Ryan Dancey on Redefining the Hobby (Updated: time elements in a storytelling game)

[RyanD]

This may sound like a dumb question, but is there actual data that MMO's and TRPG's/CCG's are substitutes?

I did not believe that they were in 2000. We studied EverQuest and Ultima OnLine extensively, trying to determine to what extent the two modes of play overlapped and directly competed. My conclusion at the time was "not much". We found small amounts of overlapped, and many lapsed TRPG players in MMORPG play, but we did not find people leaving TRPG play groups to move to MMORPG play patterns.

That started to change with City of Heroes and accelerated with World of Warcraft. I now believe the data shows strongly that WoW in particular appeals so powerfully to a certain subset of TRPG players that they are quitting tabletop gaming to play MMORPGs almost exclusively. That segment is the Power Gamer group.

(A Power Gamer is a player who most enjoys the game when it delivers a Tactical/Combat Focus. This kind of person is likely to enjoy playing a character that has a minimum of personality (often, this kind of person plays a character that is simply an extension of the player). This kind of player enjoys short, intense gaming experiences. The consequences of a failed action are minimized for this player, who will roll up a new character and return to the fray without much thought for the storyline implications of that action.)

This change in the competitive environment is a huge driver in the current problems faced by the TRPG hobby as a whole, because these Power Gamers often agitate successfully for others in their game groups to shift modes with them, knocking big, irreparable holes in the player network.

I would like to cite specific data supporting these conclusions, but none of the information I have is publicly available, unfortunately. It would be great to see some independent (and public) research done on this topic.

Ryan

 

[meomwt]

WoW may well have 9 million subscriptions, but that is a worldwide figure (RD's sales data for RPG's and CCG's are USA-based). It also doesn't take into account how many people have played it for a little bit and given up (real life, grind issues, cost factors, etc.). That seems to be a common phenomenon from what I understand.

Perhaps we also need to look at how many people have played an MMORPG then moved on to tabletop gaming as a result?

 

[Whisper72]

To add to the differentiation issue, I believe that the most important difference between tabletop and computer RPG is the whole tabletop thing. The face to face socializing. This, and the versatility of a live DM which makes the boundaries of TRPG limitless, are the main differentiating factors which can never be (fully) replaced by CRPG's.

As to numbers, there are, I think, several factors which contribute to the problems which now face the market, these are IMHO, and not supported by actual data, but my field of expertise is marketing intelligence and consumer trend analysis, so these are not complete groping in the dark.

First, the whole versioning issue is splitting the market as bad as the various game worlds were for ADND2E. People playing 3.0 versus 3.5, the whole glut in the market of different games launching almost daily, all with their own game systems. This makes finding playing groups willing and able to play the same game harder and harder. In general, the more a game gets played, the more ppl invest in it. As experience in other markets has shown, too much (different) offers lead to not buying / not investing.

I do not understand why WotC for example chose to use another system for Star Wars then the generic d20 (SAGA).

Furthermore, the barriers to entry are farily steep. Even if this is not true in reality (only need the core books for DnD), with the whole slew of products, it sure feels like it. I believe the game needs an entry level product, and the other products need to be labeled more clearly in several 'levels' or 'lines' and 'fields', such that people have a clearer overview of which products are or are not for them: more of a crunch lover: the crunch line, etc. etc.

Even on these boards, one regularly hears of ppl playing the game without even bothering to buy the PHB. With a cheaper 'entry level' PHB, these ppl might be tempted to buy and then later on upgrade.

Another split in the market is one of generations. I get the impression that there are roughly three types of players in the market:
- old guard who grew up with previous editions, but are extremely time constrained. They may buy out of interest / collection drives. These ppl are generally affluent enough to invest heavily (have had jobs for some time now) but rarely play. Their main problem which has to be solved is how to find like-minded ppl.
- semi-old guard who grew up with the late 2nd edition, 3rd edition, now have a job but still find plenty time to play, have regular gaming groups. These probably buy the most stuff
- the youngsters, who started into the game relatively recently. They are torn between CRPG and TRPG, and do not have a lot of buying power.

One of the problems is that a lot of the semi-old guard is probablyt still languishing in their old 2nd ed and 3.0E products, and these ppl do not see many products that they would be interested in.

The combination of these factors cause for sales to drop.

 

[wedgeski]

WoW may well have 9 million subscriptions, but that is a worldwide figure (RD's sales data for RPG's and CCG's are USA-based). It also doesn't take into account how many people have played it for a little bit and given up (real life, grind issues, cost factors, etc.). That seems to be a common phenomenon from what I understand.

If I understand you correctly, this is a common misconception levelled at Blizzard's figures. The small print on every press release says that the subscription total includes *only* active subscriptions and new purchases still within the initial free month. Now there may well be active subscriptions without active players, but I doubt Blizzard cares very much.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Do people really think that shifting from "role-playing games" to "story-telling games" is any less geeky? C'mon folks. D&D is what it is. It may pass through phases when it's less geeky or more geeky, but it will always be geeky.

D&D will never be "cool" to non-D&D gamers. That's just the way it is.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I do not understand why WotC for example chose to use another system for Star Wars then the generic d20 (SAGA).

Should be said that the new Star Wars is NOT SAGA...not in the game system sense. It is the Saga Edition. As in...the Star Wars Saga.

It is very much d20, abliet tweaked significantly.

 

[Alnag]

I was never a fan of that strategy. I wanted eTools to be a suite of software that DMs would use to create content like that found in WotC modules, and players would use to make PCs correctly and quickly, avoiding the problems of complexity. I was a very strong opponent of the idea that eTools should be a virtual D&D tabletop.

Ryan

Oh... ok. My mistake than. Sorry.

 

[Alnag]

To put that in context, my estimate for the size of the TRPG category in 2001 was $30 million; I estimate we've lost roughly half the total market in the past 6 years.

That would be true, if the dollar would have same value. Otherwise you should have to correct your estimates by this, which means they are more pessimistic. $30 million in 2001 =/= $30 million in 2006:

For a public source of data worth discussing, review the figures in Comics & Games Retailer. While this data is notoriously unreliable in detail, it has proven to be reasonably accurate in terms of trend analysis and overall volume of business. I'm looking at issue #185 (August 2007). Monthly averages for unit sales volume throughout 2006 and 2007 have been less than 60 units consistently.

Well... how much units did they (or any other source) reported in say 2001 or 1996? Or any other year. Is those 60 units per month significanlty less or more? Or what?

Also, is C&GR sampling just US market or international? Because if they sample US-only or just some part of the market, some effects of RPG-market shrinkage might be compensate by export of these products abroad. (Good for producers at least, not so much pro FLGS and players though).

I don't know much about these things, nor I am economist, these are just things coming to my mind reading these estimates.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Ryan Dancey, as usual, says a lot of provocative things.

To be honest, I don't think there is very much in the latest blog series that I can take issue with or that I disagree with.

Problem: it's more of a diagnosis than a prescription or treatment plan.

 

[MongooseMatt]

My data is based on public & private sources. For 2006, I estimate the size of the tabletop RPG business (exclusive of miniatures & support products like magazines, dice, etc.) at $17-$20 million (at wholesale).

If that is correct (and I know it isn't), then Mongoose has a huge, dominating share of the market.

And we don't.

We're good, but not _that_ good