Decline of RPG sales

[MerricB]

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.

I see. The fact that almost the only point of comparison between the Force and Incarnum is "energy field that connects living creatures" makes it a recycled concept? Oh well. Psionics is also dreck, I take it?

Mechanically, the Force in either edition of the Star Wars RPG (d6 or d20) is quite different to Incarnum.

Conceptually, the Force is *also* different to Incarnum.

A Totemist may tap into the essence of the souls of Pegasi and create a pair of magical wings that bear him aloft. The Incarnate taps into the soul essence of the Copper and Black dragons and gains the ability to breathe acid at his foes.

That's nowhere near the Force.

Cheers!

 

[The Shaman]

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 fine-tooth-comb anything for d20 Modern, with the exception of d20 Cyberscape - the genre holds no appeal for me, so while I'll give it a cover-to-cover read-thru somewhere down the line, I have no opinion on its strengths and weaknesses at present.

As far as Dungeons and Dragons, I look at most of the new books when they are released - one of the reasons I gave MoI a close look is that I'm very interested in alternate magic systems.

I'll pick up the books I'm interested in at my LGS and read through the index, pick out a couple of topics that catch my eye as well as a couple of topics that don't really appeal, so I can compare them. This happens several times - it took me seven or eight months of this to finally decide to buy Libris Mortis, and I never did warm up to Draconomicon even after a couple of years.

I'll look for other books on the similar topics, if they're available, to see how they compare in terms of mechanics.

I read reviews, then look at the book again in light of those reviews, to weigh the reviewers take.

And I read the threads here, at WotC, and occasionally at RPG.net to see how others are actually using the content, and gauge their opinions as well.

I pulled up WotC's list of D&D products (since very few people on this forum care about Modern stuff) for 2005, and in addition to MoI I've looked at DMG II, Heroes of Battle, Heroes of Horror, Lords of Madness, Races of the Wild, and Weapons of Legacy this way.

(And in looking over the list, I realized I bought two WotC books this year - I forgot that Sandstorm was a 2005 release. My bad.)

I won't spend money on books sight-unseen any longer, so I tend to be a careful and prudent shopper - I'm rarely the first one on my block to have the latest and greatest.

Does that answer your question adequately?

 

[The Shaman]

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.

This holds true for every public company - are you suggesting that innovation only comes from fringe companies with nothing to lose?

 

[The Shaman]

*snip*

And yet somehow, as I was reading it, I kept hearing the swoosh of lightsabers in the back of my mind.

File off the serial numbers if you like, but it wasn't hard to see where "Incarnum" came from.

 

[MerricB]

And yet somehow, as I was reading it, I kept hearing the swoosh of lightsabers in the back of my mind.

File off the serial numbers if you like, but it wasn't hard to see where "Incarnum" came from.

Dan Simmons, "Endymion" and "The Rise of Endymion"

Those books come to mind far more than the Star Wars universe when reading Magic of Incarnum.

 

[Hussar]

Pardon me for being a tad on the stupid side, but I don't understand something.

How can appealing to the largest segment of the consumers possibly be considered a bad thing? Whether you like WOTC material or not, that's precisely what publishing mainstream material means. That some call it "appealing to the lowest common denominator" seems a little counter intuitive. Just like any entertainment medium, you will always have "mainstream" and the "fringe". Mainstream keeps the medium alive.

Without mainstream producers, the fringe producers would cease to exist. It takes the mainstream to keep people interested in the medium. The mainstream is mainstream precisely because it appeals to the widest possible audience. That means that it doesn't take a lot of risks and that mainstream material, be it RPG's, music, movies or whatever, appears to be "31 flavours of vanilla".

The reverse is also true. Fringe elements are required to inject new material into the mainstream. New ideas are developed on the fringe, bounced around by the brownian motion of consumers fed up with mainstream and either die a quiet death or become popular enough that they become adopted by the mainstream.

The mainstream maintains the system and the fringe insures that the system doesn't stagnate. But, blaming the mainstream element for not taking risks looks like a misunderstanding of the system. The mainstream can't take major risks because it risks losing the largest fan base. Fringe elements can afford to take risks because they have much less to lose.

So, is much of what WOTC cranks out derivative? Of course it is. They take ideas that look viable and turn them into mainstream works. In doing so, they are going to lose a lot of the more radical ideas, but, they are also going to introduce this idea to a much larger consumer base.

Maybe I'm missing something, but, why isn't this a valid model of doing business?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hussar, its like when fans of an underground band or music form suddenly find their pet bands have gotten popular..."THEY'VE SOLD OUT!" becomes the fans' battlecry.

There is nothing wrong with catering to the mainstream. Eventually, someone will appeal to the fringe and satisfy their desires- be it the big companies or the little guys.

 

[The Shaman]

Maybe I'm missing something, but, why isn't this a valid model of doing business?

Yes, I think you are missing something:

Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast has adopted an apparently successful business plan, offers perhaps the highest production values, can mount the biggest strategic marketing effort - and so far this year, I purchased one WotC title, because I find most of their products to be bland and rote, "fifty-one flavors of vanilla," not worth the cover price for the two or three bits that I might actually use when I play.

Small correction here - I actually purchased two WotC books - I forgot that Sandstorm was a 2005 release and not 2004.

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.

There seems to be a boom-and-bust integral to the gaming 'industry' - a new product is released, people snap it up, more product is released, fewer and fewer people buy it, and so a new edition is released, and the process starts all over again. 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.

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...

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.

I can't speak for anyone else of course, but nowhere have I said that it's not a valid model, if your concern is selling more widgets than anyone else.

But I'm not a Hasbro shareholder, so I don't really care if Wizards of the Coasts is moving more units of product per quarter than the next five RPG publishers combined - what I care about as a consumer is a product than enhances my gaming experience and good value for my dollar.

There's a strange undercurrent that I pick up from some posters that goes something like the old Charlie Wilson quote about General Motors: "What's good for Wizards of the Coast is good for gamers!" I don't understand this idea that if WotC is successful (and there's little question that they are), that somehow that inherently translates into better gaming for everyone. The only way I can even come close to wrapping my head around this is to consider that (1) Wizards of the Coast 'shapes' the marketplace, as GVDammerung phrased it, so the success of the smaller publishers is hitched to WotC's star, for better or worse, or (2) the fact that Wizards of the Coast is churning out its fifty-one flavors of vanilla is what creates the opportunity for the more novel third party publishers to stand out, like rubies displayed on a bit of vanilla-white satin.

I'm not entirely convinced that either of these examples are true; I think one could make the case that WotC helps to stagnate the market by its business practices (e.g., release of 3.5) and its corporate competitive advantages (i.e., what would the RPG market look like if it was big enough to attract the attention of Mattel, bringing its resources to one of WotC's competitors? would we see more innovation from Wizards of the Coast then?). I honestly don't know enough about it to say for sure without access to a whole lot of proprietary business data, so unfortunately I can only speculate with the rest of the bunch.

What I do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that the gaming books produced by Wizards of the Coast rarely excite me, so my consumer dollar goes elsewhere. (And in that I cannot be disputed! )

 

[Glyfair]

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.

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.

You seem to be equating "good" with "innovative." They aren't the same thing.

Yes, innovation is good to have. However, all innovative things aren't good (indeed, I'd say the worst "excrement" out there were because the person producing it was being innovative and assumed that meant it would be good) and all non-innovative things aren't bad.

 

[The Shaman]

You seem to be equating "good" with "innovative." They aren't the same thing.

When I'm speaking of something being "innovative," I'm talking about something that improves upon what came before, not different for difference sake.

So in that context, yes, I think innovative is good.