Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ramius_Mordale 10-11-04, 04:58 PM	So I was talking with a good friend of mine (also a fellow DM/PC I game with) and he said something very interesting to me, "I wonder why they don't make modules like they used to for 2nd edition?" Well and it expanded on from there, where are the cheap modules even that are well written and clear to understand. Not saying none of them haven't been like that for this setting at least, but I don't want to play 30-35 bucks for an adventure module. I don't care about fancy colors for the pictures, it can be in black and white you know and it doesn't need to be a hard back. I never personally played 2nd edition I started with the 3.0 crowd, but back then they said all these grand modules were going to be released as well. Well some did, but I'm still waiting for the cheap ones that are only 15-20 bucks. I want a module that's cheap, gives me some key illistrations for things I need to show the PCs or just to give me a way to describe the scene more clearly, like maps and such. I mean really whatever happened to the quality of modules released in 2nd edition, some of those are masterfully written and tried and true modules still used even in 3.5 by some of us. I'm not saying we should go hardcore into modules but still I'd like to see some more for FR. Ones that are at least just modules not modules inside fluff or hard back books. Sure through them into there but I want a module by itself not generated towards a certain part of a region. Just stand alone adventures that you can run set in FR, or just stand alone adventures you can run in any setting. I don't know what do you all think? Am I being too demanding on this subject? Let me know what you all think.
Kuje31 10-11-04, 05:19 PM	WOTC stopped producing modules, except for the ones in Dungeon, for awhile because 3rd party companies were doing so and WOTC was losing money on them. Now that the 3rd party companies have slowed down or stopped making modules WOTC said, at Gencon, that they will start producing new modules again. So hopefully we will see some more new FR modules that are not in Dungeon.
Lancelot_Shadowdancer 10-11-04, 05:21 PM	If you miss everything the 2ed had in the way of mod's, then just use them. Update them for the current rules you use and go with that. There is absolutely no sense in buying things you are going to use once. Even a module can impact later events, or give you ideas for future adventures. My advice is for you to dust off your 2ed stuff and revel in their simplicity. It may be quite some time before they finish with all the source book updates. So go old school, with new undertones.
Ramius_Mordale 10-11-04, 10:23 PM	Thanks for the update Kuje31, I'm glad to hear that they are going to start making modules again. I hope maybe with the show of modules it will get more people interested to the game and FR. No, no don't get me wrong man, I use the old 2nd edition modules for ideas all the time. I want to run some new ones for FR. I just think FR needs some modules to get people back into the mindset and attract new people to the game that otherwise might not know what FR is all about. Hey I think sourcebooks are cool and should still keep on coming out, but I don't want to just see sourcebooks solely either. Modules help set the FR mood even and give you a picture into the world and how it should be run for those DMs that are just beginning out and don't know how to set up an adventure and be a guideline for them. Feel free to critize all you want about it being pricey but I think shelling out $35 for a hardback book all the time is too much. I'd like to see some paperback books again that are only like 15-20 bucks. *Shrug* I didn't mean to annoy you if I did Lancelot_Shadowdancer, maybe I'm reading you wrong but you seem a bit that way in your post. And if I am sorry, my bad, but I'm just suggesting that maybe bringing back the modules would be a good thing. I enjoy them greatly as well as others I think. It's cool if you don't like them and don't want to buy them. That is what makes them great but I think it would be best to see a published adventure module again for FR that is solely for FR that isn't just focused based in one region of the world. But hey that's just my opinion.
Kuje31 10-11-04, 10:54 PM	I have to disagree partly. If WOTC is going to make FR and D&D sourcebooks, like most of the feed back they got, I prefer my D&D sourcebooks in hardback. Paperback sourcebooks tend to fall apart to fast, which is why WOTC has decided to print most of the new D&D sourcebooks in hardback. But I agree, some new FR modules that can be used as stand alone modules would be wonderful. My opinion is don't tie them into the metaplots though, at least not all the time. :)
Lina_Inverse 10-12-04, 02:28 AM	modules are inherently unprofitable.and dont delude yourself thinking the wizos want anything but money.they seem to care somewhat for the games but concern #1 is money and careing for the games brings more money. my personal favorite way of doing modules is the include a free module in every sourcebook.
Lancelot_Shadowdancer 10-12-04, 02:33 AM	No offense taken at all. Believe me, i'm all for using modules to add flavor. Heck, I still have the first D&D basic boxed set and I still get chills when I take a look at it. And if I sounded at all annoyed, please forgive me. That was my try at stern agreement :D . And I agree with the paper-back issue, just because not everyone can shell out the bucks to make too many $40 purchases. Especially if they keep going at the rate they are. Heck, it was an eternity for 1sted-2nded crooss over. And getting to 3rded took just as long. Now we have 3.5 in the blink of an eye, and 4.0 around the corner. So yeah, I would like to see some less pricey stuff in the near future, like low cast mod's and paper back supplements.
BrianCritchley 10-12-04, 02:51 AM	well of course WOTC's primary concern is money, this isn't a charity, as a GM I rarely use modules, especially as I have an eistablished campaign and it's rare they they are at the right level, in the righ t area, etc, for me to run em through a module
chme 10-12-04, 03:26 AM	Now we have 3.5 in the blink of an eye, and 4.0 around the corner. There is a 4.0 version of DnD coming soon?
warlockco 10-12-04, 04:01 AM	Now we have 3.5 in the blink of an eye, and 4.0 around the corner. Where did you hear about this from?!? :confused:
greaterbaatezu 10-12-04, 05:39 AM	Green ronin (?is that right, I could be wrong?) was putting out SUPER cheap modules for alittle while. They were small 8-10 page mini modules for $2.50 or so. They seemed to sell okay and I bought every one I could get my hands on. The trouble was (and it was only a minor inconvenience considering the price) that I had to rewrite all the town names in each, or place them out in the middle of nowhere. Now, they're all available in one sourcebook called legends and lairs which costs in excess of 20 dollars. Still a good deal, but alittle expensive to anyone who has to pay bills on a blue collar wage.
Faraer 10-12-04, 09:21 AM	Modules show aspects of how a setting works that sourcebooks and novels can't easily convey. Without the two dungeons in the Old Grey Box, FRQ1 Haunted Halls of Eveningstar, Ruins of Undermountain, and FA1 Halls of the High King, our knowledge of what Realms dungeons are like, how power groups interact with each other and with PCs, how scenarios are rooted in the history and present of the setting, would be much weaker. Realms adventures have a particular feel and mode which can't be got from changing the names in a non-Realms scenario. And new DMs haven't experienced this, because there hasn't been a single 3E adventure from Ed (excepting maybe one or two mid–high level ones in Serpent Kingdoms). A bad module, nominally Realms-set but not really, does no good. So Wizards' change of heart is great news, but we'll see who they get to write them.modules are inherently unprofitable.Nothing inherent about it; they've been very profitable in the past, are occasionally quite profitable and often marginally profitable in the present. 'Modules sell badly' has some current truth but it's too often quoted as dogma and therefore self-fulfilling prophecy. Moreover, it's widely understood (and thus the free adventures on wizards.com) that modules strengthen a game line and foster the playerbase way out of proportion to their sales. greaterbaatezu, are you thinking of the AEG minimodules that were collected as Adventure I and Adventure II?
Bocklin 10-12-04, 10:02 AM	Well, I did not receive my copy of "Shining South" yet, so I can't tell for this one, but the so-called adventures at the end of the source books (see P.S.) are pretty lame, and not really adventures anyway... I mean: there are not plots, no red line, no NPC interaction. It's basically a collection of mini-dungeons for a DM to use as he sees fit. That's fine with me, since I prefer to create my own adventures (I nearly never ever play, I am just a DM) and I guess I could lift one of these locales straight of the book and then flesh it out myself to fit it to my FR campaign, but this is no "adventure". For me an "adventure" would mean that there is a specified goal, some obstacles and helpers on the way, a lot of interaction with NPCs, etc. Not just "here is a place full of monsters, get in and kill them all"... What that is, is a poor dungeon... But even if I prefer to have the bulk of my campaign coming straight from my own imagination, I would not mind WotC publishing some official FR modules (i.e. real adventures) and I would surely buy them (and not only for the bits of Realms Lore which will find their way into them) and even favor them above cheaper non-Realm adventures published by third-parties. Bocklin PS: For those who are wondering, my critics are intended for the so call adventures at the end of "Silver Marshes", "Underdark" and "Serpent Kingdom".
Ramius_Mordale 10-12-04, 11:24 AM	Hmm....good point Kuje31, about the hardback books, I don't mind if they keep coming out with them, just wish they also would come out with just paperback ones too for like modules, a few source material books and monster compendiums ( :mymy: What haven't seen those things in years?). Broading this a bit, anybody miss just having monster compendiums instead of always having monster manuals? I think it would be cool to have monster compendium released with just a few monsters every 6 months then a monster manual every year. *Shrug* But that's just my cup of brandy i guess. In anycase, I'm glad to see a lot of you would like to see the return of the modules for FR. Lancelot_Shadowdancer, haha, alright yeah I sometimes get the wrong impression with posts just was making sure, can't be too cautious sometimes. I think though a lot of us would like to see the return of the paperback books though too. Not because I don't think we don't like them, but cause the prices for books these days has sky rocketed through the roof. I used to be able to buy paper back novels for like what 5-6 bucks now its like 8! :mymy: Man, talk about burning a hole in your pocket book. :eek: :OMG! Eh, well I'm done talking for now what do you all think? Am I crazy? :looloo:
Lashan 10-12-04, 11:27 AM	I agree with the above opinion in the back of the adventures. They just aren't full blown adventures. Personally, I feel that I have gotten my money's worth from my Dungeon magazine subscription. I've got a huge stock of adventures to use at almost any level in almost any climate. Sure, there are adventures I will never run, but I might steal the map from that adventure for something else. I am also against the "super modules", like the Spider Queen one.
Faraer 10-12-04, 12:26 PM	For me an "adventure" would mean that there is a specified goal, some obstacles and helpers on the way, a lot of interaction with NPCs, etc. Not just "here is a place full of monsters, get in and kill them all"... What that is, is a poor dungeon...From a D&D perspective, site-based and event-based scenarios are both perfectly legitimate. From a Realms perspective, there's a particular way to combine them. In either case, the PCs should choose their own goal, not have it imposed by a linear scenario.Not because I don't think we don't like them, but cause the prices for books these days has sky rocketed through the roof. I used to be able to buy paper back novels for like what 5-6 bucks now its like 8! :mymy:Even though printing and paper costs have risen above inflation in the last ten years, and publishers' margins were slim to start with, the price of books has not risen above inflation (which is about 25% in the last decade). For what they cost to produce, and what you get out of them, books are very cheap, which is why only a tiny fraction of authors make a living wage with writing.
Kuje31 10-12-04, 12:39 PM	Hmm....good point Kuje31, about the hardback books, I don't mind if they keep coming out with them, just wish they also would come out with just paperback ones too for like modules, a few source material books and monster compendiums ( :mymy: What haven't seen those things in years?). Broading this a bit, anybody miss just having monster compendiums instead of always having monster manuals? I think it would be cool to have monster compendium released with just a few monsters every 6 months then a monster manual every year. *Shrug* But that's just my cup of brandy i guess. I'd love to see some monster compendiums. Hells I was looking over my WOTC monter books and there is still A LOT of "staple" monsters that WOTC hasn't yet to convert. Come on WOTC where is the Leprechaun! Ah well. But I do agree with you that modules should be paperback. :) But any other sourcebook, besides modules, should be hardback. This is why I hesitate to even use my Magic of Faerun or Silver Marches, since they will fall apart sooner then hardbacks.
chme 10-13-04, 12:32 AM	From a D&D perspective, site-based and event-based scenarios are both perfectly legitimate. From a Realms perspective, there's a particular way to combine them. In either case, the PCs should choose their own goal, not have it imposed by a linear scenario. I don't buy this reasoning at all - even if you could actually support your claims with some examples from FR modules, how would you claim that the patterns in scenario structure has to do with the setting? Why would you have to combine the site- and event-based scenarios in a certain way for them to be true to the Realms? A tradition in how things is done in a small group of module constructors does not mean that site- and event-based scenarios are combined in a certain way because of the characteristics of the setting. Hence, what you may feel is a typical Realms module is only typical because you recognize its descriptions (which are of course 'typical' for the setting) and style from other Realms modules by the same group, not because the setting has structured it in a certain way. For what they cost to produce, and what you get out of them, books are very cheap, which is why only a tiny fraction of authors make a living wage with writing. Do you really think there would be more authors making a living from writing if books were more expensive?
Faraer 10-13-04, 10:01 AM	An authentic Realms module is one that accurately represents how the Realms works, close up, helps the DM to reproduce the dynamic of Ed Greenwood's roleplaying sessions or fiction. This is made up of intangibles: the likely role of PCs, the way NPCs act and talk, the way the setting is made immanent in the adventure, the cultural contexts of character classes, the origin and design and feel of dungeons, how religion works, how power groups operate... These intangibles *are* the setting; without them the Realms is just unapplied information and proper nouns. A DM who understands these things can inject them into a non-Realms adventure; one who does not will not learn them if she uses a Realms-inauthentic adventure as a model. It might be easier to point out how non-Realms modules work unlike the Realms. But you wouldn't question that such dynamics were crucial to the mode of short stories, and adventure modules likewise.Do you really think there would be more authors making a living from writing if books were more expensive?I know there would, assuming it wasn't some unilateral move by publisher, distributor, or bookseller to take a larger cut.
chme 10-13-04, 10:48 AM	An authentic Realms module is one that accurately represents how the Realms works, close up, helps the DM to reproduce the dynamic of Ed Greenwood's roleplaying sessions or fiction. This is made up of intangibles: the likely role of PCs, the way NPCs act and talk, the way the setting is made immanent in the adventure, the cultural contexts of character classes, the origin and design and feel of dungeons, how religion works, how power groups operate... These intangibles *are* the setting; without them the Realms is just unapplied information and proper nouns. A DM who understands these things can inject them into a non-Realms adventure; one who does not will not learn them if she uses a Realms-inauthentic adventure as a model. Most of those are not intangibles at all, but quite naturally consequences of the referentiality of the setting specific module. What I still don't understand is your earlier claim that site- and eventbased scenarios were combined in a certain way (i e a structural quality) because they were set in the Realms. I know there would, assuming it wasn't some unilateral move by publisher, distributor, or bookseller to take a larger cut. That would be a pretty realistic assumption, but it seems to me that a better explanation for the fact that most writers aren't able to live off their craft can be found in the cultural aspects of literature and reading in the country or context you're discussing. "What do writers who *do* live off their craft write?" is a question that leads you into something more complex and powerful than the rather simplistic notion that it's mainly about the price of books.
Faraer 10-13-04, 11:18 AM	The combination of places and NPCs I meant as one example of what makes a Realms module. For instance, it's characteristic to encounter stonedelves through character interaction and already-started stories rather than stumbling on them or hearing second-hand rumours ("Irongard" et al.), and the larger dungeons are playgrounds for multiple factions and story entry-points (Ruins of Undermountain) and not just static environments to explore. I'm referring to the nuances of this as well as the broad outline I just mentioned. I work in publishing, and I wasn't citing the price of books as *the* cause of the income of authors. But the fact that books are underpriced is in large part due to the public undervaluing of literature and the written word, and so I try to correct the misapprehension (as it almost always is) that books cost too much. As you say, this is just part of a big discussion.
Kalithor 10-15-04, 11:04 PM	I must say though, I am enthused to see the modules being made for Eberron. Its good to see the new setting getting a jumpstart. I just hope the FR ones are quick to follow. But, ya know what I really miss?? The old boxed set adventures. I know that's not cost effective like you're original question, but I still think it would be cool! Speaking of which, does anybody remember which one it was that had Szas Tam and the excavation sites?
Lina_Inverse 10-16-04, 12:12 AM	theres non-linear modules?ive never seen or heard of one.they all are a strict,begging middle end from what ive seen.which means you must be a horrible gm to be useing them or very lazy,so why complain about them coming prepackaged at least your getting them.
Ramius_Mordale 10-16-04, 02:49 PM	Well thanks Faraer for ending my misconception on book prices being too high. It is sorry to see the word is not valued more then it should, but I'd rather see it taken for granted and people reading and learning then it over priced and only a select few of society can read and by books. And I'm even hoping to be a successful novel writer someday myself, but I know I'll probably have to have some form of income besides my books as well. In any case, back on topic, I'm not a big fan of boxed adventure sets myself, but I hold nothing against them. But I don't think all modules should be box sets, maybe like a quarter of them at the most, and should be kept rare and for ones that are for really well made adventures. Lina_Inverse I'm having trouble figuring out who you are specificly talking too. Are you talking to one specific person or all of us? If you are going to call someone a horrible dm, at least make sure you point out who you are talking to in the future. Otherwise, some people could get the wrong impression of your statements. Which reminds me can we all keep accusing people of being terrible people and horrible whatevers out of the post. It's alright to disagree but do it respectfully. This is a good discussion and I'd like to keep it going and not get it closed because tempers got hot. So keep it clean people. Thanks.
Faraer 10-16-04, 03:12 PM	There are three main ways of writing RPG scenarios: "site-based", such as dungeon and wilderness areas where the PCs can go where they want "event-based", where the PCs go along a predetermined journey or timetable of events Ron Edwards's method that uses relationship maps and "bangs", catalysing events that provoke the PCs to action.Of course, adventures often combine more than one type. Only the "event-based" type is linear, though, and even then a good DM can compensate for that and allow more freedom than the module explicitly provides while still using most of its material. I love adventure modules of all kinds, and although I'm not a great DM, I'm not a horrible one and certainly not lazy. We aren't lazy, either, for using the Realms and not making up our own settings, or for reading books and not writing our own.Speaking of which, does anybody remember which one it was that had Szas Tam and the excavation sites?"Throne of Deceit"/"The Runes of Chaos" in Spellbound.