Have the third-party d20 publishers failed?

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I find this to be particularly sad... Mindshadows, and Nyambe are two of my favorite campaign setting that have come out for 3.x. Luckily, we are running a Freeport campaign and have placed both locations in our game world!

I own Nyambe, never bothered with Mindshadows but might after reading the many compliments it has gotten, but placing Nyambe in the same world as Freeport... Mmmm...

I like that a lot! I'd love to see Green Ronin do some cross-licensing of Nyambe into some Freeport product.


Regards,
Eric Anondson

 

[tensen]

Well I respect that opinion.

But the fact is you represent the minority.

Again, even if EVERY GM buys a module I write, that's 20% of the market.

Chuck

Actually I think that 20% of the market has been disproven. It might have been valid for WOTC. 4 players/1 DM model. That assumes that every player and the DM has a Player's Handbook. It just isn't true for most suppliments. The buying market is heavily swayed to the DM. Rarely is the product going to move off the shelf unless the Player is also a DM (or wants to DM), or the DM has a copy, approved it for use, and is recommending it.

 

[Greg K]

Exactly so. Of our Mythic Vistas line of campaign settings, Mindshadows is the worst selling one. It melds southeast Asian flavor with psionics and martial arts to create what is (IMO) a very interesting setting. It seems "too different" for the average D&D fan though. Atlas had a similar experience with Nyambe, which was the first serious attempt to do a fantasy African setting.

Chris,

The reason that I did not buy Mindshadows is not that it was "too different", but rather that it required the Psionics Handbook (or that was the impression that I had based upon its press release and from what others had said). As someone who dislikes both the 3.0 and 3.5 Psionics Handbooks, I will not buy any product designed around the Psionics Handbook or the Expanded Psionics Handbook.
Now, if Mindshadhows had been designed around GR's own Psychic's Handbook, I would have snatched it up in a second!

 

[Belen]

Actually I think that 20% of the market has been disproven. It might have been valid for WOTC. 4 players/1 DM model. That assumes that every player and the DM has a Player's Handbook. It just isn't true for most suppliments. The buying market is heavily swayed to the DM. Rarely is the product going to move off the shelf unless the Player is also a DM (or wants to DM), or the DM has a copy, approved it for use, and is recommending it.

Exactly, the whole concept that third party material sells to players to bunk. How many GMs have you heard on these boards say that they will never allow the use of third party material for character building? A lot.

Yet we still get the same stuff: feats, spells and prestige classes. I just ignore that mess. I wonder how many people bother to use it.

 

[PJ-Mason]

Chris,

The reason that I did not buy Mindshadows is not that it was "too different", but rather that it required the Psionics Handbook (or that was the impression that I had based upon its press release and from what others had said). As someone who dislikes both the 3.0 and 3.5 Psionics Handbooks, I will not buy any product designed around the Psionics Handbook or the Expanded Psionics Handbook.
Now, if Mindshadhows had been designed around GR's own Psychic's Handbook, I would have snatched it up in a second!

Took the words right out of my mouth. I really don't care what edition of D&D psionics you use. None of them get the job done. The Psychic Handbook that you guys came out with rocks (kenson does rule, i must say). Now, i am not sure whether the PSYH outdates the Mindshadows setting. If it came before than its quite frustrating that you didn't support the Psychic's Handbook with Mindshadows, i really liked the premise. I know why you did it, to support the CORE books and to get the book sold to what you thought would be a larger audience. But for many of us, the Psy's Handbook is the real deal, psionically speaking, and we'd like you to support it! Have more faith in your own creative talent at GR, rather than WOTC. Please.

 

[Psion]

Exactly, the whole concept that third party material sells to players to bunk. How many GMs have you heard on these boards say that they will never allow the use of third party material for character building?

Some, but not many, really.

This is sort of like that "3e is full of spikey armor" thing. When people repeat it enough, some start to beleive it is a prevalent beleif. Hmmm... almost a microcosm of political rhetorical speech.

I think the fact that Mongoose is one of the biggest, most market-entrenched third party publishers and they reportedly make much more on their player targeted Collector Series than their much lauded OGL series should be an indication that third party material DOES sell to players.

 

[Psion]

Re: Mindshadows

First off, those who have not seen XPH and are still psionics bashers really are missing out. (And IMO, XPH is much more in-tune with D&D power levels than the Psychics Handbook, though I would use it for modern or futuristic games in preference to any magic or psionics system cribbed from D&D.)

But that said: One one board, when I mentioned that Mindshadows was out, some posters expressed surprise, knowing that the XPH was around the corner. That probably played on a lot of people's minds.

I know GR didn't ask for the 3.5 upgrade, but I think that played a big role in why it was received cooly. Many players just don't handle rules incompatabilities well. I think some such sentiments are exagarrated (FREX, I find 3.0 books like Deluxe Book of Templates and Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary work with minimal modification time), but that seems to be a common perception nonetheless.

From the looks of things (e.g., near total absence of response to common querries about 3.5 upgrades on the GR boards), it doesn't look like an upgrade document for Mindshadows or Monsters of the Mind is in the cards, but I consider that unfortunate.

(On a related note, I am really jonesin' to see a 3.5 holy warrior doc!)

 

[Tinner]

Alternate Adventure Formats

We keep hearing this refrain that adventure's aren't profitable. At the same time we have evidence that some publishers are making profitable modules.
Is this simply that those publishers that succeed with modules are somehow "smarter" or "better"? Or have they figured a better model for publishing this material?
I can understand how the classically formatted stand alone module would be a tough product to make profitable. It is only usable by a small percentage of the total market, it costs just as much to produce as a similarly sized sourcebook, and contains less of the "crunch" that seems to attract buyers.
But clearly some publishers have found a formula that is working for them. Sovereign has tapped into an underserved Dragonlance fandom and is selling profitable adventures. Other publishers have mentioned that they are including smaller adventures in their sourcebooks.
Is there another business model that might work?
I know some companies have tried to support a different module format. PEG did so with Deadlands both by including adventures in all their early "crunchy" books, and with the Dime Novel series.
The Dime Novels in particular really seem to me like a great idea. For a fairly low price you got a short piece of fiction that helped flesh out the campaign world, as well as a tight, well contained one-shot adventure.
I know I bought every one of them, and if someone made a similar product for D&D, I'd grab those as well. (And yes, I already have plenty of AEG's and other publishers' "pamphlet" style adventures!)
Were these kinds of products profitable?
There certainly were a lot of them produced early on in the 3.0 explosion. I really haven't seen many lately, but that may be the effects of d20 glut on my FLGS.
PDF modules seem to be doing as well as most PDF's. That is they seem to get purchased by those that would use PDF's anyway. It's currently a small but growing market.
I wonder if a publisher could make any money trying the Cheapass Games style of publishing for a module? Bare-bones production values, but excellent value for price? After all, it's not like a module is going to see the same service as a sourcebook. Most often it will be played once, then set aside for several months/years. Why not go the Cheapass route?
What about printing modules in a comic book sized format? Flimsy color cover, thin cheap paper on the inside. I recall Palladium did this with their old Weapons & Armor books way back in the day. Could a publishing model like this help make modules profitable?
I guess it just seems to me that even though modules don't sell as well as other types of books, there are some potential buyers out there. It seems a shame not to come up with some sort of product that will let publsihers take their money.

 

[Belen]

Some, but not many, really.

This is sort of like that "3e is full of spikey armor" thing. When people repeat it enough, some start to beleive it is a prevalent beleif. Hmmm... almost a microcosm of political rhetorical speech.

I think the fact that Mongoose is one of the biggest, most market-entrenched third party publishers and they reportedly make much more on their player targeted Collector Series than their much lauded OGL series should be an indication that third party material DOES sell to players.

Again, the only people I know who own third-party stuff are other GMs. I do not know a single player who buys anything other than the core/ wotc books.

I bought a lot of Mongoose player material in the early days of 3e. I stopped because it just got to be too much, but I initially bought the stuff for my players. Just because Mongoose made a lot of money on the Quint books does not mean that players bought them.

 

[Greg K]

Exactly, the whole concept that third party material sells to players to bunk. How many GMs have you heard on these boards say that they will never allow the use of third party material for character building? A lot.

Yet we still get the same stuff: feats, spells and prestige classes. I just ignore that mess. I wonder how many people bother to use it.

Well, I would say the same holds true to a lesser degree with WOTC products. There are DMs such as myself that also look at everything WOTC produces (as we do with third party products) and decide whether to allow any of the material into the campaign. I have banned entire WOTC books including, but not limited to, the Book of Exalted Deeds, the Psionics Handbook, and the Expanded Psionics Handbook. On other occasions, I have allowed a few items from various WOTC supplements (e.g., the Miniature's Handbook or Complete Warrior) into the campaign, but always on a case by case basis.

At the same time, I make extensive use of some third party material even allowing some products to be used in their entirety (e.g., Green Ronin's Psychic's, Shaman's, and Witch's Handbooks), while requiring some PHB classes to use a particuliar variant from WOTC's own Unearthed Arcana or removing a PHB class altogether (i.e., the Druid, Monk and Paladin whose roles are filled by the UA variants of the cleric or, in the case of the Druid, both the Shaman's Handbook and my own variant on UA's cloistered cleric).