What's a resonable price-point for entry into the RPG hobby?

[delericho]

In the US, having turkey on Thanksgiving is traditional. Loads of households don't have turkey, they have something else, and there are lots of other things to choose from - goose, duck, roast pork, ham, roast beef - the number of other things that are eaten on T-day is great. Turkey is one option, vastly outnumbered by other options. But turkey is still traditional, right?

I wouldn't know, not being in the US. I guess it would depend on how many people eat turkey vs those other things.

If you count "number of games that use this form" then, yes, D&D is in the minority. But, most of those games are small potatoes in the RPG market.

Ah, but there's the key: most. But even if you look at the ones that are big(-ish) players - Pathfinder, Star Wars, Shadowrun (plus White Wolf, WFRP, and Call of Cthulhu, back when they were bigger than they now are) - those don't use the three-book model.

It's not just that D&D is the minority; it's a minority of one. If I were going to buy a new RPG, or I were going to publish a new RPG, I would expect to do so in a single volume.

However...

I am not convinced that having that argument is constructive, mind you. I just thought it valuable to note that it may not be all that simple. There's multiple ways to look at it.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[Razjah]

I'm with this.

It's interesting, because in the boardgaming community we think about gateway games, simple games that can pull non-gamers into the hobby. You don't throw somebody to the wolves with Eclipse or Agricola for their first gaming experience. Not only are these both $70+ games, but they're also very complex. Instead, you recommend something like Carcassonne, Tsuro, or The Resistance. Keep it under $40! Keep it simple!

But, pointing someone to D&D, with its hundreds of pages, three core books, and tons of rules, seems to be the equivalent to recommending a newbie pay the $60 MSRP for Twilight Imperium and play with his group who have only ever played Monopoly. And expecting them to like it. Now, thing is, I probably would have loved this. But, i do realize that I'm not normal. I'm the guy who unboxed The Game of Thrones 2e at 11pm and decided it was a good idea to learn as we went, after all. I was the only one who had fun that night...

I seem to have veered off there...

Not too far off. A starter set needs an affordable price. It also needs to not be too complicated. I think Burning Wheel does this well The first ~80 pages are all that is needed for a game. The book even says to stop and go play. Once you are familiar with the core rules, use the systems detailed in the rest of the book. Mouse Guard is excellent for starting off new players too.

Starting someone on a Pathfinder game with Core, APG, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Advanced Race Guide, and multiple Bestiaries is a recipe for disasters. Starting someone new to board games on Arkham Horror is a bad idea because they pieces alone will make them think the game is too hard. Same concept, too many books, options, and things to learn in a single setting. This is why I love to see Core only style games. They really help new players.

Price wise, I find Savage Worlds to be goo for new players. Although, I think PDFs change the argument. FATE Core is free. Boom! Paper, dice, and off you go. Even a new group, without a gamer's amount of dice, can probably get enough d6s for FATE. Yahtzee does it for the group. Then just have a cheat sheet about 1 and 2 being negative, 3 and 4 blank, and 5 and 6 being positive.

 

[Razjah]

Ah, but there's the key: most. But even if you look at the ones that are big(-ish) players - Pathfinder, Star Wars, Shadowrun (plus White Wolf, WFRP, and Call of Cthulhu, back when they were bigger than they now are) - those don't use the three-book model.

It's not just that D&D is the minority; it's a minority of one. If I were going to buy a new RPG, or I were going to publish a new RPG, I would expect to do so in a single volume..

I think the three book model works well for a company, possibly an established name with an established player base. But, it does not help bring people into the game. I have given gifts of games to people to help get them into the hobby. Single volume books for $30-$40, no real issue. Three books at $35 a piece, becomes a bit of an issue.

 

[Agamon]

I'd go as far as saying the 3-book model, isn't just traditional, it's a sacred cow that's tough to slay. Many D&D players are just used to the PC info/magic items/monsters be in separate books. Note the complaining about magic items being in the PHB in 4e (of course, this followed that 4e made magic items more PC info than something arbitrated by the DM).

Follow this with the fact that RPGs that aren't D&D start out behind the 8-ball and putting out 3 core books is too risky a venture for smaller companies. So that's the main reason non-D&D RPGs are one book.

I'd have been happy if they changed the model, but I'm not surprised they didn't, and it doesn't really bother me. At least they acknowledge that initial buy-in is tough with a 3-book system and are releasing a Starter Set. Hopefully it's a bit more meaty than the 4e set. New to the hobby doesn't equal dumb. It's okay to explain things, but don't underestimate the intelligence of newbs. A lot of us started out as pre-teens reading High Gygaxian and we're still here.

 

[Morrus]

It's worth noting that none of us are entering the hobby, and we're only hypothesising in what a theoretical newbie would be willing to pay.

And that the amount the people claim they're willing to pay when asked is almost always significantly less than the amount they'll actually pay when push comes to shove.

 

[delericho]

I think the three book model works well for a company, possibly an established name with an established player base.

Indeed. My strong preference these days is for a single core rulebook. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that if your game is so complex that you can't fit it into a single 300ish page book, then your game is too complex. However that is, very much, just an opinion - I can readily understand why YMMV.

I'd go as far as saying the 3-book model, isn't just traditional, it's a sacred cow that's tough to slay.

You may very well be right about that.

 

[Umbran]

Indeed. My strong preference these days is for a single core rulebook. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that if your game is so complex that you can't fit it into a single 300ish page book, then your game is too complex.

Well, consider the Monster Manual. It does not represent a whole lot of complexity in the game. It is merely a much larger listing of pre-designed monsters than you could really hope to fit into a single rulebook.

If you are playing a typical Vampire: the Masquerade game, you don't need a monster book, because the list of types of antagonists that aren't just other vampires is short. You could play D&D with all the antagonists being classed-NPCs, rather than monsters, and not use the MM, and the *rules* stay the same.

So, the only thing that really represents game complexity is the PHB/DMG split.

 

[Agamon]

So, the only thing that really represents game complexity is the PHB/DMG split.

And even then, the DMG is mostly advice/reference/tables. Most of the actual game has been in the PHB.

 

[jdrakeh]

Nitpick: the "first RPG" didn't use it. OD&D had been out some years before AD&D appeared.

Nitpick of your nitpick! OD&D did use a three book model. Granted, it wasn''t the same three books as AD&D, and all three books were included in one box, but still. Book 1: Men & Magic, Book 2: Monsters & Treasure, Book 3: Underworld & Wilderness Adventures.

 

[Razjah]

Indeed. My strong preference these days is for a single core rulebook. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that if your game is so complex that you can't fit it into a single 300ish page book, then your game is too complex. However that is, very much, just an opinion - I can readily understand why YMMV.

I agree. I can see why people like bigger books or more to a book. But for an entering player, I think it is just intimidating.For example, In my college RPG club, we could get many more players to try Mouse Guard, Savage Worlds, Corporation or even Star Wars Saga Edition rather than Pathfinder.But D&D was only played by a single 5 person group with any success. I can attribute some to people, but many times new players said "I don't have time to read that" when looking at the available games and GMs making pitches.