Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Monte At Home" data-source="post: 2263556" data-attributes="member: 1335">Well, that was indeed the point of the piece that the quote was originally taken from. In the old days, TSR focused on modules and sold a boatload of them. Then they put less focus on them, and they stopped selling, and ever since "adventures don't sell."My point, ultimately, is that while we turned some paradigms on their heads with 3E, we should have tried to take this one on as well. (And don't get me wrong, I think Sunless Citadel wasn't bad, but it could have been even better had Bruce been given more time, and if there had been even more playtesting than there was--the old 1E modules that everyone remembers were playtested to death because they started out as convention tournaments.)If we'd given it more thought, we would have realized that it's not that "adventures don't sell" it's that for 18 or more years, customers have been taught that (most) adventures aren't worth buying. The difference is, the latter is an attitude that could, in theory, be turned around.I like some Goodman Games adventures, and most Necromancer modules. I think we've put out a couple of pretty good adventures and so has Fiery Dragon. And a few others. And of course Dungeon Magazine rocks. But in truth, I think it takes the market leader to turn around a perception like this. Would it be worth the time to do so? Maybe. (Good) adventures are important in the grand scheme of the game. They encourage actual play in a way that a sourcebook does not. They don't allow for system creep or for broken or ill-conceived rules to slip into the game. They help show new DMs how the game can be played. They inspire through example.In fact, even if I'm wrong, and adventures can never be made to sell well again, the values I just mentioned, from the point of view of the long-term health of the game, still make them worth doing in some fashion.</blockquote>

Verification