So a common issue on this forum seems to be the contrast of big market-share RPGs and smaller market-share RPGs.  I'm curious how people read this sort of evidence in general.  On the one hand, I think it's important to look at this.  On the other, I don't think that it's reasonable to conclude that smaller market share always means worse quality.  Otherwise, one would have to conclude that McDonald's is the best restaurant.  

So it's tricky.  For example, White Wolf's Storyteller series was undoubtedly successful.  White Wolf has consistently kept the #2 position in market share for over a decade, and it's position has not significantly changed from 1998 to 2004, say (cf. Ken Hite's Out of the Box column where he regularly reports on industry numbers).  I happen to think very little of their game designs overall, but I have to give credit in some way and acknowledge the success of their designs compared to the competition.  

On the other hand, there are all the niche games.  I'd divide these into two big groups.  Some games -- like Hero System, GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, and others -- maintain a fairly steady stream of sales.   Others -- like Amber or Big Eyes Small Mouth -- have a small fan base but struggle to keep their main book in print.  

Basically, I think that the first order of market share is factors apart from game design -- i.e. does the tone and art of the game appeal to a niche, does it have a grabby concept, are the production values high.  With the right license, you can sell a shitty game.  However, game design is a strong second-order effect.  

In contrast, there are statements like this regarding White Wolf:  

Quote from: RPGPunditHow low they have sunk, that they are now slowly tearing each other apart.  The battle against D20 long since lost to them, they now are reduced to ideologically killing each other over the scraps of being able to show off their pretentiousness to each other in forums full of fellow-travellers. No longer even able to preach to the choir, they are proceeding to beat the rest of the choir's heads in to get at the gooey insides.

Basically, this is crap.  Amber is not the "loser" in a battle against dice-using systems.  It is a separate niche.  Similarly, White Wolf's games are not in a battle against D20.  The market, such as it is, supports both WW's games and D20 games.  

Moreover, I think the battle analogy is moronic in the larger picture.  The enemy which both White Wolf and Wizards of the Coast need to fight is other activities and anti-roleplaying stigma.  In particular, they need to make tabletop RPGs viable against online MMORPGs and remove the stigma of being a anti-social geek.  It is harmful to the market at a whole to squabble over the tiny share of dedicated role-players, making attacks on how stupid, geeky, or whatever another popular group of gamers are.

QuoteMoreover, I think the battle analogy is moronic in the larger picture.

It´s not. Because it´s all about online discourse, not about  brick-and-mortar-reality. On the internet on the other hand, this culture war is hot and real.

The "rpg wars" forget two important facts:

• Most gamers just play D&D
• Most of them, and all of everyone else, buys and plays heaps of games of different kinds.

If it were truly a "war" then my copy of Mage would jump on and set fire to my copy of GURPS. Which would be pretty fucking funny, but hasn't happened yet. Gamers have pretty wide tastes, and can happily play all sorts of games.

A few notes, since you decided to invoke Amber a couple of times:

1. Amber wasn't really "struggling" to be in print. It has a very solid fan bases (no other game its size has a SERIES of regular conventions dedicated exclusively to it as a game like the various Ambercons).  It was consistenly IN PRINT from the moment it first came out until the moment that Erick Wujcik started the deal with Guardians of Order. It has since been out of print because of the delays that were the fault of GoO's demise, not Amber's popularity or lack thereof.

2. It would indeed be foolish to say that Amber "lost the war" against dice games, because Amber never DECLARED war on dice games.  White Wolf/Storyteller, on the other hand, effectively declared war on the so-called "rollplaying" games like D&D that Rein·Hagen explicitly described as inferior to Vampire and its ilk.

So if they were at war, it was because they declared it. They started it, and D20 ended it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkim...  The enemy which both White Wolf and Wizards of the Coast need to fight is other activities and anti-roleplaying stigma.  In particular, they need to make tabletop RPGs viable against online MMORPGs and remove the stigma of being a anti-social geek.  It is harmful to the market at a whole to squabble over the tiny share of dedicated role-players, making attacks on how stupid, geeky, or whatever another popular group of gamers are.

I agree that MMORPGS are a serious threat to traditional tabletop RPGs (although I honestly don't understand their appeal).

But making non-RPG players into RPG players is hard to do.  It's easier for companies (big or small) to compete for existing players.

Thus WotC's strategy of marketing lots of books to established players (splatbooks, etc.), rather than having a real 'basic set' of rules that would broaden the base of D&D players.

It's too bad that WotC does this, since smaller companies do not have their market presence, and thus could not succeed as well in pursuing such a strategy.

QuoteThe "rpg wars" forget two important facts:

• Most gamers just play D&D

No, the whole war is about the internet dwelling storynistas trying to ignore or deride that fact. And some people fought back.

Quote from: SettembriniNo, the whole war is about the internet dwelling storynistas trying to ignore or deride that fact. And some people fought back.

Really? I thought a notable component of it, larger than the supposed component you mention, was clueless people beaking off about something they clearly don't understand with a whole lot of generalized Us/Them bullshit piled in.  At least that is where you seem to come in.

RPGs are a funny thing, in terms of competition and their market structure, because gamers are fucking wierd.

Seriously.  It must be an absolute goddamn nightmare to try and market anything but D&D.  

Gamer taste alone is a bizarre thing to try and predict.  You get gamers who will in some cases pass on a game just because it uses a d8 or something, or because the name of one of the aliens in a sci-fi game has the wrong number of syllables.

And there's the nature of competition.  Some gamers will buy basically anything, and play all sorts of games all the time, and others outright refuse to play anything but their pet game, for no real reason at all.  So you are competing with other RPGs, and you aren't.  All at the same time.

And then there's the issue of sourcebooks.  Everyone demands them, but no one buys them.  But if you don't make them, then everyone starts moaning and declares your game "dead".  

The whole market is fragmented in bizarre ways.  The only thing you can really count on is "D&D is the top", but that doesn't exactly do everyone else any good.  Sure there's the OGL, but frankly I don't think anymore people buy OGL stuff than any other non-D&D game.  And it doesn't help that there was such a massive flood of total crap as to create an Atari effect on the whole OGL market.  

I still have plans of finishing my own book, but frankly I'm probably going to make it a one shot, single-core sort of deal, and only for the sake of seeing a print copy of it the day it's finished.  If I ever want to make some actual money with the IP, I'll get a vidgame or a movie made or something.  Gamers are way too damn fucked up of a market.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo if they were at war, it was because they declared it. They started it, and D20 ended it.

And to the extent that White Wolf people call other big groups of gamers names, I think they're being dumb as well.  Certainly a big chunk of my time on the Forge was in saying the same thing to the fraction on there who insulted traditional gamers.  

However, saying "he started it" doesn't make your name-calling any more mature or reasonable.  

This isn't a fucking war.  It's a bunch of dweebs calling each other names like "swine" or "munchkin" or whatever, where the ultimate results are a few more or less sales, and maybe a handful of guys start rolling a bunch of d10s instead of 1d20, or vice-versa.  The end result of the "war" is making all the sides look stupid.

Quote from: jhkimMoreover, I think the battle analogy is moronic in the larger picture.  The enemy which both White Wolf and Wizards of the Coast need to fight is other activities and anti-roleplaying stigma.  In particular, they need to make tabletop RPGs viable against online MMORPGs and remove the stigma of being a anti-social geek.  It is harmful to the market at a whole to squabble over the tiny share of dedicated role-players, making attacks on how stupid, geeky, or whatever another popular group of gamers are.

Dude, this is some really solid stuff.

Seriously, just about everyone would get more gamers under their banners if they shut the fuck up and spent more time getting non-gamers involved, or seriously looking at the MMO phenomena and taking a hard look at what lessons could be applied to tabletop gaming, if any. Not to say "rewrite D&D!" or whatever, perhaps just an experimental game or two might work.

WotC is doing that a little with their "National Dungeons and Dragons Day" (November 4th, BTW, this upcoming Saturday!), but that's just an event that you'd never know about if you didn't already frequent the game store, or listen to NPR or whatever.

Planting new seeds is hard work, though, and takes a lot more time, concentration, cooperation and self-reflection than chopping down the trees you already see. It's much easier for me to say, "Those guys should think of a game that appeals to the MMO crowd" or "They should write a game marketable to internet chat room/mailing list play-by-post roleplayers" than to actually come up with a solution myself.

But again, saying "These guys are fucking die-rolling mongrels" or "those guys are dirty hippie shits"... well, it's sure fun at times, but doesn't bring a single damned new gamer into the fold, not like say running public gaming events and advertising them locally at public places (the coffee house or pub, instead of just at the game store).

-Andy

Quote from: Andy KSeriously, just about everyone would get more gamers under their banners if they shut the fuck up and spent more time getting non-gamers involved, or seriously looking at the MMO phenomena and taking a hard look at what lessons could be applied to tabletop gaming, if any. Not to say "rewrite D&D!" or whatever, perhaps just an experimental game or two might work.

Just imagine, if you can, the squardons of flaming turds that would hurled high and rained down upon P&P RPG boards if you seriously floated such an idea. The "computer games players are such that wouldn't know real if you rammed it in/up/down their ". The sermons about the moral corruption of "instant gratification". The bemoaning of the lost "golden" age(s). The soothsaying of the downfall of all of P&P if you actually managed to sell lots of games to . :pundit:

Quote from: blakkieJust imagine, if you can, the squardons of flaming turds that would hurled high and rained down upon P&P RPG boards if you seriously floated such an idea. The "computer games players are such that wouldn't know real if you rammed it in/up/down their ".

Um?  This isn't a hypothetical.  D&D has gone online multiple times along with several others games, and there are a number of computer games which have been adapted into tabletop RPGs -- like Rune, EverQuest, and World of Warcraft.  Eden's next big game is going to be City of Heroes.  

And of course there's been bitching.  The Internet is a place where you can have giant flame wars over what you feed your cat.  I don't see that it's any different for MMORPG issues.  At least the big MMORPGs like WoW are unquestionably mainstream successes, so clearly have some success to consider.

You can't make an RPG specifically to appeal to MMO players, unless you can make a game that writes it's own adventures and GMs them by itself.

The reason MMOs and computer games pull away players from tabletop is that for the most part, you can get the average D&D experience without all the prep work.  You get to kill things, loot them, and get XP.  And all without dealing with spending tons of time prepping encounters and maps and storyline and all that.  Plus the computer does all the math for you in game, meaning no arguing over rules, or fumbling through rulebooks mid battle.  

A computer game can offer all the basic gamepay of your average D&D dungeon crawl without all the hassle of actually setting one up, or even the need to try and get real people together.  

And with the sophistication of many CRPGs out there, you can even get many of the things that are traditionally held up as the advantages of tabletop RP, like the freeform nature of being able to direct your own play to wherever you want.  You get games like the Fallout, Ultima and Elder Scrolls series, where you're basically just given a huge world, and you're free to muck about in it as you like.  It isn't totally freeform yet though, and won't be until we see some astounding advances in AI, but with GMed games like NWN and Ryzom Ring, you can get that as well.

But the biggest reason why MMOs in particular are such a threat to traditional tabletop is that they offer sometihng regular CRPGs don't, and soemthing that is otherwise the chief advantage of any tabletop game:  The social factor.  Because really, RPGs are all about the people you play them with.  And with a good guild of friends, RL or online, an MMO serves the socialization purpose as well as anything for a lot of folks.  

Wizards has collossally fucked up in the focus that they have taken with D&D's development.  They have focused heavily on the kewl powers books and adding new loot, new things to kill, and new shit to level up to.  But all this does is complicates the process.  It offers nothing the CRPGs and MMOs can't do just as well, with less work.

What they should be doing is getting a passle of staff authors to pump out lots of kickass premade adventures and campaigns.  Give them lots of pre-made content that's easy to use.  My FLGS' shelves should be filled with adventure modules, not more books of spells and powers and feats and classes.

You get someone to stay, by taking away the main reason to leave.

QuoteWizards has collossally fucked up in the focus that they have taken with D&D's development. They have focused heavily on the kewl powers books and adding new loot, new things to kill, and new shit to level up to. But all this does is complicates the process. It offers nothing the CRPGs and MMOs can't do just as well, with less work.

What they should be doing is getting a passle of staff authors to pump out lots of kickass premade adventures and campaigns. Give them lots of pre-made content that's easy to use. My FLGS' shelves should be filled with adventure modules, not more books of spells and powers and feats and classes.

I think your'e totally wrong about this:

D&D players don't really want premade adventures. They want the books with the stuff (feats, monsters, prestige classes, items, spells)  in them so that they can make their own adventures. When GM's buy adventures, at least half the time, they buy them to plunder a few encounters out of, or "for ideas" rather than play them through.

The reason is that most D&D is traditionally played in campaign format. Players get together on a regular (often weekly) basis with no particular pre-written adventure in mind. Most campaign GMing that Ive seen is done with a campaign notebook and possibly a few generated encounters and a map or two. "This week we'll go search some of those islands for our arch enemy". That sort of game.

There ARE some D&D players that just want to play module to module out there: they just join Living Greyhawk and do that for free.

So I'm just not buying the idea that Wizards has "Collossaly fucked up" anything at all here (although I agree that they mismanaged the D20 license and Open Gaming in general).

I also think the opposite is true about MMOs: MMOs aren't drawing people away from RPGs, theyre creating a new audience of fantasy adventuring fans. I believe this new audience will probably eventually feed the populace of D&D players. It has become totally acceptable to talk about levelling up your Tauren Hunter in polite office society. Speaking as a guy who plays WoW: it's a very static world, for all of its popularity. You generally have to do the exact same quests for every new character. WoW is undeniably fun, but a D&D campaign can deliver this same fun and make it more dynamic and personal.

Quote from: jhkimAnd to the extent that White Wolf people call other big groups of gamers names, I think they're being dumb as well.  Certainly a big chunk of my time on the Forge was in saying the same thing to the fraction on there who insulted traditional gamers.  

However, saying "he started it" doesn't make your name-calling any more mature or reasonable.  

This isn't a fucking war.  It's a bunch of dweebs calling each other names like "swine" or "munchkin" or whatever, where the ultimate results are a few more or less sales, and maybe a handful of guys start rolling a bunch of d10s instead of 1d20, or vice-versa.  The end result of the "war" is making all the sides look stupid.

One really has to be wondering if you'd be singing the same tune were your side on top.  Considering that your side was on top and no one on your side was saying then what you're saying now, as they were too busy purging traditional gamers, I would suspect not.

RPGPundit