Supplements Big and Small, Good and Bad

[Jake Norwood]

I've been thinking a lot about the roll of supplements lately. I've had many conversations with Ron and others about them and "what makes a good supplment" in the past, but I feel like there's a lot of room for discussion still.

See, I don't buy supplments hardly ever. I have lots of Pendragon Supplements, because I bought one ona fluke once and thought it was excellent, so I got more. But that's really it. We played 7th Sea and L5R for about a year collectively, and I own 2 supplements for those, niether of which I've ever really used. Of all 12 of my Pendragon supplements, I've worn about 3 of them out, and haven't had the chance to use the others, although I enjoyed them as reading.

The only game that I bought millions of supplements for was AD&D2E, many of which I used, but they all really functioned as "rule-building" guides to me, back when I thought D&D was the only real game out there, other than ShadowRun (we're talking pre-high-school here, btw). I've got 4 shadowrun supplements, but only one that I really like, and it's got 1st editions stats that I have to convert all the time.

I have both Sorcerer supplements (I'm still reading S & Soul), but I don't think I'll ever run a game of S & Sword, as much as I loved reading it...I'd probably run TROS instead...

In short, I own about one supplement for every game that I have and like, but I only use about half of those or less. Now, I almost never buy supplments unless I'm running a longer-term campaign and I know I'll use it, or if the subject matter is just too good to pass up (a rare thing)...buit I buy core rule books like crazy!

Is this pretty standard? Is it the way most of you run? Thinking about TROS, if I was a customer I'd only buy the Flower of Battle (for sure!), I might get the Bestiary, and I'd probably not get the Sorcery book, unless I had a player that was really into magic...and I KNOW that these are all going to be really high-quality items, seeing as I'm writing and/or publishing them. Once their written will I use them? Yeah! But thinking again as a pure customer with my consistency of play habits...we've been playing TROS for almost 20 months now, but still...

I'm looking for input and discussion on:
1) Do you buy, read, and/or play with supplements, honestly?
2) What makes a quality supplement that pushes you to do all of the above?

Jake

ps. If this thread is in the wrong Forum, just move it, please.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Here's my heretical view:

People who play games buy core books.
People who read games buy supplements.

Ron's said several times that companies can't stay afloat on the pumping-out-supplements model. He's correct in a lot of ways, but a few companies do it: AEG and White Wolf are the two that come to mind for me. Why, though? Because people read Vampire (for an example), not play it. (I'd argue that even when they do play it - they're often following a huge metaplot where they watch NPC's do cool shit. In other words, they're being read to.)

I base this whole opinion on fairly anecdotal evidence: I watch the people here and elsewhere that I know actually play weekly. They buy core rulebooks and tend not to buy supplements unless they really need them. This is a generalization, by the way, before someone assaults me.

Then I look at the people who say, "I don't really play games anymore," or even "I'd play a game if I could find a group," (which is like saying, "I'd go somewhere if I could find the bus station.") These people buy supplements by the dozens, so they have something to read.

---

Just to let you know, Jake, for TROS, I'd buy:

- The Bestiary (if it were in PDF - probably not as a book)
- The Sorcery supplement (either way)
- A really good book on the Farrenshire/Angbarad/Picti/Oustenreich area.

I'm not planning on buying The Flower of Battle. And Sorcerer and Sword can easily be used as a TROS supplement - it was incredibly useful for running my TROS game, anyways. (It's kicking ass as a game on its own for myself as well.)

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

PART ONE: DEFINITIONS
Let's distinguish among types of "supplements."

1) Encyclopedia references, good for any game, often scholarly and well-done. The GURPS line is the best example, but Call of Cthulhu and Pendragon books also qualify. None of these are really "supplemental" by any definition of the word. One buys them for the information the authors have compiled; it has little or nothing to do with actual play of that game.

2) Flat-out isolated adventures, intended to be tweaked into a given group's play. These are usually transcripts and materials straight from actual play from some group somewhere, originally called "modules" (consistent with the "insert" use). Most of the early D&D modules and Champions adventure scenarios fall into this category.

3) Setting description - history, geography, and people-catalogue.

4) More rules, often very strategically significant rules. In combination with #3, that's the "clanbook."

5) Primarily metaplot - adventures or scenarios with a strong focus on a publisher-established series of events. A very strong emphasis on the setting can also have a near-metaplot category, or at least result in heavy railroading-tactics. Almost all of the AD&D2 adventures fall into this category.

Any combination of 3-4-5 with a notably low content is also called a "splatbook."

PART TWO: MONEY
White Wolf came within one inch of going totally bankrupt, due in part to its reliance on splatbooks for its World of Darkness games. In the late 90s, they totally changed their publishing strategy to produce new games, not to rely on supplements, and that's what saved them. Don't commit the Consumer Fallacy of thinking that, because they're still in business, the practices you see are the ones that kept them there.

Best,
Ron

[Zak Arntson]

I've recently (in the past year or maybe longer, yipes!) made the shift from buying-to-read and buying-to-play. Around the time I found the Forge, I was freelancing for Dream Pod 9's Tribe 8, and had a big philosophy shift (probably aided by the fact that T8 products are 1/2 fiction). Hence I'm now focused on writing my own games.

1) Do you buy, read, and/or play with supplements, honestly?
For a long time I did buy and read supplements, and occasionally play.

Historically, I really only _used_ Planescape supplements: Well of Worlds (a short adventure anthology), Planes of XX boxes (world guides with little metaplot), and Faces of Sigil (a brilliant NPC book), canned adventures (though I got way more mileage and enjoyment from the skeletons provided in Well of Worlds).

Recently, I've only bought supplements I want to use:
Sorcerer & Sword: I really want to play this, but so far it's only reading
Sorcerer & Soul: The Relationship Maps was the good bit, but I still haven't played.
Ascension of Magdalene UA/d20: Purchased admittedly more for reading, but it hasn't even interested me enough to do more than skim. I did have the hope that it would give me some push to play UA, but nope.
Nocturnum Trilogy (CoC): It was cheap and I hoped for things to use in my CoC d20. I was looking for great open-ended campaign source material, and I got a bunch of mediochre adventures.

2) What makes a quality supplement that pushes you to do all of the above?

Read, use and play? Usefulness to my gaming. This can be real subjective, and lately I've found that fiction works as a great supplement (many thanks to Ron's S&Sword for such a good bibliography).

What I look for in a gaming supplement (now):

Gaming advice that helps make my game better (CoC d20 was amazing for this). For me that's things like "How to create tension during play" rather than "Creating a believable medieval village."

Interesting things that I cannot do myself (Faces of Sigil had an amazing cast of NPCs, amazing artwork for the most part, and a tangled web of relations that saved me the time & effort, Sorcerer & Sword offered a ton of great methods for Pulp Fantasy gaming).

Good presentation not only impresses me, but shows me that the designers cared about their product. I openly admit that a prettier presentation (whether artful and sharp, like the Iron Kingdoms products or simple and utilitarian, like InSpectres) will win me over more.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

There's another kind of supplement -- not quite setting, not quite rules. Ummm...let's call it the structural supplement until someone slaps me and tells me I'm wrong. Anyway, it's the supplement that presents the game in a new way.

I'd place the Sorcerer mini-supps, Sorcerer & Sword and both the InSpectres and the Squeam supplements in this category. I hope to continue this approach with octaNe's "Against the Reich!" supplement...

[Le Joueur]

I've been thinking a lot about the roll of supplements lately. I've had many conversations with Ron and others about them and "what makes a good supplment" in the past, but I feel like there's a lot of room for discussion still.

See, I don't buy supplments hardly ever.

...I have both Sorcerer supplements

...Is this pretty standard?

...I'm looking for input and discussion on:
1) Do you buy, read, and/or play with supplements, honestly?
2) What makes a quality supplement that pushes you to do all of the above?

After years of working in a FLGS ("F" as in "Friendly," maybe I should make that FNGS like FNSM), I saw pretty much the same things you mention.  When I approached the design specifications (as opposed the direct design) of Scattershot, I knew about this first hand.  What we chose was to disguise the supplements as "core rule books."  This came from comparing sales and customer satisfaction between two of the then available 'generalist' systems (that's a system that can support unrelated genres with one "core rules" set), GURPS and Palladium.

GURPS' model in 'rules in one book,' extra rules and setting (et alii) in supplements.  Palladium gives it all to you at once in each book but crossover is easy; they all use the same rules.  We wanted the best of both worlds.  GURPS' model really drives the sales of the "core rules book," but the supplement sales often turn into a real drain on their income (producing an entire book that a person can get the gist of just flipping through is terrible for sales).  On the other hand, Palladium hits the pocketbook a little too hard to suit 'systems collectors' well.  We wanted a low price point at the counter for our supplements and low supplement creation costs.

This is why we opted to expand on the 'three tiers of complexity' concept with Scattershot's rules.  We came up with 12 "core rules books" that each broadly treat a cluster of genres as well as giving all levels of complexity.  We are also going to prepare what would pass as supplements, except each will carry the full 'basic' rules, being a playable game unto itself.  Using the same 'basic' rules cuts it down to just writing the Genre Expectations and doing the layout.

On the consumer end, they get a relatively cheap all-in-one game that talks about how it can be expanded (creating some drive towards the core product) but is inexpensive for us to generate (for the unpopular supplements this is a plus).  Better yet, these "core rules book"-wannabe supplements will be cheap enough to catch the interest (we hope) of our collectible card game players, becoming the gateway into table-top gaming.  Everything 'pushes' towards the core 12, but is inexpensive enough to create that we can chase fads and maybe lisences.

I'm not sure, but aren't Sorcerer's supplements independantly playable?  (I really wish I could afford the game.)

Fang Langford

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Apropos to Jared's and Fang's comments ...

"Structural" supplements makes sense to me as a term. Basically, they're extensions of the basic rules, with very little (but some) in the way of new rules, with a lot of modes or techniques of play described. The Hero Wars supplements are a lot like that too, with of course a heavy setting emphasis (unlike the Sorcerer ones).

No, the Sorcerer supplements are not playable without the basic rulebook.

Jake, I think the real issue is a matter of cost and return. Gamers can say they "want" this or that, but all that marketing-survey stuff can't leave the box of the Possible, in terms of money.

Best,
Ron

[xiombarg]

To throw a bit of data out there, while I do buy some supplements to read, most of the supplements I buy I buy to use. And I buy a lot of supplements. And the criterion I use is: Does this contain information useful to a game I am running/want to run? A good supplement, of any of the types Ron mentions, produces a "yes" answer, and I buy it, assuming my budget can handle it.

*Glances at the Topic Review* And I see right when I clicked the "Post Reply" button Zak was posting a similiar point.

Anyhoo, I've rarely really bought stuff to read. It was always with the intention of use, though in the past I admit I used to lie to myself about whether I'd use something or not. I'm a little harder on myself nowadays.

As for what fits my criterion for buy, read, and use, following Ron's distinctions:

Encyclopedia references are a biggie. I love -- and use -- a good reference. I've been cutting back on these lately as my GURPS library is extensive and I'm getting better at doing my own research.

I don't buy adventures because 90% of all adventures,  since the authors don't know what the PC group is like, make assumptions that don't hold for my group, and it's easier to make up stuff from scratch that fits the characters and/or the campaign better.

Setting description I do buy and use, especially good NPC books, like Faces of Sigil. I like to think I'm good at playing NPCs, but I'm very bad at creating them at need, and having a bunch pre-defined for me makes my life so much easier. Still, I don't own that many of these books because I only buy them if I definately intend to use that setting -- I've never bought a "By Night" book for Vampire, since none of the cities covered interest me, while I own most of the other Vampire supplements.

As for "crunchy bit" books which contian a lot of additonal and/or optional rules: Frankly, I really dig these -- especially when the system covers something that I believe the original game left too sketchy. Otherwise, I do without. System Does Matter, after all, and many mainstream systems need a few "patches" before they get it right. I'm very big on having a wide variety of character options, and having crunchy bit support often makes it more "real" for me, despite my rules-light bias.

I hate, hate, hate metaplot stuff, and avoid it like the plague. Just a personal prejudice there, mostly, tho I've gone over my reasons in other metaplot-related threads.

So, to sum that up, I am mostly interested in gaming advice (like Zak), specific examples based on said advice (setting), and things I can't do myself very well (like a mess of NPCs; again, like Zak).

Unlike Zak, while I like good presentation, it's meaningless to me. Content is all -- though really BAD presentation can detract from content. With that in mind, indexes and clear organization mean a lot -- the ability to access the material quickly and easily during a game is a very, very good thing. SJG leads the industry in this, IMHO, tho even they have serious gaffes -- see the In Nomine main rulebook. (And as long as I'm naming names, Palladium is the worst, followed closely by White Wolf...)

[Eugene Zee]

I have to say that I was once a supplement junkie.  About 8-10 years ago I did a lot of frequenting at a particular game store.  I would be there till about 3 or 4am.  When I went home I would want some thing to read on the train that kept me in the rpg mood.  So I would pick up a supplement.  Because I like much of the World of Darkness and WW just had so many supplements, I would usually select a WW supplement.  I now own: 90+ WW supplements and I would have to say that the vast majority of them are useless.  Definitely splat books.  Needless to say I purchase supplements very carefully now.
However, that having been said I definitely still use supplements and believe that there is a strong place for them in my library.  What I look for in a useful supplement is an addition to a game global storyline and additional rules and concepts, very much like Ron's 3, 4 and 5.  Essentially it is about OPTIONS that are interesting and balanced that, ultimately expand the game I'm running or playing in.  I almost never buy adventures and look up references on my own.

Regards,

[Matt Machell]

1) Do you buy, read, and/or play with supplements, honestly?

Yes. Not as much as I used to, but then my standards have gone up.

My theory on supplements is this: When you're new to roleplaying, you need ideas to springboard plots and characters off. Supplements provide these ideas. Experienced GMs and players are more comfortable just coming up with this stuff themselves, so the usefulness of supplements decreases. For example, experienced roleplayers often seem to forget how difficult it can be for newbies to get their heads around character creation. I've found that splatbooks, for example, can help with this.

2) What makes a quality supplement that pushes you to do all of the above?

What I look for now is original ideas (ie things I wouldn't have thought of myself). Different ways of looking at the same subject matter. Novel new directions to take things. This can be setting info or rules concepts. This applies outside particular games too, I've used stuff from Sorcerer in my Vampire game, for example. It's all just ideas.

You may as well ask, why buy a new game? You're paying for the ideas, and the new ways of looking at stuff. Did I need Sorcerer to play a game of faustian drama, no. Did it provide a different way of looking at this style of game, oh yes.



Matt

[Dav]

Largely, I echo Matt's opinion regarding the aspect of "supplements for newbies".  I had never given it great amounts of thought, but I read the statement and thought, "yes, indeed".

However, I can say that in the experiences I've had, two things drive supplement sales:

New rules (or other "crunchy" bits that are not merely "this town over here has this, and this little area has that..."  I mean real content, whether explicit rules ("how to add howitzers to your TROS game") or implicit mood-oriented ideas ("when to give that +2 boost to Faith for 'trying in the face of danger'", "how to allow "passive" use of Spiritual Attributes, ie. no rolls are involved, but the drama of the scene lends itself to one or more of the Spiritual Attributes at work, therefore, a +1 is gained to Drive, or Destiny for merely undertaking or experiencing some event, despite the fact that nothing was done to precipitate a roll(especially darker Destinies that end poorly... such as some bugger leaping to freedom from a tower and wrapping himself up a bit in some festoonery to  conclude a "death by hanging" scenario) despite the fact that no roll was undertaken (rewarding roleplaying and clever play without need for dice)... or, as in the game Ron ran, when our goddess emerged from a large egg to almost be savaged by a large black dog (I hate that dog)... despite the fact that I was performing an excellent imitation of a squashed bug on the windshield at 70mph, I gained Faith because of the validifying act of my saint actually emerging (long story)."  

You get the idea.

The other really nice trait that has sold for us has been the Legends series (essentially a trilogy series of novels that have an appendix to describe the game mechanics of any item or power utilized within the story... kind of a novel/supplement fusion).

I feel either of these ideas are valid, but the core idea is that you must be bringing something to the game that WASN'T THERE BEFORE.  I don't mean that it wasn't spelled-out in so many words, but that it just plain was not there, at all, in any way, not even a little bit.

Thus, FLOWER OF BATTLE seems valid.  Bingo, I get it.  Big combat, no miniatures (or so I think currently).  Not in the core book.

BESTIARY, to me, is less valid.  Creatures are little problem.  I can "off-the-cuff" them.  PDF it and shovel it out for $5-10 a pop and call it a day.

SORCERY I cannot speak to.  I haven't played one yet (I killed one, with a really nicely lucky strike... and got my face caved-in for it... long story) so I reserve any statement regarding this for a later date.

Dav

[Michael Hopcroft]

I'm working on a couple of campaign supplements as we speak for HeartQuest. One is going to be a mini-sourcebook for electronic sale only. The other is going to be a 96-page book that MIGHT (depending on the market and my funding) be printed and might go the PDF route.

Just what we'll do with two OTHER sourcebooks we have in various stages of development is yet to be determined by the invisible hand of the marketplace.

Have I ever told you how much I loathe that invisible hand? It doesn;t care about anything or anybody, it just smashes what it will. I know that's a weird thing for a capitalist pig to say, but I wish there were a better way.

[toshiro]

People look for different things in supplements, as can be evidenced by the various replies here. I buy supplements for atmosphere and background information to enhance the feel of my games. Others buy supplements to spice up the system. It's impossible to satisfy everyone without going bankrupt.

My advice would be to capitalize on the individual game's strengths. For a game like TROS, where the combat mechanics are a major part of the game, something like Flower of Battle would be a great supplement. For Vampire, where the setting of the World of Darkness is what makes the game unique, the Clan Books are great supplements. Think about why people are playing your game, and target that particular aspect in your supplements.

-toshiro

[Michael Hopcroft]

Which raises the question of whether a PDF supplement will sell at all....

Do people who do supplemental material online do well with it? Or is the market just not ready for that kind of book?