Publishing modules that don't slot into existing campaigns

[Gimby]

I've recently been working on converting a short home campaign into a module that I could publish and I and a co-author were having a discussion on whether it's worth adjusting it somewhat to expand the potential audience.

It's set in a pastiche regency world, focussing on the voyage of a naval survey ship to a mysterious island. For various reasons, it's important that certain things are true - guns have supplanted bows, dragons are extinct and the list of ancestries is limited. Essentially, it's a mini homebrew setting intending to evoke Hornblower, Sharpe, Master and Commander and so on.

While this is being written mostly for our own enjoyment it was suggested that the limitations of the setting would be off-putting, partially from limiting character options and partially from not making it something that would slot into existing campaigns easily.

The question to the floor is then how far a module author go in limiting things to their original vision versus allowing more options (which may bring a whole new slew of options the original author hadn't thought of) and also how many people would be interested in module that is inherently standalone?

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I'd say make the module that you are excited about, especially if it's your first time publishing anything. It's more work that most people expect, so being excited about will help see you through to the end.

There will be some people turned off by the limits, but they can also help you stand out from the thousands of other generic fantasy products. Also remember that GMs are free to do with your book whatever they want. If they like it but don't want to limit ancestries, they can just decide not to limit ancestries.

 

[Riley]

I agree with Matthew above. I’m also wondering if the unique things you’ve outlined above even need to be adjusted much for a general 5e audience?

- Absence of dragons: Lots of adventures (maybe even most) have no dragons in them.

- Absence of ancestries: Again, many adventures and locales only feature a small number of these. Would the presence of a PC with one you don’t use somehow undermine the adventure for that table?

- Guns not bows: Are you using standard 5e firearms? That should be fine. Maybe make a sidebar suggesting substituting crossbows and ballistae, and/or suggesting altered combat strategies (say, ramming instead of cannon fire) if the plot hinges on the nature of the armaments?

Godspeed!

 

[Umbran]

The question to the floor is then how far a module author go in limiting things to their original vision versus allowing more options (which may bring a whole new slew of options the original author hadn't thought of) and also how many people would be interested in module that is inherently standalone?

Well, it isn't like there's anything improper about having limits.

On the other hand, I don't know how much appetite there is out there for short stand-alone one-shots. At least, if I buy a shorter work, it is for the purpose of fitting it into what I'm already doing.

So, the real questions are entirely practical - how much to the adventure's restrictions limit the potential audience?

I can imagine a couple of ways to improve applicability:
1) Make it long. An adventure that takes you though an entire tier of play probably would probably get more interest.
2) Make it a basis for future play, an introduction into the world in question, designed to give the GM lots of places from which they can carry forward on their own.

 

[Zaukrie]

Make something you love. You aren't going to make real money either way. So do what you love and share the love.

 

[Zaukrie]

Also, Matthew has been publishing for a long time, listen to him.

 

[Gimby]

I agree with Matthew above. I’m also wondering if the unique things you’ve outlined above even need to be adjusted much for a general 5e audience?

- Absence of dragons: Lots of adventures (maybe even most) have no dragons in them.

- Absence of ancestries: Again, many adventures and locales only feature a small number of these. Would the presence of a PC with one you don’t use somehow undermine the adventure for that table?

- Guns not bows: Are you using standard 5e firearms? That should be fine. Maybe make a sidebar suggesting substituting crossbows and ballistae, and/or suggesting altered combat strategies (say, ramming instead of cannon fire) if the plot hinges on the nature of the armaments?

Godspeed!

For the first two the adventure is about things being found on the island that are known to not exist, the latter is largely using the 5e firearms rules but also allowing the PCs to track gunpowder armed opponents by sound. It's all things that could be changed, but it's additional work that I'd probably want to do last.

Well, it isn't like there's anything improper about having limits.

On the other hand, I don't know how much appetite there is out there for short stand-alone one-shots. At least, if I buy a shorter work, it is for the purpose of fitting it into what I'm already doing.

So, the real questions are entirely practical - how much to the adventure's restrictions limit the potential audience?

I can imagine a couple of ways to improve applicability:
1) Make it long. An adventure that takes you though an entire tier of play probably would probably get more interest.
2) Make it a basis for future play, an introduction into the world in question, designed to give the GM lots of places from which they can carry forward on their own.

Those are good points - it ran levels 1-5 on the first run through and is probably running 1-7 on the re-run. The world itself is nothing special (just a regency Europe analogue)

 

[Zaukrie]

I kind of want to play a fantasy adventure with guns ...

 

[Gimby]

I'd say make the module that you are excited about, especially if it's your first time publishing anything. It's more work that most people expect, so being excited about will help see you through to the end.

There will be some people turned off by the limits, but they can also help you stand out from the thousands of other generic fantasy products. Also remember that GMs are free to do with your book whatever they want. If they like it but don't want to limit ancestries, they can just decide not to limit ancestries.

That's a very good point - expanding rough campaign notes to a module someone else could use is looking pretty daunting so best to keep things to a relative minimum to start.

 

[the Jester]

This is a perfect opportunity to use sidebars. Write the adventure how you like and then add in sidebars discussing the implications of your limitations and what the implications and consequences of discarding them are.

That said, I agree with the "how does this matter to the adventure at hand?" approach. You don't need to say "there are no dragons" if it doesn't have any effect on the adventure.