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

[Dannyalcatraz]

Things like the long OOP The Fantasy Trip/In The Labyrinth- or its spiritual successor, Dark Cities- makes for a nice entry level, rules-light type game. But I have no problem with $50 for a core, hardcover book from a full-sized RPG: adjusted for inflation, that's about the same price as the AD&D hardcovers.

 

[Evenglare]

50$ for a player (usually you can get a core book for cheaper) and I'd say about ~100$ for a Gamemaster for the core book, bestiary, and gamemaster guide for a 3 book system.

 

[jdrakeh]

50$ for a player (usually you can get a core book for cheaper) and I'd say about ~100$ for a Gamemaster for the core book, bestiary, and gamemaster guide for a traditional 3 book system.

I'm curious. What makes the 3-book model "traditional" aside from the first RPG having used it? A brief look back at history shows that there were at least as many (or more) RPGs that used the single volume or two volume models.

 

[Razjah]

I think the ideal price point for someone getting into the hobby is free. If Suzzie asks Cameron about her game, and Cameron invites her to play, it costs Suzzie nothing. She can play and decide if she likes the hobby or not.

Without someone to help get a potential player into the game, I think the cost needs to be kept to a impulse buy amount. Under $40 is the highest, but I think closer to $25-30 is better. This allows people who are just interested to simply purchase the game and invite some friends over. The three book system that costs a GM over $100 is not a good method for getting someone into the hobby.

I also worry about minis and other hidden costs. If a battlemap and figs are required then the game costs a lot more to play. Cheap games that still require more stuff to play in the game is bad for getting players into the game. A starter kit that includes a rulebook, a generic map or two, and some punch outs for minis helps negate that cost, as long as that stuff can be used for a couple months. If it is only good for an adventure of two, then it forces someone who may be unsure about the game to decide if they want to spend more without knowing if they'll get enjoyment from their purchase.

 

[Evenglare]

I'm curious. What makes the 3-book model "traditional" aside from the first RPG having used it? A brief look back at history shows that there were at least as many (or more) RPGs that used the single volume or two volume models.

I don't disagree. I don't want to start an arguement about what is or is not traditional, etc etc. You win. Congrats!

 

[jdrakeh]

I don't disagree. I don't want to start an arguement about what is or is not traditional, etc etc. You win. Congrats!

Your disingenuous mischaracterization of my motives and accompanying snark offend me. Congrats! You've won a coveted spot on my Ignore List!

 

[delericho]

I'm curious. What makes the 3-book model "traditional" aside from the first RPG having used it?

Nitpick: the "first RPG" didn't use it. OD&D had been out some years before AD&D appeared.

As for what makes something "traditional", the answer is reasonably simple: long use, and especially long use by the majority.

So it's reasonable to refer to the three-book model as traditional for D&D because it has been used in the 'major' version of the game for 37 years, and has been used exclusively for 14+.

But it would be wrong to refer to the three-book model as traditional for RPGs more generally, as D&D is very much in the minority on this one.

 

[Umbran]

Congrats! You've won a coveted spot on my Ignore List!

If you're going to put someone on the Ignore List, we expect you to do so with class. Just quietly push the button and walk away. This public announcement is unbecoming, childish, "I get the last word and you won't be able to respond cause I'm not listening LALALALA!!!!1!" stuff.

Remember, the list is not there as punishment for the other guy, but as a support for your own peace of mind. Do not use it as a bludgeon on others in the future, please.

Thanks, all.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Without someone to help get a potential player into the game, I think the cost needs to be kept to a impulse buy amount. Under $40 is the highest, but I think closer to $25-30 is better. This allows people who are just interested to simply purchase the game and invite some friends over. The three book system that costs a GM over $100 is not a good method for getting someone into the hobby.

I'm with this.

It's interesting, because in the boardgaming community we think about gateway games, simple games that can pull non-gamers into the hobby. You don't throw somebody to the wolves with Eclipse or Agricola for their first gaming experience. Not only are these both $70+ games, but they're also very complex. Instead, you recommend something like Carcassonne, Tsuro, or The Resistance. Keep it under $40! Keep it simple!

But, pointing someone to D&D, with its hundreds of pages, three core books, and tons of rules, seems to be the equivalent to recommending a newbie pay the $60 MSRP for Twilight Imperium and play with his group who have only ever played Monopoly. And expecting them to like it. Now, thing is, I probably would have loved this. But, i do realize that I'm not normal. I'm the guy who unboxed The Game of Thrones 2e at 11pm and decided it was a good idea to learn as we went, after all. I was the only one who had fun that night...

I seem to have veered off there...

 

[Umbran]

But it would be wrong to refer to the three-book model as traditional for RPGs more generally, as D&D is very much in the minority on this one.

Well, yes and no.

In the US, having turkey on Thanksgiving is traditional. Loads of households don't have turkey, they have something else, and there are lots of other things to choose from - goose, duck, roast pork, ham, roast beef - the number of other things that are eaten on T-day is great. Turkey is one option, vastly outnumbered by other options. But turkey is still traditional, right?

If you count "number of games that use this form" then, yes, D&D is in the minority. But, most of those games are small potatoes in the RPG market. A game that reaches 5 players does not really shift what is traditional for RPGs. In terms of number of copies of games sold, or number of players using games in this form, D&D's historical dominance comes into play, and we could argue that since D&D has so solidly dominated RPGs more generally, the three-book model is still traditional for RPGs more generally. It is arguable that D&D is kind of the standard, and all others are variations off that standard.

I am not convinced that having that argument is constructive, mind you. I just thought it valuable to note that it may not be all that simple. There's multiple ways to look at it.