Does Having 3 Core Books Hurt The Game?

[JoeGKushner]

M'eh. Hard to say.

Many games use more than one book. Rolemaster, (both Classic and RMSS), nWod (well, you co do an all mortals game with no assistance for the GM in terms of goodies), GURPS, etc...

On the other hand, some games have an all in one like Warhammer (to a LIMITED degree, the bestiary is almost mandatory) and Call of Cthulhu.

But for players, it's really only a one book investment (unless they want the 'booster' packs.) GMs on the other hand, still get bonned.

 

[Dog Moon]

In both my current campaigns I own all the books, I own all the dice, I even own all the pencils....

Heck, I print there character sheets off my computer already filled out before each game.


I think I'm coddling these guys....

Most of the books are owned by one person while some of the other books are bought by others when they find them interesting enough. However, we ALL have our own dice. Those you game with aren't true gamers, IMO, if they don't believe in having their own dice and having the superstitions us true gamers have about our dice.

As for the subject, I suppose the best way would be to have the DMG and PH combined and have the monsters be separate book. Essentially, all the rules would be in the one book [with all three combined into one, WAY too many pages] and supplements [which I think includes creatures cause technically, we don't NEED them] would follow.

 

[Scribble]

Most of the books are owned by one person while some of the other books are bought by others when they find them interesting enough. However, we ALL have our own dice. Those you game with aren't true gamers, IMO, if they don't believe in having their own dice and having the superstitions us true gamers have about our dice.

As for the subject, I suppose the best way would be to have the DMG and PH combined and have the monsters be separate book. Essentially, all the rules would be in the one book [with all three combined into one, WAY too many pages] and supplements [which I think includes creatures cause technically, we don't NEED them] would follow.

My thoughts would be, have everything in one book, with a smaller list of magic items and monsters (stuff you'd need in the first few levels) then release an expansion later...


Also I agree... if you don't feel a momentary cringe at even the thought of someone touching your dice and cursing them all up, you are not a "true" gamer..

 

[delericho]

I think the 3 book model absolutely hurts the business of the game, and acts as a significant barrier to entry for new gamers. I also think that the 3 book model really gives the game a lot of space to breathe, and that it's a better game for that.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

Most of the books are owned by one person while some of the other books are bought by others when they find them interesting enough. However, we ALL have our own dice. Those you game with aren't true gamers, IMO, if they don't believe in having their own dice and having the superstitions us true gamers have about our dice.

They're just starting out several of them. And they're getting the superstition now requesting certain dice each game. One of them as his own dice but he comes from vampire so it's all d10's.


yeah I'm too nice to the but players are hard to come by these days. Especially good ones.

 

[howandwhy99]

Three books aren't necessary. 1 book exclusively for the DM would be better. But that just won't make a publisher money and that is sad.

I do believe 4E gets some things right. It will grow every year and be supplemental vs. needing entirely new books every few years.

 

[borc killer]

So I was wondering...

Do you think that having three core books hurts the game (sales wise.)

I mean, to your average gamer, that's not a big issue... Games are supposed to have multiple books and extra rules and all sortsa stuff...

But does it hurt the game as far as "new blood" is concerned?[/QUOTE]

Nope, most people only need 1 book 2 at the most. Does it hurt the DM? Yes, but the players should be giving them free pizza...

 

[borc killer]

So I was wondering...

Do you think that having three core books hurts the game (sales wise.)

I mean, to your average gamer, that's not a big issue... Games are supposed to have multiple books and extra rules and all sortsa stuff...

But does it hurt the game as far as "new blood" is concerned?

Nope, most people only need 1 book 2 at the most. Does it hurt the DM? Yes, but the players should be giving them free pizza...

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

For everyone who DOESN'T think the three-book model is a problem, let me know the last time you bought a game that WASN'T an RPG that REQUIRED:

1. A person with 'more experience' or 'more stuff' than you to participate in the game.
2. Material you are not given in the package you purchased (in this case, dice).
3. A book that was more than 20 pages long.

Number one is a real deal-killer, which essentially says "If you don't know a gamer, you can't be a gamer." Number two is an annoyance at best, an evening-killer at worst ("I bought this new game and thought we could try it out, but it says we don't have what we need to play it - what a rip off!"). Number three is intimidating to a new player, although not strictly bad.

Red Box D&D was once widely available at toy stores. Then the 'box' form was dropped in favor of a 'book' (the otherwise lovely Rules Cyclopaedia) and the line was eventually discontinued. D&D moved from the toy stores and into specialist stores and, at best, general bookstores. Much flap is made about the satanism and suicide scares pushing D&D into these markets - but if so, why didn't other RPGs take its place (and take its market primacy in the process)? What RPGs would those be, with convenient, accessible boxed sets that could have hoped to do so? None?

Nintendo had to package the original NES with a toy robot (which then went basically unused) because they knew, above all, they had to get it on the shelves in toy stores and general stores like WalMart. The NES essentially resurrected the dead console market and became the bestselling unit of its time.

Wizards' own Pokemon Jr. RPG belatedly got on the Wal-Mart shelves - and promptly outsold D&D. But the line wasn't continued because of the license being pulled and the lessons ignored; it was a kiddie product, based on something distinctly ANIME - Principle forfend any lesson be drawn from THAT!

The fact is, RPGs are not just inaccessible to new players, they are ANTI-accessible to new players. That they attract anyone new at all is nigh-miraculous and speaks to the potential they still have.

 

[Droogie]

I do agree that as far as games and hobbies go, RPGs are more impenetrable than most by their very nature. However, there are many activities that require a more experienced person to show you the ropes. Music and sports come to mind. Someone learning the guitar needs a guitar of course, then lessons, then lots of practice. Golfers don't learn the game "out of the box" either- they need someone to take them to the driving range a few times, then off to play 9 holes with some more experienced friends. Only after a few practice rounds will the newbie start to consider investing in some beginner clubs and some decent shoes. BTW, there are 26-37 million golfers in the USA alone, which is a helluva lot more than WoW players.

What D&D could really use is some good old fashioned advertising. I remember the constant MtG commercials in the 90's during its peak, and I think D&D's profile could benefit from an increase in WotC's marketing budget. Lets see more ads in magazines! Lets see a commercial during the Superbowl! (um..or not.)