What Does a "Successful" RPG Look Like?

[Celebrim]

So would you say that a successful game can stop being successful when the company that produced it stops producing it, in which case it is no longer to be considered a successful game?

Yes. That's what I am saying. I'm saying that a game that is only successful for a brief time, isn't successful. I'm saying that "God of War" is obviously a different kind of success than "Tales of the Abyss".

I think you agree with this we're just quibbling over the time frame. I think there exists a period of success so brief for which you would consider the game a failure. If it sales a bunch of copies in a month, but then fades out of the public consciousness, we'd not really call that game a success. I suppose someone could say, "Any game that turns a profit" is a success, but it's harder for me to get a sense of that. You don't quit your day job for a game that turns a profit. You don't found a company for a game that turns a profit. The intention is to keep that profit going for a significant period.

I've said, "Success consists of hanging around, being a franchise, sustaining the company the publishes it." The period I've chosen is a fairly long period in one perspective, but compared to the 40+ years I've been gaming not so long of a perspective.

 

[Morrus]

Has there even been a consensus here on what "successful" means? All I see is the usual confusion

That's literally the point of the thread. That's what the question being asked is.

 

[Morrus]

I suppose someone could say, "Any game that turns a profit" is a success, but it's harder for me to get a sense of that. You don't quit your day job for a game that turns a profit. You don't found a company for a game that turns a profit. The intention is to keep that profit going for a significant period.

So can a non-profit venture not be a success?

 

[MGibster]

I suppose someone could say, "Any game that turns a profit" is a success, but it's harder for me to get a sense of that. You don't quit your day job for a game that turns a profit. You don't found a company for a game that turns a profit. The intention is to keep that profit going for a significant period.

In 2000, John Wick released a game called Orkworld. From the beginning, Orkworld was designed to be a single book with a limited production run. No additional books. No reprints. It's done. As far as I know, Wick made a profit. He met his goal and made money which seems like a success to me. I bet a lot of people either don't remember or never knew Orkworld even existed. I used to own the game and I hardly ever think about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In 2000, John Wick released a game called Orkworld. From the beginning, Orkworld was designed to be a single book with a limited production run. No additional books. No reprints. It's done. As far as I know, Wick made a profit. He met his goal and made money which seems like a success to me. I bet a lot of people either don't remember or never knew Orkworld even existed. I used to own the game and I hardly ever think about it.

I also used to own the game, but I also hardly ever think about it.

 

[SlyFlourish]

I think whether they are dead or not, it's clear that they are not successful. WEG D6 still gets a ton of play both at home and at cons, but I don't think you can list it as successful. I wish Gallant Knight Games the best of luck, but I'm not sure 2e D6 is making big waves in the community.

Is there an opportunity for someone to purchase it and run it themselves? That's sort of why I have that qualification myself. It cant be a successful game,in my mind, if I can't buy a copy.

 

[Umbran]

Has there even been a consensus here on what "successful" means? All I see is the usual confusion

I didn't see a consensus, and maybe that's the valuable thing to get out of the discussion.

It suggests another question - why should I, who has no skin in the game, care if a game "succeeds"? I can see why, say, Morrus cares if a game or product meets his business goals, and is thereby a success, to him. But, what is my reason, as a player/consumer, for wanting to put that label on a game? What value or utility do I get from categorizing games as successful or unsuccessful?

I am not sure I get much. I don't care if it is "successful". I care about more specific things - like whether it still in print/available, if it popular enough that finding players will be easy, and if there a lot of content I want supporting the core rules, and so on. Even if I label a game "successful" I will still have to answer those practical questions separately.

 

[SlyFlourish]

Has there even been a consensus here on what "successful" means? All I see is the usual confusion

confusion == beautiful independent thoughts and shared ideas.

We don't have to come up with a consensus. What does it mean to you is just as valid (even if few share such an opinion, like the only successful RPG is D&D...).

 

[Aldarc]

Is there an opportunity for someone to purchase it and run it themselves? That's sort of why I have that qualification myself. It cant be a successful game,in my mind, if I can't buy a copy.

Retroclones aside, doesn't that preclude past editions of D&D from being considered successful?

 

[SlyFlourish]

I think a modern RPG will be successful if they are linked to a popular franchise or theme, e.g. Avatar The Last Airbender, Discworld, etc. Or they have a general fantasy theme that is easy to understand and fun play, e.g. Shadowdark. If a game is too complicated or the rules system detracts from the fun I don't think it would be very successful.

Being popular will also mean people talk about it and review it and possibly have third party material published which will always increase a games success and longevity.

I think being tied to a bigger IP is actually a risk since the IP holder can pull the license and remove it from publication. I bet there are a list of games like those that disappeared.