Why no WOTC support for Greyhawk?

[jokamachi]

Imo

How much Forgotten Realms and Eberron support was there in Heroes of Battle? This was a setting-free book. Well, almost: there are references to Urnst in a prestige class, I think.

That's a line devoid of actual useful information. I'm currently running a game in the Bright Desert and using a _lot_ of Sandstorm material. I don't need someone to tell me that a book about deserts can be used in a desert area in the campaign setting!

Maybe, but it wouldn't have killed anyone to mention it. I mean, c'mon, they're only too happy to pad their books these days, so why not? Additionally, not everyone has the map memorized as well as some, so again there is a concvenience factor to consider. This isn't a generalization of D&D products; however, if Dungeon takes pains to offer alternative locations for setting specific material, why not offer the same service to those who shelled out the cash for these oh so important environment books?

The fact that they were setting free was one of the reasons I passed on them in the first place. I have enough imagination to craft adventures from scratch without such books (and I sincerely wonder about this current need to stat everything these days), but I would appreciate some fluff in the way of Greyhawk.

If anything, I feel Wotc will garner less sales in the long run by excluding such information. I snatched up the complete series for a handful of Greyhawk stuff and I know not just a few people who followed suit for that very same reason.

If Wizards wants to go all-out generic on us, then they should at least consider putting out updated campaign setting books in lieu of such material. Otherwise, they face diminished sales from a VERY loyal group of customers, and the oldest of the batch to boot, unless of course you count yourself a hardcore Blackmoor fan.

 

[qstor]

I don't understand what you mean by this statement. How does making an adventure fit into a generic setting "dumb it down"?

A "Greyhawk-specific supplement" -- one that could only be set in GH and nowhere else -- would require, what, exactly? And what would make it worth the effort? More importantly, what would make it worth the loss of customers who don't want something so GH-specific that they can't adapt it to their non-GH game?

I guess I was coming from the angle that Greyhawk is supposed to be the *default* setting for 3.x. Yet the 3.0 Adventure Path modules contained little if any Greyhawk Specific material. So the 3.0 modules etc weren't really set in Greyhawk, but the Greyhawk *lite* setting for 3.x as some have termed it. It wasn't a slam on generic products by any means, just at the premise that Greyhawk is the default setting for 3.x yet the vast majority of the modules and sourcebooks seem to really fit perfectly into the setting.

As far as what a Greyhawk specifc supplement would require, I guess it would require some reasearch into the setting. I think this goes back to the TSR problem with too many settings in 2e. MY personal feelings on this related to Greyhawk, is if the RPGA is doing Living Greyhawk as Sean Reynolds mentioned before some kinda of sourcebook paperback what ever should be available to update the countries and events as the world expands..

Just my two cents, but its been argued over and over on these boards and on the WOTC boards, it ain't gunna happen....

Mike

 

[Nellisir]

How much Forgotten Realms and Eberron support was there in Heroes of Battle? This was a setting-free book. Well, almost: there are references to Urnst in a prestige class, I think.

I think you're missing my point. WotC is claiming that Greyhawk is being supported by these generic accessories, yet most of them are "setting-free", as you put it, and what few Greyhawk references are there are haphazard at best. It's a con, a sham, with WotC paying lip service to the idea of GH support. WotC isn't claiming to support Forgotten Realms or Eberron with the "generic" books, so it doesn't suprise me that there isn't any support for them. There ought to be, IMO, but that's a different matter.

(Actually, there's arguably more implied support for Eberron than Greyhawk in Frostburn. The "background setting" in Frostburn? The Frostfell. The northern continent in Eberron? The Frostfell. Draw your own conclusions. Of course, I don't think the Eberron deities are mentioned, but FR deities are, so who knows.)

Incidently, I have my own house setting, so I don't have any problem converting material; I'm actually selling some Greyhawk material, so I don't need to buy any (and if I did I'd just buy it); and I prefer Carl Sargent's detailed work in Greyhawk to EGG's snippets in various adventures, so I'm not just looking for a skeleton setting.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[diaglo]

Just my two cents, but its been argued over and over on these boards and on the WOTC boards, it ain't gunna happen....

Mike

and on AOL before there was a new edition.

 

[Ranger REG]

only if Gary wrote it.

Gary who?

 

[diaglo]

Gary who?

Oops ... i mistyped.


i meant Medium Rary

or Well(ington) Dunn

 

[warlord]

Because their evil bastards who can't remeber their roots.

 

[jokamachi]

What makes me wonder is the certainty people place in any new Greyhawk release being an automatic failure. How can one say, definitively, that the hardcover wouldn't sell? There are marketing surprises everywhere, even in things once thought, or even proven, dead. Maybe the fact that I don't put much faith in absolutes has something to do with my position on Greyhawk.

For example, I know not just a few people who got all hyped up about the Eberron setting, bought the book, were disappointed, then let the thing start to collect dust on their bookshelves. A few of those people have since gravitated back to Greyhawk beacuse, in their own words, "there is an authentic feel to the setting," and "it's old school D&D, man!"

Now, does that ensure a future hit with Greyhawk? No, it doesn't, but it does imply continued popularity and perhaps a new appreciation for these "old-school" settings since the release of Eberron.

Another example. When the Midnight setting was released and some of my friends started to run it, they said they liked it because it felt like Greyhawk, a world where darkness is getting the upper hand. Of the three campaigns that started years ago, two have ended and take a wild guess in which setting they're adventuring now.

Perhaps I run across too many Greyhawk fans in my travels, maybe I'm the exception to the rule that Greyhawk won't sell, but I listen to what the people say around me and hear the complaints about not getting an updated sourcebook.

Anyway, there it is, the same thing I've felt all along typed up in a thread that gets posted every few months with the same arguments bandied about (including mine) and the same discord/resignation to cap it off. I can almost hear the reponses now...

 

[Desdichado]

I trust that the WotC marketing arm has more comprehensive data than the two or three groups you've talked to.

If you are so sure, pony up the cash to buy the license yourself, and print new material.

 

[WizarDru]

For example, I know not just a few people who got all hyped up about the Eberron setting, bought the book, were disappointed, then let the thing start to collect dust on their bookshelves. A few of those people have since gravitated back to Greyhawk beacuse, in their own words, "there is an authentic feel to the setting," and "it's old school D&D, man!"

The problem there, though, is you haven't sent the message to WotC that Eberron isn't well-liked by your group (and from what I've heard, it's been very well received)...WotC doesn't know what you did with the books after you bought them. In their eyes, that's several sales of a core setting book, right there. The LGG, on the other hand, languished on many shelves. Yes, it's dry and unattractive: but it's also a great resource.

I have no doubt in my mind that a Greyhawk CS done in the same fashion as the FR and Eberron books would succeed...but whether or not it would succeed ENOUGH to make it worth WotC's effort and expense. I don't know the answer to that question.