Mearls says adventures are hard to sell [merged]

[mhensley]

Look at the numbers-

For every 100 active D&D players, 20 are dm's running a game. Half of them are probably running their own adventures. Half of those running modules are probably running adventures from Dungeon magazine. Now you have 5 dm's who are actually running a module. Half of them will probably be using something they bought in 1982. So what you're left with as the market for new modules is around 2-3% of the total D&D customer base.

 

[dcas]

Sure they can. Mr. Mearls is talking about a generalization. Mr. Mona is talking about a specific company. Modules can be a hard sell in general, whle one company still has success with them.

Sorry, not when one uses words like "always." If adventure modules are "always" a hard sell as Mr. Mearls says, then they were a hard sell for TSR back in the day. But Mr. Mona says they weren't. One of them must be wrong.

TSR had a near-monopoly on modules for 1e, so they sold well for TSR. But how about for anyone else who tried in the same era? How about for 2e and later?

I believe Judges Guild also did fairly well in the early 1e era.

The market was big enough for Mayfair to publish adventure modules in the late 1e and early 2e era.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I would think the reason adventures don't sell is that there just isn't enough of a market for them.

For each group of players, only one needs to purchase the adventure. Assuming the "D&D standard" of four players, then only 20% of the market would be buying a particular adventure.

Next, at any one time a group won't need adventures for all levels. There are about 5-6 groupings of level for adventures, so the market is further split to about 5% that might be looking to buy a particular level adventure.

Now, what kind of game are they running? High-magic, low magic, steampunk, pulp, classic dungeon crawl, city-based, sea-based, plane hopping? The market gets split further.

Subscribers to Dungeon magazine will be looking to buy fewer adventures since they likely have a plethora of unused adventures to choose from.

Add to that those crazy people who actually have the time and preference to write their own adventures, rather than try and work a purchased one into their world and the market is even smaller.

And last, but not least, many pre-written adventures just kind of suck. Some poorly-written, others with blatently obvious railroading, and sometimes just non-sensical. Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff is not an easy thing, and it frustrates many DMs (I know it has frustrated me quite often).

 

[dcas]

For each group of players, only one needs to purchase the adventure. Assuming the "D&D standard" of four players, then only 20% of the market would be buying a particular adventure.

-- at any given time.

Groups can rotate GMs, therefore increasing the size of the market. The problem here is that GMing a D20 game can be hard. WOTC and others should look into how they can make GMing a game easier to increase the pool of GMs and therefore the market for adventures.

Next, at any one time a group won't need adventures for all levels. There are about 5-6 groupings of level for adventures, so the market is further split to about 5% that might be looking to buy a particular level adventure.

One might still buy an adventure of a different level so that one can mine it for ideas. Perhaps the problem is that many modules just aren't that good and the ideas in them aren't interesting enough to steal for one's own game?

And last, but not least, many pre-written adventures just kind of suck. Some poorly-written, others with blatently obvious railroading, and sometimes just non-sensical. Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff is not an easy thing, and it frustrates many DMs (I know it has frustrated me quite often).

Now you're talking!

 

[GSHamster]

-- at any given time.

Groups can rotate GMs, therefore increasing the size of the market. The problem here is that GMing a D20 game can be hard. WOTC and others should look into how they can make GMing a game easier to increase the pool of GMs and therefore the market for adventures.

Rather than looking at it as "only the DM buys the adventure", look at it as "each group only buys one copy of the adventure". While that same group may have five copies of the PHB. Even if you rotate GMs, there's no point in me buying the same adventure as a co-DM.

Either way, the potential market for an adventure is 20% of the market for a more universal book, at the most.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

A lot of the older modules are 'open' enough (for example, B2, D3, and I6) that one can run through them more than once.

And others are just so ridiculously difficult that reading through them doesn't do a lot of good. I've read both S1 and Labyrinth of Madness multiple times, but I would not count on a character of mine being able to survive either one of them.

I've run through Keep on the Borderlands twice in 6 years. It took me half a session the second time to realize "Hey, I've seen this before!" Still didn't help, but that's another issue entirely.

I picked up Expedition to Castle Ravenloft a while back, on the grounds that it had some nifty rules stuff in the back...and either of my DMs would change it unrecognizably anyway. (As either group would tear the CR 15 Strahd a new one at 12th level)

Brad

 

[kenobi65]

Groups can rotate GMs, therefore increasing the size of the market.

Yes and no.

Groups *can* rotate GMs, but I imagine that many don't. And, even if a group has multiple GMs, that doesn't mean that the group, as a whole, is likely to buy more than one copy of a particular adventure module. IME, the opposite happens -- "Don't you guys buy Forge of Fury...I'm planning on running it!"

One might still buy an adventure of a different level so that one can mine it for ideas. Perhaps the problem is that many modules just aren't that good and the ideas in them aren't interesting enough to steal for one's own game?

I wonder how big the audience is of people who buy adventures with no intent of running them as-is. I can't say I've seen much of that, but that's pure mother-in-law research.

However, I'll concur that adventure quality is an issue (and, in that regard, I'll point back to Erik Mona's quote). A few years back, when a lot of d20 publishers were bringing out adventures, I bought a lot of them...and 90% percent of them were awful.

 

[Drkfathr1]

*******

 

[amethal]

I wonder how big the audience is of people who buy adventures with no intent of running them as-is. I can't say I've seen much of that, but that's pure mother-in-law research.

I'm planning to carry on buying the large adventures WotC bring out, even though I've got enough adventures to keep my group going until 2088.

I like buying and reading adventures. I get Dungeon every month, and I've used precisely two adventuers from it in my entire DM ing career.

("Dragon Hunters" and "Racing the Snake".)

 

[Mark CMG]

Like shoes, adventures aren't a hard sell so much as a tough fit. Everyone needs them, whether they make them themselves (even on the fly) or buy them. Some companies find a way to make them inexpensively enough and generic enough to appeal to a large enough base to sustain them, provided they have a stock room full of options. Other companies (or authors) have enough of a draw or marketing power that even those customers who can't get their exact fit will still snap them up and make adjustments on their own.