TheRPGSite

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 (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/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:

I don't think gaming is dying and i don't think it ever will.

I think what we are seeing is a shift in how gamers are deliverd their games.

Lots of gamers buy online, PDF is becoming more common, Small Press Publishers add many more choices to the market, and MMORPG's & video games are pulling away kids who would have picked pen & paper 10 years ago.

Quote from: flyingmiceNo, 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

I would like to know, though, how many copies you consider a "success"?

In Harms Way was one you mentioned as an unexpected success... could you give us a ballpark figure of how many copies it sold?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI would like to know, though, how many copies you consider a "success"?

In Harms Way was one you mentioned as an unexpected success... could you give us a ballpark figure of how many copies it sold?

RPGPundit

Just from what I hear:

A small press print book that sells 400+ copies is considered to be a major success.

PDFs selling more than 100 in a year would be a pretty big success.

Sometimes what isn't accounting for is that we are on maybe our second, even THIRD generation of gamers.

I don't have hard numbers....but I believe its there. Specifically I'm referring to Grandfathers and Grandmothers getting their grandkids into RPGs. Hardly in danger of "dying" if it has become a family tradition and the "elders" encourage it .
Anecdotal examples from the past 3 years at the Game Store:

1) A grandfather comes into the store WITH 2 of his grandkids. He buys the 3.5 corebooks - all THREE of them. He tells the story that he played the original D&D back in the 1970s when he was a grad student in college. I explain that the rules have changed a bit, but the gist of it is the same. He says : "I'm flexible gaming is gaming. Besides only gave them permission to try it if their grandfather was their DM."

2) Ringing up a sale yesterday, we had a CD of Rocky Horror picture show playing. An older womasn and a girl in her late teens were at the counter. The older woman loves the music starts humming along. Turns out she went to "ROCKY" the first year or two it had its midnight showings. As to gaming she says "I sometimes still play - when her mother says they need another player and our schedules match up. "  YEP - she's a grandmother that plays D&D ...and with her kids and grandkids at times.

3) For awhile we would have this bunch showing up on every Sunday. Firefighters from the local Fire station. Turns out they would play D&D on Sundays at the Fire House ....with their kids. ( If there are no fire calls - its 7 straight hours of boredom)Their mothers figured what safer place than a Fire station to play ? They would stopp in, pick up miniatures, paintys, dice...only occassionally RPG books. BUT they were playing role playing games...just they bought the accessories more often than the books.  My schedule chanmged and I don't see them as much.

My point mainly is that I don't see the Gaming Industry as "dying". When it has permeated pop culture and family life that much - it ain't gonna die.

....There are more examples I could post - but I should really think about getting some breakfast.
Bagels sound good....

- Ed C.

The idea of being the last of a dying breed is a popular archetypal fantasy among many fandoms the world over.

It's nothing more than the need to feel special.

Quote from: One Horse TownThen again, i don't really consider you to be an 'indie-blob', just Flying Mice. :haw:

/me bows!

:D

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditI would like to know, though, how many copies you consider a "success"?

In Harms Way was one you mentioned as an unexpected success... could you give us a ballpark figure of how many copies it sold?

RPGPundit

By Mike's standard, it was a Pretty Big Success. I expected to sell probably a dozen or so copies, seriously. I honestly expected to lose a couple hundred bucks on it. It's the only game I ever published expecting it to fail.

-clash

I have to say, now that I've gone away and thought about this question for a while, and I have to say that my (more serious my previous) answer is "No, and it won't be so long as D&D is in print".

Really, the RPGPundit's model of the gaming market makes a lot of sense when you look at the actual figures. D&D is the Big Beast of the market, the most visible game with the greatest cultural penetration - only Vampire, at its height, has ever really competed with it here. All the other RPGs we play are, in the end, inspired by the play model invented by D&D - even high-concept indie Forge games which radically change the assumptions of the play model are using that model as a starting basis, and make an explicit point of deviating from it for experimental purposes. Most-to-all RPGs, aside from D&D itself, are purchased and played by people who either play D&D but fancy something different from time to time, or are dissatisfied with D&D and want something different for their "go-to" game. (Again, only Vampire at its height seems to have competed with it here.) I don't, for example, know of anybody who came to gaming by discovering Ars Magica, or Runequest, or Rolemaster, and isn't especially interested in exploring other games, but all of us know (or are at least aware of) plenty of people who play D&D, like D&D just fine, and aren't interested in other games.

Friends, let's face it: it's D&D that keeps the RPG industry afloat. The RPG industry isn't dying, because D&D is here and is showing every sign of doing just fine, and as long as that's the case there'll be a market for other games to come along and fill the niches that D&D doesn't fill, or provide an alternative for people who like the idea of gaming but aren't satisfied with D&D.

If D&D ever vanished from the map, it's possible that another Big Beast will come along to take its place, but practically speaking D&D isn't going anywhere. Look at what happened when TSR went bust: Wizards bought them out so fast if you blinked you'd miss it, and if Wizards hadn't bought them some other game company probably would have. There's simply too much interest in the D&D brand for it to die.

Warthur: Good point! I agree.

i wonder if you could map the ebb and flow of new games based on d&d's sales?  meaning, if d&d (of whatever edition) was selling well at the time, did that lead to increased rpg awareness and higher sales of other games?  how were sales of other rpgs (or just "the market") in the period before 3.0 came out?  

i think you hit a major point there, warthur :raise:

The industry is always "dying". What we are seeing is adjustments in the market. Mid-tier companies are feeling the crunch because we have market fragmentation. This is brought about by several factors not the least of which is the lowering of the barrier to entry (it took thousands of dollars just ten years ago to publish an RPG), increased number of companies/books splitting the customer base and OGL/D20 third party publishing adding tot he fragmentation.

Contrast that with game stores that have an ever increasing startup cost. I started my first store with about 5k. There is next to no way you could do that today and expect to grow to second location and be successful. Today, stores are commonly started with about 60K depending on where you are. Also, back in the day, once established, having a game store fail was next to impossible. Now, you have "customers" buying online, coming to game in your store, and berating your real customers for being a chump and not getting a better deal. So, I would say the B&M stores are going through a very rough transition. What has the publishers worried is that there are stores that have been around for 20 years that are going belly up. This, as I said before, is unusual in the old model. The smart shops are embracing online sales. They have an online storefront. So far, though and I really don't understand this one, they do not sell PDFs. Still, the old adage, Adapt or die is true today as any other.

Now, for small press, it is a good time to be one. With a lot of the recoil from the D20 glut, small press in the print market can really make headway, get into stores and even sell fairly well. Unfortunately, the trend is opposite of this and many small press do not know how to take advantage of this channel. They tend to be learning pdf distribution, POD distribution and unfortunately, a lot of relying on third parties to sell their books. Many of them need to understand the B&M retailers and help them with new models. A majority of my business is now direct to Retailers or customer. I honestly believe that this is the future for small press (who are interested in this in terms of profit). Also, where small press goes, the bigger publishing houses usually follow. It was not that long ago that the mid tier scoffed at PDF and said it would damage their sales. Now, I get lectured on how I do not maximize my PDF sales. :rolleyes:

So, the not-so-distant future, IMHO, holds a landscape where your games are released via PDF. If they make grade there, they go to print. Fewer and fewer companies will do traditional print runs and rely on POD as the technology and providers improve. You will see more online promotions/ads. The print market will contract and PDFs will find their way into B&M stores. E-paper could help there. And people will still proclaim that the hobby is "dying".

Bill

RPGs aren't dying, if dying = 10 years from now there will be nothing left. It's more like wargames or punk rock. Those are still alive, too. Sorta.

Actually, that's the real question: Are RPGs going to stay alive in an interesting way or in a boring way? Frozen in past glory, or moving on?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityRPGs aren't dying, if dying = 10 years from now there will be nothing left. It's more like wargames or punk rock. Those are still alive, too. Sorta.

Actually, that's the real question: Are RPGs going to stay alive in an interesting way or in a boring way? Frozen in past glory, or moving on?

since self-publishing and online distribution seems to be relatively easy (compared to earlier print-only, IMO), i doubt "frozen" will happen.  lotsa little publishers can bring some interesting stuff, like some of the folks i see on this site :)

The trick to this question is that someone's RPG hobby is always dying, but it's never everyone's.

RPGs are always under an immense and continual churn. Games come and go. Companies rise, flounder, and fade. It's incredibly rare for any game to achieve long-term (10+ year) success.

The 90s were a weird time, because it looked like there were lots and lots of RPGs active and supported in the marketplace. However, that was also the time of lots of fad products. The TCG bubble rose and poured money into stores. The comic bubble grew and burst. Pokemon turned game stores into goldmines. All of these fads provided a lot of extra, liquid cash for stores to invest in RPGs.

The really interesting thing to me is that, whenever I see numbers for 2nd and 3rd tier company print runs from any era of gaming, they are invariably about the same: 2,000 to 5,000 books, with hits selling 10,000+. I've seen those numbers from late 70s Judges Guild stuff to d20 books from this decade.

I think that, after the rise of AD&D, we've seen steady growth in the hobby. There are peaks and valleys induced by the economy (both in general and for book and game retailers) and different game fads, but nothing that shows any sort of real decline in the number of people who play RPGs.

Against this backdrop, you have individual titles that rise and die. A big time Champions or GURPS fan might feel that gaming is dying, but in the aggregate the hobby continues to chug along.

Here's an interesting experiment: compare the state of D&D today to the state of every other version of D&D 7 years after its launch (assuming a version was still supported 7 years later; I think allof the flavors of BD&D had been replaced with new sets). Compare 3e in 2007 to 2e in 1996, 1e in 1985-6.

In 1996, TSR is dead in the water and waiting for the hammer to fall.
In 1985, TSR is in serious trouble as Gygax is forced out of the company and sales falter. The company needs an outside investory (Lorraine Williams) to step in and right the ship.

Worrying about what World of Warcraft or the Xbox 360 might or might no be doing to D&D pales in comparison.

what if you measure from the other editions respective ".5" versions?  

for 1e, it would be after the introduction of UA & the survival guides
dunno about 2e, as i got out of d&d after the above change

did that spike things?  and for how long did any half-version prolong the inevitable slump, in your opinion?

The issue of organizing both a group to meet and play on a regular schedule, and then to focus on playing the game when they meet, isn't addressed much to any constructive degree.  Tabletop RPGs, as a medium, are neither friendly to a casual degree of participation nor are friendly to solo gameplay; adult gamers are increasingly pressed away from the hobby due to commitments that compete for time and possess greater social prestige, commitments that interfere with that required for proper execution of a tabletop RPG.  If there is an alternative that is friendly to casual and solo gameplay, then it shouldn't be a surprise when there is a drift towards that alternative; this is part of the reason for the success of D&D's one true competitor- World of Warcraft.

If the Tabletop RPG hobby is to remain relevant to the emerging generations, then it has to place control of participation in the user's--the player's--hands; tabletop RPGs need to become casual and solo-friendly, and thus must change their designs and systems to meet this need.  This includes presentation, from graphics to rules.  Wizards of the Coast shows by their actions that the company is aware of this issue and is attempting to solve the problem; the new edition of the Star Wars RPG does have changes that make it friendlier to casual gameplay (and less so to solo gameplay), and there are more (much more) hesitant moves in this direction for D&D.

Change or Die.  It's that simple, and the pressure being applied across media lines cannot be ignored.

Quote from: beeberwhat if you measure from the other editions respective ".5" versions?  

for 1e, it would be after the introduction of UA & the survival guides
dunno about 2e, as i got out of d&d after the above change

did that spike things?  and for how long did any half-version prolong the inevitable slump, in your opinion?

I'm not sure how much an update/.5 edition does to change how many people are playing. I think it helps a company's sales by giving existing players a new game to buy, plus (if done right) it cleans up the rules and makes a game more fun.

I don't think it inherently extends a game's life. Unless you are talking a new edition, the changes we saw in UA/black cover 2e/3.5 wouldn't make someone who disliked the current version of D&D get into it. They were all tweaks and improvements to an existing structure, not a new game.

In other words, if D&D had trouble getting new gamers to pick it up, UA and the other revisions didn't solve that.

D&D e1 started out fairly simple and open ended.  Three small magical books that created a framework for RPG adventure gaming.  It gave Gamesmasters and players the ability to learn the rules relatively quickly, and they weren't too complicated to kind of 'get' without inordinate rules lawyering.  They were however, in my opinion, mathematically unbalanced (such as the experience point system).  Despite this Gamesmasters picked up the game and ran with it because the concept was so fun, the mythic undertones were so interesting, and the game mechanics were pretty fun with funny shaped dice and grid-maps of dungeons and weird monsters and so on.  Many of these Gamesmasters created home-rules to compensate for perceived flaws.  I was one of those.  Overall, it was a relatively easy game to pick up.  So a first generation of Gamesmasters created some really fantastic worlds and there were many all-nighters over pizza with people shouting "No! No! No!  I slash!  I slash!" and other fun stuff.  It was engrossing and as far as I know players and gamesmasters alike really enjoyed it.  I know I did.  And so a hobby (and an industry) was born.  Long live RPGs.

However, TSR's business model was such that they had to sell more books to make money.  And it logically followed that therefore they needed more rules.  And besides, it became apparent the e1 rules had certain flaws and omissions.  And so D&D e2 was born, and that was considerably more complex.  However, since most people by then had learned ed1 and were pretty eager to 'fix the flaws' and 'get the new stuff' they gobbled up e2.  

At this time the barrier to entry was raised and the game became a truly geeky thing because it became an even more technical pursuit.  The nature of the game also changed with the new rules.   In e1 the base of the game was about 50/50 'Role Playing'/Crunch.  In e2 it shifted over toward the crunch side, as the rules were more complex.  Ok.  A lot of people love it and its crunchy.  No problem there as far as I'm concerned.  It's a game and it plays like a game and has rules like a game.  It's just complicated.  Fine.  I didn't get into it because I already had a home-rules version and I was happy with mine.  I know a lot of other GMs who felt the same.  That's ok too.  

Now we get to 3.x and the level of crunch remains roughly the same, and even reduced a tiny bit in some cases, but barrier to entry remains high because it's still a complex system with large volumes of rules and handbooks and guides.  To the average person out there that's a lot to swallow for a game.  Especially now when computer games offer so much graphical intensity and appear to be doing much the same as P&P RPGs (but they're not really).   So, it is my guess that the learning curve, being high, is keeping people from swallowing the blue pill.   That's ok.  Except now we are starting to ask, Is the Hobby Dying?  

Furthermore the tendency continues to appear to be toward more complex rules.  Why?  Because the fan-base already knows and has memorized the rules and new rules, to be worth their price must provide novelty.  Some part is patching, and some part is "totally new and improved".   However, now we have the situation where there's multiple versions with conflicting rules, and more books than you can shake a stick at across these versions.  

Now back to that average person out there...  Not getting the feeling that they're going to want to jump right in because the water is fine.  There's a lot of complexity and if you didn't start with e1 and grow with it, I think you're going to be kind of lost by D&D in its later forms.  Unless you have friends who are already into it.  But for someone wandering in off the street and looking at D&D 3.x on the bookshelf my guess is you're going to go "WTF?"  Its no longer new and novel.  Its no longer simple.  And there's a crowd of people standing around either crowing about how their game is THE BEST ONE, or crapping on other people's idea of what is THE BEST ONE.

Now toss into this mix Indie Games whose designers have a vested (financial) interest in 'showing' that the old style game is 'blah blah blah' (sucks), and you have market forces colliding.

Is the Hobby dying?  Not in my opinion.  It is evolving.  Those interested in keeping up with the evolution should be looking outside the box at 'What comes next?'.  And that's really the important question.  How do we evolve the RPG so that the next generation players will pick it up and go, "ooohhhh... ahhhhhh...", rather than "huhhhh... wuhhhhhtf?".

Of course I have my own opinion on how that will happen but I'm rather a bit loath to say so.   I think I've worn out my welcome at theRPGSite.  Didn't take me long.  First I made the critical error of the infamous "DexCon 10" post.  And then I went on to add insult to injury by being cool to Luke, the Sacred Enemy.  And then, to make matters worse, I just plainly fall on the wrong side of the fence with the traditional game too, which I've always thought had become too complicated for it's own good after e1.  oh darn.  
:rolleyes:

Nevertheless, I think there will be an evolution.   And I do not think that means that it is required to change the fundamental style of Gamesmaster - Player relationship, which to me has certain pros and cons in either form ("GM-Fiat" or "Player Empowered").  

I think there is a good deal of potential in this market for pencil and paper RPGs, even with the (fierce) competition of computer RPGs due to an inherent weakness in the computer game model.  But it is going to take some nerve, a lot of hard work, and a hell of a lot of luck to get it going, and make it happen.   That's my guess.   But of course, only time will tell.

- Mark

Quote from: mearlsRPGs are always under an immense and continual churn. Games come and go. Companies rise, flounder, and fade. It's incredibly rare for any game to achieve long-term (10+ year) success.

It's the same for any business [I say this not because I think Mearls doesn't know, but to emphasise it to others]. Roleplaying games are not unique in business terms. Most new businesses fail dismally. It's very rare for a new business to still be around ten years after its founding. The industry as a whole remains, but individual businesses go kaput. Some members of the failed businesses, and some dedicated customers of them, then claim the industry as a whole is failing.

I see this all the time in the restaurant industry. Places come and go, failed places say the whole industry is dying. But it all keeps going on.

Can we get a Moderator to sticky this conversation? I think it deserves to be always present.

Quote from: mearlsThe really interesting thing to me is that, whenever I see numbers for 2nd and 3rd tier company print runs from any era of gaming, they are invariably about the same: 2,000 to 5,000 books, with hits selling 10,000+. I've seen those numbers from late 70s Judges Guild stuff to d20 books from this decade.

This is interesting. I recently looked up sales figures for GDW RPG products. And they had several games and products that sold about a 100 000 core books, with strong sales for the supplements in the x0,000 range. Traveller and Twilight:2000 really seem to have been somewhere between D&D and the rest of the 2nd tier, could that be?

Quote from: SettembriniThis is interesting. I recently looked up sales figures for GDW RPG products. And they had several games and products that sold about a 100 000 core books, with strong sales for the supplements in the x0,000 range. Traveller and Twilight:2000 really seem to have been somewhere between D&D and the rest of the 2nd tier, could that be?

Thats nice Sett, - but they are now out of Business.

 For several years now.

I admire yor passion on several topics - but if we're going to say that RPGs are NOT a dying business - then maybe we should talk about companies that are currently trying to make a go of it or are actually somewhat profitable.


Just a thought.

- Ed C.

Sure, TSR killed GDW, no doubt about it.

But my point was more aiming at the assumption that there USED to be a real middle tier. With Supplements selling hundredthousand for a hit and tenthousands for an unpopular one.

And I think it is interesting, that this middle tier has vanished.

A survivor could be Palladium. I´m pretty sure they used to sell books in the GDW range.

...or maybe SJ Games.

 Don't laugh , they've had some rough times over the years and have still managed to stay in business.

They might be considered "middle tier" these days, tho at one time they might have been thought of as "top tier". Consider all the game companies that have started and gone out of business since the early 1980s.  When looked at that way - you gotta give ANY surviving company some credit.

 Is WEST END Games still trying to make a comeback ? Or do you guys think they have succeeded with that ? In the Southern Ohio area  I haven't seen much proof that they have "come back" .

- Ed C.

I think WEG, at least in the roleplaying field, are totally stiffed.

Put it this way: aside from TORG, which was only ever a niche success, their big games were Ghostbusters, Star Wars, and Paranoia, none of which they have the rights to anymore. In fact, back in their heyday, their business model depended on possessing hot licences like Star Wars and the like - remember all the other licenced games they put out, like Indiana Jones and Xena and so forth?

West End died for two reasons. Firstly, they became overdependent on licences and neglected their non-licenced games shamefully. (Remember the horror that was Paranoia 5th Edition? Ugh!) In fact, they pretty much depended on the strength of the licences to sell the games by the late 1990s - remember how lame the Xena RPG was? Because they depended on their licences to stay afloat, they needed money to a) acquire new licences and b) keep and maintain the licences they currently had. Secondly, they depended on cash flow from the owner's shoe factory (I'm not making this up) to buoy them during lean times.

This mean that when the shoe factory got into trouble, West End ran out of operating capital, which meant that a) they couldn't acquire any more licences and b) they couldn't afford to print more stuff to sell in the old licences - those which were even selling, at any rate (at that point it was Star Wars and, erm, that's it). This put them in the godawful position where they had to either a) hang onto the licences, not have any operating capital, and go bankrupt or b) give up the licences to free up some cash, and go bankrupt anyway because they could no longer sell their flagship games. Eventually, of course, they went bankrupt and - you guessed it - had to give up the licences.

WEG didn't die because of anything that was happening to the RPG industry at that time, it died due to poor management. Shit, they had the Star Wars rights, and in the hands of any competant game company that's a licence to print money - but they blew it.

Quote from: SettembriniSure, TSR killed GDW, no doubt about it.

Not to quibble, but the TSR lawsuit was only one factor in the death of GDW. There was also the sudden bloat of TCGs and the distributors who shipped those out instead of RPGs, because they could make more money per pallet on them. There was a disasterous attempt at getting into the book trade. And then there was the Desert Storm Fact Book which was a major loss.

GDW could have survived any one of those, but not all four.

Quote from: Koltar...or maybe SJ Games.

 Don't laugh , they've had some rough times over the years and have still managed to stay in business.

They might be considered "middle tier" these days, tho at one time they might have been thought of as "top tier". Consider all the game companies that have started and gone out of business since the early 1980s.  When looked at that way - you gotta give ANY surviving company some credit.

GURPS is near the top - not at WotC levels, but right up there with all the runners up like White Wolf, Mutants and Masterminds, Palladium etc.

The interesting thing with SJG is they are not solely an RPG company. I believe they make a lot more money with card and board games like Munchkin than they do with GURPS. GURPS still makes them money, but not nearly as much as other sources. I don't have a reference for this, but it gets mentioned or alluded to every so often on the SJG homepage.

Quote from: WarthurSecondly, they depended on cash flow from the owner's shoe factory (I'm not making this up) to buoy them during lean times.

IIRC, the shoe company was one that imported Italian loafers, that happened to be the same brand worn by OJ Simpson during the murder case - which dried up sales for those shoes.

Quote from: WarthurSecondly, they depended on cash flow from the owner's shoe factory (I'm not making this up) to buoy them during lean times.

This mean that when the shoe factory got into trouble, West End ran out of operating capital, ...

According to my information it was exactly the opposite!

Yes, they depended on the cash flow of the shoe company, but in the other way round. The shoe company regularly siphoned money from WEG because they got into trouble.
And when the shoe company (whose name was Bucci, if I remember correctly) went belly up they took WEG with them.

(I wish I could find a source for that.)

(EDIT: Spelling of Bucci)

Dirk,

That´s exactly what I read back in the day. I belive it was the parent´s shoe company that siphoned off money.

Quote from: SettembriniThat´s exactly what I read back in the day. I belive it was the parent´s shoe company that siphoned off money.

OTOH, here in Pyramid Online (http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=731) I found an interview that seems to back up Warthur's version...

Chances are the relationship between WEG and the shoe company was probably more complicated than just "one funds the other". I fully admit the possibility that I've got it backwards.

That doesn't change my point, though, that WEG's other major mistake was relying too much on licences - once money started getting scarce, they were in a horrible position of either keeping the licences and not being able to earn any money out of them, or sell them off and reduce their ability to earn money due to losing flagship lines.

Per the propaganda in Munchkin Cthulhu, Munchkin is SJ games biggest seller

V.

I have heard that GURPS Traveller is a close second to Munchkin.

Quote from: jrientsI have heard that GURPS Traveller is a close second to Munchkin.

That seems nutty to me, but then again, I've never played or owned any iteration of Traveller.

Quote from: joewolzThat seems nutty to me, but then again, I've never played or owned any iteration of Traveller.

Regardless of whether it uses GURPS or not, GURPS Traveller is probably the second or third best Traveller line made. My own personal big three is Classic, Digest Group, GURPS Traveller. I give an honorable mention to Traveller20 and the Comcast/Avenger folks.

http://www.sjgames.com/general/stakeholders/

Munchkin is 55% of SJG sales. The entire GURPS line is the majority of the rest. If Traveller is the biggest GURPS title, which I'm not sure I believe, that still makes it at best a far distant second.

One way to determine whether the hobby is dying is to look at the average age of tabletop role-players and how many years they've been in the hobby.  If those numbers are increasing, then the hobby will eventually shrink.

From a Free-RPG point of view, more people are downloading Icar than ever. I've been tracking those stats since 2000.

Quote from: joewolzThat seems nutty to me, but then again, I've never played or owned any iteration of Traveller.

 You could look into changing that.

 Its a good game or game setting - depending on how you look nat it . Also, Illinois is the birthplace of TRAVELLER, all those years ago.


- Ed C.

Quote from: joewolzThat seems nutty to me, but then again, I've never played or owned any iteration of Traveller.

In the post TNE era, I think gurps is the only version that has managed to consistently stay in print for long periods of time.  I'm not a gurps fan but they do a nice job with their Traveller line and it meshes well with their other books if you want to take things in a new direction.
 
SJ Games seems to be the only rpg company that has mangaged to go for decades without serious financial trouble - that says a bunch about them.  TSR had lots of advantages but still managed to kill itself.  
 
But I'm not concerned about the hobby.  I think the comparison to the restaurant business is apt.  I think there are still quite a few potential gamers around who will be willing to buy into the next cool product.

I'll call it dead when I can no longer find any players, and even then I'll wonder if it's because everyone else in the retirement home is a bunch of squares.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I'll call it dead when I can no longer find any players, and even then I'll wonder if it's because everyone else in the retirement home is a bunch of squares.

 OFF TOPIC SLIGHTLY: I'm looking forward to that amusing day 40 to 50 years into the future when the majority of Retirment home residents all have tattoos and body piercings from when they were younger and arguing about whether to listen to Outkast or Marilyn Manson...with one or two oddbirds who made it to that age wanting to hear Snoop Dogg.

 I'll be laughing with a big smile on my face.


Can you imagine Goths all grown up in a nursing home ? Former Emo kids?  elderly PUNK music lovers?

 oh right back to the topic.....

 No the hobby is NOT 'dying" , as i said in an earlier postr - plenty of younger gamers starting into RPGs.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarCan you imagine Goths all grown up in a nursing home ? Former Emo kids?  elderly PUNK music lovers?

I'm one of those punks, and I can't fucking WAIT for that day.  Those nursing home people are gonna be in for a lot of fun...

Quote from: Koltaroh right back to the topic.....

 No the hobby is NOT 'dying" , as i said in an earlier postr - plenty of younger gamers starting into RPGs.

I don' think the hobby is going anywhere.  Ever.

I thought I killed this thread!

DOESN'T ANYONE RESPECT DEATH ANYMORE????

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI thought I killed this thread!

DOESN'T ANYONE RESPECT DEATH ANYMORE????

The thread is like the hobby, the hobby is like the thread. It may wax and wane, but as long as there are people with vivid imaginations and way too much time on their hands it can never truly die. :p

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.

Quoteblahblahblah too many games

No. Also, no.

Quote from: joewolzI'm one of those punks, and I can't fucking WAIT for that day.  Those nursing home people are gonna be in for a lot of fun...

How old are you and how much time have you spent in a nursing home?

I have a +5 Adult Diaper of Infirmity.

Is the RPG hobby dying? Depends on how you define dying.

I mean, is the hex and counter wargame hobby dying? Still dozens of games being produced every year. Still conventions being held and awards being given out. But take a look at the people attending those conventions - lots of receding hairlines and grey hair. Very, very few regular wargamers under 40 years old. Anyone posting on Consimworld who is under 35 is regarded as a sort of prodigal adolescent.

I believe pen and paper RPGs are following the trajectory of wargames. How many GMs out there under 25 compared to how many are over 30? How many high schools and colleges have active RPG clubs compared to 15 or 20 years ago?

Some famous captain of industry once remarked that if you aren't growing, you're shrinking. Other forms of entertainment are supplanting RPGs for the young gamer demographic. Nothing lasts forever.

That doesn't mean we won't continue to see fine gaming products published for years to come. The wargame hobby continues to publish many excellent games, despite print runs of under 2,000. And many older gamers will continue to play games with their buddies regardless of the state of the industry. But natural attrition will erode the numbers of RPGers without a steady influx of younger gamers. And stories of people playing with their kids aside, I just don't see that influx of younger gamers.

In short, there's no reason to believe RPGs are immune to the same fate that eventually befalls most hobbies.

Quote from: John MorrowHow old are you and how much time have you spent in a nursing home?

I'm not very old, but I used to volunteer at the VA hospital.  You have no idea what some of those guys were like.  I've never been in a more lively place...and then sometimes it wasn't.  I'd prefer to be one of them guys pinching nurses and being loud and obnoxious.  If I'm stuck in a place like that, goddammit I'm gonna smile every day, just like I do now.

Nice handle, Helleyes. I hope you're wrong, not that I lack any love for the hex and counter crowd.

Oh Rubbish!!

 Itsa not dying !! You guys are hanging out with too many pessimists.

 That redheaded 19 year old I referred to a few weeks ago - she is a brand new DM, got inspired and she wrote up first adventure idea all on her own. Though she did stop by the store and ask my co-worker for Dm-ing and story advice.
 She is bright, energetic, joining the Marine Corps ...and she loves RPGs.

 I don't see any "Dying" going on.  I DO see people that maybe need to try and meet more gamers - I know they're out there...y'all just gotta say hi to each other and relax a little.

 Hell if the hobby was "dying" - the store I work at would have closed a year ago and I'd be unemployed right now - but that didn't happen. So, something must be going right with the hobby.

- Ed C.

I think what's happening is/was

If you were into the hobby because you like to collect books, write erotic fan-fiction or otherwise be part of the "fandom" that is usually associated with roleplaying--especially the hobby as it was in the 90s--, then there are certain networks that are obviously dying out (people who want to dress up like vampires, etc), and there are better ways for you to connect to that network of people (fan fiction communtiies, etc). I think some of those people were indeed buying lots of roleplaying books and even showing up at conventions and not really part of anything.

But the actual network of people involved in gaming has remained the same size or possibly grown.

Annoyingly I increasingly think it isn't.

Why annoyingly given I love the hobby?  Because I've argued with Jim-Bob on this topic many times, enough times that I stopped posting to threads where it came up so as to avoid having the discussion again.

And it seems he may have been right all along when he said it was going to survive just fine.

Irksome, but there you go, the rumours of the hobby's demise seem currently to me to be rather exaggerated.

The industry, that's another matter, that's fucked.  Except for WotC and a few other companies which aim squarely at producing fun games for profit and nothing else.

Quote from: HaffrungIs the RPG hobby dying? Depends on how you define dying.

I mean, is the hex and counter wargame hobby dying? Still dozens of games being produced every year. Still conventions being held and awards being given out. But take a look at the people attending those conventions - lots of receding hairlines and grey hair. Very, very few regular wargamers under 40 years old. Anyone posting on Consimworld who is under 35 is regarded as a sort of prodigal adolescent.

I believe pen and paper RPGs are following the trajectory of wargames. How many GMs out there under 25 compared to how many are over 30? How many high schools and colleges have active RPG clubs compared to 15 or 20 years ago?

Some famous captain of industry once remarked that if you aren't growing, you're shrinking. Other forms of entertainment are supplanting RPGs for the young gamer demographic. Nothing lasts forever.

That doesn't mean we won't continue to see fine gaming products published for years to come. The wargame hobby continues to publish many excellent games, despite print runs of under 2,000. And many older gamers will continue to play games with their buddies regardless of the state of the industry. But natural attrition will erode the numbers of RPGers without a steady influx of younger gamers. And stories of people playing with their kids aside, I just don't see that influx of younger gamers.

In short, there's no reason to believe RPGs are immune to the same fate that eventually befalls most hobbies.

I think the wargaming analogy is spot on, wargaming is still alive and well but now it's a more niche hobby than it once was.  That's our fate too IMO.

Whether another hobby, story games or whatever, will bud off from us as we did from wargames I don't know and don't much care to be honest.

Quote from: BalbinusI think the wargaming analogy is spot on, wargaming is still alive and well but now it's a more niche hobby than it once was.  That's our fate too IMO.

Whether another hobby, story games or whatever, will bud off from us as we did from wargames I don't know and don't much care to be honest.

Wargaming's nichetastic position is largely deliberate however, and I don't really see the same effect occuring in RPGs, except maybe with GURPS 4.

Wargames got more and more complicated until eventually they drove out all but the hardest of the hardcore, but contrary to the whining of a lot of people about how "complicated" D&D3 is, that hasn't really happened with the game.  And if the Internet pundits are right, SAGA is the wave of the future for WotC games, and thus future editions will likely be more dumbed down and simplified than the current edition.  White Wolf, with the exception of Exalted, has actually simplified on some level with their newer games.  

GURPS 4 is the closest analog I can see right now, in that they took what was a game with a much wider appeal in regards to the variable complexity of the rules, and instead homed in straight for the hardcore set who just wanted more and more complexity, ultimately resulting in a game that more strongly resembles HERO than it does the previosu edition of GURPS.

Quote from: J ArcaneWargaming's nichetastic position is largely deliberate however, and I don't really see the same effect occuring in RPGs, except maybe with GURPS 4.

Wargames got more and more complicated until eventually they drove out all but the hardest of the hardcore, but contrary to the whining of a lot of people about how "complicated" D&D3 is, that hasn't really happened with the game.  And if the Internet pundits are right, SAGA is the wave of the future for WotC games, and thus future editions will likely be more dumbed down and simplified than the current edition.  White Wolf, with the exception of Exalted, has actually simplified on some level with their newer games.  

GURPS 4 is the closest analog I can see right now, in that they took what was a game with a much wider appeal in regards to the variable complexity of the rules, and instead homed in straight for the hardcore set who just wanted more and more complexity, ultimately resulting in a game that more strongly resembles HERO than it does the previosu edition of GURPS.

You may well be right, I do find 3e complex but as you rightly note if it is it hasn't harmed it any.  And if Saga is the way forward then it will get simpler anyway.

I'm genuinely not sure, I think the wargaming route is a tenable one for us, but I just plain don't know for sure, your scenario seems credible to me also.

I an't seen no Fat Lady singing.

 ...yeah I did a double negative  - so what ?

 Its not dying.

 Zheesh

re: GURPS

It was, and remains, the system of choice for my gaming group, since at least 1988. We've had and used 3e for years and years, and have tons of supplements, etc.

To date, I'm the only one who has bought the core 4e books, and have no plans to buy any supplements (as they call their very pretty and very expensive hardbacks). With 3e, just about any new supplement was a must-have for the massive and growing completist collection our group possesses. No longer.

In effect, SJG got all the GURPS money out of at least 5 players that they're ever going to get. From what I've heard, Munchkin and other games seem to be the cash cow right now anyway, but we all remember how that worked out for some in the 90's. Lots of eggs in one basket.

I think, therefore, that 4e will be a mistake in the long run, simply because they had a good thing going for 15 years with 3e, and I highly doubt the shift to fancy and expensive 4e books with chrunchier rules for the gearheads will attract any new players. They should've just kept putting out good supplements for <=$25 bucks.

But that's just me.

I think SJGames seriously underestimates the audience they built up with all those nifty sourcebooks.  I knew more people who bought GURPS sourcebooks than actual GURPS players.  They built a strong reputation for kickassery on that front, so much so that a lot of people would buy their books sight unseen, even if they didnt' care for GURPS, just because they knew that they'd do a good job covering whatever topic the book was about.

You two are just trying to annoy me  (or not ?) aren't you ?

  GURPS 4/e actually corrected a lot of the misakes that were in 3rd edition.

 Been using it for 3 plus years now - and you know what ? Most of my 3rd edition supplements are still pretty usable with it. They even put out a character conversion booklet as part of the GM Screen package.

 As To Gaming in general ?

 Its not Dying.


- Ed C.

Quote from: J ArcaneI think SJGames seriously underestimates the audience they built up with all those nifty sourcebooks.  I knew more people who bought GURPS sourcebooks than actual GURPS players.  They built a strong reputation for kickassery on that front, so much so that a lot of people would buy their books sight unseen, even if they didnt' care for GURPS, just because they knew that they'd do a good job covering whatever topic the book was about.

I think they wanted to do a good job on covering stuff in the new edition...but producing a full color 256 page hardback is a bitch.  Especially since very few of their topics haven't been covered adequately for gaming.  

Banestorm is an awesome, kick ass book with enough setting to play forever.  I'd love to see something that wasn't rules come out again.  Those giant rules books they're producing are...yucky boring.

My point, Koltar, is that 3rd edition was around for 15 years. Any "broken" rules were corrected by players looong ago. And by switching to more expensive books released at longer intervals, which are having to cover ground already covered by supplements out for 3rd edition, they're essentially having to re-build the line from the ground up. Slower, with less variety, and more expensively.

Its a bad idea, in MY opinion. 4e has been out for 3 years? In the 3e days, 3 years, SJG could have put out, conservatively, 5 or 6 supplements? At $25 a pop, in my group alone, that would have netted them at least $150, and possibly more if it was a book we wanted more than one copy of. Instead, in the last 3 years, SJG has gotten $0.00 from us. Worse, in the NEXT three or more years, they will get $0.00 from us. I suspect my group is not alone in this.

When I walked into a gamestore in the past and saw a new GURPS supplement, it was a must have. Hell, I bought Old West and I don't even RUN Old West campaigns. Even if it was a marginal interest book, I'd look at the back and see $22.95 and go "Well, why not?", and I'd do that multiple times per year. Now I see one of the one or two books a year they're putting out for 4e, look at the back, see $34.95 for a book that would get no use, and go "No, thanks." That's the difference.

Its just the way it is, in my own personal experience.

I really wonder if SJG is making a big mistake with the new, all color, expensive hardbacks. I'm fine with the idea of a new edition to clean up the rules a bit, but what I don't care for are the more expensive books, especially the supplements. Perhaps they have hardcover core books, and paperback supplements.

They hobby is doing fine. More and more publishers are getting into the business thanks to things like OGL, and the way the internet has brought direct publisher to customer sales into play.

What may be dying is the old way of doing business. The publisher, distributor, game store, customer multi-tiered model. That may still work for WotC and White Wolf, but smaller companies can't get by that way. Hero games actively encourages it's customers to buy all products directly through them (although you can get their stuff at your FLGS).

FLGS may be dying off as well. Discount online retailers like Amazon are tough to compete with. In general, I don't think anyone can get by as just an RPG store. Perhaps by branching out into other things like board games, wargames, CCGs, CMGs, miniatures, comics, collectibles and other stuff these stores can stay afloat, but the dying off of the old business model puts the pinch on brick and mortar stores.

Maybe people my age don't play games as much, but many of us still spend a decent amount of money on games, and will likely continue to do so for quite some time. The one thing I have no clue about is the younger generation. Do teenagers play RPGs? Do they play MMORPGs instead? Both, neither? I'm completely out of touch and so have no idea.

Well, as far as I can tell, and this is from many many MMO-playin' friends and kind of a lot of time spent on MMO's myself:

The MMO has (almost) replaced television, not gaming. If not for the TIVO, it would have totally replaced television in my house, at least for me. My kids still watch cartoons, but the only thing I watch is Who Wants to be a Superhero (Tivo'd Thursday nights), and Doctor Who (Tivo'd on late late Saturday nights- theyre near the tail end of the Lady Romana/Tom Baker run). And I also Tivo the new Doctor Who off fo Sci-Fi, which I have no idea when it is on, it just shows up on the 'recently recorded' list and my son and I watch it on the weekends.. while we are playing computer games and hanging out.

And to add to that mere 4 hours of television I record per week? The Doctor Who actually piles up, and sometimes I just spend a couple of hours catching up on it on the weekends. Maybe.






Other than that- I don't watch TV.

But I still game every week.