Pathfinder 1E This is why pathfinder has been successful.

[Dausuul]

Here's the thing: Wizards sucks at adventures. Once in a while they turn out a gem like "Red Hand of Doom," but most of their stuff is crap. They would be fools to stake their corporate existence on their adventure-writing talent, because for the most part they ain't got it.

What Wizards is good at is game design. So that's what they do, to the tune of something like $100 million. As a side project, they devote a bit of that game design talent to D&D. (Always worth remembering that where WotC as a whole is concerned, RPGs are a sideline. The vast majority of their income flows from their cardboard crack empire.)

Wizards made many mistakes with 4E, but insufficient focus on adventures was not among them. Considering the quality of the early 4E adventures, it was one of the best decisions they made.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Here's the thing: Wizards sucks at adventures. Once in a while they turn out a gem like "Red Hand of Doom," but most of their stuff is crap. They would be fools to stake their corporate existence on their adventure-writing talent, because for the most part they ain't got it.

What Wizards is good at is game design. So that's what they do, to the tune of something like $100 million. As a side project, they devote a bit of that game design talent to D&D. (Always worth remembering that where WotC as a whole is concerned, RPGs are a sideline. The vast majority of their income flows from their cardboard crack empire.)

Wizards made many mistakes with 4E, but insufficient focus on adventures was not among them. Considering the quality of the early 4E adventures, it was one of the best decisions they made.

Yeah, I have had to explain, now and again, that my saying that WotC adventures suck isn't edition warring - they sucked during 3.X too....

I think that rather than trying to make a good adventure what they are trying to do is sell adventures. Don't offend anyone, they might not buy it. Don't make it too challenging, people hate to lose. Hey, I know! Let's put the adventure in a players' book! That way we can sell it to more people! We have a new Monster Manual coming out, let's substitute some of the old monsters with new ones, even though the old ones made more sense! Hey, that's funny, people aren't buying our adventures....

I think they have to ask themselves 'is this an adventure that I'd like to play?' Not 'did we get three hits off of our 'must include' list in the first chapter?'

The Auld Grump, feeling grumpier than usual....

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Does WotC have anybody left that is good at writing adventures? Baker had some, I remember, but he is gone now. Monte has done a bunch too, and he has come back, but I think that he is focusing on rules and their presentation now.

Mearls is more of a rules man (I liked his D20 material quite a bit).

Anyone else?

The Auld Grump

 

[Saint Mac]

I think some of the PF APs are b*llsy. When I look at the Council of Theives, I think that was gutsy. I mean, The Sixfold Trial was not something I think everyone would dig. "What? I have to act?"

Paizo could have done a lay-up encounter and still sold books without taking the chance of being beat-up on the forums.

So I think that's something worth saying since the thread is 'Why pathfinder has be so successful'. Can you separate AP from PF, sure, but I bet those APs are the reason more than a few play PF.


IM (awesome but) H0

 

[Saint Mac]

Does WotC have anybody left that is good at writing adventures? Baker had some, I remember, but he is gone now. Monte has done a bunch too, and he has come back, but I think that he is focusing on rules and their presentation now.

Mearls is more of a rules man (I liked his D20 material quite a bit).

Anyone else?

The Auld Grump

Not sure....there are so many freelance or contract writers anymore (which is good) that I really only know of the ones you've already mentioned. Guess you could throw Mona and Bulmahn in there (not sure if they aren't too far up the ladder to do much writing)

 

[Banshee16]

In a world of magic a low magic army that can't deal with a flying wizard is useless and thus wouldn't exist. In these worlds they have been fighting wars with magic for thousands of years. Both sides would have magic and anti magic capabilities.

The Malazan Books of the Fallen series is an excellent example of a D&D style setting, showing how the characters and societies would deal with the fact that mages exist. They're considered vital units in an army and can help turn the tide of battle......but the regular soldiers arealso important. The mages are kind of Shock and Awe but the regular soldiers are still the backbone ofthe army.

Banshee

 

[Jhaelen]

Does WotC have anybody left that is good at writing adventures? Baker had some, I remember, but he is gone now. Monte has done a bunch too, and he has come back, but I think that he is focusing on rules and their presentation now.

Chris Perkins?

 

[Desdichado]

Does WotC have anybody left that is good at writing adventures? Baker had some, I remember, but he is gone now. Monte has done a bunch too, and he has come back, but I think that he is focusing on rules and their presentation now.

Mearls is more of a rules man (I liked his D20 material quite a bit).

Anyone else?

Does Paizo? Most of their adventures are written by freelancers. What's stopping WotC from hiring those same freelancers to write adventures?

 

[BryonD]

Does Paizo? Most of their adventures are written by freelancers. What's stopping WotC from hiring those same freelancers to write adventures?

That is a good point on the authors. But I don't think you can over rate the value of having the likes of Jacobs and Mona providing creative direction.

 

[Twowolves]

Here's the thing: Wizards sucks at adventures. Once in a while they turn out a gem like "Red Hand of Doom," but most of their stuff is crap.

LoL, who was co-author of RHoD?

Where is he now?