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

[Vigilance]

GURPS is still around and doing well isn't it? (I've never played it myself, but I see a lot of people talking about it online)

It is, but GURPs, while "generic", is hardly world-less.

In fact, GURPs is a successful example of having TONS of worlds for your game and not getting drowned by them.

GURPs does their worldbooks as one-offs. They have additional crunch that could be applicable to your game no matter where its set, and they also require nothing but the core book to use.

TSR tried to turn each world into its own full product line, with its own PHB and Monster Manual.

 

[malkav666]

He could try to pass it off as "Argh! See what Paizo is forcing me to do because they sell for so low!"

But his blog already stated it was for the "wedding sale". My opinion of the man's expertise based on the commentary and "facts" he has provided are already not so hot. If he started changing his stories and motives around that would be the end of all credibility in my eyes. But thats just me, I make no attempt to speak for others.



love,

malkav

 

[Hussar]

It is, but GURPs, while "generic", is hardly world-less.

In fact, GURPs is a successful example of having TONS of worlds for your game and not getting drowned by them.

GURPs does their worldbooks as one-offs. They have additional crunch that could be applicable to your game no matter where its set, and they also require nothing but the core book to use.

TSR tried to turn each world into its own full product line, with its own PHB and Monster Manual.

Actually, I would argue that GURPS is very "world less". Like you say, the tons of worlds are not linked to each other, nor are the rules even remotely linked to any world. GURPS is the true generic in every sense of the word. There certainly is no meta-plot a la Mechwarrior or World of Darkness to be found in the core GURPS books.

 

[Hussar]

/snip In fact, 4e being a more focused and less versatile game shows that the cycle of the business model D&D has had so far has been closing as a long living entity of a certain traditional identity.

I do not think the word "fact" means what you think it means.

 

[xechnao]

"wouldn't be great if OFFICIAL D&D just went back and reprinted the the 1e, the 2e, OD&D, etc. rules...."

They are dreaming about a top market position for their preferred D&D iteration on D&D's edition wheel model. The problem though is that this wheel is made to go round, not go ahead. What I am saying is that such a wheel at some point will either turn full cycle or its turning gears will be consumed in the process and in the end, in each case, it will have to stop moving.

 

[xechnao]

I do not think the word "fact" means what you think it means.

Then I ask you to rethink. Look around at the internet and tell me that D&D is not starting to face more and more fragmentation at this point.

 

[Saracenus]

The second blog is an really interesting article and I wonder if Gleemax in it original conception was meant to foster that user generated content?

I may be wrong but it was my impression that Gleemax was supposed to be a social networking site for Gamers of all stripes with the added benefit of being a Safe Harbor for producing (for free) content based on WotC IP (i.e. Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Mystra, Al Quadim, etc.) and your own private material.

WotC would get rights to that content if you posted it on their website.

Gleemax over promised and waaaaaaaaaay under delivered. Basically there were sites out there that were doing Web 2.0 that could be adapted quicker and more feature rich than Gleemax could without handing over your rights to WotC.

Now, we have things like iplay4e.com and Obsidianportal.com doing things that Gleemax only dreamed.

I think that DDI is a small step in the right direction but it is handicapped by you are in or you are out subscription system. I think they would make more money and get wider adoption by releasing a free, working core kernal of the game and then offering specials, additions, and upgrades using micro payments.

Basically a the first hit is free model.

Having re-read Square Mans' The Inevitable Future of Tabletop Gaming again I am more convinced that unless WotC and D&D start opening up their IP to broaden its acceptance instead of ratcheting down with things like the GSL they are providing an opportunity for another company or start-up to claim the Micro payment/Augmented Reality model and leave pen and paper D&D in the dust with young tech-savvy gamers.

BTW, Ryan Dancy poked his head in the comments section of Square Mans blog. He is pretty bullish on the idea of a smart phone driven gaming space.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Your quote is out of context. I am talking about the principal perspectives of the gaming market. Brand name is a value, but the entertainment and creative markets are by their nature volatile. D&D has remained relevant in the market so far only by trying to keep reinventing parts of itself but this cant go on for ever. In fact, 4e being a more focused and less versatile game shows that the cycle of the business model D&D has had so far has been closing as a long living entity of a certain traditional identity.

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.

 

[Hussar]

Then I ask you to rethink. Look around at the internet and tell me that D&D is not starting to face more and more fragmentation at this point.

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.

 

[rounser]

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

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.