How Do We Measure A Game's Success?

[Reynard]

Here’s a link you may find illuminating!

Price of Tea in China

That's cute and all, but it doesn't refute the fact that Blades is well supported by the community, both fan and pro. So feel free to feel smug but you did not actually make a point worth noting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's cute and all, but it doesn't refute the fact that Blades is well supported by the community, both fan and pro. So feel free to feel smug but you did not actually make a point worth noting.

And what point worth noting did you make, sir?

 

[Scribe]

In terms of a TTRPG, by what metric do we try and determine whether it is or was a success?

Does it realize its design goals, does it inform the play in the way the designers wanted? Is it enjoyed by those who engage with it honestly, in the spirit the designers intended?

If so, its hard to say its not a success.

 

[Reynard]

And what point worth noting did you make, sir?

Hey, you are the one that linked a "clever" site to make a point, amounting to "what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?" I was just dismissing your "clever" comment by pointing out that it did indeed matter if Blades was supported by a community and not just the publisher.

If you want to actually discuss the point, maybe actively make an argument regarding how official versus unofficial support interacts with the idea of "success." If you don't and prefer to just post memes, expect that folks might not take you particularly seriously.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I guess I would just contribute that, in terms of either creating or playing/running a game, I don't really need to concern myself with what anyone else thinks.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Hey, you are the one that linked a "clever" site to make a point, amounting to "what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?" I was just dismissing your "clever" comment by pointing out that it did indeed matter if Blades was supported by a community and not just the publisher.

If you want to actually discuss the point, maybe actively make an argument regarding how official versus unofficial support interacts with the idea of "success." If you don't and prefer to just post memes, expect that folks might not take you particularly seriously.

I already did explain that!

 

[Brumal]

This came up in another thread and I am curious what folks feel about this broadly.

In terms of a TTRPG, by what metric do we try and determine whether it is or was a success?

The first and most obvious way is monetary. Did it fund really strongly crowdsourcing? Does it sell well, both as a core system and supplements? That sort of thing.

There is also the question of support. Does a game have to have ongoing support to be a "success"? Does ongoing support automatically mean it is a success?

What about actual play? How many people should be playing a game regularly for it to be a success? If there are lots of games at convention or on VTT platforms, does that mean it is a success? How many home groups need to be playing it?

What do you think? In your opinion, what makes a TTRPG a success and how do you measure that?

I find it hard to quantify RPG success. I agree that it can be defined in different ways. Some ways are

Player response. Call of Cthulhu and Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition receive incredible numbers of overwhelmingly positive testimonials from players.​

​

Influence on other designers. Apocalypse World has been hugely influential. Presenting many innovations that other designers can and do use. Two quick examples: everyone would think of player moves and the trifecta of results, but then there are GM moves which I think are harder for people to get.​

​

Passionate responses. Some games aren't liked by many players, but those that do love them. Torchbearer is one, with its cranky grind.​

​

Games that matter to RPG aficionados on an artistic or technical level. It could be clunky and not played much, but it's doing something intriguing. There are so many and everyone stumbles onto their own examples. Artefact was one for me.​

​

For a game designer, how well they did what they wanted to. I saw others saying that. Do players see and experience what the designer wants them to see and experience? Do they play in the ways designer wants them to play? Paranoia is a great success in this way. It's easy to play the way the designers want you to play, and you can appreciate getting into that.​

Like many or most here, I don't really care about commercial success, although obviously you can count it as one way to succeed. I wouldn't rule out saying that a game is successful because it reached a lot of people: that's another way to count success.​

It looks like I have to say what way I'm going to use, and then I can measure on that basis, and someone else might not care about that at all.