WotC's lack of adventures--a solution?

[Khur]

I noticed again, while lurking on WotC boards panning Eberron before it's even out, that many seem frustrated with the lack of setting-specific adventures for core settings. I realize that WotC doesn't really do adventures, wanting to leave that less profitable part of the business to others. I can't fault the big-business mindset of producing that which will sell to the widest audience. Players are the widest audience, and all DMs are players. That's not the point....

I was wondering, though, why Wizards doesn't open up its core settings for third-party development, at least insofar as mere adventure books? Can anyone tell me why this wouldn't work? They could make a special license not unlike the one for Arcana Unearthed and maybe even a simple review process like Green Ronin's M&M Superlink. That way they could have some modicum of control, but still have adventure modules supporting their products. A special logo, not unlike the d20 one, could be used for each product line. They could even charge licensing fees.

I think some of the great companies out there could expand existing D&D universes in ways that WotC can't. Further, the desire for setting-specific adventures seems to be an untapped market, especially for publishers that can make money on small print runs. Small, cheap, and quality adventures based on Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Eberron could at least be a good income supplement for everyone involved. Am I wrong? If so, why?

Forgive my ignorance in this vein, especially if this subject has been brought up before.

Thanks for reading!

 

[Cergorach]

Reason: Control

They released a series to get you from 1st to 20th and a mega adventure a year. Anything more and it wouldn't be profitable, there's also Dungeon every month and the web adventures. Besides, most people tend to use their own adventures or if really desperate, D20 adventures (no offense to any D20 publishers).

 

[Eosin the Red]

Just some personal thoughts from the peanut gallery;

1. Non-WotC parties would set the tone, tenor, and events for their core gaming product.

2. Conceptual conflicts....I think it would be cool to hint that Elminster has some deviant habits with addictive substances.....WotC does not like that and says no. The plot hook for the module (drugs) is essential to the adventure so it has to be re-written from the ground up. Who eats the cost of conceptual differences?

3. WotC would need to ingest the data for "official" history. What do you mean that there is a castle in this area that is not on any official WotC documents!! Don't you remember in "Flying High adventures volume 12," they mentioned that an arch-fiend had taken up residence here.

4. Additional staff needed to read and approve of 3rd party stuff.

5. Intellectual conflict....Say Ed Greenwood starts writing adventures then they cut them off. Ed continues to publish adventures in the series, 3rd party stuff just like before, but he carefully changes a few names. This is "Deepharbor, a city on the ax coast that has a population of more than a million. Today it faces its greatest peril." They have effectivly given 3rd parties a foot in the door so to speak.

 

[Nightfall]

Probably because they want to keep everything to themselves.

 

[Mark]

3. WotC would need to ingest the data for "official" history.

This seems most likely to me, and the downside being that some of the fanbase would dislike the idea that the direction things were taking wasn't compatible with their own ideas.

 

[Treebore]

My answer is that any module is setting specific, ie whichever setting i want it to fit into. I don't need WOTC or anyone else to tell me how to do that.

The only real difference between settings is usually names. Sometimes races, climate, etc... But the setting of the module can usually be found or created in any camapign world, or the module can be changed to fit wherever the DM wants it to.

By the time I am done reading a module I know exactly how I am going to fit it into the campaign world I am using.

I am currently building a campaign world that will houses several specific modules. This is the first time I have had to really think about how to "piece" these modules together, but this is because the campaign world is totally new to me as well. Actually, the first time i have used it in over 10 years, so my memory has gotten out of date and needs to be updated a bit more.

 

[Darrin Drader]

My answer is that any module is setting specific, ie whichever setting i want it to fit into.

I completely agree. Necromancer Games has created a number of modules that are completely generic, aside from aknowleging the existence of a certain demon prince. In fact, the most successful 3rd party modules have been generic enough that they can easily be dropped into the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, or virtually any other published world. Dungeon magazine often doesn't even specify which setting most adventures are for anymore.

 

[Nightfall]

I have to agree with Darrin. Generic modules are really the way to go. If people want to see setting modules, only expect it from those d20 companies that have settings already.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, funny, but in general the only adventures I buy are ones that give a 'feel' for the game world, whether or not I am planning on using the adventure itself. A good adventure can sometimes convey more about what the world is all about than any number of supplements.

The exceptions to this rule were several of the adventures by Monkey God - I got Edge of Dreams because it was free with another purchase at my FLGS. I then special ordered a few others because I was so pleased both the layout and the quality and plot of the adventure itself.

The Auld Grump

 

[Khur]

Good points!

Thanks for chiming in so far everyone. I wanted to add some things to what's been said. All of your opinions are interesting and valuable for thinking through this subject. That's true even if it is an academic point.

1. Non-WotC parties would set the tone, tenor, and events for their core gaming product.

2. Conceptual conflicts....I think it would be cool to hint that Elminster has some deviant habits with addictive substances.....WotC does not like that and says no. The plot hook for the module (drugs) is essential to the adventure so it has to be re-written from the ground up. Who eats the cost of conceptual differences?

3. WotC would need to ingest the data for "official" history. What do you mean that there is a castle in this area that is not on any official WotC documents!! Don't you remember in "Flying High adventures volume 12," they mentioned that an arch-fiend had taken up residence here.

4. Additional staff needed to read and approve of 3rd party stuff.

5. Intellectual conflict....Say Ed Greenwood starts writing adventures then they cut them off. Ed continues to publish adventures in the series, 3rd party stuff just like before, but he carefully changes a few names.

Okay, I'd have to say that issues 1-3 can be taken care of easily. How? The rules set forth before any license is granted can define how the setting is to be used and defined. I think I can safely say that issues 1 and 2 can be controlled (in the case of tone-setting) and/or eliminated (no messing with iconic characters, no world altering events, and so forth). One way is requiring a concept submission before development. Another is warning the public that the material is oriented towards a specific setting, but is not "official"—it's discretionary material for your specific campaign. None of this is difficult.

Issue 3 seems tricky, but I think that WotC need not be responsible for the "history" of specific campaign worlds. Third-party modules, once again, need be no more "official" than generic ones. Someone who has been playing in FR for years may already have changes to the game world that aren't in official material. As a DM, you work with your world, just like others have said in this forum. What I mean by this is that DM X may use Flying High Adventures Vol. 12, while DM Z doesn't. Their worlds are fundamentally different at that level. The thing is materials published for Forgotten Realms (area books) allow for a lot of customization anyway. Little harm would be done by adding "semi-official" adventures to the mix.

One might say that if the third-party adventures can't change the overall tone of WotC's world, why bother setting them in that world? The answers are manifold. Adventures can change the overall tone and specific physical aspects of a specific DM's specific version of the "official" game world. There's no problem, because the same thing happens when a specific DM uses his or her own stuff or third-party generic stuff. The specific world is altered to contain that "non-official" material. The fact that the material in the adventure is already engineered to fit into the official world is valuable to those who want such things, and does little harm to those who would be willing to tinker with the module anyway. In my humble and limited experience, there's really no problem with allowing an adventure that sculpts an iconic character as different from the "official" take. That version of the character exists only in the specific worlds in which the adventure takes place. Persons who don't like the idea of a drug-addled Elminster won't use the adventure, but persons who do...

Issue 4 can be taken care of in a few ways. First, limit who can gain the license (a potentially contentious legal matter). Second, give a good amount of lead-time and warn publishers approval may take a while, which is a reasonable thing. Finally, if the first and second steps are done properly a single staff member could handle it. Heck, an intern could handle it if the rules were clear enough and reasonable (that is, didn't bother with too much control).

Issue 5 is really a non-issue, because this sort of thing already happens. Clever writers can hint at locations in trademarked worlds, and smart DMs pick up on those hints right away. There's nothing anyone can do about it either. I'd say there's little harm in it, and it's one of the reasons why....

...any module is setting specific, ie whichever setting i want it to fit into. I don't need WOTC or anyone else to tell me how to do that.

While it's true that most modules can be adapted to most campaign worlds, unfortunately, this isn't the point. The point is primarily that an adventure with a Forgotten Realms Compatible logo on it, from a reputable publisher, will outsell any generic adventure and probably by a huge margin. Anything that lessens a DM's workload will sell better than those that don't. Secondarily, setting-specific mechanical material (character statistics, monsters, and etc.) are great to have, instead of having to create them all from the "generic" ones in a generic adventure. Which brings us to....

Necromancer Games has created a number of modules that are completely generic, aside from aknowleging the existence of a certain demon prince. In fact, the most successful 3rd party modules have been generic enough that they can easily be dropped into the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, or virtually any other published world.

Every Necromancer Games module I've read has specific gods and a specific tone (dungeon crawl). While this is fine, it still doesn't dissipate the theories that setting-specific adventures would make money for those who can produce them and provide setting material for specific DMs to use in their worlds. Additionally, your statement (and Treebore's) doesn't really address the actual situation, which is that people seem to want setting-specific material. Why do they? Well....

*snip* A good adventure can sometimes convey more about what the world is all about than any number of supplements.

I'd reiterate that if the villain in a story is already a Red Wizard of Thay, and a DM doesn't have to rework the character and come up with motivations that makes sense for Forgotten Realms, the module's already better. Even if the material doesn't add to the canon of Open Gaming Content, small sections explaining character abilities or conversions to more generic terms would serve to make such an adventure as generic as it needs to be.

At the risk of creating a tangential argument in my own thread, this is also why there's really no reason for WotC to put a leash on mentioning books other than the core rules in third-party material. It's also why more stuff should be open. If a company could at least cite Darrin's Book of Exalted Deeds in other works, it would help sales of that book. If conceptual information (like the idea of the Exalted or Vile feat) was added to the canon of OGC, especially if it was with a rule where the third-party had to mention Book of Exalted Deeds when publishing new exalted game mechanics, that would also sell more books.

I'd be so bold as to suggest that "semi-official" modules would sell better to those who favor generic adventures too. This is especially true if the rules for crafting third-party adventures in WotC worlds were crafted carefully themselves. I think WotC could handle that. More support for core game worlds in this form would translate into more demand for WotC's core books and supplements.

It makes me wonder why more people haven't put out d20 Modern adventures. The setting there is, well, Earth.

Thanks again everyone. Let's keep talking.