Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5011310" data-attributes="member: 80487">If we're talking RP games in general, we're talking D&amp;D (whatever goes by that brand name lately)!I think a big part of the &quot;bubble&quot; back in the 1980s was people who found in D&amp;D the next best thing to what they really wanted -- what computer games especially deliver today.Then there was the general games market, in which the latest &quot;hot thing&quot; gets a season of bumper sales. Mille Bornes, Twixt, Diplomacy, Acquire, Pente, Othello, Civilization, Axis &amp; Allies, Trivial Pursuit, Taboo, Settlers of Catan ... all of those may still be around -- each remained in print for at least a decade -- but I'm sure none of them is the &quot;It&quot; game everyone is talking about in salons or on playgrounds. I was surprised to find that people bought Avalon Hill's 1776 in that American Bicentennial year who never played it -- or, for that matter, any &quot;hex-and-counter war game&quot;. It just gathered dust in closets.D&amp;D actually did remarkably well, I think, in keeping up sales as much as it did from year to year.A lot of little kids like to play &quot;let's pretend&quot; by running around with toy swords or whatnot. A fair number of older kids are into online, text-based games I gather are sort of like the old MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons, precursors to the graphic MMORPG) and more like free-form collaborative storytelling.The mix of &quot;let's pretend&quot; and wargame-style rules just does not seem to be most people's cup of tea. The leaps and bounds in complexity that keep the hardcore happy probably don't help, but whatever market there is beyond that probably is not lucrative enough, at least for WotC. &quot;Lite RPGs&quot; are not in the same league as CCGs!Commercially, there's a built-in problem: People with the smarts and imagination, the time and energy, to play the game much in the first place have what it takes to keep playing indefinitely without buying anything beyond a basic set of rules (in the event they don't just make up their own rules, as, e.g., Ken St Andre did).One might over-rate that, as TSR did at first in leaving the business of modules entirely to Judges Guild. On the other hand, it's not as profitable as selling rule books.Who wants to buy a mass of rule books in the first place, much less keep on buying whole sets again through &quot;edition&quot; cycles? Not Connie Casual, who is likely to flee in horror with one look at that. So who needs her anyway? To please her would be to disappoint the serious &quot;gamers&quot; who really pay the bills.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5011310, member: 80487"] If we're talking RP games in general, we're talking D&D (whatever goes by that brand name lately)! I think a big part of the "bubble" back in the 1980s was people who found in D&D the next best thing to what they really wanted -- what computer games especially deliver today. Then there was the general games market, in which the latest "hot thing" gets a season of bumper sales. Mille Bornes, Twixt, Diplomacy, Acquire, Pente, Othello, Civilization, Axis & Allies, Trivial Pursuit, Taboo, Settlers of Catan ... all of those may still be around -- each remained in print for at least a decade -- but I'm sure none of them is the "It" game everyone is talking about in salons or on playgrounds. I was surprised to find that people bought Avalon Hill's [B]1776[/B] in that American Bicentennial year who [I]never played it[/I] -- or, for that matter, [I]any[/I] "hex-and-counter war game". It just gathered dust in closets. D&D actually did remarkably well, I think, in keeping up sales as much as it did from year to year. A lot of little kids like to play "let's pretend" by running around with toy swords or whatnot. A fair number of older kids are into online, text-based games I gather are sort of like the old MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons, precursors to the graphic MMORPG) and more like free-form collaborative storytelling. The mix of "let's pretend" and wargame-style rules just does not seem to be most people's cup of tea. The leaps and bounds in complexity that keep the hardcore happy probably don't help, but whatever market there is beyond that probably is not [I]lucrative[/I] enough, at least for WotC. "Lite RPGs" are not in the same league as CCGs! Commercially, there's a built-in problem: People with the smarts and imagination, the time and energy, to play the game much in the first place have what it takes to [I]keep[/I] playing indefinitely without buying anything beyond a basic set of rules (in the event they don't just make up their own rules, as, e.g., Ken St Andre did). One might over-rate that, as TSR did at first in leaving the business of modules entirely to Judges Guild. On the other hand, it's not as profitable as selling rule books. Who wants to buy a mass of rule books in the first place, much less keep on buying whole sets again through "edition" cycles? Not Connie Casual, who is likely to flee in horror with one look at that. So who needs her anyway? To please her would be to disappoint the serious "gamers" who really pay the bills. [/QUOTE]

Verification