On many threads, both here and on other forums, people have stated that they believe the hobby as a whole is dying, but is this actually true?

To my mind the answer is 'no' and in fact the question might even be looking in the wrong direction. Perhaps the question aught to be:

'Do we have too many Games and Designers fighting over market share?'

There are more rpg systems both in print and pdf now than there has ever been, even if the number of players has stayed level or even increased slightly then each game company/designer will see their sales as falling even if the total number of games sold across the entire hobby has increased.

Here's a hypothetical example (figures are completely made up)

Let's say you start in 1997 with 1 million players and say 50 rpgs, that gives a potential average of 20,000 players per game. If we said the average group size was 4 people and that each group buys 5 games a year that would mean total sales of 1.25 million games or an average of 25,000 units per rpg.

Now lets fast forward to 2007 and the player base has increased to 1.2 million and produced rpgs have increased to 70 (given the pdf and POD explosion I would say this is probably on the low side but lets work with it for now), this now gives an average of 17,142 players per game. Using the same group size and buying patterns as above this gives total sales of 1.5 million rpgs (an increase from the hobbies point of view), but only 21,428 units per rpg (a decrease from the designers point of view). So games designers see a reduction in their sales per product line over time and claim roleplaying is dying.

This position can only ever worsen from the games designers point of view given the natural tendency of players to want to write their own rpg as their experience with the medium grows.

Of course some groups never buy new games and play the same ones of 10 years or longer, they are still 'active' gamers but invisible from the games companies point of view, they almost view them as having 'left' the hobby as the no longer support new product.

These figures are probably even worse in real life as old games don't leave the market (they remain available in peoples collections, via pdf, POD or even via ebay or car-boot sales) so the competition for a groups available limited play time can only ever increase.

Given the above we could have a situation where supply is increasing faster than the demand. In most industries this leads to a consolidation of products and companies down to the level the market can support, in an industry where old product rarely goes away completely what is the future for rpg companies?

So the question remains 'Do we have too many Games and Designers?'

(Sorry to do such a long post, and as always, these figures do not represent any actual statistics but merely an alternate way at looking at an observed phenomena.)


Vadrus

So... let's look at the facts. Is the number of games growing? Yes. I've used John. H. Kim's RPG Encyclopedia as a reference...

2006: 52
2005: 89
2004: 83
2003: 68
2002: 90
2001: 73
2000: 62
1999: 83
1998: 61
1997: 62
1996: 38
1995: 61
1994: 49
1993: 69
1992: 30
1991: 50
1990: 48
1989: 55
1988: 43
1987: 32

(i did count it by software, so there might be +/-1 mistakes)
You can see growing number of games especially in late 90's and later. If the amout of players does not grow to compensate this effect, there will of course be thinning of fanbase of each and every game. And that is a severe problem in such a socialy-dependent hobby like RPGs.

Now if you are not playing one of the "big games" and your group lost one or two players you will face sever problem to find new one interested in playing your marginal game, because there is simply smaller chance that he will live nearby etc.

That might mean lost of whole group of players which will yet again thin the hobby (more games and less players) which will lead to yet worse situation. Now that is something, which can be solved only by market itself. Simply not supporting unsuccessful and unpopular games will hopefully lead to creating smaller more thriving games.

Though that is just one part of equation. The second part is ageing of the RPG population. Looking at statistics from late 70's, late 90's and now you can see the trend. Mean has jumped about 2 years, which might sound like nothing but actually it is hell lot. RPG became more and more adult hobby which has its consequences also.

One can see how the flooding the market with products plus aging of gaming population create current trend of indie-games. The problem is that they pretty much are not helping to cure the situation rather worsening it even more.

I would say no. I game more now than in any time period I have been involved in the hobby since 1978.

No offense to Koltar, but I do think what's happening is that the game store is on it's way out. Or is already kinda done for, with only a few well-run shops remaining around. (Hey, that shouldn't offend Koltar! He can just know that he's involved with one of the better ones...)

Also, if you are involved with gaming as a fandom, you may be better served elsewhere just do to the shinier natures of other fandoms. So I see a lot of people jumping ship to other fandoms. But those people were never really gamers anyways. They just bought the books.

People have been doomsaying since I first started gaming, back in 1993, since AD&D second edition came out in the 1980s, since someone tutted at Gygax and said "That game of yours is gimmicky and flashy, sure, but it's not got any staying power" back in 1974...

Something that I haven't seen seriously considered on any forum is that maybe the gaming industry isn't dying, instead maybe tabletop gaming just isn't in the media spotlight anymore like it used to be. The lack of media attention would make it seem that tabletop gaming wasn't as popular as it once was.

The lack of industry sales numbers (until now) only helped to support the doomsayers predictions.

All i know is every year I sell more games to more people. I'm pretty sure Bill and Brett are in the same boat. I don't know about others. I think if anyone is hurting it's the mid-sized game companies, not WotC and not the Small Press.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceAll i know is every year I sell more games to more people. I'm pretty sure Bill and Brett are in the same boat. I don't know about others. I think if anyone is hurting it's the mid-sized game companies, not WotC and not the Small Press.

-clash

Would you ever consider showing anyone some numbers?  I'm not challenging you to post them, it's your prerogative, but why is everyone so secretive?

Nah, it's just resting. Either that or pining for the fjords.

It's a rather useful little thing for all the indie-blobs to say so though. Just count how many times you can read it in some of the more contentious threads here or elsewhere and then how 'innovation' is held up as the tool for repair of the 'damage' to the industry. Great tactics, to be honest.

As all of this is based on numbers no one has access to, though, it's ultimately useless.

The hobby is not dying.  The hobby has never been in danger of dying.

The industry that supports the hobby undergoes all kinds of crazy shenanigans.

Quote from: joewolzWould you ever consider showing anyone some numbers?  I'm not challenging you to post them, it's your prerogative, but why is everyone so secretive?

No, I have never considered showing numbers and I never will consider it. Why is everyone so secretive? I can't answer for anyone else, but my business is a closely held company, not a publicly traded corporation. It's my business and the IRS's business, not J. Random Webdenizen's business. Words like "secretive" have nasty connotations which are not at work here. I think a better word is "private."

-clash

Quote from: jrientsThe industry that supports the hobby undergoes all kinds of crazy shenanigans.

'xactly.  Some of the things that worked real well ten years ago don't work all that well today.  Markets change, and the people in them either adapt or they go away.

On a somewhat separate thing ... techniques to measure of success often lag behind what's actually being done in the market.  The result of that is that you're often starting to measure something just at the point where people who are doing that start to encounter trouble.

I think that may be some of the cause of the perpetual chicken littling of saying that the RPG industry is always dying.  The seed of truth being that the subset of the RPG industry that has not adapted is always dying ... and that's the bit we can measure today, because the measures have not yet caught up to the adaptation.

I know of several gaming stores (both near me and nationally) that are shifting in new directions and doing quite well.  A store near me has very deliberately positioned itself as a gaming salon first, and is marketing their community and events rather than just their products.  They're making solid money, and seem (from an outsider's viewpoint) to have pushed back into the black despite recent setbacks, but I'm not sure that the current measures of success really capture the human capital that they're building and relying on.  

In ten years will we be measuring daily attendance at game-store events?  Dunno.  If so, I trust that by that time attendance will be falling (as game stores shift to another tactic better suited to the times) and we'll be hearing the cries that the RPG industry is failing.

Quote from: One Horse TownNah, it's just resting. Either that or pining for the fjords.

It's a rather useful little thing for all the indie-blobs to say so though. Just count how many times you can read it in some of the more contentious threads here or elsewhere and then how 'innovation' is held up as the tool for repair of the 'damage' to the industry. Great tactics, to be honest.

As all of this is based on numbers no one has access to, though, it's ultimately useless.

I hardly ever innovate. I have a fear of innovation. Innovation usually means trouble to me. I prefer tinkering with the tried and true.

-clash

Quote from: VadrusOn many threads, both here and on other forums, people have stated that they believe the hobby as a whole is dying, but is this actually true?

No, it isn't.

Here are a few factors that should be included in the consideration of this rather fascinating question...

• The number of games (of all kinds) available is increasing constantly because young career oriented people love the idea of Doing Games for a living, and creative people love the idea of putting out their game creations to the public (and often both are in play for a given individual).
• The number of players is increasing constantly as the population increases.
• RPGs are evolving, creating new game forms which attract attention.
• Computer Role Playing Games have taken a large chunk of Entertainment Time for a new generation of game players.
• Younger populations of game players may not have the patience to deal with the numeric complexity of Pencil & Paper RPGs as they are more likely to be influenced by computer games which do the math for them.  
• Players may be evolving to have higher expectations for fast and immediate fun than what P&P RPGs can provide.  Instant gratification is a growing expectation, not shrinking, in our culture.
• Gamesmastering successfully is difficult to do, and the percent of those who do it well is relatively small compared with those who attempt it.  Most Gamesmasters are 'pretty good'.  However, those who are Great produce much more intense and unique experiences than computer RPGs are likely to produce anytime soon.
• Many P&P RPGs require a large investment in time and effort to learn the rules.  Once that has been done it is hard to convince Gamesmasters and Players to adopt new systems.   "Patched" systems are easier to digest, and so probably enjoy a higher rate of success, generally, even if the new games are technically simpler.   It is human nature to not want to throw away hard won knowledge, and it is often a point of status in a group to know the intricacies of a particular system and be able to say "oh no, rule #4847 states quite clearly that...".
• P&P RPGs are increasing rapidly because of the (relative) ease of creation and distribution.  There may well be a glut in the market.  Computer games are MUCH harder to produce, for example.
• The Graphics-focused orientation of Computer RPGs (MMORPG) has focused the attention of the game playing public on graphics and presentation, rather than story, whereas the strength of P&P RPGs is at least half about story.  This is a fundamental weakness of Computer RPGs due to the nature of their design and limitations of software and AI programming.  They naturally focus on graphics because that can be programmed more easily.
• Hollywood has also focused on graphics over story but for entirely different reasons.  The net effect on the public however is the same.  People are trained to expect impressive graphics.  P&P RPGs would have a hard time competing with that imperative in the public mind.
• We do not have good marketing statistics on the actual sales of P&P RPGs so we can only infer the state of the market, and this greatly complicates attempts to predict the future of the market.

This is not an exhaustive list, as other factors such as the state of the economy, the political viewpoints of the public in regards to "fantasy gaming", and other more ethereal factors also impact the state of the industry.  However these are some that came to mind when reading the posts.

It's a good question.  Personally I don't think the P&P RPG Industry is dying.  However I do think the industry is evolving, and as it does so the game buying public tends to move along with it.   I'm not so sure that Indie RPGs are "making matters worse" in the sense I see being suggested, though it is the case that they are contributing to what may be a glut in the market.  I think that the Indie Games are in fact more likely expanding the market by making new game systems.  In the long run, it may even help the traditionalist game market as new players come into the scene via Indie games, and then discover or are more willing to explore the traditional games.   Again, only market research would tell us if this is the case, and that appears to be the missing piece that makes our conjectures problematic.

- Mark

Quote from: flyingmiceI hardly ever innovate. I have a fear of innovation. Innovation usually means trouble to me. I prefer tinkering with the tried and true.

-clash

Then again, i don't really consider you to be an 'indie-blob', just Flying Mice. :haw: