Have the third-party d20 publishers failed?

[Greg K]

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.)

I have seen the XPH and, while it is a definite improvement over the PH, I don't think that is necessarily saying much (which is a shame, because I like much of Bruce's non Psionics work). Part of my problem is the power level, but then again I don't care for the standard power level of DND which I have toned down for my own campaign.

 

[jgbrowning]

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.

They were profitable early on because they were selling in the 1000s. The really early modules had sales into the 10,000s. We have a completely different market now. If I knew I could print 2000 modules and sell 2000, I'd be making modules.

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.

The only thing PDF saves on is printing, shipping, and warehousing. It's unlikey that a module PDF will recoup the $500 or so needed to produce a low-end 32 page module.

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?

Although this is a cool idea, one of the problems with this is that a lot of the people who buy modules like collecting them. Ie. They buy them but don't really use them. People who like to collect aren't terribly interested in cheap production quality. Beside that point, as a publisher, I'm not really selling to you the consumer, I'm selling to my distributor who only buys if he thinks his customers (the retailers) will buy my product. A product that's bare-bones containing the d20 logo right now is going to have to have an awesomely low price-point to get a retailer to notice because they only take about %30 MSRP for their efforts. But the problem with that is that a low price point means less profit for the retailer as well. They'll have to take stocking risks (ie many copies) to get the same level of profit for a lesser risk (ie one copy) of a beautifully produced supplement. They also will know how to guage a beautiful supplement's potential sales at their store, while the bare-bones module is more of an unknown when making their purchasing decisions.

The market is influenced by much more than what consumers want and it's a reflection of the impact of all of these influences. As a publisher, I have to look at every product from multiple viewpoints.

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?

This shares similiar concerns to the above.

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.

It comes down to this: Were you offered the same job (writing), but one offer paid $10 an hour (supplement) and the other paid $5 (module) an hour, which one would you chose? Small, hard-earned, profit can be made with a module, but it is effectively not-profitable when compared with the return a supplement would have made for the same amount of effort. In situations where manufactorers have a strong cash flow, it's beneficial to produce a variaty of products to help capture larger market share, prevent additional competion and other things of that sort. Over all, the rpg market isn't in this situation.

joe b.

 

[Psion]

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.

My anecdotal experience differs and sales figures of sizable companies (not the mention, stocking and order patterns of book stores!) say more than a single person's anecdote does.

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.

Well something has to account for the fact that often maligned books of mediocre production values are massively outselling GM targeted books that are receiving rave reviews.

If you have a theory explaining why that would be other than the more sizeable body of players are buying them, I would be interested to hear it. But as it stands, it looks like your anecdotal citation stands in contrast with the facts.

 

[buzz]

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.

And since this is true for your group, thus it must be true for all gamers everywhere.

My groups buy plenty of 3rd-party material, some more than others. 3rd-party adventures are probably at the bottom of the priority list. 3rd-party monster books and crunch supplements are probably at the top. I'm willing to venture that my group's habits are closer to the market norm.

 

[2WS-Steve]

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.

I think Neal's right about the 20% bit being mistaken since DM's are usually the hard-core gamers who buy more of the material. However, you're still looking at probably a 50% drop-off in sales and that's enough to make publishing modules more of a charity project than a business plan.

One thing about modules is that they'll typically sell to at most one member of a gaming group since the players won't even want to have it if they know the GM is going to run it. If a player or GM picks up the Psychic's Handbook though, for example, and the other people like it then you've likely generated one or two additional sales to that same group--the customers effectively provide free marketing as they incorporate it into their game.

 

[kenobi65]

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.

The problem, as the publishers who've posted on this thread have pointed out, is that actual sales figures for modules (vs. supplements) certainly indicate that there just aren't enough of those potential buyers.

As frustrating as it may be to realize, folks do need to keep in mind that "me and the 15 gamers I know", or "what sells or doesn't sell at my FLGS" are not necessarily accurate indicators of what happens in the broader market. Just because you love and need fully-written modules, don't assume that everyone does. Just because your players don't buy third-party d20 supplement books, don't assume that none do. If there's anything that I've learned in the 15 years I've worked in market research, it's that the biggest mistake a person can make is assuming that his personal tastes are indicative of the marketplace.

The d20 marketplace (or any free marketplace, for that matter) tends to be self-correcting. Stuff that sells well will multiply; stuff that doesn't sell well will wither.

 

[Belen]

I'll be interested in seing what the sales figures for WOTC modules will be. Hopefully it will not all be Eberron and we will get modules in the 10-15 dollar range.

 

[buzz]

Quoting for emphasis.

As frustrating as it may be to realize, folks do need to keep in mind that "me and the 15 gamers I know", or "what sells or doesn't sell at my FLGS" are not necessarily accurate indicators of what happens in the broader market. Just because you love and need fully-written modules, don't assume that everyone does. Just because your players don't buy third-party d20 supplement books, don't assume that none do. If there's anything that I've learned in the 15 years I've worked in market research, it's that the biggest mistake a person can make is assuming that his personal tastes are indicative of the marketplace.

 

[Pramas]

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. !)

Mindshadows and Monsters of the Minds (its tie-in monster book) are 3.5. In fact, Monsters of the Mind was amongst our first 3.5 books. They do, however, use the older psionic rules. As to why we did that, there are several reasons. First, these books were written before the Psychic's Handbook existed. Second, I knew something like 100,000 people had bought the first WotC psionic book so that seemed like a pretty good customer base. Third, the new one was still a good six months away when Mindshadows came out.

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.

We're exploring our possibilities. The problem with updates lke that is that they are a huge amount of work for something we're likely to give away for free. We have talked about doing a 2nd edition that puts both books in one volume, updates to the new rules, and has an appendix for use with the Psychic's Handbook. That is a possibility. Of course, with my luck, it'd come out two months after the announcement of 4E.

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

If nothing else, this will be appearing in a book next year.

 

[Razuur]

"Originally Posted by Ed Cha
Can you explain specifically how "Legends of Excalibur" appealed to you and helped your game more than the other modules out there? Was it because it is more generic and low-magic? I didn't quite understand. Thanks."


"Excalibur isn't a module, its an Arthurian campaign setting. I think (and correct me if Im wrong Razuur) that what he's referring to is the "campaign guide" which provided a ton of NPCs (I think close to 50) three complete campaign backgrounds (complete with adventure hooks, plot threads and campaign specific NPCs), and three "quests" that were basically detailed adventure synopsis (again including some NPCs).

So while no canned module was included, we did the grunt work for at least three campaigns.

My hope was to provide something that would be more useful than a single canned adventure, but to make GMing Legends of Excalibur easy and pain-free if not effortless.

Chuck"
---------------------------------

Exactly. It was just so inspirational that possibilites and ideas exploded from all fo that groundwork.

Razuur