You must be logged in to view and post to most topics, including Reviews, Articles, News/Adverts, and Help Desk.

D&D now THIRD in Sales

Started by RPGPundit, March 29, 2013, 12:11:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ian Noble

I blame the advertising culture overall.

Everyone associates new = better = cooler

So therefore it ends up being harder to find people to play older games.

though I will say with AD&D 2nd, there seem to be limitless numbers of dudes over 40 who will jump at the chance to play the game again.  If there's one game of any in the entire tabletop rpg hobby, it's AD&D 2nd that should be considered still very much alive and thriving.
My rules and comments about good GMing:
  • Improvise as much as you can
  • A character sheet is a list of items that tell you what the story should be about
  • As a GM, say "maybe" and ask your players to justify a "yes"
  • Immersion isn\'t a dirty word.  
  • Collectively, players are smarter than you and will think of things you never considered.

Mistwell

Quote from: 1989;647060The current official edition is a gridded wargame. Was not before. How's that?

Why is it important to you that the current "official" edition (am not even sure what that means, given the other editions are "officially" back in print) is one you do not like? How does that impact you in a meaningful way? Why would it offend you if other people are buying and playing a game you do not like?

Mistwell

Quote from: Ian Noble;647087I blame the advertising culture overall.

Everyone associates new = better = cooler

So therefore it ends up being harder to find people to play older games.

though I will say with AD&D 2nd, there seem to be limitless numbers of dudes over 40 who will jump at the chance to play the game again.  If there's one game of any in the entire tabletop rpg hobby, it's AD&D 2nd that should be considered still very much alive and thriving.

It's arguably easier to find players for 2e now than it was the month before 3e was published, though much of that is the popularity of the internet allowing a lot more people to find each other.

deadDMwalking

Quote from: Ian Noble;647087I blame the advertising culture overall.

Everyone associates new = better = cooler

So therefore it ends up being harder to find people to play older games.

Or sometimes the newer things are better.  And sometimes they're not.  And usually, consumers are smart enough to figure it out.

That's why 3.x (and Pathfinder) continue to be more popular than 1st edition and 2nd edition - at least, my take.
When I say objectively, I mean \'subjectively\'.  When I say literally, I mean \'figuratively\'.  
And when I say that you are a horse\'s ass, I mean that the objective truth is that you are a literal horse\'s ass.

There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. - Peter Drucker

1989

Quote from: Mistwell;647114Why is it important to you that the current "official" edition (am not even sure what that means, given the other editions are "officially" back in print) is one you do not like? How does that impact you in a meaningful way? Why would it offend you if other people are buying and playing a game you do not like?

They are in print, but it's just a one-off.

When *your* edition (the one that favours your playstyle) is the official edition, then you can enjoy gaming. When the official edition is one that goes against your playstyle, then no gaming with that edition. Harder to find support among others, who often just go with the latest.

Sacrosanct

Quote from: deadDMwalking;647139Or sometimes the newer things are better.  And sometimes they're not.  And usually, consumers are smart enough to figure it out.

Judging by what I see out there, they are not.  TV shows, music, food....not better.  Newer stuff is geared towards instant gratification and shorter attention spans.  That doesn't make it better.
QuoteThat's why 3.x (and Pathfinder) continue to be more popular than 1st edition and 2nd edition - at least, my take.

That's some shaky logic.  That's like saying a 90s Mustang or Camaro was better than a 60s Mustang or Camaro because a lot more people drove them than the 60s version.  The reality is that there were a lot more people in general driving cars and had access to cars in the 90s than the 60s, not that they were any better.
D&D is not an "everyone gets a ribbon" game.  If you\'re stupid, your PC will die.  If you\'re an asshole, your PC will die (probably from the other PCs).  If you\'re unlucky, your PC may die.  Point?  PC\'s die.  Get over it and roll up a new one.

deadDMwalking

Better is often subjective.  But my personal opinion is that 3.x is 'better' than 1st or 2nd edition.  I like it because it has more options for customization.  Even if I don't optimize, I still like making characters 'feel' different.  3.x provides the tools to do that well.  

But to your larger point - there's more that goes into the availability of consumption than just quality.  Few would argue that a 16oz New York Strip is equal or lower quality than a Big Mac - but Big Macs are more popular.  They're also cheaper to produce.  

Reality TV, for instance, is much, much, much, less expensive than a scripted program (like HBO's Rome, for instance).  That makes them popular among producers, and there are a lot of them available.  And by and large, they are 'popular' - but so are the quality shows.  Among the people that you desire to hang with, I imagine shows like Rome are more popular than whatever that Honey Boo Boo show is (for the record, I don't have live TV - I watch TV only through Streaming Netflix or watching the Daily Show and/or Colbert Report on Hulu the next day).  

Likewise with 3.x.  It's more popular among the gamers that I like to associate with than earlier editions - in part because I value the company of gamers that like to customize.
When I say objectively, I mean \'subjectively\'.  When I say literally, I mean \'figuratively\'.  
And when I say that you are a horse\'s ass, I mean that the objective truth is that you are a literal horse\'s ass.

There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. - Peter Drucker