The Supplement Treadmill vs. The Alternatives

[Olaf the Stout]

Do limited runs of books for certain campaign settings and then move on to the next, leaving the core as is. Produce 10 Eberron books released over a couple years and then stop making Eberron stuff and move on to the next setting. This allows for new rules and tweaks, but can be set aside when the new setting comes out letting designers start over without having to deal with the baggage of a bunch of additional rules/options. Probably want very different settings in print at any given time.

I can still see a situation happening where they release books and some people complain because their favourite area wasn't included and so therefore the setting isn't complete. Unfortunately you're never going to please everyone.

Also by making 10 books and then moving onto a new setting you will fragment the market. This is part of the reason why TSR went under.

Thirdly, there is the business decisions of the company (i.e. WotC) to consider. If a particular line of books is selling well then it makes good business sense for them to continue producing books along those lines. Sales will often decide what books and how many books are made.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Michael Silverbane]

There was a time when all I needed was a game core, and anything else that I wanted to do with a game I did myself. If that game also had supplements, I usually just ignored them (for instance, I played WEG's d6 Starwars game for years and years with just the original book, blissfully unaware that there were additional materials to be had). It didn't hurt my feelings one bit if a game company produced several books in a game line, even though I was pretty unlikely to buy most of those books.

Nowadays, I am less creative... Or spend less time being creative... Or am more picky about the 'balance' of the things I use in my games... Or something. I buy more (many, many more) of the supplements that come out for a game line. Complete Whatshisface? I've got it. Expanded Epic Player's Guide VII? I'll be picking it up as soon as it comes out. I want this material. I like this material. Why do you (general you) begrudge me for it? Why harbor bad feelings toward the company (by company, I mean a group of boys and girls) that produces and sells this material? Do you really think that they are trying to hurt you in some way? Do you think that they are trying to make fun of you or make your life more difficult by producing these things? What gives?

Later
silver

 

[buzz]

What's the alternative to the supplement treadmill?

The indie publishing model, as exemplified by IPR, Lulu, and other means to direct-to-consumer sales.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Christopher, if you actually want to discuss this, you may have better responses if you edit your last paragraph.

Done.

The phenomenon I'm referring to is kind of two-fold:

1) People who don't want supplementary material bitching about players who do, instead of working out firm guidelines for what's permitted in their games;

2) People who don't want supplementary material and think it's somehow wrong for Wizards of the Coast/White Wolf/whoever to put it out, as if material you don't buy could taint your game.

 

[Imaro]

Also by making 10 books and then moving onto a new setting you will fragment the market. This is part of the reason why TSR went under.
Olaf the Stout

I don't think this is necessarily true. TSR didn't follow this model, they instead put out endless sourcebooks for numerous settings. I also think there were way bigger issues that led to their downfall than fragmentation of the market due to excessive settings, but that's another thread.

I think White Wolf and Savage Worlds are good examples of making this system work. It's built for a different type of gamer than the average D&D player. Basically one who has limited funds, likes to try different genres and wants a "complete" game. I think D&D is based more on the type of gamer who wants a "subscription" model of endless sourcebooks.

I use to be into the "subscription" model but have found myself lately really enjoying the focus, rule add-on minimized, specific nature of these games. I also enjoy having a "complete" collection and it minimizes the "buy in thinking this game/setting is great factor and realizing after 100's to 1000's of dollars that it isn't really what you wanted( I just went through this with Eberron, basically growing less interested and entranced as more books came out.).

I like D&D but I really have no love for any of the current settings, I'd like to see WotC be a little more adventurous as far as settings and fluff go while scaling back on extra rules and "crunch". I realize I'm probably in the minority, but I would've loved if, instead of just Eberron, they released a limited run setting for D&D every year...with an option to expand the line if sales warranted it(something like three to five books a year, or even a single deluxe hardback). I mean they claim the purpose of the OGL was to have 3rd parties publish adventures, but they've only released one new setting since the advent of 3.0/3.5, so of course companies were going to fill in this void, and it hasn't fractured the market to any large extent that I'm aware of.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I wonder if Wizards of the Coast would be able to make a "block" system work for D&D the same way that it works for them in Magic: the Gathering. rather than releasing large numbers of independant supplements that are difficult to make work together, instead release clusters of related supplements.

For example, maybe one period of a few months, Wizards would release a block based on Oriental Adventures and the Tome of Battle mechanics. Release a series of books, detailing different types of martial adepts, a small scale setting book which takes these rules into account, some adventures to support that setting, and maybe a book detailing on how to use a Tome of battle style system for setting debates and diplomatic negotiations. Thus, you get a chain of products which support each other, and you get a neatly tied up unit that can be included or banned all as a whole.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Especially when it comes to D&D, it frankly disappoints me that people can't look beyond their own individual needs and consider what actually makes good business sense for the people producing the games they play. They have to make money somehow, and that means supplements, accessories, or a new edition.

Pick one.

Personally, I don't care if they make money or not; I care about having fun with the hobby. I already stepped off the treadmill, and I'm off the "new edition" carousel, too (that happened when 3.5 came out -- I never bought 3.5, but stuck with house-ruled 3.0). I'm going to stick with the systems I've got, run what I enjoy, and not worry about what's new on the release schedule. If something new catches my eye and I want it, then I'll buy it, but I'm not interested in buying new stuff because it's good business for WotC, or good for the hobby, or anything like that.

I know the "as goes Wizards, so goes the industry/hobby" argument. And the "where will you find players/modules/etc." And the "what about gaming for the next generation -- what if the hobby dies" argument. They don't sway me. I've never had a problem recruiting players, and most of them were non-gamers. I've got shelves full of systems and material -- enough to last me years, and I'm playing both in-print and out-of-print games right now, anyway, so a lack of new published material doesn't make me shudder or worry. As to the future of gaming, I guess I'm not worried about that, either. If the hobby has value and people enjoy it, it will continue at whatever level of popularity is sustainable.

All that said, I don't see anything wrong with WotC churning out lots of new material, new editions, et cetera. And I don't think there's any cause to complain about it, either. I'm just not interested.

:shrugs:

 

[Ron]

I became a TSR customer when I first brought the three core AD&D books. At the time, TSR hardly publish any supplement, adventures were their main product releases and the few supplements were quite shy about introducing new rules. This business model is still followed by Chaosium and it is the way I like it.

I have no interest in getting new rules as I don't have time to learn them properly. As such, very few Wizards books are actually of any value to me. However, I can see that Wizards is trying to sell as many books they can. Rules supplements may be brought by many players in the same group, whereas scenarios will be typically brought by the DM only. It is not hard to figure out the math and understand why they release so many rules supplements.

I guess that players with supplement burnout is not a serious problem to them as long as the number of new players willing to spend their money keeps higher.

 

[RFisher]

Where D&D is concerned, many people complained initially because WotC made a huge to do about how they wouldn't get on the supplement treadmill. They didn't need to. There was much hooha about the strength of the core book marketing push with people (WotC employees at the time) declaring that said agenda made the supplement treadmill totally unnecessary. Of course, that's all it was -- hooha. This is why a lot of people were upset about it then. Why they're upset about it now, I couldn't tell you (after all, supplements are totally optional).

I don't think Wizards needed to get on the treadmill, but for a different reason: They (at the time) had a least two successful cash cows.

I think an awful lot of businesses make two crucial mistakes:

(1) Treating different products as if they were different businesses-within-a-business. e.g. Some products are low margin, some are high margin. That doesn't mean the low-margin products aren't important to your business or that you must figure out how to make the low-margin product high-margin.

Even within D&D: It's was easy to look at the numbers & say that adventures don't sell as well as the core books. That doesn't mean that adventures aren't crucial to the game's success. It means you need to figure out how to improve the product (if a product isn't selling well, it might be the quality rather than the nature) AND how to keep production costs in line with the market. (& the OGL/d20L & Dungeon magazine weren't bad answers to parts of those equations.)

(I'm not convinced that adventures are crucial to an RPG's success, but I'm not convinced they aren't either.)

(2) Focusing too much on "growing the business" instead of sizing the business to the market. Don't get me wrong: "Growing the business" is important; but there's a tendency to over-emphasize it.

The alternative to the treadmill, IMHO, is diversity & sizing.

I'm not convinced, however, that the D&D supplement treadmill isn't the right path for Wizards. (Or that it has made the mistakes I mentioned above too often. Avoiding those mistakes is more important to smaller companies without such solid brands.)

I think White Wolf and Savage Worlds are good examples of making this system work.

& Gurps. It's an overgeneralization to say that the mere number of settings hurt TSR.

 

[mmadsen]

I think White Wolf and Savage Worlds are good examples of making this system work. It's built for a different type of gamer than the average D&D player. Basically one who has limited funds, likes to try different genres and wants a "complete" game. I think D&D is based more on the type of gamer who wants a "subscription" model of endless sourcebooks.

Savage Worlds is aimed at adults who have money but not time. The goal was design a game that was fast furious fun.

The interesting thing is that when you design a game to be played it makes for a bland read, but most "gamers" pick up "games" primarily to read them.