Mearls says adventures are hard to sell [merged]

[T. Foster]

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.

This isn't really true, though. The time TSR was selling the most modules was almost certainly the time they had the most competition in that area pre-OGL -- Judges Guild was selling D&D modules with the D&D logo on them, other companies were selling 'generic' modules, and other games were supported by modules of their own -- in the late 70s through mid 80s there were a ton of adventures published for Tunnels & Trolls (mostly solo adventures, but still over 20 of them), Traveller (both by GDW and a whole raft of licensees -- FASA, Gamelords, JG, etc.), RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, etc. But somewhere around 1985-86 that all stopped, and seemingly overnight the conventional wisdom became that nobody wanted or would buy modules and the only things that would sell were setting-books and rules-splat. What caused that change and why did it happen at that particular time?

 

[Glyfair]

Judges Guild was selling D&D modules with the D&D logo on them,

However, that only lasted a few years of new modules. In the very early 80's JG went to "generic."

RuneQuest,

Runequest actually had very, very few true "modules." There are really only three (Balastor's Barracks, Apple Lane and Snake Pipe Hollow). Everything after that was part adventure, part something else.

Griffin Mountain: It was sort of an adventure, but in reality it was a rich campaign area with all sorts of adventures and adventure seeds included.

Borderlands: Perhaps the first "adventure path." It was a series of adventures set in a "Keep in the Borderlands" type area. This is probably the last true adventure product for Runequest, but it is a very large part source book.

Big Rubble: Half of a setting book really. It just happens to be the half of the setting that's an abandoned city full of module type adventures.

Looking at it, I think what happened is as RPGs developed, customers realized they wanted more. IMO, very few products have come close to reaching the level that Griffin Mountain hit in the very early 80's. Once RPGs released a top quality product that was part adventure, part something else, than straightforward adventures became less "shiny."

 

[dcas]

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.

They are if you read the rest of Erik Mona's post:

So, lame adventures are a difficult sell. Good adventures, not so much.

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.

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.

TSR didn't just do it by uniqueness, they did it because their modules were better (some of JG's modules are good [Dark Tower is very good], same with Mayfair, but they never reached the consistent level of quality of TSR's, and a lot of other "third-party" modules are not good at all) and had higher production values than anyone else's.

In the latter part of the 1e era and into the 2e era, TSR's modules sold poorly despite their uniqueness. And that's because the adventures were lame. That's why they were a hard sell.

 

[dcas]

What caused that change and why did it happen at that particular time?

Lameness.

David Kenzer has even said that the reason he started Kenzer & Co. and produced the Kingdoms of Kalamar boxed set and modules was because of the garbage that T$R was putting out at the time, especially Gargoyles.

 

[delericho]

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 he meant 'always' in the same way that Achaierai are 'always Lawful Evil'.

It seems an odd thing to argue over, is all.

 

[MerricB]

But somewhere around 1985-86 that all stopped, and seemingly overnight the conventional wisdom became that nobody wanted or would buy modules and the only things that would sell were setting-books and rules-splat. What caused that change and why did it happen at that particular time?

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.

1985 is the time the first AD&D Splatbook came out, btw. Unearthed Arcana.

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Lame early adventures sold well, too.

And good recent adventures sell like bupkiss sometimes.

And, of course, what makes an adventure "lame" or "good" depends entirely on the subjective randomness of human experience, which no one can really take into account when deciding if they should publish the adventure.

If you're trying to make a "They just don't make 'em like they used to!" argument, just realize that sometimes they make 'em better, and sometimes how they used to make 'em wasn't very good, and that the litmus test for what makes an adventure good or bad varies extremely between people.

Perhaps the early adventures sold so well because early D&D was such a homogeneous base that it wasn't hard to cater to them all at once. Today, D&D is played by so many different player and DM types that hitting even a significant fraction of that audience almost necessarily excludes a sizeable minority.

 

[MerricB]

Perhaps the early adventures sold so well because early D&D was such a homogeneous base that it wasn't hard to cater to them all at once. Today, D&D is played by so many different player and DM types that hitting even a significant fraction of that audience almost necessarily excludes a sizeable minority.

There was no competition from supplements.

In the early days (1978-1984), you were lucky if *one* supplement came out from TSR. The rest was adventures. Dragon filled the supplement shoes.

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

In the early days (1978-1984), you were lucky if *one* supplement came out from TSR. The rest was adventures. Dragon filled the supplement shoes.

That makes sense. I'd bet a given supplement sells better than a given adventure, then, not just %age of audience-wise, but by raw numbers.

How many bought Expedition to Castle Ravenloft vs. how many bought, say, Complete Arcane?

 

[MerricB]

That makes sense. I'd bet a given supplement sells better than a given adventure, then, not just %age of audience-wise, but by raw numbers.

How many bought Expedition to Castle Ravenloft vs. how many bought, say, Complete Arcane?

For whatever it's worth (not much)

XCR: amazon rank #20,700
Complete Mage: amazon rank #1,823

Cheers!