D&D 4E WotC's 4E Setting approach - was it a mistake?

[Riley]

I own of lot of 3e Eberron "Secrets of...", etc. books.

I picked them up on closeout for a fraction of the cover price, and they do a very good job of sitting there, stabilizing my bookshelves.

If WOTC decides to print lots of 4e world splatbooks, I will be happy to pick them up on closeout, as well.

Good for me; not so good for WOTC.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

Dark Sun NEEDS to have this amount of additional stuff, because the other campaign material already released was released like 20 years ago. So the odds of finding the same amount of stuff that you'd find for Eberron are pretty slim.

Dark Sun really doesn't NEED anything more in print than it already has. The problem with setting books is that the more you make for each of the individual settings, the more likely you are to get crap shelfwarming. This is exactly what killed Second Edition. Thirty different setting were getting several books out on the shelves every year, and there those products sat. Why do you think they are even doing the one setting a year in the first place?

Dark Sun has been getting a metric buttload of articles in Dragon and Dungeon. That is where we were always told more information was going to be. We don't need more in print for it or any other setting.

 

[Mentat55]

I think the approach is solid, though I agree with zaran, making the books a bit bigger (more fluff, not crunch) would be nice. I think it is largely because I want something to give me a basic history, cosmology, geography, culture, and some major (and minor) conflicts, but the rest I can fill in.

Also, I don't become married to one setting, so having lots of setting books is not particularly useful. I am a big Eberron fan, but I got overwhelmed by all the 3e supplements -- the original campaign setting remains my go-to source for "canon", and everything else is basically extraneous, in my opinion.

 

[Kurtomatic]

The three-and-out model, as a strict formula, is already dead; lifespan: 3 years (I'm giving DS some wiggle-room here).

Whenever a corporation (or anyone for that matter) makes a declarative statement about the future, consider adding a silent "as far as we know" right there at the end of it. In this respect, a 3-year run for a best guess isn't too bad.

Next year won't see a distinct 3-book setting release at all. Ravenloft Roleplaying Game will get its own rulebook, which while possibly compatible with 4E, won't be a setting product in the exactly the same way that Gamma World isn't one either. It'll be interesting to see exactly what the scope of Gazeteer: The Nentir Vale content takes, but clearly won't be a model setting release.

And don't you want a highly detailed smaller region to start with, like Shadowdale or the Silver Marches?

This product is on the 2011 release schedule as the Neverwinter Campaign Guide. So there ya go. No more being slavish to the three product form.

Generally, I've observed that setting support following the initial release takes some mix of the following:

1. Adventures
2. Setting Porn
3. Fiction

I think the first option produces the best results for actual play at a table (real or virtual) by far. Greyhawk was built on nothing more than a thin gazeteer and some serious adventure modules. Latter-day GH setting porn was mild stuff indeed compared to FR and Planescape. I say this as someone with an entire shelf of Planescape boxed sets. FR, in addition to its volumes of novels and fluff, also had huge adventure support--huge.

The best thing WotC can do to support the existing 4E settings being used in actual play, is publish good adventures for them.

As far as I know.

 

[Shemeska]

Dark Sun really doesn't NEED anything more in print than it already has. The problem with setting books is that the more you make for each of the individual settings, the more likely you are to get crap shelfwarming. This is exactly what killed Second Edition.

Or at least what is often claimed by some. Management bungles, bloated print runs that got returned through distribution, dragon-dice, Buck Rogers, etc doomed them more so than how many settings they made. I suspect most of the settings made a pretty good profit, with novels based on the settings doing even better, but they weren't enough to save the company.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

If you read the other respones in this tread looks like it is not such 'abomination' for most people. You would like more support? good for you, but you are not a 4th edition buyer..


To me is great, I hate this continuity thing.

It's an abomination.

In essence it abandons settings because the support isn't being provided in print, and it's not being provided via the e-zines in any worthwhile amount. That's going to harm those settings value as IP in the longterm IMO.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Dark Sun really doesn't NEED anything more in print than it already has.

My point was that most of the Dark Sun stuff that had been printed 20 years ago are no longer in print, or nowhere near as accessible to new players because of availability or price. So they needed more stuff in the current Dragon and Dungeons to make up for the lesser amount of material that new Dark Sun players could acquire compared to the breadth of material that new Eberron players can get.

If someone still owns all their Dark Sun stuff from 2E... then yeah, he's all set. But the new Dark Sun players won't be able to get all that (at least not as easily or as cheaply as the new Eberron players can get all the Eberron 3E material.)

 

[Henry]

I don't think any inexperienced or casual DM is going to spend $300 on ten setting books, and read all of them before starting a game.

The extra books are for setting fans - probably serious and experienced gamers. They're for fans of the setting canon, and more than likely, they're probably the same guys who buy up all the novels.

-O

I have to agree with this, from personal experience of gamers I've met who could be considered "average gamers." Anyone who frequents any of ENWorld, RPGnet, Dragonsfoot, et. al. more than, say, once a month I don't believe qualify as "average gamers".

Most "average gamers" I've met will grab the setting books for that setting, then take something like the published modules both unofficial and official (or possibly Dungeon Magazine, which is possibly stretching it), and then shoehorn them in and run with it. Most average roleplayers don't care as much for in-depth setting detail, don't care what secret societies Mirt the Moneylender's a part of, nor what the connection between the Sodkillers and the Mercykillers is - they usually want just enough for flavor, and they showhorn in the other premade stuff.

The people who care most for "abandoned" settings are in my experience the ones who enjoy the immersive details of settings, who want the option of every last nook being filled with detail to pull out for use, and who without hesitation would buy a 20-book leather-bound set of encyclopedias for their favorite setting, filled with maps, fabric bookmarks, and every factoid possible, and so much the better if at least half is new material.

The majority of the gaming public, from what I've seen, just want enough to get their setting up and running, and a bunch of pre-written adventures that don't contain tons of plot twists and world-specific nuances so they can pick and choose which to use in the regular weeknight game.

 

[The Little Raven]

Or at least what is often claimed by some. Management bungles, bloated print runs that got returned through distribution, dragon-dice, Buck Rogers, etc doomed them more so than how many settings they made. I suspect most of the settings made a pretty good profit, with novels based on the settings doing even better, but they weren't enough to save the company.

Ryan Dancey looked at the books and the inventory and he flat out said that supporting a dozen plus settings helped put TSR in their grave. Yeah, Buck Rogers, Dragon Dice, and buying a needlepoint company certainly helped with that death march, but he also explicitly called out the settings (and the fact that there were products they made for them that cost them more than they could ever make back).

If they were making a "pretty good profit" like you claim, they wouldn't have up and cancelled pretty much all of them shortly after purchase, since the books would have told them they were profitable. For example, their market research told them that a majority of their fans didn't like the jargon-filled world of Planescape (I was one of them). I know you'd disagree with that claim, but yours is anecdote, and his is actual research conducted by the company to help them make plans.

So, when it comes down to dude who had the facts (Dancey) and dude who totally doesn't (you), I invariably side with the guy who had the facts.

 

[Shemeska]

Ryan Dancey looked at the books and the inventory and he flat out said that supporting a dozen plus settings helped put TSR in their grave. Yeah, Buck Rogers, Dragon Dice, and buying a needlepoint company certainly helped with that death march, but he also explicitly called out the settings (and the fact that there were products they made for them that cost them more than they could ever make back).

Did he though? I've read the same stuff that you're talking about, but I don't recall it talking about the major settings in and of themselves directly as being the inventory bloat that caused problems. By all means dig through the material and direct quote for me, it would be useful here.

But also keep in mind that the setting support by itself wouldn't be a problem if the print runs were tailored to demand. Even a well selling setting won't turn a profit if you blindly guess about a print run and print double what actually sells. This as I recall was the problem back then.

For example, their market research told them that a majority of their fans didn't like the jargon-filled world of Planescape (I was one of them). I know you'd disagree with that claim, but yours is anecdote, and his is actual research conducted by the company to help them make plans.

So, when it comes down to dude who had the facts (Dancey) and dude who totally doesn't (you), I invariably side with the guy who had the facts.

In that specific case, I've heard that the Planescape line turned a profit from one of the folks who actually worked on the setting. It only turned less profit per book than some other lines due to higher printing costs as it used a wider variety of inks in the printing. But it did turn a profit.