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

[Dannyalcatraz]

How much more interconnected can you get?

Just had an image of VGER...and the Borg.

 

[eyebeams]

Well spit it out, then. What are you talking about that is /so/ obvious?

How can a game have high first month sales through the book trade and make no money?

Mod Edit: Folks, here's a hint. Don't declare that knowing a fact is a prerequisite to engaging in a conversation, and then continue to tease the conversation with said fact, after warnings and several requests not to from other posters. It's rude, and gets you booted from the thread. ~Umbran

 

[nedjer]

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

That won''t be a problem

 

[pawsplay]

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.

He has claimed that players are unwilling to buy product and the motivation is low. I call that a mythical concern. I see no reason to believe that in just a few years, the players who created the d20 explosion basically don't exist; there simply isn't a product that creates as much enthusiasm at present.

He also claimed that tabletop gamers segregate themselves socially from other gamers. The amount of WoW, City of Heroes, etc. players on tabletop RPG websites suggests otherwise. Myth.

He stated that RPG play is industry driven. During its period of greatest growth, RPGs were supported primarily by pirated, mimeographed copies of the D&D rules. During the d20 glut, he would have you believe that there was a bubble in the industry which then popped; I would argue instead that the d20 boom was fan-driven, during which time, some fans were able to work in a semi-professional capacity, driving creativity and publication. He equates hobby health to in-print games. Myth.

He does have concerns which are real: declining sales, inevitibily declining numbers of players playing older games, competition with other forms of entertainment for new players, etc. The dwindling numbers of "hardcore" gamers may be fairly accurate, or not -- that is a possible but unsupported position.

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?

Well, of course. But kill all the present publishers, and you would have new ones soon enough. The demand exists, independent of current marketing being done by publishers.

 

[thedungeondelver]

man if there's one thing I can't stand it's guys who all post up on the internet like they got something to say.

 

[Beginning of the End]

You immediately knowing what this is would have been a basic qualification to demonstrate that you are informed enough to have a conversation about this. So, no.

Okay, fine. There seem to be three possibilities:

(1) You're assuming that the missing sales from the distribution totals are returnable copies. This is untrue as a 30 second perusal of the links would have demonstrated. The missing sales are from direct sales from the publisher's website, sales from other online storefronts, and sales of PDF copies.

If you think that Gareth should have dismissed returnable copies from his sales figures, then Gareth's evidence is even more bankrupt: He included all the potential returnable copies while excluding the sales figures from sources which are definitely not returnable.

(And this assumes that there are any copies of DFRPG sold on a returnable basis. That's a highly questionable assumption on your part, since the RPG industry, by and large, doesn't operate under those conditions.)

(2) You think that Gareth can legitimately disregard non-distribution sales because Gareth is only interested in commenting on the health of hobby stores. But Gareth's claim is not "the FLGS is a dying business model"; Gareth's claim is that the entire RPG industry is collapsing. The fact that Gareth cites a survey based on retailer sales doesn't mean that retailer sales are automatically the only point of data worth considering. The fact that sales are moving online does not indicate an industry collapse.

(3) You are just stringing words together without really understanding what they mean.
Admin here. What's with the insults? If you want to stay part of the discussion, please find a way to discuss your opinion without insulting other people. ~ Piratecat
As I said before, the fact that your phrasing was imprecise and vague makes it difficult to determine exactly which type of nonsense you were spouting.

 

[Umbran]

I start by saying that I largely agree with you.

Now I'll deal with the rhetorical strength of your position - if you are claiming someone else is spouting myth, you kind of need to be solid... and you aren't.

He has claimed that players are unwilling to buy product and the motivation is low. I call that a mythical concern.

I'll grant that one.

He also claimed that tabletop gamers segregate themselves socially from other gamers. The amount of WoW, City of Heroes, etc. players on tabletop RPG websites suggests otherwise. Myth.

Not a strong position. Tabletop RPG websites do not account for much of the TRPG gaming population WotC has claimed their market research reveals. And, we are of highly pre-selected types. We don't represent gamers as a whole. So, while we may not segregate, it may be that the masses of other players do.

My instinct is that there is huge crossover between the groups. However, the presence on sites like this is not a solid indicator.

He stated that RPG play is industry driven. During its period of greatest growth, RPGs were supported primarily by pirated, mimeographed copies of the D&D rules.

As a matter of style and rhetorical strength - if you are going to try to call someone else's position a myth, I would recommend against using unprovable, anecdotally supported assertions to do it. It is well known that sales data for the early days does not exist - Gygax himself said so, IIRC - leaving your position unprovable. Basically, you're pitting your legend against his myth.

During the d20 glut, he would have you believe that there was a bubble in the industry which then popped; I would argue instead that the d20 boom was fan-driven, during which time, some fans were able to work in a semi-professional capacity, driving creativity and publication.

I don't think these two are mutually exclusive, so your assertion really doesn't counter his. I think you could easily both be correct.

Well, of course. But kill all the present publishers, and you would have new ones soon enough. The demand exists, independent of current marketing being done by publishers.

At the moment, I agree that this is likely. Someone would step in to try to be the next Paizo. But that's if all the publishers disappeared tomorrow. Today, demand exists, but times change. If companies disappeared after, say, five years of slide into economic failure and increasing player apathy, such revival would be rather less assured.

 

[Scribble]

I think really the health of the industry should be measured on how many new players are joining.

Or at the very least out of those sales figures, how many of those sales are going to people whom have not been gaming for the past 20 years...

 

[Chaos Disciple]

However, it is possible that a certain few- big dogs like D&D, for instance- may survive for centuries, like chess, checkers, go and others, due to a hard core of players teaching the games to friends, family and acquaintances.

.

Please dont compare real games like chess, and checkers, to a published IP like Dungeons and Dragons.

No offense, but....
I think its important to point out, the main differance between a game like chess and D&D publications, is that publishing companies dont design games to be played forever (thats why I dont call D&D a "real" game).
Publishers produce books about games and then design the books to become obsolete, as soon as possible. This is done so they can sell more books.

 

[prosfilaes]

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.

I do think you have to distinguish story and rules. Dark Sun was D&D, yet the setting was very derivative. Amber may be licensed, but the rules were like nothing before it. (Both 1991 publications, btw.)