Quote from: KoltarSpeaking of all this - my Manager heard some industry gossip related to the very topic.

 In the past 3 or 4 years there was apparenty some book that WotC released that had almost no game content, was supposed to be a D&D hardback, it was mostly setting fiction, the book had very poor sales.

This so ticked off the parent company - HASBRO, that they putright told the WotC folks to NEVER do that again. Something along the lines of they would shut down either WotC or D&D.

 That is a rumor at least - I don't know if its true or not.

Also the rumor is that it was a Forgotten Realms book - I don't know if that part is true or not.

I haven't heard this rumor, but I know that WotC is putting out a book soon called "The Grand History of the Realms" which is a timeline of Forgotten Realms history, sans game stats.

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/fracc/9780786947317

Given that, I think the rumor you mention is just that, rumor.

I didn't vote in the poll because I can't fathom a situation where there wouldn't be a D&D. It makes money for Hasbro and they'll keep it. If they decide to cut it loose, someone else will pick it up in a heartbeat. I doubt Hasbro would just sit on it, doing nothing, for any reason.

Quote from: WarthurMaybe. I was thinking of the breakdown as being absolutely pessimistic, broadly pessimistic, broadly optimistic, absolutely optimistic and actively praying for the destruction of D&D. If you think that the industry will survive you should probably go for 3.

Understood.  Voted.  Thanks for the clarification.

Quote from: stu2000There simply be fewer people making a living from it than before. I'm not sure that's bad for the "industry," and I'm sure it would be better for the hobby.

I agree.  I don't agree with the idea that we need a recognized, market-based brand to keep gaming alive.  It helps on some level, but WotC's dominant market share hurts as well.  Diversification is important in all economies.

Quote from: GoOrangeI haven't heard this rumor, but I know that WotC is putting out a book soon called "The Grand History of the Realms" which is a timeline of Forgotten Realms history, sans game stats.

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/fracc/9780786947317

Given that, I think the rumor you mention is just that, rumor.

More than that, they've loudly declared that a number of the products released between now and the 4E release will be "system-neutral" - presumably to help sales in this funny interim period. If the rumour is true then that's essentially saying "Hey Hasbro, we're deliberately announcing that we're going to release the sort of product you've forbidden us from putting out on pain of being shut down! SUCK ON IT!" Which doesn't sound likely.

Of course, as anyone who has worked for a major corporation can tell you, yesterday's forbidden activity is often the present's business as usual.

What is meant by "survival"?  For example, if total sales dropped 50%, would that be "dead" -- or would it mean pulling through?  WotC has generally managed about a 50% market share, with White Wolf second at around 20%.  If Hasbro decided to drop the line as part of a larger strategic move, then I'd guess that other D20 producers (like Green Ronin and Mongoose) would pick up most of the customers.  At most a quarter of D&D players would stop buying commercial products, I would guess -- which would be roughly 1/8th of the market.

If D&D were to die, a d20 Oracles & Owlbears wouldn't be able to replace it. RPGs would go the way of the wargame. Fine by me, not fine by people trying to make a living from them.

But...the wargame industry is still alive, just very, very small. I guess the poll is (as common with these polls) badly worded, as I don't see any option that clearly represents "the existing non-D&D industry keeps going more or less as it has, as a bunch of insular interest groups". The main question is whether those groups can sustain themselves by recruiting directly from the non-RPG population, without having D&D as a gateway.

It also basically depends on why D&D dies: is it because the owners screw up, or because the market dries up? If the former, I think there's a reasonable chance that the remaining balkanized d20-ish market could consolidate around a replacement. If the latter, then, yes, RPGing goes the path of wargames and model trains.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut...the wargame industry is still alive, just very, very small.

Yes, that's what I mean. It would be the death of RPGs as a business, but given Lulu and such, it wouldn't be the the death of RPGs, period.

That said, since it would also be the death of game design as a professional career, one wonders, contrary to "indie" claims, whether it wouldn't also be the partial death of creativity.

I mean, just how many design innovations broadly conceived have there been in wargaming circa 1990 to 2007, as opposed to circa 1975 to 1990?

(Not a rhetorical question, since I honestly dunno, but definitely a skeptical one.)

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYes, that's what I mean. It would be the death of RPGs as a business, but given Lulu and such, it wouldn't be the the death of RPGs, period.

That said, since it would also be the death of game design as a professional career, one wonders, contrary to "indie" claims, whether it wouldn't also be the partial death of creativity.

I mean, just how many design innovations broadly conceived have there been in wargaming circa 1990 to 2007, as opposed to circa 1975 to 1990?

(Not a rhetorical question, since I honestly dunno, but definitely a skeptical one.)

I don't think it would be the death of creativity, merely because, unlike wargames (IME, anyway) even the slickest RPG begs for some houserules. In like 30 years of gaming, I've never played in a game without them*, really; and houseruling is the beginning of homebrew.
Beyond rules and mechanics, RPGs require a setting. As long there are people sitting around the kitchen table pretending to be elves, there will be some fool creating his own settings- me, for instance.


* In the early days this was as much a matter of mis-perceiving the rules as much as anything else, but as soon as we got them, we were changing them- well those of us without a stick up our ass anyway.

No D&D means no RPG hobby.  Without popular visibility the activity fades into the shadows, acquires disrepute (of a non-criminal sort) and atrophies into non-viability as a pursuit in short order due to there being a commercially viable, popularly visible and socially acceptable alternative.

I voted some other games will fill the gap...

I also don't think D&D will be going anywhere. WOTC knows what they are doing and make a good game and good business decisions.

I don't think it's invincible however.

I think WeePeePOGs (aka Card-Driven Games or CDGs) postdate 1990. Lemmesee, We the People, 1994. (Which is incidentally an object demonstration of how cluttered my "hobby room" is, that I chose to look it up on BGG instead of threading my way over to the closet.) And Herman, with Berg, began the Great Battles of History system in 1991. But--both were already experienced professionals, and WtP was published by Avalon Hill, which is now merely a trademark under the line of Hasbro "wargame-lite" games.

A better example might be Blue vs. Grey, a game I only know enough about to say it sounds truly innovative, published 1999 by a first-timer, Evan Jones. (The Commands and Colors series by Borg might also be innovative although they sound like a cross between WeePeePOGs and GBoH.)

I think the great training ground for wargame creativity was SPI under Dunnigan; much of the greatness of the 80's was the SPI diaspora finding new homes. From accounts I've read, the place sounds like it was a think tank for commercial wargame design. These days it's hard for me to gauge a comparison partly because I don't buy wargames nearly as much; I think there's still innovation coming out of amateurs which is then disseminated through a few publishing houses, and what with DTP it's almost more a question of the loss of centralized editorial function than of creative impulse/energy and physical production/distribution. Which I think we can already see as much or more with small-press RPGs: certainly among the Forgie games, I've got no argument that they've not been innovative (at least in terms of stealing and recombining ideas that never made it big in "the mainstream"); problem is, I'm losing faith in the usefulness of word-of-mouth to identify the really good ones, and like you I think I'm also skeptical that the innovation train is losing steam--I sure don't need another application of the same abstract CR mechanics, just tweaked for a different hyperfocused thematic application.

I'm beginning to ramble; however, I'll also suggest that even though games may not be technology, the field may simply have reached a point of "maturity"; even with videogames, which support a lot of professionals, it feels like creativity is plateauing and only jumps in response to technological developments.

Quote from: walkerpAnd I feel like you are missing an option in your poll between 2 and 3, because I think it will be incredibly damaging to the industry but that the industry would survive.

Got to agree with walkerp here. If the 800-pound gorilla of DnD vanished, then the vacancy would be filled by a sudden proliferation of d20 OGL publishers. The overall market would suffer and it would rebound to a lower level of game sales, but it would kill it outright.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe main question is whether those groups can sustain themselves by recruiting directly from the non-RPG population, without having D&D as a gateway.

Yep. No new blood = aging and shrinking market = harder and harder to find people to play with.