The older i get the less I need.

[Velderan]

I’ve gotten rid of some stuff over the years and always regret it. Not because I needed it, because I wanted it around. I like looking at my shelves and remembering or daydreaming about games. Even if I’ll never play them again.

Same. I know it’s extremely unlikely I ever spend any meaningful time playing AD&D 2e again, but I still enjoy having the books on my shelf and periodically reading through them. Bonus points when the boxed sets have my old notes and character sheets in them.

I have slowly been buying some of the things I either had and lost throughout the years or simply never owned because I could never find it locally in the pre-internet early-90s.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've heavily decreased the amount of physical products I buy in the last few years (combination of saving money and space), so I only buy physical books as core books, and only if I know I'm going to run the game (I didn't even do that with 13th Age as I need to reference the book so little).

That said, I don't necessarily want lighter games than I ever did, though sometimes the kind of density I want is different. Which doesn't mean a heavy game may not leave me going "Nah." But it may not too.

Edit: I haven't actually disposed of any of the older physical product I have, though some of it may be in very questionable shape given where they're stored.

 

[The Soloist]

I've purged my collection of games several times over the decades, only to build it back up with newer games I wanted to try.

The only regret I've ever had was to part with my BX and AD&D collection. No other game, despite all the fun I had, will ever evoke the same feelings in me. They were the first RPGs. I bought back POD books for the essentials.

My last culling was four weeks ago. Lots of stuff, unplayed for at least two years, and not 'classics' just didn't deserve to take up space on my shelves. I regained six linear feet of storage.

When all my shelves are lined with 'classics', I will no longer buy new games, I guess.

 

[schneeland]

In line with the OP and many other that have commented, there is a clear downward trend in physical products for me, roughly since 2020. And while there is an element of needing to move, too, I think the three main factors are:

1. Digital is good enough for me (in many cases). I have two iPads, which, among others, work well as overpriced eBook readers, and throughout the pandemic I become used to online play - so now there's a lot less need for physical books if I want to play. Basically the only reason to buy a physical book now is because I like the game a lot and want a nice thing that sits on my shelves.
2. Ebb and flow of interest in the hobby. When 5e launched, it rekindled my interest in the hobby after it had slowly fizzled over many years of playing 3e, and from 2015 to 2020, I explored a lot of things (OSR, PbtA/FitD, ...) that I had missed when I was just playing with the same people. I bought a lot of stuff during that time, but at some point I felt I had "caught up" and I also had a much better idea of what I like in RPGs - and also what not. And for things in the latter category, there was little point in keeping them in print (I'm not really bothered by PDFs).
3. Being in the "second half of the match". I never cared much about age until I hit 40 (a few years back). But now that, statistically speaking, I'm closer to death than birth, I had a second look at all those nostalgia-induced purchases I made (AD&D2e, Shadowrun 2e, ...) and had to admit to myself that the big "retro gaming" projects I had contemplated probably will not happen. Both because of time, but also because I realized that if I look at the top 5 of games, I want to play in the near to mid future, none of the old systems are among them.

I still have interest in new games and from time to time - and I don't think that will ever fully stop, because there's always that one new game really want to have a look at - but in many cases I just snag a PDF, and I no longer trick myself into thinking I would actually play all of the stuff I buy.

 

[jdrakeh]

I mostly own PDFs now, though it's primarily because I'm poor and struggle with finances (I'm disabled and have very little income). I used to absolutely dread selling my precious RPG collectibles, but I've gotten over it. Now it's just another way to pay the bills (and meds, food, etc). And I always have my own games, most of which trend toward minimalism.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

For me it's not about amount, it's about specifics.

As I get older, I want RPGs that are better-designed, and more focused on their purpose. I've got less time for RPGs where the mechanics don't match the tone and/or setting - I now know I can't/won't re-write an RPG. I've also get less time for RPGs where like 60% of the game is cool, but 40% is bleh or actively uninteresting, which honestly described a lot of RPGs I played in the 1990s.

Yup, I'm in this boat also. The all-encompassing generic games -- Savage Worlds, d20, GURPS, Heroes, etc -- they contain too much that is not useful to my game or actively unhelpful. The only generic system I really run now is FATE -- mostly because it's so minimal you really need a world-book or something non-generic to have fun with it.

Even for supers, there's such a huge distance between "The Boys" and minimal powered heroes fighting in WW2, that it would be awful to try and run M&M for either. That's why I own dozens of systems and have actively run campaigns in maybe 20+ systems.

 

[Reynard]

Yup, I'm in this boat also. The all-encompassing generic games -- Savage Worlds, d20, GURPS, Heroes, etc -- they contain too much that is not useful to my game or actively unhelpful. The only generic system I really run now is FATE -- mostly because it's so minimal you really need a world-book or something non-generic to have fun with it.

Even for supers, there's such a huge distance between "The Boys" and minimal powered heroes fighting in WW2, that it would be awful to try and run M&M for either. That's why I own dozens of systems and have actively run campaigns in maybe 20+ systems.

The whole point of generic systems is that you curate the aspects you need to do the thing you are interested in. I don't get the idea that a generic system can have "too much."

As to supers: different supers games definitely do different supers sub genres better than others. I think M&M is great for everything but the lowest powered to the highest powered supers, for example.

 

[Theory of Games]

The value of the dollar (US, CA, AU) is roughly 1/5 what it was 40 years ago. And in certain fields, as weak as 1/10 what it was (real estate/housing). (And minimum wage only trebled.)

In real terms, the prices are essentially the same for non-licensed games, but the production quality is higher, largely due to desktop publishing and spellcheck. The shift in the 80's to DTP radically improved the top few tiers' look. The 00's rise in computer performance resulted in many of the lower tiers catching up.

Big name licensed games are more expensive than they had been... but not a lot more.

That's the thing. Income hasn't matched prices. New word: Inflation. I wish rpgs were a cheap as they were 40 years ago - I might own more, but probably not, since most ttrpgs are trash

 

[Gorgon Zee]

The whole point of generic systems is that you curate the aspects you need to do the thing you are interested in. I don't get the idea that a generic system can have "too much."

You really cannot understand that having to make a thousand decisions about what to include and what not to include, understanding how they interact and will affect your game play is not what everyone likes? Really?

As to supers: different supers games definitely do different supers sub genres better than others. I think M&M is great for everything but the lowest powered to the highest powered supers, for example.

Power level is the least of my concerns. M&M is a fine choice for 4-color older style games, but if I want a narrative game where the power are broadly defined and effects are determined by the narrative, it’s not going to work and I reach for Fate. If I want an investigative, Watchman style game, or superhero-cops game, I’ll go for Gumshoe.

To the OP’s point, I beleive that system matters, and that it determines the genre to a large extent. If you run the same campaign using M&M you will get a substantially different genre than if you ran it in ICONS or MUTANT CITY BLUES. That’s why I have many games in my shelf.

 

[Reynard]

You really cannot understand that having to make a thousand decisions about what to include and what not to include, understanding how they interact and will affect your game play is not what everyone likes? Really?

But that's the point of a generic system. It has everything you need and more.

You don't think that it is more work to figure out 10 different systems than figure out one and curate it, really?

Power level is the least of my concerns. M&M is a fine choice for 4-color older style games, but if I want a narrative game where the power are broadly defined and effects are determined by the narrative, it’s not going to work and I reach for Fate. If I want an investigative, Watchman style game, or superhero-cops game, I’ll go for Gumshoe.

To the OP’s point, I beleive that system matters, and that it determines the genre to a large extent. If you run the same campaign using M&M you will get a substantially different genre than if you ran it in ICONS or MUTANT CITY BLUES. That’s why I have many games in my shelf.

I'm going to refer you to your own post to which I replied, where you literally only talked about the problems of power level. You might have been thinking of something else, but that is what you mentioned, and that's what I responded to.