WOTC personel changes...


Dragon Magazine General Discussion


Since Charles Ryan is no longer the D&D Brand Manager at WotC is it possible that WotC might relax thier current attitudes some and let Erik start putting more explicit Greyhawk content in Dragon and Dungeon?

I for one hope so, in the long run at least.


As much as I would like this, I fear this is wishful thinking.
WotC has two settings to support, FR and Eberron. The least thing they could want is a third party publisher reviving an older setting, especially if this setting is used in a living campaign. The gamers playing in the living campaign would (probably) buy the stuff from the tpp, so less sales for the WotC supported settings. And with two good selling settings, the need for republishing an older one themselves is minimal.

Stefan


cwslyclgh wrote:

Since Charles Ryan is no longer the D&D Brand Manager at WotC is it possible that WotC might relax thier current attitudes some and let Erik start putting more explicit Greyhawk content in Dragon and Dungeon?

I for one hope so, in the long run at least.

Hmm, maybe they should let Erik Mona manage the "brand"? ;)


I really don't think Greyhawk content would take away fans from Eberron or FR. Greyhawk gamers are going to game in Greyhawk and not buy FR or Eberron stuff whether WotC supports Greyhawk or not.

WotC needs to recognize that they are probably losing sales because of their policy towards Greyhawk content.

How many people out there honestly say--"Oh, WotC no longer supports Greyhawk?" "Gee, I'll just give up my GH campaign and switch to FR...."

Apparently WotC thinks so....


farewell2kings wrote:

How many people out there honestly say--"Oh, WotC no longer supports Greyhawk?" "Gee, I'll just give up my GH campaign and switch to FR...."

While I agree with you on that one point, one has to take into consideration the fact that having a third popular setting around (even if managed by a third party) would mean that you run the risk of having newcomers going to this one.

So, maybe WotC does not think so much that old timers would switch from Greyhawk to FR or Eberron, but they don't want to leave the door open for new gamers to go to GH instead of one of their two settings...

They know the GH fans are lost to them, but maybe they made some calculations and came up with the decision that they were ready to lose those for the benefit of making sure that the new players will go to FR or Eberron.

Bocklin


That's a good point. I'm looking at it from the standpoint that us old time gamers tend to have a lot more disposable income now. When I started playing D&D I made $20/week mowing lawns and cleaning pools and now I make a lot more money (and spend a lot more money on D&D--darn you Paizo with your compendiums and map packs and magazines ;)

So, while it's true that some newer gamers will go for GH instead of Eberron or FR if WotC still supports it, I still think it's a bad marketing decision to no longer support a campaign world that is cherished by so many veteran gamers, who tend to have more money to spend on hobbies in their 40's than in their teens.

Scarab Sages

farewell2kings wrote:
How many people out there honestly say--"Oh, WotC no longer supports Greyhawk?"

I keep hearing people say that WotC is giving up on Greyhawk. Consider this, however. They have been revising classic dungeon crawls like Tomb of Horrors and White Plume Mountain and posting the revisions for download on their website. These old modules are in the Greyhawk setting (though I suppose they could be translated elsewhere), and the word is that they are going to do more of them. Okay, it isn't exactly new material, but at least it is something.


Aberzombie wrote:
farewell2kings wrote:
How many people out there honestly say--"Oh, WotC no longer supports Greyhawk?"
I keep hearing people say that WotC is giving up on Greyhawk. Consider this, however. They have been revising classic dungeon crawls like Tomb of Horrors and White Plume Mountain and posting the revisions for download on their website. These old modules are in the Greyhawk setting (though I suppose they could be translated elsewhere), and the word is that they are going to do more of them. Okay, it isn't exactly new material, but at least it is something.

WotC has officially stated that there are no plans to produce new Greyhawk-specific supplements. Updating old modules is hardly producing new content. Additionally, the position that Greyhawk is the core setting for D&D has been toned down quite a bit in recent publications. It was much more obvious in 3.0 with direct references to geographic and political ties, which are only slightly present in the 3.5 Complete Series. Very rarely, other sources such as Weapons of Legacy give a nod to the Greyhawk setting, but usually only to the core pantheon.

A prime example of neglecting Greyhawk is the release of Underdark for Forgotten Realms. This could have easily been an environmental book for the "core" setting akin to Sandstorm, Stormwrack or Frostburn.

At least we had Saltmarsh in the DMGII


I guess they are thinking "we have one generic fantasy setting up and running, so we don´t need another one - we don´t need internal rivals." or something along that lines.


that seems to be the case.

Community / Forums / Archive / Paizo / Books & Magazines / Dragon Magazine / General Discussion / WOTC personel changes... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion