From ENWorld:

Quote from: ENWorldAt PAX East a panel took place entitled "What Is Happening to Tabletop Roleplaying Games?" It featured Ryan Dancey (CEO of Goblinworks which is producing the Pathfinder MMO, architect of the Open Gaming License, and one of the people who spearheaded D&D 3E), Luke Peterschmidt (CEO of Fun to 11), Derek Lloyd (owner of the game store 'Battleground Games and Hobbies'), Luke Crane (Tabletop Games Specialist at Kickstarter and RPG designer of Burning Wheel, Mouseguard and more), Matt McElroy (Marketing Director at DriveThruRPG/OneBookshelf and Onyx Path which currently handles WoD products) and Mike Mearls (senior manager of D&D Next). [83 comments]

It's well worth listening to the whole recording if you have an hour to spare, as it contains plenty of interesting summations of RPG publishing over the decades, plus a lot of discussion about how great Kickstarter is and why it's the latest of a series of industry expansions which included the advent of desktop pubishing, the Open Gaming License and d20 System License, and now Kickstarter. It also touches on the various times the RPG industry has almost died (from what Dancey says, the rise of World of Warcraft seriously hit the industry, and later surveys while he was at CCP working on Eve Online indicated that a lot of people playing these MMOs had once played tabletop RPGs but now played MMOs instead, not in addition to).

Ryan Dancey also goes into the various surveys from ICv2 over the last few years (those ones which have put Pathfinder as the world's leading RPG since 2010 or so, although he acknowledges that this isn't a great way of determining sales - they call a number of retailers and simply ask what their top five selling RPG products are within a given month; no numbers, just a ranking), which leads to an interesting exchange between him and Mike Mearls.

Dancey: ...some of those games we talk about being mid-market kind of games, they're on this list. Some of the games that are coming out of Kickstarter are on this list... you know, FATE is on this list, Exalted is on this list.. and then we've got this classic duel between Pathfinder and D&D. I wish I could stand up here today and say, like, you know, any given game you ask me and I can tell you how much it's sold, sales, I have no idea, it's impossible to tell. Y'know anecdotally I can tell you that most of the games on this chart, with the exception of Pathfinder and D&D, they're probably not selling more than 20,000 units of whatever their core product is, and some of them are probably selling less than 10. It's hard to say, especially with games that might have a lot of supplements and add-on products, what the total volume is for any one of these games. And ICv2 lumps them all under one category so every sale of Mutants & Masterminds is in that one line, not just the core books.

But here's the thing I want you to see... some of these games are the classic games, the games that we've seen, y'know, for four decades, and some of these games are relatively brand new games that no one's ever seen before, and they change. So the thing that was really interesting to me is that if we had looked at this data from the 90s - and I have data that's kind of similar to this that was collected by an out-of-print magazine called Comics & Games Retailer - and if you just looked at the top five games from like 1990 to 1995 they were essentially the same five games every month, month after month after month. It was very, very predictable. The frothiness, the rate at which these games change and appear on these lists and go away is new. And certainly the fact that D&D is not the number one game on this list is definitely new, that has never happened before in decades. So, there are some weird things going on in this market. We don't have any quantitative data, I can't put a number on it, but we have this kind of qualitative sense that there has been change, that it's easier to get success but it's harder to keep that success.

Mearls: Oh, I think what's interesting about this graph if you were to take the word "sales" off - I can't see the graph [something]... there's actually [something] well who's releasing the most supplements this actually maps almost perfectly to that measure. And I think the big change we're seeing is in the 90s there was a sort of expected tempo of .. for a tabletop roleplaying game you expected every month that you played Mage or Werewolf or D&D or some of the D&D settings, every month there's a new book. And what we're seeing now is that's not really, no longer the case for a wide variety of reasons. Really, outside .. I realise there's only one or two companies that are still able to do that ... we're not seeing the book-a-month pubishing pattern that we saw ten years ago. And I think that's one of the real big disruptions, where, you know, and there's a lot of questions and is that a good thing for the industry, is it a bad thing for the industry, and what does it actually mean for the ongoing tabletop hobby.

Dancey: And I think, one of the things you mentioned to me before the panel, too, Mike, was that this is really myopic, it's really only going to talk about retail sales, it's not capturing book trade, it's not capturing online, it's not capturing Kickstarter, it's a really myopic slice of the data.

The conversation continues amongst the panel about Kickstarter and the way companies use it to produce sequential different products rather than extended product lines - new games, not expansions.

Dancey: Yeah. Ok, so here's our last topic, which I suspect a fairly significant number of people in this room would like to hear Mike talk about.

(A short sequence of show-of-hand questions establishes that of the people there in the room about an equal number have played Pathfinder and D&D in the last month).

Dancey: OK, so here's my giant spiel. I do not work for Paizo Publishing. I'm not a member of the Paizo Publishing staff, and I'm not here to represent Pathfinder. I'm just moderating this panel. So, Mike is now going to debate an empty chair [laughter]... so, and, prior to this panel I sent the slides round to everybody and I said 'Hey Mike, this is kinda how I see, like, the next three years of life in the, at the top of the chart. Two big, muscular sluggers are gonna duke it out and when that's done one of those guys is gonna be laying on the mat'. And Mike said "I don't see it that way", so Mike, why don't you say what you told me about your theory.

Mearls: Yeah, so this kinda goes back to what I was talking about earlier about the change and about how we look at the ongoing support for D&D and how I think this ins actually interacting with tabletop games in general. So I kinda have this theory I developed, I call it the Car Wars theory. So back in 1987 when I was 12 I bought Car Wars, it was the game I bought that month, and it had a vehicle design system. And I spent hours and hours and hours building new Car Wars vehicles and drawing maps and just playing with all the things around the game but very rarely able to actually play the game, because in order for me to play the game I had to get my parents to drive me to a friend's house and then get that friend to actually want to play Car Wars and then teach him all the rules and all that other stuff, right? And in addition to having Car Wars, and D&D and other stuff, I had my Nintendo and I had my Apple, too. And I bought new video games at about the same rate, maybe once a month if I did chores or I had a little part time job, I'd get maybe one new game a month.

What has changed now is that a game like Car Wars can work very well if I'm not getting a new constant stream of games. Because I have all this time wherer I want to be gaming but I can't play a game, so I'll do all the stuff that exists around the game. But now thanks to, like, this phone... [something] smartphones, tablets, Steam, uh, XBox Live, PSN, I can buy games whenever I want. I mean, I was at the airport yesterday and I was bored so I bought Ten Million for my iPhone and I just started playing. Because I have other games on my phone, but I thought, nah, I'm sick of the games I have, I'm just gonna buy a new one. That would have been perfect time, back in the 80s, to like work on my D&D campaign, or read that month's D&D expansion, or work on new designs for my, uh, for for Car Wars. But what's happening is we have so many new games coming in that the amount of time that one game can take up without having you actually play that game, like World of Warcraft where you just log in and play, or you do things like in the auction house, thta's part of play, right, trying to get resources, you're selling stuff for actual money that's helping you play the game.

I believe that's what's really happening to tabletop roleplaying, is that it used to be a hobby of not playing the game you want to play. And there are so many games now that you can play to fill all those hours of gaming, you can actually game now, and that what's happening is that RPGs needed that time, we, a GM or DM needed that time to create the adventure or create a campaign, a player needed that time to create a character, allocate skill ranks and come up with a background, and come up, you know, write out your three-page essay on who your character was before the campaign. That time is getting devoured, that time essentially I think is gone, that you could play stuff that lets you then eventually play a game or you can just play a game. And people are just playing games now.

And what we're really doing with D&D Next is we're really looking at thriving and surviving in that type of market. If you've playtested the game, you see we've run much simpler with the mechanics, things move much faster when you play... one of our very early things was was to say, look, I was playing Mass Effect 1 or 2 at the time. I can complete a mission in Mass Effect in about an hour and a half. So why can't I complete an adventure in D&D in that time? Why does it take me 4, 8, 12 hours just to get from page one of the adventure to the end? I mean, yeah, you can have huge epic adventures but I can't do it in less than four hours.

Dancey: You didn't want to have 20 minutes of fun packed in 4 hours.

Mearls: Exactly, exactly, yeah. And so it's looking at the train and saying, well, things have changed, and tabletop roleplaying in a lot of ways hasn't changed with the times. We've been doing the same thing, the same way, that we were doing back in the 80s. I mean, the game mechanics have been refined but really until indie games [something] no one had taken a look at the core essence of what makes a tabletop roleplaying game tick and taken it apart and rebuilt it. And so in a lot of ways with D&D, and you know Ryan has the slide, that's really not how we see it at all because for me that boxing match, it isn't D&D against any tabletop roleplaying game, it's D&D versus the entire changing face of entertainment, of how a tabletop roleplaying game... that's the best thing you can do with your friends. But what about when you're home alone, or when you're online, or when you're waiting in line at the airport and you just want something on your smartphone. The big question for, specifically for D&D is, if you're a D&D fan, what can we do to fill that time in a way that's engaging and fun for you? To take those settings and characters and worlds, the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, or whatever, and bring those to life for you in a way that we haven't been able to before. Because in the past it's always been.. we have a new setting, we have Eberron, we're gonna do the 300-page book, and it's gonna be for the TRPG and that's where it' gonna begin, and that's where it's gonna end. All of our back-catalogue and settings, if we're not publishing it for the RPG line, are we doing anything with them, probably not, that's it, all we do is the TRPG. And so for us, it's really been looking at the entertainment, not just tabletop roleplaying, but entertainment as a whole, everything that people do now to engage themselves in stories, thinking where can D&D thrive within that terrain? And what can we do, starting with the tabletop roleplaying game, to make it more acessible, to get that new generation of players in. And even the current generation who are strapped for time and have a million other options, what can we do to live within that environment?

The too-long-didn't-read version of that, I think (and this is my own interpretation of what Mike Mearls was saying) is that much of the stuff we used to enjoy around an RPG we don't do any more, and we do other entertainment-related things with that time instead. So D&D (as in its settings and characters) is focusing on doing those other entertainment things rather than just being a tabletop roleplaying game - the goal, obviously being that "D&D" as a brand flourishes. And, further, that that means it doesn't matter to them what Paizo is doing with Pathfinder, because D&D doesn't need to be the top-selling tabletop RPG (not that I'm saying it won't be - I expect it will be again come next year, though time will tell) as long as D&D as an overall entertainment property is doing a whole bunch of things.

Link.

To listen to the panel in its entirety: http://slangdesign.com/rppr/2014/04/panel-discussion/what-is-happening-to-tabletop-roleplaying-games-panel-at-pax-east-2014/

Opinions?

I certainly welcome a simpler edition of D&D but i havent seen that people play RPGs any differently due to video games or would want them to play differently. The only thing that is different now for me is my gaming friends have family's so that does mean somewhat shorter games. However that change isnt because of WoW, it is the natural affect of getting older and has always been around. I do not need my rpg to move at the pace of a video game. But i do want the mechanics to facilitate whatever pace we reqiure and not get in the way too much. I am a bit skeptical on the point about time being devoured and things like gm or player prep are no longer viable somehow. I think it is akin to the sort of reasoning that gave us 4E in the first place. I think rpgs are still played in the same way they were before.

QuoteThe too-long-didn't-read version of that, I think (and this is my own interpretation of what Mike Mearls was saying) is that much of the stuff we used to enjoy around an RPG we don't do any more, and we do other entertainment-related things with that time instead.

I agree 100% with this. I remember circa 1980 there were people doing what we would recognize as a first person shooter deathmatch with AD&D 1st edition.

At the 80s and 90s went on I noticed certain types of players to fall by the wayside to take up other forms of gaming.

QuoteDancey: You didn't want to have 20 minutes of fun packed in 4 hours.

Mearls: Exactly, exactly, yeah. And so it's looking at the train and saying, well, things have changed, and tabletop roleplaying in a lot of ways hasn't changed with the times.

Oh for fuck sake they both don't get it.

The core of playing tabletop roleplaying is the EXPERIENCE of being a character in another place doing interesting things. The point is not to play the game. But rather to live the experience with the flexibility of a human referee.

In my view the #1 purpose of a given set of mechanics is to make this as easy as possible with human beings in the loop. The #1 purpose of the entire product line is to present something that people are interested in experiencing.

If you try to compete with ease of prep and play against the alternatives you are going to fail period.

I thought much of what they said was quite insightful. Particularly the bit about the radical change in the way people spend their free time. It is definitely the case that 30 years ago the number of distractions, pace of life, and intrusion of electronic devices were all radically different. Sitting down for 2 hours to map out a dungeon was a pretty reasonable proposition - anything else you did with that time would not be much different: perhaps reading, or passively watching TV. Now, 2 hours of free time are likely to get filled with a half dozen 'active' things - surfing the web; social media; the instant gratification of computer based games; etc. I still love to sit down and read over a game book or work on a setting, but it takes unusual effort.

I agree with Mearls - people today are less likely to spend time away from the table fiddling around with or learning RPGs. Those 30 and 50 minutes chunks of time are now taken up with iPad games, social media, etc. So for most players, and certainly for prospective new players, RPGs are something that start the minute you sit down to play, and end the minute you get up from the table. I know that's the case for everyone in my group except me.

It's also further evidence that WotC sees the booming boardgaming hobby, and its demographic of social geeks who enjoy getting together face-to-face, as the natural growth pool for D&D, rather than the hardcore char op WoW player. With regards to D&D Next, I suspect (and hope) that this means char op will not be a driver of game development.

Quote from: DanceyYou didn't want to have 20 minutes of fun packed in 4 hours.

God, I hate this.

Quote from: Haffrung;745018It's also further evidence that WotC sees the booming boardgaming hobby, and its demographic of social geeks who enjoy getting together face-to-face, as the natural growth pool for D&D, rather than the hardcore char op WoW player. With regards to D&D Next, I suspect (and hope) that this means char op will not be a driver of game development.

From reading and listening to this, I envision the worst case is that Mearls pushes for a D&D that is quick to prep and to play with just enough options in the mechanics as not to be too simplistic.

And if this is the case then the old pattern of widening range of options presented in splat books will defeat the purpose. So what left? Perhaps to attempt to make interesting settings and adventures.  If your combat encounter only takes 10 minutes to finish what left to fill out the remainder of the time?

Quote from: Mark Plemmons;745021God, I hate this.

Nice to see you jump in. So as an experienced author and designer what do you think defines tabletop rpgs from the alternatives? What your trick in making your products more competitive?

The big problem I see here the idea that D&D can be this big brand that NON gamers will line up to buy stuff from.

Marvel can do that. People who aren't really comic book fans still flock to the movies, buy the toys, and other assorted merchandise. I don't see that happening on the same scale with D&D.

D&D IS a big deal and a powerful brand in rpg circles. Outside of that its barely a blip on the radar as far as pop culture stuff goes. The tabletop rpg experience live with other people is the core experience that other mediums cannot duplicate. Moving focus away from that and trying to pimp the brand to other entertainment forms will likely be a bust.

Success with such an undertaking would require D&D to be a much bigger deal beyond the gamer/ former gamer demographic.

The truest thing Ron Edwards ever wrote is the first half of "Who Nuked the Applecart" -- basically, D&D of the 80s was a fad and is never coming back.  RPGs will never be "mainstream".

And I really doubt the "left TTRPG for MMORPG" thing.  I suspect it's a lot more a matter of "Were leaving TTRPGs anyway, stumbled over MMORPG."

And as for 'twenty minutes of fun in four hours,' I'm sorry you, your referee, and the rest of your group all suck.

Quote from: Old Geezer;745029And I really doubt the "left TTRPG for MMORPG" thing.  I suspect it's a lot more a matter of "Were leaving TTRPGs anyway, stumbled over MMORPG."

Yeah, plus I've seen a lot of cases where it was a case of "Dysfunctional player in a tabletop context, genuine asset in an MMO". Some people genuinely don't want the unique tabletop RPG experience because the fun they are after is delivered much better by other formats these days, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Quote from: Warthur;745032Yeah, plus I've seen a lot of cases where it was a case of "Dysfunctional player in a tabletop context, genuine asset in an MMO". Some people genuinely don't want the unique tabletop RPG experience because the fun they are after is delivered much better by other formats these days, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I agree with this, and the sooner we can sort everyone to the best game for the fun they're after, the better off all of us will be.

Quote from: Warthur;745032Yeah, plus I've seen a lot of cases where it was a case of "Dysfunctional player in a tabletop context, genuine asset in an MMO". Some people genuinely don't want the unique tabletop RPG experience because the fun they are after is delivered much better by other formats these days, and there's nothing wrong with that.

What would be specific examples of this?

Besides individuals who like to play video games in "god mode", who did not get that type of opportunity with tabletop rpg games.

@Old Geezer: Ron E. was still wrong. D&D in the oughties was huge. More money than the 80ies, even with inflation. Slightly fewer players maybe, but not if you count non-US.

The Applecart was actually nuked by Mearls himself. And now he wants to cure it by more of the same thinking?

Dancey is also getting old with his insight from 1999.

Quote from: Old Geezer;745029And as for 'twenty minutes of fun in four hours,' I'm sorry you, your referee, and the rest of your group all suck.

I read that as a criticism of the systems, not the players. That the "fun-to-fiddling-with-mechanics" ratio is off in modern design.