The State of Our Hobby

[BryonD]

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.

Agreed.

I'd also go a step further and suggest that during the decline of D&D was when a lot of other good games stepped up. I don't know if D&D's slip made the opening or if the new idea put a drag on D&D, but either way, the decline of D&D didn't kill the hobby be any stretch.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

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.

That is only true if you need more options. If you already have a solid group of players, do you need more? On top of that, there is nothing preventing you from teaching others to play the game, whether it is supported by an industry or not. WotC didn't teach my wife to play D&D, I did using the books I already owned.

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.

While I think you are correct about the clout WotC has, the industry will continue without them. If WotC were to cease to exist I wouldn't suddenly lose the urge to play RPGs, so as long as there is somebody providing products I like, it doesn't matter to me whether they have a staff of 50 producing 2 books per year or 500 producing 20, I'll take what I like and can get.

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?"

I never bought a single issue of Dungeon and I gave up my Dragon subsrciption a very long time ago so I don't count in that 25k. Regardless, I know of Paizo, have used some of their GameMastery items and will be looking at Pathfinder as it develops.

As for that 25 million D&D players; I don't think that is an indication of the current "D&D crowd." That is an estimate as to how many people have played D&D, not the number of current and active players who are likely to be buying official D&D products. I really doubt WotC is planning a print run of 25 million copies of the 4e PHB.

 

[diaglo]

We didn't need third edition either. So, the same could be said about it.

we haven't needed anything since OD&D(1974) if you want my opinion.

 

[Crothian]

we haven't needed anything since OD&D(1974) if you want my opinion.

Well, buy me a physical copy and I'll start playing!!

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I think part of the problem is the numbering of editions. This was probably unforeseen at the time, but having 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E means you have 4 different editions to play.

They should have stuck with just one edition: the D&D edition.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I think part of the problem is the numbering of editions. This was probably unforeseen at the time, but having 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E means you have 4 different editions to play.

They should have stuck with just one edition: the D&D edition.

That'd be ideal, but it's also not very reasonable, for a few reasons.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, per se; I think it'd be great if we were all unified by one solid edition. But I think the nature of the game demands change.

I mean, look at guys like Monte Cook who love to tinker with the rules. Those are people creating these RPGs. So they're never going to be 100% satisfied with what's out there. Eventually they'll start tinkering until we find ourselves in the position we're in now, with a new edition on the rise.

And let's face it, another reason we have so many editions is because each edition is filled with nonsense rules that can muck things up. They had 'em in 1st edition, they have 'em in 3.5, and they'll have 'em in 4e. It's a guarantee. And eventually folks come along and say, "you know, someone should really fix these."

Plus, I think it's actually bad for an industry to be stagnant. It's not financially tenable, true, but change can be a good thing, so long as things are forward moving (which is so nebulous a term that one might argue that any change could be considered "forward moving," but I don't think that's the case).

Those are just my feelings. I suspect that eventually I will convert fully to 4e, but as I said in an email earlier today, I still like 3.5 and have enough material to last me a very long time. So, I'm flexible.

 

[Silver Moon]

Wow....

.....this thread is the silliest one I've seen in a long time. The one thing that March 2008 has taught me, with all of the various high-profile tributes to Gary Gygax and reporting about the ongoing strength and popularity of role playing is that the hobby remains in great shape today.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think just having Colbert on our side will keep us alive, if anyone can bring knowledge of D&D to people it be him

 

[seskis281]

Ya know,

If Hasbro and WotC REALLY wanted to be gutsy, they'd establish design teams and publish material for multiple editions at once.

Wouldn't be too hard to do market research to determine the % of interest among "D&Ders", then produce proportional works for different eras.

Fanciful dreaming there, but what the hell....

 

[Nifft]

If Hasbro and WotC REALLY wanted to be gutsy, they'd establish design teams and publish material for multiple editions at once.

When you say "gutsy", do you mean "bankrupt"?

Seriously, competing with yourself is often a bad idea.

Cheers, -- N