# Adventures don't Sell?  Do you agree? Redman Article



## Belen (Sep 10, 2003)

For those of you who have read the Rich Redmond article (http://www.thegamemechanics.com/opinion/rich-004.asp), do you agree with his thesis? 

For those who have not read the article, the basic premise is that adventures do not sell because 1.) Only GMs buy them 2.) They do not fit within the campaign, so they are left on the shelf.

I have to admit that I both agree and disagree on this subject. I agree with the first part of number 2. Most adventures produced for the d20 system are tied to specific campaign worlds. The effect is that a GM has to do work to make the adventure work within the world. In some cases, such as the more unusally flavored worlds like Arcanis, Midnight or Scarred Lands, it is too much work to bother. (Love AU, but the new races really limit Monte. After all, you cannot pick up a Diamond throne adventure and use it in a normal camapign.)

The main problem with adventures these days is that they are not generic enough. All the third party publishers want to showcase their own little worlds and prove how creative they can be. So we can adventures that are really tied to their company, their rules quirks, and their believe system.

However, would I be right in assuming that a line of generic city, forest, prairie, etc. adventures would really spark your interest? I would kill for such as those, especially with the smaller number of adventures in Dungeon. Am I the only one?

And if the publishers are so wary of producing them, then why don't they test the PDF waters? I would pay $5 a pop for a good line of generic PDF adventures that I could place in my campaign. That is close to some PDF sourcebooks!

You know, Mr. Redman, I think that you're article is somewhat correct, but short-sighted. Back in the days of TSR when we got adventures, they were mostly generic and easy to fit into campaigns, and they SOLD! Now we have too many publishers who just will not give us what we want.

I will not buy a Scarred Lands, Ravenloft, Diamond Throne, or Arcanis adventure, but I will be first in line to buy a dark gothic, city, or forest generic adventure. You write things that can be imported into my game, and I will buy them.

Dave


----------



## Zogg (Sep 10, 2003)

I agree with some of the points made in the article...though not necessarily with your points. I think WotC does a good job of releasing "generic" adventures for free on their website, which also undermines the market for adventures that should be sold.

I think the price range for adventures could probably be more expensive with the number of entertainment hours they provide for the number of individuals. Think about it - 5 people go to see a movie and pay ~$7 to $9 a piece for 2 hours of hit-or-miss entertainment. That's a combined price of $35-$45 dollars. Even if the movie is Oscar-winning material or even just a fanboy's wetdream it's still much more expensive than the going module and provides a very finite amount of enjoyment. 

Now take a run of the mill adventure (for instance, PLAGUE OF DREAMS for Monte Cook's AU - buy it today!) - I got mine for ~$12 at one of the many online stores, though we can't ignore the requisite cost of needing the AU book ($30) and the Diamond Throne pdf ($9) which comes to roughly $51 for the DM and $30-$39 for the PCs. While these prices are higher per person than for the 2-hour movie, the bucks we spend on the setting & adventure go a LONG WAY in comparison. 

I'm not going to do all the intricate math involved, but I can understand why raising the price on adventures makes sense. Economically raising the price on a low-demand item, however, does NOT make sense. All in all, there's a lot to be considered.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 10, 2003)

My point of view totally disregards economics, and just focuses on what the heck *I* want from an adventure.

I *want* adventures to be tied to a setting. I want them to exploit the setting's characteristic stuff. This is probably the tenth time I've said this, but the best large-scale adventure I've seen was Dragon's Crown for Dark Sun, which included lots of travel all over the place, sorcerer-kings, avangions, man-eating halflings, thri-kreen going mad, psionics, ancient ruins from the Cleansing wars, the Sea of Silt, and other stuff. That wouldn't have worked as a "generic" adventure, but it worked *perfectly* with Dark Sun. Likewise, I'd love to see an adventure with a similar scope for Forgotten Realms, one that had PCs going from the Dalelands to Thay and then to Iriaebor, dealing with local important stuff at each place, and using special stuff for the setting (Shades, Red Wizards, and the like).


----------



## Belen (Sep 10, 2003)

The vast majority of GMs use homebrew or heavily modified worlds.  This is why generic is best because it would sell the the majority.  It is a lot easier to customize a generic adventure for a world setting than reverse engineer it for a homebrew etc.

Unfortunately, TSR does not release enough adventures to really be useful.  Heck, more generic adventure paths and the like would rock.

Unfortunately, there is this opinion in the community that because WOTC does not produce them because they do not sell, that they really do not sell.

FR adventures, Dark Sun adventures, etc do not sell.  Not one has ever produced a set of adventures that are completley generic.

Dave


----------



## dcollins (Sep 10, 2003)

Of course, the creators and business managers of 3rd Edition explicitly agree with this thesis. It's the whole reason the d20 System and OGL were created in the first place -- to offload the unprofitable adventure-making business outside WOTC.

I'm still sort of aggrieved that this is this case -- it's still hard to wrap my head around why those early TSR adventures sold millions (it was the whole "thing you could buy" for RPG's, really, when you went in a store as an existing player), it now its a cost sink, apparently. One could speculate, that it's just in contrast to the newer strategy of pitching competitive power-inflation books at all the players, which make adventures pale in comparison. Or maybe all the revolutionary generic-fantasy adventures have been done. Or something.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, there is this opinion in the community that because WOTC does not produce them because they do not sell, that they really do not sell.




Note that people like Ryan Dancey (creator of d20 System license) has gone on record, and can be quoted circa 2000, as having business numbers that prove adventures are unprofitable and that d20 was created to offload them to other companies.


----------



## Arnwyn (Sep 10, 2003)

I think I agree with the article.

And that's both sad and unfortunate - but true. The lack of support for DMs, especially in 3e, is appalling. It's like the comments I'm seeing more and more now, these days: "3e/d20 is the game everyone wants to play - but no one wants to DM." I think I'm beginning to agree with this.

We have so many character options that we'd die horribly if caught underneath them all - but no where to use them! (This is a bit of hyperbole, of course. There are many, many campaign settings out which is designed for DMs. However, the lack of support for many of them is quite bad. Kalamar is one of the good ones, for example. FR is middle of the road, nowadays. Midnight seems to be poorly supported, right now I think.)

But are players buying campaign settings as well? *shrug* Beats me. I think reason #2 has more bite than I originally thought. (I buy everything NG, and they're all generic...)


			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Back in the days of TSR when we got adventures, they were mostly generic and easy to fit into campaigns, and they SOLD!



I don't think you have any proof of this (and if we look at the fate of TSR, and the verifiable fact that they did not have money to pay the printers at the end of their days, I'm not convinced that they sold).


----------



## MaxKaladin (Sep 10, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> For those of you who have read the Rich Redmond article (http://www.thegamemechanics.com/opinion/rich-004.asp), do you agree with his thesis?
> 
> For those who have not read the article, the basic premise is that adventures do not sell because 1.) Only GMs buy them 2.) They do not fit within the campaign, so they are left on the shelf.




Agree.  Especially the 2nd part.  I find that modules either do not mesh well with my world, do not work well with my party, seem to have holes in them I need to plug, have balance problems with my world (typically way too much magic in the old days), or some combination of the above.  By the time I finish doing the necessary work to make a module usable for me, I haven't saved any time over starting from scratch.  

I know there are GMs out there who make good use of modules and even run them exclusively.  That's fine, but then the first problem comes up.  GMs are a smaller market.  

In the past, I have been known to buy the occasional module, but that was either because I was running he published setting it was placed in and wanted it for the setting info published in it or because I found some particularly interesting bit of "crunch" that I liked.  Usually that amounted to local maps.  That's about all I've ever used modules for.

While I *might* be interested in generic _encounters_, old style generic _adventures_ wouldn't interest me.  I didn't run them in the old days for the same reasons as I gave above.  I also think the gaming population has changed.  It used to be, back in the beginning, that modules were basically canned dungeon crawls with enough generic story to get you to the dungeon door.  That doesn't really mesh what a lot of people really expect from their game these days.  Generic encounters are small enough in scope to remove most of these problems.


----------



## Aaron2 (Sep 10, 2003)

Alot of the old classic 1e modules (the G series esp.) were so small that they could easily fit into Dungeon magazine. Dungeon has about three new small and often generic adventures a month. I play every week but couldn't possibly use that many. 

Necromancer Games produces a large number of mostly generic 3e modules. But, even that one company produces way more adventures than I could ever possibly use myself.

OTOH, there is a perception among gamers that unless new material is coming out for a game, the game is "dead" and there is no sense playing it. For that reason, adventures still have some importance (unless you go the splatbook route).


Aaron


----------



## Faraer (Sep 10, 2003)

The diversification of D&D campaign styles -- kicked off by Dragonlance, encouraged by TSR in the 90s, while 3E tried to both refocus the game and cater to a wider range of heroic fantasy than before -- is part of why modules aren't big sellers. The new focus on selling to players (one of the things, like 3E's very specific definition of 'game balance', that often gets taken for granted) also makes sales of modules and other DM-focused material seem small in comparison.

The wordcount bloat that set in in the late 80s and 90s also limits the applicability and popularity of adventures. With a little discipline, a little negative sensibility, we could have 10 T1s or G1s in the space of a typical sourcebook. Adventures where the story is what the players do, not what was preconceived by the author. Don't make the mistake of thinking they're 'dated' because the current vogue differs -- they're examples of brilliant, focused, inspiring, deliberate game design.

The shared experience of the classic D&D and AD&D modules is a sore thing to lose, and we'd better hope what's gained in return makes up for it. Scenario support is important to the health of games far beyond the money they make directly

I also think the adventure module is an excellent, and underappreciated, medium. It can tell a story while leaving the full story to play, entertain the DM once as it's read and once as it's played, and convey source material about a world or how the game is played.

A peculiarity of the question about genericness is a lot of people seem to close their eyes as soon as some work is associated with a named campaign setting, but are open to equally specific works with the 'generic' label. Adventures with all distinctiveness and strong taste pared out of them would be as much a niche market as ones explicitly specific to a world. It would also be better if modules actually represented the strengths of their nominal settings, as the adventures WotC has published for the Realms, for example, don't.


----------



## Belen (Sep 10, 2003)

Andy,

I really have to disagree.  I know that Ryan Dancey has the numbers, but do those numbers reflect the glut of adventures for 2e after the system had lost so many players, or do they reflect the height of the older edition.

Certainly they cannot reflect 3e numbers because we have hardly seen any adventures for 3e.  Nothing like in the old days.  Heck, I used to collect adventures and leave the source books alone.  And I know that you have the numbers for the 3e adventures that WOTC released with 3e, but those lacked a lot of the high adventure that we loved in the old days.

And as we have seen, the third party publishers did not produce adventures en masse.  They pulled a WOTC and wrote source books alone.

I mean did we really need 10 different elven racial books, yet not one adventure that featured those elves?

Dave


----------



## Belen (Sep 10, 2003)

That's the problem with 3e.  Too much for the players and hardly anything for the GM.  Yes, we get to use those books to put together ultra-bbeg's, however, how much of that material do we use?

If the normal campaign last for about a year, then owning a dozen or so source books is useless.  

Am I the only one who bought a source book because I thought it would be awesome in at the end of my campaign or useful in my next campaign and then forgot I had it on the shelf.  Heck, my tastes change from time to time and one source book may be useful for an instant, but useless the next.

Yet, I would kill for adventures!  That is the hardest part of getting my weekly game together.  And Dungeon BITES.  We get, maybe, 3 adventures an issue, mostly tied to Greyhawk or FR, and if nothing comes out in the issue when I need, I am am stuck improvisong again!

In the old days, I would go to the game store, and look through roughly 5-10 adventures for a specific level, buy a few, read them, and decide what I needed for the coming week.

Now, I go to the game store, look around, get disappointed, maybe buy a few new die and walk out.


----------



## tzor (Sep 10, 2003)

*Old generic adventures did sell ... in the old days*



			
				arnwyn said:
			
		

> I don't think you have any proof of this (and if we look at the fate of TSR, and the verifiable fact that they did not have money to pay the printers at the end of their days, I'm not convinced that they sold).




First of all, it's been several years since the fall of TSR but I thought that part of the fall of TSR was through the paperback division.  This was the area where retailers could get most of their money back for unsold product by simply sending back the cover of the unsold book.

Secondly, I think we need to distinguish TSR during the 80's and TSR during the last years.  In the last years TSR changed its model, developing specific scenarios starting with Dark Sun and then Birthright.  Dark Sun adventures were campaign specific, and Birthright was done through the supplement model, producing a plethora of player's guides to all the regions in birthright.

So let's take the way back machine all the way back to 1st edtion.  Modules were generic in the truest sense, even when they were tied to specific campaigns.  (It is a very easy process to take all the Lankhmar adventures and port them almost to any published scenario.)  Now while I cannot give exact numbers on adventure module sales, I can't seem to recall them flowing on the shelves.   I do recall taking my time searching through the small stack to see if there were any new adventure modules that I hadn't gotten yet.

Speaking of "generic" one good example was a Lankhmar supplement that got a "Forgotten Realms" logo plastered on the cover.   

One of the problems with adventure modules is that it doesn't really follow the same economic model as the rulebook, or scenario book, or game supplement.  It really follows the comic book module.  Bought on impulse, the issue also provides the impluse to get the next issue in the series when the next issue comes out.  All the good 1E AD&D adventures were in series, typically prefixed with the series identifier.  Even when lankhmar adventures or supplements came out twice a year I still looked forward to it.

Personally I think the adventure module is still a viable product.  But, in order to make it a viable product you have to think outside the box.  The world has changed since 1E, and the needs of the DM and players are vastly different.  If you provide what the DM and the players need, in a format they can appreciate, at a price that is reasonable (and above cost so as to make it profitable) then they will buy.


----------



## TiQuinn (Sep 10, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> That's the problem with 3e.  Too much for the players and hardly anything for the GM.  Yes, we get to use those books to put together ultra-bbeg's, however, how much of that material do we use?
> 
> If the normal campaign last for about a year, then owning a dozen or so source books is useless.
> 
> ...




I have the exact opposite problem.  Looking at new adventures, I find that in any given month, 2 or 3 new adventures come out from some publisher, and I end up buying 1 or none because

A) The adventure is for levels much higher or much lower than the party currently is.
B) The adventure is very setting specific.
C) I look through the adventure and just don't find it interesting.

Now of course, I can take any of these adventures and pour some work into it to make it immediately usable to me, and occasionally I do that, but for DM's with limited time on their hands, that can be a pain.  Hence, I have no surprise that adventures do not sell as well.

BTW, there's also a fourth possibility: the supermodules that many people are playing may actually cut into other module sales.  I know that when I ran Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, I didn't really need anything else for a good 9 months.


----------



## AnthonyJ (Sep 10, 2003)

It's worth noting that the belief 'adventures don't sell' is not limited to the d20 marketplace.  In fact, outside of the D&D market, pretty much no-one produces adventures, nor have they done so since the 80s.

This doesn't mean they aren't producing resources for the GM.  Worldbooks and setting books, while often readable by players, are fundamentally GM resources.

The problem with adventures is not, I think, that they're only for the GM.  The problem is that most of them aren't even usable by most GMs, because they don't fit well into the campaign setting, are designed for the wrong types of PCs, are at the wrong power level, or simply don't interest the GM.


----------



## Belen (Sep 10, 2003)

Tzor has a point.  The old adventures really followed a story path.  The A, G, and D series rocked.  However, adventures started dying down once we got campaign specific modules like the horrible Dragonlance adventure that forced you to follow the novel.

Now, if it that source books are sexier, or that White Wolf made money by printing new editions of the sourcebooks every so often forcing people to update or be left behind.

I believe that adventures will sell, especially in a PDF environment.  However, we get more elf books and that is just plain frustrating.  I am tired of publishers catering to players alone.  

The other problem is that adventures, especially serial adventures need to come out quickly to be of use.  So one adventure needs to last for roughly 3-4 sessions and the next in the path needs to come out the following month.  Not the following year.

But then, we actually need 10 elf books....right?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 10, 2003)

There are ten elf books?  I only have four...make that two I gave a couple away.  I need to get the others  

Modules now seem to be more then modules.  They are sourcebooks that have modules in them.  I have no idea if they are selling, but I'm buying them.  Take a look at the Hamlet of Thimble for instance.  It's a good adventure, plus has a lot of source material that can be used well after the module part is done.


----------



## Faraer (Sep 10, 2003)

> Speaking of "generic" one good example was a Lankhmar supplement that got a "Forgotten Realms" logo plastered on the cover.



Which one's that?







> The world has changed since 1E, and the needs of the DM and players are vastly different.



Could you elaborate? I don't quite see how that's so.







> Worldbooks and setting books, while often readable by players, are fundamentally GM resources.



A world book is 'for' players as much as any RPG book is, though a city supplement wouldn't be. The idea that books full of extra roolz are the ones 'for' players doesn't work.


----------



## johnsemlak (Sep 10, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Modules now seem to be more then modules.  They are sourcebooks that have modules in them.  I have no idea if they are selling, but I'm buying them.  Take a look at the Hamlet of Thimble for instance.  It's a good adventure, plus has a lot of source material that can be used well after the module part is done.




That certianly seems to be Necromancer Games approach recently.  Most of their recent modules--e.g. Lost city of Barakus, Grey Citadel, Vault of Larin Karr--are mini settings as well.

From what I can observe, the most viable format for a module now seems ot be the large, mega-adventure, preferably in hardback, and with a lot more in them than an adventure.

It'd be nice to have some of the NG folks chime in on this one.


----------



## Storminator (Sep 10, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> <SNIP>
> 
> Yet, I would kill for adventures!  That is the hardest part of getting my weekly game together.  And Dungeon BITES.  We get, maybe, 3 adventures an issue, mostly tied to Greyhawk or FR, and if nothing comes out in the issue when I need, I am am stuck improvisong again!
> 
> <SNIP>




I have a large stack of Dungeons, and I've never failed to get a module out when I need one. I just go thru my stack of mags, and there's always one I can use. 

And you really need to come to my FLGS, Belen.  They have dozens of adventures. I picked up half a dozen last night.

PS


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 10, 2003)

It's not true that nobody has produced generic adventures since the 80s.  In the wake of 3e's release, _tons_ of generic modules were released.  Now, a few years later, that has all but dried up.  You can believe what you want, but as far as I'm concerned, that is evidence that just supports the expert opinion of the folks who have the best sales data and best market research available.  Adventures aren't worth it to publish, for the most part.


----------



## der_kluge (Sep 10, 2003)

I agree with his points, though didn't read his article.  (thanks for that executive-level summary) 

For d20 publishers, it's a double-edged sword.  If a d20 publisher has a campaign setting, they want to provide source material for it so that it doesn't fade away and die.  They key way to do that is by creating modules.  AU and Dragonstar are both great examples of campaign settings that licensed out their world IP to other publishers to create modules for them.  These modules obviously won't sell to people who don't use those campaign settings, but they help ensure the success of a campaign setting in the long run.

That said, I would also agree that I fall into the camp of not buying any world-specific modules.  I would never think to purchase a KoK module, or a Scarred Lands module (or any Scarred Lands product, for that matter), because those things don't fit with my campaign world.  I do enjoy a good generic module that I can plug into my own campaign, but those are few and far between.

But, creating a module to be generic is difficult.  Let me explain.  Once upon a time when I was asked to write for a new d20 company called Thunderhead Games, they said "write a module", and I said "I'll see what I can do."  So, I had this idea of having the PCs meet each other on a caravan ride from one outpost city to another larger city.  "I need a city", I said, "oh, btw, I need some gods, too".  "We have neither", was the reply from on high, "make them up".  So, I slapped a couple of city-stat blocks together "Perten" and "Bluffside", and I made a couple generic gods.  

Thus, Bluffside was born.  So, you see, it's almost a natural evolution to go from a module to a campaign setting.  Even generic modules are almost always set in some kind of specific place, but generic in this sense can really only mean "standard D&D fantasy", and that's about as close as you're gonna get.


----------



## BiggusGeekus@Work (Sep 10, 2003)

For better or for worse I think we've entered an era where modules are largely promotional material or "mega-modules" that are in actuality campaigns.

I don't think this is either good or bad, it's just the way things are right now.


----------



## babomb (Sep 10, 2003)

I agree with the point that when 3e first came out there was something of a flood of adventures and source materials, which magnified the problems with producing profitable adventures, especially since a lot of the adventures were mediocre. When 3e first came out, I could go into the FLGS, look through a big stack of adventures, and end up only buying dice. I wound up converting a couple of interesting modules from 2e and buying <i>Death in Freeport</i> from Green Ronin. I would've bought the rest of the Freeport series and a small number of others (e.g. <i>Of Sound Mind</i>), were I still GMing. I might buy them anyway, before they go OOP. Now that the competition has thinned a bit, I think the overall level of quality has risen.

Another thing to note is that while publishing adventures might not be profitable for WotC, it can be profitable for smaller publishers with less overhead.


----------



## Wraith Form (Sep 10, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> I have a large stack of Dungeons, and I've never failed to get a module out when I need one. I just go thru my stack of mags, and there's always one I can use.




But don't you see why that's frustrating?  They're Dungeon mags you've collected over time...in other words, they're "old".  Where is the current d20 adventures for DMs?  

I've got every TSR adventure (and I mean that literally) published between 1995-1998, as well as every Dungeon mag from 1997 - today.  In order to get adventure ideas, I need to sift through the "old stuff" to find an adventure germ that I can cultivate in my own mind into a full-scale, full-blown adventure.  Or, I have to convert every stat into a D20 version.  Why is that?  Why do I need to do that?  Why isn't there d20 support for DMs?

I personally don't give a rat's sphincter WHY adventures/modules don't sell (from the economic perspective), I just know I'd pay for some that are intelligent (BBEG plots that *make sense*), well-written, low-to-mid-level, generic enough to slot into a *majority* of the campaign settings, and don't feature a lot of half-this/half-that humanoids or demons as opponents.  I appreciate the flexibility of the rules to make diverse monsters, but this half-dragon/half-golem/half-kraken/half-vampire 30th level Librarian/2nd level Blackguard junk has GOT to go.  (Give me a simple human bad guy any day...like Iago from Othello, for example; what a BASTARD he was.)

Occasionally I find those plots in Dungeon, one of the only d20 products from WotC (err, Paizo, whatever) that I will (reluctantly) continue to support.  But did anyone else find an adventure like "Life's Bazaar" to be *TOO* over-the-top?  
*****************SPOILER WARNING BEGINS (just for you--you know who you are)********************************




****LAST CHANCE****







* I MEAN IT THIS TIME * 


*REALLY*


(A beholder secretly running a town?  Whaaat?  A town that's developed inside a dormant volcano?  You crazy or somethin'?  With a bunch of invisible, "shackleborn" birthmarks showing up on kids??  hunh???  And whose insane idea was it to have a half-dwarf/half-TROLL slaver?  I understand about rape and all that, but....yeeeech, are they even compatible?)  I'll buy adventures with plots that *work*, not this half-baked monster-fest they've been feeding us.

Ahem.

OK, enough coffee for one afternoon.  Sorry.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 10, 2003)

Zogg said:
			
		

> I think the price range for adventures could probably be more expensive with the number of entertainment hours they provide for the number of individuals. Think about it - 5 people go to see a movie and pay ~$7 to $9 a piece for 2 hours of hit-or-miss entertainment. That's a combined price of $35-$45 dollars. Even if the movie is Oscar-winning material or even just a fanboy's wetdream it's still much more expensive than the going module and provides a very finite amount of enjoyment.




Yes, but there's a point that's going unmentioned here...

With a movie you're getting entertainment that you cannot reasonably create yourself.  Meanwhile, it's quite possible for a GM to create their own adventures.  Many GMs (myself included) actually find the process enjoyable, and count it into our own entertainment of the game.

Even for those who don't find it fun, there's the issue of time.  The GM has to review the adventure and edit it for his own campaign, and doing that properly takes a while.  That reduces the value of the adventure.  The GM cand spend money and time on the published work, or just spend time and create his own...

Thus, the main competition the adventure writers face is from the DMs themselves.


----------



## Snipehunt (Sep 10, 2003)

I can't comment on the economics of it all, but I remember the AD&D modules, and (besides being generic) they were all good - they still stand up today, in our more RP-oriented games.  I took my group through White Plume Mountain, and the slaver campaign, and those just plain rocked!  And the original Ravenloft, or the D--series?  Too  cool.  The players always knew why the were there, what the goal was, and everything led clearly to the goal.

The main problem I see, and I don't mean to insult anybody, but, is that most of the modules and adventures are just bad compared to these.  Hard to figure out, hard to follow, lots of inexplicable actions, plots that just plain don't make sense.  Worse, most adventures don't even come with good hooks to get PC's into them - and that's the hardest part!  Once I can give my PC's motivation, the adventure's easy.

I bought a lot - more than a dozen, maybe 20 - of non-WotC adventures when 3E first came out, and never played them.  RttTOEE was great, the WotC adventures were pretty good, but the others?  If you want them, they're still sitting on the bookshelf.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 10, 2003)

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> I personally don't give a rat's sphincter WHY adventures/modules don't sell (from the economic perspective), I just know I'd pay for some that are intelligent (BBEG plots that *make sense*), well-written, low-to-mid-level, generic enough to slot into a *majority* of the campaign settings, and don't feature a lot of half-this/half-that humanoids or demons as opponents



If you happen to have a rat's sphincter handy, you should probably reconsider that position.  If the economic incentive isn't there for publishers, _you ain't gettin' no adventures_ no matter how much you personally would want them.  That's why it matters.


----------



## Wombat (Sep 10, 2003)

Hmm.  Well let's see where I stand.

I am a GM.  Have been pretty much my whole time.

I don't buy adventures.

Why?

First because they tend to be campaign-specific.  It takes a lot fo rework a pre-published adventure so that it fits the particulars of my own campaign.  I do not like _Greyhawk_, _Forgotten Realms_, _Scarred Lands_ or any of the other "House" settings that I have run across.  Oh, I might steal an idea or two, but they are not my worlds, so not my interest; the adventures are set in these places and are hard then to jury-rig into my worlds because there are far too many suppositions as to availability of magic, types of monsters running around, acceptable levels of treasure, background information, and the like.

Equally important, however, is that very few of them match the style of play that my players and I work with.  We hate "logic puzzles" that feel like they fit in the 20th century rather than in a fantasy setting.  We dislike "impossible traps" (thinks like _Grimtooth_ that do not fit the physics and mechanics of the time).  We tend to be character-driven and story-driven, rather than treasure-driven or killing-driven in our games.  

Generic encounters, as some people have suggested, might be of more use, but even then they would have to be re-tailored to fit the specifics of my own campaign(s).

In the end it is not really economical to buy an adventure.  I would rather purchase a splat book or other bit of crunch to pull out the small bits that are useful than an adventure where, at most, I might take away a village or a single NPC.

Just personal takes, YMMV, usw.


----------



## Wraith Form (Sep 10, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> If you happen to have a rat's sphincter handy, you should probably reconsider that position.  If the economic incentive isn't there for publishers, _you ain't gettin' no adventures_ no matter how much you personally would want them.  That's why it matters.




Ahh, but you see, I'm like Storminator.  I have *YEARS* worth of modules, adventures, Dungeon mags, and--gasp!--my own creativity and imagination to fall back on.

If publishers never produced another adventure again, I'd be sad but not crushed.  (In my mind, in essence, that's already happened--*if and when* an adventure is published, often it's useless to me.)  I have enough material sitting in my "library" to last for--seriously--many years, and if I need to resort to pulling from my "oldies" I will.

Oh, and here's your sphincter.  [Hands you a sphincter.]


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 10, 2003)

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> Ahh, but you see, I'm like Storminator.  I have *YEARS* worth of modules, adventures, Dungeon mags, and--gasp!--my own creativity and imagination to fall back on.
> 
> If publishers never produced another adventure again, I'd be sad but not crushed.  (In my mind, in essence, that's already happened--*if and when* an adventure is published, often it's useless to me.)  I have enough material sitting in my "library" to last for--seriously--many years, and if I need to resort to pulling from my "oldies" I will.
> 
> Oh, and here's your sphincter.  [Hands you a sphincter.]



Hey, thanks.  I can always use a spare rat's ass.      Anyway, if all this is true, then I don't understand your post -- you seem to be saying you don't need any more modules, but your earlier post was saying you wanted them desperately (I agree, I'm paraphrasing) and you didn't care why they weren't being made.  Anyhoo, color me confused.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Sep 10, 2003)

I used to love buying adventures but they all see the same and have little creativity.  I would like to see more plot driven with very little to no dungeons.  I am tired of delving into dungeons.  I am looking forward to Oblivion by Fiery Dragon.

I understand they are hard to sell, but they may be a critical support piece for the industry.  New players and DMs require adventures unless they are joining an established group, even then most new GMs are more comfortable using a published adventure.


----------



## Wombat (Sep 10, 2003)

Faraer said:
			
		

> The shared experience of the classic D&D and AD&D modules is a sore thing to lose, and we'd better hope what's gained in return makes up for it. Scenario support is important to the health of games far beyond the money they make directly.




Interesting notion, but I, for one, do not agree.

I don't care if I play in a scenario that everyone else has played in and I don't care of other gaming groups have gone through the same adventure my group has.  What would be the point?  Our worlds would be (and ought to be) vastly different.

If I want a shared experience, I'll pick up a book or a movie.  I enjoy rpgs for the individual experiences, not the commonality of gamers in general.  

Guess that's also why I dislike 99.9% of game-based novels.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Sep 10, 2003)

Does anyone know when Gates of Oblivion is going to be releasd.  Fiery Dragon has it listed as Sep and Nov.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 10, 2003)

See, for me it's because 99.9% of game based novels are poorly written.  I don't mind the fact that the setting is something folks already know really well from games.  In fact, I don't care much about that at all.  Of course, when the writers fall into the trap of letting game mechanics dictate plot resoluation and the like, that leads to the poorly written scenario I described earlier.  What makes a good novel and what makes a good game are not the same things.  However, what makes a good _setting_ for either one is, IMO, identical.


----------



## Wraith Form (Sep 10, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Hey, thanks.  I can always use a spare rat's ass.      Anyhoo, color me confused.




Me too.  Let's chalk it up to TOO MUCH COFFEE.    

(Although if a d20 adventure "fit" into the criteria I posted, I'd buy it in a heartbeat because I'm a fanboy d20 insomnia junkie with a spending habit worse than a heroin addict.  The Freeport adventures were god, for example, as was Grey Citadel.)

[Or "good"--although "god" is probably applicable, heh heh heh.]


----------



## bret (Sep 10, 2003)

So someone has finally figured out what SJGames has been saying for years?

Settings can sell. Worldbooks can sell. Adventures are a tough sale for any number of reasons. Best to put the effort into the first two instead.


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 10, 2003)

I think it's time to show all the naysayers that they are wrong. Right now, I want everyone within the sound of my voice to go to RPGNow and buy five, yes *five*, copies of the PDF module The Office & Affairs of Love. That'll show 'em!


----------



## d4 (Sep 10, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Thus, the main competition the adventure writers face is from the DMs themselves.



this is my feeling as well. it seems more GMs make their own adventures than buy them.

i've bought exactly two adventures since 3e came out: Sunless Citadel and Speaker in Dreams. i only ended up running Sunless Citadel. it took me _more_ time to convert the adventure to my campaign world than it normally takes me to write my own adventures. and i had to pay for it.

until people start marketing adventures set in my own personal homebrew world (which changes every 9 months to a year  ), i'm not going to be buying modules.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 10, 2003)

Personally, adventures are my favorite D&D publication, and I wish there were more of them -- long, short, generic, specific, low-level, high level.  I don't care too much about setting -- I've found that I can adapt *most* adventures to *most* settings.  I find it quicker to start with a module, and tweak story and contents to my needs, than to work entirely from scratch.

But I buy the economics.  Does anyone really think that if a lot of money were to be made in adventures WOTC wouldn't be publishing them?


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 10, 2003)

Two adventure sources I happily pay for:

*Dungeon* Magazine
*Dire Kobold* -- the pdf adventure publisher

I don't buy many adventures on their own because there's too much crap out there. It's impossible to know from looking if something is any good or if you're going to get a list of statblocks and some cheesy map stolen from _The Village of Hommlet_ or something. But both Dungeon and Dire Kobold have proven themselves worth my dollar -- so I trust the filtering process they in effect provide.

The G, D, S and A series -- I remember them all with great fondness. I agree with those who are saying that too few adventures nowadays meet the high standards set early on in the industry.

The problem is a signal-to-noise ratio problem -- which is why I pay for "filtering" services where some editorial system picks adventures for me.


----------



## Sir Whiskers (Sep 11, 2003)

A couple points:

1. While I purchase the occasional adventure for ideas, if I'm running a homebrew campaign, even generic modules can be too much work to adapt. By the time I've finished, I usually have dozens of pages of notes and begin to wonder why I didn't write the adventure myself.

2. Am I the only one who remembers going through the old modules outside of an established campaign? I played through Against the Giants as a completely stand-alone adventure. Same with Desert of Desolation. Same with Descent into the Depths and the Demonweb. The GM's didn't focus on elaborate campaign worlds, intricate npc's, pc motivations, etc. Players expected the modules to be linear to a certain extent - after defeating the hill giants, *of course* we would go after the frost giants, then the fire giants, then the Underdark, and so on.
I may be wrong, but I suspect most GM's and players no longer play in that way - now characters are expected to be tied to a specific world, closely involved with npc's possessing detailed personalities and quirks. Some may see this as a sign that the hobby has "matured" (whatever that means), but it also seems to be a major problem with the entire concept of packaged adventures. The closest I've personally experienced of something similar to the old modules is RttToEE, where the module was the campaign (over a year's worth for us).

Bottom line: I don't think modules will ever have much impact if most gaming groups concentrate on their campaign worlds - they work best for one-shot adventures, or linear mini-campaigns. If true, then it would seem that the market for adventures is even smaller than we've suggested already.


----------



## rounser (Sep 11, 2003)

In brief:

1) Publishers enjoy designing the same things DMs do (settings and deities and house rules) and would much rather buoy their egos by releasing an entire setting than "just" an adventure.  This is the opposite of the service they should, ideally, be providing; if DMs love statting deities and creating homebrews, leave that fun stuff to them.

2) There's a D&D publishing culture that says adventures should almost always be small, and rules and settings books huge.  Release megamodules which weren't &*^&&% megadungeons and they may well sell, because they have more than one dimension (rather than just dungeon crawling) and they _are_ the campaign, rather than 32 pages with little to no chance of fitting into an existing campaign without extensive conversion.

Imagine what a product with the page count of the FRCS which focused on just the Eveningstar region could do - fully fleshed out status quo dungeons, lairs and towns to explore, fully statted NPCs with personalities and adventure hooks, and enough mini-adventures to fuel a campaign.  It might not even include campaign story arcs, leaving them for the DM to construct for their favourite villains and themes.  I'd trade my FRCS in for such a product any day.  Oh well.


----------



## Beretta (Sep 11, 2003)

I am primarily a DM. I can scarce remember the times I've been a player - they have been few. I can understand this - being a DM requires a significant amount of work (for me at least - I like to prpare ahead).

Since I'm not that creative at coming up with adventure plots, and nor do I have the time to flesh them out should one spring to mind, I fall back on published material when it comes to running my campaign(s). It's why I have a subscription to Dungeon. Sure, not every adventure is usable by me, but a lot are and for me that's worth the price of admission.

There's not a lot of 'good*' adventure material out there at the moment, and it's why I'm trying to hunt down a lot of 1st Ed adventures that I can convert to 3.5 for use.

Wraith Form's first post was pretty accurate for me, in that I want plots that make sense and fewer half-this/half-that templates. If they're there I want a valid reason why such an outlandish creature exists.

More sensible plots and believable villains that don't need to resort to a bizarre heritage would be great, as well as ones that don't belabour a theme (I and my players very much dislike extended 'dungeon-bashes' that consist of myriads of passages and rooms. B10 Night's Dark Terror is my favourite module for the reason that it mixes city, wilderness and dungeon encounters [the latter in palatably small caves or ruins]. More adventures in that vein would be fantastic).

* good being subjective of course. I find many to be unsuitable to the style of campaign I run or else to the likes/dislikes of myself or my players (such as Rappan Athuk 1/2/3).


----------



## Mucknuggle (Sep 11, 2003)

> Tzor has a point. The old adventures really followed a story path. The A, G, and D series rocked. However, adventures started dying down once we got campaign specific modules like the horrible Dragonlance adventure that forced you to follow the novel.




I'm pretty sure that the novels were based on the modules.


----------



## Storminator (Sep 11, 2003)

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> But don't you see why that's frustrating?  They're Dungeon mags you've collected over time...in other words, they're "old".  Where is the current d20 adventures for DMs?
> 
> I've got every TSR adventure (and I mean that literally) published between 1995-1998, as well as every Dungeon mag from 1997 - today.  In order to get adventure ideas, I need to sift through the "old stuff" to find an adventure germ that I can cultivate in my own mind into a full-scale, full-blown adventure.  Or, I have to convert every stat into a D20 version.  Why is that?  Why do I need to do that?  Why isn't there d20 support for DMs?
> 
> ...




I've only got the Dungeons from the start of 3e. I missed 2e entirely, only becoming aware of its existance about 6 months before 3e came out. 

So while I don't have anything like your collection, I've got a pretty fair batch of 3e adventures. But every time I've needed an adventure, it's been there. Now I do make up a lot of my own adventures, and I've got a couple games going (both as DM and player) that are exclusively homebrew mods. I don't need a constant stream of adventures, just a few "filler" pieces.

On the other hand, about a year ago I started a pretty good thread about the "classic" modules of 3e (perhaps some Community Supporter can search for it...), and that thread convinced me to send a group of newbies thru Sunless Citadel. I felt they should have that "shared experience" I had with all the 1e adventures. That thread had a lot of great suggestions for modules, incidently. So naturally they befriended the goblins and married into the kobold tribe, thereby guaranteeing that they share an experience with no one! 

PS


----------



## JeffB (Sep 11, 2003)

I read the article, but I haven't read through this entire thread, sorry. 

I LOVE modules. Unfortunately IMO only a handful of companies out there know how to write them. IMO about 90% of the D20 mods are not very good, and most of those are just plain awful.

Redman says the Adventure Path mods didn't sell for WOTC . That's a no-brainer   , All but 2 or 3 of them were terrible!  IMO of course.


----------



## ToddSchumacher (Sep 11, 2003)

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> But did anyone else find an adventure like "Life's Bazaar" to be *TOO* over-the-top?
> 
> SNIP
> 
> ...





Spoilers man!!! , some of us are still running this MOD ..on these very boards!


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 11, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> 1) Publishers enjoy designing the same things DMs do (settings and deities and house rules) and would much rather buoy their egos by releasing an entire setting than "just" an adventure.  This is the opposite of the service they should, ideally, be providing; if DMs love statting deities and creating homebrews, leave that fun stuff to them.



I doubt it.  If so, adventures would still be what is mostly produced these days.  I think most gamers would rather by setting, personally.

_I_ like making settings.  I'm a die-hard homebrewer.  But even I have more use for campaign setting books than for adventures.


----------



## eryndel (Sep 11, 2003)

Mucknuggle said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that the novels were based on the modules.




Actually, the modules came out quite a bit after I read the novels.  I do remember reading something that the novels were loosely based off of a game that Weis and Hickman were in (or maybe the main characters were once D&D characters) but I could easily be wrong on that.  I am 99% certain that the mods were based on the novel.

Now, my take on modules as a whole.  I agree with the author.  I used to by adventures all the time, but I really don't any more.  The reason is because I don't use them.  I run much better games by making up my own adventures.

Back in the day, I would love to pick up the old B and X series (or later S, G, or A) [How come these are sounding like stellar classifications?].  I'd pour through them and run them with my group.  This was a time when D&D was relatively new, and I didn't really know how to make up my own stuff. Dungeon design was very rough and each of these adventures would give me ideas on how to challenge my characters and to weave a good plot.

Then came a time when I'd learned it all.  Well, not really, but I learned about all that a module could teach me.  Later adventures just didn't teach me anything more.  I let two years of Dungeon sit unread.  

I think adventures sold back then because the hobby was new and it gave a great way to showcase running a scenario.  The hobby doesn't need that anymore.  That doesn't mean there isn't a demand for adventures, but many of us GMs have instead turned to independent creation.  So take a sizeable percentage of the potential module market away because GMs are doing their own thing, another percentage who are satisfied with adventure ideas from Dungeon and like, and you don't have much of a market base left.

Just my thoughts,

Werner Hager


----------



## talinthas (Sep 11, 2003)

as an aside, the dragonlance series was conceived as being a combined module/novel thing.  the first novel followed the first four modules, but the second and third novels diverged, and the modules were based on them.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Sep 11, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Two adventure sources I happily pay for:
> 
> *Dungeon* Magazine
> *Dire Kobold* -- the pdf adventure publisher
> ...




Mark it on your calendars folks, BArsoomcore and I agree on something

*Dungeon*, while hit-or-miss of late, has traditionally been an astonishing _value_. did I get maximum use out of every single on of the seven adventures in each issue? No. But I paid eight bucks for it. It was money well spent if I got 1 useable adventure every two months, and an absolute _steal_ when I got something like *Dungeon of the Fire Opal*.

*Dire Kobold* is also a big winner here in this category, but for different reasons. Their adventures, while well-written and interesting (*Wil Upchurch* of _Midnight_ fame seems to be their main guy at the moment) are--most imortantly and most innovatively--_scaleable by the individual DM_.

Your players are level 5 and you like low treasure? Enter it into the approriate fields, click, and you have an adventure tailor made for them.

"Signal to Noise ratio" is a huge concern in this market (and there is some true gype out there), but the sheer volume of product virtually insures that total gems like *Nemoren's Vault*, *Of Sound Mind*, and *Hall of the Rainbow Mage* get made. Stuff so good that it can even appeal to guys likem who do not usually run premade adventures.

I forget what my point was


----------



## DonaldRumsfeldsTofu (Sep 11, 2003)

Homebrew adventures are always fun to make, and if I ever needed a filler adventure, I'd consult Dragon or the WotC website, but I'd pay my left testicle for a new good relatively long adventure (Not an actual offer) along the lines of the ones WotC made, (such as Forge of Fury and Sunless Citadel). I want to see more modules. I'd buy them. I don't care if they're campaign specific. Any campaign could easily be modified to fit whatever houserules or homebrew worlds I would have. I like variety in m adventures. I have like 30 D&D/D20 books, make me use more than three of them.

The lack of fresh solid modules for me to buy has delayed my process of jumpstarting a campaign of my own.


----------



## jasamcarl (Sep 11, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> In brief:
> 
> 1) Publishers enjoy designing the same things DMs do (settings and deities and house rules) and would much rather buoy their egos by releasing an entire setting than "just" an adventure.  This is the opposite of the service they should, ideally, be providing; if DMs love statting deities and creating homebrews, leave that fun stuff to them.
> 
> ...




I imagine that is a product that wouldn't sell. While having dungeons and npcs statted out is a blessing, there are products on the market that provide these time-savers already, and in a far more efficient manner than a general fluff 'set-up' could do. The appeal of campaign settings is essentially fan appeal; people who buy them generally care more about that broad themes, mechanical twists, and narrative potential than the nitty-gritty of gameplay; in other words, they adapt the gameplay to the setting, as oppossed to vice versa. What you are suggesting is synthesizing the two in a mid-level set of conditions; unfortunatly, this is the level which is most variable from campaign to campaign, thus leading to a limited market for such a 'setup'. 

Actually, that was way too long, let me make it simple; rules appeal to players and dms. Enduring settings appeal to players and dms. A 'setup' campaign would only appeal to a limited number of dms, because such conditions are usually determined by a unique player/gm dynamic.


----------



## Coreyartus (Sep 11, 2003)

Those same long adventures are almost two products for the price of one:  isn't it fun to read a mod through for the first time?  It's like a novelette--I kinda "play" it in my head as I go along.  I love that!  I don't mind paying around $15-20 for a good mod, as long as it has the quality, length, and visual aids, as well as enough generic flavor so it has the potential for future use in any home campaigns I might develop.

On the other hand, sometimes having a juicy mod that takes place in my favorite campaign setting can be SO worth it!  Regardless of whether I actually get to DM it...  Half the mods I've purchased I'll never actually judge--I just liked reading them!  Admit it--buying something and actually using it are two different things, especially when it comes to RPGs, right?

Two ideas from this thread could develop into quite interesting commercial experiments:  

1) A "serial" campaign, where the setting changes and expands from mod to mod, published at regular intervals, perhaps from the reported results of players of each installment.  A good part-time campaign, players could subscribe to each monthly mod for the quality of the story development, then be able to put it aside when they want to play their regular campaign.  It's like crossing a comic-book with a campaign, without having to invest in tons of source books.

2)  Truly generic adventures with blanks for names; no limiting maps but the adventure's geographical necessities listed instead; no plot lines inherent to any company-favored settings, but with plenty of suggestions and opportunities written in for homebrew campaign plot hooks and development.  "This NPC could help the DM do this..." or "this locale is good for DM's that need a place to do this..."  Most published adventures don't include guides for incorporating homebrew campaigns.  Publishers would instead like to do the creative stuff for you because they say it's easier, but really it's more fun!  Name-It-Yourself mods with plug-'em-in locales and NPC's would be very interesting.

In the end, either the mods have to have a great story with fantastically interesting encounters, or they have to be generic enough for DMs to do that themselves.  Most of the adventures on the market today uncomfortably straddle both worlds, and accomplish neither aspect very well.

Just my two cents!!

Coreyartus


----------



## Wraith Form (Sep 11, 2003)

ToddSchumacher said:
			
		

> Spoilers man!!! , some of us are still running this MOD ..on these very boards!




Erp.  My most humble apologies!  I blame it all on caffiene.

Do you want me to go back and edit the post so that it's spoiler-free?


----------



## Wraith Form (Sep 11, 2003)

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> Oh, and here's your sphincter.  [Hands you a sphincter.]




Ulp.  I just gave a rat's ass.  Hmph.


----------



## Wraith Form (Sep 11, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> On the other hand, about a year ago I started a pretty good thread about the "classic" modules of 3e (perhaps some Community Supporter can search for it...), and that thread convinced me to send a group of newbies thru Sunless Citadel. I felt they should have that "shared experience" I had with all the 1e adventures. That thread had a lot of great suggestions for modules, incidently. So naturally they befriended the goblins and married into the kobold tribe, thereby guaranteeing that they share an experience with no one!



I'd love to be able to read this thread--thank you for the lead!


----------



## Red Baron (Sep 11, 2003)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> Does anyone know when Gates of Oblivion is going to be releasd.  Fiery Dragon has it listed as Sep and Nov.



_Not_ an official response, now, but I suspect that we're not going to make November - and certainly not September . I'm afraid family and work life is simply crazy for us all at the moment.

Again, *not* an "official" response: December/January (?).

_Edit:_ I sure can speel! 

Borken!


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 11, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You know, Mr. Redman, I think that you're article is somewhat correct, but short-sighted. Back in the days of TSR when we got adventures, they were mostly generic and easy to fit into campaigns, and they SOLD! Now we have too many publishers who just will not give us what we want.



Back in the days of TSR, the _AD&D_ products only caters to the geeks, and so the sales projection is based on that current small market. Of course, it helps when TSR was a small but rising company, who have the foothold on being the first marketable roleplaying game. Simply put, everyone was learning this new rules back then, and the adventures help so much.

Nowadays, we are older, wiser, and tend to make our own because GMs knows what their own gaming group wants (which are also older, wiser, and expect more from their experienced GM). Most of us welcome newbies who learned from us, rather than when we started off with the same low level of skills in roleplaying ... back in the days.

And as much as I hate to say this, generic doesn't cut it anymore. Some like campaign-specific adventures, or genre-specific adventures (dungeon crawl, hack-n-slash, mystery, horror, political), and even those audiences are small for each.


----------



## Orcus (Sep 11, 2003)

Clearly you guys all need to come check out Necromancer Games.

www.necromancergames.com

I didnt want to post to early here because I didnt want to seem like I was shamelessly plugging, but I think now is the time to drop in.

We make generic adventures (generally) and they sell just fine. I will prepare my thoughts about the article, which I think is dead wrong, but that is a long post and I just wanted to drop in here.

Aside from our Maze of Zayene series (which was done how Rob Kuntz wanted it, what can I say) our modules dont "railroad" the PCs. They are designed to handle all types of characters. They harken back to the old reliable modules, but dont contain some of the ills associated with them.

If you havent checked out Necro before, you should. Particularly if you want good, solid, generic adventures that allow for PC to roleplay and rollplay however they want.

Clark


----------



## rounser (Sep 11, 2003)

> a general fluff 'set-up' could do



Eh?  Where's the fluff?

Adventures aren't - you called them crunch yourself in that other thread.
Encounter level lairs and dungeons aren't, they're simply static location adventures.
Detailed towns aren't, unless you only consider encounters "not fluff" if they're in a "dungeon", or don't like to know what shops have, or where NPCs live, or have some mental block against "urban dungeons" (e.g. a theives' guild) and adventure locations etc.
NPC stats aren't.  Which leaves NPC personalities as the only thing which fits that description.


> there are products on the market that provide these time-savers already, and in a far more efficient manner than a general fluff 'set-up' could do



There's discussion in this very thread on why I think you're theoretically right but practically wrong on this point - pulling bits and pieces together from seperate sources requires extensive conversion, sometimes enough that you'd have been better off making it from scratch instead.  It's also why small adventures don't sell - they don't fit with the rest of the campaign.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Sep 11, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Clearly you guys all need to come check out Necromancer Games.
> 
> www.necromancergames.com
> 
> If you havent checked out Necro before, you should. Particularly if you want good, solid, generic adventures that allow for PC to roleplay and rollplay however they want.




Its been a while since I've been given the opportunity to help pimp Necro's adventures, but they are good. In fact, as someone who enjoys adventures quite a bit, I've been very much into Necro's adventure modules since the beginning and have so far bought every product they've released to date (thought this might change with Judge's Guild - not too much interest there at the moment). I can also say that despite their length, I've played a few, and they really do harken back to the old 1st edition adventures - but in a good way. The one thing that bugs me about the really early AD&D modules is that there would be no rhyme or reason for why a monster would be somewhere or how it would survive in that environment. While Necro has stated that the dungeon ecology is a secondary concern for them, I've found that more often than not, the fundamental questions of how a monster can exist in such an environment are answered or at least implied by the text and the way the area is set up. Also many adventures tended to have too many of the same types of challenges - all traps, all monsters, all riddles, etc. Again, I find most of Necro's adventures to be a good mix.

As for my thoughts on adventures and whether or not they sell - I know from first-hand experience that they don't sell as well as other types of products. I suspect that Necromancer continues to do well with them because they were one of the first to enter the D20 arena with adventures, and made them their specialty. Because of this, people have come to expect a certain level of quality from them and continue to purchase their products. 

And for those of you thinking - "yes, but what does he get for promoting Necro's books? I mean he is a freelancer and all." The answer is nothing other than the satisfaction of recommending what I consider to be outstanding books. I currently don't have anything in the works with Necro, nor have I discussed the possibility with them (though I wouldn't be opposed to doing something for them at some point in the future when and if my schedule allows). 

Also, in addition to the Rich's comments (which I don't disagree with BTW), I would also say that one thing hurting the sales of pre-written adventures are all of the free ones available online. Nearly every D20 company has at least 1 free adventure promoting their world or their products available for download on their site. Heck, I've even written 3 of these myself (1 for Dark Portal Games, 1 for Oathbound, and 1 upcoming one for the WotC website). With the reduced amount of time most adults in today's society have for gaming, short ones tend to be preferrable to lengthy ones, and free is usually better than expensive.


----------



## Orcus (Sep 11, 2003)

Why adventures (alegedly) dont sell

I am happy to address that topic. Since adventures are our bread and butter, I think I know a little bit about the topic. In addition, I have discussed the issue with no less than Monte Cook, Ryan Dancey, Erik Mona (from Dungeon), and even Gary Gygax himself. Perhaps a bit broader of an experience base than the author of the net article that started this thread.

If adventures dont sell, its because publishers dont understand them. That is the core problem.

The market data (gathered by WotC and disseminated by Dungeon Mag) indicates that people overwelmingly want generic adventures (over 80%) for two level groups--low (1-3) and mid (5-10). 

That is not surprising. Generally, people want a hand starting a campaign (thus the low level) and back when the data was collected those of you who played 1E may remember that it took FOREVER to get past 10th level. Thus, since people spent a vast majority of time playing from 5th to 8th and up to 10th, adventures for those levels are very popular.

So we should be able to use those numbers and match today's market, right?

WRONG. And that is publisher error number one.

To some extent people still need the "start my campaign" adventures. To date, Crucible of Freya is our best selling adventure (the numbers are insane, well over 20,000 copies). But that was one of the first serious d20 modules (along with Freeport and a few by Atlas and an outstanding few by Fiery Dragon that came a bit after). 

But the problem is, people dont just want an "adventure" to start their campaign. That is why Freeport and Crucible of Freya have been the best adventures, because they provided an adventure along with a small setting. And this is key. A small enough setting that it is discreet (village in Crucible, small port town in Freeport) that can be dropped into any campaign. But enough material to help the DM get past the first night of fun. 

This is a key issue and came to be the driving force behind our change in design concept. Our adventures now include what I call "mini-campaigns." They have a small setting area--a valley in the Vault of Larin Karr, the village and surrounding area in Crucible, the citadel and local area in Grey Citadel, the city and accompanying ruined city in Lost City of Barakus (upcoming release next month). By design, our "mini-campaigns" are not closed universes. They are designed for PCs to come and go in and out so they fit better in your homeworld, but give you enough that they can spend all there time there if they want. Also, by design, our mini-campaigns have to cover about 4 to 5 levels worth of advancement. That gives you bang for your buck.

Similarly, 5th to 10th isnt so much the key adventure "bottleneck" any more. In fact, now I would say the best module range is 8th to 12th. That is just the way 3E plays. But people were stuck in the old mentality. Why? Because most publishers initially were converting old home adventures. Those adventures were most likely written for AD&D and targeting level ranges that were relevant for AD&D. You have to realize that level concentrations are different now with 3E. A subtle difference, but a big one. Most people, IMHO, reject modules because they are for the wrong level set. 

So, what are the normal problems with adventures?

1. Too short. The old paradigm of 16 to 32 pages just isnt enough for the modern purchaser. They say, heck I could do that myself. At 32 pages, that may be true. At 96 pages, I dont know about that.

2. Too low level. People have started their campaign. Too many low level modules crept into d20. Why? Because people copied the successful products. Green Ronin, me, and others made low level modules because we knew people would need them. But a few months into 3E and people were 5th level already. Nobody needed "another 1st level module."

3. Not understanding 3E advancement. You just cant build a good adventure to handle 1 level of advancement. You shoot up levels too fast in 3E (from a design standpoint, not from a PC standpoint  ). You dont get enough mileage from a short, single level oriented module.

4. A lot of them sucked. Frankly, a lot of this is WotC's fault. Their adventure path modules really sucked, except for a few notable excpetions. Dwarven Forge was salvagable, so was the Iron Fortress one. And so did a lot of d20 modules. 

5. Dungeon Magazine. Basically, you have to justify to the consumer why they should spend 8 bucks for your module when they could get 3-4 adventures from Dungeon for 6 bucks. That is a killer. If you as a company cant answer that question, you are dead making adventures. Most companies failed to answer that question. We didnt. We answered it. The answer is fourfold (1) Reliability. Give them something they know will be good. With Dungeon, you might get 4 adventures but we all know 2 will suck, 1 will be for the wrong setting and that leaves you with 1. With our modules, a purchaser knows us and knows what we do and knows they will get something that does not suck. (2) Size. Dungeon can give you 4 adventures, but they dont have the size to do mini-campaigns. That was our key. That is how we out Dungeon'd Dungeon. (3) Flexibility. We build our adventures so you can tell your story in our setting. Its like I say, "we give you the death star, you tell star wars." We give you the city and the dynamics and adventures seeds and areas of adventure and lairs and you as the DM decide how to use it. Dungeon doesnt have the space for that type of flexibility. They generally have adventures based on a tight story line. We dont. (4) Crunchy bits. Dungeon is catchin on, but all our adventures now have a new skill, or feat, or magic items or spells or monsters or something new to bring something different to the table.

Whew. Let me take a break for a minute.

Those are all design issues. Let me back up and talk all historical and point us to the number one problem with adventures.

Back in the day, there were few adventures. And everyone played in them. There was a funny sense of community about adventures because they were so few, they were a shared experience. For example, everyone can talk about what their party did in the Giants modules, because everyone went through them. Everyone can talk about Homlett or Keep on the Borderlands. Or, today, Freeport or our free intro one nighter Wizard's Amulet, or Temple of Elemental Evil. But there are hundreds and hundreds of adventures now. And that leads us to the problem....

"Marginal utility". If you have no adventures, getting your first one is very valuable. If you already have 20 adventures, the marginal utility of the 21st is very low. Adding 1 more is probably not going to get your blook pumping. This is the dilemma that hits modules.

The first sell like gangbusters, later ones dont (we did, though, and I will say why later).

So modules are not an indicator of the pulse of the industry or the health of a game or an industry at all. They will, however, tell you how "saturated" an industry is, because of the marginal utility that I talked about above. DMs are "full" of adventures. That can slow sales.

Foolishness of series modules. This is another problem. It comes about for a number of reasons. (1) publsierhs want to get a module out the door so they do "Part 1" while they finish part 2. But this leads to problems. It closes the door on the person from getting directly into part 2 unless they have part 1. customers hate that. 

This is another example of people falling for the errors of the past. Publishers say, "hey, the best modules were G1-3 so we should do a series!" WRONG. That was from back in the day when there were hardly any modules and purchasers would wait for modules, because they had no choice. Today, it doesnt work well (ok, we had great and I mean GREAT success with Rappan Athuk which was a 3 parter, but that had its own reason). 

So the reason for module failures today is that publishers follow the wrong forumla.

They target the wrong levels.
They try to make series modules.
They dont cover the right amount of "ground" with the module.
They dont give a reason why their module should get a kid's 10 bucks instead of Dungeon.
They are generally too short.

So do those modules sell? HELL NO.

So I guess if the article was titled "Are modules that are poorly planned and not at all geared to 3E dead?" My answer is YES. They are. And they wont sell for crap.

But you an be smarter and make modules that do sell and that sell well.

Our modules sell as well as anyone else's splat books. 

Why? Becasue we didnt fall into the traps I noted above.

Our modules are for the right levels.
We give you a mini-campaign that is flexible and designed specifically to mesh with your home campaign with minimal fuss.
We give you something that you really cant do yourself without a ton of work.
We make sure to cover 4-5 levels of advancement so that you get bang for your buck.
We give crunchy bits that are fun and cool and that survive beyond the adventure itself
We provide tons of product support. In fact, we give away so much stuff it is sick.
We dont have the adventure end when you hit the last page. There are always ways to keep things going in directions that are appropriate for your campaign.
Here is a biggie--we create the most memorable villans. Nothing makes an adventure outlive itself than a nemesis that sticks with the party. Dark Natasha from Tomb of Abysthor. Heck, the very dungeon of Rappan Athuk itself is an enemy. 
We understand the way 3E is played and we make adventures that fit that. We are gamers, not just game designers. You will find a lot of publishers (particularly smaller adventure publishers) that are re-fitting old adventures. While we have done that, we specifically take advantage of the current gaming system. Of course it helps to be friends with Monte Cook and to know Gary Gygax and Steve Wieck and Erik Mona (who is, by the way, the totally underrated guy in all this) to bend their ear and understand module design.
We dont do the same thing over and over. Look at our stuff. From the world's hugest dungeon (Rappan Athuk) to an incredible sweeping high level campaing by Gygax (Necropolis) to a self-contained above ground and underdark mini-campaing (Vault of Larin Karr) to the murder mystery of Rainbow Mage to the swelling evil of What Evil Lurks. It is all something new.

So can adventures sell? Heck yeah. If you do them right. I got the cash in my account to prove it.

It really comes down to this. I love adventures. I LOVE them. So does my partner Bill. So does everyone on our staff. And that shows.

There are a lot of companies out there who either:

1. do adventures cause they think they have to (example, WotC thought they had to do an "adventure path" series"

or

2. Do it because they think it is a short quick buck.

Let me tell you, the WotC guys hated doing those adventures for the most part. Why? They look at themselves as game "designers" not adventure writers. They want to design new rules and systems and stuff. They dont want to make a tower of orcs. And some people just want to capitalize on the quick cash.

And let me tell you, it shows. It shows real bad.

I think that is why our adventures sell and continue to sell and we continue to sell them.

I wont kid you, we do a few other things. I am GEEKED for example to do our setting from Judges Guild, the Wilderlands of High Fantasy. But that isnt because I dont like adventures. It is because I LOVE the Wilderlands and jumped at the chance to do it. 

I am here to tell you, GOOD adventures, like anything else, sell just fine. Particularly if you use the wisdom of listening to what the market wants. Which I did.

Hope that helps.

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Sep 11, 2003)

And I dont mean to say other companies dont make good modules. Many do. Though I have yet to see a company that shows they understand the needs of the 3E adventure purchaser as well as we do.

Monte's Banwarrans. Great. Some of the old Fiery Dragon mods. Great. Early Freeport. Great. Even more than I can list. (and if I left someone off please dont be offended; oh like for example a few of the early Atlas Penumbra ones knocked my socks off, I cant remember the title). 

But if you do it because you love it and not just for a quick way to make a buck (which, frankly, many of the early publishers did--"hey, we can crank out a module and it will finance the book we really want to do") then it shows, just like anything else in life. And we do it because we love it.

I'll tell you what. I'll put the passwords for some of our free product support stuff here and you can go check out the stuff we give you for FREE for most of our products...

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Sep 11, 2003)

Go to our site. www.necromancergames.com

Go to the product support page (using the buttons on the left).

Here are a few for you to check out. All the passwords are case sensitive.

Remember, these are just little expansion freebies. These arent the adventures themselves. You can check them out at your FLGS 

The Temple of the Azure Eye is a little expansion for Grey Citadel. The password is "Mamuthek".

Scroll down a bit and check out the Summer Orchid, an expansion tavern-based adventure for our Book of Taverns. The password is "Ramsel".

Go down further and check out the Broken Mountains, and expansion for Hall of the Rainbow Mage (no laughing at the title, it was nominated for an ENnie  ). The password is "Londar."

Go down further and you can find the classic expansion for Crucible of Freya called Supplemental Adventure Ideas and Encounter Areas. This is where the "mini-campaign" idea really started to bloom. The password is "Shandril".

These are just expansions. They are FREE!!! for people who buy our modules. Now that is bang for the buck.

Or, here is a favorite of mine. The Epic Quests download for our classic module Demons and Devils (which Monte called one of the top 5 d20 adventures). The password is "Dendorandra". This one cooks.

Enjoy!!!

But be patient. The downloads are large and it may take a bit before you are even prompted to enter the password.

Clark


----------



## rounser (Sep 11, 2003)

That makes a whole truckload of sense, Orcus.


----------



## Orcus (Sep 11, 2003)

Literally, I just gave away the store. Those are my secret insider bits on how to do adventures right. I may have a few design aces up my sleeve (I do) but that is pretty much the whole thing right there. 

I firmly believe to do well selling adventures, you have to answer the question "why should a kid spend his $10 on my book instead of Dungeon, where he gets 4 adventures?" You might answer it differently than how I did, but you have to answer it. If you dont, you wont sell a damn thing. And you may be the topic of an article. But answer that question and avoid the other common mistakes and you too can sell adventures just fine.

Now go download some of the freebies I just handed out and enjoy yourself (in particular, dont miss the Epic Quests download. It may not be our "prettiest" but it is good. If any party beats the blue dragon ambush, let me know).

Clark


----------



## Melan (Sep 11, 2003)

Very well put, Clark.


----------



## johnsemlak (Sep 11, 2003)

Wow, Orcus.  That was a very, very thorough treatment of the subject, and very interesting.  Thanks


----------



## Mucknuggle (Sep 11, 2003)

Orcus, are you familiar with the world of Dragonlance? I'm going to be receiving my DL 3.5 books soon (after finally deciding to email Amazon.ca about their wack shipping date) and I wanted to know if there are some generic adventures that I could easily slip into a campaign. I normally don't like DMing, but that's because I HATE designing adventures. Sometimes I get really cool adventure ideas, but mostly it just doesn't turn out well.

Your free support kicks butt. Much better than the "web enhancements" from WotC!


----------



## Liminal Syzygy (Sep 11, 2003)

I'm a big fan of The Vault of Larin Karr, one of the mini-campaign modules Orcus mentions above, and I have to say I think Necromancer is onto something with the mini-campaign approach.  I'm anxiously awaiting City of Barakus and am just hoping that I can get it in my hands somehow here in Japan despite the limited print run.


----------



## Belen (Sep 11, 2003)

Orcus,

Your rock!  For the record, I bought Grey Citadel last night after Teflon and crew started bragging about Necromancer, although I admit that I do have Crucible as well from way back in the day.

I have to agree with you 100% and I wish that some other publishers would jump onto the bandwagon.  I will say that Necromancer has just earned a lot of my dollars.

Why?  I am tired of buying sourcebooks.  I have more than enough now.  I have three fighter books and need no more etc.  However, what I really want/ need are adventures.

While the other publishers may think that they do not need to produce adventures, I think more and more people will want something different and feel as if they have a glut of sourcebooks, so I think adventures will be a perfect market for the future.

I do have one question though.  Would you think it feasible to get a bunch of freelancers together to work on adventures to see to other companies?  Yeah, it may be great to publish stuff yourself and have your own company, but maybe that would be a good service to provide for the industry.

Just wondering.  E-mail me if you want:  dave_ncsu_alumni@yahoo.com

Dave


----------



## Belen (Sep 11, 2003)

*Older Gamers versus Young Bloods*

Some of you mentioned that you think that you have all the adventures that you want now.  However, isn;t that a disservice to new gamers?  Am I the only one who cut their teeth running adventures?

New GMs just do not have the adventure support that we had back in the day.  And no one seems to be helping other than Necromancer.

That's just bunk.


----------



## Belen (Sep 11, 2003)

*Freelance Company- Adventure Writing Call to Arms!*

EnWorlders!

What would you think about forming a group of freelancers to produce adventure material for d20 publishers?  I am talking about getting together to produce adventures that people will love and providing them to companies that we love.

We would be there to critique the work or our comrades.  We would be there to provide editing for new modules.  We would be there with adventures for the big guns who do not want to write them but may want to produce them.

What you you think?  Workable?

Contact me:  dave_ncsu_alumni@yahoo.com

Let's rock, gentleman!

Dave


----------



## talmar (Sep 11, 2003)

I have to say that Orcus is correct in all that he says.  Not that I know anything about publishing but about his products.  My LFGS preorders every Necromancer Games product because they know I'll buy them.

I'm now eagerly anticipating Lost City.

All their stuff is unique and different and modular.

I amazed my group by using the Witches Teat in the Tavern's book.  They thought that was awsome.  Can't tell you why, just go by the book.


----------



## ToddSchumacher (Sep 11, 2003)

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> Erp.  My most humble apologies!  I blame it all on caffiene.
> 
> Do you want me to go back and edit the post so that it's spoiler-free?



 Please...Or use the nifty spoiler tags.  Thank-you


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 11, 2003)

I still think there is something Clark said that remains unaddressed and somewhat unnoticed -- saturation of the market.  How big exactly is the market for adventures, anyway?  He says _Crucible of Freya_ is their best selling module at about 20,000 units.  That's a _tiny_ fraction of the amount of PHB's sold (and hence, a relative gauge of 3e gamers.)  There's a difference between saying a handful of good but small publishers can make a profit with adventures as their bread and butter and saying there's a large market for adventures.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 11, 2003)

I'm glad Clark showed up on this thread. Necro is THE module company, and has consistently put out great mods that sell. (I also like Kenzer's Kalamar mods).

The Support material is excellent and they give you a whole heck of a lot for free compared to *everyone* else. You can take the support from CoF along with Mod and run it for months.

And they *really* listen to their fans/customers.

Best D20 company on the market, AFAIC.

And no , I'm not being compensated to say any of this


----------



## Belen (Sep 11, 2003)

Josh,

I disagree.  A lot of publishers consider 20k to be a fantastic success.  And I am talking about non-game publishers such as Tor, Bantam Spectre, Baen etc.  They consider a novel to be sucessful and reprintable with "only" 20k in sales.

You cannot use the PHB as a guide to sales.  It is marketed more than any other book and is a MUST have for anyone playing the game.

Heck, the journal I work for, and we are the publisher, have a print run of 6500 and we consider that a whopping success.  In fact, we have been named one of the top 10 biomedical journals of the decade by Sciencewatch.

Trust me when I say that publishing is funny.  Sales of 5k are good.  Sales of 20k is spectacular!

Dave


----------



## Davelozzi (Sep 11, 2003)

Coreyartus said:
			
		

> A "serial" campaign, where the setting changes and expands from mod to mod, published at regular intervals, perhaps from the reported results of players of each installment.




AEG tried to do this with their Shadowforce Archer interactive campaign for Spycraft.  Unfortunately, the interactive adventures are put out on the website for free, and as a result, they're so low on AEG's priority list that they're like a year behind the actual products which defeats the whole point.

I think they might do similar things with their other campaign worlds, but I'm not sure about the details because I don't follow them as much.


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Sep 11, 2003)

Mucknuggle said:
			
		

> Orcus, are you familiar with the world of Dragonlance? I'm going to be receiving my DL 3.5 books soon (after finally deciding to email Amazon.ca about their wack shipping date) and I wanted to know if there are some generic adventures that I could easily slip into a campaign. I normally don't like DMing, but that's because I HATE designing adventures. Sometimes I get really cool adventure ideas, but mostly it just doesn't turn out well.
> 
> Your free support kicks butt. Much better than the "web enhancements" from WotC!




Mucknuggle,
We have at least one DragonLance/Necrogames fan on the board that has converted and run Necro modules in his DragonLance setting.

I know that Eryx has run "Hall of the Rainbow Mage" and I am pretty sure that he has also run "What Evil Lurks." I believe he has used bits and pieces of others as well.

I am afraid that I mostly use "homebrew." If I were to ask someone how to convert something to run in Dragonlance, Eryx is the person I'd ask. You can find him on the Necromancer Games forums, and possibly somewhere here.

Patrick


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Sep 11, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> EnWorlders!
> 
> What would you think about forming a group of freelancers to produce adventure material for d20 publishers?  I am talking about getting together to produce adventures that people will love and providing them to companies that we love.
> 
> ...




Okay, I have a strange bias here, I already write adventures for Necromancer Games, so keep that in mind when you read my reply.

I don't think this is workable. Companies want clear authorship of a work that they are interested in publishing. You get a group of 20 people "writing" something in a forum, trading ideas, stat blocks, etc. then who is the "author."

Critiques? Yeah, that would work, but ... I think that the published authors, or people under contract are simply going to get the critiques from their editor/developer and work with those. People have sent me material in the past for critical review. Despite using what I believe are kindly worded comments, people have ended up very insulted. If you are going to write adventures, source material, whatever, you need to set your ego to the side and accept critical comments, lots of people are unable to do that. 

In other words, experienced writers are generally going to be working with editors/developers leaving people joining the group that are less experienced and potentially less "adjusted" to receiving critical comments. This leads to potential flame wars, arguments, and eventually the disintigration of the group.

Another potential problem is Non-Disclosure Agreements. Is everyone going to be on an NDA? What if someone "steals" an idea, etc.? This is essentially impossible to prove, I always presume that if I have a "great" idea, someone else has thought of it too, it is just whether or not they have written it up, etc. Most people don't, they presume that if they talked about an idea with someone, and the idea turns up elsewhere, that something nasty happened.

Sorry, hate to be the nay-sayer, but I don't think this is workable in the long-term.

Patrick


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Sep 11, 2003)

Orcus is soooo right! I've been waiting for this subject ever since the advent of 3rd edition. I think this was one of the reasons for the failure of TSR during the 2nd edition days. 

All we got for a long time was sourcebook after sourcebook after sourcebook. Boxed settings, hardbacks, etc. All describing some new setting, or dedicated almost entirely to crunch. Where were all the adventures? I don't care about Giantish history in the Realms, I don't care about the geography of this kingdom or that kingdom, I want ADVENTURES. 

I think that's why the original Dragonlance modules were so successful. They gave us lots and lots of adventure, with a great storyline, and included little bits here and there on the history and culture of Krynn. Once the line devolved into sourcebooks and boxed sets it pooped out. 

Generic modules will always work the best, but like Clark said, the little mini-campaigns work great too. You don't feel like you're stomping through someone else's personal campaign...


----------



## FDP Mike (Sep 11, 2003)

*For the love of adventures!*

This is a good, meaty thread!

I can come at this topic from two angles, I suppose: one, my experience with Fiery Dragon; two, my current role as developer of the *Warcraft RPG*. I'll tackle the second angle initially, as that won't take as long.

From what I gather regarding the originally planning for the *Warcraft* line, an adventure was not considered most likely because it would not succeed well enough in the current market. This impression bears some truth, I believe, even though I think a published adventure of the mini-campaign sort would just _rock_. Economics, then, truly do figure in to why adventures get made or not, despite the great service they can provide as campaign support tools -- i.e., get the *Warcraft RPG* core book plus maybe the upcoming *Manual of Monsters* ... and there's this adventure waiting for you to pick up as well and get going with a campaign! Suhweeeeeeet .... 

Coming at the issue now from the FDP angle, I think both Rich Redman and Clark Peterson offer insightful analysis and critique that pretty much covers what we know at FDP. _Quite frankly, adventures *do not* sell as well as other types of products._ We *LOVE* doing them just as much as the Necromancer folks, and we pretty much established our name and place in the d20 landscape with our adventures (_NeMoren's Vault_, _The Silver Summoning_, _To Stand on Hallowed Ground_, _Of Sound Mind_ ... _Plague of Dreams_). Still, our counters represent our bread and butter right now, while the costs of printing adventures become more and more prohibitive.

People do expect a lot from adventures, and rightly they should. FDP adventures have, I think, always done well to play the line between "generic" and "campaign specific," primarily because we (mostly James Bell and Todd Secord) wrote with the classic D&D setting in mind -- you know, the vaguely medieval Britain setting. If you read an FDP adventure closely, you'll catch all sorts of campaign and setting hooks, though the focus remains firmly on the story. Today, though, adventures do sort of need to "go big" in terms of page count and content ... hence the delay in us getting out _Gates of Oblivion_.

Clark's point about needing to offer something that _Dungeon_ cannot does hit upon perhaps the key concern facing published adventures. Essentially, a published adventure must provide DMs something they can't get from _Dungeon_ or, in many respects, from their own efforts. In your 64 or 96 or 112 pages, you face the task of convincing the DM that she could use your work for any of several reasons, but mostly whether or not she can fit it relatively easily into her current campaign. Moreover, you need to convince her (or one of her players) that your adventure makes for a better purchase than one of the gazillion splatbooks and setting books right there competing for shelf space and consumers' d20 dollars.

Those splatbooks, in fact, play a somewhat significant role in d20 adventure writing, at least from my perspective. In the beginning of 3e, most folks had only the core rulebooks, so adventures could focus on that material quite comfortably. Now, we have numerous splatbooks that offer different _game mechanics_ options for every single class and every single race, stretching the core rules far beyond a containable sphere for an adventure to handle. On the one hand, such is the beauty of open content: a lot of creative material is available, and publishers can use each others' work. On the other hand, an adventure simply cannot account for PCs built using whatever set of class and/or race rules (not to mention new feats, spells, magic items, and equipment) from however many other publishers. Even if an adventure uses one publisher's OGC, a DM's group may be using totally different d20 rules. So, the landscape of rules options simply spreads too far for adventures to meet the needs of the most DMs possible.

This is why I like that Clark makes the difference between "adventure writing" and "game design." Sure, you want your product to give DMs and players some new "crunch," be it monsters, spells, items, feats, prestige classes, and so forth. Ultimately, though, you must have _story_. When you put all the rules away, the story remains as the core of an adventure -- a hallmark, I believe, of FDP adventures from the start. DMs can always use good stories. 

Finally, consumers today also look at products with a much more discerning eye toward and with higher standards for physical quality: good layout, good maps, good editing, good art, a good cover. Adventures require these elements just as much as splatbooks or setting books ... though, in the end, the return on investment for ensuring all those good things just does not equal that of settings or rules expansions (unless you do mostly everything else in-house). So, no, you can't churn out adventures simply to make some quick cash. You better treat the product with as much care as your cherished campaign setting tome.

Heh, well, that rambled on a bit.  Suffice to say, Rich Redman makes some salient points that should be discussed, as we are doing here, and Clark offers some very valuable insight on how adventures can be successful products. The real answer likely lies somewhere in between ....


Take care,
Mike


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Sep 11, 2003)

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> Generic modules will always work the best, but like Clark said, the little mini-campaigns work great too. You don't feel like you're stomping through someone else's personal campaign...




I like that description, I like it alot...


----------



## Belen (Sep 11, 2003)

I am actually proposing a company that would write adventure material for other companies, so I think authorship would be fine, but I could just be gung-ho about seeing more adventures produced.

I have worked for a d20 company before, so I am faily certain of the "drill."  I also work as a publisher now with a large portion of my work managing authors, so we shall see.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 11, 2003)

BU - I'm not arguing that -- if 20k is phenomenal sales for NG, then surely it would be good for anyone else as well.  But the point I'm trying to make is, how much saturation does the adventure market have right now?  How much room is there for more adventures?

If you want to continue your efforts, which I applaud, because I think you fill someone's needs at least (although not mine) I think you're better off PDFing adventures, however.  Maybe see if you can talk Morrus into hosting them here.  That'd be a lot more useful.


----------



## collin (Sep 11, 2003)

*Redman is right*

After reading Rich Redman's article and the responses in this discussion group, I can only conclude that he is 100% correct.

You say adventure modules published today are no good?  So you create your own.  Well then, there is the vicious circle right there.  But don't you suppose that not ALL of the modules published by the ump-teen mom-and-pop companies out there are bad?  Who do you think is writing all of that stuff?  This "them" vs. "us" mentality just irritates me to no end.  "They" are people just like "you", and they are writing things that they find fasinating and enjoy.  But there are far more "us" as consumers and players than actual published writers or even GMs.   So, now we're left with "those modules are no good", ergo "I'm not buying any; I'll make my own, even if I have to piecemeal stuff together from Dungeon magazine."  

And what's the result?  No sales.  No sales, no business.  No business, no incentive for WotC/Hasbro to spend money, because return on investment is just not there.

So why all of the "boy, modules were so much better back in the day.  The A, D, G, XYZ series were SO good when men-were-men and giants walked the earth".   

Do we sound like a bunch of old-timers here or what?  Were they really that good?  Come on!  Keep on the Borderlands was a nice little adventure to intro players to D&D but as an adventure module, it sucked.  And Tomb of Horrors, although a classic dungeon crawl and challenging, was basically a linear dungeon with no real story in it at all.  "Hey dummies, bore through the outside and bypass that one-way tunnel!"

We thought they were great back then, and we needed them, because D&D and role-playing were still so new.  "What!  No board, no playing pieces?  I was robbed!  This box only has some rules in it!"  Once the game and role-playing evolved over time, we found we understood where this combination of story-telling and game-playing could take us.  Tools for the imagination.  After 30 years, we've finally caught on to how to make a game story/module ourselves.  It took years of practice, but we finally figured it out.  Most of us have years of experience as GMs, not only in D&D, either.  Back 20-25 years ago, we didn't have that experience to draw from to create adventures like we do today or to really know what good vs. bad module was.

So really, we don't need modules that someone else has written.  Most of them won't fit our individual tastes and sensibilities.  I'm happy enough with just piece-mealing something together from various sources, and maybe I will use a premade module sometime - that I like.  But I don't expect most modules that come out will be something that fits my world or be something that floats my boat.

-Collin


----------



## DocSER (Sep 11, 2003)

One thing many people are overlooking is opportunity costs for developers.

I think that Orcus is right that many of the problems with the module market are caused by the lack of quality (or at least strategic thinking) involved in D20 modules.  I like some of the Necromancer modules and the SL modules - though they are SL specific.  They offer something a little different.  

Four problems have been overlooked in much of the (warranted) praise for Orcus' reply.

1]  I think it was someone with a "whiskers" name (*whickers*) that pointed out that people play DnD differently now than in 1E.  People focus a lot more on role-playing and campaign development.  Not all, of course, but many people do.  These people are less interested in Rappan Athuk (sp?) style dungeon crawls.  The result is that dungeon crawls commit the great sin Monte Cook feared - market segmentation.  I like some dungeon crawls (proud owner of RA1-3) but many gamers simply don't like them.

People can and have written modules that are compatible with more role-playing but they are longer, more expensive, and (I suspect) tougher to develop.

This simply means that modules are less likely to appeal to the d20 customers than the 1E customers.

2] Companies have to consider the opportunity costs as well as the profit for a book.  Sure they could invest in a module and get some return.  They could even get a good return if they are lucky and skilled.  However, they may be likely to make more money (with more security) if they invest the resources in a source book instead.  

We have to think in relative terms (would a company give up the resources they could devote to the next collection of PrCs  to publish a module).  I think a lot of companies have concluded that the opportunity costs of modules are too high even if they can be profitable.

3] I eagerly awaited 1E modules because THEY WERE THE ONLY THINGS COMING OUT.  There were no new books.  They were the only option.  Comparing the anticipation of 1E modules to d20 modules is problematic.

4] While it is hypoerbole to suggest that no modules come out for non-d20 game, it is true that very few modules come out for non-d20 games.  Having talked to some of the WW people, they are convinced that they can not sell many WoD modules.  They go *book or source book instead because that is all they can afford (again, opportunity costs play a role).  

This is not a d20 problem (or some evil WotC conspiracy).  This is a problem with the RPG market.

Who thinks we should have "collectible randomized" modules.  I can just see it.  You buy a map with numbers and then a packet that includes a randomly printed set of encounters keyed to those numbers.  The rare ones have "kewl" bad guys.  

Seriusly though.  I blame society - but I can't blame the publishers.


----------



## Belen (Sep 11, 2003)

Josh and Enworld- I do intend to see what others think about such a company.  I certainly do not have the xp to put together PDFs for publication, although I do have degrees in editing, publishing and creative writing.  My main strength has always been in managing disparite groups of people and I would love to give authors the opportunity to write and maybe the chance to sell their work.

I do think it a workable concept.  For instance, Mongoose or AEG may not have the time to write adventure material that features some of their work, but maybe they would be interested in have someone else write that for them.  Heck, as a GM, adventures are a great way to show how to use some material effectively!

At the very least, those involved would have material for their campaigns and gather valuable writing experience.

Dave


----------



## Psion (Sep 11, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> W Also, by design, our mini-campaigns have to cover about 4 to 5 levels worth of advancement. That gives you bang for your buck.




Speaking for myself, that is too much. Related to your point 1 below, sure, give me something I couldn't do myself. But I find that the more levels an adventure takes up, the harder it is to fit into an ongoing campaign. If my players are 5th, and I have something planned at 7th, an adventure for levels 5-10 is not going to do it too me.

Similarly, even if I like an adventure, I find adventures that last too long in one mode cramp my style. After running an adventure for a while, I like a change of pace. For that reason and adventure needs to one or more of
a) short (2 or 3 sessions)
b) have variety
c) have exit avenues.

Accordingly, I think that large adventures that don't provide avenues for you to sidetrack or exit the adventure (the 2e adventure Night Below was particularly reprehensible in this manner) are no-sales for me.

FWIW, I think for a sizeable adventure, VoLK is pretty good on this score. It is sizable, but gives you options and makes it easy to step out or run other adventures.



> 1. Too short. The old paradigm of 16 to 32 pages just isnt enough for the modern purchaser. They say, heck I could do that myself. At 32 pages, that may be true. At 96 pages, I dont know about that.




Again, speaking for myself, for reasons cited above, I have become increasingly hesitant of large adventures. I know this is not universal, but I think as more GMs experience not getting all that they thought they would out of a long adventure, their buying habits will press in that direction.



> 5. Dungeon Magazine. Basically, you have to justify to the consumer why they should spend 8 bucks for your module when they could get 3-4 adventures from Dungeon for 6 bucks. That is a killer. If you as a company cant answer that question, you are dead making adventures. Most companies failed to answer that question.




Just so. Lots of people make the argument that dungeon is a better value. I have never found that to be particularly compelling, in part based on some NG adventures. With store-purchased adventures, I know what I am getting and can make the buying decision that corresponds to my style and current needs. With Dungeon, it's a bit more of a grab bag. Sure, one adventure may be good, but you also pay for 2 or 3 adventures you can't use. Since they moved to a smaller format, it's more like 1-3 adventures that you may or may not be able to use.



> Foolishness of series modules. This is another problem. It comes about for a number of reasons. (1) publsierhs want to get a module out the door so they do "Part 1" while they finish part 2. But this leads to problems. It closes the door on the person from getting directly into part 2 unless they have part 1. customers hate that.




Too true.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 11, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Some of you mentioned that you think that you have all the adventures that you want now.  However, isn;t that a disservice to new gamers?




We're a hobby, not a charity.  

I have few enough dollars to spend on gaming products as it is.  I'm not going to start buying adventures I don't want, need, or use just to make sure someone else will have them.  I buy products because I will use them, not to subsidize them for someone else.  To suggest that this is somehow a disservice, and therefore a wrongful act, is bunk.


----------



## Aeolius (Sep 11, 2003)

Show me an underwater adventure set firmly in the World of Greyhawk, and I'll buy it.

   Granted, as I own most of the WotC splatbooks and hardback supplements, I'd like to see adventures that utilize them. This eliminates all third-party publishers, as they either have to firmly abide by OGL/d20 or get WotC permission for using information outside of their allowance. What's the point of devising the Marinelord or Waverider, if they never get used? 

   As WotC has handed GH off to the RPGA, we won't be seeing GH-specific modules for the masses anytime soon. RttToEE was an exception, of course. Yes, I could get a free membership to the RPGA and download adventure to my heart's content, but are there any adventure set beneath the surface of the Dramidj Ocean or Oljatt Sea? No. I want an adventure that I can see proudly displayed at my FLGS, not secreted away on a website like a half-forgotten afterthought.

   Even within the bounds of OGL/d20, some gems have been unearthed and caught my eye. PEG's "Hostile Climes: Depths of Despair" had undersea elements. Did I buy it? Yes. MEG's forthcoming "The Deep" is an undersea supplement complete with an adventure. Will I buy it? Yes. Green Ronin's "Skull & Bones" is primarily a swashbuckling supplement, but I'll be picking that one up, as well. 

   My FLGS kindly holds a copy of any D&D materials that include aquatic themes, for my perusal.

   "Pirates! is in" they say with a smile as I walked in the door.
   "Cool." I say as I begin to examine the book. I see undersea magic items, ghost ships, and an interesting idea here and there "Sold."


----------



## orangefruitbat (Sep 11, 2003)

*NG is the backbone of my campaign*

NG has been the backbone of my last two campaigns. I’m a pretty creative guy who loves designing his own adventures, but work and home keep me too busy to spend a lot of time at things. I don’t want to spend my time drawing maps and crunching stats. So I like pre-made campaign worlds and pre-made adventures – but then customize them heavily (albeit with a lot of winging it). Think Babylon 5 – alternating meta-plot and standalone adventures (not that I can compare to the illustrious JMS in terms of story craft).

The first game was in Scarred Lands, and the second game is in the Forgotten Realms. Very different worlds, with different assumptions of how things work. So any adventure I run has to fit into the campaign (It’s a lot harder to do this in SL because of the unique history and cosmology of the place). 

What I don’t want are 3 part adventures between two giant kingdoms, whose back story takes up two pages of the module. I want things I can drop into my game quickly – I want a cavern complex for the cultists planning to overthrow the kingdom or a deadly forest that the party has to travel through to find the hermit who knows the secret of the king’s bastard children. I don’t want linear adventures, cause I’m mixing things up with my overall campaign plot. Plus the fact that my players are notorious for not doing what I want and unerringly seeking out the end of the adventure (20 minutes in to Death in Freeport and they want to check out the lighthouse – the other two adventures aren’t even published yet). I was also one of the 20,000 who purchased the Crucible of Freya. Combined with the online freebies, it’s one of the best introductory adventures available (blows Keep on the Borderlands out of the water). I’ve run this module 3 times now, and each time it was different.

At the same time, I’m not huge into pure dungeon crawls. I like dungeons, but more than three or four fights in an evening gets tedious. And an area filled with traps means the rogue moves slowly, searching every 5’ square, and everyone else stands 35’ back. Kinda boring. So our party only entered three levels of Rappan Athuk and that was to find the remains of a comrade of one of the party members – who they discovered was now a skeletal warrior guarding one of the levels. But I used other levels as standalone adventures so I got my money’s worth there too.

Right now, my campaign is drawing on the Grey Citadel, Vault of Larin Karr, as well as politics in Cormyr after the death of king Azoun IV. And it’s working pretty well.

Cheers

Orangefruitbat

PS- despite what I said above, I still really like the Freeport trilogy. Especially the third one, where the party goes to a ball with all the political bigwigs.


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Sep 11, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I am actually proposing a company that would write adventure material for other companies, so I think authorship would be fine, but I could just be gung-ho about seeing more adventures produced.
> 
> I have worked for a d20 company before, so I am faily certain of the "drill."  I also work as a publisher now with a large portion of my work managing authors, so we shall see.




Who is the contract with? Who gets the money? How much money?

If someone (or a group) writes an adventure for your company and you can't find someone to "publish" it, do they get paid? Do you publish it? Can they shop it around on their own? Is it going to be print? pdf? is payment by word, royalty, or % of profit?

Sorry, I just think that before you try to propose something this involved you really need to sit down and create a solid business plan that addresses all of the "details." I am not saying you have to be in it to "get rich" but, in my experience, anyone planning a company without worries about "making money" not only doesn't make money, they lose it in droves and go out of business.

You need to find out if you have a market (will companies purchase what you want to sell) etc. What charges will that market bear? Does this amount of money cover your projected expenses?

In general, if a company is going to publish something THEY want control over it. They will want to do the editing, rules editing, etc. I have a hard time seeing you able to set up a company that does the writing for other companies' books. A company that takes care of the artwork, sure, development, possibly, authorship? um, not so sure.

Sorry, I really am not trying to be mean, but I just don't see a viable business plan here. What I see is an "idea" that sounds like it might be nice, until you start hitting details. I think if you sit down and try to plan it out, talk to companies you'd want to sell/write for, etc. that you'll find it isn't viable.

Patrick


----------



## jasamcarl (Sep 11, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> Eh?  Where's the fluff?
> 
> Adventures aren't - you called them crunch yourself in that other thread.
> Encounter level lairs and dungeons aren't, they're simply static location adventures.
> ...




If you go back to that thread, you'll find that I clarified what I thought constituted crunch in a module, namely maps, EL, treasure, rolled hit die, etc. Those things have a specific mechanical application. Providing fluff locations such as shops as well as distended character motivation and broad town maps is what i generally think wouldn't sell. The adventure 'crunch' can be easily had in any number of villians guides, trap compendiums, map folios, the wizards site, etc. 

While it you say its difficult to find small items that specifically fit a campaign, i think in most DMs minds its still worth it, because they are extensive time savers. Mini campaigns less so, because 1) there is no neccessity for balance and 2) unlike statblocks, most DMs and even some players like improvising and doing this stuff themselves. In other words, i suspect that most groups adapt play to conform to available crunch and large-scale setting realities, and that is the creative role that they are willing to play; most don't really need this spelled out for them.


----------



## jasamcarl (Sep 11, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I still think there is something Clark said that remains unaddressed and somewhat unnoticed -- saturation of the market.  How big exactly is the market for adventures, anyway?  He says _Crucible of Freya_ is their best selling module at about 20,000 units.  That's a _tiny_ fraction of the amount of PHB's sold (and hence, a relative gauge of 3e gamers.)  There's a difference between saying a handful of good but small publishers can make a profit with adventures as their bread and butter and saying there's a large market for adventures.




Bingo!!! If the optimum adventure can only sell around the same amount as an average sourcebook, the market isn't sending the signal that competition is needed here, it is instead saying that this is a niche one or two companies can fill.

The type of dynamic thinking i would expect from a Danny Elfman fan.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 11, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> 1. Too short. The old paradigm of 16 to 32 pages just isnt enough for the modern purchaser. They say, heck I could do that myself. At 32 pages, that may be true. At 96 pages, I dont know about that.




Clark, you are a wise man, and speak many truths.  But here you're a bit off.

There are any number of us out here who have run multi-year, plot heavy campaigns without using a single published adventure or setting.  In the process, we each probably develop material equivalent to a campaign setting and multiple 96-page adventures.  

We don't do it all at once because we don't have to.  We usually only need it a few sessions worth at a time.  But don't confuse that with the inability to come up with the material.   If we DMs could not do it, your adventures would be as much a necessity as the DMG.


----------



## Davelozzi (Sep 11, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I believe that adventures will sell, especially in a PDF environment.




While all I have to go on is Rich's info that his d20 Modern adventure only sold 25 copies in a month, my hunch is that you're wrong.  Only folks like us who hang out on d20 websites are generally even aware of these adventures, and there's enough of them that it's hard to really know what's what.  You can't flip through them liek you could a print adventure in the store so it's virtually impossible to judge in advance whether or not it will fit your campaign.  On top of that, many people (myself included) just really prefer a print book and won't buy .PDFs.  $5 - $8 for a .PDF compared to $10 - $15 for a real, printed adventure that I can hold, flip through, judge, read, run and then keep on my bookshelf afterwards?  No contest.

Think about it.  25 copies in a month?  Even if it sold _horribly_ it could easily sell many times more than that sitting on the shelf of your local gamestore.  Even if most stores only bought a single copy.


----------



## Davelozzi (Sep 11, 2003)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> Show me an underwater adventure set firmly in the World of Greyhawk, and I'll buy it.




You, sir, have just perfectly summed up the argument in support of Mr. Redman's thesis.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 11, 2003)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> The type of dynamic thinking i would expect from a Danny Elfman fan.



  From my heart and from my hand, why don't people understand...

Nevermind.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Sep 11, 2003)

Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who remembers going through the old modules outside of an established campaign? [...] The GM's didn't focus on elaborate campaign worlds, intricate npc's, pc motivations, etc. Players expected the modules to be linear to a certain extent [...] I suspect most GM's and players no longer play in that way - now characters are expected to be tied to a specific world, closely involved with npc's possessing detailed personalities and quirks. Some may see this as a sign that the hobby has "matured" (whatever that means), but it also seems to be a major problem with the entire concept of packaged adventures.



I think you hit the nail on the head with this, Sir Whiskers. I've noticed this change as well. Used to be, as a DM, you could drop a ham-fisted adventuring rumor onto the party ("Weird things have been coming out of the Barrier Peaks.") and *poof*, the PCs would be off to chase down that rumor and confront whatever villain was behind it.

Nowadays, most campaigns that I've seen or read about are too complex for clumsy plot hooks to work. And what's even more problematic (from an adventuring point of view), the players themselves seem to want more justification for why they should go on an adventure.

Perhaps this is because the players I am familiar with have matured; we're thirtysomethings now, not 10-to-12 year olds, so we require a more thoughtful approach. But sometimes, as the DM, I just want to say to the players, "Look guys, this is the adventure I've prepared for this evening. If you're not going to follow the hook, let's quit playing D&D and do something else."

So even though I am drowning in a sea of high quality adventures, I can't get my players interested in letting me use them! Maybe what I need is a new source of players instead of a new source of adventures.   But seriously, even the best designed adventure in the world cannot overcome lack of the players' motivation to go on adventures.

Has anyone else experienced this problem? Has anyone *solved* this problem?


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 11, 2003)

I have not really experienced that problem -- but I tend to run "adventures" that have very little advanced planning, and are intended to be very flexible.  I don't drop ham-fisted hooks really, I drop subtle ones, and regardless of what the players decide, I've got something going on I can slap them with.  

One of my favorite methods is to let the hooks they ignore fester until they boil up into _huge_ problems they can't ignore.  When I hear the "we could have prevented this if only we'd been a little more proactive" it makes me feel are warm and fuzzy inside.


----------



## buzz (Sep 11, 2003)

collin said:
			
		

> Do we sound like a bunch of old-timers here or what?  Were they really that good?  Come on!  Keep on the Borderlands was a nice little adventure to intro players to D&D but as an adventure module, it sucked.  And Tomb of Horrors, although a classic dungeon crawl and challenging, was basically a linear dungeon with no real story in it at all.  "Hey dummies, bore through the outside and bypass that one-way tunnel!"



Dang! I wanted to be the first one to say that. 

I definitely think that people are wearing rose-colored glasses. When I started playing in 1980, unless you went with the Basic set, there was *one* module for 1st-level PCs, T1 Village of Hommlet... and the continuing modules didn't get published until 1986! All of the other modules were stuff like the Giants series and ToH, all of which were designed for 8th level and up, all of which were pretty much straight dungeon crawls. I ended up homebrewing adventures pretty early on because there simply was not a lot of material available for the levels at which 99% of my games ran.

As for one person here continually saying that there's no support for d20 DMs, I say: poppycock. There are more modules out there than you can shake a stick at, good or no, and most of them demonstrate the kind of "maturity" the hobby has seen, i.e., more than a dungeon-crawl with no story. There are also probably more resources avaiable providing the newbie DM with solid advice than at any time previous.

Heck, even a "bad" example like Sunless Citadel wipes the floor with a lot of the classic modules. It's got tons of hand-holding advice for newbie GMs, a fairly generic setting that can be dropped into any campaign, a dungeon ecology that makes sense, dungeon inhabitants that you could actually *interact* with, and an actual *story*. It was the first adventure I ran under 3e (and after a long break from the hobby), and I can tell you that it was orders of magnitude more useful than the story-less, big-list-of-monsters-to-kill pamphlet that was Keep on the Borderlands.

As for the general discussion, I have to say that I generally don't buy adventures, though I do subscribe to Dungeon... well, I subscribe to Polyhedron and get Dungeon as an added bonus.  I *will*, however, sometimes purchase modules if I feel the quality is up to snuff. For example, I happily pick up Penumbra adventures when I can, as they're incredibly well-written, and have more of the "thinking man's D&D" feel that I tend to look for. I don't buy necromancer stuff because, well, my DM is basing the current campaign on them, and I don't want to cheat.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Sep 11, 2003)

orangefruitbat said:
			
		

> I don’t want to spend my time drawing maps and crunching stats. So I like pre-made campaign worlds and pre-made adventures [...] What I don’t want are 3 part adventures between two giant kingdoms, whose back story takes up two pages of the module.



Yet again - Mr. Nail, meet Mr. Hammer, held in the hands of orangefruitbat.

I think a lot of DMs are in the same boat. We need solid, drop-in adventures with good maps and accurate stat blocks. What we do not need is an incredibly long, convoluted backstory that makes the adventure hard to place within our campaign world or adapt on the fly. (How many people adapt on the fly? My guess: a lot more than don't.)

Here's an example of how not to set up your adventure, from WotC's Free Original Adventure section - Bad Moon Waning: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20030830a

Now the whole adventure is 22 pages of PDF, which is pretty good value considering it's free. But, there are 3 pages of adventure background. Yaargh! I don't need that. That makes my eyes glaze over. The adventure background could've been something simple like (spoiler) 



Spoiler



In a town where many of the citizens are werewolves, an evil guy blackmails them into doing his bidding.


 (/spoiler) That's it! One line. I don't need pages and page of background. Pages and pages of background just get in the way of me adapting this adventure to my campaign.

So I agree with orangefruitbat. Give us more solidly constructed adventures with good maps and statblocks, and fewer minor episodes in the ongoing saga.

(By the way, I think WotC's Free Original Adventures are generally a tremendous Good Thing, I just singled out this particular one to point to a weakness.)


----------



## Arnwyn (Sep 11, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> We're a hobby, not a charity.



Then apparently you haven't spent a lot of time with Forgotten Realms products. 

With the amount of stuff they're regurgitating, that line seems firmly set as a charity.


----------



## buzz (Sep 11, 2003)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> There are many, many campaign settings out which is designed for DMs. However, the lack of support for many of them is quite bad. Kalamar is one of the good ones, for example. FR is middle of the road, nowadays. Midnight seems to be poorly supported, right now I think.



A campaign setting, that's barely been out six months, with two 160+ page books, a mega adventure, and a monster guide is "poorly supported"? A setting that has someting like 9-10 96-320 page books currently in print is "middle of the road"?  

And there I was, back in the day, complaining that the Greyhawk setting was just a 32-page pamphlet and a bunch of maps...

P.S.: Don't forget about Scarred Lands. There's more in print for SL than an average gaming group could use in a lifetime.


----------



## dcollins (Sep 11, 2003)

What about playtesting?

I want to bring this up, because I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread so far, and it's one of my axes-to-grind. For both rules and adventures, in the early 1st Ed. days, there was always an extensive "Playtester Credit" section. Personally, I think I can track the decline of TSR directly by the waning size, and then absence, of the playtester credit in their published works. The 3rd Edition PHB was a great turnaround, with a massive playtest program, and I think it shows (The 3.5 rules I'm leery of -- no playtest credit).

The classic modules in the G, D, S, A series didn't just spring from nowhere -- as I understand it, they'd been used in tournament situations for a year or more before they were ever published. Today, with more of a focus on the game as a moneymaking scheme, it sure looks like most products are put on paper once and then sent out the door. This might even work better with sourcebooks (PRC broken? Don't use it.) than adventures (Key encounter broken? Everyone does in the middle.) 

I can't say as I know how many changes or evolutions occured in the G/D/S/A modules during their pre-publication tournament use, but it just seems like they were incredibly tight on a level that started to break apart in the mid-80's. Does that seem significant to anyone else?


----------



## Arnwyn (Sep 11, 2003)

buzz said:
			
		

> A campaign setting, that's barely been out six months, with two 160+ page books, a mega adventure, and a monster guide is "poorly supported"?



That's why I put "I think".  What's the upcoming support like? I heard (incorrectly?) that they aren't going to do much with the setting in terms of support. *shrug*


> A setting that has someting like 9-10 96-320 page books currently in print is "middle of the road"?



Yep. Like I mentioned, "nowadays" FR will only be releasing about 3 books a year, with no supporting adventures (though we'll see about the new Living City ones). I call that "middle of the road", for sure.


----------



## JBTowers (Sep 11, 2003)

PatrickLawinger said:
			
		

> Who is the contract with? Who gets the money? How much money?
> 
> If someone (or a group) writes an adventure for your company and you can't find someone to "publish" it, do they get paid? Do you publish it? Can they shop it around on their own? Is it going to be print? pdf? is payment by word, royalty, or % of profit?
> 
> Patrick




     Most companies pay about 2, or 3 cents per word. Try dividing that up between 20 people. How about even 5 people? Let's see...96 pages, 3 cents a word... mabey $70 per person?

     Go to Necro's web page and download the submission guidelines. It is barely financially feasible to do an adventure alone, let alone with several others. Hell, if you can do it - then do it alone - and keep all the cash for yourself!


----------



## der_kluge (Sep 11, 2003)

Perhaps you guys could take the adventure writing discussion to another thread??


Orcus, I admit that I'm in the camp that is guilty of believing that Necomancer games are all geared towards a specific campaign setting, and I have more or less disregarded them for this reason.  With your post, I'll consider looking into their modules with a more objective eye.  I'm pulling up their site now.

That said, can you recommend any modules that are of a higher level (9th+), and don't take place inside any city, or have anything to do with any city?  That is, city interaction absolutely has to be minimal.


----------



## Ed Cha (Sep 11, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Modules now seem to be more then modules.  They are sourcebooks that have modules in them.  I have no idea if they are selling, but I'm buying them.  Take a look at the Hamlet of Thimble for instance.  It's a good adventure, plus has a lot of source material that can be used well after the module part is done.




Thanks for the recommendation, Crothian! 

Andrew Girdwood at Gamewyrd said the exact same thing: "The Hamlet of Thumble is a new style of pre-written adventure for a new generation of D&D. *(It's) more than just an adventure.* It’s refreshing to find material that manages the medieval feudal system and fantasy races so well." 
" http://www.gamewyrd.com/review/298

The World of Whitethorn series is an exercise of world-building through adventures. Basically, each time I try to provide:

1. A fully-detailed setting such as a hamlet, village, town, or city that is easy to plug-in to any campaign world. 
2. A bunch of what I like to call "special encounters" (random encounters that are role-playing driven, but may also include combat.)
3. A short and fun adventure. I try to keep this portion relatively small because it is not as re-useable as other portions. 
4. A few interesting rules and concepts such as morale checks and reputation points found in The Hamlet of Thumble. I like to use rules that don't change or amend the core rules, but rather supplement them. That's why I call these "supplemental rules" that can easily be used in any setting in addition to the existing set of rules.  
5. A number of new monsters, magic items, spells, feats, skills or skill uses, and sometimes, new classes. 
6. A GM Tips section to help both new and experienced gamemasters on topics such as "Starting a New Game" or "How to Encourage More Role-playing in Your Game" or "12 Signs of a Good DM".  

So, really, these products are designed to be used over and over again, long after the adventure is finished. They're perfect for any "homebrewer"! You can pick and choose the parts you want to use and there are interesting pieces to read for inspiration or ideas. 

There is more information here:

http://www.openworldpress.com


----------



## Belen (Sep 11, 2003)

Yeah...take all the writing nonsense elsewhere!   

Seriously though, I will look into contracts and such and see where that leads, although I am done talking about it in this thread for now.  Anyone interested, please feel free to e-mail me.  

Back on topic: I do think that smaller adventures can be feasible, especially if you choose to place them in a book o'adventures.  Just include three 32 pages adventures in one book and we're good to go.  You could even do a serial adventure in that manner, although it would be nice to make it so that you were not forced to play the rest.

Or an adventure crunch/ encounter book.  Almost like the Book of Challenges, but a book of EL level encounters that a GM can port into their campaign.  Maps and the ike would be good too.

Dave


----------



## MaxKaladin (Sep 11, 2003)

Snipehunt said:
			
		

> I can't comment on the economics of it all, but I remember the AD&D modules, and (besides being generic) they were all good




No, they weren't.  Its just that everyone has forgotten the bad ones.  I'm sure if you went out and looked, you could find plenty of bad AD&D modules.  

Some of the old stuff was great, some of it was ok, some of it was terrible.  Just like today.  Its just that modules like RttToEE and Sunless Citadle are today's Giants series or Slavers series.  We've also got plenty of terrible modules that everyone is going to forget in 20 years just like we've forgotten some of the terrible stuff from 20 years ago.


----------



## Nightfall (Sep 11, 2003)

I must say this is so awesome to read Clark's thoughts on this matter. (I knew he'd show up eventually.  ) Overall I agree with many of his points, but I think the strongest thing I can say is Necromancer Game Mods have been and continue to be very well thought out and well written. And that's why I like em!


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 11, 2003)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Perhaps you guys could take the adventure writing discussion to another thread??



Yeah, heaven forbid that Dave _hijack his own thread!_


----------



## kigmatzomat (Sep 11, 2003)

Davelozzi said:
			
		

> Only folks like us who hang out on d20 websites are generally even aware of [PDF] adventures, and there's enough of them that it's hard to really know what's what.  You can't flip through them liek you could a print adventure in the store so it's virtually impossible to judge in advance whether or not it will fit your campaign. ....  $5 - $8 for a .PDF compared to $10 - $15 for a real, printed adventure that I can hold, flip through, judge, read, run and then keep on my bookshelf afterwards?  No contest.




I agree with this, and I *like* digital products.  I've got a subscription at Baen.com to buy sci-fi ebooks for my PDA and I'll buy PDF sourcebooks (Mmmm, Magical Medieval Europe==goodness).  But, publishers can put out a preview for those products that don't give everything away, with modules you tend to run blind. 

I've got a handful of the AEG adventures that I not only enjoyed immensely but created now-notable events for my campaign.  *BUT* I rejected 3 out of 4 AEG modules until I found things that matched my campaign's flavor and long term plans.  (Not to mention do quick QA/QC: I think it was an AEG module that gave out a weapon with a listed value of 7,000gp but if you tried to recreate the weapon in the DMG it was more like 700,000gp).  I can't do that with PDFs.

A friend gave me one of the Freeport supplements and I love, *love* it.  *BUT* I won't buy any more until my current campaign is over.  It just doesn't work with the over riding plot.  I've tried, oh, how I've tried, to replace the Freeport serpent men with something in my world but it just doesn't fit; too many things break and, at least in what I've got, they are a huge factor in the plot lines.  

I think there are two markets for modules.
1 - The Dungeon/AEG market for small, relatively cheap modules that have enough information the GM can slack off for a game session or 2 if they want without taking over the entire campaign.  I fall in this category because I write my own stuff but every now and then the players want a break from the main plots so I need to give them something mostly unrelated.  

2 - Necromancer/Freeport module series that are more expensive but include a large number of plot hooks and local settings (this includes Shadowrun's Harlequin series).  These can provide a few months' gaming without radically altering most settings.  This works out great for lesser experienced GMs with fairly experienced players who would have trouble with rational transitions between modules.   As long as the players get a mild amount of coaching "the campaign will be set in the region of blah, do not plan on leaving anytime soon" they work out quite well.  

Both are hard to do; the first because you have to come up with quality on a budget without going broke and the second because you have to walk that thin line between "sourcebook with included modules" or "modules with useful local flavor."


----------



## Psion (Sep 11, 2003)

On the issue of modules that are more than modules -- I don't mind if a module adds a few more tidbits, but if you have too much of a ration of "extras" to "adventure", I generally find such adventures less useful.

This is for two reasons.
1) As a corrolary to Clark's observation that people want adventures that they can just drop in. A town, a few spells and magic items, or a prestige class are not things that are generally going to stop this. OTOH, if your adventure includes detailed nations, new core classes, etc., these ARE things that I would have to either work into my campaign or work out of the adventure (or tolerate the discontinuity.)
2) When marketed as an adventure, I expect an adventure. If an adventure has more (say) background details than adventure, I feel I am misled. I am more tolerant of a setting sourcebook with a sample adventure than an adventure with more setting than adventure. (This is part of why I generally don't recommend KoK adventures unless you go into the purchase knowing you are really paying more for a KoK setting supplement.)


----------



## Kerrick (Sep 11, 2003)

[begin shameless plug]*cough*QUICKSHOTS*cough*

Quick Shots is a series of short encounters (with variants) that can be plugged into any campaign (admittedly, they're for Modern, but we're working on that). Mission File Bravo, coming next month, will also have campaign hooks so that these encounters can be blown up into full campaigns (or not, as the DM sees fit). Not only do you get 20 encounters, but you also get at least one monster, 1 Aclass, and 1 magic item (and often more). The price? $4.95 {/end shameless plug]

Now, I'll agree that D&D as a game has matured, and the gamers with it. I'm 29; I've been playing since I was 14. I collect all those old modules, because (let's face it) they were really cool, and a hell of a sight better than the garbage TSR was churning out during the 90s (with a few exceptions, like Gates of Firestorm Peak and Shattered Circle). But I also got stuff like Night Below (remember that one? The valley of Haranshire, where there was a threat from the Underdark... never played it, but it was a great read) and Return to the Tomb of Horrors (another good one). Granted, those last were probably a little long on backstory, as compared to, say Dungeon of Death (backstory: a paladin and his companions have disappeared in a remote valley and the PCs have to find out what happened to them), but they still had enough in there to keep the group going for months. 

I really liked (most of) the old modules from back in the day. Who cared that they were linear dungeon crawls? They were FUN. Keep on the Borderlands? Pish... the PCs cleared it out and used it for their own base of operations, then led sorties out into the wilderness from there. Tomb of Horrors? The single most deadly dungeon ever created? Who cared that it had no plot - the players and DM were too busy making fun of how messily everyone else bit it. I must say, however, that I was really disappointed with RttoEE - I was going to run it for one of my attempts at DMing, so I started to read through it. My god, that thing is boring. What's the plot? Go beat down a bunch of monsters and bad guys to keep Zuggtmoy from coming back yet again. Ho-hum. It's just a rehash of a module that should never have had a sequel (like many movie sequels that should have never have been made...) because any sequel would be but a pale imitation of the original. 

So what was my point? Did I even have one? I'm not sure... I tend to lose the thread of my post when I do other things at the same time and take an hour to type it out, so I'll end this while I still remember that I'm doing this .


----------



## buzz (Sep 11, 2003)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Yep. Like I mentioned, "nowadays" FR will only be releasing about 3 books a year, with no supporting adventures (though we'll see about the new Living City ones). I call that "middle of the road", for sure.



Hmm. I guess we have differing definitions of what constitutes "support" then. I think a good DM could make due with the FRCS alone and be set for years. Even at the rate of three a year, WotC is putting out FR books faster than I can read them (taking into account all my other purchases), much less use them. And let's not forget that FR articles still appear in Dragon, Dungeon, and on the WotC Web site. The FR site gets new stuff on a weekly basis.

But I guess this is a discussion for another thread.


----------



## Orcus (Sep 12, 2003)

Wow. This has turned into a lively discussion. That is cool.

I can respond to a few of the comments and make a few extra observations:

1. Even though I said modules can sell well if done right, they still sell no better and often worse than splatbooks of the same size.

THAT is true. I have not had a module outsell a sourcebook (particularly a hardback general use book) except for Necropolis which is sort of special.

A 96 page monster book will sell better than a 96 page module. So the real reason you hardly see adventures is that we all agree 36 page adventures dont sell. So once you start having to make a bigger product then you have to ask yourself "if I am making a 96 to 128 page product, why make it an adventure?" THAT is the real problem with adventures. 

Source books just sell better (in general). That is why you dont see more adventures. We do them because we have always done them and because we have now established a process for doing them and a team for doing them that works well because we stuck with it.

2. PDFs dont sell unless your name is Monte.

I hate to break it to people but PDFs dont sell. You would think with computer saavy gamers they would embrace PDFs. Nope. There is a real bias by the consumer to print products in this industry. I know we will get a ton of people singing the praises of PDFs. But they dont all put their money where their mouth is. I know. I have seen the numbers.

3. Selling over 20,000 copies of ANY product is a MONSTER RUNAWAY HUGE HIT.

The fact we did it with a module and that it is well over 20,000 (maybe over 30,000) is quite a nice number.

Here is some insight. It is rare for a company to print more than 5,000 copies even of a mainstream book. 10,000 is a huge sales number. You have to be Monte or have a big hit on your hands (I presume Mutants and Masterminds but I dont know) to sell over 20,000.

d20 numbers never come even close to a fraction of the WotC Core Book numbers. Never have. Its even worse now.

4. "DM's Cant Do 96 Pages"

I never said that. Someone posted above that their group could do that much stuff. I'm sure you can.

All I am saying is, unless you have done it, the weighing you do as a purchaser changes depending on the size of the work avoided.

For example, you may say "hey, that module is 36 pages, it looks ok, but i could do 36 pages no problem). You dont buy it. That math changes when it goes up to 96 or more and promises to give you months of play with way less work from you. Could you do it? Of course. But did the utility of hte product change? Yes.

5. Playtesting.

Yeah, that is a biggie. You can tell stuff that hasnt been playtested. Just like you can tell reviews of products that have only read them and havent played them. We playtest alot of our stuff online. We have created an a free online roleplaying chat where people can play in our playtests or just play their own campaings. Its free. Its on our site. There is a huge storhouse of characters too.

6. Module desing.

I saved the best for last.

I loved this quote from a poster above:



> Heck, even a "bad" example like Sunless Citadel wipes the floor with a lot of the classic modules. It's got tons of hand-holding advice for newbie GMs, a fairly generic setting that can be dropped into any campaign, a dungeon ecology that makes sense, dungeon inhabitants that you could actually *interact* with, and an actual *story*.




So this poster identifies these as good:
1. hand holding advice
2. generic setting
3. dungeon ecology that makes sense
4. dungeon inhabitants you can interact with
5. an actual story

We could go all day on whether those are good or not.

You will get people evenly split one #1. Some love it. Some hate it. The old modules had very little of this.

People do overwhelmingly like #2. Funny thing is that though most of the classic modules could be easily dropped in a campaign, many of them were actually desinged for a very specific campaign world--Homlett, the Giants, White Plume Mountian, etc. They had very specific settings but because there was little background stuff, it was easy to ignore. Like the guy above said about the 4 pages of background that could be said in 1 sentence. 

People are split on #3. Some people think this is a fantasy game for god's sake. The monsters all eat rats or something. "Ecology" is just some word people impose to make the game too real. Others, however, are fanatical about it.

I dont understand #4. All of the classic modules had that. They just didnt spell out the interaction. They left it for the DM. There is no reason you couldnt sneak into Snurre's lair in Fire Giant, sneak into his bed chamber and perhaps cut a business deal with him to double cross the drow and then set up an ambush for the drow priestesses on level 3. You could do that. Nothing stopping you. If you DM chooses to run it as a hack and slash and you chosse to play it as a hack and slash, that isnt the module's fault.

Now my favorite, a "story". Well, what story? Some people call this railroading. It is true the old adventures didnt have much in the way of "story." That is because old module design left that to the DM.

Again i repeat my favorite saying "I give you the death star, you tell star wars."

What do I mean by that?

I give you the floor plan to the death start. I list all the rooms and contents. I give you an appendix with Darth Vader, stormtroopers, trash compactor monster, some sample star ships, etc. I call that product "The Star of Death". It has little background or setting. In fact, in it I say "This mobile fortress of death can easily be dropped into your future fantasy campaign".

What is that? It is essentially a huge dungeon.

Just because I presented it like that does that mean you have to run it as a DM as a hack and slash?

NO!!!!!! It is up to you to tell the story. YOU decide "hey, lets say that a princess was there, captured, and she has the plans to destroy the thing and we need to rescue her, and we can have a showdown with the big bad guy and one of our hero guys."

That is the story of star wars. Someone took a dungeon crawl and turned it into a story of heroism and escape.

So just because the old modules are a list of rooms, doesnt mean you have to run them like kick in the door adventures. 

Old modules presumed DMs knew that. New ones think DMs need handholding and story telling.

We found a happy medium. We include overarching story ideas and motivations and a story arc that can be followed. But we leave it flexible enough for DMs to do their own thing.

This is really the key to modern module desing. "How much story." The modern purchaser (and I make no judgments on the modern purchaser, I am just stating what is true) does not want no story. You must have some. Similarly, the modern purchaser does not want a "railroaded" story forcing them to do certain things. This is the hardest balance to walk as a module designer.

In a way, the old modules were more like a mini-lair sourcebook than an adventure. They gave you a lair and its inhabitants and you decided what to do with it. Usuually, kick doors in and kill occupants. In fact, you could probably market to the modern purchaser the three giant modules as a "Giant Lair Sourcebook" and they would love it. They would praise its flexibility and the fact that no story is forced on you and you can do what you want. But put the word "adventure" on it and people have changed expectations. That is why most people run the Giant modules as kick in the door kill fests (they were also designed to be that). But they can be so much more. That is also why the modern purchaser sometimes doesnt like the older adventures because they feel "if it is an adventure, I shouldnt have to write the story."

Why do they feel like that?

Mostly because IMHO of the modules of the 2E era that were ALL story or that were railroaded stories. Like the Dragonlance modules. People came to think "adventure=story".

This balance is IMHO the most interesting design issue with modules.

Clark


----------



## Nightfall (Sep 12, 2003)

Necropolis RULES!!  Sorry Clark, had to say it. Still one of my favorite books in my collection.


----------



## Orcus (Sep 12, 2003)

Now that the server is back up lets get back at this...

Clark


----------



## Darkness (Sep 12, 2003)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> ... I was really disappointed with RttoEE - I was going to run it for one of my attempts at DMing, so I started to read through it. My god, that thing is boring. What's the plot? Go beat down a bunch of monsters and bad guys to keep Zuggtmoy from coming back yet again.



Err, no.


----------



## Melan (Sep 12, 2003)

Clark: what is your opinion on modules that contain multiple smallish adventures - something in the vein of Raise the Dead or JG's Book of Treasure maps, probably arranged around a loose theme (lairs, treasure maps, caves, taverns)? Can those sell to the "modern" gamer? Especially since such a format would easily allow someone to present, say, three or four adventures like Steading of the Hill Giant Chief (8 pages) or even Tomb of Horrors (~16+pictures). Maybe even more if you put it out as a hardcover. 
Tome of Horrors was ~300 pages for $30. Let's say we put adventures in the same book (and we don't need that many illustrations this way), and each is roughly 25 pages, including maps. That is a dozen full adventures for $2.5 each. If it is built around a generic idea (the aforementioned "monster lairs", for instance), one would easily justify its purchase.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 12, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> So just because the old modules are a list of rooms, doesnt mean you have to run them like kick in the door adventures.
> 
> Old modules presumed DMs knew that. New ones think DMs need handholding and story telling.



And for most gamers, those new modules are probably pretty right, unfortunately.  Pretty much every gamer that gamed in "Ye Good Olde Days" remembers hack-n-slash dungeoncrawls that they played.  Without that detail, that's exactly what those games were played as.  

"You walk up to a hole in the ground"
"OK, I walk in."
"Roll for initiative."

That's the "story" of plenty of games I used to play, and I've never talked to any gamers that don't have a similar recollection.  Sure, I'd never do that again now, but I've got 20+ years of experience in what I like and don't like.

I think buzz made a very good point; many modules, especially the "adventure path" by WotC _should_ help present some kind of reason for the maps and encounters.  There's a lot of value in that for a lot of players, especially new ones.  Without it, modules are nothing more than maps and encounters.  I can draw maps on graph paper in nothing flat, and I can pull encounters from monster books easily enough by just flipping a few pages.  Modules that offer _only_ that don't give a ton of value, in my opinion.  It's the synthesis of maps, encounters and hooks or potential story elements that make modules worthwhile, in my opinion.


----------



## Wraith Form (Sep 12, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I have not really experienced that problem -- but I tend to run "adventures" that have very little advanced planning, and are intended to be very flexible.  I don't drop ham-fisted hooks really, I drop subtle ones, and regardless of what the players decide, I've got something going on I can slap them with.
> 
> One of my favorite methods is to let the hooks they ignore fester until they boil up into _huge_ problems they can't ignore.  When I hear the "we could have prevented this if only we'd been a little more proactive" it makes me feel are warm and fuzzy inside.




You, sir, are a nasty, evil, dispicable, rotten DM.

I like it!!


----------



## Wraith Form (Sep 12, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I call that product "The Star of Death". It has little background or setting. In fact, in it I say "This mobile fortress of death can easily be dropped into your future fantasy campaign".




Ooooh, baby--queue up the theramin!


----------



## Coreyartus (Sep 12, 2003)

*An Analogy*

It's obvious the consumer base for adventures is fragmented--the advent of d20 and 3E is still promulgating a renaissance in RPGs, with players exploring different aspects of rules and how they can be applied in various situations, settings, and campaigns.  To create an analogy, imagine we (those interested in this hobby/industry--hereafter known as "chunks") are still expanding outward after the "big bang" explosion, and while our momentum is slowing down, every player/publisher/designer/writer/consumer is travelling in their own direction. 

Products cannot appeal to all the chunks anymore because we aren't in the "same place".  Our interests and tastes have segmented us from one another; we're travelling away from the center in our own directions.  We travel in groups of interest, and certain products will appeal to those certain chunks whose paths are nearby the path of a publisher chunk.  Sometimes products are created that can attract other consumers/chunks from other paths, but by-and-large, most products will no longer have the appeal they once had--it's inevitable.  It's going to be rare that products can even be exposed to the vast array of players/chunks swept up in the wake of the explosion.

Products like the old mods had a smaller radius of players to appeal to.  It will never be the same.  

The question is, are we going to continue to define success by old nubmers?  Are we going to continue to say "adventures don't sell," when in actuality they are, given the nature of the market?  Pyramid schemes work the same way--as long as you're at the top, you're a success, but as more people get involved the likelihood of everyone new experiencing the same level of success must decrease.  The definition of success and what is considered a good "profit margin" changes over time.  

As long as we accept that adventures are only going to generate so much profit, and plan for that, we create our own definition of success.  "Adventures don't sell" only for those who expect a wider profit margin than it's possible to have, or for those who have determined that the effort/money isn't worth it.  Creating adventures isn't simply a profit/loss tool to make money anymore, it's about creating something worth purchasing that appeals to a niche field of interest, and a lot of businesses simply don't have room for that.

Just my two cents!

Coreyartus


----------



## Wraith Form (Sep 12, 2003)

Coreyartus said:
			
		

> (those interested in this hobby/industry--hereafter known as "chunks")



"Chunks"?  Are you calling us fat?

(looks around)  Is he calling us fat?

Or are you saying we're fish bait?!?  (Oh, wait, that's "chum," never mind.)  (which rhymes with "bump"--heh heh heh)


----------



## buzz (Sep 12, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I loved this quote from a poster above...



Ooh! He picked me! 



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> I dont understand #4. All of the classic modules had that. They just didnt spell out the interaction. They left it for the DM. There is no reason you couldnt sneak into Snurre's lair in Fire Giant, sneak into his bed chamber and perhaps cut a business deal with him to double cross the drow and then set up an ambush for the drow priestesses on level 3. You could do that. Nothing stopping you. If you DM chooses to run it as a hack and slash and you chosse to play it as a hack and slash, that isnt the module's fault.



Joshua already sort of said what I want to say, but hey...

In some ways, I think this is a bit of a cop-out. Yeah, you *could* write an adventure that presents me with a hole in the ground, a list of encounters, and then just let me go to town as a DM and make up motivations and personalities for all of them (Keep on the Borderlands, anyone?), but in that case, *why am I paying you to make me do all the work?*

I liked that Sunless Citadel provided some motivations for many of the inhabitants, and that some were wholly evil and just needed to get hacked, but some were noted as being willing to negotiate depending on the actions of the PCs. Particularly for an adventure aimed and newbie DMs, I thought this was really cool. I would also suspect that an adventure like the excellent Belly of the Beast by Mike Mearls would not have been very useful if he hadn't laid out the motivations of the various groups involved.

Anyone with dice and a pencil can design a hole in the ground with encounters. What I'm willing to pay for are interesting setups, detailed characters, and compelling hooks. To use your example, "The Star of Death" is pretty useless to me if it's just maps and stats. Heck, how much of the interior of that thing did we get to see, anyway? 10%? 5%? However, if it also contains story ideas, motivations, and hooks that could spark "Star Wars," then it's worth my while.



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> Now my favorite, a "story". Well, what story? Some people call this railroading. It is true the old adventures didnt have much in the way of "story." That is because old module design left that to the DM.



Again, there's a point where, if there's too much left to the DM, your product isn't really worth my money.

E.g., B1, Into the Unknown, provided maps and keyed encounter areas, but left the placement of monsters, treasure, and any sort of rationale for its existence up to the DM. As an introductory adventure for the newbie DM (its target audience, as it was part of the Basic set), it was completely useless to me, and I never used it. That's why people have fond memories of B2, Keep on the Borderlands, and not the former.

As for "story," I didn't really mean railroading or a fixed plot, per se. I simply meant an overall picture of the whys and wherefores of the adventure. Sunless Citadel provided a decent rationale for the existence of the dungeon and why it was inhabited. It provided a couple of different hooks. It provided some interesting background seeds that, in succeeding adventure path modules, actually got developed. It had goals. It had NPC motivations. It was holistic.

Sure, some of these elements may not fit in my campaign. However, it's usually easier for me to remove these elements than to provide them. If you provide them, only a certain percentage of DMs need to change anything, and they might not need to change much. If you provide nothing, 100% of the DMs need to provide 100% of them. Which option do you think seems more useful to me, as a consumer?


----------



## kigmatzomat (Sep 12, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Wow. This has turned into a lively discussion. That is cool.   I can respond to a few of the comments and make a few extra observations:
> 4. dungeon inhabitants you can interact with
> 
> I dont understand #4. All of the classic modules had that. They just didnt spell out the interaction. They left it for the DM. There is no reason you couldnt sneak into Snurre's lair in Fire Giant, sneak into his bed chamber and perhaps cut a business deal with him to double cross the drow and then set up an ambush for the drow priestesses on level 3. You could do that. Nothing stopping you. If you DM chooses to run it as a hack and slash and you chosse to play it as a hack and slash, that isnt the module's fault.




I think this tends to fall under "character motivations," something that gives GMs fits when the players do something weird.  It doesn't need to be a 10 page biography detailing the anger BBEG holds against his mother for dropping him on his head as an infant but newer GMs need *something* to guide them.  

Heck, one _Dungeon_ module I ran in the early 90s had a black dragon that was an obsessive/compulsive coin collector.  The PCs were supposed to negotiate, hand over some coin and be on their way to the real plot but they decided to fight it out (no chance of survival).  I was looking at TPC until someone noticed his irritation at the messed up coin piles and fired off a windstorm spell to mess everything up.  The dragon immediately breathed acid on the caster and moved in for the kill.  At least until a kender-like elf said "Ohhh, your acid is melting all the pretty coins" pointing at the rapidly corroding silver.   I mentally flipped a coin and decided that the dragon went catatonic and the players were able to escape mostly intact.  That one minor detail proved to be the crux of the encounter.

(BTW: if anyone knows which issue of dungeon that is, please let me know.)

 I know that 90% of the time it'll be completely useless but the other 10% of the time it makes or breaks the situation.  It's worth it to me to buy the mods where the authors spent the extra 10 minutes to briefly describe key NPCs motivations.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 12, 2003)

Yeah, I think there's a disconnect of sorts here; buzz is praising some aspects of _The Sunless Citadel_ as ideal for beginning GMs, while Clark is saying those same things are bad because they're handholding experienced GMs through the module.  It's true that what's great for a new GM is superfluous at best for an experienced GM.


----------



## buzz (Sep 12, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It's true that what's great for a new GM is superfluous at best for an experienced GM.



FWIW, even though I was new to 3e, I'd been DM'ing AD&D since I was 10 at the time I ran Sunless Citadel, and I still found all the hand-holding useful.

I guess my main point is simply that, if I'm going to pay money, you need to give me more than a hole in the ground.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 12, 2003)

In which case you weren't an experienced GM with that system, at least!


----------



## buzz (Sep 12, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> In which case you weren't an experienced GM with that system, at least!



my hat of yur atitue know no limit!!1


----------



## zenld (Sep 12, 2003)

Wow. This thread is longer than any adventure I have ever read and many of the sourcebooks too. And is probably as good or better than many of them. But not as good as others.

Jjust to point out, anyone who has been complaining about level of adventure and amount of magic being not what they want for their campaign has obviously not been to direkobold.com. Party level? Scalable. Magic? Scalable. Monster difficulty? Scalable. Trap DCs? Scalable. And most of them are pretty good adventures. Almost all of them can, with little or no modification, be dropped into any campaign. So like has been previously stated, put your money where your mouth is. It breaks down to a couple bucks an adventure at most, and can be redone over and over again for new parties or camapigns. You want value? Come and get it. And for those who want to write, submit to Ross. I am sure he would love to have them. He is always loking for new talent. Ask Wil.   He was a nobody before he started writing for direkobold. Now look at him.  (j/k Wil, please don't hurt me.)

And the site is getting better. More options, etc. So go check it out. Its put up or shut up time. You want more adventures, here they are. You want an impact on what type of adventures the company will put out, here is someone who will listen. 

As someone earlier said its a hobby not a charity. Yes, we all do it because we love it, but if you want it to grow, you have to support it and vote with the best tool you have...your money.

And no, I am not being compensated for my opinion. This is an unsolicited and unpaid endorsement.


----------



## FDP Mike (Sep 13, 2003)

*Adventures are crunchy, too!*



> Originally posted by *Orcus*
> _Now my favorite, a "story". Well, what story? Some people call this railroading. It is true the old adventures didnt have much in the way of "story." That is because old module design left that to the DM.
> 
> [. . .]
> ...






> Originally posted by *Buzz*
> _I guess my main point is simply that, if I'm going to pay money, you need to give me more than a hole in the ground._




Clark is quite correct in noting the sort of tightrope that current adventure design walks between too much story (i.e., railroading) and not enough story (i.e., just a hole in the ground). Finding the balance presents no easy task, but this is one reason why the conception of what a "module" constitutes now evolves more toward the "sourcebook" end of the spectrum.

If you look closely at how some publishers label the type of product they give you, some of them will use the words "fantasy roleplaying sourcebook" for an adventure. Sure, marketing concerns lie behind such terminology: gamers apparently currently want "crunch," so a publisher searches for a way to convince them that adventures are just as "crunchy" as splatbooks. In a way, then, gamers also need to readjust their thinking of what an adventure offers them.

At their core, I think that the really good adventures do in fact provide really good stories ... or at least the outlines of really good stories that gaming groups will fill in themselves. Story includes engaging characters doing intriguing things that have certain consequences, good or bad, in which the players may become invested. When _NeMoren's Vault_ first came out, and since, a recurring element of praise for it focussed on the interest generated by the story -- how everything made sense and fit together. Yet everything remains open enough for the players to make their own choices (i.e., write their own version of the story) without truly being railroaded toward any particular course of action. So, I think if we sit down and consider how the successful adventures achieved their success, I suspect we'll find that they all offer at base the bare structure of a good story: a worthy goal incited by a believable if not exciting conflict; a cast of adversaries and allies that, if given understandable motivations, make the goal something the players want their characters to achieve.

Or, put more simply: story can also be "crunch."

GMs need story ideas just as much as they need NPC stat blocks or fully detailed dungeon levels. Who knows what will spark in a GM's mind an idea for an entire campaign arc? Maybe a GM has lately looked for a way to integrate an undead cult into her game (see "Swords Against Deception" in _To Stand on Hallowed Ground_, for instance). What's the best way to do so that will not only make sense logically but will also grab the players' interest? Adventures can thus provide excellent resources for answering such questions, even if a GM never runs them as is.

Everything that an adventure requires for the making (and remaking) of its story also qualifies as crunch: maps; area descriptions; NPCs; new monsters; new PrC's, feats, spells, equipment, magic items ... and so forth. Sure, it's all meant for use in the particular vision of the adventure's story held by the author(s). Yet it's also all "reusable" content in any form that a GM sees fit.

If we think of Buzz's "hole in the ground" as the crunchy part of an adventure, then, yes, most definitely adventures need to offer much more than merely rooms, monsters, and treasures to be of real value to a GM. There must be a thread that ties everything together, gives each part a reason for being within the greater whole -- i.e., the story.

That adventures don't sell well risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak: once everyone believes this supposed fact, not only will we see fewer and fewer published adventures, but consumers may stay away from them owing partly (if not mostly) to the stigma they carry as sort of "second class" products compared to setting books and splatbooks.

For all their useful and reusable crunch, splatbooks are pretty much just information. Exciting information at times, true, but not information about which players will reminisce years later over beer and talk of how their characters barely saved the land from a sweeping undead menace by the barest of luck.

Adventures today, then, should serve two purposes: (1) story and (2) sourcebook. They already do the second element; I think consumers only need to readjust their (inherent) thinking about adventures to recognize it, partly because it can include the first element. We risk losing the first element, though, if consumers keep pushing more and more for "crunchy bits" instead of "fluff," quite simply because publishers will do what they must to meet the demands of their readers and to make money.

I would like to see adventures sell more. In many respects, they form the foundation of D&D -- epic fantasy stories, shared by many in a myriad of different final results. They _should_ be selling better. To do so, however, I suspect that publishers somehow need to alter perceptions of what adventures offer to the consumer ... not an easy task when the most dominant force in D&D/d20 eschews them in favour of crunch-heavy products.

Hmm, is there a point in anything I just wrote? We'll see, I guess. 


Take care,
Mike


----------



## Orcus (Sep 13, 2003)

Buzz, I was never saying you were wrong, that handholding is bad and that "give me more than a hole in the ground" is wrong.

All I am saying is that that is one theory of module design and it is one type of customer expectation. 

And that leads to problems for adventure writers. 

Because there is just as large a camp that says "just give me the hole in the ground because the plot you write wont fit my game anyway." or "dont railroad me."

It is the real crux of the problem for module writers. 

I think one reason we have succeeded is we have tried to ride the fence and have done so rather well--enough flexibility for those who want no forced story and enough story and motivations to satisfy those who want them.

And believe me, that is one thin tightrope to walk.

The other problem is that people will judge an adventure not for what it is but for how it fit in their game.

An example is our Wizard's Amulet. That was a free downloadable adventure that was released the first hour of the first day of GenCon (right after 12 am) the day 3E was released (the earliest anyone was allowed to have anything for release). In fact, it was the first d20 module available. It was designed to be downloaded and to get you up and running in 15 minutes. It had hooks and pregens and had a railroaded story. But the concept was that it was a jumpstart adventure (it was also free). 

But people still griped that the plot was too forced. Of course it was! That was how it was designed. So you see, people dont care what you tell them, they care only about how things fit them. Which isnt bad, it is just something to keep in mind.

Clark


----------



## buzz (Sep 13, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> But people still griped that the plot was too forced. Of course it was! That was how it was designed. So you see, people dont care what you tell them, they care only about how things fit them. Which isnt bad, it is just something to keep in mind.



Understood. Griping is sort of the "death & taxes" of the hobby (and Web forums).


----------



## buzz (Sep 13, 2003)

FDP Mike said:
			
		

> Adventures today, then, should serve two purposes: (1) story and (2) sourcebook.



Sort of OT, but this is something I really liked about Monte's BoEM3. Before I boughtt he product, I thought the idea of rpesenting all these little settings was a waste of sapce in a sourcebook. But the ideas are so good that I just fell in love with the book. The "story" ideas are there if you want, them, and if you don't, there's still tons of great new crunchies.


----------



## jasper (Oct 24, 2003)

You forgot the in the early eighties marketing model was different than the current double ought marketing model. 
In the early eighties it was TSR restaurant with Gary the head chief who only changed his special once a quarter. How many modules were produced from 1979 to 1985? The other two places to eat were Judges Guild and your mom’s (the dm) home cooking. 
The current model is WOTC has sold the basic recipes of Gary’s cooking and anyone can open his own restaurant just as long as the put a note on menu mentioning the original recipe.

D&D went from the eighties specialty market to the commodities market. With the special dishes (modules) appearing occasion in one magazine to having a magazine with modules only. (Yes I know Dungeon has went down to half a magazine). The market has both increase and decrease at the same time. You increase from people who remember eating at Gary’s push cart ( D&D before 1979), to me who at the first restaurant (1976-1985), to now include the chain of restaurants( 2 nd and 3 rd editions). But with this growth you have the hardening of the tastes.  Merric will only eat at the original restaurant and only when Gary’s cooking. To Jasper who hitting all the restaurants on his travels across the world( he buys all related items).

Orcus has very good points. I tell him as I tell a lot of SCA merchants. “Where in the world were you years ago when I first started. I don’t need you now!” Let are lots and lots of choices out there now. A glut of adventures, source books, and splat books. In my local game store it has the following: a spin rack of pocket adventures (if forget the name of company) which cost under $5, two cardboard book displays contain source books , a mixed shelf with all the covers face out the newly release stuff (ex KODT, Dork Tower, spat book of complete slayer guide to Jasper), half a book shelf with binders out of pre-third edition, three to four shelves with binder out of modules, source books, meagmodules etc (old stuff).  In other words today pastures of plenty, compared a road side stand.
To tell a guilty secret in first and second edition days my dming was ninety percent modules and ten percent original material. Now days it fifty/fifty. Why? I did not play much averaged about every two weeks and the trouble of modules. The trouble back in early eighties  everyone played and/or  dming the modules. The players knew to ignore the guy behind the curtain. If they were great players. People when on the adventure because is was the adventure. Now days I have less money, way more experience, and less game time so modules are worth dollar value. 

To steal Joshua line. It's true that what's great for a new GM is superfluous at best for an experienced GM. Yes totally true but how is much superfluous depends on the GM. Now if Gary had include a half page of superfluous material then G1 would had many different endings. The most I heard were a hack festival unless you had someone who had played in before. Hey if Sunless was release in early eighties would we had a second edition. The early modules read like a first draft screenplay. Sunless was a final draft. With notes to the first time director and producer, a experience director Lucas (insert your choice of director) would nod and shoot his way.


----------



## maddman75 (Oct 24, 2003)

I rarely run modules.  Mostly because of an opinion of my group.  Modules suck.  We're slowly starting to overcome this, but we came to that conclusion honestly.  We came up during the 2e era, when a module meant a convoluted plotline no one could follow, senseless railroading, and combats that were about three times too weak for the party.

Having gone through some of the good ones - Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury, and RttToEE we're coming around to the idea.  Clark makes some good points, and I'll have to check out some of the NG modules.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 24, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> And believe me, that is one thin tightrope to walk.
> 
> Clark




Yes, yes it is.


joe b.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 27, 2003)

*Why do modules sell?*

Modules sell because of people like me. "Sourcebooks" are not the most numerous books on my shelves, modules are. Why? This thread has helped me realize that my approach to creating campaigns is radically different from those that have posted here. When I create my campaign I look at the modules I have on my shelves. By deciding which modules to use and how to fit them all together I come up with my campaign. I have done this within the context of campaign worlds, such as Greyhawk, FR, Ravenloft, and Cascandia (my total homebrew).

I then fill in the blank spots with my own work, creating a cohesive campaign. Cohesive enough that they have lasted up to 2 years of playing every weekend, except most holidays. With 6 to 8 players.

So what I do works and we all have fun. Maybe modules would sell a lot better if everyone designed their campaigns like i do. I know that buying these modules and "fitting" them together has been a lot easier than putting my Cascandia homebrew together from scratch.

What makes a module worth buying? Many things. Before i go any further with this let me describe my buying habits. I own modules by everyone. Mystic Eye, Fiery Dragon, Atlas, Penumbra, Green Ronin, Kenzer, Sword and Sorcery, FFE, FFG, Troll Lords, WOTC, and Necromancer Games. Plus others I know I am forgetting. To give you an idea how my tastes run I shall list them in order of which publishers I buy from/like the most: 1. Necromancer 2. Kenzer 3. Green Ronin 4. Fiery Dragon 5. Sword and Sorcery 6. Mystic Eye 7. WOTC; the rest I like/buy more or less equally.

Why do I like Necromancer the best? Clark/Orcus said it all, including Eric Mona being very underrated. Plus I would like to add that Clark talks to us on his boards. I have come to feel like I know him. Plus his writers are also on the boards. Plus, none of them have an ego that shows. They have the whole package. All of the others, except Eric Mona and the Fiery Dragon people, keep a certain distance, whether it is because they don't socialize, or because they put this attitude (ego) between them and you, on the various message boards.
Green Ronin has also gotten better in this regard. WOTC, is the worst in this regard. Necromancer Games comes across the best as being in this for the game. The money doesn't hurt things, but first and foremost they want to put out product that makes the game fun and makes you try out new directions.

As for the modules not being generic enough, most of you sound like you are just too lazy to do much thinking. I have easily modified every module to fit my campaigns, and it has always been easier than writing up my own modules. These modules also do things I would never have thought of either. Modules will never be written exactly to your tastes. Maybe your tastes are just a bit too elitist, meaning maybe you should be willing to meet more towards the center instead of insisting they be completely the way you want them to be. I am not trying to flame or insult here. I am just throwing this out there to maybe make you consider if maybe the problem is with the consumer. Yes, there are "bad" modules out there, and I have bought a lot of them. But I have still used them because during my re-writing to make them fit my game, they became good modules.

For example, the poster who said he would be happier if he saw more underwater locations. I have run an underwater campaign. Once I was totally comfortable with the underwater environment and its effects on gameplay I used any module i wanted to and just replaced air with water and trees and bushes with kelp and coral reefs, birds and rabbits with fish, eels, and rays. Not that hard and it got easier every time I did it.

Some of you have commented that even in Dungeon magazine you get only one good adventure per issue. If I don't like it I change it to where I do and it only takes me a few minutes and a few notes in the margins. Hence, every adventure becomes useable for me. Only the question of whether or not I will actually get to use it in the course of my campaigns remains to be answered.

Besides, every single issue brought up in this thread was talked about way back in 1e as well. The 1e modules sucked in comparison to what we see now, especially in terms of presentation, ie art, color, etc... The stories themselves were very bare bones. Like Clark said, if you wanted more roleplay than hack n slash you had to come up with the motivations and background to make that happen. I still use Ravenloft (I6), Sabre River, Death's Ride, Tomb of Horror, Lich Lords, Lost Tomb of Tsojanth, expedition to Barrier Peaks. The Gauntlet, The Sentinal, and any other my current group of players have never seen or hadn't seen in years.

Now most of you are saying give me a great story, without too much detail so i can easily fit it in my campaign. That is a very unfair demand. Clark is telling the truth when he says that his company has found a very good balance between those who want a lot and those who want very little. I spend the least amount of time re-writing their modules. Grey Citadel is just plain great, and Rappan Athuk has plenty of role-playing opportunities, if the DM wants it to.

To be fair, I have found that a lot of the companies out there have improved a lot in the last year. Especially Mystic Eye and Troll Lords. i have been doing a lot less editor type corrections and less rewriting of the modules "story" as well.

The biggest problem I foresee is that everyone is getting good enough to buy and I won't have enough money to do so.

Once people realize that what really makes a campaign last and the game fun is the adventure, they will start buying more modules and fewer sourcebooks. I have already noticed that my sourcebooks gather the most dust on my shelves. Of course I actually use my modules. The only sourcebooks I have actually made use of are Dungeonworld and Necropolis. Of course, those are basically just as much module as source material. I do intend on using Oathbound in the near future. Modules are useful at any time in any game, sourcebooks aren't. 

To summarize, or try to, I think that we are being too unreasonable in our demands that it be generic enough to "easily" fit into our respective games. I have found using the flavor in some of these modules has made my campaign a multicolored tapestry instead of one solid color/flavor. Maybe some of you should consider making your campaign fit the flavor and backgrounds of some of these modules. It will make your campaign more like a real world. When you go to Mexico, South America, Africa, or around the Middle East; you definitely know you aren't in Kansas anymore. Making yourself integrate these into your game will make it the same way and it enhances the adventure.


----------



## grodog (Oct 19, 2005)

Hey Clark, 

With WotC re-entering the modules market, Goodman Games providing stiff competition, and the general viability of .pdfs being more accepted now, I though I'd see if your thoughts on any of the topics you discussed awhile have changed?


----------



## MerricB (Oct 19, 2005)

Help! It's grodog the Thread Necromancer!


----------



## Altalazar (Oct 19, 2005)

First thing to keep in mind, even if only DMs buy adventures, and there is generally one DM to four or five players per game, that is deceptive about the statistics overall.  Because people can take turns DMing - so that group of five players may have five DMs in it, though they only play as DM 1/5th of the time.  

Second, one can always adjust a module to fit into just about any campaign.  I run only homebrew when I run these days (well, since 1E) and I've used modules - generics are easy to fit in, but then, so are the non-generics - because I'm the DM - I can do anything, I can ignore anything in the module I don't want to be in there and I can add anything I want.  I've never had a problem integrating a module into my world, though part of that is the flexibility I have - my world is only loosely fleshed out in some places, so I have wiggle room to add things.  

The "problem" of conversion has been so minor that I wouldn't even call it a speed bump.  Heck, at times, I've just taken one map out of a module and used it in an adventure (like of a tomb) and only partial use of the descriptions for that map.  I see modules as just a bunch of legos, ready for assembly into my giant lego world.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Oct 19, 2005)

I wonder if there is a thread necromancy PRC?

I still don't think published adventures are that useful.  I just come to enworld, read and think to get my ideas and then do a combination of planned stuff and winging it on gameday.


----------



## Munin (Oct 19, 2005)

Just a itty-bitty note to all those 3e publishers out there:

Players don't buy books. DMs do. 

I can't count the games I've run where the players couldn't be bothered to purchase the PHP, much less some splat book. If they did, I wouldn't have allowed it at the table anyway, since I'd hardly have time to read it and run a campaign, and I'm not going to allow a book I haven't read.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Oct 19, 2005)

Munin said:
			
		

> Players don't buy books. DMs do.




I guess that's why so much of the advertisement for new books, even apparent "DM only" books is mainly aimed at players, right?


----------



## Odhanan (Oct 19, 2005)

> Some of you mentioned that you think that you have all the adventures that you want now. However, isn;t that a disservice to new gamers?




That's a whole another issue. Such as it is now, I feel the RPG business is geared toward veteran role-players, not newbies. 

The question of bringing newbies to RPGs isn't solely answered by the accessibility of modules. It would be answered with an accessibility (which does not mean over-simplicity - this is more a question of logistics and organization, not so much a question of amount) of the rules, an accessibility of the products, a strong marketing with derivative products and promotion, and THEN with usable adventures that lead newbies down the path of RPG mastery. And even then, you hit the nerve of the nature of tabletop RPGs: time consuming, a lot of reading and counting... it requires to _think_, and entertainment and thinking rarely (but sometimes) make out together, so to speak.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 19, 2005)

Well, I for one am glad that the mega-module is here.  WLD is a blast and I've got my group of 6 players going, plus, the project now has 4 more DM's with about 15 players lined up to go.  I'm thinking that modules aren't too bad an idea.


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 19, 2005)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> I guess that's why so much of the advertisement for new books, even apparent "DM only" books is mainly aimed at players, right?



Well actually, that's _exactly_ why.

What businesses love the most is to expand the market.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Oct 19, 2005)

Wow!  Old thread!  But wait!  Look at what this dude wrote _two years ago!!!!_



			
				BiggusGeekus@Work said:
			
		

> For better or for worse I think we've entered an era where modules are largely promotional material or "mega-modules" that are in actuality campaigns.
> 
> I don't think this is either good or bad, it's just the way things are right now.




God, I'm brilliant.


----------



## Sledge (Oct 19, 2005)

I've seen this argument before, but I cannot let it stand!


			
				Zogg said:
			
		

> I think the price range for adventures could probably be more expensive with the number of entertainment hours they provide for the number of individuals. Think about it - 5 people go to see a movie and pay ~$7 to $9 a piece for 2 hours of hit-or-miss entertainment. That's a combined price of $35-$45 dollars. Even if the movie is Oscar-winning material or even just a fanboy's wetdream it's still much more expensive than the going module and provides a very finite amount of enjoyment.
> 
> Now take a run of the mill adventure (for instance, PLAGUE OF DREAMS for Monte Cook's AU - buy it today!) - I got mine for ~$12 at one of the many online stores, though we can't ignore the requisite cost of needing the AU book ($30) and the Diamond Throne pdf ($9) which comes to roughly $51 for the DM and $30-$39 for the PCs. While these prices are higher per person than for the 2-hour movie, the bucks we spend on the setting & adventure go a LONG WAY in comparison.



The 2 hour movie involves no effort on our parts and is in a big screen theater.  You're paying for the size of the screen, the sound, and the ease of just sitting back and watching.
A D&D module is more akin to getting a vhs tape (not dvd) from your local shop but discovering the tape inside is in a few dozen pieces.  So you cut it all together yourself and fill in the missing bits.  But hey at least VHS tapes can be had for just a couple bucks right?
Adventures could be priced higher if say they ran a whole campaign, meaning no cutting and pasting back and forth (WLD, Shackled City, etc.) or if they were actually well made.  Sadly most adventures fill neither of these requirements and sit on the shelf.  Even worse is that since they don't move they prevent retailers from stocking better adventures.  My FLGS still has stacks of 3.0 adventures that were designed by people that obviously didn't know 3.0  What can the FLGS do about these?  Why would they want more when they know adventures don't move?
Adventures don't have a problem with not selling.  Incompetent adventures have just ruined the market.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 19, 2005)

Munin said:
			
		

> Players don't buy books. DMs do.




I'm going to have to have a talk with my players then and tell them to all stop buying books.  Crap, I'm a player in a game as well, looks like I can't buy any more books either.  

Players buy books.  DMs buy books.  And some DMs and Players don't buy books.


----------



## Sunderstone (Oct 20, 2005)

Just to get it out of the way, I love adventures/modules/mini-settings and I buy alot of them regardless of setting. 
I think Treebore mentioned some DMs might be a tad "Lazy" with converting modules to suit their needs. I definately agree here with the exception of Eberron module conversions based on their unique "Final Fantasy-esque" flavor IMO (i.e. warforged, trains, etc).
Seeing Greyhawk, The Forgotten Realms, Freeport on the cover doesnt steer me clear of a module. I convert whatever needs changing, be it subtle (changing NPC names to suit a more FR feel) or larger scale (like replacing an FR lesser known city with the City of Freeport).

The main thing for me about a module is that *most of the work is done for me*, all I have to do is adapt it to our style or tie it in with my players specific characters and goals. As a long time DM (about 23+ years), I have made a lot of homebrew campaigns, and as each year comes I find I have less time to create my own adventures. I never run adventures as written word for word either, I love to alter them and weave subplots here and there that focus on each character , etc. I just dont have time to make anymore "Epics" of my own from scratch. 
So yes, Adventures would earn my money easily.

To also add to the Necromancer Wagon.... Yes. All their modules *are* that good. I own alot of them. Their product support is top notch, which is like icing on the cake.
The Crucible of Freya for instance, went alot farther than level 1-3 for my group. Using the Wizard's Amulet free prelude and some of the hooks in the downloadable enhancement, we made level 5 easily and found ourselves headed to the Vault of Larin Karr soon after.
My Necro Favorites are Crucible of Freya, Tomb of Abysthor, Vault of Larin Karr, and the Grey Citadel.

I do disagree about Dungeon having 2 sucky adventures out of 4, again this is in my opinion and your mileage may indeed vary. I think Dungeon has gotten better and better every year. 
Before 3E, I would by Dungeon here and there. Now, I cant wait to get the next issue. The Eberron adventures are pretty much the only ones that turn me off (again due to their unique "Final Fantasy" flavor). The Shackled City and Age of Worms have been outstanding, and *WOW* at Sean K. Reynolds recent "Lost Temple of Demogorgon" module.
Other gems like "Mellorn Hospitality" (Russel Brown, Dungeon #107), "Root of Evil" (Mike Mearls, Dungeon #122), "Mad God's Key" (Jason Bulmahn, Dungeon #114) etc. are excellent.
These alone are worth the price of admission. My biggest fear is that people realize that Dungeon is too good to be true and it falls apart (changes in the magazine direction etc).
I wish we could chain Erik Mona to his desk and allow his family visitation sessions . Every company should have an Erik Mona of their own.


----------



## Grimstaff (Oct 20, 2005)

As a DM, I cant really get my head around the opinion expressed by a few people that they would rather have more story in their purchased modules than dungeon (or, "I dont need the details on the Star of Death, I need a plot instead"). In my opinion, story is way to intimate to each group's campaign to be purchased out of a store. Each group has different characters, alignments, motives, backgrounds, etc. Personally, I would rather spend more time myself on coming up with a story that suits my group than drawing and filling a dungeon.

But that's just my opinion.  

As to the marketability of modules, as an innocent bystander, here are some interesting observations I've made:
1) When d20 was first released, tons of modules were released, from lots of companies.
2) d20 modules, btw, take a LONG time to play by and large. Two or three combats can fill up a good 4 hour session.
3) After about 18 months or so, modules stopped selling, or slowed to a trickle at least.
4) Here we are in 2005, and people are clamoring for modules again!

Am I crazy, or did it just take a long time for people to actually play all the modules they bought back when d20 got started? I mean, I talk to people who have been playing Rappan Athuk, Banewarrens, or RtToEE, for years!  (Not to mention WLD, you guys must all have 28 Constitutions!)

If you're looking for good, short, generic, adventures, Dungeon Crawl Classics from Goodman Games are probably what you're looking for, and Necromancer is having some similar deals distributed by Kenzer coming up very shortly that look like they'll be fun too.


----------



## Ed Cha (Oct 20, 2005)

I usually buy adventures for one of several reasons:

1. Inspiration, ideas
2. Good reading
3. Collecting

Rarely do I actually use them. But all that reading together has made me a better DM.


----------



## Turjan (Oct 20, 2005)

Grimstaff said:
			
		

> Am I crazy, or did it just take a long time for people to actually play all the modules they bought back when d20 got started? I mean, I talk to people who have been playing Rappan Athuk, Banewarrens, or RtToEE, for years!  (Not to mention WLD, you guys must all have 28 Constitutions!)



That's why I get very picky with new adventures. I noticed that I have lots of modules that I never played, plus a Dungeon abonnement. I'll probably never catch up with the stuff I already have .


----------



## grodog (Oct 20, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Help! It's grodog the Thread Necromancer!




This particular one seemed worth reanimating, Merric


----------



## Umbra (Oct 20, 2005)

AnthonyJ said:
			
		

> are designed for the wrong types of PCs.



And I would think that the plethora of Prestige Classes and other class variations and new spells and new feats would increase the chance of this.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 20, 2005)

grodog said:
			
		

> This particular one seemed worth reanimating, Merric




I quite agree - it's one of the best ENworld has had.

Cheers!


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Oct 20, 2005)

I agree that adventures in general need to be more generic.  I've bought several 1E AD&D modules on Ebay for conversion for that very reason (well, nostalgia figured in too).

I'd also buy more new "modules" if we got more bang for our buck.  If I could buy an adventure book and have perhaps 3 or 4 adventures between the covers then it would be worth the cost.  But then again, just get a subscription to Dungeon magazine and you get several adventures delivered to your home with every issue.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 20, 2005)

I'm not for generic adventure. The folks that do homebrew normally have the time to write their own adventures and know how to make them suit their setting.

As a DM that doesn't have time I find generic adventures dull and a series of them disjointed, with no story arc to the campaign. It's also a pain to link them together if one adventure is in a tropical forest and the next one you have of a suitable level happens to be set in a desert.

I think the adventures that are selling now, and stir the imagination are the 1st to 20th level campaign adventures. I've seen way more threads about World Largest Dungeon, Shackled City and Age of Worms than most adventures previously and before these 20 level adventure it was the bigger adventures that tended to attract more interest.

For the DM that has little time for planning a campaign handed to him in one go, saves him the trouble of routing around for generic adventures that seem to link together in some logical fashion.

I really think the campaign "saga" style adventure is going to be the future. It saves the DM loads of planning, saves him searching for the next suitable adventure. Yet it doesn't need to be generic or bland enough to link into any setting. It can have story archs that run the whole campaign. Everything under one roof.


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 20, 2005)

Grimstaff said:
			
		

> If you're looking for good, short, generic, adventures, Dungeon Crawl Classics from Goodman Games are probably what you're looking for, and Necromancer is having some similar deals distributed by Kenzer coming up very shortly that look like they'll be fun too.




I love the Dungeon Crawl Classics series. Madly and passionately. They should probably put a restraining order on me.

-The Gneech


----------



## arwink (Oct 20, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to have a talk with my players then and tell them to all stop buying books.  Crap, I'm a player in a game as well, looks like I can't buy any more books either.
> 
> Players buy books.  DMs buy books.  And some DMs and Players don't buy books.




More importantly, I've played in games where some of the players were also GM's. If someone picked up a cool sourcebook, there was fairly good odds that everyone would have it within a couple of months. If someone picked up a cool adventure, everyone else avoided it because they didn't want to step on the other guys toes.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Oct 20, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I quite agree - it's one of the best ENworld has had.




Oh most certainly!

Especially the part where I prognosticated the future of adventure development.  I mean, I don't want to derail the thread by talking about how super-intelligent I am, but ... damn!  I'm good!


----------



## grodog (Oct 23, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I quite agree - it's one of the best ENworld has had.




I concur   In particular, I'm interested in how folks think the industry has changed (if at all) from the 2002-2003 nadir, and why adventures seem to be making a comeback now.  Had the pendulum simply swung too far in the sourcebooks/splatbooks direction, or is there something more fundamental about adventures that was missing from the marketplace for a few years?


----------



## Turjan (Oct 24, 2005)

grodog said:
			
		

> I concur   In particular, I'm interested in how folks think the industry has changed (if at all) from the 2002-2003 nadir, and why adventures seem to be making a comeback now.  Had the pendulum simply swung too far in the sourcebooks/splatbooks direction, or is there something more fundamental about adventures that was missing from the marketplace for a few years?



I'm not sure whether we really experience a fundamental change regarding the demand for adventures at the moment, regardless what Charles Ryan said. I don't want to say that what he said is rubbish, because from WotC's point of view his assessment of the current situation was certainly true. The majority of the D&D players, those of the "WotC only" crowd, demand new adventures. WotC will try to fulfill this demand. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that no other company will be able to do the same.

During 2002/2003, we had lots of companies producing adventures. The sales went down, but suddenly nearly all of them decided to stop producing any adventures at all. For quite a while, only Necromancer was left. Goodman Games tried to fill that vacuum, and within their specific niche of old school adventures, they seem to see some success. With the reorganization of Dungeon, the competition from that side got very strong again. The adventure paths were a very good idea, and this is certainly where Dungeon's strength lies.

I'm not sure about Necromancer at the moment. I don't hear much buzz about their more recent offerings, it's the old adventures that get mentioned over and over again. Their concept of publishing generic adventures was really great for quite a while, but I suppose it should see some face-lifting in order to bring them back into public consciousness again. I'm not sure whether simply copying some competor's strategy will do the trick.

And here I see the dangers when some d20 companies now follow blindly the statement of WotC that there is some unfulfilled demand for generic adventures. I doubt this pretty much, except if we speak about original WotC adventures. Third party publishers should be very cautious here. Adventures are needed, sure. If you publish a new setting or OGL game, publish an adventure with it, even if that one won't sell that much, but it makes your setting come alive. Generic adventures? We still have enough of those each and every month, regardless what Charles Ryan was telling us .


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 24, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about Necromancer at the moment. I don't hear much buzz about their more recent offerings, it's the old adventures that get mentioned over and over again. Their concept of publishing generic adventures was really great for quite a while, but I suppose it should see some face-lifting in order to bring them back into public consciousness again. I'm not sure whether simply copying some competor's strategy will do the trick.




I went through a phase where I wasn't buying any adventures (beyond my Dungeon subscription).  I consider buying a few of Necromancer games more recent adventures, since all the ones I have of theirs have been good quality.  Unfortunately, the recent ones I've seen are all hardcover.  

While I admit I don't particularly like hardcover books, beyond core books, hardcover adventures really turn me off completely.  Barring something _huge_ like the World's Largest Dungeon, I see no reason to play the extra expense for something that will _at most_ be used once every few years.  Indeed, I think I would find the WLD to be more attractive if it was released in episodes, instead of one large hardback.  However, that's really it's hook, so I'll forgive it.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 24, 2005)

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> ...I appreciate the flexibility of the rules to make diverse monsters, but this half-dragon/half-golem/half-kraken/half-vampire 30th level Librarian/2nd level Blackguard junk has GOT to go...




Agreed. 

Endless crazy Vampire/half-Ogre/half-Black Dragon nonsense--while certainly impressive from a "Author's ability to use templates" point of view--goes along way toward making their products useless in my game.


----------



## Warbringer (Oct 25, 2005)

Is dungeon magazine successful? If so, why? Is there a solid demand for adventures?

I'd say yes, and yes.

So, why isn't dungeon comissioning "dungeons" that aren't just dungeons, but that follow a story arc? Not all of them, just some.

Also, why isn't paizo offering pdf downloads for all the the dungeons under their copywrite?

There is plenty of material out there, the issue seems to be distribution.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Oct 25, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Endless crazy Vampire/half-Ogre/half-Black Dragon nonsense--while certainly impressive from a "Author's ability to use templates" point of view--goes along way toward making their products useless in my game.




I don't get it.  Why?

You have the stat block, the monster is 100% cool with the SRD, it's going to be non-standard and therefore at least a small surprise to the players.  What's not to love?


----------



## Crothian (Oct 25, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> I don't get it.  Why?
> 
> You have the stat block, the monster is 100% cool with the SRD, it's going to be non-standard and therefore at least a small surprise to the players.  What's not to love?




Because the only reason its there ...is becasue the writer thought it'd be cool to place it there.  But in the cotxt of the module its just there, completely random and not making any sense.  There is little reason to do something complicated when something simple will do.  And just because the rules allow it is not a good reason in my mind to something.


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 25, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> You have the stat block, the monster is 100% cool with the SRD, it's going to be non-standard and therefore at least a small surprise to the players.  What's not to love?




Personally, they tend to bug me because many times it seems that they are what they are for entirely metagame reasons — something is a half-dragon psionic because "a half-dragon psionic would make an interesting stat block for the players to go up against." While that's a fair enough reason for a D&D encounter, it's not enough for me, and it's not really enough for my players. I tend to prefer enemies that make tremendous thematic sense within the context of the adventure.

I like surprising my PCs as much as the next guy, but I'm not fond of relying on randomness as the gimmick. And a lot of times, it doesn't matter if it's 100% cool with the SRD or not, a multi-templated "exotic" villain will feel pointless rather than plausible. I would rather see a classic archetype (the evil priest, the aristocratic vampire, etc.) with a distinct visual hook or personality foible than a "unique" stat block that relies entirely on surprise (the half-dragon bullywug samurai, the half-golem fiendish titanothere, whatever). I like templates when they're clearly a superior way to build a particular villainous character than a non-template build — but I don't think that a template is strong enough to be a character concept in and of itself.


----------



## Belen (Oct 25, 2005)

grodog said:
			
		

> This particular one seemed worth reanimating, Merric




Why, thank you, I rather enjoyed it at the time.


----------



## Belen (Oct 25, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I'm not sure whether we really experience a fundamental change regarding the demand for adventures at the moment, regardless what Charles Ryan said. I don't want to say that what he said is rubbish, because from WotC's point of view his assessment of the current situation was certainly true. The majority of the D&D players, those of the "WotC only" crowd, demand new adventures. WotC will try to fulfill this demand. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that no other company will be able to do the same.
> 
> During 2002/2003, we had lots of companies producing adventures. The sales went down, but suddenly nearly all of them decided to stop producing any adventures at all. For quite a while, only Necromancer was left. Goodman Games tried to fill that vacuum, and within their specific niche of old school adventures, they seem to see some success. With the reorganization of Dungeon, the competition from that side got very strong again. The adventure paths were a very good idea, and this is certainly where Dungeon's strength lies.
> 
> ...





I see it as a question of support.  Adventures support a line far beyond a slew of sourcebooks.  Adventures make material more accesible to new people and help attract new players.  Very few people are going to buy the core books and know how to run an adventure or roleplay without some help.

Also, adventures are cheaper.  People who are strapped for cash can pick them up and get new material for their games.

Too many companies are not supporting their lines.  Wizards woke up and realized that the support that had once existed for D&D has dried up and their is a need for them to promote and support the game.


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 25, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Too many companies are not supporting their lines.  Wizards woke up and realized that the support that had once existed for D&D has dried up and their is a need for them to promote and support the game.




Yup, this is one reason why I'm still running _D&D_ instead of _Conan_ -- every month Paizo sends me a magazine with three more ready-to-go (or close to it) _D&D_ adventures, whereas _Conan_ doesn't have a comparable resource.

Yes, adventures could be converted -- but let me emphasize the phrase "ready-to-go (or close to it)." I've barely got the time to _play_, much less go around converting stuff.

-The Gneech


----------



## Bardsandsages (Oct 25, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I see it as a question of support.  Adventures support a line far beyond a slew of sourcebooks.  Adventures make material more accesible to new people and help attract new players.  Very few people are going to buy the core books and know how to run an adventure or roleplay without some help.
> 
> Also, adventures are cheaper.  People who are strapped for cash can pick them up and get new material for their games.
> 
> Too many companies are not supporting their lines.  Wizards woke up and realized that the support that had once existed for D&D has dried up and their is a need for them to promote and support the game.




Well, some of us are trying   

The Neiyar campaign setting comes with a complete module included in the book.  At a few months ago we released a high-powered module because folks were saying they wanted something high-powered.  And right now we're actively soliciting feedback in the form of a survey  designed to help us determine where to go with the product line.  

But ultimately, publishers are going to produce what people buy, not what people say they want.  Because there seems to be a disconnect between what consumers say they want to buy and what they actually spend money on.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 25, 2005)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> So, why isn't dungeon comissioning "dungeons" that aren't just dungeons, but that follow a story arc? Not all of them, just some.




Have you bought Dungeon any time in the last two or three years? They're doing them. Oh boy, are they doing them.

* Shackled City Adventure Path
* Age of Worms Adventure Path (currently being published)

There are also a few miniseries they've done.



> Also, why isn't paizo offering pdf downloads for all the the dungeons under their copywrite?




They can only offer pdf downloads for those issues that have sold out, per their license with Wizards. At present, that's issues #112 and #113. Pre-Paizo issues have confused copyright issues, although I'm sure they want to upload them.

Cheers!


----------



## Turjan (Oct 25, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Too many companies are not supporting their lines.  Wizards woke up and realized that the support that had once existed for D&D has dried up and their is a need for them to promote and support the game.



If you look at my post, you will see that I said the same . I urged 3rd party companies to support their own settings and OGL games with adventures. I just don't see any sense in publishing generic adventures for WotC books; these are published by several companies at the moment, but they are obviously not accepted by the majority of the customers. This means that WotC have to do those themselves.


----------



## Warbringer (Oct 26, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Have you bought Dungeon any time in the last two or three years? They're doing them. Oh boy, are they doing them.
> 
> * Shackled City Adventure Path
> * Age of Worms Adventure Path (currently being published)
> ...




No I haven't. But I'm not a target audience for pre-written adventures.

It sounds like dungeon is doing the right thing. Maybe this is still the best vehicle for release, maybe Paizo should look at becoming a published for full modules. They have the freelancers, the artists and the distribution.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> They can only offer pdf downloads for those issues that have sold out, per their license with Wizards. At present, that's issues #112 and #113. Pre-Paizo issues have confused copyright issues, although I'm sure they want to upload them.
> 
> Cheers!




Ah, sloppy legal getting in the way of market demand. Sad.

Nice comments Merric. Thanks for the input.


----------



## Turjan (Oct 26, 2005)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> It sounds like dungeon is doing the right thing. Maybe this is still the best vehicle for release, maybe Paizo should look at becoming a published for full modules. They have the freelancers, the artists and the distribution.



Like this one ?


----------



## S'mon (Oct 28, 2005)

These days I buy adventures more than anything else.  I'm kinda sick of rules supplements.  Plus Necromancer put out a lot of good adventures that are easy to fit into my campaign.


----------



## Odhanan (Oct 28, 2005)

> Because the only reason its there ...is becasue the writer thought it'd be cool to place it there. But in the cotxt of the module its just there, completely random and not making any sense. There is little reason to do something complicated when something simple will do. And just because the rules allow it is not a good reason in my mind to something.




I'm not getting it either. Does the use of prestige classes and templates for a NPC mean automatically that it fits less than something simpler? That's bull. It depends on the circumstances, the adventure, the particular character and so on. If my villain is a half-dragon blackguard, using a human ex-paladin doesn't make it better, it makes it more approximate as opposed to precise rendering.



> So, why isn't dungeon comissioning "dungeons" that aren't just dungeons, but that follow a story arc? Not all of them, just some.




 This is such a countersense! Dungeon does exactly that!


----------



## Crothian (Oct 28, 2005)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I'm not getting it either. Does the use of prestige classes and templates for a NPC mean automatically that it fits less than something simpler? That's bull. It depends on the circumstances, the adventure, the particular character and so on. If my villain is a half-dragon blackguard, using a human ex-paladin doesn't make it better, it makes it more approximate as opposed to precise rendering.




There are exceptions that it works, but I'm saying most of the time it doesn't.  If the writer wants to make it fit they can.  It does depend on the adventure and the circumstance, but more often then not in adventures I read it does not seem to fit.


----------



## Odhanan (Oct 28, 2005)

If it doesn't fit, I see it as bad adventure design rather than a fault from the use of templates/PrCs in themselves. In other words, there's nothing wrong with using multiclass templated stuff as long as it fits, right?


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Oct 30, 2005)

Storminator said:
			
		

> On the other hand, about a year ago I started a pretty good thread about the "classic" modules of 3e (perhaps some Community Supporter can search for it...), and that thread convinced me to send a group of newbies thru Sunless Citadel.



Here you go:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=21189


----------



## runtime (Nov 1, 2005)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> I love the Dungeon Crawl Classics series. Madly and passionately. They should probably put a restraining order on me.




I agree. Goodman's Dungeon Crawl games are fun and easy to drop into a bigger campaign. But imagine for a moment, if you will, if Goodman Games produced a 96-page "Dungeon Crawl" campaign setting/module book?!


----------

