Modules, it turns out, apparently DO sell

[bagger245]

In my opinion, the King is dead, long live the King. I've talked to several 4e players in my area, and most of them love the system but admit that they aren't having alot of fun because the published adventures are weak or the DM running the game isn't as skilled as the one who stayed with some other system. This will ultimately kill WotC if they don't do something about it. They IMO have to hire top quality talent to write their adventures. Reading a 4e adventure compared to what Paizo has put out reads like comparing a kid's work to mature designer. I'd buy 4e adventures solely to convert them if the story was good enough.

Seriously, it has always been my opinion that the #1 reason for the success of D&D relative to other RPG product lines was modules. As a guy who runs games, I love to see a small core line of rule books and a shelf brimming with adventures. That's the system for me. In my opinion, quality GM aids are the determining factor in the success of your RPG. If you turn out good adventures, people will play your game, and simply no other RPG product line has had over the years the focus on adventures that D&D has. What it means is that more players are willing to become GM's, more adventures get actually run, and you end up with more fans.

I once read someone reviewing the rules to Chill and wondering why the game retained a small but enduring fanbase. The answer is simple - adventures. What's the most awesome sauce thing about Chaosium CoC - great adventure support. If you don't have great adventure support for your system, ultimately you just have a GM toy and you sell books to be read by DMs and then put on the shelf never to be actually used. I've got several of these. Heck, the majority of the GURPS product line as best as I can tell qualifies. Sure, a few GMs will be inspired enough to run a game or even a campaign, but some will suck, some won't want to put in the continued work, and with the small group remaining you never grow your market.

I don't care whether you think Pathfinder sucks and 4e is the system bomb or vica versa, if you want to look at what system is going to succeed over the long run, look for which one is putting out the strongest adventures. If they are both putting out strong modules, then they'll both succeed. But if one falters in that, then you can bet the other one is where all the players will end up in the long run.

Even if modules didn't sell, they are so important to the RPG business model that you'd want to sell them at a loss IMO. Having a great system but no modules is like having a great console, but no video games that will run on the system and expecting to have a huge market because people will want to write their own video games. You have to have video games to sell a video gaming console. Of course, Paizo appears to have realized that you can make money selling the games as well, and in fact, if you do it right, you might can make more money on the games than on the 'console'.

Good points. But I do think WOTC is mostly concentrating on crunch as their focus (their constant errata is also an indication) rather than fluff material. If you look back a AD&D, though the game system many would consider clunky, alot have fond memories of it's adventures and are still being talked about until this day. Heck the good ones are being revamped (Castle Greyhawk, Ravenloft, ToH) back in 3e and now 4e.

I think many 4e players are using the rules to run their own adventures or Paizo's adventures. There is even an outcry of wanting Paizo to make adventures for 4e, and that says alot.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have no doubt that the talent exists at WotC (and via freelancers) to do stellar adventures. So maybe there's something internal that's harming their design methods or creativity. (Like, you know, that axe that seems to hover over all of their heads...)

I would be more inclined to think that what WotC wants in their adventures is basics and simplicity. They want to have the modules on the shelves of Borders to be so easy to use and not confusing or in-depth that a kid who is given a PH, DMG, and a module for his birthday can sit down and figure out how to play the game without his head exploding. Because that way, he might continue to play the game and then buy more products.

Let us not forget the fact that practically every one of us on these forums boards who decry the modules produced by WotC are in fact moderate to experienced D&D or RPGers. So obviously, the more basic or bland an adventure, the less useful, interesting, or enticing it will be to us here. Why any of us are surprised by this, is beyond me.

The one thing I think all us ENWorlders forget is that WotC is a Hollywood studio, and all other game companies are small independent moviemakers. WotC will crank out huge, big-budget opuses because they have larger bottom lines to hope they hit on, so they want/need to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible. Other companies can make the small, personal films that are considered more 'artistic' by the critics, but aren't going to be money-makers. And we 'savvy filmgoers' might wish that Hollywood would stop putting out 'crap' like Saw VII or Transformers 14 and instead spend more money on stuff like Hurt Locker... but Hurt Locker isn't paying the bills. What makes the 100 million in profits? The Hollywood blockbuster. We might not like it... but that's the way things are right now. Wishing things were different just isn't useful.

 

[mudbunny]

Could be. Maybe the overhead costs at WotC are proportionally worse than Paizo. Who knows?

If it *is* adventure quality that's the problem, it's surprising. I have no doubt that the talent exists at WotC (and via freelancers) to do stellar adventures. So maybe there's something internal that's harming their design methods or creativity. (Like, you know, that axe that seems to hover over all of their heads...)

Another thing to consider is that WotC is set up to publish things in print runs that are much larger than Paizo. As a result, for them to break even/make a profit, the number that WotC has to sell is proportionally larger.

For WotC, the data that they have indicates that, for them at least, selling splatbooks is a better business model than selling modules.

 

[Imaro]

I would be more inclined to think that what WotC wants in their adventures is basics and simplicity. They want to have the modules on the shelves of Borders to be so easy to use and not confusing or in-depth that a kid who is given a PH, DMG, and a module for his birthday can sit down and figure out how to play the game without his head exploding. Because that way, he might continue to play the game and then buy more products.

Isn't this what low-level adventures are for? Now if you're using this excuse for Paragon and Epic level adventures... well I'm not buying it. In fact after 3rd level I feel a DM doesn't need basic and simple anymore... he should be introduced through the module into more and more advanced techniques, storylines, rp'ing encounters, etc. of DM'ing. There's also a point where things can be too simplistic and basic (Hey it's our third fight in a row with KOBOLDS!!!)... creating boredom.

Let us not forget the fact that practically every one of us on these forums boards who decry the modules produced by WotC are in fact moderate to experienced D&D or RPGers. So obviously, the more basic or bland an adventure, the less useful, interesting, or enticing it will be to us here. Why any of us are surprised by this, is beyond me.

Again see above about levels and advancing... It's not just players who need to face more and more challenges to stay interested in the game. My brother, (who has only ever run one other game sessionin his life) tried to run KotS.... and ended up giving up on running 4e because it was such a bad experience... I think maybe WotC and even you may be underestimating new DM's and the fact that they want their adventure to be cool... not simplistic and basic.

The one thing I think all us ENWorlders forget is that WotC is a Hollywood studio, and all other game companies are small independent moviemakers. WotC will crank out huge, big-budget opuses because they have larger bottom lines to hope they hit on, so they want/need to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible. Other companies can make the small, personal films that are considered more 'artistic' by the critics, but aren't going to be money-makers. And we 'savvy filmgoers' might wish that Hollywood would stop putting out 'crap' like Saw VII or Transformers 14 and instead spend more money on stuff like Hurt Locker... but Hurt Locker isn't paying the bills. What makes the 100 million in profits? The Hollywood blockbuster. We might not like it... but that's the way things are right now. Wishing things were different just isn't useful.

Uhm... yet WotC's "big-budget opuses "... don't seem to be satisfying "as wide of an audience as possible.". In fact, IMO, they seem to be loosing more and more of their audience. Anecdotally... I bought Thunderspire and Pyramid... but with those two adventures (compared to Paizo's) WotC lost me as a purchaser of adventures. It would take one heck of a review by someone I trust to ever get me to buy another adventure from them. Honestly, sometimes first impressions count.

 

[renau1g]

The one thing I think all us ENWorlders forget is that WotC is a Hollywood studio, and all other game companies are small independent moviemakers. WotC will crank out huge, big-budget opuses because they have larger bottom lines to hope they hit on, so they want/need to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible. Other companies can make the small, personal films that are considered more 'artistic' by the critics, but aren't going to be money-makers. And we 'savvy filmgoers' might wish that Hollywood would stop putting out 'crap' like Saw VII or Transformers 14 and instead spend more money on stuff like Hurt Locker... but Hurt Locker isn't paying the bills. What makes the 100 million in profits? The Hollywood blockbuster. We might not like it... but that's the way things are right now. Wishing things were different just isn't useful.

This is an interesting view point. Paizo has pages of detail on their NPC's even though much of the time the PC's won't get to hear, but allows the DM to actually roleplay interesting villains as opposed the the cardboard WoTC ones.

 

[billd91]

I suspect you are probably in the minority on this point.

As far as trying to compare what Chill does to what WotC does, I think that's rather futile. The fact you mentioned that Chill has a small but enduring fanbase tells us that we cannot use their business model to determine whether WotC's model is successful or the right decision. The two companies are apples and oranges as far as their business models and needs are concerned.

In all fairness, Chill retained that small fanbase despite being out of print most of the time over the last 15-20 years. That's a pretty good record.

As far as whether or not he's in the minority, I have mixed impressions. Back when I was a kid, having a small number of core books and tons of modules would have been and was perfect. I had the 1e AD&D hardcovers, some of which (Wilderness/Dungeoneer's Survival Guides, Fiend Folio, Deities and Demigods, Dragonlance Adventures, Oriental Adventures, Manual of the PLanes) saw very sporadic use at the time. But I had bunches of adventures - and we played most of them. We had plenty of time to do so.

Now that I'm an adult and have a lot less play time, having a whole ton of adventures is less important because I'm not going to get to them all (or even get close). But I don't really think my preference has changed. Splatbooks are fun, but I really can take them or leave them compared to the adventures. Even if I don't get to run them all, I still prefer to read modules over splatbooks. They're more varied, they inspire my own adventures, and they give me plenty of ideas to try even if I don't use the whole thing. So I don't think I've changed.

But for the gamer who comes into the hobby with less time on his hand than I had as a kid, I can understand preferring more source books over modules from the start. I think I can also understand it for players who started with 2e or 3e (or even 4e). All of these editions, particularly once 3e come out, have more focus on character rules as toolkits for building the character you want. With 2e, it was the kits that offered up bits of customization for the PC. 3e added feats and changed multiclassing to enable shopping around for the class powers you wanted. A lot of people are attracted to the lure of more interesting tools to work with (or, frankly, ramp up your power with). The (A)D&D and publishing strategy that conditioned some of us to prefer shelves of adventures over splatbooks may be long gone.

The real cypher, I think, in all this is the setting book. Making the division between splatbook and adventure and the expected market is fairly easy, at least conceptually. But settings books tend to somewhat attract DMs and players both. Players like to know more about where they're playing, at least to some degree, but probably not to the degree they may be interested in splatbooks.

 

[Imaro]

Another thing to consider is that WotC is set up to publish things in print runs that are much larger than Paizo. As a result, for them to break even/make a profit, the number that WotC has to sell is proportionally larger.

For WotC, the data that they have indicates that, for them at least, selling splatbooks is a better business model than selling modules.

And we should also consider that there was, only recently, a gigantic thread on here, rpg.net, and perhaps some other sites asking for help with adventures... perhaps even WotC realizes it may be quality that is affecting quantity sold... especially since, again, they have a proportionately larger customer base.

Note: As far as their data... it still doesn't determine whether this is because of quality or because "modules don't sell well."

 

[MrGrenadine]

Without financial numbers the thread mostly measures loyalty to Paizo. Production isn't necessarily profit.

Your point would be valid if the material produced was in the realm of a few hundred pages.

But 5000+ pages of material, a great website, a top notch and dedicated staff, etc...these things don't exist without cash flow.

 

[renau1g]

Agreed. Most business can't run at a loss for long (unless they're "too big to fail") without collapsing. Even if they're "breaking even or just barely above that" their shareholders won't put up with that long-term either as there's no value added for their investment. One could pretty safely take is that Paizo's model of business is making enough money to satisfy their shareholders, without more specifics we can't really say much more than that.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Another thing to consider is that WotC is set up to publish things in print runs that are much larger than Paizo. As a result, for them to break even/make a profit, the number that WotC has to sell is proportionally larger.

For WotC, the data that they have indicates that, for them at least, selling splatbooks is a better business model than selling modules.

I agree. This is VERY true and speaks to the different ground rules and expectations under which WotC operates and how those expectations lead them to adopt a different business model than Paizo Publishing.

I would also point out that the focus upon rules also lends itself much more readily to a "revise, reset, resell" strategy that WotC has made the cornerstone of its business in how it sells Magic: The Gathering to players of that game.

In contrast, a business model that focuses upon selling modules and setting material has a far longer natural product cycle, in my opinion. This is especially so, given that the incentive to sell more rules -- when the profits are derived from adventures, just isn't there to the same degree.

Having more than 80+ 3rd edition hardbacks on my shelf, (the vast majority of which I must admit I barely cracked), I can say as a DM that my love for "more and more rules" has been greatly exhausted.

I think the blunt truth is that what I really liked was buying "more and more stuff"; I got a geek thrill from purchasing and collecting RPG material for my system of choice.

The cost of that in terms of $$ was something I could live with -- but the other cost? That's something I have become very unhappy with over time.

Because what was made exceedingly clear to me as the power creep extended through the late part of the 3.5 product cycle, is that the primary element of the game which suffers under this inevitable power creep is the utility of adventure material. Every splat book in the players' hands makes published adventure material increasingly unbalanced in favour of the players -- and therefore less useful to DMs.

Ultimately, I experienced in my own Age of Worms Campaign a moment where the power creep in 3.5 was responsible for DESTROYING that campaign. This experience lead me to draw this conclusion:

A. Either the expanded players options in the 3.5 hardbacks had to be radically disallowed;

OR

B. I had to admit that the Adventure Paths I had collected from Dungeon magazine could not be run without radically revising them.

With this past experience firmly in my rear-view mirror, I am looking to the release of the Advanced Player's Guide for Pathfinder at this Gencon with a lot less enthusiasm than most people. Trepidation would be a far more accurate word. Because fankly, I'm very worried the book's release is going to begin a cycle which will break those 128 Adventure SKUS I noted in my first post.

And that is something I will never permit again at my table.

I would be interested to know what Paizo thinks about this issue and whether they will entertain a change in the assumptions their adventure material for PFRPG are based upon. Will the adventures Paizo intends to release in 2011 be balanced upon the ASSUMPTION that the GM and players are using the Advanced Player's Guide? If not, will they consider releasing ONE Adventure Path in the future that is premised upon the Advanced Player's Guide being in use at the table?

Because it seems to me, at some point, without changing the default assumptions that are inherent in the adventure products -- power creep WILL break the utility of the adventure material published by Paizo to the DMs who buy it.