Why DO Other Games Sell Less?

[Umbran]

You know, folks, if you don't like what someone else has to say, you have the option to not respond. This would be preferrable to being impolite, or belittling other posters.

So, let's try this - eyebeams and sullivan, I'm going to ask you to stop responding to each other within this thread. That includes veiled references and sideways jibes. Just leave each other alone, please.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

What I'm saying is that wargames don't necessary care whether or not unit members trample people to death, stab them or whatever except in specific situations like polearms vs. cavalry.

It is not so clearcut that early editions of D&D cared much either. We may say that my fighter attacks the orc with his longsword, but it does not look mechanically different in any important way to my "Pike unit" attacking that "Light Infantry unit". Early D&D was on the far far fiddly end of the scale of these things, but was it really so different? Only at the most superficial level IMO.

One can make a reasonable argument that the superficial level really matters in this case. But I am skeptical that makes a strong basis for generalizations about all RPGs that came after.

I'm not sure. I think an opposed skill check can be a lot of stuff, but the *meaning* of the a basic combat role would be different. Again, I think striking is so ingrained that it'd take some fiddling about to figure out what this might be.

D&D itself has always been a bit schizophrenic about striking. On one hand an "attack" has always meant a series of feints and swings that might, in some editions, take up to 60 seconds(!) to complete, but when it comes to describing the results we call it a "hit" and prefer to use the language of a single discrete telling blow with a named weapon.

Unless we want to get into a very in depth philosophical discussion on Damage Resistance and Critical Hits (which did not exist in early D&D), there is no mechanical difference between a "hit" and a "success" where a success may or may not be a number of hits with the effects summed together implicitly.

 

[prosfilaes]

Westerns, while quasi-historical, appeal mainly to Americans because they only model a few short decades of the American frontier, ignoring EVERYTHING else.

Ever heard of Karl May? He was a major Western writer, and Wikipedia says he was the "best selling German writer of all time". 23 German movies have been made off of his Westerns. For whatever reason, westerns are not limited in appeal to Americans. Even if they were, how much do RPG companies depend on non-English sales?

Spy stuff is still a (growing) niche in fiction, so its still growing as a game.

It seems surprising to say that a hundred year old niche is still growing. Certainly, I'd say that the 30s through 60s were a much better time for spy movies and probably novels then currently.

 

[Glyfair]

23 German movies have been made off of his Westerns. For whatever reason, westerns are not limited in appeal to Americans.

Clint Eastwood and the whole spaghetti western genre will attest to that.

 

[eyebeams]

It is not so clearcut that early editions of D&D cared much either. We may say that my fighter attacks the orc with his longsword, but it does not look mechanically different in any important way to my "Pike unit" attacking that "Light Infantry unit". Early D&D was on the far far fiddly end of the scale of these things, but was it really so different? Only at the most superficial level IMO.

One can make a reasonable argument that the superficial level really matters in this case. But I am skeptical that makes a strong basis for generalizations about all RPGs that came after.

Then I'd say that the real difference probably came into play with the realease of the 1e DMG, which laid out armed striking as being the basic form of combat. It is, however, implicit in things like weapon type vs armour in earlier books.

 

[eyebeams]

Ever heard of Karl May? He was a major Western writer, and Wikipedia says he was the "best selling German writer of all time". 23 German movies have been made off of his Westerns. For whatever reason, westerns are not limited in appeal to Americans. Even if they were, how much do RPG companies depend on non-English sales?

Depends on the game. Shadowrun's German sales are considerable -- enough to have a dedicated German line developer. I wonder if a German Western game might do well.

 

[rgard]

Depends on the game. Shadowrun's German sales are considerable -- enough to have a dedicated German line developer. I wonder if a German Western game might do well.

Hmmm...a Western German game...is that France?


Rich

 

[Ipissimus]

I'm sorry, but I think the whole thing about modules losing money is an urban, or perhaps business, myth. If Dungeon Magazine isn't making money, I shall eat my hat... and it has alot of plastic bits on it.

If most Games Designer/Publisher's true goal is to see their vision in print, then this may be a good indication of why DnD is the industry leader and nobody else can compete. Publishing this stuff is a business, an expensive one at that, particularly now that the standards are so high. If your entire goal is to see your stuff in print and nothing beyond that, you're predestined to go down the tubes.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm sorry, but I think the whole thing about modules losing money is an urban, or perhaps business, myth. If Dungeon Magazine isn't making money, I shall eat my hat... and it has alot of plastic bits on it.

Meh. Magazine is one thing, but to publish a full-fledged adventure module on better paper material than the magazine that contains only one adventure that may or may not cater to everyone's flavor for $10, that's a potential loss. After all, I don't buy D&D products with blindfolds over my eyes. "Ooh! It's Dungeons & Dragons Book of Complete Crap! I must buy it because it has a D&D label! Whee!"

At least Dungeon has articles besides a handful of adventures to help DMs, while Dragon caters to mostly players.

 

[jmucchiello]

I'm sorry, but I think the whole thing about modules losing money is an urban, or perhaps business, myth.

Yes, this is why most of the publishers who entered the market with adventures suddenly halted adventure publishing. Because they don't lose money. Only a few publishers were able to stay in the adventure market over the long term. The problem isn't that don't make money. It's that they don't make a lot of money. They only sell to some DMs. No one else buys them. That's like an order of magnitude smaller than the set of RPG purchasers.

If Dungeon Magazine isn't making money, I shall eat my hat... and it has alot of plastic bits on it.

And Dungeon Magazine has one thing none of the third party adventure books have: "100% Offical Content: Dungeons and Dragons". It has FR adventures. It has greyhawk adventures. It has eberron adventures. Of course it makes money, it has no real competition except WotC itself.