State of the RPG Industry

[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.

 

[Psion]

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.

Mmm-hmm.

Yet many people tend continue to argue as if "what's good for the inudstry" and "what is good for the hobby" are the same thing. They really aren't, IMV. Sometimes related, but often diverge in many ways.

 

[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--or who accept the split of content. Instead, you get elaborate justifications for why one sort of content is "more useful" than the other--i've been guilty of it myself. 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).

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

That does not interest me in the least. These one night games already exist. They are those how to throw a murder mystery party games.

I don't watch sitcoms because the universe resets between episodes. I prefer dramas where the story continues from week-to-week. I don't like movies because I always want to know what happens next at the end of the movie. Sure, this plot is over, but how do they live happily ever after? There must have been something else that occured that could interest me. I want to invest something in my entertainment that will last more than an hour or two. I tend not to read books that don't have sequels. Maybe I'm different than most people (my wife says I am ) but what you describe is completely uninteresting to me.

 

[jmucchiello]

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--or who accept the split of content. Instead, you get elaborate justifications for why one sort of content is "more useful" than the other--i've been guilty of it myself. 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).

I would assume there are far more people who prefer a balance (20/80 thru 50/50) of both fluff and crunch and they would complain about having to purchase two books. Also, printing two books doubles the publisher's risk. Besides, I thought WotC has market studies that show the fluffers are fewer than the crunchers.

 

[Cbas10]

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.

Well, there certainly are varying types of gamers, but I meant to point it out in terms of marketing. Quite consistently represented by sales and trends, the players who purchase and use the books primarily about numbers and rule-crunching tend to be shorter-term players - and, thus, customers. Gaming is generally more of a flash-in-the-pan hobby for them. However, the gamers who are more interested in story and content than numbers ("Fluff" is such a derogotory term for quality writing) tend to be repeat customers far more than others. Therefore, the companies who consistently sell books with large amounts of story content will have more repeat-buyers of their books. It is commonly known that repeat customers are the backbone of any business.

I recognize the fact that trends are different in different areas of the world, but, here, the big sellers in role-playing gaming are D&D/d20 (base rules, Scarred Lands, and Spycraft/Stargate) and White Wolf's World of Darkness (primarily Vampire and the Dark Ages line; Exalted is all but a dead game here).

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Could be true. Didn't WotC claim otherwise back around the release of the Silver Marches book for the FR? Without numbers, I can't really argue with your points, but, judging by what the d20 companies and WotC seem to put out (the WoD and Exalted are entirely different beasts and I'm not all that familiar with them), it would seem to me that most people are interested in either (1) a mix of the two or (2) mostly number-crunchy type stuff. I mean, look at how many books of PrCs, feats, alternate core classes, and spells are out there and still being put out. *shrugs* I have no solid data to back this, excepting what I've observed, so I guess the best I can say is that my experience is telling me different things than yours.

Best,
tKL

 

[Psion]

However, the gamers who are more interested in story and content than numbers ("Fluff" is such a derogotory term for quality writing) tend to be repeat customers far more than others. Therefore, the companies who consistently sell books with large amounts of story content will have more repeat-buyers of their books.

What do you base that observation on?

I think historically the RIFTS line has sold better than, say, L5R. I don't think your assertion about the buying habits is supportable.

Not that I am willing to suggest an alternate truism, I just don't see anything to indicate your assertion is true.

 

[MerricB]

Ahhh. I hadn't noticed (the lack of OGC). Wouldn't this mean that Wizards had plans to write their own epic stuff? It seems that it has backfired, anyway.

No, it means that making their material OGC is something that Wizards doesn't rush into. Andy Smith has been working on the Epic material - the release date was pushed back because of the vast amount of work that had to be done on the 3.5 SRD.

Material from Deities and Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook are the next planned to appear in the SRD - it may be that they are being converted to 3.5 which would also delay the process.

Cheers!

 

[Pramas]

I'm afraid none of this stuff is a science. There's not one formula you can follow that means success. Yes, books that appeal to players are good. That's why we do the Master Class series and the Races of Renown series ("Want a character like Richard the Lionhearted? Get the Noble's Handbook Want a character like Legolas? Get Bow & Blade?"). But many players are not active purchasers. Many don't even own the core books, they use a friend's. If they won't buy a Player's Handbook, it's unlikely they're going to buy the Shaman's Handbook. While the number of Gamemaster's is smaller, they also tend to be the folks who are most "bought in" to the game and who are most likely to spend more money on it. So books pitched at them, especially time-savers, can do very well. So for instance, Skull & Bones sold about one third better than the Noble's Handbook on release, even though the former book was for GMs and the latter for players.

As for adventures, I think the deeper reason they don't sell as well as things like campaign settings is that they are basically an all-or-nothing gambit. Even if you never run a Testament campaign, there are tons of things you can mine out of that book for your campaign: a mass combat system, feats, classes, spells, monsters, etc. If you don't use an adventure, it just goes on your shelf. And it isn't even as good reading as a general sourcebook. Reading room descriptions and what will happen to the party if they do such and such is not as engaging as reading about the history of a Naranjan (the Mindshadows setting) or details of the drow pantheon from Plot & Poison.