Quote from: Elliot WilenIMO this has been going on since video games appeared; I strongly suspect that video games captured a lot of audience (especially kids) that would otherwise have gone into model rocketry, trains, wargames, or other hobbies.

I agree.  Back during the Atari and Nintendo age my school group lost a lot of players to video gaming.  And today my nephews will sling dice, but they spend more time with pixels.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAh, I see what you're saying now--the difference between Bartle's map and Dancey's shows that the underlying dynamics of PnP and online are different. I can buy that; at the same time I don't think they're so different that they don't compete for audience resources (time, money).

Time and money are competed for by wildly different activites, I know that raising twins took both away from my rpg hobby. Someone hooked on CCGs lost time from rpgs. If a person wants to go to a lan party that weekend, no weekend rpg, etc.

It's a given.

But it's also something very different than what Dancey was saying- he was saying that for Power-Gamers, online games are better PnP rpgs than PnP rpgs, and that as a result we must change what an rpg is to map upon a customer base with no Power-Gamers.

Comparing Bartle's map to his it is plain that his view is foolishness. And thus his drive to story-driven replacements for rpgs is foolishness.



It's a different (and worthwhile) discussion about if MMORPGs, Mini games (heroclix, etc), and other expanding options in the market place have cut down on the number of rpg gamers as whole however.  Each gives a different player experience, and with limited time and money people will pick one over the other for any number of reasons.

(cont'd from above)

Where Dancey fails is (a) imputing some kind of imperative to the hobby to "survive at all costs", something I see with a number of story gamers. It basically boils down to "we had to destroy roleplaying in order to save it". That's industry speak, not hobby speak.

And (b) he assumes that an RPG industry that caters to the storytelling crowd exclusively (instead of producing games that both individually and collectively appeal to the entire spectrum of tastes in his earlier map) will be able to sustain itself, even grow. This is pure conjecture, and it flies in the face of the conclusions of the WotC study: that games which fail to appeal to more than two of the "groups" end up struggling in the market. (IIRC.)

The only thing IMO that would give hope to Dancey's conjecture is the "bandwagon effect" of "network externalities". This is something I've described in the past; basically it amounts to competition between games for players, such that the presence of competition actually reduces the value of a game. By way of example, this is mostly different from cars; my Honda will take me around just as well as long as gasoline is available, even if I have the last Honda on earth--except when it comes to spare parts for repairs. With games, though, you're better off if people don't have an alternative to your favorite game. So if a portion of the RPG audience leaves PnP entirely, the attraction of "storytelling" might increase simply because that's where the people are...and if that causes more people to join the crowd, it'll be even more attractive.

But that's not a given, far from it. Not only does Dancey depend on a major defection from PnP (beyond what's happened so far), he also excludes alternatives to "storytelling". Somebody up above remarked on how he handwaves away Second Life, which is related. Basically, like many Forgers, he discounts the importance of immersive, experiential play: and what do you get when you subtract the strong "game"-orientation from RPGs while leaving the in-character experience? In short I predict that without an "unfocused" D&D to hold things together, you're likely to end up with two even smaller niches (because the internal synergies aren't as strong with smaller audiences) of "simulationists" and "storytellers".

Quote from: gleichmanIt's a different (and worthwhile) discussion about if MMORPGs, Mini games (heroclix, etc), and other expanding options in the market place have cut down on the number of rpg gamers as whole however.  Each gives a different player experience, and with limited time and money people will pick one over the other for any number of reasons.

It's a much more reasonable claim to say some "Power Gamers" may stop playing RPGs to focus on Minis games (Warhammer 40K, Heroclix, etc) than it is to say all of them will one day stop playing tabletop games altogether to play online games exclusively.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen(cont'd from above)

Generally agree with everything here.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn short I predict that without an "unfocused" D&D to hold things together, you're likely to end up with two even smaller niches (because the internal synergies aren't as strong with smaller audiences) of "simulationists" and "storytellers".

It's a bit of a nitpick, but it doesn't have to be D&D and could in fact be another 'unfocused' replacement. It's just likely that it will be D&D, it's WotC's market to lose.

Quote from: gleichmanIt's a different (and worthwhile) discussion about if MMORPGs, Mini games (heroclix, etc), and other expanding options in the market place have cut down on the number of rpg gamers as whole however.  Each gives a different player experience, and with limited time and money people will pick one over the other for any number of reasons.

Well, my point is that it's not an entirely distinct discussion.

Let's look at the competition between video games and stamp collecting. I think it's reasonable to guess that stamp collecting attracted kids at a lower rate once video games became widely available. But the competition is at a very basic level: it's just two things you can do for fun, each takes time and money, so more attention spent on one is going to take away from the other.

Now contrast the competition between video games and RPGs. Back in the 70's-80's, the most popular video games were fairly abstract or narrowly-focused gamey games: Defender, Missile Command, Asteroids, Pole Position. They competed with RPGs about as much as they did with stamp collecting. Over time, though, the "RPG" (Zork/Pool of Radiance/Apshai) and eventually MUD/MMO computer games got bigger and bigger. Don't you think those compete more with RPGs than the old Atari games did? And if so, isn't it possible that computer games of this ilk will continue to get better at "scratching the itch" of PnP players? To me it's mainly a question of when and where the cannibalization will stop, and then what can be done with what's left.

I just think Dancey is overestimating both the speed and extent of the remaining cannibalization, and then what he does with the "rump" audience is both wrong headed from the hobby perspective and pie-in-the-sky from the industry perspective.

Quote from: StuartIt's a much more reasonable claim to say some "Power Gamers" may stop playing RPGs to focus on Minis games (Warhammer 40K, Heroclix, etc) than it is to say all of them will one day stop playing tabletop games altogether to play online games exclusively.

Dancey didn't reply to my request for data on the subject, not even to say that it's confidential. So my guess is that it doesn't exist and that he's being driven by other unknown factors (most likely Ego).

In any case, I'm betting that he's seen a downward market trend and is knee-jerking a reaction to that.

WotC seems to agree (about the downward market and not anything else) as otherwise they wouldn't need to produce a 4th edition- indeed they drew the conculsion from their original survey data that new editions and expansions were a core requirement for players of rpgs. Thus one would would expect a strong cycle to exist in customer demand.

Quote from: gleichmanIt's a bit of a nitpick, but it doesn't have to be D&D and could in fact be another 'unfocused' replacement. It's just likely that it will be D&D, it's WotC's market to lose.

Right, that prediction is based on giving Dancey the benefit of the doubt--that the "center of gravity" of the current hobby will be completely torn out by video games.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNow contrast the competition between video games and RPGs. Back in the 70's-80's, the most popular video games were fairly abstract or narrowly-focused gamey games: Defender, Missile Command, Asteroids, Pole Position.  They competed with RPGs about as much as they did with stamp collecting.

This is where we break company, for I lived through those times and remember them rather well.

Those games were widely accepted. New exciting ones even made the news. More people played them, including many that played rpgs, and vastly more money was spent on them. An almost exact match for MMORPGs of today in fact.

So no, I don't see a more direct compete here. I see different tastes picking and selecting different hobbies like I've always seen. Which is exactly what the two models would suggest.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd (b) he assumes that an RPG industry that caters to the storytelling crowd exclusively (instead of producing games that both individually and collectively appeal to the entire spectrum of tastes in his earlier map) will be able to sustain itself, even grow. This is pure conjecture, and it flies in the face of the conclusions of the WotC study: that games which fail to appeal to more than two of the "groups" end up struggling in the market. (IIRC.)

The funny thing is this: Let's say all of the power gamers and thinkers are leaving for MMOs, Leaving only character actors and storytellers playing PnP games. That would seem to leave us in one of two situations.

The first situation is that everyone who played D&D was in those first two categories and thus, once they are gone, the resulting hobby is too darn small to even worry about because the vast majority of gamers play D&D.

The second situation is that everyone in all categories more or less plays D&D and so you don't lose 95% of the hobby when the power gamers and thinkers leave. However, what you have left is a cadre of story gamers of whom the vast majority play D&D.

Of course, the argument then becomes that since the power gamers and thinkers are gone, we should make different games because the story gamers are not being served by D&D even though the vast majority play D&D. This is the exact same argument that has been bandied about for the better part of a decade, isn't it? "You story gamers are playing the wrong game and you have no idea you are playing the wrong game. If I could just get you to understand that my game is the right game, you would finally start having fun. What? You are having fun playing the wrong game? No, you aren't."

But the argument continues. See the goal isn't really to salvage the current gaming community. It is to expand into the vast, untapped market of non-gamers who are just waiting for the right game... the whole point of the Wii comment is to point out the existance of this market.

Let's ignore the fact that RPGs have been around for about 30 years and haven't tapped into this market. That's obviously because the gateway game is wrong. If we just made a better gateway game, a simpler game, a game based on stuff real people are interested in... you know cops, lawyers and horny surgeons, a game focused on story telling. Everyone likes stories.

This is another old argument. RPGs have been around for 30 years. In that time, numerous attempts at making the "gateway game" have surfaced. There was Basic D&D, Prince Valiant, various starter "adventure in a box" editions of D&D, the Diablo II game, Marvel SAGA to name just a few. The story game movement has been around for over 7 years now. You mean to tell me that they still haven't figured out how to reach their target market?

Or, is it possible that the market is exactly what it looks like? D&D is king because it serves most gamers well enough and no RPGs are setting the entertainment world on fire because of the one thing they have in common: they are RPGs and most people don't like RPGs.

Heck, I don't even like D&D, but the whole "wrong game" arguments are tiresome after all these years.

Sorry for the rant,

Quote from: cmagounOr, is it possible that the market is exactly what it looks like? D&D is king because it serves most gamers well enough and no RPGs are setting the entertainment world on fire because of the one thing they have in common: they are RPGs and most people don't like RPGs.

Heck, I don't even like D&D, but the whole "wrong game" arguments are tiresome after all these years.

Chris be not a dumb person.

RPGs are and will remain a niche until there is a major culture shift.

He just said that, no?

Quote from: SettembriniHe just said that, no?

And I just agreed.

OK.

Quote from: gleichmanThis is where we break company, for I lived through those times and remember them rather well.

Those games were widely accepted. New exciting ones even made the news. More people played them, including many that played rpgs, and vastly more money was spent on them. An almost exact match for MMORPGs of today in fact.

So no, I don't see a more direct compete here. I see different tastes picking and selecting different hobbies like I've always seen. Which is exactly what the two models would suggest.

I'd have to agree with Elliot.

The problem isn't that WoW is more popular than Pac-Man.  It's that it's more popular with gamers because it does, indeed, scratch the same itch (or a reasonably close substitute thereof) for them as PnP RPGs.

In particular, the ability to build a character, defeat enemies in combat, overcome traps and obstacles, and gain fat loot.  Not to mention that the MMORPGs do in fact offer some form of socialization.

They may not do that for you.  I know they don't do that for me.  But they do for a lot of gamers.  I have seen people who completely abandon PnP for WoW.  It's not just an urban legend, it does occasionally happen.

I think Dancey is wrong about both the scale at which people abandon PnPRPGs for MMORPGs, and about his conclusion that the best solution is to completely re-focus the industry on a completely new, but sort of related, hobby.  But that doesn't change the fact that MMORPGs are somewhat of a threat.