Mearls says adventures are hard to sell [merged]

[Ealli]

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.

If you're looking to match PHB numbers, yeah, that's not going to happen. Compare to something like Complete Scoundrel though. Our group will buy one copy of that at most
. When we finish an adventure, we buy a new one but not necessarily a new Complete X book. Furthermore, our group has two campaigns happening simultaneously so a Complete X book can be shared between the two campaigns, but that calls for two adventures.

If there were exactly 5 Complete X books and exactly 5 adventures, I wouldn't be surprised if we were to complete the collection of adventures before completing the collection of Complete X.

 

[kenobi65]

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

I've subscribed to Dungeon since the beginning of 3E. I'd say I've *maybe* used 15-20% of all the adventures contained in those issues (some issues, I've eventually used every adventure; some, I've used none), but the ones I've used, I've used largely "intact."

I enjoy reading game material, but reading adventures is one of the things I don't particularly enjoy, interestingly enough.

 

[diaglo]

I've subscribed to Dungeon since the beginning of 3E. I'd say I've *maybe* used 15-20% of all the adventures contained in those issues (some issues, I've eventually used every adventure; some, I've used none), but the ones I've used, I've used largely "intact."

I enjoy reading game material, but reading adventures is one of the things I don't particularly enjoy, interestingly enough.

i have every Dungeon from the beginning one until the newest one.

i've used none of them whole cloth. but i've definitely used them.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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 modify every adventure I buy, at least a little. I'm going to be doing major surgery on Expedition/Ruins/Greyhawk and sticking it under Ptolus and making Mordekainen into some as-yet-to-be-determined major Inverted Pyramid wizard.

From threads here on the board, I'd say that those who run modules unaltered in any way are in the distinct minority.

 

[kenobi65]

From threads here on the board, I'd say that those who run modules unaltered in any way are in the distinct minority.

Even I make some tweaks. I guess I was trying to draw a distinction between "buy adventures to run them (modified or not)" vs. "buy adventures as idea-fodder for the adventures I write."

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Adventures weren't selling well before d20 existed.

But some of the early d20 adventures sold like hotcakes, if their publishers are to be believed. Tens of thousands - and that's for non-WoTC. Eventually they all dropped back down for a variety of reasons, the biggest of which you summarized succintly above.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

If you're looking to match PHB numbers, yeah, that's not going to happen. Compare to something like Complete Scoundrel though. Our group will buy one copy of that at most
. When we finish an adventure, we buy a new one but not necessarily a new Complete X book. Furthermore, our group has two campaigns happening simultaneously so a Complete X book can be shared between the two campaigns, but that calls for two adventures.

If there were exactly 5 Complete X books and exactly 5 adventures, I wouldn't be surprised if we were to complete the collection of adventures before completing the collection of Complete X.

But what is the cost of one Complete book versus the cost of one adventure? I'm willing to bet that, except perhaps for mega adventures that cost as much as a sourcebook, the profit margin is much higher on the Complete book.

 

[mearls]

Like shoes, adventures aren't a hard sell so much as a tough fit.

Tat's a good way to put it, and it ties back into the thoughts inspired by Wright's keynote. A DM knows his players and campaigns better than a designer. The DM can design a better adventure for his game.

I think it might explain why campaign adventures, like the Adventure Paths, do so well. If you're going to give a DM some content to make running easier, you might as well go ahead and give an entire campaign. In this case, the designer knows what's going on in the campaign, the NPCs the PCs have met, the interesting plot twists, and so on.

I think that if Wright is correct then 32 - 64 page adventures are better served with a site-based design a la the classic early 80s, late 70s adventures. A DM and a group can bring whatever story and plot they want to a site. The DM can pick and choose stuff to use, with the site serving as a stage that hosts the action.

 

[Thomas Percy]

Why don't adventures sell?
1. What level would you like that adventure?

1-40

2. What campaign setting?

Any.

3. Would you like a dungeon with that?
4. . . . or maybe political intrigue?

Both and many more.

5. How about a world-shattering plot?

I hate such plots and I love them.

6. Will a desert setting work for you?

Yes, plus glacier and all other possible.

Am I crazy?

I need only one adventure right now, but I will need another one toworrow and third one day after tomorrow.
Adventures don't look like Fast Moving Consumer Goods, so maybe they are not best investment for publishers. They must wait for their buyer for years. I think not the number of customers is a factor, but a time.
Another thing is, it will be nice to see global e-base for ALL (or nearly all) adventures with filters proposed by mr Phill Reed and many more filters.

 

[Umbran]

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.

No. Let us look again at the quotes you gave....

Mearls: "Adventures have always been a hard sell".

Mona: "I've seen the sales figures for all of the first edition modules. You'd have to be a grade A chump to assume that 'modules don't sell' based on those figures."

Look really carefully - "hard sell" does not equal "don't sell". They are not in direct conflict there.

Turn it around a bit: You'd be a grade A chump to just look at Mona's figures and then assume that modules always sell, or are always an easy sell, for everyone. Because the end sales figures don't tell you the full story. They don't tell you about the techniques or market advantages used to get to the sales numbers.

Rather than say one is wrong, combine them - Adventures are a hard sell, but there's proof that good numbers can be reached, under the right conditions. You have to be special in some way. TSR did it by uniqueness - they were the only game in town. Lacking that, today you have to find another way to be special. It is done occasionally, but a number of companies seem to have gone under because they weren't special.