WotC's lack of adventures--a solution?

[Ed Cha]

Having an "official" D&D line would probably help sales, but I'm not really interested in any of their current settings. I would like to use their deities for the sake of the readers' convenience though.

 

[Nightfall]

Orcus is still OGC. He's a god!

And yes while they have specific tones and setting, I feel tweaking a Necromancer Game mod is FAR better than just sitting around twiddling my thumbs than waiting for somone to do mega-modules or even just module series.

 

[johnsemlak]

Wasn't Ryan Dancey going to publish some Forgotten Realms adventures through his company, based on the Living City campaign? In any event, the project got nixed, unfortunately.

 

[Faraer]

I put to Richard Baker the idea of licensing Realms books that Wizards won't publish -- adventures and pure Realmslore books -- he said he hadn't been approached, but didn't rule it out. Bastion Press, with people like Jim Butler and Steven Schend, would be an obvious company to do it.

 

[Arnwyn]

I'd reiterate that if the villain in a story is already a Red Wizard of Thay, and a DM doesn't have to rework the character and come up with motivations that makes sense for Forgotten Realms, the module's already better.

Sadly, history has proven that this is not true. When TSR was releasing both setting-specific and generic adventures, the setting-specific (notably, FR adventures) were far inferior to the generic adventures.

I'm not too keen on setting-specific adventures anymore. (And, as a consumer, I don't care what would "sell better" - I just care what's "good". And unfortunately these two things, in fact, have only a little correlation with each other.)

 

[Khur]

Sadly, history has proven that this is not true. When TSR was releasing both setting-specific and generic adventures, the setting-specific (notably, FR adventures) were far inferior to the generic adventures.

While I value this input, there are two problems with this assertion.

First, and probably most importantly, we're not dealing with TSR, so what they did has little bearing. We'd be dealing with third-party d20 companies who can afford a licensing arrangement with WotC. Those companies may or may not have some relationship to TSR's quality, but probably not. I'll also say that, if we were dealing with the relevance of TSR, one of the most popular and best-selling module series was set in the Forgotten Realms--the Bloodstone series. People still pay pretty well for copies of this series on eBay and the like.

Secondly, any counter to your assertion relies on an understanding of what you mean by "far inferior". Since we can't possibly know with certainty what you mean, we can't fully understand the relevance of your argument. Care to elucidate?

I'm not too keen on setting-specific adventures anymore. (And, as a consumer, I don't care what would "sell better" - I just care what's "good". And unfortunately these two things, in fact, have only a little correlation with each other.)

The real unfortunate fact of the matter is that nobody has the power to know which things in this market (or most others) are "good". This is because we are all victims of marketing clout. We buy what we know about, and we always know about the product that has the most marketing capital behind it. I'm sure the best campaign setting, adventure, or soft-drink formula ever created is sitting somewhere in obscurity, lacking the exposure it deserves because the person who created it has no capital to market the thing properly.

This is all academic, because the question of third-party, setting-specific adventures has to be posed from a business standpoint. If it's not viable as a business model, or a portion thereof, whether quality will ultimately show up is irrelevant. Nobody will do it.

The indication is that WotC products sell the best. It's not a big leap of logic to assume that support material for official (and currently closed) settings will sell better than generic d20, especially if done by reputable firms. This conclusion seems to be supported by a desire in the market for setting-specific adventures. It also seems likely that such material on the market will support the increased sale of WotC's own books, if managed properly by WotC.

If the setting-specific adventures are packaged thoughtfully, they'll be useful to generic campaigns as well. Heck, even if they aren't created thoughtfully, they will be useful to the generic setting. It's the reverse of the logic used by others to support generic adventures. You can replace what doesn't work for you—a feat here, a villain's race there, a god name here, and so on.

What I'm really after is whether the business model will work.

 

[Nightfall]

Khur,

I'm not sure it would. Just call it a feeling. But if it some how did, hey glad to be proven wrong.

 

[Treebore]

I found many years ago that it took me more work to alter a module specifically for the FR in order for me to modify to fit what had gone before in my campaigns than a campaign generic module.

Most of the time I bought FR modules back in 2e it was for the maps of the locations in the modules, not for the written adventure which about 30% of the time was totally unuseable because it didn't fit the events of my campaign. The few 3e modules WOTC did have not changed my opinion about this, and I own ALL of them and have read ALL of them. They would all be easier for me to use outside of GH or FR.

As for the assertion that Necromancer is not generic enough because they dare to use deities, if you (whichever poster it was) actually read their suggestions they tell you to find a deity that you do use that fits the portfolios the closest and give it that deific name. Wow, that is so hard my fingers are breaking. Plus, only a few of their modules are dungeon crawls. The rest cover a wide variety of areas, such as cities, wilderness, swamps, and usually an integration of a variety of areas. Even their dungeon crawls, Rappan Athuk and Tomb of Abysthor, are meant to be integrated into a larger story-line because even they acknowledge doing nothing but a dungeon crawl can be boring.

The only thing people may find a problem with Necromancer modules is that part of the 1e feel is that they tend to be lethal modules. These modules are meant to be played for bragging rights of who died the least, or the most spectacularly, or due to the greatest stupidity. If you do not like lethal games you will have to tone down the main encounters a few notches. Other than that Necromancer offers a wide variety of modules that are well written and in line with the DMG guidelines for treasure and XP.

Plus their attitude is such that, in the intro of just about every module, they tell you how they want you to alter their product however you wish to make it YOUR own. They even say it on their message boards just about every time someone says "that isn't how it is supposed to be done".

Necromancer is darn good product by darn good people.

Maybe your assertion that they, or any other company, could have greater sales if they "associated" themselves with WOTC's camapign worlds is true. My not so polite opinion is that is only because too many of the newer DM's like to be spoonfed instead of do some work to make generic modules, and therefore the campaign world, their own creation.

That is why I have gotten away from FR and didn't get back into GH. I didn't want to have to deal with new players getting upset because I ignored or altered this or that event or character from this or that module/sourcebook/novel. This used to happen to me a lot because I used to be in the NAvy and moved around a lot. Now i move around a lot because my wife is in the Army. So I will stick with a world that no one can question me about. That is why I stay away from Campaign worlds that have been heavily detailed.

So your assertions on how to increase sales are probably correct; but if i bought them it wouldn't be because of what campaign world they are attached to.

 

[Arnwyn]

First, and probably most importantly, we're not dealing with TSR, so what they did has little bearing. We'd be dealing with third-party d20 companies who can afford a licensing arrangement with WotC. Those companies may or may not have some relationship to TSR's quality, but probably not.

I have no reason to believe that a third-party company will be able to do better designing a module with a TSR-now-WotC-owned setting than TSR/WotC themselves. I think my use of TSR in an example is very relevant.

I'll also say that, if we were dealing with the relevance of TSR, one of the most popular and best-selling module series was set in the Forgotten Realms--the Bloodstone series. People still pay pretty well for copies of this series on eBay and the like.

I had a bit of a chuckle when you used the Bloodstone series - the only modules that were *not* originally written for the Realms (and only Part 4 actually had the FR logo), and were instead shoe-horned into FR after the fact. It's no wonder that the Bloodstone series is "one of the most popular and best-selling module series" - they're generic modules!

Secondly, any counter to your assertion relies on an understanding of what you mean by "far inferior". Since we can't possibly know with certainty what you mean, we can't fully understand the relevance of your argument. Care to elucidate?

No, we can't, because in the end it's subjective. However, I will use two quick examples: the Marco Volo trilogy, and the Sword of the Dales trilogy. Both these modules have been considered sub-par by people out there (look both at this site for some disparaging remarks, as well as REALMS-L mailing list). Both have been rightly condemned as having major railroading, PC-dragging events, with the FR "big names" showing up inappropriately.

Compare these to the superior generic modules such as Axe of the Dwarvish Lords and Gates of Firestorm Peak.

The real unfortunate fact of the matter is that nobody has the power to know which things in this market (or most others) are "good". This is because we are all victims of marketing clout. We buy what we know about, and we always know about the product that has the most marketing capital behind it. I'm sure the best campaign setting, adventure, or soft-drink formula ever created is sitting somewhere in obscurity, lacking the exposure it deserves because the person who created it has no capital to market the thing properly.

I totally agree with you there.

What I'm really after is whether the business model will work.

I think that the base business model would work. Like you said above, WotC sells the most - so I would assume that it would include their campaign settings as well. Selling adventures for these settings would seem to imply better sales than just generic adventures from some third party.

However, when you begin to consider things like control, IP issues, licensing - as well as the fact that the quality and flexibility (including how easily insertable into other campaign setting they are) would be questionable - the business model would fall apart, IMO.

 

[Khur]

Most of the time I bought FR modules back in 2e it was for the maps of the locations in the modules, not for the written adventure which about 30% of the time was totally unuseable because it didn't fit the events of my campaign. The few 3e modules WOTC did have not changed my opinion about this, and I own ALL of them and have read ALL of them. They would all be easier for me to use outside of GH or FR.

Thanks for your input Treebore.

Is what I hear you saying is that most of the time the setting-specific adventure was useable? The fact that the WotC 3e modules are more useful outside of GH or FR, in your opinion, actually supports my position that making the modules setting-specific (the WotC 3e modules were for GH) won't hurt most DMs. Thanks.

As for the assertion that Necromancer is not generic enough because they dare to use deities, if you (whichever poster it was) actually read their suggestions they tell you to find a deity that you do use that fits the portfolios the closest and give it that deific name. Wow, that is so hard my fingers are breaking. Plus, only a few of their modules are dungeon crawls.

I never said Necromancer's modules were not generic enough, I said they weren't totally generic. I will say that being totally generic is nearly impossible. There'd be no need to be condescending (breaking fingers), even if I had said they weren't generic. Every Necromancer module I've read (Rappan Athuk, Demons & Devils, The Wizard's Amulet, Tomb of Absythor, Daughters of Set) was primarily a dungeon crawl. There's nothing wrong with this, as I said in the previous post on this subject—I own(ed) the modules. I like Necromancer's attitude, especially as a reflection of Clark Peterson, of whom I also think highly. I apologize if I touched a "Necromancer" nerve, but I never said anything disparaging enough about Necromancer Games to warrant a rant.

Maybe your assertion that they, or any other company, could have greater sales if they "associated" themselves with WOTC's camapign worlds is true. My not so polite opinion is that is only because too many of the newer DM's like to be spoonfed instead of do some work to make generic modules, and therefore the campaign world, their own creation.

*snip*

So your assertions on how to increase sales are probably correct; but if i bought them it wouldn't be because of what campaign world they are attached to.

It doesn't really matter why someone wants a product, at least insofar as a businessperson is concerned. (And let's not get into the logic of that statement when applied to industries other than games. We're talking about games.) It only matters that they do want it, so it will sell. Thanks for your agreement that the business model would probably work.

I have no reason to believe that a third-party company will be able to do better designing a module with a TSR-now-WotC-owned setting than TSR/WotC themselves. I think my use of TSR in an example is very relevant.

Thanks again arnwyn.

I had no reason to believe you used TSR as an example, other than you felt it was relevant. I was merely stating disagreement. It's unfair to compare something that hasn't been done yet, by a company that is yet to be named, to something done in the past, by a company whose practices are well known. You have every right to feel the way you do, but the unfairness remains. And we were talking about TSR, not WotC.

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.

I had a bit of a chuckle when you used the Bloodstone series - the only modules that were *not* originally written for the Realms (and only Part 4 actually had the FR logo), and were instead shoe-horned into FR after the fact. It's no wonder that the Bloodstone series is "one of the most popular and best-selling module series" - they're generic modules!

I assumed, perhaps erroneously, that Damara and Vaasa were already FR lands. Those lands are in the first module, so I did assume a FR setting. If I was in error for that assumption, then my example is faulty. However, my assertion that TSR's performance is largely irrelevant to the argument, or at least an unfair bias, still stands. I had the privilege of playing through these modules as a youngster, but I didn't own one until recently. Thus my historical context may be out of whack.

No, we can't, because in the end it's subjective. However, I will use two quick examples: the Marco Volo trilogy, and the Sword of the Dales trilogy. Both these modules have been considered sub-par by people out there (look both at this site for some disparaging remarks, as well as REALMS-L mailing list). Both have been rightly condemned as having major railroading, PC-dragging events, with the FR "big names" showing up inappropriately.

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.

I think that the base business model would work. Like you said above, WotC sells the most - so I would assume that it would include their campaign settings as well. Selling adventures for these settings would seem to imply better sales than just generic adventures from some third party.

However, when you begin to consider things like control, IP issues, licensing - as well as the fact that the quality and flexibility (including how easily insertable into other campaign setting they are) would be questionable - the business model would fall apart, IMO.

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

Let me just say that I appreciate all points of view. As some may know who have had discussions with me before, I'm here to gather information and hear what others have to say on the subject. I'm not claiming to be right here, I just want to see how the discussion unfolds so I can be more informed in the end. Don't take my standing by my own points as immovability. I want to be convinced of other points, but the reasoning for those points needs to be more than speculation or feeling. Is that wrong?

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to post and respond to my queries and assertions. I'm interested in what you have to say. As valuable as those things are, 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.