TheRPGSite

Original link here. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080430&authentic=true)

QuoteTraveling Show

by Bill Slavicsek
04/30/2008


You may have noticed that my column is a little late this month. That's because things have been even crazier as we get closer and closer to the launch of D&D 4th Edition. I spent a lot of this past month on the road. It started in early April with a trip to I-CON at Stony Brook University in Long Island, New York. Mike Mearls and I gave a 4E Preview Seminar to a packed hall, ran a bunch of demos, and talked to very enthusiastic fans. We had a wonderful time, met lots of wonderful people, and had a lot of fun showing off the new game system.

Then I traveled to Los Angeles with The Rouse and Chris Youngs, to hold a series of press conferences with various media outlets including the gang from G4's MMO Report. We talked all about 4th Edition, including the physical products and the digital offerings, and showed off the latest versions of the D&D Game Table and D&D Character Visualizer. These components are getting closer and closer to completion with each iteration, and I can't wait to start playing for real with the release versions. Soon, soon.

Finally, last week I was at the GAMA Trade Show in Las Vegas, showing off the first production copies of the three core rulebooks (Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual), H1: Keep on the Shadowfell, and the new D&D Dungeon Master's Screen. I'm happy with the finished products, and everyone who came by and spoke to me seemed enthusiastic and excited as well.

This month, I also ordered the D&D Insider team to ramp up the preview content and show off the system. We've been releasing artwork and key sections of the core rulebooks three times a week, and the response continues to be great. We're closing in on D&D 4E Release Day (June 6th) and D&D Game Day (June 7th) -- and I can't wait for the products to hit the stores and for people to start playing! Soon, soon.
Campaign Settings

I wanted to take a few moments to clarify what I said at GTS last week. In regards to campaign settings, our goal for this edition is to make each setting we release unique and exciting on its own while still making it usable in any D&D campaign. Now, what exactly does that mean?

You wouldn't believe how many times over the years I've heard people say "I play in [insert favorite campaign setting here] so product X is of no use to me," or "I only play Core D&D (whatever that means) so I can't use that [insert campaign setting here] product." I plan to change that under 4th Edition by getting the word out that it's okay to mix and match. Go ahead. Get peanut butter in the chocolate. Some of the best campaigns I ever ran or had the pleasure to play in had a little bit of [insert campaign setting here] mixed with a smattering of [insert other campaign setting here] and combined all that with homebrew ideas to create something totally new and different.

So under 4th Edition, we're making every product look like a core product. The Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide releasing in August, for example, is a separate and unique setting on one hand, while being totally core D&D on the other. That means you can play a strictly Forgotten Realms campaign, or you can borrow the bits you like best to use in whatever D&D campaign you're playing in. This has always been true, but you wouldn't believe how many players were reluctant to cross the streams like that. I say cross away! (At least as far as your personal campaigns are concerned.) Why not use the best ideas, powers, feats, monsters, villains, and plot hooks from any product -- regardless of the campaign world your game is set in?

This means we won't be producing campaign lines, per se. For the Forgotten Realms, for example, you'll get the Campaign Guide, Player's Guide, and an adventure as physical products, as well as our ongoing line of bestselling novels, and plenty of ongoing support via D&D Insider. If a product idea comes along later that makes sense, we'll do it, but there won't be an ongoing regular release schedule of Forgotten Realms game products. Why not? Because every D&D product we do is a Forgotten Realms [or insert your favorite campaign setting here] game product. This is a subtle but significant change in philosophy geared toward making all players D&D players. It just makes the products and the brand stronger if every player is using the same material.

This is significantly different than what has occurred in the past. We won't be making the mistakes of line proliferation that helped sink TSR, and we won't be actively segmenting our audience. Instead we'll be providing all kinds of options and ideas through the core line of D&D RPG products. It's all D&D, all the time.

The model described above will be used every year, and we'll focus on a different campaign setting. Next year, we'll give this treatment to Eberron. After that? Well, we'll be exploring the best worlds from our vault, as well as creating new worlds as warranted. I can't guarantee which worlds will see this treatment as of yet, but chances are that your favorite campaign setting is on my list for consideration. And for all of them, in addition to the physical products we do, you'll see novels and novel lines (as appropriate), and ongoing support that continues to explore the worlds through D&D Insider. This plan makes D&D stronger, without sacrificing the heart of any campaign setting.

Next month... H1: Keep on the Shadowfell releases, complete with D&D Quick Start Rules and ready-to-play characters. Everyone will be able to start playing 4E!

Keep playing!

--Bill Slavicsek

Discuss.

It is the absolute right thing to do.

I think some of the past reluctance to mix settings books was warranted.  FR tends to be slightly munchkin - allowing material from it can negatively impact campaigns.  Dark Sun was high powered and weird.  If magic systems are slightly different, than any magic heavy books from one setting won't apply to another without tweaking.
 
It sounds like a good idea but we'll have to see how well it really works and how long until the power creep sets in.

Quote from: NicephorusI think some of the past reluctance to mix settings books was warranted.  FR tends to be slightly munchkin - allowing material from it can negatively impact campaigns.  Dark Sun was high powered and weird.  If magic systems are slightly different, than any magic heavy books from one setting won't apply to another without tweaking.
 
It sounds like a good idea but we'll have to see how well it really works and how long until the power creep sets in.

I'd be a bit more concerned the other way. To accomplish the feat (haha) might they homogenate the individual settings further? Hrmm.


P.S.  Other than that I'm surprised no one has linked to the new multiclassing exert. Oh yeah, this in the board of people a minimum of 4 weeks behind the rest of the world, and then the hate will come seething out about things that have long been clarified elsewhere. :keke:

Quote from: DwightI'd be a bit more concerned the other way. To accomplish the feat (haha) might they homogenate the individual settings further? Hrmm.

If it's just the mechanics, it might be ok.  I'll wait and see.
 
Already saw the multiclassing bit, not sure what to think yet without seeing it in context of the whole ruleset.

Quote from: NicephorusAlready saw the multiclassing bit, not sure what to think yet without seeing it in context of the whole ruleset.

If I grokked it right they got rid of multiclassing per say. Sounds more like build you own class out of class elements? Sorta. Sounds interesting but I agree that it is different enough that seeing the whole thing in the rules is a requirement.

At least they seem to have a good handle on the bad effects of prior multi/dual classing.

I've seen the multiclassing article, but without the full rules it's a bit complicated to really have an opinion of the option.

Don't they run the risk of all the various settings just becoming kind of generic?

From what I gathered on multiclassing, you can only multiclass at level 11 and 21.  Instead of going paragon at 11, you choose another class to become a secondary class, and at 21 you can do the same thing to have a tietiary class.  You won't be able to pick up 4 levels of fighter and switch out, you'll have to wait until level 11.

On the topic at hand, I don't think it'll work.  Telling people they're free to mix greyhawk with faerun isn't going to get anyone else to do it than normal.  I'm not even sure how many times I'd wanna mix two settings.  When I'm playing Ravenloft, I don't want a Faerun element mixed in there... it would probably stick out.

I've played with a lot of non-core material in 3.x.  Lately, I've only played with core books.  This is mainly because of the power creep.  There's no reason for me to believe this will not be the case in 4e, but I won't discount the non-core from the start.

Quote from: walkerpDon't they run the risk of all the various settings just becoming kind of generic?

Well, that's possible.  

For my tastes, I think that GURPS handles this pretty well.  They do try to promote some mix-and-match of their sourcebooks (i.e. how to use GURPS Martial Arts with GURPS Japan and also with GURPS Special Ops).  Still, most of their worldbooks are quite distinctive.  

The trickier issue is with adventures.  Making adventures not specific to a given setting seems like it will rob them of their flavor.

Quote from: KingSpoomFrom what I gathered on multiclassing, you can only multiclass at level 11 and 21.  Instead of going paragon at 11, you choose another class to become a secondary class, and at 21 you can do the same thing to have a tietiary class.  You won't be able to pick up 4 levels of fighter and switch out, you'll have to wait until level 11.

There's also something about a set of feats that let you grab powers from other classes, and take non-base-class-specific feats.

I'm sort of intrigued by the whole bringing-back-old settings idea, mostly because I never got to play any of them. More than a couple look cool. Whether I actually use any of the material they put out probably comes down to execution; I can see how it could go good or bad.

I think the detail on how they will handle the settings is the most positive thing I have read on 4e so far. It should encourage more players to be willing to mix and match elements. Don;t want Dragonborn in your game well just dump them maybe mix in Kinder or from the .
We never played a campaign setting but we used bits from all of them. The GreyHawk Map (from the old boxed set) some of the gods from forgotten realms, some of the spells and the Djinn from Arabian adventures, the martial arts system from Oriental adventures. An Elven monk with style of Lau Gar and a loyal Djinn... lovely.

Sounds good to me. I've mixed and matched before and will probably do it again. It'll be much easier if the system is designed to allow it.

:eyepop:

Why even bother to call them settings anymore?  It's all just one big D&DLand Fun Park now.

EDIT: I think some of you aren't getting what Bill is saying.  There will be player's guides that say you can use them in any setting.  Don't want dragonborn in your campaign?  Tough, your player does, and the rules as written are on his side.  Don't want warforged?  Tough, once the eberron book comes out (unless they made warforged core).  Don't want Kender?  Pray they don't release a Dragonlance combo.

4E is killing the DM's ability to set limits on his or her campaign.

4e sounds increasingly like a giant vanilla blancmange.

QuoteThis is a subtle but significant change in philosophy geared toward making all players D&D players.

YOU'LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: Jackalope:eyepop:

Why even bother to call them settings anymore?  It's all just one big D&DLand Fun Park now.

EDIT: I think some of you aren't getting what Bill is saying.  There will be player's guides that say you can use them in any setting.  Don't want dragonborn in your campaign?  Tough, your player does, and the rules as written are on his side.  Don't want warforged?  Tough, once the eberron book comes out (unless they made warforged core).  Don't want Kender?  Pray they don't release a Dragonlance combo.

4E is killing the DM's ability to set limits on his or her campaign.

Hehehe that is just about the nuttiest thing I have ever heard. Someone comes to my table saying I want to play a Dragonborn or a Night Elf or whatever and I have decided those races are out or that everyone has to be a dwarf because this is a dwarf campaign then ... well tough.

The DM is in charge they set the parameters of the game if there is something they don't like its gone. The only rule is that this stuff has to be done up front. You can't allow something then when the PC exploits it change your mind and take it back.

Quote from: The_Shadow4e sounds increasingly like a giant vanilla blancmange.

It depends on the approach. I'm hoping it'll be more "setting smorgasboard" than "setting soup", where as DM I can pick and choose which elements to use and which to leave alone.

In other words, I think it could work if they are very firm that every setting-specific book is non-Core. If we start seeing core rulebooks which require the use of, say, the FR setting guide then we're moving in the wrong direction.

Quote from: WarthurIt depends on the approach. I'm hoping it'll be more "setting smorgasboard" than "setting soup", where as DM I can pick and choose which elements to use and which to leave alone.

I agree. The article doesn't suggest that you must use every element from every setting, it merely encourages GMs and players to mine all the available settings for material which they can use to realise their own setting.

I guess I just don't "get" it.

How is the new approach different than in the previous three versions?  I could always use the spells / races / classes / monsters from one setting in another setting if I really wanted to.  How does Bill saying it's "officially OK" make that any different?

To me, this either means that absolutely nothing has changed from the way past editions worked (meaning its just marketing speak nonsense).  Or, it will have one or more negative consequences:

* The products will all actively encourage you to use everything from every book in your campaign.  Players will get even more grumpy when a DM tries to limit anything - effectively forcing the DM into running nothing but kitchen-sink games of high-powered madness (which will get even worse as each new book inevitably introduces more power creep).

* The small rule changes that did make the different settings unique will finally disappear, making them all more bland.  There's not much point to the Birthright world if you aren't using the blood rules, for example.

* Every book will start assuming you've purchased every other book (this happens a lot with Rifts books).  Suddenly rule books, possibly even future "core" books, could have pieces you can't use because you don't buy every book they put out.

I get a feeling that there is going to be a misguided marketing ploy in future WOTC products.  I think the idea went something like this:
 
"Why did book A sell so much more than book B"
 
"That's because A is a core book and B is only for those who play in the lame-ass elf setting. Almost everyone buys the core books."
 
"Hey! Let's make all the books core books!"
 
They've said stuff about producing new core books every year.  Does this mean that, instead splat books, they'll package stuff of that nature together along the lines of the original Unearthed Arcana and call it a new core book?  I'm curious how well that will go over.

Quote from: Jackalope:eyepop: 4E is killing the DM's ability to set limits on his or her campaign.

Yes, WOTC has plans for a squad to enforce player choice.  Every book will have a 900 number in the back to ensure that  a player gets to use anything from a book they buy.  A simple call will bring in "fair play" goons to use physical and legal intimidation on DMs.
 
Or, maybe you're full of alarmist tripe and things will be the same as they've always been with DMs making calls on what they'll allow.  AD&D had the same thing with players wanting to use stuff in Dragon and Unearthed Arcana yet DMs still managed to run games.

Quote from: jgantsI guess I just don't "get" it.

How is the new approach different than in the previous three versions?  I could always use the spells / races / classes / monsters from one setting in another setting if I really wanted to.  How does Bill saying it's "officially OK" make that any different?

Thank you, jgants. I asked the same question over on d20 Haven (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=94). Am I missing something? This seems like a cosmetic change at best. The whole point of products that were published by TSR/WotC (or with the OGL/d20 srd) was that you could use them across the spectrum. If you were doing something in you homebrew, you might have to adjust.

So, like I asked over on d20 Haven - can someone provide an example of where something could not be used? Am I just missing something - which I'm fully ready to admit, but I'm truly perplexed...

Quote from: jgantsI guess I just don't "get" it.

How is the new approach different than in the previous three versions?  I could always use the spells / races / classes / monsters from one setting in another setting if I really wanted to.  How does Bill saying it's "officially OK" make that any different?

I think it's indicating a subtle shift in the sort of setting products they put out - they're going to consciously try to make the sort of product which people can easily grab material from and slot into their own campaign. So, more spells, races, classes and monsters, and less all-fluff like the Grand History of the Realms.

Quote from: NicephorusYes, WOTC has plans for a squad to enforce player choice.  Every book will have a 900 number in the back to ensure that  a player gets to use anything from a book they buy.  A simple call will bring in "fair play" goons to use physical and legal intimidation on DMs.
 
Or, maybe you're full of alarmist tripe and things will be the same as they've always been with DMs making calls on what they'll allow.  AD&D had the same thing with players wanting to use stuff in Dragon and Unearthed Arcana yet DMs still managed to run games.

In previous editions, the rules specifically stated that such decisions were in the hands of the DM.  DM Fiat was not something DM's invented, it was something the rules asserted.  The concept of DM Fiat has been under attack in recent years

In the post-Forge 4E, who knows what the rules will state?  It sounds from Bill's comments that there will be player options books that officially state that they may be used in any campaign.

Will DM's still be able to invoke DM Fiat and bar undesirable books, feats, classes, races, etc. from their campaign?  Sure.  But now the rules won't support them, their players will be justified in calling them cheaters, and new players who learn the game under the new paradigm will be increasingly intolerant of the very concept that a DM can ban a book they paid good money for.

Quote from: JackalopeWill DM's still be able to invoke DM Fiat and bar undesirable books, feats, classes, races, etc. from their campaign?  Sure.  But now the rules won't support them, their players will be justified in calling them cheaters, and new players who learn the game under the new paradigm will be increasingly intolerant of the very concept that a DM can ban a book they paid good money for.

GMs have been homebrewing for years making such radical changes to the rules/settings which have not been supported by the official rules except with a brief "it's up to the GM" without complaint from their players. Also I doubt players are going to buy books for use in a campaign simply because WotC says there will be options for use in any campaigns without checking with the GM first or even if it's the usual practise for players to buy books. Home play is not tournament play. If players start calling their GMs cheaters it's a symptom of group or individual dysfunction rather than anything to do with these new rules.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JackalopeIn previous editions, the rules specifically stated that such decisions were in the hands of the DM.  DM Fiat was not something DM's invented, it was something the rules asserted.  The concept of DM Fiat has been under attack in recent years

In the post-Forge 4E, who knows what the rules will state?  It sounds from Bill's comments that there will be player options books that officially state that they may be used in any campaign.

Will DM's still be able to invoke DM Fiat and bar undesirable books, feats, classes, races, etc. from their campaign?  Sure.  But now the rules won't support them, their players will be justified in calling them cheaters, and new players who learn the game under the new paradigm will be increasingly intolerant of the very concept that a DM can ban a book they paid good money for.

Fuck dude, it's like you never even cracked open these dreaded books that do exist. You remind me of the little old ladies in the small rural town where I grew up. The got these grossly distorted ideas of the outside world from the Christian Ministers on the TV that painted an alarmist picture of crap that barely has a kernel of truth to it.

Oh noes, maybe the DM will be encouraged to work with the players to figure out what the world is going to be like rather than just showing up and dishing out the gruel and the players are expected to say (according to page 135, paragraph 4) "yum, can I have some more"! :rolleyes:

Looks like WOTC had reverted and will now only enforce the 4e GSL on a product-by-product basis instead of a company by company basis. Sooo... companies can now produce by 0GL and 4e GSL material as they choose.

One just can't make or distribute an OGL version of any 4e GSL licensed product. Reference:

Wizards News Release (http://www.wizards.com:80/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080502)

Actually, Jackalope may have more of a point than some here credit.

Young gamers, gamers in their teens for example, often don't realise you don't need to use the rules or that you can change the rules.

OWoD used all the time to say "with book X you can now play y".  I remember gamers on rpg.net saying "I could always play y, I just made up rules for it".  They didn't get it.

When Unearthed Arcana came out for AD&D I was a teenager.  It was an official book, official rules.  It let us play things that previously the rules had not allowed, Cavaliers for example.  Duergar I think was another.

The GM was just one guy in the group, it changed which of us it was, but to not allow official rules was not ok, arguably it was cheating.  Those were, after all, the rules of the game we were playing.  So, we created Duergar, Cavaliers, whatever.  Our game crashed and died.

So, we couldn't run a meaningful campaign anymore using those rules, at which point all the experienced gamers here would ditch those rules.  We didn't, it didn't occur to us - after all they were official rules, you couldn't just pretend they didn't exist.

We stopped playing D&D and played Rolemaster and Runequest instead, where the rules worked for us.

Immature gamers often play games by the official rules, and place great weight on what is and is not allowed in those rules.  It's actually why the golden rule matters more than many thirtysomething indie gamers realise, it means there is an official rule allowing the GM to make shit up.

Without that, just banning something because you don't like it, well if it's offical that's tough - like banning getting £200 when you land on go in Monopoly.  Those are the rules of the game, we play by the rules, if you don't you're cheating.

Now, WotC may handle this well, but the basic point Jackalope makes rings true to me for adolescent gamers, which given you have to get your mother's permission to register for gleemax is plainly who 4e is aimed at.

Quote from: BalbinusWe stopped playing D&D and played Rolemaster and Runequest instead, where the rules worked for us.

That sounds like a good outcome to me.

QuoteImmature gamers often play games by the official rules, and place great weight on what is and is not allowed in those rules.  It's actually why the golden rule matters more than many thirtysomething indie gamers realise, it means there is an official rule allowing the GM to make shit up.

I suggest that that is why the "golden rule" as it exists in D&D is pretty fucked up.

QuoteNow, WotC may handle this well, but the basic point Jackalope makes rings true to me for adolescent gamers, which given you have to get your mother's permission to register for gleemax is plainly who 4e is aimed at.

Hey, even you'll have to get your mother's permission if you want to sign up for Gleemax. ;) Seriously. Welcome to beta. :D

Quote from: BalbinusNow, WotC may handle this well, but the basic point Jackalope makes rings true to me for adolescent gamers, which given you have to get your mother's permission to register for gleemax is plainly who 4e is aimed at.

It's not just the inexperienced teenager problem, either though.  Even a great many adult role-players feel entitled (rightly or wrongly) to be able to use anything published in an official book, particularly if they shelled out good money for that book.

It's all good and well to say, "DMs just need to set limits for their campaign", but the point is there are a lot of players out there who won't stand for it.  A DM has authority only if the rest of the players consent to it.  Not everyone in the world gets to have a group of players who are 100% perfect.  Granted, certain kinds of players always tried this stuff in the past - but at least then the DM didn't have the books undermining his authority.

Jackelope isn't saying the DM has no authority to change things.  He's bemoaning the increased potential for DMs to be stuck in a position of either having to agree to kitchen-sink craziness that they don't want, or face the prospect of one or more heated arguments over it which is certainly not fun.

Quote from: DwightThat sounds like a good outcome to me.

Um, yes actually, it was.  But if I come here and say "hurrah, these shitty rules will put people off D&D and lead them to actually decent rpgs" the local's will WalkerP my ass.

Quote from: DwightI suggest that that is why the "golden rule" as it exists in D&D is pretty fucked up.

I'm not actually sure D&D has the golden rule, I always associated it with White Wolf.  But yes, I have some sympathy with your point.  Arguably a game should be playable using the rules as written, when a group have the maturity to make changes that don't suck ass they'll probably work that out even without the rule.

Quote from: BalbinusUm, yes actually, it was.  But if I come here and say "hurrah, these shitty rules will put people off D&D and lead them to actually decent rpgs" the local's will WalkerP my ass.

Hehe. Well time to make your arrangements then. ;)

QuoteBut yes, I have some sympathy with your point.  Arguably a game should be playable using the rules as written, when a group have the maturity to make changes that don't suck ass they'll probably work that out even without the rule.

....because that's pretty much what I was getting at. Not that whatever rules should lead them away from D&D but that it will occur to people to go find a better match for what they want. Even if they tweak rules there somewhat. Find some rules that are pretty close and tweak some once you actually understand them (or hopefully the rules have the tweaks laid out for you).

QuoteI'm not actually sure D&D has the golden rule, I always associated it with White Wolf.

Well that one too. I didn't take that line as literally as I should have.

Quote from: jgantsJackelope isn't saying the DM has no authority to change things.  He's bemoaning the increased potential for DMs to be stuck in a position of either having to agree to kitchen-sink craziness that they don't want, or face the prospect of one or more heated arguments over it which is certainly not fun.

Because he can't fathom everyone around the table agreeing to what they want to play. That is sad.

*shrug* Until WotC omits the usual "the DM has the final say" in the core rule books I think it's a bit too early to "think of the children". Speaking from experience,  as teens we never had a problem ditching the rules....that is when we were playing by the rules.

Regards,
David R

Remind me where we are, again?

Quote from: One Horse TownRemind me where we are, again?

Some of us are gearing up for awesome fun with D&D 4e, and some of us are gearing up for awesome bitching about D&D 4e, and both sides think Warforged in the Realms are responsible.

The 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.  The fact that the WoTC crew have already stated that "if there's demand" they'll make more books for (popular) settings (like FR, obviously) means that this is nothing more than borrowing a page from the Green Ronin Playbook for Defending Your Crapulence.

Here's how it works:
1. release any old crap as a "3-book project".

2. If its an economic success, you can still go on to release another 40 books, or however many it takes as long as the line continues to be profitable.

3. If its a flop, you can claim (in other words pretend) that the setting wasn't a failure, it was just "never meant to be more than 3 books.. that's policy".

Its the Blue Rose scheme all over again, a bunch of corporate doubletalk meant to help cover up crappy decisions.

RPGPundit

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.  The fact that the WoTC crew have already stated that "if there's demand" they'll make more books for (popular) settings (like FR, obviously) means that this is nothing more than borrowing a page from the Green Ronin Playbook for Defending Your Crapulence.

Here's how it works:
1. release any old crap as a "3-book project".

2. If its an economic success, you can still go on to release another 40 books, or however many it takes as long as the line continues to be profitable.

3. If its a flop, you can claim (in other words pretend) that the setting wasn't a failure, it was just "never meant to be more than 3 books.. that's policy".

Its the Blue Rose scheme all over again, a bunch of corporate doubletalk meant to help cover up crappy decisions.

RPGPundit

Does that make sense? I mean if I was running a company and I was producing settings I think saying a new setting will have 3 books to it with stuff that is generic as well as stuff that is specific to this particular setting and if there is demand we will produce more books on that setting is perfectly fair.
The only danger comes if stuff that is essential for the core is released in a setting book. This would mean you had to buy a book just for one class or whatever .... I could see a benefit in an annual release of new classes or monsters or whatever in another format.

They are saying settings will have a set format, some of the stuff will be generic and we might expand settigns if there is demand.... how else should they do it?

I don't have any problem with how they're doing it, and it does make sense, and it is smart for a company to try to have a way to cover their ass and pretend their failures aren't failures.

I'm just saying I'm not fooled by it any more than I was by Green Ronin when they did it; and that "covering their asses" is the main reason to make this kind of format statement, since its clear that any really SUCCESSFUL setting will NOT be following the format in question.

RPGPundit

It's hard to estimate the success of a setting, and I suspect many people do so by the number of books that come out for it.  i.e. Amber = failure, Harn = success.  

From what I've seen in Internet polls (always a dubious measure), Greyhawk is popular and it had an explicit policy of only limited books.  (Were there any other than the core?)

It makes sense for Wizards to declare that it will go beyond three books if a setting proves successful enough. It's also very different from Blue Rose (calling it a three-book deal only after publishing them).

The question, of course, is Wizards' definition of successful enough. Should we call a setting a failure because it met but didn't exceed expectations?

Quote from: jhkimIt's hard to estimate the success of a setting, and I suspect many people do so by the number of books that come out for it.  i.e. Amber = failure, Harn = success.  

There's a good reason for that.  Most times companies will drag out a setting to as many books as they can possibly sell.  Much like TV shows and movies that make good money end up with endless sequels until they don't make money anymore.

It's a very accurate way to tell the popularity of most settings from TSR:

Greyhawk 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.

Quote from: JackalopeWill DM's still be able to invoke DM Fiat and bar undesirable books, feats, classes, races, etc. from their campaign?  Sure.  But now the rules won't support them, their players will be justified in calling them cheaters, and new players who learn the game under the new paradigm will be increasingly intolerant of the very concept that a DM can ban a book they paid good money for.

Indeed. Why would WotC want it any other way?

The question of whether this is a New Thing or not isn't a matter of what a DM could do in the past and can't do now; it's a matter of the paradigm that WotC is supporting, and how that will shape player expectations. DM fiat is clearly considered a Very Bad Thing in today's RPG culture. WotC has simply found a happy synergy between prevailing culture and making money.

Quote from: jgantsThere's a good reason for that.  Most times companies will drag out a setting to as many books as they can possibly sell.  Much like TV shows and movies that make good money end up with endless sequels until they don't make money anymore.

But my point is that's not actually true.  Looking at the number of sequels a movie spawned is an utterly stupid way of estimating its total sales.  The ten top selling films of all times (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm) were: Gone with the Wind, Star Wars, The Sound of Music, E.T., The Ten Commandments, Titanic, Jaws, Doctor Zhivago, The Exorcist, and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.  Of those, only three generated sequels.  

Meanwhile, you can find terrible, low-profit B movies generating lots of sequels -- Leprechaun 6, Ernest Goes To Camp, etc.  You don't need to be a big success to generate sequels -- in fact, you can just barely make a profit and pull in sequels.  

That's because the strategy of running a setting or series into the ground with additional books/films isn't necessarily better business sense than spending the same effort on new works.

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.

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.

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.