The market dying?

[tetsujin28]

That's because most current RPG designers are not system designers. All you have to do is hop over to RPG.net (or visit any of the threads that claim that C&C is superior because it's got most of the player-friendly features of D&D stripped) to realize that the majority of RPG designers today come from the "RPG as improv theatre" crowd as opposed to the system design "RPG as a balanced game" crowd.

I have to disagree. Most of the posters at RPGNet are soundly against the idea of rpgs as "improv theatre".

And game balance is highly over-rated.

 

[eyebeams]

I don't think so. I've been thinking about this alot, and I think the emergence of WoW will only help D&D while harming other RPGs. MMORPGs generally stick quite close to the D&D mode of RPGs: fight monsters, grab treasure, power up, go on quests. An entire generation of games has learned that that is what you do in an RPG, whether it be Final Fantasy, WoW, KOTOR, or whatever. Whether consciously or not, back in 2000 D&D 3e captured that basic mode better than any RPG before or since. 3e empowers players. It gives them tons of options. It gives rules that force the DM to "play fair" (CRs, treasure by level, etc).

Unfortunately, MMO games are better at the "fair play" aspect than D&D is. MMO games are the ultimate in gamist fulfillment. If MMORPGs are better at the core mode of play than D&D is, then why play D&D? The answers are in the non-core aspects of D&D.

(As an aside, I still can't believe that RPG designers as a whole haven't grasped the importance and value of a CR-style system.)

Honestly? Because CR is a clunky, clunky DM's tool. CRs can be wildly off for some creatures and it's annoying to turn the CR into XP yourself. Again, MMORPGs do this all better, and can do more, from hardwiring quests to character power to zoning, camping and farming. CR is a non-automated process that does less than that and whose values are only widely corrected every several years.

One thing I'd love to see in 4e is a less awkward, more modular CR system.

There's also the factor that, back in the day, all you needed to design a game as mechanically sound as D&D was a basic understanding of RPGs. I think the number of gamers who leave D&D for other games is falling, both because D&D does a good job of meeting its goals and because the play style of D&D is so player-friendly. As a game player, why swap D&D for something that gives the DM more power over you?

I think you've become a little too enchanted with the gears behind D&D (and obviously, I can't blame you for that). I don't think adoption of other RPGs has changed, but D&D isn't abandoned any more, at least from a consumer's standpoint. In the past, there were folks who would give up on the game and get into GURPS, for instance. D&D has rebuilt itself to be good at its niche instead of being complacent, so gamers who play other games return to D&D as the best way to enjoy that play experience.

At the same time, though, I think a significant number of sales are now driven by the thing that "story-based" games were oft-accused of: reader interest instead of play interest. D&D's deign logic creates interest in its rules in abstract as well as utilitarian sense. It is pretty much impossible for a play group to utilize all of the options in extant WotC material.

(Aside number two: I think that of all the games out there, poker is a far bigger threat to D&D than WoW. Poker, like D&D, is a social game that you play while sitting around a table with your friends. I would argue that WoW helps D&D by keeping gamers who might otherwise give up RPGs (no local group, no time to game) involved in them in at least some form.)

In my experience, people have often pointed out their WoW play as a reason why continuing to play D&D was unnecessary, and people introduced to D&D from WoW find the work they have to do to play unappealing.

As an example, my stepson is what you might think is prime material for gaming. He has all the interests and plays CRPGs incessantly. But no -- he has not a bit of interest. CRPGs have an entirely different purpose for him than socializing. He's also an absolute KotoR nut and isn't the least bit interested in the SWRPG, even though he knows that's where KotoR's rules come from. His views are not uncommon and I think that when kids play computer RPGs, they aren't attaching the same values.

Plus, folks lose money at poker

In any event, this strikes me as a contradictory mission: D&D's popularity supposedly comes from hardwired balance and DM as umpire, but it is supposed to be distinct enough because it is "social." Which is it? If the game isn;t redundant for reasons irrelevant to its design advantages, that says to me that there's a problem with the design or a problem with that thesis.

 

[tetsujin28]

I see 2nd generation gamers now. I think that there might be an upward trend in the making. A portion of the current crop of 12-20 year olds has 35-45 year old gamer parents.

I've actually seen at least three generations, personally.

 

[tetsujin28]

Unfortunately, MMO games are better at the "fair play" aspect than D&D is. MMO games are the ultimate in gamist fulfillment.

Indeed.

One thing I'd love to see in 4e is a less awkward, more modular CR system.

Absolutely. That'd be a great thing.

I don't think adoption of other RPGs has changed, but D&D isn't abandoned any more, at least from a consumer's standpoint. In the past, there were folks who would give up on the game and get into GURPS, for instance. D&D has rebuilt itself to be good at its niche instead of being complacent, so gamers who play other games return to D&D as the best way to enjoy that play experience.

Yep. I'm certainly in a "back to D&D" phase. Spent the last several years playing 7th Sea and GURPS, and it's nice to return to my roots.

In my experience, people have often pointed out their WoW play as a reason why continuing to play D&D was unnecessary, and people introduced to D&D from WoW find the work they have to do to play unappealing.

Whereas MMORPGs disinterested me because of their lack of beer and comradery

In any event, this strikes me as a contradictory mission: D&D's popularity supposedly comes from hardwired balance and DM as umpire, but it is supposed to be distinct enough because it is "social." Which is it? If the game isn;t redundant for reasons irrelevant to its design advantages, that says to me that there's a problem with the design or a problem with that thesis.

Social.

 

[eyebeams]

Yes, but when D&D 3e launched (which was a great success), did WW's sales go up in its non-d20 segments? I'd guess not. Similarly, I suspect that the 3.5e launch did nothing for WW's sales outside of their d20 lines.

Actually, 2000 was a pretty good year for White Wolf. D&D is the first game of most gamers. You'd guess wrong.

It wouldn't surprise me if WoTC's been taking market share away from d20 and non-d20 publishers (which would account for Eyebeams, Rasy's and Gareth's moaning and groaning about how the industry is about to fail soon).

I dunno. I've just been a coauthor on two of the top 10 selling games for about 5 years now, so I haven't personally felt a pinch. But I understand that because you like D&D you wish to punish me for my alleged unkindness, just like the guy who called me a f*gg*t for running something that wasn't D&D at a recent convention appearance.

Of all the publishers out there, WoTC's been most consistent in its philosphy that RPGs are games first and foremost, and provided the means to PLAY it as a game, rather than treat it as some sort of cross-over to the improv theatre crowd. The "excessively complicated" feat-trees and prestige classes and combat system that Akrasia and other C&C players complain about could very well be the very features that are drawing in new players and growing the RPG market (kids nowadays are smarter than ever --- in part due to their exposure to video games where RPGs are beginning to approach the complexity and richness that D&D offers). As long as WoTC keeps the fresh blood interested (D&D as the gateway to the hobby being the key observation here), publishers of other games have less ability to siphon off the disinterested D&D players and see their sales shrink.

Did a Vampire player beat you as a child? Nobody's talking about whether or not it is right and virtuous to play Dungeons and Dragons. Aparently you think that since I pointed out something that might be bad for the game you like, my intent is obviously to slander the game itself -- y'know, the one with the system I design stuff for and am playing tomorrow.

 

[eyebeams]

This is also part of the issue. If WotC and White Wolf are growing, the entire RPG aspect of the industry is likely to be growing. I'd be seriously surprised if together they don't form at least 51%, and thus the majority, of the RPG aspect of the industry. If they are growing, that alone is likely to offset a general drop in the rest of the RPG aspect of the industry.

I'd say the together, they were something like 60-65%. Add Palladium, and maybe 70-75%.

Maybe. White Wolf has a significantly different business plan than many companies that is more focused on general exploitation of their IPs (and relatively ruthless about dumping product that doesn;t turn a profit, since unlike most companies, they have no "signature" profit). White Wolf could be making more money even if their RPG sales were the same or more modest. Something like Vampire: Bloodlines is a big deal. WotC, on the other hand, doesn't retain much of its most lucrative media licensing.

I do know White Wolf's print runs for "niche" supplements were about double those for a corebook from a company that was, at the time of my investigation of the printer, among the top 10.

 

[eyebeams]

Social.

Possibly, but D&D's only social design element is niche preservation and the basic play setup, which plenty of other games do.

Really, I think the legacy of the brand is a big deal. Compared to other games, D&D has always been popular, and AFAIK the only core to outsell AD&D for any length of time was Vampire Revised. I do think that new White Wolf books get surprisingly close to WotC' sales numbers, but not when WotC releases something new.

So D&D is well designed, but it's also Dungeons and Dragons. I think influence of the brand itself is important, is something of a taboo subject here, given how much people like the design. As Ray Winniger pointed out in these parts a few months back AD&D 2nd also sold like gangbusters and was hailed as a substantial improvement over its predecessor.

Nowadays, though, the tropes of D&D no longer rely on the D&D brand, so potential games don't need to come to D&D to get them when they have computer games. I'd even dispute the social element, since online socializing is something that younger people are far more comfortable with far sooner.

 

[Turjan]

I'd say the together, they were something like 60-65%. Add Palladium, and maybe 70-75%.

You are still on this number trip? Unbelievable !

 

[eyebeams]

You are still on this number trip? Unbelievable !

The number happen to be both relevant and capable of existing regardless of your particular faith in them.

 

[Hussar]

At the same time, though, I think a significant number of sales are now driven by the thing that "story-based" games were oft-accused of: reader interest instead of play interest. D&D's deign logic creates interest in its rules in abstract as well as utilitarian sense. It is pretty much impossible for a play group to utilize all of the options in extant WotC material.

Just a thought, but, that's pretty much always been true. Or, at least true since the release of 2e. There has always been far more material out there than one individual, or even one group could ever utilize. Whether it's 2e's umpteen campaign settings or 3e's bazillion feats and PrC's, "reader interest" has always been a fairly large drive in DnD books. I'm not so sure if that's really a new trend.

Just as an example, how many people actually used even a fraction of the magical items in the Encyclopedia Magica books TSR released? But, IIRC, the books sold fairly well (although its been a while, so I could be wrong there). IMHO, "reader interest" has driven DnD sales for a couple of decades and is hardly a new trend. I would almost argue, given some of the opinions I've seen here on Enworld, that "reader interest" is starting to tail off a bit as consumers no longer buy everything D20 just because its new. A number of the people who've chimed in on this thread, myself included, have indicated that they now buy rules that they are specifically going to use or need, rather than just because it happens to be the newest thing.