In the PDF age all adventures should be compatible with all editions

[GregoryOatmeal]

I don't think it's enough of an incentive. WotC has a hard enough time selling good adventures to DMs (they're competing with DM time, after all).

They'd be selling to a smaller audience.

ENworld sells multiple editions of their APs, as does Goodman Games (DCC), and they're targetting much smaller demographics.

If anything it would be cool if the 3.5/PF crowd could still find utility in WOTC adventures

 

[gamerprinter]

Yeah, its not economically feasible for most RPG publishers to produce adventure content that is usable by all editions or other games. There is cost savings between printed costs and electronic versions true - but this is hardly the bulk of the cost. Development and playtesting is expensive and time consuming. More often than not, we publishers want to get our products perfected and out the door on the selling market as fast as we can. If after PF development, I had to begin development or alterations for another edition for my products - I would go broke long before I finish.

For example, my Kaidan setting is currently developed for PF only. However, I have been approached by Iron Crown Enterprises and several other non-D&D publishers interested in either licensing Kaidan for their system, or asking that I develop the setting for their game. The time it would take for me to learn their rules, or the cost in hiring someone to do that for me is prohibitive to being a successful small publisher. Besides I don't want to water down my market by making my game available to all options - it would hurt PF sales if I did that, and the PF market is my primary market. Why would I want to hurt sales deliberately?

Some RPG companies only produce PDF products and not print products at all, even they can't support all editions. Print costs are hardly the main cost for a small publisher, so PDF publication provides no particular benefit that would enable companies to support multiple editions.

Only the largest operations like WotC could, and as stated it would hurt sales of their flagship product if they supported all editions, so even they who can afford to do it won't. Don't expect smaller companies to do so.

Bill Webb of Frog God Games developed the most recent Tome of Horrors for both SW and PF, however, its because Bill has a particular love for SW that he developed it for that system as well. I don't think it was inherently done to widen his profit margins so much as wanting to support that game as well. Thus it wasn't a financial decision to support both (necessarily). FGG doing so doesn't mean that other 3pp's can afford to do the same.

 

[S'mon]

It still is.

Yeah, the issue here is that RPGs are a tiny industry, and paying designers to support lots of non-current editions costs money, money that at WoTC pay rates ("We pay Real Money!") will not be recouped by extra sales.

It's more the kind of thing that WoTC should encourage fans to do for free, and maybe host those.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

ENworld sells multiple editions of their APs, as does Goodman Games (DCC), and they're targetting much smaller demographics.

If anything it would be cool if the 3.5/PF crowd could still find utility in WOTC adventures

That's exactly the point.

ENWorld and WotC aren't the same company.

When ENWorld makes their dual (trio?) edition adventure packs, they made the decision to write the adventure for both (or three) editions at the same time. They're not writing adventures that aren't suited to one or more editions.

Most 3rd party publishers can afford to sell more "fringe" products as their staffs, expenses and expected incomes are a lot lower than the WotC's DnD division.

Only the largest operations like WotC could, and as stated it would hurt sales of their flagship product if they supported all editions, so even they who can afford to do it won't. Don't expect smaller companies to do so.

Disappointingly realistic

 

[Ahnehnois]

How profitable are rpg products in general? Not very. It's a niche market.

How profitable are adventures in general? Not very. It's a niche market within a niche market.

Does a struggling rpg business need to spend more money on producing an adventure in the hope that extra people buy it because it's been converted for them? Probably not. Supporting the two dominant game systems might make some amount of business sense, but anything beyond that would be unfeasible, I think.

 

[Umbran]

It's more the kind of thing that WoTC should encourage fans to do for free, and maybe host those.

Or encourage fans to do for free, and let other places (like this) host them.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Yeah, I just cannot see WOTC wanting to do do multiple edition adventures, especially as we are talking, how man, 6 or 7 variations, most likely?

On a side not, man would that make reading the adventures hard!!!!!

Sure, it might get some dollars out of the crowd that has stayed behind or gotten off the edition treadmill, but I would not like it as it would require making a really really bland adventure, to account for the worlds of all those editions.

Cannot do planescape, or the 4E cosmology, and cannot use any monsters that have changed power drastically from one edition to the other. And for a poisoned door, will we go to save or die in 4E?

A nice pie in the sky, and the best way I could see to do it is to write the adventure, and then have whoever redesign the encounters, to be hyperlinked on a page, not actually incorporated in the module.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

That's exactly the point.

ENWorld and WotC aren't the same company.

When ENWorld makes their dual (trio?) edition adventure packs, they made the decision to write the adventure for both (or three) editions at the same time. They're not writing adventures that aren't suited to one or more editions.

Most 3rd party publishers can afford to sell more "fringe" products as their staffs, expenses and expected incomes are a lot lower than the WotC's DnD division.



Disappointingly realistic

And even then there are some problems - equipment that is handled differently between editions and PC races that are purely one edition or another. Take a look at the minor teething problems of Zeitgeist for an example, over in the E N Publishing Forum. Trying to do things for multiple editions takes work. So, much as I might like to see Zeitgeist statted up for Fantasy Craft the only reasonable way to expect it to happen would be to do it myself.

The Auld Grump

 

[DnD_Dad]

TSR used to put conversion charts in the backs of different system/edition books to convert stats and such. Long gone are those wonderous days when producers cared about their customers and respected the idea of them playing different games than their main line.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

I think we're overestimating the problem. The process of converting 3.5 modules to C&C was "look up the monsters in the other book and replace them". That works for just about any of the systems I mentioned besides 4E, so once you've gotten to 3.5 you're pretty much home free. The translations don't have to be perfect, as the encounters hardly felt balanced anyway in AD&D

On a side not, man would that make reading the adventures hard!!!!!

Absolutely if you put five editions worth of stats on one page. That's why I suggested separate PDFs (again, just plug the numbers in and out) or 4-page addendums of notes on running in different editions.

I would not like it as it would require making a really really bland adventure, to account for the worlds of all those editions.

The assumption here seems to be that the flavor is imbued in the edition, and converting the game to another edition would remove the flavor. Can you elaborate? This has not been my experience at all. I've found the flavor of the edition to be tied closely to the setting, art, and writing of the module itself, not the edition.

Cannot do planescape, or the 4E cosmology

Sure you can! Like, really, why not? Absolutely nothing would stop me from running a 4E comsology in 2E or a Planescape Cosmology in 4E. The 4E Manual of the Planes actually suggests this if you like the old cosmology.

cannot use any monsters that have changed power drastically from one edition to the other.

Perhaps, but I seem to recall every edition having rules for scaling monsters up/down. If WOTC asks players to do this it isn't too far-fetched to expect them to be able to do it as well?

And for a poisoned door, will we go to save or die in 4E?

Why not? As I said it'd be easier to convert new modules from 4E to 1E than vice versa, but yeah, you could do this if you wanted to maintain that 1E spirit.

then have whoever redesign the encounters, to be hyperlinked on a page, not actually incorporated in the module.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was talking about.