Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arnwyn" data-source="post: 1317603" data-attributes="member: 7701">Of course it's mere speculation - and everything about this entire topic will continue to be so until we see a third party publisher slap a "Greyhawk" logo on their next adventure.My reason to believe that they wouldn't is that to write an adventure in a particular setting, one requires knowledge (great knowledge) of said setting. I tend to believe that WotC (and TSR before them) have more of that knowledge than some third party publisher (who have their own concerns and work that doesn't involve poring over the campaign setting of another publisher). If (again, at the time) TSR struggled with some FR adventures (really, only the Ed Greenwood authored ones were of any value, such as Ruins of Undermountain or FA1 Halls of the High King), I would believe that some disinterested third party, with other responsibilities, would likely struggle as well.I think what I said is very much a reasonable jump of logic.(Quick note: The reason I use TSR instead of WotC is that WotC has written only 3 setting-specific adventures since 3e [RttToEE, Into the Dragon's Lair, and Pool of Radiance], and only 2 FR adventures since they took over from TSR [the 2 3e FR ones]. Not a particularly good sample size...)One can hope.I do.Yes, it is reasonable. And that's the stickler - a "responsible handling". Color me skeptical.No, you're not wrong (well, not entirely). I have a hard time believing that "WotC need not be any more responsible for how a particular DM's version of the Realms changes via third-party material than they are for how the same thing happens via a DM's original material". As soon as money and a logo is involved - WotC is responsible whether they like it or not. All 'that importance of branding' stuff.As an aside, I also disagree that WotC has "stayed away from many possible meta-plots" in regards to FR, at least. May I point you to Cloak & Dagger and the 3e FRCS?So, yes, I do agree with your basic premise - there is the possibility for the opportunity for some money to be made from making adventures in WotC-owned settings. But I also think that the hurdles (notably the part of playing with somebody else's IP) may destroy any chance of reasonable profit in a reasonable timeframe. (A basic example - look at how long poor Paradigm had to wait for AEG to approve Bloodspeakers. I would speculate that getting approval from WotC would take twice as long. As soon as a logo is involved, the approval process is daunting.)Of course, I'm a very skeptical person at heart anyways... And, speaking as a heavy-purchasing consumer - I am skeptical that somebody with little experience in a campaign setting could write something decent for that setting. For those who know GH and FR, there are a lot of horror stories...I'd be curious too - but only from the ones who actually write published adventures.</blockquote>

Verification