Quote from: jadrax;373481Which I think gets to the heart of the possible disconnect, your clearly stating your looking for something in a published scenario (detail) which you don't actually use seem to use when you run it yourself? I know when the stuff I write, most of teh detail is based on stuff i made up on the fly when running it.

Because I don't need it in my own adventures. When I make a room and mark it "kitchen," I know exactly what I mean. I don't know what someone else means if they just write "kitchen," and for me the greater point of using someone else's adventure is to get away from my own assumptions when running a game.

Quote from: JimLotFP;373482Because I don't need it in my own adventures. When I make a room and mark it "kitchen," I know exactly what I mean. I don't know what someone else means if they just write "kitchen," and for me the greater point of using someone else's adventure is to get away from my own assumptions when running a game.

So how much do you run other people's material? And how much do you run them as written?

Quote from: jadrax;373483So how much do you run other people's material? And how much do you run them as written?

Ask me again after the summer. Out here in Finland it's difficult to get new adventures at a decent price (I don't buy PDFs). I run what I have, but I have a number of modules on the way to me. Most of them are pegged for re-sale, but my Sunday campaign is just now moving into that mid-level area where I can use a lot of them...

(when I lived in Vaasa I used a lot of modules, but my current groups are old-TSR savvy so I can't use the classics)

I make it a point to run them close to 100% as written. I'll change setting and background material to match my campaign, and adjust magical treasure to be appropriate, but I really try to keep everything else as the author intended.

Quote from: jadrax;373478Normally, so are mine. But the write up I do for mass consumption often have very little in common with the notes I actually ran it from. Are you saying that the presentation of the modules you write matches the notes you used to actually run it?

This is absurd, like Jim said there is a world of difference between notes for yourself and notes written to instruct someone else. An adventure should be written from the standpoint of you explaining the module to another GM.

It is a different type of writing then the one you do for yourself. And it is the same situation that people face all the time in technical areas whether it is staging a play, explaining a piece of machinery you built or in this case an adventure module to be run for an RPG.

Quote from: Garnfellow;373480I'm not sure there is really useful data one way or another on module sales.

I think the notion that "modules don't sell" came largely from TSR/WotC staff with 2e experience, wherein 2e adventures sold very poorly. (But keep in mind, 2e adventures for whatever reason really sucked, too.) I think Ryan Dancey at one point said that the OGL was intended to allow 3rd parties to produce supporting material for D&D that was unprofitable for WotC to make -- and I think he singled out adventures as an example product.

From here the "adventures don't sell" meme spread. But it's also important to note that by the middle of the 3e era (say, around 2004) most of the big d20 companies were reversing themselves and starting to produce modules because clearly, based on the experience of Necromancer and Goodman and maybe most importantly, Paizo, adventures were selling. Green Ronin and WotC both jumped into the market at that point.

I think, based on the sustained success of Paizo, it's difficult to make a blanket statement that "adventures don't sell."

I have nothing to do with TSR or WotC, or D20, or 4e, or any of that. I speak from my own sales experience over eight years of running my own publishing company. CasualOblivion had it exactly right - system > supplements > setting > adventure.  Adventures don't sell.

-clash

Quote from: estar;373490This is absurd, like Jim said there is a world of difference between notes for yourself and notes written to instruct someone else. An adventure should be written from the standpoint of you explaining the module to another GM.

It is a different type of writing then the one you do for yourself. And it is the same situation that people face all the time in technical areas whether it is staging a play, explaining a piece of machinery you built or in this case an adventure module to be run for an RPG.

So your saying its absurd and then agreeing with me?

Quote from: Garnfellow;373480I think, based on the sustained success of Paizo, it's difficult to make a blanket statement that "adventures don't sell."

That's a good point. There needs to be context. Perhaps "adventures don't sell nearly as well as core rulebooks and other rules-based supplements."

Seanchai

Quote from: flyingmice;373491I have nothing to do with TSR or WotC, or D20, or 4e, or any of that. I speak from my own sales experience over eight years of running my own publishing company. CasualOblivion had it exactly right - system > supplements > setting > adventure.  Adventures don't sell.

-clash

I think for some publishers, for some systems, during some periods, adventures probably didn't and don't sell. But my point is that the generalization isn't useful.

In the d20 ecology at this moment, I am not certain that setting > adventure. In fact, right now I would not be so sure that supplement > adventure.

Quote from: Garnfellow;373498I think for some publishers, for some systems, during some periods, adventures probably didn't and don't sell. But my point is that the generalization isn't useful.

In the d20 ecology at this moment, I am not certain that setting > adventure. In fact, right now I would not be so sure that supplement > adventure.

I think it's more that for some publishers, for some systems, during some periods, adventures *do* sell. And by "some systems" I really mean D&D+Clones. I do *not* see adventures selling well outside of that complex of systems. Most publishers treat them as loss leaders or give them away.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;373491I have nothing to do with TSR or WotC, or D20, or 4e, or any of that. I speak from my own sales experience over eight years of running my own publishing company. CasualOblivion had it exactly right - system > supplements > setting > adventure.  Adventures don't sell.

-clash

Do you think this had to do with genre and some genres being crowded with modules while others aren't? I can't say we've had stellar success with our first module, but it sold about as well as our systems did (however this is just one module and I realize it could be fluke). But we also have a very specific type of module (counter terrorism), and my thought was there aren't too many resources out there for the GM running this sort of campaign, so maybe they are more likely to buy the module.

On thing right off the bat about modules you realize though is, pretty much just the GMs are buying them (with a few exceptions I am sure), which could account for the overall lower sales. As a GM I always loved modules, but you can see how there is a good reason they would sell less than other products.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;373502Do you think this had to do with genre and some genres being crowded with modules while others aren't? I can't say we've had stellar success with our first module, but it sold about as well as our systems did (however this is just one module and I realize it could be fluke). But we also have a very specific type of module (counter terrorism), and my thought was there aren't too many resources out there for the GM running this sort of campaign, so maybe they are more likely to buy the module.

On thing right off the bat about modules you realize though is, pretty much just the GMs are buying them (with a few exceptions I am sure), which could account for the overall lower sales. As a GM I always loved modules, but you can see how there is a good reason they would sell less than other products.

I thnk you may be right, Brendan. As a customer of yours, which I am BTW, I would be looking at any adventure you publish as a supplement rather than as an actual adventure, something I could use to plunder for resources. I think the  "module" mindset is strongest among older D&D gamers - by which I mean gamers who run older editions/clones, not the gamers being older - and radiating out from there. It's weakest in the SF and modern-day genres, and strongest in the fantasy genre, with some interest in the Horror genre. The only adventure of mine which ever sold enough to pay for itself was for my Horror line.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;373506I thnk you may be right, Brendan. As a customer of yours, which I am BTW, I would be looking at any adventure you publish as a supplement rather than as an actual adventure, something I could use to plunder for resources. I think the  "module" mindset is strongest among older D&D gamers - by which I mean gamers who run older editions/clones, not the gamers being older - and radiating out from there. It's weakest in the SF and modern-day genres, and strongest in the fantasy genre, with some interest in the Horror genre. The only adventure of mine which ever sold enough to pay for itself was for my Horror line.

-clash

Thanks for the support. Same here.

I agree with the supplement thing. I always bought modules to get a blue print of how people run adventures and for the maps.

Quote from: The Shaman;373466I though it was because the GSL requires third-party publishers to deliver their first-born children to Whizbros for the office Carcosa LARP. Or something like that.

It really doesn't.  The GSL is pretty damn reasonable as far as licensing agreements go.  People got all butt-hurt because of the clause that says it can be changed by WOTC at any time.  But realistically, they have not touched it in a long time, have no incentive to touch it now, and wouldn't mess with it just for an adventure module.

I mean think about it.  A HUGE portion of the sales for a module is in the first few months of publication.  What is the realistic risk of them not just changing the GSL, but changing it in a way that material damages your company, in that first few months? The answer is "infinitesimally small".  

Thousands and thousands of companies every day operate under licensing agreements that allow the licensor to alter the agreement, and the instances of it causing harm are extremely infrequent.  It's a standard clause, that D&D third party publishers are all whiny about purely because they were spoiled by the OGL and have not had to deal with the real world of licensing for a long time, if ever.

Truly, I blame Clark for this bullshit attitude.  His company didn't want to do 4e stuff after he had fought for changes (due to his partner I believe), and instead of sucking it up and admitting that to Necro's fans, he made up this bullshit legal excuse about that stupid clause.  But as an attorney he fucking well knows the clause was never going to be used, and even if it were used the odds were WAY WAY WAY against it impacting an existing product of his.  Had he gone ahead with the planned 4e modules, they would have been out long ago, and his sales run would also have been out or nearly out long ago as well, with no harm from the GSL and a lot of profit to him.

But no, instead he whined about the GSL being changeable by WOTC, which is something he couldn't agree to, despite him probably drafting dozens of similar agreements for non-RPG companies without blinking an eye in his law practice.  Such a crock of shit.

Quote from: Mistwell;373589Truly, I blame Clark for this bullshit attitude.  His company didn't want to do 4e stuff after he had fought for changes (due to his partner I believe), and instead of sucking it up and admitting that to Necro's fans, he made up this bullshit legal excuse about that stupid clause.  But as an attorney he fucking well knows the clause was never going to be used, and even if it were used the odds were WAY WAY WAY against it impacting an existing product of his.  Had he gone ahead with the planned 4e modules, they would have been out long ago, and his sales run would also have been out or nearly out long ago as well, with no harm from the GSL and a lot of profit to him.

But no, instead he whined about the GSL being changeable by WOTC, which is something he couldn't agree to, despite him probably drafting dozens of similar agreements for non-RPG companies without blinking an eye in his law practice.  Such a crock of shit.

Well, tell us how you really feel.

Quote from: ICFTI;373608Well, tell us how you really feel.

Yeah, Clark has a tendency to really tick me off when it comes to legal matters.  We disagree often.  He's very conservative when it comes to interpreting most clauses of contracts and licenses, and it strikes me as highly unrealistic from a business law perspective.  

You know, the kind of guy you hire to negotiate the best agreement for you, and he goes and works very hard to get an air tight indemnification clause while ignoring the cost and term of use and other business issues in the agreement.  Nobody in the real world much gives a shit about indemnification clauses (if they every get used, which is very rare, things have already gone to hell in a hand basket and be ignored anyway) but some attorney's focus everything on them because it's what they know and they don't really know the business issues involved very well.