Modules, it turns out, apparently DO sell

[Celebrim]

In my opinion, the King is dead, long live the King. I've talked to several 4e players in my area, and most of them love the system but admit that they aren't having alot of fun because the published adventures are weak or the DM running the game isn't as skilled as the one who stayed with some other system. This will ultimately kill WotC if they don't do something about it. They IMO have to hire top quality talent to write their adventures. Reading a 4e adventure compared to what Paizo has put out reads like comparing a kid's work to mature designer. I'd buy 4e adventures solely to convert them if the story was good enough.

Seriously, it has always been my opinion that the #1 reason for the success of D&D relative to other RPG product lines was modules. As a guy who runs games, I love to see a small core line of rule books and a shelf brimming with adventures. That's the system for me. In my opinion, quality GM aids are the determining factor in the success of your RPG. If you turn out good adventures, people will play your game, and simply no other RPG product line has had over the years the focus on adventures that D&D has. What it means is that more players are willing to become GM's, more adventures get actually run, and you end up with more fans.

I once read someone reviewing the rules to Chill and wondering why the game retained a small but enduring fanbase. The answer is simple - adventures. What's the most awesome sauce thing about Chaosium CoC - great adventure support. If you don't have great adventure support for your system, ultimately you just have a GM toy and you sell books to be read by DMs and then put on the shelf never to be actually used. I've got several of these. Heck, the majority of the GURPS product line as best as I can tell qualifies. Sure, a few GMs will be inspired enough to run a game or even a campaign, but some will suck, some won't want to put in the continued work, and with the small group remaining you never grow your market.

I don't care whether you think Pathfinder sucks and 4e is the system bomb or vica versa, if you want to look at what system is going to succeed over the long run, look for which one is putting out the strongest adventures. If they are both putting out strong modules, then they'll both succeed. But if one falters in that, then you can bet the other one is where all the players will end up in the long run.

Even if modules didn't sell, they are so important to the RPG business model that you'd want to sell them at a loss IMO. Having a great system but no modules is like having a great console, but no video games that will run on the system and expecting to have a huge market because people will want to write their own video games. You have to have video games to sell a video gaming console. Of course, Paizo appears to have realized that you can make money selling the games as well, and in fact, if you do it right, you might can make more money on the games than on the 'console'.

 

[Sigurd]

Paizo is a fluke, in terms of success in this industry. Not because they have not worked hard at that success but because there were a number of coincidences that they were able to aptly exploit.

I don't think that's fair. Its no more a fluke for Paizo to do well with their experience than for any other experienced gaming company to do well. They deserve credit for their innovation and player loyalty.

1. I think their cheap rules pdfs are a great idea. Anyone with ten bucks can get their fairly massive pdf rulebook. It is cheap enough that players buy it over the PSRD.

2. I think their subscription model for their adventure path is really well done. a) People trust their quality - they've earned that - and it generates automatic sales. b) Automatic distribution is the best kind of advertising because it sets up word of mouth.

3. They are conspiratorial rather than dictatorial. As an OGL publisher they start by recognizing there are other players in the market and other sources for gaming. They've been very open with material and fans appreciate that. They have high standards, in part, because they have to put the shared material together better than anyone else. They run a fun website where the developers are present and answer questions.

4. They have concentrated on one world setting. Golarion is a complicated setting designed for conflict and interesting stories. Their focus on it gives it consistency and lends weight to stories that are set there.

5. They're a smaller agile company. You never get the sense that there are more lawyers than gamers.

I think they deserve credit for holding themselves to the best trends of game publishing. I wish WOTC would return to its OGL roots (In whatever game edition they choose) and do as well.

 

[Maggan]

Even if modules didn't sell, they are so important to the RPG business model that you'd want to sell them at a loss IMO. Having a great system but no modules is like having a great console, but no video games that will run on the system and expecting to have a huge market because people will want to write their own video games.

A bit like Apple is operating the App Store and iTunes store at a little bit above break even to support their iPhones, iPod touches and iPads.

/M

 

[Imaro]

Well, to be fair, I think some of it is profit targets. Sales requirements at WotC are likely much greater to consider a product "successful" than at Paizo.

Paizo may want sales to show a solid profit, while WotC may demand that sales show a huge profit. No huge profit may = no success at WotC.

Isn't this a function of their larger market share? I mean if WotC's marketshare is proportinately larger... and the number of DM's is also proportianately larger... well shouldn't it (if the same percentage of their fans like their adventures as Paizo's fans) even out? I mean yes WotC has to generate a larger profit... but their customer base is magnitudes larger.

 

[Jdvn1]

My speculation based on my observations of the industry is that Paizo indeed sell a boatload of core books at solid profit, and that the adventures are break even support for that line.

That's a good point--in which case the number of adventures is to merely keep their fan base active. Still, break even isn't doing too badly.

 

[renau1g]

In my opinion, the King is dead, long live the King. I've talked to several 4e players in my area, and most of them love the system but admit that they aren't having alot of fun because the published adventures are weak or the DM running the game isn't as skilled as the one who stayed with some other system. This will ultimately kill WotC if they don't do something about it. They IMO have to hire top quality talent to write their adventures. Reading a 4e adventure compared to what Paizo has put out reads like comparing a kid's work to mature designer. I'd buy 4e adventures solely to convert them if the story was good enough.

This, I am actually the other way. I love the 4e rules system and have subscribed to Paizo's AP with the intent on converting it to that system as the work is incredible. Kingmaker is the one I'm starting with. So cool.

Also, the Paizo people are extremely helpful, from the top-down, I love seeing them pop by here, or respond to questions over on their boards. Vic spent a fair bit of time with me lately regarding their shipping rates, I sincerely doubt I'd have the same time from WoTC.

 

[Sigurd]

That's a good point--in which case the number of adventures is to merely keep their fan base active. Still, break even isn't doing too badly.

Without financial numbers the thread mostly measures loyalty to Paizo. Production isn't necessarily profit.

 

[DaveMage]

Isn't this a function of their larger market share? I mean if WotC's marketshare is proportinately larger... and the number of DM's is also proportianately larger... well shouldn't it (if the same percentage of their fans like their adventures as Paizo's fans) even out? I mean yes WotC has to generate a larger profit... but their customer base is magnitudes larger.

Could be. Maybe the overhead costs at WotC are proportionally worse than Paizo. Who knows?

If it *is* adventure quality that's the problem, it's surprising. I have no doubt that the talent exists at WotC (and via freelancers) to do stellar adventures. So maybe there's something internal that's harming their design methods or creativity. (Like, you know, that axe that seems to hover over all of their heads...)

 

[DEFCON 1]

As a guy who runs games, I love to see a small core line of rule books and a shelf brimming with adventures.

I suspect you are probably in the minority on this point.

As far as trying to compare what Chill does to what WotC does, I think that's rather futile. The fact you mentioned that Chill has a small but enduring fanbase tells us that we cannot use their business model to determine whether WotC's model is successful or the right decision. The two companies are apples and oranges as far as their business models and needs are concerned.

 

[Imaro]

My speculation based on my observations of the industry is that Paizo indeed sell a boatload of core books at solid profit, and that the adventures are break even support for that line.
...

I'm curious how you view the fact that Pathfinder was only released less than a year ago, and as of right now there have only been two (possibly 3 if you include the Armory book) rulebooks produced for Pathfinder (The corebook and the bestiary) and one is a purely DM book....yet many more modules have been published. According to common belief, this almost seems like suicide. Wouldn't it have been better to invest those resources in pumping out rulebooks on a semi-monthly basis as opposed to modules?

Also I'm curious... Rise of the Runelords was publisehd in 2007... The corebook in 2009... how did they survive for more than 2 years without publishing rulebooks? IMO, Paizo has made a successful business off of everything WotC claims doesn't sell... mainly fluff and adventures, but I could be looking at this wrong and am honestly curious about an insiders oppinion on this.