Why are modules no longer popular

[jester47]

I'm not sure if the product that you're discussing is a module or a mini-campaign setting at that point. For example, the FRCS detailed specific areas of the Realms and then provided several adventure hooks. I can't imagine that anyone forked up $40 for some adventure hooks.

tf360, that is definately not the product concept described. You are overgeneralising.

What I am talking about is say a book on say, to site Forgotten Realms, The Crypt of the Wondermakers. In the book you get an expanded history of the crypt, a map of the crypt. Then you would have the stats and histories of the important people in the crypt (i.e. the liches). Then you would have the stats of the creatures tha might be inhabiting the crypt. Among these are the treasures that all these inhabitants possess.

Thats it. Everything else is left up to the DM to weave around the desires of the players and the goals and beheviors of the inhabitants. There is no "the layers are asked by so and so to go into the crypt to..." Maybe the DM wants to insert his own thing and so with just the map and the traps listed he can stock it the way he wants. That is what I am talking about.

I think that would sell. Imagine if Sunless citadel were done that way. You have a map, some descriptions of rooms without the effects of inhabitants. Then you have the descriptions of the inhabitants and thier factions, and what rooms they like to occupy and what those rooms look like when occupied by them. Then at the very end for like 2 pages you get a bunch of ideas on how you might be able to place this location and its inhabitants into your campaign.

Furthermore you could take snapshots of a dungeon over time- lets say there was a dungeon that looked one way at one time and then there was an earthquake that changed the layout of the dungeon. Then someone added onto it later. You would have 3 maps for the place. Three different sets of inhabitants and three different time periods to use the module.

See? It is a hell of a lot more useful when you do it that way.

Aaron.

 

[FDP Mike]

Not quite an adventure/module ...

What I am talking about is say a book on say, to site Forgotten Realms, The Crypt of the Wondermakers. In the book you get an expanded history of the crypt, a map of the crypt. Then you would have the stats and histories of the important people in the crypt (i.e. the liches). Then you would have the stats of the creatures tha might be inhabiting the crypt. Among these are the treasures that all these inhabitants possess.

Thats it. Everything else is left up to the DM to weave around the desires of the players and the goals and beheviors of the inhabitants. There is no "the layers are asked by so and so to go into the crypt to..." Maybe the DM wants to insert his own thing and so with just the map and the traps listed he can stock it the way he wants. That is what I am talking about.

Hmm, but such a product is no longer an adventure. Instead, it's more like a "locations" book, perhaps even closer to a "setting sourcebook" (such as, for instance, Green Ronin's Freeport hardcover). I agree, though, that such a product could sell -- only, labelling it an adventure would not be quite accurate.

In fact, a really excellent recent example of the sort of product that you describe is Necromancer Games' Book of Taverns. Each tavern is presented pretty much as you describe in your first paragraph, and the rest is up to the DM. Still, one cannot really call Book of Taverns an adventure (or module); NG terms it a "DM aid," I believe, which is pretty sufficient.

The very notion of an "adventure" involves some sort of quest -- i.e., a story, a plot, an end goal or climax. A book of locations, while an excellent idea, simply would not really fulfill the role of an adventure. Now that I think of it, another Necromancer Games product comes close to what you describe, jester47, though the product is technically an adventure: The Vault of Larin Karr.

Still does not explain why adventures are apparently no longer popular . . . .


Take care,
Mike

 

[Greybar]

a quick note: on Morrus' recent "top sellers" list from the ENWorld store, there are a number of module-like-products. Almost all come from Necromancer.

Perhaps it's not so much a lack of demand, it's just that Necromancer has become the dominant producer.

John

 

[Henry]

Necromancer definitely accomplished what they set out to do. "First edition Feel."

I have to say what has made their products popular with me is the elements they used - layout, writing style, inter-denizen politics, and the Gygaxian "less is more" to give the feel that I had when I used to play back in the 80's. Necromancer is quite popular for their modules in my area for this regard - it doesn't take a tremendous amount of work to "splice & dice" their material into whatever you have planned.

 

[Glyfair]

I suspect part of the reason is the current market & the demands that the consumers are making. Unfortunately, they are conflicting and making a classic adventure a rarity.

For example, there is a certain part of the d20 market that wants adventure that have a strong, unique flavor. Typically, this is done by placing it in a specific campaign world. Another large segment of the market wants an adventure that can be fit into their campaign with very little tinkering. This typically is done by making it independent of any campaign world.

Unfortunately, the two "demands" don't go well together. The more you add flavor, the more work that needs to go into adapting it.

Look at some of the reviews on ENWorld. You'll see a lot of comments along the lines of "It's useless to me if I need to put this much work into adapting the adventure into my campaign world." You'll also see comments along the lines of "This was so generic, any DM with the smallest amount of creativity could come up with this." I wouldn't be suprised if you see some of those comments come out of the same person, upon occasion (none of the regulars, though).

Yes, it's possible to create an adventure that fills both needs. It's very difficult, though. Also, the easy routes quickly become boring (the "Brigadoon" type places that don't need to tie to the campaign world).

The thing is, neither side is wrong. They each just have different needs.

Perhaps it's time for someone to write an article for Dragon or another magazine on how to adapt a campaign specific adventure to your own campaign world.

Glyfair of Glamis

 

[tf360]

Another consideration not really discussed yet is the fact that the typical gaming campaign is ongoing and not static. For instance, I run a 9th-11th level campaign using my own adventures. If a company produced a quality 4th-6th level adventure, it may be a great module, but I have no use for it since my campaign is at a higher level or vice versa. While most provide means for "scaling the adventure", I just consider it a major hassle and opt not to buy the adventure. I and I'm going to presume a lot of DM's are not going to create new characters just to partake in a specific module. I think that's one of the factors that people keep harping on when they nostalgically look back on the G-D series from 1st edition. The modules provided a series of interconnected adventures that could be used as a stand-alone module or as one giant mega-adventure lasting from 7th-8th level all the way up to 13th or 14th level.

Another reason touched upon is market specialization. Necromancer probably produces more full length adventures than any d20 company but it enjoys a higher market share than most of its counterparts. Other major d20 companies don't want to compete against their specialized niche. Looking at all of the major products categories, i.e. class books, magic sourcebooks, etc., you will notice that most major companies specialize in a particular area with the exception of campaign settings that seem to be fairly universal. To give you an example, I pitched an idea for a class book to one of the companies that I regularly work for. The response that I received from this company (I'm not going to mention which one, but a major one) was that they did not want to compete against their rivals in the class book market. To apply this lesson to modules indicates that few of the other major companies wants to exclusively compete against Necromancer, FDP, Monkeygod and to an extent, WOTC in this category simply because they can find another specialty area that may even prove more profitable, leaving only a handful of the d20 companies to divvy up the module business. Therefore, while most companies still produce some modules, they rely on other speciality areas to generate their profit.

 

[megamania]

Modules are fun but the sense of accomplishment of creating one is equally fun for me. And if the players liked it....more so.

I agree with several of the earlier posts- There are tons of good or better adventures out there already. There are too many currently.

 

[Belen]

I think that modules are no longer popular because the have no relevance. It seems hard to find modules that are no world-specific or heavy monster combat oriented.

In my game, I hardly ever throw monsters at PCs. It is too easy for them to figure out how to beat them. I usually throw humans etc at the people in my party.

 

[johnsemlak]

One thing about modules I miss from the early D&D days was the way modules introduced loads of new things into the D&D game. Just offhand, I can think of:

Drow (introduced in G1-2-3)
The Underdark (introduced in D1-2)
Tharizdun (WG4)
Ravenloft (I6)
Tons of Artifacts in S4
The Known World map in X1, plus all the dinosaurs.

Back then, Modules were a primary instrument of expanding the D&D game, and developing the D&D settings WoG and the Known World.

I supposed modules simply won't have that function in the current envirnment, though d20 companies may use them to develop their own campaign worlds.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I think one of the most overlooked problems with modules and why they don't sell well is structure. People are turned off by boxed text modules.

What people want is locations. The best module format(IMO) is the one followed by ICE and some of GWs WHFRP stuff. Thier mdules present a location, and then present adventure hooks and information.

IAaron.

This would probably solve the problem I see with most modules. The thing is now there is a much wider diversity in palying style than there was back in the B-1 days. A dungeon crawl might hack it for some people but it will bore a wide seciton of the gaming populace to tears, a more investigation thriller might be a balst for some but bore the dungoen crawlers to tears.

When making a module you are probably already excluding over 50% of the gamer populace by the choice of the type of module.(intrigue, dungoen crawl etc) out of the remaining minority, you now have to deal with will it fit my campaign, is it the right level ranges, do I even use modules and all the other problems that they have always faced.

I prefer detailed loactions with hooks it allows me to cusotm tailor it to my camapign and adventure style.