The Supplement Treadmill vs. The Alternatives

[buzz]

I think "sense of wonder" isn't a meaningful enough phrase to bother bringing into the discussion.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

You mean rereleasing the same version of the game without meaningful errata or fixes as a new edition several times in a row?

Nope, that's not what I mean. I'm not talking about errata or "fixes," at all, but rather keeping the rules, tone, and feel or the game largely backwards-compatible over the years.

Yeah, really . . . no thanks.

Suit yourself . . . really . . .

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Not that I'm Imaro, but i'm gonna have to go with "it's the material that's changed, not me". I'm still buying and loving tons of RPG stuff--and even tons of stuff that i consider "D&D", just nothing from WotC.

That describes me perfectly, too. I'm buying more D&D material than ever, but it's products from Necromancer Games, Goodman Games, Troll Lord, Green Ronin, etc. The WotC stuff just doesn't hit the right notes, for me.

 

[RFisher]

So, instead of producing, say, 20 D&D supplements each year, WotC could produce 10 new one-book games each year, and then 10 supplements for whichever of those games (or previous years' games) proved the most popular.

But Wizards isn't just the D&D company. Neither are they just an RPG company. They don't need either 20 D&D products or 20 RPG products a year to make money because they have a lot of other products & potential products other than just D&D & RPGs.

 

[buzz]

But Wizards isn't just the D&D company. Neither are they just an RPG company. They don't need either 20 D&D products or 20 RPG products a year to make money because they have a lot of other products & potential products other than just D&D & RPGs.

Which is also why they are able to stay in business.

 

[Brentos]

Another Alternative

Another alternative is the subscription model. Many people use this for software, MMORPGs, video game sites, etc. I think WOTC's digital initiative will be the first real dabble in the game market for this, and I am curious. I can spend $30-$100 a month on supplements and accessories, so why not just pay the $30 a month for everything? (all prices assumed). Players get what they want, DM's get what they want (assuming, of course the content is great and complete). I create my own rules pages of whatever clips of rules I want, it gets automatically updated with errata, new supplements, new rules, etc. I can do most of what I want online, print what I need for offline...etc. I think that is the alternative to the treadmill or going out of business in this day and age. Or...just go really small press and .pdf, but I think most game designers/companies would like to be successful so that they can continue their product and games.

I would love, though, for WOTC to do the limited setting approach (1 setting a year, several supplements, tie-ins to minis, etc.) for Planescape, etc, with maybe occasional DI updates here and there.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

You missed an option: new games. How does a video game or boardgame company make money? Not, primarily, by producing add-ons to existing games, or new editions of existing games (though, in both cases, there's some of that), but by producing whole new games. Yes, in both cases, they are often sequels, or in other ways tie in to previous games. But they don't have the dependency that an RPG supplement has. I can play Final Fantasy XII without even being aware of the previous 11 games in the series, and have plenty of fun. The Complete Psionic is kinda useless without at least 2 previous D&D books.

To be fair, Square-Enix has come around to producing direct sequels, or at least spinoffs. FFX-2, FF XII Revenant Wings, Compilation of Final Fantasy 7, etc. Either because they wanted to explore more of those existing worlds and their characters, or because of a new business strategy (or, most likely, a great deal of both). I suppose you could play FF7 Dirge of Cerberus without having played FF7 - it's at least a decent game in its own right - but it was certainly designed to appeal to people who'd played FF7. Kingdom Hearts also has direct sequels.

Now, the mainline Final Fantasies and Dragon Quests still take place in new continuities, as do certain one-off games.

So, instead of producing, say, 20 D&D supplements each year, WotC could produce 10 new one-book games each year, and then 10 supplements for whichever of those games (or previous years' games) proved the most popular.

Also to be fair, Square-Enix is a massively moneyed company compared to WotC, and even they don't produce 10 A-List games and 10 spinoffs a year.

Looking at a company with resources more in line with Wizards (and even then no doubt dwarfing their RPG division), Monolith Soft has produced nine games in its eight years of existence, three of them direct sequels.

 

[buzz]

I honestly don't see many problems with WotC's approach to the treadmill. Their release schedule is actually quite modest given the popularity of their games, and they generally focus on mechanics-heavy products that have wide applicability. Their decision to slow down release of fluff-heavy setting supplements and start doing "accessory" products (e.g., tiles) was spot-on, IMO.

As a viable model for other RPG companies, I don't think it will work, save maybe for WW, and even they were bought out. You either need another revenue stream (e.g., WotC, or SJG and Munchkin), or you need to stop expecting that you'll be able to earn a living selling nothing but RPG product.

This is why I like the indie model so much. They actively avoid competing in WotC's space entirely, and instead focus on maximizing per-book profits, but with no expectation of quitting a day job. Consumers then get excellent, playtested product released on a sane timeline.

 

[BluSponge]

SW setting supplements are also designed with the assumption that you'll play through them in about a six-session arc and then move on to the next book. It's not expected that you'll buy a setting and then play it (and not buy anything else) for four years or whatever.

Six SESSIONS?! How long are your sessions, Buzz?! Most of the plot point campaigns take anywhere from 6-12 months to run, depending on how many of your own points you insert. And the Companions (50 Fathoms and Rippers) both add second tier plot arcs that add even more to the setting. I do agree that the plot arcs aren't designed for four year+ campaigns, but I don't see anything that would prevent you from running a very extended Rippers campaign (it's 19th century Earth, for crying out loud) with or without the use of the plot points.

FWIW, I give WotC credit for focusing on supplements that are crunchy. Each book will likely have some little mechanical bit that you can use in your game. IMO, putting out lots of fluff-heavy setting material would be far more of a cop-out, as there's really no design and development effort required, and are much more obviously "supplements you buy to read" than useful tools.

Of course, the down side of this is that you ultimately end up running the risk of having a very intimidating system. Even though the core books are all you need to play, there is so much stuff out there that it is easy for newbies to get overwhelmed if they start bringing more books into the game. It's not an easy thing to measure.

Tom

 

[buzz]

Of course, the down side of this is that you ultimately end up running the risk of having a very intimidating system. Even though the core books are all you need to play, there is so much stuff out there that it is easy for newbies to get overwhelmed if they start bringing more books into the game. It's not an easy thing to measure.

But the supplements don't generally make the game more complicated; they typically just make more options available. More spells, more feats, more classes, more monsters. I also think you could argue, based on the hypothetical newbie we're talking about, that a three-foot-high stack of pure setting material is going to seem just as daunting.

I think this is all irrelevant, though, as the crunch supplements have proven themselves in the marketplace. Spell Compendium is already showing itself to be a new evergreen product for D&D. Joe D&D Consumer is voting with his dollar, and that vote is being cast for utility. Anecdotal evidence in my groups (FWIW) and Amazon's gaming bestsellers list corroborates this.

Similarly, SKR posted a fairly high-profile rant in the 3.0 days about how the bean-counters at WotC wanted the company to focus on crunch-heavy supplements over fluff, as the former simply sold better. This is cool with me, as the, e.g., Compendia have proven more useful for me than any of the setting-heavy Eberron books I buy.

Love them or hate them, WotC are savvy. The issue is more that what works for them ain't necessarily going to work for anyone else.