Successful RPG Line

[Ron Edwards]

Mike asked about Vampire. I shall paraphrase: "If metaplot-driven supplements are so bad for business, why is Vampire so successful?"

Let's clarify a couple of things.

1) White Wolf nearly went bankrupt in the late 1990s, exactly on schedule given their substantial starting capital. It is incorrect to assume that their publishing strategy was itself the successful motor for their current, continued existence.

2) WW currently makes their Vampire money on new releases, essentially by publishing new games (Hunter, Kindred of the Orient, etc). In other words, by following a core book strategy. By shifting to this strategy, they survived a VERY near brush with death.

3) WW's initial success with Vampire is a repeat of D&D's success in the late 1970s - it happened to correspond to a teen/college subculture. Owning the game and one's clanbook (for one's character) was "gear," like owning the ankh jewelry and dying one's hair dead black. This phase lasted about two years.

4) That period of success from the retailer's standpoint (look, weird kids we don't know, walking in looking for the game!) put WW material into the permanent-order status, much like Rifts, GURPS, D&D, and Call of Cthulhu. This is hard to explain in the absence of my upcoming essay (slated for January) - what I'm saying is that there are factors between manufacturer and end-user that keep the books on the shelves.

In conclusion, I don't think that Vampire offers a counter-example to Mike Mearls' excellent, salient, and pointed post.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Sorcerer consists of three books: Sorcerer, Sorcerer and Sword, and The Sorcerer's Soul. That's all there is, there is no more to the game itself. However, I plan to continue publishing support material in the form of smaller items, in the under-$10 range, both on the website and through stores. This stuff is really "supplemental" in the dictionary, not industry, definition of the word.

[Mike Holmes]

OK, first my jab at you Ron was in reference to your penchant for trashy serial literature (detectives, Conan, etc) and how you're game supposedly caters to the form. Get it? Never mind.

Anyhow, I knew all that stuff you wrote, I was just trying to make myself an easy mark so that we can keep Mearls around more. Jeeze! Ruin a perfectly good ploy.

Actually, to heck with him. The last thing we need around here is another Mike. Right, Sullivan, Gentry, et al?

Mike

[mearls]

On 2001-12-13 14:48, Mike Holmes wrote:

What explains Vampire then?

Good question. In some ways, I think Vampire succeeds despite the metaplot. We've seen three editions of the game in the past 8 years, a sign that at times core rulebook sales have dropped below acceptable levels. Obviously, I don't have sales numbers in front of me, but conventional wisdom in traditional RPG publishing is to push a new edition as soon as the core book starts to wither.

A more important factor to look at is the rise of the metaplot as common publishing device. I'd place it around 1990, when the first generation of designers who grew up gaming began to do work. Perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, sales of games began to plummet. Personally, I think much of this was fuelled by the release of 2nd edition AD&D. But, more importantly, the next wave of "hot" games, TORG, Shadowrun, all prominently featured metaplot.

All of these games, including Vampire, have followed the same trajectory, strong initial sales followed by a steady drop in supplement and core book purchases. I think much of that is attributable to the metaplot approach. It encourages reading rather than play, which guarantees a stagnant and ultimately dwindling customer base. Active players generate sales. It also forces a game to define an end point. TORG is the classic example of that. The entire game line ends with a fight between NPCs that the PCs get to watch.

*YAWN*

Once you hit that end point, the game's dead. Personally, I don't see why companies produce games with finite lifecycles and then try to promote them as evergreen products.

Vampire has a strong enough central concept to survive despite the metaplot approach. IMHO, this approach continues to thrive because it is highly attractive to the fiction-writing set that currently dominates the "industry." In my experience writing freelance, fiction is far easier to produce than mechanics. A lot of that relates to the tight deadlines used by most companies. Look at all the d20 products that can't get the system right, and that's not even design work, it's simply using a published set of rules. I think the average DM who's been running a game for a few months knows the rules better than 90% of the d20 designers out there. When you have such close deadlines, you don't have time to produce durable rules, so the better option is to create background material.

- Mearls

[mearls]

On 2001-12-13 16:20, Mike Holmes wrote:
Actually, to heck with him. The last thing we need around here is another Mike. Right, Sullivan, Gentry, et al?

Heh. You can just call me Mearls. Considering how busy I've been lately (and if Jared and I keep generating new ideas I don't see my workload slowing down any time soon) I probably won't get to post half as much as I'd like, but the forge is now my first stop for RPG discussion.

- Mearls

[Nathan]

Wow.. Great discussion...

But I need a clarification. Metaplot doesn't work, but focusing on core book sales does. Therefore, focus on supplements that provide new rules and encourage playing.

What does - "encouraging playing" - mean?

I've heard enough gripes of gamers who bought a game then found out it doesn't contain "all the rules". What is the proper or ideal scenario?

Core Book: GRUNT (World War II soldier fighting game)
  details hand-to-hand and land battle
Supplement 1: AIR FORCE
  details air battle
Supplement 2: THE SEA
  details naval battle

or

Core Book: GRUNT
  details hand-to-hand, land, air, and naval battle
Supplement 1: BY SKY
  adds more planes, guns, etc, etc
Supplement 2: OVER WATER
  adds more ships, guns, etc, etc

Which is the better?

Thanks,
Nathan

[Clinton R. Nixon]

In my opinion, the second option. Ron did this with Sorcerer, and it worked - they're the best supplements I've seen. You could easily run a swords and sorcery campaign with just the main book, but Sorcerer & Sword gave you even more details, and even more ideas to use in that sort of campaign.

I like having a little about everything on my plate at first, and then being able to get a book that further details a sub-section if I get interested in it.

[mearls]

On 2001-12-14 12:55, Nathan wrote:
Wow.. Great discussion...

But I need a clarification. Metaplot doesn't work, but focusing on core book sales does. Therefore, focus on supplements that provide new rules and encourage playing.

What does - "encouraging playing" - mean?

I've heard enough gripes of gamers who bought a game then found out it doesn't contain "all the rules". What is the proper or ideal scenario?

The first step is to define the purpose of the game line. Is it a sandbox that provides a foundation for a wide range of games, or a setting that carries a particular campaign path within it?

A toolbox should follow the D&D or GURPS approach. These are games in the purest sense of the word, simply collections of rules. While it's not obvious, D&D does follow a set of assumptions regarding what the rules should include. The list boils down to:

* Combat
* Magic
* Explorations: what sort of things does a player need in a dungeon? Movement rates, light radius generated by various torches/lanterns, falling damage, weather effects, other environmental factors.
* Monsters
* Magic items
* Toys: Prestige classes, templates, basically tools the give DMs the ability to extend the game in new directions.

With the three basic core books, you can run endless dungeon and wilderness adventures. The key expansion books take that basic game and extend it to areas beyond the scope of the core rules or introduce complete new elements:

Psionics Handbook: Introduces a new style of magic.

Manual of the Planes: Introduces new environments beyond the traditional dungeon/wilderness

Oriental Adventures: Like MotP, creates new venues for adventure.

Other products try to ease a DM's creative burden (adventures) or introduce a setting that DMs can use (Forgotten Realms). If you look at FR, there's a determined effort there to excise the metaplot. One of the design team's mantras in Dragon and other outlets was "we're making the Realms your Realms now." I have no idea if that has translated into more sales, but from my man on the street perch it looks like it has.

The key to producing good supplements is to look at the minivan. No, I haven't gone nuts. Back when the minivan was on the drawing board, the auto company execs were convinced it would be a flop. They did market research that revealed no demand for a minivan. The problem was that the consumer didn't know what a minivan was. It was a completely new concept. So when a focus group was brought into Ford, of course they said they were happy with station wagons. They didn't know they had other options. So out comes the minivan, and the next thing you know it pretty much replaces the station wagon as family transportation.

To answer your question about games not having enough rules, the key there is to produce a tight package with a solid core mechanic that promotes a style of play covered by the rules. For example, back when I used to play OD&D, we never thought to do anything aside from dungeons. The rules talked about dungeons, the game seemed to revolve around them, so that's what we did. The problem today is that game designers, having grown up as game players, want to design a comprehensive package that appeals to a veteran.

A good analogy lies in comic books. Comics used to contain a single, self-contained story. If you picked up Fantastic Four #67, you didn't need to read issues 60 - 66 to understand 67. A little blurb on the first page explained who the heroes were, and there was little to no continuity between issues. Issue 67 was a fight with the skrulls, while in 68 the Submariner might show up in NYC and cause trouble. As comic writers who had been comic fans began writing, we saw the rise of massive, sprawling story lines, in-jokes, an obsession with continuity, all the sorts of things that an obsessed 20 something fan might like but that makes comics frustratingly arcane for a beginner.

RPGs are much the same. We've moved beyond producing games for the casual gamer or non-obsessed hobbyist.

Back in college, I was in a frat. One of the things I noticed was that when we had a BBQ for prospective new members, the more the members of the house cracked in-jokes or discussed minutia of house business or gossip, the harder it was to engage people who weren't familiar with us. There's nothing more socially frustrating than being a newcomer to a large social group with a long history. It takes much longer to become comfortable in such an environment than it does in one where everyone's a newcomer.

Gaming is like that. The "industry" has it in its head that it has to produce 256 page books of setting to launch a successful game. I strongly disagree with that. A strong rules base focussed on a particular style of play or archtypal game plot works much better. Done right, such a game keeps gamers happy because they're too busy exploring the options you've given them. If you insist on adding a rambling, sprawling setting to a game, you're going to frustrate players because there's no way a rules designer can produce options as fast as a world builder can create new venues for adventure.

Promoting Play:

* Menu driven character creation. Choose X, Y, and Z to produce a character. Allow for greater customization further down the character advancement tree. Hard core hobbyist may insist on the ability to play "anything" but the vast majority of gamers are content to take the options presented to them.

* Tools for adventure creation. D&D's challenge rating system and treasure guidelines are beautiful examples of this. This is a biggie. The more barriers to a completed adventure, the less likely a GM takes the game and runs with it. Vague handwaving and How To GM essays are nice, but ideally the system should incorporate rules for creating adventures.

- Mearls

[Ron Edwards]

"When in doubt, always look to Greg Stafford."

Saying that out loud may get you stoned to death in certain circles, but it's a hellacious valuable principle. Note that "look to" does not mean "follow" or "emulate" necessarily. The looking will always yield insight, I have found.

Hero Wars is playable as written (although I always think of it as a combination of the Hero Wars and Narrator's Guide). But every single Hero Wars supplemental book is a "deepener" of some listed aspect of the main book. It literally does not "change the game" in its essence.

The Guide to Glorantha and Anaxial's Roster are respectively a world-book and a critter-book, but they are not necessary. One could play ten sessions using the first two books, then pick up these two ... and one's previous game is not invalidated, yet one's following ten sessions may be much improved, rooted deeper into both geography and myth.

Then you have the two books about Orlanthi culture, Thunder Rebels and Storm Tribes. At first glance, these seem much like clanbooks from Vampire, but that is not the case. Instead, they play a very similar role to the other two supplements I mentioned - they deepen things, give lots more specific options, and serve as player-inspiration. My Hero Wars players LOVE these books.

I think that's a key issue to Mearls' point as well, and it ties into my strategy with Sorcerer. The idea is that a game-book is not the private property of a GM whose job is to channel it to players, but the property (intellectually and creatively speaking) of any participant in the game. Jesse and I had some dialogue about that on the Sorcerer forum a while ago.

Now, all that said, I have to specify that I'm talking about the long-term viability and enjoyment of a game line by its practitioners, and its ability to attract new players and thus customers. Here's the problem: this is a slow process whose motor is actual playing enjoyment. That takes months, even years. Yet retailers and distributors think in terms of periodicals, comics, and modern print-and-shoot bestsellers. Their turnaround time to perceive the "value" of something is, in terms of the use of the product, too short by an order of magnitude.

This is why D&D and Vampire are perceived as the industry's "big successes," because they prompted sales that did accord with retailers' time-sense of the success of games. Even though those waves lasted only a year or two (1977-1979 and 1992-1994 respectively), they are still perceived as "success games" and ordered accordingly, despite frequent evidence to the contrary, and in flat denial of the fact that sales boosts to their line only occur when a revised or new core book is offered.

Can this be reconciled? Can a game line's utility and enjoyment for the users be brought into parallel with profit to manufacturer, which in this day and age means profit to the distributor and retailer?

No one knows.

Best,
Ron

[GMSkarka]

On 2001-12-14 14:15, Ron Edwards wrote:

This is why D&D and Vampire are perceived as the industry's "big successes," because they prompted sales that did accord with retailers' time-sense of the success of games. Even though those waves lasted only a year or two (1977-1979 and 1992-1994 respectively), they are still perceived as "success games" and ordered accordingly, despite frequent evidence to the contrary, and in flat denial of the fact that sales boosts to their line only occur when a revised or new core book is offered.

Sorry, Ron, but that theory just doesn't jibe with the sales numbers coming out of the distributors that I've spoken with.   Pretty much across the board, sales boosts occur with the release of ANY supplemental product, which usually generate a core-book spike of somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-20% over the previous month's sales level.

Vampire (well, to be fair, the whole WoD, since it's essentially one line) and D&D are considered "evergreen" due the fact that they are produced by the only companies in this industry with aggressive, continual support.

Oh...and your dates are a little bit off as well.  The biggest sales wave for D&D was 1980-1984 (highest penetration into the public consciousness with licensing, etc.) and Vampire's sales wave began in 4th Quarter, 1991 (I was a retailer at the time).

Gareth-Michael Skarka

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gareth (-Michael Skarka),

I have a few points that will clarify.

1) Distributors are always going to pitch what supports their business, which is the constant, periodical-style outflow of supplements. They operate on a comics model and the wrong comics model at that.

Bluntly, I do not trust the distributors' word when it comes to what succeeds from a company's point of view. There is way too much conflict of interest at work.

However, I don't mean to say that they out-and-out LIE, because of the next point ...

2) The word "sales" means a lot of different things in RPG commerce, but almost never "end-user purchase." That's pretty much the only meaning of it that I take seriously when thinking long-term. Those supplements sell in the sense that they move to the warehouses, and in many cases that provides money back to the manufacturer, but it's often the case that they do NOT make back cost-per-unit, but are only profitable if they consistently prompt core-book sales.

I find it very unlikely that the metaplot-based supplements of WW were able to prompt a sale of (say) Mage with every single supplement sale. I submit that this strategy is precisely what turned Mage, ultimately, into an albatross.

Yes, I know there were other factors involved, most notably "what happened to the profit" issues in both cases, TSR and WW alike. But there is no way on this earth that every Mage supplement released could have prompted a 15-20% increase in core book sales - unless we are talking about such shitty sales in the previous month that basically one whole extra book sold in the "supplement" month. THAT I'll accept.

3) I'll give you the 1991 for Vampire; my notion is that the wave began the moment it hit the shelves, and I probably am mistaking its release for when I first saw it.

The D&D wave in sales is more complicated - going by within-tier sales, you are right, because that's when AD&D showed up all over the place. But I submit that end-user sales tapered off fast during that that wave of output, and that if we compare output to end-user sales (which are unknown, in hard numbers), then the "success" wave shows up in the late 70s - when D&D outgrew the hobby, model-airplane store.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Nathan wrote:

Wow.. Great discussion...

I agree.

What does - "encouraging playing" - mean?

I've heard enough gripes of gamers who bought a game then found out it doesn't contain "all the rules". What is the proper or ideal scenario?

Core Book: GRUNT (World War II soldier fighting game)
  details hand-to-hand and land battle
Supplement 1: AIR FORCE
  details air battle
Supplement 2: THE SEA
  details naval battle

or

Core Book: GRUNT
  details hand-to-hand, land, air, and naval battle
Supplement 1: BY SKY
  adds more planes, guns, etc, etc
Supplement 2: OVER WATER
  adds more ships, guns, etc, etc

Which is the better?

What about something like:

Core Book: GRUNT
  Details hand-to-hand, land, air, and naval battle as well as
  strategy, politics of command, training camps, and sundry
Supplement 1: D-DAY – timed to come out with '...Private Ryan'
  gives just the basics for land, sea, and air – still playable
  adds early European theatre, background on that 'brothers law'
Supplement 2: PEARL HARBOR – timed to come out during movie run
  gives just the basics for land, sea, and air – still playable
  adds setting for Pearl Harbor, timeline, and movie hooks
Supplement ANY: designed to fit in places similar to how people
  get related merchandise, book racks, video racks, and etc
  gives just the basics for land, sea, and air – still playable
  adds scope to the setting and enticement for detailed rules
  without requiring them

The purpose is to be where customers for the 'other product' come looking, on the same shelf if possible.  Licenses might help, but are obviously not necessary.  (Although a good license, like Pokemon or Harry Potter when they were 'on their way up' would have gotten into every store that carried the product, such can be the demand.  Hey, imagine pitching to have a .pdf included on the "director's edition of Top Gun" DVD.)  This way as long as war was popularized, you would have market for your next 'supplement' without creating new rules (even though it wouldn't be the 'usual suspects' down at the gaming store, for them, it'd just have to be darn playable).

As I have always said, 'anything that expands interest in role-playing games can't hurt my sales.'

Fang Langford

[GMSkarka]

A couple of responses:

Bluntly, I do not trust the distributors' word when it comes to what succeeds from a company's point of view. There is way too much conflict of interest at work.

No...no conflict of interest.   The distributors (and by this, I'm talking about the pure game-only distributors, not those that also move comics and the like) recognize that their well-being depends upon the continued health of the publishers.

Trust me on this.  I've worked as a publisher, a distributor and a retailer over the past 14 years.  I've seen all three tiers from the inside.

2) The word "sales" means a lot of different things in RPG commerce, but almost never "end-user purchase."

Actually the sales figures that I was talking about are sales reported by retailers to their distributors, and so on.  It's also backed up by the sampling-method sales reports  provided by retailers and published every month in COMICS AND GAMES RETAILER (a subscription for which is free to anyone working in the industry...and is highly recommended).

I find it very unlikely that the metaplot-based supplements of WW were able to prompt a sale of (say) Mage with every single supplement sale. I submit that this strategy is precisely what turned Mage, ultimately, into an albatross.

Actually, the supplements artificially perpetuated Mage long past it's viability point....it largely failed because it failed to attract the larger number of Vampire and Werewolf players.  Vampire players didn't find it 'sexy' enough, and Werewolf players didn't find it 'ass-kicking' enough.  The problem is that the subject (reality bending to will, etc.) was far too esoteric and intellectual for most WoD fans...and those folks that were into the idea from it's initial announcement were expecting ARS MAGICA made modern, and were sorely dissappointed by the end product.    

But there is no way on this earth that every Mage supplement released could have prompted a 15-20% increase in core book sales - unless we are talking about such shitty sales in the previous month that basically one whole extra book sold in the "supplement" month. THAT I'll accept.

That's pretty much what I'm talking about.   Without supplemental releases, Core Book sales drop off precipitously.  In a month when a supplement is released, you see an accompanying spike in Core sales.  I've even seen this personally...the sales of HONG KONG ACTION THEATRE! was a near-textbook model of drop-offs and supplement-driven spikes.  Conversely, UNDERWORLD, which I consider a better game, both in design and presentation, had high initial sales, but with no supplemental releases, a massive drop-off.   When we released the UNDERWORLD soundtrack CD, even a 'supplemental' product that odd resulted in a brief upswing of sales on the Core Book.

My experience, for what it's worth,

GMS

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Let's review what this thread is asking about - specifically, the long-term sales viability of a role-playing game.

Gareth has stated that a 15-20% increase in core book sales occurs with the release of a supplement. If I'm not misreading, Gareth has acknowledged that we are talking about 15-20% of Very Little. And I think ... I think I'm not incorrect to state that his observation does not counter my initial claim: that relying on supplement release to "boost" core book sales, especially using metaplot, is not a reliable tactic.

I think that by the time we are looking at that little burp in sales, per supplement, we've already hit the Deadly Point, in which the core book is not "alive" on its own merits. We're running on what Ryan Dancey calls the treadmill, and in all known cases, it's the Treadmill of Gruesome Game Death.

The question is, how does one generate core book sales without relying on an ongoing string of supplements? This question has two underlying points that are easy to misunderstand:
- That relying on the string of supplements is not an alternative, but a mistake. (GURPS books are not supplements, they are reference texts, by the way.)
- When I say "relying," I mean relying. Nothing is terrible or bad about a supplement per se.

What's my answer? I stated it a few posts above: contact with the user base, high-quality product, low overhead. I'll add the demonstration of the quality of current use to potential customers, which is rare for role-playing games. For Adept Press, my results are so far so good.

Best,
Ron

[Zak Arntson]

- That relying on the string of supplements is not an alternative, but a mistake. (GURPS books are not supplements, they are reference texts, by the way.)

So what is the definition of supplement?

It seems a supplement consists of one or more of the following:
* Expansion of Core Rules
* Setting Information
* Metaplot Guidance
* Discussions on Gaming

And how does a GURPS book fit into this? And none of these keep a game going in the long run? What's the solution? Surely the GURPS answer isn't the only one!

Here's the factors that have driven me, as a consumer, to purchase supplements:
* Expansion of Core Rules
* Setting Information
* Habit (get every book in the game line, because I've been so impressed by the core book)

What does the average (i.e., highest profit-base) consumer tend to buy? And how do you keep them coming?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Zak,

I think that the GURPS books are essentially core books, in that they are the base necessary rules and other material needed to play the game.  GURPS is a little different in that there are several "games," if you follow me.

It's a lot like Chaosium's Worlds of Wonder.  Small wonder since WoW was a generic/universal game like GURPS.  You had the Basic Role Playing pamphlet which gave you the basic, stripped-down rules.  This is similar to the GURPS main book.  Then they had the different "world" books (Superworld, et al) which gave you the rules and material necessary for running a game in either a fantasy game, a super hero game or a space adventure game.  These world books built on the basic rules to make a complete game.  These are like the GURPS sourcebooks.

Furthermore, the GURPS sourcebooks have a second function as just a general reference book.  Say you're running a game set in medievel China.  You're not using GURPS, but a system of your own devising.  Yet, you can still pick up GURP China anyway and use the material to help you with your game.  This makes the GURPS book just like any other book on ancient China you might find in a bookstore or your local library.  Perhaps slightly better for your purposes since you could come up with a way to convert the GURPS stats to your game.  This works for SJG since they've gotten a reputation for putting out a quality piece of work and many will pick up the appropriate GURPS book as, if not as a be-all end-all, then as a good place to start.

(Persoanlly, I find the GURPS book are better as just a good start, but I digress)

Back to the thread at hand, the way to make suppliments sell is to make them needed, like how in the movie Pirates of Silicon Valley Anthony Michael Hall as Bill Gates announced that they need to have people need them to survive shortly before selling DOS to IBM.  

There are several way to make a suppliment needed.  Metaplot is one way, but it apparently is not a good way and is not an especially well liked way.

GURPS uses another way and it seems to work better.

What is another way to make a suppliment needed?

You could put vital rules in a suppliment, but this is also not well liked.

You could have extra rules, like TSR's Complete line (Complete Fighter, Complete Priest, etc)  This one has a more moderate opinion.  Some do not like it because it smacks of just trying to sell as many books as possible to the end user.  Some do like the extra options available.

This is a tough question to answer.  One could site historical example, like the Basic D&D Red & Blue books or even the three book AD&D/D&D3e sets, but these do not in anyway guarentee success.  It's a case of what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

But the best way is to somehow make your suppliment needed.

Here's a question, what about house organs? For those unfamiliar with the term, a house organ is a magazine put out by the game publisher (e.g. Wotc's Dragon Magazine,  Games Workshop's White Dwarf, etc.).  Usually these are meant to hawk and support the companies game, but not always.  I have no idea what the number crunching would be as far as cost and time/hassle but a magazine, be it monthly, quarterly, semianually or even anually can make a product seem "alive" in the market sense while not requiring a large volume of material or even especially necessary material.  The beauty of such an item is if you have more than one current game, you can cover all of them with the same periodical.  And when enough material builds up, it can be re-released as a suppliment.

Not a horrible idea.  I think they do that with White Dwarf, too.  But is it a commercially viable one?  That is the real question.

I get the feeling it would be a milage may vary.