I don't get it. Why would we want RPGs to be more like Monet?



RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;358818I don't get it. Why would we want RPGs to be more like Monet?

Damn I wish I could afford that painting. I'd put it on the cover of a game and sell it for eight bucks.

Quote from: 837204563;358785I think the problem you identify: that, correctly designed, an RPG is complete product that can be enjoyed forever with no additional investment, is a real one.  I would suggest solving it by simply not trying to monetize an RPG.  An RPG is a complete game just like Parcheesi is a complete game.  If you want to run a game company you don't sell just Parcheesi, and you certainly don't try to make big bucks off Parcheesi expansions (diminishing returns, for one thing).  What you do is make more games.  Similarly, I would suggest that the way to make money as an RPG company might be to make more RPGs instead of making one RPG plus an endless line of supplements.  Even better, produce a series of RPGs that use the same core mechanical design so players can mix and match material from different games if they feel like it.

Damn, this sounds familiar... Where have I seen it before?

-clash

The underlying asumption here is - as always - that the market is shrinking, dying, fading slowly into the West and remaining Galadriel. This has been the mantra of gamers since the heady early days, yet when I go to Cons - including GenCon - I see tons of kids. My own gaming group is mostly in their teens and early twenties. most of the people I talk to online were not even born when I started play. If this is the case in an atmosphere where everyone has given up expanding the market, what would happen if we actively try to grow it? The only ones I see even trying are some of the Indy guys.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;358842...The only ones I see even trying are some of the Indy guys.

-clash

And the RPGA.

I think the Indie guys have it right.  They tend to make complete games, though they are tightly focused on one particular thing.  Dogs is about moral authority, etc.  No one plays such a game expecting to continue it for years and years.  Play out a storyline, or even a single session, then move onto something else.

Quote from: flyingmice;358841Damn, this sounds familiar... Where have I seen it before?

-clash

Yeah, I always find it a bit disheartening when the great revelation on a way to approach something is what I already do. I am with you again on this but I would go one step further. Most folks just assume you cannot make money at RPGs. This is wrong. You can. You have things that work against you much like Balb points out but it is not quite as bleak as it is painted. Essentially, to make money, you need to run a business. I know, sacrilege!!!11231! I am a game designer, I must be doing it for the love of the game!!!11!2 Now, there is nothing wrong with running you business as a hobby or just having your hobby that you print out books you wrote about or whatever but to then jump to the assumption that you cannot make money on it seems odd to me.

For instance, far bigger issue than "Buy once, play forever" (not as big a problem as you might think) is the Buy one, everybody int he group reads it. Essentially, your market is reduced to about 1/5 of the total game population. Again, not the end of the world but it then influences how you build your products. No, nothing nefarious like cripple-ware but you might take the angle of building more towards player utility or group utility than just game.

For instance, why are squirrel books so damn successful? There are many reasons but focus in on the one that applies to the above point is general appeal. I sell a lot of books to folks who do not even game because they like the art or are squirrel fans or find the concept funny. It is a broad appeal and a way to address the issue.

In general, and Clash, I suspect you know this, a way to address the points Balb brings up include dedicated management to profit margins and that means managing all aspects of risk and production expense. Also, utilize techniques and technologies that work like POD, e-books and varied distribution channels. I mean, I could probably write a book about it (but you know how long-winded I am).

The problem with indie games of the tightly-focused variety is that they have very limited appeal and limited replay value. Less than boardgames (in spite of point 1 below).

I think more comparison with board games is needed in this analysis. Let's see where it takes us.

You know, there are a huge number of board games, quite a few of them "evergreen", from Monopoly to Settlers of Catan. Buy one and you've got a lifetime of enjoyment, yes? So how do the companies make out?

1. There's more to life than Monopoly. People buy multiple games because they offer different experiences.

1a. But that still doesn't explain why Monopoly is evergreen.

2. The barrier to play is low. The evergreen games are easy to pick up. Nobody is really scared to buy one or to give it as a gift. This feeds into network effects in terms of both having people to play with and name recognition.

3. Cost is limited, which is another form of low barrier to play. Ditto on "space required for one game".

So far I don't think any of these reasons is all that special. Here's where things get interesting:

4. A large amount of the value of the game is bound up in tangible bits. A well-used but complete copy of Monopoly isn't very attractive. An incomplete copy of Monopoly is somewhere between a PITA and unplayable. You can replace a property card, or a token, with a handmade copy. A missing Chance or Community Chest card can't be easily replaced without affecting the game. Result: you not only get your copy of Monopoly at Target, not eBay, but you quite possibly go through several copies in a lifetime.

Now to an extent point #4 has been touched on as why some RPGs have been moving toward a more bits-intensive approach. However there's another way of looking at things, which is instead of looking at bits as a way of monetizing games, look at games as a way of pushing bits. That is arguably what we see in the historical miniatures wargaming market--there are companies that make miniatures, and there are many different ways to play with them. Hobbyists and small publishers supply the rules, while big(ish) companies supply the miniatures.

They're pretty smart IMO: they've found a way to sell toys to adults, and the market is never saturated since we're talking about a self-justifying product anyway. (I mean, if you make a nice mini, people will want it.)

So my conclusion is that RPGs can certainly go the route of walled markets analogous to GW, where one company provides not only the rules but also the pieces. But you can also monetize the hobby by focusing on the parts that hobbyists appreciate but really can't easily produce for themselves.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;358786These two bits contradict each-other.

World of Greyhawk of Masks of Nyarlothep and the like were essentially selling imagination. "Here's some stuff to make your campaign more interesting, some stuff you'd never have thought of by yourself."

Not coincidentally, Cthulhu, the game that stuck to selling imagination, is the one with the least mechanical changes of any of the three-decade-old games. No need to mess with the mechanics when you're selling imagination.

It can be done. It's just a lot more difficult than releasing endless rules expansions and the like. It reminds me of something Robert Pirsig said in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about university papers: imitation got you a definite C, imitation masquerading as originality got you a B, genuine originality might get you anything from an A+ to an F. It's easy to think of the market equivalents.

I think this is fundamentally right. Think of it like selling books: if you have an editorial process that publishes good-stuff -- stuff people will buy because it stimulates their imagination -- you'll make money.

I'd add that some of the highly successful CoC books (and others) are -- essentially -- art books. I think that's a huge appeal of the Warhammer stuff, also.

And I think it's also correct that quality is difficult to maintain and requires consistent vision, vigilance, an editor with a good filter, etc.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;358843And the RPGA.

Sorry, AM - I have no idea what the RPGA does as it holds no interest for me personally. If they are out there recruiting, that's awesome! I didn't mean to slight there.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;358842The underlying asumption here is - as always - that the market is shrinking, dying, fading slowly into the West and remaining Galadriel. This has been the mantra of gamers since the heady early days, yet when I go to Cons - including GenCon - I see tons of kids. My own gaming group is mostly in their teens and early twenties. most of the people I talk to online were not even born when I started play. If this is the case in an atmosphere where everyone has given up expanding the market, what would happen if we actively try to grow it? The only ones I see even trying are some of the Indy guys.

-clash

I'm not assuming the industry is failing, I'm just arguing there is a conflict between monetisation and delivery of what's core to the hobby.

That said, I should have talked about the small press.  But then again, there are others here far better qualified than I am to do just that...

Quote from: Balbinus;358853I'm not assuming the industry is failing, I'm just arguing there is a conflict between monetisation and delivery of what's core to the hobby.

That said, I should have talked about the small press.  But then again, there are others here far better qualified than I am to do just that...

I didn't say you were making that assumption, Balb, but if you look at the responses, most of them do make it. Hinterwelt, for one, is growing the market. I see the appeal of his silly little squirrel games to non-gamers - I mean that in a good way, Bill - being silly and little add to their appeal.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;358852Sorry, AM - I have no idea what the RPGA does as it holds no interest for me personally. If they are out there recruiting, that's awesome! I didn't mean to slight there.

-clash

Oh I didn't think you did, but I thought I should point it out. There are going to be 4 or 5 Gameday events just this year, (nearly everytime there is a major book release- so for example, PHB3 and Dark Sun, and I am pretty sure I saw a gameday for Gamma World, as well as Weekend in the Realms and possibly one other). So every couple of months you probably have a customer-oriented gameday event taking place near you, and many/most towns ALSO have an active weekly or monthly Living Realms meetup that is just an open invite going on as well.

I know it's been discussed before, but that's the tangible benefit of treating gaming as something you can do with fellow enthusiasts (who might end up as your 3 closest friends) rather than "only my 3 closest friends."

And once again, it's a soft sell- Nobody charges for LFR. It gets people playing by merit alone.

Quote from: flyingmice;358855I didn't say you were making that assumption, Balb, but if you look at the responses, most of them do make it. Hinterwelt, for one, is growing the market. I see the appeal of his silly little squirrel games to non-gamers - I mean that in a good way, Bill - being silly and little add to their appeal.

-clash

No offense taken. Those were two of the design/production goals for the game.

Quote from: flyingmice;358842The underlying asumption here is - as always - that the market is shrinking, dying, fading slowly into the West and remaining Galadriel. This has been the mantra of gamers since the heady early days, yet when I go to Cons - including GenCon - I see tons of kids. My own gaming group is mostly in their teens and early twenties. most of the people I talk to online were not even born when I started play. If this is the case in an atmosphere where everyone has given up expanding the market, what would happen if we actively try to grow it? The only ones I see even trying are some of the Indy guys.

-clash

Clash has got a good point here.

I'd like to know why the long tail of selling used games has not been brought up. The monetization of RPGs is affected when the value of out-of-print games has increased beyond their own cover value. Case in point is the D&D 3.5 PHB which is going for an average of about 50% over its own cover value now.