Why don't you buy modules?

[Melan]

Modules are pretty much the only product I buy regularly. In the recent year or two, however, they seem to be overwhelmingly large and too complex for my tastes. I like Necromancer a lot, but they, too, have started down this road. I know, I know, these are the only sellers.

But that doesn't change the fact that I need small, modular and basic modules: preferably location based, generic or hard fantasy and light on plot. For example, I would buy and use modules like "Kill the Brigands!: Brigands are treathening the land. Here is their castle and dungeon, where you kill them all and take their treasure." 32 pages. That's a good module for me.

If publishers really, really need to put out large hardbounds - make them collections of small adventures, maybe revolving around a theme even, but for heaven's sake, I don't need another full campaign. It was a cool idea originally, but I don't have that much time to run a supermodule. Give me Keep on the Borderlands, give me Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan and give me The Book of Treasure Maps.

P.S: I think I will order Ed's adventures and those Goodman Games things... Hopefully they are what I am looking for.
P.P.S: If it ain't 1st edition or OD&D feel, I won't buy it. You have been warned.

 

[Toscadero]

I buy modules. If it looks interesting and I think I can pull something from it, then I will buy it. I don't have the time to plan out something on my own, but I can take the core of a module and let my own imagination add to the adventure.

In the past three years, I've run two larger modules. RttToEE was great, but I felt trapped into completing the whole thing and was ready to get out by the time I neared the module. My player's loved it all the way through. I just felt as a DM that it was too long.

I feel that the shorter modules work best. Our party ran Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury when they first came out and loved them. They had enough meat to be interesting, but were short enough to complete in a short time as oppossed to six months or more.

 

[Steverooo]

PCs don't really need modules, only GMS do. You want to sell more modules? Maybe you need to work up an introductory DMing line... "My First Donjon", or somesuch shmuck. Lotsa hand-holding for the first-time GM, explainiing the rules and how they apply, why the module is designed the way it is, suggestions for adding on to the product if the PCs really like it, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

No, this probably won't increase your sales to the current crop of GMs, but, if done well, may start off a whole new batch of beginner GMs looking to YOU for their GM-Aid needs...

As for what will attract the more old-school GMs... I dunno. "More than mere modules"... Ask Diaglo!

 

[Sir Whiskers]

You liked that one? Download "Free Lunches" -- written by YOURS TRULY!!! Brimming over with COOL. Yes, Dire Kobold is still in business.



I hope.

Yep, it was called "Foul Deeds Rise", IIRC.

I downloaded Free Lunches, for 6th level, a while back. Naturally, I downloaded it about the time my campaign went on hiatus, so I haven't had a chance to run it yet. Maybe some day...

 

[Treebore]

One thing you probably are not aware of is that the main reason why it is hard to find any new "small" modules coming out is that the distributors and a lot of LGS's refuse to carry/distribute them because the profit margin isn't big enough.

So companies, like Necromancer, are looking at doing an "adventure anthology" type of approach, where one book would contain several adventures of various types that may have a connecting theme/plot or may not.

Another thing, one of the owners of Necro posted on their messageboards a few days ago that they made a whopping $4.00/hour off of Necro production work last year. That is why they keep their day jobs. These guys, i believe, are the "biggest" publishers of modules out there. They do this for reasons other than money.


Also, when i buy modules, it is knowing that I probably will not use it as written. If I am lucky I may leave as much as 85% of content unaltered. Usually it is 70%. It is also knowing that I will have to add the appropriate terrain/setting to my campaign world for it to work. That is why I like lots of "empty" areas on my world maps. Considering scale, it isn't hard to add in module locations to a world.

That changes when you do what I am currently doing, base my whole campaign on a series of modules as its "core" story line. Modules which I have connected together using various plot hooks of my own design. So now I am using 90%+ of the content. Really all i have to change are the names of deities referenced. The only other work I had to do was create a "master map" that shows the geographical relationship of the various module locations.

I have plenty of city/town/village sources to use for surrounding geography. So the only other work i have to do is to develop plots that grow out of the events that happen in the game. I can't ask for an easier game to run.

 

[Ferret]

I would only buy modules if they really kicked ass.

 

[PatrickLawinger]

Modules'n'Stuff

Okay, I tried to read through most of the thread(s) here before responding. This, of course, has taken away from the time I have to respond.
First, while I do write and help with development for Necromancer Games, I want to state that nothing I say here is “official” Necromancer Games news. I am going to try to answer a few points that I noticed while paging through the thread. These are in no particular order, especially due to the fact that my 19-month old daughter and her older brothers are clamoring to go outside in the rain. If something is incoherent, point it out and I’ll check back to the thread in day or two to try to clarify whatever I messed up .

I believe anyone purchasing an adventure should expect to make changes to it. I would view a minimum amount of changes, additions, tweaks to fit into your campaign, etc. to be about 10%. When I write material I expect it to be modified and do my best to keep things generic enough for insertion into any campaign world. The lack of high level adventures lamented, not in this thread but others I have seen, is due in part to the inability to make high level adventures truly generic. The higher the character levels designed for, the more changes I would expect you to have to make to fit the adventure into your campaign world. If you purchase an adventure expecting to run it “as is” then you are probably in for a rude surprise.

Boxed Sets: While a great idea for some, boxed sets are generally a terrible way to sell modules, adventures, etc. Why? Retailers and distributors hate them. Boxes get crushed, smashed, scarred, and otherwise damaged during transport. Boxed sets suffer in other ways as well. They are generally sealed so people can’t take things out, lose them, steal them, etc. in the store. This means that the customer can’t page through them to decide if it is what they want. Boxed sets are expensive. In addition to the box, the material inside, and the shrink wrap. Boxes need to be hand packed. This adds another expensive step and adds to their price. In other words, boxed sets are more expensive to produce, have a higher price tag, are more easily damaged on their way to the store, and the customer can’t page through them to decide if it is what they want. There are reasons to do a boxed set though. The Wilderlands Boxed Set is an example. This is a product slated to have about 4-5 softcover books and 9 double-sided 17x22 in. maps. When you have multiple pieces that are difficult to package in a book format, a boxed set is the way to go. You still have to convince the distributors and retailers though.

Small vs. big vs. Mega vs. Super Campaign Adventures: Very few companies are producing adventures at all right now. There are lots of reasons for this that I can’t go into in detail here. On the small end we have to compete with Dungeon magazine which produces full-color short adventures. Even if you don’t use everything in one of these magazines, for 7.99 you can probably find something in the magazine that’ll fit into your campaign with a bit of work. This leaves the adventure publishers with either something bigger, or a collection of smaller adventures. Some companies have gone for the “re-usable” adventure that has a town/mini-setting that can be re-used as a base of operations for later adventures. Others go for a mega adventure or “super campaign” that also has re-usable elements.

Why? Here is the thing, as hard as it is for people to come to terms with sometimes, a publisher’s customer isn’t really you, the final consumer, it is the distributor/retailer. Short modules and books are difficult to display, difficult to stack, are more easily damaged, and have low margins for the retailer (and distributor). A majority (not all, according to some) of retailers do not like short books. They tell this to distributors who then say to the publishers “nothing less than 96 pages.” If we don’t make the distributor happy, you, the final consumer, never sees the book to begin with.

Despite the comments on these boards, and other internet boards, there is very little consumer demand for adventure modules. Adventures are generally the low margin, poor selling items in the rpg market leaving few publishers with full-time staff to support the luxury of producing many. This doesn’t mean that more publishers wouldn’t like to produce adventures, just that they need to spend their time on better selling, higher margin products to support their staff. WotC got out of the adventure business for a reason. I would expect that any adventures WotC does produce in the future (and I fully expect at least a few for the new setting and probably for FR as well) to be at least 96-128 page combined source book/adventures. Yup, they have to please the distributors too.

Okay, lots of distractions writing this, I wonder if the board times you out …

Patrick Lawinger

PS. Buy more adventures!

 

[Sir Whiskers]

...Here is the thing, as hard as it is for people to come to terms with sometimes, a publisher’s customer isn’t really you, the final consumer, it is the distributor/retailer.

This is a very important point, one that most people never consider. When we, as consumers, complain about a company's products, we need to remember that the company may not see us as customers, just consumers. The difference:

A consumer uses the product, service, etc.
A customer buys the product, service, etc.

So, at my company, I'm a consumer of MS Office, but the head of IT writes the check. Who do you think Microsoft is really interested in keeping happy, me or him? Same thing with any consumer product, including game systems, supplements, etc. - unless we buy direct from the publisher, we're not his customer. The FLGS is. The online retailer is. Wal-Mart is. Not us. Keeping this fact in mind can help explain why companies (including game publishers) act as they do.

This can create an interesting (and self-destructive) dynamic. The publisher produces a module designed to appeal to a particular segment of the market. Consumers love it, but the retailers don't like the way it's designed, or packaged, or its size, or whatever. They don't order it, or don't reorder it. Result: sales not so good. So the publisher changes how it produces the next module. But the changes turn off part of its target market. Result: sales not so good. At some point, the publisher makes a business decision to stop publishing modules, or only publish monsters that cost $40 and up. And we, the consumer, end up wondering why they won't make the modules we want...

One apparent solution is for the publisher to market direct to the consumer, so we're both customer and consumer. This usually means online. But even with sneak peaks, sample pages, etc., it's not the same as picking up a module and thumbing through it at the store. And many people still don't purchase online. Result: sales not so good.

I don't have any profound solutions - the current system doesn't work very well for any of the participants: publishers, retailers, consumers. But an effective solution clearly has to address all three groups. Until then, the market for modules isn't likely to change much.

 

[Mark]

...Here is the thing, as hard as it is for people to come to terms with sometimes, a publisher’s customer isn’t really you, the final consumer, it is the distributor/retailer.

This is a very important point, one that most people never consider. When we, as consumers, complain about a company's products, we need to remember that the company may not see us as customers, just consumers.

Perhaps true for print publishers, but not so much for e-publishers.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Perhaps true for print publishers, but not so much for e-publishers.

Agreed, which is why I pointed out that selling online is one option, albeit not without it's own concerns. I would argue, however, that even e-publishers operate under certain constraints that can bring this into play, e.g., if a third-party (RPGNow, for instance) is used.

Also, e-publishing modules doesn't seem to have solved the problems from a consumer's standpoint - getting good, well-written modules, that fit our specific needs, and provide a reasonable value for their cost. And while the internet has allowed a ton of modules to be produced and marketed, how many e-publishers make much, if any, money publishing modules?