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

[Mercurius]

This thread on Eberron got me thinking: Is the approach that WotC took with regards to settings a mistake? The idea was (and presumably still is) to publish a campaign guide, an adventure, and one other supplement, either a player guide (Forgotten Realms and Eberron) or a monster book (Dark Sun). But I can't help but wonder how this is working; what are people running non-homebrew campaigns using? Are they finding that these starting points are enough?

As someone who has always used a homebrew setting I see nothing off-putting about only having a campaign guide to start with and fleshing out details myself, but that's only because I'm used to creating everything myself. If I was to use a published setting I would want details; I mean, the main point of using a published setting is to save time doing the leg-work of setting design (something I love doing, but it is quite time-consuming). I mean, the approach used in previous editions just makes more sense for a published setting. If you are running the Realms, don't you want a book for every region? And don't you want a highly detailed smaller region to start with, like Shadowdale or the Silver Marches?

Thoughts?

 

[Obryn]

Honestly, the WotC model pretty closely matches my actual historical buying habits. I buy the core setting book, a "monster" book if one is available, and call it a day. More details actively hurt my preparation, believe it or not. If there's canon, I feel a drive to follow it. If there's no canon, I feel a lot more free to improvise.

So yeah. Two books per setting is perfect for me; I wouldn't buy any more than that, even if more were offered.

(The last time I bought more than this for a setting was for Arcana Evolved. The extra books, IMO, largely damaged the setting instead of helping it. Transcendence had one good chapter, and a lot of added complexity. Mystic Secrets was just more complexity, too. The Spell Treasury helped kill off my mid-high level game with the new options for casters.)

-O

 

[AngryMojo]

I'm with Obryn on this. If I like a setting so much that I want to read the gaps being filled in instead of filling them in myself, I'd rather read novels.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

If you are running the Realms, don't you want a book for every region?
Thoughts?

But if I'm not running the Realms, all those books are useless to me. The 4e approach gives them resources to spend on other settings, for example Dark Sun.

 

[Mercurius]

But if I'm not running the Realms, all those books are useless to me. The 4e approach gives them resources to spend on other settings, for example Dark Sun.

Right, I understand it from a financial angle, and I suppose the reason they didn't go the route of earlier editions is that it wasn't lucrative (e.g. how many copies did Mysteries of the Moonsea sell? Or Secrets of Sarlona?).But I understand it less from the perspective of creating a living, growing world for people to game in.

As for the other comments, I almost wrote something about how the members of EN World are not exemplary in this matter; we are almost entirely serious, long-time gamers who have tons of experience and like to dedicate many more hours preparing for and thinking about D&D than actually playing it, so taking a book like the 4E Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and running with it is not a problem. But I'm wondering about the thousands of DMs that don't post here, and that don't spend hours a week thinking about D&D and just want a detailed setting to run their game in. Or maybe the average EN World DM is the typical 4E DM? I don't know, but I suspect not.

 

[Obryn]

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

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Right, I understand it from a financial angle, and I suppose the reason they didn't go the route of earlier editions is that it wasn't lucrative (e.g. how many copies did Mysteries of the Moonsea sell? Or Secrets of Sarlona?).But I understand it less from the perspective of creating a living, growing world for people to game in.

It's not just a financial angle - if you're a Dark Sun fan and don't like FR, you don't get a world to game in, living or not. They aren't supporting FR or Eberron nearly as much, but they're supporting other settings a lot more.

 

[darkwing]

Don't forget the paperback novels. If you need more ideas you could try reading those.

Disclaimer: I haven't read any D&D novels since Song of the Saurials.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I like the new way of doing it. I would love to see more settings, especially ones that reinvent 4E to an extent like Dark Sun did.

FR has been done to death in how many editions now? How many titles?

Eberron is not that bad, but if it is not for you, every book printed there is a lost sale.

Of course lost sales goes for all books, but I think a lot more people are gonna buy book 1-3 of a series than book 17-20.

 

[Shemeska]

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.