Quote from: MelanIn the recent ten years, how many game lines can we point to which were able to create not just a lasting appeal, but an appeal strong enough to concievably support other (non-RPG) product lines?

How long is "lasting"?

Could it be that your idea of "lasting" is ""more than ten years"? So, "no products released in the last decade have still been popular more than ten years later" - well, an impossible standard.

And if "lasting" isn't more than ten years, then how long is it?

I would say that we don't know what's "lasting" until it's already lasted for quite a while. Ever seen "Blast From the Past"? People are locked underground for 35 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis. They sit there watching the Jackie Gleeson Show, saying, "no-one will ever get tired of this show!"

In response to this thread, I've been going through John Kim's list of rpgs, and am going to try to compile all the info in a spreadsheet, and write a little piece on some of the trends which come out. The copy and pasting is a bit tedious, I'm up to 1994, and there are 717 entries. Not all are complete rpgs. I'll be cutting out the non-English language ones, simply because Kim's list can be held to be pretty complete for English language rpgs, but not so for others. Stuff like D&D Basic Set, Expert Set, Master Set, etc, I'll take as one rpg only. So there'll be less than 717, even up to 1994.

Even with a casual glance down the list, though, it's remarkable how many games saw several editions over the years, but aren't in print now. Quite a few saw 2nd editions - when the 2nd edition comes out the same year as the other one, or just the year later, that's not always an indicator of popularity, maybe the thing tanked or was a mess, so they tried again. But I think 3rd and later editions can be a proof of success.

Bureau 13: Stalking the Night Fantastic, saw three editions, from 1983 to 1990.
Battlelords of the 23rd Century saw four editions, from 1990 to 1993.
FTL:2248 saw three editions, from 1982 to 1990.
NightLife saw three editions, from 1990 to 1992.
Phoenix Command saw four editions, from 1986 to 1991
Skyrealms of Jorune saw three editions, from 1985 to 1992
Stormbringer saw four editions, from 1981 to 1990
The Morrow Project saw three editions, from 1980 to 1983
To Challenge Tomorrow saw three editions, 1982 to 1992.
Ysgarth saw five editions, from 1980 to 1985

There are plenty of others, like D&D and RuneQuest, which saw several editions, and are still in print today. But all of the above, going from the knowledge on the top of my head, are no longer in print. Many are well-remembered, often discussed, and the books go for a lot on ebay; but they're not still in print, which means someone decided the money wasn't worth the trouble. Some are planned for further editions (like The Morrow Project and FTL:2248), but given how roleplaying releases are talked up and promised by their owners, we'll believe it when we see it. After all, the company doesn't make money until the thing's in a store.

Of all those games, only Bureau 13 and Skyrealms of Jorune saw a computer game, and none of them saw any other media tie-ins.

Again, this is just from a casual glance down the list, and no other research, going from Chainmail in 1971 to Wraith in 1994. It shows that a game can be quite successful, and yet not pass this hard test you guys have set - that it has to bring in heaps of new gamers, and have a shitload of media tie-ins.

You guys - Melan and Consonant Dude - are being a bit self-contradictory. On the one hand, you're saying that what the rpg industry needs is something like what Star Wars was to film - something remembered for decades, and with other media tie-ins. Yet when we get that, in D&D or Vampire, you say, "well, look, nothing new! We can't rely just on a few great successes!" So on the one hand, you want the One Big Game, but on the other, you don't.

Saying that the rpg industry can't be successful just with a new edition of D&D (for example) is like saying the film industry is in trouble because George Lucas made another three Star Wars movies. "We need something new!"

I'd say, we don't necessarily need something new for commercial success and an expansion of the audience, and even if we get that something new, we probably wouldn't even recognise it. When did we know that Star Wars was going to have "lasting appeal"? When did we know that thirty years after the first film was out, George Lucas would be a billionaire from it all, and would still be making movies set in that world? When did we know this? After the first film? After the second? After the third?

So you're saying, "where is the new Star Wars? Something as successful as that, but different?" I'm saying: would we even recognise it if we saw it? I don't think we would.

I think you're also underestimating just how many rpgs get released each year. I think it'd be quiet easy for the Next Big Thing to come out, and you or I would miss out, never even be aware it existed. I know I didn't play Vampire when it first came out. I said, "a game about vampires? Who would want to play a monster? Stupid munchkins only! Forget about it!" I still don't like it - but it was successful, and I was honestly unaware of its great success until years afterwards.

I think the Next Big Game has already been printed, and is being sold, and we haven't even noticed. Then ten or twenty years from now, we'll all be saying, "where is the Next Big Game? Like Game X was? Man, the industry is dying!"

Quote from: MelanAD&D successfully branched out into novels and computer games in the 80s  and Vampire did something similar (including a very short-lived TV show) in the 90s. What is there in the 2000s? Can Exalted [...] ?

All those branchings-out took 5-15 years to happen, and had mixed success. I think you want to give Exalted (or whatever) a bit longer.

By my arbitrary definition, lasting appeal could be something big that survives and thrives beyond the initial enthusiastic buying spree. Exalted might be a good example. Maybe.

Quote from: MelanBy my arbitrary definition, lasting appeal could be something big that survives and thrives beyond the initial enthusiastic buying spree. Exalted might be a good example. Maybe.

Frankly from what I've seen, the "Success" of Exalted has been drastically overestimated, primarily by a core set of obsessive fans on RPGnet.

QuoteBureau 13

Jim Bob

Nick Pollotta has Three Modern day novels for Bureau 13

Judgement Night
Doomsday Exam
Full Moonster

He also has two B13 novels set in another era (iirc)
That Darn Squid God
Damned Nation.


So "no other media" beyond the computer game is incorrect.

Glad to hear it. Like I said, I was just going off the knowledge on the top of my head, with no research beyond John Kim's list.

I don't think media tie-ins are a big deal, though. That was some other guys who thought that. I mean, look at how the D&D movie tanked. Any rpg that's seen more than a couple of editions or years of printing has had to survive on its own merits. Films or card games or bubblegum or whatever are just a bonus.

And here, at EN World, is Dancey's post where he talks about the big companies in the field and how this matters to the business of RPGs.

Note his statement about how WWGS, WotC, etc. are actually competing with themselves instead of each other, in the form of edition wars.  He's dead on there.  Read his other posts there, answering other questions, and learn.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerRead his other posts there, answering other questions, and learn.

Yes... for instance, one can learn that Dancey is intellectually dishonest enough to claim that Mongoose's RuneQuest is "based on" D20.

KoOS

Quote from: JimBobOzI don't think media tie-ins are a big deal, though. That was some other guys who thought that. I mean, look at how the D&D movie tanked.

Did it lose money?  They made a direct-to-something sequel.

Quote from: King of Old SchoolYes... for instance, one can learn that Dancey is intellectually dishonest enough to claim that Mongoose's RuneQuest is "based on" D20.

KoOS

Given it introduces saving throws and feats to Runequest, neither to its benefit IMO, I'm not sure he's entirely incorrect.

I think much of the problem with MRQ is an attempt in part to d20ise it, which rather misses the point that the USP of MRQ was always that it had a very different feel to DnD.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerAnd here, at EN World, is Dancey's post where he talks about the big companies in the field and how this matters to the business of RPGs.

Note his statement about how WWGS, WotC, etc. are actually competing with themselves instead of each other, in the form of edition wars.  He's dead on there.  Read his other posts there, answering other questions, and learn.

You would say he's dead on, you made the exact same point yourself upthread.

Of course, I agree with both of you...

Quote from: BalbinusGiven it introduces saving throws and feats to Runequest, neither to its benefit IMO, I'm not sure he's entirely incorrect.

"Feats" aren't original or unique to d20 by any means.  As for saving throws (which are obviously not an original d20 innovation either), I think it takes a lot more than the introduction of a single mechanic to fairly say that one game is "based on" another.  It's extremely poor wording at best, deliberate deceit at worst.  I'd accept "takes inspiration from" or something similar, but "based on" carries a whole different connotation that's pretty insulting to Steve Perrin and crew.

KoOS