When Is a RPG "Complete" From a Publishing Perspective?

[Reynard]

In your opinion and/or based on your preferences, when is an RPG complete? That is, at what point in the publication life cycle would you, as a fan and customer of a particular RPG, say "Yeah, that's enough, I will take it from here."?

NOTE: This includes 3rd party support, but not necessarily fan support. I know the line between the two is very blurry these days, but what I am trying to get at is when is it okay that nothing else is published for a game.

For the poll, choose your "end point" as close as possible with what I included.

 

[Reynard]

FWIW I am generally a "core books are enough" person. That doesn't mean I won't buy supplements or adventures, but generally I am okay if a game is just the core rules. For example, if Daggerheart never gets any major support (very unlikely) I will still consider it a great, playable game. Same with Shadowdark (although it of course did get lots of support).

 

[mamba]

As long as they release things I am interested in, I’ll take a look, but I am not buying everything just because it exists (‘as long as a game I like publishes, I will buy’ sounds pretty close to that)

Ideally there are some adventures and campaigns available, I am less interested in more rules / classes. Core (+ 1 supplement) is enough, additional supplements will have an uphill battle (case in point, I never got Tasha’s)

 

[schneeland]

It depends a bit on the specific game. My rule of thumb is: I need the (core) rules and either a handful of adventures or a campaign (multiple smaller adventures being preferable). However, in some cases (e.g. Dolmenwood) a mere setting book would also work, assuming it contains enough adventure hooks.
Now I can work without adventures/adventure frames, especially if we're talking about some well-established adventuring genre (fantasy, cyberpunk, pulp action), but it's not my preference.

 

[TwoSix]

I mean, it definitely depends on the game, and in a lot of ways it depends on the content of the initial releases after the core. (Although plenty of games are one-and-done and don't need supplements.)

As an easy example, I think one of the first books after the 3.0 release was "Sword and Fist", which had a lot of new content focused on Fighters and Monks. If you release a book of extra content for 2 out of 12 classes right out of the bat, it would be weird to think of a line as "complete" if you only end up releasing extra content for like 7 of the 12 classes.

But for a line that has a fair amount of mechanical crunch and a defined setting, I would expect some kind of setting expansion and at least 2 rules expansions to feel like it's really a game "line".

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

Also agree it depends on the game. I would consider a game complete when the published material available for the game gives the GM the tools they need to run a game fully across the scope of what the game intends. If you cannot play the game as intended without a supplement, then the game is not complete until that supplement comes out.

For some games, thats just the core rulebook or core set, for others, it's many more books.

 

[cbwjm]

Basically, once an rpg has released the core rules, enough setting books to cover their setting in detail with mechanics to go with it, and enough rules supplements to expand on the core rules, it's complete and ready for the next edition which has enough small changes to make people think they need to buy all the books all over again.

 

[Swanosaurus]

It depends very much on the game. Usually, I'd say that I want the core book, a setting book (possibly both in one, if it's on the rules- light side) and about half a dozen to a dozen small scenarios. I'm usually not that much into big campaigns, I prefer frankensteining them together from little pieces. So I want more than core & setting, but less than (or something different from) core & setting & big campaign.

 

[Reynard]

"It depends on the game" is absolutely true. But we are talking about your personal preferences; your favored scenario. What do YOU see, ideally, as a complete game?

The reason this is important, btw, is to avoid the endless spiral of "it dependses" that ultimately leads to people sniping at specific games rather than talking about their preferences.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

The issue is that RPGs are such an inherently diverse medium that there cannot be a one-size-fits all answer of X number of books.

The point at which, say, Draw Steel, Cypher System, Runequest, Ironsworn, and Honey Heist are going to feel complete are entirely different, due to the completely different design goals and scale of each game.