SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

[D&D 4e] Interesting article by Bill Slavicsek

Started by JongWK, May 01, 2008, 01:11:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions

Trevelyan

#45
May 07, 2008, 07:49:23 AM
Quote from: RPGPunditThe main comment I have to make about this whole "3 book per setting" construct is that its obviously not an editorial policy, its a marketing strategy.
I don't see why it can't be both. Having a strategy which unifies the editiorial designs with sensible marketing and vice versa isn't a crime.

WotC can recognise in advance that there is insufficient demand for a given setting to support an ongoing line but that there is enough interest to support a couple of core setting releases. That being the case they then decide to ensure that those core releases have all the necessary content to use the setting without the need for further suppliments.
 

ColonelHardisson

#46
May 07, 2008, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: jgantsGreyhawk clearly was not raking in the dough in the later 80's and into the 90's.  Forgotten Realms clearly was.  Ravenloft was a new entry that obviously did well.  Spelljammer obviously did not.  Etc.

Actually, Greyhawk was doing pretty well, almost as well as FR. The line editor for Greyhawk posted a tellingly terse confirmation that it wasn't lack of sales that killed off Greyhawk. It was TSR's conscious decision to stop supporting it, presumably so it wouldn't detract from FR. I wish I could locate that quote; I saw it first over on Paizo's boards.
"Illegitimis non carborundum." - General Joseph "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell

4e definitely has an Old School feel. If you disagree, cool. I won\'t throw any hyperbole out to prove the point.

Nicephorus

#47
May 07, 2008, 09:50:28 AM
Quote from: ColonelHardissonActually, Greyhawk was doing pretty well, almost as well as FR. The line editor for Greyhawk posted a tellingly terse confirmation that it wasn't lack of sales that killed off Greyhawk. It was TSR's conscious decision to stop supporting it, presumably so it wouldn't detract from FR. I wish I could locate that quote; I saw it first over on Paizo's boards.

It could have had something to do with the fact that Greyhawk is Gary's world and that it was a post-Gary TSR.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions