Dancey resigns as GAMA Treasurer

WinningerR · Aug 5, 2004

WizarDru said:
Ray, thanks for you insights, and welcome to the boards. It's always nice when an industry professional stops by to shed some light on things.

Glad to be here, thanks.

WizardDru said:
A factor I'm curious about is the U.S. economy itself. I can't speak for others, but I know that my income became much more constrained when I went to college, and stayed that way from 1986-1991, roughly. I still didn't purchase as much until about 1998 or so. I didn't drop much coin on RPGs again until 2000, with the advent of 3E, and stayed that way until my unemployment in 2002. With my remployment in late 2002, things reversed and now I drop a good chunk on RPGs...moreso as the economy has improved.

It's certainly possible that the macro economy has had an impact on RPG sales, though I think there are more significant factors. Think about the internet, for instance. It's hard to imagine today, but back in the late 80s and the early 90s, places like EN World or RPG.NET didn't exist. Sure, there was some discussion of RPGs on usenet and AOL, but it was low-traffic and cumbersome. If you were really consumed with RPGs in those days and wanted fresh ideas, wanted to know what other RPG enthusiasts were thinking and so forth, your only option was to purchase RPG products (magazines like DRAGON, sourcebooks, adventures, whatever). These days, whatever system you play, you can easily fill up dozens of hours each week discussing the game on line, trading ideas, downloading variant rules, and so forth. That's certainly had an impact.

Similarly, I think it's safe to say that some of the money that goes to CCGs, collectible miniatures and other relatively new product categories used to go to RPGs. Yes, I know that some people deny this, but to me it seems almost self-evident. For years, the old wargame crowd denied that their waning fortunes were partially due to the rise of RPGs, too. Undoubtedly, RPGs have a lost a few dollars to various computer/console games as well.

You also have to look at what's been happening at the other tiers of the industry. There aren't nearly as many FLGSs or comic book shops these days as there were during the early 90s -- that too has had an impact.

Perhaps most importantly, I think the industry does an increasingly poor job of recruiting new gamers. D&D 3E is far less accessible to new players than the old TSR offerings and nobody has picked up the slack.

William Ronald · Aug 5, 2004

WinningerR said:
Glad to be here, thanks.

It's certainly possible that the macro economy has had an impact on RPG sales, though I think there are more significant factors. Think about the internet, for instance. It's hard to imagine today, but back in the late 80s and the early 90s, places like EN World or RPG.NET didn't exist. Sure, there was some discussion of RPGs on usenet and AOL, but it was low-traffic and cumbersome. If you were really consumed with RPGs in those days and wanted fresh ideas, wanted to know what other RPG enthusiasts were thinking and so forth, your only option was to purchase RPG products (magazines like DRAGON, sourcebooks, adventures, whatever). These days, whatever system you play, you can easily fill up dozens of hours each week discussing the game on line, trading ideas, downloading variant rules, and so forth. That's certainly had an impact.

Similarly, I think it's safe to say that some of the money that goes to CCGs, collectible miniatures and other relatively new product categories used to go to RPGs. Yes, I know that some people deny this, but to me it seems almost self-evident. For years, the old wargame crowd denied that their waning fortunes were partially due to the rise of RPGs, too. Undoubtedly, RPGs have a lost a few dollars to various computer/console games as well.

You also have to look at what's been happening at the other tiers of the industry. There aren't nearly as many FLGSs or comic book shops these days as there were during the early 90s -- that too has had an impact.

Perhaps most importantly, I think the industry does an increasingly poor job of recruiting new gamers. D&D 3E is far less accessible to new players than the old TSR offerings and nobody has picked up the slack.

Ray, thanks for your insights. I would argue that TSR failed on mnay levels, and I recall collectible card games being very popular in the late 1990s. What are some of the ways that the industry can change to recruit new gamers, and what can we individual gamers do? I have participated in several EN World game days, and two of the FLGS owners I know try to do a lot in recruiting new gamers. There are times when I worry that we might have the hobby shrink as more of us get older. (I even started a thread, Improving the gaming industry, on the topic.)

Any advice on the future of GAMA?

Joshua Dyal: I recognize a lot of the names on this thread from the D20 publisher's forum. Many of the gaming industry professionals who posted have been associated with GAMA, Nikchik being the most prominent example.

The Sigil · Aug 5, 2004

WinningerR said:
Perhaps most importantly, I think the industry does an increasingly poor job of recruiting new gamers. D&D 3E is far less accessible to new players than the old TSR offerings and nobody has picked up the slack.

Some of us are trying.

Personally, I think it's interesting to see the (vocal) views of so many current gamers... "we don't want something that's watered down to the level that it's accessible for n00bs." ALL of us were once "n00bs" and according to a poll I ran here on ENWorld, we often were introduced to the hobby in our pre-teen years.

I think the pre-teen years is actually the ideal time to expose people to ANY hobby you want them to really incorporate into their lives... by the time they hit high school, they're being pulled in too many directions (getting a car, getting a job, hitting the books, making career plans, boyfriends/girlfriends, sports, clubs, and other concerns). When they hit their teen years, they start getting incredibly self-conscious... and may be wary of things that are "geeky" or even "immature make-believe" - while younger children don't have that sense of self-consciousness and are more readily able to play at "make believe" - and thus, inherently more receptive to gaming.

There is a large portion of the audience of RPGers that have "grown up" with RPGs, and they now have a certain comfort level with them and - more important - a certain body of "back knowledge" that they can draw on. New players simply don't have that. The reason you saw (excellent) introductory products in the early 80's was that nobody was that experienced and could make the assumption that ANYONE would know this and that and thus take for granted an understanding that a newbie just doesn't have.

I have been saying for a long time that we need to bring "new blood" into the hobby... because all of us "older folks" don't have the time to game that we used to (I remember spending weeks at a time in my summer vacations doing little else). Family responsibilities, economic circumstance, ill health, or a million other things can take us "out" of gaming - temporarily or permanently. If we're not "refilling the pool" with younger gamers, eventually there will not be enough gamers out there to sustain the companies.

Often I am met with an attitude among current gamers of, "tough crap! I want stuff published to suit ME, the experienced gamer - I can't waste my time with stuff that isn't 'adult-themed' or 'rules-complex' to the degree I want it so as to make it accessible to the darn kids." Nobody expects that gamers will always stay innocent and naive... but to demand that NO "kid-friendly" products be made is just as bad as demanding that no "kid-unfriendly" products be made (a notion these folks find appalling at best and anathema at worst).

A little enlightened self-interest will go a long way here... can you imagine what our hobby would look like today if there had been something "easy-to-learn" in the early-to-mid-90's? I'm not saying ALL of those kids who started on Pokemon or Magic and have since graduated to Yu-Gi-Oh (or whatever they're playing now) would have found D&D, but I'm convinced that if there had been something available (there wasn't - everything catered to the experienced player), there would be a lot more younger players in D&D today - and imagine the RPG industry getting even a tenth - or a twentieth - of the money that's currently being thrown at Yu-Gi-Oh cards by the under-15 crowd. The RPG industry would be a LOT healthier financially than it is today, I guarantee you.

I feel an introductory product is necessary on two fronts, then. (1) I feel we as the gaming community have an obligation not to "pull up the ladder behind us" - we need to take the effort and time to teach new gamers - and we have to "sacrifice" by allowing ourselves to play in an "inferior, watered-down, kiddie-fied system" for a while when doing it. (2) While the effects might not be felt until 5 years down the road, it will be incredibly helpful to the long-term growth - or possibly even survival - of the industry.

I have done an introductory product. I want to do more. I know it's not the best product that could be out there, and I know its exposure is limited because it's a PDF, but at least I'm TRYING in whatever way I can. I *truly* hope WotC's upcoming "Basic Set" or whatever is that introductory package the hobby needs. We'll see.

Someone needs to do it. And if someone needs to do something, and I'm capable, I have always asked, "if I don't do it, who should? If I don't do it, who will?"

--The Sigil

William Ronald · Aug 5, 2004

The Sigil said:
Some of us are trying.

Personally, I think it's interesting to see the (vocal) views of so many current gamers... "we don't want something that's watered down to the level that it's accessible for n00bs." ALL of us were once "n00bs" and according to a poll I ran here on ENWorld, we often were introduced to the hobby in our pre-teen years.

I think the pre-teen years is actually the ideal time to expose people to ANY hobby you want them to really incorporate into their lives... by the time they hit high school, they're being pulled in too many directions (getting a car, getting a job, hitting the books, making career plans, boyfriends/girlfriends, sports, clubs, and other concerns). When they hit their teen years, they start getting incredibly self-conscious... and may be wary of things that are "geeky" or even "immature make-believe" - while younger children don't have that sense of self-consciousness and are more readily able to play at "make believe" - and thus, inherently more receptive to gaming.

There is a large portion of the audience of RPGers that have "grown up" with RPGs, and they now have a certain comfort level with them and - more important - a certain body of "back knowledge" that they can draw on. New players simply don't have that. The reason you saw (excellent) introductory products in the early 80's was that nobody was that experienced and could make the assumption that ANYONE would know this and that and thus take for granted an understanding that a newbie just doesn't have.

I have been saying for a long time that we need to bring "new blood" into the hobby... because all of us "older folks" don't have the time to game that we used to (I remember spending weeks at a time in my summer vacations doing little else). Family responsibilities, economic circumstance, ill health, or a million other things can take us "out" of gaming - temporarily or permanently. If we're not "refilling the pool" with younger gamers, eventually there will not be enough gamers out there to sustain the companies.

Often I am met with an attitude among current gamers of, "tough crap! I want stuff published to suit ME, the experienced gamer - I can't waste my time with stuff that isn't 'adult-themed' or 'rules-complex' to the degree I want it so as to make it accessible to the darn kids." Nobody expects that gamers will always stay innocent and naive... but to demand that NO "kid-friendly" products be made is just as bad as demanding that no "kid-unfriendly" products be made (a notion these folks find appalling at best and anathema at worst).

A little enlightened self-interest will go a long way here... can you imagine what our hobby would look like today if there had been something "easy-to-learn" in the early-to-mid-90's? I'm not saying ALL of those kids who started on Pokemon or Magic and have since graduated to Yu-Gi-Oh (or whatever they're playing now) would have found D&D, but I'm convinced that if there had been something available (there wasn't - everything catered to the experienced player), there would be a lot more younger players in D&D today - and imagine the RPG industry getting even a tenth - or a twentieth - of the money that's currently being thrown at Yu-Gi-Oh cards by the under-15 crowd. The RPG industry would be a LOT healthier financially than it is today, I guarantee you.

I feel an introductory product is necessary on two fronts, then. (1) I feel we as the gaming community have an obligation not to "pull up the ladder behind us" - we need to take the effort and time to teach new gamers - and we have to "sacrifice" by allowing ourselves to play in an "inferior, watered-down, kiddie-fied system" for a while when doing it. (2) While the effects might not be felt until 5 years down the road, it will be incredibly helpful to the long-term growth - or possibly even survival - of the industry.

I have done an introductory product. I want to do more. I know it's not the best product that could be out there, and I know its exposure is limited because it's a PDF, but at least I'm TRYING in whatever way I can. I *truly* hope WotC's upcoming "Basic Set" or whatever is that introductory package the hobby needs. We'll see.

Someone needs to do it. And if someone needs to do something, and I'm capable, I have always asked, "if I don't do it, who should? If I don't do it, who will?"

--The Sigil

First, thanks for the great post. More importantly, thanks for the efforts to recruit new gamers.

I played RPGs for the first time in high school, and I would argue that recruiting pre-teen and high school students are effective. I have seen gaming stores in the Chicago area and a local RPGA club try to be open to younger gamers. I think we have to be willing to set aside some of our preconceived notions. I think that everyone has something to contribute, and much of the "clannishness" of too many gamers tends to isolate them and harm our hobby.

barsoomcore · Aug 6, 2004

Observation from one who has introduced not just pre-teen nephews but also cool raver kids and stewardesses to this hobby:

Character generation is what keeps people out. When I'm running a game for a new group, my number one concern is providing them with pre-generated characters, and printing them out on relatively simplified character sheets.

To ask someone to start this game by sitting down with the Player's Handbook and a handful of dice is really to bypass most of what's fun about the game -- solving problems on the fly, acting out fantasies and anticipating the fall of the dice.

Playing the game is something pretty much everyone I've ever tried has enjoyed. Making characters is a process not quite for everyone. Improve character generation (or remove it completely) and you make it much easier for new people to get excited about the hobby.

WinningerR's point about the internet is significant, I think. You can get so much material for free, and most of it is of a level of quality pretty much equal to most printed/professional material, that there's not much incentive to spend lots of money buying stuff. It's the same problem faced by all content creation/distribution industries such as music recording and film distribution -- as distribution costs approach zero, the barrier to entry drops, and you get more and more people willing to contribute for free, which lowers the value of the entire market.

Not sure what can be done about it other than to, as the successful publishers appear to have done, tighten one's operations, maintain high quality product and manage cash flow carefully.

Acid_crash · Aug 6, 2004

WizarDru said:
I'm not terribly enthused with Origins, as it happens, but these two statements strike me as conflicting. Winners at Origins this year included Indy Heroclix, Savage Worlds, Dragon Magazine, Mechwarrior, Dork Tower, Shadowrun, A Game of Thrones and .hack. Those are hardly unknown or unpopular products....whereas I've never heard of the three games you mention, before. I investigated Fireborn and Weapons of the Gods and discovered they aren't even out YET. A|State came out in February, it's true...but where? It's a little RPG from the UK and I have no idea where it's available or how big a print run it's had. A little unfair to peg the awards show for that, IMHO.

I might have been misread above. My comments on the awards and then listing those games were about two seperate issues and I didn't intend to imply that those games should have been a part of the awards comments I made.

I simply listed the games as upcoming games that I find really intriguing and so far enjoyable to read about and get hopes for simply because they are different and seperate in not only dice mechanics, but emphasis on game design and how people are and I brought them up in my statements of the two categories of game industries that this Industry is splitting into. Listing of the games had nothing to do with the awards but I don't think that came across all too well and for that I apologize.

I just see things splintering off into the d20 game industry and everything else game industry and game companies only supporting one side and not the other, and I don't see it getting any better.

M.L. Martin · Aug 6, 2004

I spent some years in contact with some people who were working for TSR during the last days and the transition period, and most of what I heard matches up well with what Bruce and Ray are saying--it was a combination of novel returns, overproduction, and bad pricing that killed TSR. (Lots of products had misestimated costs and were sold at a loss--the Encyclopedia Magica, the Birthright box, the original Dragonlance: Fifth Age box.)

But maybe I just don't want to hear that because I like and supported things like Ravenloft and DL:5A, I helped kill the hobby.

Matthew L. Martin

buzz · Aug 6, 2004

barsoomcore said:
WinningerR's point about the internet is significant, I think. You can get so much material for free, and most of it is of a level of quality pretty much equal to most printed/professional material, that there's not much incentive to spend lots of money buying stuff.

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE: This may be a bad thing for the publishers' pocketbooks, but is it necessarily a bad thing for gaming?

And heck, communities like ENworld get me exposed to a LOT of product, and consequently I spend a LOT on gaming books. Am I alone?

Son_of_Thunder · Aug 6, 2004

Hello Ray!

WinningerR said:
Perhaps most importantly, I think the industry does an increasingly poor job of recruiting new gamers. D&D 3E is far less accessible to new players than the old TSR offerings and nobody has picked up the slack.

Hello Ray!

First I'd like to say that I've always enjoyed the Dungeoncraft articles you wrote for Dragon. Those, more than anything, shaped how I approached campaign design. I still pull those issues out and read them. It was a sad day for me when someone else took over the column.

Second, as pertaining to the above quote. Do you have any ideas on how to recruit newer players? I've gotten good ideas from The Sigil but wonder if there is something else. I would agree to approach the early to mid-teen age groups. It was pointed out above that there is an attitude of "I'm a mature gamer and want mature products". Sure a company could do those, but not WotC.

I feel that the old 'comic book code' approach to design and art should be re-instituted by WotC specifically and other publishers as well.

Son_of_Thunder · Aug 6, 2004

Ancient Lore!

Matthew L. Martin said:
I spent some years in contact with some people who were working for TSR during the last days and the transition period, and most of what I heard matches up well with what Bruce and Ray are saying--it was a combination of novel returns, overproduction, and bad pricing that killed TSR. (Lots of products had misestimated costs and were sold at a loss--the Encyclopedia Magica, the Birthright box, the original Dragonlance: Fifth Age box.)

I just love coming here and finding out about these things from the past. I'm really glad people are willing to share.

Dancey resigns as GAMA Treasurer

WinningerR

Adventurer

William Ronald

Explorer

The Sigil

Mr. 3000 (Words per post)

William Ronald

Explorer

barsoomcore

Unattainable Ideal

Attachments

Acid_crash

First Post

M.L. Martin

Hero

buzz

Adventurer

Son_of_Thunder

Explorer

Son_of_Thunder

Explorer

Similar Threads