Dancey resigns as GAMA Treasurer

[Nisarg]

The thing is, the fact that it died does not exclude it from having been successful.

The first Dragonlance novel and module came out in 1984. The last game product in 1993. I've no data on how the game products sold, but the novel and short story anthologies seemed to do pretty darned well. That's nine solid years. That's far, far longer than most TV series last. It's about one third of the time that RPGs have existed! Sounds successful to me.

I think that the only respect in which Ryan's comment on DL was wrong is that DL had stopped being successful by then, but he could easily have pointed out that the reason it had stopped being successful as a D&D product was because, after the initial relatively well-received novels, TSR released a slew of mediocre and downright awful DL novels, and tied the "metaplot" of the novels to the development of the setting, in a way that alienated gamers.

So, TSR ran DL into the ground first, and the SAGA fiasco was just the nail on the coffin of bad decisions. WoTC hasn't done much with it since because its seen as almost unrecoverable, that's how much damage was done to it.

Nisarg

 

[M.L. Martin]

I always took it as meaning that he thought DL was successful when the changeover was made, but I could have misunderstood.

I admit, something about Dancey's online persona has always set me on edge, and I'm not entirely sure what.

Matthew L. Martin

 

[eyebeams]

The thing is, the fact that it died does not exclude it from having been successful.

The first Dragonlance novel and module came out in 1984. The last game product in 1993. I've no data on how the game products sold, but the novel and short story anthologies seemed to do pretty darned well. That's nine solid years. That's far, far longer than most TV series last. It's about one third of the time that RPGs have existed! Sounds successful to me.

That's it, really. It had an excellent run as a game setting, but these things do eventually run out of steam.

 

[eyebeams]

What about one just as good? Because Arcana Unearthed sold pretty damn well. It was probably the top selling non-WotC d20 book from last year.

I love AU and consider it to be superior to D&D in many ways. Let's say, though, that D&D ends and you come out with a full AU core line. Let's say you even make the classes more generic is some spots and plug back in some trad races. Even then, you're missing name recognition from, well, non-scene D&D players. It's sometimes difficult to remember that there are lots and lots of gamers who own some core books and play totally isolated from the broader hobby of gaming. D&D, Vampire, Rifts and, occasionally Shadowrun are games I've noticed get played a lot by folks who have no contact with other gamers except to grab new books from an FLGS. To be a viable successor, AU would have to have FLGS owners aware of the game and ready to flog it as the Next Thing.

 

[eyebeams]

In my original post, I didn't think I suggested that sales be the only factor put into consideration. But if the top sellers in every category never even come up for awards, then "Joe Gamer" wonders why the awards even exist. Myself, I would be for something to the effect of the "top x sellers" (probably with x=3) get "automatic bids" and then a selection committee of industry pros selects y other products (y probably equal to 5). Or even has one "vote" by fans, one "vote" by retailers, one "vote" by game designers, and one "vote" by sales, or whatever "weight" you prefer to use (Fans 1, Retailers 2, Designers 5, sales 1 for instance).

I don't think it needs to be that complex. Just give every Full Voting Member 3 free Academy slots and cap other Academy memberships at 200% of these. You might want to dole out a bunch of the remainder to pundits.

It could happen... everyone has a price. I'm sure if I had $10 billion and walked up to the owners of White Wolf, I could swap my $10 billion for ownership of the company. I don't, but it makes for an interesting hypothetical example.

If you were being that general, then the guy with 10 billion dollars could simply tie up every OGL publisher in frivolous lawsuits that would destroy them even if they should have won. One of the things about the OGL is that it's always been legal to rip off D&D's rules so long as you used the rioght nod and wink. The licensing scheme is pretty much a promise on WotC's part not to punish such a move with unwarranted, but effective legal action.

Maybe not in the current environment, but imagine for a moment what might happen if WotC, for whatever reason, got imploded and folded and the d20STL was withdrawn, and someone wanted to lock WotC's IP away forever. It is possible that Warriors and Warrens could eventually be recognized as the "successor" to D&D despite every attempt by new ownership of WotC to lock down WotC's IP.

My reply to Mearls is relevant here.

I think sales can't be relied upon to unfailingly show the "best in gaming" but at the same time, I don't think they can be casually discarded, either. If everyone is buying product line X, something must be "right" about the product line.

I think that if Origins is going to be the Oscars of gaming (and how many unsuccessful films get one of those?), then, it just needs to broaden the Academy. These formulae for sales strike me as too rigid. If there are 3 great low-selling games for 1 slot, then you're going to have problems.

 

[eyebeams]

More details about Steve Nicewarmer's resignation and its relationship to the issue at hand has been reported here:

http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/5429.html

 

[rgard]

<snip>

If a product does sell well in the RPG industry (or any) its because its offering the public something it wants, it has some kind of positive quality.
Second, Ryan was NOT proposing to make the awards based on sales, he just wanted commercial success to be ONE of the qualities for nomination, not the ONLY. People seem determined to try to ignore that fact.
All Ryan was trying to do was drag GAMA kicking and screaming into reality, where the games nominated might actually be a game the GAMING PUBLIC actually plays, rather than obscure unplayable games that the critics like, or self-referential pats on the back by board members in the form of nominating their own games.

Here here.

 

[frankthedm]

It also did some really strange stuff, like buying a needlepoint concern.

Would that be related to the Cloth map of Athas from the first Dark*Sun box set?

 

[mearls]

I love AU and consider it to be superior to D&D in many ways. Let's say, though, that D&D ends and you come out with a full AU core line. Let's say you even make the classes more generic is some spots and plug back in some trad races. Even then, you're missing name recognition from, well, non-scene D&D players. It's sometimes difficult to remember that there are lots and lots of gamers who own some core books and play totally isolated from the broader hobby of gaming. D&D, Vampire, Rifts and, occasionally Shadowrun are games I've noticed get played a lot by folks who have no contact with other gamers except to grab new books from an FLGS. To be a viable successor, AU would have to have FLGS owners aware of the game and ready to flog it as the Next Thing.

Actually, I think you were on to the problem, but then took a wrong turn.

The key to the casual gamers is the book trade. The book trade is where WotC sells lots of D&D books. My theory right now is that the problem with the book trade lies in re-orders. I'd be surprised in any d20 book receives orders beyond the initial allotment from Borders. OTOH, the core D&D books remain in stock.

The book trade is too difficult for d20 publishers to really break into, plus you need to have a really sharp product because of returns.

However, if D&D was to suddenly disappear from shelves, in time something would take its place. Remember, in 1974 the D&D basic set sold all of 1,000 copies. It takes time to build up a player network, and it takes just as long for it to die off due to attrition and turn over. The key is, you want those kids who would be into RPGs to pick up your game.

Name recongition isn't what sells D&D to new players. Other players are what sells D&D to new players. The gaming market isn't shrinking. It's pretty much been in stasis since 1989. The key is, the number of people who buy games tends to fluctuate based on what the market has to offer.

 

[Umbran]

I didn't say that was the reason that GAME COMPANIES exist. I said the purpose of a RPG publication - i.e., the tangible book (or e-title) itself is to aid roleplayers in entertaining themselves.

I stand corrected. Partially.

You did address the role of the publication, the physical object. However, I don't agree that in all cases the purpose of the publication is to aid roleplayers in entertaining themselves. The purpose of the publication is to earn money for the publisher. Sometimes the publisher means it to be an aid, sometimes they don't.

Thus, the "highest purpose" of a publication (the thing itself, not the company that created it) must be to enhance the enjoyment of the role-players, else the entire thing falls apart because the gamers stop spending money and the publisher collapses.

In a world where the publishers and the gamers act in enlightened self-interest, with full and open knowledge of what other gaming materials exist, this may be true. But again, you wander into the mystical nationof Theory. In our country of Reality, things are not so simple.

Take late-stage TSR as an example. As I understand what Mr. Gygax has reported, TSR was not killed by bad products. It was killed by some upper managers who had no interest in running a game company. They wanted to earn a few bucks off the thing, and then toss it aside like an empty Capri Sun drink pouch. This meant that TSR published a number of books whose purpose was really to earn a few more bucks before the managers jumped ship.

The gamers, however continued to buy this mediocre product. In its day, this stuff still sold well, realatively speaking, and was influential for the game and gamers everywhere. But it is now widely recognized as mediocre product, at best. For quite some time, TSR continued merely on the strength and loyalty of the fanbase.

In theory, a gamer should pick and choose his materials carefully, and only buy those that are good, and cease buying things from publishers who consistently create poor products. But, many gamers don't buy out of informed, thoughtful, enlightened self-interest. Some buy materials like some players buy Magic or Pokemon cards. It's new, it's official, therefore it must be purchased, period. They don't thoughfully weigh it against other similar products. They may not even know other products exist! You still this sort of behavior in gamers today who refuse to play with anything that is not "official", and gamers who buy anything published by a specific publisher, whether they need it or not, whether the product is good or not. Gamers who refuse to even try games by publishers they've never heard of before, and so on.

Sometimes, even when the publisher is acting out of enlightened self-interest, the purpose of a product is more to earn money in the short term than to entertain. Some third-party publishers run on a hair-thin budget. They have bills to pay, and if the next thing in the pipeline needs a lot of revision because it isn't good, that's just too darned bad. If they delay, their debts catch up with them, and they'd fold anyway. Better, then, to ship out a mediocre product to earn money now, in the hops of being able to cover the bills and have the next one be better.

Sometimes, even a gamer acting in enlightened self-interest buys product that isn't so hot. They dont' have a chance to fully review the material in a store. They glance at the cover, and a bit of the interior, and make a quick decision to buy without fully knowing what they are getting. They get it home, realize that it is mediocre, but are not upset enough to return it. It sits on the shelf unused.

However you slice it, the world ain't perfect.

You may not agree with that, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Sorry. While I'm basically an optimistic person, I'm not idealistic enough to think that our world operates as if it were an Ideal, Well Informed, Free Market System, where there are no barriers to good products and bad products always sell poorly.

You seem to argue about the way the world should be. I'm talking about how it actually is.