Well, data is not the plural of anecdote, but I know seven people locally who have copies of OSRIC.  I introduced them to it by GMing it for them, and they decided to buy the book; it's how RPGs have always spread.  Word of mouth and actual play.  So a lot of the time, someone with the ruleset knows someone else with the ruleset IRL.

The "500 copies" league you're talking about would be for a relatively unsuccessful retro-clone.  Successful ones sell a few thousand copies.

Quote from: NathanIW;741445So if you want to play this game then you either have to recruit players or find the other members of the 500 online.

What about the existing players you already know from playing other games who might be persuaded to give this game a chance? Why the assumption that people don't already have a group they can introduce the game to?

Quote from: P&P;741450Well, data is not the plural of anecdote, but I know seven people locally who have copies of OSRIC.  I introduced them to it by GMing it for them, and they decided to buy the book; it's how RPGs have always spread.  Word of mouth and actual play.  So a lot of the time, someone with the ruleset knows someone else with the ruleset IRL.

The "500 copies" league you're talking about would be for a relatively unsuccessful retro-clone.  Successful ones sell a few thousand copies.

That's awesome.  My primary area of RPG interest is in d100 systems and things like this happen:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/645319106/river-of-heaven-sf-rpg?ref=category

217 backers.  Hopefully he'll sell more copies over the next couple of years.

My point though is that Hasbro/WotC needs way, way more revenue to make a virtual table top business viable.  And they'd be directly competing with excellent free tools like google hangouts.

Quote from: Warthur;741452What about the existing players you already know from playing other games who might be persuaded to give this game a chance? Why the assumption that people don't already have a group they can introduce the game to?

Warthur, you picked out a single line from my post and imagined a disagreement where there isn't one.  That persuasion can be considered to be part of what I called "recruit a group locally".  For some, an existing gaming group makes that very easy (as in it's already done).  For others, they can go online and use google hangouts to play with like minded individuals.

Here's my point:

A game publisher sells a few thousand copies (or 500 or 217) of his game across the world.

Some people find other gamers locally (including persuading their existing gaming group) and play.

Other people don't and instead find other gamers who already know and like the game and meet up online via voice chat solutions like google hangout, roll20, etc.,.

Is this really big enough to merit WotC to concentrate on as a business model?  When an actual technology company (Google) is already offering a solution for free?

That's it.

NathanIW, I agree with what you say about google hangouts.  They're a very viable way of gaming.  One hangout game I was in recently was me in Britain, two Austrialians, a New Zealander and an American from Alaska.  Time zone hell... the Aussies and New Zealander were getting up in the early hours of the morning in order to play.

People will, if that's the only way they can get their gaming fix.

Quote from: NathanIW;741453217 backers.  Hopefully he'll sell more copies over the next couple of years.

The lack of backers is down to his price point and marketing strategy.  A kickstarter for a book that costs $10 to read even in .pdf form is a very hard sell in 2014.  Unless you're a brand with a reputation your audience will recognise and a unique selling point, the only way to sell thousands of copies as a retro-clone is to offer people a free .pdf so they can try your game, play it, and learn if they like it, risk-free.

A whole lot of people will download your free .pdf and then ignore your product forever.  You have to not mind that.  Some will download your free .pdf, skim it for five minutes one Thursday lunchtime and then post a ten thousand word rant about how much it sucks.  You have to not mind that either.

Because if your game is genuinely fun, some people will play it enough to think, "I want to buy the book".  So they look to see how much the book costs.  The answer had better be under $30 in softback, under $40 in hardcover----if it's more than that then you'll start to lose significant amounts of circulation to the "that's too expensive" crowd.

I think Stars Without Number is an excellent example of how to launch a sci-fi RPG; I think the author hit all the target numbers exactly in the bull's eye.

Quote from: NathanIW;741455A game publisher sells a few thousand copies (or 500 or 217) of his game across the world.

Some people find other gamers locally (including persuading their existing gaming group) and play.

Other people don't and instead find other gamers who already know and like the game and meet up online via voice chat solutions like google hangout, roll20, etc.,.

Is this really big enough to merit WotC to concentrate on as a business model?  When an actual technology company (Google) is already offering a solution for free?

That's it.

I don't disagree with you, but there is one factor that I don't think should be overlooked. I have no hard data but with a lot of these niche games I'd be surprised if even 10% of buyers ever actually play these games, much less play regularly. A lot of people who support these things like to read the books and collect them. I'm not necessarily saying there is anything wrong with that, but it skews how to make any inferences or decisions, as a publisher, that would hinge on actual play.

One of the conclusions we can take from the massive drain from tabletop RPGs to MMOs is that the vast majority of users never wanted to roleplay; they were there for the game, and as soon as they got an alternative that better fit their preference they split.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;741482One of the conclusions we can take from the massive drain from tabletop RPGs to MMOs is that the vast majority of users never wanted to roleplay

I would suggest to you that there are more people "roleplaying" in MMOs on any given day then there are total people playing tabletop RPGs.

Check out some of the Daedalus Project research for more depth:

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/

Yes, Ryan, we're all aware that you're here to sell us Pathfinder Online.

Quote from: RSDancey;741483I would suggest to you that there are more people "roleplaying" in MMOs on any given day then there are total people playing tabletop RPGs.

Check out some of the Daedalus Project research for more depth:

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/

I'm logged in and ready to do Siege of Orgrimmar as I write this post.  I've been on RP servers for the last 7 years, and I've looked around.  No, quite frankly, the majority don't want to role-play- and there are fewer every day.  Those that do, do so in the form of Improv Theater and not as proper TRPGs offer- and they are shit at both forms.  WOW is notorious for being hostile to role-players of any sort, a trait shared across the medium (which is itself hostile to the prospect in its very structure).  So no, I don't buy it; my experience informs me so, and has consistently done so.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;741482One of the conclusions we can take from the massive drain from tabletop RPGs to MMOs is that the vast majority of users never wanted to roleplay; they were there for the game, and as soon as they got an alternative that better fit their preference they split.

Or that the market fragmented into casual and hardcore fans, and the two groups do not mingle much. Plus some substitution that you are talking about.

Quote from: dragoner;741494Or that the market fragmented into casual and hardcore fans, and the two groups do not mingle much. Plus some substitution that you are talking about.

Casual and Hardcore is the wrong cleavage considering just how many went to MMOs instead of or as primary form of RPG gameplay.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;741482One of the conclusions we can take from the massive drain from tabletop RPGs to MMOs is that the vast majority of users never wanted to roleplay; they were there for the game, and as soon as they got an alternative that better fit their preference they split.

Yeah, the few I experimented (early days) with didn't seem to have any character intensive stuff.  Most people talk out of character, etc. I was kind of shocked to see that.

I find the most narratively immersive games are text-based MUDs because the text allows for more free-form emoting and imagination that you can't get elsewhere.  That, and single-player RPGs that are story based like Bioware's stuff.

I also think that 3rd Edition being more accepting of things like builds and min-maxing was one of the reasons why it became popular.

Quote from: RSDancey;741262They gravitated towards the largest and most valuable player network, which was D&D.  But D&D had broken with it's network externality.  4e was different enough from all previous editions that it was essentially a "new game".  It didn't have a strong player network.  The strongest network was the 3.0/3.5 network, which in context wasn't even that old.  (Unlike say the 1e network compared to the 3e network in 2000).  Pathfinder squarely established itself as the new root for the 3.0/3.5 player network, and it got big enough quickly enough to displace other potential challengers (via leveraging the Dragon and Dungeon customer base).

So the flight to quality lead to Pathfinder, not 4e.

My answer to the question is "they wanted the 3.5 game", and they picked the best available option.  But my larger point is that the "they" had changed radically between 2000 and 2005.

That's interesting, that's not my perception of what happened however. As a GM I liked the release of 3e. I mean really, really, liked the release of 3e. For the first time since 0D&D was out, I could once again easily encourage players, and other GMs to create new content for the game, to contribute, to participate. For a time I was running both 3e and 0D&D games and from 2000-2004 I was running more 3e games and sessions than I was running 0D&D. Just for example, in 2004 I had exactly 2 people show up for my first 0D&D game at GenCon, and none for the second game, both my 3e games were booked full though that year.

I switched back to running more 0D&D games though, when the game forked yet again and 3.5 was released. I took a lot of criticism for running my 0D&D games, and even more for not running 3.5 games and continuing to run 3.0 games. I didn't feel the changes for balance for 3.5 were significant or even necessary, and 3.0 seemed to hold up well, at least as well as 3.5.

The schism really came after 2006, and it didn't come from MMO games. Folks friendly to WOTC and a few of the WOTC staff were openly hostile towards me on the WOTC message boards... so much so, I stopped posting new messages there, and stopped contributing to threads. In 2007 I quit the WOTC Forums, and have only visited there once or twice since in the last eight years.

WOTC made it clear that they didn't want us old gamers running games in the brave new world (tm) of 4e. Nevermind the fact that I introduced D&D to about 200 new people a year (and still do) without really even trying hard, just running a few games now and then, both locally here, and at conventions.

They also turned their backs on the d20 publishers and stiffed them royally by creating a restrictive new license with almost none of the benefits that d20 or the OGL provided. They shattered what remained of their own market by shafting their most ardent and loyal fans, all the guys and gals that had spent countless hours creating new game content and supporting the WOTC core by running games using their home brew material.

They let them know without so much as an apology, that they couldn't make new content for the game anymore, not without a special new license that was very restrictive. I simply observed all this with some considerable awe at the stupidity being displayed.

The MMO's also took their chunk of players in addition to all of this as well, as gamers who wanted to play in teams would get together online and could at least pvp other players at will if they could bait them into the arena. These still didn't scratch the Roleplaying itch though.

Eve Online was interesting, I actually signed up for that after I found out you decided to be the Marketing Director there. It was phenomenal in both scope and scale. There was some interesting role playing going on. In late 2006 through early 2007 there was a really awesome campaign going on in the Providence region, and when that faltered, I played off and on for about the next four years. Character progression for noobs was actually too slow, and they rarely stood a chance of being victorious against veteran players, even if they used superior tactics.

The focus of combat to control stargates and starbases forced players into choke points. This also made the use of combat blobs predominate and left Independent players (almost all the noobs, and those players in small alliances) extremely vulnerable.

The changes in exploration after early 2007 made it super easy for the larger alliances to use scouts to rapidly detect large starships operating in remote regions of their territory, so even with the new deep space mining vessels like the Rorqual no advantage could be eked out with the use of such a vessel.

In 2009-2010 With the addition of several thousand new star systems only accessible via random wormholes play became interesting again, but only for a short time, about six months or so, until all the gateway wormhole systems were settled (some key ones by the large 0.0 alliances). I stopped playing in 2011, and never really went back, but not for lack of interest, but for lack of opportunity to explore deep into unknown space where none of the stoopid blob people would choose to go. There was no such space in Eve. There should be though, space is big.... reeeaaally big.

In 2012 Skyrim came out. That's been keeping me busy playing online. I also use Unity and work on making game stuff and am happy with that. Also run a few tabletop games, but not so many as in previous years, though it looks like I may be running a summer D&D camp this summer, for like 20-50 youngsters at a go, for about eight weeks while school is out.

Tabletop RPGs. Still the best, with the players and Gm's able to add in whatever they want, how they want, though still some trouble with keeping intrepretation of the mechanics, and with players that refuse the social contracts implied in the game, just to be "special" or to prove the game weak.  Don't have much time for those guys anymore.

MMO's have come along way as well, with rich and engaging storylines, and with multi-player options allowing friends and family to finally, ...at last, ...work together, to achieve common goals. It's like a brand new golden age.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;741492I'm logged in and ready to do Siege of Orgrimmar as I write this post.  I've been on RP servers for the last 7 years, and I've looked around.  No, quite frankly, the majority don't want to role-play- and there are fewer every day.  Those that do, do so in the form of Improv Theater and not as proper TRPGs offer- and they are shit at both forms.  WOW is notorious for being hostile to role-players of any sort, a trait shared across the medium (which is itself hostile to the prospect in its very structure).  So no, I don't buy it; my experience informs me so, and has consistently done so.

Rift went so far as to actually shut down the RP server for Europe during one of the recent merges. Worldwide there's now only one RP server left for the NA region.

It's just not remotely a priority for any game out there, and the few that have made it one have all largely flopped. The last mainstream MMO I know of that had any sizeable enforced RP community was Everquest, and that was maintained with a kind of ruthless zealotry that ultimately rubbed even many RP-friendly players the wrong way. Some of them crossed over to WoW in the early days, but with no administrative support for their attempts, it has largely fizzled over time.

The plain truth of the matter is that sitting around and play-acting with each other, even virtually, is something I think a great majority of people are almost instinctively uncomfortable with. Adding the anonymity involved with online play seems to actually worsen, rather than improve, chances, because then people are just even more likely to respond with homophobic obscenities.

Roleplaying is arch nerdery. On the great social ladder the only people below regular roleplayers are LARPers and Ren Faire actors.