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

[Pramas]

It's just that many people are interpreting the stuff from Charles Ryan as being a truly extraordinary claim: a wave of growth unprecedented in the history of RPGs even above and beyond the D&D fad of the 80s("best year ever," et al). That's bigger than reinvigorating a flagging and directionless game and renewing a common set of interests in RPGs, which I don't think anyone will dispute happened.

When Charles talks about D&D, he is talking about it as a brand. He is thus almost certainly adding in all the revenue from the D&D miniatures to his "best year ever" analysis, plus that of novels, licensing, etc. The fact that WotC sold a lot of collectible minis doesn't necessarily mean there's a huge surge of new roleplayers or that the D&D RPG books (what most folks would consider "real" D&D) are selling at levels better than the boom era of the early 80s. Or even levels better than 2nd edition.

 

[diaglo]

In fact, Charles would have more to gain BY lying around here. If D&D was hurting that badly, knowing the generosity of ENWorlders as a whole, we'd probably start buying even more product.

give me a break Henry.. i'm doing all i can.

i buy the minis

i buy the novels

i buy the accessories, supplements, and game books.

heck i even buy the supplements, adventures, hardcovers i can find on ebay for the older stuff.

and on top of that i bought Algolei an account here as revenge.

 

[WizarDru]

It's more like Charles Ryan knows that ENWorlders have far less access to independent anecdotal or semi-anectodal (store sales, etc) than anybody else and are inclined to believe him for ideological reasons. Hell, apparently a bunch of you believe him without question when he says a panel of very knowledgable industry people's opinions are irrelevant. But a bunch of you *did* believe that Ryan Dancey would make a million bucks off of organized RPGs.

Charles never offered a percentage number, unless I missed it. He did opine "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.)"

Tavis provided us with data on the panel in question: namely himself and "Jeff Tidball, Stan!, Sean Reynolds, Bruce Harlick" as well as Kenneth Hite and James Ernst. Tav stated that Ken had shown his work in his occasional column on gamingreport.com...but frankly, I don't see much there to back up his assertions, other than stating that in 2003, he thinks that Wotc may have lost 15% of the total market, leaving them 43%. He doesn't back those numbers up, though, so we don't know what they're based on any more than Charles' numbers.

I think James Ernst is one the coolest people around and one of the best board game designers, to boot. But when I met him, I didn't get the impression he had any harder data on the RPG market than you or me. No offense to Tav, either, but I had no idea who he was until I looked him on Pen & Paper. Some industry professionals (Matt, Monte, Mike...hmmm, lotta Ms there) have popped in to say that their D&D and d20 products are doing well, which while it doesn't directly support Charles' statements, it's consistent with them.

It's fair to say that folks aren't blindly following like sheep, so much as some are willing to assume that Charles isn't involved in blatant misrepresentation. The actual number of player and consumers are, as I think you highlighted earlier, not necessarily (I would say almost certainly) the same. Chris is likely correct that he's including the whole brand in the analysis. That doesn't make his statement necessarily misrepresentations or fluff talk, either.

I think we have to agree, regardless, that whether or not WotC represents 60%, 45%, or even 35% of the market, any panel about the state of the industry without WotC is, as Charles' states, not really that representative of the total market. That'd be like having a panel about the retail software market, and not inviting Microsoft.

 

[CharlesRyan]

When Charles talks about D&D, he is talking about it as a brand. He is thus almost certainly adding in all the revenue from the D&D miniatures to his "best year ever" analysis, plus that of novels, licensing, etc.

Hi, Chris!

Just to clarify: No, I was not including minis, novels, or licensing in the basis of my claims. The growth I was talking about is purely in the RPG category (which is the part of the brand for which I have fiscal responsibility).

Your point is a good one, though: When you add in minis and growth in other sectors of the brand, it's been a hell of a year for D&D overall!

 

[velm]

One thing that has been popping up is the 'complexity' of 3E. After playing previous editions, and other game systems, I have to say 3E is among the easiest. All classes use the same advancement chart, saving throws are based on 3 abilities now, and on and on. I would have to say, next to Marvel Super Heroes, this is probably the easiest game I have ever played. All a person has to do is to read the book and sit in a game and watch and learn.

I have seen a few posts about competition with video games. Well, I think a large number who get those games ALSO play the Pen and Paper DND, or if they dont, there is a good chance they might. I have spent some time on boards on some CRPG's where people asked what the 'real thing' was like. After a few people responded, they started asking more and more questions. Thier curiosity has been sparked. In a computer game, you are limited by what the designers put in there. What do you think one of those people who have only played a computer role playing game will respond to when you tell them that you are really only limited by your imagination. If that person has a character in a room, they can do whatever they want, they can jump on the bed, they can tear it up looking for a secret compartment. Hey, you just explained to them that they are no longer limited to what some programmer put in.

I have seen posts about trying to cater to a younger age. And I have to strongly agree with NOT catering to a younger age. Dont waste the money on marketing, or time and energy coming up with something for a younger crowd. Yes, I saw some of those 'interactive' items of times past. Very bad. Keep it at the current lvl.

I think RPGs will always have a negative stigma to them. Anybody know about CHIC publishing? I see the skits in the Simpsons, I saw a skit on Reno 911. They ALL portray the industry in a negative light. (Of course, to us gamers, I think alot of us find them to be pretty hilarious.)

Is the industry in a such Dire Straights? That is a difficult thing to answer, I think the publication of 3E helped bring more people in.

Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that all that is NEEDED to play the game are a group of people, 4 people, including the DM if he is playing a character. So not many people are needed, sure having another player would be nice, but not needed. A players handbook, a DMG, A MM. That is it. That is all. EVERYTHING else is optional. They do not NEED all those other supplements out there.

 

[Pramas]

Hi, Chris!

Just to clarify: No, I was not including minis, novels, or licensing in the basis of my claims. The growth I was talking about is purely in the RPG category (which is the part of the brand for which I have fiscal responsibility).

Really? I find that surprising. We'll have to talk about it next week at one of the Xmas parties. Now I'm genuinely curious.

 

[JoeGKushner]

What kind of growth trend involves two waves of layoffs and departmental downsizing, pray tell? Or is, "since 3e was released," still to long view? And that's just at WotC.

Just a real quick note. In the real world, many companies have huge layoffs even when highly profitible. 7-11 for example, had one year that was like their best and then announced several hundred stores closing. Why? Those stores weren't making AS much money as others.

 

[Psion]

Just to clarify: No, I was not including minis, novels, or licensing in the basis of my claims. The growth I was talking about is purely in the RPG category (which is the part of the brand for which I have fiscal responsibility).

Your point is a good one, though: When you add in minis and growth in other sectors of the brand, it's been a hell of a year for D&D overall!

Wow. That is pretty impressive. I had presumed that you were including minis as well. I would have thought that if anything, D&D minis pulled money away from RPG products.

 

[Thorntangle]

Hi, Chris!

Just to clarify: No, I was not including minis, novels, or licensing in the basis of my claims. The growth I was talking about is purely in the RPG category (which is the part of the brand for which I have fiscal responsibility).

Your point is a good one, though: When you add in minis and growth in other sectors of the brand, it's been a hell of a year for D&D overall!

Very nice. I'm assuming the RPGs and novels are selling about as well as always with a big uptick in the miniatures area. I'm curious - Did the miniatures product line show the largest growth? My own personal experience would lead me to believe so.

 

[buzz]

Try giving the 13 year old what he wants. He doesn't want your touchy feely social game. He doesn't want to explore nuances of character.

The "rules-lite game that would attract tons of new players if only it was marketed up the wazoo" is one of the great myths of RPG fora. Plenty of these games have existed and do exist... and it's almost always "complex" games like D&D that bring in the newbies.

Give a newbie Everyway and they won't know what to do with it. Give a newbie a game like D&D*, and they'll very readily see that it is a *game* with structure and objectives and rules, and they will grok it.


*V:tM and WEG SW fall into this category as well: strong archetypes, rules that were complex enough, clear goals., etc.