Quote from: James McMurrayA typical RPG you played. Several examples of crunch-laden RPG splatbooks and systems from the 80s, including D&D itself, have been given.

Most games had way more adventure material than rules crunch. Even D&D.

Compare the number of adventures and setting books TSR published for D&D between 1980 and 1989 versus splat books. At least 5:1. Probably closer to 10:1.

How about Traveller? 10:1?

Paranoia - Reams of adventures. A handful of splat books.

Stormbringer - Reams of setting books. No splat books.

Talislanta -  Reams of setting books. No splat books.

Pendragon - Setting and campaign books.

Runequest - Settings and adventures, with a few books of cults and so forth throw in. About 3:1 setting/adventure versus splatbooks.

ICE Middle Earth - Settings books coming out of their ass.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying 1E - Setting books and adventures. No splats.

I've already mentioned Call of Cthulhu. And Gamma World.

Even Champions was about 1:1 adventures versus new rules crunch.

Against that, you have GURPS, and...

Now look at today's games. How many have more published setting and adventure books than splat/crunch books?

I don't have any data, but I do have an awesome local games store that still has thousands of RPG books from the 80s, and stocks copies of every RPG published in North America. Maybe I'll go through their online catalogue and see if I can back up my observations. But perusing the shelves, as I did on Saturday, there's a dramatic difference in what kinds of book are published for RPG games today compared with  20 years ago.

Quote from: James McMurrayBecause players like answers to their questions and game designers like to stay in business?

I'm not talking about rules clarifications - I'm talking about a mania for player options. I'm talking about buying a game with 8 PC classes and, before you've even played it, clamouring for more classes.

I'm not saying nobody wanted more player options in 1984. But judging by what was published and sold, a lot more people wanted settings and adventures.

Quote from: HaffrungI'm not saying nobody wanted more player options in 1984. But judging by what was published and sold, a lot more people wanted settings and adventures.

In 1984, I just wanted to see a naked girl.

Quote from: HaffrungMost games had way more adventure material than rules crunch. Even D&D.

How many of those game companies survived, even TSR? What was printed didn't necessarily reflect well on what was actually wanted by the customer.

QuoteI don't have any data, but I do have an awesome local games store that still has thousands of RPG books from the 80s, and stocks copies of every RPG published in North America. Maybe I'll go through their online catalogue and see if I can back up my observations. But perusing the shelves, as I did on Saturday, there's a dramatic difference in what kinds of book are published for RPG games today compared with  20 years ago.

There's also a dramamtic difference in the longevity of game companies. It's gone up considerably since they started focusing on what the customers wanted instead of what the authors wanted to write.

For example, we'll take some TSR offerings: Complete Fighter's Handbook + Complete Wizard's Handbook. You're selling to the players, of which there are more. Almost every wizard player is going to want CWH, and almost every Fighter player will want CFH. A lot of players will want both, and GMs will need to have access to both as well. Lots of copies selling.

On the flip side you've Got the Greyhawk Adventures setting book, and the Forgotten Realms boxed set. Few players buy them. Of the GMs, it's rare that someone will buy both, because it's hard to have a campaign set both on Oerth and Faerun. Lots of GMs become GMs because they like to build their own stuff. These guys won't get Greyhawk or FR, but they may still buy Complete *, especially if they're got a player clamoring to use it and they want to pour through it themselves before giving it the ok.

Completists would buy both setting books, but they'd also buy both of the splatbooks, so if you print Complete * instead of DM's Guide to Tunisia, you still get their money.

RPGs from day one have had a setup where catering to the players with new toys would be more fruitful than catering to GMs with new worlds and adventures. You definitely need some of theat, or you lose the gamers that don't want or don't have time to create everything for their campaign from scratch. But if you print too much, you end up with products that compete with themselves.

Quote from: HaffrungI don't have any data, but I do have an awesome local games store that still has thousands of RPG books from the 80s, and stocks copies of every RPG published in North America. Maybe I'll go through their online catalogue and see if I can back up my observations. But perusing the shelves, as I did on Saturday, there's a dramatic difference in what kinds of book are published for RPG games today compared with  20 years ago.

The reason is simple, Haffrung, and requires you only to look in a mirror. If companies stop selling something that used to sell a lot of, then the reason is obvious - it doesn't sell enough now to be worth the bother. Why? Who cared about the adventures? Casual gamers. Most of the casual gamers dropped out of the hobby - example: one Haffrung.

What do non-casual gamers need with adventures? I only ever bought two, and I didn't run them, I strip-mined them for ideas. I'm perfectly capable of coming up with adventures out the wazoo for my group. I have been doing it for thirty years, and most non-casual gamers are like me. I can sit down with my group and with zero prep run a kick ass game that will have them talking for months.

I've written adventures. They take longer to write than anything, because everything needs explaining, all the details have to be included, and every location mapped out meticulously. You can't get away with some generic goons, a plot generated on the fly by the GM & players together, and some maps scrawled on the back of a napkin.

They also don't sell. The only adventures I know that sell worth spit are those that cater to AD&D grognards. Most adventures are given away free - on the website or as intro adventures, are fan-written, or are pure loss-leaders. Of the adventures I publish, only one even made what it cost to produce. My other supplements sell like crazy, especially the crunchy ones!

-clash

Quote from: HaffrungI'm not saying nobody wanted more player options in 1984. But judging by what was published and sold, a lot more people wanted settings and adventures.

If they sold so well, why are they still on your game store's shelf 25 years later?

Quote from: HaffrungI'm not talking about rules clarifications - I'm talking about a mania for player options. I'm talking about buying a game with 8 PC classes and, before you've even played it, clamouring for more classes.

I'm not saying nobody wanted more player options in 1984. But judging by what was published and sold, a lot more people wanted settings and adventures.

Heh - this is why I'm thinking of taking the SR4 system (and the updated melee rules in arsenal) and stripping out the setting so I can use it with anything.

I'm tired of flipping through book after book (or PDFs or hopping on my computer to search online) - I want something with a moderate amount of crunch but fully extensible... and most importantly all in one book (or at most 2 books)! :rant:

Quote from: James McMurrayRPGs from day one have had a setup where catering to the players with new toys would be more fruitful than catering to GMs with new worlds and adventures. You definitely need some of theat, or you lose the gamers that don't want or don't have time to create everything for their campaign from scratch. But if you print too much, you end up with products that compete with themselves.

Bingo, James!

-clash

Quote from: James McMurrayFor example, we'll take some TSR offerings: Complete Fighter's Handbook + Complete Wizard's Handbook. You're selling to the players, of which there are more. Almost every wizard player is going to want CWH, and almost every Fighter player will want CFH. A lot of players will want both, and GMs will need to have access to both as well. Lots of copies selling.

I guess the people I play with are weird. Because the players can barely be arsed to read the PHB/Core rules, let alone seek out more homework. Back in our heyday of the 80s, books were for GMs because the GMs were typically the hardcore gamers and the rest of the group was not.

But as I've noted, I got into RPGs during the enormous crest of popularity of D&D, when every junior high school had a D&D club and many players were not 'gamers' in today's sense.

I actually play more boardgames - both wargames and euros - than RPGs. Historical hex and counter wargaming is definitely a niche hobby, geared towards hardcores (though it wasn't always so) who spend loads of cash, peruse rules, and fiddle with games on their lonesome. Euros, on the other hand, are much more accessible. A typical euro group consists of one or maybe two people who learns about the games, buys them, and teaches them. The rest are casual players who give no thought to gaming between weekly sessions. That's not so different from my experience with D&D at its peak of popularity in the early 80s.

So maybe the question is when did RPGs become a hobby strictly for hardcores? Of course there have always been hardcores, but they were only part of the market, not the whole market. You could say the same about a hobby like comics. They used to be written for 11-year-olds to buy off a rack at 7-11. Now they're aimed at 27 year-olds who spend half of their paycheque from Blockbuster every month at specialty comic stores.

My impression is RPGs have followed the trajectory of wargames: from wide commercial gaming market with a high ratio of games played to games bought, to a niche geek market driven by hardcores who spend more time fiddling with games than playing them. Like wargames, the move of RPGs towards crunch-heavy systems and publishing strategies reflects the changing market, but it also helped shape that market, as the preferences of existing hardcore players make games intimidating and inaccessible to newcomers.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerIt's far easier to trust a machine than a man.

You've obviously never used a machine running code I've created.  Trust that machine at the peril of your immortal soul.

Two questions to those with actual rather than imagined business acumen:

1) So long as a product is profitable in and of itself, as opposed to being less profitable than another product: why not continue producing it? Hire as many "novelists" as you need, but keep the RPG staff.

I'm assuming that DH etc. had the potential to BE profitable. We don't know the size of the initial print run that sold out, but clearly it was more than 500.

2) "Brand dilution": How would a successful RPG ever impinge on the success of a minis game?

Quote from: HaffrungSo maybe the question is when did RPGs become a hobby strictly for hardcores?

When it imploded.

Paul Chapman, marketing director for Steve Jackson Games, said last year that he estimated the RPG hobby was about a $50 Million per year industry.

When I worked for Dave Arneson, I saw some of the figures for D&D.  In the 1977 - 1983 time period, D&D ALONE was a $50 M per year industry.

Not counting other TSR products.  D&D ALONE.

In 1977 - 1983 dollars.

This hobby has imploded, dude.  Of COURSE there's nobody left but the hardcores.

Also, the "Why no adventures" question gets asked at RPGnet from time to time, and every time, the same dozen or so people who actually work in the industry say "Because splatbooks sell way more than adventures".

As Vimes would say, "Follow the money".

Quote from: Pierce InverarityTwo questions to those with actual rather than imagined business acumen:

1) So long as a product is profitable in and of itself, as opposed to being less profitable than another product: why not continue producing it? Hire as many "novelists" as you need, but keep the RPG staff.

I'm assuming that DH etc. had the potential to BE profitable. We don't know the size of the initial print run that sold out, but clearly it was more than 500.

2) "Brand dilution": How would a successful RPG ever impinge on the success of a minis game?

The answer to the first question depends on whether it's a privately held company or not. I say this because if it is publicly held, there's pressure form the shareholders to maximize profit - so it's not good enough just to be profitable.

Now, a privately help company has more leeway depending on the owners wishes. A privately held company could decide, just as you've pointed out, that they like the having the product line, for whatever reason, and so keep producing it even if it's only a bit profitable.  In fact, some will even run a portion at a loss, letting other portions make up the difference.

Rarely, if ever, will you see this in a public company - not unless it can be shown that the loss leads to bigger profits in some other portion of the business, profits that would not exist were it not for the losing sector. If that makes any sense whatsoever....

Quote from: flyingmiceI'm perfectly capable of coming up with adventures out the wazoo for my group. I have been doing it for thirty years, and most non-casual gamers are like me. I can sit down with my group and with zero prep run a kick ass game that will have them talking for months.

Why can't you (or your players) come up with rules crunch on your own without buying it?

But getting back to the assertion that players have always wanted crunch, were lots of people adding player options and rules crunch to Call of Cthulhu and Traveller on their own? Did they open the core book of Pendragon and instantly find the choices of knightly virtues and skills too limited? I don't know, I'm just wondering.

Because that's what I see a lot of in online discussions these days: people who haven't even played a game, or played only one or two sessions, clamouring for more players options and suggesting elaborations of the rules. I've always assumed that it's a good idea to play a game (any game) a number of times so that you can explore the existing options and understand how it actually works before you change or add anything.

Quote from: flyingmiceOf the adventures I publish, only one even made what it cost to produce. My other supplements sell like crazy, especially the crunchy ones!

I don't doubt it. And yet, I wonder how many of the people who buy those crunchy supplements actually play the games.

It's far more complicated.

It was games like Traveller and GURPS, which back in the 80s invented the solo-crunch of the design sequences for vehicles and world systems.

The 90s were the decade of the read-only setting-heavy games. The AEG model. CoC, the game with the most published adventures, assimilated itself to that model. From a great game it turned into a good read.

And then 3.x D&D comes out, a crunchy game even at the corebook level, and is a major success among real actual players of games.