| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Razz |
Posted - 20 Jan 2015 : 01:41:33
What I mean by my title is simply will we ever see lore and material (whether from Greenwood or game books), on places hardly covered or not covered before?
At this point, I am just so bored of reading about the same places and the same gods. The Heartlands, Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, Silverymoon, the Sword Coast, the North...over and over and over again.
Lathander, Helm, Torm, Tyr, Ilmater, Bane, Bhaal, Cyric, Lolth, and gods be damned, MYSTRA MYSTRA MYSTRA.
I am personally tired of it. Are we doomed to cycle through these lands and deities forever?
I want more info on the giant gods, the dragon gods, others in the Faerunian pantheon and other pantheons, the sea gods, and so on. I think I am going to tear my hair out if I see another Mystra or Shar plot again.
There's Sossal, and Chult, Lantan, and High Ice, and Murghom, and also updates to places we haven't received updates on in a very long time.
This frustration reached its peak for me when one of my players had cool ideas for his Rogue with Hoar as his patron and he sighs sadly and goes,"I really like this deity, I don't understand why Hoar doesn't get more spotlight. I wish I had a lot more lore on this deity and his church beyond Powers&Pantheons. So tired of hearing about the other same ol' gods."
Which then gave me the inspiration to rant here about it.
Does anyone else feel a bit frustrated at this as well? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 26 Sep 2018 : 07:19:52
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
I will be making some assumptions. I am going to lay those out, so that the discussion can be more fruitful if you decide to critique my assumptions, they'll be easily listed (I always dislike it when argumentative opponents [academically argumentative, not hateful] don't list their assumptions easily).
[...]
you may take note that from approximately Q2 start 2011 through Q2 end 2014, Pathfinder had #1 marketshare. By measures in most industries that involve production with significant variable unit cost contribution to total cost, and a contribution margin that is likely high due to intensive capital inputs, the cost volume analysis is vital. With that in mind, knowing that volatility was low (you can tell by the sales for those three years in dominating WotC), their operative leverage was great. Essentially, by subtracting sales figures from variable inputs, the product line manager would have been able to demonstrate to the marketing VP, with a well articulated point, that they could add in more product lines with less risk. Now, the real question is, why did they not do so? I would gather it boils down to a simple factor: fear. Managers hate to stick their neck out, especially in high cost-volume industries where a bad line can make them look like fools. Upper management loves to Monday night quarterback back mid-management sales forecasts, even when supported by solid economic forecasts and finance figures, so that creates a risky shift response and you get......not much. hahaha So, I think while acknowledging my lack of industry specific work experience, that they could have taken a reasonably solid chance to dominate WotC. They were likely running scared though, and quite likely had unsophisticated managers (read as inexperienced in risk management,
The last point is very good. However, it should have more implications without the assumptions you made, but did not list:
1. The way business decisions are made is self-contained and straightforward.
2. There are no bad actors, they really try to do their jobs to the best of their ability. No corruption by factors external to the business.
#1 is at best dubious. There's at very least matter of internal corporate politics. Between unrelated vassals (in Hasbro), licensing matters, marketroids and lawyers pushing developers here and there, etc.
There's also corporate bureaucracy, naturally subject to Parkinson's Law, Conquest’s 3rd Law, etc at all times.
#2 is obviously (by now) false. For one, Conquest’s 2nd Law means this state of affair is an unstable equilibrium.
See also: the misadventures of Disney Star Wars for a "loud" example of direct (product is degraded on purpose) and indirect (extreme incompetence degrades product further) effects deep corruption causes in a related business.
Which affects D&D and PF, since both Paizo vs. Hasbro are noticeably rotten. For obvious signs, look up for how much Pathfinder is called "pozzfinder" and "Mike Mearls" +"virtue signaling" respectively.
There's much more, of course.
So it's not necessarily a honest horse-racing, and or even "fixed" racing. It may be more of a competition between two beasts with visible symptoms of a highly lethal disease in who gets to the cliff first. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Sep 2018 : 03:29:30
Just because someone is trailing a competitor, it doesn't mean they're in any danger of going out of business. Look at Burger King and McDonald's, Pepsi and Coke, Apple and Microsoft, Dominos and Pizza Hut, etc -- the list goes on. Heck, look at Weird Al Yankovic: he's never been as big or as popular as any of the acts he's parodied -- but how many of those acts are still around?
Success is measured by a lot more than just who is on top at any one moment.
And as for Hasbro's cash flow -- even if their cash flow was volatile at the time, they still had more than enough money to crush Paizo. RPG companies are nothing compared to major corporations like Hasbro. Remember, Hasbro didn't buy WotC for D&D -- they wanted Magic. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 25 Sep 2018 : 19:57:24
Master Rupert,
I think I added something that might add to creating confusion. I stated that the volatility was low in the first part, and I was referring to market conditions in terms of sales. When I referred to volatility later on, it was regarding discounted cash flow, which is a marker for investment, and that was what I thought might end up creating some confusion. They are for two different things. 
Best regards,
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 25 Sep 2018 : 19:53:43
Good morning Master Rupert,
Since I don't have exact figures from WotC, I am just going to rely on my marketing experience and extrapolate to the best that I can, so in other words, I will be making some assumptions. I am going to lay those out, so that the discussion can be more fruitful if you decide to critique my assumptions, they'll be easily listed (I always dislike it when argumentative opponents [academically argumentative, not hateful] don't list their assumptions easily).
I assume four regions in accordance with the U.S. Census Bureau, which operates under the U.S. Department of Commerce, and produces the U.S. Economic Census.
I assume, based on my own evaluation of ENWorlds analysis, that the included references by them, are valid, and commensurate with reasonable standards to evaluate this industry, in absence of hard figures from corporations that do not share their data.
I will include sources at the end.
Economic Regions
- West [consisting of Pacific and Mountain districts, as well as Alaska and Hawaii]
- Mid-West [consisting of West and East North Central
- Northeast [consisting of Middle Atlantic and New England
- South [consisting of West and East South Central and South Atlantic]
_______________________________________
quote:
I don’t think WotC was ever in any danger from Paizo.
I respectfully disagree, with the understanding that I do not, and nor have I ever, worked in the book entertainment/distribution industry. That being said, if you reference ENWorld's excellent source of analysis at (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1984-Top-5-RPGs-Compiled-Charts-2008-Present#.WV45NMbMxBw), and scroll until you find the chart done by 'Morrus', you may take note that from approximately Q2 start 2011 through Q2 end 2014, Pathfinder had #1 marketshare. By measures in most industries that involve production with significant variable unit cost contribution to total cost, and a contribution margin that is likely high due to intensive capital inputs, the cost volume analysis is vital. With that in mind, knowing that volatility was low (you can tell by the sales for those three years in dominating WotC), their operative leverage was great. Essentially, by subtracting sales figures from variable inputs, the product line manager would have been able to demonstrate to the marketing VP, with a well articulated point, that they could add in more product lines with less risk. Now, the real question is, why did they not do so? I would gather it boils down to a simple factor: fear. Managers hate to stick their neck out, especially in high cost-volume industries where a bad line can make them look like fools. Upper management loves to Monday night quarterback back mid-management sales forecasts, even when supported by solid economic forecasts and finance figures, so that creates a risky shift response and you get......not much. hahaha So, I think while acknowledging my lack of industry specific work experience, that they could have taken a reasonably solid chance to dominate WotC. They were likely running scared though, and quite likely had unsophisticated managers (read as inexperienced in risk management, not knocking on them, but business is cold and calculating after all).
__________________
quote:
...but there was enough of the former that WotC
I can certainly appreciate the point being made here, Master Rupert. I feel though that I need to diverge from your outlook in this matter, when evaluating the excellent work done from ENWorld. To boil it down to what amounts to a false choice dichotomy (the love it or hate it part, and please understand, I only argue this from an androgogical point, not an insulting point), very few markets respond with that level of product hatred. In this case, when referencing the chart that 'Morrus' created, you can see that GURPS rebounded and Star Wars had a powerful response as well. It seems that market forces provided economic opportunity costs that were viable options to the scrutiny of consumers and they went for it. It seems that the brand, likely, of D&D is all that managed to keep it at 2nd place for that entire three year period, but that last point is only conjecture on my part, and not a necessary part of the analysis done by 'Morrus.'
_______________________________________
quote:
I found it easier to tell people I played D&D, instead of saying I played Pathfinder.
I certainly get your point there. At the end of my last point above, I referenced the branding. I agree with you in terms of the strength of the brand. I mean, it is so strong that people (myself included) do still refer to playing Pathfinder as playing D&D. Name recognition there is so strong, that I do think it is what kept them going there.
_______________________________________
quote:
Hasbro
I very much appreciate the economic might of Hasbro. Though, if you look at the discounted free cash flow of Hasbro during the period in question (cited: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4001403-hasbro-earnings-growth-impressive-can-free-cash-flow-rise-tandem), it was very volatile. That kind of peek and trough of DFCF is a marker to investment and they were not looking good in that regard at that time, though they were looking good at price, and their financials, overall, were acceptable for the going price. I just don't see though, to your point, that Hasbro would have been putting money into a subsidiary with the volatility they were facing at the time. I mean, I could be wrong, but that is how I am seeing it based on the facts presented.
_______________________________________
I really appreciate the discussion thus far, and I hope to continue it. I rarely get this kind of opportunity to discuss. Also, I want to ensure that I express my tone and interest are focused on academic argument than insults, or other inappropriate forms of discourse, and thus, I hope that nothing I said came across as rude, etc.
Thank you Master Rupert!
Best regards,
Works Cited:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4001403-hasbro-earnings-growth-impressive-can-free-cash-flow-rise-tandem
http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1984-Top-5-RPGs-Compiled-Charts-2008-Present#.WV45NMbMxBw
http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4258-How-big-s-the-RPG-market
https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
As to your point regarding Paizo, I completely agree with you there. I feel that Paizo really messed up when they didn't move in for the kill. This is a classic example of a marketing department so focused on mid-stream analysis that they didn't stop to consider reassessing the landscape and where it's competitors were with their sales. A simple and small assessment at even the store level to evaluate product interest from consumers would have shows that 4e was a disaster as a product line, and that they could have pivoted to wreck WotC on that line......as I sit here quarterbacking the day after from my chair, haha.
I don’t think WotC was ever in any danger from Paizo.
Paizo was on top for a while, and they certainly did cut into WotC’s market share.
But WotC had three things going for it, and two of them, in particular, meant that any attempt to put them under would fail.
1) Those who like 4E were very, very in favor of 4E. Watching the "Edition Wars" as they happened, there were basically two reactions to 4E: "Kill it! Kill it with fire!" and "I want to have 4E’s baby!" People either absolutely loved it or they absolutely hated it – but there was enough of the former that WotC, though I’m sure they were very concerned about how things unfolded, knew they had a solid base they could build on.
2) Name recognition. Pathfinder had a very successful launch, and it’s been a successful enough game to have a spin-off, a 2nd edition, a robust product line, novels, comics, and at least one computer game. Despite all that, they were the new kids on the block, comparatively speaking, and their game was built on the one that had been around for decades and had all the name recognition: Dungeons & Dragons. I’m a huge fan of Paizo and their stuff, and I couldn’t stand the 4E ruleset of D&D – but even I found it easier to tell people I played D&D, instead of saying I played Pathfinder.
3) Hasbro. Even when Pathfinder was outselling 4E, Paizo still didn’t have the funding and corporate support that Hasbro could potentially give WotC. Sure, Hasbro is never going to throw all of their weight behind WotC – but even a fraction of their weight would just roll right over Paizo, if that was Hasbro’s intention. Hasbro could have likely bought and shut down Paizo, if they wanted, without it being a blip on their bottom line.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 25 Sep 2018 : 03:39:23
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
As to your point regarding Paizo, I completely agree with you there. I feel that Paizo really messed up when they didn't move in for the kill. This is a classic example of a marketing department so focused on mid-stream analysis that they didn't stop to consider reassessing the landscape and where it's competitors were with their sales. A simple and small assessment at even the store level to evaluate product interest from consumers would have shows that 4e was a disaster as a product line, and that they could have pivoted to wreck WotC on that line......as I sit here quarterbacking the day after from my chair, haha.
I don’t think WotC was ever in any danger from Paizo.
Paizo was on top for a while, and they certainly did cut into WotC’s market share.
But WotC had three things going for it, and two of them, in particular, meant that any attempt to put them under would fail.
1) Those who like 4E were very, very in favor of 4E. Watching the "Edition Wars" as they happened, there were basically two reactions to 4E: "Kill it! Kill it with fire!" and "I want to have 4E’s baby!" People either absolutely loved it or they absolutely hated it – but there was enough of the former that WotC, though I’m sure they were very concerned about how things unfolded, knew they had a solid base they could build on.
2) Name recognition. Pathfinder had a very successful launch, and it’s been a successful enough game to have a spin-off, a 2nd edition, a robust product line, novels, comics, and at least one computer game. Despite all that, they were the new kids on the block, comparatively speaking, and their game was built on the one that had been around for decades and had all the name recognition: Dungeons & Dragons. I’m a huge fan of Paizo and their stuff, and I couldn’t stand the 4E ruleset of D&D – but even I found it easier to tell people I played D&D, instead of saying I played Pathfinder.
3) Hasbro. Even when Pathfinder was outselling 4E, Paizo still didn’t have the funding and corporate support that Hasbro could potentially give WotC. Sure, Hasbro is never going to throw all of their weight behind WotC – but even a fraction of their weight would just roll right over Paizo, if that was Hasbro’s intention. Hasbro could have likely bought and shut down Paizo, if they wanted, without it being a blip on their bottom line. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 24 Sep 2018 : 13:55:58
Learned Scribe Starshade,
Great point regarding "Fun." I also find that fascinating regarding the notion of the negative CM. I have to say, if that is true, that very well could have been a reason as well to assess the release of items such as boxed sets seen as gold to us current Realms nuts. It almost seems unfathomable that those boxed sets in 2e could have performed poorly, but hey...figures are figures, and there is no lying about them. 
As to your point regarding Paizo, I completely agree with you there. I feel that Paizo really messed up when they didn't move in for the kill. This is a classic example of a marketing department so focused on mid-stream analysis that they didn't stop to consider reassessing the landscape and where it's competitors were with their sales. A simple and small assessment at even the store level to evaluate product interest from consumers would have shows that 4e was a disaster as a product line, and that they could have pivoted to wreck WotC on that line......as I sit here quarterbacking the day after from my chair, haha.
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Starshade
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
As many have eluded to in the past, there were reported beliefs from marketing analysis conducted, that in order to prepare for development of the next market segment of customers into the future, they had to appeal to them. As many came to believe, 4th edition had a powerful sense of a tabletop RPG with a strong angle towards appealing to MMORPG'ers, as much as possible (I'm not saying that is good or bad, just neutrally commenting, and again just making assumptions here: no first hand knowledge). One of the chief complaints, supposedly, from that market cohort of 13 to 20 year olds from interviews and focus groups, was that they felt the Realms material had too high of a buy-in to assimilate due to the vast knowledge base of the existing Realms. In effect, that market segment, demographically and psychographically, did not want to feel like "noobs." Not a judgment again, rather, just an assumption that the marketing department was analyzing and trying to make what they believed were informed decisions in how to place their products in front of that up and coming generation of potential new customers.
If that assumption is correct based on market research they may have conducted, it would stand to reason that any additional development of 'fluff' material would only stand to increase the divide between current and potential, new future users. Since WotC wants to know that they are going to sell those printed assets, they want to make sure they are accurate in advance. The issue though is that us Realms lovers, didn't respond well to that production response for 4th (as evidenced by their sales records) and they had to go into emergency mode.
My interpretation of things now is, they are still slow walking things. They are producing the same material in 5th, that is effectively on par with what was printed in 3/3.5 (though they are even still deficit when compared to things such as 'The Lost Empires of Faerun', etc.). I honestly feel that WotC is reticent to print materials that are comprehensive, and even more engrossing, when they likely have other product lines that they have in the pipeline for future production. Anything that they see as a potential barrier to enter is going to make them leery to produce those items.
I think I agree, about to your analysis.My thought: All alterations of that degree will alienate some players, take Games Workshop's move from Wharhammer Fantasy to Age of Sigmar; some quit, and is quite vocal about it. But more starter playing.
Wotc's move from 3.5 to 4e meant Pathfinder could easily have become the leading marked brand, and Wotc's entire D&D dep. turning to an obsolete Dinosaur, so obviously something was wrong. My thought, borrowing from computer game design theory: 4e was simply not enough "Fun" for the gamers of mmorpg's.
Equally interesting is the rumors of 2e's boxed sets, which supposedly were sold with negative Contribution margin...
My take: any coming diversity and Kara-Tur content, need to be 'Fun', and have positive Contribution margin.
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 23 Sep 2018 : 23:50:57
Seeker Corruption,
I certainly get your point there. I don't have any way to corroborate this, but it seems to me that they are trying to avoid capturing so much loyalty that they become bound to those that create the product. Especially when it is not easily able to replicated. To be clear, I am not in any way saying current authors, etc. are conspiring to do anything like that, it just how their marketing department is likely looking at weaknesses and threats in their SWOT analysis.
Imagine for a moment if WotC hit some powerful record for the amount of people purchasing their FR products, i.e. accessories, setting expansions. That market control leads to greater production, more sales, and happier customers. The producers, who are highly skilled, and not easily replaced workers, realize the value added they are bringing to the game, and demand/negotiate for more money. To a certain point, it works, but pushed to far, WotC would risk that entire product line if there was a strike, or flat out denial to continue working, with those workers moving on to other jobs, elsewhere. The consequences would be devastating. Replacing authors, with that depth of knowledge to a campaign setting like the Realms would be a monumental job.
I get the feeling that they are releasing more adventures, than accessories, expansions, and setting pieces, for that reason. If that is correct, what a bitter pill to swallow as a zealot of the Realms, myself. On the other hand, as a former marketer myself, I get the analysis, and I don't necessarily think it is bad to think that way. I feel that they could solve the problem through a variety of measures, assuming my thoughts here are even close to correct. They could work to diversify the work force by bringing in additional authors to work material, and conduct training to ensure these folk are well versed in the setting.
I appreciate your post, by the way: I find business discussions like this so fascinating, even with it being completely conjecture on my part, due to a lack of any corroborating evidence.
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Corruption
With my D&D group, we sometimes make up own places and Gods. Some are pretty out there, like Dundee as a demi-god, Ramsey the Foul-mouthed demi-God of Hospitality and restranters, Jack; trickster demi-god of a barbarian tribe that lives in icey areas.
Make up your own campaigns and experiment.
Maybe even visit another world in the FR one is too crowded. Make one up! Go nuts and have fun.
However, I have to admit, things are pretty stale with WotC. I mean with all the chaos going on, why not change things around. Mystria dies, as did 2 demi-gods of magic? Why didn't the Lord of Lyches step in as a demi-God of magic and try to get control of magic? Why didn't any other go called Gods of magic step in? Even a forign Diety of magic would have been welcome, so why didn't one take advantage of things?
Why not a larger turn over during the chaos.
I think I know, and it is only partly due to marketing. You are meant in most cases to just settle things down when you play. By things being stable, you can play almost any module in any order you want. If things change a fair bit, that won't happen
When you come to other areas, things can change a lot, but the writters seem to be in a rut. I'd love to see an adventure based in their version of Africa, or Australia. Maybe even Antartica.
|
| Starshade |
Posted - 23 Sep 2018 : 23:47:50
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
As many have eluded to in the past, there were reported beliefs from marketing analysis conducted, that in order to prepare for development of the next market segment of customers into the future, they had to appeal to them. As many came to believe, 4th edition had a powerful sense of a tabletop RPG with a strong angle towards appealing to MMORPG'ers, as much as possible (I'm not saying that is good or bad, just neutrally commenting, and again just making assumptions here: no first hand knowledge). One of the chief complaints, supposedly, from that market cohort of 13 to 20 year olds from interviews and focus groups, was that they felt the Realms material had too high of a buy-in to assimilate due to the vast knowledge base of the existing Realms. In effect, that market segment, demographically and psychographically, did not want to feel like "noobs." Not a judgment again, rather, just an assumption that the marketing department was analyzing and trying to make what they believed were informed decisions in how to place their products in front of that up and coming generation of potential new customers.
If that assumption is correct based on market research they may have conducted, it would stand to reason that any additional development of 'fluff' material would only stand to increase the divide between current and potential, new future users. Since WotC wants to know that they are going to sell those printed assets, they want to make sure they are accurate in advance. The issue though is that us Realms lovers, didn't respond well to that production response for 4th (as evidenced by their sales records) and they had to go into emergency mode.
My interpretation of things now is, they are still slow walking things. They are producing the same material in 5th, that is effectively on par with what was printed in 3/3.5 (though they are even still deficit when compared to things such as 'The Lost Empires of Faerun', etc.). I honestly feel that WotC is reticent to print materials that are comprehensive, and even more engrossing, when they likely have other product lines that they have in the pipeline for future production. Anything that they see as a potential barrier to enter is going to make them leery to produce those items.
I think I agree, about to your analysis.My thought: All alterations of that degree will alienate some players, take Games Workshop's move from Wharhammer Fantasy to Age of Sigmar; some quit, and is quite vocal about it. But more starter playing.
Wotc's move from 3.5 to 4e meant Pathfinder could easily have become the leading marked brand, and Wotc's entire D&D dep. turning to an obsolete Dinosaur, so obviously something was wrong. My thought, borrowing from computer game design theory: 4e was simply not enough "Fun" for the gamers of mmorpg's.
Equally interesting is the rumors of 2e's boxed sets, which supposedly were sold with negative Contribution margin...
My take: any coming diversity and Kara-Tur content, need to be 'Fun', and have positive Contribution margin.
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 23 Sep 2018 : 16:39:09
Master TBeholder,
Ehhh..........great point.(33) novels that in one way or another are related to Drizzt is......a lot. ;)
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Well, you know.
That said, if it was completely up to the drones without even corporate politics on the way, it would be more of "Drizzt, Drizzt, Drizzt..."
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
The Realms are not the default setting anymore, though.
"Does the D&D tabletop RPG have one official setting? The answer is yes. That setting is the multiverse, which includes all D&D worlds. The worlds occupy pockets of the Material Plane—sort of like planets but in a space shaped by magic and divine forces."
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2272-Warforged-Coming-to-D-D-Soon!#.VMJZ7_6G8go#ixzz3PefVtbUM
Does this mean no more using FR as a trash bin and RSE every week, or that they lost capability to maintain continuity even on the level of FR 4e?
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 23 Sep 2018 : 16:34:11
Learned Scribe Misereor,
You took the words right out of my mouth. I just replied to a couple of posts here regarding that kind of material. That would be amazing to have those kinds of aspects of society covered.
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Misereor
I would like a closer look at Geopolitics in the realms.
Local sourcebooks usually have a few lines about areas of contention between neighbours, but it is rarely fleshed out.
I would like to see a sourcebook about everything from religious disputes, trade routes, and rare resources to weather patterns and Orc overpopulation, and how it all adds up to regional dynamics and tensions, and how to weave this into your campaign. "Living Campaign" indeed.
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 23 Sep 2018 : 16:32:52
Great Read Diffan,
Agreed! As I mentioned to Senior Scribe Moonbeast, it would be fantastic to learn more about legal systems, economics, social customs, governance, magical customs, etc.
I hope that WotC really blows the doors off of it with that kind of material.
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I'd love to see more on the inner workings and lands of Rasheman, Impiltur, Vilhon Reach, etc. I'm also a big can of th3 Moonsea and those environments.
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 23 Sep 2018 : 16:31:11
Senior Scribe Moonbeast,
While I love the boxed set for Kara-tur, and the source material books for Calimshan, Cormyr, and the Moonshae's from 2nd ed., I completely understand your desire for more information. I'd like to see them expand on the fluff much, much more, i.e. economics, law, social customs, governance, magic.
It has always been, unfortunately, clear to me why WotC has chosen to really slow their roll seemingly with accessories, at a 20.5% (8) accessories, focusing on (31) adventures instead. Now, I must say: those adventures are great. I have purchased several, and plan on using them in my Pathfinder campaign!
I think their angle is to ensure that they don't produce something so much so that people no longer have as much of a reason to go buy their adventures, since they have so much lore from accessories, that they just create stuff themselves.
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by moonbeast
I totally agree with the OP post. I'd love to see them publish (soon I hope) campaign books for:
Kara-Tur, Calimshan, Cormyr (which could also include info for Sembia, Cormyr's nemesis), and maybe even the Moonshaes.
Heck, maybe even an entire book for an updated look (and to update us on the history) of Evermeet, Island of the Elves. How has Evermeet changed in the last 100 years. What happened or changed since the end of the 2nd Sundering. Who is the current reigning Elven monarch? And are the elves any "stronger" and do they have any irredentist plans to re-expand back into Faerun? And did the Evil Gnome Legion from Tinkerhell really blow up the Grand Spires of Leuthilspar?
|
| TBeholder |
Posted - 21 Sep 2018 : 12:22:40
Well, you know.
That said, if it was completely up to the drones without even corporate politics on the way, it would be more of "Drizzt, Drizzt, Drizzt..."
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
The Realms are not the default setting anymore, though.
"Does the D&D tabletop RPG have one official setting? The answer is yes. That setting is the multiverse, which includes all D&D worlds. The worlds occupy pockets of the Material Plane—sort of like planets but in a space shaped by magic and divine forces."
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2272-Warforged-Coming-to-D-D-Soon!#.VMJZ7_6G8go#ixzz3PefVtbUM
Does this mean no more using FR as a trash bin and RSE every week, or that they lost capability to maintain continuity even on the level of FR 4e? |
| Corruption |
Posted - 21 Sep 2018 : 12:13:50
With my D&D group, we sometimes make up own places and Gods. Some are pretty out there, like Dundee as a demi-god, Ramsey the Foul-mouthed demi-God of Hospitality and restranters, Jack; trickster demi-god of a barbarian tribe that lives in icey areas.
Make up your own campaigns and experiment.
Maybe even visit another world in the FR one is too crowded. Make one up! Go nuts and have fun.
However, I have to admit, things are pretty stale with WotC. I mean with all the chaos going on, why not change things around. Mystria dies, as did 2 demi-gods of magic? Why didn't the Lord of Lyches step in as a demi-God of magic and try to get control of magic? Why didn't any other go called Gods of magic step in? Even a forign Diety of magic would have been welcome, so why didn't one take advantage of things?
Why not a larger turn over during the chaos.
I think I know, and it is only partly due to marketing. You are meant in most cases to just settle things down when you play. By things being stable, you can play almost any module in any order you want. If things change a fair bit, that won't happen
When you come to other areas, things can change a lot, but the writters seem to be in a rut. I'd love to see an adventure based in their version of Africa, or Australia. Maybe even Antartica. |
| Misereor |
Posted - 21 Sep 2018 : 10:11:19
I would like a closer look at Geopolitics in the realms.
Local sourcebooks usually have a few lines about areas of contention between neighbours, but it is rarely fleshed out.
I would like to see a sourcebook about everything from religious disputes, trade routes, and rare resources to weather patterns and Orc overpopulation, and how it all adds up to regional dynamics and tensions, and how to weave this into your campaign. "Living Campaign" indeed.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 21 Sep 2018 : 07:51:59
I'd love to see more on the inner workings and lands of Rasheman, Impiltur, Vilhon Reach, etc. I'm also a big can of th3 Moonsea and those environments. |
| moonbeast |
Posted - 21 Sep 2018 : 06:24:18
I totally agree with the OP post. I'd love to see them publish (soon I hope) campaign books for:
Kara-Tur, Calimshan, Cormyr (which could also include info for Sembia, Cormyr's nemesis), and maybe even the Moonshaes.
Heck, maybe even an entire book for an updated look (and to update us on the history) of Evermeet, Island of the Elves. How has Evermeet changed in the last 100 years. What happened or changed since the end of the 2nd Sundering. Who is the current reigning Elven monarch? And are the elves any "stronger" and do they have any irredentist plans to re-expand back into Faerun? And did the Evil Gnome Legion from Tinkerhell really blow up the Grand Spires of Leuthilspar?
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 21 Sep 2018 : 01:55:36
Senior Scribe Harpell,
I couldn't agree with you anymore if I actively tried to, minus...it's marketing, but hey, I get your point. If I had went to attain a Ph.D. in Marketing, instead of in Applied Economics as the route I took, I would have seriously considered doing a marketing analysis on Wizard's choice to do a product line roll out as they did with 4th, and other material in general.
Very, very interesting.
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
I would argue that the motivating force is neither 'politics' or 'respect for cultures'.
It's economics.
Will a published treatment of Maztica (or the non-Eurocentric setting of your choice) makes oodles of money? If they believe the answer will be Yes, they'll publish it. If not, they won't. It's as simple as that.
M.A.R. Barker's name is famous for Tekumel, one of the reasons being it wasn't 'standard' fantasy fare. Anyone who ever played Skyrealms of Jorune, the few SF elements aside, will see what was essentially a fantasy game with a non-standard culture in the backdrop (though admittedly due to the influence of various alien civilizations). These are just a couple of examples. But they weren't predicated on forced respect, or a political agenda - they were interesting because the authors set out to make a really good backdrop against which roleplaying stories could be told, and in that vein, they succeeded.
Realms-wise, they need to go back to those places that were still around in 1375 DR, but had been wrecked by the time 1485 DR came out. Lantan, Hlondeth, Luiren, Nimbral, Dambrath, Skullport, Halruaa...essentially, they need to un-dork what they did to these places, and make them viable locations in the Realms again.
- OMH
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 21 Sep 2018 : 00:55:10
Good afternoon Senior Scribe Razz,
I hope you're amenable to my reply to this within the framework of business analysis. If not, please let me know, and I will delete my post. I really feel that sadly in this case, it all comes down to the bottom line. Some caveats though regarding my analysis, first: though I am a marketer and economist by education and practice in business, I do not have access to anything internal to WotC, so my assumptions are just that: assumptions.
As many have eluded to in the past, there were reported beliefs from marketing analysis conducted, that in order to prepare for development of the next market segment of customers into the future, they had to appeal to them. As many came to believe, 4th edition had a powerful sense of a tabletop RPG with a strong angle towards appealing to MMORPG'ers, as much as possible (I'm not saying that is good or bad, just neutrally commenting, and again just making assumptions here: no first hand knowledge). One of the chief complaints, supposedly, from that market cohort of 13 to 20 year olds from interviews and focus groups, was that they felt the Realms material had too high of a buy-in to assimilate due to the vast knowledge base of the existing Realms. In effect, that market segment, demographically and psychographically, did not want to feel like "noobs." Not a judgment again, rather, just an assumption that the marketing department was analyzing and trying to make what they believed were informed decisions in how to place their products in front of that up and coming generation of potential new customers.
If that assumption is correct based on market research they may have conducted, it would stand to reason that any additional development of 'fluff' material would only stand to increase the divide between current and potential, new future users. Since WotC wants to know that they are going to sell those printed assets, they want to make sure they are accurate in advance. The issue though is that us Realms lovers, didn't respond well to that production response for 4th (as evidenced by their sales records) and they had to go into emergency mode.
My interpretation of things now is, they are still slow walking things. They are producing the same material in 5th, that is effectively on par with what was printed in 3/3.5 (though they are even still deficit when compared to things such as 'The Lost Empires of Faerun', etc.). I honestly feel that WotC is reticent to print materials that are comprehensive, and even more engrossing, when they likely have other product lines that they have in the pipeline for future production. Anything that they see as a potential barrier to enter is going to make them leery to produce those items.
I completely agree with you though man: I would love to see them dive into Lapaliiya, Thar, Nelanther Isles, or fill-in the blank location that has had no attention.
Heck, I think it would be fantastic if they would generate even greater depth and breadth of material on the soft sciences such as economics, sociological studies, philosophy, and even some more hard science material for flora/fauna and more. Who could ever tire of such a thing?!
Thank you for your post Senior Scribe Razz: I love discussions like this, and the freedom to post on things that some may even see as a sensitive subject, potentially.
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
What I mean by my title is simply will we ever see lore and material (whether from Greenwood or game books), on places hardly covered or not covered before?
At this point, I am just so bored of reading about the same places and the same gods. The Heartlands, Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, Silverymoon, the Sword Coast, the North...over and over and over again.
Lathander, Helm, Torm, Tyr, Ilmater, Bane, Bhaal, Cyric, Lolth, and gods be damned, MYSTRA MYSTRA MYSTRA.
I am personally tired of it. Are we doomed to cycle through these lands and deities forever?
I want more info on the giant gods, the dragon gods, others in the Faerunian pantheon and other pantheons, the sea gods, and so on. I think I am going to tear my hair out if I see another Mystra or Shar plot again.
There's Sossal, and Chult, Lantan, and High Ice, and Murghom, and also updates to places we haven't received updates on in a very long time.
This frustration reached its peak for me when one of my players had cool ideas for his Rogue with Hoar as his patron and he sighs sadly and goes,"I really like this deity, I don't understand why Hoar doesn't get more spotlight. I wish I had a lot more lore on this deity and his church beyond Powers&Pantheons. So tired of hearing about the other same ol' gods."
Which then gave me the inspiration to rant here about it.
Does anyone else feel a bit frustrated at this as well?
|
| Taurendil |
Posted - 21 Feb 2015 : 22:50:49
Probably it's because I'm relatively "new" to the Realms but I like the fact that the heavy body of knowledge extends to the "traditional" regions. As a DM and player, it makes me feel like they are really "far-away/mythic/strange" lands, places were the travel of news and information is a little foggy inside Faerûn itself.
In the other hand, I can understand that after reading a lot of the RPG material, novels and such, one can have the imperious necessity of knowing more. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 21 Feb 2015 : 10:36:01
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
If there is no lore then there is no interest from me (and the recent adventures contain 0% lore)
While I agree with your outlook, I maintain that there was some lore, albeit a very small amount. Upon publication of the FRCG, they'll have several things to include.
One, the sites described in the modules will likely be given some form of locational treatment, even if it's only a few words in passing and a dark spot on the map.
Two, as the default setting, they're likely to treat the entire thing as being official history (and one where 'the heroes', even if unnamed, managed to repulse the CotD's nefarious plot). Much the same way that the original Temple of Elemental Evil was set in Greyhawk. It just was, period, end of story. This is the same mode of thought - Tiamat's bid for power occurred on the Sword Coast. It just was, period, end of story. Sure, they 'genericized' it, but they had to give it a backdrop at some definitive place, and the Realms was that place.
Three, Dagult Neverember has had his fanny chucked out of the Open Lord's post in Waterdeep. Considering where this occurred and who the new Open Lord is now, this is very much a Realms-specific event, and qualifies as 'lore'. As I said, a very small amount, akin to giving a man three days in the desert a squirt gun splash in the face, but it is there.
I think focusing on one setting is exactly what's needed at the moment, getting out as much information about that setting (in this case, the Realms) as possible. Is that what I think they're doing? Actually, no, I think some people are working to bring other ideas into printed form. I'd really like to see some stuff for Mystara, Ravenloft, and (most especially) Birthright, but right now, they need to give their self-described Flagship Setting the attention it needs. If I never see material for the other places I named, I'll understand (if remain disappointed), but the Realms needs some RPG supplement love, and a decent amount besides. It's easier to do that if the attention remains focused on only one or two things.
- OMH |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 24 Jan 2015 : 05:41:27
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
Would anyone be interested in seeing 5E FR stuff set further back into the past (relative to 1357 DR as a default starting year)?
Say, 40 DR?
Depends on what you mean by 5E FR stuff. If you mean the shallow adventures with people and places like that detailed in the recently published adventures with the only real interesting bits of lore being the incorrect bits. Then the answer is no.
If you mean 5E FR stuff like an ancient regional splat book or a mini campaign guide to that particular era (one that doesnt include shallow people and places and incorrect lore and anything to do with the spellplague). Then the answer is yes. I dont care about the rules edition used only the lore.
If there is no lore then there is no interest from me (and the recent adventures contain 0% lore)
I think focusing too narrowly on one setting would limit the appeal and general utility of new products.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Jan 2015 : 04:29:18
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
When you say re-set, do you mean a re-do of the Ol' Grey Boxed Set, but using 5E rules?
-- George Krashos
In my ideal world, the timeline of the Realms would reset to right after Cloak & Dagger, and restart from that point. It would not follow the same course it followed the first time -- it would be a new beginning, from that point. I don't find everything that followed objectionable, but that was the last point that I, personally, was satisfied with the Realms and had no major issues with it.
Of course, that is my personal opinion, and I know a lot of people would prefer to reset to the OGB and start over from there. That is not my personal preference, but I would still prefer that to going ahead and keeping all of the 3E and 4E things that I disliked.
And I'm kinda rules-agnostic, at this point. 3.x, Pathfinder, even 2E would all be fine with me. I don't know enough about 5E to have a solid opinion on it, but I've heard little negativity about it (unlike when 4E came out) and what I've looked at has not bothered me (also unlike 4E).
I realize, though, that this is not my ideal world, and I'm not getting exactly what I want. And I'm fine with that; I'm not complaining.
As for the 5E Realms, Ed is on board and told me he was excited, in a private email exchange where he wouldn't have to toe the corporate line. And the designers have said things I want to hear. So I'm going to sit back and wait for the campaign book, and I'll read it cover to cover when it comes out. I'm actually quite hopeful that I'll find the old Realms feel in the newest itineration of the setting. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 24 Jan 2015 : 02:43:07
When you say re-set, do you mean a re-do of the Ol' Grey Boxed Set, but using 5E rules?
-- George Krashos |
| Roseweave |
Posted - 24 Jan 2015 : 00:22:21
So technically Planescape is the default setting in a sense... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Jan 2015 : 18:06:51
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
Would anyone be interested in seeing 5E FR stuff set further back into the past (relative to 1357 DR as a default starting year)?
Say, 40 DR?
Not I. While I do want some of the empty space of the timejump filled in, my (secondary) preference is to keep moving the setting forward. My primary preference -- a reset -- will never happen, so I'd rather see the promised return to the feel of the old Realms as the setting moves forward. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Jan 2015 : 18:01:06
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But they didn't just publish regional stuff... They also had 8,001 "Races of " books, and class books, and did things like take what was formerly one book and split into 2 or 3 (like with the dragon stuff, or even the core rulebooks). So despite his words, I'm unconvinced that the flagship setting isn't going to get support.
The Realms are not the default setting anymore, though.
"Does the D&D tabletop RPG have one official setting? The answer is yes. That setting is the multiverse, which includes all D&D worlds. The worlds occupy pockets of the Material Plane—sort of like planets but in a space shaped by magic and divine forces."
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2272-Warforged-Coming-to-D-D-Soon!#.VMJZ7_6G8go#ixzz3PefVtbUM
I didn't say default -- I said flagship.
As long as other settings are not getting published material and the Realms is, it's the flagship setting. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 23 Jan 2015 : 14:42:55
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
Would anyone be interested in seeing 5E FR stuff set further back into the past (relative to 1357 DR as a default starting year)?
Say, 40 DR?
Depends on what you mean by 5E FR stuff. If you mean the shallow adventures with people and places like that detailed in the recently published adventures with the only real interesting bits of lore being the incorrect bits. Then the answer is no.
If you mean 5E FR stuff like an ancient regional splat book or a mini campaign guide to that particular era (one that doesnt include shallow people and places and incorrect lore and anything to do with the spellplague). Then the answer is yes. I dont care about the rules edition used only the lore.
If there is no lore then there is no interest from me (and the recent adventures contain 0% lore) |
| Irennan |
Posted - 23 Jan 2015 : 14:30:26
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But they didn't just publish regional stuff... They also had 8,001 "Races of " books, and class books, and did things like take what was formerly one book and split into 2 or 3 (like with the dragon stuff, or even the core rulebooks). So despite his words, I'm unconvinced that the flagship setting isn't going to get support.
The Realms are not the default setting anymore, though.
"Does the D&D tabletop RPG have one official setting? The answer is yes. That setting is the multiverse, which includes all D&D worlds. The worlds occupy pockets of the Material Plane—sort of like planets but in a space shaped by magic and divine forces."
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2272-Warforged-Coming-to-D-D-Soon!#.VMJZ7_6G8go#ixzz3PefVtbUM
|
| combatmedic |
Posted - 23 Jan 2015 : 01:34:17
Would anyone be interested in seeing 5E FR stuff set further back into the past (relative to 1357 DR as a default starting year)?
Say, 40 DR? |
|
|
