Why D&D is slowly cutting its own throat.

[buzz]

Module writing is, IMO, dead at WotC.

WotC has an archive on its site of free adventures for 3e that's as long as your arm. They just added a new one a few days ago. The Adventure Path for 3e consituted more adventures than 1e had accumulated in it's first four years or so. And then there was RttToEE and CotSQ. Now we've got an "adventure path" going for Eberron and a enw one starting up for FR.

Part of the module problem also lies in that WotC, going back as far as the old TSR days, does not/ will not accept solicitations for adventure material unless you are a well-published author or have lots of RPGA clout.

Given that WotC (and TSR before it) is the largest RPG publisher on earth, I don't really see this as being a big surprise. They have their pick of the litter, and they take the top authors.

Even Dungeon magazine is cutting back on modules, becoming more of a DM's magazine.

As someone else pointed out, this is incorrect. Dungeon has not cut back on adventures; they've simply replaced Poly with DM-centric articles. The magazine is still overwhelingly adventures, and each month provides more than the average D&D group could use in that time. Not to mention, they publish matierial from both high-profile authors (Keith Baker, Mike Mearls recently) and submissions from Joe Gamer.

Hasbro has basically forced WotC out of the module-writing business because the numbers just aren't there in all likelihood and they aren't in any hurry to accept new submissions.

IIRC, the OGL decision predates Hasbro's acquisition of WotC. WotC used the OGL to farm out module-writing to third-parties becasue even a successful mdoule doesn't really make them any money. Amazingly, they still produce adventures; see the top of this post.

Take a look at Secrets of Zi'Ran, the new Warhammer FRP, and Deathstalker 2 for examples. People are starting to crave new, exciting fantasy realms, which means D&D is again starting to leave some of us flat.

Or that publishers are hoping either that D&D leaves some players flat or that their ideas will prove interesting to gamers regardless of the overall opinion of D&D. Lots of people play D&D *and* other systems. (I.e., the existence of products that are not D&D doesn't necessarily mean that there was a demand for said products.)

If anything, sales show that gamers in general are as happy as ever with D&D.

Eberron is over-hyped. I think much of Eberron's success is due to the fact that we're constantly being told that it's a huge success by WotC's Marketing department and it's easy to be a success when the majority of the current effort is being directed toward that product line.

I don't aee any evidence whatsoever that a "majority of current effort" is being directed at Eberron. E.g., only four out of the fourteen upcoming products listed on the ENWorld news page are Eberron-related. The lion's share are core (non-setting) D&D products. If anything, WotC's Eberron release schedule is very conservative compared to past setting efforts. I also don't really see much of an Eberron hype machine. The adventures and articles in Dungeon and Dragon are overwhelmingly setting-neutral .

IF D&D is going to continue to thrive, the people at WotC need to learn that lesson. They not only need to start coming up with new fantasy settings, but branch out into other settings as well. While they have half-heartedly attempted this with D20 Modern, they need to put some serious effort into some new settings.

So they can go out of business like TSR did?

It's been said before in this thread, and many threads before: if you really want oodles of settings, look to the OGL. Midnight, Scarred Lands, Dawnforge, Kalamar, Oathbound, Arcanis, Wilderlands, Morningstar, Ravenloft, Slayers, Tekumel, Game of Thrones...

Not everything needs to come from WotC. This whole thread has basically been people acting as if the OGL didn't exist.

These days it seems a lot of very brilliant, talented game designers at WotC are getting thrown at every project but RPG's. What made Dragonlance, FR, Ravenloft, Planescape, Star Frontiers, Top Secret, Gamma World and so many other game settings a resounding success- they had never been done before. Why? Because the writers at (then) TSR were encouraged to come up with new ideas, and someone was willing to take a chance on it making money.

I think the above makes a lot of assumpitons about the financial success of various properties and inner workings of WotC to which we are not privy. Other than the first two (maybe three), I don't think any of the products you listed could be called a "resounding success".

In closing, I think what would bring the industry out of its current "funk" is a NEW well-supported D&D fantasy setting that appeals to new gamers and old veterans alike. I think we all need a good dose of new, unexplored RPG territory.

I repeat, this is already being done via the OGL. I would also argue that Eberron is exactly what you're describing; that it doesn't tickle your fancy in particular doesn't really matter.

Recurring themes in this thread: nostalgia and OGL-blindness.

 

[DragonLancer]

In reference to using Dungeon as a source of adventure material I have this to say... Dungeon is a great resource for cheap, fair quality adventures suitable for an evening's game or just dropping into an established campaign. However, for the size of the magazine you could get two or three modules which would be larger, (potentially) better, and with more detail.

I like using Dungeon but I also like buying decent published modules, and I do wish that WotC would put out new modules much like TSR did (though of higher quality than some TSR ones). At the moment I feel that Necromancer Games has the best modules out there (you guys may disagree), but WotC shouldn't be leaving it up purely to 3rd party companies to put out adventures.

Now I know that WotC say that modules aren't all that profitable and sure I can understand where they are coming from, but modules are a part of the D&D game (and legacy really) and I would like to see more of them on the market.

 

[buzz]

But Eberron certainly does ratchet up the magic level. The addition of a bonded-and-licensed spellwright class, the addition of elements like magical bullet trains--these things do push magic even farther over the top.

Elements like the magewright simply provide an explanation for the broad access to magic items D&D assumes, I think. I.e., instead of the ubiquitous "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" present in every D&D world, the PCs head for the local magewright or relevant House instead. I certainly like this better than sort of ignoring where all those CLW potions come from that are laying all over the place.

The lightning rail, while mainly a nod to the "noir", seems a pretty reasonable outgrowth of D&D's magic-pervasiveness, and isn't really out of line with similarly fantastical contraptions featured in other settings. A few years back, I played in a 1e adventure originally published in Dragon or Dungeon that featured a a large cargo boat powered by a bound water elemental. D&D allows it; Eberron's just running with it. It's not like FR isn't packed to the gills with magic...

 

[buzz]

WotC shouldn't be leaving it up purely to 3rd party companies to put out adventures.

They're not.

 

[DaveMage]

WotC has an archive on its site...

Great post, Buzz...

 

[DragonLancer]

They're not.

WotC focuses on sourcebooks most of the time these days, and supporting their settings. It really does seem the case that its 3rd party publishers who are putting out the modules.

 

[buzz]

WotC focuses on sourcebooks most of the time these days, and supporting their settings.

True, as that's what earns them the best return on their investment. But you said "purely 3rd party publishers", and that's simply not true. The free adventure archive on the WOtC site has about 54 adventures you can grab, only one of which is tied to a specific setting (FR). They seem to add roughly one a month. Add to that 13 published adventures since the release of 3e, more on the way, and and average of 36 adventures published in Dungeon each year (so, maybe over 150 since 3e came out), and you've got a *ton* of adventures they've had their hands in.

That's getting close to every module published for 1e and 2e *combined*, and we haven't even touched on the OGL products yet.

(Why don't the OGL products ever count in these arguments? My gosh, WotC has provided a way for *anyone* to publish adventures for the world's most popular RPG. Sure, this invites a lot of mediocre entries from Joe Blow, but it also allows for anyone with a good idea to bring it to the D&D fanbase. No suits from accounting need be vetoing ideas that don't look profitable. The OGL allows smaller operations who make a product *purely becasue it's a cool idea* to join the fray. This is bleedin' awesome!)

It really does seem the case that its 3rd party publishers who are putting out the modules.

Putting out more of them than WotC, yes. That was one of the intents of the OGL, and we have all benefitted from it.

 

[buzz]

Great post, Buzz...

Thanks.

 

[palleomortis]

Find what? BTW, I have a list of the ones I found that I want. If you see any you know you have that you want, then go ahead and say. The one offer that has been up by several different people is for the Hook Horror, (about twelve mixed common and uncommon) But that is the only one that they have started asking for. Post there and I will be sure to get back to you. I am in there as much as I am in the general of the house rules forums.



(THIS POST MENT FOR JOE UP THERE)

 

[Umbran]

Granted, there is a difference in that he's actually guessing at a number rather that using a cryptic qualifier like "any DM worth his Cheetos", but the former is preferrable to the latter.

Sorry, I'm scientist-trained. For me, the former is not preferrable. Numbers are for quantitative analysis, when you've got actual reasonable data. Unless you've got clear claim to "expert credentials", one shouldn't expect others to take your numeric estimates as meaningful, unless you can give some basis for them.

Also, I don't feel I was being cryptic. Vague and qualitative, perhaps, but I was addressing a qualitative measure of "goodness". If I were cryptic, you'd have to wonder what I meant. What I meant in general was reasonably clear, but left open the details of the standard.