What is wrong (and right) in the RPG Industry?

Double post... :\

Wolv0rine said:

"Hmm... how's the new 'Wax my ass Barbie' coming along? We need to get another straight to DVD cartoon to the shelves for that one."

Click to expand...

A cartoon of Barbie waxing her ass?

Uh...is that, like, in the stores already?

I'm just, y'know...curious...


I'm really finding it hard to get excited about the recent outpouring of "THE END IS EXTREMELY ING NIGH!" threads.

RPGs started out as a part-time business for a handful of gonzo afficionados, and chances are that when the last boom goes bust, that's where RPGs will return, only with the advantages of self-publishing and distribution provided by personal computers and the Internet respectively.

I certainly don't wish ill to anyone who makes their living producing gaming material, but if every company - the good and the bad and the merely inane - all went belly up tomorrow, there would still be cool roleplaying games to play for decades to come.

The single biggest, most severe, numero uno problem facing RPGs--as an entity and as a market--is the complete lack of any true* effort at capturing a new generation of market base.

Click to expand...

I agree with that theory, but I don't agree on the following posts about rules simplicity and so on. I think there is a bad trend here to look at non-gamers and think they are more stupid than us. I think that the key is accessibility yes, but that doesn't mean you have to have the simplest mechanics around. Accessibility means organization of the contents, packaging and layout, the way the game is written and explained to the reader, as well as the way the game itself is accessible, how and where, what you need to play right away, and so on.

When you give a half baked game like the Basic Game to kids, they'll make two or three adventures out of the thing and will run out of stuff to play with. Because the minis, the maps are in limited number. The BG is geared toward one thing: get the kids to buy the core rulebooks right away. And that's the mistake that has been made IMO. The miniature game does that way better. The Basic Game should have been a red box with 40/50 pages of rules, 40/50 pages of GM advice and a short module to start things with, organized in a way that promotes the drawing of maps, the imagination, and so on. Those hooked would buy the three core rulebooks sooner or later, afterwards. But the goal of the BG was a short term concern instead of a long term strategy.

I also think that our game is in GREAT shape, mainly because of WotC, and because of the OGL. So I empathize with the original poster of this thread: "Sky falling" topics are bothersome, that's right.

I also agree that introducing new people to the game is the responsability of the gamer as well, and not only the publisher. Instead of searching for seasoned gamers, it is much more interesting personally and more productive for the hobby to create your own gaming group and have a good time with friends.

Mark CMG said:

Too many chefs?

Click to expand...

Seconded and third'd

Odhanan said:

I agree with that theory, but I don't agree on the following posts about rules simplicity and so on. I think there is a bad trend here to look at non-gamers and think they are more stupid than us. I think that the key is accessibility yes, but that doesn't mean you have to have the simplest mechanics around. Accessibility means organization of the contents, packaging and layout, the way the game is written and explained to the reader, as well as the way the game itself is accessible, how and where, what you need to play right away, and so on.

Click to expand...

Why assume that's what I mean, though? "Simpler" doesn't have to mean "simplest".

But yes, to some degree, simpler is absolutely necessary. The sheer quantity of rules and numbers is a huge barrier to entry for some people who are only somewhat curious about the game. I've seen it myself, a great many times.

I don't assume people are stupid in this regard. I assume--and everything I've seen bears it out--that people want to the greatest fun-to-work ratio they can get, and they're nervous about a game that looks like a textbook.

I also don't believe that a "simple" game has to be half-baked. I believe, whole-heartedly, that it would be possible to design a "Basic" D&D game that was far simpler but still complete. No, it wouldn't provide as comprehensive a rules set (negative), but it would be a lot easier for the casual gamer to master (positive). And of course, they'd always have the option of moving up if they wanted to.

Finally, I don't believe someone has to believe "the sky is falling" to be concerned about growing the market for the sake of the industry's future.

Id like to reiterate that it all begins and ends with the distribution system.

Thoughts on selling in wider venues, making better products so the books sell moreand similar ideas are all well and good, but if the publisher never gets paid for books sold, what difference does it make how many he sells?

This is the current problem and it almost took out a couple of companies in the very recent past. Companies that *were* fulfilling the desires of the marketplace, made profitable books (on paper) and then never got paid.

Imo everything else is window dressing, its like discussing what color you'd like to paint a burning house before you've managed to put out the fire.

Chuck

they're nervous about a game that looks like a textbook

Click to expand...

Not only that: a cross between a textbook and a particularly embarassing comic book--in other words, at first, blush, you have to do homework to act immaturely.

With, at minimum, a double stigma, RPGs do not make for the easiest product to market.

We're constantly hearing, about every 3-6 months, that something new has spelled the end for the RPG industry.

Click to expand...

We're hearing this, because people are confused about what role-playing games can be.

They can't ever be big. They just can't. RPGs are just too bizarre.

Consider the development of actual pencil-and-paper role-playing games against how long both dice and story-telling have been around. Why did it take so long?

Because they're a strange, unintuitive, difficult thing to do.

Role-playing games are not at all like telling stories or throwing dice; they are unique in gaming. And the audience for them is and always will be small. We're talking about a very particular subset of well-educated, middle-class people bored in a certain way that endears them to RPGs.

There shouldn't be any problem with that, but the second generation of role-players has screwed things up. They're bringing expectations and practices of professionalism that run counter to the nature of what RPGs are--with the results you see.

You've got, for example, a guy like Dancey half-jokingly suggesting that WoW owes D&D money, while a guy like Mearls half-seriously muses over how great it would be if a number of his competitors got out of the business, but still continued to provide him with ideas that he could sell.

You can almost see the sweat on their upper lips. They're bringing professional pressures and their concomitant anxieties to an enterprise that can never bear them.

Yes; all kinds of video games and sci-fi and movies and what have you have been influenced by RPGs. So what? How does that entail that RPGs should enjoy the success of, say, video games? Or that RPGs should adhere to the same business model as toys?

No; the business of RPGs takes place in a rarefied market. It will always produce great ideas and other industries, real industries, will always make better economic use of them. It's a vanguard market; it's experimental; and it will never be the kind of thing that Warren Buffet would take notice of.

It takes an odd person to want to invest the time RPGs require to reap the fun RPGs deliver. There won't ever be enough odd people to prop up the skies of this business. It has to be satisfied with an entirely different kind of growth.

I don't assume people are stupid in this regard. I assume--and everything I've seen bears it out--that people want to the greatest fun-to-work ratio they can get, and they're nervous about a game that looks like a textbook.

Click to expand...

Then I agree.

Finally, I don't believe someone has to believe "the sky is falling" to be concerned about growing the market for the sake of the industry's future.

Click to expand...

I get that as well. Nothing wrong with it, so long as we remember we are in a good situation right now, and try to understand why it is that we are in such a good situation right now.

Wrong?

The distribution system. No question, in my mind.