WotC & Their Adventures

delericho said:
Since WotC can only produce so many books at a time, if they expend those resources on adventures, that means fewer other books can be produced. If you don't like adventures, therefore, you're stuck. I can understand the annoyance.

I don't share it, however. I have plenty of crunchy rulebooks, far more than I will ever fully use. I can, however, always use good adventures. And, what's more, I can especially use good, long adventures that aren't just "Dungeon Crawl #103", and that's not something Dungeon can really do - they do good short adventures, but only longer adventures as part of a series (and, excluding the Adventure Paths, they don't do too many of those).

Yupper!
At this point in the development of D&D 3.x, I'd much rather have (highly useful) adventures rather than the latest optional rules type hardback. Enough already.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

rom90125 said:
wotc is writing adventures....

is this why we haven't seen an Age of Worms HC yet?

At Gencon, Paizo was still waiting for WotC's permission to do the Age of Worms Hardcover.
WotC making adventure modules should have no effect whatsoever with what Paizo will do with an AoW hardcover.
 

Ghendar said:
Yupper!
At this point in the development of D&D 3.x, I'd much rather have (highly useful) adventures rather than the latest optional rules type hardback. Enough already.

I totally agree with this statement. While the WOTC rules supplements have been good of late, (Complete Mage is an awesome book), at some point obsessive tinkering with the system has to give way to playing the game.

Modules let people play the game.
 

Ghendar said:
WotC making adventure modules should have no effect whatsoever with what Paizo will do with an AoW hardcover.

Well, except that WotC might well be reluctant to okay a 'competing' adventure product.

Of course, where that line of thinking goes wrong is that you don't publish adventures to make lots of money from adventures (since they're relatively poor sellers). You publish adventures to get people playing the game, and therefore buying core rulebooks and/or supplements (or, you just keep them playing and interested, so they will buy 4e when it hits). According to that line of reasoning, approving AoW is a no-brainer, since each adventure in the market helps WotC, whether they published it or not.
 

WOTC was putting out two sourcebooks a month. Two hardcover $30+ sourcebooks a month.

Now the prices might not have changed but how much material can they put out and expect players to use?

How much material can they put out and not wander into the system limits? Some say they've already broken well past those withe Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, and Magic of Incarnum.

How much more can they do without reinventing the wheel? Some say they've done that with Complete Mage = Complete Arcane, etc...

How many more sequels can they do before their called hacks? MMV? MMXII?

Adventurers, adventure sites, dungeon tiles and other smaller things are really the only things they can do without worrying about some of those factors.
 

IMO, it's absolute folly to be promoting a RPG with all sorts of sourcebooks but not creating adventures that new players can pick up and run out of the box. I would wager that most new players don't want to create their own adventures from scratch, don't know how, or simply don't have the time. Showing people "how it's done" is essential to breeding a new group of gamers who think D&D is more than just Diablo on paper.

I also don't buy for a second the argument that putting out adventures reduces the other amount of material that comes out. Not one second. For all we know WotC could outsource adventures or hire people on contract, neither of which reduces output. People may think that more adventures means less resources on sourcebooks, but I have yet to see any evidence to support that. WotC supplements continue to be churned out on a monthly basis.

WotC puts out plenty of stuff I have no interest in. But that doesn't mean I slam it b/c it's simply something I'm not interested in. There's plenty of other stuff out there that does pique my interest. We don't need to have an opinion on everything. ;)
 

As long as I don't have to go out and buy various supplements in order to understand and-or use the new modules, I'm all for it. But if a module is centered around the Holy Backstroker PrC that can only be found fully detailed in the Book of Holy Prestiges and not anywhere else, then no thanks.

Now, if they'd only make 'em backwards compatible with 1e... :)

Lanefan
 

smootrk said:
I am on supplement-overload right now. New adventures are a welcome change of pace, especially really good ones.

What I do expect, is that WotC will try to do a little cross product promotions by innoculously linking little portions to their supplements like...
magical items using Weapons of Legacy rules
ship combat situations using Stormwrack rules
a desert trek using Sandstorm rules
They will probably include simplified ways to accomplish the tasks, but will suggest checking out their 'other product' for better and more complete rules.

Not that this is bad, it would help me to fully incorporate the use of the various books that tend to sit on my shelf most of the time, only being refereced for the occasional feat or spell.

Or linking to D&D Minis, like they have been doing with Red Hand of Doom and the last 3 expansions of DDM.

I like these expedition to... adventures, it will give me a chance to play or run some adventures I never got to do as a kid.
 

I'm glad they are producing modules again. Even though many 3rd parties have great adventure modules, it seems the ones WoTC produces are the ones discussed most fondly when gathered around at conventions or game stores or when meeting new player friends...a common yet separate experience with other players... Whether Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors or Sunless Citadel...this is where the common stories of how 'we did this' or how 'we almost got TPK'd there'....fun stuff...good times....
:cool:
 


Remove ads

Top