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

[Korgoth]

Paizo is having its best year ever.

I think part of the problem is that folks who view, say, D&D or Pathfinder or a licensed game as "too derivative" are looking for a kind of tabletop gaming industry playing field in which oddball ideas without much commercial interest in the first place perform as well as brands that have multiple decades of fan interest, or that are based on genres that are very popular.

I contend that that sort of atmosphere has _never_ existed in the marketplace. It's not that the sort of market folks like Malcolm and Gareth hope for has disappeared, it's that it never really existed the way they envision it in the first place.

--Erik

PS: That's not to say that there aren't some real threats to the industry, but there is still a ton of money to be made my people at all levels of the game industry.

You just have to make something that people actually want.

Yeah, the stuff that many folks don't want to hear.

The fact is, if you're a foodie, you may get this awesome idea for "Escar-to-go!", the World's Finest Fast Food Snail Joint. That ain't gonna fly in Texas! You could put one up next to McDonald's, which sells some of the world's most unpalatable commercial beef products (Texans eat beef like it's going out of style... we know about this stuff!)... and you'll still watch people lining up to eat McDogpoop and few ever come to the Snail Joint drive-thru (and even the few that do ask for a burger half the time). And Heaven help you if you set up next to Whataburger. You'll be done for in no time.

Sure, after you go belly up you could stand around and complain about how the restaurant industry is dying because nobody wants to buy the Goose Liver Pate Kid's Meal with Belgian Endive and a toy surprise inside. Or how every time you ask your customers whether they want to add a side of Raw Antelope Nuggets they always blanch and decline. But the fact is that you were hoping to have a mass market approach to a niche market, and that is why it turned out to be disappointing.

I'm not sure if that's what Gareth is on about; I can only speculate as to what eyebeams wants as well. But I do think that product in the role playing game industry is selling... but it's probably not mostly niche product. Niche product is niche. Sure, I think niche can get a "bump" and get big for a while... but I think it will usually tend back down to niche status. As to the stuff that is selling... you can call it "McGaming" if you want, but if it sells, it sells. People must obviously be having some fun with it or I suspect that they'd just stop buying it.

I think it's cool that you could write a game called Mandelbrot where people play sentient fractals fighting it out in Plato's Realm of Forms, and using cut-ups of proofs from Symbolic Logic as a resolution system. I think it's cool that you could publish it online or as print-on-demand. I think it's cool that there is probably at least one group on Planet Earth that would actually play it, and maybe even write up an After Action Report or two. But I'm not especially bummed that you cannot make a career out of writing games like that, because I try not to get bummed about things that are so completely obvious.

 

[GreyLord]

I don't know WHAT the person who keeps on going on about Chess is discussing, but I think they are confused about the rules of the game vs. competitive rules of the game.

The first, the actual rules of Chess haven't had a major change in over 100 years, and that was simply to add stalemate rules standardization...other than that the rules haven't changed in over 500 YEARS.

Either that or you state that chess didn't exist prior to the creation of FIDE (official rule keepers of Chess today) in which case you would be arguing chess is no older than 100 years old (which everyone would say is ridiculous).

For ease of commentary, how about we go the public route (since public rules and opinion is probably more accepted than a few dozen people here on EN, or even a few thousand via the Chess organizations)...and do the Wiki thing...

Chess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Around 1200, rules of shatranj started to be modified in southern Europe, and around 1475, several major changes made the game essentially as it is known today.[32] These modern rules for the basic moves had been adopted in Italy and Spain.[35][36] Pawns gained the option of advancing two squares on their first move, while bishops and queens acquired their modern abilities. The queen replaced the earlier vizier chess piece towards the end of the 10th century and by the 15th century, had become the most powerful piece;[37] consequently modern chess was referred to as "Queen's Chess" or "Mad Queen Chess".[38] These new rules quickly spread throughout western Europe, with the exception of the rules about stalemate, which were finalized in the early 19th century. To distinguish it from its predecessors, this version of the rules is sometimes referred to as western chess[39] or international chess.[40]

Irregardless, with the stalemate rules, the rules were solidified and have been solid basically for the past 200 YEARS...as they are today. Not changing year to year...solid rules.



Rules of chess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

he rules of chess (also known as the laws of chess) are rules governing the play of the game of chess. While the exact origins of chess are unclear, modern rules first took form during the Middle Ages. The rules continued to be slightly modified until the early 19th century, when they reached essentially their current form. The rules also varied somewhat from place to place. Today Fédération Internationale des Échecs (FIDE), also known as the World Chess Organization, sets the standard rules, with slight modifications made by some national organizations for their own purposes. There are variations of the rules for fast chess, correspondence chess, online chess, and chess variants.

Now there are the rules of chess...and the rules (competitive) of chess. The former are not changing any time soon, the latter do change.

The difference is one of actual rules vs. ettiquette. It's like D&D. 1e D&D is not changing anytime soon, probably because it's out of print. However, houserules do change...as well as other items. For example...rules such as...though shalt not have drink within 5 feet of any other player's character sheet or you are banned from the table...and...When you roll a d20 you shalt not spit on it, you shalt not blow on it, you shalt roll it, and the roll shall ensure that it revolves completely at least thrice against the table...

Are house rules and etiquette rules.

So let's stop this entire shenanigance on Chess and get back to the actual real fun of watching people argue what is or isn't D&D and whether it's going to self implode into the third Stellar Nova of the Dark Sun...or whatever people are trying to convince us of...

 

[ggroy]

As to the stuff that is selling... you can call it "McGaming" if you want, but if it sells, it sells. People must obviously be having some fun with it or I suspect that they'd just stop buying it.

Send the McPlayers into the McDungeon to kill the McOrcs and McGoblins, while slaying the McDragon and stealing all its McLoot.

 

[billd91]

Yep. When Inquest was collecting data, they wanted hard sales numbers for that month. Show me a retailer who is willing to open share his sales numbers where his competition can see them. Business owners are often reluctant to share any data where a competitor can use it to his advantage. Additionally, many stores do not track sales, they reorder based upon visual inventory. If they sell their one copy of Pathfinder, they reorder one for the next week. Ask them how many they sold in a month and they might know or they might not. So, they will usually give a guestimate. Not every FLGS has an up-to-date POS equipped with a scanner and can print out sales data as needed. Some still use old fashioned paper invoices.

Simply put, there is no way you can get an accurate measure of RPG sales based solely on voluntary input from retailers. For that, you have to go directly to the publisher. To my knowledge, Fred Hicks and a couple others are the only ones who are willingly to openly show their sales data. No one else will, especially Wotc or Paizo.

This isn't backing much up. This is speculation. Now, I understand that getting a survey respondent to answer truthfully and accurately isn't always going to happen. They forget, they are mistaken, and sometimes they misrepresent. But I assumed you really had something when you dropped that bomb about them inflating their numbers.

 

[Chaos Disciple]

Which you follow with repeated claims about the 1000 year old game which nobody is really talking about- you continue to conflate them quoth your rhetoric.

Well you can believe chess is as old as you want, but some people might not agree with you.


And just so you know im not the only one who believes chess is more than 1000 years old.

Chatrang

Chess sprung from nowhere in the beginning of the 7th century AD in Sassanian Persia.

Now, ill tell you before you post a reply, that im not going to change my opinion, and i dont expect you to change yours.

 

[Maggan]

And just so you know im not the only one who believes chess is more than 1000 years old.

Before I bow out, I'll just point out the obvious: no one is disputing that chess has roots that are a thousand or more years old.

/M

 

[Chaos Disciple]

Before I bow out, I'll just point out the obvious: no one is disputing that chess has roots that are a thousand or more years old.

/M

I dont recall "has roots" being in that link i posted.

Maybe you should read the quote.

It doesnt say "The roots of chess sprung from nowhere in the beginning of the 7th century AD in Sassanian Persia." now does it? It says "Chess sprung from nowhere in the beginning of the 7th century AD in Sassanian Persia."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I dont recall "has roots" being in that link i posted.

Like before, you read and cite only as far as it suits your purpose, since lower down on that same page it says:

Chatrang, the eldest member known of the Chess family.

It does not equate Chatrang with chess, it is but one of a family of games with common origins and similar rules. As the oldest known member, it may be THE root game, but it is not anything like modern chess.

I look a lot like my Dad- enough that I'm sometimes mistaken for him- but I'm not him.

And later still:

No more details are known. Later, Arabic writers were the first to give the complete rules of their Shatranj. It is supposed that the rules were unchanged from Chatrang to Shatranj, so the reader may look at Shatranj to guess how Chatrang was played, but with no certainty.

It compares it to Shatranj, a game we've already pointed out is significantly different from chess in many significant ways. The writer of that page cannot even reliably state what its rules are- he presumes it's rules are the same because of similarity between the games' use of similar board and pieces.

That is like deductive reasoning akin to knowing the cards & rules to Texas Hold 'Em, that the older game 5 Card Stud (that you don't have the rules for) is played the same. IOW, pure supposition.

 

[Maggan]

Maybe you should read the quote.

It doesnt say "The roots of chess sprung from nowhere in the beginning of the 7th century AD in Sassanian Persia." now does it? It says "Chess sprung from nowhere in the beginning of the 7th century AD in Sassanian Persia."

Yeah, but I wasn't talking about what it says in the article you linked to, was I?

EDIT: funnily enough, we can trade links all night. This link adds to the picture:

http://www.mark-weeks.com/aboutcom/aa06a14.htm

/M

 

[Chaos Disciple]

Like before, you read and cite only as far as it suits your purpose, since lower down on that same page it says:


It does not equate Chatrang with chess, it is but one of a family of games with common origins and similar rules. As the oldest known member, it may be THE root game, but it is not anything like modern chess.

I look a lot like my Dad- enough that I'm sometimes mistaken for him- but I'm not him.

And later still:



It compares it to Shatranj, a game we've already pointed out is significantly different from chess in many significant ways. The writer of that page cannot even reliably state what its rules are- he presumes it's rules are the same because of similarity between the games' use of similar board and pieces.

That is like deductive reasoning akin to knowing the cards & rules to Texas Hold 'Em, that the older game 5 Card Stud (that you don't have the rules for) is played the same. IOW, pure supposition.

"Chess sprung from nowhere in the beginning of the 7th century AD in Sassanian Persia. "

Are you suggesting that this statement is incorrect?