Wizards in a rough patch?

[Toben the Many]

Hi,

I'm not sure Wizards has run out of steam -- I've bought some very good books this year from them

I would agree. Wizards hasn't run out of steam. But they are running out of open ground. At this point, what else could they release for their game system that hasn't already come out? The list of marketable idea for product gets shorter each year.

As far as "single book settings"...WotC has released those and continue to do so. Frostburn, Sandstorm, and Stormwrack aren't just environment books, they're setting books as well. They just didn't limit their setting to a singular place so that players didn't feel locked into their storyline. But the elements are there. There's pratically a mini-campaign in each of those sourcebooks.

Heroes of Battle is really a setting book in a different guise. It's created for people who want to run a war-time campaign. Heroes of Horror will be the same - a guide for people who want a Horror D&D game. The difference is that WotC doesn't want to nail down any of these products to any particular setting so that they can appeal to a wider audience.

 

[Silveras]

As far as "single book settings"...WotC has released those and continue to do so. Frostburn, Sandstorm, and Stormwrack aren't just environment books, they're setting books as well. They just didn't limit their setting to a singular place so that players didn't feel locked into their storyline. But the elements are there. There's pratically a mini-campaign in each of those sourcebooks.

Heroes of Battle is really a setting book in a different guise. It's created for people who want to run a war-time campaign. Heroes of Horror will be the same - a guide for people who want a Horror D&D game. The difference is that WotC doesn't want to nail down any of these products to any particular setting so that they can appeal to a wider audience.

Actually, I would say that you are slightly off the mark. Settings carry some degree of over-plot with them : Greyhawk had the fiendish forces scheming to take over the Prime; Forgotten Realms has the "recovery of the lost lore of fallen empires"; Eberron has its own more detailed over-plot (or so it sounds like to one who pays only slight attention).

What I see WotC doing is going less for whole settings, and more for very focused but fairly complete treatments of specific areas that were not covered in the core. The Core books cover Temperate land terrains (forests, hills, mountains, marshes, etc.) pretty well. The Environment series addresses the ones that were listed, but not fully detailed, in the Core: Hot, Cold, and Aquatic (for all climates).

Similarly, the Genre series seems to be focused on certain genres. With only Heroes of Battle out so far, it is impossible to say I see any pattern yet, but if Heroes of Horror (and any others yet to come) follow the same design, they will be a "bolt-on" toolkit to enable that genre with the Core rules.

In short, instead of publishing a specific "Wars against Aberrations in a Cold land" setting, they published three toolbooks for a DM to make the "perfect personal version" of such a setting: Heroes of Battle, Lords of Madness, and Frostburn. For DMs who would prefer to face hidden hordes of Undead under a scorching sun, use Libris Mortis with Sandstorm and the forthcoming Heroes of Horror.

Trivia: How many recognized some of the touchstone sites in Sandstorm as being locations in the old Desert of Desolation module series (I3-I5) ?

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm not sure what you mean by "rules not tools?"

It's when the rulebook tells you what you cannot do in the game, not even to houserule. Heaven forbid that YOU should have creative juice.

 

[Ranger REG]

As far as "single book settings"...WotC has released those and continue to do so. Frostburn, Sandstorm, and Stormwrack aren't just environment books, they're setting books as well.

Okay, now you're joking.

 

[Toben the Many]

In short, instead of publishing a specific "Wars against Aberrations in a Cold land" setting, they published three toolbooks for a DM to make the "perfect personal version" of such a setting: Heroes of Battle, Lords of Madness, and Frostburn. For DMs who would prefer to face hidden hordes of Undead under a scorching sun, use Libris Mortis with Sandstorm and the forthcoming Heroes of Horror.

Exactly. We're in agreement.

So what I'm trying to say is...they've used the "environment" and "genre" books as a replacement for a 1 book setting format. They give the choice to the consumer as to what setting you want to do. If you want to do Al-Qadim, for instance, you'd probably start with buying Sandstorm.

However, my question is - how far can they take it? It seems like WotC will eventually reach a product ceiling where they've covered most of their bases.

I've never seen an RPG company that has been able to survive through supplements alone.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Just one book per setting, or would you prefer a continuing line of products?

If they were "premium" books, like the 3.0 Forgoten Realms Campaign setting, with a little more detail, yeah, one book should be plenty and if it sells well, maybe a semi-annual book follow up for players to have more options.

 

[WizarDru]

It's funny, but I was thinking how well WotC has been doing, lately. Books like Sandstorm and Heroes of Battle are great at giving more options and new ideas to existing games. Weapons of Legacy is a great book that plugs right into the game...in fact is something I wish I had access to a couple of years ago. The DMG II is one of the best books WotC has ever released, IMHO.

We are reaching a point where WotC is exploring more niche and obscure topics...but that's OK with me. I'm much more likely to use some of the funky material from Heroes of Battle or Weapons of Legacy in my game (such as guardian spirits, legacay weapons, dmg II evil-NPC statblocks, etc.) than something like a Dark Sun book, where much of the material is of no value to me unless I play the setting.

FWIW, I believe that Erik Mona stated that the reason they did things the way they did in the Dark Sun article was to make it accessible to groups using the core rules; it wasn't faithful to the setting, but they decided that the article really wasn't meant for the hardcore faithful anyhow, so it wasn't an issue. IOW, it was a DS article for people unfamiliar with and not fans of DS. Whether or not that was a wise decision is another matter, but there we are.

 

[Staffan]

And what feel is that? Rules, not Tools?

Dark Sun deviated in quite a few ways from the 2nd ed core rules. A 3rd ed version would have to deviate in similar ways in order to keep the feel. This especially applies to character generation:
* Many of the races need modification.
* Clerics should have a relatively small core list of spells with additional ones depending on element. Ditto for druids.
* Templars should have access to all cleric spells including all the elemental ones, but not cast as many per day (for some reason, the athas.org conversion made templars the opposite, like clerical sorcerers - few spells known, but can cast lots of them).
* Wizards are separated into preservers (like normal wizards) and defilers (faster advancement but kills any plant life nearby when casting spells).
* Bards don't cast spells, but get better access to rogue skills and get special poison abilities.

Those are the main things I can think of at the moment that would need changing in the 3e core rules to play Dark Sun as it is supposed to be.

 

[Ranger REG]

Dark Sun deviated in quite a few ways from the 2nd ed core rules. A 3rd ed version would have to deviate in similar ways in order to keep the feel. This especially applies to character generation:
* Many of the races need modification.

Such as?

* Clerics should have a relatively small core list of spells with additional ones depending on element. Ditto for druids.

So, do we ditch [elemental] domains or change them ? Do we also modify the class spell list for both clerics and druids?

* Templars should have access to all cleric spells including all the elemental ones, but not cast as many per day (for some reason, the athas.org conversion made templars the opposite, like clerical sorcerers - few spells known, but can cast lots of them).

Base or Prestige class?

* Wizards are separated into preservers (like normal wizards) and defilers (faster advancement but kills any plant life nearby when casting spells).

I don't know about faster advancement (if you're referring to XP and level), but I guess they should get a temporary boost of level when ... for lack of a better word ... "empowering" spells, at the expense of killing nature.

* Bards don't cast spells, but get better access to rogue skills and get special poison abilities.

But what happened to the Rogue class? Would it be diminished by the the boosting of the Bard class?

Those are the main things I can think of at the moment that would need changing in the 3e core rules to play Dark Sun as it is supposed to be.

That's a lot of deviations. If you ask me, they're better of as a separate d20/OGL product.

 

[wingsandsword]

I've always been a big proponent of changing the system to fit the setting, about the game being about the story/plot first and the rules second.

Thus, about Dark Sun: Dark Sun was meant to stretch the rules. It was the most atypical official D&D setting ever made: Where psionics were as common as magic, the classes and races were all different, the generic Tolkienesque mold was utterly shattered. It was bending things as far as you could within the AD&D framework.

Now, with the flexibility of d20, you could really depict Dark Sun much better, since there is a lot more flexibility to change things.

Part of the problem a lot of people saw with the Paizo version of Dark Sun was it was trying to fit Dark Sun into the 3e rules set, instead of fitting the 3e rules set into Dark Sun.

Expressing Dark Sun accurately would put it so far afield of what many players consider "D&D", that it would probably be best served by being a separate OGL/d20 entity.