Perhaps, but not all companies could do that. RPG books take a lot of art, which makes them relatively expensive to produce --- or at least require a fanatically loyal artist or some such.
Yeah, I'd be concerned that the market just isn't there. I mean, there's millions of players for RPGs, but it's a pretty fragmented market and a lot of players rarely buy new systems or supplements.
On the other hand, even for a big company like Hasbro, I think the costs of printing a supplement are at least $8 or $10 for the physical book, outside anything else. Selling a stripped-down player's handbook as an inexpensive PDF might work for them.
Setting books need art. Rulebooks don't, particularly if you keep them succinct. Fifteen to 30 pages at most, maybe.
The idea being to keep the basic game affordable, and turn the setting books into the coffee table art books that they're already trending toward right now with their full-color interiors and $60 price tags.
The teaser that you're using to market your product needs to look good, and have setting information and fiction to get people hooked.
Having a cheap, no-frills players' guide with just the rules (for people other than the GM to buy) might work. D+D 3.5 did this for free with the SRD, and in 4e the subscription was supposed to be the equivalent (but $X per month was too expensive for many people to buy in).
The SRD was *really popular* and made it much much easier to get people to play. I don't know how it affected the system's overall profitability though.
Setting information, exactly! Mutant Chronicles really won me over precisely because of the SETTING, cheesy as it was, and it had some pretty nifty art in places, too. Artwork wasn't solely devoted toward showing what a totally cool character you could create in this system, but giving a sense of WHERE you would be adventuring.
I remember "old-school" D&D books that had really elaborate black-and-white artwork that might've had some pretty ugly-looking heroes and monsters, but they put a lot of detail into the dungeons and traps and treasures -- inspiring me to think of what sort of places I might EXPLORE (so to speak), through my alter ego character. I also remember some modules having some pretty evocative narratives of dungeon chambers, which did a marvelous job of painting pictures in my mind.
One thing that disappointed me with D&D 3.0, was when the artwork was mostly focused on people, creatures, and weapons floating in white space. I remember how the "archetype" characters were all dressed in golds and browns, with asymmetrical outfits and low foreheads (the artist seemed not to realize that brains take up space in the skull), and very little to distinguish their classes. Certainly no "Gandalf" archetype wizard in robes and pointy hat, or paladin-knight warrior in gleaming pseudo-medieval armor. Rather, all the characters looked very "leatherpunk," in scales, belts, patches, etc., and I could've easily mixed and matched several of the class illustrations and they could've still fit.
Plus, there was nothing, really, about what sort of wondrous world these sepia-toned heroes would be exploring. No scenes of dark enchanted forests, crumbling castles, cliffside temples, floating cloud-fortresses, glittering crystal caverns ... nothing of the sort. I think that was the first time I realized that illustrations of the PLACE where an RPG was set really helped me to envision the setting (and be interested in fleshing it out further and describing it to the players).
I'm glad to say that after flipping through 4th Ed D&D books, they seem to have gotten over that bland leatherpunk look and "figures floating in white space," and then some. The DM's manual actually has some very good tips on running games and designing your own game world -- many tips which could be applicable for just about ANY system you could run. I've also seen some positively gorgeous artwork, including quite a few where I'm quite sure who the paladins and warriors are, and who are the mages and clerics. I might even buy some of those dungeon tiles sometime, even if I'm not leaping at the chance to try out "D&D the RPG That Pretends to be an MMORPG" anytime soon. ;)
I could see that working for a big company like Hasbro or maybe Steve Jackson Games. I'd hate to try to break into the RPG market with a new game, though. They're labors of love for 95% of the market, I think -- hardly anyone makes money on them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-01-10 07:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-10 07:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-10 07:44 pm (UTC)On the other hand, even for a big company like Hasbro, I think the costs of printing a supplement are at least $8 or $10 for the physical book, outside anything else. Selling a stripped-down player's handbook as an inexpensive PDF might work for them.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-10 07:49 pm (UTC)The idea being to keep the basic game affordable, and turn the setting books into the coffee table art books that they're already trending toward right now with their full-color interiors and $60 price tags.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-10 08:46 pm (UTC)Having a cheap, no-frills players' guide with just the rules (for people other than the GM to buy) might work. D+D 3.5 did this for free with the SRD, and in 4e the subscription was supposed to be the equivalent (but $X per month was too expensive for many people to buy in).
The SRD was *really popular* and made it much much easier to get people to play. I don't know how it affected the system's overall profitability though.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-12 03:22 am (UTC)I remember "old-school" D&D books that had really elaborate black-and-white artwork that might've had some pretty ugly-looking heroes and monsters, but they put a lot of detail into the dungeons and traps and treasures -- inspiring me to think of what sort of places I might EXPLORE (so to speak), through my alter ego character. I also remember some modules having some pretty evocative narratives of dungeon chambers, which did a marvelous job of painting pictures in my mind.
One thing that disappointed me with D&D 3.0, was when the artwork was mostly focused on people, creatures, and weapons floating in white space. I remember how the "archetype" characters were all dressed in golds and browns, with asymmetrical outfits and low foreheads (the artist seemed not to realize that brains take up space in the skull), and very little to distinguish their classes. Certainly no "Gandalf" archetype wizard in robes and pointy hat, or paladin-knight warrior in gleaming pseudo-medieval armor. Rather, all the characters looked very "leatherpunk," in scales, belts, patches, etc., and I could've easily mixed and matched several of the class illustrations and they could've still fit.
Plus, there was nothing, really, about what sort of wondrous world these sepia-toned heroes would be exploring. No scenes of dark enchanted forests, crumbling castles, cliffside temples, floating cloud-fortresses, glittering crystal caverns ... nothing of the sort. I think that was the first time I realized that illustrations of the PLACE where an RPG was set really helped me to envision the setting (and be interested in fleshing it out further and describing it to the players).
I'm glad to say that after flipping through 4th Ed D&D books, they seem to have gotten over that bland leatherpunk look and "figures floating in white space," and then some. The DM's manual actually has some very good tips on running games and designing your own game world -- many tips which could be applicable for just about ANY system you could run. I've also seen some positively gorgeous artwork, including quite a few where I'm quite sure who the paladins and warriors are, and who are the mages and clerics. I might even buy some of those dungeon tiles sometime, even if I'm not leaping at the chance to try out "D&D the RPG That Pretends to be an MMORPG" anytime soon. ;)
no subject
Date: 2012-01-10 07:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-10 07:49 pm (UTC)