Re: game size

From: Graeme A Lindsell (graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au)
Date: Thu 03 Feb 1994 - 21:07:39 EET


David Dunham writes:
>
> 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...

 And I could argue that the ~500 page AD&D 1st edition (DM Guide, Monster
Manual and Players Handbook) was the most successful FRPG of all. You needed
all three books to play.

>
> 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 _like_ the bigger books. When I look at a new game, I prefer to see
a 300 page book to a 150 page. I especially like knowing I'll get a complete
game without having to fork out for supplements. Also, in Australia, the
difference is more like a A$35-A$40 vs A$50-A$60 for what we have to fork
out. (The first price is what Dorastor is selling for now; the second is
what the EarthDawn book is costing). Price doesn't seem to scale linearly
with page number.

 Of course, the original RQ3 came out costing A$80. That's about US$55, at
the current rate of exchange.

 I suspect RQ won't be attracting new gamers directly, at least not unless
it becomes a really big hit. Non gamers have usually only ever heard of
AD&D, or are introduced to gaming by someone else.
 
 Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au


0,,


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:34:07 EEST