I don't have a DDI sub and never subscribed to dungeon prior to the take back- has this happened much in practice? Once a month? Every couple of months? Once a year? About the same as before it went digital?
It looks like its pretty much the same as the model they have almost always used for Dungeon - give us a submission with an idea for an adventure and if we like it we'll get you to sign a contract and see if your full adventure is enough up to snuff for us to buy and use it.
One thing about OGL/GSL I've mentioned before. There seems to have been a change in thought in WotC's management, that I can't pin down.
The first three books (with some exceptions)* were OGL, but other products in the initial run were also added to the OGL (Epic, Psionic, d20 modern, parts of Deities and Demigods come to mind) Early 3.x seemed to be almost as dedicated to open content as Paizo now is. Heck, look at the Tome of Horrors. This is not the work of a company not willing to share their toys. IIRC, there was some discussion with Necromancer Games to prevent overlap between ToH and MM2/FF. Heck, even Unearthed Arcana was a mix of WotC open content and 3pp open content.
The MM2 even included two critters from the Scarred Lands' Creature Collection. I read somewhere (no source, so I'm relying on memory) that future books would be opened up as OGL, eventually.
Somewhere, that seemed to have changed. I don't have a specific timeline, but it can be seen that later products did seem to get away from 'sharing the wealth'. I seem to recall (again, memory) Dr. Nardi discussing how he made his (wonderful) Pact magic books and kept them far enough away from Tome of Magic's binder.
I guess what I'm saying is, as much as I disliked the initial GSL (I lost interest long before it was revised, so I can't comment to it.) it wasn't a 'woke up this morning and threw the OGL out the window' moment.
Would I *like* Mike Mearle's 'call for unity' to result in them releasing a lot of their critters (stripped of fluff) into the OGL world as a 'peace offering' to sooth over hurt feelings? Yes. Would I like 5th edition to return to the OGL? Yes. Would either of those bring me back to WotC RPGs?** Likely not.
So it would benefit me, but not them. I'm sure I'm not alone in this feeling.
The history element in this is my take as well. We don't really know why WotC began to back away from open content. Though we do get statements and such that the original purpose of the OGL was to get companies to make modules and campaign worlds. Two areas that WotC felt where weak for core sales for the parent company (there was - and is - a very strong mechanics bias at WotC) but what actually seemed to happen a lot of the time was that 3PPs choose to make full on independent games or create campaign worlds that where so unique that there was no room for most of WotCs mechanics books in the mix. If your in a hardcore Arcana Unearthed campaign then there is no need to buy Complete Fighters because there are no classic fighters in Arcana Unearthed - the book does not line up with your source material.
Note...if they did I think that is a great idea...I hate modules. The Pazio APs are ok....but the games is always alot better when the DM creates his own stuff.I disagree. Sometimes a game is better with a homemade campaign, sometimes it isn't. Running a module is an equalizer - it removes an element from the DMing equation that's easy to screw up: adventure design.I agree, with Scott. Yes if a GM has time to completely tailor a whole campaign for your PC's perfectly it will be great. But few have the time or honestly ability to pull it off. Thats where buying them comes in. Buy them and then tweak them to fit your group. Much easier than making them whole cloth.
A example a guy ran the best Vampire the Masquerade game i was ever in. It was amazing how perfectly everything fit and went... then it was obvious we got further along than he was able to keep pace. It went from being hands down the best campaign to one of the worst campaigns for any game ever. Sadly really, but in the end he admitted that's what happened. he couldn't keep creating fast enough to stay ahead and started winging it more and more.
So yes if someone has the time and ability and can stay ahead of the campaign. home made are better, but the reality is thats rare.
Err I think I had a point somewhere but I forget what it is.
As I said in my orginal post...and in my response to him...Modules have their place. It just never a major selling point for me as I never had needed them...and usualy find them nothing but one long train ride as a player.
Not all DMs are created equal. Some really good at ad libbing and need very little perparations...some need to come in with a book...rather hand written or a published module...to run the game. Both can be fun. Both can disaster waiting to happen. I just perfer those who create their own stuff is all. It is not like I scoop up my stuff and go home if a GM pulls out a module...and I have seen GM make the module their own to great effect. And not that all home brewed stuff is golden either. It is just a preference I was puting forth so my main point was not take as a attack...
Which was why does WotC not put out quality modules? I mean if Scott is correct in that both Pazio and WotC pick up all the good module writters...why does not WotC put out their own 4th ed APs? Instead of regulating these people to Dungeon? I think it was orginaly that players don't buy modules...so their sales would be down. But Pazio sorta blew that out of the water with their APs...even to the point where I'll be picking up some just for the world info.
Note...if they did I think that is a great idea...I hate modules. The Pazio APs are ok....but the games is always alot better when the DM creates his own stuff.Depends on the GM, really. I've played in a few games where the guy or gal running it would've been far better off using canned content. Not everyone is good with formulating ideas; lately, I've felt myself running my well dry, and rather than put my players through sub par adventures, I'd rather switch over to APs and let my creative batteries recharge for a bit.
Sigh...read the above post.
I might be later starting a thread about modules. As that was just a qualifier for my main point. But it seems like a topic I might want to explore more...
2) If you can write quality modules and you know it, chances are you'd prefer to be writing for one of the big dogs. WotC and Paizo know this. If they see good adventure writing talent, they will try to harness that talent for their own product line.While this is true(that people rather write for the big dogs and such)....why does not WotC put out good modules? I don't mean just 4th ed...I can't even remember the last half-way decent module they put out. I think they just abandon it.
I just don't think WotCs hired a lot of great module writers. Their focus was always on design and development and that is what their staff reflects. They do actually put out some pretty good stuff in Dungeon - but that is because much of that content is created by either fans or free lancers and it has to run a gauntlet (any submission needs to sound more exciting then the other 99 submissions that are currently being considered). Some of the Scales of War APs have been excellent (admittedly I only experience them as a player) but then I recognize some of the authors as big names from back when Dungeon was licensed to Paizo so maybe its no surprise.
One of the big issues with this perception is the Delve format itself. The format makes adventures a pain to read (even as it makes them extremely easy to run). The result is the number of people just reading an adventure drops off like a rock so there is a lot less buzz when a good one hits.
|
That's a good question about why can't WotC make good adventures? I don't know but most of there's I think have been horrible. there has been a few good exceptions here and there. I think the big reason is WotC tries to make their adventures to safe(as in not offend anyone) and try to make them appeal to everyone (which makes them bland). But that is my guess.
While Paizo pushes things. I think we can all agree a few of their adventures pushed things enough that some people thought they went to far. Hook Mountain Massacres for example. So I think it comes down to Paizo is willing to take chances and push things to make memorable adventures. While WotC plays it safe. But of course this is just my own personal opinion.
Which was why does WotC not put out quality modules? I mean if Scott is correct in that both Pazio and WotC pick up all the good module writters...why does not WotC put out their own 4th ed APs? Instead of regulating these people to Dungeon?
WotC has put out APs - two, so far. The first was the HPE series that began with 4e's release, and the second was Scales of War, which appeared in Dungeon. I believe that WotC sees their market differently, though. They clearly feel that the best strategy is to give DMs the tools they need/want to create their own adventures. I can't say that I agree or disagree with this, since it's a business decision, but I can say that the tools 4e provides adventure creators makes it very easy to run Pathfinder APs in 4e.
I think it was orginaly that players don't buy modules...so their sales would be down. But Pazio sorta blew that out of the water with their APs...even to the point where I'll be picking up some just for the world info.
Well, right, Paizo appears to have grabbed the segment of the player base that is really looking for carefully crafted adventures. WotC is probably operating under the idea that the rest of the player base is a worthwhile enough market that they don't need to spend a lot of effort trying to out-adventure-write Paizo.
One of the big issues with this perception is the Delve format itself. The format makes adventures a pain to read (even as it makes them extremely easy to run). The result is the number of people just reading an adventure drops off like a rock so there is a lot less buzz when a good one hits.
This is a solid point. When I buy an adventure, it's because I plan on running it (and when I say "plan", I don't mean "Yeah, it'd be nice to get a group together at some point in the future." I mean "The campaign starts in two weeks, time to grab a copy of the adventure."). I know that there are some people who buy adventures to read, but when I purchase an adventure, I want it to be easy to run. The entire package should be built to facilitate gameplay, and casual readability should be secondary to this.
The Delve format is an example of this. Yes, it requires flipping back and forth when reading through the adventure, but I don't care about that. I have time to flip back and forth while I'm reading through the adventure to get an idea of how it progresses. What I don't want to be forced to do is page-hunt through my adventure while I'm in the middle of an encounter, whether I'm looking up terrain details, monster stat blocks, or relevant NPC actions (or, even worse, having to flip through multiple books when some stat blocks aren't reprinted in the adventure). The delve format puts all of that on one spread, or at least on consecutive pages, so that my encounters run smoothly. That's what I care about as an adventure buyer.
While this is true, there are a couple of things to keep in mind:
A) WotC puts out plenty of new rules options on their own. As cool as it might be for DMs to offer new choices to their players, most players are getting by just fine with what's currently available through the CB.
B) The idea of opening up the CB to programming on the consumer side has been brought up many times across many different fora. I have never seen an established software engineer chime in with anything along the lines of, "Yeah, that's doable."
A) That is true and it has been true for a long time, but for anyone playing in a campaign setting not currently supported by WotC, I would say that the temptation and desire is going to be there to create new feats to connect characters to the unique deities, organizations, and people in their world. I would not call it an massive priority, but something every DDI GM building (or converting) a campaign setting will eventually find a use for.
Well Blazej I actually agree with you here but maybe for a different reason. I mean I certianly would like more ability to adapt my homebrew. However the real reason I think WotC should implement the ability to allow us to add our own content is that I think it'd be a great tool to help them better hone their direction.
With the 'in the clouds' tool set this is basically free market research from your customers.
If we could add our own stuff then they could sift through it and see what kinds of additions people add...and use that to decide what it is the their customer base actually wants.
If lots of people are adding gun rules of some kind then its a good bet that this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of real demand - put out a high fantasy gun book. If its Oriental themed stuff the players all are adding then an Oriental themed book is a good plan (conversely if no ones adding homebrew samurai or ninja stuff then they probably should avoid working on that book - probably there is low demand). Everyone designing their own Gods? Well maybe there is a good market for a fluff heavy 'Designing Faiths and Deities book'.
I have a hard time thinking of a better way of finding out what it is your customers actually want then giving them the tools to add it themselves and see what they come up with - then sell them the official version (you'd think this would make the same customers mad but in my experience it does the opposite - it makes the customers think they are oh so smart - after all they did it first).
|
Not sales, quality. WoTC tend(s/ed) to shovel some pretty crappy stuff out, figuring that players would take the "Pokemon" approach and buy it any way. GR, Necro, and Malhavoc have had pretty good quality IMO.We were discussing outperforming in the sense that it would cause WotC to change their policy towards 3pp. Why would WotC care if the 3pps were producing material that was occasionally of (arguably) higher quality? Unless that higher quality translated into substantial sales that cuts into WotC's bottom line, they're not going to care.
And right there you made the point that turned a lot of folks off of Wizards. As I, and Russ, pointed out in our post, Nobody was outselling WoTC at the time, but when you ask me which "which company performs better", I answer in accordance to quality. When a company doesn't care about the quality of it's product, then their sales will slide. The last years of 3e proved that, and there is a big chunk of the customer base that became so disgusted with them after that, that WoTC would be hard pressed to ever get back.
EDIT: But there is no point in ever expressing a dissenting voice about WoTC with you Scott, in your book they are the best ever. And I'm glad you enjoy their games, I hope they don't ever leave you with the same sour taste in your mouth that they left in many others.
It looks like its pretty much the same as the model they have almost always used for Dungeon - give us a submission with an idea for an adventure and if we like it we'll get you to sign a contract and see if your full adventure is enough up to snuff for us to buy and use it.
If they're actually looking for good module writers, how come they haven't released any good ones? The reviews for and reactions to wotc modules I've seen weren't exactly positive.
I guess that either no good writers approach them, or they couldn't even say what a good module looks like if their life depended on it.
And right there you made the point that turned a lot of folks off of Wizards. As I, and Russ, pointed out in our post, Nobody was outselling WoTC at the time, but when you ask me which "which company performs better", I answer in accordance to quality. When a company doesn't care about the quality of it's product, then their sales will slide. The last years of 3e proved that, and there is a big chunk of the customer base that became so disgusted with them after that, that WoTC would be hard pressed to ever get back.
WotC put out some of the best 3e material during the last couple years of its life cycle (Bo9S, Tome of Magic, MMV). So, no. The last years of 3e didn't prove anything except that opinions on quality differ.
More to the point, though, I used "they're not going to care" in the sense that even if 3pps did outperform WotC in quality of materials (they didn't), it wouldn't cause WotC to tighten the OGL/GSL or any of the other things they did that you didn't like. Quality has nothing to do with it unless there are sales to back that up. And, frankly, there weren't.
EDIT: But there is no point in ever expressing a dissenting voice about WoTC with you Scott, in your book they are the best ever. And I'm glad you enjoy their games, I hope they don't ever leave you with the same sour taste in your mouth that they left in many others.
Your monolithic view of me is cute, especially given that WotC and Paizo are roughly tied in my book for "best ever". But hey, y'know, that's cool. I absolutely understand the desire to see the "other" as static and without nuance. It makes it easier to stand in stalwart opposition.
I think we can all agree a few of their adventures pushed things enough that some people thought they went to far. Hook Mountain Massacres for example.
I'd still love to get my hands on the original version of HMM! The one they had to reject as too horrible. Considering the stuff that goes on in the published version, I'd just like to read what goes on in the "director's cut."
Too bad Logue won't share.
It looks like its pretty much the same as the model they have almost always used for Dungeon - give us a submission with an idea for an adventure and if we like it we'll get you to sign a contract and see if your full adventure is enough up to snuff for us to buy and use it.If they're actually looking for good module writers, how come they haven't released any good ones? The reviews for and reactions to wotc modules I've seen weren't exactly positive.
I guess that either no good writers approach them, or they couldn't even say what a good module looks like if their life depended on it.
Or your opinion of what qualities make a module good is different from others' opinions of what makes a module good, and you tend to hear the opinions of those who share yours.
And before you spin around on me, keep in mind that I prefer Paizo adventures over WotC adventures.
I absolutely understand the desire to see the "other" as static and without nuance. It makes it easier to stand in stalwart opposition.
Wait...are we talking RPGs, or politics? :P
|
|
And right there you made the point that turned a lot of folks off of Wizards. As I, and Russ, pointed out in our post, Nobody was outselling WoTC at the time, but when you ask me which "which company performs better", I answer in accordance to quality. When a company doesn't care about the quality of it's product, then their sales will slide. The last years of 3e proved that, and there is a big chunk of the customer base that became so disgusted with them after that, that WoTC would be hard pressed to ever get back.WotC put out some of the best 3e material during the last couple years of its life cycle (Bo9S, Tome of Magic, MMV). So, no. The last years of 3e didn't prove anything except that opinions on quality differ.
More to the point, though, I used "they're not going to care" in the sense that even if 3pps did outperform WotC in quality of materials (they didn't), it wouldn't cause WotC to tighten the OGL/GSL or any of the other things they did that you didn't like. Quality has nothing to do with it unless there are sales to back that up. And, frankly, there weren't.
EDIT: But there is no point in ever expressing a dissenting voice about WoTC with you Scott, in your book they are the best ever. And I'm glad you enjoy their games, I hope they don't ever leave you with the same sour taste in your mouth that they left in many others.Your monolithic view of me is cute, especially given that WotC and Paizo are roughly tied in my book for "best ever". But hey, y'know, that's cool. I absolutely understand the desire to see the "other" as static and without nuance. It makes it easier to stand in stalwart opposition.
So you don't think that you have a rather rapid reaction to any criticism of WoTC? Scott, I don't see 4e players as any sort of opposition, I could care less what anyone else plays. Do not try and paint me as some sort of simple minded fanboy looking to blast WoTC.
And for the other:
Unless that higher quality translated into substantial sales that cuts into WotC's bottom line, they're not going to care.
You didn't say even if, you said unless. A stark contrast in statements.
I absolutely understand the desire to see the "other" as static and without nuance. It makes it easier to stand in stalwart opposition.Wait...are we talking RPGs, or politics? :P
Everything is politics.
|
|
I think we can all agree a few of their adventures pushed things enough that some people thought they went to far. Hook Mountain Massacres for example.I'd still love to get my hands on the original version of HMM! The one they had to reject as too horrible. Considering the stuff that goes on in the published version, I'd just like to read what goes on in the "director's cut."
Too bad Logue won't share.
Actually he did on the SA website, I was able to add it to my recent running of HMM before the site went away. If I find the stuff anywhere else I'll try and remember to let you know where to find it.
Do not try and paint me as some sort of simple minded fanboy looking to blast WoTC.
Then perhaps you shouldn't paint him as a simple-minded fanboy looking to defend WoTC?
Just a thought...
So you don't think that you have a rather rapid reaction to any criticism of WoTC?
No, I don't. Continue making this about me, please.
Scott, I don't see 4e players as any sort of opposition, I could care less what anyone else plays.
Total tangent, but it's "couldn't care less".
Do not try and paint me as some sort of simple minded fanboy looking to blast WoTC.
I didn't. I tried to paint you as human. You, however, did a fine job of trying to paint me as some sort of simple-minded fanboy looking to defend WotC.
You didn't say even if, you said unless. A stark contrast in statements.
I said two things:
1. Even if 3pps produced higher-quality material than WotC, quality alone would not cause WotC to change their policy towards the OGL/GSL. It would require an accompanying increase in sales that negatively impacted WotC to cause 3pps to have that effect.
2. Unless sales increased (enough to harm WotC) along with quality, WotC isn't going to care that a 3pp produced a book that was arguably of better quality than one of their own.
Do I need to further explain how these two statements are not in conflict with one another?
Personally, I try to make all of my fanboyism nuanced...
While this is true, there are a couple of things to keep in mind:
A) WotC puts out plenty of new rules options on their own. As cool as it might be for DMs to offer new choices to their players, most players are getting by just fine with what's currently available through the CB.
B) The idea of opening up the CB to programming on the consumer side has been brought up many times across many different fora. I have never seen an established software engineer chime in with anything along the lines of, "Yeah, that's doable."
A) That is true and it has been true for a long time, but for anyone playing in a campaign setting not currently supported by WotC, I would say that the temptation and desire is going to be there to create new feats to connect characters to the unique deities, organizations, and people in their world. I would not call it an massive priority, but something every DDI GM building (or converting) a campaign setting will eventually find a use for.
Well Blazej I actually agree with you here but maybe for a different reason. I mean I certianly would like more ability to adapt my homebrew. However the real reason I think WotC should implement the ability to allow us to add our own content is that I think it'd be a great tool to help them better hone their direction.
With the 'in the clouds' tool set this is basically free market research from your customers.
If we could add our own stuff then they could sift through it and see what kinds of additions people add...and use that to decide what it is the their customer base actually wants.
If lots of people are adding gun rules of some kind then its a good bet that this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of real demand - put out a high fantasy gun book. If its Oriental themed stuff the players all are adding then an Oriental themed book is a good plan (conversely if no ones adding homebrew samurai or ninja stuff then they probably should avoid working on that book -...
Once I stop entertaining thoughts of Big Brother from popping into my head, I like that idea and I can see it benefiting them.
I recall though that a few years ago there were a large number of posts on the WotC forums that were people just posting homebrew material, isn't that still going on?
|
|
So you don't think that you have a rather rapid reaction to any criticism of WoTC?No, I don't. Continue making this about me, please.
Scott, I don't see 4e players as any sort of opposition, I could care less what anyone else plays.Total tangent, but it's "couldn't care less".
Do not try and paint me as some sort of simple minded fanboy looking to blast WoTC.I didn't. I tried to paint you as human. You, however, did a fine job of trying to paint me as some sort of simple-minded fanboy looking to defend WotC.
You didn't say even if, you said unless. A stark contrast in statements.I said two things:
1. Even if 3pps produced higher-quality material than WotC, quality alone would not cause WotC to change their policy towards the OGL/GSL. It would require an accompanying increase in sales that negatively impacted WotC to cause 3pps to have that effect.
2. Unless sales increased (enough to harm WotC) along with quality, WotC isn't going to care that a 3pp produced a book that was arguably of better quality than one of their own.
Do I need to further explain how these two statements are not in conflict with one another?
I was responding directly to one statement not the other. And Scott, my only statement was that there was no point in being a dissenting voice against WoTC with you, you obviously truly enjoy their products and see them in a different light than some others. More power to you.
And BTW I know what the expression is, it's called a typo. I'm pretty sure we all make them from time to time.
And BTW I know what the expression is, it's called a typo. I'm pretty sure we all make them from time to time.
+1
|
|
On a more OT note, I do find it a little strange that the lines got drawn so deeply over the whole "Edition Wars" nonsense, I've seen it go both ways with 4e players ridiculed, and with 3e/PF players blasted. All in all it never seemed like that big a deal to me, yes I play PF, and no I don't play 4e, I liked 3e and wished to continue playing that game. Now did I like the way WoTC handled the transition? No, I felt burned by it, and I do disagree with many of the choices they have made since, does that mean I have a grudge against every 4e player I come across? Nope, in the end we're all just a bunch of folks sitting around playing a game of make believe.
EDIT: And just to be fair, I don't entirely agree with everything Paizo does either, they just happen to put out the rule set I use.
On a more OT note, I do find it a little strange that the lines got drawn so deeply over the whole "Edition Wars" nonsense, I've seen it go both ways with 4e players ridiculed, and with 3e/PF players blasted. All in all it never seemed like that big a deal to me, yes I play PF, and no I don't play 4e, I liked 3e and wished to continue playing that game. Now did I like the way WoTC handled the transition? No, I felt burned by it, and I do disagree with many of the choices they have made since, does that mean I have a grudge against every 4e player I come across? Nope, in the end we're all just a bunch of folks sitting around playing a game of make believe.
+1
|
|
This is a solid point. When I buy an adventure, it's because I plan on running it (and when I say "plan", I don't mean "Yeah, it'd be nice to get a group together at some point in the future." I mean "The campaign starts in two weeks, time to grab a copy of the adventure."). I know that there are some people who buy adventures to read, but when I purchase an adventure, I want it to be easy to run. The entire package should be built to facilitate gameplay, and casual readability should be secondary to this.
It's not just about readability, it's also about content. While I understand the advantages of the Delve format it also takes a lot of place which could be filled with background information instead. If Paizo would use the format for their APs they probably would have to boost the page count AND/OR would have to cut at least some of the information given in the adventure and the articles. If I'm just reading a 4E adventure, I can gloss over the encounter pages with all their redundancies (I mean, if I only read a 3.X/PF adventure i do the same with the stat blocks). But if I want to run it, I basically have to invent all the background information instead of adapting what's already there.
Take for example H1 and Burnt Offerings and compare the description of Winterhaven with the description of Sandpoint or the background info you get about Nerath and the info you get about Thassilon. There isn't too much info in H1
That's what I miss in the adventures using the Delve Format, especially if those adventures are connected to the setting I want to play in. Now If I want to use them in my homebrew setting it doesn't matter too much, because I have my own background anyways but even then I like to pillage adventures for locations, NPC and so on while the organization of the information relevant to the encounters is less of a concern.
It's not just about readability, it's also about content. While I understand the advantages of the Delve format it also takes a lot of place which could be filled with background information instead. If Paizo would use the format for their APs they probably would have to boost the page count AND/OR would have to cut at least some of the information given in the adventure and the articles.
Fair point - they undoubtedly would.
This strikes me as yet another reason to pursue a digital framework for presenting adventures. Without having to worry about space considerations, you can provide as many different configurations of material as you feel necessary (you could have as much background as you would normally publish, and reprint stat blocks/maps/terrain in the Delve format without having to worry about increasing development time significantly).
|
|
I think we can all agree a few of their adventures pushed things enough that some people thought they went to far. Hook Mountain Massacres for example.I'd still love to get my hands on the original version of HMM! The one they had to reject as too horrible. Considering the stuff that goes on in the published version, I'd just like to read what goes on in the "director's cut."
Too bad Logue won't share.
Oh I agree, i don't think Paizo has come close to going to far yet. I was merely saying I know some people did and was using it as a example. :)
|
|
This strikes me as yet another reason to pursue a digital framework for presenting adventures. Without having to worry about space considerations, you can provide as many different configurations of material as you feel necessary (you could have as much background as you would normally publish, and reprint stat blocks/maps/terrain in the Delve format without having to worry about increasing development time significantly).
Agreed. For this reason, I also liked the Eberron and FR Conversion of H1 very much and whould have loved to see the later modules get the same treatment. Kind of what Paizo did with AoW and (parts of) ST.
WotC has put out APs - two, so far. The first was the HPE series that began with 4e's release...
I'd not call this an AP. Its more like a series of linked adventures ala the original U series or the Queen of the Demonweb Pits adventures.
I'd not call this an AP. Its more like a series of linked adventures ala the original U series or the Queen of the Demonweb Pits adventures.
WotC has put out APs - two, so far. The first was the HPE series that began with 4e's release...
Fair enough. I'm not sure what the widely-accepted definition of an AP is.
It looks like its pretty much the same as the model they have almost always used for Dungeon - give us a submission with an idea for an adventure and if we like it we'll get you to sign a contract and see if your full adventure is enough up to snuff for us to buy and use it.If they're actually looking for good module writers, how come they haven't released any good ones? The reviews for and reactions to wotc modules I've seen weren't exactly positive.
I guess that either no good writers approach them, or they couldn't even say what a good module looks like if their life depended on it.
I'd be careful here...a lot of the same freelancers work for both WotC and Paizo. I'd watch your step on who your calling a hack here - there is a lot of cross proliferation in the RPG market and freelancers rarely declare undying loyalty to one company or another - its bad for business.
Actually he did on the SA website, I was able to add it to my recent running of HMM before the site went away. If I find the stuff anywhere else I'll try and remember to let you know where to find it.
I think we can all agree a few of their adventures pushed things enough that some people thought they went to far. Hook Mountain Massacres for example.I'd still love to get my hands on the original version of HMM! The one they had to reject as too horrible. Considering the stuff that goes on in the published version, I'd just like to read what goes on in the "director's cut."
Too bad Logue won't share.
That would be a blast!
I'd be careful here...a lot of the same freelancers work for both WotC and Paizo. I'd watch your step on who your calling a hack here - there is a lot of cross proliferation in the RPG market and freelancers rarely declare undying loyalty to one company or another - its bad for business.
It looks like its pretty much the same as the model they have almost always used for Dungeon - give us a submission with an idea for an adventure and if we like it we'll get you to sign a contract and see if your full adventure is enough up to snuff for us to buy and use it.If they're actually looking for good module writers, how come they haven't released any good ones? The reviews for and reactions to wotc modules I've seen weren't exactly positive.
I guess that either no good writers approach them, or they couldn't even say what a good module looks like if their life depended on it.
Don't do this. Just don't. I didn't call any adventure writer a hack.
I said that from what I've heard, none of the wotc 4e modules got good reviews. I heard a lot of complaints, that the stuff was useless.
So to me that means that there are apparently no good wotc 4e modules. That can have two reasons:
Or maybe the modules were used, but all the good ideas crushed. I don't know. All I know is that from what I've heard, their 4e modules suck, and that there has to be a reason for that.
Best Scene from Ghostbusters.
Egon: Everything was fine till d**kless here shut off the powergrid.
Mayor: Is that true?
Venkman: Yes. This man has no d**k.
*Peck tries to attack Venkman, but gets restrained by cops while Venkman bounces away*
Venkman: Well that's what I heard!
It's not just about readability, it's also about content. While I understand the advantages of the Delve format it also takes a lot of place which could be filled with background information instead. If Paizo would use the format for their APs they probably would have to boost the page count AND/OR would have to cut at least some of the information given in the adventure and the articles.This strikes me as yet another reason to pursue a digital framework for presenting adventures. Without having to worry about space considerations, you can provide as many different configurations of material as you feel necessary (you could have as much background as you would normally publish, and reprint stat blocks/maps/terrain in the Delve format without having to worry about increasing development time significantly).
Having done the layout of a 4E adventure with the delve format, I can say it is a pain to put together. If the encounter doesn't fill up two pages it feels like a waste, but if you go over you have to trim. This isn't helped by the size of a 4E statblock. Since most digital products are still created as PDFs, you don't really save any of the layout headache there.
On the other hand, I could see a web-based adventure using a database being an interesting way to make an adventure. DuneonADay.com is the best example of this. It has one web page per encounter, so encounters can be as long or as short as needed. A more dynamic page setup and you could have stats for multiple systems and display the users preference. That would be an interesting project... May be too much work per page for true profitability though.
I'd not call this an AP. Its more like a series of linked adventures ala the original U series or the Queen of the Demonweb Pits adventures.
WotC has put out APs - two, so far. The first was the HPE series that began with 4e's release...
What is an adventure path but a series of linked modules intended to be run in sequence? I would argue that the Giants, Drow, Queen series is the first adventure path.
Paizo may tie their adventure paths together a little more tightly, but that doesn't make it the only way to write an adventure path.
|
What is an adventure path but a series of linked modules intended to be run in sequence? I would argue that the Giants, Drow, Queen series is the first adventure path.
Paizo may tie their adventure paths together a little more tightly, but that doesn't make it the only way to write an adventure path.
For me, that's the key difference. An AP is generally tied together tighter than a "series" of linked adventures...
I also think that APs are generally more the center focus of the campaign than a series of linked adventures. A series can just be inserted anywhere into an ongoing campaign, and when finished, the campaign goes on. While the APs as written, start the campaign off and then bring the whole to a natural conclusion...
YMMV...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Having done the layout of a 4E adventure with the delve format, I can say it is a pain to put together. If the encounter doesn't fill up two pages it feels like a waste, but if you go over you have to trim. This isn't helped by the size of a 4E statblock. Since most digital products are still created as PDFs, you don't really save any of the layout headache there.
The benefit of the Delve layout, for me, is not so much that it appears on two opposite facing pages that can be spread out on the table at the same time. That's a relatively small perk. The real benefit is having everything I need for the encounter in a set of consecutive pages. If an encounter needs to take up three or four pages, that's not a big deal. The draw for me is that I'm not going to find myself taking up precious time flipping through multiple books to find the right stat block if the adventure is presented in something like the Delve format. And if you're presenting this as a digital product, economy of space becomes much less of a concern.
I'd be careful here...a lot of the same freelancers work for both WotC and Paizo. I'd watch your step on who your calling a hack here - there is a lot of cross proliferation in the RPG market and freelancers rarely declare undying loyalty to one company or another - its bad for business.
It looks like its pretty much the same as the model they have almost always used for Dungeon - give us a submission with an idea for an adventure and if we like it we'll get you to sign a contract and see if your full adventure is enough up to snuff for us to buy and use it.If they're actually looking for good module writers, how come they haven't released any good ones? The reviews for and reactions to wotc modules I've seen weren't exactly positive.
I guess that either no good writers approach them, or they couldn't even say what a good module looks like if their life depended on it.
Don't do this. Just don't. I didn't call any adventure writer a hack.
I said that from what I've heard, none of the wotc 4e modules got good reviews. I heard a lot of complaints, that the stuff was useless.
So to me that means that there are apparently no good wotc 4e modules. That can have two reasons:
Nobody submits good modules/module ideas to them
They get good ideas and ignore them, because they don't know what a good module looks like. Or maybe the modules were used, but all the good ideas crushed. I don't know. All I know is that from what I've heard, their 4e modules suck, and that there has to be a reason for that.
Fine, I'm out of line.
Nonetheless Dungeon continues to use a submission model for many of its adventures and some of the stuff being submitted, particularly by some of the talented freelancers out there is innovative and good work.
|
|
You (WormysQueue) bring up the Paizo material for AoW/ST, and frankly I never thought it fitted in well to Eberron, and some of it was a squeeze in Forgotten Realms.
While I brought up the setting conversions,it mustn't be constrained to that. I'd also appreciate backdrop articles like those in the Pathfinder AP. When you've read the Sandpoint article, you basically have a lot of material to write your own adventures. With Winterhaven, not so much.
As far as setting conversions are concerned, I remember some adventure conversions over at candlekeep which I liked quite well, and I've also done my own conversions for Pathfinder-AP. I think they can be done, and they can be done well if written by people enthusaistic about the given setting (so it mustn't be written by officials with not much time on their hands).
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
WotC put out some of the best 3e material during the last couple years of its life cycle (Bo9S, Tome of Magic, MMV). So, no. The last years of 3e didn't prove anything except that opinions on quality differ.
I wanted to comment, I'm not sure if Bo9S and ToM were 'best material' (and I don't recognize MMV. Monster Manual 5?)
They were experimental material (pushing the mechanics to/beyond a breaking point) but 'good' is in the eye of the beholder.
I mean ToM gave us the Binder, but I've heard/read several complaints about the shadowcaster and truenamer. I remember someone, (Ari?) posting an 'updated' Shadowdancer on the WotC boards. And of course, Dr. Nardi took the binder and ran with him, giving us two excellent OGL* books.
ToB was similar, the classes were balanced against each other, but they made the fighter cry. They also caused some confusion in that their 'recharge' mechanic was so different than the casters.
Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Druid et al. "Ok, that's it, I'm spent."
Warblade/Swordsage "Give me 5 mintues and I'm ready to go!"
I think the 'best' of the late products was PHB II. The duskblade took all the lessons learned from the psychic warrior and the hexblade, and the alternate class options were a nice start.
I still wish that WotC would have made more OGL content though.**
*
**
Ugh; I can't stand the "delve" format. I don't like it in the armchair, I don't like it at the table. I like seeing the whole dungeon (or whatever environment) at once and treating like a single "living" space.
On top of which, the 4E adventures I've read that were in the delve format, still didn't work if you just picked it up and started running it. Without the context provided by the intro sections, there was no way to make intelligent decisions (beyond "pull something out of the air") for any of the creatures involved or make meaningful judgements if the players decided to, say, "sneak around the monsters" or even -- Pelor, forbid! -- "parley."
It's a terrible format, and it makes for terrible adventures. >.<
-The Gneech
The best thing about declaring 5e is just around the corner is that you can do it for three years and counting and, some day, you'll eventually be right!
And you'll never bring up that you've been doing this since the day the edition came out!
I'm not saying it's around the corner, but I will admit whole-heartedly to waiting for it since the day 4e hit shelves. 5e is in the works to be sure, but my(baseless and worthless) opinion is that we've got probably at least 2 more years, maybe even 3 to 4. Even if it's finished, the rules done and everything, the market is not right for a new edition quite yet. Essentials is still fairly new, and 4e still has stuff coming out, it's still the "hot button" in conversations(like this one), and WotC are still quietly collecting lots of data. I'm just making a non-educated guess and lets see what the market looks like in 2 years at the earliest.
Gotta keep in mind, this is all just rumors and finger pointing. There's no real demand for a new edition yet from WotC's chief customer base. Sure, a lot of detractors(like myself) are calling for a new edition, but we're not their target audience. From what I understand, the ones buying 4e are pretty happy playing it. Those who aren't, are off playing something else.
In all honesty, I really am looking forward to 5e, and not in a vengeful, "serves those 4e trolls right" kind of way. I didn't dig 4e, but I've loved lots of WotC stuff that came before it, so I'm interested to see what they do when the time comes to shake things up again. I'm hoping the system is great, so maybe my gaming group that got ripped in half before can come back together. I'm not even holding my breath that it resembles 3e; please, give us something new and great. I'm not "afraid" of playing a new edition, just give me one I actually want to play.
Gonna be honest: I came in here looking for the link to see if there have been any further blogs from Mearls...
But I'd rather chew tacks than wade through this discussion. Can anyone be a dear and repost any links for me? Or better yet, start a new thread with said link? Thanks.
Gonna be honest: I came in here looking for the link to see if there have been any further blogs from Mearls...
But I'd rather chew tacks than wade through this discussion. Can anyone be a dear and repost any links for me? Or better yet, start a new thread with said link? Thanks.
Here's the link to the archives for his column. It publishes every Tuesday (so far). Bookmark it, and you can find it for yourself. :)