So, I started three threads on three sites with much the same query, essentially what games people bought and which of them they played.

Note, this is not about people not playing games, it's about whether they're playing the games they buy. Most people who responded were actively gaming, they just often weren't actively playing much of the stuff they spent money on.

Links are as follows:

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=2912&page=1

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?p=7236241#post7236241

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=99050#post99050

The rpg.net thread got a disappointing response, but I know that site well and already have a pretty good idea how few games people there are purchasing are actually seeing actual play.

One interesting point was that lot's of folk were playing a wide range of games, it wasn't that unusual to find a White Wolf game sitting cheek by jowl with a storygame or PTA with D&D. I find that rather heartening personally. As I both hoped and expected, there are no camps in roleplaying, just a spectrum of tastes.

A lot of folk, maybe most, were buying more games than they actually played. Indeed, it was fairly common across all sites for there to be people who had already bought more than they could credibly play over the next few years but who were showing no signs of slowing their purchases.

Time was a common factor, unsurprisingly, people not having the time to buy all the games they bought. That does raise the question of why people buy them though, which may be worth following up on.

Lack of confidence came up occasionally with indie/storygames, a perception that they couldn't be sold to the group or that the person wouldn't do them right, that sounds worth addressing to me but I'm not a designer so I leave that to others. I do think though that potential actual play is being lost by people feeling for whatever reason that they're not up to the task.

A lot of people were buying games for inspiration, or to pick out a couple of ideas. That's interesting, albeit expensive. I think that's often a way of justifying purchases that the person knows are basically useless, which is probably an incredibly arrogant thing for me to think but there you go.

In terms of conclusions, my conclusions are these:

Many gamers buy far more games than they can or ever will actually play.

They do so from a mix of hope that they will play a game, that hope winning over experience, from a desire to pick up some inspiration and ideas or simply because they enjoy collecting.

The result is that many published rpgs, and to be clear I'm not talking especially about indie games here though I think it's now starting to hit this sector too, see little actual play compared to how much they are actually purchased.

I think the outcome of that is that playability is not a major factor in game purchases, because most purchases see little to no play. Instead idea stealability and the shiny factor tend to dominate. I think that results potentially in weaker rpgs generally, but now I'm leaving the horrifically biased and useless data behind and going off on an extrapolation of my own.

And so I think we have a gaming industry which is supported by sales of games that by and large are seeing little actual play, and that is not because the people buying them are not actual players, it's because they're actually playing a tiny subset of the stuff they buy.

Of course, these purchasers are a small subset of the hobby, but I suspect they are a large element of the part of the hobby that buys games.

I'll give more thought and say if anything else strikes me.

Quote from: BalbinusAnd so I think we have a gaming industry which is supported by sales of games that by and large are seeing little actual play, and that is not because the people buying them are not actual players, it's because they're actually playing a tiny subset of the stuff they buy.

Of course, these purchasers are a small subset of the hobby, but I suspect they are a large element of the part of the hobby that buys games.

I'll give more thought and say if anything else strikes me.

Mrf! That would explain why my games are not dominating the industry, since I care little for making an entertaining read. Otherwise I'd have to accept the fact... I mean the implications are... That is, it would mean...





NO! THAT WAY LIES MADNESS!




Yes! A perfect explaination, Balbinus!

-clash

Balbinus makes an interesting concluson here, an done which I think it spot on.  Most people I know who buy more than they play do so not necessarily in the hopes of playing the 'new' game some day, but using the material in it for their existing games.  IE the "inspiration" angle.

Me, I made a decision a year or so ago to just not buy games which I knew I wouldn't play, or didn't already have a vested interest in.  Fortunately, two of my favorite games are RuneQuest III and D6 Star Wars, so no new material for those.  I keep up on Call of Cthulhu, and am looking forward to DBRP, but those releases are slow.  The odd C&C book here and there (again, they release a book a year, so it's not much of a wallet-buster) and I'm currently into the "BattleLore" boardgame.  But that's about it.

All that rambling brings me to my next point.  One of the things that really cemented my 'don't buy new games' rule, was when I stopped running games as frequently.  In the past, when I was playing a game, I would make the point of always buying the rulebook for whatever game I was playing in.  Not so much any more.  If I'm playing in a game (currently a SotC game set in the Star Wars universe) and the game is interesting enough to me that I might want to run it someday, I'll go out and pick up the rules.  If not, I'll just play along with the group, but not buy the rules.

Which in the end, basicaly means that I am no longer any sort of 'target market' for the games hobby.  I rarely (if ever) buy new games, I don't shop at a local games store, and am pretty much perfectly happy with the games I already own.

So, there you go.

Quote from: BalbinusSnip.

Sounds reasonable to me. I also buy more games and supplements than I can expect to play, mainly because I get a lot of enjoyment from reading rpgs.

I have two games on my shelf I haven't played yet - Dying Earth and L5R 1E.

DE is fairly new, and I knew I probably wouldn't get my guys to play it, but I have a passion for Vance like the burning of a thousand suns.

L5R? I have no idea why I bought it. I literally have no recollection of doing so. I found it amongst my games about three years ago, to my utter surprise. It must be mine - no one else in my circle buys games - but it was brand new, the spine had never been cracked, years after it was released. I read it and really, really didn't like it. Thus it sits on the shelf, shunned and alone.

Other than that, all my games have been played at least once. I have no patience for those who claim no time, as I am able to do this while writing and intensely playing my own ridiculous raft of games, and I'm not exactly a student...

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceOther than that, all my games have been played at least once. I have no patience for those who claim no time, as I am able to do this while writing and intensely playing my own ridiculous raft of games, and I'm not exactly a student...

It's not just personal time constraints, it's scheduling all the other players, too. At the moment I can reasonably expect to get 5 hours of gaming per week, which is nowhere near enough to cover all the books I buy. It's not a problem though, like I said I explicitly buy books just to read.

That hits the nail on the head for me as well.  These days, I seem to have an abundance of time for prepping games, and could probably run at least a bi-weekly game.  But the people I play with are already involved in at least two different games each, plus pick up games at the local shop they frequent, etc.  Thing is simply that if I wanted to run something (which, honestly I really do), finding players for it would be nearly impossible.

I have culled my library quite a bit--my Gamer ADD used to be a lot worse than it is now.  But I do buy a lot of my RPG purchases not because I'm absolutely going to run that system or specific setting, but because I love using them for inspriation.  I mean, I use a lot of different stuff for inspirations, but just because I'm running Palladium fantasy or Rolemaster doesn't mean I won't pillage WoTC's website for art, maps, and adventures.  I've never been one for exact stats, just ballparking and general feel of a scenario or adventure.  When I do a homebrew, it's filled not only with my ideas, but stuff I found cool or inspired by countless Greyhawk modules, generic sourcebooks, and more.  XRP's amazing line of sourcebooks is another example.  A good idea is a good idea, no matter what system it's in.
 
So I'd say I don't consider myself a collector so much as a utilizer.

Balbinus, your results and extrapolations line up with my own impression of the hobby.  Speaking personally, I have often found myself buying games as a substitute method of 'participating' in the hobby.  If I don't have an enjoyable game going, I tend to buy new stuff that I have little hope of ever running.  When I've got a good, healthy campaign, I tend to only purchase stuff that directly benefits that game.  My suspicion is that a lot of people are like that and many of them don't play the number of satisfying games that I do.

Quote from: zombenThat hits the nail on the head for me as well.  These days, I seem to have an abundance of time for prepping games, and could probably run at least a bi-weekly game.  But the people I play with are already involved in at least two different games each, plus pick up games at the local shop they frequent, etc.  Thing is simply that if I wanted to run something (which, honestly I really do), finding players for it would be nearly impossible.

I've been very successful at making new gamers. I've been the first GM for every one of my players, including my wife and son. Aside from my wife, they range in age from 20 (my son) to 11. Several of them are the children of people I introduced to gaming a generation ago. I've never found any lack of people willing to game if you're willing to teach them how - the younger, the better. IMO, it's not the quality of GMing offered - that may keep them there, but it doesn't make them want to join. It's being open and available, and letting them know that such a thing exists.

-clash

Also, I run two games over IRC, each biweekly. If you can't find enough gamers on the intarweb, its hopeless!

-clash

I'll chime in with Drew.  I also buy games I know I'm never likely to play, and often that I have no intention of borrowing ideas from for other games.  Often, I just enjoy reading them.  'Unknown Armies' falls into this category.

For me, reading a game book sparks more "What If's" than reading a novel and it can be re-read for even more.
=

Balbinus, I was very interested in your informal survey.  I followed it in all three places (though I only chimed in on one, of course.)  I find your conclusions and your summary very interesting.  

I am among those who play a lot of different games, and who read even more.  I do enjoy reading a well-written book, be it RPG, novel or essay; and I like stealing bits from one game to use in another. Nowadays, I buy more games than I can play at any one time, but for the first ten years or so of my gaming, I bought four: the AD&D player handbook, an adventure module I've long forgotten and Unearthed Arcanas, plus a Harn supplement I've also forgotten, all second-hand.  

In the 90s, I started having more disposable income and I married a gamer who is also a completist by nature.  I got onto the supplement treadmill for several lines until I got mightily sick and tired of it -- just like I used to read everything by certain novelists, but got cured of it by overdosing.  Nowadays, I buy fewer books and I definitely buy cheaper: small standalone games and used books (though still mostly from my FLGS), PDFs, etc.

RPGs as inspiration largely started with GURPS and d20 for me: I don't like to play or run either system, but there is so much published for them that sometimes they make the best sourcebooks.  Nowadays I also steal mechanics and good GM advice on running certain genres.  For all this, I use very few books as part of the canon when I run a game.  I usually stick to a single rule book and maybe a setting book (though the setting book is often not an RPG but instead a reference book, picture book, or comic book.)  

The rest is just to imbibe the atmosphere of the game.  When I play or run a new game, I like to immerse myself in the setting and mood.  For example, if I intend to run a noir game, I read a stack of noir novels, I watch movies, read essays on the genre, play soundtracks from noir classics, and yes, read half a dozen RPGs that tackle the genre.

I have no data on how typical I am as a buyer, but I suspect I am rather atypical.  For the sake of argument, however, say that a game publisher wanted to know what sells to people like me.  I would advise including and promoting some or all the following features:

• Good, clean writing.  I'm going to be reading this on the bus, so please make it worth my while.  
• Self-contained games that don't require buying a lot of supplements.  Intelocking games are OK, though, as long as the other books are not necessary to play a given game.
• Good GM advice on how to use, modify and tailor the game (system and setting.)
• Toolbox approach, with mechanics in sub-systems that can be pared down, expanded, or grafted to taste.
• Interesting settings, but not excruciating amounts of detailed background material.  I want to hear about what my character or my players' characters can do that will be exciting, not the eighteen pages of timeline and the three chapters of dynastic intricacies of someone's Marysue Empire.

I fall into the buy-more-than-I-play pattern though I'm a mild case. I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. So long as you do play (or, given adversarial cricumstances, strive to at some future point), you're not dysfunctional.

It's like a academic reading up on what's going on in fields outside his specialty. I will never publish on Byzantine art, but I love that stuff, and checking out what smart people have to say about it broadens my horizons and helps my own work in an unquantifiable but very real way.

I will never run Jorune, but I sure have plugged the odd skyrealm into my online D&D campaign.