Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 3281426" data-attributes="member: 22882">MM, I &quot;get&quot; your point: The &quot;RP&quot; in RPG, and particularly the wide-open nature of play, are the critical differences.It's my point, too: the &quot;RP&quot; in RPG, and particularly the wide-open nature of play, are the critical things holding RPGs back from mainstream success.A balanced and competitive railroad that can be completed in two hours from chargen to a victory for one player, the players collectively or the GM who is competing with the players - assuming there's a GM involved?&nbsp; That's a mainstream game, right there.Then you release expansions with new (balanced and competitive railroad) scenarios.&nbsp; That's a business model.&nbsp; Possibly you make them collectible, but that's definitely gambling for the big hit while risking a total flop.But, you may say -!&nbsp; Doesn't this negate the advantages of tabletop over, say, an MMORPG?First off, MMORPGs are highly *profitable* because of their business model, not because they're popular in terms of playerbase.&nbsp; Even WoW is a piker compared to the last five offline Final Fantasy games (its vaunted 6 mil amounts to about half the sales of a PS1 FF), much less the more successful non-RPG electronic games.&nbsp; And WoW is the only MMORPG that's even in the picture.&nbsp; The best of the rest only crack Platinum (1 mil) sales if they're a hit in the online-obsessed Korean market; most MMOs are considered smash hits if they manage a hundred thousand subscribers in the US and Europe.Second, even those non-RPG electronic games pale in comparison to the sale of successful board and card games.Apparently, board and card games still have something on electronic games.&nbsp; Namely, the one thing tabletop RPGs have that's actually marketable: face to face social interaction.Any RPG that tries for mainstream success must 1. play fast (two hours TOPS, and that's pushing it), 2. be as easy to grasp as Monopoly, 3. be focused on one-shot rather than campaign play, 4. not take people out of their comfort zone, 5. have name recognition, 6. have a lot of marketing clout, and 7. be available in toy and department stores.D&amp;D has 5. and a bit of 6. and 7.&nbsp; Essentially no other RPG has *any* of them.&nbsp; The open-endedness gets in the way of 1. and 2., while the roleplaying hurts 1., 2. and 4.&nbsp; 3. is just a legacy design choice that has never been challenged in a product with even a modicum of 5. or 6.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoogleEmpMog, post: 3281426, member: 22882"] MM, I "get" your point: The "RP" in RPG, and particularly the wide-open nature of play, are the critical differences. It's my point, too: the "RP" in RPG, and particularly the wide-open nature of play, are the critical things holding RPGs back from mainstream success. A balanced and competitive railroad that can be completed in two hours from chargen to a victory for one player, the players collectively or the GM who is competing with the players - assuming there's a GM involved? That's a mainstream game, right there. Then you release expansions with new (balanced and competitive railroad) scenarios. That's a business model. Possibly you make them collectible, but that's definitely gambling for the big hit while risking a total flop. But, you may say -! Doesn't this negate the advantages of tabletop over, say, an MMORPG? First off, MMORPGs are highly *profitable* because of their business model, not because they're popular in terms of playerbase. Even WoW is a piker compared to the last five offline Final Fantasy games (its vaunted 6 mil amounts to about half the sales of a PS1 FF), much less the more successful non-RPG electronic games. And WoW is the only MMORPG that's even in the picture. The best of the rest only crack Platinum (1 mil) sales if they're a hit in the online-obsessed Korean market; most MMOs are considered smash hits if they manage a hundred thousand subscribers in the US and Europe. Second, even those non-RPG electronic games pale in comparison to the sale of successful board and card games. Apparently, board and card games still have something on electronic games. Namely, the one thing tabletop RPGs have that's actually marketable: face to face social interaction. Any RPG that tries for mainstream success must 1. play fast (two hours TOPS, and that's pushing it), 2. be as easy to grasp as Monopoly, 3. be focused on one-shot rather than campaign play, 4. not take people out of their comfort zone, 5. have name recognition, 6. have a lot of marketing clout, and 7. be available in toy and department stores. D&D has 5. and a bit of 6. and 7. Essentially no other RPG has *any* of them. The open-endedness gets in the way of 1. and 2., while the roleplaying hurts 1., 2. and 4. 3. is just a legacy design choice that has never been challenged in a product with even a modicum of 5. or 6. [/QUOTE]

Verification