Adventures don't Sell? Do you agree? Redman Article

[Turjan]

I concur In particular, I'm interested in how folks think the industry has changed (if at all) from the 2002-2003 nadir, and why adventures seem to be making a comeback now. Had the pendulum simply swung too far in the sourcebooks/splatbooks direction, or is there something more fundamental about adventures that was missing from the marketplace for a few years?

I'm not sure whether we really experience a fundamental change regarding the demand for adventures at the moment, regardless what Charles Ryan said. I don't want to say that what he said is rubbish, because from WotC's point of view his assessment of the current situation was certainly true. The majority of the D&D players, those of the "WotC only" crowd, demand new adventures. WotC will try to fulfill this demand. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that no other company will be able to do the same.

During 2002/2003, we had lots of companies producing adventures. The sales went down, but suddenly nearly all of them decided to stop producing any adventures at all. For quite a while, only Necromancer was left. Goodman Games tried to fill that vacuum, and within their specific niche of old school adventures, they seem to see some success. With the reorganization of Dungeon, the competition from that side got very strong again. The adventure paths were a very good idea, and this is certainly where Dungeon's strength lies.

I'm not sure about Necromancer at the moment. I don't hear much buzz about their more recent offerings, it's the old adventures that get mentioned over and over again. Their concept of publishing generic adventures was really great for quite a while, but I suppose it should see some face-lifting in order to bring them back into public consciousness again. I'm not sure whether simply copying some competor's strategy will do the trick.

And here I see the dangers when some d20 companies now follow blindly the statement of WotC that there is some unfulfilled demand for generic adventures. I doubt this pretty much, except if we speak about original WotC adventures. Third party publishers should be very cautious here. Adventures are needed, sure. If you publish a new setting or OGL game, publish an adventure with it, even if that one won't sell that much, but it makes your setting come alive. Generic adventures? We still have enough of those each and every month, regardless what Charles Ryan was telling us .

 

[Glyfair]

I'm not sure about Necromancer at the moment. I don't hear much buzz about their more recent offerings, it's the old adventures that get mentioned over and over again. Their concept of publishing generic adventures was really great for quite a while, but I suppose it should see some face-lifting in order to bring them back into public consciousness again. I'm not sure whether simply copying some competor's strategy will do the trick.

I went through a phase where I wasn't buying any adventures (beyond my Dungeon subscription). I consider buying a few of Necromancer games more recent adventures, since all the ones I have of theirs have been good quality. Unfortunately, the recent ones I've seen are all hardcover.

While I admit I don't particularly like hardcover books, beyond core books, hardcover adventures really turn me off completely. Barring something huge like the World's Largest Dungeon, I see no reason to play the extra expense for something that will at most be used once every few years. Indeed, I think I would find the WLD to be more attractive if it was released in episodes, instead of one large hardback. However, that's really it's hook, so I'll forgive it.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...I appreciate the flexibility of the rules to make diverse monsters, but this half-dragon/half-golem/half-kraken/half-vampire 30th level Librarian/2nd level Blackguard junk has GOT to go...

Agreed.

Endless crazy Vampire/half-Ogre/half-Black Dragon nonsense--while certainly impressive from a "Author's ability to use templates" point of view--goes along way toward making their products useless in my game.

 

[Warbringer]

Is dungeon magazine successful? If so, why? Is there a solid demand for adventures?

I'd say yes, and yes.

So, why isn't dungeon comissioning "dungeons" that aren't just dungeons, but that follow a story arc? Not all of them, just some.

Also, why isn't paizo offering pdf downloads for all the the dungeons under their copywrite?

There is plenty of material out there, the issue seems to be distribution.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Endless crazy Vampire/half-Ogre/half-Black Dragon nonsense--while certainly impressive from a "Author's ability to use templates" point of view--goes along way toward making their products useless in my game.

I don't get it. Why?

You have the stat block, the monster is 100% cool with the SRD, it's going to be non-standard and therefore at least a small surprise to the players. What's not to love?

 

[Crothian]

I don't get it. Why?

You have the stat block, the monster is 100% cool with the SRD, it's going to be non-standard and therefore at least a small surprise to the players. What's not to love?

Because the only reason its there ...is becasue the writer thought it'd be cool to place it there. But in the cotxt of the module its just there, completely random and not making any sense. There is little reason to do something complicated when something simple will do. And just because the rules allow it is not a good reason in my mind to something.

 

[Barastrondo]

You have the stat block, the monster is 100% cool with the SRD, it's going to be non-standard and therefore at least a small surprise to the players. What's not to love?

Personally, they tend to bug me because many times it seems that they are what they are for entirely metagame reasons — something is a half-dragon psionic because "a half-dragon psionic would make an interesting stat block for the players to go up against." While that's a fair enough reason for a D&D encounter, it's not enough for me, and it's not really enough for my players. I tend to prefer enemies that make tremendous thematic sense within the context of the adventure.

I like surprising my PCs as much as the next guy, but I'm not fond of relying on randomness as the gimmick. And a lot of times, it doesn't matter if it's 100% cool with the SRD or not, a multi-templated "exotic" villain will feel pointless rather than plausible. I would rather see a classic archetype (the evil priest, the aristocratic vampire, etc.) with a distinct visual hook or personality foible than a "unique" stat block that relies entirely on surprise (the half-dragon bullywug samurai, the half-golem fiendish titanothere, whatever). I like templates when they're clearly a superior way to build a particular villainous character than a non-template build — but I don't think that a template is strong enough to be a character concept in and of itself.

 

[Belen]

This particular one seemed worth reanimating, Merric

Why, thank you, I rather enjoyed it at the time.

 

[Belen]

I'm not sure whether we really experience a fundamental change regarding the demand for adventures at the moment, regardless what Charles Ryan said. I don't want to say that what he said is rubbish, because from WotC's point of view his assessment of the current situation was certainly true. The majority of the D&D players, those of the "WotC only" crowd, demand new adventures. WotC will try to fulfill this demand. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that no other company will be able to do the same.

During 2002/2003, we had lots of companies producing adventures. The sales went down, but suddenly nearly all of them decided to stop producing any adventures at all. For quite a while, only Necromancer was left. Goodman Games tried to fill that vacuum, and within their specific niche of old school adventures, they seem to see some success. With the reorganization of Dungeon, the competition from that side got very strong again. The adventure paths were a very good idea, and this is certainly where Dungeon's strength lies.

I'm not sure about Necromancer at the moment. I don't hear much buzz about their more recent offerings, it's the old adventures that get mentioned over and over again. Their concept of publishing generic adventures was really great for quite a while, but I suppose it should see some face-lifting in order to bring them back into public consciousness again. I'm not sure whether simply copying some competor's strategy will do the trick.

And here I see the dangers when some d20 companies now follow blindly the statement of WotC that there is some unfulfilled demand for generic adventures. I doubt this pretty much, except if we speak about original WotC adventures. Third party publishers should be very cautious here. Adventures are needed, sure. If you publish a new setting or OGL game, publish an adventure with it, even if that one won't sell that much, but it makes your setting come alive. Generic adventures? We still have enough of those each and every month, regardless what Charles Ryan was telling us .

I see it as a question of support. Adventures support a line far beyond a slew of sourcebooks. Adventures make material more accesible to new people and help attract new players. Very few people are going to buy the core books and know how to run an adventure or roleplay without some help.

Also, adventures are cheaper. People who are strapped for cash can pick them up and get new material for their games.

Too many companies are not supporting their lines. Wizards woke up and realized that the support that had once existed for D&D has dried up and their is a need for them to promote and support the game.

 

[The_Gneech]

Too many companies are not supporting their lines. Wizards woke up and realized that the support that had once existed for D&D has dried up and their is a need for them to promote and support the game.

Yup, this is one reason why I'm still running D&D instead of Conan -- every month Paizo sends me a magazine with three more ready-to-go (or close to it) D&D adventures, whereas Conan doesn't have a comparable resource.

Yes, adventures could be converted -- but let me emphasize the phrase "ready-to-go (or close to it)." I've barely got the time to play, much less go around converting stuff.

-The Gneech