Publishing modules that don't slot into existing campaigns

[Gimby]

I've recently been working on converting a short home campaign into a module that I could publish and I and a co-author were having a discussion on whether it's worth adjusting it somewhat to expand the potential audience.

It's set in a pastiche regency world, focussing on the voyage of a naval survey ship to a mysterious island. For various reasons, it's important that certain things are true - guns have supplanted bows, dragons are extinct and the list of ancestries is limited. Essentially, it's a mini homebrew setting intending to evoke Hornblower, Sharpe, Master and Commander and so on.

While this is being written mostly for our own enjoyment it was suggested that the limitations of the setting would be off-putting, partially from limiting character options and partially from not making it something that would slot into existing campaigns easily.

The question to the floor is then how far a module author go in limiting things to their original vision versus allowing more options (which may bring a whole new slew of options the original author hadn't thought of) and also how many people would be interested in module that is inherently standalone?

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I'd say make the module that you are excited about, especially if it's your first time publishing anything. It's more work that most people expect, so being excited about will help see you through to the end.

There will be some people turned off by the limits, but they can also help you stand out from the thousands of other generic fantasy products. Also remember that GMs are free to do with your book whatever they want. If they like it but don't want to limit ancestries, they can just decide not to limit ancestries.

 

[Riley]

I agree with Matthew above. I’m also wondering if the unique things you’ve outlined above even need to be adjusted much for a general 5e audience?

- Absence of dragons: Lots of adventures (maybe even most) have no dragons in them.

- Absence of ancestries: Again, many adventures and locales only feature a small number of these. Would the presence of a PC with one you don’t use somehow undermine the adventure for that table?

- Guns not bows: Are you using standard 5e firearms? That should be fine. Maybe make a sidebar suggesting substituting crossbows and ballistae, and/or suggesting altered combat strategies (say, ramming instead of cannon fire) if the plot hinges on the nature of the armaments?

Godspeed!

 

[Umbran]

The question to the floor is then how far a module author go in limiting things to their original vision versus allowing more options (which may bring a whole new slew of options the original author hadn't thought of) and also how many people would be interested in module that is inherently standalone?

Well, it isn't like there's anything improper about having limits.

On the other hand, I don't know how much appetite there is out there for short stand-alone one-shots. At least, if I buy a shorter work, it is for the purpose of fitting it into what I'm already doing.

So, the real questions are entirely practical - how much to the adventure's restrictions limit the potential audience?

I can imagine a couple of ways to improve applicability:
1) Make it long. An adventure that takes you though an entire tier of play probably would probably get more interest.
2) Make it a basis for future play, an introduction into the world in question, designed to give the GM lots of places from which they can carry forward on their own.

 

[Zaukrie]

Make something you love. You aren't going to make real money either way. So do what you love and share the love.

 

[Zaukrie]

Also, Matthew has been publishing for a long time, listen to him.

 

[Gimby]

I agree with Matthew above. I’m also wondering if the unique things you’ve outlined above even need to be adjusted much for a general 5e audience?

- Absence of dragons: Lots of adventures (maybe even most) have no dragons in them.

- Absence of ancestries: Again, many adventures and locales only feature a small number of these. Would the presence of a PC with one you don’t use somehow undermine the adventure for that table?

- Guns not bows: Are you using standard 5e firearms? That should be fine. Maybe make a sidebar suggesting substituting crossbows and ballistae, and/or suggesting altered combat strategies (say, ramming instead of cannon fire) if the plot hinges on the nature of the armaments?

Godspeed!

For the first two the adventure is about things being found on the island that are known to not exist, the latter is largely using the 5e firearms rules but also allowing the PCs to track gunpowder armed opponents by sound. It's all things that could be changed, but it's additional work that I'd probably want to do last.

Well, it isn't like there's anything improper about having limits.

On the other hand, I don't know how much appetite there is out there for short stand-alone one-shots. At least, if I buy a shorter work, it is for the purpose of fitting it into what I'm already doing.

So, the real questions are entirely practical - how much to the adventure's restrictions limit the potential audience?

I can imagine a couple of ways to improve applicability:
1) Make it long. An adventure that takes you though an entire tier of play probably would probably get more interest.
2) Make it a basis for future play, an introduction into the world in question, designed to give the GM lots of places from which they can carry forward on their own.

Those are good points - it ran levels 1-5 on the first run through and is probably running 1-7 on the re-run. The world itself is nothing special (just a regency Europe analogue)

 

[Zaukrie]

I kind of want to play a fantasy adventure with guns ...

 

[Gimby]

I'd say make the module that you are excited about, especially if it's your first time publishing anything. It's more work that most people expect, so being excited about will help see you through to the end.

There will be some people turned off by the limits, but they can also help you stand out from the thousands of other generic fantasy products. Also remember that GMs are free to do with your book whatever they want. If they like it but don't want to limit ancestries, they can just decide not to limit ancestries.

That's a very good point - expanding rough campaign notes to a module someone else could use is looking pretty daunting so best to keep things to a relative minimum to start.

 

[the Jester]

This is a perfect opportunity to use sidebars. Write the adventure how you like and then add in sidebars discussing the implications of your limitations and what the implications and consequences of discarding them are.

That said, I agree with the "how does this matter to the adventure at hand?" approach. You don't need to say "there are no dragons" if it doesn't have any effect on the adventure.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

That said, I agree with the "how does this matter to the adventure at hand?" approach. You don't need to say "there are no dragons" if it doesn't have any effect on the adventure.

Agreed. I think the only reason to mention 'there are no dragons' is if the naval survey ship is supporting a Darwinian expedition to test someone's theory about a lost 'dragon's graveyard' and it benefits the Crown to humor the assertion.

 

[aco175]

You say it right here.

It's set in a pastiche regency world, focussing on the voyage of a naval survey ship to a mysterious island. For various reasons, it's important that certain things are true - guns have supplanted bows, dragons are extinct and the list of ancestries is limited. Essentially, it's a mini homebrew setting intending to evoke Hornblower, Sharpe, Master and Commander and so on.

Just use a sidebar like what @the Jester says above and people will get it. Maybe lists some ways to change things for no guns or how adding other classes will change certain encounters. Encourage other DMs to change it how they see fit.

 

[ninjayeti]

From the perspective of someone who buys a fair number of indy/3pp adventures I would say an adventure that was designed for an author's homebrew setting rather than one that was designed to fit into a generic campaign setting would almost certainly be a hard pass for me. This is particularly true if it was a first time author. As a first time author I am already taking a chance on your work - if you are telling me that the adventure is not going to work in my own setting you are just giving me a great reason to skip it and look a the dozens and dozens of other indy adventures available.

If you are writing it for fun, by all means write whatever is fun for you! I applaud your efforts to put something out into the community. But if you want me to spend my money on it then make it a product that I am going to be able to use as seamlessly as possible.

 

[bloodtide]

You should write and publish what you want to and like. Don't fall into the trap that everything must be One Way.

The market is full of generic stuff that can be plugged into a generic game. If you sell that you will make a "small and steady" income.

But what the market has much less of are unique ideas. That is what many buyers are looking for, not Keep on the Borderlands XXXVI.

The vast majority of all DM will alter a published module anyway. There are DM that have Judges Guild Modules from the Time Before Time, that they alter to 5E. Earthshaker is an old D&D module I have use for lots of games: because the giant fantasy mecha is a fairly unique idea.

You can always add a conversion section too...

 

[dragoner]

My experience is to say get it done and publish it, expanding the scope is something for another edition.