"Support", who needs it?

[billd91]

It is a network effect? Is it being afraid of being unable to find players? For a relatively rules light game with a popular setting (like WEG d6 Star Wars) I can't see that as a problem. I took first-time roleplayers and had them playing that game in 5 minutes, and all they knew going in was the 3 movies that existed at the time.

Is it a need for errata and more continuously more supplements?

I think both of those paragraphs underline powerful motivators to play supported games.

As far as the network goes, once a game is out of print, it's inevitable that the player base will erode unless it takes on a broad gamer cultural significance and becomes virtually self-sustaining. And I'm not sure I'd say any RPG has really reached that level. Ever go into a used book store looking for gaming materials? I have done that a lot over the years, and in a university city not far from some of the biggest centers of RPGing. I can say it gets a lot harder to find materials the longer they remain out of print. It has gotten difficult to find 1e and 2e D&D materials and that will make it harder to recruit new players. It will make it even harder for new groups to spontaneously generate. Easy availability of materials people can browse or that will capture someone's eye and imagination helps the game grow. Lack of them leaves a gamer pool to wither.

I don't think the need for errata is a big deal unless the game's a bit of an editing boondoggle in the first place. However, additional supplements inject new ideas into a game, helping it to remain vibrant. Sure, new ideas can come from anywhere, but the impact of any one idea becomes a lot more scattered. New supplements, widely available, have a greater reach and impact.

There are some games, of course, that can be long out of print and people will still avidly play them. But most of the examples I can think of are board games (though even some fans of those probably find it harder to recruit players familiar with the game). And as long as my Advanced Civilization pieces and board hold out, I'll happily play it decades after it has gone out of print. But, as a board game, it's also a complete game. RPGs are never really "complete" in the same sense. They are, by nature, open ended. There's always room for more material in the game (even if my budget cannot sustain it).

 

[Luce]

I like to echo the sentiment that ease of acquisition is a factor for new players. Not to tangent too much, but at least I am of the opinion that game groups' membership is more fluid (people joining and leaving) compared to the previous decades.
Also, in a new edition (up to a point in time) new players are more likely to be at equal standing with veterans both crunch and fluff wise. A published setting (or a homebrew) which has run for decade or more tends to accumulate both [house]rules and flesh out details about the setting that can be overwhelming for new players.

 

[Stormonu]

Funnily enough, just a few weeks ago I started up a Star Wars game, and despite having the d20 version or easily purchasing Edge of Empire, I decided to go with the D6 version - and I don't regret it.

I think that most people coming into a system are going to reach for the "latest, greatest" - partly from the new shiny appeal, partly from the ease of acquisition. If you're already invested in a version, the promise of fixes, new stuff and the like is a huge driving force to keep up.

Once a game goes out of production though, it can become very easy to get to a point where you feel like you've done it all and there's little to keep your interest. This happened to me with 2E, even though the game was still being supported. I'd felt like I'd "done it all" in the game and turned to playing Vampire for a while for a sense of freshness.