Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 5274104" data-attributes="member: 221">Interesting thread to resurrect. Even more interesting to read Ari's post above and conclude he was mostly wrong in saying there was no room for anymore generic settings like Greyhawk or the Realms.  I think the success of Golarion shows this. I think to survive, a setting needs...1) Adventures. All the successful settings seem to have modules set therein. I think where many publishers go wrong is in producing the world books first and the modules second (if at all). Modules and adventures should optimally lead the way in a setting.  We all like to read campaign books but to use a setting we need to play in it. 2) Continued, consistent support at a steady pace. Publishers that put out only one or two books are not going to find as many fans as those that put out more. Contrarily, putting out too many, too fast, leads gamers (many of us with a completionist streak) realizing we can't afford it and giving up on the setting. 3) Good writing. I like X-Crawl, but the writing tends to be a bit hit or miss. It almost but not quite grabs me. Its the sort of world I put on the back burner and mull over. Paizo's fluff on the other hand is consistently top notch and makes me want to play right away, using their ideas.</blockquote>