I got thinking about this because of the current debate in the indie gaming community about a perception of slipping standards there, in the rpg field supply massively outstrips demand.

That's not just in the indie scene, I think if anything it's less of a problem for those guys than it is for us, I mean generally, supply massively outstrips demand.

It's intrinsic to the hobby, a happy group with a game they like can play that game for decades without needing another purchase.  Many, maybe most, groups have two or three or so goto systems that they play over and over.  I'm in that group, probably 50% of my play is just using the CoC ruleset for various things, take Runequest, CoC and Rules Cyclopedia and you have 90% of my actual play.

But, month after month new product comes flooding out.  Much of it, maybe most of it, doesn't sell that much or get much actual play, but still it comes.  Demand is limited, we only have so much time and individually we each only need so many games (though often different ones to each other), but supply is not subject to those same limits.

I think this has a big impact on the hobby, I think supply outstripping demand is what is now hitting the indie guys (in other words, I think they're now encountering a problem mainstream gaming for want of a better term encountered some while back) and I think it's at the root of much of the industry's issues.  The industry is supplying to a demand shortfall, which ultimately has financial implications.

Supply and demand, basic economics, I think the industry is and always has struggled because of a mismatch between the two.  Sharp guys like Flyingmice identify (or serendipitously fall into) particular niches and market to those, and that makes a lot of sense, but most folk ain't that sharp or lucky and turn out games which may be great but for which the demand just ain't there.

Quality is not the issue here, saturation and an excess of supply over demand is the issue.  Thoughts?

This has been the nature of the beast for quite a long time and the fact that it remains the nature of the beast suggests that it is at least partly successful (industry wide. Some guys go out of business, others start/remain). Otherwise we wouldn't see this model continuing.

I think that it shows there are just as many, if not more, readers and collectors as there are people who play using the material they buy. As you say, supply outstrips demand for play purposes, but as this has been happening industry wide for some time, i don't think it can be said that it generally outstrips demand. The readers/collectors are keeping the demand artificially higher than would otherwise be the case. I expect most people on this board know of someone who has a gaming collection that is so huge that they couldn't possibly use all of it in play.

I also think that the inclusion of more fiction, flavout text and the like plays to the collectors more than the players. Scion being a recent example. A 40 page story introduction? No thanks. I'd rather those pages were used to clarify rules or allow more gaming material to be included.

Edit: Also, consider how roleplaying books look these days. Layout, art and pretty borders, full-colour content. That isn't necessary to play the game. They are designed to catch the eye. I managed many years of play with softbound, balck & white books with tiddly scratchy little pen & ink drawings. The experience wasn't lacking because of it. A great looking package adds value to a collector (other than looking great to players as well).

You are of course right.  For example, I play in a group of older guys with enough cash to buy whatever they want (game related).  For the last 6 months we have been playing D&D, the Shackled City campaign.  We all have the 3 core books, and the GM has the shackled City book.  We are probably only about 1/2 way through.  That's a lot of play time for a little cash (especially if you consider the fact that we already had the core books for some time).

Next month we start a Star Wars Saga Campaign.  I have about 4 months of adventures planned.  Beyond the core RPG book, and the minis I already own, nothing will be purchased.

Lots of games...little time.  That made me decide to stop buying anything Indie, impulse buys, curiosity buys, and I'm just foing to stick with proven mainstream stuff from now on.

I don't think it's especially avoidable, but I do think it means most rpg releases will see minimal actual play.

I also think it depresses quality, because stuff tends to be bought by readers/collectors who by their nature don't pick up on practical play issues.

If anything, the commercial rewards go to those not focussed on play, producing for non-play purchasers seems in many ways more lucrative than producing for play.

The indie bit is that I think what is happening to those guys is that their supply is now outstripping their demand, whereas previously there weren't enough suppliers for that to be an issue for them.  As that happens, many games get minimal actual play and so minimal actual play feedback, so becoming less playable.  I'm not even sure it's avoidable for them either.

Essentially, IMO ours is not an economically sustainable hobby, as a well designed product removes consumers from the marketplace.

Locally ,
 There is NO DEMAND for Indie games as far as I can tell.

 Most of the RPG players if they are looking for something we don't have in the store - its usually a reprint of a classic game that they've heard. For example : TRAVELLER, 1st or 2nd edition D&D, Space Opera, Star Frontiers, Morrow Project,...etc....

- Ed C.

Quote from: BalbinusQuality is not the issue here, saturation and an excess of supply over demand is the issue.  Thoughts?

I think it's a good point.

Some thoughts in no particular order...

Indie theory suggests the game system and the game subject matter should be inexorably linked. This implies a new game for each subject you want to address (So you'd need to publish 'Desperate Housewives, the RPG' to do desperate housewives, and then, another completely different game to do 'Housewives, the RPG," for when they're not so desperate.

If Indie theory is valid, then saturation is almost impossible.

Going to more traditional games, I think there's a clear demarcation between setting / subject matter (for which there's probably a much greater demand) and system / game mechanics.

Between core engines (e.g. D20, GURPS) and house systems (BRP) I think this is largely covered -- and to your point, I'm not sure I really need another mechanical system. I am interested in looking at variants (M&M) and add-ons (Monster Manuals, etc.)

So I think demand / saturation points vary pretty dramatically based on what kind of product you're looking at.

Cheers,
-E.

I think it's crazy that some producers think every member of a gaming group will buy the corebook each for a game they play. Weapons of the Gods is designed like this - frankly you'd be lucky to even find that many copies on sale. Never have i been with a group that functions that way.

Quote from: KoltarLocally ,
 There is NO DEMAND for Indie games as far as I can tell.

 Most of the RPG players if they are looking for something we don't have in the store - its usually a reprint of a classic game that they've heard. For example : TRAVELLER, 1st or 2nd edition D&D, Space Opera, Star Frontiers, Morrow Project,...etc....

- Ed C.

Indie stuff gave me the thought, but I'm posting about more than that scene.  Your post really seems to support my point, people are looking for a small subset of games but the supply is vastly beyond that.

I've been aware of it for some time, Balbinus. It's why I am exploring niches like Napoleonic Naval, or WWI Aviation, where I have little competition and possibly can bring in some new blood. There's a lot of product out there, and most roleplayers don't know and don't care, because they are already set for life. IMO, the generally higher production values are an effort to attract attention in a crowded marketplace*. There are other signs, among them the demise of mid-tier publishers. They are sqeezed out because they are too big to go for the niche scraps, and too small to get market away from the big dog. They end up gambling and losing. Indie games a la the Forge are by defintition a niche product. For a long time no-one was supplying this niche, but now a slew of Indie games are glutting it. It's die off time there too.

-clash

* I think it's on the whole a good thing, because RPG publishers have kept prices artificially low for far too long by eating into their own margin. Now margins are so low there's nothing there to sustain production and development. By marketing the high production value books, publishers have a chance to reset the price bar and give themselves some margin - even for those who don't go this route, because customers are getting more used to higher prices. Grognards like me resent it because they've been buying RPGs for essentially the same price for thirty years now, but it's way overdue.

I'm with One Horse.  This isn't new and nothing has changed except, possibly, more people hearing about and trying small press games.  Look at how well Spirit of the Century has done (according to Fred's blog, very very well for a small press game).

The thing that hurts the indie community is their aversion to marketing their games.  More indie authors need to make use of message boards, LiveJournal, reviewers, and other resources to get people talking about their products.

Quote from: KoltarLocally ,
 There is NO DEMAND for Indie games as far as I can tell.

 Most of the RPG players if they are looking for something we don't have in the store - its usually a reprint of a classic game that they've heard. For example : TRAVELLER, 1st or 2nd edition D&D, Space Opera, Star Frontiers, Morrow Project,...etc....

- Ed C.

This doesn't mean much.  Most people who hear about indie games hear about them online, where they can order them for the same cost they can buy them in the shop.

As a personal matter, I have so little trust that my LGS will stock anything but mainstream guaranteed to sell stuff that I'd never even ask.

Quote from: signoftheserpentI think it's crazy that some producers think every member of a gaming group will buy the corebook each for a game they play. Weapons of the Gods is designed like this - frankly you'd be lucky to even find that many copies on sale. Never have i been with a group that functions that way.

The group I'm in now more or less works that way.  There's a couple people that never bought a rulebook, but most did.

All my previous groups, however, usually only one person owned any books (the GM).

Frankly, I preferred it that way.  Cuts down on rule-lawyering considerably.

Quote from: signoftheserpentI think it's crazy that some producers think every member of a gaming group will buy the corebook each for a game they play. Weapons of the Gods is designed like this - frankly you'd be lucky to even find that many copies on sale. Never have i been with a group that functions that way.

Yeah, for most games only myself and, perhaps, one other person has a book.  It didn't use to be this way when I played with folk who were willing to spend a whopping $30 - $50 once or twice a year, but I meet few people willing to spend any money at all let alone *read* the book today.

Quote from: signoftheserpentI think it's crazy that some producers think every member of a gaming group will buy the corebook each for a game they play. Weapons of the Gods is designed like this - frankly you'd be lucky to even find that many copies on sale. Never have i been with a group that functions that way.

And yet I have the opposite experience.  Most of my group for the last eight years or so have owned the corebook at least, and usually as many supplements as I do (the GM).

Quote from: signoftheserpentI think it's crazy that some producers think every member of a gaming group will buy the corebook each for a game they play. Weapons of the Gods is designed like this - frankly you'd be lucky to even find that many copies on sale. Never have i been with a group that functions that way.

For a while some designers tried to make this a moral issue, equating sharing a book among the group with copyright theft.

The public was, in the main, unsympathetic to their argument I think it is fair to say.  Probably because their argument was bollocks.