Multiple editions of a game

[Rexfelis]

Something I've noticed about rpg publishing: if a game does well, it is usually not just re-printed, but put out in new editions, with rules changes and additional features. Games which have only one edition are usually games that don't sell well over the long run.

Why does this happen? Why isn't the rpg market more like the market for boardgames, which for the most part are not re-designed for subsequent printings?

Is the situation different for an indie publisher vs. a "mainstream" rpg publisher?

With regard to the latter: would mainstream rpg publishers have done better if they had stuck to a few titles that sold well, and then just continued to sell those year after year, instead of always coming out with new game lines (and thus possibly splitting their market)? For example, what if TSR were still selling Marvel Super Heroes and Basic D&D after all these years? Would the money they would have saved in design costs justify such a strategy? Also, would they have been able to create iconic products which continued to sell over time, like the boardgames Monopoly, Risk, Clue, et al.?

Part of the answer seems to be that tastes in rpg design change so rapidly that an old game would not sell as well as new games. But, after all these years, there are still lots of people playing such OOP games as Basic D&D, 1st edition AD&D, Marvel Super Heroes, and (of all things) Star Frontiers. Did TSR and other companies screw up by constantly changing their product lines?

Edit: While I'm a ways from indie publishing my own game designs, I'm mulling over the idea of trying to create one design and sticking to it, like the boardgame companies. (I'm also seriously considering targeting the games to a "mainstream" [non-hobby] market, but that's a topic for a separate thread.)

Regards,

Rexfelis

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Viewpoints differ regarding this issue. I tend toward the outlook that "editions" are usually a marketing ploy, aimed at the middle tiers (distribution and retailers) in order to pump up re-ordering habits from those tiers. In some cases, they are also aimed at actual customers on the same principle, in terms of getting people to buy two or three things instead of one, without much gain (i.e. effort on the publishers' part).

But that is a fairly jaundiced viewpoint, I admit. I can also think of some cases in which editions represented a substantial content re-tooling and packaging change, such that the new edition really was a "new book."

Sorcer, for example, will never have a second edition, at least as I see things now. It is what it is. Reprintings might include, say, editorial repairs, updated advertisements, and so forth, but they will not even constitute a "revision," much less a "new edition." Its supplements and support mechanisms have developed it substantially, and that's fine. It's now a series of books, and the limitations or parameters of the first book are part of the historical and conceptual picture.

But that's one guy and one company. I think as long as you think tactically about your choices, rather than just "do a new edition" out of imitation or unquestioned assumptions, then you'll be fine.

Best,
Ron

[ethan_greer]

Another factor in this is the fact that the more limited format of a board game means that playtesting tends to reveal flaws in the rules more effectively than in RPGs. So, a board game is easier to get flawlessly correct the first time.

[Pramas]

Something I've noticed about rpg publishing: if a game does well, it is usually not just re-printed, but put out in new editions, with rules changes and additional features. Games which have only one edition are usually games that don't sell well over the long run.

Why does this happen? Why isn't the rpg market more like the market for boardgames, which for the most part are not re-designed for subsequent printings?

First of all, games that don't sell well never need to reprint. There's likely only one print run and the company ends up with a ten year supply. If your game does well enough to sell out of its first printing, you have to gauge whether a reprint is called for. Frequently second printings do nothing more than fix typos, input errata, address layout problems, and maybe improve some of the art. The thing is, once you start working on improving the game, it's very easy to be tempted into making it better and better. What if we add an intro adventure? What if we add more maps? What is subsystem X from sourcebook Y is integrated into the core rules now? Pretty soon you find yourself in new edition territory.

There are business reasons that make it tempting as well. Nothing sells as well as your core book. If you do a new edition, you know that a big chunk of your active players will buy it and it'll probably be your best selling release of the year. If supplement sales are flagging, a new edition can inject cash into the company while hopefully revitalizing the fanbase. This can, of course, backfire. D&D 3.5, for instance, has been fairly disastrous for both WotC and the d20 market at large.

[Valamir]

This can, of course, backfire. D&D 3.5, for instance, has been fairly disastrous for both WotC and the d20 market at large.

I'd be intereste in hearing more about this if you'd care to start a thread to discuss it.  Purely from the lessons to be learned perspective.

Ralph.

[jdagna]

It's also worth mentioning that there's a significant number of RPG buyers who will cite "waiting for the 2nd edition" as a reason not to buy a new game.  Now, whether or not this is the whole truth, many people now perceive extra editions as proof of a game's success, and often expect significant errors in a first edition.

Otherwise, I think the appeal of selling again to existing customers is a big motivation.  RPGs never see the kinds of sales numbers that board games or popular fiction books get.  In fact, RPGs sell around 1/10th to 1/20th what popular books do, across the varying lines of success.  This means that releasing a new edition may be the only way to make a reprint worthwhile at all - and new editions are certainly more desirable than going out of print.

By the way, don't forget that many board games HAVE gone through revisions.  For example, my wife just bought a board game set that includes Sorry! along with chess, checkers, cribbage, and dominoes.  Scrabble had an anniversary edition, and a deluxe addition, with the turntable board.  Monopoly has done themed versions like the Star Wars release (which had an edition of its own for Episode I if memory serves).  San Fracisco Scene customized Monopoly for the Bay Area, and someone put out a dot-com version.

Also, many board games target a narrow range of ages before people outgrow them and move on - you don't see groups of guys playing Candyland after thirty years.  For these kinds of games, a new edition makes no sense - the old edition is new to the 5 year olds, and the 12 year olds have already outgrown it.

[Steve Samson]

Also, many board games target a narrow range of ages before people outgrow them and move on - you don't see groups of guys playing Candyland after thirty years.

FYI, my group's Candyland campaign is still going strong. Sure, we've had to create our own magic system and critical hit tables, but the core rules for Candyland rock! :)

Steve

[Michael S. Miller]

Why does this happen? Why isn't the rpg market more like the market for boardgames, which for the most part are not re-designed for subsequent printings?

Other differences to ponder: A big reason for a consumer to purchase another copy of a board game is because pieces have gotten lost or broken. Not as much of an issue with RPGs, as they are books (although I did go through three AD&D2 Player's Handbooks in my time). So, they can keep selling people the same thing over and over because that thing keeps breaking. Boardgames targeted as being played by kids or kids & adults suffer from being subjected to kids' messiness. I have friends who buy a copy of Candyland every year or two because their kids lose the cards, spill stuff on it, etc. As RPGs are more targeted at teens/adults, they suffer much less from this phenomenon.

Another half-formed thought: When you get bored with Life, you play Monopoly, or Clue, or Risk. All these are owned by Parker Bros/Milton Bradely (both now owned by Hasbro). So each company has a breadth of products so that when the consumer is bored with one, he buys another one, likely from the same company.

But RPG companies are so tiny, that for the most part, they can't pull this off. Now WotC's d20 thing, GURPS and the White Wolf game line try to do this, with varing degrees of success. But, when your core fans get bored of AD&D1, you don't want them to start playing Rolemaster or Fantasy Hero, you want to have AD&D2 ready with open arms to receive their hard-earned cash.

Plus, with front-list driven sales being what they are, most potential customers for a given game will have already bought the game within a year or two. So, to meet payroll, a company knows it has to release something new. While they could write something brand new from the bottom-up and see if it flies, it's safer and easier to just release a new edition.

Would the money they would have saved in design costs justify such a strategy?

I don't really think that design costs account for that much of the final product cost. Even the full-time companies have more people in the warehouse and administration than in game design (I think). James Wallis' public reason for selling Hogshead was that the time he had to spend on administration tasks had completely swallowed his time available to design games. So I can't imagine that the savings would be significant.

[AndrewDylan]

Sometimes there are actual revisions that make sense both from a business standpoint as well as the viewpoint of players.  For example, Shadowrun second edition simplified a huge amount of gameplay, especially in the combat system, with the stated intent of making things more accessible to less experienced players.  Third edition revised and updated even more stuff, making the game more freeform.  OTOH, I never noticed a significant difference between the different editions of any of the White Wolf games, other than Changeling second edition eliminating the cards that first edition had used.

[Rexfelis]

The answers given above seem plausible. Another possible reason: since rpg's are usually more complicated than boardgames, they are more difficult to play-test thoroughly. This, combined with the fact that they sell less than boardgames, means that there is less ability to test rules out before printing the 1st edition, thus creating a larger incentive to publish perceived improvements to the rules in subsequent editions.

However, it seems that many boardgames designed for the hobby market only go through one edition, even if they go through multiple printings. Weren't some of the classic Avalon hill board/wargames like that? And then there's Diplomacy, which IIRC has only gone through one edition, but which has sold rather well for a game of strategy, and has been on the market for decades. I wonder why more rpg's don't fit the board/wargame model. (Though I've played some wargames, I'm not really a "wargamer," so I could be wrong about the number of editions they tend to go through; if so, please correct me.)

In fairness, this is a pretty remote consideration for me, since as mentioned I am not even close to publishing my games. But, in my mind, the descision to go for a mainstream market (even though it's an indie game) may go hand in hand with the decision to try to make a single rules-set from the get-go (as is apparently Ron's plan with Sorcerer). This is affecting the design decisions I am making now on my current project.

Rexfelis