Café de Nuit

Setting wise, WotC has done nothing good since Eberron. (Which is an excellent setting btw.)

Now Paizo, those guys are publishing a really good "retro-gaming" Sword & Sorcery setting. I recently found this old post by Erik Mona about the strengths of the Greyhawk setting, and it seems to me that since he couldn't get Greyhawk revived has adapted his ideas to paizo's new flagship setting Golarion. Golarion has become a home to some of the greatest 2E and 3E D&D Designers who didn't jump on the 4E bandwagon. It'll be really interesting to see how this pans out.

WoTC made the decision a while back to focus more on rules and let you create the setting. That sits fine with me - I never used "canon" Ravenloft, either.

I agree that paizo's got a good thing going - Pathfinder has some issues, but it's still in beta, so that's understandable. I like my settings a little more historical than that, but I'll take a gander.

Charney, would you have bought some Mystara, Dragonlance, or Birthright products, too? I seem to recall that not every setting came out with a product every month...

Rafael wrote:
Nearly all other gaming companies in the biz have proven by good sales that retro-gaming oriented supplements are what the majority of the gaming community demands.

What constitutes "good sales" for other gaming companies in the market, constitutes about 1/100th of numbers Wizards needs to sell just to stay afloat. Their ongoing strategy since 2000 has been to develop new tastes in gaming and products with a very wide mass appeal. This has nothing to do with a "choice" Wizards has had to make - the company is forced, virtually knife on throat, to come up with a continual flow of new and original stuff to keep the market from stagnating. Doing otherwise would result in the shutting down of their Dungeons and Dragons department due to poor returns.

Here's a thought: we might actually never see D&D 5th edition. More likely, the R&D won't be able to keep up with the business demands, so a logical step for Wizards would be to try and create a brand-new "mega-RPG" to take D&D's place. That, or simply shut down the RPG department and concentrate on other hobby products.

The way I see it, Dungeons and Dragons is not eternal. Eventually, it will be gone. I try to enjoy it to the fullest as it is now.

Actually, I suspect that by the time "5th edition" rolls around, it'll all be online in some fashion or another. Overhead costs for publishing paper books are murder.

What irks me is that's likely the complete text: all the information on Domains of Dread in the MotP.
We're really not being given alot to work with. WotC is really keeping the lines fluff-light, we never see the whole only small pieces and fragments. Yes, it keeps us coming back but I feel manipulated by the drip of information and carefully parcelled out revelations.
Unlike earlier editions they're really spacing out the basic, traditional core material. It'll be 2-3 years before we get everything that was in the combined three books of 3.5; and by the time we get all the classic monsters and dragons and such they'll be wrapping up 4e in favour of 5e...

As for Greyhawk, I was never a fan. Gygax never really released his home version of the world and only published a variant because he didn't want to reveal the secrets of his game to his players.
But it was also such a bland, generic world. I tried reading the RPGA produced Greyhawk Gazetteer but found it terribly, terribly dry and boring (like a poorly written real-world textbook).
While it was based heavily on the Swords & Sorcery worlds it was written and concieved in the '70s, almost 40-50 years after the initial boom of S&S tales. In the passing half century we had all manner of new writers and versions of fantasy worlds, including the birth of Tolkien high fantasy. To me, Greyhawk felt amaturish and bland, a real-world cypher with country names crossed out and new ones written in with no thought given to geography or politics or trade.

Igor the Henchman wrote:The way I see it, Dungeons and Dragons is not eternal. Eventually, it will be gone. I try to enjoy it to the fullest as it is now.

Fortunately, "gone" is relative. Even if WotC ceases publication of original RPG materials, we'll still have the 3.5 SRD rules to work with: they can't put that genie back in the bottle. Ironically, that means 3.5 is likely to outlive its successors as a 'freeware' hobby, even if nobody's making money out of it.

Irving the Meek wrote:There was actually some sound logic behind WoTC's decision to trim down the settings...

I know, and basically agree. - But: Why did they cancel Dragonlance, despite having the very successful novel line, for example? - Or Greyhawk, which had good sales even through the entire 3.0 time? - Of course, Birthright, or Spelljammer, that was a commercial mistake, but like half of the D&D settings was actually having a broad and active fan base. - And it's not like the fans would have demanded to resurrect 2e's monster lines: One or two books for the settings would have been more than enough.

Green Ronin shows for many years how settings can be marketed with a few good books only, be profitable and, most importantly, keep the fans.
(Check their Thieves World line; some of the best d20 rules I know so far.)

Rotipher of the FoS wrote:Fortunately, "gone" is relative. Even if WotC ceases publication of original RPG materials, we'll still have the 3.5 SRD rules to work with: they can't put that genie back in the bottle. Ironically, that means 3.5 is likely to outlive its successors as a 'freeware' hobby, even if nobody's making money out of it.

Yeah. Business-wise, Paizo did what WotC should have done. Ask the fans what they liked and disliked about the rules, and then fix things.

Jester of the FoS wrote:To me, Greyhawk felt amaturish and bland, a real-world cypher with country names crossed out and new ones written in with no thought given to geography or politics or trade.

Yeah, but that was also a different time in the sense that settings were mainly created as a backdrop for monster dungeons - the original groups scarcely ever came out of the dungeons, and political gaming was basically unknown.
The setting was basically created to link all the different dungeons that people had played in into one big world, and at that time, noone seriously thought about publishing it the way it would, or detailing it above the most obvious level. What has changed today with RPGers in general is that many just find amusement in creating and detailing settings, and not so much in creating gamewise challenges.

- The OD&D Gaz, Wilderlands, or FR are the first settings that were created with a real concept in mind, and the difference IMO is notable.

- However, Greyhawk and Gygaxian D&D still: Wooohoooo!

Rafael wrote:But: Why did they cancel Dragonlance, despite having the very successful novel line, for example?

During 2e days, sales showed that, while Dragonlance novels were extremely successful, setting material barely sold at all. The cheer number of novels made the setting very unappealing game-wise - why play in a world where everything cool has already been done by fictional heroes? With 3E, WotC made the decision to concentrate exclusively on the novel line. They might do a second try, of course - but the bad precedent remains.

Rafael wrote:- Or Greyhawk, which had good sales even through the entire 3.0 time? -

As far as I know, the Greyhawk setting had a total of 1 product since 2000: the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. Judging by the total lack of similar products thereafter, I suppose it must have sold poorly.

Rafael wrote: Of course, Birthright, or Spelljammer, that was a commercial mistake, but like half of the D&D settings was actually having a broad and active fan base.

Yes, these settings all had thousands of active and loyal fans. But WotC needs hundreds of thousands of customers for their products to turn out a profit. That's why, they only produce "sure things".

Here's the trouble with WotC: the company's upper management, marketing and sales department understand D&D - many even play it now and then. This is a very bad thing when you try give free reign to creativity during product or setting design. Back in TSR, writers and designers often didn't have to explain in detail exactly what they were creating to the upper management. Mentality was: you write whatever it is you write, and we'll sell it. If it doesn't sell, we'll fire you and try someone else. This approach gave us a myriad of varied, original settings like Planescape, Al-Quadim, Dark Sun, Birthright and our beloved Ravenloft.

In WotC, things are not so simple. No writers, but designers and developers. They are handled assignments for products, dictated by marketing research. Material is scrutinized to make sure its marketable to the average "Joe Gamer". Material that is overly innovative or appealing to a minority gets cut as so much deadwood.

WotC is not evil, uncreative, or stupid. The person currently at the head of the 4E product line is also author of Night of the Walking Dead. These are very talented, savvy people who understand game industry and customer taste very well. It is only the need to cater to as great a majority as possible in every single product that prevents them from producing marginal product lines like TSR used to.

Rafael wrote:Yeah. Business-wise, Paizo did what WotC should have done. Ask the fans what they liked and disliked about the rules, and then fix things.

To each his own philosophy. Paizo chose to go with fan opinion to guide their design, WotC chose playtesting and market research. Its a good thing both lines of thought are present in the industry, methinks.

I don't really know enough about Pathfinder, Greyhawk, or Green Ronin (though I enjoy Mutants & Masterminds 1st edition a lot) to comment.

While I'm definitely interested in Pathfinder and Paizo, I can see that a lot of the problems inherent in 3.5 (power creep, "four encounters and camp" game pacing, class disparities) are still present, or even exacerbated. I'm keeping an eye on it, but I need a little more convincing.

On Dragonlance: I still own exactly two "Dragonlance books": Leaves from the Inn of the Last Home and its sequel. They're great cook books... but they have very, very little to do with Dragonlance, and nothing at all to do with D&D. Why they were published, I have no idea (although I'm grateful for the flatbread recipe).

Rafael wrote:Yeah, but that was also a different time in the sense that settings were mainly created as a backdrop for monster dungeons - the original groups scarcely ever came out of the dungeons, and political gaming was basically unknown.
The setting was basically created to link all the different dungeons that people had played in into one big world, and at that time, noone seriously thought about publishing it the way it would, or detailing it above the most obvious level. What has changed today with RPGers in general is that many just find amusement in creating and detailing settings, and not so much in creating gamewise challenges.

That's really not much of an excuse. I mean, the first couple campaign worlds I thought-up in jr. High were more original than Greyhawk.

Greyhawk is a setting where it's single defining event (the Invoked Devastation) occurred thousands of years ago and whole lots of nothing have occurred since. It's a backdrop because there's not alot really going on and you only need the simplest of places (big city with cavernous dungeon).
And most of it is so blatantly real world parallels (Baklunish are Arabian and the church of al Akbar even has a Suuni/Sh'ia split, there's viking, the Roman Great Empire, etc) with no real thought on how a magical or fantasy world would develop differently than our mundane, human world. The big divided world with clear political boundaries, forests and plains the size of medium European countries, a few demihuman nations aside from the token realms (that's the Elf kingdom, it's pretty much the same as the other elf kingdom) in an otherwise human dominated land.

Rafael wrote:The OD&D Gaz, Wilderlands, or FR are the first settings that were created with a real concept in mind, and the difference IMO is notable.

Not really... FR was created by Ed Greenwood as a setting for novels, stories, and his homegame before TSR bought it. It's arguably old yet seems much more well-rounded in terms of plot and villains and conflict than Greyhawk (which has monsters, and slavers, and Iuz).

Irving the Meek wrote:While I'm definitely interested in Pathfinder and Paizo, I can see that a lot of the problems inherent in 3.5 (power creep, "four encounters and camp" game pacing, class disparities) are still present, or even exacerbated. I'm keeping an eye on it, but I need a little more convincing.

I was very, very, very critical of Pathfinder at first. Really, it seemed like taking a half-step. Doing less to fix the very real problems and changes with the fundamentals of the game and more a slap of paint to fix some mild PC problems like Power Attack and dead levels. Fixing things on the PC end and ignoring the giant problem of too much preparation to write-up humanoid monsters or dealing with the books and books of broken Prestige Classes and creatures and spells...

But the more I look at it the more I like the idea of still playing 3e and using all the many, many books I have, but playing with slightly better balanced classes and races. It does fix things nicely on the PC side (as much as possible, and smooths some of the larger problems down) and gives some guidelines for monsters that can speed-up creation and give tools for evaluation.

It's not much, but it does improve the game. The only real solution would be a complete overhaul that would lead to a state like 4e (if not actually using 4e itself).

Heh. Hearing the Known World (OD&D) referenced in this context is more than a little ironic, considering that it started out as an equally-bland collage of parallel versions of IRL nations, plus token demihuman states. While the Gaz series masterfully rescued Mystara from such ignominy, the map it'd started out with (from X1: Isle of Dread), was even more nondescript than Greyhawk's! Fortunately, unlike GH, Mystara was further developed by writers who cared more about regional politics and characters than dungeons.

Gaaak!

I wrote a lengthy post in reply, but accidentally deleted it!

So, in a few words - I did a bit internet research, and indeed, it seems like WotC itself is aiming as a base customership of about 30,000 regular buyers.
I don't buy that they cannot allow themselves some liberties to experiment with that.

- But in general, it's not like I was weeping day and night over the cancellation of Dragon Magazine. I would still buy *my* D&D stuff it if was out, though, and I still occasionally do. Just now I go to ebay and not to the gaming store to find myself a nice Christmas present. My win, their loss, after all.

Jester, the Pathfinder crunch -aka 3.75 - is one thing, but what do you think of their fluff ? Their adventures, Classic Monsters Revisited, the Golarion setting. I think that is the true strength of Pathfinder/Paizo.

Eh. Golarion doesn't do much for me, but I'm peculiar. My setting of choice for fantasy roleplay would be either Ravenloft(duh) or a Pendragon-ish setting; I always have this feeling that, now that we're grownups, revisiting old classics like knights in shining armor and so forth would be interesting. The artwork I've seen for Golarion strongly suggests to me that Golarion is definitely Not That.