Quote from: Benoist;510243I posit that WotC's position that "Adventures don't sell" is complete, utter, total bullshit.

Based on years in the industry, I have little doubt that it's absolutely true that adventure products, on average, sell less than rule supplements.

However:

(1) The supplement treadmill has been proven to be a burnout business model time and time again, so if you're interested in having a long-term business model you need to figure out how to sell something else. (Adventures don't burn out because, unlike rule supplements, they get used up.)

(2) If you're doing your rules development correctly, developing a rule supplement will take more time and money than developing an equivalent adventure product. (If you're rushing your rules development, the development costs probably equalize. But that just creates another systemic weakness in your business model.)

(3) A lot of the "industry wisdom" on this one comes from games that don't feature a default scenario hook (like those found in D&D, CoC, or Shadowrun). Adventures will sell very poorly if only a very small fraction of your audience can actually use them in their campaigns. (OTOH, this probably applies less to Adventure Paths and other "campaigns in a box". If you can develop an audience for those -- and Paizo clearly has -- you should be golden.)

(4) The Pathfinder core rulebook is 575 pages and retails for $50. Legacy of Fire was 588 pages (including the Player's Guide) and retails for $130. Even if the developments costs per page were the same, Paizo could sell half as many copies of their Adventure Path and still come out ahead.

Similar math for rule supplements: Advanced Player's Guide is $40 for 320 pages. That's $0.12 per page vs. $0.22 per page for the Adventure Path.

Quote from: J Arcane;510257I still don't understand the point of published adventures.

I like published adventures for the same reason I enjoy putting on a production of Hamlet instead of only producing brand-spanking-new work every single time: I think it's interesting to take the creative visions of others and interpret it through the lens of my own creativity. I think it adds fresh perspectives to my own work and I think it creates entertaining game sessions that I wouldn't have created on my own.

With that being said, there aren't a lot of adventure modules that I'll run. And most of those I'll heavily modify. So I'm choosy in what I buy, and even then I usually end up with stuff that I won't run. However, that stuff can usually still be strip-mined for valuable stuff.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;510295Based on years in the industry, I have little doubt that it's absolutely true that adventure products, on average, sell less than rule supplements.

However:

(1) The supplement treadmill has been proven to be a burnout business model time and time again, so if you're interested in having a long-term business model you need to figure out how to sell something else. (Adventures don't burn out because, unlike rule supplements, they get used up.)

I think this is the key point.  This is no doubt made worse for WOTC at the moment by the fact that it's not even necessary to buy the physical books.

If they have any sense at all they'll be planning to move away from the splatbook treadmill model.

Quote from: misterguignol;510252I don't know, did you ever see the 3e version of "Castle Ravenloft"?

I have said this many times, but worst module ever. That module basically demonstrated to me that WOTC didn't understand good adventure design. They took out all the good elements of a classic module and added in a bunch of gamey gimicks. Stopped buying 3E products after that.

Quote from: J Arcane;510257I still don't understand the point of published adventures.  I mean, certainly it seems to do well for Paizo, but it could just be that Paizo attracts the kind of people who like published adventures.

I can sorta, kinda understand it from a "means less work" perspective, the same way I see prepainted miniatures, but the thing is, much like the grognard argument against prepaints, it seems like it goes double for RPGs: you're taking away half the fun.

It's especially strange that pregen adventures get so much boosterism from the diehard traditionalists who otherwise are constantly on watch against any encroachment on the sacred office of the DM, when all you're really doing in pushing the pregen it seems to me is relegating the DM's role back to a referee rather than a creative position.  

Make your own shit!  It's what makes RPGs unique!  If you're just doing what some other guy's already come up with you may as well be playing a co-op video game like NWN or Left 4 Dead.

You have to understand, few people run just modules alone. But anyone who has runa regular weekly game knows that once in a while it can be handy to have a module when you are short on time. It can also be helpful because it exposes you to approaches to adventure other than your own. They are also great sources to mine ideas and maps. Most of the modules I own, I never ran, but I've used encounters from them or cool set ups. Finally there is something to be said for players being put through  a classic module that everyome knows about.

So I don't think modules are a creative drain, they are a potential source of inspiration and new ideas. In fact my experience with GMs who never ran a module has usually been not so great.

Quote from: danbuter;510259Adventures don't make enough money for Hasbro. That's the point you're missing, Ben. I'm willing to bet Paizo would be quite happy with the sales numbers WotC was getting on some of their 4e modules.

FFG, also, are evidently doing well enough on adventures for WFRP and the 40K series (Because if they weren't, they'd stop publishing them).

I think it's a combination of Wizards dropping the ball, and having higher expectations, that their products just can't meet (And then you end up in the "Adventures sell worse than other products, so divert the resources elsewhere, meaning the next batch sells even worse..." negative feedback loop).

Quote from: Spinachcat;510283You could join RPGA for free and download a 100+ adventures for 4e that are completely free to RPGA DMs to run at home.

And if they all play the same way, then why bother? You are just downloading the same thing 100+ times.

Quote from: Spinachcat;510283You could join RPGA for free and download a 100+ adventures for 4e that are completely free to RPGA DMs to run at home.

I know a guy who cannibalizes Living Forgotten Realms for encounters and ideas for his own home campaign that isn't even in the Realms. There is a crazy amount of content sitting there if you need premade stuff for 4e.

Sorry, but this is just terrible advice.

LFR adventures are about the last resort you want to go to for 4E adventure content if we talk about ideas. Even 3.x Living Greyhawk stuff is better, or Xen'drik Expeditions. In 99 out of 100 cases you'd be better advised so simply mill earlier editions material for ideas, and avoid organized play material like the plague.

And a very few exceptions apart (Shawn Mervin comes to mind), the encounter design in LFR is downright terrible.

Quote from: Benoist;510243I posit that WotC's position that "Adventures don't sell" is complete, utter, total bullshit.

It's CRAP MODULES that don't sell.

When the adventures are quality stuff your customers love to read and play and talk about when they meet with each other on the internet and beyond, then... you hit the jackpot. Thoughts?

Scourge of the Howling Horde by Gwendolyn Kestrel is a great example of this. Not only is the adventure just a series of combat encounters strung together, but the information is incomplete for even those combat encounters. There is also the printing, several of the pages have type over a background of faux handwritten parchment whose print is so dark that it is almost impossible to read. It was like WotC knew they had a shitty product and tried to make it as artistic as possible to distract the buyer from the fact that it was shit.

Now, I compare that to any Paizo module, like Into the Haunted Forest by Greg Vaughan. It is only 16 pages long and essentially an advertisement for Paizo, but it is worth every penny of the $5 cover price. It is clearly printed in full color with great artwork and includes a new monster along with 5 NPCs that are fully fleshed out along with encounters. Note that I said encounters, not combat encounters - while about half of them are combat centric, the other half require role-playing.

There is a huge difference in those products even though they came out at roughly the same time.

But, but, but, Ryan Dancey said TSR's problems were in settings and adventures!...

Quote from: Ladybird;510337FFG, also, are evidently doing well enough on adventures for WFRP and the 40K series (Because if they weren't, they'd stop publishing them).

I think it's a combination of Wizards dropping the ball, and having higher expectations, that their products just can't meet (And then you end up in the "Adventures sell worse than other products, so divert the resources elsewhere, meaning the next batch sells even worse..." negative feedback loop).

I think wizards/hasbro is underestimating the power modules have to draw people to your core rules. The lack of good fluff material is the key reason I didn't suck it up and play 4E despite not loving the system. I am not enthralled with pathfinder mechanics, but would certainly consider run campaign given the wealth of flavor resources.

Quote from: Opaopajr;510344But, but, but, Ryan Dancey said TSR's problems were in settings and adventures!...

I always felt thought that analysis was flawed. Pole forget just how popular 2E was in the early 90s, before ,financial misnanagement, magic and vampire started really digging into it. Up through about 94/95 there tons of active 2E games in my area. There was a ton of excitement around fantasy gaming in general and I think the setting/modules had a lot to do with it (and a lot of it also jad to do with 1E material that ws usually still on the shelves and easil portable into a 2E game). It wasn't as big as the early 80s, but it wasn't the gaming wasteland people often make it out to be either.

I think the settings and modules were one of the few things they got right (railroading issues aside). It wasn't like people who liked dragonlance didn't play with people who like Ravenloft or darksun. In most of my groups everyone played Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Darksun and Spelljammer. One GM might be the go to guy for Ravenloft or Darksun, but we'd play them all. And even if you weren't running Darksun, it helped alot to have the boxed set if you wanted to make a character.

Quote from: Opaopajr;510344But, but, but, Ryan Dancey said TSR's problems were in settings and adventures!...

Ryan Dancey is a colossal twat who's nearly bankrupted almost every company he's ever worked for or advised.  His advice should be taken with as much salt as one would take Michael Pachter's, or those idiot stock advisors who have spent the last several years predicting Apple's doom and telling people to sell out now before it's too late.  

I don't know why the hell anyone listens to a word he says.

Quote from: Opaopajr;510344But, but, but, Ryan Dancey said TSR's problems were in settings and adventures!...

I guess they are when you're selling them at a loss.

I wonder if DCC is coming out just because Goodman wants it or if there is truth that adventures aren't big sellers. I wonder if his 3e modules are doing well in the age of Pathfinder.

Quote from: jeff37923;510338And if they all play the same way, then why bother? You are just downloading the same thing 100+ times.

Oddly, this is the same complaint I heard from 3e fans about TSR modules. You know, back in the days before the OSR declared them sacred relics.

But I agree that the railroad nature of a 4 hour adventures (whether for LFR or Pathfinder Society) can become claustrophobic if the author does a poor job hiding the rails.

Though in LFR, the amateur authors have often done a better job than the official WotC modules.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;510332You have to understand, few people run just modules alone. But anyone who has runa regular weekly game knows that once in a while it can be handy to have a module when you are short on time. It can also be helpful because it exposes you to approaches to adventure other than your own. They are also great sources to mine ideas and maps. Most of the modules I own, I never ran, but I've used encounters from them or cool set ups. Finally there is something to be said for players being put through  a classic module that everyome knows about.

So I don't think modules are a creative drain, they are a potential source of inspiration and new ideas. In fact my experience with GMs who never ran a module has usually been not so great.

Weird, my experiences have been completely opposite.  Most of the module DMs I've played under have never been quick on their feet when someone throws a curveball into the module.  My local gaming group was discussing this very topic last week.  Some of my thoughts there work here as well.
"I have to spend more time reading, rereading and talking notes on a module(to make sure I am getting the gist of it and to make sure when I do change something the domino effect will be minimized) than I would to come up with my own.  See when I do it myself, I already know what is suppose to be happening 'behind the scenes', I know why that particular McGuffin is there, I know why things are where they are.  That allows me to change something 'on the fly' when I need to, to drive the game forward."

"Are you sure the modules are not a root cause?
Not everyone likes modules.  Some feel constrained by modules, some feel it's nothing but a railroad, some feel it's a sign that the DM doesn't have faith in themself to make an adventure, some.... etc."

And this one is my biggest pet peeve about modules.
"This is something a typical D&D module will never be able to replicate. the typical D&D module is made for generic gaming group 142 it is not made for my gaming group."