This is Bill Slavicsek's comments about 4E campaign settings on the Ampersand column (link). Unfortunately (for me, at least), it's the news that we already were waiting for.
For who who can't access it:
I wanted to take a few moments to clarify what I said at GTS last week. In regards to campaign settings, our goal for this edition is to make each setting we release unique and exciting on its own while still making it usable in any D&D campaign. Now, what exactly does that mean?
You wouldn't believe how many times over the years I've heard people say "I play in [insert favorite campaign setting here] so product X is of no use to me," or "I only play Core D&D (whatever that means) so I can't use that [insert campaign setting here] product." I plan to change that under 4th Edition by getting the word out that it's okay to mix and match. Go ahead. Get peanut butter in the chocolate. Some of the best campaigns I ever ran or had the pleasure to play in had a little bit of [insert campaign setting here] mixed with a smattering of [insert other campaign setting here] and combined all that with homebrew ideas to create something totally new and different.
So under 4th Edition, we're making every product look like a core product. The Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide releasing in August, for example, is a separate and unique setting on one hand, while being totally core D&D on the other. That means you can play a strictly Forgotten Realms campaign, or you can borrow the bits you like best to use in whatever D&D campaign you're playing in. This has always been true, but you wouldn't believe how many players were reluctant to cross the streams like that. I say cross away! (At least as far as your personal campaigns are concerned.) Why not use the best ideas, powers, feats, monsters, villains, and plot hooks from any product -- regardless of the campaign world your game is set in?
This means we won't be producing campaign lines, per se. For the Forgotten Realms, for example, you'll get the Campaign Guide, Player's Guide, and an adventure as physical products, as well as our ongoing line of bestselling novels, and plenty of ongoing support via D&D Insider. If a product idea comes along later that makes sense, we'll do it, but there won't be an ongoing regular release schedule of Forgotten Realms game products. Why not? Because every D&D product we do is a Forgotten Realms [or insert your favorite campaign setting here] game product. This is a subtle but significant change in philosophy geared toward making all players D&D players. It just makes the products and the brand stronger if every player is using the same material.
This is significantly different than what has occurred in the past. We won't be making the mistakes of line proliferation that helped sink TSR, and we won't be actively segmenting our audience. Instead we'll be providing all kinds of options and ideas through the core line of D&D RPG products. It's all D&D, all the time.
The model described above will be used every year, and we'll focus on a different campaign setting. Next year, we'll give this treatment to Eberron. After that? Well, we'll be exploring the best worlds from our vault, as well as creating new worlds as warranted. I can't guarantee which worlds will see this treatment as of yet, but chances are that your favorite campaign setting is on my list for consideration. And for all of them, in addition to the physical products we do, you'll see novels and novel lines (as appropriate), and ongoing support that continues to explore the worlds through D&D Insider. This plan makes D&D stronger, without sacrificing the heart of any campaign setting.
Ha, you beat me by four minutes. You have to be fast around here.
Ok, I deleted my duplicate post.
This tack doesn't seem unexpected, since it looked like the points of light concept was geared towards encouraging DMs to assemble their world from various components WotC provides. I do wonder what effect the approach will have on the ratio of people who try to run "pure" campaigns to people who pick up bits and pieces from diverse sources.
I like this attitude and way of thinking.
Some of my most memorable campaigns were "mixtures" of one setting and another.
My players still think that the "Dragonlance with Lolth taking Takhisis' place Campaign" was the best game I've ever run, and even -I- think it was a little contrived.
This attitude only reinforces my own typical play style. Good show.
While I am all for using products of one setting in another, I have a VERY hard time resolving the following two statements together:
our goal for this edition is to make each setting we release unique and exciting on its own
I plan to change that under 4th Edition by getting the word out that it's okay to mix and match [products from different settings together].
Emphasis mine.
Exactly how far will this go? Will you have the same style of artwork in all products? Do you plan to have the assumption of magical tech availability in an Eb adventure usable in a Dragonlance game? Are the new races of the PHBI going to be in a Dark Sun game? If I want to run Third Dawn with 4E (purely hypothetical) and a player wanted a warforged warlock, am I going to be the bad guy for saying no because that is "allowed in Wizards products?"
So under 4th Edition, we're making every product look like a core product.
While that will make the name D&D stronger, I have a hard time believing that this will help settings be unique.
I think it's all part of their master plan to make 5E look better. ;)
You wouldn't believe how many times over the years I've heard people say "I play in [insert favorite campaign setting here] so product X is of no use to me," or "I only play Core D&D (whatever that means) so I can't use that [insert campaign setting here] product."
This does surprise me a lot. I was under the impression most DM's cherry-picked bits from published setting. Hell, half the reason I own all those Forgotten Realms and Eberron books was so that I had plenty of things to ripof...err, inspire me.
I think it's all part of their master plan to make 5E look better. ;)
[Threadjack]Actually, I've had a gonzo theory for some time that 4E is like New Coke, with the same marketing intentions of creating demand for the classic product.
I know. I'll go sit in the corner with my tinfoil hat on.[/threadjack]
This sounds to me like 4e WotC campaign settings are the equivalent of variant jerseys on sports teams. Lots of marketing signifying nothing.
As a setting enthusiast, I hope that a 3PP will see an opportunity where Wizards' doesn't--and hopefully the GSL will allow them to take advantage of that opportunity.
-peter
Well, I'm going to repeat what I written on WotC boards:
It seems that Wotc's strategy is to make everyone sign to DDI. Because most who truly enjoy a campaign setting won't be satisfied on playing a unsupported setting and will feel compelled to sign to DDI.
The argument "Everyone will be happy because every book is now for every campaign setting" seems pretty lame. Obviously it works for supplements which provide only "powers, feats, monsters, villains, and plot hooks", as Slacvisek said. But it's also obvious that, using Eberron as an example, we will never have a "Five Nations" or "Dragonmarked" book because this isn't the sort of thing which applies to "every campaign setting".
Those who refuse to join DDI may eventually switch to 3rd party publishers making settings that get support without the need of paying a monthly fee. I wonder if campaign setting supplements are that unprofitable that it doesn't matter for WotC - or they are really confident that they can stop selling books because everyone will want to join DDI.
I was a big FR fan. I bought all the sourcebooks for the lore it had. To let me see the big picture of the world. Think of new adventures and plots for my players. To think that WotC/Hasbro is just going to let FR and EB go stagnant sickens me. Unless they are going to outsource the respective campaign sourcebooks...That would fit in with the corporate/non-gamer mindset they have.
This sounds to me like 4e WotC campaign settings are the equivalent of variant jerseys on sports teams. Lots of marketing signifying nothing.
As a setting enthusiast, I hope that a 3PP will see an opportunity where Wizards' doesn't--and hopefully the GSL will allow them to take advantage of that opportunity.
-peter
That's exactly what I thought... there will be a demand of gamers who want supported campaign settings but at the same time refuse to subscribe to DDI. This seems to be a pretty good opportunity for 3rd party publishers who addere to the GSL - as they will have zero competition from WotC.
The cynical part of me says that he's just saying that, the "everything is core" to get people to buy more books....
I dunnooooooo..... I think he really means it, with all that entails.
On the plus side it might mean we finally get the long requested Oriental Adventures update.
|
The cynical part of me says that he's just saying that, the "everything is core" to get people to buy more books....I dunnooooooo..... I think he really means it, with all that entails.
You replied before i edited.
You cant make things unique AND one size fits all. Sure DM's steal ideas from one thing or another....But I cant see buying say...dragons of FR book, and getting it to fit in say, Dragonlance.
I'm cynical becuase their trying to sell more books. Not that there is anything worng with selling more books, but the way their doing it just seems wrong.
You cant make things unique AND one size fits all. Sure DM's steal ideas from one thing or another....But I cant see buying say...dragons of FR book, and getting it to fit in say, Dragonlance.I'm cynical becuase their trying to sell more books. Not that there is anything worng with selling more books, but the way their doing it just seems wrong.
Oh, ok, I get it now. I just have this suspicion that they are going to hammer enough uniqueness off until they feel it is "close enough." If they do this, I think they will go farther than a lot of fans of the settings will be entirely comfortable with.
As to the selling more books part, no contest from me on that one. I thought it interesting that he singled out the product line fragmentation that killed TSR as something they were trying to head in the opposite direction from. Makes sense from a business perspective, but the fragmentation did produce some very distinct and interesting lines.
|
I think this guy is a testament that lightning doesn't strike twice. Yeah, he did wonders for the Star Wars rpg and the minis, but how DARE he criticize tsr when he's sinking wotc. This guy wouldn't know core if it bit him - this is the guy who's treated the fan base like crap. He's the stuffed shirt that has led his so called design team into the dirt by misguiding them about what dnd is all about.
PAIZO knows dnd. They're not "segmenting the audience" by publishing superior quality d&d products, because they understand the traditions and history of the game. They possess integrity, and now, PAIZO is dungeons and dragons as far as millions of us who will buy PRPG are concerned.
|
|
They possess integrity, and now, PAIZO is dungeons and dragons as far as millions of us who will buy PRPG are concerned.
I like Paizo and all, good stuff. But damn millions is a bit of an overestimate don't ya think?
Ok so here's what I don't get. I saw a lot of criticism about DnD making too many books. Now, people are complaining about not enough? I think it's sorta neat what they're doing with it, they're trying something new and I applaud them for that.
It doesn't mean I'm going to change to 4th edition though. The pathfinder adventures have me too stoked to do that ;p
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Dear Mr. Slavicsek,
I think you've got a winning idea. The intention to publish, say, a "Dark Sun" rulesbook with an explicit awareness that many DM's will 'port some of the spiffier ideas over to their home adventures, without dropping the entire campaigns into Athas, is a great idea.
You are addressing the needs of your customers, and I appreciate that. I look forward to seeing how it plays out.
Sincerely, a well-wisher.
--CM
|
Contributor
|
You wouldn't believe how many times over the years I've heard people say "I play in [insert favorite campaign setting here] so product X is of no use to me," or "I only play Core D&D (whatever that means) so I can't use that [insert campaign setting here] product."This does surprise me a lot. I was under the impression most DM's cherry-picked bits from published setting. Hell, half the reason I own all those Forgotten Realms and Eberron books was so that I had plenty of things to ripof...err, inspire me.
One of the complaints we heard A LOT from people when we were doing Dragon and Dungeon was that anything branded as Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Eberron, or whatever else "was unusable in my campaign." I would wager, therefore, that MOST DMs in the world don't realize they can cherry pick ideas they like from different sources to place in their campaigns (homebrew worlds or not).
To be honest, this is probably the first thing I've heard about 4e that made me personally interested in the new edition at all. I look forward to seeing how they implement this idea, and now I really look forward to seeing what 4e Eberron looks like. So yay, Bill gets a cookie. ^_^
|
I'm all for modularization of the game, as well...but I can't see FR and Eberron mixing.
Greyhawk and FR share enough of the same fundamental elements to encourage cross-pollination.
Eberron shares some stylistic flavors common in Athas; Krynn and Mystara are likewise similar.
The Realms and Eberron? Maybe, maybe some shared coincidences with the Netherese, but...
EDIT:
I just realized that I have trouble seeing how Eberron and the Realms will mix because I'm still seeing the Realms circa 1375 DR---1385+ looks to be interesting times; who knows what the designers will pull off? I'm even more interested now to see how this all works out.
To be honest, this is probably the first thing I've heard about 4e that made me personally interested in the new edition at all. I look forward to seeing how they implement this idea, and now I really look forward to seeing what 4e Eberron looks like. So yay, Bill gets a cookie. ^_^
My opinion is actually the opposite. It's probably the first thing I've heard about 4e that made me disappointed. I was really looking forward to 4e Eberron, but now I don't care that much and maybe I will go for a "homebrew" conversion of Eberron.
|
I have to admit I have significant doubts about this move. Recently with the previews I've found my optimism meter going back up but this new revelation is a serious blow to that.
I cannot see how two books and an adventure can adequately explore the flavour and details of an entire setting.
I'm fortunate in that my personal campaign world of choice is Eberron and 90% of the material in those books already released for 3.5 is fluff and easily ported over. However that still leaves a significant level of setting detail barely touched.
For those settings like FR or any of the re-releases which are also likely to see major updates how can this hope to be sufficient?
If it's the intent that all setting info be released via DDI I'm very dissapointed, whilst it was always my intent to subscribe it is horribly unfair to penalise fans and players who don't want to. It's one thing to have it supplement the books another to be a replacement.
I was going to support 4e and PFRPG but this may seriously affect that decision.
You cant make things unique AND one size fits all. Sure DM's steal ideas from one thing or another....But I cant see buying say...dragons of FR book, and getting it to fit in say, Dragonlance.
But you could design the Dragons of FR book so that a DM can convert the presented dragons into other setting without much difficulty.
What would a fluff book like that contain?
A couple sample dragons.
New powers and feats for them.
Information on how dragons work (physiology and such).
All of those things can be done in a way so that the DM can lift 90% of the book and fit it easily into Dragonlance.
The powers and abilities for dragons could be presented fully setting independant, because things like improved breath weapon feats don't have anything to do with the Realms.
Dragon physiology can also be described this way, so that while intresting and new, it's not based upon some trick of the realms.
The most setting specific thing, the individual dragons, aren't difficult either. Yes each sample dragon would be described by how they interact with the main FR setting, but a couple paragraphs about how to transpose that dragon into another setting is all you really need to make it easy to slip into Dragonlance.
I'm cynical because their trying to sell more books. Not that there is anything worng with selling more books, but the way their doing it just seems wrong.
Wizards has gotten flack so much about how doing thie rjob: Selling us D&D books.
That's WotC's job. They sell books, and no matter how they try and do it people have complained.
3rd had to many weak fluff books and not enough settings.
4th has too many different settings, and not enough fluff books for each one.
3rd had to many splat books, which changed the rules in too many ways.
4th will have to many Players handbooks, which were an attempt to really streamline the splat books and reduce their number.
IF their new plan is wrong, what is the right way of doing this then?
But you could design the Dragons of FR book so that a DM can convert the presented dragons into other setting without much difficulty.
What would a fluff book like that contain?
A couple sample dragons.
New powers and feats for them.
Information on how dragons work (physiology and such).
Dragons are maybe a bad example (because most campaigns have them in one form or another). Let's consider something from Eberron like dragonmarks or warforged. What are their choices if they want to introduce those things? Either:
(a) "Campaign-specific Stuff is Core" -- Future products will include references to dragonmarks and warforged so they'll have to be shoehorned into other campaign settings Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, etc.
(b) "Campaign-specific Stuff is Non-Core" -- Future products will have no reference to dragonmarks and warforged other than maybe a note saying "This guy could be a warforged, if you use warforged in your campaign".
I'm not saying that either of those approaches is bad, but I'm not sure you can say "everything is Core" without some flavour getting neglected.
P.S. I'm not a 4E-hater; I wish it the best of luck!
On the plus side it might mean we finally get the long requested Oriental Adventures update.
Did you see
Dragons are maybe a bad example (because most campaigns have them in one form or another). Let's consider something from Eberron like dragonmarks or warforged. What are their choices if they want to introduce those things? Either:
(a) "Campaign-specific Stuff is Core" -- Future products will include references to dragonmarks and warforged so they'll have to be shoehorned into other campaign settings Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, etc.
(b) "Campaign-specific Stuff is Non-Core" -- Future products will have no reference to dragonmarks and warforged other than maybe a note saying "This guy could be a warforged, if you use warforged in your campaign".
I'm not saying that either of those approaches is bad, but I'm not sure you can say "everything is Core" without some flavour getting neglected.
I don't feel that those are the only two options. Instead, they can walk a middle road instead. Keep the various Campaign-specific systems Campaign-specific, but include them in other things as well.
For instance, when a new Players handbook come out, they could easily provide a free artical that provides Campaign-specific material updates for the new classes. An artical title "Want to know how to include the new SwordMage class into Ebberon? Here's how!"
The thing is, all of the campaign specific systems can with a bit of work be fit into any setting. Dragon Marks and Warforged can both be lifted out and written quite convincingly into other settings. By making suggestions on how to do this, the designers could seriously promote this kind of thinking without deluting the settings by shoehorning it in.
The designers could easily suggest ways to insert the Warforged into the Forgotten Realms, either in the present day or historically.
Warforged are left over solders from a previous war in Ebberon. They could be in the FR too, or they could be a new form of soldier just being created. The designers could even give a couple suggestions as to what nations might create the warforged. The Nethreseen, Thay, and the Zentarium, all come to mind as world powers capable of creating the Warforged in large numbers. They could be in DragonLance for the very same reasons. The various Mage Towers could have created them during the Dragon wars as defensive force, or in the Age of Man as a new army.
If, when they write the warforged, they put those kind of conversion notes into the Ebberon book or an artical on the DDI, you'd be ready to go. You could continue writing the setting specific adventures are setting specific, but include powers and feats for everyone in the non-setting books like the PHB.
DragonMarks could work much the same way. You just take the mechnics of the system and put them in a new place, and the continue to expand the system in the core books like the PHB. A simple suggestion of "The Red wizards of Thay have always had inticate magic tattoos, why not make them dragon marks?" in the Ebberron book would make this sort of thing a lot more previlant.
Again, working on my walking the middle road theory, they don't have to include everything in the adventures, just what is Campaign-specific to the setting being spotlighted. (Even I like your quick suggestion of making somebody a warforged.)
Then, because there is no longer an assumed 'Core' setting, they don't have to worry about messing it up by including expanded rules for campaign specific systems in the Player's Handbooks.
Dragons are maybe a bad example (because most campaigns have them in one form or another). Let's consider something from Eberron like dragonmarks or warforged. What are their choices if they want to introduce those things? Either:
(a) "Campaign-specific Stuff is Core" -- Future products will include references to dragonmarks and warforged so they'll have to be shoehorned into other campaign settings Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, etc.
(b) "Campaign-specific Stuff is Non-Core" -- Future products will have no reference to dragonmarks and warforged other than maybe a note saying "This guy could be a warforged, if you use warforged in your campaign".
I don't feel that those are the only two options. Instead, they can walk a middle road instead. Keep the various Campaign-specific systems Campaign-specific, but include them in other things as well.
The thing is, all of the campaign specific systems can with a bit of work be fit into any setting. Dragon Marks and Warforged can both be lifted out and written quite convincingly into other settings. By making suggestions on how to do this, the designers could seriously promote this kind of thinking without deluting the settings by shoehorning it in.
O.K., I admit "shoehorned" was a really bad term to use. Please replace it with "deftly integrated". :) But this is what I meant by option (a).
Again, working on my walking the middle road theory, they don't have to include everything in the adventures, just what is Campaign-specific to the setting being spotlighted. (Even I like your quick suggestion of making somebody a warforged.)
Right; this is what I meant by option (b).
I have to admit, I don't really have a problem with a company putting out "generic setting" products and leaving it up to individual DMs to adapt it to their campaigns (maybe with a few tips). That's essentially what Paizo did with Shackled City, Age of Worms and Savage Tide, and it looks like it worked well enough.
O.K., I admit "shoehorning" was a really bad term to use. :) But this is what I meant by option (a).
Ah, okay then. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
See, I was seeing option (a) as the arguement that they're gonna really change the settings to force the new things in, inflicting a Spellplague or something like it on every setting to include the new systems and races into every setting.
If a was meant as "We'll keep the settings the same, but including all the setting specific things in the new player's handbooks and other core books like it.", then I think (a) is the way they'll go.
It resembles the early days of D&D actually, which has been said about 4th Edition before. There's no setting, only a loosely, loosely implied one. Flavor will be contained within an individual supplement. However, won't gamers start putting the islands of flavor-lite together into something eventually?
|
|
I agree 100% with Erik Mona's post on Greyhawk that it shouldn't have Dragonborn and tieflings running around however "So under 4th Edition, we're making every product look like a core product" The Bill Slavicsek
means that it will. Say hello to Dragonborn and tieflings in Dark Sun and agast Dragonlance IF they do these settings. Yet another reason not to like 4e IMHO
Mike
|
|
Wizards has gotten flack so much about how doing thie rjob: Selling us D&D books.
That's WotC's job. They sell books, and no matter how they try and do it people have complained.
3rd had to many weak fluff books and not enough settings.
4th has too many different settings, and not enough fluff books for each one.3rd had to many splat books, which changed the rules in too many ways.
4th will have to many Players handbooks, which were an attempt to really streamline the splat books and reduce their number.IF their new plan is wrong, what is the...
Of course its their job. Thats understandable. But how you do it, if its "forced" leaves alot to be desired.
After the core three...yes Wotc wants to sell alot of other books. Completely understandable. Thats business. But handwaving all the books and saying "its core" leaves a bad taste with me.
Make something good enough and I'll buy it. Its that simple. Quality will sell. But running with everything is core and "oh yeah, you should buy anything setting specific becuase it be cool to mix and match" is not.
*shrug* Right now, I'm playing and will eventually run myself Ptolus. Its pretty self contained item. BUT, I have several Paizo modules lined up for it. There are a bunch of nice ones that would fit nicely. And a WotC book or two, and a nice couple of Green Ronin items.
But they have to be good. Even you have to admit more than a few of WOTC's books havent been exactly winners. But making them core doesnt solve the quality problem.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I agree 100% with Erik Mona's post on Greyhawk that it shouldn't have Dragonborn and tieflings running around however [this decision] means that it will. Say hello to Dragonborn and tieflings in Dark Sun and Dragonlance IF they do these settings. Yet another reason not to like 4e IMHO
Mike
Hi, Mike. I agree with you and Erik ... 75%.
That is, Greyhawk shouldn't have dragonborn warlocks, let alone warforged dragon disciples, in any published product.
That's not what Wizards is doing. They are going to be publishing discrete, self-consistent settings. "Living Realms" RPGA modules won't have Shifter Artificiers wandering through.
But if you, as a DM, in your home campaign, want to borrow a lot of Greyhawk ambiance and place names, and you also want to plop in some material from other sources, Wizards is good with that. That's their default assumption.
Wizards won't come over to your apartment and beat up your dog if you mix-and-match stuff in your homebrew.
(In particular, I think, the DDI will not lock your player's wizard out of Core races or Forgotten Realms feats or prestige classes from Dragonlance if she sets up her character with a Greyhawk-specific familiar.)
I don't know if i should say this here, but i understand this politic and i tend to agree with it.
What killed TSR, among other things, was the overwhelming profusion of campaign settings. DMs and players playing in X wouldn't buy supplements for Y.
Campaign settings have to be detailed and specific, there is no doubt about that.
Some races, prestige classes, feats and spells might belong to a specific world. But not all of them.
Often they could be adapted to many other setings.
Take the Bladesinger for example : I don't think bladesingers are unique to the Forgotten Realms. There must be some of them on Eberron, Mystara or Oerth also, no ? So why are they in a FR book ?
Some Monster Manuals already give hints about the place of some monsters on Eberron or Toril. That's a good start.
I think it is the job of each DM to determine what is compatible with his campaign setting and what is not.
Some DMs use everything, every character race, every monster. Some pick whatever they need and leave aside what they don't want.
Hey, there is no otyughs on my own campaign world ;)
Publishing books with material non dedicated to a unique setting is indeed a better strategy, as the products can appeal any potential buyer, without preconception.
I think that overall this approach actually sounds like a good one to me. With scores of campaign books from over 20 years the last thing we need is a dozen repeat reference books for the different campaign settings. I think a single well made campaign book for each of the classic settings with perhaps a trilogy of adventures that support it would work very well. Give me the 4E crunch that goes with that setting. Capture the theme or essence of that setting and show how to apply it to any 4E game. For example, using Ravenloft as an example of how to work horror into your 4E game. You can run horror in any setting. Likewise, here's how to run a deadly survival game using Dark Sun as an example.
Then have most of the supplements for 4E be generic in nature. Have most of the adventures be campaign neutral with ideas on how to fit that adventure into the different settings (locations, theme changes, etc.)
And then add more campaign detail in online articles.
L
Pure branding stance. Pure.
Who hasn't been tearing up pieces of content to make the game work? This formalizes permission for the folks who need it.
It will be interesting to see how this is presented in its final form, however.
This mix and match approach to settings has, indeed, been around forever.
The thing is that it was never talked about and in the days of second edition seemed to be activily discouraged by TSR in the way they wrote their books. Stuff from Dark Sun did not translate into Al-Qudim well without some real shoe horning, and they never gave any hints on how you could do so.
What I expect is that the DMG will have considerable infomation about how to mix and match elements of a campaign setting, along with a great deal of information about how to run a quality roleplaying game that simply wasn't in the 3rd edition version.
Things like story and cmapaign construction, character development, world building, and how you can swap setting elements around like playing cards to build the kind of world you want.
This is precisely what I feared. Campaigns can be unique, but not at the expense of core material.
Somebody tell me how tieflings fit into Greyhawk... just as an example :/