WotC's lack of adventures--a solution?

[Faraer]

There aren't any 'generic' modules (or magazine articles, etc.), just ones whose setting isn't named. There are good modules of that type, and many good ones in specific settings: Gary Gygax's and Ed Greenwood's, for instance -- Gary keeps writing his (sans World of Greyhawk proper names, but so what?), but we've not had any of Ed's for years and won't till the Castlemorn Ruins Sourcebook. (The Dalelands trilogy, I think, is perfectly fine; I've heard little strongly negative or positive said about it.)

Commercially, the point is that a book that's not profitable enough for Wizards with its high overheads and Hasbro-determined profit demands would be very profitable for a third-party publisher, unless the license fee was too high.

 

[Treebore]

What i was saying about the FR modules is that the story wasn't of use to me in a lot of them. Only the fact that they mapped various cities made them of any use to me. Everything to do with the Avatar thing was totally useless to me, other than there were maps of cities i wanted to have. That "god" thing never happened in my campaign. That whole idea turned me off.

As for you hitting a Necromancer nerve you seemed to be taking the opposite stance when Whisperfoot said they were totally generic and you made examples that indicated you didn't agree. Plus, when I wrote that I didn't remember which poster said it. I just looked prior to writing this post.

To possibly clarify my position more, and to try not to be insulting while i do it, is that the only reason i think your "model" might work is because to many new players want everything done for them. There is no one on this board, that i can think of, that has this need i am referring to.

 

[Khur]

To possibly clarify my position more, and to try not to be insulting while i do it, is that the only reason i think your "model" might work is because to many new players want everything done for them. There is no one on this board, that i can think of, that has this need i am referring to.

I strongly disagree with your apparent stance that only the lazy want setting-specific modules, and only they would be the market. Such a statement is shallow, because it ignores all of the factors that make up this potential market. Those factors are many. It is rhetorical, because it can’t really be debated base on logic and fact, but it does appeal to the emotions unduly. To be blunt, it's also haughty. I say this not to raise your ire, or insult you, but because it seems only someone who wants to appear superior would say such a thing.

Note, please, that these statements refer to your quoted post above, not you personally. I don't know you, nor do I think ill of you, but I do know what you posted.

If done correctly, the model will work or fail based on how responsive the general market is to the idea. That market is made up of all sorts of persons, many of whom are intellectually superior and more creative than the populace at large, some of whom are no doubt lazy slugs by worldly standards. However, most of us here know that playing the game at all takes more work than most are willing to muster to do anything besides their day jobs (because they largely have to) and yard work (because they largely have to). How many times have you been asked if you were studying something when writing for a game session and poring over rulebooks? Few hobbies demand as much labor from the central figure in the hobby, in this case the DM.

Besides the effort required to play the game, the tendency of things is that no DM is left without some work to mold a published adventure to his or her campaign. Plenty of hardworking and creative persons use prepared adventures. Adult players, who must also work for a living, have children, and so on, generally don't have time to do everything from the ground up, though many are quite skilled at winging the rough parts. Wanting to use prepared adventures doesn't make them lazy. Wanting setting-specific adventures doesn't make them lazy either. The latter, combined with the time issue, does make them a good potential market for what we're talking about here.

I can't really be insulted about this issue, because I'm not personally attached to it enough. I'm just curious about it. I am wondering if I should have titled the thread "Third-party Adventures Based on WotC Settings" to get more response from d20 insiders.

 

[Treebore]

It is not an issue of laziness. It is a lack of confidence in one's ability to be creative. It is a lack of ability to take responsibility for how good or bad your game is. If you make the module your "own" you have taken the responsibility for how good the campaign is. If you "run it by the book" you can blame the module.

Besides, any DM who has done it knows the best games are when everyone makes it part of them. This only happens when the DM makes the game a "part of themselves" and conveys the richness and vitality, or life, the campaign has taken on in the DM's mind. When the DM makes this happen, and conveys it to their players, that is when it becomes an awesome game.

The most effective way is for a DM to take any story, whether a module, book, or movie idea, and make it come alive, is to make the story interesting and exciting to themselves. Then they need to learn to pass on this "vitality" or enthusiasm to their players. When this is achieved they become the creators of a great game, a game their players eagerly return to experience again.

So my disdain is that this reliance on modules that "do everything" for them, is that it slows down the rate at which they will become a better DM.

Maybe I feel superior because I know what it takes to get there. Maybe I feel superior because i run the games where I watch may players bodies shake with their excitement and apprehension. I have heard their shouts of exultation. I have watched them slap each other on their backs and do their hi 5's because of their accomplishments within my game. I have seen my players cry with sadness while a member of their group sacrificed themselves for the rest of them. I have seen them whoop for joy when, despite all odds, the inspiration of said player, combined with incredibly lucky rolls, allows them to escape the death they should have faced.

So if I am egotistical, so be it. I for one, have earned the right to appear to be so. My real goal is for as many players and DM's to experience the deep emotional gratification of such games.

So putting your business models aside, I think it is more important to have modules that have a "core" of a good story idea that requires a DM to put some effort into making that story come alive. I have found the more you put into it the more you get out of it. Making it setting specific just takes out one more important dimension a DM needs to add from their own mind. It just takes out one more "connection" that can help the DM learn to run a more intense and rewarding game sooner in their gaming experience.

From a business sense what you say makes sense and is probably very sound. I am not a business man when it comes to playing this game. I want more people to discover this very rewarding aspect within this game. The sooner this happens, and the more often this happens, the faster the popularity of this game will spread. Everyone enjoys the natural high of such experiences. That is why so many people seem to be "addicted" to this game, because at one moment or another, they have achieved this emotional involvement in the game. Then they strive to experience it again. The more often a DM is able to make this happen the better they are considered to be. Homebrews are probably so much more popular because those DM's probably achieve these levels of excitement with their groups a lot more frequently than those who use modules or pre-created worlds.


So i think it is far more important to create modules that spark creativity rather than make it less necessary. So modules tailored to require less thought are something I see as weakening the gaming experience. Just like I see pre-made worlds to be a weakening element; unless the DM realizes that they are in no way obligated to run that campaign world in accordance with someone elses vision, but to run it according to their own vision. A vision that will be fed by how their players respond to what they do.

Those of you have had the emotional experience i have described know what i mean. Those of you who know how to make it happen almost at will probably know exactly what i mean. So it is not ego that fuels me, it is a desire to share the experience.

There, I think I have figured out what I wanted to say without being insulting.

 

[Arnwyn]

If you have no reason to believe a third party would do better than TSR, what reason do you have that they wouldn't? If you have none, then your opinion, while valid on a personal level, and valuable for setting a "tone" for a sector of the market, has no other real bearing on the discussion, because it is mere speculation and not even a reasonable jump of logic.

Of course it's mere speculation - and everything about this entire topic will continue to be so until we see a third party publisher slap a "Greyhawk" logo on their next adventure.

My reason to believe that they wouldn't is that to write an adventure in a particular setting, one requires knowledge (great knowledge) of said setting. I tend to believe that WotC (and TSR before them) have more of that knowledge than some third party publisher (who have their own concerns and work that doesn't involve poring over the campaign setting of another publisher). If (again, at the time) TSR struggled with some FR adventures (really, only the Ed Greenwood authored ones were of any value, such as Ruins of Undermountain or FA1 Halls of the High King), I would believe that some disinterested third party, with other responsibilities, would likely struggle as well.

I think what I said is very much a reasonable jump of logic.

(Quick note: The reason I use TSR instead of WotC is that WotC has written only 3 setting-specific adventures since 3e [RttToEE, Into the Dragon's Lair, and Pool of Radiance], and only 2 FR adventures since they took over from TSR [the 2 3e FR ones]. Not a particularly good sample size...)

Thanks for this. Now I understand better. My opinion is, once again, that one can't compare TSR's modules to what third parties "might" do preemptively like this. It's unfair. A Forgotten Realms product by a third party might just be set in the Silver Marches, with a nod towards that locale's particulars. It needn't have deux ex Elminster or any other traditional FR meta-plot in it to be set in the Realms.

One can hope.

You seem to agree with the core assertion I've made.

I do.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that a responsible handling of the situation what put certain events and changes to the core game world off limits to third parties?

Yes, it is reasonable. And that's the stickler - a "responsible handling". Color me skeptical.

Even if one doesn't assume this, as I've said before, the core world stands always as WotC creates it—noting that they themselves have stayed away from many possible meta-plots. WotC need not be any more responsible for how a particular DM's version of the Realms changes via third-party material than they are for how the same thing happens via a DM's original material. In other words, if my players' party kills Szass Tam in an Unapproachable East scenario I created, need WotC be concerned with that turn of events in my personal campaign? Further, can I as a consumer no longer enjoy the official take WotC presents with their products (games, adventures, and novels)? Am wrong here?

No, you're not wrong (well, not entirely). I have a hard time believing that "WotC need not be any more responsible for how a particular DM's version of the Realms changes via third-party material than they are for how the same thing happens via a DM's original material". As soon as money and a logo is involved - WotC is responsible whether they like it or not. All 'that importance of branding' stuff.

As an aside, I also disagree that WotC has "stayed away from many possible meta-plots" in regards to FR, at least. May I point you to Cloak & Dagger and the 3e FRCS?

So, yes, I do agree with your basic premise - there is the possibility for the opportunity for some money to be made from making adventures in WotC-owned settings. But I also think that the hurdles (notably the part of playing with somebody else's IP) may destroy any chance of reasonable profit in a reasonable timeframe. (A basic example - look at how long poor Paradigm had to wait for AEG to approve Bloodspeakers. I would speculate that getting approval from WotC would take twice as long. As soon as a logo is involved, the approval process is daunting.)

Of course, I'm a very skeptical person at heart anyways... And, speaking as a heavy-purchasing consumer - I am skeptical that somebody with little experience in a campaign setting could write something decent for that setting. For those who know GH and FR, there are a lot of horror stories...

I really wish that more industry professionals (*nods* Mark of CMG, Ed Cha, Darrin Drader) would chime in and let us know how they feel.

I'd be curious too - but only from the ones who actually write published adventures.

 

[Khur]

*snip* If you make the module your "own" you have taken the responsibility for how good the campaign is. If you "run it by the book" you can blame the module.

Interesting points.

Besides, any DM who has done it knows the best games are when everyone makes it part of them. This only happens when the DM makes the game a "part of themselves" and conveys the richness and vitality, or life, the campaign has taken on in the DM's mind. When the DM makes this happen, and conveys it to their players, that is when it becomes an awesome game.

The most effective way is for a DM to take any story, whether a module, book, or movie idea, and make it come alive, is to make the story interesting and exciting to themselves. Then they need to learn to pass on this "vitality" or enthusiasm to their players. When this is achieved they become the creators of a great game, a game their players eagerly return to experience again.

So my disdain is that this reliance on modules that "do everything" for them, is that it slows down the rate at which they will become a better DM.

I couldn't agree more. Your disdain doesn't seem misplaced. In fact, it actually seems that you care enough to want others not to miss out on a rich gaming experience. That's pretty cool of you, if you don't mind me saying it. I only have one caveat, and that is that persons who want just to play hack-n-slash, level-up, kick-in-the-door D&D are having fun too. That may not be the way you and I play, in fact you and I may think very little of that style, but it's a valid way to play is it not?

*snip* So if I am egotistical, so be it. I for one, have earned the right to appear to be so. My real goal is for as many players and DM's to experience the deep emotional gratification of such games.

It has been said that it ain't braggin' if it's true. (It's also been said, by a supposedly very wise man, that one should rely on others to point out one's virtues.) Your game sounds like a game I'd like to be a part of. It sounds much like my own gaming table. Congratulations on your skill as a DM.

*snip* I think it is more important to have modules that have a "core" of a good story idea that requires a DM to put some effort into making that story come alive. I have found the more you put into it the more you get out of it. Making it setting specific just takes out one more important dimension a DM needs to add from their own mind. It just takes out one more "connection" that can help the DM learn to run a more intense and rewarding game sooner in their gaming experience.

I agree totally. However, one usually has to do some work to make a story continuous when inserting prepared modules into one's own game, even if the game is the setting for which the module was prepared. No?

*snip* Homebrews are probably so much more popular because those DM's probably achieve these levels of excitement with their groups a lot more frequently than those who use modules or pre-created worlds.

What you've said here is valuable, Treebore, but not totally applicable to the topic. That's fine. I love philosophical digressions. Could it be also that DMs invest more emotionally into their homebrew worlds, and that emotional investment shows through to the players?

*snip* So modules tailored to require less thought are something I see as weakening the gaming experience. Just like I see pre-made worlds to be a weakening element; unless the DM realizes that they are in no way obligated to run that campaign world in accordance with someone elses vision..... *snip*

Ah, but newer DMs can use examples, can they not? To me, as you've said about Necromancer's products, a good module encourages innovation. A good product should also show you how to do that innovation. It's a daunting task for a newbie. I realize that I have 24 years of experience as a DM/GM, so I've honed my skills. Greenhorns need some showin'. Too bad an experienced mentor doesn't come packaged with the game.

*snip* So it is not ego that fuels me, it is a desire to share the experience.

There, I think I have figured out what I wanted to say without being insulting.

A laudable driving force, indeed! I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me more about this, and may I say you did a great job not "being insulting". You and I have very similar views on actual game play and its highest value. It's good to meet someone else like that. I was beginning to think we were too rare a breed.

*snip* My reason to believe that they wouldn't is that to write an adventure in a particular setting, one requires knowledge (great knowledge) of said setting. I tend to believe that WotC (and TSR before them) have more of that knowledge than some third party publisher (who have their own concerns and work that doesn't involve poring over the campaign setting of another publisher). *snip*

I think what I said is very much a reasonable jump of logic.

With this reasoning, your argument is indeed a reasonable jump of logic. Thanks for sharing it. Setting experience is important. We have to remember that certain companies have key members who were employed by TSR/WotC, as well as access to a wide pool of freelancers who have written setting material for years (this may be a possible negative aspect too, if those same people are the ones who made lousy product). For example, Green Ronin's Chris Pramas, and his intimate connections with WotC and Paizo Publishing, is a good candidate. So is Jim Butler of Bastion Press, who was also a managing factor in FRCS. (Hopefully Bastion will get better art and design, but that's another issue.)

As an aside, The "Adventure Path" modules were to be set in the core D&D setting (Greyhawk), or am I wrong? They were just left vague enough to be placed in that setting as the DM wanted. The same can be done for third-party adventures.

*snip* As soon as money and a logo is involved - WotC is responsible whether they like it or not. All 'that importance of branding' stuff.

This is a very important issue, thanks for bringing it up. I think responsible management could mitigate any real problems the public would have. It's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical that responsible management will occur, but that's another preemptive assumption. The branding issue can be taken care of the same way d20 is handled ... a special logo for compatible adventures.

A basic example - look at how long poor Paradigm had to wait for AEG to approve Bloodspeakers. I would speculate that getting approval from WotC would take twice as long. As soon as a logo is involved, the approval process is daunting.

This is a valid and important point too. It is, once again, unfair to assume that what happens with another company besides WotC is any determiner for what will happen with WotC. Another caveat is that Bloodspeakers is a sourcebook for Oriental Adventures, not just an adventure. However, this is an obstacle to successful marketing. There are "middle road" solutions that can streamline the process, however. One is allowing third parties to make suggestions for tailoring a generic adventure to a specific WotC setting. Another is, simply don't use major setting figures in your adventures, except as background. Greyhawk can hardly be "hurt" by any reasonable addition. FR is a bit more closed, as Eberron will likely be.

It would be interesting to get some numbers on how successful Bloodspeakers was/is compared to other Paradigm products.

I think a real reason for not doing setting-specific adventures is that it could be a limiting factor on sales if public perception isn't correct and/or the marketing of the product isn't good. It's my opinion that every such module should have a small bit of conversion notes for tailoring the module to fit other campaigns. Suggestions for alternate feats and spells for an NPC, replacement magic items, and so on. It's not too hard.

Thanks for putting up with me guys. You have some valuable things to say, and I'm glad we're hearing them.

 

[Arnwyn]

With this reasoning, your argument is indeed a reasonable jump of logic. Thanks for sharing it. Setting experience is important. We have to remember that certain companies have key members who were employed by TSR/WotC, as well as access to a wide pool of freelancers who have written setting material for years (this may be a possible negative aspect too, if those same people are the ones who made lousy product). For example, Green Ronin's Chris Pramas, and his intimate connections with WotC and Paizo Publishing, is a good candidate. So is Jim Butler of Bastion Press, who was also a managing factor in FRCS. (Hopefully Bastion will get better art and design, but that's another issue.)

Yes, it's definitely a "depending on the company" thing. And actually, I think your freelancer point is very good. Getting Ed Greenwood, Steven Schend, and/or Eric Boyd (all freelancers) to write FR adventures would be a good idea. Same with getting Gary himself to write Greyhawk adventures.

As an aside, The "Adventure Path" modules were to be set in the core D&D setting (Greyhawk), or am I wrong? They were just left vague enough to be placed in that setting as the DM wanted. The same can be done for third-party adventures.

Theoretically, you're right - but for all intents and purposes, you're wrong. The Adventure Path, throughout the entire series, (IIRC) had barely one actual reference to something actually in Greyhawk (not counting the standard PHB deities).

This is a very important issue, thanks for bringing it up. I think responsible management could mitigate any real problems the public would have. It's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical that responsible management will occur, but that's another preemptive assumption. The branding issue can be taken care of the same way d20 is handled ... a special logo for compatible adventures.

I'm not sure if it could be handled so easily. IP is very touchy for most companies. Note that in the "way d20 is handled", no "D&D" is allowed to be mentioned except for a special (and strict) license - just ask Kenzer. I don't think IP such as Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, or Eberron could be handled the same way, without an additional layer of licenses, restrictions, etc. (And that's where publishers start to back off.)

There's a reason why WotC was willing to license out Ravenloft and Dragonlance (after the core book), but probably not any others...

But, you're right with responsible management. Clear and concise guidelines would have to be released... maybe something like that FR novel contest WotC had? They had some detailed guidelines about what you could and couldn't write about. Those might be useful in setting guidelines for licensees writing adventures in WotC properties...

It would be interesting to get some numbers on how successful Bloodspeakers was/is compared to other Paradigm products.

Indeed. If Paradigm was happy with their results and eager to do it again, I think that there could be a future with adventures for WotC properties.

I think a real reason for not doing setting-specific adventures is that it could be a limiting factor on sales if public perception isn't correct and/or the marketing of the product isn't good.

Absolutely. I think it may, in fact, be critical to such an endeavor's success.

Edit: typos.