Mearls says adventures are hard to sell [merged]

[Maggan]

In short, lame adventures are a hard sell, always have been and always will be. Good adventures are not a hard sell, so one can't apply the modifier "always" to modules being a hard sell.

Maybe not, but the statement that "good adventures are not a hard sell" is just as wong a statement.

Good adventures can be a hard sell. Bad adventures can be an easy sell.

And in general from my experience, adventures are a hard sell. Judging from the comments from many industry people over a long period of time (about three decades give or take a few years), and from the sales data I have seen, I have no reason to doubt Mike Mearls' statement.

For Erik, things might be different. His data shows that good adventures are not a hard sell. I think that is more the result of the skills of Paizo in marketing the adventures they release, rather than a generic "good adventures are not a hard sell".

But then again, Erik might be correct, and most of the other people and me might be wrong. Or we could just be splitting hairs ... adventures are a harder sell than rule books. A good rule book will outsell a good adventure. Thus the adventure is a harder sell.

/M

 

[Cam Banks]

1983-4 really marks a turning point for AD&D modules, IMO. It's at about that time we come out of the classic era into the "not so good" era. 1983: Great. 1984: Meh.

Out of the black and white blue-and-white mapped era and into the better-designed, better-looking, and innovative era? I mean, I know I'm biased and all (1984 was Dragonlance) but few people at the time were looking at the new stuff coming out and saying "gee, I wish it would look more like amateur hour again."

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Reynard]

few people at the time were looking at the new stuff coming out and saying "gee, I wish it would look more like amateur hour again."

I don't think he was referring to the graphic design or art direction of said adventures. I mean, as cool as the Dragonlance novel series was, could there be a worse set of modules?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Out of the black and white blue-and-white mapped era and into the better-designed, better-looking, and innovative era? I mean, I know I'm biased and all (1984 was Dragonlance) but few people at the time were looking at the new stuff coming out and saying "gee, I wish it would look more like amateur hour again."

But production quality isn't everything. I don't know that many people are pining for Ravager of Time to get an update, or The Bane of Llywelyn. While there are notable exceptions -- you wouldn't be the only one to see the Dragonlance series as a highlight of that period -- I think there's certainly a lot more second-tier (and below) material coming out of TSR after the first few years of the 1980s.

 

[T. Foster]

It's not so much Dragonlance as all the other stuff TSR released in 1984 -- the Conan modules, "Journey to the Rock," "The Forest Oracle," "Midnight in Dagger Alley," etc. These modules all looked nice (especially the DL ones) but content-wise they were severely lacking compared to what had come out a year or two prior (and what other companies were releasing -- Masks of Nyarlathotep, Borderlands, Big Rubble, etc.). I started in 1984, and even as a 10 year old kid it was clear to me that the old modules with the weird/ugly art (mostly by that creepy Erol Otus guy) were way better than the new stuff, and lucky for me stores still had them in stock.

 

[dcas]

Maybe not, but the statement that "good adventures are not a hard sell" is just as wong a statement.

You're right, especially in today's market.

Good adventures can be a hard sell, but historically good adventures produced by the market leader are not a hard sell.

For Erik, things might be different. His data shows that good adventures are not a hard sell. I think that is more the result of the skills of Paizo in marketing the adventures they release, rather than a generic "good adventures are not a hard sell".

He's referring to 1e-era T$R modules in his post. I think the top-selling modules of that era are I6, S1, and T1. There are also lots (1 million?) copies of B2 in print, but no doubt many if not most of them were sold with the boxed Basic sets (it was sold with both the Holmes blue box and the Moldvay box I think).

 

[rounser]

As some others have touched upon in this thread, adventures are difficult to fit (and therefore sell) if they're made the last ingredient added.

If you're running "Age of Worms" or "Red Hand of Doom" primarily, and Eberron, FR or whatever secondarily, suddenly things are the way they should be; campaign forcing setting to make compromises, and not the other way around as is traditional.

A complete overhaul of D&D culture is probably necessary, putting settings in their place. Instead of WOTC and everyone else putting the setting on a pedestal, maybe they should go into the "campaign selling business", with the equivalent of Worm Food articles the cash-in supplements equivalent to regional setting books. 160 page supplements with Adventure Path-specific prestige classes, setting material, rules and monsters. Cool.

I reckon that'd sell, and that'd nail the players market as well. Heck, people might even play more, daydream about powering up characters less (although I suspect that in the short term the latter is more profitable than actually encouraging people to play, though sure as eggs it costs the game a heap of lost and ungained players in the long term).

 

[DaveMage]

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.

I'm running a game now where this is very much the case. I have an overall plot/campaign in mind, but I'm using Necromancer Games adventures and Goodman's DCCs to give me great site-based adventures I can plug in and play. I have no use for adventures that are heavily plot-based. I need a location (BBEG treasure hoard) to stick the "emerald key of illumination" that I want my PCs to find.

 

[MerricB]

Out of the black and white blue-and-white mapped era and into the better-designed, better-looking, and innovative era? I mean, I know I'm biased and all (1984 was Dragonlance) but few people at the time were looking at the new stuff coming out and saying "gee, I wish it would look more like amateur hour again."

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=188346

At the time, I really liked Dragonlance. I didn't really catch up with most of the other adventures until later. I still like Dragonlance, although there are a few awful adventures (I'm looking at you, DL2).

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

*snip*


I think that's silly; if nobody likes a movie, a book, or an adventure, how can it be a quality item?

How many people really like War and Peace? The Illiad? Heck, Shakespeare? Yet, I'd be willing to argue the quality of those works and authors.

Sign me up to Rounser's club. I like his idea.