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

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

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.

Rexfelis wrote: 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?

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

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.

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.

Rexfelis wrote:
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?

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

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.

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