The fact that there was so much material for it meant they were in a position to be hurt real bad by the 3.5 transition. Too much 3.0 material was left untranslated because there is no way they could update all that.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The breadth of the setting also meant that they had to tap a lot of authors. The setting has a dizzying array of neat details, but it does sort of have a bit of a "too many cooks" feel, and many of the authors tapped weren't up to the design task (and/or the editors didn't do a good enough job catching some unbalanced stuff.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The adventures were too long coming, and when they did come, had some painfully bad editorial blunders. Freeport LAUNCHED on an adventure. This made Freeport a far easier setting to get into, by way of comparison.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">On a totally different note, the S&SS forums sucked. I think this presented a real barrier to a strong fan community forming.</li> </ul>Dragonstar<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The game took too long to get to market. The therefore failed to capitalize on initial excitement for the setting.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">After a strong first book, the Guide to the Galaxy was a bit weak. The setting behind Dragonstar begged more extensive treatment so groups could explore the nuances of the Dragon Empire and the brewing rebellion. Instead, they gave us a book with a lot of micro details. That's not what it took to get the setting to the next level.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">D20 Modern hurt the game... it drew away much of the gun-bunny excitement for Dragonstar, and many people thought that the modern classes made more sense for Dragonstar.</li> </ul>I think we are there.I think Conan has an advantage because Conan fans want it, not so much because of OGL. OGL just helped grease the skids to a) make some basic changes to make it more like the setting it emulates, b) made it more possible to appeal to non-d20/D&D fans.</blockquote>

Verification