I sometimes hear it said that Eberron wasn't the success WotC was hoping for. While I can certainly believe that based on tertiary indicators, I'd be curious to see more direct evidence. Does anyone have some? Haven't found much online myself.
For the record, I enjoyed the one campaign I've run in it so far.
It's internet hearsay. Only the WotC guys would really know.
I like Eberron a lot, personally. One of the coolest things to come out of 3rd ed, if you ask me.
I never did pick up any Eberron material; I think it may have something to do with being enamored with the D20 Iron Kingdoms stuff at the time, and feeling that there was a lot of overlap. Not that there actually was, but I seem to recall I felt that way at the time. Maybe I should include this in the thread about not liking an RPG product for petty reasons? At any rate, while I find it much more interesting now, I play very little 3.x these days, and I need another new setting to buy material for about as much as I need new holes drilled in my head...
As for a lukewarm reception, I certainly heard that anecdotally at the time, repeatedly reinforced by people I knew, but have never seen anything firm.
I think the lukewarm reception may have come from every GM on the internets submitting their own lovingly crafted and outstandingly unique campaign world, then being pissed off it wasn't chosen.
I never cared for it personally, but all I heard about for a good few years was Ebberon (in the later 3.5 years after WotC had kinda turned away from Greyhawk and back to FR and Ebberon), and most folks seemed to have liked it.
I guess that's not that helpful and just as anecdotal as "Well no it sucked nobody bought it because I never saw anyone playing it."
Given the 3e, 4e and novel support it got, I would say the signs are that WotC thought it did well.
Well, look at the novels.
It started off strong, 12 in 2006, then slowly tapered off into nothing. 4 in 2010, 1 in 2011, 1 in 2012.
I think it probably did have a strong initial reception, but didn't make the transition to 4e
I think it was like a lot of old D&D setting, in a sense. Flared up, was briefly popular, didn't really stick around for the long haul. It seemed to do well enough at first, but outside of some number crunchers at WotC, I'm not sure any of us can be certain about that.
If the setting had sold like hotcakes, and kept on selling like hotcakes, I expect that WotC -- no more full of morons than any other business -- would have kept on pushing the product. Since they stopped pushing the product, one can reasonably infer that it stopped selling well.
Do we need to come up with any more baroque explanation than that?
I liked Eberron a lot. The 4e reboot is likely what killed it, as I had no inclination to buy any of the 4e books. Also, a lot of the novels were very, very good.
Quote from: danbuter;713752I liked Eberron a lot. The 4e reboot is likely what killed it, as I had no inclination to buy any of the 4e books. Also, a lot of the novels were very, very good.
How much of the novels had more to do with good writers, than the actual Eberron setting itself?
Would they still be good stories, if one removed all the direct Eberron references and replaced them with generic names?
Quote from: Ravenswing;713747Do we need to come up with any more baroque explanation than that?
I suppose I'm curious about the details and the degree of success or failure. Obviously it didn't set the world on fire, but what RPG product does these days? It made the leap to 4e when many other settings and D&D concepts did not, even if its run was very self-contained. Exactly how badly did it do? What factors held it back, if any? Why didn't it have the multimedia penetration potential that was clearly hoped for? I've sometimes been given the impression by the internet at large that someone outside of WotC's secret cabal knew these things.
I heard a lot about it when released and then not as much as after a couple of years. If it were really well liked it would have been pushed more by WotC.
Quote from: Zachary The First;713737I think it was like a lot of old D&D setting, in a sense. Flared up, was briefly popular, didn't really stick around for the long haul. It seemed to do well enough at first, but outside of some number crunchers at WotC, I'm not sure any of us can be certain about that.
That sounds about right.
I've seen many new Eberron books with multiple copies at Half Price books, implying that several of the books were remaindered, implying that sales were less than planned.
Eberron was a brilliant idea for D&D 3.x; "everything in D&D has a place in this setting". And it worked. I really dig Eberron and I think they accomplished that goal.
I would suggest that the decline of popularity in Eberron followed the same decline in popularity of D&D. 4e was not received as well, so it only makes sense settings ported over wouldn't either.
I would also suggest that business goals affected Eberron's popularity. What if WOTC had sold Eberron to Paizo? Or gave it back to Keith Baker to let him run with it (maybe even possibly keeping it a 3.5 ish system that competes with Pathfinder...). I think we would be looking at a different level of popularity. I think WOTC decided to focus on core books because in a decline, that is what sold the most.
It's kind of like a popular TV show. At first you have some free desktop wallpapers and maybe a calendar. Next thing you know there's action figures, coffee mugs, bathroom rugs, stickers, underwear and every imaginable THING you could brand and sell. When Eberron (and D&D) was popular, you could sell novels easily, because people were interested. Once that popularity declines, not so much.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if Eberron was re (re?) -packaged into a 3.5 platform for WOTC to support previous editions of D&D, it would see a resurgence in popularity. They should probably re-tool Forgotten Realms back to 2e, keep the generic Points of Light for 4e and come up with a completely new setting for 5e. I would dust off and update Greyhalk to be a 1e setting. Then you can publish stuff for a particular setting tied to a particular edition and offer free "conversion" PDFs for enterprising DMs who want to port a setting to another edition. I also think each of these combinations would sell pretty well.
That makes too much sense, so it probably will never happen. :)
Quote from: trechriron;713884Eberron was a brilliant idea for D&D 3.x; "everything in D&D has a place in this setting". And it worked. I really dig Eberron and I think they accomplished that goal.
I would suggest that the decline of popularity in Eberron followed the same decline in popularity of D&D. 4e was not received as well, so it only makes sense settings ported over wouldn't either.
I would also suggest that business goals affected Eberron's popularity. What if WOTC had sold Eberron to Paizo? Or gave it back to Keith Baker to let him run with it (maybe even possibly keeping it a 3.5 ish system that competes with Pathfinder...). I think we would be looking at a different level of popularity. I think WOTC decided to focus on core books because in a decline, that is what sold the most.
It's kind of like a popular TV show. At first you have some free desktop wallpapers and maybe a calendar. Next thing you know there's action figures, coffee mugs, bathroom rugs, stickers, underwear and every imaginable THING you could brand and sell. When Eberron (and D&D) was popular, you could sell novels easily, because people were interested. Once that popularity declines, not so much.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if Eberron was re (re?) -packaged into a 3.5 platform for WOTC to support previous editions of D&D, it would see a resurgence in popularity. They should probably re-tool Forgotten Realms back to 2e, keep the generic Points of Light for 4e and come up with a completely new setting for 5e. I would dust off and update Greyhalk to be a 1e setting. Then you can publish stuff for a particular setting tied to a particular edition and offer free "conversion" PDFs for enterprising DMs who want to port a setting to another edition. I also think each of these combinations would sell pretty well.
That makes too much sense, so it probably will never happen. :)
I love this plan, for what it's worth, though I agree it's unlikely to happen.
The decline of Eberron certainly has to be pinned on the transition from 3.5E to 4E. Eberron was built around the 3.5 rules; what happened in the world of Eberron was what the 3.5 rules said should happen, making for a very tightly associated set of mechanics and cultures. When the rules shifted to 4E, Eberron was out of step.
Quote from: amacris;714004I love this plan, for what it's worth, though I agree it's unlikely to happen.
Me too. Ahh, if I had a billion dollars...
Quote from: amacris;714004Eberron was built around the 3.5 rules; what happened in the world of Eberron was what the 3.5 rules said should happen, making for a very tightly associated set of mechanics and cultures. When the rules shifted to 4E, Eberron was out of step.
Please see: Vreeg's First Rule of Setting Design
D&D Online is partially set in Eberron, so it must have been reasonably popular - otherwise I'd imagine they'd have gone with the Realms or Greyhawk to start instead of waiting to introduce Realms content.
I agree with other posters who blame 4th edition on Eberron's decline. I mean, in a sense, all of the mainstream D&D settings are in decline right now to some extent.
Man, I hadn't been on the Wizards site for awhile, but glancing at their product section right now is just kind of sad. All they seem to be doing is just re-releasing old stuff, like a 3.5 magic item and spell compendiums and old modules and stuff. Jesus. Next can't come too soon for them.
After we defeat the wicked sorceror and his spiderous minions, we can get wenched in the local smoky tavern and then... hop on the train...
The 07.30 commute to True Adventure in Graywall seperates the men from the boys, I can tell you.
I think Eberron needs bringing back in some form for Next, maybe it could be the signiture setting for the pack that adds more 3.X crap to the rules...tbh i think if they do bring it back they need to get the guy who created it back aswell so that we can get a more definitive version of the setting than the trainwreck we got for 4e.
I thought the Sharn city book was an underrated gem. Even the music CD that came with it wasn't bad- I figured that if one thing on Earth could be worse than RPG fiction, it would be RPG music. It's no Vornheim (The gold standard of D&D city sourcebooks), but what is?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;713767I suppose I'm curious about the details and the degree of success or failure. Obviously it didn't set the world on fire, but what RPG product does these days? It made the leap to 4e when many other settings and D&D concepts did not, even if its run was very self-contained. Exactly how badly did it do? What factors held it back, if any? Why didn't it have the multimedia penetration potential that was clearly hoped for? I've sometimes been given the impression by the internet at large that someone outside of WotC's secret cabal knew these things.
The gaming industry, largely filled with privately held firms with no need to release sales details to stockholders, is famously opaque in such matters.
The Internet, with a lot of posers who love to pretend they're Bigshots In The Know, is famously unreliable in such matters.
Quote from: amacris;714004The decline of Eberron certainly has to be pinned on the transition from 3.5E to 4E. Eberron was built around the 3.5 rules; what happened in the world of Eberron was what the 3.5 rules said should happen, making for a very tightly associated set of mechanics and cultures. When the rules shifted to 4E, Eberron was out of step.
Say what you will about 4e's take on Eberron, they did correctly identify and mostly address several problems the 3e rules for it had. Dragonmarks had a lot more "umph" for instance.
Quote from: JeremyR;713729Well, look at the novels. It started off strong, 12 in 2006, then slowly tapered off into nothing. 4 in 2010, 1 in 2011, 1 in 2012.
Doesn't that correspond to a massive reduction in WotC's novel output in general?
Quote from: Ravenswing;713747If the setting had sold like hotcakes, and kept on selling like hotcakes, I expect that WotC -- no more full of morons than any other business -- would have kept on pushing the product. Since they stopped pushing the product, one can reasonably infer that it stopped selling well.
Except Eberron kept getting RPG support right up until the release of 4E (at which point WotC switched their support structure for all their campaign worlds). In fact, Eberron received more support than any other WotC-published setting from the time of its release until 2008. And it was then the second official campaign to receive the new "annual spotlight of 3 products" treatment for 4E (after the Forgotten Realms).
Based on product release schedules, I'm not seeing any indication that WotC lost any sort of confidence in Eberron. Its recent decline seems to be pretty heavily associated with the across-the-board decline associated with 4E, but it appears to still be the second most popular D&D setting.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;714671Doesn't that correspond to a massive reduction in WotC's novel output in general?
By comparison, FR had 11 new books (plus 1 compilation) in 2010 compared to Eberron's 4, 11 (plus 2 compilations) in 2011 compared to Eberron's 1, and 11 new books in 2012 compared to Eberron's 1.
Only 5 in 2013 (compared to none in Eberron).
11 seems to be the normal for the WOTC for FR, though it peaked at 19 in 1998
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_novels_in_order_of_publication
Quote from: JeremyR;714713By comparison, FR had 11 new books (plus 1 compilation) in 2010 compared to Eberron's 4, 11 (plus 2 compilations) in 2011 compared to Eberron's 1, and 11 new books in 2012 compared to Eberron's 1.
But FR is the only exception to WotC's pruning of its novel lines, though.
In fact, they've produced
only FR novels this year. In 2012 they only produced two non-FR novels -- one set in Eberron and one set in Nentir Vale.
There hasn't been a Dragonlance novel since 2010. The only other D&D setting to get any attention at all has been Dark Sun (with novels released during the Year of Dark Sun).
If we're looking to establish that Eberron isn't as successful/popular as the Forgotten Realms... Well, yeah. Nothing is in the D&D stable. That doesn't translate into a "lukewarm reception".
Quote from: Justin Alexander;715041If we're looking to establish that Eberron isn't as successful/popular as the Forgotten Realms... Well, yeah. Nothing is in the D&D stable. That doesn't translate into a "lukewarm reception".
Well, actually, I was trying to establish that Eberron was initially very popular (rivaling FR), then fizzled out with the transition to 4e. Which seems to be the consensus in the thread, not the original premise.
Quote from: JeremyR;714713By comparison, FR had 11 new books (plus 1 compilation) in 2010 compared to Eberron's 4, 11 (plus 2 compilations) in 2011 compared to Eberron's 1, and 11 new books in 2012 compared to Eberron's 1.
Only 5 in 2013 (compared to none in Eberron).
11 seems to be the normal for the WOTC for FR, though it peaked at 19 in 1998
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_novels_in_order_of_publication
It's interesting that their D&D based novel output has slowed. No Dragonlance, no Generic D&D, etc...
Is their Magic novel output steady? What about their other properties?
Quote from: Piestrio;715099Is their Magic novel output steady?
Same thing: Phased out starting 2009-2010 timeframe, nothing published in the last two years. (Link (http://www.wizards.com/magic/Merchandise/product.aspx?x=mtg/merchandise/novels&tablesort=3).)
I remember reading articles talking about this at the time, but my google-fu isn't tracking them down now. IIRC, FR novels were the only ones that were consistently profitable and WotC decided to purge the department.
Here's a recent article (http://www.examiner.com/article/mark-rosewater-confirms-return-of-magic-the-gathering-novels) commenting on the earlier decision to cease the publication of MtG novels due to poor sales and also announcing that an e-book-only MtG novel would be released some time in the near future.
In all seriousness, I'm guessing that R.A. Salvatore is largely propping up the FR novel line and that if it wasn't for him WotC would have exited the novel-publishing business entirely in 2010.
Quote from: danbuter;713752I liked Eberron a lot. The 4e reboot is likely what killed it, as I had no inclination to buy any of the 4e books. Also, a lot of the novels were very, very good.
The only taste of it I had was in 4e, never played it in 3e but I preferred it over FR 4e, the best book out of that line was the Neverwinter book.
Quote from: flyingcircus;715474The only taste of it I had was in 4e, never played it in 3e but I preferred it over FR 4e...
Yeah, Eberron fared much better in 4e. I understood and sort of liked what they were trying to do with FR in 4e, but I was only ever lightly invested in the setting. How they thought they were going to get that level of change to fly with more than 50% of the base is a bit of a headscratcher. Has that sort of massive overhaul ever worked in any RPG setting? Would Ravenloft count?
I was never sure of how well it was selling, but I'm really fond of it.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;715141Same thing: Phased out starting 2009-2010 timeframe, nothing published in the last two years. (Link (http://www.wizards.com/magic/Merchandise/product.aspx?x=mtg/merchandise/novels&tablesort=3).)
I remember reading articles talking about this at the time, but my google-fu isn't tracking them down now. IIRC, FR novels were the only ones that were consistently profitable and WotC decided to purge the department.
Here's a recent article (http://www.examiner.com/article/mark-rosewater-confirms-return-of-magic-the-gathering-novels) commenting on the earlier decision to cease the publication of MtG novels due to poor sales and also announcing that an e-book-only MtG novel would be released some time in the near future.
In all seriousness, I'm guessing that R.A. Salvatore is largely propping up the FR novel line and that if it wasn't for him WotC would have exited the novel-publishing business entirely in 2010.
I wonder why their novel business has taken such a beating? It seemed like a healthy part of their business for quite a while.
Quote from: Piestrio;715652I wonder why their novel business has taken such a beating? It seemed like a healthy part of their business for quite a while.
Taking huge shits on their flagship setting for the novels may have been harder to overlook in novels than in gaming material where people pick and choose what they like.
I remember a lot of people being angry about the ending of that drow war series at least. The one where the redeemed drow stopped being black?
WOTC cannot leave their settings alone is one problem that carries over to the books. Which carries over to reduced sales of the books. Each reboot pushes away a percentage of people who were following the series.
It doesn't help that most D&D novels are kinda crap. There are some decent ones, but I've disliked the majority of them.
Eberron, however, started fairly strong, but I think things started petering out when fluff and crunch started directly countering things that had come before with no explanation, and there overall genericing of the setting.
This is obviously, IMO, of course.
Quote from: Roger the GS;713708I think the lukewarm reception may have come from every GM on the internets submitting their own lovingly crafted and outstandingly unique campaign world, then being pissed off it wasn't chosen.
Yes, it wouldn't have been a bad move on WoTC to hold a "submit your game world" contest had they actually picked someone else's lovingly crafted campaign, a fellow amateur making good; but instead the chose an on-the-spot scribbled set of notes from a professional game designer and then "created" the setting they'd always pretty much wanted it to be in the first place in a process of design-by-committee.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Warboss Squee;715698It doesn't help that most D&D novels are kinda crap. There are some decent ones, but I've disliked the majority of them.
Eberron, however, started fairly strong, but I think things started petering out when fluff and crunch started directly countering things that had come before with no explanation, and there overall genericing of the setting.
This is obviously, IMO, of course.
Yes but, by and large, they've always been crap. Unless at some point they went from crap to truly excremental, that's not really enough to explain the decline.
I think shaking up the Forgotten Realms setting may have accelerated the decline, but I'm not entirely sure they would have shaken it up if they were really happy with sales prior to that. (Although who knows, maybe they are that stupid).
It definitely did seem that under the TSR days, the development of new game settings was mostly a way to drive new novel lines and that actual gaming took something of a back seat.
Quote from: RPGPundit;716180Yes, it wouldn't have been a bad move on WoTC to hold a "submit your game world" contest had they actually picked someone else's lovingly crafted campaign, a fellow amateur making good; but instead the chose an on-the-spot scribbled set of notes from a professional game designer and then "created" the setting they'd always pretty much wanted it to be in the first place in a process of design-by-committee.
RPGPundit
See, this is the sort of thing I was looking for. Do we have someone's detailed account of how this went down? Where can I get the inside scoop? Or is this an educated guess?
Except Keith Baker was an amateur TTRPG designer. He was a professional video game designer. He was selected as the winner in 2002, and I don't see any TTRPG credits to his name before then, so perhaps by omitting the "video" from game designer, you are twisting perception a bit.
(And even on the video game front, he was on the low end of "professional" yes he was paid for it, but the only two things he worked on that were ever released, one was a MUD and the other was something I've never even heard of from a company I've never even heard of).
Quote from: Piestrio;715652I wonder why their novel business has taken such a beating? It seemed like a healthy part of their business for quite a while.
One could probably do a more reliable analysis of their novel sales compared to their RPG sales (since so many more institutions are involved in tracking those numbers), but I'm just going to go with a gut read:
The success of TSR/WotC novels have been historically driven by the success of a very small number of "superstar" authors who create a penumbra in which other novels in the same setting enjoy a modicum of success.
Thus, the success of the Dragonlance novels in the '80s and '90s was driven by the Weis/Hickman superstar. The success of the FR novels in the '90s and '00s is driven by the Salvatore superstar.
My guess is that the level of limited success being enjoyed by novels outside of this penumbra didn't actually change much or at all; it's just that WotC changed its expectations of what level of success justified continued support.
Quote from: Evansheer;715670Taking huge shits on their flagship setting for the novels may have been harder to overlook in novels than in gaming material where people pick and choose what they like.
At least in terms of what WotC has decided to continue publishing, this doesn't appear significant: FR fans may (or may not) be outraged, but the number of FR novels released each year hasn't budged.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;715698It doesn't help that most D&D novels are kinda crap.
I haven't read anything published in the last decade by WotC, but I doubt the quality has substantially shifted. Tie-in fiction has some systemic weaknesses (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2455/reviews/tie-in-fiction), but also some built-in strengths (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2455/reviews/tie-in-fiction).
Doesn't matter much. He was still an insider. And his world was not some lovingly-crafted product of decades of thought and years of play, in the style of Ed Greenwood and the realms. It was the product of a few hours of thought and zero hours of actual play.
It didn't exist, essentially, until after his vague concept was approved because it pushed the right basic buttons for WoTC and they knew Baker's credentials meant he'd probably be someone they could work with; after that, it was WOTC, not baker by his lonesome, that "created" the setting.
So in other words the central reason it was chosen was that it was an empty cypher that held "low risk" for them: Baker was low-risk because he was not an outsider, and his submission was low risk because it was in no way cherished. So the fact that it was not John Doe's decade-old homebrew made full of adventuring and love was a DISTINCT ADVANTAGE from the point of view of the WoTC suits: it was exactly what they wanted: they could claim the "contest" was a great success and proof of popular participation, they could pretend Baker was a lucky and clever newbie made good (rather than one step away from a Mr.Peanut-style corporate logo), while still getting to make the exact kitchen sink setting they'd wanted ALL ALONG, knowing that Baker would in no way object because this was just a job for him.
Looking at it that way, its no wonder at all that Eberron didn't end up being this decade's Forgotten Realms. Its kind of a miracle it didn't suck ass even worse than it did.
RPGPundit
I actually like Eberron a lot.
Yes, WOTC expanded on it. Keith had to draft the entire campaign setting, pretty much from scratch.
...and no, it didn't have any play time. Neither did the vast majority of settings that were submitted for the campaign design contest. At the time, I seem to remember it was a...
"If you could design a brand new campaign setting for WOTC, what would you include?"
...challenge.
I remember looking at the home brew game world I was using at the time, Vaymir, and thinking.... No... this has too many of the classic themes and tropes. This has the classic races... I need to submit something entirely new. Something fresh. Something not done before...
On those counts, I heartily approved of the choices made. The ten page submission of top ten settings were released to the general public to review after the contest... and looking at all of them, I liked Eberron the best.
I bought Morningstar as well. Would have bought more of the campaign settings if they had been published after WOTC rejected them, no one cared enough to self-publish though, which I thought was kind of sad.
Lovingly - crafted and heartfelt product of 80 year old amateur artist.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/Ecce_Homo_%28El%C3%ADas_Garc%C3%ADa_Mart%C3%ADnez%29.jpg)
Oh please, the search was never about people submitting their ten year long campaign worlds, it was a search for a new setting with new ideas.
Why do I get the feeling that someone bitching submitted their loving magnum opus only to not even make it out of the initial pitch stage?
You sure are spouting a lot of bullshit that has about zero to back it up. Where is your evidence that it wasn't his design that came out? Where is your evidence that his was chosen because he was an "insider"? Hell, how about you even back up that he was an "insider"?
Your rant is full of speculative bullshit, the same speculative bullshit you spew 99.9% of the time. Your speculative bullshit is sometimes right, but that has nothing to do with any actual research or facts, and you should stop letting it go to your head.
(Also, wow, if drafting a 100 page bible is a couple hours of thought, you must work really fast Pundit)
Quote from: Emperor Norton;716481Why do I get the feeling that someone bitching submitted their loving magnum opus only to not even make it out of the initial pitch stage?
There was a bunch of that too. Some of those
magnum opus folks posted on Usenet crying about how their self-aggrandized glitterati one-true campaign setting was dumped faster than a thirty-five year old virgin.
They naturally insisted on posting snippets of what their campaign was all about too, even though the majority of GMs on UseNet could have cared less. IIRC there were a couple of really good flame wars generated on account of that.
Quote from: GameDaddy;716492There was a bunch of that too. Some of those magnum opus folks posted on Usenet crying about how their self-aggrandized glitterati one-true campaign setting was dumped faster than a thirty-five year old virgin.
They naturally insisted on posting snippets of what their campaign was all about too, even though the majority of GMs on UseNet could have cared less. IIRC there were a couple of really good flame wars generated on account of that.
Seriously, even the GOOD home settings, even my favorite home setting I've ever played in, tend to be super incredibly derivative works. Yes, they can be awesome and enjoyable, but it has to do more with it being personal than it being different.
WotC needed something that wasn't just "Forgotten Realms/Mystara/Dragonlance" v2.
Quote from: RPGPundit;716477Doesn't matter much. He was still an insider.
Does the definition of "insider" in your dictionary really read "outsider"? Or are you just kidding around?
Quote from: GameDaddy;716479...and no, it didn't have any play time. Neither did the vast majority of settings that were submitted for the campaign design contest. At the time, I seem to remember it was a...
"If you could design a brand new campaign setting for WOTC, what would you include?"
That's basically correct. There was nothing in the original contest guidelines that said "submit your existing campaign world". The exact process was pitch an idea; expand that to a 10 page treatment; expend that to a 100 page setting bible.
I remember a GenCon panel where Anthony Valterra specifically said people would be better off pitching original ideas rather than existing campaign settings.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;716274Except Keith Baker was an amateur TTRPG designer. He was a professional video game designer. He was selected as the winner in 2002, and I don't see any TTRPG credits to his name before then, so perhaps by omitting the "video" from game designer, you are twisting perception a bit.
(And even on the video game front, he was on the low end of "professional" yes he was paid for it, but the only two things he worked on that were ever released, one was a MUD and the other was something I've never even heard of from a company I've never even heard of).
Bumped into him once or twice. Seems to have a certain amount of bad luck with board games.
Gloom, which met with some flack I am told. but seems to be chugging along.
And currently Doom that Came to Atlantic City where the publisher walked off with the money after a successfull Kickstarter campaign. That one is still pending. Cryptozoic kindly stepped in and is working to get the game published.
I don't know if this supports or undermines the case against Baker as outsider/stooge, but here's an interview with him on the Master Plan Podcast about designing Eberron:
http://masterplanpodcast.net/2012/08/ep-56/
On the one hand, he really sounds like he was involved and invested in making it work on something more than a merely mercenary level. On the other, he's pretty damn smooth at explaining this stuff in that distinctly "corporate" way.
Also, his official pronunciation of some of the place names threw me for a loop.
Let me see if I got this thread's gist straight.
Being less successful than Forgotten Realms is a "lukewarm reception"?
Shit, try being the only other campaign setting supported by WotC, next to old-timers Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun.
I suspect most of the industry would kill for this sort of "lukewarm reception."
Quote from: Emperor Norton;716495Seriously, even the GOOD home settings, even my favorite home setting I've ever played in, tend to be super incredibly derivative works. Yes, they can be awesome and enjoyable, but it has to do more with it being personal than it being different.
WotC needed something that wasn't just "Forgotten Realms/Mystara/Dragonlance" v2.
On top of that, I suspect home settings that have been worked on for 10 years and had multiple campaigns set in them are going to tend to (not always, but tend to) have issues which mitigate against them being commercial successes, even if they never get derivative. For instance:
- Areas of the setting where home adventuring has actually happened will be detailed in far more depth than areas of the setting that hasn't had so much spotlight time in the home campaign. It's much better for a commercial product to have all the major areas of the setting covered in approximately the same level of depth - not everyone is going to want their campaign to take place in your old PCs' back yards.
- The designer's pals' PCs have already gone and resolved some of the major issues facing the campaign world, so it can feel like rolling up to Middle Earth only to find that the War of the Ring was over years ago.
Quote from: Omega;716517Bumped into him once or twice. Seems to have a certain amount of bad luck with board games.
Gloom, which met with some flack I am told. but seems to be chugging along.
And currently Doom that Came to Atlantic City where the publisher walked off with the money after a successfull Kickstarter campaign. That one is still pending. Cryptozoic kindly stepped in and is working to get the game published.
I actually quite liked Gloom. I didn't even know that was his. My brother has it, ts not a super deep game, but its a pretty fun little card game. Good board game night filler.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;716500I remember a GenCon panel where Anthony Valterra specifically said people would be better off pitching original ideas rather than existing campaign settings.
Obviously; as I said, WoTC already knew exactly what they wanted from their new setting, the whole thing was just a facade. Which, incidentally, is the only thing Baker added to it; those details that WoTC didn't care about at all one way or the other and that didn't really matter.
And no, for the record, I never submitted a setting to the contest.
Quote from: RPGPundit;717481Obviously; as I said, WoTC already knew exactly what they wanted from their new setting, the whole thing was just a facade. Which, incidentally, is the only thing Baker added to it; those details that WoTC didn't care about at all one way or the other and that didn't really matter.
But again, what has made you so certain of this? I'm not doubting you, I just want the inside info.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;717530But again, what has made you so certain of this? I'm not doubting you, I just want the inside info.
You're barking up the wrong tree, and you
should doubt him.
Look, the First Rule of the RPGSite is: you cannot be banned from your own forums. Pundit is therefore free to troll here at will. The fact that interesting discussion sometimes takes place here is entirely orthogonal to this rule. The fact that Pundit himself very occasionally mutters a worthwhile comment is also strictly coincidental.
If you want the 'inside scoop' on the origins of Eberron, you'd have to source information from the insiders themselves: the contest was the brainchild of Anthony Valterra, and the original setting book is credited to Keith Baker, Bill Slavicsek, and James Wyatt. Pundit is not included in the 'insider' list, and has never demonstrated a credible insider source from the WotC regime from those days. So this is typical know-it-all-bullshit from Pundit.
If you want the public 'every-one-but-Pundit' understanding of the setting contest, Google is your friend; there is a large web signature on this topic, and Anthony Valterra (then D&D Brand Manager) was commonly seen answering questions on ENW in those days.
Speaking of which, Anthony Valterra explicitly discussed the details of how the contest was going to be conducted, and repeatedly asserted that all contest entries would be evaluated anonymously, and only the intern that opened the envelopes and tracked the entries knew the identity of any of the submission authors. As I recall, there were even specific instructions on providing your contact information separately from your submission (for the record, I never submitted anything myself).
So when Pundit claims this was all an "inside job" and asserts that they picked Keith Baker's Eberron entry because he was an insider, he's explicitly calling Anthony Valterra a
gigantic fraud. Which is par for the course; Anthony Valterra had a lot more credibility at stake when claiming the contest was fair than Pundit does with casual slander claiming it wasn't (see the First Rule, above).
Quote from: kurtomatic;717631... Google is your friend; there is a large web signature on this topic, and Anthony Valterra (then D&D Brand Manager) was commonly seen answering questions on ENW in those days.
Alright, thank you, I'll google with that name and see what I think.