Third Party: If So, Then What?

It is entirely possible to write hundreds of adventures with no implied setting. I just say that doing so would be (potentially) boring, that it would be hard to differentiate them in the market.

There's also the option of taking stuff from modules from older editions (or even other rpgs), and "retrofitting" them into the ruleset of the present edition.

The point is that 3pps are not flocking to 4e and writing a lot of adventures. Why? Ultimately they've decided to either do something more appealing (where appealing could range from monetarily more valuable to intellectually more valuable) or do nothing at all. Writing 4e adventures puts has restrictions that other RPG writing does not have. Apparently these restrictions are significant enough to impact the number of adventures being written for 4e.

If this assertion is true, I wonder if WotC ever anticipated things falling into this state of affairs so soon, where even writing 4E adventure modules is considered "undesirable" by some 3PP companies.

With the way the 4E 3PP market has become already, it looks like Goodman Games may very well become this generation's "Judges Guild".
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

If this assertion is true, I wonder if WotC ever anticipated things falling into this state of affairs so soon, where even writing 4E adventure modules is considered "undesirable" by some 3PP companies

I don't think WotC cares one way or the other. They decided that it would be too expensive for WotC to churn out a lot of adventures so rather than cut off the OGL completely, they baleful polymorphed it into the GSL and hoped someone might take up the slack.

Okay, I don't really mean to qualify it that way. I just wanted to use baleful poymorph in a sentence. Seriously....

WotC didn't want a Mutants and Masterminds-style 4e clone to become the next breakthrough product for the next Green Ronin clone. So they crafted the GSL to make innovation IMPOSSIBLE. Let me rephrase that: The GSL is DESIGNED to make INNOVATION impossible.

Creative types wilt when their ability to innovate is squelched. So all these limitations on what you can do result in an unsatisfying environment for 3pp 4e designers. There are exceptions. There are always exceptions. But the way the world works I would expect that after then galaxy loads of folks who attempted to be 3pps during 3e that the number would be even bigger during 4e. It is not. It is smaller. There is something keeping people from scratching their RPG design itch with the 4e GSL. And that is because it is designed to keep out the innovators who would make the actual D&D books unnecessary.

I hope you enjoyed the yarn I've just spun. Let me repeat my main point though: WotC doesn't care if 3pps ever make another adventure.
 

A site like EN World has a huge amount of 4E support and barely 150 people (out of a needed 1000) have signed up to spend a measly $3/month (and there's no real telling if that's all 4E resource users). Honestly, I think the whole 3PP community has to reinvent itself completely separate from 4E if it wants to flourish (not just even survive, which is in question). As to EN World, it would appear that it will either close its doors at the end of the year or need to move away from depending on (reporting on? supporting at all?) 4E, as well, and find a way to garner support from a segment of the community that is willing to step up and pay for the resource of having her around.
Frankly I think the opposite is true. I think the negativity and drama coming from people who hate 4e is driving people away and making them less likely to contribute to the broader comunity. Blaming 4e for enworld's problems is an example of the negativity i'm talking about.
 

Couldn't one just create a whole entire new island, continent, or planet, to accommodate an overly large kingdom or nation state?
Yes, you could, easily. So you could say that the grand duchy of blarg survived the fall of nerath but it's in some distant province and here's an adventure in it- maybe some people won't like your adventure, but it's not the huge barrier people are claiming.

The more detail you add to a forest, the more likely it contains elements that don't mesh with the forests the party has already encountered. The DM can't drop a new forest into an existing campaign willy-nilly. If his forests are bugbear infested your adventure with formians controlling vast forest areas will be out of place.
This is absurd. You can have a forest with different stuff in it than other forests. Unless you are playing in Forestia Homogenous: the Land of lots of Identical Forests you're never really going to have this problem.

You're talking about a level of setting-obsession that is well and truly beyond how most people run their games.

You missed the point of this sentence. In the front of the sentence you said you don't need a whole new setting to make your adventures diverse. In the end of the sentence you suggest that creating a mini-setting helps with diversity. This was a WTF moment for me. Which is it? Make a setting or don't make a setting?
There's no contradiction here. Every adventure has a setting. It's just a smaller setting than the one provided in a world book. And an adventure's small setting can be dropped into a larger world with a minimum of fuss in the majority of cases.

Also, please don't take my stance as an absolute. I get the sense that you feel I think it is impossible not to create a whole setting in order to create an adventure. That's obviously false. It is entirely possible to write hundreds of adventures with no implied setting. I just say that doing so would be (potentially) boring, that it would be hard to differentiate them in the market.
And as i've said, this isn't true, because you can make distinctive unique settings without colliding with the world in some bizarre way.

The point is that 3pps are not flocking to 4e and writing a lot of adventures. Why? Ultimately they've decided to either do something more appealing (where appealing could range from monetarily more valuable to intellectually more valuable) or do nothing at all. Writing 4e adventures puts has restrictions that other RPG writing does not have. Apparently these restrictions are significant enough to impact the number of adventures being written for 4e.
That's not true. The restrictions you describe are trivial at best. Settings don't work like that; and the average DM can integrate most adventures into their settings just fine.
 

I've repeatedly said that I think your opinion is wrong. And I think it's fair to say that you're exagerating a minor issue, or rather, an issue that all products face. ... I am not saying that it is unlimited, and by suggesting that you are being deliberatly obtuse.

How about you stop casting detect thoughts and assume for a second I am posting in good faith.

When you originally used the term 'limited' you most certainly did not mean it as 'not unlimited'. You meant that there was only a small degree of fluff a writer could create, as indicated by your broader argument. This assertion is false.

Tis not.

You can write plenty of fluff for an adventure without running into the problem that you described, to the point where the problem you described is a minor issue at best, or more accuratly, the issue of adapting modules is ever-present and no more problematic for 3pp creators than other creators.

I know that from the first glimpses of 4e, I realized it would be practically impossible to convert my existing campaign. The span from one 3e setting to another is, in many cases, far less than from 3e FR to 4e FR. Virtually very monster, spell, or character class has a close analog between all editions from OD&D through 3.5 and Pathfinder. When we get to 4e, the ground rules change substantially.

Let's use a quick example. Assume for a moment you want to include a magical elven city. One possible adventure scenario involves rescuing a half-orc from a jail cell. Now, the first thing that might occur to you is that in 4e, elves are nature types who uses bows, not arcane casters. Now, you could make your elves different, but the resulting NPCs would be a little off. So you make them eladrin. Now, looking at the jail, you notice you have a different problem. Jails for eladrin have to have sustantial pits and barriers to keep eladrin from teleporting out. Your half-orcs needs a new backstory, since half-orcs in 4e are not strictly half-breeds, or not assumed to be. Finally, the jailbreak has to be reconceived, replacing a series of barriers and locks, representing a freeform obstacle, with a proper skill challenge.

4e is a different game set in a different world than previous D&Ds.

So let's come back to the matter at hand. So you decide to create your Eladrin city. Now, FR is already home to a number of settlements, so you can either design an alternative or decide your creation largely replaces some existing city. Eberron is going to look a little different. Because the religions of Eberron (religious mystery) versus FR (gods everywhere) are rather different, you have to make the religious aspects of the city somewhat modular.

So you decide to forget the city and just focus on the jail. You write a brief summary of what kind of city this is, which means it's easy to drop into an existing setting or to handwave, and you focus on the adventure at hand. Since we have a half-orc in an Eladrin jail, we skim the maps of Eberron and FR and make sure that's vaguely plausible.

We write up some NPCs, keeping any clerics purposefully vague as to their activities, we draw a physical design for the jail and we write up the half-orc and the jailers. The result is not a module so much as a scene.

This is why I GMd for years, honed my skills at adventure writing, and learned a game system inside and out, to write a scene? My 3pp product, originally envisioned as a city trek with a daring jailbreak, has been reduced to the equivalent of filler for Dungeon.

It certainly is POSSIBLE to do more than this, but is it enticing? Is it practical? Is it rewarding? Is it lucrative? Is it anything, in short, other than mostly frustrating?
 
Last edited:

How about you stop casting detect thoughts and assume for a second I am posting in good faith.
So what you were saying was that the potential for innovation is non-infinite? Well golly, that's a very important point i'm glad you made it, I hope you see your way clear to asserting the non-infinite nature of the other issues under discussion.

I know that from the first glimpses of 4e, I realized it would be practically impossible to convert my existing campaign. The span from one 3e setting to another is, in many cases, far less than from 3e FR to 4e FR. Virtually very monster, spell, or character class has a close analog between all editions from OD&D through 3.5 and Pathfinder. When we get to 4e, the ground rules change substantially.
This has very little to do with making 4e modules for 4e games using 4e settings. I'm sorry, I think when i said adaptation you thought i meant across editions; i'm talking about a given DM adapting a module to the setting they play in.

So let's come back to the matter at hand. So you decide to create your Eladrin city. Now, FR is already home to a number of settlements, so you can either design an alternative or decide your creation largely replaces some existing city. Eberron is going to look a little different. Because the religions of Eberron (religious mystery) versus FR (gods everywhere) are rather different, you have to make the religious aspects of the city somewhat modular.
You can still have a temple either way.

So you decide to forget the city and just focus on the jail. You write a brief summary of what kind of city this is, which means it's easy to drop into an existing setting or to handwave, and you focus on the adventure at hand. Since we have a half-orc in an Eladrin jail, we skim the maps of Eberron and FR and make sure that's vaguely plausible.

We write up some NPCs, keeping any clerics purposefully vague as to their activities, we draw a physical design for the jail and we write up the half-orc and the jailers. The result is not a module so much as a scene.

This is why I GMd for years, honed my skills at adventure writing, and learned a game system inside and out, to write a scene? My 3pp product, originally envisioned as a city trek with a daring jailbreak, has been reduced to the equivalent of filler for Dungeon.
Only if we follow your guidelines, and frankly they're spurious. You can put plenty of stuff in, even if the temple has to be a bit ambiguous (and you're drawing a long bow there). You can detail the city, the thieves guild, you can make the half orc an outcast halfbreed if you like. You can detail the jail, and make the eladrin qualities part of the fun.

You can do plenty, if you're intending to create a solid, versatile 4e module. If you're intending to pretend that can't be done. . .not so much.

It certainly is POSSIBLE to do more than this, but is it enticing? Is it practical? Is it rewarding? Is it lucrative? Is it anything, in short, other than mostly frustrating?
Yes it is, because your argument is simply not sound. Once again you're presenting a scenario designed to support your argument, but everybody here knows you don't have to forgo descirbing the city in order to drop it into the forogtten realms.
 

So what you were saying was that the potential for innovation is non-infinite? Well golly, that's a very important point i'm glad you made it, I hope you see your way clear to asserting the non-infinite nature of the other issues under discussion.

You seem to be saying that just because creative freedom exists, design constraints are of no concern. If so, you are wrong. I struggle to find some other reading.

I can't see much to respond to in your post. You are welcome to test your ideas in the publishing arena. I would discourage someone from havin unrealistic expectations, but I would never tell someone they cannot try.
 

Frankly I think the opposite is true. I think the negativity and drama coming from people who hate 4e is driving people away and making them less likely to contribute to the broader comunity. Blaming 4e for enworld's problems is an example of the negativity i'm talking about.


You seem to be relatively new here but the proof appears to be in the numbers. All I know is what dominates the news and threads as compared to wha used to do so, alongside the turn out of the recent appeal to the community. It's apparently not footing the bill. Of course, I see an opportunity for you to step up, so feel free to walk the walk along with the talk.
 

Frankly I think the opposite is true. I think the negativity and drama coming from people who hate 4e is driving people away and making them less likely to contribute to the broader comunity. Blaming 4e for enworld's problems is an example of the negativity i'm talking about.
Breaking News: Wet streets found to cause rain.
 

So they crafted the GSL to make innovation IMPOSSIBLE. Let me rephrase that: The GSL is DESIGNED to make INNOVATION impossible.

The GSL and 4E marketing plans may very well be the sum total result of lessons learned by WotC over the last 30+ years:

1E/2E (A)D&D TSR era
- don't bother cranking out too many modules
- don't bother cranking out too many settings

3E/3.5E D&D WotC era
- don't give away the house so easily
- don't let somebody else flood the market with tons of 3PP "crunch heavy" splatbooks (ie. Mongoose, Fantasy Flight, etc ...)
- don't bother cranking out too many setting specific splatbooks and modules
 

Remove ads

Top