Quote from: Windjammer;373775I think that's correct. But that just prompts the question why that's the case. My take on it: the aforementioned hierarchy, "base rules > supplement rules > campaign worlds > modules", coincides with a downward scale on making increasingly greater assumptions about your group's preferred style of play.

Bingo!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;373777Bingo!

-clash

Very good point indeed on WJ's part. :hatsoff:

Ya know, regardless of all the good and not so good points ya'all make about modules and adventures, I like 'em anyway. I've never looked at one as the writer trying to take my gaming style for granted or impose any kind of control or whatever. They're fun to read, fun to run and/or play in, provide great resources in the form of maps, npcs, and ideas, and they give me great inspiration for my own adventures/campaigns. They give me something to run if I'm not feeling creative. I rarely run them exactly as written, but often don't deviate too much. I'm a big fan of adventures, and I mourn the attitude of many that they have nothing to offer, and also the fact they don't make money thereby getting passed over in favor of seemingly endless splatbooks. Give the core rules of a game, and then give me adventures, scads of supplements are just annoying 90% of the time for me. I'm bummed that I'm in the minority on this

Quote from: Sigmund;373785Ya know, regardless of all the good and not so good points ya'all make about modules and adventures, I like 'em anyway. I've never looked at one as the writer trying to take my gaming style for granted or impose any kind of control or whatever. They're fun to read, fun to run and/or play in, provide great resources in the form of maps, npcs, and ideas, and they give me great inspiration for my own adventures/campaigns. They give me something to run if I'm not feeling creative. I rarely run them exactly as written, but often don't deviate too much. I'm a big fan of adventures, and I mourn the attitude of many that they have nothing to offer, and also the fact they don't make money thereby getting passed over in favor of seemingly endless splatbooks. Give the core rules of a game, and then give me adventures, scads of supplements are just annoying 90% of the time for me. I'm bummed that I'm in the minority on this

You're in the majority, Sigmund! I'm not.

-clash

Rather than jsut asking why they don't sell, it might be better to ask which adventures sell and which don't.
 
AD&D 1e adventures sold well.  Paiza and Goodman do alright.  
 
In the first case, it was largely an empty field.  People bought almost every product and they could reasonably do so as there were so few products, relatively speaking.  But beyond that, people still seek them out.  This is partially nostalgia but they tended to have more packed in 32 pages than most current 96 page products.
 
I think there is also some sulf fulfilling prophecy.  Companies know that adventures don't sell so they delegate them to lesser designers or whip them out quickly without much care.  Then the half assed adventures don't sell.

Quote from: Windjammer;373775Modules are not like that, at all. The default expectation (not that I share it) is that you can run an adventure off the book after reading it through, without needing to redesign huge swaths thereof from scratch.

Some modules are reflective of the purpose it is serving.

For example, the 4E D&D Encounters "Undermountain" module seems to be very much a railroad and straight combat with very little to no role playing outside of skill challenges.  (I was playing D&D Encounters last night).

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Event.aspx?x=dnd/4new/event/dndencounters

Very little else is expected, for the most part.

Quote from: Sigmund;373785Ya know, regardless of all the good and not so good points ya'all make about modules and adventures, I like 'em anyway. I've never looked at one as the writer trying to take my gaming style for granted or impose any kind of control or whatever. They're fun to read, fun to run and/or play in, provide great resources in the form of maps, npcs, and ideas, and they give me great inspiration for my own adventures/campaigns. They give me something to run if I'm not feeling creative. I rarely run them exactly as written, but often don't deviate too much. I'm a big fan of adventures, and I mourn the attitude of many that they have nothing to offer, and also the fact they don't make money thereby getting passed over in favor of seemingly endless splatbooks. Give the core rules of a game, and then give me adventures, scads of supplements are just annoying 90% of the time for me. I'm bummed that I'm in the minority on this

I am with you. Back in the 90s, I got so much inspiration for different encounters, plot lines, npcs reading all the ravenloft modules (I was running a Ravenloft Campaign). I think I only ever tried to run one of them the whole way through, but the material in them was helpful, and adventures written out from beginning to end helped me develop my own style.

Quote from: Benoist;373769Stop misconstruing posts on purpose.

I'm not. You said one thing and then demonstrated it was just the opposite. People don't have a problem with the OGL. People might have a problem with the GSL because of past experiences, but their problem is still firmly with the GSL. In other words, Mistwell is correct.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;374021I'm not.

Either you are misconstruing posts on purpose, or you're a fucking retard.
I did you a favor and chose to believe the former. :hatsoff:

Quote from: Benoist;374023Either you are misconstruing posts on purpose, or you're a fucking retard.

It's neither. As I said, you indicated that it was the OGL that was the problem: "It's all about the OGL, Mark." Clearly, it isn't.

For example, there's this clause: "We can terminate this License at any time, at our sole discretion.

"If we terminate the License due to breach, you have to immediately stop selling products that use the Compatibility Logo and you must destroy all of your inventory of those products (including all marketing material). You may not make any more products that use the Compatibility Logo. You must immediately suspend any advertisements and any web content promoting products that use the Compatibility Logo. If there are any costs associated with any of this, the responsibility for paying them is exclusively yours.

"If we terminate the License for any reason other than breach, you may no longer make any new products using the Compatibility Logo, but you may continue to sell existing physical products that were compliant under this License as long as you have inventory. If you sell out of a compliant product, you must remove the Compatibility Logo from future print runs. In the case of products that do not have physical inventory, such as PDFs, you must stop selling them within 30 days of termination, but if you remove the Compatibility Logo from them, you may start selling them again."

Or this: "You must use your best efforts to preserve the high standard of our trademarks. You may not use this License for products that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors."

Or this: "Standalone game systems are in no event authorized hereunder."

Or this: "If you want to publish in a language other than English...In the case that the licensed translation has not yet been released, you must wait until the translation is released before you can release your product in that language."

Or this: "[We] may update this License at any time."

People don't have any problem with them. They're all post OGL. They're not in an uproar about them. Had I not mentioned something about it yesterday, you probably couldn't even tell me who the licensor is.

The idea that people have a problem with the GSL because of the OGL is demonstrably false. You can retreat back into your old stand by of ad hominems, but calling me a retard over and over again doesn't make you correct.

Seanchai

Seanchai, here's my understanding of Benoist on this.
 
It's not just the GSL, it's the fact that it was preceded by the OGL.  If the GSL came out with no history, people might jump on thinking how they could now make things equivalent to what Judges Guild and a few others did without paying a licensing fee. But it's a step down from OGL and things like Mutants & Masterminds are now clearly out of the question.
 
The GSL is still better than what most rpg companies offer but it's a negative step compared to OGL.

Quote from: Nicephorus;374044Seanchai, here's my understanding of Benoist on this.
 
It's not just the GSL, it's the fact that it was preceded by the OGL.  If the GSL came out with no history, people might jump on thinking how they could now make things equivalent to what Judges Guild and a few others did without paying a licensing fee. But it's a step down from OGL and things like Mutants & Masterminds are now clearly out of the question.
 
The GSL is still better than what most rpg companies offer but it's a negative step compared to OGL.

Yes. Thank you.

Quote from: Nicephorus;374044The GSL is still better than what most rpg companies offer but it's a negative step compared to OGL.

The second version of the GSL is OK, not as great as the OGL but OK. The first version sucked big time with it's branding requirement. Basically if you had a product line like Dungeons Crawl Classics you could not have OGL and GSL offering even if they were completely different products. Hence why the d20 PDFs were pulled by early adopters. With the GSL Version 2 this was removed and the license while not being a great as the OGL was still a OK deal. Now the problem is whether people are buying third party 4e stuff or has the bottom fallen out.

Version 1 caused a huge stink and left a lingering odor that tainted people's perception of Version 2. This uproar over the branding would occurred regardless if the OGL existed or not.  If the GSL was a private agreement no game company would ever agree to such requirements. Perhaps no dual stats products but not shut down their previous releases in the same brand.

Quote from: estar;374053The second version of the GSL is OK, not as great as the OGL but OK. The first version sucked big time with it's branding requirement. Basically if you had a product line like Dungeons Crawl Classics you could not have OGL and GSL offering even if they were completely different products. Hence why the d20 PDFs were pulled by early adopters. With the GSL Version 2 this was removed and the license while not being a great as the OGL was still a OK deal. Now the problem is whether people are buying third party 4e stuff or has the bottom fallen out.

Version 1 caused a huge stink and left a lingering odor that tainted people's perception of Version 2. This uproar over the branding would occurred regardless if the OGL existed or not.  If the GSL was a private agreement no game company would ever agree to such requirements. Perhaps no dual stats products but not shut down their previous releases in the same brand.

That too. Yes.

Quote from: estar;374053Now the problem is whether people are buying third party 4e stuff or has the bottom fallen out.

With Goodman Games doing their own Dungeon Crawl Classic rpg, wonder how much longer they will stay in the 4E 3pp market.

Mongoose already left the 4E market awhile ago.  Wonder how much longer Expeditious Retreat Press will still be around in the 4E 3pp market.