DaveyJones
Explorer
every cloud has a silver lining. you just need to find it to be in on the riches.Starman said:
time waits for no mang.
Davey "i'm more a gamist than a hobbyist" Jones
The State of Our Hobby
- Thread starter Wisdom Penalty
- Start date
time waits for no mang.
Davey "i'm more a gamist than a hobbyist" Jones
Would rock, but the trick is finding someone to foot the bill.Belen said:
Are probably barking up the wrong tree. They point to the kind of expensive mainstream ad campaign that wouldn't work for D&D --and quite possibly don't really work for anyone anymore.
They should put the entire core game in a box and sell it at toy stores. That sort of stated goal might help keep the complexity of the core system down (core complexity = bad, modular additional content that increases complexity = good).
The problem with a basic game is that it says to consumers "hey, you really like this game, then buy it twice (and then some more supplements)".
Yes and yes. Smart word-of-mouth and viral campaigns should be their focus.
And why in the world is WotC designing their own online, not free(!!!) play suite? Why not partner with a site like Facebook and provide a small set of simple online tools?
Vigilance
Explorer
Korgoth said:
Uhhuh.
4e doesn't need to crash and burn, nor does D&D need to fail as a brand owned by Hasbro for this to happen.
D&D is in the hands of the hobbyists right now.
It's like hoping record companies fail so music can return to the garage.
In fact, one has nothing to do with the other. Garage bands exist independent of big-money music, whether one thinks that's evil or not, just like D&D exists independent of Hasbro.
Scurvy_Platypus
Explorer
Warning: This is a pretty long post. No, seriously. It's long. If you want my final thought, just scroll to the bottom.
However, your 2nd bit there about the industry being able to withstand this much "diversity"?
No, I've got to disagree with you.
First, we've got some 20 years of steadily diversifying games to indicate that it's _not_ a problem. If the market couldn't support it (or wasn't interested in it) it wouldn't have happened and wouldn't be continuing to happen.
Second, could you show me a hobby/form of entertainment where a monopoly is a _benefit_ to its participants? I can't thing of _anything_ in life (although I'm willing to accept there might be) where I've thought, "Damn, you know what? We have too much choice. What would really make everything better is if we had _less_ choices. Dear lord, please take options away from me."
I would disagree. Companies produce material because people buy it. Your premise _might_ work if you accept that people will buy something, regardless of whether they like it or not. Some people are that way, but I don't think the majority of people are. If I have 3 choices of "ice cream" and those are 1. Dog crap, 2. Snot, 3. Vomit, then I'm going to decide, "I don't need to buy ice cream". If a company is putting out a product, the _consumer_ decides if they're going to buy it or not. If we decide "no" then the company has two basic choices A) Change their product to meet consumer demand B)Hope that enough consumers will buy it to keep them going.
Also, if the "majority" is in fact a majority then it really doesn't matter _what_ the splinter groups are going to do. The "majority" needs to worry about itself, and not claim that all the other minorities need to join it. They're already the majority for pete's sake. Now they want to become a totality or something?
The majority already gets its way. D&D does have the largest market share, fantasy is the dominant game. Planescape (which was too strange of a setting for the majority of gamers) didn't get an official remake. If you take a look at comic books, what do you find? Superheroes. They dominate. Every so often there's some sort of attempt at a fantasy comic, but it's not common and generally doesn't do well.
What's that got to do with D&D and rpgs?
Like comic books, the market is catered to. Those people that are spending the most amount of money (that majority) are getting the products they want. Think D&D is too rule heavy? Well, guess what... those were the books that sold. It's not like WotC sat up in its tower and said, "Who gives a crap what kind of book they want, this is what they're going to get."
Last year (2007), some 17.9 BILLION dollars were spent on videogames. There's a _huge_ amount of money that's floating around to be spent on entertainment. If rpgs aren't popular, or the industry is struggling, the problem is not that the "majority of gamers" have too much choice. The problem is that the rpg industry isn't making itself appealing enough to tap into some of those billons of dollars that people are willing to spend.
Oh wait, that doesn't describe your D&D game? Well, people like to think there's something more to rpgs than D&D too.
No offense, but I have to say... I _don't_ envy you. I mean, what's the point of playing rpgs in the first place? RPGs aren't a religion. You say they're only concerned about the game itself and having fun, like that's some sort of strange and enviable state. A charming and naive view of the world or something.
I don't know what sort of great burden or responsibility you might have in relation to playing rpgs, but I gotta say... put it down and walk away from it. Playing an rpg and being involved with them should only be about having fun, full stop. What _you_ think is "fun" might (and probably does) differ from other people's ideas, but if it's not fun you just need to quit. Seriously.
This is as good a place to make this point as anywhere else:
The gaming industry is not the same thing as the rpg hobby.
If every single producer of rpgs shut down tomorrow, does that mean you'd throw out all your books and dice? If your answer is "yes", then I think you've missed the point of the hobby at least as I learned it back in the day.
And if your answer is "no", then honestly... why should you (or anyone else) give a crap what state the "industry" is in? You've got books, you've got dice. Nothing stopping you from finding people to play with. Nothing stopping you from making up rules or changing what's written in the books.
I find it disturbing that my participation in the hobby is supposed to be defined by my habits (or lack thereof) as a consumer. How many books a year am I supposed to buy in order to be defined as a "gamer"? Do I still get to be a "gamer" if I'm not buying D&D books? Afterall, D&D _is_ the majority game out there, and the _majority_ gets to define its identity. If you say "gamer" in the context of PnP rpgs, the automatic assumption is going to be "D&Der".
I do NOT owe the gaming industry a single thing. If they put something out that interests me, I'll buy it. If the gaming industry can't put out something I'm interested in, then they don't deserve to get paid for it. And if the industry fails and crashes and everyone disappears and has to get a "real" job? That's quite honestly not my problem. The industry should have done a better job catering to the majority. And no, I don't make the mistake of thinking I'm a part of the majority. I _know_ my tastes are different than most people's. I mean, I like BESMd20. That alone is enough to get me ostracized by the majority of gamers.
I fundamentally reject your premise that my interest in the commercial success or failure of 4E is the same thing as my interest in how the hobby does.
WotC does seem to have the largest share of the market. Therefore, one could argue that since it's got a majority share it gets to "define" the majority of "gaming". But I fail to see how the industry means the same thing as the hobby. There's smaller companies out there, there's plenty of people doing their own thing and self-publishing or banding together.
WotC might represent the majority of the gaming industry currently, but if it disappears then there's plenty of smaller companies to carry on the torch.
No, I do agree with you on this. There's more pressures out there to pull people away from rpgs than there are to bring them in. And no, I'm not talking about videogames. I mean things like time, other people to get together with, family issues, and so forth.
Videogames are _not_ a threat to PnP rpgs. Videogames provide a gameplay experience that people want. 17.9 Billon dollars says that people want it. If people are deliberately choosing to get rid of their rpg books and switching over to play videogames, that's really not the fault of the videogame. All the videogame has done is offer a better gameplay experience than an rpg can.
In other words, it's the fault of the rpgs.
It's not like Grand Theft Auto or World of Warcraft drove over to somebody's house, picked the lock, cornered them in their room, pulled out a gun said, "Play me or I pull the trigger". People are forced or tricked into playing videogames. They aren't being brainwashed into thinking that PnP rpgs are bad and videogames are good.
RPGs do need to get new blood into them, and the amount of people playing videogames would suggest that there's plenty of bodies and money to be spent.
Do I have a solution? No. People play all kinds of different games for all kinds of different reasons. One solution will not fit everyone. Heck, I can't even say that the PnP "community" needs to act more like a community, because it seems pretty obvious that there's a portion of people out there that could care less about any kind of "community".
I also really wouldn't try judging the upper limits by the number of people that bought Dungeon or even Dragon. Back when I started playing D&D and then for some 5 years after that, I only knew 2 people that could afford to buy Dragon magazine. And while I've continued playing rpgs all the way up to now, I haven't bought Dragon or Dungeon. I own the Dragon Magazine compilation, and that's it currently. I don't know anyone currently that's bought either magazine for the past 10 years.
My conclusion? There's a horrible confusion between the hobby of playing rpgs (or even just playing D&D) and the business of the gaming industry. Further, there's a nasty implication that "gaming" means "D&D". If 4E doesn't succeed, it may or may not have an impact on the gaming industry. I do know that if 4E bombs (which I personally doubt will happen) and all the rpg companies suddenly went out of business, it wouldn't affect my ability to engage in the hobby of _playing_ rpgs.
If my hobby were _buying_ books, then yeah I'd be bummed.
First, I agree with you that the acrimony that goes along with people's edition wars sucks. Way back in the day I saw plenty of the wargamers ripping into rpgers with a lot of the same kind of language I see rpgers ripping into each other. Back then I thought, "Dude, relax. You can still play with your minis, and if you keep pissing people off, your hobby is going to die." Fast forward 20 years and nothing has really changed except that rpgers are arguing amongst themselves about things like MMOs, as well as which edition is "better".Wisdom Penalty said:
However, your 2nd bit there about the industry being able to withstand this much "diversity"?
No, I've got to disagree with you.
First, we've got some 20 years of steadily diversifying games to indicate that it's _not_ a problem. If the market couldn't support it (or wasn't interested in it) it wouldn't have happened and wouldn't be continuing to happen.
Second, could you show me a hobby/form of entertainment where a monopoly is a _benefit_ to its participants? I can't thing of _anything_ in life (although I'm willing to accept there might be) where I've thought, "Damn, you know what? We have too much choice. What would really make everything better is if we had _less_ choices. Dear lord, please take options away from me."
Wisdom Penalty said:
I would disagree. Companies produce material because people buy it. Your premise _might_ work if you accept that people will buy something, regardless of whether they like it or not. Some people are that way, but I don't think the majority of people are. If I have 3 choices of "ice cream" and those are 1. Dog crap, 2. Snot, 3. Vomit, then I'm going to decide, "I don't need to buy ice cream". If a company is putting out a product, the _consumer_ decides if they're going to buy it or not. If we decide "no" then the company has two basic choices A) Change their product to meet consumer demand B)Hope that enough consumers will buy it to keep them going.
Also, if the "majority" is in fact a majority then it really doesn't matter _what_ the splinter groups are going to do. The "majority" needs to worry about itself, and not claim that all the other minorities need to join it. They're already the majority for pete's sake. Now they want to become a totality or something?
The majority already gets its way. D&D does have the largest market share, fantasy is the dominant game. Planescape (which was too strange of a setting for the majority of gamers) didn't get an official remake. If you take a look at comic books, what do you find? Superheroes. They dominate. Every so often there's some sort of attempt at a fantasy comic, but it's not common and generally doesn't do well.
What's that got to do with D&D and rpgs?
Like comic books, the market is catered to. Those people that are spending the most amount of money (that majority) are getting the products they want. Think D&D is too rule heavy? Well, guess what... those were the books that sold. It's not like WotC sat up in its tower and said, "Who gives a crap what kind of book they want, this is what they're going to get."
Last year (2007), some 17.9 BILLION dollars were spent on videogames. There's a _huge_ amount of money that's floating around to be spent on entertainment. If rpgs aren't popular, or the industry is struggling, the problem is not that the "majority of gamers" have too much choice. The problem is that the rpg industry isn't making itself appealing enough to tap into some of those billons of dollars that people are willing to spend.
There's plenty of rpg players out there that haven't "returned home" and started playing 3E, so why should 4E suddenly draw them in? I'm not even going to address the inherent assumption that rpg=D&D. There's more to rpgs than playing the same old boring zero-to-hero-kill-everything-and-take-its-stuff that D&D has been for the past 20 years.Wisdom Penalty said:
Oh wait, that doesn't describe your D&D game? Well, people like to think there's something more to rpgs than D&D too.
Wisdom Penalty said:
No offense, but I have to say... I _don't_ envy you. I mean, what's the point of playing rpgs in the first place? RPGs aren't a religion. You say they're only concerned about the game itself and having fun, like that's some sort of strange and enviable state. A charming and naive view of the world or something.
I don't know what sort of great burden or responsibility you might have in relation to playing rpgs, but I gotta say... put it down and walk away from it. Playing an rpg and being involved with them should only be about having fun, full stop. What _you_ think is "fun" might (and probably does) differ from other people's ideas, but if it's not fun you just need to quit. Seriously.
Wisdom Penalty said:
This is as good a place to make this point as anywhere else:
The gaming industry is not the same thing as the rpg hobby.
If every single producer of rpgs shut down tomorrow, does that mean you'd throw out all your books and dice? If your answer is "yes", then I think you've missed the point of the hobby at least as I learned it back in the day.
And if your answer is "no", then honestly... why should you (or anyone else) give a crap what state the "industry" is in? You've got books, you've got dice. Nothing stopping you from finding people to play with. Nothing stopping you from making up rules or changing what's written in the books.
I find it disturbing that my participation in the hobby is supposed to be defined by my habits (or lack thereof) as a consumer. How many books a year am I supposed to buy in order to be defined as a "gamer"? Do I still get to be a "gamer" if I'm not buying D&D books? Afterall, D&D _is_ the majority game out there, and the _majority_ gets to define its identity. If you say "gamer" in the context of PnP rpgs, the automatic assumption is going to be "D&Der".
I do NOT owe the gaming industry a single thing. If they put something out that interests me, I'll buy it. If the gaming industry can't put out something I'm interested in, then they don't deserve to get paid for it. And if the industry fails and crashes and everyone disappears and has to get a "real" job? That's quite honestly not my problem. The industry should have done a better job catering to the majority. And no, I don't make the mistake of thinking I'm a part of the majority. I _know_ my tastes are different than most people's. I mean, I like BESMd20. That alone is enough to get me ostracized by the majority of gamers.
Wisdom Penalty said:
I fundamentally reject your premise that my interest in the commercial success or failure of 4E is the same thing as my interest in how the hobby does.
Wisdom Penalty said:
WotC does seem to have the largest share of the market. Therefore, one could argue that since it's got a majority share it gets to "define" the majority of "gaming". But I fail to see how the industry means the same thing as the hobby. There's smaller companies out there, there's plenty of people doing their own thing and self-publishing or banding together.
WotC might represent the majority of the gaming industry currently, but if it disappears then there's plenty of smaller companies to carry on the torch.
Wisdom Penalty said:
No, I do agree with you on this. There's more pressures out there to pull people away from rpgs than there are to bring them in. And no, I'm not talking about videogames. I mean things like time, other people to get together with, family issues, and so forth.
Videogames are _not_ a threat to PnP rpgs. Videogames provide a gameplay experience that people want. 17.9 Billon dollars says that people want it. If people are deliberately choosing to get rid of their rpg books and switching over to play videogames, that's really not the fault of the videogame. All the videogame has done is offer a better gameplay experience than an rpg can.
In other words, it's the fault of the rpgs.
It's not like Grand Theft Auto or World of Warcraft drove over to somebody's house, picked the lock, cornered them in their room, pulled out a gun said, "Play me or I pull the trigger". People are forced or tricked into playing videogames. They aren't being brainwashed into thinking that PnP rpgs are bad and videogames are good.
RPGs do need to get new blood into them, and the amount of people playing videogames would suggest that there's plenty of bodies and money to be spent.
Do I have a solution? No. People play all kinds of different games for all kinds of different reasons. One solution will not fit everyone. Heck, I can't even say that the PnP "community" needs to act more like a community, because it seems pretty obvious that there's a portion of people out there that could care less about any kind of "community".
The number might be too high, but I think there's plenty of people that have played D&D in the past. Likely the number doesn't mean "25 million people playing D&D today". Remember the world is a pretty big place. And there's not a whole lot of reason for many folks to fess up to playing (or having played) D&D.Wisdom Penalty said:
I also really wouldn't try judging the upper limits by the number of people that bought Dungeon or even Dragon. Back when I started playing D&D and then for some 5 years after that, I only knew 2 people that could afford to buy Dragon magazine. And while I've continued playing rpgs all the way up to now, I haven't bought Dragon or Dungeon. I own the Dragon Magazine compilation, and that's it currently. I don't know anyone currently that's bought either magazine for the past 10 years.
My conclusion? There's a horrible confusion between the hobby of playing rpgs (or even just playing D&D) and the business of the gaming industry. Further, there's a nasty implication that "gaming" means "D&D". If 4E doesn't succeed, it may or may not have an impact on the gaming industry. I do know that if 4E bombs (which I personally doubt will happen) and all the rpg companies suddenly went out of business, it wouldn't affect my ability to engage in the hobby of _playing_ rpgs.
If my hobby were _buying_ books, then yeah I'd be bummed.
Wisdom Penalty
First Post
Scurvy -
Little time on my end and long (very good) post on yours, so I can't quote it all. But I disagree with your very last assumption (which is the whole point of my post, I guess). I think your personal ability to play (and therefore enjoy) gaming is related - in some level - to the success or failure of the gaming industry.
A good industry means you have more options (options = people) to play games with.
A poor one means the opposite.
Yes, as I stated, I think the RPG industry is WotC. So we're different on that, I guess. I don't think any other company - even combined - comes close to the clout/importance of WotC.
Also, on those numbers (25 mil playing D&D, 25k buying Dungeon): It may give an indication of the size of the Paizo crowd within the greater customer base, i.e. miniscule at best. And that's assuming everyone who subscribed to Dungeon will stick with 3.75 (I did, and I won't). Yet, see the ripples that go through our community when Paizo decides to not go 4E at the moment? We pull beards and gnash teeth and somewhere out there 24.75 million people went, "Pai-who?"
For the record: I love Paizo. I love Erik Mona. He did nothing less for Dungeon than what 3E did for D&D: save it.
W.P.
Little time on my end and long (very good) post on yours, so I can't quote it all. But I disagree with your very last assumption (which is the whole point of my post, I guess). I think your personal ability to play (and therefore enjoy) gaming is related - in some level - to the success or failure of the gaming industry.
A good industry means you have more options (options = people) to play games with.
A poor one means the opposite.
Yes, as I stated, I think the RPG industry is WotC. So we're different on that, I guess. I don't think any other company - even combined - comes close to the clout/importance of WotC.
Also, on those numbers (25 mil playing D&D, 25k buying Dungeon): It may give an indication of the size of the Paizo crowd within the greater customer base, i.e. miniscule at best. And that's assuming everyone who subscribed to Dungeon will stick with 3.75 (I did, and I won't). Yet, see the ripples that go through our community when Paizo decides to not go 4E at the moment? We pull beards and gnash teeth and somewhere out there 24.75 million people went, "Pai-who?"
For the record: I love Paizo. I love Erik Mona. He did nothing less for Dungeon than what 3E did for D&D: save it.
W.P.
Doug McCrae
Legend
You only need commonality of rules for tournament play. This turned out to be at lot less important for rpgs than Gary thought it was when he wrote 1e.
I guess it's handy for people who change groups a lot or play in the RPGA so you don't waste time establishing what house rules are in use. And may become a much more significant factor if play through the DDI takes off.
But currently, for most people, I think increased choice of system is of greater benefit.
I guess it's handy for people who change groups a lot or play in the RPGA so you don't waste time establishing what house rules are in use. And may become a much more significant factor if play through the DDI takes off.
But currently, for most people, I think increased choice of system is of greater benefit.
The_Gneech
Explorer
As long as I have friends who like gaming, the state of the hobby will be just fine as far as I'm concerned. And, well, that's not really something that has anything to do with WotC one way or another.
I could keep on gaming forever with my 4th edition HERO System and be content. For that matter, I've still got my copy of Tunnels and Trolls from 1984 and it does the job.
-The Gneech
I could keep on gaming forever with my 4th edition HERO System and be content. For that matter, I've still got my copy of Tunnels and Trolls from 1984 and it does the job.
-The Gneech
Doug McCrae
Legend
On the whole I think the needs of capitalism and the needs of gamers coincide. If companies want to make money they produce products we want to buy.
It's not always the case though, probably the outstanding example is the drive to publish splats, which tends to be detrimental to the consumer.
The first example of this were the OD&D splats such as Blackmoor and Greyhawk which imo were extremely bad for D&D. 7th+ level spells were broken. The thief and paladin had no niche because of the wizard and cleric respectively. Sadly it's taken until 4e for the problems introduced by these splats to be fixed.
It's not always the case though, probably the outstanding example is the drive to publish splats, which tends to be detrimental to the consumer.
The first example of this were the OD&D splats such as Blackmoor and Greyhawk which imo were extremely bad for D&D. 7th+ level spells were broken. The thief and paladin had no niche because of the wizard and cleric respectively. Sadly it's taken until 4e for the problems introduced by these splats to be fixed.
Similar Threads
