The market dying?

[tonym]

D&D is doing fine...
...D&D is trucking along fine.

Several people clearly think Mearls painted a rosey, overly-awesome picture of the state of D&D when he said “D&D is doing fine,” and “D&D is trucking along fine.” But not me!

If somebody asked me how my marriage was going and I said it was “trucking along fine,” I would expect the listener to interpret my statement to mean that me and my wife were doing okay--not spectacular or fabulous by any stretch, but also not experiencing any problems worth mentioning. In other words......“fine.”

But apparently if I were speaking to a few people in this thread, they would interpret “trucking along fine” to mean, “Wow, his marriage is zooming along fantasticly! I bet they made love three times last night and twice this morning, and are planning a cruise to Tahiti!” Sheesh.

I think Mearls chose his words very carefully. And I bet the next year or so will prove they were accurate, too.

Tony M

 

[Vocenoctum]

And I think Testujin hits it on the head right there. For many players, it's a chance to get together with some friends and make a night of it. I know it certainly was for me for more than a decade, so, I don't think you can discount the social aspect of PnP games. I think that MMORPGS are going to complement PnP games, not out compete them.

Because really, if you're going to sit in your basement pretending to be an elf, you should at least have some friends over to help.

 

[Ketjak]

So What?

However, the mainstream bookstore market is killer for small press companies, since effectively everything sold through major bookstores is on consignment. If it doesn't sell, it's sent back and the company that produced it has to eat the cost. Compare that to the FLGS, where local stores end up with shelves of unsellable low-grade materials that periodically are cleaned out with a huge sale.

(I'm not arguing with Wings here, just responding to a convenient post about this.)

I am all for the producers or sellers of low-grade product literally paying for their mistakes. If a small D20 company wants into the distribution channel, gets in, and has their product returned because it didn't sell more than the "seed" copies that determine what word of mouth says, so be it!

In the current FLGS model, the FLGS takes all the risk. I dare say that several FLGSs died before Fast Forward shut its doors. It would have been far better - and healthier for the industry as a whole! - for Fast Forward to have dealt earlier with the failure of their products to sell, rather than glutting the market and FLGS shelves with product that hasn't, doesn't, and won't sell. And they're not the only ones.

If your product doesn't sell, it is your fault. (The retailer who hides good product is going out of business no matter the quality of the product he's hiding.) I would love to see market forces "encourage" producers to make high-quality work, and I suspect the demise of widespread FLGSs will do that. Unfortunately, it will probably happen at the expense of the FLGS owners, not the creators of low-quality work.

One of the reasons I buy more PDFs than print books these days is that it costs less to buy a bad product. If a product is bad, I never have to buy from that author again; if the product is good, I buy things from that author. This is why Ronin Arts (Phil Reed), Creative Mountain Games, and Malhavoc Press (Mike or Monte) are all over my hard drive.

No, I am not an FLGS, distributor, or developer nor am I affiliated with any.

- Ket

 

[TwistedBishop]

I think Mearls chose his words very carefully. And I bet the next year or so will prove they were accurate, too.

So, if Mearls had come in gushing with love for how well the brand was doing, would people have treated THAT as an honest accounting?

 

[Vocenoctum]

Actually, it's because book trade returns take quite a long time to happen after an order. But if it makes you feel better to assume my position comes from being a mean man who hates teh D&D, I suppose that has at least as much merit as many of the other sentimental arguments here.

Well, that's the point. My "sentimental arguements" do have as much merit as your limited sampling projections for the entire industry. You close yourself off to any debate, and repeat your mantra. You've probably got 1/4 of the posts on this 7 page thread, and have not acknowledged any diversion from your starting point.
Realistically though, how many RPG companies have you worked for? Do you think the companies you've worked for have also ingrained their corporate environment into your responses?

 

[Vocenoctum]

I think Mearls chose his words very carefully. And I bet the next year or so will prove they were accurate, too.

Tony M

In the Gen Con transcript thingee, WotC said that there were no plans for 4e because 3.5 was selling better than any previous edition, or something of the sort.

So, was he lying, or were TSR's records that bad, or are there 50,000 WotC books in a warehouse somewhere about to be returned and destroy Hasbro?

I'm not saying the RPG business as a whole is healthy. Frankly I've cut back my buying habits a lot, due to poor quality material and the endless repetition of third tier books. I buy WotC products because in general I believe them to be superior to the next guy, not because I'm some Koolaid Drinker that can't make up his own mind.

So, this is why I think it's entirely possible for D&D to be expanding as the market contracts. I'm not saying it's true, but I think it's certainly possible.

 

[tonym]

In the Gen Con transcript thingee, WotC said that there were no plans for 4e because 3.5 was selling better than any previous edition, or something of the sort.

So, was he lying, or were TSR's records that bad, or are there 50,000 WotC books in a warehouse somewhere about to be returned and destroy Hasbro?

Gosh, how am I supposed to know what's in WotC's warehouse?

Personally, I don't see any conflict between 3.5 selling better than previous editions, and the current state of D&D only being "fine." The economy was a lot better-off when 3.5 came out, a lot of the sales could've happened then. Furthermore, 3.5 can outsell the other editions and still only be "fine" if parent-company Hasbro is not happy with rate of sales, or if sales have been ho-hum lately.

In other words, discussing 3.5 sales equals discussing Years...
Discussing D&D being "fine" equals discussing Months.

Tony M

 

[francisca]

Look at the RPGs from small companies compared to something from a big company in 1985. The production values of a modern small-press product are FAR in excess of an old D&D book.

Sure. But to me, production values are over-rated. Colorful, glossy, well-laid out crap is still crap.

What would you rather have?

Product A:
96 or 128 pages
Simple cover image
Fairly plain paper, like used in the 1e core books
Sparse, but relevent, black and white illustrations
Good index
Good organization
Solid, tested mechanics
Is a good read

Product B:
256+ pages
Slick cover with gaudy photshopped graphics
Coated paper
Lots of color illustrations throughout the book, which happens to interrupt the flow of text
Poorly organized
Shoddy mechanics
and/or reads like an ITU-T standard specification

Personally, I'd go with A. Now, there is nothing that says a product can't have the best of both. However, the extra cost of the "higher production value" model may be a bit more than I am willing to shell out.

 

[Pramas]

In the current FLGS model, the FLGS takes all the risk.

Sorry, but that's a bunch of bull. What we've seen over the past decade, in fact, is the shifting of more and more of the risk to the manufacturer. The pre-order system is completely broken, so every print run done is just a guess. Distributors, who used to buy up a six month supply of a good title, don't want more than a couple of week's worth on hand. They'd rather do it "just in time", which can often lead to lost sales. Neither retailers nor distributors want to take much risk, and yet every year we hear the usual complaints from retailers about manufacturers selling direct at cons and online.

I dare say that several FLGSs died before Fast Forward shut its doors. It would have been far better - and healthier for the industry as a whole! - for Fast Forward to have dealt earlier with the failure of their products to sell, rather than glutting the market and FLGS shelves with product that hasn't, doesn't, and won't sell. And they're not the only ones.

I doubt that even one retailer went out of business because of Fast Forward. It's big ticket fad products like collectible games that can really burn a retailer. Many stores went out in the mid 90s after speculating wildly on TCGs.

If your product doesn't sell, it is your fault.

And why aren't bad retailers also to blame for continuing to order crappy product? Surely they are responsible for what they bring into their store. When you see a store with an entire shelf of unsold books from the same crap-peddler, you have to wonder why the buyer keeps ordering more. A store has complete control over what it brings in and what it doesn't. I find it hard to see how this means they take more risk.

 

[francisca]

As Akrasia has noted, D&D is far from its glory days, even while it is not yet taken to its sick bed. This distinction seems to escape the "doing fine" set, who want instead to focus on "dead or not dead" black or white. It is rather a darkening shade of gray, IMO.

Personally, I don't care either. If D&D would have went belly up instead of being rescued by Peter Atkison, I'd still be playing. Mearls is right, we don't need publishers. I could ditch about 90% of what I have, never buy another game book, and be none the worse for it.

Now, that doesn't mean I want D&D (or RPGs in general) to keel over, nor does it mean I have any contempt for the publishers (well, most of them anyway). I am always happy to find new products I can use. But really, to me and my friends, if the industry dried up and blew away, I'd be bummed, but I'd still be playing monday nights at my place. ( I would miss GenCon if it went away, but that's because of the people, not the games.)