Have the third-party d20 publishers failed?

[kenobi65]

If you were playing in D&D in the early 80s you had about 6 total adventures to choose from.

Not entirely true. When I started playing in 1982, there were at least a dozen, maybe two dozen, published modules from TSR, and they were bringing out a new one every few months.

Off the top of my head, I can think of:
- Against the Giants (3 modules)
- Underdark / Demonweb pits (3 modules, IIRC)
- Slavers series (3 or 4 modules, IIRC)
- Tomb of Horrors
- White Plume Mountain
- Expedition to the Barrier Peaks
- The "Hommlet" module that was an introduction to Temple of Elemental Evil, which wasn't out yet

And, those are just the ones that are still stuck in my brain. In the year or two that followed, there were quite a few more, including Tomb of the Lizard King, Ravenloft, and the Desert of Desolation series. And then Dragonlance came out in '84....

Plus, in '82, Judges Guild was cranking out authorized D&D modules, and there was an adventure in Dragon magazine every 2-3 months.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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

It is obvious you disagree. The problem is, you're trying to argue opinions against cold, hard numbers that numerous industry people have access to; and market research that's been done by market leaders.

Until and unless you can show a viable plan, complete with projected numbers and explanations, you're not going to convince anyone, because you simply don't have a factual basis for your argument.

(I'm not saying that to be offensive, just stating the case.)

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.

Umm, no. As someone else said, that's how most small businesses operate--one disaster away from failure--at least to start with. Frankly, the RPG industry has crappy profits even for the success stories. Even WotC couldn't survive on D&D alone.

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....

Yes, the expense is shared. So are the profits. And you're right back to "There simply isn't enough return in exchange for the investment and risk."

I'm sorry, but you really don't have a case here until/unless you can provide hard counter-examples.

Now, that being said, I want to make two points clear...

I like modules. I rarely run them as-is, but I love them as idea-mines. I'd be delighted if the industry could support more of them. That doesn't change the fact that current market realities suggest that it cannot, and I've acknowledged that. Thus, I buy modules from (and pitch them to) those few companies who can still make them work, sourcebooks or settings from (and to) the others, and, in my spare time, wish for a stronger market.

Second, I actually agree with you that market oversaturation is a bad thing, and while there are certain companies that I'm sorry to see leave (and a few companies that I'm sorry to see stay), I do think that the shrinking of the D20 publisher base is a good thing. If all goes well, the result will be a smaller number of companies who are stronger for it, and maybe a stronger market.

And maybe then, modules will sell better, too. But right now, alas, is right now.

 

[Vigilance]

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.

Riiiiiiiight- so if you cant afford to lose money on books you should get out of the business? Nice one.

On top of Phil and Mouse, I will be another person in the industry to tell you that modules aren't a profitable portion of the business.

They cost the same to produce as sourcebooks but have 20% of the base market. Sounds like a bad business plan to me (your disagreement not withstanding).

In other words, if a company can make a really good adventure, they can make a really good source book and make FIVE TIMES AS MUCH MONEY.

In the best case scenario.

That's right, that 20% base market (the GM) is only ONE REASON modules are a bad idea.

In the first place the setting of the module has to be fairly generic. Every detail you add basically reduces its sales base further. Is it set in a desert? Uh-oh... a certain percentage of that 20% just went away because their campaign isn't anywhere near a desert. Or there are no deserts on their world.

Now let's say you have a suitably generic adventure, you STILL aren't done negotiating the mine field.

The system itself makes it harder.

What level is the adventure? 1st level? There goes a huge percentage. Even if you manage to write the module to a broad range of levels (let's say a five level range- which would be tough but its doable with some scaling notes for certain encounters) that's one-fourth of all campaigns. That's right, we have now reduced that 20% of the market by a *minimum* of 1/4 down to 5%.

Oh sure, I'm sure you'll say you could include some sort of scale to allow any module to be used for all 20 levels. But even if that were theoretically possible, the average GM will pick up a module (if he picks up modules at all- many GMs have chimed in to say they don't ever do that) see the suggested levels on the back and say "not the right levels- oh well" and put it down.

So to recap, a company can go to all that work and HOPE to appeal to about 5% of the market... or they increase their sales by 20 times for the same amount of work and capital investment and do a splatbook.

If it was YOUR money on the line which would you choose? And I will laugh at any answer that involves "write modules" until you have published at least 4 of them with full print runs.

In other words, unless YOU are willing to drop ten to twenty grand of your own money on printing modules, don't tell me you'd be willing to do it.

You could just shut all of us narrow-eyed industry goobs up. Go write modules. Drive us out of business with them.

And you do realize WOTC made the license in the hope that OTHERS would do adventures for them right? So even though WOTC *can* afford to take it on the chin to do modules they prefer not to.

I know its not fashionable to complain about crunch, but despite your "disagreement" companies dont avoid modules for religious reasons, they avoid them because they don't sell the market is telling us that it is NOT tired of well done books full of feats and spells yet.

Chuck

 

[Steel_Wind]

Or, then again, you are Sovereign Press making DragonLance modules. You do the following:

1 - You produce a setting specific adventure (mistake #1)
2 - You make it part of a meta-plot series (mistake #2)
3 - You make is more expensive than its competitors (mistake #3)
4 - You make it refer to other books in the DL product line (mistake #4)
5 - You make it over 170 pages long so it will take many, many session to play (mistake #5)
6 - You make 5,000 of them and sell all of them in 6 weeks, so that you have to do another print run. (mistak....)

Oh. Well now - how about that.

While the original poster was not necessarily correct - the responses here making sweeping general statements are not necessarily wholly correct either.

Sucess requires risk - but it is possible.

 

[Mouseferatu]

While the original poster was not necessarily correct - the responses here making sweeping general statements are not necessarily wholly correct either.

Nothing's an absolute in this business. As we said above, there are companies that can manage modules, and there are always exceptions to the rule. And heck, for all I know, the Dragonlance module indicates a shift in the market.

But the fact is, as a general rule that applies far more often than not, modules aren't a good idea. It's true that sometimes people get lucky, but it simply isn't something most companies can afford to risk.

(There's also the fact that the Dragonlance name is a major seller. Not every company has a built-in audience like that. And I say that with no direspect to Sovereign Stone; I'm sure the module was great, and I'm not attributing all its sales to name recognition. But that recognition does give them a head start, and I'm sure they'd be the first to acknowledge that.)

 

[Chaos Drake]

While the original poster was not necessarily correct - the responses here making sweeping general statements are not necessarily wholly correct either.

But this is because it's the Dragonlance setting which has a fanbase.

Also some of the folk here are publishers and they're hardly making general statements. I really don't see why publishers would bother with many adventures, especially with Dungeon magazine around.

 

[Vigilance]

While the original poster was not necessarily correct - the responses here making sweeping general statements are not necessarily wholly correct either.

Sucess requires risk - but it is possible.

Heh- Dragonlance huh, nice example.

One of the most recognized names in the hobby.

Im sure if I did a Conan modules or Starship Troopers modules would sell too. And if I *owned* one of those properties I would definitely support them with adventures.

However since I don't, I, like some of the other publishers that have chimed in here will just have to keep making our "sweeping generalizations".

Even though those "sweeping generalizations" are built upon hard-won knowledge of the industry and market research supported even by the industry leader itself.

There's an exception to every rule, that doesn't mean all rules go out the window.

Chuck

 

[Emiricol]

Dragonlance is a poor example. There's so many other factors at play there that have nothing at all to do with the dynamics of the market for game modules in general. Unless I have Dragonlance licenses, which I don't, I'm going to believe all the experts and people _doing_ it, and not my own impressions or the beliefs of other people like me, who have no actual knowledge of this particular market segment.

 

[Steel_Wind]

(There's also the fact that the Dragonlance name is a major seller. Not every company has a built-in audience like that. And I say that with no direspect to Sovereign Stone; I'm sure the module was great, and I'm not attributing all its sales to name recognition. But that recognition does give them a head start, and I'm sure they'd be the first to acknowledge that.)

Not at all. I attribute 99% of it to name recognition amongst its fans. It does not hurt that, being DragonLance, it tends to get stocked and displayed along with WotC products in stores either.

But there are more people than Sov Press who can play the licensing game. There are a number of RPG properties that are licensed. Will they see the same support and marketing?

I would LOVE to be able to purchase modules - even one with an epic meta-plot - for Green Ronin's forthcoming Black Company.

Will they make them? Not if the attitude here prevails.

For the record - I will buy modules before source books and optional rules. I am CRUNCHED OUT - and I am not alone.

*Cheers* to the guys at AEG who made the World's Largest Dungeon at a time the market is running rfom adventures.

 

[Vigilance]

But this is because it's the Dragonlance setting which has a fanbase.

Also some of the folk here are publishers and they're hardly making general statements. I really don't see why publishers would bother with many adventures, especially with Dungeon magazine around.

Yep- the publisher I work for, RPGObjects, has made modules to support their Darwin's World setting and the results have been decidedly mixed.

I know many of the modules we make aren't printed, and I don't think we have any plans to print adventures for the second edition beyond Dominic Covey's Wastelords series.

Chuck