I think it's fair to say most people want more cool stuff in their games. The catch, at least for me, is supplements have a well-deserved reputation for breaking everything they touch and sacrificing thematic consistency due to a long and storied history of publishers doing exactly that to make a quick buck.

Some supplements are actually well-executed expansions of the game and/or setting. Most aren't. Until that changes, I'll maintain a short leash on my optimism.

For me, so long as the book is complete, I don't care one way or the other if it has supplements.  I will find things to use with it, including other books.

Unless you're marketing something like a Warhammer Quest that generates its own infinite sort of fun, I tend to say support that shit.  I'm not that good at creating scenarios, so my having to translate from some other system is a bit of a drawback.

If I buy a game as a one-off that I am never going to use again, then having no supplements is fine.

However, if I am buying a game as the basis of a campaign, then I would probably want supplements.

Very few games provide all the detail required to run a setting without any extra information, unless the setting is very small and self-contained.

For my purposes, most of the "games" that I buy are actually settings for established games, such as RuneQuest, Legend, Basic RolePlaying, OpenQuest or HeroQuest. So, Mythic Britain is a setting, but counts as game in this context, so I would not need supplements if this is for a one-off game, but would for a campaign.

Quote from: Opaopajr;812218No idea.

I am still trying to parse out what exactly is and is not a supplement — and an example of an "incomplete game," let alone a game with a core rulebook published and nothing else.

CJ Carella's Witchcraft? Guardians of Order Heaven & Earth? Maid? Yuuyake Koyake (Golden Skies Stories)?

If you had ever make the egregious error of buying the 1st edition of Pirates and Plunder you would have noticed that there are absolutely no rules in the book about ships. The whole game book in fact turns out to be a railroad adventure which is a bit like the intro section of A video game where you get talked through how to do all the basic game stuff and create a character but you can't create one outside of that mode.... so that would be an incomplete game.
You could also argue that D&D with its 3 book model basically has 3 incomplete books. You don't need the DMG or MM but you will have to make up a load of stuff yourself.

Back to the OP I am very much in the give me a self contained game and supplements to it that are optional and open the game up (a S&S rule book for 5e for example I would buy).
I never buy adventures or modules although I might buy a setting book but I would expect a setting book to also contain supplemental rules specific to the setting and as to where would D&D be with out G1-4 it would absolutely fine if not slightly improved.

Quote from: soltakss;813218If I buy a game as a one-off that I am never going to use again, then having no supplements is fine.

However, if I am buying a game as the basis of a campaign, then I would probably want supplements.

Very few games provide all the detail required to run a setting without any extra information, unless the setting is very small and self-contained.

No thought to filling the blanks in yourself?

Quote from: RPGPundit;813834No thought to filling the blanks in yourself?

Oh, I do that anyway.

It is just easier and less hassle if someone else has already done the work.

Normally, my campaigns are 30% supplements, 30% homebrew scenarios, 30% riffing off what the players do and 10% other stuff.

Quote from: soltakss;814072Oh, I do that anyway.

It is just easier and less hassle if someone else has already done the work.

Normally, my campaigns are 30% supplements, 30% homebrew scenarios, 30% riffing off what the players do and 10% other stuff.

Cool. My proportions are probably similar to that.

A really good game gives you an implied setting in the main rules. Not an explicit setting, not a generic setting, but an implied setting.

The best example I can think of is OD&D itself, and specifically volume III.

Why implicit setting over explicit?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;814861Why implicit setting over explicit?

To me an explicit setting is a take-it-or-leave-it thing. An implied setting is more subtle. Almost like, if you play a game BTB, the setting emerges. That seems more magical to me, and that is why I prefer it.

I quite like Tales of Gargentihr as a one-book-and-done game line. (Apparently an adventure was distributed on floppy disk at some point, but it's so rare as to be effectively nonexistent.) The core book gives you more than enough information about the setting to be getting on with, whilst simultaneously leaving enough blank that you can come up with your own answer to the mysteries - and since the game seems commercially dead in the water with little-to-no odds of a comeback, your answers will never be contradicted by "official" material.

Quote from: Scott Anderson;815050To me an explicit setting is a take-it-or-leave-it thing. An implied setting is more subtle. Almost like, if you play a game BTB, the setting emerges. That seems more magical to me, and that is why I prefer it.

Also, the implied setting for a game is consistent and harmonious with the rules, since it develops from their operation, while an explicit setting may be at odds with the rules or not capture the spirit of the game. I also prefer the implied setting; explicit settings take a lot of study to understand and use, while an implied setting may require the same work but in the form of playing.

I quite like "implied settings", for games that are clearly made to create settings-to-measure.  DCC is a great example.
But there's also something to be said for games that have a specific setting; as long as the setting is particular or unique enough.

Quote from: RPGPundit;815680I quite like "implied settings", for games that are clearly made to create settings-to-measure.  DCC is a great example.
But there's also something to be said for games that have a specific setting; as long as the setting is particular or unique enough.

A lot of people seem to have an explicit setting that is their favorite; I can't remember any that have really connected with me, although I've been willing to play in them.

Sometimes it's certain explicit elements that put me off (especially a jarring inconsistency), but more often it's just the amount: I want a reading from the I Ching that I can interpret as I choose, not an already complete dissertation.