TheRPGSite

Indie games - whther Forge-style (such as Vincent Baker's stuff), small-press (like Better Mousetrap), or lone goofball (like me) - are slowly gaining more online attention, are starting to show up in stores...  ...They're growing, while almost every other part of the tabletop RPG industry is shinking.

Let me tell you a few of the reasons that I think this is so.

• Because the writers of these products are personally enthusiastic about them, and that enthusiasm is contagious.
  
• Because the games are individually cheap, and don't require supplements; the buy-in is low, low, low.
• Because the fans of these games can swap stories about hunting them down and getting them, and about how the different games affect their play.
• Because there's some small controversy, as people react negatively to some of them.  Many of these game provoke a reaction, and that sells games.

There's no reason I can see why the few notable-sized companies can't duplicate most of that.  What confuses me is why they haven't.

Your thoughts?

I always figured Indie Gaming was growing so fast because we pile the fertilizer on higher and deeper... :D

-mice

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIndie games - whther Forge-style (such as Vincent Baker's stuff), small-press (like Better Mousetrap), or lone goofball (like me) - are slowly gaining more online attention, are starting to show up in stores...  ...They're growing, while almost every other part of the tabletop RPG industry is shinking.

Let me tell you a few of the reasons that I think this is so.

• Because the writers of these products are personally enthusiastic about them, and that enthusiasm is contagious.
  
• Because the games are individually cheap, and don't require supplements; the buy-in is low, low, low.
• Because the fans of these games can swap stories about hunting them down and getting them, and about how the different games affect their play.
• Because there's some small controversy, as people react negatively to some of them.  Many of these game provoke a reaction, and that sells games.

There's no reason I can see why the few notable-sized companies can't duplicate most of that.  What confuses me is why they haven't.

Your thoughts?

I think that a lot of it has to do with small publishers being more aproachable. We see many of them here and on other forums. If we have question about a game we can post it and get an response directly from the writer. They are way more enthusiastic than big publishers are and seem to care more of what their fans think. To be honest I'm much more likely to give a publshers game a try if I had the chance to chat with them online or @ a con.

I think that the sole reason is that it's far easier to be self published these days.

I'm ready to be proven wrong though. :cool:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThere's no reason I can see why the few notable-sized companies can't duplicate most of that.  What confuses me is why they haven't.

Your thoughts?

Well, it's not clear to me that large-sized companies have something to gain by this.  That is, if Mongoose Publishing were to release a game like Polaris -- would it sell better than the Conan RPG?  Or would it sell like, well, Polaris?  The sales of Polaris are absolutely terrific for a single hobbyist author.  However, I suspect it would be considered a waste of effort for someone who is trying to make her daily wages from publishing games.  

In other words, the market may need a year or two of more growth before it becomes worthwhile for professional publishers.  :-)  

I would note that Guardians of Order did have their "Magnum Opus" line that had been active since 2002, which produced games like Swords, Hearts, and Flowers.  However, in the age of electronic publishing, I don't think that indie designers really need a large company to get their work out.

I think the original assumption is basically in error, i.e. growth in the indie market is not significant.

You have a market in decline due to over-publication. In such an event you'll see all sort of short term blips on the radar that will quickly fade from notice as various groups attempt to side-step the cause of the decline.

Such blips are ego-building and may even be worthwhile to the small fish of the sea, but they are weak ground indeed to base a significant business on.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYour thoughts?

Define "growing" in terms of number of units sold.  How many copies of these games are really selling and does it come anywhere near close to offsetting the number of gamers dropping away from buying mainstream games?

Oh, I wish Indie publishers the best of luck, but don't confuse Internet buzz for a trend curve that's going to keep growing and don't confuse copies on store shelves for sales (I make it a point to talk to game shop owners and clerks about sales).  

Don't think that this is the first time there has been a lot of Internet buzz for a game or the first time that enthusiastic publishers have been able to get some sales.  Fudge?  Theatrix?  Battlelords of the 23rd Century?  Even mainstream games like Torg, Fuzion, and Tribe 8 eventually dropped off the radar.  What I want to know is why you think this batch of Indie games will be able to rise up being low-sale niche products when plenty of others never did, of if you even think they will.

I think some people here are getting the wrong idea. Yes the market is growing, and growing fast. I can support this with my own sales figures since 2002. No, the Indie games market is not yet large enough to offset the number of gamers dropping out of the traditional market. This doesn't matter because Indie distribution methods are not keyed to Big Press distribution methods. Indie publishers thrive on fan bases too small to interest big publishers because they take advantage of Long Tail markets, pdf sales, pod printing, cooperative marketing, and other tricks the Big Press doesn't use or doesn't use well.

-mice

Quote from: gleichmanI think the original assumption is basically in error, i.e. growth in the indie market is not significant.

You have a market in decline due to over-publication. In such an event you'll see all sort of short term blips on the radar that will quickly fade from notice as various groups attempt to side-step the cause of the decline.

I have to agree with you on this point.   The market is flooded with games both mainstream and indie.

There is a certain amount of the "pie" for everyone to take a bite out of and there are only so many gamer dollars to go around.   I am sure this is a part of why the industry is hurting right now (clearly not the only reason).

Well, the indies mostly sell to each other, but there are more of each other to sell to, now.

I personally suspect the real reason is that we now have a convergence of technologies- PDF and lulu and internet and online/web-based billing and order-fulfillment places. Imagine if you had to do all of that by mail-order or advertising in the backs of catalogs or driving a boxload of books from state to state. That would suck! But every once in a while, someone came up with something amazing and it took off, anyway.

The original indie RPG was called "Dungeons and Dragons". It was hand assembled by three friends in a basement in 1974 and it was hugely popular, despite a lack of (haha) marketing. "Vampire" was pretty much indie when it first came out, too. Likewise, Palladium, HERO, etc.

Arrrgh! The sister thread over on RPGNet is so full of snark you can walk on it. If it wasn't for baileywolf - and keeping in touch with my customers - I think I'd be happier leaving that place.

-mice

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe original indie RPG was called "Dungeons and Dragons". It was hand assembled by three friends in a basement in 1974 and it was hugely popular, despite a lack of (haha) marketing. "Vampire" was pretty much indie when it first came out, too. Likewise, Palladium, HERO, etc.

"Indie" generally means "creator-owned".  This is distinct from small press.  Small press will often have someone publishing work authored by someone else -- so the person who wrote the words doesn't necessarily control how the final product turns out.  

So, I'm open to D&D and Palladium being indie when they first came out.  However, while White Wolf was certainly small-press when Vampire came out, I suspect that they were not indie.  There were over 20 people in the credits, and I doubt that authors Mark, Graeme, Tom, Lisa, and Stewart had control over production.  It also had marketing.  There were glossy leaflets promoting the game sent out advertising the game before its release.

Quote from: flyingmiceArrrgh! The sister thread over on RPGNet is so full of snark you can walk on it.

Oh yeah.  That'll be getting nasty quick. I see threads like that, and to put it in Destiny of an Emperor terms:

(http://www.rpgblog.org/Retreat.jpg)

Quote from: jhkim"Indie" generally means "creator-owned".  This is distinct from small press.  Small press will often have someone publishing work authored by someone else -- so the person who wrote the words doesn't necessarily control how the final product turns out.  

So, I'm open to D&D and Palladium being indie when they first came out.  However, while White Wolf was certainly small-press when Vampire came out, I suspect that they were not indie.  There were over 20 people in the credits, and I doubt that authors Mark, Graeme, Tom, Lisa, and Stewart had control over production.  It also had marketing.  There were glossy leaflets promoting the game sent out advertising the game before its release.

Levi specifically included Small Press publishers in his "Indie" label.

-mice

Quote from: jhkim... However, while White Wolf was certainly small-press when Vampire came out, I suspect that they were not indie.  There were over 20 people in the credits, and I doubt that authors Mark, Graeme, Tom, Lisa, and Stewart had control over production.  It also had marketing.  There were glossy leaflets promoting the game sent out advertising the game before its release.

One thing I notice is that a lot of these creator owned things borrow systems back and forth from one another and list each other in the credits as well. SO I guess I have trouble even with the idea of "creator owned" in some cases.

Quote from: Abyssal MawOne thing I notice is that a lot of these creator owned things borrow systems back and forth from one another and list each other in the credits as well. SO I guess I have trouble even with the idea of "creator owned" in some cases.

I can't say I have seen systems being barrowed.

I have seen that Forge publishers tend to help each otehr out with editing and that sort of thing. But barrowing systems, that I haven't seen.

Quote from: flyingmiceArrrgh! The sister thread over on RPGNet is so full of snark you can walk on it. If it wasn't for baileywolf - and keeping in touch with my customers - I think I'd be happier leaving that place.

-mice

I can't be very snark sensitive then, 'cos i haven't seen anything to suggest that yet.

Then again, that's the potential problem with cross board posting...

Quote from: gleichmanI think the original assumption is basically in error, i.e. growth in the indie market is not significant.

Are you saying the indie market has not grown or that relative to the overall hobby the growth is insignificant?

QuoteYou have a market in decline due to over-publication. In such an event you'll see all sort of short term blips on the radar that will quickly fade from notice as various groups attempt to side-step the cause of the decline.

What is the cause of the decline?

Quote from: jrientsAre you saying the indie market has not grown or that relative to the overall hobby the growth is insignificant?

The latter.

Quote from: jrientsWhat is the cause of the decline?

Over Publication, basically because of D20. Everyone ran to the feeding trough and that is never stable (sort like the Dot-Com bubble in cause-effect although one could nit-pick the differences). We're in the contraction part of the cycle now.

Quote from: McrowI can't say I have seen systems being barrowed.

I have seen that Forge publishers tend to help each otehr out with editing and that sort of thing. But barrowing systems, that I haven't seen.

You should check a bit closer. Theyre pretty up front about it.

Quote from: jhkimHowever, while White Wolf was certainly small-press when Vampire came out, I suspect that they were not indie.  There were over 20 people in the credits, and I doubt that authors Mark, Graeme, Tom, Lisa, and Stewart had control over production.  It also had marketing.  There were glossy leaflets promoting the game sent out advertising the game before its release.

Hmm...

The Cog Wars will have five listed authors, one listed artist, and two listed editors.  Of those eight people, one of the writers (myself) and the artist retain the copyright and will control production.

I'd call it an Indie production, myself.  Would you?

Quote from: Abyssal MawYou should check a bit closer. Theyre pretty up front about it.

do you have examples? Maybe your talking about games I haven't seen yet.

Quote from: Mcrowdo you have examples? Maybe your talking about games I haven't seen yet.

Trust from the Mountain Witch also appears in Cold City (not sure who wrote Cold City, though), and appeared somewhere else before either of those.

The whole dice mechanism from Vincent Baker's Dogs is also in C.R.Nixon's The Princes Kingdom.

With a bit of research, this list can be continued...

Quote from: Levi KornelsenTrust from the Mountain Witch also appears in Cold City (not sure who wrote Cold City, though), and appeared somewhere else before either of those.

The whole dice mechanism from Vincent Baker's Dogs is also in C.R.Nixon's The Princes Kingdom.

With a bit of research, this list can be continued...

Ok,then. I had just no seen it yet.

I have Dogs, but no The Princes Kingdom.

single game mechanics (or the basic ideas of them anyway) are used by many indie and non-indie games. So, no suprise there.

I have just not seen Forge publishers swap whole systems. Of course I only own about 3-4 forge games.

Quote from: Mcrowdo you have examples? Maybe your talking about games I haven't seen yet.

The Princes Kingdom, the Dictionary of Mu, etc.

Seriously, you didn't know this?

Quote from: jhkim"Indie" generally means "creator-owned".  This is distinct from small press.  Small press will often have someone publishing work authored by someone else -- so the person who wrote the words doesn't necessarily control how the final product turns out.  

So, I'm open to D&D and Palladium being indie when they first came out.  However, while White Wolf was certainly small-press when Vampire came out, I suspect that they were not indie.  There were over 20 people in the credits, and I doubt that authors Mark, Graeme, Tom, Lisa, and Stewart had control over production.  It also had marketing.  There were glossy leaflets promoting the game sent out advertising the game before its release.

WTF?

Is this part of that whole convoluted reasoning that you guys were all made to accept by the Leader Ron so that his personal favourite game, Heroquest, would be considered "indie" even though no sane person would say it is?

RPGPundit

In any case, I'm with Gleichman. There's no real significant evidence that Indie games are growing in any significant way.

If you sold 10 copies of Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding last year, and this year you sell 20, you can claim that you've had a 100% increase in sales and that business is "booming". But in the larger scale, you're still a pissant.

What I can see as growing is the influence of the whole "indie games"  movement on the internet.  This is mostly due to ultra-aggresive prosletyzing on the part of the fanatics of the Cult of Ron.  Some of this same prosletyzing in the real world might lead some poor game store owner to be badgered into ordering copies of Dogs In The Vinyard or My Life With Master to sell alongside products that, you know, normal people actually want to buy.  Doing this on a significant scale will usually lead to the closure of said gaming store shortly thereafter.

RPGPundit

QuoteWhat I can see as growing is the influence of the whole "indie games"  movement on the internet.

Yepp. But Internet is an important medium.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe Princes Kingdom, the Dictionary of Mu, etc.

Seriously, you didn't know this?

Nope, i don't have a large collection of Forge games.

Lets see I have

CoS
DiV
Sorcerer

Others that I'm no sure are Forge:
Carry
Cold City
BW/BE

Quote from: RPGPunditIn any case, I'm with Gleichman. There's no real significant evidence that Indie games are growing in any significant way.

If you sold 10 copies of Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding last year, and this year you sell 20, you can claim that you've had a 100% increase in sales and that business is "booming". But in the larger scale, you're still a pissant.

What I can see as growing is the influence of the whole "indie games"  movement on the internet.  This is mostly due to ultra-aggresive prosletyzing on the part of the fanatics of the Cult of Ron.  Some of this same prosletyzing in the real world might lead some poor game store owner to be badgered into ordering copies of Dogs In The Vinyard or My Life With Master to sell alongside products that, you know, normal people actually want to buy.  Doing this on a significant scale will usually lead to the closure of said gaming store shortly thereafter.

RPGPundit

Not all "Indie" publishers - by Levi's definition - are Forge influenced, Pundit. Games by PiG, Hinterwelt, or Flying Mice, for example, are generally traditional. What is unorthodox is the independence from the three tier distribution system.

-mice

Burning Wheel's first year out, 2003, it sold 289 copies.

2004 it sold 731 copies.

2005 it sold 1500 copies.

I doubled units sold and revenues year on year for three years in a row. This sales figures are not massive by any means. Mutants and Masterminds 1e sold at least 60-70K copies. But on the other hand, Weapons of the Gods did an initial printing of 5K. I doubt they've reprinted -- those units will probably last them the life of the book.

I also participate in a booth at Gencon every year that hosts a collection of small press/indie game designers. You can see the numbers for 2003-2006  here. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20938.0) Again, these numbers are not massive, but they do show a significant increase of both units sold and revenue year on year.

-Luke

Quote from: RPGPunditSome of this same prosletyzing in the real world might lead some poor game store owner to be badgered into ordering copies of Dogs In The Vinyard or My Life With Master to sell alongside products that, you know, normal people actually want to buy.  Doing this on a significant scale will usually lead to the closure of said gaming store shortly thereafter.

I ran a demo of Dogs at a local store; I brought along copies of the game, and told them they could keep the profits if I sold any.

I sold seven copies in three hours.

The writer of Dogs has been approached by Mongoose, because they wanted to publish his game under their imprint.  It wasn't a good move, money-wise.

As an independent publisher, I don't get Luke's sales - mine are in the hundreds of books each year, not thousands. What I have seen, though, which is just totally not the way RPGs are traditionally sold: I sell more of each book each year. I released a game called Donjon in 2002. I sold more of it this year than I did in 2002. The Shadow of Yesterday has sold 1.5 times as many copies this year than it did by September of last year.

For the sales curve to go up year after year instead of down is a complete reversal of what we've seen before in publishing.

Quote from: RPGPunditWTF?

Is this part of that whole convoluted reasoning that you guys were all made to accept by the Leader Ron so that his personal favourite game, Heroquest, would be considered "indie" even though no sane person would say it is?

Well, that seems to be a trick question -- though I'm not sure if it's because you're intentionally displaying your ignorance or because you're trying to make some point.  I don't consider HeroQuest to be independent, ergo your question is pointless.  

Do you have a definition of an "independent game" other than "creator owned and controlled" which stands up to scrutiny?  If so, I'd love to hear it.

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonAs an independent publisher, I don't get Luke's sales - mine are in the hundreds of books each year, not thousands.

I could render a guess. But some who know my not-so-secret identity might consider me biased. ;)

Quote from: lukeBurning Wheel's first year out, 2003, it sold 289 copies.

2004 it sold 731 copies.

2005 it sold 1500 copies.

I doubled units sold and revenues year on year for three years in a row. This sales figures are not massive by any means. Mutants and Masterminds 1e sold at least 60-70K copies. But on the other hand, Weapons of the Gods did an initial printing of 5K. I doubt they've reprinted -- those units will probably last them the life of the book.

You've managed to highlite some data that end up making a good point: Its not that indie games are on a huge rise, its that the bulk of the so-called "industry" (ie. the people who like to pretend that they're actually insiders and part of the industry because they have a three or four-man company and produce using traditional methods of print and distribution) are actually dead in the water, and are no more "industry" than the Indie companies.

You've managed to demonstrate, with your figures, that you are a successful amateur game writer, and that so is Rebecca Borgrstrom.  The only difference is you realize that you are an outsider from the real industry (hence "indie"), and she likes to imagine that she's part of the "Bigwigs" who have influence.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SettembriniYepp. But Internet is an important medium.

Well, that's what the Internet keeps telling to itself, at least. ;)

Quote from: jhkimDo you have a definition of an "independent game" other than "creator owned and controlled" which stands up to scrutiny?  If so, I'd love to hear it.

Not really. "Indie" is one of those bullshit terms that you use to try to pretend that you're sticking it to the man, that you're against the system, violently opposed to teatime, or whatever.

Its an attempt to position one's self in the "counterculture". As opposed to those who want desperately to be a part of the "industry" and consider themselves as People With Influence, unlike you Indie people who want to consider yourselves Rebellious Hipsters.

Its all just nonsense.
There's only one real Industry in RPGs, and that's Wizards.  Then there are a few second-tier hangers-on like White Wolf, Steve Jackson, Palladium and maybe even Green Ronin or Mongoose these days; and then EVERYTHING else is amateur. There's just the amateurs who want to pretend to be Pros, and the amateurs who want to pretend to be Avant-Garde Rebels.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou've managed to demonstrate, with your figures, that you are a successful amateur game writer, and that so is Rebecca Borgrstrom.  The only difference is you realize that you are an outsider from the real industry (hence "indie"), and she likes to imagine that she's part of the "Bigwigs" who have influence.

RPGPundit

hopefully, you are using amateur in the sense that this is not what Luke does for his primary income (ussuming that is true)and are not refering to the level of his writing ability.

He is every bit as good as the guys @ WotC and other large publishers.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou've managed to highlite some data that end up making a good point: Its not that indie games are on a huge rise, its that the bulk of the so-called "industry" are actually dead in the water,

plus blah, blah, blah

 

Actually, I've managed, with my meddlesome, bothersome facts, to demonstrate actual growth in the segment of the industry in question from the OP.

I know, I know facts aren't part of rhetoric and I'm almost ashamed to bring them here to the land of rhetoric, but I can only go with what I know.

I do agree with your assertion that the majority of print, tabletop rpg companies are struggling at the moment. We've seen signs all over: Green Ronin, Palladium and Guardians of Order have all flashed the blinking red light of doom at one point or another this year. And that's just this year!

Where is the dividing line between amateur and pro? I make no claims to pro status, but if Rebecca isn't a pro-lancer, who is? Look at the raw numbers, too: BWR brought in $37500 in gross revenue for me last year, which is a living wage in most parts of this country. I'll bet that's more than Rebecca or many others make freelancing. So where's the dividing line?

-L

Quote from: RPGPunditWTF?

Is this part of that whole convoluted reasoning that you guys were all made to accept by the Leader Ron so that his personal favourite game, Heroquest, would be considered "indie" even though no sane person would say it is?

What the hell?  Some guys in a basement form a two or three man outfit and crank out a hit despite not getting a sidelong glance from the already extant industry?  How dare they call them independant!

Quote from: One Horse TownI can't be very snark sensitive then, 'cos i haven't seen anything to suggest that yet.

Then again, that's the potential problem with cross board posting...

And the snark was only in the first few posts. It rapidly got better, which surprised me. Not typical for RPGNet posts... :D

-mice

Quote from: lukeActually, I've managed, with my meddlesome, bothersome facts, to demonstrate actual growth in the segment of the industry in question from the OP.

No.

You're provide an uncomfirmed (i.e. not from an independent source such as an audited financial) assertion of a single small business example. I'm afraid that isn't proof of anything let alone market trends or significance.

Quote from: lukeLook at the raw numbers, too: BWR brought in $37500 in gross revenue for me last year, which is a living wage in most parts of this country.

I'd be more impressed if that was net. Actually I wouldn't be impressed at all now that I consider it.

Quote from: flyingmiceAnd the snark was only in the first few posts. It rapidly got better, which surprised me. Not typical for RPGNet posts... :D

-mice

A False Snark Alarm, as it were....

Quote from: gleichmanI'd be more impressed if that was net. Actually I wouldn't be impressed at all now that I consider it.

Oh, snap!

You self-publish, Gleichie? Whaddya do for hobbies?

-L

Quote from: gleichmanI'd be more impressed if that was net. Actually I wouldn't be impressed at all now that I consider it.

I'm having one of those "So what have you written?" moments.

Somebody slap me.

EDIT: Aw.  Luke gave in to the urge.

You know, thinking about this, gaming companies have been rising and falling for a long time (there's been some definite issues in the past year, I think we can all admit that).  There was a time when Palladium and White Wolf were the new kids on the block, and could post (were there message boards in those days) numbers of impressive growth in sales coming from these young upstarts.  The thing is, this time, as other companies fall or shrink, we have the technology that allows small-market companies and one-man shows to put those products on pdf or POD, and we have built up online communities that allow for more immediate access and networking with fans and potential buyers.  I would hestiate to attribute the success to anything other than a lot of really talented people taking advantage of newer technologies to share their creations with the world.  Which is still really all sorts of cool, when you think about it.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenEDIT: Aw.  Luke gave in to the urge.

Kinda sad, huh?  If only he had read that thread!  Anyway, no one has to prove anything to Mr. Gleichman.  He says indie sales are insignificant compared to the rest of the hobby.  I doubt anyone can accurately outline the sales dimensions of the hobby, so his claim seem almost as hard to prove.  Ken Hite's attempts are the best I've seen but even he admits there's a large amount of conjecture involved.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'm having one of those "So what have you written?" moments.

Somebody slap me.

EDIT: Aw.  Luke gave in to the urge.

I haven't written anything and I was thing "dude, what the hell have you written?":confused:

Lukes numbers are impressive in todays RPG market. There are only a hand full of publishers that net $100k or more a year.

For anyone other than that hand full, it is pretty impressive if you can make 10k net.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'm having one of those "So what have you written?" moments.

Hmmm.  Perhaps this is a good time to crosslink to your 'On "designer entitlement"' thread:

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1699

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'm having one of those "So what have you written?" moments.

Somebody slap me.

EDIT: Aw.  Luke gave in to the urge.

Slaad--> :pimpdahoe: <-- Levi
Slaad--> :pimpdahoe: <-- Luke

;)

Quote from: lukeOh, snap!

You self-publish, Gleichie? Whaddya do for hobbies?

Self-publish? Nope, I can't imagine anyone paying for anything that I'd write.

I'm real fond of firearms. And of course RPGs. And Reading, I like reading.

And I know enough about economics and logic to identify an antidotal smokescreen of insignificant scale when I see it.


Beyond that, what kind of games do you publish?

Quote from: McrowI haven't written anything and I was thing "dude, what the hell have you written?":confused:

I know.  It's still bad arguing.  

But the point there - Luke made more than my base income on his game in a year. - is totally solid.

Personally, I call that professional.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI know.  It's still bad arguing.  

But the point there - Luke made more than my base income on his game in a year. - is totally solid.

Personally, I call that professional.

the numbers will be even better next time around with BE doing well.

I think that if you can make a living from what you publish (if you could support yourself), you count as a pro. This however doesen't reflect one way or the other on the quality of products. Some excellent games don't sell as well as they should and some bad games sell way more than they should.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBut the point there - Luke made more than my base income on his game in a year. - is totally solid.

Is his figure gross (as he said and Brian assumed) or net (as others are assuming)?

(And don't forget that those who are self-employed have to pay all of their social security taxes and so forth themselves.)

Quote from: John MorrowIs his figure gross (as he said and Brian assumed) or net (as others are assuming)?

I make 20K Canadian at my job, annually.  So, doesn't matter.

Of course, my lifestyle is so damn weird that many people don't believe me when I tell them how I live.

Well, I will chime in. I am not indie (or so Ron has told me and I would trust him to know ;) ) but I definitely qualify as small press. Over the five years HinterWelt has been running we have grown our sales by finding nontraditional sale streams. Things like online sales and diorect con sales are no-brainers. I developed a network of retailers and a web-based sales tool that is a bit different. It supports consignment and instant payment and various other terms that I know work for retailers.

So, I do not know if the "indie" market is growing but HinterWelt has been doing o.k. despite the woes of larger companies. An interesting note, our traditional distribution has been flat while other routes have grown.

As for "my company made more money than last year" as an argument for industry growth, I have to go with others on this, that is not indicative. It is great though, as it means you are doing things right and growing your company. The trick is to plan now for the when the curve flattens.

Bill

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'm having one of those "So what have you written?" moments.

Somebody slap me.

EDIT: Aw.  Luke gave in to the urge.

(http://www.rpgblog.org/thegivingofthelaw.jpg)

Quote from: gleichmanI'm real fond of firearms. And of course RPGs. And Reading, I like reading.

You wouldn't happen to do any custom builds for your firearms, would you? You wouldn't happen to sell anything at trade shows?

How about your day job? Do you work with small businesses? Or self-funded ventures?

I already said that my numbers are miniscule, but I also think your perspective is out of whack. I could site other "anecdotal evidence"* to bolster my claim, but like I said, it doesn't do any good in rhetoric.

And Levi, Claudius, et omnes: Come on, give a guy a break! If they get to make the rhetorical points, why can't we?!

-L

*AKA facts -- you know, numbers, dates, figures, reportings, yadda, yadda.

PS I love the "audited financial institutions" crack. Keep dreaming, my man!

Quote from: lukeAnd Levi, Claudius, et omnes: Come on, give a guy a break! If they get to make the rhetorical points, why can't we?!

Because we're the ones with something to prove to the snarling masses.

And on those occasions that we do, the really surly ones wander off to sulk, while the rest of the masses play and skip and dance in the sunlight of the facts that we provide to them.

Also, it causes rainbows and makes puppies happy.

:D

Quote from: lukeAnd Levi, Claudius, et omnes: Come on, give a guy a break! If they get to make the rhetorical points, why can't we?!

Playing that card can make you look like an elitist jackass to the non-designers.  I don't think you are an elitist jackass, but that the danger you run going that route.

Quote from: jrientsPlaying that card can make you look like an elitist jackass to the non-designers.  I don't think you are an elitist jackass, but that the danger you run going that route.

Oh, never fear, I'm an elitist jack ass. And Swine and all that. I'm not looking for Gleichie's writing credentials. My point was that I think there are small press/small business/self-publishing realities he's blithely ignoring by talking big and full of bluster.

My money is where my mouth is.

BTW, that's GROSS, kids. (And that's not my full revenue for 2005).

I don't make a living from BW -- YET. This is a tough and competitive industry!

-L

Quote from: lukeYou wouldn't happen to do any custom builds for your firearms, would you? You wouldn't happen to sell anything at trade shows?

Of course not, it's a hobby not a job. I wouldn't sell any of my weapons.

Quote from: lukeHow about your day job? Do you work with small businesses? Or self-funded ventures?

As a matter of fact, yes to all the above a few years back. And if 37K was the gross that would have been the end of the business, and if it was the net- it still would have been a case of finding a real job.

You may be correct however that my expectations are too high for this industry.


You didn't answer my question about your games btw.

FWIW, Luke, I was just joshin' because we were just talking about that in another thread. :lol:

Quote from: gleichmanYou didn't answer my question about your games btw.

Quote from: gleichmanBeyond that, what kind of games do you publish?

Tabletop, pen and paper, traditional, character driven, fantasy and science fiction roleplaying games.

Why do you ask?
-L

Quote from: lukeOh, never fear, I'm an elitist jack ass. And Swine and all that.

Funny, you normally come off as a decent guy with some cool-looking games.

Quote from: gleichmanYou didn't answer my question about your games btw.

He published Burning Wheel a fantasy RPG, and Burning Empires a Sci-Fi game using the same basic system.

if that is what you were looking for.

Quote from: jrientsHe says indie sales are insignificant compared to the rest of the hobby.  I doubt anyone can accurately outline the sales dimensions of the hobby, so his claim seem almost as hard to prove.  Ken Hite's attempts are the best I've seen but even he admits there's a large amount of conjecture involved.

That's basically correct as such, but the burden of proof is not on me.

Levi made the claim that indie games are expanding while traditional companies are contracting. Therefore the burden is his, I can get by simplying saying I don't believe him (which I didn't) or with saying that from what I can see it lacks significance (which I did).

Basic debate 101. First person to assert something has to offer evidence. Something he should have done in the first post.

He didn't, so we'll all just shooting the breeze and killing time.

Quote from: McrowHe published Burning Wheel a fantasy RPG, and Burning Empires a Sci-Fi game using the same basic system.

if that is what you were looking for.

It was.

Quote from: jrientsFunny, you normally come off as a decent guy with some cool-looking games.

Yeah, but I figure over here I'm going to end up looking elitist and bastardish and swinish by comparison or default or something. You know, I actually LIKE rpg.net and indie-rpgs.com and story-games.com. Crazy, I know.

-L

Quote from: lukeTabletop, pen and paper, traditional, character driven, fantasy and science fiction roleplaying games.

Why do you ask?
-L

If one was to accept your claim to success in the field as a starting point, I was interested in what type of games produced (or were at least the subject of) this success.

Thanks for the answer.

Quote from: gleichmanLevi made the claim that indie games are expanding while traditional companies are contracting. Therefore the burden is his, I can get by simplying saying I don't believe him (which I didn't) or with saying that from what I can see it lacks significance (which I did).

Yup.

That Indie sales are increasing in a time when larger RPG companies are shrinking is pretty easy to prove.  

That it matters, less so.

Though, you know, I wouldn't mind testing that idea a bit more rigorously.

Brian, what would cause you personally to see it as significant?  What kind of data, generally?

Let's get some criteria here.

Quote from: RPGPunditNot really. "Indie" is one of those bullshit terms that you use to try to pretend that you're sticking it to the man, that you're against the system, violently opposed to teatime, or whatever.

Um?  OK, so presumably the correct term for a independently self-published RPG is "bullshit RPG which RPGPundit doesn't like because it doesn't have big sales"?  Do you suppose we could simply shorten that down to "indie" -- and then you could just save some typing by saying for short "indie RPGs suck"?  :-)  

Quote from: RPGPunditThere's only one real Industry in RPGs, and that's Wizards.  Then there are a few second-tier hangers-on like White Wolf, Steve Jackson, Palladium and maybe even Green Ronin or Mongoose these days; and then EVERYTHING else is amateur. There's just the amateurs who want to pretend to be Pros, and the amateurs who want to pretend to be Avant-Garde Rebels.

There seem to be word issues here again.  Let me give an example:  So, the Mediterranean restaurant down the street for me is only a single establishment.  It is not an "industry", and its business is several billion times smaller than McDonald's.  However, they have done good business for years, make good food which I like to eat, and as far as I know are making a reasonable living for themselves.  I agree they are not the "industry", but I wouldn't call them "amateur".  

Similarly, I am fine with calling a hobby author like Ben Lehman "amateur".  On the other hand, there are people like Steve Jackson, Greg Stolze, Ken Hite and others who make their livings writing games without being a part of the dominant "industry".  

Personally, I don't give a shit about the amateur/professional divide.  I have no desire to "stick it to the Man" or whatever bullshit strawman you come up with -- but sometimes I like to eat at the high-quality local restaurant or even (gasp) a home-cooked meal in addition to my regular McDonalds visits.  By the same token, among games I usually play semi-mainstream games like Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, and True20 -- but I also play small-press games like Amber, indie games like Polaris, and even homebrew games which aren't published at all.  

If this makes me a pretentious Avante Garde bullshitter, so be it.

Quote from: jhkimDo you suppose we could simply shorten that down to "indie" -- and then you could just save some typing by saying for short "indie RPGs suck"?  :-)  

:emot-flowers:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBrian, what would cause you personally to see it as significant?  What kind of data, generally?

Let's get some criteria here.

Levi stole my next question.  I think he's copying off my paper.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBrian, what would cause you personally to see it as significant?  What kind of data, generally?

Let's get some criteria here.

Difficult to say not being directly involved in industry economics. But I'll take a pot shot.

First we'd have to define indie games.

Then we'd have to show they had a significant percentage of the RPG market. Say 20%. Maybe 10% would do. Otherwise they are just noise on the graph.

Then we'd have to show that a majority of those have seen steady sales increases over the last 3-5 years while traditional companies showed declines.

Ideally the source of this data would not be the owners themselves due to conflict of interest.

And one would have to account for failed indie publishers (otherwise you're selecting for success out of the gate).

I think that would work. If you could manage it I'd be impressed.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYup.

That Indie sales are increasing in a time when larger RPG companies are shrinking is pretty easy to prove.  

That it matters, less so.

I think you are confusing some issues here. Larger companies begging for money has more to do with overhead and operations costs. Small press and indie companies are more flexible and able to lead the way on a number of business models. For instance, a lot of larger companies would not consider PDF a few years ago. Today, they make it sound like the always did operations this way. I do not think they will go to a POD model anytime soon but it is the kind of thing that small press often leads the way if you get my meaning.

As for indies sales increasing...I still do not know this is the case. I think retailers are more open to small press and indie titles but that may be a sign of desperation. These titles sell well from a knowledgeable staff and I do not know how knowledgeable the average retailer is on indie titles.

If you like, I think we could just say "For the sake of the argument" that the indie game sales are growing. Or better yet, say at least three companies are seeing increases, why is this. Then we can get on with a discussion of why this is happening.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltOr better yet, say at least three companies are seeing increases, why is this. Then we can get on with a discussion of why this is happening.

Excellent idea.

Quote from: gleichmanI think that would work. If you could manage it I'd be impressed.

I think with those numbers we could all agree.  However, I think we can also agree that gathering all that data is nearly impossible.  Is there nothing else that would convince that indie RPGs have arrived?  I don't really need market data to intuit that D&D is a big deal in the hobby.  Do you?

Quote from: gleichmanIf you could manage it I'd be impressed.

So would I.

I was actually thinking "significant" in totally different terms.

That is, Indie games (by my definition, rather than that of Mr. Kim) have quickly and usefully developed ways for publishers to print cheaper, advertise largely by word-of-mouth, act as a peer network rather than as direct competitors, distribute differently, and any number of other factors that have led to their recent upswing.

I see the development of those approaches to be the matter of significance, rather than the specific details of their market share.

Can I gripe about GAMA now?

Because, being a small press publisher in this crazy, topsy-turvy industry, I would love to see some industry reporting -- I'd love to see consumer data, retailer date and manufacturer data. There's none. Or, there's one piece, a survey that WotC did 6 years ago. It's like a message in a bottle containing newspaper headlines to a man shipwrecked. ::Shakes fist at god:: Thanks, asshole.

But most of my peers are very forthcoming with their sales data; they post their numbers quarterly and annually. Some go down, some stay the same, but most go up. It's some of the only hard data out there.

-L

Quote from: lukeOh, never fear, I'm an elitist jack ass. And Swine and all that. I'm not looking for Gleichie's writing credentials.

In case you are wondering, though, Brian wrote his own ~180 page role-playing game called Age of Heroes and simply gave it away for free.  You can find reviews for it on RPGnet, for example here:

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_3674.html

No, the reviews are not stellar (it's not really the sort of game RPGnet normally goes for) but you can find points like this: "This is a commercial quality game - available for free." and most acknowledge that it did a good job of doing what it set out to do.  So, basically, he did write his own game.  Rather than trying to sell it, he gave it away.

Quote from: lukeMy point was that I think there are small press/small business/self-publishing realities he's blithely ignoring by talking big and full of bluster.

I wouldn't assume that he is, especially if you read his reply.  He was the one who noticed the difference between gross and net.

Quote from: lukeMy money is where my mouth is.

A lot of people put their money into labors of love and lose their shirts.  While it's admirable in some ways that you are willing to go out on a limb for something you love, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll succeed.  A lot of small businesses (and a lot of role-playing publishers) fail.

Quote from: lukeI don't make a living from BW -- YET. This is a tough and competitive industry!

Good luck.  I mean that seriously.

Quote from: lukeYeah, but I figure over here I'm going to end up looking elitist and bastardish and swinish by comparison or default or something. You know, I actually LIKE rpg.net and indie-rpgs.com and story-games.com. Crazy, I know.

Well, you'll need to fight like a dog to get respect from Pundit and a few others.  If that sounds like fun to you, then right on.

But generally, I think you're pretty cool, and I suspect I'm very much not alone in that.  There's not a lot of homogeny here, thus far.

Quote from: lukeCan I gripe about GAMA now?

Oh, my, yes.

Actually, it probably deserves a whole thread to itself, just for bitching.  Then, maybe, another one, after everyone is done, to be rational in.

"Indie" (which is in all but very special cases thematic games, all the d20 pdf makers are obviously not discussed here...) Gaming grows, because it serves a new niche. It will not take over, but just reach it`s audience and then it will remain stable, like any new phenomenon. I really hope nobody is extrapolating the increase rates to the next five years. And, there are a lot of jaded people. RPG.Net is only about jaded people talking flavour of the month. There is tons of internet guys wanting no-effort, no prep, single book games. And they get what they want.
All together this is enough to explain the increase:

New Niche (genuinley new, fresh and thorough-bred) meets Jaded people

BTW:
Before putting off Pundits remark against Heroquest being indie, better think about it twice. The whole owner owned bend-over-backwards definition on the Forge is totally made for Heroquest. I propose The Forge Booth starts selling Palladium Products in Essen ;).

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThat is, Indie games (by my definition, rather than that of Mr. Kim) have quickly and usefully developed ways for publishers to print cheaper, advertise largely by word-of-mouth, act as a peer network rather than as direct competitors, distribute differently, and any number of other factors that have led to their recent upswing.

I see the development of those approaches to be the matter of significance, rather than the specific details of their market share.

I think that the larger industry has already adopted these.  

1) As far as I know, mainstream publishing (meaning Wizards and White Wolf, for the most part) is still cheaper unit-for-unit than indie publishing.  So not many gains to be made there.  Page of page, indie print games are generally more expensive.  

2) The RPG industry has always depended on word of mouth for its primary advertising.  They have been supporting online forums (like ENWorld) for exactly this purpose.  

3) Wizards and White Wolf have also adopted PDF and print-on-demand publishing as a parallel to the traditional distribution scheme.  Virtually all of D&D is now available in electronic format, for example.  

4) Peering isn't hugely common, but it's there.  White Wolf has a D20 line supporting Wizards (along with everybody else), for example.  Wizards has stayed out of WW's goth niche.  Mechanics have always been imitated, and now OGL sharing is pretty standard.  

So many of these things, at least, are already part of the industry.

Quote from: jhkim4) Peering isn't hugely common, but it's there.  White Wolf has a D20 line supporting Wizards (along with everybody else), for example.  Wizards has stayed out of WW's goth niche.  Mechanics have always been imitated, and now OGL sharing is pretty standard.

One could argue that releasing the OGL was an act of peer support, even if Wizards expected to benefit from it.  A lot of smaller publishers certainly did benefit from it.

Quote from: jrientsI think with those numbers we could all agree.  However, I think we can also agree that gathering all that data is nearly impossible.  Is there nothing else that would convince that indie RPGs have arrived?  I don't really need market data to intuit that D&D is a big deal in the hobby.  Do you?

D&D is a rather extreme example. Few things have such a overwhelming presence in their market and that speaks to its importance if not its health.

It gets much less certain when you're speaking about companies with small market shares.

Without real data, it's frankly just opinion. They're important if they're important to you. Not if they're not.

For what it's worth, I would take more notice if I knew of any local groups that played these games. I did a fair about of player searching and respondng to player searching, and indie games are basically unknown in that crowd. While well known online, they don't seem to have a footprint in the real world.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI see the development of those approaches to be the matter of significance, rather than the specific details of their market share.

I see them as having potential significance in general, and actual significance on the personal level.

Quote from: lukeCan I gripe about GAMA now?

Because, being a small press publisher in this crazy, topsy-turvy industry, I would love to see some industry reporting -- I'd love to see consumer data, retailer date and manufacturer data. There's none. Or, there's one piece, a survey that WotC did 6 years ago. It's like a message in a bottle containing newspaper headlines to a man shipwrecked. ::Shakes fist at god:: Thanks, asshole.

But most of my peers are very forthcoming with their sales data; they post their numbers quarterly and annually. Some go down, some stay the same, but most go up. It's some of the only hard data out there.

-L

Gama is doing this now. It is an unsecured web based survey that has little hope of accuracy. Wizkids are also runnign their own survey. All of it aimed squarely the the retail tier. meh.

Bill

Quote from: John MorrowIn case you are wondering, though, Brian wrote his own ~180 page role-playing game called Age of Heroes and simply gave it away for free.

There was a number of reasons for that...

- It was basically pre-do-it-yourself-internet sales.

- It was pre-print on demand.

- It wasn't in a finished form (missing some spell lists and too small of critter section)

- It was so crappy that no one would buy it.

And so on. It's not as if I was being generous or anything.


It did have some good points.

It makes an excellent example for certain design concepts.

hmm...

That resulted in a bad point. The Forge kept linking to it. Damn them.

Quote from: gleichmanFor what it's worth, I would take more notice if I knew of any local groups that played these games. I did a fair about of player searching and respondng to player searching, and indie games are basically unknown in that crowd. While well known online, they don't seem to have a footprint in the real world.

I suspect there's a regional issue here.  They're pretty visible here in the SF Bay Area -- maybe on the order of 10% or so.  To take some examples: ConQuest, a local gaming con, had 10 indie games and 5 homebrews out of 71 scheduled events.  If you look at the local gaming shop, EndGame Oakland (http://www.endgameoakland.com/), you'll find that at the moment it's front page lists four featured RPG products: Ptolus, Cadwallon, Promethean, and Primetime Adventures (so 1 out of 4, though that's an outlier, certainly).

Quote from: jhkimI suspect there's a regional issue here.  They're pretty visible here in the SF Bay Area -- maybe on the order of 10% or so.  To take some examples: ConQuest, a local gaming con, had 10 indie games and 5 homebrews out of 71 scheduled events.  If you look at the local gaming shop, EndGame Oakland (http://www.endgameoakland.com/), you'll find that at the moment it's front page lists four featured RPG products: Ptolus, Cadwallon, Promethean, and Primetime Adventures (so 1 out of 4, though that's an outlier, certainly).

I don't know how much of a generalization you can actually draw from a convention, or even the gamers you run into personally, in any particular area.  As for game stores, would I find the same attention to Indie games at Games of Berkeley, Gamescape, or Gator Games?  If I go to the Player Finder forum at EndGame Oakland, I find messages for CoC, Iron Heroes, Eberron, D&D 3.5, and Exalted.

This goes back to the discussions you'd see from time to time on forums like RPGnet where some industry source would mention that Palladium was the #2 game company and everyone would say how they don't know anyone who plays Palladium games.  Clearly, someone was buying and playing them.

While I do think there are some regional differences, unless EndGame Oakland tells you that Promethean and Primetime Adventures are flying off the shelves (selling dozens of copies), I find it hard to believe that more than a handful of gamers are buying and playing them.  But you can ask, if you are really interested.  In my experience, most game store managers are more than happy to tell you how things are selling.  Just because a store is featuring a game doesn't mean it's selling.  Ask if it is.

I can give you a perfect example of that.  My FLGS used to be Gamer's Realm, the store that shared advertisements with Grey Ghost Games for Fudge.  I used to spend a lot of time talking to the manager about how well various games would sell.  The bottom line was that the people in my group that I would take over there were the only ones buying Fudge dice and the Fudge books, for the most part, just sat on the shelves.  But looking at Knights of the Dinner Table, you'd think they were featuring the game and should have been flying off the shelves.

I would like to see hard numbers before I comment on this subject at all.

Otherwise this supposed "growth" could be a completely subjective impression, possibly based strictly on the sheer number of hacks shitting-out PDFs.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWell, you'll need to fight like a dog to get respect from Pundit and a few others.  If that sounds like fun to you, then right on.

It is not possible to get the "respect" of RPGPundit. It is possible to get him to like you by saying a lot of things he agrees with. He'll especially like you if you say them some time after he's said something similar, since he can then claim you were inspired by his genius.

But respect? Nope. Respect is for peasants, man! Fight the power!

:pundit:

It doesn't seem to me any different than any other product. In a market more often then not you just don't notice the crap, because it's crap. What will stand out is the quality because it sells. The sales for this small market of indie games seems like it's growing, but it's because it's easy to notice (especially on the internet) the ones that are doing well compared to the multitudes of ones that are here today and gone tomorrow.

Either way, it's good on those few lucky folks who have been able to achieve acceptable sales for themselves. Luke, I'd give a toe to gross 35 grand off of any efforts of mine, and considering how many people just straight out fail, well, you should think you're doing well.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt is not possible to get the "respect" of RPGPundit. It is possible to get him to like you by saying a lot of things he agrees with. He'll especially like you if you say them some time after he's said something similar, since he can then claim you were inspired by his genius.

But respect? Nope. Respect is for peasants, man! Fight the power!

:pundit:

All rather untrue. There are many people I like, and usually respect them (I more or less have to, in order to like them).  There are also a few people I can respect in one sense or another without liking them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JamesVEither way, it's good on those few lucky folks who have been able to achieve acceptable sales for themselves. Luke, I'd give a toe to gross 35 grand off of any efforts of mine, and considering how many people just straight out fail, well, you should think you're doing well.

Well, BW is doing well enough and hopefully BE will do better, but this is a tough industry. Being on the inside, I can see that there's not a terrible lot of money to be made publishing and selling roleplaying game books. And I can't imagine having serious overhead and fixed costs like an office and all that jazz.

-Luke

Hm, why are sales of games that are relatively cheap but that are complete in one book increasing?  Particularly why is that happening when you can chat to the authors online, get a direct blast of their enthusiasm and get really clear descriptions before laying down your money of what the game is like and what it does so that there is only a minimal risk of making a bad purchase?

I mean, I could buy a book that comes in glossy hardback, costs more and won't be playable until I buy three or more supplements and then find out I don't really like it as much as I thought I would.  Given that alternative, why would anyone buy a fun little game that's cheap and wholly self-contained?

Not meaning to be snarky btw, but I am tired today so if I sound so just let me know.  My point is, they sell for damn good reasons, they sell because they are entry level priced games by and large that are complete on purchase and where you can get solid info on them before purchasing.  I expect them to sell more and to increase in popularity.

Oh, also they started from such a low sales base that any improvement will be significant, but I think there is more to it than that.  

Why aren't the mainstream companies doing likewise?  Because their current model is glossy hardbacks sold on aesthetics rather than utility and with the need for further purchases.  It's the opposite of the indie sales philosophy and personally I think the indie approach is far better suited to actual gamers.

Balbinus wins!

Quote from: droogBalbinus wins!

Nah. He's just making unfound assertions in the first paragraph as Levi did to start off the thread.

The second is just his personal opinion.

Etc.

All the points lack significance and objectivity.

It does however explain why he may be buying indie products then not, and it's useful for that at least.

Quote from: gleichmanAll the points lack significance and objectivity.

Yeah, but so do yours.  There's no objective data to be had, y'know?  And "significance" seems (to my eye) to usually translate into "My points are significant, my friends points are relevant, anyone else is just talking for the sake of talking."

So ... yeah.  Balbinus's points lack both significance and objectivity.  And he wins! :p

Quote from: BalbinusWhy aren't the mainstream companies doing likewise?  Because their current model is glossy hardbacks sold on aesthetics rather than utility and with the need for further purchases.  It's the opposite of the indie sales philosophy and personally I think the indie approach is far better suited to actual gamers.

Sigh.  Personally, I dislike the glossy hardback trend -- I much prefer the boxed sets of the eighties which IMO were more functional.  

However, I don't see the basis here for the slam.  Personally, I almost never buy supplements for games, including the hardback lines.  After a year and a half of playing the Buffy RPG, I eventually picked up the two of the supplements, but for the most part they languish unused.  I've run Conan and Blue Rose as well, with no need for supplements.  While there are some cases of "required supplements" in the RPG industry, I don't see that it applies across the board.  

A big glossy hardbound like Conan generally provides as much material as is found in, say, the three Burning Wheel core books or The Riddle of Steel or Sorcerer.  The extras which come in supplements are generally extra options and/or adventures -- things which indie games don't generally provide, but instead rely on people to make up for themselves.

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, but so do yours.  

Sigh.

I don't need it, the person saying "I don't believe" you has the win unless and until the other person making the assertion provides such data.

I know believers in UFOs, Bigfoot,  and Magic Crystals would like it to be otherwise, but at least for now this old pillar of logic holds sway in western tradition.

Quote from: BalbinusHm, why are sales of games that are relatively cheap but that are complete in one book increasing?

A lot of the Indie games really aren't priced better than commercial games, especially if you compare page count and trim size.  On Lulu.com, Agon is $20 for 120 pages in a 9" x 7" trim.  The Shadow of Yesterday, for 228 pages in a 6" x 9" trim, is $24 coil binding, $25 for paperback, and $34 for hardcover.  Don't Rest Your Head is only $15 but it's also only 84 pages in 6" X 9" trim. The Princes' Kingdom is $20, also for only 84 pages in 6" X 9" trim.  That's not including shipping, which sometimes comes into play.

Yes, I know you can find cheaper books but my point is that those prices are not really "relatively cheap".  And where you can find cheaper prices, we go back to the gross vs. net distinction.  If they aren't making any profit because it's a vanity hobby, that not only means that growth won't greatly increase revenue but it also sets the price point expectations in this hobby below profitability, making it more difficult for anyone who wants to make a profit to do so.

As for "complete in one book", so are a lot of commercial games but that's got a catch, too.  First, the Indie games are complete but also limited in scope.  The limited focus of many of the games designed to play one particular type of game means that they have shorter play lives for a lot of players.  Second, if you really do sell a complete game that's all you'll ever need to play for the next 20 years, you'll run into the problem of getting no further sales from the same customers for that product.

Quote from: BalbinusParticularly why is that happening when you can chat to the authors online, get a direct blast of their enthusiasm and get really clear descriptions before laying down your money of what the game is like and what it does so that there is only a minimal risk of making a bad purchase?

Bruce Baugh certainly talked up his Gamma World but look where that got him.  Ryan Dancey talked up D&D 3e.  S. John Ross talked about Uresia.  The DP9 people had a good online presence.  So this isn't something that doesn't  happen with commercial games.  And when the authors in question are opinionated evangelists (as at least some of the Indie authors are), it can turn people off, too.

Quote from: BalbinusI mean, I could buy a book that comes in glossy hardback, costs more and won't be playable until I buy three or more supplements and then find out I don't really like it as much as I thought I would.

Or you can buy a game that has a much smaller page count and will be playable three or four times until you get tired of the premise, right?

Quote from: BalbinusNot meaning to be snarky btw, but I am tired today so if I sound so just let me know.  My point is, they sell for damn good reasons, they sell because they are entry level priced games by and large that are complete on purchase and where you can get solid info on them before purchasing.  I expect them to sell more and to increase in popularity.

Do you have any evidence that large number of gamers are demanding games with a limited focus that are "complete on purchase"?  And I should add that "complete" can mean something very different for an 84 page game that relies heavily on "just make it up" than it does for a game that actually provides detailed rules and examples for handling lots of situations.  Rather than RPGnet, what kind of reception and buzz do Indie games get on ENworld, which more closely reflects the mainstream of the hobby?

Quote from: BalbinusWhy aren't the mainstream companies doing likewise?

If you sell a game too cheaply, you don't make money.  That's fine for a vanity hobbyist.  It's not fine for a company that expects to make a profit.

If you selll a game that is complete in one book, you don't get repeat sales.  Again, that's a problem if you want to be profitable. So instead of selling supplements over and over again, the Indie model seems to involve selling entirely new games over and over again.  As to how viable that is in the long term, I'd suggest looking at why there was growth in universal and common house systems in the RPG marketplace.  A lot of people don't want to learn a whole new game over and over again.

Game companies do put their people online to build up enthusiasm and talk to the customers.  But look at how that can and does backfire.  The Gamma World backlash is an obvious example but there are plenty of others.  And as the fan base grows, it takes more and more time to give fans that personal touch to the point where the author has no time to do anything else.  That's why more than a few commercial authors have taking vacations from the Internet.  They couldn't get more work done otherwise.

Quote from: BalbinusBecause their current model is glossy hardbacks sold on aesthetics rather than utility and with the need for further purchases.

If existing companies started to put you 6" X 9" paperbacks with 84 pages for $20, do you think they'd really fly off the shelves?  I don't.  Almost all role-playing books used to look even worse than the current Indie games.  Why did game companies start putting out gloossy hardbacks with aestetic appeal?  Because that's what the fans asked for.

As for the further purchases, don't many of the Indie games simply replace the "buy a core book and a different supplement to play a different type of game" paradigm with "buy a different game when you want to play a different type of game" paradigm?  I mean, if I'm sick of playing Dogs in Dogs in the Vineyard, don't I essentially need to buy a whole new game to do something else?  How flexible is a "one trick pony" and how is a game that can only be used to play one type of situation really more "complete" than a commercial game that supports basic play and then requires supplements to pay different types of situations?

Finally, as Ryan Dancy pointed out in his lengthy Pyramid message board posts on why D&D 3e was designed the way it was (you can find one of the more important ones, that talks about survey data, if you look for it), you'll notice that the hobby consists of many different styles of players and they often play together in the same group.  A game that appeals to more styles of play is going to have a broader audience than a game that has a very narrow appeal.

Quote from: BalbinusIt's the opposite of the indie sales philosophy and personally I think the indie approach is far better suited to actual gamers.

Including the vast majority of actual gamers happily playing D&D?

Quote from: gleichmanI don't need it, the person saying "I don't believe" you has the win unless and until the other person making the assertion provides such data.

Absolutely.

They may thus bask in their victory, accrue medals, and commision a flag in their own honor, which shall be heralded to the ends of the earth.

...

More seriously, if you made the opposing assertion (that the presence, growth, and techniques used for sale of Indie games are not and will not be of significance to game designers), you'd have a hell of a time proving that, too, and you've made exactly zero attempts in that direction.

Your only real defense thus far is "That's not how debate works!"; which, while generally true, is kind of hollow.  We are, after all, basically just shooting the shit on a forum about games, on the internet.

@John Morrow: You totally nailed it. I wanna stress another point though:

The so called "indie-games" are nearly all catering to a specific need, which hadn't been adressed before. That's why you see a rise in sales. Once the market is thorougly fed with thematic games, the sales will not rise. Instead of stealing sales from other games , they created their own niche.
but I doubt, for abovementioned reasons, that this niche will grow very large in terms of market share percentage.

Never forget, it's a buyers market.

Quote from: gleichmanSigh.

I don't need it, the person saying "I don't believe" you has the win unless and until the other person making the assertion provides such data.

I know believers in UFOs, Bigfoot,  and Magic Crystals would like it to be otherwise, but at least for now this old pillar of logic holds sway in western tradition.

No offense to you, but I'm starting to think that thre is no way anyone could prove to you that what they say is true not matter what they do.:confused:

We are talking about RPGs here not national economics, so I don't see the need to hire an accounting service to prove the point.

The bottom line small press/indie games are selling more now than they ever have. Should WotC or any of the big guys worry? Nope, the indie/small press segment could increase by four as a whole and likely still only be 10% of what the big guys make.

It's like comparing the PC to a Mac. Both are great, but Mac really is no threat to the Pc market share. I don't think we need detailed accounting for that.

Quote from: SettembriniOnce the market is thorougly fed with thematic games, the sales will not rise. Instead of stealing sales from other games , they created their own niche.
but I doubt, for abovementioned reasons, that this niche will grow very large in terms of market share percentage.

Not all Indie-style games are thematic.

For a ready-to-hand example, I point you to Perfect 20 - which, by all accounts, is Indie.  I mean, it won an Indie games award.

I could fill a page with examples, but that's the best one on hand - Indie gaming isn't all about the one type.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenMore seriously, if you made the opposing assertion (that the presence, growth, and techniques used for sale of Indie games are not and will not be of significance to game designers), you'd have a hell of a time proving that, too, and you've made exactly zero attempts in that direction.

The difference is that Brian didn't start a thread titled "Why Indie Games Won't Grow".

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNot all Indie-style games are thematic.

For a ready-to-hand example, I point you to Perfect 20 - which, by all accounts, is Indie.  I mean, it won an Indie games award.

I like Perfect 20, but it's a free game and counts as a d20 variant. I think Settembrini's point stands.

Quote from: JongWKI like Perfect 20, but it's a free game and counts as a d20 variant. I think Settembrini's point stands.

Burning Wheel, then.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI could fill a page with examples, but that's the best one on hand - Indie gaming isn't all about the one type.

So what sort of generalizations can you make about a category that includes all different types of things?

Quote from: John MorrowSo what sort of generalizations can you make about a category that includes all different types of things?

Methods of publication.  Which is the part I find most significant, as I've said.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenMore seriously, if you made the opposing assertion (that the presence, growth, and techniques used for sale of Indie games are not and will not be of significance to game designers), you'd have a hell of a time proving that, too, and you've made exactly zero attempts in that direction.

I would indeed be the fool if I made such a claim without backing data (or at least stating it as nothing more than an personal opinion).

But I didn't make such a claim. I didn't start such a thread. I haven't claimed that anyone has "won".

I leave the playing of fool to others on this point.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYour only real defense thus far is "That's not how debate works!"; which, while generally true, is kind of hollow.  We are, after all, basically just shooting the shit on a forum about games, on the internet.

I hardly think pointing out elemental failures in logic and debate is hollow. Rather I would hope that it would inspire better threads in the future where unfounded claims and personal opinon are not miss-represented as objective facts.

Additionally, it all would have never been a point raised by me- if you hadn't launched a hollow thread to begin with. If "shooting the shit" was your goal instead of serious analysis- you could have phased your opening post so that was obvious.

Perhaps next time you will.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBurning Wheel, then.

I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about it. :idunno:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBurning Wheel, then.

If Burning Wheel is all you'll ever need (remember that "complete" claim), why Burning Empire?  Is that a supplement or a whole new version of the game?

Quote from: John MorrowIf Burning Wheel is all you'll ever need (remember that "complete" claim), why Burning Empire?  Is that a supplement or a whole new version of the game?

It's the sci-fi version of a fantasy game.

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonAs an independent publisher, I don't get Luke's sales - mine are in the hundreds of books each year, not thousands. What I have seen, though, which is just totally not the way RPGs are traditionally sold: I sell more of each book each year. I released a game called Donjon in 2002. I sold more of it this year than I did in 2002. The Shadow of Yesterday has sold 1.5 times as many copies this year than it did by September of last year.

For the sales curve to go up year after year instead of down is a complete reversal of what we've seen before in publishing.

Does everyone have Clinton on Ignore or something?  You shouldn't do that, he's a nice guy, we've had dinner together...and his game rocks!

I'm not surprised you've been seeing more sales every year, your product is coming into its own.  I'm also not surprised that any publisher is seeing positive growth, especially when you're not selling non-periodical products using a periodical model...like most "supplement string" RPGs out there.

Really, couldn't White Wolf just do a subscription based perfect bound magazine (ala The Rifter) as a monthly to cover all of there new books?  I wonder if any company has considered that.

Quote from: gleichmanI leave the playing of fool to others on this point.

Why the subtle jabs?

Note, I'm not asking why you're making jabs at all.   But why are you being subtle?  If you think I'm an idiot that argues badly, just say so, man.

Here, I'll make it easy; I think you've got a nice thick wooden shaft lodged up in your colon.  I also think that removing it would probably help.

Quote from: joewolzDoes everyone have Clinton on Ignore or something?

Not yet.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNote, I'm not asking why you're making jabs at all.   But why are you being subtle?  If you think I'm an idiot that argues badly, just say so, man.

I was leaving it open that this was just a slip on your part. But if you're for burning all the bridges here and now go for it. You've made a excellent start.

Quote from: gleichmanI was leaving it open that this was just a slip on your part. But if you're for burning all the bridges here and now go for it. You've made a excellent start.

It's a forum.  On the internet.  Hosted by the Pundit.  For talking about games.  Which I play and talk about for fun.

That's all it is.

You're asserting that I should take it more seriously.  I don't intend to.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt's the sci-fi version of a fantasy game.

Does it use the same rules?

Quote from: JongWKDoes it use the same rules?

A modified set.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYou're asserting that I should take it more seriously.  I don't intend to.

You already did.

And that wasn't want I was asking you to do. Rather I was asking for you to be either serious or not upfront. It prevents headaches down the line- for you.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenMethods of publication.  Which is the part I find most significant, as I've said.

Almost none of your original points seemed to have much to do with methods of publication, to me.  

Many commercial role-playing publishers do promote their games with enthusiasm online.  Look at all the Ptolus hype.  But I've seen little correlation between writer enthusiasm and success in the mainstream.  d20 Gamma World?  Secret of Zir'An?  Tribe 8?  Yes, Exalted got a lot of writer enthusism, too, but I don't think that's ultimately why it's had some success.

The books are cheap because the profits (and, honestly, quality) are low, not because there is any efficiency in being small but because there is no conventional marketing (e.g., print ads in Dragon) and because the authors expect little profit.  The absence of supplements isn't entirely true because Indie games do have them.  Sorcerer and Sword?  Burning Empires?  So where the buy-in is low (and as I pointed out earlier, it isn't always low), it's low because of the uncompensated effort of authors who are publishing as a labor of love, not to profit from it.  The low prices are subsidized by the authors' day jobs (or their spouses' jobs or parents, etc.).

Having a difficult time actually finding a game and swapping stories about the experience and lay experience is not  something the mainstream is all that interested in, in my experience.  Why do you think this is a selling point outside of the Forge faithful?  The same with controversy.  Do you really think the broader gaming community cares?

Quote from: gleichmanYou already did.

And that wasn't want I was asking you to do. Rather I was asking for you to be either serious or not upfront. It prevents headaches down the line- for you.

oh.....geez, here we go.:gnasher:

get off your high horse already. :talktothehand:

Quote from: Mcrowget off your high horse already. :talktothehand:

No thanks, I like the view from up here.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenA modified set.

Ok.

Somehow, I have this gut feeling that games like P20 and BW tap the huge pool of fantasy players, usually getting people who want to try something new. The market is big and already there. Games like DotV, on the other hand, appeal to an entirely different niche market.

Quote from: John MorrowAlmost none of your original points seemed to have much to do with methods of publication, to me.

I hesitate to use this word, since it's loaded in some circles.  But, still...

Marketing is part of the publication strategy for an RPG.  And all of my points were about marketing.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy do you think this is a selling point outside of the Forge faithful?  The same with controversy.  Do you really think the broader gaming community cares?

I give you the Kool-Aid Point. (http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/08/physics_of_pass.html)

Quote from: gleichmanYou already did.

And that wasn't want I was asking you to do. Rather I was asking for you to be either serious or not upfront. It prevents headaches down the line- for you.

So, you'd like me to work towards being consistent by your standards?

Okay, funny.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenMarketing is part of the publication strategy for an RPG.  And all of my points were about marketing.

And none of the methods you talked about, if you think them through, scale past niche vanity publishing.  And that's why most big publishers aren't doing what you suggest.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI give you the Kool-Aid Point. (http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/08/physics_of_pass.html)

I think that article confuses a superficial side-effect for a driving force.  I'm a Mac owner and I have no delusions that all the enthusiasm of Mac owners and all the hatred of Macs by Windows lovers didn't stop the Mac's market share from dropping below 5%.  And if you want to see a wonderful example of confusing hype for success, see Snakes on a Plane.

QuoteI could fill a page with examples, but that's the best one on hand - Indie gaming isn't all about the one type.

I know very well. But my point was that "them Thematics" have a new product life cycle. And as I understood it, at least BE is following the basic recipe of them Thematics niche:

- low prep
- input from all participants ["Distributed Authoring"]
- One book
- Forge-based publicity
- GM as a player
- heavily character centered
- heavily navel-gazing/ conncerned with personal themes EDIT: (not meant in bad blood, but I don't know how to put it better; call me an anal retentive bean counter wargamer, if that helps )

Sure there are totally mainstream indie products. But in this thread nobody ever discussed the D&D supplementary pdf market, which is even indier than the Indians, as they are even independent from the Forge and have no one to talk to, but their three customers (Hey Guys! I love your stuff! It was me and my friends who bought Feast of Crows! *Wave*)
Or EXP. That's some kewl shit, and rightfully selling well.

So my point was: What is called indie in this thread is nearly exclusively thematic, and that is a new thing, and thusly is just reaching it's peak in the product life cycle.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd none of the methods you talked about, if you think them through, scale past niche vanity publishing.

Really?  Tell me why not.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd if you want to see a wonderful example of confusing hype for success, see Snakes on a Plane.

I did see it.

And I loved it, much as I also loved The Lost Skeleton of Cadavera, or Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter.

The movie also made significantly more money than it cost, in a healthy industry.

Which doesn't line it up real well, to me, as an example or counter-example to games that are pulling more profit-per-unit in a (mostly cottage) industry that is, on the whole, losing it.

Maybe I'm missing your point, though.

Quote from: SettembriniSure there are totally mainstream indie products. But in this thread nobody ever discussed the D&D supplementary pdf market, which is even indier than the Indians, as they are even independent from the Forge and have no one to talk to, but their three customers (Hey Guys! I love your stuff! It was me and my friends who bought Feast of Crows! *Wave*)

Originally, I was thinking of them, too.  Got sidetracked, though.

Quote from: John MorrowThe books are cheap because the profits (and, honestly, quality) are low, not because there is any efficiency in being small but because there is no conventional marketing (e.g., print ads in Dragon) and because the authors expect little profit.

When you bypass the three-tier distribution system, your per-unit profit soars. John Wick, for example, sold 3000 copies of Orkworld and made more money off that than he did from any AEG product he ever wrote.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSo, you'd like me to work towards being consistent by your standards?

Okay, funny.

It's a depressing world that thinks making clear the intention of "Serious debate" vs. "shooting the breeze" in a written public medium is 'bowing to someone else's standards'.

But hey, I'm good with this Levi. I just continue doing what I do, it will at least entertain me.

But I still have to leave in three weeks or I lose $20.

Quote from: gleichmanBut I still have to leave in three weeks or I lose $20.

Crappy deal.  

I figure that if we keep scrapping, by the time your weeks run out, we'll have figured out a useful way to argue with each other by then.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenCrappy deal.  

I figure that if we keep scrapping, by the time your weeks run out, we'll have figured out a useful way to argue with each other by then.

I'm easy to deal with. Just ask Balbinus for advice.

Or you could just agree with me, that works too.

Quote from: gleichmanOr you could just agree with me, that works too.

Heretic!

Quote from: Levi KornelsenLet me tell you a few of the reasons that I think this is so.

• Because the writers of these products are personally enthusiastic about them, and that enthusiasm is contagious.
  
• Because the games are individually cheap, and don't require supplements; the buy-in is low, low, low.
• Because the fans of these games can swap stories about hunting them down and getting them, and about how the different games affect their play.
• Because there's some small controversy, as people react negatively to some of them.  Many of these game provoke a reaction, and that sells games.

Your thoughts?

So, 15 pages in, lemme address the OP:
I think Settembrini's right. That small press/indie games have found a long dormant niche in the gaming community. I think there has always been a market for the small and the odd in the gaming community -- anyone remember SJG's little baggy games? Car Wars and supplements and such? Cool stuff, and started a freaking cult.

But in the 90s, gaming production seemingly moved heavily into a bigger, better looking format that also, subsequently, required a big buy in (Vampire 2e anyone?). This was also nothing new. AD&D was all cool, hard-backed and supplementilicious. But the standards of production shot up, as the market was dwindling -- remember the lean years when there was no DnD in print?!

ANYWAY, I'm rambling. So there's a new wave of small press RPGs boasting innovative mechanics and fast play. Buzz on the street* is that they are delivering. And that they are cool† and that they are relatively cheap§.

I don't think it has much to do with the authors and the enthusiasm. That's just marketing. Can be replicated by other companies or mediums or whatever.

But controversy and the coolness factor? I have personally born witness to both factors selling my game. So I suspect that those elements are a factor as well. Of course, I haven't been audited by the FDIC or deposed by a grand jury, so what the hell do I know?

-L

* AKA The INTERNET

† Because they are different and not popular. Also, because they are cool.

§ Sorry Charlie, $80-90 to play DnD or $22 to play Dogs in the Vineyard with my friends. People don't think in the long term of "I'll be playing this game for the rest of my life." People think, "I want a cool game right now and I've got $20."

Quote from: Paul WatsonWhen you bypass the three-tier distribution system, your per-unit profit soars. John Wick, for example, sold 3000 copies of Orkworld and made more money off that than he did from any AEG product he ever wrote.

Very good point.  But when you rely on print-on-demand companies to print your books and fulfill your orders, the higher per-book costs will eat up a lot of those savings.  John Wick took a risk and printed out 3,000 copies the old fashioned way and was able to sell them.  If they hadn't sold, he'd have an endless supply of doorshops laying in boxes around his house.  Also bear in mind that when he was writing for AEG, he was paying to keep AEG in business, not simply feeding the three-tier distribution monster.

Don't get me wrong.  It's still a good point and a lot of these vanity-publishing efforts wouldn't be viable without print-on-demand and direct distribution.  That's certainly how I'd do it.  My skepticism comes from wondering how far that can scale.

Quote from: John MorrowDon't get me wrong.  It's still a good point and a lot of these vanity-publishing efforts wouldn't be viable without print-on-demand and direct distribution.  That's certainly how I'd do it.  My skepticism comes from wondering how far that can scale.

So ... I'm going to assume that you know the whole set of techniques about how to bootstrap early profits into longer print runs, and basically scale up production (and profit margin) in response to demand.

My take on it is that it scales all the way fuckin' up.  If you end up selling 3000 copies there's no reason that your 3000th should be at the low profit margins offered by print-on-demand.  You're skeptical.  That's cool.  Can you be more specific?

This whole thread seems to have gone off on a tangent over profitability. Why does profitability matter as long as it's positive? That means the model is sustainable as long the creator-owners don't depend on it as their primary source of income and don't mind working for the love of it. Both those conditions hold, pretty self-evidently, for a large proportion of indie publishers. And even if a few of them drop out of the hobby or move on to jobs at Wizards or videogame companies, more will likely take their place.

Given all that, the only limit to growth is the demand side: how much of an appetite is there for this stuff? Personally, I think there are some warning signs. I'd be surprised if the model of "play a game a couple times and then move onto another" is sustainable over the long run. Even less so with the existence of eBay, which effectively allows a number of "one-off games" to circulate. This also brings up the contradiction between two needs for such games. They have to be innovative, but they also have to be easy to learn.

FWIW, I don't think these problems apply to Burning Wheel. The game might need a new edition at some point (personally, I think some of the rules are confusing, at least in presentation), but the paradigm is traditional open-ended campaigns. 'course, then you have the problem that if you have BW and like it, there's no reason to buy more indie games.

Just to be clear, before I respond to any of the detailed posts, people can say I have won or not as they wish but I make no claims myself to having won anything.

In fact, although I agree largely with what I posted (0bviously, though I'll return to one bit where John Morrow clearly owned me in a moment) I didn't personally disagree with Brian's post.  I didn't substantiate anything or particularly try to, I haven't any issue with someone noticing that.

I'm picking out a couple of immediate points, I'll try to come back in more detail later.

Quote from: John MorrowA lot of the Indie games really aren't priced better than commercial games, especially if you compare page count and trim size.  

I don't count page size.  Page size and play value have very little to do with each other.  Games like L5R and Seventh Sea soured me on page count for keeps pretty much and the trend to pages of to me entirely useless game fiction also add little IMO.

Quote from: John MorrowAs for "complete in one book", so are a lot of commercial games but that's got a catch, too.

Increasingly few in my experience.  Pendragon used to be, the new edition isn't.  WFRP used to be, the new edition isn't.  Runequest used to be, the new edition isn't.  Relatively few games now being published by mainstream companies are designed to be complete in one book and increasingly games that were when rereleased no longer are.

It used to be standard for games to be complete in one book, since the 1990s I think there has been a noticeable trend away from that.

Quote from: John MorrowA game that appeals to more styles of play is going to have a broader audience than a game that has a very narrow appeal.

I didn't say otherwise, ask the guys on rpg.net, one of my standard rants is that focussed games have narrower appeal than less focussed games.  I didn't talk about focussed games in my post I don't think.  It's not a trend I particularly endorse.

Quote from: John MorrowIncluding the vast majority of actual gamers happily playing D&D?

Fair point.

Quote from: lukeI think Settembrini's right. That small press/indie games have found a long dormant niche in the gaming community. I think there has always been a market for the small and the odd in the gaming community -- anyone remember SJG's little baggy games? Car Wars and supplements and such? Cool stuff, and started a freaking cult.

I don't dispute that Indie games have a niche and can sell.  But the argument being made is about growth and I think the question is whether it can keep growing once it saturates the niche.

I suspect a few Indie games, perhaps even your game, will break out into the mainstream.  But I don't see evidence that the vast majority of Indie games, including high-quality well-done games like Dogs in the Vineyard, will break out into the mainstream.  That's not to say you shouldn't try.  It simply means that I think some of the "irrational exuberance" over Indie games is unwarranted.

Quote from: lukeANYWAY, I'm rambling. So there's a new wave of small press RPGs boasting innovative mechanics and fast play. Buzz on the street* is that they are delivering. And that they are cool† and that they are relatively cheap§.

Nothing I haven't seen before, which is why I have some pessimism.  See the buzz that welcomed Fudge, Theatrix, and a bunch of other games that had innovative mechanics, fast play, buzz on the internet, etc.  

Quote from: lukeBut controversy and the coolness factor? I have personally born witness to both factors selling my game. So I suspect that those elements are a factor as well. Of course, I haven't been audited by the FDIC or deposed by a grand jury, so what the hell do I know?

Of course it sells games.  But the question is whether it will keep driving growth or plateu, once the "street" becomes saturated with buzz and then start to fade when the buzz moves on to the next cool innovative thing.

Quote from: luke§ Sorry Charlie, $80-90 to play DnD or $22 to play Dogs in the Vineyard with my friends. People don't think in the long term of "I'll be playing this game for the rest of my life." People think, "I want a cool game right now and I've got $20."

Quite a few people have run 20 year campaigns with D&D and many more have played nothing but D&D for decades.  Do you see DitV being played like that?  Of course D&D isn't the only non-Indie role-playing game on the market, but I'm sure you already know that.

As for thinking, "I want a cool game right now and I've got $20." unless I'm at GenCon or my FLGS carries DitV, I'm out of luck.  When I wanted DitV, I had to look up how to order it and then wait for it to come in the mail.  I also had to pay shipping.

I'd like to introduce you to John Q. Public. I can't tell you definatively why BW has been significantly increasing sales year over year since release. But I can give a data point telling you why I purchased BW.

I don't do RPGnet. I had never even heard of The Forge. I had heard the name Dogs In The Vineyard, but nothing about it.

I heard about Burning Wheel from Adam Jury. He made an offhand comment on on the Dumpshock forums about things he planned to do with Shadowrun 4 finally shipped.  One of those things was finally getting around to trying out Burning Wheel. So internet buzz. Check!

Then I happened upon, I think thanks to a post on the same forums by JKWong, RPGPundit talking about Nutkinland. I remember Nutkinland from my days at ENWorld (I had bought 3e the day it landed at the FLGS). So I came over and it was OK, there were people playing different kinds of games and they were OK.  On the off change someone had heard about it I asked about Burning Wheel, and Paka answered. He gave a basic rundown, and also warned me about it being "crunchie". Satisfied customer that was also cogniscent and up front about different aspects, both positive and potentially negative. Check!

I checked out the download samples. Liked those. Internet presense for marketing effect. Check!

I went to the local FLGS, I don't like to do mail order. They had a copy. Able to sell direct and through traditional channels. Check!

So I went and looked at it.  At first I was struck by the 1/2 size format. But I had liked what I saw on the web, and I liked the price. Easily low enough that to take a flier on it. Competative price. Check!

But in the end is that it is the overall quality of workmanship. If it hadn't worked well as a game, if it hadn't supported ass kicking adventure, then one and likely two links in the chain above would have broken. And even if they hadn't I wouldn't be talking about it myself.  It is more than just being jaded. It addresses issues that I hadn't even fully identified, though I felt were there. Like an invisible elephant sitting at the table.


P.S. I love irony. A big whopping chunk of irony, incase you missed it, is that RPGPundit himself features as a link in the above chain.

Quote from: TonyLBSo ... I'm going to assume that you know the whole set of techniques about how to bootstrap early profits into longer print runs, and basically scale up production (and profit margin) in response to demand.

Correct.  And as that happens, it becomes more like a business and less like a vanity publishing hobby.  Lots of game companies started out that way including, well, Wizards of the Coast and TSR.  Have you read John Tynes "Death of the Minotaur" on Salon.com?

Quote from: TonyLBMy take on it is that it scales all the way fuckin' up.  If you end up selling 3000 copies there's no reason that your 3000th should be at the low profit margins offered by print-on-demand.  You're skeptical.  That's cool.  Can you be more specific?

FYI, as a disclaimer, years go I worked in book production at Random House.  I estimated printing costs and wrote up profit and lost sheets for various titles.  I even wrote an inventory tracking system to help them handle reprints.  I have some experience with the economics of publishing, though print-on-demand has changed some of what I know.

Part of the problem involves what almost killed TSR.  When you print books, there is a risk of overprinting.  And someone has to pay for the books that don't sell.  Basically, there is an overhead that is ultimately going to eat into a writer's profit or increase a writer's risk that they can't make go away.

In print-on-demand, the per unit costs are high but the risks are low.  If you do a big print run, the per unit costs are low but the risks are high.  When it all averages out, it can be six one way, a half-dozen the other (some will be winners but others will be losers) until a publisher can generate reliable enough sales that they can be sure to sell out a larger print run, thus getting the low per-unit cost with low risk.  That's why publishers become so risk-averse.  Nobody wants to pay for books they have to pulp because they don't sell (or have boxes of books sitting in their basement or garage until the end of time).  If nothing else, it costs money to warehouse books that don't sell (that's also why there is a focus on just-in-time fulfillment).  John Wick figured he could sell 3,000 copies of Orkworld and make a profit, which he did.  If it hadn't sold, he would have had to eat the cost of printing and had been stuck with boxes of books that won't sell.  Even if you use your early profits to bootstrap larger print runs, you can lose it all if your book doesn't sell.

The Indie publishers who make the transition will be those who can get reliable enough sales to take risk on actual print runs, rather than print-on-demand.  I suspect that some of the Indie games will make that transition, perhaps even Burning Wheel.  I doubt DitV ever will, because of it's tight focus, even though I think it's a very well done game (I own a copy).  But at that point, they'll lose the flexibility of an Indie and they'll start looking like all the other commercial publishers.  That's the price of growth.

And one other question is if an Indie game goes mainstream, will all that buzz disappear and will people turn on them for selling out, like a punk band releasing a Top 40 hit or opening for a pop singer?  One way to insulate that is to spend more time pushing quality and less time pushing the Indie mystique.

I'm not sure BW is the greatest example here actually.  Much as I love it, and I do think it's very good, if I hadn't been told it was indie I don't think it would have occurred to me to classify it as such.

To me it's a great fantasy rpg in the tradition of DnD, Rolemaster, Runequest, Pendragon and others.  I'm not saying the mechanics are like those, but it has similar detail levels, similar levels of craftsmanship IMO and covers much the same territory.

I see it as an unusually good new fantasy rpg, the indie bit to be honest I don't really see so much.  It seems to me to have far more to do with say Pendragon than Dogs in the Vineyard.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd one other question is if an Indie game goes mainstream, will all that buzz disappear and will people turn on them for selling out, like a punk band releasing a Top 40 hit or opening for a pop singer?  One way to insulate that is to spend more time pushing quality and less time pushing the Indie mystique.

On the irony front, I spent much of my time this evening posting this very argument over at rpg.net and the story games site.  Tony and I even exchanged posts on it.

Sell on the quality, not the indie label.  Logically as Tony pointed out to me the indie label must act to sell to some folk, but really if it were my game I'd far rather someone bought because they liked it than because they thought it made them look cool.  And for every person that label attracts I think it puts off at least one other potential customer.

Sweet, I got a line by line break down! Awesome!

John, I agree that what's vital now -- if this particular generation of games is going to be more than a blip -- is to break out into the hearts and minds of the gamers who frequent ENWorld and the FLGS.

Personally, I bet my money (quite literally) that they do. I think those 20 year campaigns actively drive people* away from the hobby. I think that, beyond highschool and college, most people† want a game with a low buy-in cost that they can pick up and play in one evening and put away again. And next week? Same game or maybe a different game. You know, like people play board games or video games or card games.

-L

* That's people, not gamers.

† See note supra.

Quote from: John MorrowOne way to insulate that is to spend more time pushing quality and less time pushing the Indie mystique.

Another is to walk out of the conventions of both sides, and sell on yourself alone, building your own community.

Chad Underkoffler being an example, here.

Quote from: BalbinusI don't count page size.  Page size and play value have very little to do with each other.  Games like L5R and Seventh Sea soured me on page count for keeps pretty much and the trend to pages of to me entirely useless game fiction also add little IMO.

I'm not talking about games with fluffed page counts.  I'm talking about D&D, Hero, Pendragon, Runequest, GURPS, etc.

Quote from: BalbinusIncreasingly few in my experience.  Pendragon used to be, the new edition isn't.  WFRP used to be, the new edition isn't.  Runequest used to be, the new edition isn't.  Relatively few games now being published by mainstream companies are designed to be complete in one book and increasingly games that were when rereleased no longer are.

Well, I think Hero 5th Revised actually makes a good case for multiple books once your rules exceed a certain size.  A lot of those games have a lot of content, though I'll admit disappointment that WFRP2 wasn't quite the single book game WFRP1 was.

That said, I do think price is a bit of a red herring when I look at what kids spend on video games, not to mention all the brand new cars that kids are driving around at our local state college.  It's possible that publishers are making a calculated choice to ignore the segment of the RPG community that complains about price (and is shocked that the PHB doesn't still cost $12 like it did when they were a kid, inflation be damned).

Quote from: BalbinusIt used to be standard for games to be complete in one book, since the 1990s I think there has been a noticeable trend away from that.

Fair enough.

Quote from: lukeSweet, I got a line by line break down! Awesome!

John, I agree that what's vital now -- if this particular generation of games is going to be more than a blip -- is to break out into the hearts and minds of the gamers who frequent ENWorld and the FLGS.

Personally, I bet my money (quite literally) that they do. I think those 20 year campaigns actively drive people* away from the hobby. I think that, beyond highschool and college, most people† want a game with a low buy-in cost that they can pick up and play in one evening and put away again. And next week? Same game or maybe a different game. You know, like people play board games or video games or card games.

-L

* That's people, not gamers.

† See note supra.

And thus Squirrel Attack! was conceived with this theory in mind.

Quote from: BalbinusI see it as an unusually good new fantasy rpg, the indie bit to be honest I don't really see so much.  It seems to me to have far more to do with say Pendragon than Dogs in the Vineyard.

Well then I guess they should boot his mainstream ass to the curb lest he wreck their "indie" image then.  Frankly the indie label means squat to me to start with. It really does, because I've been conditioned by having the farce of so-called indie movies and music thrust upon me.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect.  And as that happens, it becomes more like a business and less like a vanity publishing hobby.  Lots of game companies started out that way including, well, Wizards of the Coast and TSR.

Oh you big cheater!

You've just defined Indie as small-scale.  And since your argument is "Indie games can't break past the small scale" that makes your argument real freakin' easy.  "Naturally they can't break past the small scale!  Once they break past the small scale they become ipso facto non-Indie, because I said so.  Quod erat demonstrandum."  Cheap, man.

It seems to me that what happens as an indie company gets more and more success is that it becomes a more successful indie company, and that's all.  There's no ceiling.  There's just "How high have such companies gone so far?"

On the other hand, I enjoyed your breakdown on the balance of long print runs vs. print-on-demand (which I take you to be applying to the digital-press technology, and therefore including short print runs of a few hundred under the same banner).  

But, I think that the whole risk of printing "too many" is an artifact of a market that thrives on novelty.  It doesn't really factor in the long tail economy that the Indies tap into.  If I decided to take out a loan and print a few thousand copies of Capes today I would sell them all.  Not this year, and probably not before the turn of the decade, but I would sell them.

But man, in the meantime I'd have inventory maintenance, and the cost of the loan, and all that jazz.  And, of course, you just know I'd find a glaring typo the moment the crates were delivered.  What a freakin' hassle.  The reason I stay with smaller runs isn't to lower my risk, it's to lower my overhead and frustration.

Quote from: lukeJohn, I agree that what's vital now -- if this particular generation of games is going to be more than a blip -- is to break out into the hearts and minds of the gamers who frequent ENWorld and the FLGS.

Or into some other pool of customers.  Think beyond the niche, yes.

Quote from: lukePersonally, I bet my money (quite literally) that they do. I think those 20 year campaigns actively drive people* away from the hobby. I think that, beyond highschool and college, most people† want a game with a low buy-in cost that they can pick up and play in one evening and put away again. And next week? Same game or maybe a different game. You know, like people play board games or video games or card games.

Speaking entirely with anecdotal experience here, I think the ENWorld and FLGS crowd are largely gamers, so maybe that isn't the audience you are looking for (though you should certainly give it a try). You might be able to tap a larger untapped audience if you could figure out some way to reach the people who read science fiction and fantasy who are looking for a pick-up and put-away interactive storytelling experience rather than what traditional RPGs have to offer.  Perhaps spending some time at science fiction and fantasy conventions with a table and some demos could be an interesting test.  Pitch the fact that your games don't require a huge investment of time or a lot of work.  Reach out to non-gamers.  Something to think about.

Quote from: TonyLBOh you big cheater!

You've just defined Indie as small-scale.

Well, I define Indie as author-owner to the extent that the owner has direct hands-on control of what's going on.  if you don't, then Steve Jackson Games could be called Indie.  Or Steve Long pumping out Hero material could be called Indie.  You can define it however you want, but the practical distinction when it comes to growth is how far an author-owner can scale while maintaining direct control over what's being written, promoted, published, and so on.

Quote from: TonyLBAnd since your argument is "Indie games can't break past the small scale" that makes your argument real freakin' easy.  "Naturally they can't break past the small scale!  Once they break past the small scale they become ipso facto non-Indie, because I said so.  Quod erat demonstrandum."  Cheap, man.

Not because I said so.  Because almost every commercial role-playing company out there started Indie.  TSR started Indie.  Wizards started Indie.  And so on.  At some point, they grew to the point where the author-owners stopped being authors, stopped being so hands on, stopped greeting the fans on con floors and started to be treated like celebrities, etc.

Quote from: TonyLBIt seems to me that what happens as an indie company gets more and more success is that it becomes a more successful indie company, and that's all.  There's no ceiling.  There's just "How high have such companies gone so far?"

The limit is how much growth can an author-owner manage before they run out of (A) hours in the day to do what they need to do or (B) start spending  more time managing growth and less time giving fans, Internet forums, and so on "the personal touch".  At some point, the author-owner needs help, and that's the first step toward a company, management overhead, employees, and so on.  

Yes, to a certain degree, the Forge-base Indie community has bought themselves some time and efficiencies of scale by sharing resources.  But was I only imagining all of those blog posts about the last GenCon that talked about how overcrowded the Forge booth was as well as arguments for and against another booth, as well as plans to limit the products that are presented?  There are already people talking about overcrowding and limits to keep things under control, which will limit size and growth, are there not?  And despite all the talk of "Indie" growth, did I also imagine all the blog messages that made it sound like the sales sky was falling for Indie games at GenCon because some of the games were having trouble finding sales?  Please take a good look at what the Indies themselves are writing.

Quote from: TonyLBOn the other hand, I enjoyed your breakdown on the balance of long print runs vs. print-on-demand (which I take you to be applying to the digital-press technology, and therefore including short print runs of a few hundred under the same banner).

Yes.  Any time you print more than you've already sold (even short print runs), the publisher is taking the risk of eating unsold books.

Quote from: TonyLBBut, I think that the whole risk of printing "too many" is an artifact of a market that thrives on novelty.  It doesn't really factor in the long tail economy that the Indies tap into.  If I decided to take out a loan and print a few thousand copies of Capes today I would sell them all.  Not this year, and probably not before the turn of the decade, but I would sell them.

Storing books takes up space, whether it's in your garage or in a warehouse or storage unit, which also costs money.  Thats fine when you are selling one or two titles and you could probably manage it with a game or two.  It can be a very big problem if you have 50 boxes of unsold games that you have to find a place for for years.  That's why a lot of industries rely on just-in-time delivery, have deep sales to get rid of stock that doesn't move, and why book stores strip the front cover off of unsold paperbacks and throw them out, rather than keeping them on the shelf or sending them to the warehouse to be restocked (which also costs money).

I know some people are wondering why I'm making this all about money.  Time is money.  Storage is money.  All the time and space you spend selling your games has to be subsidized somehow.  Ideally, the sales will pay those costs.  If they don't, then you are sucking money from a day job, a spouse, an inheritance, or whatever to subsidize other people's role-playing below cost.  That's might generous of you, but how sustainable is it?

And ultimately, subsidized games sold below costs hurt everyone else who is trying to make a profit selling games because they set price expectations unreasonably low.  A company trying to make a profit can't match the prices of a company willing to bleed money on vanity projects that lose money.

Quote from: TonyLBBut man, in the meantime I'd have inventory maintenance, and the cost of the loan, and all that jazz.  And, of course, you just know I'd find a glaring typo the moment the crates were delivered.  What a freakin' hassle.  The reason I stay with smaller runs isn't to lower my risk, it's to lower my overhead and frustration.

Absolutely.  And print-on-demand is a wondeful thing for all of those reasons.  But if you start selling thousands of copies, the overhead and frustration are going to be unavoidable.  And that's a big part of what I'm talking about.  Scale requires time.  Scale requires management.  Scale complicates things.  That's why small mom-and-pop shops become slick corporations when they grow.  And, again, if you haven't already read it, I strongly urge you to read John Tynes' Death to the Minotaur.  It talks about how Wizards was dragged kicking and screaming into a corporate culture:

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/23/wizards/index.html

Remember, Wizards started out as a bunch of guys self-publishing multi-sysstem supplements.  Talk to them about even the early days of Magic.  Scale changed them.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThis whole thread seems to have gone off on a tangent over profitability. Why does profitability matter as long as it's positive? That means the model is sustainable as long the creator-owners don't depend on it as their primary source of income and don't mind working for the love of it.

Some things to consider...

First, a lot of the benefits being attributed to Indie games involve a great deal of time on the part of the authors on the Internet to promote and support their games.  As scale increases, so can those demands on time, and all of that time is not compensated time.  That's how customer support kills small companies.

Second, if an Indie author is subsidizing his vanity publishing with a day job or a spouse's job, it's not really profitable.  And what that means is that if the Indie author's fortunes change and they or their spouse loses their day job, what was once affordable to subsidize may no longer be affordable to keep doing.

Third, selling games below cost and setting consumer price expectations at an unsustainable level hurts everyone else in the business who can't afford to lose money and spent uncompensated time subsidizing their Indie game.  That ultimately hurts everyone from Indie publishers looking to be profitable so people can quit their day job to the big guys, who for better or worse keep the hobby visiible in the mainstream and bring in new blood.

Finally, I'll leave you with a saying that illustrates the folly of losing money while trying to increase in size (and, yes, it's based on a stupid mistake that destroys a lot of companies).  That saying is, "Yes, we lose money on every sale but we'll make it up with volume!"  Think about it.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBoth those conditions hold, pretty self-evidently, for a large proportion of indie publishers. And even if a few of them drop out of the hobby or move on to jobs at Wizards or videogame companies, more will likely take their place.

Which essentially describes a meatgrinder, not a sustainable industry.  Of course that's pretty much exactly how a lot of professional RPG writers describe it.  You aren't going to move past being a meatgrinder that burns people out without profits.

Quote from: Elliot WilenGiven all that, the only limit to growth is the demand side: how much of an appetite is there for this stuff?

Not true.  There is also a limit to how fast an Indie publisher can supply the demand.  Companies can fail because of a failure to supply just as surely as they can fail from a failure of demand.  

Suppose an Indie game sells like hotcakes and all of author's fans say, "Great!  We'll buy whatever you write!  Give us another great game like that last one!"  And author says, "I've got nothing.  Sorry.  I'm a one trick pony."  Limit to growth.  Suppose insteat, the author says, "I'm so busy filling orders and supporting customers for my existing game, I don't have time to work on a new one!"  Same thing.  Suppose they lose their day job that helps them subsidize selling their game below cost and their spouse tells them to stop wasting time on the Forge and get a part-time job to pay the bills.  Same thing.  Problems with both supply and demand can limit growth.

Quote from: Elliot WilenPersonally, I think there are some warning signs. I'd be surprised if the model of "play a game a couple times and then move onto another" is sustainable over the long run.

It may be, if the Indie designers keep cranking out games like romance novelists.  And that's why scalability is an issue.  A guy can't be cranking out games and also be not making any money doing it (or even losing money) and spending tons of time patting backs on the Internet.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenEven less so with the existence of eBay, which effectively allows a number of "one-off games" to circulate. This also brings up the contradiction between two needs for such games. They have to be innovative, but they also have to be easy to learn.

Well, given that the original authors get no compensation from eBay, that could be a disaster for Indie games.

Quote from: Elliot WilenFWIW, I don't think these problems apply to Burning Wheel. The game might need a new edition at some point (personally, I think some of the rules are confusing, at least in presentation), but the paradigm is traditional open-ended campaigns. 'course, then you have the problem that if you have BW and like it, there's no reason to buy more indie games.

Correct.  And if Burning Wheel spawns spin offs like Burning Empires, how is that different from the traditional model?  That's not necessarily a bad thing, though.

Quote from: John MorrowSome things to consider...
First, a lot of the benefits being attributed to Indie games involve a great deal of time on the part of the authors on the Internet to promote and support their games.  As scale increases, so can those demands on time, and all of that time is not compensated time.  That's how customer support kills small companies.

So, the immediate assumption here is that Greater Sales = Greater Demands on Time = Company Dissolution?  There are many other options for a growing company, including hiring Beloved Friends (Flunkies) for not a lot of money to handle mundane, time-consuming tasks.

Quote from: John MorrowSecond, if an Indie author is subsidizing his vanity publishing with a day job or a spouse's job, it's not really profitable.  And what that means is that if the Indie author's fortunes change and they or their spouse loses their day job, what was once affordable to subsidize may no longer be affordable to keep doing.

Okay, so when most people start a small business (which is what we're talking about when we talk about an "Indie" publisher, right?), they plan for five years (at least) of loss.  And extra work on non-work days for their regular money gig.  The assumption here is that they're not going to be able to manage this initial, conscious commitment, eventually losing their job?  Along with the job of their spouse?

Quote from: John MorrowThird, selling games below cost and setting consumer price expectations at an unsustainable level hurts everyone else in the business who can't afford to lose money and spent uncompensated time subsidizing their Indie game.  That ultimately hurts everyone from Indie publishers looking to be profitable so people can quit their day job to the big guys, who for better or worse keep the hobby visiible in the mainstream and bring in new blood.

Absolutely.  Anyone selling their games below cost is working with a recipe for disaster.  I would think, without any data to support my claim, that Cumberland, P.I.G., BW and other relatively long-term players in the genre probably don't practice this particular tactic, or at least only for a very limited amount of time.

Quote from: John MorrowFinally, I'll leave you with a saying that illustrates the folly of losing money while trying to increase in size (and, yes, it's based on a stupid mistake that destroys a lot of companies).  That saying is, "Yes, we lose money on every sale but we'll make it up with volume!"  Think about it.

See above.

Quote from: John MorrowWhich essentially describes a meatgrinder, not a sustainable industry.

Most industries are meatgrinders.  Sustainable endeavors are created by savvy companies and individuals, not the ease of survival in any particular industry.  I would agree with you that there are a lot of pitfalls, which I think are solved by sustainable practices inside whatever industry at which you peer.

Quote from: ReimdallSo, the immediate assumption here is that Greater Sales = Greater Demands on Time = Company Dissolution?  There are many other options for a growing company, including hiring Beloved Friends (Flunkies) for not a lot of money to handle mundane, time-consuming tasks.

No, not necessarily company dissolution.  It could also lead to a stall in growth or a transformation into a real company.  What it doesn't mean is staying a small one-person operation through infinite growth, which is my point.  As for hiring "Beloved Friends", see this Robin Laws column:

http://www.dyingearth.com/pagexxoctober.htm

Quote from: ReimdallOkay, so when most people start a small business (which is what we're talking about when we talk about an "Indie" publisher, right?), they plan for five years (at least) of loss.  And extra work on non-work days for their regular money gig.  The assumption here is that they're not going to be able to manage this initial, conscious commitment, eventually losing their job?  Along with the job of their spouse?

If the small business doesn't plan to transition into a larger maintainable business that's profitable, yes, it will fail.  Large percentages of all small businesses do because the owners don't think about or know how to transition a hobby business that loses money into a maintainable business that makes money.   And even those that succeed and transition into real businesses don't always find it easy to weather problems:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=277824

Quote from: ReimdallAbsolutely.  Anyone selling their games below cost is working with a recipe for disaster.  I would think, without any data to support my claim, that Cumberland, P.I.G., BW and other relatively long-term players in the genre probably don't practice this particular tactic, or at least only for a very limited amount of time.

Never said that it had to be.  Clearly, some of the Indie games are priced sensibly.  But when they are, the huge price advantage that many people are talking about here doesn't look so huge.  Remember that I'm talking to specific things that people are citing as advantages of Indie publishing, in this case, price.  My point is that really low prices are not sustainable and those that are sustainable don't have prices that are really all that low.

Quote from: ReimdallMost industries are meatgrinders.  Sustainable endeavors are created by savvy companies and individuals, not the ease of survival in any particular industry.  I would agree with you that there are a lot of pitfalls, which I think are solved by sustainable practices inside whatever industry at which you peer.

The industries that undercompensate the people who work in them are the biggest meatgrinders.  The role-playing hobby has lost some of its best and brightest to fiction writing and video games because it pays more.  And if you've got a large enough pool of people passing through before they burn out, it can create an economic environment where they can undercut anyone trying to make a buck.  See the Dork Tower strip about the game store owner being asked why his store isn't like a lot of other stores that fail.  While they are around, unsustainable products undercut sustainable products, making it more difficult for them to be sustainable, at set customer expectations for things like price to unsustainable levels.

Quote from: John MorrowNo, not necessarily company dissolution.  It could also lead to a stall in growth or a transformation into a real company.

Or it could lead to continuing growth on the same model.

Y'know, I'm ... doing this and I don't get what these "growing demands on time" are supposed to be.  I spend significantly less time supporting my book now then I did in the early times when I was selling much less.

Y'know who helps people grok the rules and who answers questions on my game support forum?  Sure as hell ain't me.  It's a growing army of eager volunteers who know the system inside and out.

Y'know who handles order fulfillment?  Sure as hell ain't me.  It's IPR, a well-run fulfillment house that charges a commission to do a job (fulfillment) without yackin' at me about how I ought to be running any other section of my business.

As for writing more material:  I don't need to.  I mean, I'm gonna, because yes I would like even more money.  But I know plenty of authors who don't.  They make one good game.  They sell it.  End of story.  If you're not relying on the next Big New Thing you can turn out to pay the bills for having created the previous Big New Thing then you don't have to step onto that treadmill.  It's relaxing.

I'll tell you what my time inputs are:  I go to conventions that I wanted to go to anyway, only I don't have to pay for them, I get eager fans showing up to play any game I schedule, and I have a bunch of other excited folks to hang out with and talk shop.  Heaven forfend that I become so successful that I would have to do more of that :rolleyes:

And, to drag this back around to the topic ... that's why I think indie games are growing as a publishing phenomenon.  Setting aside the question of theory and game-style (which really isn't connected with how things are published, except by accident of history ... WotC could make a Forge-influenced game if they felt like it) the indie publishing method is such that there is zero incentive to turn out a book that is anything other than the book you are absolutely dying to write.  You're not writing for a pop of sales followed by a rapid decline.  You're writing for the long haul.  That financial change has creative implications.

Quote from: TonyLBOr it could lead to continuing growth on the same model.

It could, and I'd be happy to be proved wrong.  But it seems as if the Indie gamers think that they are doing something that's never been done before and they aren't.  Not only can I point to examples within role-playing hobby, but plenty of other hobbies, as well, from vanity authors of fiction to people who sell their crafts at craft shows.  All sorts of hobbies have their Indies, semi-pros, small companies, and big industries.  That pattern exists for a reason.

Quote from: TonyLBY'know, I'm ... doing this and I don't get what these "growing demands on time" are supposed to be.  I spend significantly less time supporting my book now then I did in the early times when I was selling much less.

Just because something works up until a certain volume doesn't mean it will scale to any size.  Yes, you are doing it.  Could you use the same model if your game were selling like D&D and, more importantly, could your game ever sell like D&D unless you started doing things that would require more management, like selling into chain bookstores?  If you don't care, that's fine.  If you are happy with what you are doing, don't let me stop you.

Quote from: TonyLBY'know who helps people grok the rules and who answers questions on my game support forum?  Sure as hell ain't me.  It's a growing army of eager volunteers who know the system inside and out.

That's not a reliable or necessary repeatable business model.  See the Robin Laws article I posted above about his experience at convention booths manned by volunteers.  Look at Fudge.

Quote from: TonyLBY'know who handles order fulfillment?  Sure as hell ain't me.  It's IPR, a well-run fulfillment house that charges a commission to do a job (fulfillment) without yackin' at me about how I ought to be running any other section of my business.

How large can they scale and how efficient would it be to sell 100,000 books through them instead of doing a 100,000 book print run and selling it the old fasioned way.  I'm not talking about selling 1,000 or even 5,000 copies of your game.  The Indie model can probably scale to at least 10,000 copies over a stretch of time.  But if the sky is the limit, can you really sell 25,000, 50,000, or 100,000 copies with your current model?  Is that really the best way do do it?

Quote from: TonyLBAs for writing more material:  I don't need to.  I mean, I'm gonna, because yes I would like even more money.  But I know plenty of authors who don't.  They make one good game.  They sell it.  End of story.  If you're not relying on the next Big New Thing you can turn out to pay the bills for having created the previous Big New Thing then you don't have to step onto that treadmill.  It's relaxing.

And that's fine when you don't rely on your game writing to pay your bills.  Is that how you ultimately see the Indie model carrying on, then?  Should the standard advice be, "Don't quit your day job"?

Quote from: TonyLBI'll tell you what my time inputs are:  I go to conventions that I wanted to go to anyway, only I don't have to pay for them, I get eager fans showing up to play any game I schedule, and I have a bunch of other excited folks to hang out with and talk shop.  Heaven forfend that I become so successful that I would have to do more of that :rolleyes:

So what pays your bills?

Quote from: TonyLBAnd, to drag this back around to the topic ... that's why I think indie games are growing as a publishing phenomenon.  Setting aside the question of theory and game-style (which really isn't connected with how things are published, except by accident of history ... WotC could make a Forge-influenced game if they felt like it) the indie publishing method is such that there is zero incentive to turn out a book that is anything other than the book you are absolutely dying to write.  You're not writing for a pop of sales followed by a rapid decline.  You're writing for the long haul.  That financial change has creative implications.

 Just because an author writes a book that they are dying to write is not a guarantee of quality or success.  It's easy to focus on the Indie success stories but I, again, point the the threads that I saw coming out of GenCon this year about sales at the Forge booth.  Was there good news?  Absolutely.  But it sounds like that good news was not entirely equally distributed.  And isn't Ron complaining that some of the new Indie games are failing to be fun?  Does that me we are starting to see Indie Heartbreakers?

Quote from: John MorrowIt's easy to focus on the Indie success stories but I, again, point the the threads that I saw coming out of GenCon this year about sales at the Forge booth.  Was there good news?  Absolutely.  But it sounds like that good news was not entirely equally distributed.  And isn't Ron complaining that some of the new Indie games are failing to be fun?  Does that me we are starting to see Indie Heartbreakers?

Um, the term "heartbreaker" comes from Ron Edward's 2002 essay, Fantasy Heartbreakers (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/) -- in which he describes them as indie role-playing games, and urges support of them.  As he writes in his conclusion:

QuotePart Five: What's it to Us? This is What
These are indie role-playing games. Their authors are part of the Forge community, in all the ways that matter. They designed their games through enjoyment of actual play, and they published them through hopes of reaching like-minded practitioners. It is not fair to dismiss the games as "sucky" - they deserve better than that, and no one is going to give them fair play and critical attention unless we do it.

So, yes, we are seeing indie heartbreakers.  We've seen them all along, and the term "heartbreaker" was coined for indie games.

Quote from: John MorrowHow large can they scale and how efficient would it be to sell 100,000 books through them instead of doing a 100,000 book print run and selling it the old fasioned way.  I'm not talking about selling 1,000 or even 5,000 copies of your game.  The Indie model can probably scale to at least 10,000 copies over a stretch of time.  But if the sky is the limit, can you really sell 25,000, 50,000, or 100,000 copies with your current model?  Is that really the best way do do it?

There comes a point in sales per year where it is more cost-efficient to use more traditional print runs, and larger ones.

That is, when scaling up, an indie press can make more money per book if they pay close attention to, and accordingly alter, their print methods.  Many full-scale companies (including SLG) have employed "Print Buyers" specifically because this is a really damn complicated pile of numbers.  

Refusal to change methods won't lose them money, though.

Quote from: jhkimUm, the term "heartbreaker" comes from Ron Edward's 2002 essay, Fantasy Heartbreakers (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/) -- in which he describes them as indie role-playing games, and urges support of them.  As he writes in his conclusion:



So, yes, we are seeing indie heartbreakers.  We've seen them all along, and the term "heartbreaker" was coined for indie games.

Boy, has that intent ever been mislaid somewhere along the way.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstBoy, has that intent ever been mislaid somewhere along the way.

Really?

Because to me, it always meant:

An indie game that clones D&D, and which makes may go "Ouch", because I know that it's too similar to succeed, but still has a one or two wicked ideas I'd love to see in more common use.

Quote from: John MorrowThat's not a reliable or necessary repeatable business model.  See the Robin Laws article I posted above about his experience at convention booths manned by volunteers.  Look at Fudge.

Dude, quit quoting that Robin Laws article like I don't know about it.  That article is my mantra.  The problems he posits are soluble.  I've solved them in the case of my product.  Moving on.

Quote from: John MorrowHow large can they scale and how efficient would it be to sell 100,000 books through them instead of doing a 100,000 book print run and selling it the old fasioned way.

I honestly don't know.  It will be interesting to see how it works out.  I suspect that they'll scale well as volume increases.  Certainly they seem to be doing pretty well so far, and they've gone through at least one order-of-magnitude increase in the past year or so.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd that's fine when you don't rely on your game writing to pay your bills.  Is that how you ultimately see the Indie model carrying on, then?  Should the standard advice be, "Don't quit your day job"?

The standard advice absolutely should be "Don't quit your day job until your business is already generating enough money to support you."  The idea that you'll just borrow a whole bunch of capital, print a whole bunch of books and gamble your security and that of other people on an untested business plan is ... well ... silly.

It made sense back when borrowing that bunch of capital and making those print runs gave you access to resources without which you couldn't do business.  But we don't live in that world any more.  Today, such action is just not necessary, and smacks of either ignorance or egotism.

In modern times, the "vanity press" or "hobby" creator (your terms) has direct access to most resources that the big boys have, and analogues to everything else.  If they don't have the money to make 10,000 book print-runs, they have small-run printing.  If they don't have distribution channels they have fulfillment houses and internet word of mouth.  Those things do the job for a starting scale.  You don't have to be a "real company" in order to make real product and conduct yourself in a sound and professional manner.  You can keep drawing the distinction between "vanity press" and "real publisher" if it makes you feel better, but I don't think it has anything to do with modern realities of who can achieve what.

Once upon a time, people gambled their finances and futures in order to vault over the barriers between them and their dreams.  I honor their valiant gambles.  But those barriers are gone.  Why on earth would you sink everything into an all-or-nothing gamble when you can make and market your book just as well with negligible investment?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenReally?

Because to me, it always meant:

An indie game that clones D&D, and which makes may go "Ouch", because I know that it's too similar to succeed, but still has a one or two wicked ideas I'd love to see in more common use.

If that were the sort of innocent intent it were used with all the time, that wouldn't bug me.  But I've seen it used more derisively or to dismiss a new game out of hand than I'd have liked (do a search for the nastiness regarding Ramlar, Epic RPG--jeez, even Rifts and Amber were thown in there at some point :confused:--or read Andy K's post (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=3230457&postcount=13) on how it is misused from original intent, which I agree with).  It's too easily negative of a term to use to automatically deride a product as worthless--much like we now have the meaningless (but, hey, easier to use than worrying about nuances) "tax-and-spend liberal", "tree-hugging Green", or "jackbooted conservative".

The fucking things about this thread piss me the fuck off.

"Vanity Press"
"Stealing Customers"


I've heard these argued before, in a discussion after the STL was released, and it irritated me.

Vanity? What the fuck? How about "Love of the game" or how about "Here's some cool rules I developed, if you like them, buy them!"

Vanity my ass. Vanity is standing in front of the mirror and jerking off onto a book with your name on it. Vanity is doing it sheerly to see your name on the fucking cover.

Vanity is not spending 5-16 hours a day on something. They call that work.

What you call "Vanity Press" is freelance authors getting tired of the big boys not noticing them, and putting their shit out themselves. They do the marketing themselves, which is anything BUT vanity, read the reviews, even the ones that trash them, and learn what is good, what is not.

You learn marketing, advertising, dealing with PoD, dealing with paying artists, the whole nine goddamn yards.

Vanity my ass. Vanity is some bleach blonde with fake tits who masturbates while looking in the mirror because she's "so goddamn hot" in her mind.

Indie Publishing is fucking work.


Now... Stealing customers.

What am I, the fucking Hamburgler? I didn't show up outside the store with a ski-mask and a fucking gun. The people that buy from Indie publishers do so because an indie publisher is still willing to take risks, and maybe has put out something they want.

Indie publishers don't lure away or steal customers. Customers and consumers aren't some god given fucking right that a company gets once they hire a couple of guys on full time and they aren't using food stamps to keep from starving anymore. No "Publishing Fairy" comes down and jams a magic wand up your ass and screams "YOU GET 6% OF THE MARKET!" in your ear before breaking a whiskey bottle over your fucking head.

Indie publishers aren't stealing anyone's customers. They're fucking earning them.



The goddamn elitism and egotism I've seen is fucking mind boggling.

"How will this batch of Indie Publishers ever rise to the top?"

Oh, I don't know...

THE SAME FUCKING WAY THE OTHERS DID!

Hard fucking work, and stick and jab. That's how.



People sneer "Don't quit your day job...." like INDEPENDANT Publishers (Which means we aren't one of the big boys, we're doing this ourselves, not "sticking to the man", give us some goddamn credit) are the only ones that are forced to work at a job while starting a small business. "Don't quit your day job" is with any small business when it starts out, so that you don't rely on the businesses capital to do anything but drive the business, and have a secondary income to survive on.



So, to reiterate...

"Vanity Publishing" is a term that needs to be shoved back up people's asses from where they farted it out.

And "Stealing Customer base" sense of self-entitlement is just plain stupid and makes the whiner look like a jackass.

That would have been an 8, but that Hamburglar line jumps it up to a solid 9.

(Applauds)

Quote from: Luke§ Sorry Charlie, $80-90 to play DnD or $22 to play Dogs in the Vineyard with my friends. People don't think in the long term of "I'll be playing this game for the rest of my life." People think, "I want a cool game right now and I've got $20."

Thats ridiculous. You can get a PHB for $13 from Amazon. Thats all the buy-in required.  
The DM is the one who does the buy in, but the price of all three books combined is more like $60 (again, Amazon).

Or you could just do the PHB and the srd. I know a guy in my town that does that. He has it on laptop.

If you choose to play 3.0, you can just do the conversions yourself and get all three books for really, really cheap. Like $5 each.

Also PDF piracy is pretty much rampant with D&D, so there are plenty of people playing for free.

You can play D&D for as cheap or cheaper than you can play almost any Indie game, and get a much wider and more varied experience (ie, you won't always have to play mormons who shoot women in the head), with more players, and more support.

Now, lets get back to discussing why you guys are pretty much doomed. :)

Quote from: T-WillardWhat you call "Vanity Press" is freelance authors getting tired of the big boys not noticing them, and putting their shit out themselves.

Minor quibble:

A significant number of independent publishers never tried to get the 'big boys' to notice them.

If I had wanted to write for a game company, I would have done something to get there.  Probably, say, submitting all my whackball d20-style mojo in bite-sized format to Dragon, and seeing what they thought of it all.

I didn't because I just don't care.

Quote from: Abyssal MawNow, lets get back to discussing why you guys are pretty much doomed. :)

While D&D is the epitome of traditional gaming, there is more to this hobby than that, and I think that ensures they will be far from doomed. They may not drive around in Bentleys with platinum grills in their mouth, but maybe there will be a few indie publishers some money in their pockets and a group of fans who have fun with their games. Heck I'm fine with D&D, but my hobby experiences would have been poorer by far if it was the only game I played or ran.

I would like to note that in the post that follows, I am NOT bashing DnD or Wizards. I LIKE DnD and Wizards. I'm simply pointing out the buy-in costs for the game.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThats ridiculous.

Your delusions and marginal examples are magnificent, let's pop over to Wizards of the Coast and see what they have to say about it:

A DnD basic game for $25. Comparable price to most small press games. Cool.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/966470000
But it probably doesn't have the same depth and replayability that we're looking for in the brand name game.

If you click on the Current Rules Edition link, Wizards shows three big books. Go figure.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040801x

A Players' Handbook, $29.95
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndcore/175240000

Dungeon Master's Guide, $29.95
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndcore/177520000

Monster Manual, $29.95
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndcore/177550000

Cool books. And together, they make a complete game.* That game, as you can see costs roughly $90. You've pointed out some marginal alternate ways for folks to get these books. They do exist and folks do acquire them thusly. But I bet that Wizards wouldn't be in business if most folks didn't go to their friendly, favorite local game store and plunk down the $90 to get started playing DnD.

-Luke

*Artesia is a complete game ($39.95). Sorcerer is a complete game ($20). Hell, Call of Cthulhu is a complete game ($34.95). The Players' Handbook alone is not a complete game.

Quote from: Zachary The First:emot-rock:

...If that were the central sales point of WotC, they'd be a very different company.

That still does rock, though.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen...If that were the central sales point of WotC, they'd be a very different company.

That still does rock, though.

Would that it were. :)

€4 at paizo. Never forget paizo.

Quote from: lukeI would like to note that in the post that follows, I am NOT bashing DnD or Wizards. I LIKE DnD and Wizards. I'm simply pointing out the buy-in costs for the game.

I know, but your'e trying to distort it deliberately by going to the website instead of a retailer. Try looking at prices at Amazon, where most people buy books.

Players Handbook (http://www.amazon.com/Player-Handbook-Rulebook-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786928867/sr=8-1/qid=1157836256/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5212918-5120161?ie=UTF8&s=books)= $19.77, with 'used & new' going from $14.

Once again- this is all you really need to play unless you are the GM.

Here's the box where you get all three at once:
 
Dungeons & Dragons Core Rulebook Gift Set (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Rulebook-editions-Handbook-Masters/dp/0786934107/sr=1-1/qid=1157836503/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5212918-5120161?ie=UTF8&s=books) ~$60


Whether Sorcerer or Artesia is a complete game is a moot point. The PHB + a free SRD is also a complete game.

I'm willing to accept there are a lot of reasons people might want to play Indie games, but economics ain't one of those.

As an aside, you can get the 3.0 PHB (http://www.amazon.com/Player-Handbook-Rulebook-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786915501/sr=1-9/qid=1157836870/ref=sr_1_9/102-5212918-5120161?ie=UTF8&s=books) for $3.50 on Amazon. The 3.0 DMG (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Master-Guide-Rulebook-Dungeons/dp/078691551X/sr=1-4/qid=1157836945/ref=sr_1_4/102-5212918-5120161?ie=UTF8&s=books) for $4.99, and the 3.0 MM (http://www.amazon.com/Monster-Manual-Rulebook-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786915528/sr=1-8/qid=1157837004/ref=sr_1_8/102-5212918-5120161?ie=UTF8&s=books)  for  $3.49.

Quote from: JamesVWhile D&D is the epitome of traditional gaming, there is more to this hobby than that, and I think that ensures they will be far from doomed. They may not drive around in Bentleys with platinum grills in their mouth, but maybe there will be a few indie publishers some money in their pockets and a group of fans who have fun with their games. Heck I'm fine with D&D, but my hobby experiences would have been poorer by far if it was the only game I played or ran.

I'm not disputing this, I'm making a specific point.

And it's obvious that there are indie publishers that manage to find an audience. Palladium did. Palladium found two hits: TMNT and Rifts. They figured out a way to be fun.

However, I personally have my doubts that indie audience will ever grow that much because what they are doing (which forthe most part aren't much more than psychodrama exercises-- neither story, nor game), at their core, just aren't that fun.

Regarding thematic indie games, I can see (and have seen) groups spending X amount on HERO, AD&D, Palladium Fantasy, Champions, Rolemaster, Shadowrun, RuneQuest, CoC, whatever, and playing that and pretty much just that for a good decade or more.  I can't see many folks playing just My Life With Master or Dogs In The Vineyard for a decade.  I think by their thematic, focused nature, that just isn't what they're meant to be.

Now there are plenty of indie games I could see being played by a group over a long period of time:  Burning Wheel, JAGS, EABA, The Riddle of Steel, etc.  But regarding a certain portion of those thematic indie games, I would be rather surprised if they were able to keep that long-term appeal.  Which means folks would end up buying other games for their fix anyways.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstNow there are plenty of indie games I could see being played by a group over a long period of time:  Burning Wheel, JAGS, EABA, The Riddle of Steel, etc.  But regarding a certain portion of those thematic indie games, I would be rather surprised if they were able to keep that long-term appeal.  Which means folks would end up buying other games for their fix anyways.

So?  When you aren't relying on a significant number of folks jumping on your serial train *whoot whoot* then if they go play something else sometimes that just isn't an issue.

EDIT In fact if you happen to have written and are selling two different games it is a financial benefit that the owners of one be interested in playing something else sometimes. Because if they already liked the first game they bought from you that significantly ups the odds that they'll at least give your other product an honest look.  Do you really think Monopoly relies heavily on their customers playing it to the exclusion of all other board games?

Quote from: blakkieSo?  When you aren't relying on a significant number of folks jumping on your serial train *whoot whoot* then if they go play something else sometimes that just isn't an issue.

EDIT In fact if you happen to have written and are selling two different games it is a financial benefit that the owners of one be interested in playing something else sometimes. Because if they already liked the first game they bought from you that significantly ups the odds that they'll at least give your other product an honest look.  Do you really think Monopoly relies heavily on their customers playing it to the exclusion of all other board games?

True.  I'm just pointing out one of the limitations some of the indie games might run into.  I'm just saying that indie gaming isn't definitively this low-cost one-and-done revolution.  Yeah, they've got some cheap games--hell, I think Burning Wheel for $25 is one of the best values out there--but so does Palladium, I.C.E., and a whole plethora of others that folks could likely play exclusively for the rest of their gaming lives.

But I sort of derailed things here a bit on some non-sequitur thoughts.  Sorry about that. :o

Quote from: Abyssal MawHowever, I personally have my doubts that indie audience will ever grow that much because what they are doing (which forthe most part aren't much more than psychodrama exercises-- neither story, nor game), at their core, just aren't that fun.

Nothing like the smell of raw, naked, uninformed condescension in the morning. Smells like... victory.

-L

Quote from: Zachary The FirstNow there are plenty of indie games I could see being played by a group over a long period of time:  Burning Wheel, JAGS, EABA, The Riddle of Steel, etc.  But regarding a certain portion of those thematic indie games, I would be rather surprised if they were able to keep that long-term appeal.  Which means folks would end up buying other games for their fix anyways.

For sure. But remember that many of us are now advancing in years and life has changed. I have absolutely no intention of ever again getting involved in a long-term game; 'long-term' for me meaning anything over a few months or a dozen sessions.

So I can buy, say, My Life with Master for about US$24 (including shipping). Bang, I have a playable game with several sessions in it, and a fair bit of replay value. Compare to D&D again – even at the optimistic price I'm up for US$60 or so (not including shipping). Then I must prep the game, which in MLwM is not so onerous.

Furthermore, apart from the dedicated gamers I know, most of the people in my life would react more favourably to MLwM than D&D. You'll have to take my word for that, but it's true.

Quote from: droogFurthermore, apart from the dedicated gamers I know, most of the people in my life would react more favourably to MLwM than D&D. You'll have to take my word for that, but it's true.

I believe you, and I'm sure that were we to post this several other places, we would undoubtedly find people who would react more favourably to MLwM than D&D or Shadowrun or whatever.  And I know what you mean about having less time as we get older--my daughter sees to that quite nicely. :)  Really, I was just pointing out a style of play that I think some thematic offerings miss out on.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI know, but your'e trying to distort it deliberately by going to the website instead of a retailer. Try looking at prices at Amazon, where most people buy books.

I know, I know. I distort the truth by pointing out quoted prices on company branded websites and by making wild assertions that most gamers buy their games at gaming stores. CRAZY! CRAZY!

Just like your own wild and unfounded assertions that most people buy books on Amazon. Look, I'm Gleichman! Get me an audit on that!

But I  particularly like how you think that because "all the player needs is the PHB" the $60 the GM must spend magically just doesn't count toward the total buy-in cost for the game. It's $90 whether one person buys it or whether five people do.

I'm off to rock out. Catch you cats on the flip side.
-L

edited for preposition. Also, I love drift (when it's not my website).

Quote from: Zachary The FirstReally, I was just pointing out a style of play that I think some thematic offerings miss out on.

It's part of the puzzle, isn't it? That very thing they miss could be a selling point – I know it is for me.

Quote from: lukeNothing like the smell of raw, naked, uninformed condescension in the morning. Smells like... victory.

-L

Well, believe me, It's informed condescension. You were the one searching out higher prices instead of the what actual retailers charge. I was just making a point that your facts were wrong, and I provided links to the correct prices.

All I'm saying is that you aren't going to win this argument based on the notion that "everyone has to pay $100 to play D&D". That shit may fly elsewhere, but not here. It's simply not fucking true.

And heck, I'm willing to accept that there might even be some people more willing to play psychodrama exercises than actual games out there. I mean, your'e already selling 3% as much as the Green Ronin's initial print run of Mutants and Masterminds, right?

Quote from: Zachary The FirstTrue.  I'm just pointing out one of the limitations some of the indie games might run into.

The problem is with calling it a limitation. Avoiding the overhead of constantly investing in the risky business of extending the product line to sell more and more items to less and less people is a "limitation"?

Not that BW is particularly "thematic", as opposed to "broad setting scope" (I've finally gotten past Setti's red herring about "adventure gaming"...but then I haven't had the time to read all the posts here).  But the idea that you do play other things is assumed in the marketing, because if you don't play anything else it doesn't matter.

Quote from: blakkieThe problem is with calling it a limitation. Avoiding not requiring the overhead of constantly investing large amounts of overhead in the risky business of extending the line selling more and more items to less and less people?

P.S. Not that BW is particularly "thematic", as opposed to "broad setting scope" (I was confused by that load of road apples about "adventure gaming", trying to figure WTF Setti was talking about).

I think by Settimbrini's definition, Burning Wheel would count as an Adventure game, perfectly suited for campaigns, rather than a thematic one, where you just ponder your morality or whatever.

Quote from: blakkieThe problem is with calling it a limitation. Avoiding the overhead of constantly investing in the risky business of extending the product line to sell more and more items to less and less people is a "limitation"?

Not that BW is particularly "thematic", as opposed to "broad setting scope" (I've finally gotten past Setti's red herring about "adventure gaming"...but then I haven't had the time to read all the posts here).  But the idea that you do play other things is assumed in the marketing, because if you don't play anything else it doesn't matter.

I'm sorry, we seem to be having a disconnect.  I refer to limitation in playstyle some of these games offer as a turn-off to some folks.  Inability to sustain long-term play would be a limitation to some.  Obviously, it's in the "pro" column for others.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI think by Settimbrini's definition, Burning Wheel would count as an Adventure game, perfectly suited for campaigns, rather than a thematic one, where you just ponder your morality or whatever.

Yeah, and so would Riddle of Steel.  The name "Adventure" just sucks though, because "adventure" or not isn't really the dividing line.

In the end the even bigger bugaboo is making a one-to-one association of that one type of setting/senario scope with The Forge, seeing as how it has existed long in RPGs.  Paranoia anyone?

Quote from: Abyssal MawI think by Settimbrini's definition, Burning Wheel would count as an Adventure game, perfectly suited for campaigns, rather than a thematic one, where you just ponder your morality or whatever.

That ought to alert you to the fact that it's not so cut-and-dried. Dogs in the Vineyard certainly has its share of thrills and adventure. BW, Sorcerer, The Shadow of Yesterday and Trollbabe, among others, are suitable for quite long-term play. Other Forge games are worth replaying for dozens of sessions, eg Dust Devils or DitV.

Quote from: blakkieYeah, and so would Riddle of Steel.  I think it is a huge bugaboo to associate that one type of setting scope with The Forge, seeing as how it has existed long in RPGs.

Paranoia anyone?

I certainly wouldn't assign a narrow-focus thematic label to everything that's come out of the Forge--not when you have Burning Wheel, The Riddle of Steel, and games of that sort coming out of there.  The narrow-focus thematic games are only one part of what's produced.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstInability to sustain long-term play would be a limitation to some.  Obviously, it's in the "pro" column for others.

A pro for finding customers that would normally fall outside the [traditional] RPG market?  I think that would be the point, no?

Because if you take everyone that can read and would get together with friends and family for playful social interaction, and then subtract from that existing RPG customers you'd have I'm guessing (and of course this is just a guess) a big number.

It was a digression, but I think it is an important consensus to describe indie gaming more in terms of its business practices than the types of games that are made, because they pretty clearly run the gamut.

Quote from: blakkieA pro for finding customers that would normally fall outside the [traditional] RPG market?  I think that would be the point, no?

Because if you take everyone that can read and would get together with friends and family for playful social interaction, and then subtract that from RPG customers you have I'm guessing (and of course this is just a guess) you'd get a big number.

I'd don't see how having a (hypothetical) game geared solely around short-term play would be any revolutionary selling point.  There's already plenty of RPGs suitable for one-shots, beer n' pretzels games, and the like.  

But, yes, I think we both agree that a game being more suitable for short-term gaming would be a pro for some and a con for others, correct?

Quote from: JamesVIt was a digression, but I think it is an important consensus to describe indie gaming more in terms of its business practices than the types of games that are made, because they pretty clearly run the gamut.

Agreed.  Apolgies for the digression.

Quote from: blakkieA pro for finding customers that would normally fall outside the [traditional] RPG market?  I think that would be the point, no?

Because if you take everyone that can read and would get together with friends and family for playful social interaction, and then subtract that from RPG customers you have I'm guessing (and of course this is just a guess) you'd get a big number.

Hm, do we really know for sure that even a majority of customers outside of the RPG market are not interested in long term play? If you ask me, long term play is a part of any game's replay value. Milage may vary, but it's still just an assumption that high replay, short term gaming is what non-gamers would be looking for. Maybe once they get into it they realize that long term play is more of what they are really looking for when it comes to RPGs.

Quote from: JamesVHm, do we really know for sure that even a majority of customers outside of the RPG market are not interested in long term play? If you ask me, long term play is a part of any game's replay value. Milage may vary, but it's still just an assumption that high replay, short term gaming is what non-gamers would be looking for. Maybe once they get into it they realize that long term play is more of what they are really looking for when it comes to RPGs.

Elitist! Telling the people that if they knew what was good for them they'd like it? :pundit: ;)

Yes it would be a working theory.  But it isn't without support. Besides doing the same thing over again I would suggest is even less likely to lead to a breakthrough.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstI'd don't see how having a (hypothetical) game geared solely around short-term play would be any revolutionary selling point.  There's already plenty of RPGs suitable for one-shots, beer n' pretzels games, and the like.

So if it is all the same then why the hate for The Forge?  Because some of the people there dare to question some other assumptions about RPGs. Like the parental role taken by the DM/GM (or in some cases, I understand, the very existance of the DM/GM role)?  Because of the overly complex prose used by some there?  The assumption that it isn't an RPG if it doesn't have people poking each other with pointy sticks at every turn?

While I can't comment on all of them, I do get the impression that they do break some barriers. For example Paranoia was more a parody of gaming, a joke game.  Could it be that some of the games are ment to base their enterntainment on something other than a over the top, self-referencing RPG in-jokes.  Perhaps this seriousness is precived by others as pretentiousness?

I don't mean these as answers, as I don't have a lot of direct involvement with the hate other than occationally being baffled by things people say that flow from their incorrect assumptions. *shrug*

Quote from: blakkieSo if it is all the same then why the hate for The Forge?

You'd have to ask someone who hates the Forge.  I hate pretension, and I hate some of the attitudes that come out of people who believe throwing around a few invented terms gives them some sort of intellectual superiorty in their gaming or use them to deride others' work or way of having fun, but that's hardly limited to the Forge.  A lot of the games coming out of there aren't my style (though I love FATE and PTA), but to each their own.

Quote from: T-WillardVanity? What the fuck? How about "Love of the game" or how about "Here's some cool rules I developed, if you like them, buy them!"

You do realize that "vanity press" is a term for self-publishing books that predates Indie games, and can be found in dictionaries, right?  I do find some irony in complaining about the term "vanity" because of it's literal meaning and then also talking about being sick of not being noticed by the "big boys", though.

Quote from: T-WillardIndie Publishing is fucking work.

Never said it wasn't.  In fact, if you haven't noticed, a big part of my argument is that the work involved in doing it is what can overwhelm an independent author-owner as the work involved maintaining their business exceeds their ability to find time to do it.  I'm not the one saying that it's a piece of cake here.

Quote from: T-WillardNow... Stealing customers.
[...]
Indie publishers aren't stealing anyone's customers. They're fucking earning them.

You can slap whatever label you want on it.  I don't really care.  What matters is that one publisher can experience a loss of customers while another publisher experiences a gain of customers if the customers shift their time and spending from one game to another.

Quote from: T-WillardThe goddamn elitism and egotism I've seen is fucking mind boggling.

"How will this batch of Indie Publishers ever rise to the top?"

Oh, I don't know...

THE SAME FUCKING WAY THE OTHERS DID!

Hard fucking work, and stick and jab. That's how.

Correct.  

Quote from: T-WillardPeople sneer "Don't quit your day job...." like INDEPENDANT Publishers (Which means we aren't one of the big boys, we're doing this ourselves, not "sticking to the man", give us some goddamn credit) are the only ones that are forced to work at a job while starting a small business. "Don't quit your day job" is with any small business when it starts out, so that you don't rely on the businesses capital to do anything but drive the business, and have a secondary income to survive on.

Correct.  But if you don't ever transition to a sustainable business, you wind up never quitting your day job.  I'm not saying that Indie games can never grow to be big.  I'm saying that they can't do it if their business model doesn't scale.  My argument is that Indie publishers need to think about scalability, not that they can't scale.  Lots of small businesses fail because they don't scale and because they don't practice good business practices.  If I had to sum up my argument, it's "Learn how to grow and don't assume that doing what you do now selling a few hundred books a year is going to work if you start selling thousands."

Quote from: T-Willard"Vanity Publishing" is a term that needs to be shoved back up people's asses from where they farted it out.

Well, you can start with American Heritage and Merriam-Webster, both of whom have definitions for the terms in their dictionaries.

Quote from: T-WillardAnd "Stealing Customer base" sense of self-entitlement is just plain stupid and makes the whiner look like a jackass.

Well, there is no shortage of that mindset in this world.  While I fully agree with you about customers, the loss of customers to another company is often perceived as "stealing", even if it's just not keeping up with the competition.

Quote from: jhkimUm, the term "heartbreaker" comes from Ron Edward's 2002 essay, Fantasy Heartbreakers (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/) -- in which he describes them as indie role-playing games, and urges support of them.  As he writes in his conclusion:

Yes, I know where the term came from, but I also know how it's used in practice.  When Ron talks about "Fantasy Heartbreakers", he's really talking about a very specific type of Fantasy -- D&D.  When I'm talking about "Indie Heartbreakers", I'm talking about a specific type of Indie.

Quote from: jhkimSo, yes, we are seeing indie heartbreakers.  We've seen them all along, and the term "heartbreaker" was coined for indie games.

When this threat talks about "Why Indie gaming grows", I doubt most people are thinking about "Fantasy Heartbreakers" as "Indie" or do you think they are growing, too?  I'm using it in the same sense that I think this thread is using it.  If you have a problem with me using "Indie" to mean a very specific type of Indie game, then you should also take issue with the way it is used earlier in this thread.  

Yes, some consistency of terms would be nice.  If you can give me the proper term for the games being discussed in this thread, I'll happily use it instead of "Indie".

Quote from: JamesVHm, do we really know for sure that even a majority of customers outside of the RPG market are not interested in long term play? If you ask me, long term play is a part of any game's replay value. Milage may vary, but it's still just an assumption that high replay, short term gaming is what non-gamers would be looking for. Maybe once they get into it they realize that long term play is more of what they are really looking for when it comes to RPGs.

You'd be really surprised how true this can be.
As a DM, I was actually sought out by my last party. They came, they saw, and they roleplayed. Granted, in some cases I made them (not by *making* them, but by scaring the shit out of them) but even in the dungeon crawl, they quickly took to slitting the throats of sleeping foes, burning the minotaur alive while they stood safely on inaccessible ground, etc. etc. etc. It was marvellous.
Then they got out of the dungeon. Based on the history of ultraviolence, I kept throwing encounters at them... but they quickly got bored.
Why? The absence of continuity. They simply had no reason to return. Game dwindles, peters out, and fizzles.
Rather than say that a "single session game" is a selling point or that a game with a "continuing plot" is preferrable, I'd say you'd do better with a game that could go either way.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThere comes a point in sales per year where it is more cost-efficient to use more traditional print runs, and larger ones.

Yes.  And that's part of "growth", isn't it?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThat is, when scaling up, an indie press can make more money per book if they pay close attention to, and accordingly alter, their print methods.

Correct.  That's also a part of "growth", isn't it?  I'm arguing for people to adopt a sensible and profitable business model as they grow so they can get properly compensated for their work.  I'm honestly confused why that's so controversial.  It's the same sort of advice you'll see offered to any small business.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenMany full-scale companies (including SLG) have employed "Print Buyers" specifically because this is a really damn complicated pile of numbers.

Perhaps you missed where I pointed out that I once did book production (trade paperback) work at Random House.  In fact, I suspect that even most big game companies don't get as complicated as what I saw (e.g., buying paper by the train car load direct from a producer instead of buying it from the printer).

Quote from: Levi KornelsenRefusal to change methods won't lose them money, though.

So long as people can't quit their day jobs to do it full time, then they are subsidizing their game publishing with other work because their publishing isn't paying for itself with enough profit left over for the author to live on.  It's only playing for itself in terms of returning the costs needed to print and sell books.  That's not the real cost of doing business, even for a casual author any more than a company that produces widgets and sells them near the manufacturing cost is covering their real cost of doing business.  If a company can't pay the rent, their electric bills, and so on with the profits they are making from selling their widgets, they are losing money.  If an Indie publisher is selling their books near the manufacturing cost and isn't making enough profit to pay for the electricity they use, the food they eat, the rent they pay, and so on, while they are writing their books, it's not really profitable, either.

Yes, people can subsidize their game writing and publishing indefinitely if they are driven to do so.  Is that a recipe for a healty industry and growth?  It isn't in any other type of business.

Quote from: TonyLBDude, quit quoting that Robin Laws article like I don't know about it.  That article is my mantra.  The problems he posits are soluble.  I've solved them in the case of my product.  Moving on.

OK.  Great.  How much do you sell?  How big is your volunteer force?

Quote from: TonyLBI honestly don't know.  It will be interesting to see how it works out.  I suspect that they'll scale well as volume increases.  Certainly they seem to be doing pretty well so far, and they've gone through at least one order-of-magnitude increase in the past year or so.

"I don't know" is a dicey thing to bet your business on.  I'll be as happy as you are if they can.  I'm not trying to damn you to failure.  I'm trying to get you and other Indie publishers to think about what growth means rather than just assuming the sky is the limit and that they can just keep doing whatever they are doing on autopilot forever.  And I want you to get compensated for your labor and to be able to quit your day job if you want.  If you don't, that's fine, but it should be an option for those who work hard and want to.

Quote from: TonyLBThe standard advice absolutely should be "Don't quit your day job until your business is already generating enough money to support you."  The idea that you'll just borrow a whole bunch of capital, print a whole bunch of books and gamble your security and that of other people on an untested business plan is ... well ... silly.

That's not what I'm talking about.  What I'm talking about is never being able to quit your day job because the self-publishing just isn't paying for itself.  If Indie publishers don't learn how to really be profitable, they will never hit that day when they can quit their day job.

Quote from: TonyLBIt made sense back when borrowing that bunch of capital and making those print runs gave you access to resources without which you couldn't do business.  But we don't live in that world any more.  Today, such action is just not necessary, and smacks of either ignorance or egotism.

I'm not suggesting that you go out and print 10,000 copies of a new Indie game and hope they sell.  Print-on-demand is a wonderful way to test the waters and build a business.  Definitely the best way to start.

What I'm asking is, "OK, so you are now selling thousands of copies of your Indie game.  What's next?  How can you make enough money doing this to not only quit your day job but live comfortably enough so you don't have to think about getting another day job or don't leave the industry for greener pastures like so many game authors have.

Quote from: TonyLBIn modern times, the "vanity press" or "hobby" creator (your terms) has direct access to most resources that the big boys have, and analogues to everything else.  If they don't have the money to make 10,000 book print-runs, they have small-run printing.  If they don't have distribution channels they have fulfillment houses and internet word of mouth.  Those things do the job for a starting scale.  You don't have to be a "real company" in order to make real product and conduct yourself in a sound and professional manner.  You can keep drawing the distinction between "vanity press" and "real publisher" if it makes you feel better, but I don't think it has anything to do with modern realities of who can achieve what.

I never said that these things don't don't do the job for starting scale.  Of course they do, and that's a wonderful thing.  Since the topic of this thread growth I'm asking how Indie games go beyond starting scale.  A lot of people are saying that they can just keep doing the same thing they did at starting scale forever.  That's what I'm questioning.

And until you can get your Indie games into a Barnes and Noble or Borders, there is a difference between a "vanity press" and a "real publisher" in terms of volume and the market they reach.  And until people can quit their day jobs and live comfortably, yes there are important differences.  

Quote from: TonyLBOnce upon a time, people gambled their finances and futures in order to vault over the barriers between them and their dreams.  I honor their valiant gambles.  But those barriers are gone.  Why on earth would you sink everything into an all-or-nothing gamble when you can make and market your book just as well with negligible investment?

Are you really marketing your book just as well with negligible investment?  Do you sell as many copies as D&D or, heck, a game like Mutants and Masterminds or GURPS?  Do you think they time and money they spend on advertisements and the three-tier distirbution model to get their games sold at Barnes and Noble and Borders are wasted and make no difference?  Do you really think you can replace that with good word of mouth on the Internet and come loyal volunteers?

So, John... you are here defining growth for a single company.
Some might define growth based on the outward expansion of many systems into the market. Anyone who *doesn't* publish sees an apparent growth on the indie level. Look at the internet. There are thousands. Mainstream? You can mention any number of others, but it's pretty much DnD. I have only ever seen d20 in stores. EVER. I only offer my perspective as a consumer here. It doesn't amount to business experience, I admit... but this is what I see.

On that note, what is the advantage of paper publishing for the indie game? Who does one sell to? I ask because I want to know these things before I (hopefully) move from consumer to producer.

With respect to Snakes on a Plane, Levi wrote:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe movie also made significantly more money than it cost, in a healthy industry.

Which doesn't line it up real well, to me, as an example or counter-example to games that are pulling more profit-per-unit in a (mostly cottage) industry that is, on the whole, losing it.

"Significantly more money than it cost" is not the same as the "break even point" for the studio that financed the movie.  They need to make enough profit to support the studio system that distributes the movie, advertizing, theater costs (prints, etc.), and so on.  As far as I can find, it hasn't broken even yet.  If you want another example of Internet hype producing disappointment, look at Serenity.  On paper, it exceeded costs.  It didn't make enough for the studio to consider it profitable, thus you won't be seeing a Serenity 2.

@T-Willard:
Nobody asked you to make RPGs. Nobody forced you to do it. It is for your own ego, that you do it. So live with it, if other people call that vanity press.

Quote from: beejazzSo, John... you are here defining growth for a single company.

Not entirely.  Part of what supports the group of Indie gamers that most people are talking about involves cooperative marketing and shared costs for things like con tables.  Like I said, you can find threads talking about how the table at GenCon that many Indie publishers shared had scalability problems this year.

Quote from: beejazzSome might define growth based on the outward expansion of many systems into the market. Anyone who *doesn't* publish sees an apparent growth on the indie level. Look at the internet. There are thousands. Mainstream? You can mention any number of others, but it's pretty much DnD. I have only ever seen d20 in stores. EVER. I only offer my perspective as a consumer here. It doesn't amount to business experience, I admit... but this is what I see.

Well, if the number of titles explode but the audience for the games don't grow to absorb the titles, what happens?

Quote from: beejazzOn that note, what is the advantage of paper publishing for the indie game? Who does one sell to? I ask because I want to know these things before I (hopefully) move from consumer to producer.

Basically printed material is still more convenient for many things than a computer screen (FYI, I personally own a workgroup-class laser printer with a duplexing module for double-sided printing that I've had for many years).  And published books, even from a print-on-demand shop, look and feel better than what most people can produce on their home or even work printers.

Let me be absolutely clear here.

The best of both worlds, while you are small, is to affiliate with a print-on-demand shop that can produce one-off bound books from PDF's.  Basically, you only produce the printed books you need and you can even find companies that will deal with running the e-commerce site and shipping for you.  I agree that's a great place to start with low risk, to see if your game will sell.  And you should certainly listen to advice from Indie publishers about how to handle this sort of thing.

I would not advise paying for a print run of a few thousand bound books unless you can eat the cost as a loss if they don't sell or have a very good reason (that other people who will be honest with you agree with) to think you'll sell out.  My points about growth are aimed at going to the next level, once an Indie publisher has grown.  Get there, and then worry about whether you can scale or not.

Quote from: beejazzI have only ever seen d20 in stores. EVER.

You mean in non-gaming stores?  I don't ever recall seeing D20 on the shelf in a general book store anywhere. Well I didn't look that closely, but all I recall seeing in any store was a few D&D books. No D20.

EDIT That being rule books. I do know Wizkid's Shadowrun novels get general bookstore circulation. I've even seen them on shelves, and not just the latest ones. But That's something a bit different.

But I'll check the online catalogue for Chapters-Indigo (roughly the equivalent to Borders in the US).

Ok, it lists a number of different D&D books, All Flesh Must Be Eaten (Unisystem), Talislanta(D20), The Wildside Gaming System (whoa, that's gotta be pretty close to 'indie', it's owner written/published by an English prof in the US NE who also publishes annotated Lovecraft books), Marvel Universe (it's own diceless system of some sort I believe), Splicers (Palladium), Star Wars(D20), Magic Frontiers (some sort of "science fantasy" genre published 8 years ago, so obviously not D20 but I've never heard of it, anyone?), "Performing The Pilgrims: A Study Of Ethnohistorical Role-playing At Plimoth Plantation" (?), and so on.

So yup I guess they do stock D20 in the big warehouse out back. But it sure isn't alone.  On the shelf? The whole of it is dwarfed by poker self-help books. :)

John, what you suggest is reasonable.

If (hypothetically) I had a store (again, not yet... more of a goal) would it be more viable to seek a publisher or to print in-store?

Because whether I get around to setting up shop or not, there isn't anyone who's going to sell my game locally. You just gotta love that American south.:mad:

Quote from: blakkieYou mean in non-gaming stores?  I don't ever recall seeing D20 on the shelf in a general book store. Well I didn't look that closely, but all I recall seeing where a few D&D books. No D20.

But I'll check the online catalogue for Chapters-Indigo (roughly the equivalent to Borders in the US).

Ok, it lists a number of different D&D books, All Flesh Must Be Eaten (Unisystem), Talislanta(D20), The Wildside Gaming System (whoa, that's gotta be pretty close to 'indie', it's owner written/published by an English prof in the US NE who also publishes annotated Lovecraft books), Marvel Universe (it's own diceless system of some sort I believe), Splicers (Palladium), Star Wars(D20), Magic Frontiers (some sort of "science fantasy" genre published 8 years ago, so obviously not D20 but I've never heard of it, anyone?), "Performing The Pilgrims: A Study Of Ethnohistorical Role-playing At Plimoth Plantation" (?), and so on.

So yup I guess they do stock D20 in the big warehouse out back. But it sure isn't alone.  On the shelf? The whole of it is dwarfed by poker self-help books. :)

Thus far on shelves I've seen Dungeons and Dragons, Star Wars, (rarely) d20modern or past or future, and (before WoW, mind you) Warcraft d20. The *old* version (last year's Dragon Con introduced me to the update).

Quote from: beejazzIf (hypothetically) I had a store (again, not yet... more of a goal) would it be more viable to seek a publisher or to print in-store?

I'm not really sure what you are looking to do here.  Unless you can afford a lot of expensive printing equipment, you'll never match the quality of a print-on-demand company.  Are you trying to print games, get your own game printed, or sell games?  They aren't the same businesses.  

If you want to publish your own game or games, one of the Indie publishers here should step in and give you advice.  It will probably be more valuable to you and more specific than what I can offer.

Quote from: beejazzBecause whether I get around to setting up shop or not, there isn't anyone who's going to sell my game locally. You just gotta love that American south.:mad:

Well, opening a store just to sell your own game probably isn't a good idea, unless you think you can be successful selling a lot of other peoples' games, too.  If you open a brick and mortar store for any reason, talk to other small business owners that run their own stores first.  Bottom line.  Find out what you are doing before you spend money trying to do it.

Quote from: beejazzThus far on shelves I've seen Dungeons and Dragons, Star Wars, (rarely) d20modern or past or future, and (before WoW, mind you) Warcraft d20. The *old* version (last year's Dragon Con introduced me to the update).

Curious, although it is sort of a red herring to the topic.

Incidentally it has peaked my interest in this "The Wildside Gaming System: Fantasy Role-Playing Edition".  I checked RPGnet, no review. Well there is a review for "Wild Side", but that's some sort of smash 'em up derby dice game.

I also checked the FLGS online catalogue and miss there too, and that's no small feat.  This place has the offical policy of  "If it's in print, we'll try to stock it." They even stock a lot of stuff that is OOP too.

So it seems that guy has gone totally outside normal gaming channels. Perhaps using contacts gained from publishing his other books to get the book into general interest book stores?  Curiously some of his other books are on Drive-Thru, but not that one.  I'm going to take this into that games-I-know-nothing-about thread.  The upshot of it though seems to be contacts and/or desire is what you need to get it into mainstream big-box stores.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not really sure what you are looking to do here.  Unless you can afford a lot of expensive printing equipment, you'll never match the quality of a print-on-demand company.  Are you trying to print games, get your own game printed, or sell games?  They aren't the same businesses.  

If you want to publish your own game or games, one of the Indie publishers here should step in and give you advice.  It will probably be more valuable to you and more specific than what I can offer.



Well, opening a store just to sell your own game probably isn't a good idea, unless you think you can be successful selling a lot of other peoples' games, too.  If you open a brick and mortar store for any reason, talk to other small business owners that run their own stores first.  Bottom line.  Find out what you are doing before you spend money trying to do it.

Again, all hypothetical. These are long term plans that are just coming about as of recently. Not to mention it being almost 4am. As for opening a store just to sell my own games, I *know* that's unrealistic. I can't rely on selling one product that no one has even heard of to sustain something as costly as a store... and besides, I don't write that fast. As for printing equipment, all I see myself needing is front-and-back black-and-white. Is that really expensive?

And I know it may have come off as if game stores *can't* exist in this area, but that's just not the case. One did exist, but closed recently because business was better on the internet.

Something doesn't fit between a store moving its operations to the internet as opposed to your idea that after a certain point it's better to move into paper. But, as you pointed out, publishing and gaming stores are two diferrent businesses.

But the move to paper requires a store that will *sell* the paper product, if I am not mistaken. And if (as discussed on another thread) the little gaming store is dying and (as discussed above) the big bookstore doesn't sell my product, where does that leave me? Selling paper copies over the internet?

Quote from: blakkieCurious, although it is sort of a red herring to the topic.

Incidentally it has peaked my interest in this "The Wildside Gaming System: Fantasy Role-Playing Edition".  I checked RPGnet, no review. Well there is a review for "Wild Side", but that's some sort of smash 'em up derby dice game.

I also checked the FLGS online catalogue and miss there too, and that's no small feat.  This place has the offical policy of  "If it's in print, we'll try to stock it." They even stock a lot of stuff that is OOP too.

So it seems that guy has gone totally outside normal gaming channels. Perhaps using contacts gained from publishing his other books to get the book into general interest book stores?  Curiously some of his other books are on Drive-Thru, but not that one.  I'm going to take this into that games-I-know-nothing-about thread.  The upshot of it though seems to be contacts and/or desire is what you need to get it into mainstream big-box stores.

Curious.
Seriously, what sort of game is this? I mean, is there any content-reason this game should be overlooked by gaming venues and picked up by the mainstream? Is it (like you said) contacts? Maybe a contract with the publisher?

Quote from: beejazzCurious.
Seriously, what sort of game is this? I mean, is there any content-reason this game should be overlooked by gaming venues and picked up by the mainstream? Is it (like you said) contacts? Maybe a contract with the publisher?

I haven't read that close yet, but it seems to be some sort of swords & sorcery deal.  There are some PDF excerts on the page here: http://www.wildsidegame.com/  EDIT They also have a free PDF for download of a print published adventure, with some portions (at least the pre-gen characters) left out of the PDF.

They do have a message board buried in there, but I haven't browsed it yet at all.

Quote from: John MorrowI'll be as happy as you are if they can.  I'm not trying to damn you to failure.  I'm trying to get you and other Indie publishers to think about what growth means rather than just assuming the sky is the limit and that they can just keep doing whatever they are doing on autopilot forever.  And I want you to get compensated for your labor and to be able to quit your day job if you want.  If you don't, that's fine, but it should be an option for those who work hard and want to.

Ohhhhhh!  Okay!  I've been misjudging your tone.  Mea culpa.  I'm sorry about that.

Purely in the interest of clearing things up:  You've been saying, in rough paraphrased way, "The indie model doesn't scale up with individual success and growing sales."

Now there are some details left unsaid there, and there are (at least) two ways of filling in the gaps to make a larger statement.  One way is this:  "The indie model cannot scale up with individual success and growing sales, no matter how hard someone thinks about it, or how savvy a business-man they are.  The model of author-ownership is, down to its core, incapable of such a thing."

My read on your tone was that you were saying that, and from this most recent post it becomes clear that you really weren't.  I apologize.  I should have read more charitably, and I could have been more productive.  At the least I should have asked for clarification.

Another way the statements can be unpacked (and one which I now suspect is closer to your true intent) is this:  "The indie model won't just naturally scale up with individual success and growing sales.  It's going to take some serious thought and careful consideration for people to figure out how to do it.  It may be possible, it may not, but it's certainly not going to happen by accident."

I am in total agreement with that.  Business of any model don't just run themselves.  As an author-owner I try to be constantly on the ball, thinking about the business world I'm in, the exigencies, patterns and opportunities, with at least as much intensity and focus as I think about roleplaying itself.

I don't think every author-owner does that (I do lament some of the missed business opportunities I see around me... but hey, if they don't want to turn their mental energies that way, and are content with the result, that's their thing) but I think a good number of them do.  Nobody I know expects author-ownership to be our little dancing monkey and turn out more and more money the longer we monotonously grind the gurney.  But at the same time, I think a lot of us (and certainly myself) see opportunities to the model that go substantially beyond the success we've achieved so far.  There's a lot of serious, concentrated thought going into how to get there from here.

Are you cool with that?

Quote from: TonyLBNow there are some details left unsaid there, and there are (at least) two ways of filling in the gaps to make a larger statement.  One way is this:  "The indie model cannot scale up with individual success and growing sales, no matter how hard someone thinks about it, or how savvy a business-man they are.  The model of author-ownership is, down to its core, incapable of such a thing."

My read on your tone was that you were saying that, and from this most recent post it becomes clear that you really weren't.  I apologize.  I should have read more charitably, and I could have been more productive.  At the least I should have asked for clarification.

To be honest, I'm primarily saying the latter but there are some elements of the model that I see that I do think may inevitably suffer because of scale.  Levi started out this thread by saying Indie games are growing because:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenLet me tell you a few of the reasons that I think this is so.

• Because the writers of these products are personally enthusiastic about them, and that enthusiasm is contagious.
  
• Because the games are individually cheap, and don't require supplements; the buy-in is low, low, low.
• Because the fans of these games can swap stories about hunting them down and getting them, and about how the different games affect their play.
• Because there's some small controversy, as people react negatively to some of them.  Many of these game provoke a reaction, and that sells games.

There's no reason I can see why the few notable-sized companies can't duplicate most of that.  What confuses me is why they haven't.

Let me see if I can cut right to the point on each of these points.

Personal enthusiasm is a wonderful thing but even if a game author can maintain that personal enthusiasm (and that's a big reason to try to get the hobby to rise above being a meat-grinder for authors since that kills enthusiasm and drives people out of writing for this hobby), it's ultimately quality that sells these games.  Enthusiasm only gets you so far.

And with respect to "contagious enthusiasm", it's much more difficult for an author to personally reach a large market and convey that sort of enthusiasm than it is to reach a small market only on Internet message boards and gaming conventions.  Notable-sized companies all the way up to Wizards do send their authors and other representatives out onto the web with enthusiasm (see the upcoming releases material on the Wizards site, for example, or Bruce Baugh's pitches of his various games), but they are less personal or reach on a small part of the audience the larger the audience gets.  So I think Levi is wrong to expect this to just keep scaling and driving continual growth and I think he's missing part of it.

Cheap prices are easy to support if you don't care about making any money.  That (along with avoiding the meat-grinder) was the whole point of my profitability arguments.  I think some of the Indie authors know this and are already pricing their games higher (like the whole traditional industry did when it realized it couldn't stay in business with $20 books, led by companies like DP9 who explained why they were raising prices) and some of the Indie games already have prices that are comparable, if not more expensive with respect to size, than mainstream commercial games.  

I also think it's fair, in and apples-to-apples sort of way to compare Amazon prices to Indie game prices when the Indie game is only sold online and not in the three-tier system.  If someone can find Lulu.com, they can find Amazon.com.  So, again, I don't think the low prices can last forever as an Indie game grows unless you have authors happy to never quit their day jobs, happy to live in poverty, or are subsidized in some other way.  Game companies have already experienced the problems of pricing too low to stay in business, which is why they started raising prices.

With respect to the thrill of hunting down and getting games from the fans, I don't think that making the games hard to find or buy scales to a large audience.  Almost by definition, to reach a large audience, a large audience has to be able to find and buy the game.  If I need to pay via PayPal and wait for the author to get around to mailing a game personally, it's a hassle to me, not a victory.  

Of course once it becomes easy to buy the game, the whole "Indie mystique" that appeals to some fans has to disappear.  This is the same thing that happens to anything that relies on the mystique of small size as a selling point.  When they grow, they are seen as "selling out".  

I think negative reactions work the same way.  A large part of any potential large audience are not going to be contrarians or rebels and they are going to take negative reviews at face value, not as something that peaks their curiosity.

Quote from: TonyLBAnother way the statements can be unpacked (and one which I now suspect is closer to your true intent) is this:  "The indie model won't just naturally scale up with individual success and growing sales.  It's going to take some serious thought and careful consideration for people to figure out how to do it.  It may be possible, it may not, but it's certainly not going to happen by accident."

Correct.  And part of what I'm taking issue with is Levi's assumption that the elements he detailed are going to carry Indie games through higher and higher growth (based on his apparent assumptiont that larger game companies should be able to do the same thing) when it's really going to require a lot of other work, too.  Even if you can maintain the enthusiasm and personal touch as you grow (more power to you with that), it's going to take more than a personal touch, low price, Internet presence, "Indie mystique" to keep growing, so Indie author-owners shouldn't assume that they can just keep growing without doing anything differently along the way.  

In the process, they might find that their effort start looking more like a game company and  less like their initial Indie effort because that's exactly how a lot of game companies got to where they are now.  They didn't turn into companies to become more impersonal and less enthusiastic.  They did it to deal with scale issues.  That's how small companies generally survive getting big.  And rather than think that there is nothing to learn from game companies, Indie author-owners should be looking at game companies to understand why they do things the way they do.  Maybe you can figure out how to do things better, but you are more likely to figure that out looking at the way things are done now than you are assuming you've got nothing to learn from existing companies.  (I'm not saying that you, personally, are doing that, but I think some people do.)

Quote from: TonyLBI am in total agreement with that.  Business of any model don't just run themselves.  As an author-owner I try to be constantly on the ball, thinking about the business world I'm in, the exigencies, patterns and opportunities, with at least as much intensity and focus as I think about roleplaying itself.

And if you are doing that, you are already in better shape than a lot of small businesses.  A lot of people who enter into small businesses want to do something they love but they assume the business part will just happen without any effort.  I think some of this  this is a side effect of the belief that successful business people and rich people don't do any work and just collect money.  Just looking at how quickly lottery  winners and heirs blow their fortunes illustrates that making and keeping money generally isn't easy, no matter what you see in the movies.

Even though I lack the resources and am not willing to take the risks needed to start a small business, I admire the people who do and talk to them.  I talk to FLGS owners, for example, about what sells and how they are doing.  I know it isn't easy and takes a lot of hard work.  And if Indie people are going to do all that hard work, they should work to succeed.

Quote from: TonyLBI don't think every author-owner does that (I do lament some of the missed business opportunities I see around me... but hey, if they don't want to turn their mental energies that way, and are content with the result, that's their thing) but I think a good number of them do.  Nobody I know expects author-ownership to be our little dancing monkey and turn out more and more money the longer we monotonously grind the gurney.

And that's great, then.  But I do get the feeling that some Indie fans are thinking that way, including Levi's list that started out the thread.  Nowhere on his list was the sort of foundation building that you are saying is being done.  That's the problem with making it look easy.  People start to believe it is easy and then wonder why big companies don't do the same if it is so easy.  That's also part of the point I was trying to make (though not so effectively).  Success through growth is neither automatic nor easy.  If it were, fewer small businesses would fail than do.

Quote from: TonyLBBut at the same time, I think a lot of us (and certainly myself) see opportunities to the model that go substantially beyond the success we've achieved so far.  There's a lot of serious, concentrated thought going into how to get there from here.

Oh, I absolutely believe that some of the Indie games can break out and achieve a lot of success.  I don't believe all with because I don't believe the Indie appraoch is some magic formula that can't fail.

I personally believe that the flexible games that cater to multiple styles of play rather than "coherent" games will will sell to a broader audience (with a broader mix of styles and preferences) but I don't even rule out the idea that Indie games could tap into a market that could feed a lot of growth.  

I simply believe (and this is purely my own belief with no hard evidence to back it up, so feel free to ignore this opinion) that the disgruntled gamers that a lot of the thematic games appeal to represent only a small part of the traditional role-playing market but may also represent the tip a larger untapped market that doesn't play traditional RPGs (or doesn't play them anymore).  That's why I suggested looking into selling into straight science fiction and fantasy conventions as interactive storytelling games that can be played in a night rather than selling them as traditional RPGs or into role-playing conventions.  In other words, pitch the games to the people who don't play traditional games for all the reasons that the thematic games do differently.  I think there is a bigger market in the people who passed on traditional RPGs or gave up on them early than there is in the traditional role-playing market among gamers whose styles have changed over the years.  That's where I thing the thematic games could really take root, much as White Wolf did in the Goth community.  Of course I could be wrong.

Quote from: TonyLBAre you cool with that?

Sure.  If you are already thinking about growth, then you are on the right track and probably don't need my advise.

For what it's worth, I read Levi's list in a different light.  I may well have been too charitable to him, 'cuz I know him pretty well.

I look at the list and I think "Yep ... that's a decent description about how we've collectively gotten to where we are now.  Some of that may provide some guidance as to how we should get to where we want to be tomorrow."

Increasingly, I see people asking that question individually:  Not "Where should the indie community as a whole go, so as to do better for all of us?" but "Okay, here I am, an indie author-owner.  Where do I, personally, want my business to go in order to do better for me?"  That's going to lead us in different directions, and I think that rocks.  We've learned how cool it can be to have many diverse types of games.  Now I'm eager to see how cool it can be to have many diverse types of game companies.

But, because they're asking the question individually, a lot of these people (myself included) have been quietly dropping out of ongoing public discussion about where the fate of the overall indie community.  The folks in those discussions are self-selected to be the ones that think that the direction of the overall community is vitally important.  The folks who (like me) figure that the community direction is made up of an aggregate of all of our individual directions tend to be under-represented in discussion.

Quote from: TonyLBI look at the list and I think "Yep ... that's a decent description about how we've collectively gotten to where we are now.  Some of that may provide some guidance as to how we should get to where we want to be tomorrow."

I was thinking at least as much about why the whole phenomenon is growing, as how individual indie publishers are scaling up, at least at first.

More people are getting involved in self-publication, because of the current level of success.

If a significant number of  people continue to enjoy success (by whatever standard they set), we'll see more independently published games.

....

Imagine that a given game gets you $5,000 profit per year.  Imagine further that it continues to give roundabout that same profit, with some rises and falls, for about ten years.

Now imagine that you write a game a year.

That's not a pipe dream; that's a real possibility.

In order for that to work, you either need to expand the audience, get people to play more, or get people to accept the idea that they'll play a given game for a short amount of time and then throw it away. If they transfer it to someone else, then you begin competing with the used market. And particularly when you have a business model that's based on internet sales, you're going to be dealing with a customer base that's quite comfortable taking advantage of eBay, Amazon marketplace, half.com, etc.

It will help to lower the price to the point that selling/buying a used game just isn't worth the trouble, but then that may cut into your profits.

Barring that what I really expect is that there'll be a few evergreen games due to factors like quality or just plain being the first in the water, and then as the market fills up, games will start to follow the same pattern of flash and fade in terms of sales. The evergreen games will generally enjoy relative long-term sales along a distribution represented by a power law (http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html).

The main question is how long it'll take to fill up the market. But I do not think that new entrants to indie game publishing are going to enjoy a neverending ability to profit financially from their games in a significant way.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn order for that to work, you either need to expand the audience, get people to play more, or get people to accept the idea that they'll play a given game for a short amount of time and then throw it away.

Oh, for Pete's sake. Has anyone heard of board games or war games? You don't throw away games with a built-in theme or story. You play them again, and it's totally fun. I have fought the Korean War on a table-top about 5 times, and, man, I will do it again with any friend. I have also fought my way to the top of Mt. Fuji in search of the Mountain Witch about 7 times, and I can't wait to do it again.

Sure I have, Clinton. This is how I see the wargame market: shrinking and disappearing, characterized by a very few games that sell over 1000 copies and even fewer that are actually played.

This is how I see the boardgame market: dominated by a few evergreen games and a bunch of boutique games that come and go.

The following seems to me to be a mathematical truism (and consistent with the text you've quoted):

If (number of players) times (hours each one spends playing games) is constant, then the market for new games depends on people giving up playing some games in order to play new ones. It's true you don't have to throw away a game but if you keep it on the shelf without playing it the effect is the same. It's also true that you can expand your stable of games indefinitely if you're willing to go into a longer and longer rotation but in practice that is also much the same thing.

I just don't buy the idea that stories are reusable in the same way that a board or card game is resuable, though.

I mean, I could probably get together with a group of people to play poker every week for a year. I could (and do) get together to play weekly sessions of longterm campaigns that go longer than a year. But I don't think I would want to play the same short-run story every week for over a year.

*Shrug*

Optimists assume the market is much larger than current.  Cynics think otherwise.

I tend to side with the optimists on this one, if only because every single Indie game I own is at least as different from each of the others as it is from any mainstream game.

And because Indie games can walk completely out on the traditional boundaries of what an RPG is and appeal to entirely different groups - my copy of Breaking the Ice, acquired only a couple of weeks ago, has seen use in no less than three seperate games.  Two of those games each involved a different person that not only had never gamed before, but never wanted to.

Oh, I have no idea how big the market is. I do think that anyone seeking sales could do a lot worse than to look well outside the current hobby market. On the other hand, the nice thing about the hobby market is that it's composed of otakus who are addicted to the medium and willing to put up with its rigors in terms of learning radically different systems. In short, variety is your friend when it comes to reaching diverse markets, but it's your enemy when it comes to reaping repeat business.

Basically, with sensible practices like PDF sales and POD I think people nowadays have a fantastic opportunity to share their creativity with each other, but I think the result will be a proliferation of niches. Just as with the MP3 revolution in music I think that traditional distribution systems are doomed (and even somewhat traditional production and marketing systems); however, because markets are ultimately limited and because of the phenomenon observed by Clay Shirkey, profit is going to be very unequally distributed.

(BTW, how did *shrug* take its place in the pantheon of RPG forum conversational tics? It's an...interesting...and as far as I can tell unique...idiosyncrasy of the "culture".)

Quote from: Elliot Wilen(BTW, how did *shrug* take its place in the pantheon of RPG forum conversational tics? It's an...interesting...and as far as I can tell unique...idiosyncrasy of the "culture".)

Dunno.  Been using it for years, along with *snerk*

Quote from: Elliot WilenSure I have, Clinton. This is how I see the wargame market: shrinking and disappearing, characterized by a very few games that sell over 1000 copies and even fewer that are actually played.

This is how I see the boardgame market: dominated by a few evergreen games and a bunch of boutique games that come and go.

I get that. I was overly snarky in my post before. My own experience of board games is very different: I tend to buy about four to six of them a year (and about six to nine different RPGs.) But I understand I'm a very atypical customer. Luckily for me, but not for market growth, my customers are like me.

Is there an icon for jealousy? Though in part thanks to Findplay, I've managed to get together with a bunch of local gamers and we're stumbling toward some sort of workable rhythm of play.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI just don't buy the idea that stories are reusable in the same way that a board or card game is resuable, though.

I mean, I could probably get together with a group of people to play poker every week for a year. I could (and do) get together to play weekly sessions of longterm campaigns that go longer than a year. But I don't think I would want to play the same short-run story every week for over a year.

Word.

A different group might yield a different result and new situations, but in the end, doing the same thing over and over is boring. I love several Shadowrun adventures from FASA's glory days, but there's only a number of times I'm willing to run them.

I think that this link, though from August, is germane to the discussion:

In Mike Mearls' blog, about GenCon '06 (http://mearls.livejournal.com/129570.html)

The Forge booth could have been the third best seller, after WotC and WW. He speaks highly of Agon and Burning Empires, which must be Swine games. Also Ryan Dancey has very good things to say about indie games.

I'm glad to see people saying nice things on other people who make different things than theirs. Now I ask myself if that makes Mr. Mearls a Swine.

'Twas an evening in November,
As I very well remember,
I was strolling down the street in drunken pride.
But my thoughts were all a-flutter,
And I fell down in the gutter,
And a pig came up and lay down by my side.

Yes, I lay there in the gutter,
Thinking thoughts I could not utter,
When a colleen passing by did softly say,
"Ye can tell a man that boozes by the company he chooses."
And at that, the pig got up and walked away!

:cool: Genius

Quote from: ImperatorI think that this link, though from August, is germane to the discussion:

In Mike Mearls' blog, about GenCon '06 (http://mearls.livejournal.com/129570.html)

The Forge booth could have been the third best seller, after WotC and WW. He speaks highly of Agon and Burning Empires, which must be Swine games. Also Ryan Dancey has very good things to say about indie games.

I'm glad to see people saying nice things on other people who make different things than theirs. Now I ask myself if that makes Mr. Mearls a Swine.

Mike Mearls has always had sympathies toward the Forge, my sense being that its more because of Mike's own personal crusade that there be some kind of a workshop for people to create good RPGs, something hes talked about before with his Wiki idea, etc.
So his position is that the Forge is at least making an effort in that direction, which no one else is.
Never mind that the "effort" they're making is completely wrong minded and likely to end up stifling any other possible efforts to do that kind of thing the right way.

And Mearls' anecdotal view based on the number of people he saw at the Forge booth at Gencon is hardly definitive evidence of sales; but that said it wouldn't really surprise me at all if the Forge did have good sales at Gencon, because its one of the few places where there will be enough Forgeites in one place to simulate good sales.  Its a meaningless figure. You don't have average gamers going to Gencon, you have very dedicated people.
So Gencon sales, like the internet, will be very disproportionate to reality.

Its like if you were to look at RPG.net as your guide, Exalted would certainly have to be the best selling RPG in the world.
But of course we know it isn't. Its just that RPG.net is a warped lens by which to view things.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNever mind that the "effort" they're making is completely wrong minded and likely to end up stifling any other possible efforts to do that kind of thing the right way.

Time will tell about the end of the Forge effort. According to Mearls, Ron Edward's predictions (which I don't know) are coming to pass. Anyone knows which are these predictions?

Quote from: RPGPunditSo Gencon sales, like the internet, will be very disproportionate to reality.

As any other data I've seen around here. For example, in Spain and other parts of Europe, D20 is a popular system, but is not overwhelmingly so. Here in Spain, "D&D/D20 only" players are a very rare thing. Whenever you say that D&D is by far the most successful system around, that must be adjusted to each market. And in that way, indie games that relie more heavily in direct sales as in PDFs, POD and the like have a competitive advantage.

Quote from: RPGPunditIts like if you were to look at RPG.net as your guide, Exalted would certainly have to be the best selling RPG in the world.

Mmmph. I wouldn't go as far as that: there's a lot of D20 love in RPG.net, IME. But, OTOH, Exalted does indeed sell quite well.

Internet will always be a distorted lens, at least while the situation is this: most gamers don't use it, don't know about the discussions and trends over it, and subsequently don't give a flying turd about all this. We are a minority in gamedom.

That's the reason why I find your rants about the Swine conspiracy to destroy the hobby hilarious. Most gamers wouldn't even know about that. It could be argued that most designers (if not all of the important ones) use Internet and thereby are exposed to several influences. But, contrary to you, I think that variety and change are good things, and don't think that my hobby is going to disappear because a group of people are trying new ways of doing things, or developing this or that theory about that.

Quote from: ImperatorTime will tell about the end of the Forge effort. According to Mearls, Ron Edward's predictions (which I don't know) are coming to pass. Anyone knows which are these predictions?

I'm not sure, but possibly the death of the three tier (publisher-distributor-retailer) system.

I don't know if this helps any but:

I have talked to a few small press publishers and they say that any small press/indie game that sells 500 print  copies in one year is doing quite well. Selling another 100 in pdf is "doing well". This might be well for small press/indie publishers, but if WoTC, SJG, or GR posted those numbers it would be considered a big flop. So it is all relative.

Quote from: McrowI have talked to a few small press publishers and they say that any small press/indie game that sells 500 print  copies in one year is doing quite well. Selling another 100 in pdf is "doing well". This might be well for small press/indie publishers, but if WoTC, SJG, or GR posted those numbers it would be considered a big flop. So it is all relative.

Yep. That's why I dismiss the Pundit's rants about indie games being a flop. A flop is when you lose money. Indie designers are earning money, and each year they're earning more. It's not a commercial success as D&D, but it's not a flop.

Quote from: ImperatorYep. That's why I dismiss the Pundit's rants about indie games being a flop. A flop is when you lose money. Indie designers are earning money, and each year they're earning more. It's not a commercial success as D&D, but it's not a flop.

  That's because the Pundit's mind functions like my mother's.  It's a philosophical position I call epistemological voluntarist determinism; If you REALLY want something to be the case then it IS the case.  So if you REALLY hate the forge and the games they produce then there can't possibly be any reason for thinking that they, or indeed any other kind of Indie game, might possibly sell relatively well.

  Indie games are a nice little cottage industry run on an artisan model.  They appeal to a certain percentage of gamers and that percentage grows every year.  The fact that they don't set out to appeal to as wide an audience as possible means that they can explore ideas and settings that bigger companies simply couldn't and their low over-heads mean that they pull some money in too.  If only enough to finance the researching, designing and publishing of the next game.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIndie games are a nice little cottage industry run on an artisan model.  They appeal to a certain percentage of gamers and that percentage grows every year.  The fact that they don't set out to appeal to as wide an audience as possible means that they can explore ideas and settings that bigger companies simply couldn't and their low over-heads mean that they pull some money in too.  If only enough to finance the researching, designing and publishing of the next game.

Yep. AFAIK, no indie designer has ever been worried for making the best selling game ever.

I work as an HR manager in a small company (as freelance, simultaneously with other freelance jobs). We are about 25 people, making layout, translation and edition services for two of the biggest banks in Spain. Are we the biggest business in the sector? Not by any chance. Are we a successful business? You can bet. We've increased our workforce in a full 100%, and our profits have tripled from last year. According to Pundit's rethoric, as we're not the biggest editing business in Spain and we only work in Madrid, we are a flop.

Curious idea, the epistemological voluntarist determinism. I'll chew it a bit. :D

I dont think it's the games that are the problem. I mean, some of them seem fairly lame,  but that's true in the mainstream hobby as well. Also, I'm all for the convergence of technologies that is making this all possible now.

The problem I have is the hidebound supremacist dogma of thematic gaming, the evangelism (which ranges from merely annoying to totally offensive), and the weird smugness of (some of) the people involved, not all of whom have actually written anything. Unsurprisingly, a couple of the most vocal indie proponents actually seem to be morons, and that never helps. Many of the fans seem painfully status conscious, and that's an interesting button to push. Also, many of these guys seem to be trying to sell stuff constantly.

But the games are fine. I concede the point!

The whole thing about how indie games "don't sell very much" is really just a side point used to refute someone who claims to be very important.
It's just sort of a fun jab whenever someone brings up their sales and starts strutting around hilariously.

You aren't safe here! Your fun will be judged!

:emot-rock:

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe problem I have is the hidebound supremacist dogma of thematic gaming, the evangelism (which ranges from merely annoying to totally offensive), and the weird smugness of (some of) the people involved, not all of whom have actually written anything. Unsurprisingly, a couple of the most vocal indie proponents actually seem to be morons, and that never helps. Many of the fans seem painfully status conscious, and that's an interesting button to push. Also, many of these guys seem to be trying to sell stuff constantly.

I agree with all of this. On the other hand, there are some very cool people frequenting the Forge who are not at all like this, and shouldn't be lumped in with the jerks who you are talking about. I don't go to the Forge myself. Though I have an account there, I've never posted as it's not for me - but just because a person frequents the Forge doesn't make them either asshats or deluded idiots.

BTW - by consensus we are using the inclusive "indie" here, which means all Small Press, yet all your comments were said as if "indie" =The Forge. Just pointing it out.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI agree with all of this. On the other hand, there are some very cool people frequenting the Forge who are not at all like this, and shouldn't be lumped in with the jerks who you are talking about. I don't go to the Forge myself. Though I have an account there, I've never posted as it's not for me - but just because a person frequents the Forge doesn't make them either asshats or deluded idiots.

BTW - by consensus we are using the inclusive "indie" here, which means all Small Press, yet all your comments were said as if "indie" =The Forge. Just pointing it out.

-clash

Yes. And I swear, I'm not discounting the obvious fact that there are plenty of decent and very cool guys doing this and managing to not be jerks.

Quote from: Abyssal MawAlso, many of these guys seem to be trying to sell stuff constantly.

Always, baby.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAlways, baby.

I swear to gawd, I was totally going to list you as an example. "If  all designers were like Levi Kornelson, we wouldn't have anyone to complain about!"

But I'm mainly talking about the conversation that starts with "So I was thinking of running a superhero game.. set in space" and some guy inevitably shows up and goes "you could totally do that with DITV!!!!"

I mean seriously, people. Calm yourselves.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut I'm mainly talking about the conversation that starts with "So I was thinking of running a superhero game.. set in space" and some guy inevitably shows up and goes "you could totally do that with DITV!!!!"

You know, you could totally nail a "Ulysses 31"-type game with DITV...



:D

Quote from: Abyssal MawI swear to gawd, I was totally going to list you as an example. "If  all designers were like Levi Kornelson, we wouldn't have anyone to complain about!"

But I'm mainly talking about the conversation that starts with "So I was thinking of running a superhero game.. set in space" and some guy inevitably shows up and goes "you could totally do that with DITV!!!!"

I mean seriously, people. Calm yourselves.

A lot of that comes from having only one game to push...part comes from not knowing when to stop.;)

Bill

I have no problems with thematic game authors. Even less with the other indie gaming authors.

But the constant : "Go.Play [Flavour of the month acronym e.g. PtA]" as an answer to questions that stem from advwenture gaming makes grown up Settembrini cry.
I just listened to the latest Sons of Kryos Episode, and they seem to have decided to only push thematic games these day.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIndie games are a nice little cottage industry run on an artisan model.  They appeal to a certain percentage of gamers and that percentage grows every year.  The fact that they don't set out to appeal to as wide an audience as possible means that they can explore ideas and settings that bigger companies simply couldn't and their low over-heads mean that they pull some money in too.  If only enough to finance the researching, designing and publishing of the next game.

You're both UTTERLY missing the point.

What you're arguing would be fine and good if Ron Edwards had said "Here's GNS, its a neat little theory about how to make indie games that sell 500 copies!". Had that been what he'd said, I would say his mission statement was more than fulfilled.

However, what Ron Edwards said was "Here's GNS; it is the SOLUTION to the "PROBLEM" with all RPGs today, and will create objectively BETTER RPGs that will be more playable and more popular than what existed before".

And by that standard, selling 500 copies as a definition of a "successful" GNS game is in fact a miserable pathetic failure.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHowever, what Ron Edwards said was "Here's GNS; it is the SOLUTION to the "PROBLEM" with all RPGs today, and will create objectively BETTER RPGs that will be more playable and more popular than what existed before".

I would really like to know where on Earth did you read that. When I read the GNS essays, they only treated on the subject of games design, and what happens at the table. Sales were not the object of the essays, and still are not.

And once again, I don't know exactly which where Edwards' predictions on 1999, but it seems that they are coming to pass. And indie market is growing, because variety is a good thing that people enjoy.

I can't see how earning money, seeing your game published and having people playing it and be happy can be deemed as a failure.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI swear to gawd, I was totally going to list you as an example. "If  all designers were like Levi Kornelson, we wouldn't have anyone to complain about!"

*Shrug*

There's no way that I'm "Mr.Perfect" on this one.  I do my share of game-pimping.  The only edge I have in being less obnoxious is that I know quite a few traditional games, and think well of them, just as much as I know and think well of the newer types.  I have a bigger range.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut I'm mainly talking about the conversation that starts with "So I was thinking of running a superhero game.. set in space" and some guy inevitably shows up and goes "you could totally do that with DITV!!!!"

Not a chance.  For that, you should use Champions!!!!

QuoteI would really like to know where on Earth did you read that.

One could read that into:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/12/

Again, where? Where could the Pundit read that? maybe here?

Quote

• Cut back on production value (ooh! the horror, horror!), with the emphasis on good design rather than glitzy design. Include great art, but not much of it, in black-and-white, and stay away from expensive paper and those glossy covers. Think staples.
• Never mind supplements (oh my God!). Make sure the game is readable, playable, enjoyable, and that every one bought equals profit for you. And (get over it!) cut down those print runs.
• Run your own ordering service, and make sure you can meet any demand with quick, efficient service. The Internet would seem the way to go, insofar as no one has to man any phones or leave insincere messages on the machine about "being away from our desks."
• Minimize paper-advertising and convention appearances, two major money sinks aimed mostly at impressing distributors rather than actually to sell product. Advertise like a hurricane on the Net, from trading links to amateur sites to hitting chat rooms and usenets with a team of partners. Get a good web page made and keep it updated.
• Realize you will probably not make a lot of money. If you want to make a lot of money, pray to get lucky in the teen-trend sweepstakes or find something else to sell.

Don't like the New Myth? As an RPG author, adopt it or stick with the old one; it's your option. But I maintain that we have to reach the market ourselves, and that market is a small, highly specialized one. Getting rich doing this is probably just not going to happen. I also maintain that this apple-cart is not a dream or a Myth -- it already exists! The games are being written, they are being purchased, and they are being played.

Where does it says that they are going to be the kings of the market, when he's just saying that the old model does not work anymore?

The ORIGINAL GNS essays posit that gaming as it was played before the Forge was fundamentally flawed, and that ALL or nearly all gamers were basically miserable (suggesting that most of them didn't realize or wouldn't admit they were miserable). Logically, just like the proletariat would rise up when informed by the intelligentsia of how oppressed they were, if people were "shown" how GNS is superior they would shrug off the shackles of traditional gaming and embrace the new Forge manifesto in droves.

That's what's read into the text. And its not much of a "reading into"; its the fundamental position of Edward's whole argument, without which anything he has to say about GNS falls apart. For GNS to be true, it has to be universal; and the majority of gamers need only be shown "gns-designed" games to want to start playing them and stop playing the trad RPGs that they're so miserable playing. Since this hasn't happened, there are only two possible conclusions:
1. GNS if false.
2. gamers are somehow "brain damaged" to the point that they cannot accept what is best for them, and will need to somehow be forced or tricked into it by the well meaning intelligentsia who will lead us.

Its Marxist-Leninism all over again, for fuck's sake! Its the problem with "revolutionary" manifestos, they have to end up creating popular support; and if they fail in that, it means that they must turn on the supposed masses they claim to represent because those masses aren't "smart" enough to support them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIts the problem with "revolutionary" manifestos, they have to end up creating popular support; and if they fail in that, it means that they must turn on the supposed masses they claim to represent because those masses aren't "smart" enough to support them.

I'll pit my revolutionary manifesto against yours any day:

http://the-tall-man.livejournal.com/

You're a sad little man, nisarg.

Quote from: WhitterYou're a sad little man, nisarg.

Not nearly as sad as one who can't manage a better slam that this.

Why be such a pussy? You're anonymous! LOL UR FUKKIN FAG at least has a little bile to it.

Pundit, could you provide textual examples?

EDIT you mean this?:

QuoteMy straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated.

Hi, Pundit. I'm addressing two important points:

Quote from: RPGPunditThe ORIGINAL GNS essays posit that gaming as it was played before the Forge was fundamentally flawed, and that ALL or nearly all gamers were basically miserable (suggesting that most of them didn't realize or wouldn't admit they were miserable).

No, it doesn't. What it says is this (emphasis mine):

Quote from: Ron Edwards in GNS essayMy straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated. My goal in this writing is to provide vocabulary and perspective that enable people to articulate what they want and like out of the activity, and to understand what to look for both in other people and in game design to achieve their goals. The person who is entirely satisfied with his or her role-playing experiences is not my target audience.

Look! He's not talking to you! He's not trying to change your gaming! :)

In the rest of the essay, he explains many concepts and vocabulary that pertains to GNS and shit. At the very start of the essay he says that the essay is not a Dogma, only what he thinks. So I don't see much of a manifesto there, though is an interesting concept.

Actually, the essay goes a long way to say that there's no "one true way" and the fun obtained in a D&D session is as good as the fun in an OtE session, being the most important thing that everybody is in the same page. Not very offensive, IMO.

Quote from: RPGPunditFor GNS to be true, it has to be universal; and the majority of gamers need only be shown "gns-designed" games to want to start playing them and stop playing the trad RPGs that they're so miserable playing.

As I've shown before, the essay states that the unfun gaming is not due to playing a trad game. Is due to a difference in what people wants from the game, which can lead to bad social dynamics. The point of GNS is that a good design of a game will help people to be on the same page, so the experience will be improved. So people don't need to stop playing traditional games, according to GNS essay.

On the other hand, Edwards uses as examples of good (or coherent) design several classic games as Pendragon, RQ, Prince Valiant or... D&D. Games that were designed without explicit knowledge of any theory, but show the advantages of having a clear design goal in mind, and the advantage of creating rules that support that goal instead of making things this or that way simply because that's just what everyone does (main examples being Vampire, or AD&D 2e, according to the essay). So, GNS can be universal (that would be another point to argue), as it refers first to the intentions of those who play.

I don't think that GNS/ Big Model is the end all-be all of RPG theory. There's a long way ahead. But I think that it has made useful contributions, and several rocking games have been designed due to it. So I'm happy. :)

Quote from: RPGPundit2. gamers are somehow "brain damaged" to the point that they cannot accept what is best for them, and will need to somehow be forced or tricked into it by the well meaning intelligentsia who will lead us.

The brain damage thing is not in any way in the GNS essay, pertains to a completely different topic, and well, it doesn't refer to the gamers in general, only to a subsector of gamers. By the way, I disagree with him, being a psychologist that has worked with true brain damage and that.

So, Pundit, I think that you're misrepresenting the GNS essay and the small press and indie scene. That's not flashing news, of course ;), but I'd be more happy for you if you didn't feel that there's a conspiracy of evil Swine game designers going after your fun. Actually, I stopped being a D&D/D20 hater after visiting the Forge, reading the essays, and starting analysing the game on its own merits (that are a lot) instead of analysing it on my own personal tastes. Now, I play D20 games and I'm happy, indie games and I'm happy, and many more. My hobby is bigger and keeps growing.

Anyway, and back on topic (sorry about the rambling): my opinion on the future of gaming (indie or not), has being beautifully explained by Levi in his blog (http://the-tall-man.livejournal.com/51444.html). I support all of his points, and declare him my personal hero of the weekend. :D

There really is no getting through to the Pundit on this one.

He has decided that Forge/GNS is something that it is not and I don't think he will be changing his mind.

I'm not saying anyone has to like Forge style games, but clearly their are a few folks here that have gotten the wrong idea about the forge.

Quote from: McrowThere really is no getting through to the Pundit on this one.

He has decided that Forge/GNS is something that it is not and I don't think he will be changing his mind.

I'm not saying anyone has to like Forge style games, but clearly their are a few folks here that have gotten the wrong idea about the forge.

Hopefully, we've at least convinced him that Small Press /= The Forge. As much as I dislike being damned for what I am, it's definitely worse to be damned for what I am not. :D

-clash

Quote from: ImperatorLook! He's not talking to you! He's not trying to change your gaming! :)

In theory yes, but both in the essays and in the halo of discussion around them there's frequently the implication that players are unhappy without realizing it, that they're deluding themselves, in denial, enacting a cycle of abuse, and so forth.

(I don't support RPGPundit's points about indie gaming in general, or even about Forge games qua games, as opposed to GNS theory, but in regards the latter I think it's undeniable that it sets up a value system for judging all games.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn theory yes, but both in the essays and in the halo of discussion around them there's frequently the implication that players are unhappy without realizing it, that they're deluding themselves, in denial, enacting a cycle of abuse, and so forth.

This has been my experience as well. I can only conclude that the aside of "oh, this really only applies if you are unhappy.."  is dishonest.

Quote from: ImperatorLook! He's not talking to you! He's not trying to change your gaming! :)

The problem is that Edwards states that most gamers are unhappy with their gaming. People who are satisfied with their game are, in his own words, a minority.

I strongly disagree with that statement. Had he said that "some" gamers are unhappy, it'd be a different story.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI can only conclude that the aside of "oh, this really only applies if you are unhappy.."  is dishonest.

Let me be plain, on this one.

From what I've seen, much of Ron's stuff could benefit from a big-ass line at the top saying "WHO THIS IS FOR."

Because, yeah, people apply this shit all over the place.  It has become dishonest to say that 'this isn't for you.'

There are a lot of incidents where something that was meant to get applied really narrowly, and works like a hot damn in that specific place basically escapes into the hands of asshats, and gets tried out in all sorts of other places (often including ones where it's a really stupid idea).

I say this as one such asshat - I've latched onto the idea of "stakes", and applied it all over the damn place, in ways that don't match the original conception of Stakes.  Some of the results rock on toast.  Others flop.  Hard.  I'm not too chickenshit to admit it; some of my attempts at getting neat gameplay suck so bad that we throw up our hands and break out the Munchkin - but the successes make it worth it (and the Munchkin is pretty good, too).

But, then, to me, the theory folks are just a bunch of guys screwing around with their games and their gameplay, looking for fun and maybe a little "new hotness", like many others.  And on those occasions when you find a bit of "new hotness", you're often tempted to look back on other games and dismiss them as "old and busted", even undeservedly.

But I'm rambling.

Quote from: JongWKThe problem is that Edwards states that most gamers are unhappy with their gaming. People who are satisfied with their game are, in his own words, a minority.

I strongly disagree with that statement. Had he said that "some" gamers are unhappy, it'd be a different story.

...And?

Dude, I think Pundit is wrong just as often as not.  It don't stop me enjoying him when I think he's right.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen...And?

Dude, I think Pundit is wrong just as often as not.  It don't stop me enjoying him when I think he's right.

This is just my opinion, and Pundit has nothing to do with this.

I think Edwards' basic premise is flawed, and have little use for his theoreticism.

I don't reject any game without giving it a look first, though. If the rules and setting are good, I might play it. If one of them isn't, I might find a use for the other half. If both of them are bad... tough luck.

Note that I believe that indie and small press games have niche market where they can thrive. Some of these games have the potential to play in the big leagues, many will reach a glass ceiling, and some will simply flop. What else is new under the sun? :)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBut, then, to me, the theory folks are just a bunch of guys screwing around with their games and their gameplay, looking for fun and maybe a little "new hotness", like many others.  And on those occasions when you find a bit of "new hotness", you're often tempted to look back on other games and dismiss them as "old and busted", even undeservedly.

But I'm rambling.

Not rambling at all. I think this last bit of yours is enlightening.

But my issue is not that games are being 'dismissed'. I mean.. who cares, really. The issue is that these guys are totally insulting.. and then they turn around and say "hey, check out my artistic thing I've been working very hard on, (and I feel kinda sensitive about...)"

I don't think I can even avoid coming into conflict with someone who is both insulting and painfully sensitive.

I find it hard to believe that a person as otherwise intelligent as the Pundit would have a hard time seeing the fallacy in the idea that small press = Forge = Swine = Doom. Because that idea is fucking ridiculous.

Here's how I see the entire scenario. Imagine that you and a ton of other people eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. You and some friends get together and eat your peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Usually, you use grape jelly. Sometimes, you branch out into different flavors, or creamy peanut butter instead of crunchy. The sandwiches are produced in vast factories churning out millions of sandwiches within these basic parameters, and sandwich enthusiasts buy and consume with gusto. Everything is fine.

But one day, out of left field, someone arrives with a ham and cheese sandwich. At first, this guy makes his ham and cheese by hand, occasionally putting up signs about it, but mostly relying on word of mouth. Over time, his sandwich-making apparati get bigger and more productive, and PBJ consumers are also trying HAC sammiches. Some of them enjoy the sammiches and consume both, others choose one or the other. Nevertheless, nearly everyone is enjoying their sandwiches.

Any industry, whether it be music, film, literature, RPGs, or sandwiches, once it gets to a certain size, develops their pseudo-intellectual asshats who obsess over "their" industry and try to tell everyone else what they should like, because it's "more sophisticated". You need only visit your local record store or arthouse theater to see them in action. In the case of this particular analogy, the ham and cheese folks start acting arrogant because PBJ is "for kids". PBJ appeals to the less mature palates of children. Ham and cheese is for adult sandwich enthusiasts! And so the schism starts.

With the advent of the SandwichNet, it becomes cheap and easy for anyone to develop their own sandwich, and distribute them. Some are pretty good, like meatball or roast beef. Some are less good, pig's feet and Binaca. And some are flat-out insane, like tire rubber and ground glass. Some have more fillings, some have less. Some folks even eschew filling altogether, and offer some new type of bread-only sandwich where you just imagine the fillings. For the most part, these independent sandwiches are cheap, sometimes even free. They all have a different take on Sandwich Theory. They appeal to different types of sandwich enthusiasts, who usually pick it up to read or play in addition to whatever sandwiches they're already eating. For the most part, these sandwiches aren't going to bring in fresh blood to the sandwich market, or chase the sandwich-curious away. They actually will have very little impact on the sandwich market (as in, the number of people buying and eating sandwiches), because the people who are buying and eating these sandwiches are already sandwich enthusiasts.

I see all this as a good thing. There's the big PBJ companies, there's the middlin'-size ham and cheese company, and there's the small-kitchen, independent sandwich companies rising and falling in the murk. This situation makes it easy for me, a sandwich enthusiast, to buy and consume whatever the fuck sandwich I feel like, when I feel like it. If I don't like the sandwich, I don't buy it again, or any of their other variants like whole wheat with mustard.  If I like it, I buy more.

To finish out this insane analogy, arguing over who has a better sandwich is retarded. And that's what I'm seeing a lot of, from the Pundit[/i] more than anyone. He runs around, screaming that PBJ is the One True Sandwich, the Way and the Light, while ham and cheese is the Devil's Reuben. And the SandwichNet, small-kitchen guys are "Swine", who're trying to "show off". Essentially, that non-PBJ sandwiches are suited only for the same types of assholes as music elitists, who will drive off the light-eaters and sandwich-curious and destroy the entire industry.

What the fuck kind of industry would RPGs be if it was only D20 with different settings? It'd be the strong-arm communist shithole of entertainment.

RPGs are games. Games are entertainment. Entertainment is a fucking subjective thing. I like getting drunk as entertainment, you might not. You might like watching Buffy as entertainment, I hate that goddamned show. We're not talking about the fucking foundation of civilization, we're talking about nerd games where you and a bunch of guys pretend to be fucking elves or whatever.

The Professor is just as guilty of being a closed-minded, loud-mouthed, pretentious bastard as the "Swine" he fulminates and hurls invective upon.  He claims to know what gamers want. He claims to know what's best for the industry. He's setting himself up as the same goddamned Oracle of Gaming that the Swine claim to be, only he's on the other side of the fence, out in D20 country.

You should know better. For all your claims that the Swine are trying to "take away your game" or somehow seize your ability to play a certain way, you're trying to do the same thing to them.

I want a sandwich now...















...what?

What if I like peanut butter and jelly just fine, but prefer red currant jelly and fresh-ground peanut butter? :D

-clash

I'm liking the SandwichNet analogy.

I think your'e being unfair to the Pundit though. I don't think Pundit actually believes what you are saying he believes. He's as much (or more) of an omnivore when gaming is concerned.. as anyone.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm liking the SandwichNet analogy.

I think your'e being unfair to the Pundit though. I don't think Pundit actually believes what you are saying he believes. He's as much (or more) of an omnivore when gaming is concerned.. as anyone.

I agree. Pundit tends to exaggerate for maximum impact, but if you read what he writes, he likes quite a few games, some of them I would never expect.

Look at his avatar! Mark Twain! Twain never could resist a good stretching of the literal truth. Read his masterful description of a coyote in his "Roughing It" for example. By exaggeration, Twain highlights what he wants to highlight, while still leaving it perfectly recognisable as a coyote. Political cartoonists do the same.

-clash

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm liking the SandwichNet analogy.

I think your'e being unfair to the Pundit though. I don't think Pundit actually believes what you are saying he believes. He's as much (or more) of an omnivore when gaming is concerned.. as anyone.

That may very well be. What I see is essentially a vendetta, which helps no one, least of all a whole goddamned industry. But I could be misinterpreting.

Quote from: flyingmiceWhat if I like peanut butter and jelly just fine, but prefer red currant jelly and fresh-ground peanut butter? :D

-clash

I live in Uruguay. I've never tasted peanut butter. *ducks*

:p

What do you feed your children? Mate and bull testicles? :O

:D

-clash

Quote from: JongWKThis is just my opinion, and Pundit has nothing to do with this.

What I was trying to get across was that I can disagree with people on my things, even fundamental things, and still enjoy and learn from what they have to say.  

I try to figure how they're looking at it, and see what they see, and off we go.

Quote from: GeekkakeTo finish out this insane analogy, arguing over who has a better sandwich is retarded.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWhat I was trying to get across was that I can disagree with people on my things, even fundamental things, and still enjoy and learn from what they have to say.  

I try to figure how they're looking at it, and see what they see, and off we go.

Ah, that's ok.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWhat I was trying to get across was that I can disagree with people on my things, even fundamental things, and still enjoy and learn from what they have to say.  

I try to figure how they're looking at it, and see what they see, and off we go.

If only that was how everyone reacted. Unfortunately, it seems like a great deal of people take disagreement on preferred entertainment to be a disparagement of their character. At least in America, where your consumption habits define you as a person.

Quote from: GeekkakeIf only that was how everyone reacted. Unfortunately, it seems like a great deal of people take disagreement on preferred entertainment to be a disparagement of their character. At least in America, where your consumption habits define you as a person.

Ummm...excuse me? Talk about a condescending, holier than thou, ham and cheese comment...

Quote from: ImperatorHi, Pundit. I'm addressing two important points:

No, it doesn't. What it says is this (emphasis mine):

Quote from: Original GNS EssayMy straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated. My goal in this writing is to provide vocabulary and perspective that enable people to articulate what they want and like out of the activity, and to understand what to look for both in other people and in game design to achieve their goals. The person who is entirely satisfied with his or her role-playing experiences is not my target audience.

Look! He's not talking to you! He's not trying to change your gaming! :)

Fixed your emphasis for you.

He's not suggesting that there's a tiny minority of gamers who incorrectly got involved in RPGs thinking they were something other than what they are. He's suggesting that the majority of gamers in fact wanted RPGs to be different then what they are but were too stupid to change it until he came along to bring his wisdom to his intellectual inferiors.

You can't say "most gamers are miserable" and essentially posit that the majority of gamers hate what they're doing, and then dismiss that by saying "if you're perfectly happy then this doesn't apply to you (but you're really in a tiny tiny minority and in fact are probably either lying to yourself about your happiness or too stupid to realize you're miserable)".

QuoteActually, the essay goes a long way to say that there's no "one true way" and the fun obtained in a D&D session is as good as the fun in an OtE session, being the most important thing that everybody is in the same page. Not very offensive, IMO.  

I find the idea that the way I run games and enjoy games is "incoherent" and "dysfunctional play" to be pretty fucking insulting.

QuoteAs I've shown before, the essay states that the unfun gaming is not due to playing a trad game. Is due to a difference in what people wants from the game, which can lead to bad social dynamics. The point of GNS is that a good design of a game will help people to be on the same page, so the experience will be improved. So people don't need to stop playing traditional games, according to GNS essay.

His premise supposes that most traditional games are either only good at doing one thing, or that they're "incoherent", and that to make better games you have to make very focused microgames that only try to support one "style of play".  Which I find about as sensible as arguing that most people get some brief pleasure out of playing hopscotch so we should cut everyone's left leg off at the knee.

QuoteOn the other hand, Edwards uses as examples of good (or coherent) design several classic games as Pendragon, RQ, Prince Valiant or... D&D.

And in the process backhandedly denigrates these games by insinuating that they're only really good at one thing. While he insults other games and the way gamers actually play games like D&D by implying that they're trying to do something that you can't do with that game (or indeed with any game), even though most of us do it all the fucking time.

QuoteThe brain damage thing is not in any way in the GNS essay, pertains to a completely different topic, and well, it doesn't refer to the gamers in general, only to a subsector of gamers.

It was the logical end result of the majority of gamers rejecting his theory. He had to say that gamers are mostly brain-damaged (except the ones who've received GNS "therapy") because that is the only way he can explain why they'd reject GNS without having to admit that GNS is wrong.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIt was the logical end result of the majority of gamers rejecting his theory. He had to say that gamers are mostly brain-damaged (except the ones who've received GNS "therapy") because that is the only way he can explain why they'd reject GNS without having to admit that GNS is wrong.

So much for not talking about GNS. Not exactly unexpected.

Quote from: FeanorUmmm...excuse me? Talk about a condescending, holier than thou, ham and cheese comment...

Some clarification, please. Which part of the statement do you take exception to?

Probably the broad generalization about America, but it's so far from being relevant to this discussion that I think we'd all be best off if the two of you hashed it out via PM.

To riff off of Geekkake's original post, there's also the element that people just tend to be naturally enthusiastic about what they like.  And often they forget to temper that enthusiasm with a context outside of their own experience.  

This isn't unique to gaming.  Just look at threads about music, for example.  Someone will start a thread, saying that they'd like to hear something new to them, and then they list some bands they like.  There's going to be a significant amount of replies that don't really give suggestions based on the context of what the original poster said they liked in music.  

It's not that these people making the suggestions are intentionally being jerks by suggesting music that's not what the original poster wanted.  It's just that they're really, really fond of the music they're suggesting and they don't quite conceptualize that someone else might not dig it as much or at all.  

Likewise in gaming, you can often get people suggesting things that are totally off from what someone actually wants.  

If someone posts that they like to read sword and sorcery books, they like playing D&D, but that they're looking for someone that's more akin to the book they're reading, I could suggest that they pick up Sorcerer & Sword.

But I don't think that's what this hypothetical poster would really want, based on what they said about liking D&D.  There's every chance that they might find Sorcerer & Sword to their liking -- hell, there's every chance I might if I could actually make full sense of Sorcerer in the first place -- bu there's every chance that it'll just strike them as being a completely obtuse recommendation.

But, hey, it goes both ways.  This isn't just a thing that people do with indie games.  It's just that more trad gamers just notice it more when it's something outside of their liking.  I've likewise seem people recommend 3.5 and HERO to people who clearly don't want or need that sort of fiddle 'n' crunch.

What's my point here?  Shit, I don't know.  I'm just killing a few minutes before my special lady friend gets here.

Quote from: RPGPunditI find the idea that the way I run games and enjoy games is "incoherent" and "dysfunctional play" to be pretty fucking insulting.

The only person who has said that you are playing dysfunctionally is you. If you're not, what's the problem?

I read Ron's stuff, went oh yeah, I remember doing that, oh yeah, illusionism, know it well, hmmm, yeah, I have seen a bunch of crap play but that's not us, at least not all the time....

It's called ego. You should get one.

Quote from: gleichmanSo much for not talking about GNS. Not exactly unexpected.

I never said it couldn't be talked about; I said it wasn't meant to be talked about in the Theory section of this forum.  This is the general roleplaying section, where shitting on the Forge (or trying to defend it, if you're of that persuasion) is acceptable.

And so much for "Im leaving forever... again".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd so much for "Im leaving forever... again".

I didn't say forever, just that I wasn't interested for any length of time in a site ran by the likes of yourself, a hypocritical idiot doesn't appeal to me.

You owe this visit to John Kim's journal, I wanted to check out the realism thread. I like the general subject, but good grief that was boring tripe from you- although as usual there some nice points by others.

Quote from: GeekkakeAt least in America, where your consumption habits define you as a person.

How about that one...

EDIT: Sorry Elliot - responded in anger before I saw your what-seemed-on-it's-face-as-sage advice.

However, this is exactly the kind of down-the-nose condescending remark that gets peoples' hackles up. It's the attitude that turns alot of people off of Indie/Forge/whatever new game. I started out looking for theory to investigate an idea I had..ended up at The Forge..and found what looked like a high school cafeteria.  It turned me off of the entire idea.

Now the more I've read (here, ironically!), the more I think some implementations of different games that may (or may not have been) forge-spawned might be an interesting take on gaming. But continuing to put up with that kind of holier-than-thou stuff is just going cause the bozo bit to be flipped....again...

Quote from: FeanorHowever, this is exactly the kind of down-the-nose condescending remark that gets peoples' hackles up. It's the attitude that turns alot of people off of Indie/Forge/whatever new game. I started out looking for theory to investigate an idea I had..ended up at The Forge..and found what looked like a high school cafeteria.  It turned me off of the entire idea.

I had the exact same reaction to RPGPundit.

Quote from: GeekkakeWhat the fuck kind of industry would RPGs be if it was only D20 with different settings? It'd be the strong-arm communist shithole of entertainment.

Congratulations, Sentence! You are now my Sig!

Quote from: GeekkakeWhat the fuck kind of industry would RPGs be if it was only D20 with different settings? It'd be the strong-arm communist shithole of entertainment.

RPGs are games. Games are entertainment. Entertainment is a fucking subjective thing. I like getting drunk as entertainment, you might not. You might like watching Buffy as entertainment, I hate that goddamned show. We're not talking about the fucking foundation of civilization, we're talking about nerd games where you and a bunch of guys pretend to be fucking elves or whatever.

The Professor is just as guilty of being a closed-minded, loud-mouthed, pretentious bastard as the "Swine" he fulminates and hurls invective upon.  He claims to know what gamers want. He claims to know what's best for the industry. He's setting himself up as the same goddamned Oracle of Gaming that the Swine claim to be, only he's on the other side of the fence, out in D20 country.

You should know better. For all your claims that the Swine are trying to "take away your game" or somehow seize your ability to play a certain way, you're trying to do the same thing to them.

Wordy McFucking Word.I like some of the opinions of the Pundit a lot, and I think he's square right in many of his points. But he loses me every time he starts doing everything he accuses others of doing, and doing it far bigger and worst.

Quote from: gleichmanI had the exact same reaction to RPGPundit.

I'm not here to defend anyone, so I won't bite on that. You are, of course, free to state that here, which is one difference between here and the aforementioned high school cafeteria.

It's ironic, because you are one of the reasons I'm now "settled" here. The information on your site, and your insight, was very helpful to me in sorting some things out. Your breakdowns and methods could grow into a serious response that provides "indie" gaming with an alternative theory approach; unpretentious, simple, straightforward ideas to improve research and design.  If you agree with the position that a thriving "indie" sector could help breath life into the overall industry, any competition in thoery is liable to be good for indie, and therefore, the industry.

Quote from: FeanorIt's ironic, because you are one of the reasons I'm now "settled" here. The information on your site, and your insight, was very helpful to me in sorting some things out. Your breakdowns and methods could grow into a serious response that provides "indie" gaming with an alternative theory approach; unpretentious, simple, straightforward ideas to improve research and design.  If you agree with the position that a thriving "indie" sector could help breath life into the overall industry, any competition in thoery is liable to be good for indie, and therefore, the industry.

I agree with you on this point, but I can't agree that this is the site for such an effort.

I was at the Forge from day one, longer than Clinton in fact (at least as far as the published record goes). It started out as unmoderated as this site currently is.

But it too had an site owner with a ego larger then his intellect. One who insisted on slamming other theory concepts and other games. Their first action too was a "request" to posters to alter their subject choice, to match their vision of what a theory forum should be. RPGPundit is a one to one match to the Forge in every single way, except he's open about his contempt for everyone that isn't him.

Oh he hasn't gotten around to editing people's posts to make his side look better yet (to be fair to the Forge, they only pulled that trick once as far as I know). Nor has he started banning anyone or locking threads. This much is currently true.

But his promises on this line are identical to those of the eary Forge. Identical to a younger RPGNet. And I trust them no further.

If he holds to them, it will be for one reason only- because this site doesn't draw enough traffic for it to matter. In fact judging from what I see in 'current active users', the traffic is about half of my last visit. So it appears he'll have little trouble in the forseeable future.

I do wish there was a forum free from moderation and the influence of people like Ron and Pundit. It would be nice to see something besides Forge theory when one is online.

Pehaps some day we'll see such a forum, or perhaps some day someone rational will take over one of the existing ones.

Hm, let's see how much Geekkake's post adds to my sig:

Edit.  Too much sadly.  Sigh.

The problem with the sandwich analogy comes when one of the two groups starts making disparaging comments about the other (see "how Americans are defined" as Exhibit A).

Now: I didn't read that and explode with rage. In fact, I still think the analogy is a reasonably valid one.

However, we need to extend the analogy to make it more solid: groups on both sides of the HAC and PB&J line are sniping at each other--there's a LOT of bad behavior. Playing victim (PB&J ruined my lunches until I switched to HAC). Questionable accusations (HAC is ruining the Jiffy plants world Wide!!). Plain old superiority (PB&J is fine ... if you like it ... HAC is for a more refined pallet so it's not surprising most PB&J'ers don't ... but most non-sand witch guys will when they try it), and so on.

In the dialog there are people who are quite fine with this level of sniping and perpetuate it for whatever reason.

I'm okay with the analogy so long as it expands to include the level of heat in the discussion. As someone who *was* put off by the 90's White-Wolf guys I ran into, I do think that encouraging that attitude in gamer circles *is* actually harmful.

I don't know if it's harmful to the industry--but it could certainly turn me off (I ran the HS D&D club and heard it denounced as a bunch of stupid hack-n-slashers back in the mid-80's. This has been around a long time).

-Marco

Quote from: gleichmanBut it too had an site owner with a ego larger then his intellect. One who insisted on slamming other theory concepts and other games. Their first action too was a "request" to posters to alter their subject choice, to match their vision of what a theory forum should be. RPGPundit is a one to one match to the Forge in every single way, except he's open about his contempt for everyone that isn't him.

You say that like it wasn't a very big difference. It is. Intellectual honesty is a big difference. I'm blatantly open about who and what I hate.

QuoteOh he hasn't gotten around to editing people's posts to make his side look better yet (to be fair to the Forge, they only pulled that trick once as far as I know). Nor has he started banning anyone or locking threads. This much is currently true.

But his promises on this line are identical to those of the eary Forge. Identical to a younger RPGNet. And I trust them no further.

Yet I plan to keep my promises. In the time I've been in charge here I've yet to ban anyone, lock any threads, or edit anyone's posts.

QuoteIf he holds to them, it will be for one reason only- because this site doesn't draw enough traffic for it to matter. In fact judging from what I see in 'current active users', the traffic is about half of my last visit. So it appears he'll have little trouble in the forseeable future.

Actually, our active users and traffic continue to rise.  I was a little worried for a few days about a week back, when we had an unusual downturn in traffic, but it turned out to be a blip.

QuoteI do wish there was a forum free from moderation and the influence of people like Ron and Pundit. It would be nice to see something besides Forge theory when one is online.

Pehaps some day we'll see such a forum, or perhaps some day someone rational will take over one of the existing ones.

Someone like you? Please. You're at least as big an egomaniac and attention whore as either me or Edwards. You're just way more pathetic about it, Eeyore.

RPGPundit

Quote from: gleichmanI agree with you on this point, but I can't agree that this is the site for such an effort.

I could see how it might be inferred, but I did not mean to imply, that this was the one place that non-forge theories could grow to the benefit of everyone.

Pundit my be an egotistical prick.  Hell, I've been accused of the same at various points in my adult life. The question of whether or not this place will turn into a high school cafeteria remains to be seen. Irascible Prick or Really Nice Guy, I'll take him at his word that he will not stifle conversations that go against his view of the gaming world. I've seen the Really Nice Guy in the cafeteria become something akin to a cult leader. Perhaps it's better to trust the Prick for now...

Regardless, I think that we could really push the development of alternate theories and we'd get no interference from Pundit.  Why not take some of the information in your writings and use it to spawn some theory threads here? Perhaps some indie games would be developed based on those ideas and the indie game sector could grow even more.

Or you could wait for others to beg even more...

Quote from: FeanorI could see how it might be inferred, but I did not mean to imply, that this was the one place that non-forge theories could grow to the benefit of everyone.

I'm glad you have that view; for this is the last place we'll see solid non-Forge theories grow.

I'm very willing to accept a invite to another site with a light-handed moderation approach. If any should appear, shoot me a note as I"ll likely be unaware of them otherwise. The old rec.games.frp.advocacy newsgroup would even seem to work, it's basically empty currently and that's the role it used to fill.

I'm willing to take part in what you suggest, but not on this site with its current management (nor of course the Forge).

Quote from: RPGPunditYou say that like it wasn't a very big difference. It is. Intellectual honesty is a big difference. I'm blatantly open about who and what I hate.

The problem is that in the process, you manage to be quite the lawn-crapper yourself.  Your language and opinions don't particularly give the hobby or message board a welcoming or family friendly face.  

In our little tangent about Che Guevara, you mentioned that you though he was a good revolutionary but bad at actually governing.  You position yourself as a revolutionary like Guevara, which leaves open the question of whether you have the temperment to govern in the long run.

As for being open about things, do you think it would really make the traditional lawn-crapper that you complain about any more palatable if they were simply blatantly open about their lack of bathing and poor social skills?  Or is the lack of bathing and the poor social skills the real problem and the denial and lack of honesty about it a secondary concern?

Honesty is nice but honesty isn't the only issue.

I will, however, give you credit for not banning anyone, not locking threads, and not altering messages.  So far so good in that regard.  But I also find it a sad commentary on the state of role-playing message boards that behaving that way is so worthy of notice.

QuoteBut I also find it a sad commentary on the state of role-playing message boards that behaving that way is so worthy of notice.

Sad isn't it?
Freedom is the first victim of human vices. Thus I laud and applaud Pundit`s vices, as they happen to encourage freedom. This is a seldom and precious thing.

Quote from: SettembriniSad isn't it?
Freedom is the first victim of human vices. Thus I laud and applaud Pundit`s vices, as they happen to encourage freedom. This is a seldom and precious thing.

It's a sick world that would ever applaud vice.

You guys are so fucking philosophical it leaves me dumbfounded!

Quote from: gleichmanIt's a sick world that would ever applaud vice.

  It's a dead world that doesn't constantly try to create new forms of vice.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIt's a dead world that doesn't constantly try to create new forms of vice.

Virtue <> Death, and while life is drawn to vice- that is no cause to glorify temptation but is instead is all the more reason to reject it.

It is precisely because life is drawn to vice that life is worth living.  Otherwise all there is to existence is a comfort zone.

Quote from: gleichmanIt's a sick world that would ever applaud vice.

Yet it goes on in the real world every goddamn day.

Welcome to the human race.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIt is precisely because life is drawn to vice that life is worth living.

I have no doubt you believe this is true for you. Pity that.

Quote from: T-WillardYet it goes on in the real world every goddamn day.

Welcome to the human race.

I've been here for quite some time now and am very familar with the failures of mankind. But while there are things I can do little about, the vices of RPGPundit are easy in the extreme to avoid.

Which given how badly traffic has fallen since my last visit, seems to be the course he's driven a lot of people to.

Quote from: gleichmanBut while there are things I can do little about, the vices of RPGPundit are easy in the extreme to avoid.

You're right. It is extremely easy to avoid. You can leave, instead of hovering around, whining like a little bitch. Why you stick around on a board you obviously dislike is beyond me. I can only assume you're some kind of Interbang masochist.

Quote from: gleichmanI've been here for quite some time now and am very familar with the failures of mankind. But while there are things I can do little about, the vices of RPGPundit are easy in the extreme to avoid.

Which given how badly traffic has fallen since my last visit, seems to be the course he's driven a lot of people to.

Again, traffic hasn't fallen at all. We're still averaging 10-15 threads a day, still averaging 5 new members every 2 days, and 150-200 new posts per day. Thinking happy thoughts and wanting to play make-believe that people are abandoning this board in their support for your and in my unpopularity is your perogative (you should probably talk to a shrink about it, though), but it doesn't actually make it so.

A lot of people have wished me failure before, gleichman. Bigger people than you.
They've all been disappointed.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GeekkakeYou're right. It is extremely easy to avoid. You can leave, instead of hovering around, whining like a little bitch. Why you stick around on a board you obviously dislike is beyond me. I can only assume you're some kind of Interbang masochist.

I noted I founded John's links to a subject I normally like reading about and now I'm expressing my disappointment both with RPGPundit's waste of words and how this entire site is dragged down by  his ownership.

Such a waste.

After I've expressed said disppointment (a time honored internet tradition), I'll be moving on again. So don't worry Geekkake, you'll soon be able to return to your favorite passtime of kissing RPGPundit's backside.

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, traffic hasn't fallen at all.

Oh please, at least tell the truth.

I've also counted "currently active users" as well as new and update threads. For the last couple weeks you're tanking. You even admit it yourself in another thread.

As for failure, dude someone with your ego is sure to self-define success to mean whatever curb you manage to stick your nose over. Color me highly unimpressed with everything you've ever done.

If you want a thread to talk about this, Mr. Gleichman, why don't you start one? It's not polite to hijack a thread. Then you can say whatever you want, and anyone interested can read it. I was following the original subject matter of this thread, personally.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceIf you want a thread to talk about this, Mr. Gleichman, why don't you start one? It's not polite to hijack a thread. Then you can say whatever you want, and anyone interested can read it. I was following the original subject matter of this thread, personally.

-clash

You're quite right, I will trouble this thread no more.

Quote from: gleichmanOh please, at least tell the truth.

I've also counted "currently active users" as well as new and update threads. For the last couple weeks you're tanking. You even admit it yourself in another thread.

               threads   posts  users
sept 27th: 1689      26784  881
sept 28th: 1703      27144  883
sept 29th: 1716      27439  885
sept 30th: 1726      27599  888
Oct  1st:   1739      27740  890
Oct 2nd:   1746      27875  892
Oct 3rd:    1756      28032  895

average GROWTH: +9.5 threads per day, +179 posts per day, +2 new users per day.

There. Now you can go fuck yourself with a spoon, you cunt. Go whine and cry like you always do in your pathetic little attention-getting melodrama and tell us all how you're leaving like any of us give a fuck, only don't bother coming back until you've got a set of forums that averages the same or better than ours, you pathetic waste of oxygen.

RPGPundit

Quote from: gleichmanYou're quite right, I will trouble this thread no more.

Thank you. Now hopefully we can discuss the original topic! :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThank you. Now hopefully we can discuss the original topic! :D

-clash

Sandwiches, wasn't it?

Quote from: GeekkakeSandwiches, wasn't it?

Somethin' like that! :D

I like Sammidges!

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditonly don't bother coming back until you've got a set of forums that averages the same or better than ours, you pathetic waste of oxygen.

Oh, cool! "What have you written?" has returned to the thread. Elitists everywhere, rejoice!

Quote from: Christmas ApeOh, cool! "What have you written?" has returned to the thread. Elitists everywhere, rejoice!

Man, don't try to tell me that this is a surprise for you.

I give up. The thread title should be changed to "Mud slingin' and' Name-callin'"

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI give up. The thread title should be changed to "Mud slingin' and' Name-callin'"

-clash

You have my apology for my part in the thread hi-jack.

Perhaps if you re-kicked the thread off in it's own follow-up thread.

Quote from: ImperatorMan, don't try to tell me that this is a surprise for you.

No, not at all. But one can be dismayed by things that aren't surprising.

I also think indie gaming grows, because Adventure Gaming is in a creative slump. Because US-pop culture is in a slump.
All the cool ideas that have been coming from other media have not opened up new adventerous universes. There is no Dune, no Flandry, no Hammer's Slammers, no Star Wars, not even Star Trek. The last thing was Bab 5, I'd say.
There is only Whedony girlfriend compatible universes opened for gaming, and they are way to thematic to actually further Adventure Gaming. Instead of a Traveller revival, Firefly brought us:

"[DitV] My Firefly Game"
or
"[Sorcerer] Buffy: the second pimple"

Threads.

Quote from: gleichmanYou have my apology for my part in the thread hi-jack.

Perhaps if you re-kicked the thread off in it's own follow-up thread.

Yes, and thank you, Gleichman. That was well done.

-clash

Quote from: SettembriniI also think indie gaming grows, because Adventure Gaming is in a creative slump. Because US-pop culture is in a slump.
All the cool ideas that have been coming from other media have not opened up new adventerous universes. There is no Dune, no Flandry, no Hammer's Slammers, no Star Wars, not even Star Trek. The last thing was Bab 5, I'd say.
There is only Whedony girlfriend compatible universes opened for gaming, and they are way to thematic to actually further Adventure Gaming. Instead of a Traveller revival, Firefly brought us:

"[DitV] My Firefly Game"
or
"[Sorcerer] Buffy: the second pimple"

Threads.

Firefly itself isn't particularly thematic, any more than any cowboy movie is. I've played it using the Serenity rules - very non-thematic - and my own traditional system. If people choose to play in the Firefly universe with thematic rules, that's not a reflection on the setting.

Personally, I'd love to see a game based on Cowboy Bebop - to this day the only Anime I even liked, but I didn't just like it, I loved it.

-clash