re: game size

From: David Dunham (ddunham@radiomail.net)
Date: Wed 02 Feb 1994 - 08:11:46 EET


John Medway replied to me:
>I dunno if this is a real problem. Look at the size of Champions or the
>new version of GURPS. They're pretty sizeable too. Doesn't seem to slow
>sales too much.

I could argue that the 120 page RQ2 was more popular than the 280 page RQ3...

Maybe I'm wrong, but _I'm_ put off by huge works, and I'm a fairly
dedicated gamer. Would you become a gamer if you thought you had to read a
300 page tome? If you weren't a gamer, would you be more interested in
becoming one if you had to buy a $15 book or a $30 book?

I seem to be the only person bothered by this, but then, if you subscribe
to this list, you're probably a pretty hard-core fan. Does anyone know if
Avalon Hill has done any market research on this?

The problem is, RQ:AiG is fairly well done, and it's hard to know what to
cut (I've seen many places that editing could tighten up the prose and save
some words, but that's a minimal savings). I've only seen requests to put
more stuff in. There's more stuff _I'd_ like to see in the product, but it
might be far better to put it in a supplement.

One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook
(problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready).

The detailed shaman rules could go in a Prax sourcebook (again, such a work
may not be ready for publication within a month or two of RQ:AiG).

All optional combat rules could go into a "Gods of War" supplement, which
detailed Humakt, Yanafal Tarnils, Wachaza, etc.

Oliver implied that while the supplement route wouldn't cost the gamer that
much, it would be a lot more work, and thus wouldn't happen.


0,,


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:33:34 EEST