Quote from: J ArcaneYou're desperately out of touch if you actually believe 3.0 was anything but the biggest release this hobby had seen since Vampire.

Please take a reading comprehension course. I'm not saying that D&D wasn't the biggest release since Vampire.In fact, it was a much bigger release than Vampire. I'm saying it's the same old brand. I'm saying I find it a concern that the top 5-6 games are almost continually the same damn brands and franchises since 1991.

Quote from: J ArcaneThat, combined with the biggest marketing push since the original brought in new people, brought back old people,

And yet, sales of roleplaying games overall are down. Hobby declining slowly.

Quote from: J Arcaneand even cannibalized players from other markets to boot.

If you mean other RPG markets, then you are right but that doesn't bring any new gamers in. Sales still down. Hobby still declining slowly.

Quote from: J ArcaneYou have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.  You're just babbling vague rumors and speculation, and twisting any facts to suit your own conclusions.  Every company's successes are meaningless unless they support your agenda, every indicator of sales or new releases or demographics is meaningless unless it supports your agenda.

If only you showed me any indicator of success, that would be a start. Please understand that every anecdotal evidence, most store owner reports, many industry leaders and associations like GAMA all understand that sales are in decline and/or that the population of gamers is aging.

Robin Laws, Justin Achilli and Shane Hensley all said the industry was experiencing at least downturn during a Gencon panel (2005  I believe). They weren't sue the tides would turn (read: they won't admit publically it's going to take a major turn of events).

And yet sales are declining, bricks and mortar stores are closing. Heck, even the WotC stores (a hundred or so) weren't profitable.

The truth is, you're the delusional one. Maybe you think declining sales in this industry mean the end of your world or something. Read Kenneth's column again. Go to the GAMA website and check their surveys. Check out "Comics & Games Retailer". Do something to buy yourself a fucking clue.

Quote from: J ArcaneI don't understand what this sentence means.  Could you rephrase?

Tabletop RPGs are capital goods.  They have useful lifespans of 25-50 years, depending upon their physical quality.  They allow the user to create products which they can then use to create the entertainment that they consume; this is no different than the capital goods needed to create a TV or film studio so you can make films and shows to consume.  You don't need every user to own a set; one set is more than enough for an entire group of users.

Instead, RPGs are presented and sold as consumer goods with short lifespans and intended that every user has to have their own copy to partake of what the good provides; they are thought of as console and PC games are, in terms of the business model.  This is one of the problems that the tabletop business has and it is useful to think that changing the business model to conform to the reality of the product and its use would be good for business and hobby alike.

QuoteOtherwise, I think you are overstating the issue, for the reasons Pundit pointed out.

I can see one possible business model, in the form of a subscription-based service, but I think it would ultimately be more costly than profitable because of the need to constantly crank out content and new revisions in order to justify a subscription model.  

And I think it would also face far too much competition from normal games, where you can just go buy a book and play, and buy more of you want more stuff.

Here's one possible example of what I'm thinking.

Take D&D.  You need only one set of rulebooks per group, and those books will last 25 or more years.  While evergreen in sales, that sales income is not what a company that believes RPGs to be a consumer good, not a capital good, wants.  They want higher revenues, and they expect faster turnaround of editions/versions; this is not what the reality is, and attempts to fuck with it inevitably wreck or destroy those that attempt it.  As tabletop games can't go with the server/client idea that acts as the foundation for the subscription model of MMORPGs, and they haven't found a way to turn their product into a print version of the console/game model of console/PC games, they're stuck with a reality that doesn't conform to what the business schools say ought to be the case.

The solution is to embrace the reality.  You stop trying to get the majority of players to buy rulebooks.  You revise your expectations to conform to a flow of revenue that's (comparatively) small, but as reliable as breathing meaning life.  You stop thinking about next quarter, next year, etc. and instead your cycle is generational.  You reduce your publishing schedule to focusing upon products that players--or third party companies--cannot do themselves, and you reorient your business towards maintaining awareness of the game among society.  One or two products a year, and then only those that users cannot do for themselves.  Support conventions.  Work on product lines that add to the play experience.  Keep careful track of the culture as a whole as well as rivals in your business; maintain investment in your company's capacities in research and development.  (Oh, and restructure to be a small, closely-held corporation with a strong future-orientation in the leadership and a policy of internal promotion.)

You're making the tools that allows others to make the tools that make their products that people consume.  Stop acting like you're selling ink cartridges.

Some good poitns there, and I kind of see what you're getting at now.

Two things.

1)  I think the "one rulebook per group" is an exaggeration.  Sure if you're trying to get your group into a new game, that's likely to be the case, but anyone who's dealt with trying to do a chargen session with only one book to go around can tell you that situation isn't likely to last long if the game takes off.

2)  Your mention of scaling back releases in favor of a small number of quality releases and community suport is spot on with what I had always planned for any future RPG projects.

I've never been a fan of the splat a week approach of game support, because I think it winds up spending a lot of money on shit no one buys to maintain an appearance of line support.  And few companies can maintain any kind of consistent level of quality when they're cranking out that much shit all the time.  

I've referred to it a few times as a the ultimate catch-22 of game publishing:  Gamers don't buy sourcebooks, but if you don't print them, they start screeching that the line is "dead".

What you discuss in your post is, basically, how you prevent that "dead" label, without going broke.  Cons, sponsored games, events, an active community website.  Keep you name alive, and keep it on people's radars, and you'll keep your game alive.

It's interesting because as others have pointed out, it looks like D&D revamps, what, every eight years.  That's not quite ink, but it's certainly not a capital investment approach.  Ironically, it is more like a TV or major appliance, yeah?

But what makes us buy a new TV? It's very different than what makes us buy a new Washer/Dryer, don't you think?  The former is usually a change in technology, the latter a matter of parts wearing out.

To which is an RPG closer?

Personally, and professionally, I think the subject is being looked at too narrowly. I have had commercial success with Squirrel Attack! Why? Because everyone in the group can own a copy and enjoy the read if nothing else. Definitely, one approach is to gear your business to selling one book per group and I have done that with my more traditional titles. It works. However, to rule out an approach where you are selling an end product for entertainment is, well, narrow.

I am just saying that there are many approaches to the market and I wouldn't even say SA! is a success for just one reason, there are many. Still, the RPGs are not only a means to enabling GMs to run games. They are often entertainment in and of itself. I bought the Birthright campaign set and just enjoyed reading the books. Oh, and I also enjoyed running a campaign based on the setting. Oh, and I also took some of the rules and dumped others. So, there are many aspects to my final use of the product.

Bill

Quote from: Consonant DudeI'm talking about new games that would have enough impact to bring a significant amount of roleplayers in. Something like Vampire. We haven't seen something like that since 1991. So I think I've given them more than 5 years.

So you mean, "a game that creates new gamers."

It's my belief that no such game exists, or ever has existed. I think most gamers don't become gamers by wandering into a game store, buying a book, and then going from there - instead, someone else brings them into it. Just to check that, I've started a thread with a poll. Sure, it'll be unscientific, but it'll give us a qualitative idea of the situation.

If most gamers are created by being recruited by other gamers, then the One True Perfect Recruiting Game doesn't matter.

Anyway, as others have said, D&D3.5 has eased people in, the same way Vamire did. We shouldn't underestimate its popularity. It's true that it's not a new game, but as I said, in any market, the established product has an advantage. Now, you and I might say that D&D3.5 is substantially the same game as D&D Basic Set from 1978, and Hackmaster is substantially the same, too. A shitload of fanboys would violently disagree, however.

And then of course, RuneQuest came after D&D, and used pretty much the same stats, it just used percentile skills instead of classes and levels. But now D&D has got skills of 1-20, and d20 is just d100/5, it's basically the same. So is RuneQuest the same as D&D? Did RuneQuest not count as a "new game"? I'd say that RuneQuest and Basic Set D&D are, in game mechanics, closer than Basic Set D&D and D&D3.5. So which is truly a "new game"?

There are a lot of similarities in a lot of games. That's why fanboys of Game X will abuse fanboys of Game Y, saying that Y's just a ripoff of X, may as well just play X. So how new and different does a game have to be before you'll call it a "new game"?

Do we really need a new game to make new gamers? Does baseball change its rules to become football so that they can get new baseball fans? Or do they just promote baseball more?

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerOne of the things that would be useful to talk about is the issue of about RPGs being something where a group of 4-6 can go on for 25+ years on just one set of rulebooks shared amongst them, and what could--and should--be done about this issue.

Already done. It's called "2nd edition" or "5th edition" or whatever. And also, splatbooks. It's actually pretty rare for a single group of 4-6 people to stay together for a quarter of a century. People move state, get married and have kids, get pissed off with each-other, new people come into the group, etc. So in that quarter-century, they usually buy a new edition of the game, plus a heap of other games, plus splatbooks.

Getting people to buy rpgs is not a problem; getting them to buy some particular rpg is. That's just plain old marketing.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI'm saying I find it a concern that the top 5-6 games are almost continually the same damn brands and franchises since 1991.

I'm not sure why that's a concern for you. I can only think of two reasons.

• Not enough variety. This isn't a problem, because the heaps of little guys keep producing variety, often for free.
• Only variety creates new customers. The McDs experience, the Disney experience, etc, suggests that in fact people like same old, same old, more than they like variety; or they like the old stuff dressed up a little bit to look new. Thus, GURPS 4th ed after GURPS 3rd ed, etc.

Quote from: Consonant DudeAnd yet sales are declining, bricks and mortar stores are closing.

When we don't even know closer than "1,000 to 1,500" how many stores there are, we can't say whether they're declining or not. They could drop from their actual number of 1,403 to 1,210, or rise from 1,067 to 1,450, and we wouldn't notice, because all those numbers are inside our range.

I am not saying the industry is doing wonderfully; nor am I saying it's declining. I'm saying I don't know, and neither do you, or Ryan Dancey, or anyone. I am saying that the only time anyone in business tells you he's doing well, is when he's doing badly and wants you to invest in his business. The rest of the time, people in business are endlessly complaining that times are tough. So when we hear them complain, it ain't exactly ironclad evidence that they're in decline. Go talk to a farmer sometime. He'll be leaning on his BMW crying.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerOne of the things that would be useful to talk about is the issue of about RPGs being something where a group of 4-6 can go on for 25+ years on just one set of rulebooks shared amongst them, and what could--and should--be done about this issue.

You mean besides a new edition of the game being issued every 5-10 years and using marketing to convince people to upgrade?

Quote from: JimBobOzSo you mean, "a game that creates new gamers."

It's my belief that no such game exists, or ever has existed. I think most gamers don't become gamers by wandering into a game store, buying a book, and then going from there -

Funny, that's exactly how I became a gamer.

I had a gift certificate for Waldens and since I owned all the Tarzan, John Carter of Mars and Conan books they had (I dislike Tolkien and had a subscription to Mack Bolan books) walked out with the Red Box D&D.

*I* had never heard of the game, but my *parents* had and were worried about the stories of suicide and such, and so played it with me my first game (which I DM'd).

So it can clearly happen in some cases

Quote from: JimBobOzDo we really need a new game to make new gamers? Does baseball change its rules to become football so that they can get new baseball fans? Or do they just promote baseball more?

Well they have changed the rules in Baseball right? And Football over the years, right? To make the game more exciting, and faster paced, at the demand of fans right?


I don't know as if that necessarily contradicts anything you're saying, but I just wanted to point that out.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckYou mean besides a new edition of the game being issued every 5-10 years and using marketing to convince people to upgrade?

I bought 3.5 where I didn't buy 3.0 besides a Player's Handbook, and refused to buy Advanced at all. It wasn't marketing, it's a different game.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo you mean, "a game that creates new gamers."

I mean two things:

-A game that creates gamers

-Encouraging signs that there are gaming hits among a younger evidence.

This last point is pretty important because GAMA numbers in their surveys show that hobby store customers are not just getting fewer, they're growing older. It's that long tail effect showing. We're talking about more and more guys in their 40s, not just 30s and fewer teenagers.

That's why products flying off the shelves are IPs we grew up with. CoC, D&D, Palladium, Hero, GURPS, Warhammer, etc... Then the "youngest" is usually Vampire. Now, those gamers in their 40s? In another 10 years, that's a huge chunk of people who aren't going to buy games. Add 10 years more and another big chunk goes.

One notable exception of an IP targeting youth that has done real nice is Exalted. It's got a lot of backing from a veteran company and really huge support. I know it was still doing great in 2005 but don't know about 2006. We need more of that (even if I don't find the game particularly good)

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's my belief that no such game exists, or ever has existed. I think most gamers don't become gamers by wandering into a game store, buying a book, and then going from there - instead, someone else brings them into it. Just to check that, I've started a thread with a poll. Sure, it'll be unscientific, but it'll give us a qualitative idea of the situation.

I know it has become unpopular to say it but it's so true, it needs to be said again: Vampire very much did bring a whole new segment of gamers. It not only grew the audience, it reached out to an entirely new segment.

And I don't even like or play WoD games. Never did.

Now, I agree with you that a lot of gamers are created through gamers. That still doesn't mean that games are not playing an important part. I've experienced this myself with boardgames and roleplaying games. If I put the right game in front of the right person, it makes a world of difference whether they are motivated to try it or not. Amazing production values or themes that reach to them, or mechanics that they immediately find attractive can be important components of the sales pitch.

I've seen a kid repeatedly refuse to try RISK for months before immediately warming to the idea once it was RISK: LotR. This phenomenon is commonplace, I believe.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckYou mean besides a new edition of the game being issued every 5-10 years and using marketing to convince people to upgrade?

Yes, I mean something other than that.

Quote from: Consonant DudeIf I put the right game in front of the right person, it makes a world of difference whether they are motivated to try it or not. Amazing production values or themes that reach to them, or mechanics that they immediately find attractive can be important components of the sales pitch.

You're still talking about the "health of the industry", though. That doesn't mean, "I tried it a couple of times years ago," that means, "I started gaming, and still do." I could persuade at least half the people I know to game at least once, and I'm not exactly super-charismatic. But will they still be interested a year from now, and will they go out and buy their own copies of the games? Rather less than that half of everyone I know, I think.

Ask around, there are heaps of people who gamed a few times. Why didn't they stay? Well, most often they just plain weren't interested. Sometimes, it was the people they gamed with. Many of us have met women who gamed a few times, then left because of too many sexist blokes.

People matter.

Quote from: JimBobOzPeople matter.

They sure do. No argument!

But game companies bring something to the equation. What people do is pretty much out of their control. What they can do is try to target specific people with specific products.

I'm just saying, I think games can and have brought people into roleplaying games, just like they do with everyone else. They weren't entirely responsible for it but did play a nice part. The changes following Vampire's release were felt everywhere. Locally as well as business-wise. White Wolf were a catalyst but people (like existing gamers) still mattered a great deal.

Magic: The Gathering is an excellent example of this. It is widely known that roleplayers were at the forefront of the phenomenon. Roleplayers and other hobbyists were directly responsible for Magic's success. We (the collective we) spread the word on that game. People matter. Yet, one has to recognize that at the end of the day, the catalyst is nothing more than a great idea by Richard Garfield and great work by Adkison and his team.

No game is going to come out of thin air and clone roleplayer armies to expand this hobby but we still need those new hits and great ideas, IMO.

What I am curious about, and where I am inclined to agree with Consonant Dude's arguments, is the question of valuable new IP generated by roleplaying games. In the recent ten years, how many game lines can we point to which were able to create not just a lasting appeal, but an appeal strong enough to concievably support other (non-RPG) product lines?

AD&D successfully branched out into novels and computer games in the 80s  and Vampire did something similar (including a very short-lived TV show) in the 90s. What is there in the 2000s? Can Exalted be an example of this phenomenon? And are there other properties which have become valuable based on a game's success? Discuss.