Is the RPG Industry on Life Support? (Merged w/"Nothing Dies")

[Sholari]

I certainly feel like stripping down the whole game to be an introductory set would be the wrong thing to do. IMO, what we need is a "stepping stone."

Honestly, I think what is needed is to consider different market segments besides hardcore players. D&D 3.x, which is my favorite edition btw, has been streamlined to appeal to hardcore players. However, it does not do quite as good a job with two important segments of the market.

The first is new players. A stripped down version isn't necessarily the right solution, thats just an assumption you are making, Psion. I think market research needs to be conducted with "early gamers" (10-14) on what best appeals to them and then "high potential non-gamers" that may likely migrate to gaming. How do these non-gamers percieve D&D? What types of things turn them off to gaming? What sort of things interest them about gaming? My wife, for instance, finds D&D pretty interesting but can't sit through any more than 3+ hours of gaming. Are there intermediary steps or products which may bring in new blood. What are the challenges of new gamers and what can we do to solve those issues?

The second is DMs. There are some DMs who are fairly talented and/or have more time on their hands. For thems this is probably not as much an issue. There are other DMs who have less ability and/or time on their hands. Judging how after I turned over the D&D reigns when my work schedule got to busy, several other DMs burned out fairly quickly. Now I've picked up the DMing reigns again, but a lot of times it seems like more work than fun compared to previous editions. I think there have been a lot of comments about this so I don't think I'm alone in this experience. At the same time the market has focused more on players and options than DMs and tools/timesavers than in the past. This is because there are more players for every DM and thus players offer a bigger market. Maybe part of the solution is offering DM "high-quality" support on the lower-cost web channel and player options through the retail channel. Regardless, a lot more work can be done here to make it easier for DMs.

 

[Akrasia]

...
The second is DMs. There are some DMs who are fairly talented and/or have more time on their hands. For thems this is probably not as much an issue. There are other DMs who have less ability and/or time on their hands. Judging how after I turned over the D&D reigns when my work schedule got to busy, several other DMs burned out fairly quickly. Now I've picked up the DMing reigns again, but a lot of times it seems like more work than fun compared to previous editions. I think there have been a lot of comments about this so I don't think I'm alone in this experience. At the same time the market has focused more on players and options than DMs and tools/timesavers than in the past. This is because there are more players for every DM and thus players offer a bigger market. Maybe part of the solution is offering DM "high-quality" support on the lower-cost web channel and player options through the retail channel. Regardless, a lot more work can be done here to make it easier for DMs.

This is pretty much the point I've been trying to make, but your summary does a better job than my own efforts.

 

[Akrasia]

... In general, very few people have had close enough personal contact with anything resembling a good statistical sampling of the population. Anecdotal evidence is just that - an anecdote.

I never claimed that my evidence was anything other than anecdotal, or that my claims were the result of a well-funded NSF grant. :\

However, people who reject out of hand my anecdotal evidence, and claim the contrary (e.g. that most busy 30+ professionals have absolutely no problem finding the time and energy to work as 3E DMs on a regular basis), typically are not in any superior epistemic position to do so. Their evidence is every bit as anecdotal as my own.

 

[WizarDru]

Honestly, I think what is needed is to consider different market segments besides hardcore players. D&D 3.x, which is my favorite edition btw, has been streamlined to appeal to hardcore players. However, it does not do quite as good a job with two important segments of the market.

The first is new players.

Well, the new basic edition may tell if that's true or not. However, an assumption throughout the discussion is that there are vast, untapped numbers of potential gamers who would be playing D&D right now, if only WotC would step up and do X to bring them into the game. I'm not sure that I accept that the RPG community is so massively underserved. I do know that I started playing D&D when I was 11, and AD&D by the time I was 12 or 13. Most of my fellow players were the same way.

I think that there are two separate phases that bring new players in: interest and accessibility. Most of this discussion assumes the former and focuses on the latter. I think WotC's recent advertising campaign and their 30th anniversary marketing push certainly got the name out there, and between that and the LotR movies, the interest isn't going to see a much more dramatic upswing than it has.

Therefore, the issue is more a question of making the game accessible. I'm sure more can be done, but I think the Basic Set is a good first step. It doesn't 'dumb down' D&D, so much as only provide the material that the players and DM actually need for a simple game. The reason so many came into D&D through Moldvay was two-fold: it was sold in a box as a complete game (and thus could be given as a gift and purchased in places other than obscure book or hobby shops); second, it provided the right level of detail to get playing quickly, allowing players and DMs to move up to their level of sophistication when they were ready, on their own time.

The goal shouldn't be "how can I market this to kids?" but "how can I make this game more accesible to everyone?". This should include packaging to make it clear to non-players that it's the right thing to give as a gift, in the retail channel in places like Toys'R'Us, Target and Barnes and Nobles and is attractive or different enough to garner attention.

Now I've picked up the DMing reigns again, but a lot of times it seems like more work than fun compared to previous editions. I think there have been a lot of comments about this so I don't think I'm alone in this experience. At the same time the market has focused more on players and options than DMs and tools/timesavers than in the past. This is because there are more players for every DM and thus players offer a bigger market. Maybe part of the solution is offering DM "high-quality" support on the lower-cost web channel and player options through the retail channel. Regardless, a lot more work can be done here to make it easier for DMs.

This is a prickly pear of a problem. You're 100% right: new DMs or inexperienced DMs are underserved. The problem is that DMs themselves are notoriously difficult to serve. Experienced DMs consider such material a waste of paper. Further, many DMs prefer to brew their own, both rules and settings, making it difficult to target them with specific material. Further, creating DM-specific material is, quite frankly, much harder. It requires a lot more work to provide more detailed rules-centric material to DMs. Attacking the problem by selling to the players (and thus forcing the DM to acquire material from the bottom-up) is the current proven strategy, I think. The realities of the publishing industry mean that a solution to this problem is difficult, at best. PDFs may certainly be a step in the right direction for this. WotC's extensive web support is certainly an important, if underrated, component, as is Paizo's DM-centric articles in Dungeon.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Mongoose releases a stunning volume of product, and (as I understand it) pays well below the industry standard word rates. They expect, and get, an exceptional amount of work out of their employees. Licensed products are a significant portion of their releases.

Well, first off you would be wrong about our pay rates, with regards to our employees. Rather, the reverse - we pay some of the highest rates in the industry. You would be staggered to know what we pay for good people.

We do expect a great deal from our employees but it is nothing that either myself or my business partner have not done/are not doing ourselves. Furthermore, isn't it obvious? If you are going to do well at anything, you have to work hard at it. The harder you work, the better you will be.

Also, contrary to speculation, our licenced products are not our best-selling publications. . .

 

[Toben the Many]

I don't see evidence in past game marketing attempts where "stepping stones" have worked. Again, in the 90's, TSR released alot of version of D&D that were simplified to try to gain a younger audience, and it failed.

I think that D&D should stay where it is. I have to agree that the 3.x system is very basic and simple at its very heart. You roll a d20. But the layers of rules systems is very deep making it rewarding to some, but frustrating to others.

However, I don't think that a simplification of the system would solve much. Many people of the audience we are discussing (10-14 year olds) already play CCGs that have extraordinary levels of complexity, though each of these games is basic at heart. Kids will learn it if they are interested in it.

Let's assume that a successful "stepping stone" system was created and it was successful. A vast majority of gamers out there wouldn't buy it. They already play a system they are comfortable with. So, unless you are selling an equal volume of your "stepping stone" system to your main system, your sales figures will be alright.

But then you're going to ask your new initiates to "convert" to a more complicated system with more rules, and more material later? I know, I know. We all coverted to 3.x. But that was after 2nd Edition had become old, stodgy, and limited in scope. Could you imagine if right after 3.0 came out they had relased 4.0? Numerous people would refuse to buy it, because they were already comfortable where they were.

 

[WizarDru]

I don't see evidence in past game marketing attempts where "stepping stones" have worked. Again, in the 90's, TSR released alot of version of D&D that were simplified to try to gain a younger audience, and it failed.

They did? I was away from D&D at that time. What product(s) are we talking about, here?

But then you're going to ask your new initiates to "convert" to a more complicated system with more rules, and more material later? I know, I know. We all coverted to 3.x. But that was after 2nd Edition had become old, stodgy, and limited in scope. Could you imagine if right after 3.0 came out they had relased 4.0? Numerous people would refuse to buy it, because they were already comfortable where they were.

Actually, we've already had this happen, as I mentioned above. A large number of posters on this board started with the red box and then jumped to AD&D. The first Basic Set came out in 1977, the second version in Jan. 1978, and the first AD&D books hit the shelves in mid-1978. People bought one and migrated in droves, over the years. A comparison of 2.0 to 3.0 doesn't really fit as well, because they're equally complex systems....we're talking about a scaled-down system. Do beginners really need to know all the intricacies of dispelling rules, damage resistance types and interplanar travel? Not out of the gate, I suspect.

In point of fact, they don't even need to know how to create a character, necessarily. one of the facets of the basic set is that they give you Regdar, and tell you what he can do. Later, you can make your own fighter and modify him, but at the beginning, you just roll with it, leaving the complex decisions until later. That's a good choice, IMHO.

 

[Henry]

I think a lot of the stuff Toben is talking about are the DragonStrike board game, etc. that TSR released in the early 1990's, to less than stellar figures.

As for the health of the hobby, I think we all know what to do to make it grow, the question is are we willing to do it? TSR gained it's burst of late 1970's and early 1980's popularity in one way, and one way only - word of mouth. All the marketing in the world can't substitute for the things we used to do as kids, dragging other kids into the hobby by telling them and showing them how much fun it is. D&D has NEVER stopped hooking the die-hard fantasy fans - if a fantasy geek sees D&D, he or she digs into it despite, or perhaps because of, the complexity. But what happens after that is that that fan tells another, who tells one or two more, and in the 1980's MANY one-person groups spawned six or seven person groups. The point is, is it hooking kids ENOUGH to the point where they're spreading the word? Is there a societal or cultural trend that today is preventing younger kids from spreading D&D like they used to? Is it the faddish elements of 25 years ago? Is it the increased awareness of child kidnapping and criminal acts against children? Is it the increase in percentage that we get news through electronic media over print media? Is it the earth's rotation? Whatever it is, the only way the hobby truly grows is a strong base of fans enthusiastically sharing the fun with peers.

 

[Psion]

I don't see evidence in past game marketing attempts where "stepping stones" have worked. Again, in the 90's, TSR released alot of version of D&D that were simplified to try to gain a younger audience, and it failed.

But look at what they did. They made a basic game, and marketed it as a core line that they supported seperately from the core game. One that sold poorly because it didn't carry the moniker "advanced."

The kind of stepping stone they need is one that will introduce them to the core line, not a separate line.

As for example from WotC's past, I don't see how with CCG's, using starter boxes and theme decks using the same card set as the randomized sets, has failed to work.

 

[CharlesRyan]

This has been an interesting thread, with a lot of great points. I'm sorry I didn't cotton on to it until yesterday, but I'll try to catch up. Here are a few thoughts; I've tried to address a bunch of stuff, but it's hard to catch it all (or even keep track of it all):

Erik’s call for companies that are doing well: We’re doing great! 2004 was probably the best year ever for D&D (that's right: ever), as measured by a wide variety of standards. All of our key trends are up and continuing to accelerate upward. We expect 2005 to be the next best year ever for D&D.

The So Cal panel: With all respect to the members of the panel (two of whom are among my closest friends), any panel that doesn’t include WotC, and purports to be talking about the RPG business, isn’t. The panel’s findings may or may not accurately speak to the state of a portion of the industry, but WotC is two-thirds of the business, and without it, you aren’t even close to talking about the RPG industry as a whole.

Market research: Some have commented on the market research WotC conducted in the couple years prior to the release of 3e. It was groundbreaking at the time, but it’s routine now. We do major studies every year, along with many other initiatives; we work hard to understand our marketplace and the needs and desires of gamers and potential gamers. (This shouldn’t be a surprise—some of the people on this thread have commented in other threads on their own participation in our new market research panel!)

As I mentioned above, the overall trends are very strong: that 2 million or so regular players from 1999 has grown to over 4 million in 2004. (Monte mentioned that the market research number is probably larger than reality, and I tend to agree--but the trend has been consistent.)

New players: All of our data and experience tells us that, thankfully, new players are entering the marketplace. Indeed, the increase in players clearly tells us that new players are entering the hobby faster than old ones are leaving.

It shouldn't be surprising that this is a very important issue for us at WotC, and one major thrust of our business and marketing activity is the acquisition of new players.

Complexity: The right balance of game complexity is a tricky issue. (And Sholari is on the mark in his observation on market segmentation and the need to meet the specific needs of each segment.) As posters here have pointed out, complexity is sometimes more desirable to teen and tween players than simplicity--but not always. Interestingly, it’s often key concepts that are hard for new players to grok, rather than complex rules. Take initiative, for example. Non-roleplayers are so used to the idea one player starts, then play passes to the player on his left, and so on (like a game of Monopoly), that it’s very difficult to get them to parse the idea that turn order is set by a roll of the die and changes over the course of the game. (That’s why initiative is one mechanic that was simplified in the Basic Game.)

This ties back in to the issue of market research: We do tons of focus group playtesting for any new game that’s intended to reach a nonhobby audience; it’s critical to understand the learning path that leads players successfully into an understanding of the game.

I’m happy to talk more on any of these topics (or anything else in this thread that I might have overlooked), but I won’t be able to keep up with this thread. Feel free to post followup questions over on the WotC D&D General forum, which I can keep up with. (Follow the WOOF! directions for best results.)