Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 havard Aug 07, 2008 19:44:42	This is not meant to be a grumpy thread. I was never a grumpy guy, in spite of what other discussions here might indicate. But this made me curious. Is it true that having multiple worlds for D&Das they did back the TSR era is neccessarily a bad thing? If so, why would WotC now shift to releasing a new setting each year? While I see the point that the fact that the fanbase was fragmented during the TSR era was bad for business, is it not also true that the multitude of settings had a certain appeal? I love most of the old settings and I remember the fascination I had every time TSR would release a new setting. Is it even really possible to force every D&D group into playing in the same setting? Havard
#2 metal Aug 07, 2008 19:53:58	Is it even really possible to force every D&D group into playing in the same setting? If it is then I choose Mystara. :D Alright everyone start buying Gazs!
#3 eric_anondson Aug 07, 2008 20:21:47	Is it true that having multiple worlds for D&Das they did back the TSR era is neccessarily a bad thing? What ended up not working was that TSR was trying to support the various settings with new material, all at the same time. Some settings got remarkable production values that didn't have large sales numbers . . . large enough to justify the production values invested. Some at TSR were convinced that the multiple settings fractured the customer base. I am not convinced this happened in a large enough amount to cannibalize sales. If so, why would WotC now shift to releasing a new setting each year? I am of the belief that WotC will not be supporting the settings concurrently. That when the next setting comes out, the previous setting will not be getting active published support. FR would be the exception due to the Living FR campaign where FR will be get continuous adventure support through volunteers at the RPGA. So, while Eberron gets its year in the sun, FR won't be getting printed products . . . And then whatever follows Eberron will get the published support while Eberron moves into the "retired" stable. All "retired" settings will still get support in Dragon and Dungeon. All IMO, of course.
#4 lord_karsus Aug 07, 2008 20:48:10	-I, personally, don't feel that it was a bad thing. One of the things that I liked the most about Planescape and Spelljammer specifically was the 'cross-over' appeal factor that each had. -From what I understand, it really wasn't that TSR had so many different settings that led to it's eventually downfall, but rather, the way that it handled it. For example, printing a whole lot of copies of a supplement for a niche setting. So, while Eberron gets its year in the sun, FR won't be getting printed products . . . And then whatever follows Eberron will get the published support while Eberron moves into the "retired" stable. All "retired" settings will still get support in Dragon and Dungeon. -Being as that the designers have stated that there are only two books slated to be released for the 4-Gotten Realms (The campaign setting and a player's guide), plus an adventure, I believe this is exactly what is going to happen. Next year, Eberron, the year after, something else, and after that, something else. Each setting will get some material upon their release, and then that's it. -Note, though, that via things like DDI, or online DRAGON magazine, other materials can be made available for each setting that count.
#5 goblin_pride Aug 07, 2008 21:29:00	-From what I understand, it really wasn't that TSR had so many different settings that led to it's eventually downfall, but rather, the way that it handled it. For example, printing a whole lot of copies of a supplement for a niche setting. TSR's failing was putting so much of their resources into the Birthright campaign setting when it wasn't as good a product as their other established worlds. Sure, Dark Sun didn't sell as well as FR, but it did sell. The same can be said for Spelljammer, Al-Qadim, Ravenloft and Mystara. Selling a few copies of a setting's publications is ok if you don't print millions of them.
#6 lord_karsus Aug 07, 2008 21:32:47	-There's the infamous story that I cannot confirm, as I've only heard it though the grapevine, of the TSR warehouse filled with boxes of a certain Spelljammer sourcebook that utterly bombed.
#7 goblin_pride Aug 07, 2008 23:33:09	-There's the infamous story that I cannot confirm, as I've only heard it though the grapevine, of the TSR warehouse filled with boxes of a certain Spelljammer sourcebook that utterly bombed. I can confirm from my own memory seeing row after row of Birthright materials never leaving the bookshelves of my local bookshop. Don't get me wrong, it was a good idea but the execution of it was the worst I'd ever seen and it sold about as well as sandboxes in the Sahara.
#8 ranger_reg Aug 08, 2008 1:02:23	This is not meant to be a grumpy thread. I was never a grumpy guy, in spite of what other discussions here might indicate. But this made me curious. Is it true that having multiple worlds for D&Das they did back the TSR era is neccessarily a bad thing? If so, why would WotC now shift to releasing a new setting each year? Because some of the settings may not continue to be supported for a long period of time. Some settings will just have that one main setting book and nothing more.