Is WOTC falling into a problem like the old TSR did

[Jim Hague]

I'm not proposing that resources are infinite, but rather that the fragmentation is finite, as well. There would come a point when the fragmentation would cease, some companies would drop out, et cetera. I don't think returns would be "ever diminishing."

As long as the customer base continues to fragment, there's fewer resources - profits - for everyone. There comes a point when said fragmentation wouldn't matter, because there'd be no or negligible profit in producing content.

Of course, if I were in the business, making RPGs mainstream would definitely be a goal so my company could make more money. But I'm not. I'm looking at it solely as a gamer.

Then I submit that until you can adopt that alternate viewpoint, that your ideas are, at best, unrealistic and ill informed.

Well, yeah, I would think so. You're still assuming that continued growth is a self-evident "good." I don't think that's necessarily the case. I don't have a problem with a smaller hobby.

Again, see above. Smaller is not a good thing.

I'm not against an introductory system. Sounds okay to me. New blood is fine, too. You need some new players to maintain the hobby, even it is a small hobby with no overall growth.

New blood means growth, so your statement makes no sense.

Actually, that's the kind of thing that would keep the fragmentation from continuing indefinitely. Some content providers would drop out, the market would adjust, et cetera. That's especially true if there is "needless" competition out there.

In any case, it was just an offhand comment, and it won't happen, so I have no desire to beat the subject to death. The biggest RPG companies will always churn out more product and seek to grow the market. And if history is any guide, we'll continue to buy it. And the carousel will keep going 'round. (Except for a few grumpy old guys who'll get off and play with their outdated 3E stuff the rest of their lives.)

Thankfully, this has been the case so far. But with a sudden, not pleasant shift in the market and things like the tiered distribution system collasping in on itself for all but the largest publishers, we're now in a race to find new ways of getting content out to the public. The old system is, as all systems do, collapsing. The question is - will RPG producers adapt, or perish?

 

[Jim Hague]

I'll note this attitude isn't new. Early Dragon's had Gygax defending himself & TSR because they dared exert their trademark/copyrights for D&D. Some felt they should be able to photocopy the rules and pass them to their friends, professionally publish D&D supplements, etc.

Oh, I know. But that strays dangerously close to the whole pirating, IP law and the like, and those're waters I think that're outside the purview of this thread (and my fireproof suit) to handle. The attitude is nothing new, no, not at all.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

As long as the customer base continues to fragment, there's fewer resources - profits - for everyone. There comes a point when said fragmentation wouldn't matter, because there'd be no or negligible profit in producing content.

Right. Fragmentation wouldn't continue indefinitely. The market would stablize at some point.

Then I submit that until you can adopt that alternate viewpoint, that your ideas are, at best, unrealistic and ill informed.

If they were a marketing plan for a RPG company, I'd agree. Look, I'm not "anti-profit" or anything like that; I don't have any philosophical irons in this fire. All I was saying was that I could be content with a small, more hobbyist RPG market. If the companies are smaller, that's okay. If there're fewer product releases, that's okay, too. If there's less rules-bloat and rebooting, that's good.

Again, see above. Smaller is not a good thing.

That seems to be the crux of the disagreement. I don't have a problem with smaller.

New blood means growth, so your statement makes no sense.

I was thinking of merely maintaining a status quo. That is, old gamers drift of to other pursuits (or die), and new gamers come in. The size of the hobby basically stays the same.

The old system is, as all systems do, collapsing. The question is - will RPG producers adapt, or perish?

Some might perish. Others will adapt. As long as there are people who want to play RPGs, there will be a market. It might be smaller, but it will be there.

 

[Jim Hague]

Right. Fragmentation wouldn't continue indefinitely. The market would stablize at some point.

Market stablization at the point of effectively being no market is inherently worthless.

If they were a marketing plan for a RPG company, I'd agree. Look, I'm not "anti-profit" or anything like that; I don't have any philosophical irons in this fire. All I was saying was that I could be content with a small, more hobbyist RPG market. If the companies are smaller, that's okay. If there're fewer product releases, that's okay, too. If there's less rules-bloat and rebooting, that's good.

Thing is, that smaller market, historically, produces less quality content at a higher price. As for rules bloat...that's a matter of what you buy. The majority of folks out there like rules, crunchy stuff, and that's what they buy. I personally don't use most of it, but I like the option being there. At some point, there's too much product - hence why you end up with the d20 bubble bursting and reorganizing at a smaller, fall-out level. But a hobbyist market isn't a market at all; it's a return to the earliest days of games, where product was neither consistent or readily available. Not good.

I was thinking of merely maintaining a status quo. That is, old gamers drift of to other pursuits (or die), and new gamers come in. The size of the hobby basically stays the same.

And for a hobby to remain anything but a historical footnote, it needs to be dynamic. New ideas and new players drive this. Status quo simply doesn't work.

Some might perish. Others will adapt. As long as there are people who want to play RPGs, there will be a market. It might be smaller, but it will be there.

And a market that sinks below sustainable levels isn't a market at all. I neither want every supplement to cost $100 because it's what some few content producers can charge, being the only game in town (GW, I'm looking at you), nor slapdash, poorly-produced flotsam by some guy with no design aesthetic, experience, or care for anything other than scribbling their ideas down. There's a balance to be struck.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Market stablization at the point of effectively being no market is inherently worthless...a hobbyist market isn't a market at all...And a market that sinks below sustainable levels isn't a market at all.

Okay, now we're down to it, I think.

I think it's possible to have a smaller, hobbyist market that still produces good products. Again, I point to the current wargame market, which does exactly that. You seem to believe that a small hobbyist market is worthless and unsustainable. I disagree. Not much else to say.

 

[Hstio]

While I'm not a fan of rules bloat and I far, far prefer fluff over crunch, it's unfortunately true that crunch is what keeps the industry alive. A shrinking industry is bad for everyone, fans and companies. Less profit means there's less incentive for new companies with fresh ideas to form and less chance that their products will be picked up by a distributer. The hobby is already seeing a boom in pdfs as the local gaming stores fade away andd the big book stores only carry WOTC and White Wolf.

In my perfect world, I'd like to see WOTC come up with a business plan that has them build a new campaign world, a fixed numbere of support books/adventures to go with it, and then move on 2-3 years later to a new setting, rinse and repeat. I also agree that we need fresh blood in the hobby or it will fade away. Tie ins to online games, ps3/xbox, etc is important to expose a new generation to the hobby.

Hstio

 

[Geoffrey]

I don't like the slick, glossy look of many of the RPG products on store shelves. I actually prefer a more amateur look (such as some of the old Judges Guild stuff, or the very early monochrome AD&D modules). I also don't like bells and whistles in my products. I like them to be terse. The old 1977 Tegel Manor (which looks like this: http://www.acaeum.com/jg/ModPhotos/TegelManor1st.html ) is the best executed module I've ever seen for my taste. It's precisely the sort of thing that hobbyists could sell using print-on-demand technology, and probably making just enough profit for them to buy stuff from other hobbyists.

A couple more examples of hobbyists' creations that I really like:

The Garden of al-Astorion by Gabor Lux:
http://www.judgesguild.com/fans/al-astorion_cc.pdf
reviewed here: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16637

The Mines of Khunmar by Stefan Poag:
http://www.blind-eye.com/blackmoor/khunmar_digest.pdf
(some of the best dungeon maps I've ever seen)

It's nice to be able to download these items for free, but I'd gladly pay for actual printed copies that are redolent of old 1970s D&D items. Imagine such things as print-on-demands selling for cost plus $1.00. That would be my idea of RPG heaven.

Yes, I know I'm in a distinct minority. Alas for me.

 

[Ranger REG]

No thanks. I'm not particularly fond of WotC, but these nostaglia-based anti-3e threads are becoming...annoying. Why don't the posters simply be honest and say that they prefer previous editions or games instead? Save the rest of us a headache, why don'tcha.

Why are you not particularly fond of WotC?

 

[BryonD]

That's where I'm coming from. I want to see the day where the RPG work people do does more than put a few measly bucks in their account. It can be done - look at Phil Reed or Green Ronin or even the much-maligned Mongoose Publishing, or Crafty Games. The folks in those ventures are talented, driven, and best of all, fellow gamers. I want to see them succeed as much as I want to succeed in my own ventures. And the RPG market remaining niche and run by pure hobbyists without a lick of business sense isn't the way that'll happen.

The laws of supply and demand are not optional.

I'm all in favor of game publishers / writers making every penny they can from it.
But me being in favor of it has no bearing.

If I could make my current salary writing games instead of what I do, then I'd switch in a heartbeat. Of course, so would 10,000 other people. Which would flood the supply and crash the compensation and I'd promptly quit that and come back to making money doing what I do now.

Games have pretty much always been made by people who are pretty much hobbyists. In a few cases good business people have a group of hobbyists working for them and this CAN go well. But these also become the examples of "sell outs" (strong emphasis on the quotes). I guess there are also examples like people who started out as hobbyists and quit playing but still do the work they know, but that is a pretty small group.

The bottom line is that the system we have now has worked for a long time and will continue to work. After accounting for cycles, it isn't going to improve a lot, and it isn't going to get much worse. Compensation is a combination of many things, and pay is the big one, but satisfaction with what you do is another. And that piece will always play a big role in keeping the game production industry flowing. Don't expect the balance to change a large amount any time soon.

 

[Thurbane]

I am wondering if WOTC is falling into a sort of problem that TSR did. Back in the 2nd edition version of D&D it was settings. Tons of settings and accessories was very bad for the market. With 3.x currently I am seeing an avalanche of feats, prestige classes, does not look like it is stopping anytime soon.

Along with all of the feats and prestige classes, we have

alternative class abilities
Tricks (complete scoundrel)
systems like Incarnum, Pact Magic, Book of 9 swords etc.....

All of these things are fine by themselves but when mixed with others from different books, things can break down really fast.

In my mind choice is good, but too many choices can be a headache.

Thoughts

I tend to agree to a point.

When you start combining options from too many sources which were developed by different authors, you will invariably start running into both balance and compatibility issues. Just take a look at the WotC FAQ and feedback sections sometime - they are literally littered with threads of this type: "If I use a a race from book X with a class from book Y, can he take a feat from book Z which will allow him to one-shot a huge ancient red dragon?"...

It all comes down to the DM and players working together to work out what is going to work in a campaign and what isn't. And at the end of the day, if a consensus can't be reached, the DM, as the person running the game, has to have final say (IMHO).

I ahve a few supplements I use in my game now (PHBII, HoB, HoH, MH, UA), and a few I have bought that I will not use (Bo9S, MoI) due to conflicts with existing rules and house rules...