|
I was reading the product discussion for Dragon's Demand and there was a lot of reaction and discussion about the new format. It got me to thinking and I wanted to pose a question/offer a suggestion to the developers and community.
Preamble
The 32-page format as it exists right now provides for some tight, little adventures (such as one of my favorites, Feast of Ravenmoor) but I, like much of the buying public it seems, favor larger modules with a tad more meat on their bones. This change to 64-page modules will likely make me more inclined to purchase them when one grabs my attention.
This shift makes good business sense for a number of reasons. As a former editor and publisher myself I know that it is far easier to produce a quarterly product than it is to produce a monthly or bi-monthly product. Also larger adventures sell better to the casual consumer and most publishers know that casual sales are where the money is. Subscribers are already fans and require little effort, while casual consumers require advertising and exciting and alluring products, etc.
Question
If there has been official word on these points I apologize. I keep up on the blog posts and read the product discussion but have not seen anything in particular.
The quarterly release means less adventures per year, obviously, and the concern over higher level adventures has been raised a few times. I am interested in knowing if this has been addressed by the developers. I understand that the new format is still very new so it may not have been considered yet.
There has been some community concern already about the lack of high-level adventure material. With less adventures per year the potential for there to be even less support for high-level play is very much a concern.
This being said, I fully understand that high-level adventures take more design and development time and do not sell as well as lower level adventures and thus do not make as much short-term business sense to produce.
Suggestion
I do not pretend to be a professional game developer but I am an avid fan of the hobby and a professional in the sales side of the industry so here is my suggestion.
Rather than a random and unexpected release format (content-wise not release dates), formula works for a reason and I offer this as a potential approach. With four adventures released per year and GenCon being a major event I am going to assume an August-November-February-May release schedule (though this is pretty irrelevant to my suggestion). I would suggest two low level adventures every year, perhaps when the APs launch in August and January, and one mid-level and high-level adventure on the off releases.
This will allow semi-casual buyers the predictability to know that at a certain time an adventure in the level range they prefer will be released and they can head on over to their local store or favorite online retailer and grab a copy.
This will also also allow for the community to have the kind of adventures they want, alleviating the lack of high-level support the Pathfinder line has currently.
Postamble
I got this idea when thinking of the format that Dungeon offered of one low, one mid, and one high level adventure every issue. There was something for everyone with every outing. i feel that has been lost somewhere along the line with a trend toward the better selling low level adventures.
If this format were to be adopted, or something similar with a wide array of level and play style support I would consider getting a Modules subscription instead of the grabbing one here and there as they strike my fancy. I am sure many agree though, admittedly, we may be in the minority.
What do you think?
Three things:
1) I think it's important to define your terms. What ranges do you have in mind when you refer to low-, mid-, and high-level modules?
2) What about modules that end up straddling your range?
3) With the new format a higher level module can be fleshed out a great deal, but the bulk associated with high-level stat blocks and such still limits what can be covered in 64 pages. For this reason higher level adventures will cover a narrower range. For instance, Dragon's Demand may reach as high as 7th (that's in James' hands now). Patrick's Reborn Forge*, on the other hand, starts at 12th and plans on reaching 16th (I have my doubts that much can get cram into 64 pages, but he and James might prove me wrong).
* - (Let me say again that I'm super excited to see this one!)
|
|
I was thinking low, middle, and high the way they were defined in Dungeon as 1-6, 7-12, and 13-20 respectively. Those are just ballpark figures really so I wasn't really speaking in super specific terms. Basically, the game has different styles of both play and design at different levels and those brackets seem to do a good job of generally separating those styles. 4E has a similar style of definition in their Heroic/Paragon/Epic though the level ranges and changes in style are built into the game mechanics.
With 64 page adventures there is likely to be some crossover of level ranges and I think that sort of thing will be nice to see. I am really excited to see what happens with the new format though it does seem odd that there is enough space in 64 pages to span as many as six levels of play (but this is ultimately unrelated to my point). Higher level adventures will also, obviously cover much less range.
My point, I guess, is that as is the modules line is not stackable in that if someone were to take a bunch of modules and string them together to form a campaign they would run dry as they got up in levels. Alternatively if a group wanted to keep playing after finishing and AP, as has been mentioned a ton of times on the forums, they have few to no options in the 15-17+ range.
I would like to see adventures released with regularity that support and encourage play at all levels and styles instead of the heavy focus that we have on the admittedly more marketable low level fare. Those in the 12 or even 15+ range are rare indeed. My thought is that if a definition of level range is placed on the modules and those ranges were generally supported with regularity it would do wonders for the line.
It is important for me to point out that my comments are in no way a criticism of the adventures. I have been impressed with all of the modules I have read and purchased so far. The larger format is a very good thing in my opinion, though we may lose some of those tight little adventures we were getting in 32 pages. My concern is that with fewer releases each year we may see even less support for the higher end of the play spectrum.
I'm an unashamed fan of low level stuff, so the status quo obviously suits me (although I'd be even happier to never see an adventure beyond 10th level personally).
Whilst acknowledging the bias, I just dont see the rationale behind producing product for which there is lacklustre demand*. I suspect the lack of high level modules is a function of the fact that they sell poorly, not the other way around. Until those high level ones start selling out, where's the motivation to produce more of them?
|
|
I absolutely acknowledge that there is less of a market for high-level adventures. They also require a bit more effort in the development stages. I just feel that there is a demographic in the gaming community that is not being supported and that is disappointing.
The new model for the Modules line with less releases each year seems to have the potential to have even less support for high-level play. Alternatively, with a larger product that sells better and more time devoted to the development of we have the potential to see more support for high-level play.
Right now the line has more than enough high-quality low level adventures. I would hate to see the line get bogged down with too many options for low level adventures. It seems that demographic has more than enough support.
obviously there is a market for it and there are more fans of low level play than high level play. Personally, I prefer the mid-level adventures. However, when I have a group that gets to 12-15th level, I want to have some options that I can run as is rather than have to scale up existing adventures or convert old products to the new rules.
I feel that some regular support for ALL levels and styles of play is important. There is little balance for everyone in the line as it stands right now, and I feel that is unfortunate.
I just think it sorts itself out. The reason they don't sell well is because not enough people want them. It seems to me that pursuing balance in the way youre suggesting amounts to producing high level modules to sit in a warehouse instead of low level modules which will get sold and used. I don't really see many winners there (other than the small cohort who want a wide range of high level adventures).
Demand may shift, of course (once the low level market gets saturated, for example). It may well be that the new 64 page format is more conducive to high level adventures and that the quality will thus lift, increasing the demand.
I guess I basically think publishers should be followers here. They should innovate, of course. But it doesn't make sense to me to try and fill a "gap" for which there isn't much demand (especially at the expense of other high demand areas.
|
|
I agree that it makes more short-term business sense. If Product A sells better than Product B, develop product A. However, I feel it makes less long-term business sense. If 50% of the buying public favors low level adventures and 25% favors high level adventures saturating the market to cater to 50% while ignoring and potentially alienating 25% leads to two dissatisfied customer demographics, one who feels left behind and another who is overwhelmed with options. This potentially reduces overall sales figures and that can have a ripple effect across other product lines.
These percentage figures are entirely a guess for illustration purposes, I don't know what the actual spread is though this seems about right. The undefined 25% would favor mid level adventures, obviously.
There are a number of factors that impact this discussion as well. The smaller page count tends to lead high-level adventures to trend toward a fight this stat block and go home format. PFS play only goes to 12th level and thus the ability to tie products in is no longer a selling point. Adventures traditionally sell fewer copies that supplement material for any given RPG brand.
As it stands right now, taking into account only the32-page modules, the discrepancy is pretty obvious to me. Using the Dungeon Magazine classifications of low (1-5), mid (6-12), and high (13-20) there are 9 that support low-level, 9 that support mid-level, and 4 that support high-level. Of those mid and high level products they tend toward the lower end of the spectrum.
For purely numbers based analysis the use of the ranges 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20 show the discrepancy clearer. In the 1-5 range there are 9 products evenly distributed across the range. For 6-10 there are 8 products with many trending toward the lower 6-7 end. With 11-15 there are only three products, with again a trend toward the low end at levels 11, 13, and 14. In the 16-20 range we have only 2 products with one being for 16th level and the other 17th.
I feel it makes better business sense to offer a wider range of products while still catering to the majority demographic but not abandoning a minority demographic. I feel it strengthens the line and the brand overall. My suggestion in the OP was simply a logical and consistent way to offer that variety and cater to the entire potential customer base, making everyone happy to some extent.
This is certainly an interesting topic for debate and something that has been raised here and there on the forums but not in any concentrated discussion that I have seen. I'm curious what the developers have to say.
|
|
Patrick's Reborn Forge*.
* - (Let me say again that I'm super excited to see this one!)
As a quick aside and direct response to you Mike, I just read the write up on this one and it does look hella cool. I'm excited for the new format for the line regardless of the direction it goes. Both adventures announced so far look fantastic. Of course, Paizo doesn't produce crap or work with authors that suck so I shouldn't be surprised really. lol
I agree that it makes more short-term business sense. If Product A sells better than Product B, develop product A. However, I feel it makes less long-term business sense. If 50% of the buying public favors low level adventures and 25% favors high level adventures saturating the market to cater to 50% while ignoring and potentially alienating 25% leads to two dissatisfied customer demographics, one who feels left behind and another who is overwhelmed with options. This potentially reduces overall sales figures and that can have a ripple effect across other product lines.
These percentage figures are entirely a guess for illustration purposes, I don't know what the actual spread is though this seems about right. The undefined 25% would favor mid level adventures, obviously.
I think the most sensible response to this would be to produce modules in the same 50/25/25 ratio. (Although I doubt a quarter of the market for modules favour high level adventures, personally. These discussions always seem to feature a few high level fans making a lot of posts, rather than an equal sized cohort of fans of high level modules as mid level).
As I said, I'm glad paizo innovate and experiment - so trying new kinds of high level adventures would be worth a shot, I think (maybe more political intrigue focused or something where the players are involved in disputes between enemies too big to just be fought). Trying to meet the demand you'd like to exist rather than trying to meet the actual demand is a not uncommon trap for small businesses to fall into.
I don't really accept the term, but the high level fans being "alienated" is the result of being in the minority. I don't think saturation of the low level module market is an issue until they stop selling. (I personally own around three hundred modules for a variety of systems - I appreciate the risk in extrapolating one own experiences onto the broader market, nonetheless i think it's a relatively common phenomenon to buy more adventures than one needs).
This is certainly an interesting topic for debate and something that has been raised here and there on the forums but not in any concentrated discussion that I have seen. I'm curious what the developers have to say.
Me too, but I suspect it's hard to do so without specifying actual numbers. I have no doubt they want everyone to get what they want, the trick for them is balancing pleasing everyone with keeping the line viable. High level modules sitting in a warehouse doesn't do anyone any good.
|
|
The suggestion I made supports the 50/25/25 spread. I may be completely wrong in those numbers. The ratio may be more like only 10% enjoy high-level play, I'm not sure. it is true that sometimes a small group can make a lot of noise online and seem larger, so again, I admit I might be totally off base with this entire debate.
I suspect it's hard to do so without specifying actual numbers. I have no doubt they want everyone to get what they want, the trick for them is balancing pleasing everyone with keeping the line viable. High level modules sitting in a warehouse doesn't do anyone any good.
I agree, and I can't help but think of the famous mis-quote from Abraham Lincoln where he didn't actually say "You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not please all of the people all of the time."
Ultimately, I trust in the developers to keep the line viable and worthwhile. I just feel that there is a somewhat untapped market out there that, while smaller, is still an important market. The suggestion I made, if my number assumptions are correct, is a decent business model for supporting as many of the fans as possible with predictable regularity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the proportions you suggested are correct, I think the predictable structure you propose is a decent idea. (Although I'd suggest the mid and high level modules be released with the APs - since there's already a low level adventure that month).
There have been several suggestions of late for semi regular surveys. This is the kind of topic that might benefit from some research, perhaps. (I struggle to accept the 25% figure, but bias is bias.. :p)
|
|
So I just did out a spreadsheet and crunched the numbers because I am a rampaging dork like that. Of the 32 page modules the spread is roughly 40% low-level, 40% mid-level, and 20% high-level. If the spread is changed from 1-5, 6-12, and 13-20 to 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20 the proportions are roughly similar.
So it seems that Paizo was already publishing high level adventures in the proportions I suggested. Way to steal my freely offered business model years before it was suggested Paizo. *shakes fist in the air*
I guess my suggestions and conversations come to a close (foiled/justified by math) with a request to the powers that be. Might we see a few higher level adventures? Perhaps in the 18-20 range? kthxbai
|
|
The adventures seem to have generally favorable reviews but I haven't read them, though I have been considering getting The Witchwar Legacy. I don't have much disposable income at all so I have to be very discerning with my purchases. I was really interested in the concept of The Moonscar but the reviews do seem a little lukewarm now that I read them. Of course I have come to learn that lukewarm Paizo products tend to still be pretty damn good in my opinion.
The problem with most high level adventures is the space constraints. Post DMG2 stat blocks take up an absurd amount of page space and get bigger the higher CR the critter being statted. This turns a lot of high-level adventures into a 'go fight this stat block and go home' format and that drives me nuts. Writing a high level adventure takes effort and requires a little more thought on the part of the writer given the wide array of abilities and options available to a party. However, writing a good adventure is writing a good adventure regardless of the level range.
With more space I am very interested to see what they do. I especially want to see some post 15 or post 17 level adventures. This larger format is just the space they need to make it really good and, as I've already said, I really don't want to see the fewer modules released model turn into virtually no high-level support.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Space issues are certainly an issue in a high level adventure, but not really because the stat blocks are bigger. Yes, they're bigger, but that's not the problem. At high level, characters have a MOUNTAIN of options available to them in how the tackle problems, and as such, the designer needs to include a lot more information about the area on how the GM can react when the PC does something unexpected.
EXAMPLE: In a low level adventure where the PCs are invading a cult lair, you can throw a dead body onto an altar as a recent sacrifice and not have to worry about the PCs using that body as a resource to learn too much too quickly about the fact that the cult leader is, say, the disguised king of the nation. If the PCs are a bit higher level and can cast speak with dead, then you can have the dead body's head be missing to prevent that spell from undoing your adventure's secret too soon, but that adds at least a sentence to your encounter description.
But what about when the PCs can cast raise dead or resurrection? Suddenly, you need to consider that each and every dead body you put into your cult stronghold is a potential NPC the PCs can bring back to life and talk to, and that means you can't just say "there's a dead body in the room draped over the altar." That body needs a name and a history. In the most extreme case scenario, it might even need a stat block.
Now, that all said, I'm eager for us to publish more high level adventures, because I really think that the reasons that they are perceived as not as popular is a self fulfilling prophecy—if no one publishes them, of COURSE they can never be as popular!
Wouldn't that imply that the few which are published would sell out relatively quickly?
|
|
Witchwar's Legacy to me was finding a good reason for high level PCs to actually be interested. The provided hooks were more suitable for a party of 7th level characters, not 17th level "we've already saved the world by this point" heroes.
Moonscar has a better hook (tying it personally to the individual PCs) but then you get to the moon and it's a linear slog fest.
|
|
To add something more constructive here are a few good high level play things I enjoyed:
Enemies of my Enemy (Savage Tide)
Diplomacy (Dungeon 144)
Heart of the Iron God (Dungeon 97)
a high level adventure in my opinion needs to assume that the PCs are movers and shakers. It also needs enemies who are thematically appropriate challenges. Fighting a dungeon filled with a bunch of level 15 rogues is ill-fitting. Each of those rogues should be a thief guildmaster, not a throwaway mook. The bestiaries right now don't have a lot of good "mook" enemies for high level PCs to fight, most of them (mostly outsiders or golems) are large/huge and really meant more as bosses for lower level groups.
Okay, if you say so. I just dont get it.
I dont know anything about publishing (let alone RPG publishing) but I've seen several businesses plough money into developing/supporting/marketting a poorly selling product on the basis of a desire for demand that just isnt there.
|
|
Space issues are certainly an issue in a high level adventure, but not really because the stat blocks are bigger. Yes, they're bigger, but that's not the problem. At high level, characters have a MOUNTAIN of options available to them in how the tackle problems, and as such, the designer needs to include a lot more information about the area on how the GM can react when the PC does something unexpected.
I hadn't thought of character options as a factor for increased word count but it certainly makes sense. When it comes to high-level stat blocks I always think of the 40 page Kyuss stat block. lol
Despite the fact that the game tends to slow down at higher levels I still enjoy the romps. I run a stripped down version of the rules so it plays a little closer to 2E without the counter-intuitive rules so that makes high level speed up considerably.
Now, that all said, I'm eager for us to publish more high level adventures, because I really think that the reasons that they are perceived as not as popular is a self fulfilling prophecy—if no one publishes them, of COURSE they can never be as popular!
Ultimately. I am glad to hear that, as a developer, you are interested in some high-level adventures. I was concerned that we would see even less of them but that has been directly addressed.
Okay, if you say so. I just dont get it.
I am really interested to see what happens. If the products don't sell and thus don't make good business sense I will gladly admit I was incorrect.
a high level adventure in my opinion needs to assume that the PCs are movers and shakers.
I agree to a certain extent. This falls on the writers to understand that the game is fundamentally different as far as scope and motivation, not just ability and options, is different for characters at different levels.
|
Wouldn't that imply that the few which are published would sell out relatively quickly?
No. It's a vicious cycle - not enough people want high level content, so there is only a little of it being published. That in turn leads to people buying low level content, which makes them want to use what they buy and PLAY in low level games. That leads to less people being interested in high level content, and so on and so forth.
If the few high level modules would have sold out quickly, that would have ment that the demand was larger than the supply. That is not the case, as I understand it.
The main factors in my opinion that high level play is less supported is that it's difficult on all fronts.
1) For players, it either takes a very long amount of time, even playing regularly, to get characters to level up.
2) Even if you start playing at high level, creating high level characters from scratch is much harder than evolving them over time given the many options, equipment to get, etc. especially if you don't have a character generator of some kind.
3) If you are playing in a campaign for many months just to get to level 7-8, you may feel ready for something new so you won't try to level up to the high levels.
4) For the DM, 3E/PF stat blocks for high level creatures and NPCs are very busy with many options yet a lot of time even if well organized require external referencing if you haven't memorized all of the source material like feat, spell and magic item descriptions. Even when the high level stat block is there in a printed adventure or supplement there's more planning involved to make the best use of it.
5) Unless just running a battle royal combat between high level PCs and monsters, the plot lines for adventures at higher levels need to be more complex to be interesting. The simple, you're out on your own for the first time and found someone looking for adventurers to search for a missing treasure supposedly in the nearby ruin just doesn't cut it.
6) Publishers (and players) are always trying to bring in new blood and you rarely start off new players running 18th level PCs.
7) For developers, encounter design gets more complicated because of the variables others have mentioned. Things can get very swingy. A few bad saving throws and critical hits and the encounter becomes a rout. For similar reasons it's harder to scale for different sized or leveled parties of PCs.
As a DM I know it's far easier for me to develop my own low level adventures and want publishers to put out great high level adventures, but the amount of effort for them to do so is much higher.
L
Wouldn't that imply that the few which are published would sell out relatively quickly?No. It's a vicious cycle - not enough people want high level content, so there is only a little of it being published. That in turn leads to people buying low level content, which makes them want to use what they buy and PLAY in low level games. That leads to less people being interested in high level content, and so on and so forth.
If the few high level modules would have sold out quickly, that would have ment that the demand was larger than the supply. That is not the case, as I understand it.
Well I'll continue to concede ignorance about RPG publishing. My concern arises from seeing several other businesses fall for the illusion that "if we make something cool, people will want it".
I think producers should follow demand as a general rule. In my view, modules which tie in with distant worlds would make much more sense than high level modules - there's clearly unsatisfied demand there, why try and create demand elsewhere which doesn't yet exist?
|
|
I absolutely agree that there is untapped demand for adventures that tie in with Distant Worlds. We are seeing a steampunk adventure soon so perhaps this means we will start seeing some experimental concepts, such as Numeria.
We have a lot of conventional material as it is and an AP isn't always feasible to do the more experimental stuff that might not go over as well. Perhaps we will see some more in the revamped module line.
If you are looking for a mid to high-level adventure, maybe one of the books #4-6 of an AP could work. With some GM legwork, plot hooks and NPCs can be streamlined into the current campaign -or replaced/removed from the AP.
Two that I am familiar with as a GM that strike me as playable outside the AP- this factor of course is the linchpin- would be City of Seven Spears and Thousand Fangs Below from Serpent's Skull. 2 lost cities with tons of potential.
Also, Vaults of Madness from the same AP would be a great mid-level dungeon crawl, and adding a few more encounters would make it challenging for higher levels.
Swap out elements to fit your game; PCs should expect to gain 3-4 or more levels in each volume.
A great topic, thanks for the read!
|
Creative Director
|
As far as stat blocks are concerned, wouldn't a simple solution be to use a lot of creatures from the bestiaries, thus saving space on descriptions? Use less unique monsters and NPCs with class levels, and more premade monsters.
This is absolutely a good solution. Problem is that Bestiaries tend to skew toward low CR foes as well, which compounds the problem.
Problem is that Bestiaries tend to skew toward low CR foes as well, which compounds the problem.
Aw that's easy: Release the Legendary Challenges bestiary that only contains CR 10+ creatures, and which includes nasty templates like Paragon and Pseudonatural :)
(ooooh --- and this gives the opportunity for the Mecha- and Cyborg templates, too. You never know what's going to happen to something that goes into the Silver Mountain ...)
Problem is that Bestiaries tend to skew toward low CR foes as well, which compounds the problem.Aw that's easy: Release the Legendary Challenges bestiary that only contains CR 10+ creatures...
Dude, you misspelled "Ultimate Badass" when you described that book I'd totally buy in a heartbeat.
Convincing the design team and management that a Bestiary where the lowest CR is 10 is itself a Legendary Challenge.
Yeah, I know. But at some point ya gotta figure they'll want to come out with a "Mythic Bestiary" :)