The issue of organizing both a group to meet and play on a regular schedule, and then to focus on playing the game when they meet, isn't addressed much to any constructive degree.  Tabletop RPGs, as a medium, are neither friendly to a casual degree of participation nor are friendly to solo gameplay; adult gamers are increasingly pressed away from the hobby due to commitments that compete for time and possess greater social prestige, commitments that interfere with that required for proper execution of a tabletop RPG.  If there is an alternative that is friendly to casual and solo gameplay, then it shouldn't be a surprise when there is a drift towards that alternative; this is part of the reason for the success of D&D's one true competitor- World of Warcraft.

If the Tabletop RPG hobby is to remain relevant to the emerging generations, then it has to place control of participation in the user's--the player's--hands; tabletop RPGs need to become casual and solo-friendly, and thus must change their designs and systems to meet this need.  This includes presentation, from graphics to rules.  Wizards of the Coast shows by their actions that the company is aware of this issue and is attempting to solve the problem; the new edition of the Star Wars RPG does have changes that make it friendlier to casual gameplay (and less so to solo gameplay), and there are more (much more) hesitant moves in this direction for D&D.

Change or Die.  It's that simple, and the pressure being applied across media lines cannot be ignored.

Quote from: beeberwhat if you measure from the other editions respective ".5" versions?  

for 1e, it would be after the introduction of UA & the survival guides
dunno about 2e, as i got out of d&d after the above change

did that spike things?  and for how long did any half-version prolong the inevitable slump, in your opinion?

I'm not sure how much an update/.5 edition does to change how many people are playing. I think it helps a company's sales by giving existing players a new game to buy, plus (if done right) it cleans up the rules and makes a game more fun.

I don't think it inherently extends a game's life. Unless you are talking a new edition, the changes we saw in UA/black cover 2e/3.5 wouldn't make someone who disliked the current version of D&D get into it. They were all tweaks and improvements to an existing structure, not a new game.

In other words, if D&D had trouble getting new gamers to pick it up, UA and the other revisions didn't solve that.

D&D e1 started out fairly simple and open ended.  Three small magical books that created a framework for RPG adventure gaming.  It gave Gamesmasters and players the ability to learn the rules relatively quickly, and they weren't too complicated to kind of 'get' without inordinate rules lawyering.  They were however, in my opinion, mathematically unbalanced (such as the experience point system).  Despite this Gamesmasters picked up the game and ran with it because the concept was so fun, the mythic undertones were so interesting, and the game mechanics were pretty fun with funny shaped dice and grid-maps of dungeons and weird monsters and so on.  Many of these Gamesmasters created home-rules to compensate for perceived flaws.  I was one of those.  Overall, it was a relatively easy game to pick up.  So a first generation of Gamesmasters created some really fantastic worlds and there were many all-nighters over pizza with people shouting "No! No! No!  I slash!  I slash!" and other fun stuff.  It was engrossing and as far as I know players and gamesmasters alike really enjoyed it.  I know I did.  And so a hobby (and an industry) was born.  Long live RPGs.

However, TSR's business model was such that they had to sell more books to make money.  And it logically followed that therefore they needed more rules.  And besides, it became apparent the e1 rules had certain flaws and omissions.  And so D&D e2 was born, and that was considerably more complex.  However, since most people by then had learned ed1 and were pretty eager to 'fix the flaws' and 'get the new stuff' they gobbled up e2.  

At this time the barrier to entry was raised and the game became a truly geeky thing because it became an even more technical pursuit.  The nature of the game also changed with the new rules.   In e1 the base of the game was about 50/50 'Role Playing'/Crunch.  In e2 it shifted over toward the crunch side, as the rules were more complex.  Ok.  A lot of people love it and its crunchy.  No problem there as far as I'm concerned.  It's a game and it plays like a game and has rules like a game.  It's just complicated.  Fine.  I didn't get into it because I already had a home-rules version and I was happy with mine.  I know a lot of other GMs who felt the same.  That's ok too.  

Now we get to 3.x and the level of crunch remains roughly the same, and even reduced a tiny bit in some cases, but barrier to entry remains high because it's still a complex system with large volumes of rules and handbooks and guides.  To the average person out there that's a lot to swallow for a game.  Especially now when computer games offer so much graphical intensity and appear to be doing much the same as P&P RPGs (but they're not really).   So, it is my guess that the learning curve, being high, is keeping people from swallowing the blue pill.   That's ok.  Except now we are starting to ask, Is the Hobby Dying?  

Furthermore the tendency continues to appear to be toward more complex rules.  Why?  Because the fan-base already knows and has memorized the rules and new rules, to be worth their price must provide novelty.  Some part is patching, and some part is "totally new and improved".   However, now we have the situation where there's multiple versions with conflicting rules, and more books than you can shake a stick at across these versions.  

Now back to that average person out there...  Not getting the feeling that they're going to want to jump right in because the water is fine.  There's a lot of complexity and if you didn't start with e1 and grow with it, I think you're going to be kind of lost by D&D in its later forms.  Unless you have friends who are already into it.  But for someone wandering in off the street and looking at D&D 3.x on the bookshelf my guess is you're going to go "WTF?"  Its no longer new and novel.  Its no longer simple.  And there's a crowd of people standing around either crowing about how their game is THE BEST ONE, or crapping on other people's idea of what is THE BEST ONE.

Now toss into this mix Indie Games whose designers have a vested (financial) interest in 'showing' that the old style game is 'blah blah blah' (sucks), and you have market forces colliding.

Is the Hobby dying?  Not in my opinion.  It is evolving.  Those interested in keeping up with the evolution should be looking outside the box at 'What comes next?'.  And that's really the important question.  How do we evolve the RPG so that the next generation players will pick it up and go, "ooohhhh... ahhhhhh...", rather than "huhhhh... wuhhhhhtf?".

Of course I have my own opinion on how that will happen but I'm rather a bit loath to say so.   I think I've worn out my welcome at theRPGSite.  Didn't take me long.  First I made the critical error of the infamous "DexCon 10" post.  And then I went on to add insult to injury by being cool to Luke, the Sacred Enemy.  And then, to make matters worse, I just plainly fall on the wrong side of the fence with the traditional game too, which I've always thought had become too complicated for it's own good after e1.  oh darn.  
:rolleyes:

Nevertheless, I think there will be an evolution.   And I do not think that means that it is required to change the fundamental style of Gamesmaster - Player relationship, which to me has certain pros and cons in either form ("GM-Fiat" or "Player Empowered").  

I think there is a good deal of potential in this market for pencil and paper RPGs, even with the (fierce) competition of computer RPGs due to an inherent weakness in the computer game model.  But it is going to take some nerve, a lot of hard work, and a hell of a lot of luck to get it going, and make it happen.   That's my guess.   But of course, only time will tell.

- Mark

Quote from: mearlsRPGs are always under an immense and continual churn. Games come and go. Companies rise, flounder, and fade. It's incredibly rare for any game to achieve long-term (10+ year) success.

It's the same for any business [I say this not because I think Mearls doesn't know, but to emphasise it to others]. Roleplaying games are not unique in business terms. Most new businesses fail dismally. It's very rare for a new business to still be around ten years after its founding. The industry as a whole remains, but individual businesses go kaput. Some members of the failed businesses, and some dedicated customers of them, then claim the industry as a whole is failing.

I see this all the time in the restaurant industry. Places come and go, failed places say the whole industry is dying. But it all keeps going on.

Can we get a Moderator to sticky this conversation? I think it deserves to be always present.

Quote from: mearlsThe really interesting thing to me is that, whenever I see numbers for 2nd and 3rd tier company print runs from any era of gaming, they are invariably about the same: 2,000 to 5,000 books, with hits selling 10,000+. I've seen those numbers from late 70s Judges Guild stuff to d20 books from this decade.

This is interesting. I recently looked up sales figures for GDW RPG products. And they had several games and products that sold about a 100 000 core books, with strong sales for the supplements in the x0,000 range. Traveller and Twilight:2000 really seem to have been somewhere between D&D and the rest of the 2nd tier, could that be?

Quote from: SettembriniThis is interesting. I recently looked up sales figures for GDW RPG products. And they had several games and products that sold about a 100 000 core books, with strong sales for the supplements in the x0,000 range. Traveller and Twilight:2000 really seem to have been somewhere between D&D and the rest of the 2nd tier, could that be?

Thats nice Sett, - but they are now out of Business.

 For several years now.

I admire yor passion on several topics - but if we're going to say that RPGs are NOT a dying business - then maybe we should talk about companies that are currently trying to make a go of it or are actually somewhat profitable.


Just a thought.

- Ed C.

Sure, TSR killed GDW, no doubt about it.

But my point was more aiming at the assumption that there USED to be a real middle tier. With Supplements selling hundredthousand for a hit and tenthousands for an unpopular one.

And I think it is interesting, that this middle tier has vanished.

A survivor could be Palladium. I´m pretty sure they used to sell books in the GDW range.

...or maybe SJ Games.

 Don't laugh , they've had some rough times over the years and have still managed to stay in business.

They might be considered "middle tier" these days, tho at one time they might have been thought of as "top tier". Consider all the game companies that have started and gone out of business since the early 1980s.  When looked at that way - you gotta give ANY surviving company some credit.

 Is WEST END Games still trying to make a comeback ? Or do you guys think they have succeeded with that ? In the Southern Ohio area  I haven't seen much proof that they have "come back" .

- Ed C.

I think WEG, at least in the roleplaying field, are totally stiffed.

Put it this way: aside from TORG, which was only ever a niche success, their big games were Ghostbusters, Star Wars, and Paranoia, none of which they have the rights to anymore. In fact, back in their heyday, their business model depended on possessing hot licences like Star Wars and the like - remember all the other licenced games they put out, like Indiana Jones and Xena and so forth?

West End died for two reasons. Firstly, they became overdependent on licences and neglected their non-licenced games shamefully. (Remember the horror that was Paranoia 5th Edition? Ugh!) In fact, they pretty much depended on the strength of the licences to sell the games by the late 1990s - remember how lame the Xena RPG was? Because they depended on their licences to stay afloat, they needed money to a) acquire new licences and b) keep and maintain the licences they currently had. Secondly, they depended on cash flow from the owner's shoe factory (I'm not making this up) to buoy them during lean times.

This mean that when the shoe factory got into trouble, West End ran out of operating capital, which meant that a) they couldn't acquire any more licences and b) they couldn't afford to print more stuff to sell in the old licences - those which were even selling, at any rate (at that point it was Star Wars and, erm, that's it). This put them in the godawful position where they had to either a) hang onto the licences, not have any operating capital, and go bankrupt or b) give up the licences to free up some cash, and go bankrupt anyway because they could no longer sell their flagship games. Eventually, of course, they went bankrupt and - you guessed it - had to give up the licences.

WEG didn't die because of anything that was happening to the RPG industry at that time, it died due to poor management. Shit, they had the Star Wars rights, and in the hands of any competant game company that's a licence to print money - but they blew it.

Quote from: SettembriniSure, TSR killed GDW, no doubt about it.

Not to quibble, but the TSR lawsuit was only one factor in the death of GDW. There was also the sudden bloat of TCGs and the distributors who shipped those out instead of RPGs, because they could make more money per pallet on them. There was a disasterous attempt at getting into the book trade. And then there was the Desert Storm Fact Book which was a major loss.

GDW could have survived any one of those, but not all four.

Quote from: Koltar...or maybe SJ Games.

 Don't laugh , they've had some rough times over the years and have still managed to stay in business.

They might be considered "middle tier" these days, tho at one time they might have been thought of as "top tier". Consider all the game companies that have started and gone out of business since the early 1980s.  When looked at that way - you gotta give ANY surviving company some credit.

GURPS is near the top - not at WotC levels, but right up there with all the runners up like White Wolf, Mutants and Masterminds, Palladium etc.

The interesting thing with SJG is they are not solely an RPG company. I believe they make a lot more money with card and board games like Munchkin than they do with GURPS. GURPS still makes them money, but not nearly as much as other sources. I don't have a reference for this, but it gets mentioned or alluded to every so often on the SJG homepage.

Quote from: WarthurSecondly, they depended on cash flow from the owner's shoe factory (I'm not making this up) to buoy them during lean times.

IIRC, the shoe company was one that imported Italian loafers, that happened to be the same brand worn by OJ Simpson during the murder case - which dried up sales for those shoes.

Quote from: WarthurSecondly, they depended on cash flow from the owner's shoe factory (I'm not making this up) to buoy them during lean times.

This mean that when the shoe factory got into trouble, West End ran out of operating capital, ...

According to my information it was exactly the opposite!

Yes, they depended on the cash flow of the shoe company, but in the other way round. The shoe company regularly siphoned money from WEG because they got into trouble.
And when the shoe company (whose name was Bucci, if I remember correctly) went belly up they took WEG with them.

(I wish I could find a source for that.)

(EDIT: Spelling of Bucci)

Dirk,

That´s exactly what I read back in the day. I belive it was the parent´s shoe company that siphoned off money.