Why D&D is slowly cutting its own throat.

[Sigurd]

modules

Modules don't make money for themselves but I think they train DMs.

Who hasn't looked at a module thinking 'how would I do that?'


Modules also require crunch and rules but not fluff - presumably they supply that themselves.

eg

Libris Mortis will supply a framework for a number of adventures\modules that would not occur to people not reading Libris Mortis.

Modules also make the assumption that players are functional gamers and not just buying a cool library. Only the heady glow of a succesful adventure session will give players\consumers a gratitude to 'Tomb of the Metamorphic Flumph' or make it into anything special. Not all consumers are active gamers and not all modules are successful among those who are. Potentially there are a lot of modules that never get played and dont engender a lot of satisfaction.


I think PDF modules and Dungeon Magazine today are in a much more natural format. Minimize your production costs or gaurantee a subscription base then produce at as low a running cost as you can manage.

I'm surprised that there are not more random adventure generators out there. I think it would be far easier to edit a random adventure into a real one. Connecting threads, tweaking setting, etc... inside of a computer projected encounter level seems like the way to go.

S

 

[buzz]

I played 3rd ed. GW (the one with a resolution system similar to Marvel Superheroes), so from my perspective it was 5 modules in a year.
...
When they were in print though, they were supported by several modules a year.
...

Five modules in a year was more than sufficient in terms of quanity.

But your perspective isn't really the issue. The point is that no one edition of GW had more than 2-4 modules produced in its entire lifespan.

And, if five modules in a year is more than sufficient, I don't why you're even arguing your point. There were probably 100 modules produced for 3e in just its first year! From your perspective, there are more modules available right now for your D&D game than you could play in a lifetime, and out of those hundreds, I'm more than confident you can find five good ones to run each year for the next decade.

The basis for this whole thread is just nostalgia. People complaining about how there are no "classic adventures" being produced any more, how WotC are evil capitalists, how 3e is killing itself...

3e is the most enjoyable version of D&D I've played yet. There are more good products out there than I could use in a lifetime. The gaming life is *good*. 10-20 years from now, you'll all figure that out, too.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The PDF market is where I think the future of modules is likely to lie, at least if they are accepted by the populace. (I do not understand the prejudice against PDFs at all, except when the price is the same as the print version...) AS a loss leader WotC puts a fair amount of material on their website, easily accessed by anyone with interest. When production costs are low then the module may be more tempting to the publishers.

The Auld Grump, who is asleep at the keyboard...zzzzzzzz

 

[VirgilCaine]

Boot Hill was fun to think about, and I even ran it once back in high school, but I never could figure out what sort of adventures I was actually supposed to send people on. I mean, once you've fought off a stage coach robbery, had a gunfight at high noon, chased down the cattle rustlers, and fought of the hostile indians... then what?

Free California from the scheming governor?
Free the Mexican village from the bandits tyranny with your band of violent misfits?
Use your group's varied skills to break into a heavily guarded gold train?

www.imdb.com

There are no stakes. When someone dies in D&D, it's not an emotionally-wrenching
experience. It's crossing several thousand gold pieces off a character sheet.

Take a look at room 6 from WotC's series of Undermountain web articles. This is pretty representative of a typical D&D encounter these days. They call it a "puzzle", but take a look at the "solution":

Maybe in your game it's a few thousand gold, not in mine.

 

[Celebrim]

*sigh*

But your perspective isn't really the issue. The point is that no one edition of GW had more than 2-4 modules produced in its entire lifespan.

Right. About one year.

And, if five modules in a year is more than sufficient, I don't [know] why you're even arguing your point.

No, I don't suppose that you do.

There were probably 100 modules produced for 3e in just its first year! From your perspective, there are more modules available right now for your D&D game than you could play in a lifetime, and out of those hundreds, I'm more than confident you can find five good ones to run each year for the next decade.

Ok, how? By buying hundreds of PDF's in order to get a feel for what is good? Then going down to kinkos and spending $0.50 or $1.00 per page (or whatever it is) to get a good printout? That's economical? More to the point, you think that nearly 50% of the modules produced for third edition are good? Funny that the fanbase doesn't seem to feel that way. Do you know how many 3rd edition modules I've seen glowing reviews for? Not that many. Most of them get panned. Each year, ENWorld nominates the best modules of the year. Each year, I then go and read the reviews of those modules that were written at the time that they came out. Each year, I read lukewarm reviews of the module. Every few weeks, someone on ENWorld asks for module recommendations, and every time the same small number of modules are recommended. When modules arrive at the game stores and book stores, I pick them up and flip through them, and almost every time I find nothing of interest. Sure, I find some skilled efforts from time to time (Bonegarden, Blacksails over Freeport) and I respect the effort and craft that went into the production, but they usually have some fatal flaw or the other which makes them ill-suited for anything but a one off campaign with a set of players that can stand the railroading. Essentially, I'm being asked to pay more for a product that is going to require more work for me to adapt than the old 1st edition modules would require to adapt to 3rd edition and my play standards, and for all their bare bones where actually better examples of the basics of the craft than the very best modules being produced today. I'm not the only one that feels that way.

People complaining about how there are no "classic adventures" being produced any more...[/quote[

Bah, is there anything more tedious than people complaining about other people complaining? By and large they are right - there aren't any classic adventures being produced anymore. Even the example of Goodman Games, which seems to 'get it' more than just about any other module publisher is also a counter example. Goodman Games is able to emmulate the superficial elements of a classic module (blue ink, nice looking retro covers, dungeons), but I can take one look at the maps and excerpts and realize that they don't fully get it.

3e is the most enjoyable version of D&D I've played yet.

Me too, but that's not the point is it? Why can't you accept that though something may be good that it might also have flaws?

 

[Henry]

I am separating "the task is difficult" from "the person doesn't have the gumption to get it done".

The one time I can think of sufficient motivation coming up to display the point was WotC's setting search. And, by all accounts, it revealed quite a bit of good fluff running around out there.

I have to side with Erik and Phil here; from their perspective, and mine, "can't do the work" and "could do the work, but won't" is pretty much the same thing: In the end, no product is forthcoming.

In regards to the setting search (which a friend of mine and I contributed to): Wizards only found 11 people out of 11,000 that they considered worth their time. That's one out of a THOUSAND, from the judges' perspective, worth selling or publishing. Just because I can carry a tune doesn't mean I belong on American Idol.

 

[francisca]

In regards to the setting search (which a friend of mine and I contributed to): Wizards only found 11 people out of 11,000 that they considered worth their time.

You don't know that! There may have been 111, or 1,111 that were worth looking into, but there are just so many hours in the day. They went with the 11 that looked good on the surface.

 

[Crothian]

So, how do we get back to the heyday?

Get D&D to be one of the few games on the block.

 

[Henry]

You don't know that! There may have been 111, or 1,111 that were worth looking into, but there are just so many hours in the day. They went with the 11 that looked good on the surface.

Well, I can either assume that, or I can take Anthony Valterra (and James Wyatt, I believe) at their word, who said that the judges read EVERY entry, and selected those that both captured their imaginations and sounded like they had something to offer more than stock D&D.

I'll accept that there are different degrees of "good" - never said there weren't. But if someone says they "can, but don't have the motivation", it still doesn't matter, other than to their own personal self-esteem - They AREN'T producing. Also, to continue the American Idol analogy, there's "good to sing in the Church choir" or "good to sing as a house-band at the party", and then there's "Good enough to carry a wide range of songs, be consistent in performance, and make all deadlines and commitments", with a capital "G".

 

[WayneLigon]

In regards to the setting search (which a friend of mine and I contributed to): Wizards only found 11 people out of 11,000 that they considered worth their time. That's one out of a THOUSAND, from the judges' perspective, worth selling or publishing. Just because I can carry a tune doesn't mean I belong on American Idol.

I have no idea what process WotC used to choose the winners but I would be willing to bet that there were a set of simple things to look for to advance someone from round one. Those things, I would think, would include some things that were of interest to them as a company looking for a hot new property, not as a company looking to produce the most interesting setting. That sounds kinda bad; what I'm trying to get across is that several of the settings could have been really amazing but they had limited appeal.

I'm also willing to bet that many, many people self-selected themselves out of the process by not following format or directions or by not demonstrating good grammer or spelling. I'd be very curious as to how many entries were discarded virtually unread because of those reasons and the actual number of contestants that made it past the quick scan for grievous errors.