What's a resonable price-point for entry into the RPG hobby?

[delericho]

In fact, I think it's much easier for a child to sit down and finish a 300-page book than it is for an adult to do it. There's a popular narrative about kids having shorter and shorter attention spans, but I think what causes attention spans to shorten is checking stocks on one's iphone. To a kid, the more engrossing a hobby is, the better. Kids are obsessive. Kids are precocious. I think dumbing the hobby down for kids is completely unnecessary.

I don't agree with the popular "shorter attention span" narrative. From what I've seen, provided a kid (of reasonable age - let's say anything beyond 10 or so) is interested in something, there's little difficulty in keeping their attention.

Ah, but there's the rub: provided they're interested.

The thing is, I really don't see that reading of 300-page hardbacks (never mind 3 of them for the DM) as being at all interesting. Playing the game, absolutely. Tinkering with your character, working on your campaign, or building a setting, sure. Those are all fine. But just reading the rules itself? No. I'm sorry, I just don't see it. (Especially since they're not now written in High Gygxian, so the language used isn't interesting in itself.)

And, unfortunately, people in general just aren't good at deferred gratification. Faced with 300 pages of reading so they can then play this game, versus ten seconds to drop a video game into the PS3, it's not hard to see why D&D often loses out. And given that modern video games are now "close enough" for a great many people, that doesn't bode well for the future.

Now, to me that suggests the likely solution is pretty obvious: get people playing, as fast as possible. That's why being shown the ropes by an experienced player represents the best way in - you can basically get started right away. But failing that, it suggests a good Starter Set is a good thing - much less to do before you start playing.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the game was at its biggest right when the Moldvay and Mentzer sets were released, nor that those two sets are (apparently) the best selling versions of the game ever. It could, of course, just be that D&D was part of the zeitgeist, but I don't think it was just that.

But, ultimately, I think it comes down to this: having a good Starter Set out there can't hurt. So if a decent one can be produced at a price point such that it doesn't lose money, then it should be produced.

(Incidentally, I think the approach of modern RPGs, and especially 4e, is very useful for this: such games have relatively few rules, but a whole lot of "stuff" to go with them - lots of classes, powers, feats, magic items, monsters, etc etc. This should make putting a good Starter Set together easier - those few rules can be compacted down into a fairly small digest, and then you add a very minimal set of "stuff". In the very best case, you could lay it out such that the Starter Set has all the rules, so that all you need is that plus a DDI subscription and you've actually got everything.)

 

[ggroy]

The thing is, I really don't see that reading of 300-page hardbacks (never mind 3 of them for the DM) as being at all interesting. Playing the game, absolutely. Tinkering with your character, working on your campaign, or building a setting, sure. Those are all fine. But just reading the rules itself? No. I'm sorry, I just don't see it. (Especially since they're not now written in High Gygxian, so the language used isn't interesting in itself.)

And, unfortunately, people in general just aren't good at deferred gratification. Faced with 300 pages of reading so they can then play this game, versus ten seconds to drop a video game into the PS3, it's not hard to see why D&D often loses out

In spite of having a short attention span and very little self discipline, back in the day I use to like reading and attempting to play complicated tabletop rpg games with dense rulebooks (and/or numerous supplements). Stuff like Rolemaster, GURPS, Twilight 2000, DragonQuest (SPI version), etc ... At the time, I saw it as a personal challenge to decipher the mechanics and dense prose.

Fast forward to the present, these days I don't have the patience anymore to go through dense thick rulebooks (except D&D). As an example, awhile ago I borrowed the Exalted core book from a local friend and attempted to read and decipher it. After a day or so, I lost all patience and didn't care anymore about deciphering Exalted and subsequently returned the book. I also came across a Chivalry & Sorcery book, and had a similar impatient experience of deciphering its dense complicated ruleset. (Ironically I attempted to decipher and play C&S back in the day).

In the case of D&D specifically, the only reason I was willing to read and decipher stuff like 3E/3.5E/d20/Pathfinder and 4E D&D, was that I was already familiar with TSR era D&D and there were established groups nearby that were looking for players. (I only started playing D&D again shortly after 3.5E was released. Previously I took a long hiatus away from tabletop rpg games, where I completely missed 2E AD&D and the 1990's rpg scene in its entirety).

I don't agree with the popular "shorter attention span" narrative. From what I've seen, provided a kid (of reasonable age - let's say anything beyond 10 or so) is interested in something, there's little difficulty in keeping their attention.

Ah, but there's the rub: provided they're interested.

Definitely.

In areas completely unrelated to rpg games, I could spend hours and hours reading very densely written books on topics I am very interested in.

When I was a kid, I spent many hours reading through the book "Calculus Made Easy" and various algebra textbooks (mostly my father's old college books).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_Made_Easy

Even with the pace of reading/deciphering being really slow, I could spend hours thinking about what was on two or three pages. (ie. Figuring out and doing a particular calculation on paper, and seeing whether it makes any sense to me).

Today I could still spend hours deciphering calculations from really dense mathematical books on topics like relativity, quantum theory, heat/radiation transfer, deformable bodies, etc ...

 

[Janx]

Maybe. I don't think D&D requires a great deal of intelligence to play, and the online forums for discussing it certainly haven't always attracted the best and the brightest (present company excluded of course). But that does seem to be what happens; that intellectuals tend towards this hobby.

Which to me is kind of a shame. The hobby has a lot to offer for people of modest intellect as long as they're willing to accept its tenets and learn how to use the game to serve their own personal needs.

While it is true that all kinds of people play D&D (even actual dumb ones), the nature of the product is going to attract strongest to "smart people.

Just like the Football aisle at the sports store doesn't necessarily draw in nerds ("hey guys!, let's get this one, it has actual laces!")

I'm willing to accept that while it is bad to be exclusive, especially deliberately, that it is OK that something is not to everyone's taste or not targeted to be appealing to everyone.

 

[Umbran]

I'm perfectly okay with noting that RPGs (or any other particular hobby) won't fit everyone's tastes. There, you're talking about *taste*. Differing personal opinion is fine.

Start talking about *intelligence*, and that's a can of worms I'm not sure will be profitable to open. So much potential implicit passing of judgement there, it gets nasty.

 

[ggroy]

Start talking about *intelligence*, and that's a can of worms I'm not sure will be profitable to open. So much potential implicit passing of judgement there, it gets nasty.

At the risk of partially opening up a can of worms.

Over the years I've played enough tabletop rpg games with a large enough diverse group of players, to see that intelligence is largely uncorrelated with gaming preferences.

(I won't say any more than this).

 

[Arduin's]

Given an ebook/pdf option where there is zero stocking, shipping, channel expenses. I'd say $20.00 tops.

 

[gamerprinter]

Given an ebook/pdf option where there is zero stocking, shipping, channel expenses. I'd say $20.00 tops.

There's also POD (print on demand) printing to have a real book in your hands instead of a digital only one, there is no stocking, shipping or channel expenses, which would bring the price up, probably closer to $30, given that POD has a cost.

 

[Arduin's]

There's also POD (print on demand) printing to have a real book in your hands instead of a digital only one, there is no stocking, shipping or channel expenses, which would bring the price up, probably closer to $30, given that POD has a cost.

Right. But, I'm only talking about the price set by the IP owner. Not what the buyer decides to do with it once purchased.

 

[gamerprinter]

Right. But, I'm only talking about the price set by the IP owner. Not what the buyer decides to do with it once purchased.

Yes, but you don't want your POD product price too high, so knowing that you'll want to include POD options, you need to keep that in mind, while you determine the best price for a non-POD product (the 2 will be added together, and you don't want the final print product too expensive.)

 

[Arduin's]

Yes, but you don't want your POD product price too high, so knowing that you'll want to include POD options, you need to keep that in mind, while you determine the best price for a non-POD product (the 2 will be added together, and you don't want the final print product too expensive.)

That' not how you price on a cost accounting basis. Which you better be using if you want to stay in business. 3rd party POD costs don't get factored in.