Can we go back to smaller books?

[BenBrown]

1. The population of the US has grown by about a third since 1981, and the rest of the world is now much more accessible than it was. Given that, having almost as many players as back then is a decline - the game really should be aiming to have about a third more players than back then at a minimum.

Not going to happen. What part of the word "fad" do you not understand? D&D was enormous for a few years, and like all fads, faded. We can't claim that the number of people in the hobby today should have increased proportionately from the height of a fad. If so we'd have to do it for all fads.

How many Rubik's Cubes did you buy this past year?

 

[Umbran]

RPGs need to be accessible -- not just in a play sense, but a buying sense. They need to be on the shelves at the places that people who might want them can find them. Relying primarily on an existing, dwindling market is slow suicide.

It is in Borders and Barnes and Noble. In both cases, they have brains - it is generally right by the manga, comics, and YA fantasy fiction. Presenting books in front of a section designed for kids that read seems reasonable to me. I wouldn't be surprised if the target kids spend very little time in toy stores, and instead are spending significant time looking for their favorite media and stories.

And I think folks are massively overestimating the barrier of "big books" to younger players. You ever watched a kid get into something? They go whole hog. Huge Harry Potter novels are no barrier whatsoever. Kids have short attention spans, except when they don't

 

[Rechan]

It is in Borders and Barnes and Noble. In both cases, they have brains - it is generally right by the manga, comics, and YA fantasy fiction. Presenting books in front of a section designed for kids that read seems reasonable to me.

... Kids?

The average age of comic book readers are early-mid 20s.

I can't find any information on teen reading habits. But as personal anecdotes, I rarely if ever see teens in Barnes and Nobles.

IMO if you want to hit teenagers, you put RPG books in the video game store. Or Hot Topic.

 

[Umbran]

... Kids?

The average age of comic book readers are early-mid 20s.

Manga, man. It's a $100 million and more market, largely to teens and preteens.

 

[Rechan]

Manga, man. It's a $100 million and more market, largely to teens and preteens.

Well if manga > RPGs is the strategy, then we should be marketing BESM.

 

[The Greene Knight]

Me? I'm happy with great big fat honking goodness.

Ptolus? Could have been longer.

Ptolus is a setting book, though, not a base rules set to run games. I feel that variety is best in terms of game settings: some short on text and sketchy in the details to let DMs do what they want with them with minimum efforts, others fully detailed and extensive for other DMs who want to have every game resource right there available on the page... it's all good. More choices makes for better gaming.

Now, for actual rules sets, particularly when talking about rules sets which may potentially constitute introductory products for the hobby, like D&D or Pathfinder, the length of the core rules books has become, I feel, completely ridiculous. It's one of the reasons I would never ever consider buying say a set of 4e books or Pathfinder RPG for my little nephew(s) to start gaming. And I don't want to buy a boxed set with just a bunch of minis and a floor mat good for three adventures either.

Come on, game designers.

This needs to change. Now.

 

[Hussar]

1. The population of the US has grown by about a third since 1981, and the rest of the world is now much more accessible than it was. Given that, having almost as many players as back then is a decline - the game really should be aiming to have about a third more players than back then at a minimum.

No, it really, really isn't. A stable population, that is continually growing, is EXACTLY what you want for a any product, regardless of population growth trends. It's the sign of a stable product that is here to stay, not a flash in the pan that is going to fade out in a couple of years.

Expecting your product to continue to grow at that kind of rate just isn't sustainable. It would be great, but, it's not going to happen. D&D just isn't a fad anymore. Most of the people, I'd argue the majority in fact, who got into the hobby in 1981 aren't playing anymore. Not when the average age of an RPG gamer is still under the age of 30.

2. The volume of sales D&D requires to be a 'success' for a company the size of Hasbro is much higher than it was to be a 'success' for a company the size of TSR. Indeed, those expectations are likely to go up year on year. Staying stable isn't enough.

Really? A constant ROI isn't enough? Profits must increase every year? I don't think so. I highly, highly doubt the profits on something like Monopoly have changed all that much over the years, yet, we see new Monopoly boards being produced every year.

3. The cost of producing all of these books is going up year on year. The ever-increasing price tags and ever-decreasing page counts aren't a naked money grab by WotC - they're almost certainly a consequence of painfully thin sales (especially later in the line) for products that are costing more and more to make. Expanding the player base may be the only way to combat this.

Again, this would be great, but, it's not going to happen. And, when you start accounting for inflation, the books haven't actually gone up in price. According to a post on this site the original boxed set would go for about 40 bucks today. Sure, you need about 60 bucks for 4e, but, you get one HELL of a lot more product for your twenty bucks.

The idea that the gateway into RPG's is for someone to come into the hobby cold hasn't been true for decades. People get into the hobby because of existing gamers, not because they happen to go into the store and suddenly, on an impulse, buy the core rules.

Now, this new Basic set might work that way, but, you're still never going to see the MASSIVE influx of new gamers that you saw in the 1980's no matter how cheap the product or how great it is. Just not going to happen.

 

[Krensky]

Really? A constant ROI isn't enough? Profits must increase every year? I don't think so. I highly, highly doubt the profits on something like Monopoly have changed all that much over the years, yet, we see new Monopoly boards being produced every year.

Actually, for a publicly traded company, constant profits are not good enough. They need ever increasing profits, increasing at ever increasing rates every quarter to keep the street happy. It's not rational, sustainable, or realistic, but that's what Wall Street demands.

Not seeing the hobby grow at the same rate as it did in the heyday of the '80s though, yeah. That ship's gone. It's possible it might someday happen again, but I can't conceive of the circumstances.

 

[billd91]

The 3.0e Basic Set. No character creation; dumbed down rules; big jump to the 'full' 3.0e rulebooks; and this one looks and feels like cheap rubbish. (Of course, it was cheap...)

Two 3.5e Basic Sets. Again, no character creation; dumbed down rules; big jump to the 960 pages of 3.5e core rules. At least these looked and felt like 'real' games.

Can we get rid of this "dumbing down" BS? Simplified introductory rules for RPGs are good things.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Can we get rid of this "dumbing down" BS? Simplified introductory rules for RPGs are good things.

I agree but if the entire boxed set is nothing but a trailer for the multi-volume movie it still sucks.

The old basic red box was a good simple introductory product. The expert blue box did not come along and tell you that everything in the red box could be tossed aside because you now had the "real" rules.