Have the third-party d20 publishers failed?

[kerakus]

Not so quick aside...

I think the ideal solution to the issues raised in this thread would not to publish more adventures, but for some company to do a Dungeon style magazine that focused on the rest of the D20 market. Adventures based in the various settings published by companies other than WoTC.

Will it ever happen? Probably not because even then I don't think the company in question would make a profit from the magazine.

Q

 

[Mouseferatu]

BelenUmeria, you're making a lot of assumptions that simply aren't true.

1) That 15-year-olds learn to play D&D from 3rd-party products.

Even today, a large portion of the market doesn't even know what D20 is. Anyone who wants to play D&D starts with D&D, period. While the other companies migth be able to assist, the only company truly in a position to expand the market is WotC. Other companies' best-sellers, don't sell as well as WotC's worst (with very few exceptions).

2) That adventures will drive more people to buy sourcebooks.

That simply hasn't proven to be the case. Why do you think the Serpent Amphora trilogy was the only series of adventures published for Scarred Lands? It's not because we didn't have ideas for others, believe me. The fact is that the adventures simply weren't profitable to make it worth it, either throgh direct sales or any observable ripple effect on other products. And we just had Mike Mearls telling us that selling such an adventrue through Malhavoc wouldn't be profitable, so AU isn't an exception either.

3) That D20 companies can afford to publish modules as a "cost of doing business."

RPGs are a very low-profit-margin business. A lot of your favorite companies are one book away from going under. Everything published must bring in a specific level of income, or they'll lack the funds to do the next book. Even the larger companies aren't rich enough to put out a product that they believe won't sell. And with a very few exceptions (Necromancer, for instance), modules simply don't sell very well. That's one of the reasons MonkeyGod is leaving D20. Even if modules has a confirmed impact on sale of other books, many companies couldn't afford to publish them--and, as I mentioned above, they do not have such an effect, at least not in most cases.

4) The fact that WotC is doing it means others should.

WotC is the only company that can afford to print/sell something they know won't sell, considering it as "advertising" for other products. Plus, because WotC has much larger sales volume than other companies, a "failed" product for them is still far more profitable than one from another company.

5) That modules can easily be included as part of a larger work.

Sometimes, that is indeed the case. But the larger the book, the higher the cost, and after it reaches a certain price point, small publishers can no longer be certain of a new book selling in what is, at the moment, a glutted, depressed market. Including an adventure in a sourcebook necessitates leaving something else out, and many people would prefer additional source material to adventurers.

6) That new players should be the target audience.

This is the trickiest one, but the realities of doing business come into play here. The average D20 company simply cannnot afford to market to anyone other than their core audience. Publishing a book geared toward pulling new people into the hobby probably won't appeal to the experienced player--and experienced players are the ones who spend money. Again, only WotC can afford to do this sort of thing, and hopefully the upcoming Basic set will accomplish some of it.

None of this is guesswork on my part (or Mearls, or several other industry people who have commented). I know you're passionate about your theory, and I respect that, but market realities simply don't support your contention.

 

[Faraer]

The Freeport modules set up the popularity of the sourcebooks (since the modules came first). City of the Spider Queen had multiple unnecessary limiting factors (tied to current timeline, high-level, you have to switch your whole campaign over to use it, drowcentricism offputting to some).

I love adventure modules: they're a good way of presenting setting information while demonstrating how to use it in play, they're fun to read, they can be used straight or modified. They create shared experiences between multiple gaming groups. They can be wonderfully compact: a 16-page 1st edition adventure provides for several play sessions. They put the focus of the game on the game and the story rather than tooling up your PC in advance like a megalomaniac villain. And so on.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

The simple fact of the matter is that without adventure modules, there will never be another White Plume Mountain, or Queen of the Demonweb Pits, or Temple of Elemental Evil, etc.

Classic adventures continue to stir the minds of veteran players even today. If WotC doesn't put out adventures, there won't be any classics memories in the future. And that's bad for the game.

The issue shouldn't be putting out modules. It should be putting out GOOD modules. Modules that have been well put together, well edited, creatively written, and that can be fit into larger campaigns very easily. I'd be perfectly happy to see 2-3 modules a year (maybe even 1-2, I dunno how long they take to write). But the key is to make good, memorable, fun adventures that players can talk about. It's great to play in a homebrew campaign, but other gamers can't relate the way they can to the classics. And that's what the industry needs more of, IMO.

 

[Aristotle]

I think you have a marketing strategy that you've thought about and really feel is viable. Unfortunately the sales statistics don't agree with you. Adventures simply don't sell as well as other products. Considering that its a GM exclusive product (or at least perceived that way), and that at least a quarter (probably a good bit more) of the GM's I know prefer to write their own adventures... I can see why they don't sell so well.

I also think your point of kids wanting adventures so they know how to run the game misses a big point. Most kids (I won't falsify a statistic but this holds true for every role player I know) do not simply buy a game on a whim. They are introduced to it via a family member or friends. By the time they feel competent enough to run games on their own they already know what they are doing. I don't know a single person who entered the game without someone mentoring them. You are going to say that with the adventures they wouldn't need the mentoring, but my point is that without the mentoring they wouldn't know about the game anyway.

Those other systems are not entry level systems. I would say 99% of those players cut their teeth on DnD.

This used to be true, but not any more. A lot of D&D fans don't want to hear it, but role players do enter the hobby through other games. I would have to say that White Wolf has brought almost as much new blood (if not just as much) as D&D in the past decade. I know I've only managed to introduce 5 people to D&D, but back when I was running White Wolf I brought more than 20 people into the game. Many of them continued on into other systems.

Yet you're making my point for me. I never said that adventures need to be great sellers. Consider them a cost of doing business; or consider them a part of your marketing budget.

I've got to wonder if you appreciate how small the profit margins are in this hobby. Very few gaming companies have the financial stability needed to put out products they already know will sell poorly. Many of 3rd party d20 publishers are small companies. Many rely on the sales of one book to pay for the production of the next. One bad product can put a publisher in a bad place. A couple in a row can put that publisher under. They don't have marketing budgets. They have to keep the costs of doing business down. For the cost of publishing an adventure (with artwork and printing costs, and the knolwedge that it most likely won't sell well) the company could place an ad in a popular magazine and reach far more potential players.

 

[jgbrowning]

First let me preface: This post is all about money. This doesn't mean that gaming companies are unconcerned with growing the hobby, increasing enjoyment, having fun, and listening to customers. I'm going to only focus on money, because without it, nothing gets published.
-----------------------------------------------------------


Almost every publisher I know of disagrees with your belief, BelenUmeria. More importantly, they disagree from a position of being able to actually compare their profit levels between settings, settings with support, supplements and supplements with support. Their belief is based upon actual numbers and, for the most part, the market represents what is most profitable after considering all aspects of production, distribution, marketing, and sales.

I know of several "successful" products that are/were not profitable. Don't confuse buzz with profit. Profit is a requirement for real success, because without it, that company cannot produce more product.

Which is why there aren't that many modules at this time. They're presently not comparably profitable just like they are historically less profitable than supplements at all times. Even with cross-marketing, loss-leading, and all other possible uses, modules are sub-performers. Allocating resources for a supplement is more profitable (ie. greater return on effort and investment) than allocating resources for an adventure.

With all this said, modules can be profitable and be good business, but it's simply harder to be so and requires a very good business plan and a lot of will. Goodman Games's Dungeon Crawl Classics are a great example of doing something and doing it well. Necromancer also does well with adventures. However, were anyone else to start focusing on modules, they have to not only deal the modules historically poor performance in relation to supplements they'd now also have to deal with two good companies that have that market segment well serviced. It's even that much more unattractive to make d20 modules.

joe b.

 

[Aaron2]

Classic adventures continue to stir the minds of veteran players even today. If WotC doesn't put out adventures, there won't be any classics memories in the future. And that's bad for the game.

I don't think there ever will be new "classic" adventures, regardless of how many WotC puts out. If you were playing in D&D in the early 80s you had about 6 total adventures to choose from. Now you have tons of current adventures plus a vast catalog of backlist and old version adventures. Back in the day, most games were either in the same game world (Greyhawk) or one similar to it. Today you have dozens of game world plus add to that the current game style predudice ("Dungeon crawls, ick"). You just can't get a module that will by played by a wide enough portion of gamers to become a classic in the way that Tomb of Horrors is, no matter how good it is.


Aaron

 

[coyote6]

The Freeport modules set up the popularity of the sourcebooks (since the modules came first).

I think part of the reason the adventures did so well was that the first was available before all of the core books were even out. There was almost no competition (whether from other adventures, sourcebooks, settings, monster books, etc.); the game was effectively brand-new for many people, so almost everyone was starting a brand-new campaign (thus there weren't a lot of preconceptions for an adventure to violate); and there were a lot of new or returning buyers who were interested in a pre-made adventure in order to get a quick start (if nothing else, to decide if they liked this new edition).

Now, there's lots of competition, the game isn't brand-new (so people have their setting picked out, etc.), and most people don't need a quick start. And if they do, they have plenty of choices to pick from.

Thus, if the Freeport trilogy was a brand-new release today, I'm not sure it would be so successful.

 

[Wombat]

Have the third-party d20 publishers failed?

I guess that would have to be on a case-by-case basis, but in the aggregate I'd have to say "No" by pretty much any standard.

Most (note, no statistic! ) new players start with D&D. Why? Because it is widely available and a brand name. You can pick up D&D at most major book chains nowadays, not simply at hobby stores.

Lack of 3rd Party Setting Adventures has little to do with the matter as very few beginning gamers, by comparison, are drawn to 3rd Party settings and are then driven away by lack of adventures for same. Why? Because, again by comparison, most nacent gamers are not drawn to them in the first place. It sort of like getting IHOP or the local Pancake Joint -- the local joint may be better, but IHOP is a known quantity, at least by name, and therefore many people will stick to it just because it is a known quantity.

When I started playing D&D there were no adventures -- I made everything up, and thus got in the habit (of course this is pretty much a "We Had To Walk 30 Miles To School Uphill In Both Directions During Snowstorms" story, so it is not terribly relavent).

I know several individuals, both neophyte and experienced gamers, who have had terrible experiences over the years with published adventures -- the adventures made assumptions about character habits/actions, they railroaded the party, the adventure did not fit into a give base campaign, etc. Therefore I know a goodly number of folks who are very nervous about buying and using adventures. However, as will be quickly noted, this is in no wise a scientific survey so can be dismissed.

On the other hand I have never once heard, or heard of, a new gamer getting turned off to gaming because there were no supplements for Setting X. Not one. Again, not scientific, but I have been gaming for nearly 30 years, so I think that is at least vaguely relevant.

OTOH 3rd Party D20 companies have really pushed the boundaries of what D20 can be. Look at Conan, Midnight, AU, Mutants & Masterminds, and Grim Tales -- you would hardly think these were all based on the same game, but each has a loyal following. Part of the reason they are succesful is because they can ride the D20 coattails, but part of the reason that D20 is succesful is because of the wide range of variants that a single basic system can provide as a kernel for such variety.

In many ways, I think WotC owes a debt of gratitude to all the 3rd Party companies out there that have dared to push the D20 envelope, thus forcing WotC to keep on its toes!

 

[Belen]

None of this is guesswork on my part (or Mearls, or several other industry people who have commented). I know you're passionate about your theory, and I respect that, but market realities simply don't support your contention.

Obviously, I disagree. I also have a feeling that the severe overproduction and overextension will ultimately harm the hobby.

If that many publishers are one book away from going under, then they should consider a different business, or look into a different business model.

If adventures are that bad a deal, then companies should consolidate and work together to produce them, so that the expense is shared. Where there is a will....