What's your objection to splat books?

[Morrus]

Frequently I see people decrying the existence of splatbooks. The word "treadmill" comes up a lot.

Is this related to Organized Play (in stores) in some way? A requirement that you use all the new books?

What's the fundamental nature of the objection? Why does the existence of a book give rise to objection? There are roughly 40,000,000 books in the world I don't want to buy, but I'm comfortable with their existence and the fact that other people might buy them. Books about cats, for example.

It seems to me that some would have an active desire for a publisher to not produce products. Or is it that they're producing the wrong products? I get the idea of a seasonal pop-up shop, but not so much a pop-up publisher who just produces a few things then closes down.

Educate me! Why shouldn't WotC or Paizo make 50 books a week? (other than the fact that they couldn't possibly sell 50 books a week!)

 

[billd91]

I can think of few ways in which splatbooks may generate ire:

1) They complicate the game - a lot. In a game with lots of configuration options, new option scan dramatically increase the number of combinations that may be configured. The longer this goes on, the harder it is to find and mitigate unintended problems. For new options to not create this sort of problem, they'd have to be pretty tightly constrained within limited parameters and generalized effects. I think 4e shot for this model but even then a friend of mine GMing the game found it hard to avoid excessive stun-locking issues. Champions is probably a more successful model since lots of proliferated powers are based on 1d6 effects vs similarly built defenses.

2) They generate gaps in player's/GM's understanding of the game. If only one player at the table has read splatbook A, other players and the GM are more likely to be blind-sided by the effect of options from it. More splatbooks and the more you'll find players knowing of parts of this, none of that, little bits of the other (possibly based on the types of PCs they like to run), and nobody having a good grasp of the whole.

3) Differing publication regimes lead to differing levels of access. This is a particular problem of 3e that Paizo has largely mitigated by making nearly all PF rule content (though some Golarion-specific IP requires modification) open while WotC did not with 3e. In 3e, it's so much easier to run a core-only game than with full splatbooks because anyone with an internet connection has access to the SRD. Similarly, it's much easier to run a full splatbook game in PF than in 3e, again, because it's all available to anyone with an internet connection or, (just about as good) access to a tablet with PF-based apps (I have a few). This is also why it's harder to run a broadly sourced 4e game than even core 3e or all-option PF - because while the builder contains all of the building content, it's behind a pay way that not everyone can (or is willing to) breach.

4) They can change the game - sometimes a positive, but not always. Splatbooks may focus on new options but they often come with new rules as well. New ways to handle weapon proficiency slots, new action types, damage stats for monsters, and so on. These may intended to fix the way the core game runs in some way but the difference in access means spotty adoption.

5) and don't get me started on the social pressure to keep up with the game system and players who want to incorporate the left-handed peg leg orcs splatbook (or other new shiny du jour) because that's their favorite character type

 

[Morrus]

But they can't do any of those things if you don't but them, surely?

#5 is the only external factor. Do adults feel a social pressure to buy the latest RPG rulebooks like kids do with the latest trainers (sneakers)? I guess it's possible!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But they can't do any of those things if you don't but them, surely?

Let's say WoW puts out a new expansion. I can either buy that expansion, and go do all of the new stuff with everyone else, or I can sit back in the abandoned world and never interact with anyone.

Tabletop games are a social experience. A group of players isn't exactly easy to come by, and a group of players who all want to play the same game are even more rare. For each supplement you add, you add an additional line of division.

If I want to play Shadowrun (for example), assuming I can even find a group, it's likely to be an established Shadowrun group which uses all of the supplements - which means, if I want to play that game, I need to buy into the game and all of its supplements. That's a substantially greater barrier to entry than just buying into the game alone.

 

[billd91]

But they can't do any of those things if you don't but them, surely?

#5 is the only external factor. Do adults feel a social pressure to buy the latest RPG rulebooks like kids do with the latest trainers (sneakers)? I guess it's possible!

Who says it's me buying them? If it's my players buying one or two of them and enjoying the content, I may get social pressure to incorporate them (issue 5) and once I start to allow them to creep in that's bringing the other issues.

 

[Morrus]

Let's say WoW puts out a new expansion. I can either buy that expansion, and go do all of the new stuff with everyone else, or I can sit back in the abandoned world and never interact with anyone.

Tabletop games are a social experience. A group of players isn't exactly easy to come by, and a group of players who all want to play the same game are even more rare. For each supplement you add, you add an additional line of division.

If I want to play Shadowrun (for example), assuming I can even find a group, it's likely to be an established Shadowrun group which uses all of the supplements - which means, if I want to play that game, I need to buy into the game and all of its supplements. That's a substantially greater barrier to entry than just buying into the game alone.

I dunno. My gaming group is quite happy to go along with whatever the GM wants to run. We did a great core-only 3.5 Age of Worms campaign a while back.

The two previous replies have both cited social pressure. Is that it? Peoples' friends are pressuring them into buying new books, and the fault for that lies with the people who write books?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I dunno. My gaming group is quite happy to go along with whatever the GM wants to run. We did a great core-only 3.5 Age of Worms campaign a while back.

It's much easier when you have an established group, or when the group decides to use less options. The big problem with supplements is for new players trying to find a new group, where everyone else is already using those supplements.

Every supplement is a boon to an established player, because they can always choose to not use it, and it might have something cool. Every supplement is a hindrance to a new player, because they rarely have the option of whether or not to include it, and they're already overwhelmed by learning the core rules.

 

[Hyper-Man]

Is the term splat books specific to just D&D and Pathfinder? If not, what other systems have an equivalent?

 

[TrippyHippy]

The term ‘Splatbook’ is a White-Wolf-ism, when they started to crank out support for their World of Darkness games. Each character was affiliated with a Clan/Tribe/Tradition etc, so there was a book made for each of those. They weren’t the first to use this method of supplemental support, but were first to coin the term as part of a deliberate marketing strategy. According to Sandy Antunes, the first ‘splatbook’ was RuneQuest’s Cults of Prax, which detailed 15 different cults to join, but we can also look at the Traveller Books 4,5,6 and so on, that operated as career based rules expansions.

D&D splat books are obviously based upon Classes, but form the same function: relatively cheap, player-orientated supplements that expand or enhance character options. They form a straight forward model for game companies to support their games, and they tend to sell better than other supplements as they are aimed at players rather than GM-only books.

The issue is whether it creates a tension between GMs and players who may have differing views on how to play the game - with players preferring particular options that GMs may not have bought into. There is also the ‘collectible’ nature of them, which can be irritating if you want to have a ‘complete’ set of rules - but the game rules keep expanding outwards (optional or not).

 

[Morrus]

The term ‘Splatbook’ is a White-Wolf-ism, when they started to crank out support for their World of Darkness games. Each character was affiliated with a Clan/Tribe/Tradition etc, so there was a book made for each of those. They weren’t the first to use this method of supplemental support, but were first to coin the term as part of a deliberate marketing strategy. According to Sandy Antunes, the first ‘splatbook’ was RuneQuest’s Cults of Prax, which detailed 15 different cults to join, but we can also look at the Traveller Books 4,5,6 and so on, that operated as career based rules expansions.

That's an interesting piece of etymology; thanks! I didn't know the history of the term. The terminology is a side-issue though. Not the thrust of my question!

There is also the ‘collectible’ nature of them, which can be irritating if you want to have a ‘complete’ set of rules

So it's irritating when companies produce products that you want?

That's an interesting conundrum! Should they therefore produce products that you don't want? Or cease production altogether?