TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: Spinachcat on April 29, 2015, 06:17:49 PM

Poll
Question: Which kind of supplements (not adventures) get the most Actual Play?
Option 1: M-centric Supplements votes: 12
Option 2: layer centric Supplements votes: 5
Option 3: eneral Supplements with both GM and PC stuff votes: 5
Title: What kind of supplements get the most actual play?
Post by: Spinachcat on April 29, 2015, 06:17:49 PM
For purposes of THIS thread, we are going to define supplements as any written content for a RPG line EXCEPT adventures.

Based on your experience over the years, what kind of supplements get the most use in actual play?

In general, do you see more GM-centric supplements being used by GMs OR do you see more Player-centric supplements being used by the players?

AKA, how much do supplements get used regularly vs. only as reference vs. just read for fun?

Also, any particular supplements have had the most use at your game table?
Title: What kind of supplements get the most actual play?
Post by: Soylent Green on April 29, 2015, 06:44:10 PM
For superhero games books filled with supervillains are invaluable. As a GM you might want to spend time creating a few important supervillains, but what you really need is an army of canon disposable fodder supervillains to fill the ranks. And it is a bit harsh to expect the GM to spend hours creating unique supervillains NPCs that will only end up defeated in their first outing, locked up and never seen again.

Lack of disposable supervillains can lead to:
  • GM acting protective of his NPCs
  • Revolving door prisons
  • Heroes fighting frequently  more generic goons (HYDRA agents, aliens, robots and other superhero equivalent of orcs) than individual supervillains, each with their unique identity and powers which does the genre a disservice.

I'm not sure I get much use out of any other sort of supplement. More stuff doesn't always make for better gaming.
Title: What kind of supplements get the most actual play?
Post by: tuypo1 on April 29, 2015, 07:37:31 PM
Quote from: Soylent Green;828886For superhero games books filled with supervillains are invaluable. As a GM you might want to spend time creating a few important supervillains, but what you really need is an army of canon disposable fodder supervillains to fill the ranks. And it is a bit harsh to expect the GM to spend hours creating unique supervillains NPCs that will only end up defeated in their first outing, locked up and never seen again.

Lack of disposable supervillains can lead to:
  • GM acting protective of his NPCs
  • Revolving door prisons
  • Heroes fighting frequently  more generic goons (HYDRA agents, aliens, robots and other superhero equivalent of orcs) than individual supervillains, each with their unique identity and powers which does the genre a disservice.

I'm not sure I get much use out of any other sort of supplement. More stuff doesn't always make for better gaming.

I couldn't imagine a supers game without revolving door prisons

That said i do agree with what you said in general
Title: What kind of supplements get the most actual play?
Post by: Doughdee222 on April 29, 2015, 07:49:54 PM
I'd say it would depend on what type of games you like to run. If you like generic-vanilla settings then general supplements would be used most often. A fantasy campaign I played in used a world created by the GM. It was a wild fantasy game using the Hero system so the supplements most often used were a Hero Magic book and the Ninja Hero (Martial Arts) book (my character was a sword wielding karate master.)

If you prefer a specific setting then a specific supplement would see more play. If you wanted to run a game set in David Brin's Uplift universe I would presume GURPS Uplift and GURPS Space would be at the GM's side and referenced constantly.

The real question should be are supplements such as Uplift, Space and Magic meant more for GMs, players or both equally?
Title: What kind of supplements get the most actual play?
Post by: Bobloblah on April 29, 2015, 10:40:01 PM
I find I can't really answer this question, as it depends on what system one is using. More modern versions of D&D, for example, have been structured around player-supplements based on the thinking that 4 players to 1 DM means selling to players is a gold mine. Mechanical goodies for players make way less sense in other systems, and as such DM supplements dominate.
Title: What kind of supplements get the most actual play?
Post by: Bren on April 29, 2015, 10:55:20 PM
Other than D&D I don't think I've played a game that had player specific supplements. So I guess the answer would be the other kind of supplements.
Title: What kind of supplements get the most actual play?
Post by: Skarg on April 30, 2015, 11:13:45 AM
I've bought many, but I think I may never have actually used a supplement that had only campaign setting information. I always make my own campaign info.

The ones we really use are the ones with new game-system content that can be used in many games, and by content I mean rules, equipment stats, spells, skills, and concepts that can be used in our own settings.

I bought many of the old 1st & 2nd edition GURPS worldbooks hoping there would be something useful in them for other settings, though those only generally had a few snippets of stuff usable outside the setting. 4th edition GURPS supplements seem to often have a lot more useful stuff.
Title: What kind of supplements get the most actual play?
Post by: Spinachcat on April 30, 2015, 04:18:30 PM
Palladium Books has had an interesting model for supplements since the 80s. Almost all of their World Books have three sections - NEW STUFF (new races and classes, new gear, new spells), MONSTERS and SETTING INFO (all the fluff about the area).

Thus, their book does double duty. The GM gets a new setting area and setting specific threats. The Players get new chargen options and new background for these characters.