mearls: A Prediction

Mearls (

mearls) wrote,
@ 2005-07-04 14:30:00

A Prediction
Mongoose has announced that they are bringing back Runequest. IMO, this signals a touchstone event in the timeline of economics of the RPG business.

These are my predictions for the next few years in the RPG business.

1. The first wave of print d20 companies are mostly gasping for air. Simply put, with one exception they failed. Nobody in the RPG business understands how open source works. I can count on half of one hand the number of people who understand d20 enough to build products for it.

2. Non-d20 companies have been locked in an ever-downward spiral. We haven't seen a bump up in their sales as the d20 companies have failed. Oddly enough, d20 companies seem to think that leaping over to non-d20 games (or d20 crippleware) is the way to go. There hasn't been any evidence (aside from message board chatter) to suggest that this strategy is working.

3. The time period from this summer and into the next year or so will be the last stand for most of the "industry."

4. After that period of collapse, the RPG industry will slide into a situation similar to what we see with miniatures, TCGs, and CMGs - one major player, one to three mid-tier players, and no one else of economic consequence.

5. If a theoretical 4e is open sourced, we'll see a much healthier growth of the industry around it. The growth curve will be shallower but longer.

To paraphrase Ryan Dancey, a madman is anyone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result (though never seeing it) every time.

The RPG "industry" is chock full of madmen.

(Read 77 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Industry Impact

rsdancey
2005-07-05 09:15 pm UTC (link)

A number of companies have flourished in the post-d20 era that likely would not have existed without the OGL to enable them.

In addition, the two dozen or so d20 companies that were able to get more than one or two books into distribution were training grounds for a whole new generation of designers - even if the work they did was less than stellar, the feedback their work engendered likely taught them some important design lessons. Sturgeon's law will apply: Most of everything is crap - including new designers. But the non-crap percentage of the people who got a shot they might not otherwise have ever had will add value to our industry for years to come. Like you, for example.

RPGs are suffering right now from two problems of their own creation and four problems not of their own creation, and the combination of all six factors are stressing the business of RPG publishing nearly to the breaking point.

RPG's own problems:

1) RPGs in their current format are still "20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours".

2) Too few RPG designers regularly play the materials they write, and too few RPG publishers insist on effective playtesting of the materials they publish.

External problems:

3) The War On Terror has sucked several hundred thousand people in our core demographic out of the country, and put another several hundred thousand people also in our core demographic in the affected families into financially challenging circumstances.

4) The "new engine" of growth in our industry was organized play. Unfortunately, a whole new "organized play" format has taken the world by storm and it doesn't help the gaming industry at all. That storm is poker.

5) MMRPGs are finally starting to have an impact on tabletop RPG play patterns. World of Warcraft boasts more than a million active players. For the first time, I believe ther are more on-line RPG players than there are tabletop RPG players. People are making the decision to forgo tabletop game sessions in favor of on-line play sessions.

6) E-commerce is taking away a sizable share of traditional brick & mortar revenue. This revenue is being concentrated in a handful of brands like Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh! and D&D rather than being more liberally spread to middle tier publishers - because shoppers are less and less likely to see or become interested in a product they were not already shopping for.

These problems are all contributing to immense pressures on the local game store. Those pressures in turn are revealing what many of us in the industry have feared for several years: That the traditional game store model is not successful enough to generate enough profit for ownership to be worth the struggle to operate the stores. So the stores are closing.

The death spiral goes like this:

--> RPG publishers make product that isn't good enough to capture and keep a large player network.

--> Retail stores, undermined by forces beyond their control, and lacking effective products to fight back with, start to close in increasing numbers.

--> Publishers, seeing their traditional sales channels evaporating either fold as well, or attempt to change their model of distribution - likely by agressively embracing e-commerce. Which in turn makes it even harder to justify running a brick & mortal retail store.

--> With the local hub of the network severed, the acquisition engine also falters and new players stop being recruited into the hobby.

--> The total number of active RPG players declines as normal attrition is not replaced by sufficient new acqusition.

At this point, one of three things must happen:

1) RPGs cease being a viable business.

2) A new generation of outsiders, unshackled by the conventional wisdom of the original publishers arises with all new games, new customers, new play patterns and new channels of distribution.

3) Wizards of the Coast single-handedly keeps the RPG industry viable through an effective mass market acqusition strategy and the efforts of the RPGA, although it is a "viability" consisting only of small one and two person companies without much profit. At some point, an element of #2 (the new guys) may show up anyway and start growing the hobby without WotC's help.

I'm betting on WotC, but it won't be easy, and it won't be pretty.

Ryan

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Industry Impact bcwalker 2005-07-05 09:44 pm UTC (link)
	"20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours"? I probably do know what you're talking about, but I don't follow your use of terms. Could you please rephrase? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Industry Impact

rsdancey
2005-07-05 11:14 pm UTC (link)

Many RPG sessions consist of a very limited amount of "roleplaying game", surrounded by a lot of argument, community dialog, eating, and other distractions.

Dave Wise, who was one of my Brand Managers at WotC, and was a talented writer and editor for TSR, is married to the person who first made the observation, after watching his gaming group, that D&D seemed like 20 minutes of fun packed into four hours - which was her way of saying "shouldn't this game be more fun, considering the work and time everyone seems to be putting into it?"

I agree with her. It should be more fun.

We suffer the inefficiencies of the current RPG systems becuase they're better than other options: cops & robbers, playing house, or improv theater. But that doesn't mean that we should be satisfied. A lot of the work that went into 3E was focused on making the game more consistent because consistency is a hallmark of efficiency. 3E is just demonstrably easier to play than 2E because of this level of consistency. Even so, we may have produced a net effect of subtracting 5 minutes of "non fun" and adding four minutes of "fun" at best. That still leaves a massive gap for improvement.

This is the kind of stuff that can be studied. The one-way market research room is invaluable. Watching players try to use the rules as written is one of the hardest, but most useful things the writer of those rules can do. Iterating through versions of the rules looking for a way that allows them to be expressed effectively, and testing that effectiveness, is one of the things that WotC earns credit in my book for pioneering and being willing to invest in over the long term.

There are so many other areas that need work though. Psychological profiling so that the DM knows what kind of players are in the group, and how to craft a session to maximize the fun for that mix of players would be fantastic.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Industry Impact

maliszew
2005-07-05 11:22 pm UTC (link)

How likely is it that anyone, which is to say any gaming company, would ever bother to do this? I agree it'd be great to study this sort of thing in detail, because I think it's the only way that future RPGs will cram more fun into four hours than they currently do. I imagine WotC is about the only existing gaming company with the resources to do such a thing. I just question whether the current regime there has any interest in this, although I may be selling them short.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Industry Impact rob_donoghue 2005-07-06 01:37 am UTC (link)
	Well, assuming any interest in playtesting exists, it's one core factor that can be easily looked for. Certainly, it's not quite the same thing as a broad, industry-wide market research, but it's certainly an index people can look for, which would serve similar purposes over time. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Industry Impact

rob_donoghue
2005-07-06 01:43 am UTC (link)

The 4 hours/20 minutes issue is the first one a lot of gamers who've switched to lighter systems cite, and one that is certainly not as ubiquitous to gaming as it is to D&D (Except insofar as D&D is ubiquitous in gaming) :)

This is certainly not a lightness uber alles assertion, but I think it's unreasonable to consider the only solution to the time compression is to go all the way to house/C&R/improv.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Industry Impact

rsdancey
2005-07-06 02:32 am UTC (link)

In my experience, most "rules lite" game systems simply substitute written rules for ad hoc rules made on the spot as necessary by GMs.

There are two big problems with that shift:

1) The GM has to be really good. Good enough to be an on the fly game designer. I'd call that person "extremely rare" and wouldn't try to base a business around their existence.

2) Game experience is not portable. What you learn with one GM may be exactly the opposite of how the rules are applied when you switch GMs. This creates network inefficiencies. Network inefficencies are bad.

I observed (2-way mirror) several groups who were given "rules lite" RPG systems as a part of an effort to understand how they were used and if the "liteness" was actually delivering any utility value. Using a stopwatch, we found that consistently zero time was saved in character creation, or adjudicating disputes. In fact, in some games, disputes lasted substantially longer because the GM could not just point to a written rule in a book and call the argument closed.

My opinion is that most people think "rules lite" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Industry Impact

rob_donoghue
2005-07-06 04:31 am UTC (link)

I'll totally buy that the bulk of rules light games resort to a degree of laziness and leaving things to be handwaved. But I also feel there are enough exceptions that I pretty strongly disagree with your conclusion. Of course, the fact that there are plenty of crappy lite games makes me skeptical of any test based purely on lite-ness. :)

Now, you raise some great reasons why it's hard for a lite game to be commercially viable, though I think #2 is a much stronger concern than #1. That's a potnetially neat discussion, but a bit of an aside.

But I look at your opinion, and the "better" bit jumps out at me. I recognize that enthusiasts like to declare lite games better than D&D as often as D&D enthusiasts like to condemn the lite. It's so much of a recurring pattern that it seems to have become pre-emptive. An assertion as simple as "Some lite games play faster than D&D" doesn't strike me as any kind of challenge to D&D, so it's a little disappointing when it's treated as such.

Feels like rpg.net. :)

Anyway, I can point to plenty of lite games seen, played and run that have had more fights (and scenes in general) in a given period of time than D&D. For the fastest games, I'd say about ~2-3x as many. In short, I think it's safe to say that my experience is so radically different from yours that the may simply be no basis for comparison. Am I saying they're better? Nah. But hopefully, that goes without saying. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Industry Impact

andrewe
2005-07-06 03:08 pm UTC (link)

I agree that trying to play D&D without the the rules for D&D wouldn't save much time. I don't think that tells us much, though.

If both players and GM have been trained to look to the rules to adjudicate everything, it's almost a tautology to say that rules that don't adjudicate everything won't be helpful to them. Similarly, if a group includes people who enjoy arguing details, a lack of detail just shifts where the arguments happen.

Our group plays rules-light. We don't try to provide mechanically balanced tactical wargame action. We don't try to simulate a fantasy environment in precise detail, either. If we did, heavy rulesets would be useful -- but we have zero interest in those things. And when we run into a difference of opinion at the table, everyone works together to resolve it quickly so we can get on with play. (Then again, we do that when we play Scrabble, too.)

Our group has one total newcomer, one person who's played freeform online games, and two D&D'ers. The D&D'ers were the players I've had to work with most heavily, because they've been taught that one has to be "good enough to be an on the fly game designer" to come up with interesting ideas. That's only true if you presuppose that interesting ideas must bring with them lots of rules.

I don't know if Ryan hasn't met groups whose styles are appropriate for a lighter ruleset, or if he doesn't care, because they're not his target market. But I think one or the other is the case.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Industry Impact

lucafabbricotti
2005-07-13 10:31 pm UTC (link)

I really share your opinion.
You can also go to the "detail route" if you want without rule heavy system. The only thing that you need is that your players accept the fact that what rules system or classical roleplaying says them(you need a rule for a lot of thing, you need wall, you need .....) could be false in their session.
Ok the people that has this view of RPG are not a good marketing target! :-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Industry Impact (Anonymous) 2005-07-08 12:48 pm UTC (link)
	Amber? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Industry Impact die_kluge 2005-07-08 06:09 pm UTC (link)
	Man, you really created a flamefest on ENWorld with this statement. here (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Industry Impact (Anonymous) 2005-07-13 10:22 pm UTC (link)
	My experience is exactly opposite. If you ever come on holiday in italy give me a call and i will be glad to show you in a game convention that rule lite games are simpler and faster. Pheraps it's only for me and two or three hundred people that i see playing each year, i'm a rocket scientist not a gam professional. Luxor luca.fabbricotti@gmail.com (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Industry Impact
(Anonymous)
2005-07-25 03:01 pm UTC (link)

As another 20+ year gamer, I agree with the criticism of "Rules-lite". At a fundamental level, it pulls the opportunity to participate AWAY from the players, and places it squarely in the GM's lap. Sure, you can do anything you want to, but it is only successful at the GM's whim. This removes much of the game from the system, more than most players are aware of at first, turning it into a "Simon Says" playtime.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Industry Impact andrewe 2005-07-06 03:31 pm UTC (link)
	I sort of just shook my head when I read this. Distractions and lack of focus on the game are social issues. (I'd argue that rules arguments usually are, as well.) Consistency is a laudable goal, but it seems these issues have a lot more to do with a lack of social contract within a group than they do just rules. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Industry Impact

rob_donoghue
2005-07-06 03:42 pm UTC (link)

Heh. The part the jarred me is that I honestly cannot remember the last time I've had a game I was in stop for any signifigant amount of time for a rules argument. It's been literally years, pprobably over a decade.

But I think you're right, I think it's about contract, and the common element of most of the social contracts I'm in is "Get on with the game." I think a D&D game can embrace that principle (When in doubt, it's +/-2 or a DC of 15 + 1/2 level) but I don't think the implict D&D contract does.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Industry Impact (Anonymous) 2005-07-07 03:03 pm UTC (link)
	Many RPG sessions consist of a very limited amount of "roleplaying game", surrounded by a lot of argument, community dialog, eating, and other distractions. Is this really a problem? Isn't getting together with friends and having a good time half the point of playing games anyway? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Industry Impact
(Anonymous)
2005-07-17 04:02 am UTC (link)

Absolutely right. It's amazing how some "professionals" (professional what, I ask?) don't understand this simple fact of gaming. It's more about having a good time with friends than focusing hard on the game. Intense, focused play may happen somewhere, but I've never seen it and have no desire to be a part of it. Only hardcore gamers are going to appreciate that kind of approach, and even then they might only appreciate it in theory.

As for the statements about improv theater and whatnot... that's only valid when you have the idea that RPGs are meant to be the equivalent of novels or films or TV shows, telling some big story. How about people who want it to be a game first and foremost and don't care if they are participating in a dramatic work of fiction?

Maybe Ryan's expectations are just out of whack... *shrug*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Industry Impact

the_never
2005-07-11 04:00 pm UTC (link)

On the one hand, sure. Play should be more focused and involved. Thats one thing you can observe in a wargame or a card game. It's either one guys turn or it's the other guys turn, usually. Even if the Magic player is only thinking his move through, there's kind of a limit. And in any case, he's thinking. He's very involved. He's not talking to his friends or anything.

On the other hand: 1) I like the socialization aspects of my weekly game. I even like when they spend a few moments recounting something cool from a previous campaign. "Say, this is like that one time, at the bridge over that volcano..when those salamanders attacked. Remember that?.." Man. 20 minutes suddenly goes by as everyone retells the story.

On the other hand- I've done writeups of our campaign sessions every once in a while and there's usually literally too much continuity to write down. Usually it's so much going on that I don't bother. Even those shorter episodes where I start out by thinking "not much really happened this session" and then I start to list it all out-- it often gets very involved. And I'm not talking detailed accounts of round-by-round action, either.

So anyhow, I don't disagree that the disparity between gaming and extraneous activity exists. But I also think it's A) natural, B) healthy, and C) your numbers are (maybe?) a bit exaggerated. The numbers are not quite anything like 20 minutes vs 4 hours. I think it's probably more like 40% play versus 60% extraneous activity (or even the reverse, for some sessions).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Twenty Minutes of Fun in Four Hours
(Anonymous)
2005-07-28 11:09 pm UTC (link)

> Twenty Minutes of Fun in Four Hours

This is an interesting and perseptive observation, however isn't it an unavoidable consequence of suspense? Don't you need a lot of "mundane" normalcy in order to properly contrast the "fun" moments. I think a good example of bad pacing is the second Indiana Jones movie. In an attempt to make it more "fun" it was none-stop action. This left me exhausted after the opening sequence and from that point on it never stopped. The first movie had a lot better pacing where the moments of action were intermixed with quiet periods for the audience to catch their breath.

Turning back to gaming, half the fun in gaming is the suspense of not knowing whether that apparently emty room is in fact empty or finding out that that mundane looking item is truly wonderous. If every other item you pick up is wonderous, then your perspective on what is and isn't wonderous changes.

I agree that 1:12 ratio of fun minutes to mundane minutes is probably low, but I wouldn't want the ratio to creep up beyond 1:6 or 1:5. Anything more than that and the "fun" would be "less fun" when compared to the "no fun" (if you catch my drift).

Regards,
Rob McDougall

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read 77 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs