State of the RPG Industry

[woodelf]

Multi-Genre systems were gaming's 'holy grail' for a long time, and it's still a desirable thing. The ease and convenience of a rules set that at least bears a passing resemblance to other incarnations of itself is great. It reduces a GM's workload by a great deal. Sure a good GM can pull ideas from any published source and convert but it's scads easier when you don't have to convert that much.

I've seen people leave the hobby forever. The single most common complaint? It takes too much time. Maybe if they had not had to do so much work, they'd still be gamers today.

Players don't have to switch gears that much. It lets people explore different genres easily, something they are loath to do when they also have to learn a new system.

To the first problem (work involved in translating) there's another solution that is just as effective as using the same system: simpler systems. I can translate anything into Over the Edge in less time than i can create an original character--regardless of the system it's coming from. Because the whole damn system is just that simple.

To the 2nd problem (lack of time), simpler systems are a better solution. Complex systems (like every instantiation of D20 System i've yet seen) are gonna inherently require more time for prep on the part of both players and GMs, and they frequently take more time in play, thus leaving less time for the pure plot/story elements which are what make an RPG different from other games you could be playing.

However, i think the real solution to the Real Life problem (running out of time) is to reexamine what exactly constitutes an RPG. There is nothing inherent to the nature of an RPG that it must be complex or long-term. There is no inherent reason that RPGs couldn't be built around the same gameplay model as board games, or Settlers of Catan: get together for an evening and play a self-contained game. Repeat at a later date, with no worries about continuing characters/players/stories. It's just that most RPGs currently on the market aren't designed for that. Only ones i can think of right off hand that specifically expect a single session to be the entire game are the various New Style games, and the new Marvel Universe RPG. Most others either take too long to create characters, or have such complicated mechanics that you can't get through a satisfying story in one session, or both.

But you can support both models with one RPG, too. At an extreme example, let's take Over the Edge: all of the rules, including chargen, can fit on a single page. The setting is deliberately modular and fluid, designed to minimize GM prep work. So a group can pick teh game up, learn it, and be playing in, oh, say 30min. However, it certainly supports long-term play, and here the modular setting still minimizes GM work--if the GM doesn't prep enough, just make something up and it'll fit the setting. And if she accidentally contradicts herself, it doesn't matter, it just adds another wrinkle to the nature of the setting, because of its fluidity.

And to the 3rd problem (learning a new system when you switch settings/genres), simpler systems are at least as good of a solution as multi-genre systems--and simple multi-genre systems are better than both separately. The amount of mental effort and new learning to go from D&D3E to Spycraft is still more than that required to go from Trollbabe to Over the Edge.

 

[woodelf]

It's clearly not true. In a darwinian system companies like Mongoose and Fast Forward would have died off already.

You're forgetting matters of taste. I think that Mongoose is 2nd only to Atlas in producing good D20 System products. Yes, they've probably produced some garbage, too. But if i were to list the best D20 System products out there, i'd hazard that Mongoose would get more products on the list than any other company, and probably a higher percentage of their products would make the list than any other multi-product company besides Atlas (yes, i think Mongoose and Atlas have a higher "hit/miss" ratio than WotC).

Ok, i have no clue what keeps Fast Forward alive.

 

[Bards R Us]

Contrast that with RPG.net, which is far more divorced from the market reality. At that site, you tend to have a lot of burnt out or very high-level White Wolf fans, which gives you a huge bias in how people react to games.

You sure are right about that ...yeeeesh! They might as well rename that place to GrouchyGeezers.net or WoeisMe.net Seems like nobody over there has anything positive or healthy to say about the RPG industry or hobby. Depressing place that

 

[Wicht]

Any of you been to a grocery store lately? Like a Super Wal-Mart? Go to any aisle-cookies, chips, frickin' baked beans...there is a glut of EVERYTHING. There are like 15 kinds of Oreos, for God's sake. It's a nightmare, it's confusing, it's ridiculous. But it's what 'normal' is nowadays.

I think your analogy is a little bit flawed. Many of those different brands are really the same thing in different wrappings.

I took my kids to the Del Grosso Spaghetti Sauce factory in Altoona PA not too long back and discovered that Del Grosso for instance seems to make and bottle most of the Spaghetti Sauce in our region. The brand is not that important, because it appears the same recipe, made in the same machines, fills the various jars. Only the labels (and the price) are different.

 

[woodelf]

To overuse a phrase, this is Tarrasque Wrangler hitting the nail on the head.

I know this may ruffle some feathers, but I did not lament Hogshead's loss. I was elated when I heard about it. AFAIAC, Wallis made his own bed by doing what too many frothing fanboys do: assuming that the fan base is really as fragmented as they presume it is. D&D players are White Wolf players are nobilis players are warhammer players are hero players. You start being divisive, you are just asking to winnow away your customer base.

Frothing fanboys can afford that. Game companies can't.

OK, speaking as someone who knew James Wallis offline as well as on- (albeit not terribly well), as near as i can tell Hogshead was profitable, and able to pay two full-time staff (Wallis and one other), right up to the end. That's better than the vast majority of RPG companies that are still in business. That said, Wallis (or any competent writer) could get 2x-5x the pay for half the work in just about any other field. But it was burnout that got Wallis out of RPGs. I'm not sure how much he brought it upon himself--my perception was that others started it, and he finally couldn't hold his tongue any longer and started lashing back. It could well be that he started it, and i just didn't see it. But in either case, i haven't seen any evidence that his tirades online, justified or not, had a significant impact on Hogshead's sales--and i only recall them from the last ~6mo of the company's life, in any case.

Nonetheless, i don't think Hogshead is a good example of market darwinism, 'cause it was folded for reasons other than [lack of] profitability, so it's hard to say with any certitude that the problem was producing products people didn't want.

 

[Psion]

my perception was that others started it, and he finally couldn't hold his tongue any longer and started lashing back.

My perception with the Nobilis flamewar -- a game that had garnered a lot of positive press -- was that he did indeed start it by calling out someone who he perceived as a "D&D junkie/tolkein fan" and telling him that Nobilis was above him. Before that point, it was the run of the mill difference of opinion.

As I confess in a post after the one you replied to, I have no concrete evidence on whether it impacted his bottom line or how much. But I tend to think that if they folded voluntarily, it was because they were getting too much greif, and 90% of that grief stemmed back to that one statement.

 

[woodelf]

There are and have been plenty of Open RPGs out there, such as the Action! System, for example. d20 wasn't the first, but it is the most popular, by a wide margin. Some enjoy a great following, and like the AS and FUDGE, enjoy some degree of popularity and have seen print. The Fuzion system is the merging of the Hero system and R. Talosorian's Interlock system, [snip]

Here's a list that might interest you.

Fuzion isn't an open-content system, and strictly speaking, neither is Fudge.

 

[woodelf]

Actually, won't the really successful books be the ones that appeal to both types of gamers you've identified? It seems to me that you're creating a somewhat artificial and possibly damaging division among gamers. My RL group has both types of folks (as well as folks who land somewhere in the middle); I'd say that the books that we use need to appeal to all of us, not just the people who are more interested in role-playing.

Best,
tKL

You know, i'd've thought that. But i hear a *lot* more from people who feel "ripped off" by all the fluff/crunch (whichever doesn't appeal to them) in their book than from those who are happy about the amount of crunch/fluff (whichever they prefer) that *is* there. It seems that you just can't please people, and you're better off with separate books so that the crunch-lovers can have their book, and the fluff-lovers theirs (and the moderates can buy some of each).

 

[Mytholder]

As I confess in a post after the one you replied to, I have no concrete evidence on whether it impacted his bottom line or how much. But I tend to think that if they folded voluntarily, it was because they were getting too much greif, and 90% of that grief stemmed back to that one statement.

James had been thinking of folding Hogshead before that. I think Nobilis was (at least partly) a last statement about what gaming was capable of, and where it was (and is) falling short.

 

[woodelf]

Note that Mongoose has done something exceptionally clever: they've used cash flow from cheaper projects like the Slayers and Quintessential guides to create high-profile and high quality projects like Slaine. In addition, they have so many products out there that they maintain a high consumer profile, they command attention in the distribution channels, and they probably maintain a relatively even cash flow. Say what you want about their products, I think the company is cleverly and competently run.

Which, if you're correct, is an example of one of the most despicable aspects of free-market capitalism: it's not about product darwinism, it's about company darwinism, and there's a distinct disconnect between survival of the product and survival of the company. Contrary to what some vocal proponents claim [not saying you did this], it *doesn't* lead to the best products/services surviving, because there are so many ways that a company can, in toto, be th ebest without producing the best products.