TheRPGSite

Well, with the PHBII I feel is a good question to ask. Do you think that releasing a core book and an endless flow of supplements (the usual road for publishers) is the best route? Or do you feel that smaller runs and a constant release of new games would be the best route?

Discuss!

Quote from: Imperator;294274Well, with the PHBII I feel is a good question to ask. Do you think that releasing a core book and an endless flow of supplements (the usual road for publishers) is the best route? Or do you feel that smaller runs and a constant release of new games would be the best route?

Discuss!

If a company is publishing an endless stream of Core Rulebooks (PHB, PHB2, PHB3, etc...) then it isn't the supplement mill because each rulebook is a Core Rulebook. The supplement mill is entirely optional, it is designed for a low buy in to the game with the Core Rulebook and then the consumer can decide if they want to include supplementary material.

The problem with releasing an endless supply of Core Rulebooks is that eventually the buy in for the game becomes greater than the average consumer will wish to spend. So it may be profitable in the short run, but then once the number of Core Rulebooks reaches a critical number, sales will drop and stay low in the long run.

My preference is for Core Rulebooks, and then everything else is optional.

Personally, I prefer self-contained core books.

I understand why the industry puts out supplements, but personally I would prefer to see more complete RPGs being put out and have the publishing companies offer online support in the form of free zine style supplements. Fans of the game could submit material for the publishers to put on the websites, etc. Sometimes, a cheap PDF or printed booklet could be offered in order to maintain readership/metacampaign events and whatnot...

In the case of 4e, I bought the core rulebooks and I'm sure it's all I need to run successful campaigns with it, but if I were to run a game for any kind of hardcore fan of 4e, I'd pretty much be expected to have the PHB2, MM2 and DMG2 as well as pretty much any additional 'core books' that are being published.

My guess is that supplements are good for the industry on the business side, building readership and maintaining a constant stream for a game line, but as a GM, it can be a pain.

Look at AEG's L5R 1st edition line for instance. You didn't need all of the clan books to run good games, but there was enough material there to keep me buying them but not necessarily enough to warrant the cost.

In my mind, Core Books should be hardcover and all that you need to play, ever. Supplements should be softcover and cost less than half the core book's price and let's say no more than 4 supplements a year. More than that and I know I won't be creating a collection out of that game line.
It would be nice if most publishers did Core Books without a supplement schedule in mind so that they don't hold back on anything...

The industry (i.e. the game companies) think of it as necessary. You basically exploit the concept of serials for RPGs, since fans will want always more of a world of imagination they like, preserve resources, and at the same time, maximise profit by "milking the cow" so-to-speak.

Doing it any other way would dramatically alter the business practices of the industry. One could for instance imagine companies publishing games with limited numbers of supplements, if any, but that would mean you multiply the number of games to try to get the same cash flow, which would mean you could run into a "TSR settings" kind of problem where there's just too much stuff to ensure the rentability of a single product or brand like, say, D&D.

Maybe White Wolf and its new WoD presents some kind of middle ground in this instance with its five-supplements games, one game a year format.

Is it necessary for the gamers themselves? Not at all, though they desire it and often think of it as necessary to their game tables, otherwise they move on to other pastures (i.e. if the game line is not in print, it's a "dead game" somehow - which is in fact a ridiculous concept as it relates to one particular game table).

Let me just say up front that I hate the 3-Core book structure.  I much prefer that the game be presented in one book.  However, I realize that some game system really need more than one book.  Consequently, I have accepted, under duress, have accepted the 3-Core book system.  

I would prefer the 3-Core book system.  As with 3.x D&D, all you really needed was contained in the Core books.  You never really needed to purchase any additional books.  The additional splat books are just that- additional and splat.

Quote from: Drohem;294283Let me just say up front that I hate the 3-Core book structure.  I much prefer that the game be presented in one book.  However, I realize that some game system really need more than one book.  Consequently, I have accepted, under duress, have accepted the 3-Core book system.  

I would prefer the 3-Core book system.  As with 3.x D&D, all you really needed was contained in the Core books.  You never really needed to purchase any additional books.  The additional splat books are just that- additional and splat.

The 3-core rulebook structure is something I've disliked about D&D since I started playing. Early on, I was more attracted to B/X D&D because of its low buy-in to play (I could buy both the Basic and the Expert D&D rulebooks for the cost of 1 AD&D core rulebook, which was an important consideration for a 12 year old earning only an allowance and lawn mowing money). Unfortunately, that is now part of the tradition of D&D, having a PHB, DMG, and a MM.

I really think that a version of D&D in a single book, designed to take players up to level 10 or so and introduce them to the game, could really sell well as a low buy-in game. The first printing of the 3E PHB with the 16 page 2000 Survival Kit in the back comes close to this.

More than anything else, I didn't buy the 4e books because I knew they wouldn't have the shit I need in them, and I didn't want to buy phb2 or any other bullshit.

I've personally come to prefer the self-contained, one-volume, $20 game, but I have a shelf full of RQ and Pendragon stuff that says the supplement model works in some way.

Of course, supplements didn't keep RQ at its position of the early 80s. And it's clear to me that the model includes a reboot when they've milked the supplements enough. I've seen this happen several times with the biggest games (D&D, Vampire). Chaosium/Avalon Hill just dropped the ball instead of rebooting.

So WotC releases PHB II now, and that's probably really a core book in the sense that it's got a lot of things people want. But what happens in a few years when they've run out of things you can publish for a profit? Scraping the bottom of the barrel, so to speak?

It's a consumerist model. And it helps to train the buyers in consumerist habits. That's why people refer to unsupported games as dead (nobody calls Monopoly dead, and it hasn't had a supplement ever).

Is it good for the industry, whatever that is? Maybe. Is it good for the people who play (AKA 'the hobby')? I don't think so. Is it good for me? Definitely not.

Quote from: jeff37923;294284The 3-core rulebook structure is something I've disliked about D&D since I started playing.

Wordy McWord. And it has gotten worst with every edition. I vastly prefer a core book like CoC that is really all you will ever need to completely run the game.

Also, I vastly prefer the new approach of WW to WoD. Every supplement is more of a toolkit than a metaplot oriented book, so there's more barrel to scrap, so to speak.

It's bad for the hobby not only because it increases the apparent cost of "buy-in" for new players but because a constant stream of "core" books and "must have" splat books cuts down the number of people willing to GM. Players can get by with only buying the books that interest them, but the GM has to buy all the books that any player at the table wants to use or disallow the books (upsetting the player).  Some GMs have infinite supplies of money, but most do not. Sure, it is possible to limit a campaign to just the game's basic books, but once the additional books start pouring out it gets harder and harder to find players willing to be so limited.

Of course, a constant stream of expensive core and splat books are great for the publisher's cash flow. Since expanding the market for games is expensive, it is easier to sell more stuff to the same people and get new people to buy the core rules. This is probably why TSR -- in the expanding market of the late 70s to late 80s -- did not have a constant stream of new rulebooks aimed at player and GMs, instead they had a constant stream of relatively inexpensive modules aimed at GMs (and an occasional hardback still mainly aimed at GMs).  The influx of new players kept the cash coming in from the rulebooks and providing inexpensive modules made it easy for GMs to run games, which made it easy for new groups of those new players to form, which in turn helped bring in more new players.

TSR did not start producing lots of splat books for players and GMs until the RPG boom died shortly after 2nd edition came out. Without new players streaming in to make purchases, a constant stream of rulebooks that both players and GMs would buy (full of kits, etc.) was the best way to milk money out of a stagnant or even shrinking number of buyers.

With the continued shrinking of the number of gamers from the highs of the 1980s, producing adventures went from a money making proposition to an non-effective way to do business. Adventures only sell to GMs, splat books sell to both GMs and players. Of course, the lack of inexpensive prepared adventures makes it harder to GM, thus reducing the number of casual GMs which, unfortunately, soon shrinks the overall market even more -- especially when the rules are so bloated and complex that creating a adventure from scratch is a lot of hard work. (It's easy to create an adventure for 0e or B/X (where stat blocks are a couple of lines), but much harder for 3.x and 4e  (although 4e is easier than 3.x).

Overall, I think the production of splat books to sell to the same people instead of trying to bring new people in is successful short-term business thinking, but is killing the RPG industry in the long run. Fortunately, the hobby will survive even if bad thinking kills the current version of the RPG industry.

Really, from a hobby perspective an ongoing magazine flow of random assorted material would be best.

DRAGON of the eighties how we miss ya!

Quote from: David Johansen;294316Really, from a hobby perspective an ongoing magazine flow of random assorted material would be best.

Agreed. I suspect that's why Knockspell and Fight On! are doing so well in the "Old School" world. Magazines are great from the hobbyist's POV and these are the closest I've seen to the late 70s -- early 80s issues of The Dragon. All they really lack is Gary's occasional pontificating.

I can do very well without pontificating.

I'm a big fan of published adventures. I strongly feel that they help people GMing, and the more GMs, the best for the hobby. However, cheap published adventures seem to have lost appeal to the publishers (with exceptions like CoC), who prefer to release expensive fat books about rules or setting. I don't think it's a good idea. The more scenarios and campaigns we get published (as long they reach some quality criteria) the better.

I'm also a fan of published adventures. The best ones give value added by including a new monsters, magic items, equipment, or whatever without forcing you to expend large amounts of cash for a splatbook (like AD&D modules of past, Dungeon Crawl Classics and Paizo's Gamemastery series of modules for 3.x).

Unfortunately, like Imperator said, large game publishers don't find them cost-effective like small to medium game publishers do. Even though they are great for the hobby.

I feel that well done adventures have an additional benefit: they give gamers some common experiences to talk about. For me one of the best things about playing CoC, for example, is discussing the published adventures with other people and seeing how it went for them.

The question is really, does the mere act of calling something a "core rulebook" make it a Core Rulebook? Even if it has nothing in it that will actually be obligatory to play the game with?  I mean, I haven't seen the PHBII, but as far as I know there is absolutely NOTHING there that you MUST have or 4e is unplayable.  So by default, its a book full of optional stuff.

Isn't it?

RPGPundit

I agree with that. Core is anything you cannot play the game without.

Quote from: RPGPundit;294337The question is really, does the mere act of calling something a "core rulebook" make it a Core Rulebook?

That is a question for the Marketting and Sales department of the publisher. If a book is branded a Core Rulebook, then most player consumers will accept that it is indeed a Core Rulebook required for play.

But what's the alternative?

If a company is going to continue to support a game, it has to continue to pump out books, right? I'm not sure how well or how long a game can survive on its core books (actual core, none of this 4e crap). Even 1e and 2e had their splats.

How would a company embrace moving away from the supplement mill? What do you replace it with? Modules and such would seem a reasonable way to go, but that's only going to be sales towards DMs, which - regardless of system - is going to be a guaranteed smaller market than the entirety of the player base of a system. So how do you keep making money once you have an established player base, aside from hopping on the supplement mill?

Quote from: jeff37923;294361That is a question for the Marketing and Sales department of the publisher. If a book is branded a Core Rulebook, then most player consumers will accept that it is indeed a Core Rulebook required for play.

Totally untrue. In my campaign there are several players who don't own the PHB2.. it has no effect on them whatsoever, because they aren't playing one of the new races or classes in that particular book. If you aren't specifically playing a Shaman or an Avenger or whatever, you don't need it.

That said, DDI has really changed the game on what core means. Now Core means "this is official content". This includes everything from every single book, as well as Dragon and Dungeon magazine AND published adventures (including the 52 or so Living Realms adventures). So nearly everything is core in that way. Everything that isn't specifically marked as playtest material, in fact is designated as core. At some point we can even stop talking about books, because if you have a DDI subscription, you have everything (via compendium and the character builder) whether you own the book or not.

(...So if something comes out in Dragon, or comes out in the Ocean Adventure book (fictional example), or comes out in the Complete Guide to Polearms.. it's all considered "core" as far as official rules go.)

Back to my half orc bravura warlord I've been playing lately:

He's using options from Martial Power (the Bravura Presence feature), PHB2 (half orc), and Dragon (Vampiric bloodline feat and soon, the Net feat from the gladiators article on Dragon).

1. I never even cracked a single book to build him, because all of that material was in the builder.
2. I can use him for LFR because he's considered "all core." Despite having features from 2 other books and 2 issues of Dragon Magazine.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294367Totally untrue. In my campaign there are several players who don't own the PHB2.. it has no effect on them whatsoever, because they aren't playing one of the new races or classes in that particular book. If you aren't specifically playing a Shaman or an Avenger or whatever, you don't need it.

So then why has WotC branded the 4E PHB2 a Core Rulebook if not for Sales and Marketting purposes?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294367That said, DDI has really changed the game on what core means. Now Core means "this is official content". This includes everything from every single book, as well as Dragon and Dungeon magazine AND published adventures (including the 52 or so Living Realms adventures). So nearly everything is core in that way. Everything that isn't specifically marked as playtest material, in fact is designated as core. At some point we can even stop talking about books, because if you have a DDI subscription, you have everything (via compendium and the character builder) whether you own the book or not.

(...So if something comes out in Dragon, or comes out in the Ocean Adventure book (fictional example), or comes out in the Complete Guide to Polearms.. it's all considered "core" as far as official rules go.)

Back to my half orc bravura warlord I've been playing lately:

He's using options from Martial Power (the Bravura Presence feature), PHB2 (half orc), and Dragon (Vampiric bloodline feat and soon, the Net feat from the gladiators article on Dragon).

1. I never even cracked a single book to build him, because all of that material was in the builder.
2. I can use him for LFR because he's considered "all core." Despite having features from 2 other books and 2 issues of Dragon Magazine.

So you are saying that to have all the Core materials for D&D 4E you must also subscribe to DDI or else you will be missing something.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294362But what's the alternative?

Now that is the million dollar question. I wish I could say I had the answer.

Welcome aboard GnomeWorks!

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294362If a company is going to continue to support a game, it has to continue to pump out books, right? I'm not sure how well or how long a game can survive on its core books (actual core, none of this 4e crap). Even 1e and 2e had their splats.

How would a company embrace moving away from the supplement mill? What do you replace it with? Modules and such would seem a reasonable way to go, but that's only going to be sales towards DMs, which - regardless of system - is going to be a guaranteed smaller market than the entirety of the player base of a system. So how do you keep making money once you have an established player base, aside from hopping on the supplement mill?

New settings and their associated specific books and modules is one way I can think of. Miniatures would be another good one, the pre-painted plastic D&D miniatures were fantastic for all of us who hate painting. A magazine which supports the game with a diverse selection of articles would be good as well.

See, the down side of splatbooks is that while they might be chock full of cool ideas for players, they are a giant pain in the ass for GMs. For each spaltbook that the GM lets in his game, he has to determine the impact of the content on his game. If he just lets anything in, then the game can quickly become broken as an unintended consequence. The GMs workload is always increased by allowing splatbooks, which can contribute to GM burnout. If the GM just says no to splatbooks, then the player who bought it is likely to become disgruntled because he just spent $20 or so on something he can't use in the game.

Smaller additions, like those from module appendices and magazine articles, are shorter and easier to fit into an evolving campaign without drasticly increasing GM workload. So that may be a better way to go than splatbooks.

Quote from: jeff37923;294369So then why has WotC branded the 4E PHB2 a Core Rulebook if not for Sales and Marketting purposes?

Well, in a way it is marketing: over the last decade people got the idea that everything optional should be disallowed by default. Even now, over at Enworld they have a "Living Enworld" persistent play by post campaign and they disallow everything but the main rulebooks (they disallow the PHB2 too, even though it says core, by the way).

By saying "this is official content" they hope to convince DMs who are prone to disallowing new player options into accepting new stuff. By saying 'everything is official content' it's one more reason to check out Dragon.

Dragon, by the way, has been especially great lately.

Quote from: JeffSo you are saying that to have all the Core materials for D&D 4E you must also subscribe to DDI or else you will be missing something.

Everything is core.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294371Well, in a way it is marketing: over the last decade people got the idea that everything optional should be disallowed by default. Even now, over at Enworld they have a "Living Enworld" persistent play by post campaign and they disallow everything but the main rulebooks (they disallow the PHB2 too, even though it says core, by the way).

By saying "this is official content" they hope to convince DMs who are prone to disallowing new player options into accepting new stuff. By saying 'everything is official content' it's one more reason to check out Dragon.

Dragon, by the way, has been especially great lately.

So, you agree it is just a marketting decision by WotC.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294371Everything is core.

So therefore in order to have all the official content Core Gaming Material for 4E, the 4E gamer is expected to purchase everything.

Quote from: jeff37923;294370New settings and their associated specific books and modules is one way I can think of.

This splits the fanbase into competing segements, though. They foudn this out the hard way.

Quote from: JeffA magazine which supports the game with a diverse selection of articles would be good as well.

Hey, that's what DDI does! And it's all as core as core can be.

Quote from: JeffSee, the down side of splatbooks is that while they might be chock full of cool ideas for players, they are a giant pain in the ass for GMs. For each splatbook that the GM lets in his game, he has to determine the impact of the content on his game. If he just lets anything in, then the game can quickly become broken as an unintended consequence.

...Unless the entire system itself is simplified and carefully rebalanced, a philosophy of 'everything is allowed' is embraced from the origin of design, and there's some kind of method for updating electronically when errata does occur.

Can you see that they have thought this through already?

Quote from: jeff37923;294372So, you agree it is just a marketting decision by WotC.

The decision to publish any book, anywhere, at any time, is itself a marketing decision.

QuoteSo therefore in order to have all the official content Core Gaming Material for 4E, the 4E gamer is expected to purchase everything.

For ~$4.95 a month, ($7.95 if you only want a single month worth) you can get a DDI subscription that will have everything, yes. Thank you for pointing that out.

Quote from: jeff37923;294370Welcome aboard GnomeWorks!

Danke.

QuoteI wish I could say I had the answer.

I'm sure there is one. It is simply waiting to be found.

QuoteNew settings and their associated specific books and modules is one way I can think of.

Ah, but this inevitably would lead to something akin to how 2e ended, would it not, what with attempting to support dozens of settings? It may not begin that way, but wouldn't it probably go that route?

Or would something more akin to how White Wolf is handling the various World of Darkness lines work - one setting a year? I don't know personally if that approach is working or not, but would it be something worth exploring? Even if it is working, is there still a better way to go about it?

QuoteMiniatures would be another good one, the pre-painted plastic D&D miniatures were fantastic for all of us who hate painting.

Which is a wholly different market than printing and writing gaming material; it requires a whole lot more people to manage this sort of thing, and there wouldn't be much departmental crossover. This would probably be prohibitively expensive, at least at first, for a hypothetical start-up.

The human resources aspect would seem to nip this one in the bud, though I could be wrong.

QuoteA magazine which supports the game with a diverse selection of articles would be good as well.

But look at what Dragon became, after time - just another splat, essentially, just smaller and periodical. Sure, there is usually some non-mechanical content, but in my experience, most of it is crunch.

Dungeon is basically the same thing, just replacing "splat" with "module."

QuoteIf he just lets anything in, then the game can quickly become broken as an unintended consequence.

Does it have to be this way? What causes powercreep? Is it due to division of labor, as - after the core of a system is released - the original design team separates to work on different and varying projects, or - perhaps worse - is set into a management-esque position, simply acting as oversight above less-talented and knowledgeable designers, which causes powercreep to sneak in through the bureaucratic cracks?

QuoteThe GMs workload is always increased by allowing splatbooks, which can contribute to GM burnout. If the GM just says no to splatbooks, then the player who bought it is likely to become disgruntled because he just spent $20 or so on something he can't use in the game.

Disgruntled players is something we'd want to avoid, so I guess the question then is - why do splats contribute to GM burnout? Is it due to the nature of how splats are written, what with usually being of rather significant size and focused nature? Is it because of the notion that splats tend to be mechanically questionable, and so GMs feel it necessary to hunt for broken mechanics?

QuoteSmaller additions, like those from module appendices and magazine articles, are shorter and easier to fit into an evolving campaign without drasticly increasing GM workload. So that may be a better way to go than splatbooks.

I'm still not convinced that periodicals would be better than splats or modules. They're smaller and more easily-digested, yes, but I'm not sure that that is sufficient to overcome the fact that they're simply splats and modules in convincing bite-sized disguises.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294362But what's the alternative?

Welcome GnomeWorks! :)

I think that White Wolf with its five-supplements games/one game a year publishing scheme represents a middle ground between "supplement mill" and "tons of games produced" (which wouldn't work, see TSR campaign settings in the 1990's for that).

They have an overarching brand, "World of Darkness", and produce one game a year under that label. Very productive IP under this label, like Vampires, will get a game for which supplements keep being produced as long as they sell, while other, fringe games, like Promethean, only got 5 supplements and that's it (it all started with Orpheus, and it was a resounding success).

The magazine solution is another one, but frankly, so far in the hobby, only a very few have been viable enterprises for more than a few years (Dragon of course, White Dwarf...).

I don't know if there is any other way to create wealth on a large scale than the supplement mill and reboot of the line through new editions, honestly.

Quote from: Benoist;294377Welcome GnomeWorks! :)

Danke.

QuoteI think that White Wolf with its five-supplements games/one game a year publishing scheme represents a middle ground between "supplement mill" and "tons of games produced" (which wouldn't work, see TSR campaign settings in the 1990's for that).

This seems to function off the premise, though, that each WoD game is different. Changeling has a very different feel from Promethean, has a very different feel from Werewolf. The underlying mechanics are largely the same, but the whole point of the game is different.

Is setting enough? Is Al-Qadim sufficiently different enough from, say, Dark Sun, to warrant doing this? Or would you have to start bringing in weird new mechanics, a la Birthright (if I recall correctly), that start changing the nature of the game?

QuoteThe magazine solution is another one, but frankly, so far in the hobby, only a very few have been viable enterprises for more than a few years (Dragon of course, White Dwarf...).

As I pointed out a bit upthread, periodicals seem - at least to me - to just be smaller splats and/or collections of small modules. So I don't see that as avoiding the inherent problem of splats; it's just putting it onto a larger timescale.

QuoteI don't know if there is any other way to create wealth on a large scale than the supplement mill and reboot of the line through new editions, honestly.

I don't think anybody would get into the industry with any thoughts of making mad cash. However, making enough money to stay afloat, pay employees, and perhaps turn a touch of profit... that would be ideal, and would hopefully be a reasonably attainable goal. Can that be reasonably accomplished without resorting to the supplement treadmill?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294378However, making enough money to stay afloat, pay employees, and perhaps turn a touch of profit... that would be ideal, and would hopefully be a reasonably attainable goal. Can that be reasonably accomplished without resorting to the supplement treadmill?

On a small scale, it is possible. There are new experiments on this front, like patron system of Wolfgang Baur, or Monte Cook's DungeonADay.com, which are basically services that provide maximum returns from few clients with minimal production costs. These are interesting venues in this regard.

If anything, Fight On! and Knockspell are another experiment occuring right now on the "old school" side of things. If these mags are viable over the long term, and if the whole retroclone thing doesn't turn into a supplement mill meanwhile, we might have winners on our hands, but it's impossible to say right now.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294378This seems to function off the premise, though, that each WoD game is different. Changeling has a very different feel from Promethean, has a very different feel from Werewolf. The underlying mechanics are largely the same, but the whole point of the game is different.

Is setting enough? Is Al-Qadim sufficiently different enough from, say, Dark Sun, to warrant doing this? Or would you have to start bringing in weird new mechanics, a la Birthright (if I recall correctly), that start changing the nature of the game?

It's a middle ground, yes. As for whether it's enough, I'd have the tendency to answer "if it makes profit enough to make decent returns for the company, then yes, it is enough". As far as I know, new WoD games are selling, though I don't have any inside information or data on this. Maybe someone can pitch in and tell us what's going on with WW lately.

Quote from: Benoist;294379On a small scale, it is possible. There are new experiments on this front, like patron system of Wolfgang Baur, or Monte Cook's DungeonADay.com, which are basically services that provide maximum returns from few clients with minimal production costs. These are interesting venues in this regard.

Interesting, yes, but not viable for the up-and-coming game designer. Both Wolfgang and Monte are well-known names in gaming circles; it is no surprise that they can do that sort of thing. Could a no-name do the same? Would it be doable in a different format or approach?

QuoteIf anything, Fight On! and Knockspell are another experiment occuring right now on the "old school" side of things. If these mags are viable over the long term, and if the whole retroclone thing doesn't turn into a supplement mill meanwhile, we might have winners on our hands, but it's impossible to say right now.

Hrm, I'm not familiar with either of those, but fair enough.

I'm not really sure what to make of the retroclone phenomenon. It seems rather strange to me that these games even survive - if they're clones, why aren't their players just playing the originals? I realize that there are some differences, and perhaps those differences are the key, but the whole thing still seems rather strange to me.

QuoteIt's a middle ground, yes. As for whether it's enough, I'd have the tendency to answer "if it makes profit enough to make decent returns for the company, then yes, it is enough".

Hmm, fair enough. I suppose WotC's supposed mimicry of this process - with the idea of releasing one campaign setting a year, for 4e - would seem to imply that it is working, at least to some extent.

Quote from: jeff37923;294334I'm also a fan of published adventures. The best ones give value added by including a new monsters, magic items, equipment, or whatever without forcing you to expend large amounts of cash for a splatbook (like AD&D modules of past, Dungeon Crawl Classics and Paizo's Gamemastery series of modules for 3.x).

Agreed.

I don't run many published adventures, but I love strip-mining them for ideas.

Quote from: Imperator;294336I feel that well done adventures have an additional benefit: they give gamers some common experiences to talk about.

Absolutely.

With respect to in the initial question, I can't speak to the publishing side of things, 'cause I don't really follow it closely enough to have an informed opinion, but from the consumer side, I'm torn. On the one hand, I love the fact that the entire canon of Flashing Blades - a core rule book, an expansion supplement, an "adventure path," and two collections of short adventures - fits into a standard plastic report cover.

On the other hand, I own roughly a displacement ton of books, magazines, and games for Traveller. I pull in material from as many sources as I can, because populating an entire universe is a big task, and every starship and alien critter and interesting piece of tech is helpful in bringing the sprawling setting to life.

So, I have to equivocate a bit: some games work well with just a small selection of materials, and others work better with a supply of new stuff.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294382I'm not really sure what to make of the retroclone phenomenon. It seems rather strange to me that these games even survive - if they're clones, why aren't their players just playing the originals? I realize that there are some differences, and perhaps those differences are the key, but the whole thing still seems rather strange to me.

These games "survive" because the overwhelming majority of them are free and done by people whose livelihood does not depend on their "sales"; plus they are available on the net for download ad infinitum.

As for why aren't people playing the originals...well, they are. At least those that have them and wish to run them. The problem is the originals are OOP, hard to find and usually expensive when you do. And the PDFs copies you can obtain from DrivethroughRPG or RPGNow aren't free. And a few of the original aren't available in PDF copies at all. Even if someone has all the originals they require, the books might be in less than optimal condition and being collector items some players might be loathe to use them when they have a fac simile avaiable.

The retro-clones are also shinier and better presented, striving for more clarity and accessibility than the originals (in some cases rule issues have been dealt with). Some of those games were made decades ago, printing and editing technology has come a long way since.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294375Ah, but this inevitably would lead to something akin to how 2e ended, would it not, what with attempting to support dozens of settings? It may not begin that way, but wouldn't it probably go that route?

I think that there is a common misconception about how AD&D2 ended along with TSR that has more to do with Lorraine Williams and piss-poor business decisions and looting the company than it does with a gamer fanbase divided by settings.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294375Or would something more akin to how White Wolf is handling the various World of Darkness lines work - one setting a year? I don't know personally if that approach is working or not, but would it be something worth exploring? Even if it is working, is there still a better way to go about it?

I'd have to look more at White Wolf in depth before giving an answer. I just don't know the particulars.

 

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294375But look at what Dragon became, after time - just another splat, essentially, just smaller and periodical. Sure, there is usually some non-mechanical content, but in my experience, most of it is crunch.

Dungeon is basically the same thing, just replacing "splat" with "module."

And is that necessarily a bad thing?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294375Does it have to be this way? What causes powercreep? Is it due to division of labor, as - after the core of a system is released - the original design team separates to work on different and varying projects, or - perhaps worse - is set into a management-esque position, simply acting as oversight above less-talented and knowledgeable designers, which causes powercreep to sneak in through the bureaucratic cracks?

No. GMs who are too permissive about what they allow in their campaigns. I've never heard of the "division of labor" arguement but I don't think that is quite it.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294375Disgruntled players is something we'd want to avoid, so I guess the question then is - why do splats contribute to GM burnout? Is it due to the nature of how splats are written, what with usually being of rather significant size and focused nature? Is it because of the notion that splats tend to be mechanically questionable, and so GMs feel it necessary to hunt for broken mechanics?

By providing material that may or may not fit into the campaign playstyle of the game being run, but the GM should have to read and figure out where that will fit, if at all, out of consideration for his players. It is extra homework for the GM to do. The less extra added work for the GM that may not be beneficial to a campaign in progress is good.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294375I'm still not convinced that periodicals would be better than splats or modules. They're smaller and more easily-digested, yes, but I'm not sure that that is sufficient to overcome the fact that they're simply splats and modules in convincing bite-sized disguises.

Sometimes it is the size of the bite that determines whether or not you choke on the food.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294373This splits the fanbase into competing segements, though. They foudn this out the hard way.

Then why publish more than one setting at all?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294373...Unless the entire system itself is simplified and carefully rebalanced, a philosophy of 'everything is allowed' is embraced from the origin of design, and there's some kind of method for updating electronically when errata does occur.

Can you see that they have thought this through already?

So the expectation is that since everything is Core, that the consumer should buy everything? That seems to ask a little too much from the consumer.

Quote from: jeff37923;294369So you are saying that to have all the Core materials for D&D 4E you must also subscribe to DDI or else you will be missing something.

No, that not what being said. To put another way mechanism offered by DDI solves some of the problems of having multiple core books/supplement  as the software is automatically updated with everything.

Along with the rules being printed out when you print out the character sheet with the power cheat sheet. One advantage of an exception based rule system is the ability to do this without needing the actual rule book to look up stuff in.

This "advantage" can be transferred to other rule systems. I been making cheat sheets for GURPS for years. However few RPG Companies have the deep pockets of Wizards. Of course even with deep pockets there been issues with Wizards delivering on what they planned for DDI.

However sometime during the next two decades there will be tabletop RPGs that are played around a table and there are no printed books in sight. DDI is one of the many technologies that foreshadows this.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294373...Unless the entire system itself is simplified and carefully rebalanced, a philosophy of 'everything is allowed' is embraced from the origin of design, and there's some kind of method for updating electronically when errata does occur.

Can you see that they have thought this through already?

This is hogwash.They will put in a Black Lotus in or a Time Twister at some point and go oops. Plus unexpected synergies will arise between powers making more oops and requiring fixes. All of this occurred throughout the history of Magic the Gathering.

This is assuming that they don't deliberately design things that are truly are better choice or things that are worst choices. The reasoning behind this would be to customize 4e to some setting or fantasy sub genre. For example a world were paladins and clerics are favored over wizards. Or a world with different classes of wizard like a hedge wizard is inferior to a wizard.

To be fair Wizards would probably mark those additions with a non-core or optional flag.





An that is

Quote from: estar;294430No, that not what being said. To put another way mechanism offered by DDI solves some of the problems of having multiple core books/supplement  as the software is automatically updated with everything.

Along with the rules being printed out when you print out the character sheet with the power cheat sheet. One advantage of an exception based rule system is the ability to do this without needing the actual rule book to look up stuff in.

This "advantage" can be transferred to other rule systems. I been making cheat sheets for GURPS for years. However few RPG Companies have the deep pockets of Wizards. Of course even with deep pockets there been issues with Wizards delivering on what they planned for DDI.

However sometime during the next two decades there will be tabletop RPGs that are played around a table and there are no printed books in sight. DDI is one of the many technologies that foreshadows this.

So what you have described sounds like an internet based, online version of the supplement mill. The only thing that has changed is the medium of presentation.

Quote from: estar;294436This is hogwash.They will put in a Black Lotus in or a Time Twister at some point and go oops. Plus unexpected synergies will arise between powers making more oops and requiring fixes. All of this occurred throughout the history of Magic the Gathering.

Well, I agree. They've actually done this already, though:

Veterans Armor (as an example) was oopsed. Now if you check it in the Compendium, it does not recover a daily power. Same with Cascade of Blades. If you add it to your character, you get the fixed version. The builder actually makes a little cheat sheet for every one of your powers and things.

Since the errata is electronic, and feeds directly into the main tool for accessing it (other than the physical book), they've sort of created a system that allows things to get repaired pretty quickly.  

I like your Magic: The Gathering analogy and I think it is about as close as it gets: PHB2 is simply an extra set of cards. And obviously you do not need a copy of every single card in order to play.

Quote from: jeff37923;294361That is a question for the Marketting and Sales department of the publisher. If a book is branded a Core Rulebook, then most player consumers will accept that it is indeed a Core Rulebook required for play.

I think you fail to really comprehend most gamers.  A certain group of gamers will immediately understand that the PHBII is not an essential product.  Another group will insist that it must be incorporated into the game, but they're the same people that think EVERYTHING should be considered an essential part of the rules; those annoying shitheads who try to force the GM to let them have Obscure Feat #876213 from the Book of Exalted Munchkinism just because it exists.
In either scenario, the idea that the name of the book itself somehow affects things directly seems wrongheaded to me.  I suppose that, at best, you could argue that calling it a PHB means that the shiteheads will be able to bulwark their argument that the GM "must" accept it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294373...Unless the entire system itself is simplified and carefully rebalanced, a philosophy of 'everything is allowed' is embraced from the origin of design, and there's some kind of method for updating electronically when errata does occur.

Can you see that they have thought this through already?

That sounds really, really improbable to me, and stinks of the "Party line". You honestly believe that they'll be able to release 50 books worth of rules without the system collapsing into hopeless min-maxing and powergaming, because these guys are all geniuses who are making sure the system is "Perfect"?
Please.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;294377Welcome GnomeWorks! :)

I think that White Wolf with its five-supplements games/one game a year publishing scheme represents a middle ground between "supplement mill" and "tons of games produced" (which wouldn't work, see TSR campaign settings in the 1990's for that).

They have an overarching brand, "World of Darkness", and produce one game a year under that label. Very productive IP under this label, like Vampires, will get a game for which supplements keep being produced as long as they sell, while other, fringe games, like Promethean, only got 5 supplements and that's it (it all started with Orpheus, and it was a resounding success).

Ironic, given that WW was one of the companies most responsible for the full on "endless splatbook, endless metaplot" model of supplement-mill design.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;294499Ironic, given that WW was one of the companies most responsible for the full on "endless splatbook, endless metaplot" model of supplement-mill design.

RPGPundit

For sure. The irony isn't lost on me either.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294382Interesting, yes, but not viable for the up-and-coming game designer. Both Wolfgang and Monte are well-known names in gaming circles; it is no surprise that they can do that sort of thing. Could a no-name do the same? Would it be doable in a different format or approach?

Well, these are experiments, as I said. As such, it probably only works for names in the industry. For now. Already, some small publishers try to replicate the patronage template, like Rite Publishing (http://www.ritepublishing.com/), for instance. The more these things are accepted as "normal", the more likely they will be used by lambda gamers. The "names" of the industry are jump-starting new business practices. These practices later rise or fall on their own merit, I believe.

Quote from: RPGPundit;294498That sounds really, really improbable to me, and stinks of the "Party line". You honestly believe that they'll be able to release 50 books worth of rules without the system collapsing into hopeless min-maxing and powergaming, because these guys are all geniuses who are making sure the system is "Perfect"?
Please.

RPGPundit

I have no idea about perfect, but I do believe in functional. I actually believe in allowing everything, yes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;294497I think you fail to really comprehend most gamers.  A certain group of gamers will immediately understand that the PHBII is not an essential product.  Another group will insist that it must be incorporated into the game, but they're the same people that think EVERYTHING should be considered an essential part of the rules; those annoying shitheads who try to force the GM to let them have Obscure Feat #876213 from the Book of Exalted Munchkinism just because it exists.
In either scenario, the idea that the name of the book itself somehow affects things directly seems wrongheaded to me.  I suppose that, at best, you could argue that calling it a PHB means that the shiteheads will be able to bulwark their argument that the GM "must" accept it.

RPGPundit

I think that the idea that the name of the book itself somehow affects things directly seems wrongheaded as well, but then again I'm a gamer who thinks for himself and has been gaming for 28 years. What I think does not matter.

What a Marketting and Sales department thinks does matter. If they believe it will improve sales, that department may try all sorts of tricks - like proclaiming Worldwide D&D Game Day Events whenever a new PHB, DMG, or MM comes out in order to boost sales.

If you are concerned about products being marketted towards munchkins, then you need to understand that those consumers are probably the ones whose purchasing power is directing the Sales and Marketting department. Why? Because they are the ones who are buying the most products.

Let's say that I like D&D 4E. Lets say that I like Bards and Half-Orcs. I would have to use the PHB2 in order to play that class or race. OK, that isn't too bad of a buy-in (let's also assume I'm rich and can afford this).

Now let's travel forward in time to the release of Eberron 4E. I want to play a shifter. So now do I have to buy the 4E PHB2 to get the race stats because they aren't in the Eberron 4E book? How about the Spelljammer 4E setting or Planescape 4E setting, will I have to buy the Manual of the Planes 4E in order to get important information needed to play in that setting?

Abyssal Maw, who I believed was an expert on 4E, has proclaimed that all the books released for 4E are Core Rulebooks. Even if that is wrong and only the PHBs, DMGs, and MMs are Core Rulebooks, then it still changes the landscape of the game considerably. Now while individual DMs can declare some books to be optional for his campaign, that isn't the official word anymore. This is the first game book line in which the splatbooks that in all other game lines were optional are now considered Core Rulebooks. That creates a large and expensive buy-in for the 4E game. It takes the supplement mill and cranks the volume up to 11.

Well, I think it can certainly be tied into an effort to try to make you, if not to buy other books, to have to subscribe to the DDI thing.

But again, none of this is anything new, the whole "You get almost everything in this book except this ONE THING that you'll have to wait for our next book to get" business is something pretty old (and I agree, crappy) in our hobby, though I'd hoped we'd more or less seen the last of it for D&D. I guess not.

Even so, however, as far as I understand it, you can still choose the "Minimalist" option.  Use the 3 basic corebooks and nothing else, and its still a fully playable game.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;294525Well, I think it can certainly be tied into an effort to try to make you, if not to buy other books, to have to subscribe to the DDI thing.

But again, none of this is anything new, the whole "You get almost everything in this book except this ONE THING that you'll have to wait for our next book to get" business is something pretty old (and I agree, crappy) in our hobby, though I'd hoped we'd more or less seen the last of it for D&D. I guess not.

Agreed. Although I have some hope with the rising tide of fan-produced material that may be able to compete with "professional" game material.

Quote from: RPGPundit;294525Even so, however, as far as I understand it, you can still choose the "Minimalist" option.  Use the 3 basic corebooks and nothing else, and its still a fully playable game.

RPGPundit

Which may be what is done by many. I can easily see people gaming to the level that they can afford and no further. They would still have fun, but fewer options.

I don't get mad about material being "left out" and published later, I get irritated when they deliberately tell me to expect specific new material at a later date.  Often this feels like if I try to fill in the canon plot with my own ideas that I'll be undermining the usefullness of future products.

If you introduce a plot point don't give me one bare paragraph and say more on that later.  Give me a good idea where this plot point starts and where it ends.  You can feel free to flesh out the setting as you go but the core book should do a good job of letting people know what the entire skeleton looks like.

Well, I think that one must consider the design behind the classes and their sources of power.  Each class in 4e D&D has a power source.  In the first Player's Handbook (p. 54), it discusses these power sources and which classes they power.  In that section, they outline several Player's Handbook volumes, each fleshing out a power source, and their associated classes.  

The PH1 covers the Martial, Arcane, and Divine power sources, and the associated classes:

Martial: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, and Warlord.
Arcane: Warlock and Wizard.
Divine: Cleric and Paladin.

The PH2 covers the Primal, Arcane, and Divine power sources, and the associated classes:

Primal: Barbarian, Druid, Shaman, and Warden.
Arcane: Bard and Sorcerer.
Divine: Avenger and Invoker.

So, the pattern looks like 4 classes to a power source.  In the section in the PH1 on power sources, it states that there are several other power sources.  These are: Elemental, Ki, Psionic, and Shadow.  The Monk class will be based off the Ki power source, and psionic classes based off the Psionic power source.

So, realistically we're probably looking at four official Player's Handbooks for 4e D&D.  

Also, that doesn't include other books like Martial Power which outlines two new builds for each of the martial power source classes.  More than likely, there will be one associated book with each PH volume to provide two new builds for those classes, if it follows the same pattern.

What about the children??!!??

Quote from: Aos;294534What about the children??!!??

Naturally, they'll have their own official source book.;)

Quote from: Aos;294534What about the children??!!??

Power Sources shall include Infant, Prepubescant, and Pubescant.

:D

Quote from: jeff37923;294401I think that there is a common misconception about how AD&D2 ended along with TSR that has more to do with Lorraine Williams and piss-poor business decisions and looting the company than it does with a gamer fanbase divided by settings.

Hrm, fair enough. But I have to ask - is it a misconception? Do we, as a community, know enough about what was going on at the time to say definitively that 2e's downfall was Williams, and not trying to support a bunch of disparate settings?

QuoteAnd is [magazines serving as smaller sources of splat and adventures] necessarily a bad thing?

Hmm, I guess I'm not sure. It would seem to lead to the same problem as supplements, eventually.

QuoteNo. GMs who are too permissive about what they allow in their campaigns. I've never heard of the "division of labor" arguement but I don't think that is quite it.

Fair enough, I'm just throwing ideas out there.

But you have to ask - why does GM permissiveness lead to powercreep? Clearly that must be due to how the splats are written, would it not?

QuoteBy providing material that may or may not fit into the campaign playstyle of the game being run, but the GM should have to read and figure out where that will fit, if at all, out of consideration for his players. It is extra homework for the GM to do. The less extra added work for the GM that may not be beneficial to a campaign in progress is good.

Hypothetical: say a game's designers had conceptually divided the game into several parts, and made game additions - whether in the form of splats or magazines - readily identifiable as to what part of the game they served; ie, this additional book serves the combat portion of the game, while this one serves the skill system, while another serves world generation and setting development. Would perhaps an easing of the integration process by means of easy identifiers help this at all?

QuoteSometimes it is the size of the bite that determines whether or not you choke on the food.

Fair enough, but I hear it's possible to choke on a pretzel...

I think a better reflection of the real impact of the supplement issue could best be elucidated by asking oneself the following questions. Will I buy supplements for my preferred system? If so, will I buy them all? If I will not buy them all, under what conditions will I buy them? and:  J. Edgar Hoover, what the fuck was up with that?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294556Hrm, fair enough. But I have to ask - is it a misconception? Do we, as a community, know enough about what was going on at the time to say definitively that 2e's downfall was Williams, and not trying to support a bunch of disparate settings?

From everything I've read, that was the case. Lorraine Williams killed TSR and D&D along with it.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294556But you have to ask - why does GM permissiveness lead to powercreep? Clearly that must be due to how the splats are written, would it not?

Not how the splatbooks are written I think (although I've found more game balance destroying munchkin shit in splatbooks than anywhere else). The power creep problem with GM permissiveness comes in because a lot of times, the GM wants to let the player have his new toy in the campaign because he is afraid of saying "no" and offending the player. Put that becomes a problem because most splatbooks are without regard to the home campaign which may be running. If the GM starts changing the parameters of what is and is not allowable in the campaign, pretty soon you have something which is the RPG equivalent of playing tennis without a net. It becomes a mashup instead.

Quote from: jeff37923;294517Abyssal Maw, who I believed was an expert on 4E, has proclaimed that all the books released for 4E are Core Rulebooks. Even if that is wrong and only the PHBs, DMGs, and MMs are Core Rulebooks, then it still changes the landscape of the game considerably. Now while individual DMs can declare some books to be optional for his campaign, that isn't the official word anymore. This is the first game book line in which the splatbooks that in all other game lines were optional are now considered Core Rulebooks. That creates a large and expensive buy-in for the 4E game. It takes the supplement mill and cranks the volume up to 11.

All the books are core in the same that all Magic the Gathering cards are core. Theyre all official rules. But do you need a complete set of every magic card in order to play?

Heck, there's a new guy at the Thursday LFR game who doesn't own a single book. He just downloaded the free  version of the character builder and thats it.

Quote from: jeff37923;294563From everything I've read, that was the case. Lorraine Williams killed TSR and D&D along with it.

Fair enough, then.

QuoteNot how the splatbooks are written I think (although I've found more game balance destroying munchkin shit in splatbooks than anywhere else).

Which would be a concern...

QuotePut that becomes a problem because most splatbooks are without regard to the home campaign which may be running. If the GM starts changing the parameters of what is and is not allowable in the campaign, pretty soon you have something which is the RPG equivalent of playing tennis without a net. It becomes a mashup instead.

I don't know if I follow as to how supplements cause powercreep by GMs being too permissive.

...though I can't readily think of a supplement that lacked at least one element that contributed to powercreep. Mind you I only have serious experience with d20, so that may just be my limited exposure to other games and not something that is endemic to the nature of supplements.

If all of the options presented in a splat are power-neutral - that is, not contributing to powercreep - how would it contribute to powercreep if a given GM allows it in-game?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294564All the books are core in the same that all Magic the Gathering cards are core. Theyre all official rules. But do you need a complete set of every magic card in order to play?

No, but present me with two options for a deck, one made of cards from Ice Age and one from Ravnica block, and I would be a fool to take the Ice Age deck.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294572I don't know if I follow as to how supplements cause powercreep by GMs being too permissive.

...though I can't readily think of a supplement that lacked at least one element that contributed to powercreep. Mind you I only have serious experience with d20, so that may just be my limited exposure to other games and not something that is endemic to the nature of supplements.

I'm probably not explaining my point well.

Here's an example. Last 3.x Forgotten Realms game I was in we had a Paladin. The player of this Paladin had found a spell in one of the FR WotC splatbooks that allowed him to sacrifice hit points in order to do more damage with each strike. The only problem was that consequently the Paladin was doing over a hundred points of damage to opponents with each strike when this was done, at 7th level. The DM had never heard of the splatbook or the spell, but decided it couldn't be unbalancing since it came from WotC. He decided to say that the spell wasn't allowed after one session and the Paladin player had a shit-fit over that, which got bad because he was also the DM's roommate. That is one example, there are more.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294572If all of the options presented in a splat are power-neutral - that is, not contributing to powercreep - how would it contribute to powercreep if a given GM allows it in-game?

It may not be a problem with powercreep in that case. It may just not fit the campaign setting. Psionics may not really fit into the Bog Standard Fantasy campaign you are running.

Quote from: jeff37923;294578Here's an example...

But the root of the problem is powercreep in the supplement itself, not the fact that the GM allowed it.

QuoteIt may not be a problem with powercreep in that case. It may just not fit the campaign setting. Psionics may not really fit into the Bog Standard Fantasy campaign you are running.

Okay, that's a wholly different thing, then. Not fitting in with the game as run is different than contributing to mechanical powercreep issues.

Quote from: RPGPundit;294337The question is really, does the mere act of calling something a "core rulebook" make it a Core Rulebook? Even if it has nothing in it that will actually be obligatory to play the game with?

PHB2 is not core in the sense that you need it to play.  But it's Core in the sense, that you could easily run a D&D campaign with PHB 2 races and classes and exclude the races and classes from PHB 1.

And I agree that "Core" is now a marketing term.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294371By saying "this is official content" they hope to convince DMs who are prone to disallowing new player options into accepting new stuff. By saying 'everything is official content' it's one more reason to check out Dragon.

It is smart marketing.  It's easy for players to argue the use of a new PHB than it is to argue for the use of a supplement.  

Hey, remember when Unearthed Arcana came out for 1e?

Quote from: jeff37923;294372So, you agree it is just a marketting decision by WotC.

Fuck yeah!

Quote from: jeff37923;294372So therefore in order to have all the official content Core Gaming Material for 4E, the 4E gamer is expected to purchase everything.

Name me the company that does not want you to buy all their products.

Quote from: jeff37923;294517What a Marketting and Sales department thinks does matter. If they believe it will improve sales, that department may try all sorts of tricks - like proclaiming Worldwide D&D Game Day Events whenever a new PHB, DMG, or MM comes out in order to boost sales.

The Game Days / Release Events are the smartest thing I have seen anyone do in our hobby for a loooong time...but WotC is just doing what they did with M:tG.   At our FLGS, they sold out of PHB2 at the Game Day and lots of people showed up to pick up their pre-orders and play the 11th level Demo.

Quote from: Drohem;294531So, realistically we're probably looking at four official Player's Handbooks for 4e D&D.

And 12 months after the PHB 4, we get D&D 5th Edition!   The best edition ever! Woot!

Quote from: jeff37923;294563Lorraine Williams killed TSR and D&D along with it.

Lorraine killed TSR, but 4e killed D&D!

Quote from: Spinachcat;294597And 12 months after the PHB 4, we get D&D 5th Edition!   The best edition ever! Woot!

You're KILLING THE PLANET!!!!!!

Quote from: Spinachcat;294597Name me the company that does not want you to buy all their products.

There is a difference between "wanting the consumer to buy" and "holding material back for ransom from the consumer".

Quote from: Spinachcat;294597The Game Days / Release Events are the smartest thing I have seen anyone do in our hobby for a loooong time...but WotC is just doing what they did with M:tG.   At our FLGS, they sold out of PHB2 at the Game Day and lots of people showed up to pick up their pre-orders and play the 11th level Demo.

I agree, it is also a method that can be copied and used by other game publishers. OTHER GAME PUBLISHERS PAY ATTENTION!

Quote from: Spinachcat;294597Lorraine killed TSR, but 4e killed D&D!

4E may not have killed D&D, but WotC's protectionist policies aren't helping (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=13888).

Quote from: jeff37923;294609There is a difference between "wanting the consumer to buy" and "holding material back for ransom from the consumer"..

If people want a thing...

and that thing is for sale...

and they have enough money to pay for said thing...

and the price seems reasonable...

...people will buy that thing.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294611If people want a thing...

and that thing is for sale...

and they have enough money to pay for said thing...

and the price seems reasonable...

...people will buy that thing.

Unless WotC thinks that it is in competition with their Flagship Product, and then demand that the thing should not be sold anymore. Then your desire for that thing is well and truly fucked.

Quote from: jeff37923;294615Unless WotC thinks that it is in competition with their Flagship Product, and then demand that the thing should not be sold anymore. Then your desire for that thing is well and truly fucked.

...

Still not seeing the problem here.

If nothing else, doesn't this make the market more available to the retro clones, if the originals go away?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294618...If nothing else, doesn't this make the market more available to the retro clones, if the originals go away?

That doesn't make any sense. 90% of retro clones are free products and their goal was never to "compete" with the originals, but rather to complement them and make sure their rule logarithms would still be available in the case something like this stunt WotC just pulled happened.

Quote from: Edsan;294626That doesn't make any sense. 90% of retro clones are free products and their goal was never to "compete" with the originals, but rather to complement them and make sure their rule logarithms would still be available in the case something like this stunt WotC just pulled happened.

Well.. free or not, the marketplace of player interest is being competed for. If the rules compendium PDF is gone, and people still want to use pdfs, they can use.. Labyrinth Lord or Basic Fantasy. It's suddenly standing out a bit more.

On the PDF front GM Skarka revealed on Enworld tha the pirated copies in question had watermarks that indicated they were pre-publication copies. WOTC is pulling the products based on a contractual clause that allows for a remedy in case of whatever reason...

Could it be that someone over at RPGnow or somewhere released the pirated copy?

Personally I'm surprised that WOTC was still the owners of the older books at all (I mean, I have a complete set of 1e pdfs, but still). but... every time someone says "Damn you Wotc, now you'll never see a dollar from me again.."
From my POV -- unless you were playing 4e, you were never actually seen as a customer for them at all.

Quote from: RPGPundit;294499Ironic, given that WW was one of the companies most responsible for the full on "endless splatbook, endless metaplot" model of supplement-mill design.

I feel that AD&D was doing that quite a bit before Vampire.

Anyway, if WW learned from that mistake, kudos to them. I really like the idea of limited series for an RPG, while keeping a continuous run of books for the main lines. As long as they keep the really high level of quality they have now, I'm fine.

Quote from: jeff37923;294517If you are concerned about products being marketted towards munchkins, then you need to understand that those consumers are probably the ones whose purchasing power is directing the Sales and Marketting department. Why? Because they are the ones who are buying the most products.

And I don't think is the worst decision business-wise, isn't it? You have to try and cater to your best customers.

Quote from: RPGPundit;294525Even so, however, as far as I understand it, you can still choose the "Minimalist" option.  Use the 3 basic corebooks and nothing else, and its still a fully playable game.

That's also the impression I get.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294629From my POV -- unless you were playing 4e, you were never actually seen as a customer for them at all.

You mean that WOTC had no D&D customers at all until they released 4e?  People that bought D&D 3e and D&D 3.5e were actually consumers of some other company and WOTC did not get a penny of their money? The WOTC logos on 3.x product were all fake?  The people who claimed to have written 3.x material for WOTC were all lying?

Quote from: RandallS;294740You mean that WOTC had no D&D customers at all until they released 4e?  People that bought D&D 3e and D&D 3.5e were actually consumers of some other company and WOTC did not get a penny of their money? The WOTC logos on 3.x product were all fake?  The people who claimed to have written 3.x material for WOTC were all lying?

What is with the overwrought hand wringing and wailing? It's like reading the Onion. "Heartless company infuriates non-customers".

It means that Wizards is focused on selling D&D4 now.


Also? There are no new Beatles Albums. The AMC Gremlin is also no longer being sold. The Commodore 64 is simply not being produced either.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294629On the PDF front GM Skarka revealed on Enworld tha the pirated copies in question had watermarks that indicated they were pre-publication copies. WOTC is pulling the products based on a contractual clause that allows for a remedy in case of whatever reason...

Could it be that someone over at RPGnow or somewhere released the pirated copy?

Ridiculous. If that were the case, WoTC, even with their TOTALLY INCOMPETENT public relations people, would have had the minimum of brains to make sure everyone knew that the villains here were RPGnow, and not WoTC.

QuoteFrom my POV -- unless you were playing 4e, you were never actually seen as a customer for them at all.

Yes, that is the attitude they have been showing from day 0 of 4e.  It is also an immensely stupid thing for them to do.

Their whole deal was "we have to get new people, we're going to bank EVERYTHING on this virtual tabletop; so FUCK all our current customers, we don't give a shit about them; they either get on board with all the millions of new virtual tabletop players we're going to have or they can go fuck themselves".
Of course, the tabletop failed, there are no new players worth mentioning, and yet the idiots over there haven't figured out that this whole "fuck our old customers" policy, which was unbelievably stupid and unnecessary in the first place but is now absolutely toxic to their future prospects.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294741It means that Wizards is focused on selling D&D4 now.

Also? There are no new Beatles Albums. The AMC Gremlin is also no longer being sold. The Commodore 64 is simply not being produced either.

The PDFs of older edition books cost nothing to upkeep though. There are people who will most likely never buy 4E. Those people may have still purchased PDFs of products from their preferred edition of D&D. The PDFs were basically nearly free extra money. Taking away those PDFs will not nudge people who had no interest in 4E into buying it.

Also you are using a flawed analogy that I have seen on several RPG forums. Previous editions of D&D are not like software or technology. 4E is not an upgrade over 3.5E (or OD&D, AD&D, 2E, etc.). It is just different. There are people who prefer various editions over others for all kinds of reasons.

WotC/Hasbro is going with a replacement business model. Every 3-5 years they will most likely make a new edition of D&D that is either partially or completely incompatible with previous editions. They will then resell all the same books as before (PHB (1,2,3..), MM(1,2,3...), DMG (1,2,3...), The books that add more powers and options to each class, yet another reboot to the various popular D&D settings,etc.). And of course each time they do this they will want everyone to discard the previous edition and buy into the new one.

The thing is not everyone goes along with that. There are people who will not make the switch. Having the old books on PDF gives WotC a chance to still make some money off of people who would not have otherwise purchased the shiny new edition. I seriously doubt you will find anyone who will say that they are going to start buying 4E books now that they can not get 3.X and other previous editions on PDF.

Quote from: Spinachcat;294597Name me the company that does not want you to buy all their products.

Mine. I have several times told people that one of my games wouldn't suit what they were looking for, and if I knew something that would suit better, recommended that instead. I don't want pissed off customers.

-clash

No. Until designers and developers can add new material to thier game without breaking it, let alone make thier base game work, they should refrain from anything but errata.

Quote from: Spinachcat;294597And 12 months after the PHB 4, we get D&D 5th Edition!   The best edition ever! Woot!

Spinachcat,

It's difficult for me to gauge your posts sometimes.  I was being honest in my estimation that there will probably be four Player's Handbooks for 4e D&D.  This estimation was not an indictment on the game itself or its company's practices.  

As far as the year mark before 5e D&D is released, well, nothing much really suprises me anymore.  Also, I don't doubt that there will be a time, sometime down the road, when we will see a new edition of D&D, whether by WotC or another yet undetermined company.

Quote from: jedimastert;294795Also you are using a flawed analogy that I have seen on several RPG forums. Previous editions of D&D are not like software or technology. 4E is not an upgrade over 3.5E (or OD&D, AD&D, 2E, etc.). It is just different. There are people who prefer various editions over others for all kinds of reasons.

Just so it's clear, I do not think that games are like software, or that each successive game is an "upgrade" of the last version.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294585Okay, that's a wholly different thing, then. Not fitting in with the game as run is different than contributing to mechanical powercreep issues.

You can always try reskinning stuff. For example, if you don't like psionicists call them "enchanters" and let their powers be subject to the usual magic stuff. Or just say "It doesn't fit with this game guys. Sorry, maybe next time." Problem solved.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294820Just so it's clear, I do not think that games are like software, or that each successive game is an "upgrade" of the last version.

Ok, fair enough. It was looking like that with your examples (e.g. Commodore 64). I have seen the upgrade notion at several other places.

Quote from: jeff37923;294440So what you have described sounds like an internet based, online version of the supplement mill. The only thing that has changed is the medium of presentation.

There are similarities but the difference is that the computer presentation can have a better index and cross-references not just little better but several orders of magnitude better. Compare using the Online version of Britannia vs the off-line version.

But there is a point where even those capabilities will break down. Where there is just too much and people will begin to drop out of the game.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294442I like your Magic: The Gathering analogy and I think it is about as close as it gets: PHB2 is simply an extra set of cards. And obviously you do not need a copy of every single card in order to play.

Yes, but lest you forget there many informal groups that have their own ban list outside of the official list. This because people want to play the game with skill not have the winner go to somebody who happens to have the latest cards knowing the latest tricks.

This is the downside of the exception based design of WoTC. That while the game is simple to learn in practical terms there is too much depth for the average player or GM to keep up with.

Now I don't think 4e has hit this yet. Personally if it was me. I would go up to a PHB 3 and then switch to a more focused theme for the yearly releases. Use the 4e design to offer self-contained mileaus. I realize that they are doing some of this will the setting releases but they carry the baggage of being general purpose D&D settings. I am talking something more focused.  Like 2012 can be the Sword & Sorcery year. 2013 the High Magic year and so on.

Quote from: estar;294898Yes, but lest you forget there many informal groups that have their own ban list outside of the official list. This because people want to play the game with skill not have the winner go to somebody who happens to have the latest cards knowing the latest tricks.

This is the downside of the exception based design of WoTC. That while the game is simple to learn in practical terms there is too much depth for the average player or GM to keep up with.

Now I don't think 4e has hit this yet. Personally if it was me. I would go up to a PHB 3 and then switch to a more focused theme for the yearly releases. Use the 4e design to offer self-contained mileaus. I realize that they are doing some of this will the setting releases but they carry the baggage of being general purpose D&D settings. I am talking something more focused.  Like 2012 can be the Sword & Sorcery year. 2013 the High Magic year and so on.

You aren't wrong. Enworld, for example, has their own "living campaign" and they ban everything but the PHB by default, with a "6 month waiting period" for everything else.

Personally I think D&D should be fearless. Let em have it, I sez. The wyvern in the final encounter is a doozy.

Ok, so here's my position on this. I think the supplement mill is something that was quite a profitable idea for certain companies, but almost from day one it was something toxic to the hobby as a whole. It was what changed our hobby from a mainstream games phenomenon into a "hobby for fanatics".  This isn't a problem from the last few years, or the 90s, or even the late 80s. It started as early as the various AD&D 1e sourcebooks.  And ultimately, it may be what kills us.

The real question is: what is the alternative?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;295222The real question is: what is the alternative?

RPGPundit

This is the question. Without the treadmill, would there even be an industry worth the name?

More distinct new games means a potentially larger split in revenue between your own lines and between competing companies' lines. With the supplemental model, you can at least try to lock your customers into your game lines.

Quote from: RPGPundit;295222Ok, so here's my position on this. I think the supplement mill is something that was quite a profitable idea for certain companies, but almost from day one it was something toxic to the hobby as a whole. It was what changed our hobby from a mainstream games phenomenon into a "hobby for fanatics".  This isn't a problem from the last few years, or the 90s, or even the late 80s. It started as early as the various AD&D 1e sourcebooks.  And ultimately, it may be what kills us.

The real question is: what is the alternative?

RPGPundit

Community generated content, ala Sporepedia.

Comprehensive Core Books with online community support and quarterly periodicals with adventures.

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;295232Comprehensive Core Books with online community support and quarterly periodicals with adventures.

Sounds like win to me.

The other of course is if the "industry" is worth saving. My concerns are for the hobby not the companies making money off it.

From what I have seen so far I think we would all keep gaming and creating stuff even if woke up tomorrow to find Wizards, GW and WW had been nuked off the face of the earth.

Actualy, let me rephrase that... "Saving" the industry my hairy arse, it either has 2 solid legs to stand on or it doesn't and it will eventualy wobble and fall.

Quote from: RPGPundit;295222The real question is: what is the alternative?

RPGPundit

Moderation in all things.

Use the supplement mill to expand on the Core Rules, but do not allow that to be the only product line. Include magazines, deadtree and/or online. Include adventures, also either deadtree and/or online. After a short run of the supplement mill, stop it to allow consumers to catch up - use that time to create and publish a version of your Core Rules that will be attractive to people who do not play the game so that you can increase your customer base for the Core Rules (both a Basic version of the game and a Moderate version of the game to catch the interest of all those casual gamers out there).

Be aware of consumer opinion and treat your consumers with respect.

Quote from: jedimastert;294795Previous editions of D&D are not like software or technology. 4E is not an upgrade over 3.5E (or OD&D, AD&D, 2E, etc.). It is just different.

It's an upgrade! Like XP and Vista!

:eek:

Quote from: RPGPunditThe real question is: what is the alternative?

As droog already noted, Monopoly never had multiple editions or supplements. And people cloned it quite happily with lots of games which were basically the same yet cosmetically different. And free pdfs of the board and cards are available here and there.

Yet it's one of the most successful games ever made, and is still making Hasbro millions.

When selling things, you can try to get more money out of the same number of customers (thus the supplement mill), or you can try to increase your number of customers (advertise it!) It's pretty hard to do both.

I think a viable alternative is going for more customers. There are lots of ways to approach it. A good way is by turning the weakness (people who enjoy fantasy go to computer games) into a strength (they can get the same experience, but a social one). As one D&D advert said,

(http://www.craphound.com/images/danddadsmall.jpg)

It doesn't seem like Wizards or White Wolf or anyone are trying to expand their customer base, just get more money from existing customers.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;295374It doesn't seem like Wizards or White Wolf or anyone are trying to expand their customer base, just get more money from existing customers.

It would take more than advertising to be successful. You'd have to have complete, replayable indefinitely "Basic" versions of your games written for complete newcomers. Like TSR did with Basic D&D back in the late 1970s through the early 1990s. People coming into a bookstores after an ad for 3.x or 4e would take one look at the 3 core books and 99% of them would decide to buy something else.  The industry does a horrible job at making good intro games.  They are either not complete games (4e Starter Set), not really written for beginners (GURPS Lite), and/or way overpriced to be a good impulse buy item.

Yes probably the single biggest thing that made RPing as big as it was in the 80's was TSR losing the lawsuit with Arneson that forced them to but out the basic stuff...

Quote from: RandallS;295412It would take more than advertising to be successful. You'd have to have complete, replayable indefinitely "Basic" versions of your games written for complete newcomers.

That may be, or may not be. I don't know. Perhaps someone will commercialise a retro-clone and show us how it's done.

I'm simply saying that there are two basic approaches to growing any business: return customers or new customers. It's hard to get both, any business ends up focusing on one or the other. The "supplement mill" is obviously about return customers.

So when it was asked, "if no supplement mill, what's the alternative?" well I said, "try to get new customers." Advertising's a part of that. If you focus on return customers you don't need advertising; their last experience with the company is the advertising. If people enjoyed the steak and chips at my restaurant last week then they'll get it again this week; if they bought Supplement A and liked it they'll buy Supplements B, C, D, etc.

If you want new customers, you have to have advertising.

It's not the only thing you need, but it's what you have to begin with.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;295374It's an upgrade! Like XP and Vista!

:eek:


As droog already noted, Monopoly never had multiple editions or supplements. And people cloned it quite happily with lots of games which were basically the same yet cosmetically different. And free pdfs of the board and cards are available here and there.

Yet it's one of the most successful games ever made, and is still making Hasbro millions.

When selling things, you can try to get more money out of the same number of customers (thus the supplement mill), or you can try to increase your number of customers (advertise it!) It's pretty hard to do both.

I think a viable alternative is going for more customers. There are lots of ways to approach it. A good way is by turning the weakness (people who enjoy fantasy go to computer games) into a strength (they can get the same experience, but a social one). As one D&D advert said,

(http://www.craphound.com/images/danddadsmall.jpg)

It doesn't seem like Wizards or White Wolf or anyone are trying to expand their customer base, just get more money from existing customers.

That is precisely my feeling as well.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;295495That is precisely my feeling as well.

RPGPundit

Agreed.