Tabletopocalypse Now - GMS' thoughts about the decline in the hobby

[Hussar]

Um, the same people who bring people into out-of-print games today and the same people who will bring others into soon to be out-of-print games.

Again, I disagree. This might have been true in the 70s/80s/90s but I think your being a bit archaic. With the rise of the internet and it's involvement in everyday life, grass-roots gaming is only going to get stronger and stronger, with or without retail gaming.

The problem is, your signal gets swamped by the noise. Sure, people get brought to OOP games today by existing gamers. No one will question that. But, the basic math question is, are enough being brought in to replace those who leave?

I have no idea. But, I do know that existing gamers + retailers brings more people into the hobby than just existing gamers.

Considering how hard it already is to find a game outside of suburban centers, stripping away the retail aspect is not going to help.

After all, I would doubt that the first game that most OOP gamers play is an OOP game. In my mind, it would be much more likely that someone tries a print game first and then slides into an OOP group.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

But, the basic math question is, are enough being brought in to replace those who leave?

I have no idea. But, I do know that existing gamers + retailers brings more people into the hobby than just existing gamers.

Considering how hard it already is to find a game outside of suburban centers, stripping away the retail aspect is not going to help.

After all, I would doubt that the first game that most OOP gamers play is an OOP game. In my mind, it would be much more likely that someone tries a print game first and then slides into an OOP group.

Who said they have to bring in enough to replace those who leave? So what if roleplaying shrinks, it won't die out and that's what this thread is about.

This isn't retail vs grass-roots, it's what if retail dies out. That's the point I'm making. I could care less if retail dies out because I know with the internet and the supporter base roleplaying has now, it will continue.

 

[Umbran]

Again, I disagree. This might have been true in the 70s/80s/90s but I think your being a bit archaic.

No, I'm quite evidence-based. I think you overestimate how many folks are gung-ho enough to search it out like that, in the face of new entertainments that are being actively sold to them. There is a reason that marketing is viewed as evil - it is because it is powerful.

Who said they have to bring in enough to replace those who leave? So what if roleplaying shrinks, it won't die out and that's what this thread is about.

Well, by simple logic: if nothing stops the shrinking, it does, in fact, die out. Eventually the number playing reaches zero. As the current gamers age, they eventually stop playing (unless someone invents playing across the veil of death). If those current players don't get replaced, then eventually there's nobody playing. QED.

You need more to play than a document of rules. You need players. I return to my ecological analogy - any species has a minimum population size to remain viable. For our purposes, you may consider it this way: eventually, the pool of players shrinks to the point where you cannot find people willing to play the game you want to play, and so you stop playing as well.

Already on EN World (actually, for years here), even with internet support, there are folks with just this complaint - they haven't played in some time, because they cannot find others to work with.

The retail market's ability to create new players to work with notably exceeds the individual gamer's. I may not be able to create new gamers to play with, but a company can throw more (and more effective) effort at it than I can.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

3) Just because #5 on a list sold 3000 units doesn't mean you can conclude that #1 sold 3005 units. #4 on the list may have sold 50,000 units. We don't know.

And while 3000 may be a small number, you need to know how many units #5 sold last year before you can draw lines to the industry declining.

In my opinion, GMS' conclusions aren't backed up by his evidence or reasoning. I'm not saying that the market isn't shrinking - frankly, I don't know - but GMS' evidence is shaky, and his reasoning unsound, in my opinion. Based solely on the evidence he cites, I can't reach the same conclusion as he does. If he has any further information, of course, I'd be happy to read it.

That's what I concluded too.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

No, I'm quite evidence-based. I think you overestimate how many folks are gung-ho enough to search it out like that, in the face of new entertainments that are being actively sold to them. There is a reason that marketing is viewed as evil - it is because it is powerful

Okay, well I'm just going to call it here. I don't agree with you and it's clear your not going to accept my position either.

I guess we'll see who's got the right idea if this theoretical future comes to past.

 

[pawsplay]

The top 5 are 2 versions of D&D and 3 licensed IP games. That represents basic creative failure.

Hm. In the very early days, you had D&D, Marvel Super Heroes, Star Wars, James Bond, and Buck Rogers. Then you had several D&D derivatives, such as Rolemaster, Harnmaster, Palladium, and Tunnels & Trolls. Then a few genre games, like Boot Hill, Golden Heroes, and Gangbusters. Going into the Basic D&D era, you can add DC Heroes, Call of Cthulu, Doctor Who, Star Trek, Amber and so forth.

In terms of truly independent creations, I think you can count Gamma World early on, then Teenagers From Outer Space and Vampire: The Masquerade later on, though both were genre-consolidation games. Ars Magica might qualify, although it's pretty much a mage-centric version of Pendragon's romantic history.

The really weird stuff just doesn't crop up until the early 90s.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

As the current gamers age, they eventually stop playing (unless someone invents playing across the veil of death).

If I'm not able to play RPGs in the hereafter, I'm going to be terribly disappointed.

 

[pawsplay]

I agree with most of what you say, but I think your logic here is flawed.

Yes, there are games out of print that are still played every weekend. But that's generally going to be play by people who came by the game while it was in print. And eventually, for one reason or another, each of those people will stop playing.

Then what?

If there's nobody with a vested interest in bringing new players in en masse, you'll be faced with an ever-shrinking pool of players, that eventually evaporates into nothing. It'd take a while, but it is fairly plausible.

Then... the game industry withers away. There is nothing flawed in believing that day will come. GMS argued that the industry will collapse in 5 to 10 years. I think that is wrong. His concerns are largely mythical.

Who has the real vested interest in reaching out and finding new people to play? People with an economic interest - those who are trying to sell games.

People who play games have, if anything, a stronger vested interest. People who are interested primarily in money can always make money at something else. In fact, if you are in the RPG business, it's probably a good idea to look elsewhere for your first million.


Certainly, it's not hard to think of endeavors, like the poker industry, that essentially exist because there is a hobby to support them. Professional golf. The opera.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No, I'm quite evidence-based. I think you overestimate how many folks are gung-ho enough to search it out like that, in the face of new entertainments that are being actively sold to them. There is a reason that marketing is viewed as evil - it is because it is powerful.

My MBA is in sports & entertainment marketing (and with my law degree, I'm just short the power to turn into a supermodel of becoming RULER OF THE WORLD!!!) and there's a lot of truth there.

But while the hobby needed the specialty stores to get started, Pandora's Box has already been opened. While the industry needs sales, all the hobby needs to survive is players teaching others to be players.

 

[Umbran]

Then... the game industry withers away. There is nothing flawed in believing that day will come. GMS argued that the industry will collapse in 5 to 10 years. I think that is wrong. His concerns are largely mythical.

I also think he's wrong - I don't think his concerns are so much mythical, as they are poorly supported. He leaves out too many important factors.

Certainly, it's not hard to think of endeavors, like the poker industry, that essentially exist because there is a hobby to support them. Professional golf. The opera.

My point is actually that there's a back-and-forth between them. The industry exists because of the hobby, but the hobby also exists because of the industry. They walk together, basically inseparable. And that's not a bad thing. It isn't a sign of weakness in either the hobby or the industry that they're mutually supporting - this is how human systems work normally.

Just to highlight how these things walk hand in hand - remember that the first folks to play modern RPGs as a hobby were the ones who created the business! How much more interconnected can you get?