another rpg industry doomsday article (merged: all 3 "Mishler Rant" threads)

[Saracenus]

<<SNIP>>

20. New technologies such as iPhone apps, virtual tabletops, and augmented reality hint at major paradigm shifts to come.

<<SNIP>>

--Erik

Erik,

I am curious, did you come across the augmented reality (AR) meme like I did from Square Mans' blog (link) or is this something that you and/or Paizo have been thinking about for awhile?

If that wasn't the entry point for you, where did you first come across the AR meme.

Thanks,

 

[Hussar]

I think you've got it backwards. Where it used to cater to a broad church, it now serves a niche taste, such that some of us don't even identify it as D&D anymore.

Potato, potahto.

Eric Mona, in one of these threads, perhaps this one, talks about how the sales of a WOTC book are such that they would consider it a failure to sell similar to what 3pp consider a stellar success.

I would think that would mean that they are catering to the majority don't you?

I'm not talking about quality here at all. Or even whether or not a given person likes the system. Heck, I don't even play 4e. But, when one producer produces more than every other producer combined, then it's pretty disengenious to claim that that producer is the niche.

I'll use the same phrase as before. I do not believe "niche" means what you think it means.

 

[xechnao]

Though you don't specifically mention the OGL here, again we have the ENWorld overestimation of the value of the OGL. Prior to 3E, we had AD&D which was far less flexible and less focused than 3E, though not as focused as 4E. There was no OGL, and TSR's aggression against 3rd parties makes WotC's handling of the OGL/GSL look like tender loving care. D&D was the dominant market leader for this entire time, and the end of the 3E business /creative paradigm is in no way the beginning of the end of D&D.

What 4E has sacrificed is catering to niche tastes, and has done so to better serve their base.

Prior to the OGL, TSR had been trying to expand the versatility of D&D by creating various settings. As D&D was going ahead in a developing market it had to develop versatility if it wanted to remain ahead of competition and stay afloat.

TSR in the end failed. Having reached considerably big proportions as a company and having to experiment at the same time it was natural that it was highly propable it could not manage to find the right formulas to sustain itself.

The market potentials now have been more or less developed. And the market is different. Lots a different with the internet and stuff. But potentially more stable at the same time. These are very important details.

 

[Desdichado]

That is the exact same price cut ratio he was crying about Paizo using. Seems silly to me. I think this guys is crying just to hear the sound of his voice.

The more cynical might be inclined to believe that that was his intention all along; drive traffic to his blog via controversial posts, then "oh, hey, while you're here, have I got a deal for you!"

 

[rounser]

I would think that would mean that they are catering to the majority don't you?

Nope. It only proves that the brand name is powerful.

I think the majority would initially trust the book which has that name on it to be D&D. Some subset of the former audience would be happy with what was offered, and another maybe realise that it didn't do what it said on the tin in living up to their expectations of what that name implied, leading to a significant and ongoing fracturing of the D&D community. Kind of like what has happened, maybe.

 

[xechnao]

I was more questioning your "fact" that "4e being a more focused and less versatile game" is even remotely true. Personally, I don't find 4e any more focused or any less versatile.

Obviously, YMMV and all that.

But, on your second point, I also don't mistake Internet rage with having any real impact on the hobby. I recognize that we are a very small part of the gaming community (though not an unimportant one) and the "fragmentation" that you see between various pundits is more much ado about nothing than any sort of real effect.

I have not seen any hard evidence that 4e is failing. I've seen lots of anecdotal stuff in both directions, but, nothing concrete. Until such time as we see anything concrete, very little of what you, I or anyone else thinks about the "state of the hobby" is anything more than posturing from a position of ignorance.

I think you have been misunderstanding what I am saying. 4e may be performing as to reach the biggest success levels Wotc has put. I am not saying it is failing here. I am saying that the borrowed time of reinventing D&D so to keep it a commercial success in the gaming community has been running out. If tabletops want to remain relevant as an industry the propulsion model has to change. It has to be remade as a fitting and functional model on a ship that manages to stay afloat by itself so it can rest when needed without risking to sink.

 

[Hussar]

Nope. It only proves that the brand name is powerful.

I think the majority would initially trust the book which has that name on it to be D&D. Some subset of the former audience would be happy with what was offered, and another maybe realise that it didn't do what it said on the tin in living up to their expectations of what that name implied, leading to a significant and ongoing fracturing of the D&D community. Kind of like what has happened, maybe.

Well, you're certainly welcome to your interpretation. Me, I'll stick with the English language when discussing things and not try to reinvent words simply to make a point. If the majority are buying a particular product, then that product BY DEFINITION is not a niche product.

But, hey, I absolutely, positively know that nothing I say is going to make the slightest dent in the welded steel trap you have constructed out of your version of the facts, so, let's just agree to disagree shall we?

I think you have been misunderstanding what I am saying. 4e may be performing as to reach the biggest success levels Wotc has put. I am not saying it is failing here. I am saying that the borrowed time of reinventing D&D so to keep it a commercial success in the gaming community has been running out. If tabletops want to remain relevant as an industry the propulsion model has to change. It has to be remade as a fitting and functional model on a ship that manages to stay afloat by itself so it can rest when needed without risking to sink.

I'm confused. What industry out there can afford to remain at rest. Name a single product that has no need to change, reinvent itself, be modified or otherwise re-evaluated periodically.

In RPG's that means new editions. That is the only way you can go forward. There is no other way. I suppose you could continually try to tinker your way into new areas by modifying existing rules sets, but, eventually, that's going to bite you in the ass.

NOTHING remains static. Everything changes. It's swim or drown in every single industry. Why should RPG's be any different?

 

[MrMyth]

The more cynical might be inclined to believe that that was his intention all along; drive traffic to his blog via controversial posts, then "oh, hey, while you're here, have I got a deal for you!"

Which, honestly, is a bit ridiculous. I mean, I disagree with a large portion of what he had to say, and think his responses to the criticism became ever more unreasonable...

...but the dropping of the price on that product was clearly intended as part of his point. Presumably he'll sell the item for cheap in an effort to prove how much value he ends up losing in the long run from this process, as a follow-up on his criticism of Paizo.

I think it is silly and likely to backfire on him regardless of the results, but I think it seems the most likely explanation - certainly far more so than claims that this entire thing was a conspiracy to shill a product, or that he is a hypocrite for making this sudden sale, despite the context of the situation making it obvious the sale was intended as some form of commentary on the situation already under discussion.

 

[xechnao]

I'm confused. What industry out there can afford to remain at rest. Name a single product that has no need to change, reinvent itself, be modified or otherwise re-evaluated periodically.

All of the living industries have static power. Food industry, entertainment industry etch all are static in the big picture. As of relevant entertainment products, sports for example remain mostly the same. Board games, that are more close to tabletop rpgs have various examples from Monopoly to chess. Gleemax was a business idea build around this logic. It failed due to technical problems. RPGs are distinct and versatile enough that can have their classic time-resistant representative powers.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Mishler is known in the industry, even if many fans don't know him by name. He's a member of the "cabal", my code word for the game designers who made the "secret mailing list". So I doubt this was any sort of deliberate trolling--he was simply answering somebody's honest questions and he got

As far as GURPS goes, I'm a fan, but I'm not sure GURPS is as healthy as it once was. I remember when they were releasing 6-8 supplements a year or so and the amount of stuff coming out has really dwindled over this decade. I think they were the victim of the d20 glut--as more d20 games got popular they suffered. I'm disapppointed because I loved GURPS, but wish they'd make more supplements.