Why D&D is slowly cutting its own throat.

[Storm Raven]

No, I don't suppose that you do.

Nobody else does either. Especially since the facts concerning GW module production so clearly contradict your claim that it had good module support.

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.

Many of the "classic" modules got panned in their day too. And many of them get panned now. Trusting reviewers opinions on modules is a risky proposition. What one person looks for in an adventure may be radically different from what you expect.

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.

And? Gosh, people are lukewarm on modules, books, supplements, and other gaming material. How many times have you read someone bash a particular product as "utter crap", and then read it only to determine that it is actually quite useful? I've had that experience numerous times.

Every few weeks, someone on ENWorld asks for module recommendations, and every time the same small number of modules are recommended.

About 200+ modules were released for 1e, and yet, when people ask for recommendations, the same small number of modules are recommended. I guess things weren't so different back in the "golden age" you are nostalgic for, except for the fact that your memories have become selective.

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.

You mean, they can't go back in time and insert their module into your lexicon of adventures published circa 1982? That seems to be the sum total of your argument.

 

[Celebrim]

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".

I agree with Henry here. I wouldn't agree with the assessment that everyone that could do the job already has it. Just like American Idol, if you do a talent search of DM's you'll turn up some high quality acts. But I do agree that there is a big difference between running a fun adventure for the boys and being able to excite people enough and excite enough people to get them to buy your product.

For example, I'm a pretty good writer - so far as we are confining what we mean by 'good writer' to random BBS posts and college essays. As evidence, I'll point out that both the first post I made on this messageboard and the first post I made on the wizards messageboards were picked up and republished by persons in positions of power. I'm a much better writer than average. I might even be 'good'. BUT, as we start moving up to more and more demanding mediums, then the limitations of me as a writer are going to become more and more evident. Eventually, my writing is going to appear mediocre and unimaginitive. That's going to be true of the majority of DM's out there - even the better ones. If you add on top of that the problem that first I have to get the initiative to write 64 or 128 or whatever many pages of orginal material, edit it, correct it, work with a publisher on it and so forth, then you are going to find that the number of people with both the will and the abiliity are very small.

Which is why that when I'm highly critical of someone, you should take it only in the context of the level of ability that they are displaying. I can say with what I feel is perfect truthfulness, that Stephen King is somewhat lacking in ability as a story teller - but that doesn't mean that I don't feel at some level he's a very good story teller. It's just that I'm comparing him to someone of the level of say Mary Bujold, and Bujold just tells a much tighter story. Likewise, I might say that Raymond Fiest is lacking in the craft of wordsmithing, but thats only because I have something like Gene Wolf out there to compare him to. None of that means I don't like Raymond Fiest's works, it just means that I can appreciate Raymond Feist for what he is and not what he is not.

And I try to hold the craft of adventure design/writing to the same sort of high standards, precisely because I care so much about the hobby. It bugs me that for all the technical advances we've made in the hobby and for all the higher standards of professionalism that the hobby evidences, that there aren't more good examples of the craft out there.

 

[The Shaman]

I have the core books. I'm done. I have the software I need to design my own game world. I'm done in that arena too.

I agree, KnightSavant.

I'm looking real hard at giving up on D&D and moving to C&C instead in large part because of the incredible bloat of player-oriented rules-options, and the sense of entitlement that seems to come with them. I think I'd rather use a system with fewer options so that we can focus once again, as we did in years past, on the adventure and not what neat tricks the PCs can perform.

With that in mind I agree with Celebrim as well. For me D&D has cut its own throat: I'm not a gamer who plays lots of different systems, but I'm sufficiently turned off by D&D to consider leaving it behind and playing another game specifically because of the direction that WotC has taken with the game.

I don't for a moment consider myself to be part of WotC's core consumers, of course: I don't buy settings, I buy one or two splatbooks a year at most and use only selected bits of each, I never played M:tG, and I'm not interested in running a half-dragon fiendish troll Fighter 3/Wizard 2/Eldritch Knight 7/Order of the Bow Initiate 3. Chances are WotC will never know I'm gone, and wouldn't miss me anyway if they did.

 

[Umbran]

Every few weeks, someone on ENWorld asks for module recommendations, and every time the same small number of modules are recommended.

Gotta be careful there, though. Is that because only that smallnumber of modules are good, or because the same "usual suspects" keep answering those questions with their personal favorites? Considering that the number of really active posters around here isn't that large, it may well be the latter, so that data is biased by the sample selection.

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't for a moment consider myself to be part of WotC's core consumers, of course: I don't buy settings, I buy one or two splatbooks a year at most and use only selected bits of each, I never played M:tG, and I'm not interested in running a half-dragon fiendish troll Fighter 3/Wizard 2/Eldritch Knight 7/Order of the Bow Initiate 3. Chances are WotC will never know I'm gone, and wouldn't miss me anyway if they did.

This is an attitude I never understand. Is there something about D&D that would compel you to play such a character, or even use all of the options that make such a character possible? If you don't like supplemental material, is there something that compels you to use it anyway?

 

[The Shaman]

This is an attitude I never understand. Is there something about D&D that would compel you to play such a character, or even use all of the options that make such a character possible? If you don't like supplemental material, is there something that compels you to use it anyway?

Not at all, and as a GM I have no problem with saying no to players either. However, more and more players are expecting this kind of opportunity to come with the game, IMX, and IMHO too much time is spent even with the core rules as written on working out feat and class combos that players are more interested in showing off what tricks their characters can do than with experiencing the adventure.

 

[rogueattorney]

About 200+ modules were released for 1e, and yet, when people ask for recommendations, the same small number of modules are recommended. I guess things weren't so different back in the "golden age" you are nostalgic for, except for the fact that your memories have become selective.

Actually, there were only 87 adventure modules made from AD&D by TSR from 1978 to 1988. Of these only 26 were produced in the 1987-1982 period that is generally thought of as the 'classic' period for modules. Almost all of the 1e adventures people look back on fondly are among these 26.

If you want to include the Basic/Expert/RC D&D modules, 72 were made in all, from 1978 to 1993, 7 of which were published in the 'classic' period, and 53 were made while 1e was still going.

For the record, from 1989 through 2000, TSR and WotC produced 185 2e adventures.

R.A.

 

[Storm Raven]

Actually, there were only 87 adventure modules made from AD&D by TSR from 1978 to 1988. Of these only 26 were produced in the 1987-1982 period that is generally thought of as the 'classic' period for modules. Almost all of the 1e adventures people look back on fondly are among these 26.

If you want to include the Basic/Expert/RC D&D modules, 72 were made in all, from 1978 to 1993, 7 of which were published in the 'classic' period, and 53 were made while 1e was still going.

You need to include the Role-Aides and Judges' Guild adventures in your count.

 

[Storm Raven]

Not at all, and as a GM I have no problem with saying no to players either. However, more and more players are expecting this kind of opportunity to come with the game, IMX, and IMHO too much time is spent even with the core rules as written on working out feat and class combos that players are more interested in showing off what tricks their characters can do than with experiencing the adventure.

And saying no to options you don't want in your game is a problem because players expect to use them? For a guy who says he doesn't have a problem saying no, you sure seem to hint that you do.

Showing off the tricks their character can do is part of experiencing the adventure. If I (when I am a player, and not a DM), wanted to gaze in wonder at the excitement of the scenario, I'd be reading a book. Players want to do stuff, and they should. Its the point of the game in many ways.

 

[diaglo]

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".

the rules for the setting search made it sorta like American Idol.

they (WotC) said they would widdle it down to 10. but after reading 11000+ they actually couldn't widdle it passed 11. so they took 11.

they then asked those 11 for more info...