Dancey resigns as GAMA Treasurer

[buzz]

I'm not sure I'd say that Exalted is an anime game, but I think it draws enough cues from it that it's relevant to today's audience. For whatever reason (OK, I have theories but I don't have the time to get into them) that's a big problem with RPG development today.

For some reason I am reminded of the huge backlash to the original covers proposed for GURPS4e, and how it took the whining of a bunch of fans to get SJG to realize that, no, people don't want books that look like this anymore.

Add me to the list of people who want to hear your therioes, sir.

 

[Umbran]

I did mention that my source for that was mostly allegorical. But it's still "common knowledge." I'll believe it until I see some more compelling evidence to the contrary.

Bit of a double standard, there. You'll accept hearsay for one side, but only accept compelling evidence for the other? The fact that it is "common" in no way indicates that it is anywhere near factually correct. It was once common knowledge that the world was flat, and all that.

 

[Desdichado]

Bit of a double standard, there. You'll accept hearsay for one side, but only accept compelling evidence for the other?

Not really. What hearsay am I not excepting for the "other side?" The only example I can think of is that I think Ryan Dancey's quotes on the state of TSR are probably more credible than Gary Gygax's, but I acknowledge that both are hearsay.

The fact that it is "common" in no way indicates that it is anywhere near factually correct. It was once common knowledge that the world was flat, and all that.

And the common knowledge wasn't updated until some compelling evidence came forward to show that it was wrong. Anything we "know" might be wrong, but that's no reason to not believe anything at all. I made a judgement based on the information at hand, and until further information is available, I'll continue to stick to that judgement. That's pretty much my strategy with everything I believe.

 

[Umbran]

Not really. What hearsay am I not excepting for the "other side?" The only example I can think of is that I think Ryan Dancey's quotes on the state of TSR are probably more credible than Gary Gygax's, but I acknowledge that both are hearsay.

Okay, first off, as I understand it, Dancey and Gygax aren't part of this. I thought we were discussing:

it's common knowledge (although also an assumption, at the end of the day) that TSR's market share was being rabidly eaten away by the likes of White Wolf and others in the early/mid 90s."

and

But it's still "common knowledge." I'll believe it until I see some more compelling evidence to the contrary.

Dancey and Gygax have yet to be mentioned in regards to this factoid.

The double standard is that you accept one side's hearsay as basis for an assumption, but require the other side to provide "compelling evidence". The different sides are required to meet different standards of evidence. That's not solid logical ground.

Anything we "know" might be wrong, but that's no reason to not believe anything at all.

Ah, yes. But for anything we "know", there's a level of confidence in the fact. We "know" that the force of gravity will cause an object to fall, and we've got a pretty high confidence in that fact. We assume it holds and rely on it. We generally don't question it at all.

The hordes of folks leaving TSR for WW, however, is something we "know" with very little (I'd say almost zero, personally) confidence. You yourself have little enough confidence that you mention it is an assumption. If we have so little confidence in it, should we use it, even if it seems to us to be most likely

I made a judgement based on the information at hand, and until further information is available, I'll continue to stick to that judgement. That's pretty much my strategy with everything I believe.

When trying to create a model of how the world actually works, including beliefs for which we have little evidence is usually unwise. It leads to faulty models.

Mearls here is talking about how the gaming market has historically worked. He's at least got some evidence from which he can infer his beliefs. You've got "common knowledge". Should we combine those, or should we hold your assumption to the standard Mearls is setting?

 

[Desdichado]

The double standard is that you accept one side's hearsay as basis for an assumption, but require the other side to provide "compelling evidence". The different sides are required to meet different standards of evidence. That's not solid logical ground.

I don't see how that's a double standard. I haven't really been trying to convince anyone to my point of view, I've merely stated that it is my point of view based on allegorical "evidence" I've seen and heard for years. You and others have told me that you don't believe that, and that's fine; but since you're trying to convince me to your point of view and not the other way around, then yes, I require a more compelling argument than "I say so." Otherwise, the two positions are equally (un)compelling, and I see no reason to change positions to one that's equally supported. At least, in the case of the opinion I already hold, it's based on allegorical evidence that is personal rather than on someone elses.

The hordes of folks leaving TSR for WW, however, is something we "know" with very little (I'd say almost zero, personally) confidence. You yourself have little enough confidence that you mention it is an assumption. If we have so little confidence in it, should we use it, even if it seems to us to be most likely

It doesn't seem unlikely to me, and the "we" you mention that has so little confidence in it is quite a logical leap. As I said, I don't see how your position is any better supported, and in that case, I'll stick with what I have, thank you very much.

When trying to create a model of how the world actually works, including beliefs for which we have little evidence is usually unwise. It leads to faulty models.

Which is hardly a compelling reason to accept your position, since we have little evidence for it as well. So the alternative is to accept a model that is equally likely to be faulty, or simply to not model reality at all and be able to make no judgements whatsoever?

Mearls here is talking about how the gaming market has historically worked. He's at least got some evidence from which he can infer his beliefs. You've got "common knowledge". Should we combine those, or should we hold your assumption to the standard Mearls is setting?

I don't recall that mearls said anything at all about market share of D&D vs White Wolf in the early/mid 90s. All I have is eyebeams comments that White Wolf did not steal market share from D&D, which include no implication of being data based.

 

[William Ronald]

Nikchik, whar are some ways you think that GAMA can better serve the gaming industry, its members and the gaming public? Also, where do you think GAMA should go from here?

From my perspective, many of the latter TSR products did not appeal to me as a gamer. Much of it was badly edited, or seemed to strongly refer back to other products. (This was especially true of many FR products.) Also, the Buck Rogers game was a disaster on several levels -- especially on a financial level. (I remember seeing Buck Rogers products just sitting on store shelves...and being ignored by everyone.)

 

[Dogbrain]

For example, it may be likely that D&D was selling as well as it ever did, but things like Spellfire and Dragon Dice (and their subsequent lack of sales) were as responsible for those declining sales figures for TSR as a whole.

Not just those losers. The D&D "line" was also a net loser. The core rules were still a solid property. But the market was oversaturated with a bunch of essentially identical D&D settings, with D&D modules that could not be sold to make a net profit, and with similar stupid moves.

 

[eyebeams]

True. Good point. But according to all accounts, this mismanagement was coupled with declining sales.

To really qualify as "all accounts," you have to hear 'em from more than one guy. In the early-mid 90s *everybody* had declining sales. Declining as in "polaxed in the head and tumbling." The classic example is Mayfair's Underground, which was considered a failure at 15,000 sales. For a company in Mayfair's tier these days, 20% of that would be considered a success. Gehenna -- a book for Vampire that outsold the 3.5 PHB for a few weeks on Amazon -- had an initial print run of 10,000.

The reason for this is a highly contentious topic. Ryan Dancey essentially blamed White Wolf and TSR's fiction department, but the timeline doesn't really support this. Hell, Dancey's discovery that Vampire players play D&D too doesn't really back it up, either.

The question is whether or not TSR's sales were declining at a comparable rate to everybody else's, or more so. Looking at published sales rankings in 1994, we see a mix of TSR and WW product, with TSR generally slightly higher up.

That's not really the comparison here, though. I'm talking about sales versus prior years' sales, not sales vs. their competition. And naturally, sales vs costs and overheads looks like a worse picture year over year as well.

See above. Other companies weathered the storm. TSR did not. From the Buck Rogers debacle to the use of TSR as junk property in larger business deals (I recall that they were entangled with the near-collapse of Marvel).

I did mention that my source for that was mostly allegorical. But it's still "common knowledge." I'll believe it until I see some more compelling evidence to the contrary.

Sure. You can read Ryan Dancey's market research, which talks about cross-penetration. People weren't abandoning D&D for Vampire. They were adding Vampire to D&D.

 

[mearls]

To really qualify as "all accounts," you have to hear 'em from more than one guy. In the early-mid 90s *everybody* had declining sales. Declining as in "polaxed in the head and tumbling." The classic example is Mayfair's Underground, which was considered a failure at 15,000 sales. For a company in Mayfair's tier these days, 20% of that would be considered a success. Gehenna -- a book for Vampire that outsold the 3.5 PHB for a few weeks on Amazon -- had an initial print run of 10,000.

This is one of the most persistent death magnets in gaming - the rumor that Underground sold 10,000+ copies and was considered a failure.

If Underground really did sell that many, the margins on RPG books are big enough that the book itself must have been so expensive to produce that they needed to sell more than that to turn a profit. That points to a failure in vision, budgeting, and planning, not a sales failure. Considering that the book was published in a binder, I could see that as a possibility. I can only attribute it to the self-deluded design precepts of the 1990s that a game like Underground could be considered a viable game.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt that Underground sold that many copies into the distribution network. They may have printed that many, but I doubt that many ended up in game stores or on distributor shelves. If Underground really did sell that well, it would've been a hit at any point in the hobby's history.

You also seriously distort Ryan's stance. Vampire and the TSR novels did not kill TSR. TSR's inability to produce RPG books that were relevant or useful killed them. The company was, as a whole, unable to connect with its audience.

Personally, I think 2e killed TSR. It took a few years, but I think the player network slowly crumbled and gamers slowly converted from active purchasers to hobbyists who spent nothing on RPGs.

IMO, the failure of the industry as a whole can be attributed not to Vampire, but to the legion of designers who slavishly followed the Vampire model of design. The 1990s are a graveyard of dead games that followed the story-first paradigm. It's funny in that a designer can produce a D&D clone and everyone wants to laugh at him or ignore his work. But if he produces a Vampire clone, or throws in vague references to story, foreshadowing, and other literary tools in his work, suddenly he's a visionary.

That's the failing of the industry, and it goes far deeper and is a far bigger problem than most people realize.

Which reminds me, I can talk at length about this, but not right now. I have a boatload of work to do....

 

[Dogbrain]

This is one of the most persistent death magnets in gaming - the rumor that Underground sold 10,000+ copies and was considered a failure.

If Underground really did sell that many, the margins on RPG books are big enough that the book itself must have been so expensive to produce that they needed to sell more than that to turn a profit.

I have a copy. It was obviously a very expensive book. It was printed on high-quality semi-glossy paper, with not only full-color illustrations but full color TEXT! The text was a sort of pseudo-hypertext, with lots of sidenotes that were indicated by the color of the text. It was way too ambitious a physical product for the company. The lone supplement was the more conventional black-and-white, but it's the core book that usually spells life or death for a stand-alone game. To stay competitive, the profit margin on individual core rulebooks had to have been microscopic. In many ways, it was the RPG equivalent of a DeLorean.