This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Niche Protection, that embarassing itch and You

Started by HinterWelt, March 24, 2008, 04:06:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14
User actions

gleichman

#150
March 25, 2008, 02:49:22 PM
Quote from: One Horse TownHaving an adventure coming out shortly, it's really hard to try to cater to as diverse a group of possible party members as possible. You have to include specific challenges, and that in itself will clash with the expectations and abilities of a goodly proportion of the players who will undertake it. I've never in my life, run an adventure as it was intended, and that's a good reason why.

I'm think One Horse Town has great wisdom.

Bought an adventure that doesn't fit your gaming group due to balance, morality or other issue? Sure, whine about- you did pay your money.

Then get off your backside, fix the problem with the module and play the game. Have fun.

I've had cases where the only thing I kept was the adventure description on the back, some names, and couple of maps...
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you\'ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.

gleichman

#151
March 25, 2008, 02:51:55 PM
Quote from: McrowYup, and that's the very reason why most adventures do not sell well. There is just no way for the designer to make the adventure suitable enough for a high enough number of groups for it to sell a ton of copies.

I thought the claim was that adventure modules do indeed sell, it's just that they don't sell as well as rules and their expansion.

This means that WotC would like to spend it's resources on the highest value, leaving the adventure market to smaller companies that would be happy to get the return of adventure sales for their resource investment (because they don't have a higher return anywhere).

But I'm no expert on the subject.
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you\'ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.

Mcrow

#152
March 25, 2008, 02:56:57 PM
Quote from: gleichmanI thought the claim was that adventure modules do indeed sell, it's just that they don't sell as well as rules and their expansion.

This means that WotC would like to spend it's resources on the highest value, leaving the adventure market to smaller companies that would be happy to get the return of adventure sales for their resource investment (because they don't have a higher return anywhere).

But I'm no expert on the subject.

They do, if given the proper treatment. Like  " return to greyhawk" and the super adventers hardvocers seem to due well. The olds school module, not so much. There are exceptions though, like Goodman Games, they seem to due well with their adventure series. Oh, and "sell well" means one thing to WotC and a totally different thing to small press.

One Horse Town

#153
March 25, 2008, 03:12:29 PM
Well, Wizards have returned to publishing adventures and have done so for a year or more now. If the market leader is returning to them, then i guess there must be a decent return to be made. Of course, if you have a novel imprint to tie them into, then the return is probably two-fold.

gleichman

#154
March 25, 2008, 03:16:52 PM
Quote from: One Horse TownWell, Wizards have returned to publishing adventures and have done so for a year or more now. If the market leader is returning to them, then i guess there must be a decent return to be made. Of course, if you have a novel imprint to tie them into, then the return is probably two-fold.

I would see that as an element of the product cycle.

1. Hire people to develop new rules edition- sale rules, don't sell modules.

2. Sales are going good, add more rules.

3. Sales are dropping, develop new edition. To avoid firing resources during down turn in sales, move them to writing adventures now that they are slowing a better profit ratio than old edition rules do.

3. Sell new edition- repeat cycle.


Note that by people/resources, that is often headcount not specific individuals although it could be. The idea is to not lose the funding that allows your group to exist/grow.
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you\'ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.

Blackleaf

#155
March 25, 2008, 03:18:35 PM
Quote from: gleichmanDon't you mean here that some 'published adventures' do this?

And I'd ask that you be more specific about D&D, the current version as I recall allow Fighters and the like access to detect and disarm traps for instance.

You could thus have a good adventure for a Fighter only group full of traps- they would just have lower values than one for a group of thieves.

I said "Some games carve up the system so you need one of each class to have a functional whole for a default game (eg. D&D)"

A default archetypal D&D dungeoncrawl is different from one you create specifically to accommodate a non-standard mix of characters.

And D&D means real D&D. :haw:

Quote from: gleichmanI liked your term "function group". While I don't think it actually exists outside the adventure requirements- I think it certainly fits with respect to publish adventures and common approach.

"Functional whole" if you're going to quote me. ;) The common / default approach, yes.

Mcrow

#156
March 25, 2008, 03:20:04 PM
Quote from: gleichmanI would see that as an element of the product cycle.

1. Hire people to develop new rules edition- sale rules, don't sell modules.

2. Sales are going good, add more rules.

3. Sales are dropping, develop new edition. To avoid firing resources during down turn in sales, move them to writing adventures now that they are slowing a better profit ratio than old edition rules do.

3. Sell new edition- repeat cycle.


Note that by people/resources, that is often headcount not specific individuals although it could be. The idea is to not lose the funding that allows your group to exist/grow.

That's pretty much it, it's not so much that the adventures don't sell it's more about the fact that rule addons sell so much better.

One Horse Town

#157
March 25, 2008, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: gleichmanI would see that as an element of the product cycle.

1. Hire people to develop new rules edition- sale rules, don't sell modules.

2. Sales are going good, add more rules.

3. Sales are dropping, develop new edition. To avoid firing resources during down turn in sales, move them to writing adventures now that they are slowing a better profit ratio than old edition rules do.

3. Sell new edition- repeat cycle.


Note that by people/resources, that is often headcount not specific individuals although it could be. The idea is to not lose the funding that allows your group to exist/grow.

True enough, i suspect. There are quite a few adventures planned before and after the launch of 4e, but they are guarenteed to sell well as folks want offical material to test the new ruleset with.

Check back in 18 months to see if production of 4e adventures from Wizards drops off again. :D

Edit: Actually, their plan to release new core books every year could well mean the continuation of adventure design - they simply make sure that those adventures only use the new rules from that years new 'core books'

gleichman

#158
March 25, 2008, 03:22:11 PM
Quote from: StuartI said "Some games carve up the system so you need one of each class to have a functional whole for a default game (eg. D&D)"

I would claim that the default game is mostly illusion and of little concern to the typical end buyer who almost always modifies the result to match the needs of his gaming group.


Does it really matter to you? Would you pass on an otherwise excellent game system perfect for your tastes because you object to their adventure modules?
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you\'ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.

gleichman

#159
March 25, 2008, 03:24:08 PM
Quote from: One Horse TownCheck back in 18 months to see if production of 4e adventures from Wizards drops off again. :D

Yes, that would be the test of the theory wouldn't it.

I would expect a few adventures with the first rules just to prime the pump. We'll see what happens there after and just how good my guess was.
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you\'ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.

Blackleaf

#160
March 25, 2008, 03:25:25 PM
Quote from: gleichmanI would claim that the default game is mostly illusion and of little concern to the typical end buyer who almost always modifies the result to match the needs of his gaming group.

Shenanigans

gleichman

#161
March 25, 2008, 03:30:06 PM
Quote from: StuartShenanigans

Are you of the mind that theory is always the same as actual practice?
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you\'ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.

Blackleaf

#162
March 25, 2008, 03:33:28 PM
I'm of the mind that the default / common way of playing D&D with dungeons and/or dragons and balanced parties including at least a Fighter, Mage, Cleric and Thief are not "mostly illusion and of little concern to the typical end buyer".

I'm calling Shenanigans on that.

Mcrow

#163
March 25, 2008, 03:36:12 PM
Quote from: gleichmanI would claim that the default game is mostly illusion and of little concern to the typical end buyer who almost always modifies the result to match the needs of his gaming group.
 

No, not really in the case of D&D. Go look at ENworld. The vast majority do play it in the "default" form meaning they build the party around the games assuption that a balanced party is needed.

gleichman

#164
March 25, 2008, 03:41:44 PM
Quote from: StuartI'm of the mind that the default / common way of playing D&D with dungeons and/or dragons and balanced parties including at least a Fighter, Mage, Cleric and Thief are not "mostly illusion and of little concern to the typical end buyer".

I'm calling Shenanigans on that.

I'd rather you said you disagreed with me on that point. Less heated.


You didn't answer by question by the way. Would you not use a game system perfect for your needs if you disagreed with their adventure module design?
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you\'ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14
User actions