Nice Setting... How About Some Sodding Scenarios?

The Accepted Industry Explanation Now, I can start by giving you the explanation that is generally accepted in the industry itself. I heard this at Killercon '99, when listening to a talk given by James Wallis, boss of Hogshead Publishing, who produce, amongst other things, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay under license from Games Workshop. I should point out at this point, that James was merely responding to a question from the floor, and explaining why many companies don't produce scenarios. I am not in any way criticising him. In fact Hogshead's WFRP line has a good line of scenarios (one of my groups recently spent a good fifteen months solidly playing a WFRP campaign using only published scenarios, and we still have a good many to get through). The explanation, simply stated is this: Typically a gaming group consists of one gamesmaster, and several players. If you publish a sourcebook, say the "Elven Character's Handbook" all the players who play an elf will buy it. If all the players have several characters, it might be that they all buy a copy. But if you publish a scenario you will only sell *one* copy to that gaming group, to the gamesmaster. (Unless one of the players is a cheating bastard). Therefore, a scenario will sell less copies, and make you less profit, than a standard supplement. Now, that sounds like a pretty good explanation, and I think it explains why so many games don't have much in the way of scenarios. It could also explain why some scenarios seem to be marketed more like supplements. And - to a certain extent at least - it is true. My other group has recently got heavily into Aberrant (it is a pretty good game) and as a result we all have copies of the rulebook, the Player's Guide, and various other suppliments. But, in the long-term, is it a good approach for a gaming company to take? Well personally, I think not. DISCLAIMER: I am not a gaming professional. I have never published a roleplaying game, nor worked for a roleplaying games company. I am - in fact - probably talking out of my arse. I accept that a games company will make less money on scenarios than supplements. But I feel that companies should treat scenarios as loss leaders, that they produce for the good of their gaming line. Take myself. For the last 5 months or so I have been gamesmastering a D & D Third Edition campaign. Do I think D & D Third Edition is the best games system out there? No. I think it's a vast improvement on its predecessors, but it's not - in my opinion - anywhere near to being the best system. Is fantasy my favourite genre? No. In fact its amongst my least favourite. I generally prefer super-heroes and science-fiction. So why did I chose Third Edition? Because our regular GM needed a break (burnt out by about 15 months of WFRP) and I volunteered to take a stint. I knew, given the constraints on my time, that I needed something which I could run easily - without having to do any real work between sessions. If you choose D & D you know that there are literally dozens of scenarios available (actually with the open license it's probably approaching hundreds now) in a format and style which makes them easy to run. So I started my campaign. (Three halflings on riding dogs... it's not totally serious). Which means I have now ended up buying the Player's Guide, the GM's Guide, the Monster Manual, The Psionics Guide, The HeroBuilder's Guidebook, and the Sword & Fist thing (and Dragon, and Dungeon and a load of the scenarios). Now partly that is because I'm a sucker for collecting things. But it is also because I was running the campaign. I didn't pick D & D because I thought it was the best. I picked it because they support the GM, without whom, nothing will happen. What do you guys think?

	Contents... Back... Copyright © 2001 Critical Miss Gaming Society
	What do you think of this article? It ascended to heaven and walked with the gods. It was very good. It was pretty good. It was okay. It was a bit bad. It was very bad. It sucked, really, really badly.