Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 9883527" data-attributes="member: 1008">If certain people don't want to play old games, that's their call. I am neither going to be happy nor sad about such a thing. People can spend their time however they want, and I'm not going to lose sleep over a hypothetical future where Joe Random chooses not to join a TTRPG group because he doesn't like older games. In such a future, I would continue to do what I do now, and introduce people using the games I want to run. It's entirely possible to do so and, in this imaginary dark future where no one produces any new material, others who want to keep gaming will simply have to learn how to do so.Importantly, this is an entirely imaginary, hypothetical future that we have no reason to believe will ever exist, so the entire terrible scenario is a bit of a silly boogyman, really.My main point on this topic is that it is actually possible to recruit players without leaning in WotC, if you'd like to do so. I don't see why this observation is taken as a bad thing. It means that even in a crazy, worst-case, imaginary future where all the companies collapse, your gaming doesn't necessarily have to end.If the industry dies, the hobby will change, but there is no reason for it to die. Either gaming is fun, or it isn't. Either people want to run games and invite others, or they don't. People invested in the big new thing, what's currently popular, will probably move on or not join. People who actually want to play TTRGPS and find doing so fun will keep doing so.And I also buy new material because/when it makes me happy, so I'm not sure why you seem to be trying to argue with me.It was claimed in the OP that GMs are responsible for propping up the hobby financially, and the OP clearly feels disillusioned and pressured by this, along with a number of other factors. All I did was say that I, as a GM, don't take personal responsibility for the health of the industry, nor am I personally invested in the overall success of the hobby. Note that I also said that I do care about the hobby, just that I don't feel responsible for it. I've also mentioned that I make the fruits of my own labours available to others, freely, where I think others will find value in it. I can support the hobby, and those engaging in it, without doing so from a position of pressure or obligation.It's important to note that I see a huge difference between the industry and the hobby and I am absolutely not responsible for anyone's ability to profit from the hobby (beyond the accepted norms whereby if I want the gaming goods you make, I'm generally expected to offer you my money).Here's my original comment:Are you really trying to claim putting my fun, and that of the group I game with, before the wider hobby and the industry is the wrong way to approach the hobby?You can claim I'm selfish or a bad person because I don't act as if I have a personal stake in the success of people trying to profit from the industry, but I'm not buying it. If you make a good product I want, I'll happily throw money at you, engage with your community and support your business. Stop making products I want, or if my interests move on to different games, and I stop giving you money. Simple.</blockquote>

Verification