Decline of RPG sales

[helium3]

Now WotC seems to have figured this out, but while they're the industry leader in terms of business planning, they seem to think that this also means playing to the lowest common denominator most of the time: "Okay, people like Jedis and the Force from Star Wars, so let's turn that into a 'new' magic system and new classes for Dungeons and Dragons!" "Great idea!" And so the dreck of Incarnum was born.You're right - some of it's completely execrable.No, I consider my tastes pretty far outside the mainstream.

Why exactly is Incarnum dreck? Because you don't like it? What exactly is wrong with a different mechanics system?

 

[buzz]

The argument is that Wizards of the Coast's 'safe' strategy produces vanilla books which sell well, but that doesn't make them particularly 'good' (read: innovative and interesting, moving the hobby in new directions) unless one defines quality by sales figures.

And my argument is that I don't necessarily buy that WotC's strategy is to produce nothing but "safe" vanilla books. Eberron alone is evidence against this. You and GVD seem to be assuming that your personal opinion of their books is fact, and thus proof of a strategy.

I believe that it would be healthier for the cottage industry that is RPGs if the focus was on creating sustained growth, rather than simply trying to ride out the rough patches until the next boom rolls around.

The former is sort of the whole point of the OGL.

Now WotC seems to have figured this out, but while they're the industry leader in terms of business planning, they seem to think that this also means playing to the lowest common denominator most of the time: "Okay, people like Jedis and the Force from Star Wars, so let's turn that into a 'new' magic system and new classes for Dungeons and Dragons!" "Great idea!" And so the dreck of Incarnum was born.

I don't understand why MoI is being singled out as representative of WotC's entire design strategy and R&D capability. Why is the fact that you didn't happen to like the book proof that WotC solely targets the lowest common denominator? Isn't the book actually proof that WotC was willing to take a risk on something different? Isn't Eberron?

No, I consider my tastes pretty far outside the mainstream.

Then how are you qualified to make blanket assessments about the objective quality of WotC's products?

This whole line of argument reminds me a lot of a thread from a while back where one person was laying blame for the RPG industry malaise (yup, still talking about it then) on the fact that WotC didn't produce enough adventures. Or, more specifically, enough adventures that he considered to be really good. Just like here, the thesis boiled down to "WotC is the source of all evil because I don't like their products."

 

[JoeGKushner]

Why exactly is Incarnum dreck? Because you don't like it? What exactly is wrong with a different mechanics system?

Might as well let it go. There are three reviews of it right now, two four star and one two star. It's either something you like or something you dislike. Unlike psionics, another love/hate idea, Icarnum doesn't have a lot of history with the D&D game.

 

[WizarDru]

And so the dreck of Incarnum was born.

Of course, some of us look at Incarnum and see something completely different than a Star Wars rip-off and useful, at that. I threw a dozen 20th level Incarnates at my players last week, for example, and it worked very well. They were elves who had been corrupted by Far Realms parasites, giving them bizarre powers...but Incarnum provided an enjoyable combat and campaign option. YMMV and obviously does.

WotC products rarely deliver the same level of innovation that third-party publishers provide, even when it's the same authors working on the respective WotC and third-party books. To me this reflects a middle-of-the-road design strategy that permeates WotC's decision making, one that I find produces bland books.

Well, I won't disagree that third-party publishers do much more diverse things than WotC...that's demonstrably false. But I'm still not seeing why WotC should be doing that...I was under the impression that was one of the core advantages of the OGL in the first place.

Including .pdfs, about a dozen.

Well, unless those PDFs were more than $20 each, at least, you're not really taking money away from WotC regardless...which indicates that adapting their current strategy to be more diverse wouldn't garner them that much more business, but would risk alienating their existing customer base. I purchased about 5 or 6 PDFs this year, but most were only about $5...impulse buys, mostly. The most expensive thing I bought was a $9.95 PDF. All told, the PDFs equaled maybe the same investiture as one WotC book. My investment in other games, like M&M, is not as strong...but only because there wasn't more product to purchase. Not because the market is weak...but because there are only so many products necessary to purchase or that I desire in that space.

I'm not trying to say that WotC is the most innovative publisher around...clearly nothing they've done this year is as innovative as Mutants and Masterminds second edition or Northern Crown. But I have a hard time correlating that with the fall of the industry. The core argument sounds like, to me, "WotC should do more diverse and experimental things, because that spurs new ideas and creativity from third-party publishers and competition, which in turn grows the industry and keeps it healthy". As I understood it, the OGL was essentially enlightened self-interest; it shifted the burden for a lot of material OFF of WotC, while at the same time empowering other parties to both bolster WotC's core sales, enhance their brand, provide support for more niche interests and make a few bucks for those third party publishers. From what I can tell, it's done exactly what it was supposed to do. That it is no longer the gravy train it once was doesn't signal to me that the industry has fallen on hard times...just that growth is not permananetly sustainable, and a natural correction of the market has taken place.

You suggest that the market has a problem in the form of the cyclical nature of RPG releases. I agree that it's the prevailing model...but what could replace it, really? There really are some people who buy the core game and nothing more. How do you get off of that cycle and remain profitable? I certainly prefer WotC's 'add more options' approach to White Wolf's "sure you bought the core book, but it'll be a year before you have all the clan books and information" strategy. Is there another way?

 

[buzz]

I'm not trying to say that WotC is the most innovative publisher around...clearly nothing they've done this year is as innovative as Mutants and Masterminds second edition or Northern Crown. But I have a hard time correlating that with the fall of the industry. The core argument sounds like, to me, "WotC should do more diverse and experimental things, because that spurs new ideas and creativity from third-party publishers and competition, which in turn grows the industry and keeps it healthy". As I understood it, the OGL was essentially enlightened self-interest; it shifted the burden for a lot of material OFF of WotC, while at the same time empowering other parties to both bolster WotC's core sales, enhance their brand, provide support for more niche interests and make a few bucks for those third party publishers. From what I can tell, it's done exactly what it was supposed to do. That it is no longer the gravy train it once was doesn't signal to me that the industry has fallen on hard times...just that growth is not permananetly sustainable, and a natural correction of the market has taken place.

WizarDru is a wise man.

 

[rogueattorney]

Is there another way?

They don't repackage Monopoly over and over again hoping to get all Monopoly owners to purchase yet another Monopoly game. Rather, what the Monopoly makers are trying to do is get a game of Monopoly in ever single house in the country. You can say the same of pretty much every single other mainstream game ever made except for RPGs. Only with RPGs is there this expectation of support and revision followed by support and revision.

To me, rpg makers should try to break down the perceived differences between rpgs and "regular" games. RPGs should be less complex, have less supporting materials, and there should be more of them in more different genres. A mother or father or girlfriend should be able to walk into any toy store in the country and buy their loved one a box of Dungeons & Dragons or Call of Cthulhu or whatever. (That's actually started to become closer to reality with the new D&D Basic game.)

Of course all of the above is the absolute anathema to the hardcore gamers who want, more, more, more specialization. And for that reason alone the above strategy will never, ever, ever be attempted by an established game maker.

R.A.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

They don't repackage Monopoly over and over again hoping to get all Monopoly owners to purchase yet another Monopoly game. Rather, what the Monopoly makers are trying to do is get a game of Monopoly in ever single house in the country.

Well actually yes, the monopoly makers do in fact want you to buy a Monopoly game over and over again. That is one reason they package deluxe, anniversary, themed and travel editions of games to get people to buy the game again not just to find that part of the market that didn't want the original version.

 

[The Shaman]

Why exactly is Incarnum dreck? Because you don't like it? What exactly is wrong with a different mechanics system?

I don't understand why MoI is being singled out as representative of WotC's entire design strategy and R&D capability. Why is the fact that you didn't happen to like the book proof that WotC solely targets the lowest common denominator? Isn't the book actually proof that WotC was willing to take a risk on something different? Isn't Eberron?

I mentioned Magic of Incarnum simply because I was reading the thread about it before I read this one, so it was foremost in my mind.

What I don't like about MoI, the reason I call it "dreck," is that it's neither different nor risky. It's just recycled concepts from SWRPG given a fantasy veneer. As I said, I find it bland and rote.

Of course, some of us look at Incarnum and see something completely different than a Star Wars rip-off and useful, at that.

As Mark Twain wrote, "Difference of opinion is what makes a horse race."

I'm glad you found your investment worthwhile - for me it's a pass.

And my argument is that I don't necessarily buy that WotC's strategy is to produce nothing but "safe" vanilla books. Eberron alone is evidence against this. You and GVD seem to be assuming that your personal opinion of their books is fact, and thus proof of a strategy.

First buzz, nothing that you or I or (with a few exceptions) anyone else says on the boards should be taken "proof" of anything. They are opinions regarding the topic, based on our respective experiences. There is no argument to be won here or solution to suss out, just the sharing of differing ideas about what we enjoy in gaming and why.

Eberron, IMHO, is the least risky move that WotC could make on a new setting - it is a mish-mash of "pop fantasy" elements designed to capture as many people as possible by appealing to whatever is deemed hip in the genre at the moment. I see it as the natural evolution of a gaming style that originated with Myst. That doesn't make it 'bad' - in fact, I don't think Eberron is a poorly-done setting at all, though it holds no appeal for me, but I do think that once again it was a risk-avoidance strategy, a grab-bag setting so that people could play lycanthropes and droids and fly around in zeppelins while taking advantage of a wealth of anachronisms.

Ghostwalk was a risky choice. Midnight, had it come from WotC, would be a risky choice. Eberron was about the safest choice that WotC could make.

Then how are you qualified to make blanket assessments about the objective quality of WotC's products?

buzz, first, I'm not making blanket assessments about the objective quality of the books - I'm offering my subjective opinion of the quality of WotC's product, just like you. My "qualifications" are the same as yours: I'm an informed consumer.

and if you go back to my post, you'll see that I already answered your question: I read the books, read reviews, and compare different approaches. I don't have to like something or play it to appreciate the fact that it's innovative or not: I'm not interested in playing Blue Rose or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, but I think they're both excellent games mechanically and thematically. I don't have to 'like' something in order to appraise it's relative merits.

Without access to the planning notes, marketing research, and sale figures generated by Wizards of the Coast, all any of us can do is speculate as to their decision-making. However, all of us see what's released and when, can look at the products and develop informed opinions, and are entitled to have an opinion on the end result.]

Just like here, the thesis boiled down to "WotC is the source of all evil because I don't like their products."

No one has said anything of the kind, and as for me I'll thank you to not ascribe quotes to me that I didn't write.

To make sure that my point isn't lost here, I'll restate it: I think WotC is the undisputed leader in marketing, production values, and perhaps business strategy, but I think that most of their products are dull and uninspired, that more innovative game design happens elsewhere.

But I'm still not seeing why WotC should be doing that...I was under the impression that was one of the core advantages of the OGL in the first place.

My feeling is that the OGL was intended for one purpose: to sell Player's Handbooks.

The fact that third-party publishers did something different with it (there's innovation again) has produced comments from WotC about "splitting the market" and how it's bad for gaming. Looking over my gaming books, as a consumer I benefit directly from the market splitting, since none of the games I play require the PHB.

I'm not trying to say that WotC is the most innovative publisher around...clearly nothing they've done this year is as innovative as Mutants and Masterminds second edition or Northern Crown. But I have a hard time correlating that with the fall of the industry. The core argument sounds like, to me, "WotC should do more diverse and experimental things, because that spurs new ideas and creativity from third-party publishers and competition, which in turn grows the industry and keeps it healthy". As I understood it, the OGL was essentially enlightened self-interest; it shifted the burden for a lot of material OFF of WotC, while at the same time empowering other parties to both bolster WotC's core sales, enhance their brand, provide support for more niche interests and make a few bucks for those third party publishers. From what I can tell, it's done exactly what it was supposed to do. That it is no longer the gravy train it once was doesn't signal to me that the industry has fallen on hard times...just that growth is not permananetly sustainable, and a natural correction of the market has taken place.

This is a really interesting point, WizarDru. I agree with much of what you're saying -the only place I'm inclined to disagree is with respect to the fact that the OGL is working out as planned.

To be fair, I am anything but an expert on the OGL, but I've heard rumblings several times to the effect that the third-party publishers didn't "play along" as planned, that instead of taking on the peripheral parts of the games that weren't profitable enough for WotC to invest in, the third-party publishers came straight at WotC's core supplements instead, so much so that the market was glutted and a thinning of the herd was necessary. If I was a publisher, I know that would've been my strategy as well - why settle for being a bottom-feeder when there's all those juicy fish floating around?

You suggest that the market has a problem in the form of the cyclical nature of RPG releases. I agree that it's the prevailing model...but what could replace it, really? There really are some people who buy the core game and nothing more. How do you get off of that cycle and remain profitable? I certainly prefer WotC's 'add more options' approach to White Wolf's "sure you bought the core book, but it'll be a year before you have all the clan books and information" strategy. Is there another way?

I don't know yet, but I'm thinking about it.

Excellent post, WizarDru.

 

[Maggan]

I mentioned Magic of Incarnum simply because I was reading the thread about it before I read this one, so it was foremost in my mind.

I might have missed someting of vital importance, so I might as well ask. You haven't bought any books from WotC for some while, if I read your comments correctly? But I also gather from your comments that you have read them thoroughly enough to form an opinion of their relative worth(lessness).

I'm curious as to how thorougly you have reviewed the books?

I'm aware that my question may very well be construed as snark, but for me this information is of interest when reading your comments about quality.

Cheers!

/M

 

[helium3]

To make sure that my point isn't lost here, I'll restate it: I think WotC is the undisputed leader in marketing, production values, and perhaps business strategy, but I think that most of their products are dull and uninspired, that more innovative game design happens elsewhere.

WOTC is part of a publicly held company with a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Now, one can argue about whether or not this is a good thing, but you can't argue about whether or not this is the true. I agree that innovation is great. If WOTC really thought it sold, they'd be doing a lot more of it. So, it's probably likely that innovation rarely sells well enough to justify the development costs.

For example, can you imagine the collective freak-out that would occur if WOTC decided to introduce an innovative new version of D&D next year? In fact, I see many posts on this message board decrying the possibilty that WOTC might do just that, and I find it hard to believe that they're unware of this.