Why DO Other Games Sell Less?

[seskis281]

Yes, I think you are overlooking something.

Most game publisher's primary interest isn't selling a lot of books. Yes, they do hope for that. They want to do that. However, it's not their primary goal.

Their primary goal is to get their vision into print. They want to put their mark on the hobby. They don't sit down and say "what would sell in this market?" They say "I have this product I want to produce, and I hope it will sell."

I would wager 95% of the companies in the RPG industry are like this. The only company I'm sure is in the "what would sell in this market" group is WotC. I'm not certain of any others. Even a luminary like Monte Cook puts out his products because those are the products he wants to release.

I think this is a fair statement about game designers , but publishers are often a breed apart unless they are designers and they've got an individual name recognition to make a small company run.

 

[Umbran]

I would wager 95% of the companies in the RPG industry are like this. The only company I'm sure is in the "what would sell in this market" group is WotC. I'm not certain of any others. Even a luminary like Monte Cook puts out his products because those are the products he wants to release.

Yes, but you can probably bet that in any company where the management and the designers are separate people, this won't be the case. WotC, White Wolf, and Steve Jackson Games, I'm sure, are all concerned with the bottom line. In terms of market share, that's most of the publishers right there.

 

[rgard]

Yes, but you can probably bet that in any company where the management and the designers are separate people, this won't be the case. WotC, White Wolf, and Steve Jackson Games, I'm sure, are all concerned with the bottom line. In terms of market share, that's most of the publishers right there.

Yes, and a designer without a publisher is just another guy with a homebrew system.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Glyfair]

I think this is a fair statement about game designers , but publishers are often a breed apart unless they are designers and they've got an individual name recognition to make a small company run.

Except most publishers are game designers. Sure, they may not be designing all the games they publish, but they are game designers. Steve Jackson I'm sure was a game designer. Not sure about the White Wolf, but I was under the impression the management were all game designers. WotC is the only company I know has a publisher that isn't a game designer.

That publisher might not publish a game that he feels won't do well. However, very few will go out and say "the market is dying to buy this, let's go find someone willing to design it."

 

[eyebeams]

Oops, missed that bit of comedy.

Pure Ron. Just when I didn't think the hair could get any thinner you take another run at it. That's what I said.

Are you actually capable of participating without indulging in this kind of rhetoric?

So even when D&D, or some other RPG, cocks something up really bad and the designer goes and builds it differently it is all about. Um, D&D?

Your sentence explains *exactly* how it is influenced by D&D.

You cited a partial excert from the flavoury text, and then left out the part that Strike is 'sprinked in' in scripts. As opposed to the norm, because if all you did was Strike and move you butt would be on a platter.

You're confusing the game mechanic with the strategy used to employ it.

Strike's simplicity exists because it's the option that cleaves closest to the basic task resolution system. Other options automatically bring other traits into play and Strike does not.

Of course there isn't an example for using Lock on a stationary target. Why would you try to Lock, or Counterstrike, or Block a stationary target? It would be like saying "I use my Dodge on the Gazebo", only not quite as funny.

You've just reiterated the basic assumption I'm talking about. That statement is the basic assumption inherent in a model of combat based on striking.

What? You'll need to come up with a quote and/or try explain this because that's not what my book says on page 171.

Page 171 reiterates the Strike mechanic (roll vs. Ob1), not the use of Natural Defenses or secondary opposed contests or other variations inherent to things like Lock.

This is real wacky; I bet you think you're defending The Burning Wheel or something even though there's no value judgment inherent in the discussion at all.

 

[eyebeams]

Not sure what you mean. Early editions of D&D has a large number of bizarre scaling issues that come directly from its wargame roots. Many rules made no sense at all when applied to individuals.

*nods*

Even the "I attack, I hit, here is your damage" mechanic of D&D is simply a straightforward wargame mechanic that already existed in various forms. D&D pushed the scale to the extreme. In some cases the scaling broke, but we did not care because we were having fun, and innovation followed from looking at the broken pieces.

What I'm saying is that wargames don't necessary care whether or not unit members trample people to death, stab them or whatever except in specific situations like polearms vs. cavalry.

FREX, the margin of difference between unconsciousness and death has been strangely thin in all editions of D&D. That is a direct application of a mass combat mentality where we really put no thought into units that have completely lost cohesion as they do not affect the outcome of the battle.

Interesting insight.

It would look like some kind of generic opposed skill check, which may or may not use an normal initiative system. This kind of thing actually appears in some games, such as Shadowrun in places, to name one.

I'm not sure. I think an opposed skill check can be a lot of stuff, but the *meaning* of the a basic combat role would be different. Again, I think striking is so ingrained that it'd take some fiddling about to figure out what this might be.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The 'it was first' arguement still has a lot of merit, but that only gets you so far.

That goes without saying...even though I did say it.

First just gives you all the advantages in the race to control the marketplace. You still have to support your product with all the stuff your product needs to succeed- you still have to "manage your brand." If Coke hadn't done that, Pepsico would be the #1 beveredge company in the world. Sears didn't, and was overtaken by Wal-Mart and Amazon.

In the case of RPGs, you do that with supplements to whet the appetite and illuminate the path for those who will eventually design their own stuff, and responding to the game mechanic improvements of your competition with improvements of your own, etc.

I think D&D is a lucky accident with the right mix of rules complexity coupled with a genre that combines ease of introduction (almost everyone knows a little something about the middle ages), and the ability for the character themselves to Do Cool Stuff (this is why most every other RPG genre has remained a tiny niche: Sci-Fi isn't about you yourself Doing Cool Stuff - it's about what your tech can do for you - and in the other major genres (westerns and spy games) you're just a normal guy - the only other genre that offers tha ability to personally Do Cool Stuff is superheroes and that is a niche genre if there ever was one - too few people 'get' superheroes or want to have anything to do with them).

I think that the quasi-(GLOBAL)historical aspect of most FRPGs in general significantly aids in their popularity. Westerns, while quasi-historical, appeal mainly to Americans because they only model a few short decades of the American frontier, ignoring EVERYTHING else. Spy stuff is still a (growing) niche in fiction, so its still growing as a game.

Superheroes? Well, they suffer from a combination of the "nerd" stigma and the lingering hangover of what happened to the source genre in America in the 1950's.

Since 3E, most of the people I know are of the opinion 'why should we bother learning anything else at all?'

I'll agree with that, but not for the same reasons- I just know too many gamers who are opposed to playing anything besides D&D.

There's still room for other systems.

Amen!

 

[Hussar]

A point that was made earlier that should be reiterated was the support D&D, in all its editions, give to the group, namely modules.

What other gaming system could I play weekly for the next five years without creating a single adventure? I could easily do this with D&D. Right now, I could probably buy enough modules to carry weekly games for the next decade of play. Granted, the games wouldn't be all that great, but, they'd probably be fun.

It's been said repeatedly that modules are a loss for the publisher. They don't make any money. However, I think that ignores one important thing. If there's a bunch of modules out there for game X, you can attract the less than hardcore gamers to come and buy your core books and play. In all honesty, the guys like me who don't have the time, energy and ability to create great or even all that good adventures.

For a hundred bucks, I could get enough adventures to last me for several hundred hours of gaming. No other game system is this well supported and I think this plays very heavily into the popularity of D&D, in any of its editions. Heck, when 2e kept blurting out campaign settings and pathetic modules, TSR went down the tubes. 1e and 3e have massive module support and are going very, very strongly.

I don't know if there is a strong correlation there, but, it's certainly not bad circumstantial evidence.

 

[sullivan]

Page 171 reiterates the Strike mechanic (roll vs. Ob1), not the use of Natural Defenses or secondary opposed contests or other variations inherent to things like Lock.

But that is the Weapons chapter. It isn't the combat chapter. Lock doesn't need to be there because it is so simple it was wrapped up in it's own descrpition.

Sure Strike forms part of the basis for some other combat actions, such as Great Strike and Counterstike. Thus the name similarity. But Counterstrike is actually a combination action of Block and Strike. But Block (which is also a weapon use) isn't based on Strike in anyway. It is an equal action with equal standing. Nor is Lock based on Strike, nor Push. The later two don't even use the same dice source as Strike.

Once again, the focus is yours. Not the actual text.

EDIT The kicker being that Fight! isn't the base itself. It is derived from Duel of Wits. The social conflict mechanism of the game, for those following at home.

This is real wacky; I bet you think you're defending The Burning Wheel or something even though there's no value judgment inherent in the discussion at all.

This is wacky, you think I'm defending the Burning Wheel? Why would you think I imagine there is something to defend against?

Are you actually capable of participating without indulging in this kind of rhetoric?

Given what you have demonstrated so far? Nah, I really can't take you that seriously. So I'll just leave you to your delusions now.

 

[eyebeams]

But that is the Weapons chapter. It isn't the combat chapter. Lock doesn't need to be there because it is so simple it was wrapped up in it's own descrpition.

Sure Strike forms part of the basis for some other combat actions, such as Great Strike and Counterstike. Thus the name similarity. But Counterstrike is actually a combination action of Block and Strike. But Block (which is also a weapon use) isn't based on Strike in anyway. It is an equal action with equal standing. Nor is Lock based on Strike, nor Push. The later two don't even use the same dice source as Strike.

Once again, the focus is yours. Not the actual text.

You keep talking about "standing," as if I'm talking about strategy and player use, not the game mechanics. The funny thing is that you've basically admitted that Strike is the fundamental touchstone *again*. As for block, you'll note way back in this thread that the basic idea behind most combat systems is striking and *defending against* strikes.

EDIT The kicker being that Fight! isn't the base itself. It is derived from Duel of Wits. The social conflict mechanism of the game, for those following at home.

Part of me wants to know where you get this idea from aside from Duel of Wits just being earlier in the book, but part of me is finding you so unpleasant to talk to at this point that I don't want to encourage your further participation.

This is wacky, you think I'm defending the Burning Wheel? Why would you think I imagine there is something to defend against?

So you are, then. Y'know chief, I actually *like* The Burning Wheel.

Given what you have demonstrated so far? Nah, I really can't take you that seriously. So I'll just leave you to your delusions now.

Well, now that I've asked you to participate without crapping on the thread three times now and you've refused to act without an insulting, belittling tone, I suppose I'll have to report your post.