Not Reading Ryan Dancy

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Either way, the reality is that if any comunity in this hobby is going to succeed, rather than just limping along, it needs to realise that people have different standards for play and for behaviour, and needs to be on top of those issues in a very genuine way.

I'd say that tens of thousands of active members across the globe, and growing, is far from limping. I think the kinds of nannyism you are asking out of a soulless bureaucracy would cause cause far more people to leave the organization than inspire hold outs to join. Otherwise the best solution is for gamers to handle etiquette issues between themselves.

 

[guildofblades]

>>Because the lack of a distributor would crush every small company in existence. Do you enjoy purchase stuff from small companies like mine?<<

Thats simply not true. The Guild of Blades is still a fairly company and we have been operating without the use of any game distributors in North American for almost three years now and we use very few distributors overseas as well. At the low point of our efforts in trying to distribute our products through the 3 tier system the hobby game market currently utilizes we were barely able to justify the production of new products. Our business got back onto a healthy track of growth only after finally making the decision to abandon game distributors and sell via other means and 2006 was by far its best years in our 11 year history.

It is simply that the industry got "lazy". As the 3 tier system got established within our industry and access to retail stores become more stable for the early market leaders back in the 80's, those market leaders became very much vested with that system. As that system has always had somewhat of a captive audience and a core clientel (hobby game stores) of small and struggling businesses strapped for working capital, it is an entire business model that has hardly ever adapted to newer methods and new technologies to enhance its service and make its own operations and the channel as a whole more efficient. That need for innovation shrank dramatically in the late 90's as the distributor consolidations happened and the increasing dominance of the hobby game specific distributors in direct sales to the core market (ie, after the 1995 TCG bubble burst most general hobby distributors got out of games entirely or reduced to only selling just the core popular collectibles of the moment). In this isolated market outside ideas have been shunned and all concept of innovation has stagnated.

The current distribution system for the core hobby is so fundamentally flawed its more harmful to the health of the market than it is useful. Of nearly all successful game publishing companies, from the multi million dollar ones to the small 2-10 man shops who operate profitably year after year I see one prevailing trend. They are increasingly deriving more and more of their revenue from outside sales through hobby game distributors. Some companies like the Guild of Blades have made the final decision regarding the worth of the 3 tier system and support it not at all, but in truth, most of the others remain wedded to the concept that it keeps the retailers around. More on that in a moment. As such, those manufacturers still support the 3 tier system and in spite of those efforts their business still has been migrating more and more around it. This is not a healthy business model. Ryan D. suggests distributors have to innovate and add a lot more value to prevent from becoming obsolete. My contention is they are already obsolete. It is just 20 years of manufacturer loyalty and doctrine that says the distributors are vital to retail stores' health has led to a heavy reluctance on the part of manufacturers to refuse to take a very hard look at the real affects of such a failed business structure on their company's and the overall market. Distributors would not only have to massively innovate in their offerings for us to even remotely consider a return to using the 3 tier system, they would have to demonstratively prove a level of business and financial stability before we could ever entrust such a vital function of our business to them again.

Ryan S. Johnson
Guild of Blades Publishing Group
http://www.guildofblades.com
http://www.1483online.com
http://www.thermopylae-online.com

 

[RyanD]

So, I was curious to hear from RyanD what specifically he had in mind, or if this was just a wild assumption on the state of the gaming market based upon the overall condition today.

As I mentioned in my blog, it's a spider-sense thing. I can't tell you what, when, who or why, but my instincts are screaming that something is coming. And no, it's nothing I'm involved in at the moment; that prediction has nothing to do with me.

Ryan

 

[RyanD]

Interesting! What would be your estimate for post-boom Basic D&D sales? Commentary from various designers and TSR staff points towards impressive figures, but apart from this Acaeum data, little in the way of exact figures.

Basic D&D as a product was always a good seller for TSR, but after its initial peak, it never represented a competitor to AD&D in terms of unit sales -- just comparing sales of the PHB to the various D&D products, the AD&D PHB consistently outsold them. Sales of D&D products tended downward and by the mid 1990s, they were unimportant in the grand scheme of TSR's sales. Even the D&D Cyclopedia was never a great unit volume driver.

We had a theory that the "D&D" products were often bought as gifts for someone who wanted AD&D products. The idea that "D&D" and "AD&D" were really two different games was just beyond anything that made sense to the larger market. I'm certain that a lot of parents/uncles/siblings, etc. bought the "Basic D&D" product believing that it was the introduction product to the "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Game". So D&D sales are not an indicator of the success or market interest in "D&D" per se, but are mingled with, and in fact may mostly represent, gift giving activities targeting AD&D players or potential AD&D players.

Ryan

 

[MerricB]

That data is inaccurate. There was a year where more than 1 million D&D boxed sets were sold, but it wasn't 1989. 1979 is more like it. It was an exception to the trend. The data may be in error, or it might represent a 1 time mass market sale of some kind. The data we had from TSR's old computer system was inconclusive.

Notes:
Basic D&D (1st version, Holmes) was 1977
Basic D&D (2nd version, Moldvay) was 1981
Basic D&D (3rd version, Mentzer) was 1983
Basic D&D (4th version, Black Box) was 1991.

Cheers!

 

[Shadowslayer]

I'm certain that a lot of parents/uncles/siblings, etc. bought the "Basic D&D" product believing that it was the introduction product to the "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Game".

I'd have been happy even if it was the wrong thing. As it stands, I asked my Grandmother for Dungeons and Dragons for Christmas. She was horrified that I'd ask for such a thing, and then said she'd pray for me.

 

[Ranger REG]

It'd make you as much of an outcast as you yourself chose to be. Not many people on EN World has problems with people playing earlier editions. Some even play earlier editions in addition to playing the latest edition. And some, like me, play other games as well as D&D.

I only play the earlier editions when I found myself in a gaming group (not my own) have not yet catch up to 3e, or very resistant to it. I have been resistant to 3.5e when it came out just three years after 3.0e. I finally caught up just two years after (2005).

In a way, I feel more like Diaglo than SteveC. I like to get more out of the books I purchase, and by more I mean at least 7 years of gaming application. I'm not going to buy revisions if I already have rules (albeit scattered among many supplements), which is not a revision but a compilation/compendium. I also am not going to buy revisions when the R&D staff cannot make up their mind (i.e., flip-flopping) like they did with the polymorph rules. I thought the reason for RPGA is to have rules brutally playtested by qualified, certified gamers. If they don't want it, don't put it.

Here's my prediction: D&D will go paperless, the rules will be broadcasted wi-fi onto your cell phone (or laptop with broadband access) via a subscription service (credit card required otherwise you're a loser), and expect the rules to be constantly updated not every 3 years, but every 3 minutes, which should spice up your gaming sessions (especially when WotC R&D still flip-flopping on polymorph).

 

[Destil]

Two notes: A) There IS a D&D MMORPG. Stormreach. Dosn't say much for the brand that I haven't seen it mentioned. And from what I've heard it's a very much DIKU-MUD me-too! style generic-fantasy MMO in a very overcrowded marketplace (check out www.mmogchart.com/ if you're at all interested in the kinds of numbers the various games attract). For what it's worth I like to think that D&D basicly is the very defination of what modren generic fantasy is, but most people don't even realise this.

Blizzard has een around a long time and they have a generation of loyal fans who have grown up playing their games. There are even many people who look at Dawn of War and claim that Games Workshop is ripping off Starcraft(as opposed to Starship Troopers). And we're not talking small numbers here, we're talking huge numbers of fans.

And this comment reminds me of this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10

 

[Sean Patrick Fannon]

What I'd like to see is a "4th Edition" which hybridizes MMORPG play and tabletop play, with an RPGA moderation facility, that uses on-line tools to create characters and scenarios, and focuses on bringing the best elements of the tabletop and the digital environments together...

Amen, brother. You and me, both. As you know, I've been talking about this very thing, and related ideas, for a while . The time has certainly come.

If not WOTC, then someone. Ultimately, lots of someones. Of course, I hope to be one of them...

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

So, what you're saying is a game that lets GMs create their own MORPGs for their personal groups, sort of an RAD for tabletop RPGs. Say, the GM makes a scenario for Greyhawk Online, which has a bunch of locations and NPCs and items predeveloped. He makes a few extra NPCs and tweaks some others to fit his agenda, and sets up a few encounters. He then has his group create their characters, which uses a client that has a D20-based generation system with a visual representation and maybe a few personality traits added (many of the NPCs would be 'bots for ease of GMing, and extending that to the PCs lets a game continue with a missing player's character going as a bot); GURPS with pictures, perhaps.

Now, everyone logs into the server, which has some sort of MMORPG subscription service. Game play works something like RPGs over IRC/AIM/whatever chat system, but there is a visual representation of the game, with sound and actual spoken dialog (customized voices, not just customized pictures ... now everyone is a Real Roleplayer using a funny voice!), so you can actually see combat or NPCs, like a MMORPG. Some of the game can happen without GM input after he has used the electronic tools to create the scenario, so even he can go have a sandwich while everyone else is kicking butt.

(No, this isn't wholly spontaneous; I've been thinking about this for awhile.)

While this doesn't sound that bad, it isn't much of a substitution for what many enjoy RPG's for, sitting around a table with friends and playing a game. This is just a more personalized MMO with many of the same limitations, things that are not covered in the game system are not possible since they have not been coded. I'm sure I'd be able to enjoy such a thing, but it is a different beast than a pencil and paper tabletop game.

Plus where is the fun in being the DM if you don't get to play too?