The thread title is a quote from a post gleichman made. I think it's true. If it is though, why does our hobby not reflect its truth?

Quote from: D-503;577963The thread title is a quote from a post gleichman made. I think it's true. If it is though, why does our hobby not reflect its truth?

I think variety and having sources of inspiration is alway good. I find that readng modules, setting books and looking at supplememts enriches my original material. By the same token reading books on history or watching movies help spark interesting campaign ideas. Sometimes i run my own campaign setting, but am happy to run Ravenloft as well. I also think everyone is different. Personally, i enjoy world building, but some people don't and would rather use a ready-made setting.

But bottom line for me is reading gaming material has enhanced play for me. The van richten books really improved my Ravenloft campaigns for example.

I know of two groups locally that are still playing with just a couple of books that they bought in the 1980's. They don't go to conventions, game shops, advertise for new players, etc.

They just play.

Quote from: D-503;577963The thread title is a quote from a post gleichman made. I think it's true. If it is though, why does our hobby not reflect its truth?

It is true. We still play 2nd edition houseruled with a handful of the complete handbooks.
The only RPG books I have bought in the last 5 years have been Explorer editions of Savage Worlds.

We scratch build 50% of the stuff we play or we just take a core system like WoD and riff off it.

A solid core system like d20, or White Wolf, or SW, or BCP can be adapated to any and all settings with a minimal effort

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577967I think variety and having sources of inspiration is alway good. ,snip>

True. But for me, such inspiration rarely comes from reading rpg material. History books, novels, comic books, film and tv – yes.

If an rpg setting grabs me, it tends to be a lightly sketched settling in a low page count core book (having great fun in Simon Washbourne's version of Lemuria right now). If the bare-bones setting grabs me with its potential, then I can dress it with the sort of details that interest me and my players. If an rpg setting is long and dense, then I tend only to be interested in certain parts of it. So I might buy the setting for the details I need, but ruthlessly cut back and delete the bits that didn't grab me and replace it with my own stuff.

Mostly though, I like putting together my own stuff, stealing things I like from non-rpg media, as needed. Thing is, I find most rpg settings dull and like poorly written fan fic for a tv show I've never seen. Not that I'm writing Nobel Prize quality rpg material myself you understand – but it's mine, tailored to my needs, and so better than most (if not all) of the commercial material when it comes to using it at my table.

YMMV, etc.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577967I think variety and having sources of inspiration is alway good. I find that readng modules, setting books and looking at supplememts enriches my original material. By the same token reading books on history or watching movies help spark interesting campaign ideas. Sometimes i run my own campaign setting, but am happy to run Ravenloft as well. I also think everyone is different. Personally, i enjoy world building, but some people don't and would rather use a ready-made setting.

But bottom line for me is reading gaming material has enhanced play for me. The van richten books really improved my Ravenloft campaigns for example.

I agree with Brendan.  People get a chance to expand their horizons by reading different sourcebooks and gamebooks.  There's always something new to learn.

One further note is that people's situations change over time.  People get married, have families, and in general get busy.  Other systems may work better for reduced play times, and premade adventure paths/modules can be invaluable when you don't have time to do prework on your homebrew.

Core books and your own world ARE enough.

However, its nice to have more options.


What I hate, is when a game is broken up into a ton of expensive books with content that should be core, such as races and classes.

If you're new to a system or gaming in general, a pre-made adventure is very useful to show how to start off and put together NPC/monster stats. Keep on the Borderlands was included in the basic set for good reason.

I'm running B2 again after these 30 years, and it's very very handy to have maps and stats there for me. Is the sandbox we're actually playing follow B2 to the letter, hardly. But I got a map of the keep, the AC for lizard men, a cave complex mapped out all in front of me. The rest bubbles up from our collective unconsciousness.

It's all kinda zen really. Before zen, pre-made adventures are essential to play the game as intended. During zen, pre-made adventures are avoided as they detract from the organic creative experience developed through the combined accumulation of in-character decision. After zen, pre-made adventures are damn convenient.

Quote from: D-503;577963The thread title is a quote from a post gleichman made. I think it's true. If it is though, why does our hobby not reflect its truth?

Why to people pay for virtual items from a MMORPG? Because a person's time is valuable and some are willing to pay to avoid having to put in the time to do it themselves for a variety of reasons.

It is my opinion the most important reason for saleability of adventure modules and settings. But the not the only one.

Gliechman's comments assumes that all referees are at the same level of interest and ability in running a campaign.  Some referee do very well running published adventure modules but are terrible at writing their own. For other it is reverse. Some can run a whole campaign off of one paragraph of notes, others need a binder. Some can write up their own adventures but don't have the time so resort to published adventures. And every shade of grey between the various extreme exist.

The result is that adventures and other supplements for the referee sell.

Other reasons for buying adventures, supplements, and setting include, but are not limited too.

Wanting to learn by example.
Liking the writing style, subject matter and/or presentation.
Collecting RPG products.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;577982One further note is that people's situations change over time.  People get married, have families, and in general get busy.  Other systems may work better for reduced play times, and premade adventure paths/modules can be invaluable when you don't have time to do prework on your homebrew.

Good point.

In some systems generating NPCs alone can take a fair amount of time. My preference is for rules light systems and I've weaned myself off of my old habit of over-preping sessions. But if your system demands lots of prep, I can see the appeal of commercial scenarios and settings.

Quote from: D-503;577963The thread title is a quote from a post gleichman made. I think it's true. If it is though, why does our hobby not reflect its truth?

Who needs core books? Just make your own rules.

DM picks a number. Roll over it = you succeed.

Quote from: estar;577993Why to people pay for virtual items from a MMORPG? Because a person's time is valuable and some are willing to pay to avoid having to put in the time to do it themselves for a variety of reasons.

It's a good point, but speaking purely personally (ie not for anyone else) I've found since running the GPC that pregen stuff is no easier than stuff you made yourself. Instead of spending time making stuff up you spend time memorising the stuff in the adventure and adapting it to the needs of your campaign.

I understand paying for maps though. Not all of us can draw maps. More specifically, I can't draw maps. I can't draw stick men successfully.

Quote from: 1989;577995Who needs core books? Just make your own rules.

DM picks a number. Roll over it = you succeed.

Any argument can be made ridiculous through use of extreme examples. Not sure it advances anything though.

I agree with the sentiment.

The only books I've actually got decades of gaming out of, sans supplements, are the D&D Rules Cyclopedia and Call of Cthulhu 5e, and I treasure those above everything else in my gaming collection.

And they're not even the biggest books I own! It has less to do with size, and more with presentation. So many gaming books spend so much pagecount on inane fluff or contrived mechanics. These two focus on stuff you actually need to play the damn games; and while both games are formulaic (exploration of fantasy worlds for D&D, investigating and fighting cosmic horrors for CoC), these core rulebooks are toolkits that allow for endless permutation and variation on their respective formulae.

Another one that I've owned for only a short while (a year or so), but looks like it can also offer decades of core-only enjoyment, is Mongoose Traveller. A few more spaceships and a small Third Imperium setting appendix would make it even better and more D&D RC- or CoC-like, but it's great as is. Which is why I could find no reason to pick up the giant, unwieldly, back-breaking, $100+ T5.

Quote from: Gruntfuttock;577994Good point.

In some systems generating NPCs alone can take a fair amount of time. My preference is for rules light systems and I've weaned myself off of my old habit of over-preping sessions. But if your system demands lots of prep, I can see the appeal of commercial scenarios and settings.

The quote though talks about core systems. Clearly if you're playing Pendragon and decide next you want to run a game of stellar exploration you're going to need a different ruleset. Similarly if you're running Rolemaster classic and then a child arrives you may want a game with lighter prep requirements. None of that though requires a supplement treadmill/ongoing game line.

Take boardgames. Most boardgames are a single box. If you play them you likely own a few, different boardgames for different kinds of game, but generally for each of them all you will have is the core box - you won't have a shelf full of expansions for that box.

Unless of course you're a fan of Arkham Horror.

Anyway, leaving FFG aside, if anything rpgs are better suited to that model than boardgames, so why don't they follow it?