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

[JohnRTroy]

Companies that are basically one dude with some desktop publishing software working out of his basement, or who only do PDFs, or who can't get the interest and attention of honest-to-god hobby distributors like Alliance or ACD are completely screwed out of participation in the "industry," and frankly aren't really a part of it.

You would actually be surprised at this being the status of other publishers. Many of the so-called "big names" are like this. The other "dudes" are freelancers.

A lot of them don't admit this, but I found out a few you'd think are "big names" could fall into jepoardy if something happened. About the only person I see admitting this publicly is Clark Peterson of Necromancer games. There are several shops out there who would be in trouble if something happened to their spouse or day-job.

It's hard to see that with the authority being a publisher can do. All you have to do is have a good website and use official language such as the public "we" and you're a professional.

You would have to ask publishers this list of questions to find out.

* Do you work on the publishing full-time without doing any other work, or do you have a second job to supplement your income, or numerous freelance gigs inside or outside of writing not related to your publishing career?

* Are you married or living with somebody? Does your spouse work? Does your spouse make more than you? Do you have kids?

* Are you retired, on disability, or getting any other government assistance to supplement your income?

* Did you win the lottery or have any other windfalls of income?

* Are you living with family members?

* Are you making a living wage? Or are you suffering for your art?

Assuming they would answer these questions, since in some aspects it's not our business, but let's say somebody was willing to take the test. My bet would be many would not be able to answer all of the first five with "no".

It would be tough to guess. I know WoTC and White Wolf have full-time staff. I suspect Paizo has enough money for a staff, and Steve Jackson Games. I remember finding out from Gary Gygax that his publisher partners (TLG and Inner City Games) were partially funded by spouses--in other words, key people can work full time because their spouse makes enough "real world" money so salary isn't an issue.

We know Clark Peterson of Necromancer isn't depending on his stuff for his income. I'd suspect people like Mishler and GMS couldn't pass the "5 nos" test, as well as many people who are publishers here in the publishing forum. It makes me wonder what places like Green Ronin are like.

PDFs, regardless of price, are no more a "loss leader" for the print version of a game product than an iTunes download, vinyl or cassette album is a "loss leader" for the CD.

I know when I used the term loss leader I meant comparing PDFs to other PDFs. While James also mentioned cannibalization, I think he had a key point, that a $10 PDF of as high quality as Pathfinder can make it look to the public that PDFs are overpriced. And he did make good points into the fixed costs of publishing. There are some good points he did make, even if all of them aren't as solid as I once thought.

 

[catsclaw227]

Something like this:

Thanks for saving me the trouble of cutting and pasting that reply, TCO!

That's sorta what I thought. I was wondering if rounser had seen it, even though it was posted earlier.

I don't see the refutation, here. It's trading off of a name, yes I agree. But the game design has arguably changed quite dramatically from including a broad church of play styles to a rather narrow niche (e.g. long gamist tactical combats based on miniatures).

The 4e I play has a lot more elements to it that just "long gamist tactical combats based on miniatures". As a matter of fact it has as many different things going on as it did when I was DMing and playing 3e. And quite frankly, my 4e game acts more like my old AD&D games, though the combat adds more of a tactical element than in my 1e past.

I am not sure who DMed your 4e game, but did you play it as a one shot or a campaign with story (or sandbox) and a consistent, cohesive, ongoing series of game sessions?

But I didn't quote you to mention that, as I am still baffled by your comment that 4e D&D is a niche product in the RPG industry. Seriously, do you really believe that?

 

[rounser]

But I didn't quote you to mention that, as I am still baffled by your comment that 4e D&D is a niche product in the RPG industry. Seriously, do you really believe that?

No, I think that it's niche game design, whereas D&D's game design used to support a broader church of play styles (probably more through good luck than good judgement). IMO it's extremist in design philosophy and resulting play style, and is viable I think in spite of that. Some will pat it on the back for focus, others rubbish it for the compromises and babies thrown out with the bathwater made in attaining that focus. i.e. IMO it's narrower and caters less for a broad church of play styles than what D&D's audience have grown to expect from D&D.

 

[Intense_Interest]

To reverse the scenario as a rhetorical question, would 4E have sunk without a trace without that name to bouy it?

There is no way anyone could possibly answer this question.

 

[Vigilance]

This has been soundly refuted in other threads. OD&D didn't assume the use of miniatures, most didn't use them, and even said it didn't in the text. It offered little tactical options, and had swift combat resolution. 4E is the odd man out here, much as wishful thinking and assumption would have it otherwise.

Ok, first, OD&D most definitely assumed miniatures.

The cover of OD&D, which I am looking at right now, says "Rules for fantastic medieval wargames playable with paper, pencil and miniature figures".

Spell ranges and areas are also given in inches. No mention is made of feet.

Measuring in inches was how miniature movement was handled in those days. It's every bit as much an assumption that minis will be used as giving movement and ranges in squares.

Only difference is OD&D using inches assumes you're moving minis on a tabletop, using a ruler, rather than on some map grid.

Character movement for a human is listed as "6 inches". Again, no feet conversion is even given.

In book 3 of OD&D, we finally get our first mention of converting inches to feet, where it is specifically mentioned that "in the underworld" (ie in dungeons) you convert inches to feet.

And of course, why would you go to feet "in the underworld"? Because that *is* the place where you are going to be consulting a map with a grid perhaps?

Sorry, but D&D's roots have always been as a miniature game. The only edition that even TRIED to separate itself from the game's wargaming roots was 2nd edition.

 

[rounser]

Ok, first, OD&D most definitely assumed miniatures.

The cover of OD&D, which I am looking at right now, says "Rules for fantastic medieval wargames playable with paper, pencil and miniature figures".

It was only called that "because we didn't know what else to call it", according to one of Gygax's players (RPG as a term hadn't been coined at that stage), and the text explicitly says that the rules don't assume the use of minis. And fantasy minis mostly did not exist back then, and the majority of groups didn't use minis at all, on the advice of people who were there. Your assumptions are wrong, explicitly refuted by people who were there. Don't drag this dead horse out for another beating, your arguments have been refuted before, and are based on assumption.

 

[Vigilance]

It was only called that "because we didn't know what else to call it", according to one of Gygax's players, and the text explicitly says that the rules don't assume minis. RPG as a term hadn't been coined. And fantasy minis mostly did not exist back then, and the majority of groups didn't use minis at all, on the advice of people who were there. Your assumptions are wrong, explicitly refuted by people who were there. Don't drag this dead horse out for another beating, your arguments have been refuted before, and are based on assumption.

No, they're based on the text of the books.

Seriously, I dont care how others played the game.

Its hardly an "assumption" on my part to go by the rules as written.

You saying its an "assumption" of me to RTFM just because some old-timers didnt use minis?

There have ALWAYS been people who didnt.

But the books always were written for minis.

Its no harder to handwave movement and ranges in 3e than it was in 1e, based on MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

I suppose you'll tell me my personal experience is wrong, just like me bothering to read the books is an "assumption".

 

[Menexenus]

C'mon Erik!

Yep, I call it .

The difference between me and you is that I'm staking a successful company on it, and you are pulling guesses out of your ass on the internet.

I just saw Erik's reply to Mishler's second post (above). Erik, I think you owe it to yourself to apologize. The guy is simply stating his view and backing it up with his well-considered and carefully laid-out reasons. Of course, you don't have to agree with his conclusions. (I don't. I think he's way too pessimistic about the state of the overall economy. He thinks we're in a Depression and considers a Japanese style "lost decade" to be a best case scenario.) Heck, you don't even have to respond to them! You could just ignore him. Instead, the response you did give (on his website to his post) was rather insulting and mean-spirited. While you may not like what he said about the implications he thought Paizo's PDF pricing would have for the industry as a whole, nothing he said was personal or petty, and it didn't deserve the response you gave it.

I'm sure what you wrote was written in the heat of the moment. (I know there are a number of things I've written over the years in posts and emails that I wish I could "unwrite".) I'm also sure you're a better person than the way you came off in that post. As an impartial observer who doesn't know either one of you, I think you owe the guy an apology.

I hope you'll think about it, Erik. (You might be surprised how good it actually feels to give someone a sincere apology. I know I have been!)

 

[Thanlis]

It was only called that "because we didn't know what else to call it", according to one of Gygax's players, and the text explicitly says that the rules don't assume minis. RPG as a term hadn't been coined. And fantasy minis mostly did not exist back then, and the majority of groups didn't use minis at all, on the advice of people who were there. Your assumptions are wrong, explicitly refuted by people who were there. Don't drag this dead horse out for another beating, your arguments have been refuted before, and are based on assumption.

The text says:

"LAND COMBAT: The basic system is that from CHAINMAIL, with one figure representing one man or creature." (Page 25, Underworld & Wilderness Adventures.)

It also says, on the same page:

"PLAYING AREA: Paper counters and a hexagon or staggered-square playing board should be used in those cases where it is not possible to use miniatures figures."

The mention of paper counters is fascinating, because the quote typically used to prove that D&D didn't use miniatures is this:

"Minature figures can be added if the players have them available and so desire, but miniatures are not required, only esthetically pleasing." (Page 5, Men & Magic.)

Except people often skip the context. That sentence continues: "Similarly, unit counters can be employed -- with or without figures -- although by themselves the bits of cardboard lack the eye-appeal of the varied and brightly painted miniature figures."

I interpret that as meaning that you use figures, but if you don't have figures, it's cool -- you can use unit counters instead. I think that interpretation is borne out by the text from U&WA, which clearly says that you use those counters if you don't have minis.

Now. Did players of the time actually use miniatures or cardboard counters all the time? I dunno, I wasn't there; I wouldn't be surprised if the play evolved away from the rules as written. Play always does. But the text of the original booklets is not terribly ambiguous.

 

[rounser]

No, they're based on the text of the books.

The text of the OD&D books explicitly tells you that the rules do not assume use of miniatures! And the usual way to play was without them! All you've done is draw out assumptions based on what you're reading into the text based on what you want to believe, when the book itself and people who were there explicitly contradict you. Your argument seems plausible to the casual observer, but people who were there have told us that what you're suggesting isn't true.