Quote from: CRKrueger;950748Yeah, that Paizo...no money at all in modules...dunno what the fuck they are thinking.

Until Paizo took off, 'adventures don't sell' was common wisdom across the industry. So, either the audience changed, Paizo did something differently, or both.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;950761Until Paizo took off, 'adventures don't sell' was common wisdom across the industry. So, either the audience changed, Paizo did something differently, or both.

Or the common wisdom was horseshit to begin with.  TSR in the 2e days released a ton of modules that were total shit, where the same person was writer and editor, etc.  3e created and cultivated a build culture focused on never-ending widgets delivered through the splatmill.

Bad adventures don't sell.
Splatbooks sell more =/= adventures don't sell.

But, Paizo did provide something different, not a series of adventures, but entire 1-20 prepackaged campaigns.

Goodman, on the other hand, simply makes money selling almost a hundred now individual adventures for 3 different versions of D&D and their own OSR game, without many splatbooks, so I think they prove the original "common wisdom" to be the horseshit it is, too.

Quote from: HorusArisen;950701I choose to speak to others on the interweb as I would in real life not with disregard for their opinion or disrespect for their person but civil and without the use of foul language.

Holy fuck! We plebs have been visited by a living saint! Or a self righteous assmunchkin. It's so hard to tell the difference.

Fortunately, I also don't differentiate my speech between the web and real life.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;950664Try using your fucking imagination for a change.

Yes.

But its also normal for GMs to rely upon published settings.

Quote from: HorusArisen;950710I've never really used published adventures.

So you are looking for setting books to create your own adventures within the published setting?

I understand this, and you're in luck. With the advent of the DM's Guild, popular settings from 3e/D20/OSR publishers were revamped for 5e. You can easily research those and several have plenty of dead tree sourcebooks.

Scarred Lands is often highly recommended. They had a 2016 Kickstarter and its been talked about here.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?32627-Scarred-Lands-setting-5th-edition

If you haven't looked at Iron Kingdoms, its worth a look if you like fantasy & steampunk (notably better than Eberron). There is a metric fuckton of support and various bloggers yap about their 5e conversions.

By this time, I am sure every TSR setting has a 5e fan conversion somewhere on the web. The suckpit ENworld would a good source for those links, as they have an active 5e Only forum.

Quote from: CRKrueger;950748Yeah, that Paizo...no money at all in modules...dunno what the fuck they are thinking.

As I said, not enough for a giant corporation like Hasbro. To them Paizo's profits probably looks like the crumbs of small potatoes.

Quote from: CRKrueger;950762Goodman, on the other hand, simply makes money selling almost a hundred now individual adventures for 3 different versions of D&D and their own OSR game, without many splatbooks, so I think they prove the original "common wisdom" to be the horseshit it is, too.

In interviews Joseph Goodman has made it clear Goodman Games is a sideline to his real career that he runs for his love of RPGs. Hasbro is no Joseph Goodman. I suspect no one at Goodman Games makes a living on RPGs. Robert Schwalb's company is a one man band. Keep on comparing apples to oranges though if that makes you feel good.

Quote from: HorusArisen;950674Try using your manners, I suspect I'll succeed first.

He. Did. :-P Welcome!!

Quote from: Voros;950772As I said, not enough for a giant corporation like Hasbro. To them Paizo's profits probably looks like the crumbs of small potatoes.

Paizo has way more employees than WOTC's D&D division. I'm pretty sure Hazbro would shit itself, on TV, with flaming feet to have a Paizo under it. Hasbro might be giant, but that doesn't mean they just toss piles of cash at D&D on a whim (obviously). If I had to bet on it, I would think Pathfinder and accessories are making more money for Paizo than 5e is making for WOTC, even with higher sales volume. Shit, I don't play Pathfinder and I have a couple hundred tied up in pawns and mats. Seriously considering picking up the Bestiaries just for the damn sexy artwork!

The point is, that GOOD adventures do sell, and just because WOTC once decided on the "only source books" business model does not mean it is THE business model for publishing RPGs. "Modules don't sell" is a fucking myth perpetrated by WOTC as an excuse for a business model that has clearly been proven to be a shit philosophy by several other publishers now. The giant white horse they climb up on over and over about "we'll leave modules to the little guys" and then flip a bitch and decide most source books will be modules + settings just proves how asinine the myth is (and how little stock they actually had in the myth).

(edited for clarity)

Quote from: Voros;950773In interviews Joseph Goodman has made it clear Goodman Games is a sideline to his real career that he runs for his love of RPGs. Hasbro is no Joseph Goodman. I suspect no one at Goodman Games makes a living on RPGs. Robert Schwalb's company is a one man band. Keep on comparing apples to oranges though if that makes you feel good.

You think the WotC sales of D&D books vs. modules really matter to Hasbro?  Compared to Magic sales?  Compared to video game licensing?

The entire RPG industry is small potatoes compared to books, comics, movies, video games, etc.  Of course all that is smokescreen scaled up to compare to the GDP of a country when needed to prove whatever point it is getting made.

Modules sell.  We know this because people who make a lot of them continue to do so. Period.

Quote from: CRKrueger;950747Then why the fuck would you even come here, if you don't expect to get any honest information?

I took as given that there was clearly a lot of OSR love since till C Brady everyone was quite gushy about it. I don't have a bias either way but I don't engage in blind fellowship either.

I came here to engage with wonderful polite people like yourself

I suggest the OP check out A Red and Pleasant Land.  5e setting/sourcebook, reads well if that's as far as you get with it, eminently usable as well.  Not official WotC, but so what?

Quote from: Spinachcat;950768Holy fuck! We plebs have been visited by a living saint! Or a self righteous assmunchkin. It's so hard to tell the difference.

Fortunately, I also don't differentiate my speech between the web and real life.




Yes.

But its also normal for GMs to rely upon published settings.




So you are looking for setting books to create your own adventures within the published setting?

I understand this, and you're in luck. With the advent of the DM's Guild, popular settings from 3e/D20/OSR publishers were revamped for 5e. You can easily research those and several have plenty of dead tree sourcebooks.

Scarred Lands is often highly recommended. They had a 2016 Kickstarter and its been talked about here.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?32627-Scarred-Lands-setting-5th-edition

If you haven't looked at Iron Kingdoms, its worth a look if you like fantasy & steampunk (notably better than Eberron). There is a metric fuckton of support and various bloggers yap about their 5e conversions.

By this time, I am sure every TSR setting has a 5e fan conversion somewhere on the web. The suckpit ENworld would a good source for those links, as they have an active 5e Only forum.

Neither saintly or self righteous, just not rude.

Yes, I'm beginning to see there's a lot more support out there, would like it to be a bit more polished and professional and some of it is downright repetitive but I see for example Alea Publishing is thinking of going 5e. I hope that's the case as I loved the Feudal Lords setting.

I've glanced at Iron Kingdoms once or twice but seems a bit pricey to buy just to convert, what's the system like?

Quote from: Dave R;950799I suggest the OP check out A Red and Pleasant Land.  5e setting/sourcebook, reads well if that's as far as you get with it, eminently usable as well.  Not official WotC, but so what?

Thank you, I'll check it out

**as an added bonus it's one of the LotFP supplements I don't have

Quote from: HorusArisen;950798I took as given that there was clearly a lot of OSR love since till C Brady everyone was quite gushy about it. I don't have a bias either way but I don't engage in blind fellowship either.

I came here to engage with wonderful polite people like yourself

Issue with CBrady is that his thesis works out like this.
Poster: I love some of the adventures the OSR put out especially the ones put out by X
CBrady: You are an idiot for liking anything for an old broken game that being supported by a bunch of posers invoking Gygax's name like he is a god.

You compare this to somebody like tenfootpole who has panned over 2/3 of the adventures he reviewed. However he gives you the specifics of why they are bad and backs them with quotes.

I don't use the typical nomenclature and tribalism by claiming something is 'old school' or not, they're all variations on the various editions D&D.  Let everyone else make this false distinction and draw up battle lines, I'll play the games I like.

I rather enjoy Scarlet Heroes for example,and I hear Godbound is similar, if you like high powered play.  Swords and Wizardry is a little too basic for me, however.

If I have a complaint about 5e's business model, I'd have to say it's their focus on adventures over source books, but if it's what makes them money...  It's also not like I haven't made enough worlds in my lifetime.  What's a few more?

Quote from: HorusArisen;950798I took as given that there was clearly a lot of OSR love since till C Brady everyone was quite gushy about it. I don't have a bias either way but I don't engage in blind fellowship either.

I came here to engage with wonderful polite people like yourself

If that's the only part that you thought was self-evident, you could very easily have eliminated the "dishonest" part when quoting.

Many people consider it quite rude to be called dishonest, no matter how much of a polite facade the language creates.

Quote from: CRKrueger;950808If that's the only part that you thought was self-evident, you could very easily have eliminated the "dishonest" part when quoting.

Many people consider it quite rude to be called dishonest, no matter how much of a polite facade the language creates.

I don't think anyone is being dishonest just biased which is normal. I always tend to quote in full, just my way and no one can accuse me of editing their words.

This is a good site, people have strong opinions and their not afraid to offer or express them