QuoteAs an aside, I'm sure the "I'm so much better at writing adventures than WotC" WAAAAAMbulance makes you feel better, but every other RPG company has said the same thing about adventures not selling well enough to justify the cost of producing them.

LOL!!!  Except of course for Paizo whose PFA's are kicking ass...

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;503570LOL!!!  Except of course for Paizo whose PFA's are kicking ass...

You are aware that the same Paizo guys had a list of the "Greatest Modules of All Time" that made it into Dragon Magazine which included all those we are talking about here, right? The way you're blinding yourself with your "hat on K&K" is kind of funny, but it only becomes truly hilarious when you make hugely ironic statements like these. Keep being you, dude. Rage on!

Quote from: Benoist;503572You are aware that the same Paizo guys had a list of the "Greatest Modules of All Time" that made it into Dragon Magazine which included all those we are talking about here, right? The way you're blinding yourself with your "hat on K&K" is kind of funny, but it only becomes truly hilarious when you make hugely ironic statements like these. Keep being you, dude. Rage on!

I seen that list and I have seen countless others and guess what, I have no problems with it because it is a personal opinion.  Anyways, your elitist band of merry groggers have diminished the value of old school modules because of their very "railroad" nature BUT now, there is a chance something might come good of the recent announcement with 5th edition that you hoist titles up in the air above your bald heads and make it seem they are the greatest.    

Make up your "waffle" minds and settle on some consistancy.  Either you like the modules despite their "railroad" weaknesses or just dismiss them as you all have for the longest time.

Now, if you are interested, I will gladly send you my conversions of the good old modules such as G1-3 into Pathfinder which I will have to pat myself a lot on my back at the considerable ease it took me.  

I promise you, Benoist, I never act otherwise whether I be on the net or in real life.  

And since you brought up Paizo, I did not see them pat themselves on the back as much as your crony, Bill Silvey did in this thread concerning their line of adventure modules.  Get on that "whaaaaaaaaaambulance"...

Glad to see I didn't make it on your ignore list yet! I love you too, AG!

Quote from: Benoist;503587Glad to see I didn't make it on your ignore list yet! I love you too, AG!

No, as I stated previously, There are times you make good and sensible comments.  I agree with some things you say.  I am not going to bomblast you by the company you keep.

You know, 4th edition almost had it right when they brought out those hardback modules but we all know they were not really modules, it was more akin to a huge series of ENcounters within the adventure itself.  If WOTC had put out some decent adventures like Paizo did, they would have probably earned a few more fans.

Yes, the old TSR adventure modules that are widely reviled by the K&K/OSR set....

Old Man, would you kindly quit cunting up my serious, good faith thread with your histronics.

Regarding the Paizo APs; of the material I've read there are several elements I quite like; however there is waaaay toooo muuuuch fluff regarding NPCs, plots, backstories, blah, blah, blah.

I know folks get paid by the word and all; but frankly I don't enjoy paying for a bunch of fluff that I wouldn't use (as I would likely strip it out and use them as site-based adventures); and I find it counterproductive having to read page after page after page of exposition in order to run an adventure.

Bring back the olschool 16-page gems I say!

Quote from: Planet Algol;503597Regarding the Paizo APs

The ones that I've seen contain a great deal more sourcebook-style info, relatively speaking, than the 1E modules that had new monsters or mechanics.  I don't think it's fair to compare the sales of Paizo adventure paths to 1E modules because I don't think the products are comparable: APs are like mini-sourcebooks with a major adventure in them.

Not to say that isn't the Silver Bullet format for selling adventures, but I don't think APs clearly disprove the "adventures don't sell" rubric.

Quote from: daniel_ream;503606The ones that I've seen contain a great deal more sourcebook-style info, relatively speaking, than the 1E modules that had new monsters or mechanics.  I don't think it's fair to compare the sales of Paizo adventure paths to 1E modules because I don't think the products are comparable: APs are like mini-sourcebooks with a major adventure in them.

Not to say that isn't the Silver Bullet format for selling adventures, but I don't think APs clearly disprove the "adventures don't sell" rubric.

Of course they are comparable.  Now, instead of just LOOKING at them and just READING them, how about PARTAKE in them.

I will admit that I was very doubtful in the beginning when Rise of the Runelords came out but when I actually hosted it for the first time and completed it as a DM and as a player in its entirety, you will certainly see the admiration for that line of product.  So, I appreciated the PF modules in its entirety after I actually partaken in them as a whole.

Now, when I talk to some of the 4thEd crowd in the local area about how adventures were a staple back in the day, they of course scoffed at me and said that adventures sucked back then when I told them that 4thEd is severely lacking in that area.  

It does not matter to me because I know that besides me, there are quite a few others out there and in here who had the awesome privilege and experience of actually playing in old school modules and not taking it for granted.

Modules, in my personal opinion, are extremely important in an RPG.  Paizo knew that and they are doing it right.

Quotethan the 1E modules that had new monsters

I have no clue what you are reading but EVERY PFA module has a minimum of at least 3-5 NEW MONSTERS at the end of the module.

I think a lot of the old TSR modules had serious issues.  Quite a number of them were either railroady "story" modules (e.g. Dragonlance) or little more than dungeon crawls that were not all that different from 4e's delves.

That said, there were some gems and I 100% agree that dropping the concept of modules in favor of the splatbook treadmill is one of the ways the industry killed a lot of interest in the hobby.

I do think the key is for each module to be a bit of a mini-sourcebook that has people, places, maps, and new stuff (monsters/items/etc) that could be dropped into the middle of any campaign.  And the ability to introduce background plots and plot hooks without insisting on a linear story for the PCs to experience.

QuoteI think a lot of the old TSR modules had serious issues. Quite a number of them were either railroady "story" modules (e.g. Dragonlance) or little more than dungeon crawls that were not all that different from 4e's delves.

LOL

QuoteI do think the key is for each module to be a bit of a mini-sourcebook that has people, places, maps, and new stuff (monsters/items/etc) that could be dropped into the middle of any campaign. And the ability to introduce background plots and plot hooks without insisting on a linear story for the PCs to experience.

And that is what Paizo does well with their release of the PFA's.

On the lines of using modules/adventures to introduce new content (that may later make it into the main game), how often (if ever) have monsters and the like been widely playtested through the RPGA?

To write good modules, WotC would have to hire some people who knew how to write adventures. Lemme know when that happens.

Who the fuck is Bill Silvey?

Quote from: One Horse Town;503821Who the fuck is Bill Silvey?

He wrote some chunk of OSRIC.