The Supplement Treadmill vs. The Alternatives

[buzz]

If I'm running a campaign in a published setting, nothing is more useful to me than information about that setting (including adventures set there), despite the one-time insistence of certain Wizards people that only 'crunch' is 'useful'.

What I was referring to was SKR's statement a while back that crunchy books sell better than fluffy books. I don't know that anyone at WotC claimed that was because they were more useful. I think the general assumption is that this is true. E.g., PHB2 is a lot easier for me or my players to integrate into an Eberron campaign than a book all about Cormyr.

My guess is that WotC still buys into this, as the crunch books outnumber the fluff books by a healthy margin, and the Amazon bestseller data (FWIW) seems to support the idea that they sell better than anything else. It matches my group's behavior as well.

These people being the majority of those who would enjoy RPGing...

I don't know if there's any evidence that there is a vast, untapped consumer base out there that would be RPG'ing if only, e.g., D&D didn't have so many supplements. (I think that's what you're saying; please correct me otherwise.) If this were true, the charred corpses of all the "lite" RPGs that litter the industry landscape would have attracted them long ago.

(I also think that, even were this true, it's subject matter, not perceived page-count, that puts people off more than anything.)

On the other hand, Wizards could, though for whatever reason neither they or TSR ever tried, publish a real player's guide...

Well, they did it for Eberron. Assuming that's something people want and it sells well, they'll probably do it again.

 

[buzz]

This is because I have a bigger budget than gaming time, and I snatch up RPG books when I see them in used book stores. Of course, at this rate I would have been better off investing the money so the time value of money worked for me...

I'm in the same boat. I don't think anyone could accuse me of not "supporting" the hobby.

 

[Faraer]

What I was referring to was SKR's statement a while back that crunchy books sell better than fluffy books.

Yes, his story which was first posted to REALMS-L: I was pointing out that Sean didn't say they sold better. My guess would be that Lords of Darkness sold less well than Magic of Faerûn largely because it was DM-only.

I don't know that anyone at WotC claimed that was because they were more useful. I think the general assumption is that this is true. E.g., PHB2 is a lot easier for me or my players to integrate into an Eberron campaign than a book all about Cormyr.

I'm not sure about a lot easier; it would be a lot of work to integrate all of PH2 into any campaign. But there have been statements from Wizards people not only that rules material is more widely useful but actually fabricating a specialist, restricted, 'crunch'-presupposing sense of 'use' (as for 'balance', etc.).

I don't know if there's any evidence that there is a vast, untapped consumer base out there that would be RPG'ing if only, e.g., D&D didn't have so many supplements. (I think that's what you're saying; please correct me otherwise.)

The weight of supplements is a small part of it. No, there's no certainty, and it would be a large commercial risk. I suspect that there is not a vast but a significantly larger potential audience, given that most people don't know what RPGs are, have never read a rulebook over 20 pages, the preconceptions about D&D, the specialization of RPGs for a 'gamer' audience in rules and subject matter (yes, that's a big element), and many other things.

If this were true, the charred corpses of all the "lite" RPGs that litter the industry landscape would have attracted them long ago.

Radically new products can achieve large-scale popularity without large-scale advertising, but it's not common.

 

[buzz]

Yes, his story which was first posted to REALMS-L: I was pointing out that Sean didn't say they sold better.

Ah, okay. My reference for this was a post of his here on ENworld a few years back. Thanks for enlightening me.

I'm not sure about a lot easier; it would be a lot of work to integrate all of PH2 into any campaign.

It's zero work for a player to take a feat, spell, or class feature from PHB2 and use it in any campaign. Less so for, say, a chapter about the Zhents.

Radically new products can achieve large-scale popularity without large-scale advertising, but it's not common.

Well, D&D managed to do it with nothing more than some staple-bound pamphlets. WoD received a "big" (for RPGs) push when it launched, but that was only aimed at distributors.

I'm just saying, I think that did such a market exist, it would have made itself known. I think the closest equivalent is being better served by The Sims than any tabletop RPG.

I don't think there's any breakaway hit waiting to happen. The sun has set on tabletop RPGs as an industry. Again, I think the indie folk realize this, and thus are working hard to support the hobby more than the industry. And I think this is a good thing.

 

[Faraer]

It's zero work for a player to take a feat, spell, or class feature from PHB2 and use it in any campaign. Less so for, say, a chapter about the Zhents.

The equivalent to those things isn't a whole chapter but, say, an NPC, a building, an adventure hook or plot idea, which are generally (I think) no less easy or easier to adapt.

Well, D&D managed to do it with nothing more than some staple-bound pamphlets.

It was a brilliant idea that initially filled a big gap among the finite but clued-up population of wargamers; followed by escalation, advertising, and inadvertent mass exposure that proved large-scale but inefficient and equivocal publicity. And that has been seen, within the range of promotional tactics used within the 'industry' (i.e. by TSR/Wizards), to be an uncopiable fluke.

I'm just saying, I think that did such a market exist, it would have made itself known. I think the closest equivalent is being better served by The Sims than any tabletop RPG.

Obviously, neither of us is going to be proved right any time soon. But certainly face-to-face RPGs work on far greater interpersonal bandwidth than any computer game, and like oral storytelling and theatre, do things that mass media can't. There are many restrictions on the potential appeal of RPGs, not least their requirements of time and literacy. But there's no question that many people who would like them have never played, and don't know what they are.

The sun has set on tabletop RPGs as an industry. Again, I think the indie folk realize this, and thus are working hard to support the hobby more than the industry. And I think this is a good thing.

I don't care about the RPG industry except in that I'd like more game authors to be able to earn a living. But indie RPG creators don't know for sure any more than we do, and are working with the tools they have.

 

[buzz]

But there's no question that many people who would like them have never played, and don't know what they are.

Well, I don't doubt that these people exist. I'm just not sure about their numbers, nor whether there is anything about D&D that is turning them off, assuming they've even gotten to that point. I also don't know that there's anything WotC could do that would make D&D appeal to this hypothetical group while still appealing to their existing fanbase.

But indie RPG creators don't know for sure any more than we do, and are working with the tools they have.

Very true. I think they're on the right track, though. The Forge booth, iirc, is the biggest RPG-only booth at GenCon now, and I find that dang impressive. And, heck, who else is producing RPGs about things like dating (Breaking the Ice), boxing (Contenders), and tenure (The Shab-Al-Hiri Roach)?

 

[RFisher]

There seem to be two primary ways to deal with this issue and keeping selling more stuff: 1) sell rules-based supplements which can be slotted into existing games (a la D&D); and 2) sell short-run games and fluff-based supplements which are intended to be read.

3) Making other products in addition to RPG products. (Which is really the primary way to deal with it.)

 

[Chiaroscuro23]

3) Making other products in addition to RPG products. (Which is really the primary way to deal with it.)

Ha! Yeah, I can see it. SJG's stakeholder report the other year said Munchkin was their biggest product. And it's got to be the case with FFG, too, since their only RPG books are supplements for Midnight, I think.

Likewise WotC puts out Star Wars minis rather than Star Wars RPG content (Though there is a new edition, that's not the supplement train.) Of course WotC has the capital to produce more game products, but I don't think the license lets them.

 

[RFisher]

Likewise WotC puts out Star Wars minis rather than Star Wars RPG content (Though there is a new edition, that's not the supplement train.) Of course WotC has the capital to produce more game products, but I don't think the license lets them.

Go look at the Wizards home page. Notice how much D&D you see compared to how much non-D&D you see. Notice how much RPG you see compared to how much non-RPG you see.

Notice that the single Avalon Hill link represents a score or so of games. (One of which is the entire A&A miniatures line.) Notice also those two innocuous "Books" links on the home page.

I feel like a broken record, but it seems like people keep ignoring these facts. Very few RPGs have been published by RPG-only companies. Even fewer by RPG-only companies that didn't publish more than one RPG.

The supplement treadmill is not required to make money off of RPGs because RPGs don't need to support an entire company. They need only be one product of a company. IMHO, there are only two reasons why the supplement treadmill exists:

• A company making the mistake of treating an RPG as if it were a separate business from the rest of the company
• Because the supplements sell

While I can believe today's Wizards of the Coast would make the kind of mistake the first reason is, I highly suspect it has more to do with the second. (^_^)

 

[Chiaroscuro23]

Go look at the Wizards home page. Notice how much D&D you see compared to how much non-D&D you see. Notice how much RPG you see compared to how much non-RPG you see.

Notice that the single Avalon Hill link represents a score or so of games. (One of which is the entire A&A miniatures line.) Notice also those two innocuous "Books" links on the home page.

I feel like a broken record, but it seems like people keep ignoring these facts. Very few RPGs have been published by RPG-only companies. Even fewer by RPG-only companies that didn't publish more than one RPG.

I'm not sure that this is actually true. Many RPG companies only make RPGs, or make them as their primary business. I think. White Wolf have published one or two card games, but their house is built on RPGs. Eden does only RPGs. Mongoose, Paizo, probably a lot more. Outside of the d20 world I'd bet most companies only do RPGs because it's all the have capital (if not interest and expertise) to do.

WotC started as a card game company, but have bought several other profitable lines, including Avalon Hill and D&D. When wizkids showed the world the bonanza of the CMG WotC jumped onboard, but there's no reason you can't have a profitable RPG line and a profitable CMG line. If you can get them to synergize, even better!

Which is why I disagree with this:

The supplement treadmill is not required to make money off of RPGs because RPGs don't need to support an entire company. They need only be one product of a company. IMHO, there are only two reasons why the supplement treadmill exists:

• A company making the mistake of treating an RPG as if it were a separate business from the rest of the company
• Because the supplements sell

While I can believe today's Wizards of the Coast would make the kind of mistake the first reason is, I highly suspect it has more to do with the second. (^_^)

Why wouldn't you treat one section of your company as separate and demand that it justify its existence? If Star Wars RPG drives the sale of Star Wars CMG, then you might well count them together, even if you take a loss on the RPG side. But if it can support itself, why not? And if the lines are wholly separate (as GURPS and Munchkin would appear to be) presumably you'd want both to make money.

Hasbro doesn't produce Dreamblade because they love cheap plastic from China, they do it because it helps their bottom line. For a small RPG company like Eos Press, they probably put out Weapons of the Gods because they love the game, but they also don't have any non-RPG products and don't need the same resources a big company needs.