If WotC publishes more adventures....

[hexgrid]

How about collecting the "Shackled City" adventures in a single volume?

I missed them in Dungeon, but don't want to buy all the back issues.

 

[Eremite]

They should finish publishing it in the first place.

Yes, Undermountain wasn't really a product (tangible)... more an idea (intangible). :\

 

[Eremite]

One thing I've mentioned before is that WoTC should keep their older modules in print but updated with 3.5 rules and updated so that creatures that have changed dramatically, don't wind up in inappropriate levels.

White Plume Mountain would be a great addition to the 3.5 library of events.

Heck, I'd like to see some notes on how it ran, how it worked at conventions, some GMing tips culled from decades of playtesting, etc...

I agree with this. Many of the classics are classics for reasons other than simple nostalgia (although, IMO, the fondness for ToEE can only be due to nostalgia!). I would love to see Return to White Plume Mountain updated more so than the original; the drow series would also make a great 3.5E campaign (and, really, this is more what the City of the Spider Queen with its silly "Lolth is asleep" background [oh, and look, a whole series of novels] should have been).

 

[DaveStebbins]

1>don't just use the core books. most of the customers who are buying WOTC modules have most of the other WOTC books. let's use them.

Do you have data that bears this out, or are you speaking just from experience with your group(s)? In my groups, anything except the core books is quite rare. Also, I seem to remember insiders saying that non-core books have a publishing run at least a factor of ten (or more) smaller than the core books.

By putting out adventures requiring non-core books you are segmenting your potential audience to a fraction of those that have the required supplement, instead of a fraction of everyone. I would be surprised if the print runs for the Eberron adventures approach those of the adventure path modules. There can, of course, be valid marketing reasons for creating a product for a segment of your market, but I would only expect to see adventures for products which are still 'green.'

 

[PatEllis15]

I'm definately GLAD to hear that WotC is considering this...

In my mind adventures are the glue that tie all D&D players (and DM's!) together. The shared experience that so many people have with B2: Keep on the Borderlands or , T1 Village of Hommlet is a GOOD thing.

Also keep in mind that someone who is new to the world of RPG's is NOT going to know how to do a good Home Brew adventure. A portion of adventures should be published specifically for new players/DM's. If you played D&D in the 70's or 80's, you could probably close your eyes, and give directions to people who wanted to find the Inn of the Welcome Wench. Are you going to use this module today? Maybe not, but there isn't ANYTHING like that for new players.

I have been beating the drum for what I am about to describe on the WotC site, and on MaxMini's:

WotC seemed to get out of the adventure business because the cost/profit ratio was to low. A flooded markte meant that print runs were small, driving up costs, and diluting the ability of product sales to reduce the writers/Editors/Cartographers time to developing the product.

Remeber: Put yourself in the shoes of a player who has just been introduced to the game, and he wants to play more... in fact, he want to be the DM!

WotC can overcome the business model problem of the adventure by make something that is different:

Take the Start box from the D&D Mini's line as your starting point. Write a 32 page module in small format (i.e. the size of the Mini's rule book). Include in the box either a printed map for the adventure, or include adventure tiles that can be used to create the rooms. Now, include a set of FIXED mini's (non-random) from D&D Mini's sets that are about to go out of print. I.E. if I were writing such a module today, I would draw heavily from the Dragoneye expansion set.

You include 1 ICON (not iconic) i.e. Red dragon, Displacer beast, Troll, Ogre, etc. A figure that the Mini's collectors might want to go buy the module JUST for that figure! Now throw in the usual assortment of commons and uncommons (again, a fixed list, just like the new basic game). These figures would be used for key encounters, with all other creatures being available in current or previous D&D Mini's releases.


Your finsihed product is one that reaches across product lines to help push up sales numbers. Development is not that bad, as the design for the mini's has already been paid for. Production costs are so bad, as your looking at a smaller B&W format book.

RPGers who want that specific Mini are happy (i.e. those who don't like the D&D mini's might still want ONE Ogre, but aren't about to spend $30.00 on Ebay to buy it, but might spend $20.00 to buy an adventure that they KNOW will include that fig, along with a bunch of Orcs and Goblins...)

RPGers who want modules are happy, they get published aventures!

Mini's collectors are happy, releasing te figure so late doesn't effect the collectability that much, and it allows them to fill in their sets.


That's my business model... PLEASE WOTC: STEAL MY IDEAS!!!!

Pat E

 

[Eremite]

(snip all the good stuff because overquoting is a mortal sin)
That's my business model... PLEASE WOTC: STEAL MY IDEAS!!!!

I sincerely hope they do steal your ideas: this really makes sense!

 

[rounser]

In my mind adventures are the glue that tie all D&D players (and DM's!) together. The shared experience that so many people have with B2: Keep on the Borderlands or , T1 Village of Hommlet is a GOOD thing.

That was the thinking behind the WotC Adventure Path, from what I gather...they wanted a new series of "classics" for the game. I don't think the quality control was there, though, and there was far too much "all dungeon, all the time" for my taste...

Write a 32 page module in small format (i.e. the size of the Mini's rule book).

The D&D publishing culture's view of adventures as 32 page afterthoughts is largely why they don't sell, IMO.

That's my business model... PLEASE WOTC: STEAL MY IDEAS!!!!

I think they're way ahead of you.

 

[PatEllis15]

The D&D publishing culture's view of adventures as 32 page afterthoughts is largely why they don't sell, IMO.

They DID sell. I'm aware that they don't. That's the key to the idea I presented. I reaches out to multiple groups. It helps drives sales of 2 products: The Core Books, and the D&D Mini's line.

I think they're way ahead of you.

You mean the Basic Game? I hope so. I first posted my idea on the WotC boards about 9 months ago. Is the Basic Game a test for the concept? I hope its selling well...

Pat E

 

[Numion]

Your finsihed product is one that reaches across product lines to help push up sales numbers. Development is not that bad, as the design for the mini's has already been paid for. Production costs are so bad, as your looking at a smaller B&W format book.

I would prefer normal adventures instead of these miniatures bundles. But I guess I'm in the minority, since I've never used miniatures and probably never will. Paying extra for those wouldn't interest me, so I wouldn't buy a product you described.

I'd instantly buy a good, large campaign in a hardcover book spanning several locales and levels. Maybe the troll lords idea is like that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have heard the "miniatures bundle" idea before, though I don't know what the original source was. Perhaps this was from when Pat posted the idea on the WotC boards. It's a pretty good idea, if not for everyone, and I imagine that it would sell well.

For non-WotC modules, I find that Necromancer Games and Goodman Games do a pretty good job. NG and GG modules consistently outsell WotC modules at Golden City Comics. Of course, EnWorld Player's Journal was outselling Dragon there as well.

As far as minis go, I'd like to see the plastic ones sold like metal minis are. A pack of 8 gnolls, or a pack of 8 lizard folk, would be mighty useful. I find that one needs a wider selection of humanoids than most other miniatures. Today, I will be having part two of a battle between my group and about 50 goblins. If they sold packs of goblins, I would probably not be using pennies as battlefield markers!

Likewise, I could use more wolves. Heck, I could use more animals in general. If WotC was to release mini-pack modules, I would certainly appreciate it if they took the time to figure out which monsters get used most often, but are under-represented by random draw.



RC