# Tabletopocalypse Now - GMS' thoughts about the decline in the hobby



## Ghostwind (Oct 23, 2010)

The Designer Monologues » Blog Archive » Tabletopocalypse Now

Gareth raises some good points but despite the decline in sales, I feel that gaming as a hobby remains fairly strong. 

Comments?

(Let's avoid the snarkiness that EN folks tend to associate with GMS, please.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 23, 2010)

Sales only reflect the health of the gaming industry, not the hobby.  There are still millions of tabletop RPG enthusiasts around the world.  They may not be playing the same game as you or I, but they're still carrying the hobby' torch into the future.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 23, 2010)

Okay, a few notes as I read:

1) Specialty stores are not a good indicator - didn't most of us start playing at home, not in specialty stores?  And certainly specialty stores are not a good measure of sales - Amazon could fill that gap rather nicely.

2) How many books sold by the Rank #5 game sold for the quarter doesn't not speak to how many #1 through 4 sold.  There's an indication there that the hobby may be focused on a small number of games, but that's not an indication of its overall size.

So, questionable foundation leads to questionable conclusions.

Are we at the height of the 1980s?  Probably not.  But are we lower than we've ever been?  I don't think we have evidence to say.  Some folks seem to miss the fact that the hobby's always been a niche - that's the thing with hobbies.  Being small didn't kill us off in the past, so it isn't necessarily a doom in the future either.


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 23, 2010)

Ghostwind said:


> The Designer Monologues » Blog Archive » Tabletopocalypse Now
> 
> Gareth raises some good points but despite the decline in sales, I feel that gaming as a hobby remains fairly strong.
> 
> ...



I am in the middle ground.  I do feel those that say the hobby is going strong do have their heads in the sand and are ignoring the obvious signs of a declining hobby.  On the other hand, the "hard data" given tend not to be the strongest of signs.  The key is these unreliable signs still almost all point in the same direction.

In this article the biggest flaw is pointing to the ICV2 survey.  That survey is very flawed since it only goes by surveying hobby retailers.  It doesn't measure non-hobby sales at all.  It surveys a line of stores that clearly has a deserved reputation for often bit being the most professional and business-like (i.e. many make business decisions based on whether they like a game line rather than it's sales and marketing potential).

Looking at all that is out there and I see that the industry is shrinking and that definitely means the hobby is shrinking.  That doesn't necessarily mean it is near a critical issue yet.  It should be a wake up call for all who are concerned about it to look at ways of growing the hobby, though.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 23, 2010)

Unfortunate title for the post. 

I first read it as "*Tablet*opocalypse", expecting a post on how the rise of tablet computing was dooming the RPG industry. I'm going along waiting for a mention of the iPad at the gaming table . . . 

Reading it I understand it as Table*Top*ocalypse. 

Nevermind!


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 23, 2010)

Umbran said:


> 1) Specialty stores are not a good indicator - didn't most of us start playing at home, not in specialty stores?  And certainly specialty stores are not a good measure of sales - Amazon could fill that gap rather nicely.



I played at home, but bought my product from what would have been a specialty store in those days (a hobby and craft store, the first hobby gaming store wouldn't hit Delaware for another couple of years).

I see a lot of polls here asking where people learnt the game.  Most starting gaming because friends and/or family recruited them.  However, where did they find gaming.  I bet if you traced it back a connection, or maybe two, you would start seeing a majority of people who started gaming because of the hobby gaming stores.  Those stores started it and the people they got into the game continued the growth.

Of course, even if you take that as a given, it does point out the most recruitment tool for RPGs, the players and gamemasters!  That itself has challenges because I have noted that a very large segment of that group keeps itself insulated in their own longtime groups, in their longtime games, not adding to the hobby.  Nothing is wrong with that, but when it is such a large segment, it does hurt the impression the hobby has on others and the ability to recruit them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 23, 2010)

Re: Specialty stores

I'm a bit of an oddball.  I'd heard of the game before ever seeing it, and was initiated by a fellow student doing an intro adventure in the school library after classes let out.  I bought my AD&D PHB for that in a comic book shop.

A few months later, we moved to a small town in a different state.  There, gaming supplies (and comics) such as could be found were only in a college bookstore and a small Mom & Pop bookstore.  I exhausted most of their variety within a year, buying only things like character sheets and the occasional new mini that showed up.  New modules disappeared as fast as they showed up because they typically only ordered one or two.

To find anything beyond the bare bones stuff I could get locally, I had to save up my $$$ and wait for one of our monthly family trips to Topeka or Kansas City- 1-2 hours away- to go to a specialty store.

(Yes, past Dino-riding Ninja Pirates in the snow...though not uphill since Kansas didn't order any of those when it was under construction.)

And while I'm convinced online retailers can fill a lot of the gap that existed back then, I think that the healthier specialty shops- esp. those with an online presence- are still the best places to find the full range of gaming supplies.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Oct 23, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Okay, a few notes as I read:
> 
> 1) Specialty stores are not a good indicator - didn't most of us start playing at home, not in specialty stores?  And certainly specialty stores are not a good measure of sales - Amazon could fill that gap rather nicely.




True. It's a while I take my books from Amazon. No sales for my game shop, but I actually spent _more_ on RPG books.

Anecdotal, of course, but it's an example of what you said..


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Oct 23, 2010)

I find the _howwah_ at the potential loss of specialty stores interesting. For the first decade or so of the hobby, when it grew the fastest, there _weren't_ any! So while I agree that their loss will hurt the hobby I rather doubt that it will simply keel over and drop dead without them.


----------



## delericho (Oct 23, 2010)

Glyfair said:


> I am in the middle ground.  I do feel those that say the hobby is going strong do have their heads in the sand and are ignoring the obvious signs of a declining hobby.  On the other hand, the "hard data" given tend not to be the strongest of signs.  The key is these unreliable signs still almost all point in the same direction.




Agreed. According to the experts, the tabletop hobby has been dying for decades, and yet we're still here... but it would be a mistake to think that tabletop gaming is doing 'well'. At best, I would suggest it is doing okay.

But I wouldn't expect it ever to die off completely, and in fact think it may not shrink too much more. There are some things that tabletop gaming can offer that online gaming can't (at least for now; possibly, ever), the primary one being the feeling of sitting around a table with a bunch of friends - sure, online tools provide a facsimile of this, but it's just not the same.



Umbran said:


> 1) Specialty stores are not a good indicator - didn't most of us start playing at home, not in specialty stores?  And certainly specialty stores are not a good measure of sales - Amazon could fill that gap rather nicely.




Yep. RPGs could be selling more than they ever had, and the FLGS could still be dying due to internet sales.

(However, there are other problems associated with the death of the FLGS. Amazon and the like are great for buying all sorts of things, but only if you know what you want before you go there. D&D and the like need some sort of advertising presence to make people aware of the games in the first place, or their availability on Amazon is for naught. Of course, the FLGS is probably not the best possible venue for this, and probably hasn't been for some time, but it's still better than nothing.)



> 2) How many books sold by the Rank #5 game sold for the quarter doesn't not speak to how many #1 through 4 sold.  There's an indication there that the hobby may be focused on a small number of games, but that's not an indication of its overall size.




It also says nothing of numbers #6 through #20 and beyond. In fact, I would expect there to be two or three games selling (relatively) huge numbers, and then "the rest". It happens that Dresden Files is #5 this time, but it could very well have been any one of many other games; it's just a question of how the numbers have come back this time.

Or maybe not. Who knows?


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 23, 2010)

One thing that _hasn't _changed in 10 years is GMS's snarkiness . I know, Ghostwind, but  does he have to insult everyone who disagrees with him? Jeez.

That said, it was an interesting read but I think he's making some premature  conclusions and ignoring some of the more salient posts by the "non-pro" responses that he ignored. I question the collapse of the tabletop RPG market  in 5-10 years (or sooner, he says). As some have said here and in that  thread, he doesn't say _anything _about internet sales nor does he  mention the fact that there are a lot more RPGs available now than 10-20  years ago. Both factors greatly dilute game store sales and top five  lists.

Overall I think he is probably right in terms of general decline from the past through today and into the future, but that it won't as much be a  collapse as a slow decline, one that started 20-25 years ago with a few  peaks and troughs. There will probably be further peaks and troughs, but  the overall trend will continue. At some point, maybe 20-30 years from  now, tabletop RPGs will be so fringe that virtually no one plays them  anymore. 

We can also look at this from a generational perspective. As I see it, Gen X is the primary RPG Generation, with Gen Y  second and the Boomers a distant third. As the years pass a good portion of Gen Y  will convert (and have already converted) to computer games; the much small Boomers  will die off. Those among Gen X that left the hobby probably aren't coming back if they didn't with 3E or 4E. Sure, Essentials--and the Red Box in particular--might re-gather a few of the flock, but chances are that if you are diehard enough to play D&D in your 30s, 40s and 50s, you probably already play D&D and never really stopped. 

The big question is whether the next generation, "Gen Z" and younger Gen Yers (say, anyone born after 1990 or so) can capture the RPG bug. Call me a pessimist, but I think the numbers will be very small and not enough to make up for the dwindling older generations. But again, this will mean a long and slow decline rather than an outright collapse.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 23, 2010)

> For the first decade or so of the hobby, when it grew the fastest, there weren't any!




There weren't _many_, to be sure, but they were out there.  Its just that for many of the stores, RPGs were not their initial core business.  Then again, since they predated the hobby, they couldn't be.  Most of them sold comics, sci-fi/fantasy books, wargames and the like.

To say otherwise would be like saying there weren't any specialty stores pre- M:tG.

I mean, the specialty stores I hit in Denver, KC and Topeka in the late 1970s and early 1980s were definitely established businesses long before Gygax's game went to the printers.


----------



## Stormonu (Oct 23, 2010)

Unfortunately, living in the south US, it's hard to get a grip on how gaming is faring; gamers tend to hold their cards pretty tight to their chest down here.

Overall, the article tends to strike me as "The sky is falling and I won't accept any other evidence otherwise."  Instead, I gather (from my playing group and other gaming groups I keep in touch with) that the RPG industry is limping along, spread out over multiple editions and genres of games.  

For my own experiences, I've met/played with a steady stream of gamers since the '80s, and as soon as I lose a player or two, it seems I've got a replacement waiting in the wings.  Not much for growth, but steady it seems.  I have been noticing lately that a lot of my gamer friends have "moved on to" or come from games other than D&D, something I hadn't seen since White Wolf first came out with their game line.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 23, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There weren't _many_, to be sure, but they were out there.




The idea that specialty stores are important to RPGs are based on two things: sales, and a place to play.  

Sales? Today these can happen quite handily online.  Specialty brick and mortar simply isn't necessary any more.  

A place to play?  Well, consider that for a minute.  We supposedly had millions of players in the 1980s, right?  If play in the specialty stores was supposedly important for all those, then lots and lots of us should be claiming that specialty stores were a big part of our play in the 1980s, right?

Well, do we see that happening?  Why is the iconic play in the parent's basement, and not the specialty store?  How many of us really found our fellow players through specialty stores?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 23, 2010)

Every single producer of every rpg could close their doors today and the hobby would continue.  The industry may someday die, but the hobby is immortal.  Books may decay and rot, but they'll be taped together, scanned, or copied with a pencil.  I remember coying the entirety of the ranger class by hand in 1e because we had 6 players and 2 phbs.  The state of the hobby is strong.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 24, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Every single producer of every rpg could close their doors today and the hobby would continue.  The industry may someday die, but the hobby is immortal.  Books may decay and rot, but they'll be taped together, scanned, or copied with a pencil.




That doesn't really make sense. Books are easy to print in the modern world, and PDFs even easier. If there were no RPG books being printed, it would be because nobody found it worthwhile to make something available through print-on-demand; given the ready availability of gaming systems and POD, that means there's less than a dozen players.

Hobbies come and hobbies go, and there are many that are lucky to have a few reenactors play around with them every so often. I don't see RPGs disappearing any time soon, but I don't find it inconcievable that in 50 years, it's something only old folk play (like Bridge is) and 50 years after that merely a chapter in books about games.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 24, 2010)

I'd venture there are more people playing Bridge than there are rpgs.  Regardless, word of mouth is how the hobby got started, not fancy product on the shelves.  It will continue that way if the industry goes belly up.  I'm not suggesting it's in any danger of doing that anytime soon, but the dirty little secret is that the hobby doesn't need the industry.  It never did.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 24, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> We can also look at this from a generational perspective. As I see it, Gen X is the primary RPG Generation, with Gen Y  second and the Boomers a distant third. As the years pass a good portion of Gen Y  will convert (and have already converted) to computer games; the much small Boomers  will die off. Those among Gen X that left the hobby probably aren't coming back if they didn't with 3E or 4E. Sure, Essentials--and the Red Box in particular--might re-gather a few of the flock, but chances are that if you are diehard enough to play D&D in your 30s, 40s and 50s, you probably already play D&D and never really stopped.



Here's a thought:

The glory days of D+D were in the late 70's-early '80's - right when the Gen-Xers were in school-college and had lots of time.

What do you want to be there'll be another round of glory once those same people again have lots of time - when they retire, about 10-20 years from now.

Lan-"looking forward to the '20's already"-efan


----------



## Umbran (Oct 24, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Every single producer of every rpg could close their doors today and the hobby would continue.  The industry may someday die, but the hobby is immortal.




I'm not convinced that is true.  

The data exists out and about to play games so long as someone can read English, yes.  But RPGs are social games - they need a body of players to play.  If you cannot scrape together enough people who want to play, you don't have a game, and the hobby, as far as you are concerned, is dead.  If nobody can scrape together people to play the hobby as a whole is dead.

Gamers are like a species of animals - somewhat rare ones.  It is possible that we get isolated into smaller and smaller pockets, until such time as we become extinct.  I don't think this is likely any time soon, but I don't think one can reasonably deny the very possibility.  No particular element of human culture is "immortal".  Even something as broadly used as a language can, eventually, die.

On the other side, every single person who says, "The hobby is shrinking!  Doom is coming!" seems to ignore one notable fact - eternal growth is not feasible.  So, our hobby, or any hobby, has times when it grows and times when it shrinks.  Things come and go and come back again.  

So, how do you tell the difference between normal ebb and flow, which is transient, from the decline into death?


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 24, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Here's a thought:
> 
> The glory days of D+D were in the late 70's-early '80's - right when the Gen-Xers were in school-college and had lots of time.
> 
> ...




I think we already saw this over the last ten years, with people settling down with a stable job, family, etc, and being able to carve out some kind of "poker night." That is pretty much the story with my group; the group I played in during the early 2000s was single guys in their late 20s with no established careers; the group I play in now, eight years later, is married guys in their mid-30s to early-40s with stable jobs, families, and not a lot of free time but enough to support a twice-monthly game.

But maybe you are right, that there will be another wave in 10-20 years, I don't know. I think these things happen in cycles, or waves: 



*The Founding Years, or Golden Age: *The first wave in the mid-to-late 70s that established the core of hardcore players, mainly Boomers now in their 50s and 60s. This was a small but dedicated group. Some probably went back to wargames, some are dying off, some still play on.
*The "D&D Boom": *The second wave that came in during the early-to-mid 80s and numbered in the tens of millions, most of whom dwindled away in the late 80s to early 90s as they graduated high school and "grew up."
*The Rise of Vampire and Indie Gaming: *The third wave that came in during the early 90s with Vampire, mainly younger Gen Xers and later Gen Yers, or Millenials.
*The 3E/OGL Revival: *After the "Dark Years" of the late 90s, D&D experienced a resurgence with 3E with some of the D&D Boomers returning, some of the Indie crowd converting, and a new generation of younger gamers coming in, the Millenials.
*Red Box/Essentials? *I don't think 4E brought in a new wave of gamers, which is one of the reasons WotC came out with the Essentials line - trying to create a fifth wave. It remains to be seen if this works or not.

p.s. As an almost 37-year old private high school teacher (thus very low salary and with a five-figure college debt) I am certainly not 10-20 years away from retiring! LOL.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 24, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I'd venture there are more people playing Bridge than there are rpgs.




Sure. But I've heard that 40 year olds who start playing Bridge get told that it's nice to see some young people pick up the game.



> Regardless, word of mouth is how the hobby got started, not fancy product on the shelves.  It will continue that way if the industry goes belly up.  I'm not suggesting it's in any danger of doing that anytime soon, but the dirty little secret is that the hobby doesn't need the industry.  It never did.




On one hand, I think you're wrong; if there aren't new books, then there won't be new people, and even the old people will get tired of working with faded photocopies of the same old, same old, and drift off to a hobby where every conversation with friends doesn't go "D&D? I thought they stopped making that?" "Well, they did, but..." 

On the flipside, the industry is not separate from the hobby. If the industry doesn't exist any more, then it's because there's not enough people were buying material; and given the tiny (even negative) margins and the part-time hours some RPG companies run on, that's damming. If there's no industry left, it's because there's no hobby left to feed it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 24, 2010)

> The idea that specialty stores are important to RPGs are based on two things: sales, and a place to play.



For me, at least, they've never been about a place to play.

Actually, I think they're more important as a place of gathering and community.  I also think they're more important than Amazon & their ilk for the health of second tier- a.k.a. small market and indie games.

But however important they are, they are not indespenible- the hobby can do fine without them.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Oct 24, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There weren't _many_, to be sure, but they were out there. Its just that for many of the stores, RPGs were not their initial core business. Then again, since they predated the hobby, they couldn't be. Most of them sold comics, sci-fi/fantasy books, wargames and the like.



You are correct, I mis-spoke. (Mis-typed?) I should have said _gaming_ specilist stores.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 24, 2010)

Ed_Laprade said:


> You are correct, I mis-spoke. (Mis-typed?) I should have said _gaming_ specilist stores.




Like I said, there were, just not many.

Unless you're using "gaming" to refer to RPG gaming _exclusively_- and I haven't seen many of those at ANY point since 1977 forward- the stores I went to qualified.  

In 1977 in Denver, the comic stores sold all kinds of AH boardgames & wargames...and D&D and Dragon magazine.

In KC in 1980, King's Crown (and whatever one it was that was in the mall) both had loads of wargames...and D&D, and walls and walls of minis from Ral Partha, Grenadier and Heritage (and other companies) in 15mm and 25mm sizes.  The one in the mall prided itself on making sure it restocked TSR's entire line of modules every month, and would do special orders.

The one in Topeka (same time period) is where I first saw Heritage's Great Dragon- the one that was a lead mini the size of some of WotC's plastic ones- and for just $25 (later pictured in Dragon mag)...and where I bought the original Deities & Demigods instead.

I didn't mention it before, but when I moved to the D/FW area in 1982, I discovered Lone Star Comics.  That chain- still around today and thriving (7 stores at last count)- stocked comics, genre novels, memorabilia, minis, gaming magazines (Dragon, Dungeon, White Wolf, Pyramid, etc.) and a wide variety of RPGs.  Its a formula they maintain to this day, FWIW, and is found in several other successful game stores in the area.

The stores were out there during that era; they were just rare.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 24, 2010)

I didn't find the article very informative... it harps on one data point and attempts to draw conclusions that I don't think are warranted. Did the author have a very successful career in the role playing game industry? If not, that is probably not his fault since almost no one ever has. But maybe his experiences have affected his judgment here.

The problem with the role playing game industry isn't that it is dying (it may or may not be, neither GMS nor I probably have any way of knowing)... the problem is that it isn't very profitable. And it probably will never be very profitable.

How much are people willing to pay for an RPG product? Negligible to very little. What type of revenue stream is actually _required_ to actively participate? None. What level of initial investment is required to participate? None to very small. What is the scope of the appeal of the products? Narrow. What type of margin is earned on the few products actually sold? Slim.

Those are the facts of the "industry". You're not going to be driving around in a Mercedes with your earnings from the RPG industry. You'll be lucky to afford a Hyundai.

It's a tough racket. That's how it is.

But the good news is that _gaming_ as a whole is doing very well. Boardgames are experiencing a veritable Renaissance. People like to sit down together _in person_ and play games. And the "light Euros" like Settlers and Carcassonne have really opened up the American market to accepting more complex, strategically interesting games than it has accepted in the past.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 24, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> Did the author have a very successful career in the role playing game industry?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 24, 2010)

Don't feel bad, Korgoth, I've never heard of him either, despite being in the hobby since '77 and playing in more than 100 rpg systems- including a couple of playtests- and still having 60+ on my shelf.

And I'm not surprised, since I checked out his contributions to the hobby here: 

Gareth-Michael Skarka :: Pen & Paper RPG Database


and not a one of those is on my shelves or has ever been in my possession.


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 24, 2010)

delericho said:


> But I wouldn't expect it ever to die off completely, and in fact think it may not shrink too much more.



I do not think anyone has ever suggested it will die off completely.  As many have suggested, bridge is a game that's popularity (at least in the U.S.) is literally dying off*.  The average age in the ACBL was closing in on sixty a decade or more ago, and I am sure it has crept up lately.  However, the game is  still strong and the national events (3 times a year) gets attendance that probably at least equals GenCon.  

I have a theory about a contributing factor that I will discuss in another thread at some later date.  In a nutshell, I think right now RPGs have become more specialized than they used to be and there is a lack of an RPG that tries to appeal at some level to most of the gaming styles.  

* I recently spoke to a bridge acquaintance about the local unit and he mentioned that the size was shrinking and mostly because the mainstays were getting older and passing away.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 24, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> Those are the facts of the "industry". You're not going to be driving around in a Mercedes with your earnings from the RPG industry. You'll be lucky to afford a Hyundai.




I think you left out at least one important factor. A bunch of the people here have written RPG material for publication. You have to pay cashiers and garbage men, but musicians and writers (RPG and other) will put out their product for free if they have to. Sure, you pay for polish, and the best can do pretty well, but there's no limit of competitors keeping the paygrade down for the merely good.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 24, 2010)

Figures also don't include free games, which may be more prevalent than might be expected because TRPGs 'recruit' via teenagers and students. Both groups with little cash for multi-volume sets and much more appreciation of free content than most 'consumers'.

For a student, possibly, the rules are more like a browser, i.e. a framework into which you put your group's content. With many thousands of fees and debts to pay it's plain good sense to put cost and gameplay before brand.

In the UK the 'transition' from teenage player to 'adult' gamer has long been fed by a persistent network of university and college gaming clubs (many of which accept non-students through the door). Did some basic research into the games they were playing about 18-24 months ago and free or budget games were much more prevalent than the 'top 4'. It was interesting to see that rules tended to focus on player choice and novelty. Didn't look at AD&D on its own, but there also seemed to be a sense of 'cool' attached to more modern games, alongside a sense of 'uncool' attached to older, larger brands.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Oct 24, 2010)

I brought this up in another thread, but I do find it interesting to note that he brought up the same fact I did, that Dresden Files RPG is #5, and the numbers for that are pretty small.

I think it's total hubris to think that a hobby "will never die".  Some do.  It may not die as long as you are alive, but like any cultural elements, some do not survive, or transform into something else.  There's a lot of people who want the industry to die so they can get back to "the pure hobby", but if you look at the real long picture...

...things change...

Study the history of retail, of culture (not just pop-culture), of media, and you can see how much things change.  Just studying a historical hobby book can show you how some end up dying off.  Don't assume what you love will survive.  Enjoy things today because the seasons change and everything has an autumn and winter--with spring being something new to replace what has been lost.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 24, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Don't feel bad, Korgoth, I've never heard of him either, despite being in the hobby since '77 and playing in more than 100 rpg systems- including a couple of playtests- and still having 60+ on my shelf.
> 
> And I'm not surprised, since I checked out his contributions to the hobby here:
> 
> ...




Mr. Skarka has been a somewhat notorious contributor at RPG.Net for years, mainly in the early 00s; I think he was banned for a year at some point, although why I don't know (reading through the comments of the linked blog you can see that his tone isn't always...friendly). Anyhow, he is probably known more in RPG.Net circles as a controversial figure than as a game designer; yet his "controversiality" is probably less for the content of his ideas and more for his interpersonal skills, or lack thereof.



JohnRTroy said:


> I brought this up in another thread, but I do find it interesting to note that he brought up the same fact I did, that Dresden Files RPG is #5, and the numbers for that are pretty small.
> 
> I think it's total hubris to think that a hobby "will never die".  Some do.  It may not die as long as you are alive, but like any cultural elements, some do not survive, or transform into something else.  There's a lot of people who want the industry to die so they can get back to "the pure hobby", but if you look at the real long picture...
> 
> ...




Good point, with an emphasis on _change. _RPGs will change, D&D fandom will change, but that doesn't mean it won't achieve a kind of cult classic status, a perennial immortality like card or board games. Now I would gather that D&D will be a lot closer to Pente than to Monopoly in 50 years in terms of how many people know and play it, but I do think it has a good chance of achieving some degree of classic status.

This conversation and others has an idea bouncing around in my head for a thread topic - namely whether RPGs and MMORGs/computer games are on the same spectrum or lineage, or whether they are two distinctly different creatures. I would argue that they are the latter; that computer games are not a "newer version" of RPGs but something else entirely. In other words, I don't think the relationship of tabletop RPGs and computer games is analogous to, say, the relationship of vinyl records, CDs, and MP3s. I think they are two separate modalities or creative forms, like books and movies.

In other words, the relationship of TTRPGs to CRPGs is more akin to books and movies than it is to vinyl-cassette-CD-mp3. Books are classics; as long as human civilization retains a somewhat similar form, there will be paper-based books just as their will be wooden violins and fountain pens and crystal glasses. But cassette tapes have almost entirely gone the way of the dodo.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 24, 2010)

I've long thought that the heyday of tabletop was over... at least for me. Nearing 40 and working 50 hours a week or more, the spirit is willing but the body is damn tired. 

the ability to get five or six adults together in person is a pretty big obsticale to overcome and I think it'll be one of the reasons why games either need to get smaller audiences or need to go online for that instant connection.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 24, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Don't feel bad, Korgoth, I've never heard of him either, despite being in the hobby since '77 and playing in more than 100 rpg systems- including a couple of playtests- and still having 60+ on my shelf.
> 
> And I'm not surprised, since I checked out his contributions to the hobby here: . . .



That's a bit incomplete considering he's the driving force behind Adamant Entertainment itself. A different scale to be sure, it is kind of like saying Chris Pramas's impact on RPGs goes no further than his own (substantial) authoring credits and excluding his founding Green Ronin and everything it published.

He'd been a more regular poster on ENWorld at one time as well.


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 24, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Didn't look at AD&D on its own, but there also seemed to be a sense of 'cool' attached to more modern games, alongside a sense of 'uncool' attached to older, larger brands.



I can say with certainty that D&D was considered "uncool" among those with access and willingness to play other RPGs since at least '80.  This is nothing new and the RPGs had their strong time during that period.



JoeGKushner said:


> I've long thought that the heyday of tabletop was over... at least for me. Nearing 40 and working 50 hours a week or more, the spirit is willing but the body is damn tired.
> 
> the ability to get five or six adults together in person is a pretty big obsticale to overcome and I think it'll be one of the reasons why games either need to get smaller audiences or need to go online for that instant connection.




Or will it become like bridge where the bulk of the players are the elderly and retired who have a lot more time and less ability for physical hobbies?  Maybe we'll have RPG cruises and RPGs will be a staple of every retirement community.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 24, 2010)

I can't agree with him.  I feel that there are four major flaws in his line of reasoning:

1) He's not mentioning the economy as a whole in his line of thought. Restaurants, pubs, business of all kinds are closing. This doesn't mean people aren't eating, or wearing clothes, or what-have-you.  This is not a phenomenon particular to the gaming industry.

2) Small speciality shops are the hardest hit by the Amazons and the Walmarts of the world. I've lost count of the umber of small grocery stores, butchers, bakers, etc. near me which have closed down due to competition with the increasing dominance of supermarkets. Small businesses closing down isn't an indicator that a industry is shrinking, it means it's consolidating.

3) Just because #5 on a list sold 3000 units doesn't mean you can conclude that #1 sold 3005 units. #4 on the list may have sold 50,000 units.  We don't know.

4) ICV2s figures are not reliable. They are based on a sample of interviews only, not an any actual sales figures.

In my opinion, GMS' conclusions aren't backed up by his evidence or reasoning.  I'm not saying that the market _isn't _shrinking - frankly, I don't know - but GMS' evidence is shaky, and his reasoning unsound, in my opinion. Based solely on the evidence he cites, I can't reach the same conclusion as he does.  If he has any further information, of course, I'd be happy to read it.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 24, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> I've long thought that the heyday of tabletop was over... at least for me. Nearing 40 and working 50 hours a week or more, the spirit is willing but the body is damn tired.
> 
> the ability to get five or six adults together in person is a pretty big obsticale to overcome and I think it'll be one of the reasons why games either need to get smaller audiences or need to go online for that instant connection.




Yes, this is true for many of us. But let's look at it another way: Is there anything you would rather be doing when you do have "hobby time"? I'm not talking about work time, family time, or even personal passion/art time, but just plain fun time.

Speaking for myself, outside of work and family, there is still a period of time each day that I can devote to stuff that I want to do. As with many serious fans of RPGs, I spend way more time thinking, reading, and conversing about RPGs than I do playing them. My current game group meets every two weeks for about four hours; I would say that I spend a good 1-3 hours daily on RPG-related activities: websites and discussion boards, reading books, working on my campaign setting, etc.

During my 28-year RPG history my focus on RPGs has ebbed and flowed; I have experience a few multi-year hiatuses from the hobby in which I didn't play at all, rarely bought or read anything. In other words, I go through active and inactive phases, but I find myself always come back to active phases. At some point within the last couple years I came to a realization: I would almost certainly always love RPGs and be a fan of some degree, at least for the foreseeable future. I kept on thinking I would grow up and out of interest, but I always come back to it. So I surrendered, fleshed out my collection, and am now happily enjoying my status as a lifer!

My point being, even when life gets busy and one can't game for years on end, the serious fans of the hobby have a way of finding themselves back to it, at some point, at some point. There might be D&D players who dwindled away in the mid-00s, didn't get drawn back by 4E, but may get sparked by 5E in a few years (or Essentials, for that matter).

This doesn't mean that RPGers aren't dwindling; I would guess that they are, but that there is a rock-solid core that will now allow the hobby or industry to die for many decades. The _industry _may collapse in 5-10 years, but it will almost certainly be reborn, albeit in a newer, smaller form. As any D&D player knows, death isn't always permanent. Any "collapse" that the RPG industry goes through in the near future will almost certainly be followed by a rebirth and reconfiguration in a smaller--but maybe healthier?--context.



Morrus said:


> I can't agree with him.  I feel that there are four major flaws in his line of reasoning:
> 
> 1) He's not mentioning the economy as a whole in his line of thought. Restaurants, pubs, business of all kinds are closing. This doesn't mean people aren't eating, or wearing clothes, or what-have-you.  This is not a phenomenon particular to the gaming industry.




True. However, it seems that the "escapist entertainment industry" usually thrives in periods of economic down-turn. I would guess that people aren't seeing less movies, for instance; they are _renting _less, and video stores are going out of business right and left, but that is not because people are _watching _less, but because they are getting their movies online or in the mail.



Morrus said:


> 2) Small speciality shops are the hardest hit by the Amazons and the Walmarts of the world. I've lost count of the umber of small grocery stores, butchers, bakers, etc. near me which have closed down due to competition with the increasing dominance of supermarkets. Small businesses closing down isn't an indicator that a industry is shrinking, it means it's consolidating.




Yes, exactly. See my point about about video stores, which is an appropriate analogy, I think. The main reason game stores have been dwindling away is not because people are _playing _less, but because they are _buying_ elsewhere, namely online. The economic climate only increases this tendency as it makes the difference between a $35 + tax price and a $23 price all that much larger.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 24, 2010)

Morrus said:


> In my opinion, GMS' conclusions aren't backed up by his evidence or reasoning.  I'm not saying that the market _isn't _shrinking - frankly, I don't know - but GMS' evidence is shaky, and his reasoning unsound, in my opinion. Based solely on the evidence he cites, I can't reach the same conclusion as he does.  If he has any further information, of course, I'd be happy to read it.



The publisher itself makes those numbers public. His cited evidence is really only evidence that the #5 RPG in the ranking is deeply low numbers. It isn't evidence the market as a whole is shrinking necessarily, an alternative yet plausible explanation could be that the market is consolidating into becoming a duo-opoly. The numbers from the #5 publisher don't prove nor disprove such an explanation. But our evidence to a duo-opoly is only slightly more _believable_, IMO.

Maybe the #1/#2 duo-opoly is growing or maybe it is shrinking. Maybe it is hoovering up the customer base that would have been more friendly towards smaller publishers.


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 24, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> The publisher itself makes those numbers public. His cited evidence is really only evidence that the #5 RPG in the ranking is deeply low numbers.



The contested information isn't his sales though, it's that he is #5.  He was only placed their by a survey that is certainly based on what is considered very unreliable and selective data.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 24, 2010)

Glyfair said:


> The contested information isn't his sales though, it's that he is #5.



Would it make a difference to GMS's point if it surveyed that publisher at #6? I don't think so. Maybe if the _reality_ instead had the Dresden Files at #15, then there would be error worth a distinction. 

If the difference between #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, etc., is just a few hundred units either side of a few thousand, then we have a discussion point still.

If the _actual_ Dresden numbers of a few thousand should have had the real world rank of _deep double digits_, and the survey had units left *uncounted* by the high few thousands other published products (seriously?!), then the survey has zero utility in the industry. But I don't think the flaws in the survey are of a magnitude approaching that.

I guess I think the greater point is that the results GMS point to are more evidence of what's going on at the fringe of the statistical bell curve of market data. Like the blind men touching the different parts of an elephant pronouncing to each other when they are touching, the ends of the bell curve don't tell us what's going on in the center, nor do the ends tell us what the shape of the bell curve has taken.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 24, 2010)

> That's a bit incomplete considering he's the driving force behind Adamant Entertainment itself. A different scale to be sure, it is kind of like saying Chris Pramas's impact on RPGs goes no further than his own (substantial) authoring credits and excluding his founding Green Ronin and everything it published.




Sorry, but that doesn't change my answer: I've not read word one of their stuff, so have no reason to have heard of that peson.

Pramas, OTOH, I have heard of.



> Mr. Skarka has been a somewhat notorious contributor at RPG.Net for years, mainly in the early 00s; I think he was banned for a year at some point, although why I don't know (reading through the comments of the linked blog you can see that his tone isn't always...friendly).




I don't spend any time at RPG.Net either, so again, no reason to have a clue as to who he is.


----------



## Cergorach (Oct 24, 2010)

#1 Sales where 5000+ (including pdfs) a Lot more then the 3000 stated.
#2 Maybe Q3 2010 was a slow quarter for games besides D&D/Pathfinder/40kRPG/WFRPG.
#3 D&D was always number one by a long way, it wouldn't surprise me if Paizo and Fantasy Flight Games caught up (relatively speaking).

While the specific case might not have merit (imho) that doesn't mean the pnp RPG industry is a healthy place at the moment, especially the print part of the industry. I have 25m+ of shelf space dedicated to RPG/wargame related books and boxed sets (add 9m of board games, a few cubic meters of miniatures). My game room/office is getting full and the amount of shelf space is getting increasingly sparse. A lot of that shelf space will be dedicated to completing a couple of old collections (AD&D 2E, Shadowrun, Battletech, Earthdawn, L5R 1E, OWoD, etc)., the new stuff is going to be limited to 40kRPG (FFG is not releasing a lot of supplements for this), Warmachine/Hordes hardcovers, Warhammer 40k/Fantasy rulebooks, and possibly some hardcover rulebooks from things I really like. Everything else will be pdf and will go on my iPad.

I also think that computer games, specifically MMORPGs are getting a lot of the pnp gamers. I've seen in the past a lot of folks playing pnp games over irc, forums, Ventrillo, Skype, etc. And to be honest I find that a poor excuse for the social interaction the pnp RPG excels in, why would folks want to play a RPG that way when there are boat loads of far more immersive computer (MMO) games out there? This isn't 10-20 years ago when a lot of the computer games weren't exactly immersive (bad graphics), very little multiplayer/interaction. If I have the option of playing D&D over Skype with a bunch of folks I don't really know or play MMO X (WoW, LotrO, DDO, EQ2E, etc.) I think I'll go with an MMO.

For me pnp RPG games are about sitting around a table with real life people (preferably 'friends'). The world we now live in is generally not 9-5 oriented anymore, so syncing 5+ folks for a regular evening is getting more problematic then it was 10-20 years ago. Add to that that a lot of folks that were in the 'golden' age RPG now have full-time jobs and have families. RPG publishers don't have the same connection to young people as they had 20 years ago, so a lot of introduction is left to the old folks, who don't really have time anymore to introduce new folks to the game.

The Internet and cheap (color) printers are also a thorn in the eye of most publishers. Free games, Open Source games, creative GMs, etc. There are also very few publishers that produce products I would advise players to initially buy. If I where to run a RPG campaign (haven't done so in years) i certainly wouldn't require players to buy expensive books, I either provide an Open Source document (OGL) or a page that explains the rules in as few of my own words as possible. Some of the books I would prefer players not to own (to much background information for a campaign). Heck, a lot of the new systems are superior then their old ones, but far to often the setting has moved on or has changed in ways I do not want to explore (Shadowrun, Battletech, WoD, Exalted are excellent examples), so I am often forced to disconnect rules from setting anyway.

Then we have games such as Descent (FFG) that are more then HeroQuest (MB) and generally less then a traditional pnp RPG. It's easier to get into and is presented a lot more attractively. It's also a board game that makes it more acceptable to a lot of folks then a nerdy pnp RPG, making it more casual.


----------



## Cergorach (Oct 24, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> Mr. Skarka has been a somewhat notorious contributor at RPG.Net for years, mainly in the early 00s; I think he was banned for a year at some point, although why I don't know (reading through the comments of the linked blog you can see that his tone isn't always...friendly). Anyhow, he is probably known more in RPG.Net circles as a controversial figure than as a game designer; yet his "controversiality" is probably less for the content of his ideas and more for his interpersonal skills, or lack thereof.



I think notorious is the right word, he has also waved his stick on these forums and my experience with that has left me with the initial reaction of skepticism of everything he professes as the 'Truth(tm)'...

He sometimes makes a good point, but even a broken clock is right twice a day ;-)


----------



## BryonD (Oct 24, 2010)

There are so many points to agree with and so many points to completely laugh at, that it is hard to know where to begin.

I think a major flaw in the whole conversation is equating "tabletop" and "the hobby".

To me, personally, that equivalence fits.  But if either of my daughters are gamers 15 years from now, electronic tools will be a presumption that is given no more thought than dice are to people my age.  And there may not be a dead tree to be seen anywhere.  

It is easy for me to think of electronic RPGs and immediately think of things like WoW or Dragon Age.  And while they both may be cool, neither of them meet my standard of being "the hobby".  "The hobby" comes down to total freedom of creation amongst the imagination of the players.  Maybe 25 years from now WOW3 technology will reach that, but I doubt it, and for purposes here I'm presuming it won't be there yet.  

There will always be a demand for purely imagination based RPGs and so the hobby isn't going to die.

Tracking the sell of books to track the health of the hobby is like counting wisdom teeth to track the health of a person.  Or, at this stage of technology, counting milk teeth may be a better comparison.

DDI isn't even the tip of the iceberg of change coming to the industry.

It is interesting to note that White Wolf is pretty much walking away from the industry.  And on one hand, that seems pretty damning evidence.  But, I don't think that follows the logic all the way through.  Yes, online games can generate vastly more income than pen and paper games.  So it makes total sense that successful games will move to that.  But, the other side of the coin is that same online community makes it feasible for two guys in their basement to provide games to the entire world.  And it makes it possible for the best options of hundreds of pairs to two guys to get their "word of message board" on their product out.  White wolf moves on to make huge profits (or fail) for a company and two guys move on to make solid income (or fail) for two guys.  And if those two guys move on to bigger things, there is more where that came from.  And in either case, their sales won't be counted in dead trees.

It is true that a lot simple players don't have a sense of the nuts of bolts of the industry.  And their comments should be taken with that in mind.  But, the other side of the coin is that the current field of micro-publishers are blinded by their own day to day livelihood needs. Change is painful and it can be hard to realize the need.  So while the gamers may not know how tall the stack is, they do know that some insiders are measuring it with last years ruler and that ruler is obsolete.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 24, 2010)

It should be noted that White Wolf merged with CCP Games in 2006, and since then they've been moving towards computer games... and with Ryan Dancey now there and aggressively promoting his "computer games are the way to go" view, it's no surprise that they're not doing much for traditional RPGs.

Cheers!


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 25, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> p.s. As an almost 37-year old private high school teacher (thus very low salary and with a five-figure college debt) I am certainly not 10-20 years away from retiring! LOL.



Fair 'nuff, but you're also about 10 years younger than the wave I'm talking about.  In 1980 you'd have been almost 7; I'm thinking of those who were 17 in 1980 who'll be empty-nester 57 in 2020 and retired 67 in 2030.  There's yer next round of glory years right there...the early 2020s to the mid 2030s, led by the same wave of people who made the first glory years ('78-'85) what they were.

Lanefan


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 25, 2010)

Ghostwind said:


> (Let's avoid the snarkiness that EN folks tend to associate with GMS, please.)




After reading that...lets call it a blog entry...I could see why people might be a little snarky.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 25, 2010)

To me, Tabletop gaming has one great strength and one great weakness:

*Strength*

A human dungeon master. Technology has come a very long way, but we aren't close to a real human thinking AI. Computer Games for all their great features (and they have a lot of them) cannot match the innovation and flexibility of a human mind.


*Weakness*

The player group. In order for a tabletop game to work, you need bodies to play. Just like you can't have AIs to DMs you can't have AIs to play either. 

You will always have loss of bodies as time goes on due to death, disinterest, and time constraints as one gets older. In order to maintain the hobby, those bodies have to be replaced.



Now what I see with technology today is interesting. On the one hand, modern games have taken a big bite out of Tabletop's strength. Games are smarter, more interactive, and actually do offer some options for imagination and flexibility.

On the other hand, technology is knocking away at Tabletop's weakness. Social Networking, real time video conferencing and a host of other projects are making it easier and easier to connect with new people from all over the world and have common interactions that mimic real life ones.

I could easily see the day when a 5 tv screen setup would allow me full video conferencing with 5 of my friends, anywhere in the world, in high definition real time streaming, and cost as much as an entertainment setup does today.

Under that model, suddenly I can get about 90% of the gaming experience I get now with my friends but with massive lowering of barriers to entry.




In the long run, I don't think the spirit of tabletop games will die...but tabletop itself will be transformed and merged with video games as a whole. Systems will combine the visual appeal and quick rules resolution of video games with the interactive nature and imaginative flexibility of a person driven tabletop system.

In such an era, it won't be your daddy's dnd anymore...but it will still be dnd more or less.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 25, 2010)

Amazon.com, Lulu.com, and OBE's POD programs will keep RPGs available for the forseeable future. Meanwhile, places like ENWorld, RPGnet, PnP, and so on provide places for people to get info, get turned onto new products, and talk hobby. Paizo.com offers more functionality than a hundred cardboard cutout booths in terms of supporting existing customers. Sales may be low, but product line "subscriptions" would have been unheard of 15 years ago, so I think the base has in some ways become more stable.

GMS has been wrong before, and will be again, and I think a lot of it, when it comes down to it, is his biases. I am not speaking of him personally but only concerning comments he has made here and elsewhere. First, he believes the industry provides the support needed for the hobby. In his view, if RPGs go out of print, the hobby belly-ups. I respectful disagree. I can think of several RPGs that have been out of print for twenty years or more and are still played, weekend after weekend. Second, he believes RPG players are looking for creative input from publishers, as opposed to what I would call resources. I think the opposite is true; I suspect most gamers rely on less than 30 pages worth of campaign fluff, but buy sourcebooks left and right because they save on prep time. Third, he believes RPG products are consumed. I believe that, by and large, they are read. I think sales are semi-independent of enthusiasm for playing. People buy RPGs books because they are cool, and they play because they have a group. They don't buy books that suck, and they don't play if they don't have a group that suits their needs.

Case in point. GMS's Tome of Secrets, a player's supplement for Pathfinder. I think he underestimated the sophistication of his audience. After it came out and response was not too favorable, he came here asking, "What do you want?" The answer, essentially, was, "A better book." ToS has few concepts or ideas you couldn't come up with on your own, plus some mechanics easily converted from 3.5, already available. The classes in the book were readily identifiable by "early adopters" as failing to meet Pathfinder specs for best practices; they had the lingo, but the accent was all wrong.

I suspect a lot of the "shrinking" in the RPG industry is simply that people already own many books. They would like to buy more, but they are more discerning than in the early Golden Age of the mid 70s, the boom of the mid 80s, the wild days of the early 90s, or the Gold Rush of the d20 scene. People aren't looking to buy, just to buy. 

It's like graphics cards. They need to be replaced from time to time, which is your base sales. Then you can get more sales when new games come out that require them; this is your "network externalities." If everyone plays WoW, sales for cards that run Wow well go up, and ones that don't, go down. Lastly, you can sell a graphics card to someone by making a graphics card that impresses them in some way. Maybe it can run monster graphics, or maybe it just has fan control, uses less energy, and benchmarks about 20% better -- either way, there is a price point at which it will sell. 

Plus, the d20 boom has a lot of publishers in the mode of overproducing; too many books, with too much art, sold at too high a price.

When paper becomes obsolete, we can drag out GMS's theory again and poke it with a stick and see if it growls. Until then, we keep on rolling.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 25, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> First, he believes the industry provides the support needed for the hobby. In his view, if RPGs go out of print, the hobby belly-ups. I respectful disagree. I can think of several RPGs that have been out of print for twenty years or more and are still played, weekend after weekend.




I agree with most of what you say, but I think your logic here is flawed.

Yes, there are games out of print that are still played every weekend.  But that's generally going to be play by people who came by the game while it was in print.  And eventually, for one reason or another, each of those people will stop playing.  

Then what?  

If there's nobody with a vested interest in bringing new players in _en masse_, you'll be faced with an ever-shrinking pool of players, that eventually evaporates into nothing.  It'd take a while, but it is fairly plausible.

Who has the real vested interest in reaching out and finding new people to play?  People with an economic interest - those who are trying to sell games.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 26, 2010)

Some RPGs will fade away with time; probably almost all of them.

However, it is possible that a certain few- big dogs like D&D, for instance- may survive for centuries, like chess, checkers, go and others, due to a hard core of players teaching the games to friends, family and acquaintances.

But only time will tell which RPGs, if any, reach that kind of status.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Some RPGs will fade away with time; probably almost all of them.
> 
> However, it is possible that a certain few- big dogs like D&D, for instance- may survive for centuries, like chess, checkers, go and others, due to a hard core of players teaching the games to friends, family and acquaintances.
> 
> But only time will tell which RPGs, if any, reach that kind of status.




If and when the copyright on the earliest tabletop rpg books expire and enter the public domain, will there still be a large enough audience that would want to reprint it?   Or for that matter, will there still even exist an audience by then?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 26, 2010)

Well, since you can't copyright the _rules_ of a game, that's not the issue.  Someone could make an RPG that has the same rules structure: the trick would be doing so without using the _unique terminology and other copyrightable elements within the game._

The question that remains is about the audience, and it's a valid one.  I'm willing to teach, but I don't currently have any students.  That may change, because I plan on playing RPGs as long as I'm able.  Given the longevity in my family and how long we tend to retain our mental faculties, that's another 40 years or so.

In that span, I expect I'll find others to initiate into the hobby, just like I have in the past.  Some of them may even stick with the hobby if I do it right.

So the answer is...only time will tell.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Oct 26, 2010)

I could care less. In some ways, I think the tabletop rpg's dying out on a retail level would be a good thing. I think the hobby is strongest with in the grass-roots like the OSR. Having said that, the hobby can't exactly die out when people are dedicated to playing. The fan support for out-of-print products is pretty big.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Well, since you can't copyright the _rules_ of a game, that's not the issue. Someone could make an RPG that has the same rules structure: the trick would be doing so without using the _unique terminology and other copyrightable elements within the game._




The OGL on D&D gives us a lot of that for the earliest RPG books. I don't think any non-D&D books really have people lusting after the rules; Empire of the Petal Throne surely doesn't, and even early Traveller is mostly Traveller world, not rules.

It's funny how little can block reuse; D20 Traveller makes Vargr OGL, and my first response was "Cool!" and my second response was "How useless". The name Vargr is protected, and I can make a wolfman species standing on my head; without invoking the Vargr name, it doesn't help at all.



ggroy said:


> If and when the copyright on the earliest tabletop rpg books expire and enter the public domain, will there still be a large enough audience that would want to reprint it?   Or for that matter, will there still even exist an audience by then?




Currently, works published prior to 1978, in the US, will leave copyright 95 years from publication (rounding up); 1/1/2072 for works published in 1977. Works published 1978 or later (or whenever in the EU) get 70 years from the death of the author (or 95 years if they're works for hire, at least in the US) which means works not-for-hire of Gary Gygax will leave copyright on 1/1/2079. Canada and a few other places are a bit more generous at life+50, which 1/1/2059.

Given all that, I have no hesitation that there will be reprints available, given the current trend of scanning everything, and the very low cost of making it available. But I strongly suspect that it will be like the 1789 American Cookery that I own; an interesting piece of history, but not something actually used for the purpose it was written for.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 26, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> Given all that, I have no hesitation that there will be reprints available, given the current trend of scanning everything, and the very low cost of making it available. But I strongly suspect that it will be like the 1789 American Cookery that I own; an interesting piece of history, but not something actually used for the purpose it was written for.




Same here.

Most of the copyright expired books I've come across over the years, were more for historical interest than actual practical use.  For example, an old algebra book from the late 1890's differs very little in content from an equivalent algebra book published in 2010 (besides the absence of colored pictures and glossy paper pages).


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2010)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> I could care less. In some ways, I think the tabletop rpg's dying out on a retail level would be a good thing. I think the hobby is strongest with in the grass-roots like the OSR.




The moral equivalent of all music being produced by garage bands?

A great deal of the creative strength and passion in gaming is found on the level of home craft, not in mass production.  But part of the reason you have that strength is that folks were drawn in by the retail market.  If you cease to have that market, you may find the home strength dissolving away.

There's an ecology to all healthy things.  Every element plays a part.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 26, 2010)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> I also think that computer games, specifically MMORPGs are getting a lot of the pnp gamers. I've seen in the past a lot of folks playing pnp games over irc, forums, Ventrillo, Skype, etc. And to be honest I find that a poor excuse for the social interaction the pnp RPG excels in, why would folks want to play a RPG that way when there are boat loads of far more immersive computer (MMO) games out there? This isn't 10-20 years ago when a lot of the computer games weren't exactly immersive (bad graphics), very little multiplayer/interaction. If I have the option of playing D&D over Skype with a bunch of folks I don't really know or play MMO X (WoW, LotrO, DDO, EQ2E, etc.) I think I'll go with an MMO.




As someone who has been playing over VTT for the past eight years now, I can categorically say that you are wrong.  The social aspect of VTT play is every bit as rich as tabletop play.  It's different sure, but, that doesn't mean it's inferior.  This attitude that VTT play is just a poor substitute for "real" tabletop really surprises me to be honest.  I mean, it's not like it's 1995 anymore.  Between VOiP programs, interactive battlemaps, streaming music and sound, you can make a very, very rich online game that is equal to any tabletop.


----------



## Aeolius (Oct 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Between VOiP programs, interactive battlemaps, streaming music and sound, you can make a very, very rich online game that is equal to any tabletop.




Even something as simple as an IRC chat room can work, in a pinch. While I haven't run a face-to-face game since 1994, I started DMing online in 1995. Given my hectic offline schedule, sitting at my computer for a few hours Sunday nights is challenging enough!


----------



## BryonD (Oct 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> As someone who has been playing over VTT for the past eight years now, I can categorically say that you are wrong.  The social aspect of VTT play is every bit as rich as tabletop play.  It's different sure, but, that doesn't mean it's inferior.  This attitude that VTT play is just a poor substitute for "real" tabletop really surprises me to be honest.  I mean, it's not like it's 1995 anymore.  Between VOiP programs, interactive battlemaps, streaming music and sound, you can make a very, very rich online game that is equal to any tabletop.



But you have also commented in the past on your runs of bad luck with face to face groups......

I have had some great VTT game experiences and it can be a ton of fun.

But, I can categorically say that FTF is superior.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 26, 2010)

AFAIK, it is either impossible or incredibly expensive for the VTT experience to include sharing a bottle of wine and a 7lb rib-roast with my fellow players, playing the gaming equivalent of "slugbug", or torturing your buddies with the aftereffects of your meal of a burger with onions, southern-style cabbage, and some beers..._*fweeeetshhhhhh*_

FTF beats VTT, 2 to 1.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Oct 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> The moral equivalent of all music being produced by garage bands?
> 
> A great deal of the creative strength and passion in gaming is found on the level of home craft, not in mass production.  But part of the reason you have that strength is that folks were drawn in by the retail market.  If you cease to have that market, you may find the home strength dissolving away.
> 
> There's an ecology to all healthy things.  Every element plays a part.




I disagree, I would say that a huge percentage of gamers were brought in by somebody who already played the game.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 26, 2010)

Why superior BryonD?

I'd totally agree that there are differences.  No question there.  But better?  Meh.  I wouldn't say that bad luck has been greater or less in FtF or online.  I've seen more than my share of unfortunate experiences in both mediums.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Oct 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Are we at the height of the 1980s?  Probably not.






Lanefan said:


> The glory days of D+D were in the late 70's-early '80's -






Mercurius said:


> *The "D&D Boom": *The second wave that came in during the early-to-mid 80s and numbered in the tens of millions, most of whom dwindled away in the late 80s to early 90s as they graduated high school and "grew up."




Obviously to spur a new RPG boom, we need to bring back the most recognizable thing from the 80's: the Mullet!


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 26, 2010)

Couple quick notes:

(1) The revelation that it only takes 3,000 sales of an entire product line to break the Top 5 of the RPG industry is a chilling number.

(2) Gareth, however, is being a little shifty with his numbers. _Dresden Files_ was released at the end of June. While they've only sold 3,000 copies in Q3, note that the book only went on sale a couple of weeks before the beginning of Q3.

So what?

Well, the Top 5 list Gareth cites is based on *retailer* sales. Evil Hat's sales numbers for DFRPG are based on sales to *distributors* and directly to customers. Which means that the bulk of the 5,300 copies shipped to _distributors_ at the end of Q2 were probably still being sold be _retailers_ in Q3.

Admittedly, in similar fashion, books shipped to distributors at the end of Q3 would not be getting sold by retailers until Q4 or later. But Gareth also neglects to mention that the figures "omit a big hunk of September’s sales", which probably negates some of that.

In short, the numbers are probably larger than Gareth is suggesting.

But Gareth is also, IMO, pulling another fast one. He wants to condemn the entire industry to the dustbin, but he's limiting his figures to distributor sales. And while the DFRPG line has sold 8,300 copies to distributors, its actually sold a total of 15,000 copies through all sales channels.

The only message these figures really seem to convey, to my eyes at least, is that hobby stores are now making up a minority portion of the RPG industry.


----------



## eyebeams (Oct 26, 2010)

My reply is at:

The Zombie RPG Industry | Mob | United | Malcolm | Sheppard

Basically, "death" is harped on to shift goalposts when we're talking about "descent into an irrelevant degree of attenuation" and anyone with common sense knows it, and industry activity is in no way responsible for the observable decline of broad-based interest.

Sites like this select for the hardcore. By and large hobbyists, not companies, are losing interest in tabletop RPGs.

I think many of you sense that there's something hollow about the creative direction of RPGs. The top games are all derivative and the spinoff movements are all examples of dogmatic schools of design. We're currently at the tail end of a economic meltdown compounded by an unprecedented intrusion of the values of marketing and commerce into interpersonal relationships via the Internet. Gamers are among the segment that I have observed uncritically absorbing these values and reproducing them. 

The natural results: derivative games (they have a history with known quantitative metrics -- sales and hits), an obsession with system over complex player/game relationships (they can be modelled in the absence of players to make qualitative statements) and other problems. Ironically, even while gamers say they want quantitative solutions, they don't vote for them with dollars or even page views.

It's supposed to be all about the numbers, but the numbers say you don't care about the industry *or* hobby -- or anything in between.


----------



## eyebeams (Oct 26, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> But Gareth is also, IMO, pulling another fast one. He wants to condemn the entire industry to the dustbin, but he's limiting his figures to distributor sales. And while the DFRPG line has sold 8,300 copies to distributors, its actually sold a total of 15,000 copies through all sales channels.




There is a reason why book trade sales aren't counted.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 26, 2010)

Eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think many of you sense that there's something hollow about the creative direction of RPGs. The top games are all derivative and the spinoff movements are all examples of dogmatic schools of design. We're currently at the tail end of a economic meltdown compounded by an unprecedented intrusion of the values of marketing and commerce into interpersonal relationships via the Internet. Gamers are among the segment that I have observed uncritically absorbing these values and reproducing them.
> 
> The natural results: derivative games (they have a history with known quantitative metrics -- sales and hits), an obsession with system over complex player/game relationships (they can be modelled in the absence of players to make qualitative statements) and other problems. Ironically, even while gamers say they want quantitative solutions, they don't vote for them with dollars or even page views.




Hang on a tick here.  Derivitive games are something new to the hobby?  Since when?  I mean it how many D&D look alikes were there out during the 1980's?  And many, many RPG's have their basics grounded in the same place as D&D.  While there has certainly been innovation within RPG's, there's been precious little invention.

Trying to claim that games now are any more derivative (something I completely reject with the whole Indie movement alive and strong) now than they were thirty years ago as some sort of sign that the hobby is dying is not something I'd agree with.  

If anything, I'd say that creativity today is equal to any other time in the hobby.  Gamers have thousands of games to choose from, ranging from old standbye's to way out there, pass the story stick style games.  

What I would say has changed is the amount of information freely available and being passed around through the hobby.  Once upon a time, you only saw a tiny fraction of what was out there and you couldn't really discuss anything with anyone beyond your small circle of friends.  Today, games come out and are held up to a level of scrutiny that pre-Internet never existed.  And, those doing the scrutiny are educated enough in the nuts and bolts of game design to make informed criticisms of what's being looked at.

Beyond the very beginning in the 1970's, when were the top games in RPG's NOT "examples of dogmatic schools of design"?  Isn't "dogmatic schools of design" just another way to spin the movement from amateur "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" approaches to the professional "We know X and Y don't work because it's been done (possibly many times) before, so, we're going to go with Z"?


----------



## eyebeams (Oct 26, 2010)

> Hang on a tick here. Derivitive games are something new to the hobby? Since when?




The top 5 are 2 versions of D&D and 3 licensed IP games. That represents basic creative failure.



> Isn't "dogmatic schools of design" just another way to spin the movement from amateur "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" approaches to the professional "We know X and Y don't work because it's been done (possibly many times) before, so, we're going to go with Z"?




No, it's the other way around. Dogma is very much an amateur thing. Ask yourself who produces the screeds. Basically, community movements ask permission and fulfill expectations. That's a creative failure mode but it plays online because it satisfies the social network. But it will not break out as much as something that adds something new.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 26, 2010)

eyebeams said:


> There is a reason why book trade sales aren't counted.




Would you care to unpack this? I'm pretty sure you're spouting nonsense, but I'd like you to confirm exactly what sort of nonsense it is before I dismantle it.


----------



## Stormonu (Oct 26, 2010)

eyebeams said:


> The top 5 are 2 versions of D&D and 3 licensed IP games. That represents basic creative failure.
> .




This is different from the top 5 being AD&D 2e, BECMI, (WEG) Star Wars, Anne Rice's ... Er, White Wolfs Vampire and the myriad licensed worlds of GURPS how?


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 26, 2010)

eyebeams said:


> The top 5 are 2 versions of D&D and 3 licensed IP games. That represents basic creative failure.




I don't count Warhammer/Warhammer 50K as licensed IP games; they've been in the hobby since the start. And it really gets me that you're dismissing Golarion because it uses the D&D rules and the FATE system because it's set in licensed setting. 



> Dogma is very much an amateur thing.




When's the last time you saw a three-wheeled car out of one of the major automobile companies? Or how about the Boeing 787, which is basically the 767 built with lighter materials?

Companies stick with what sells, because many companies have bet on the new thing and lost. It's an amateur thing to go with what's new and untried, because they've got nothing to lose and everything to win.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 26, 2010)

If gamers sat around _Cafe Marxisme_ in berets smoking clove cigarettes and playing _Artaud: the Malaise_, that wouldn't mean that role playing games were suddenly more creative and interesting. "Dogma" isn't amateur... there are good dogmas and bad dogmas. The good ones are good, and the bad ones are bad. That they are dogmas may establish the conditions for their being good or bad, but it doesn't necessitate that they be one or the other inherently.

The successful games are successful because relatively more people buy them. From that, I must conclude that they either give people what they actually want, or what they think they want. Either way, they are the ones that get taken off the shelf and up to the cash register. That's no mean feat nowadays.

Creativity? Why just this evening I took a mere handful of numbers and terse expressions and made them into, if I do say so myself, a very memorable character about whom I received positive reviews from the others at the table. That's creativity. And that was done with Classic Traveller... the Ref was using his beat up old 1977 boxed set. Avant Garde's got nuthin' to do with it.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 26, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> Creativity? Why just this evening I took a mere handful of numbers and terse expressions and made them into, if I do say so myself, a very memorable character about whom I received positive reviews from the others at the table. That's creativity. And that was done with Classic Traveller... the Ref was using his beat up old 1977 boxed set. Avant Garde's got nuthin' to do with it.



Not that I agree with eyebeams' points in the slightest, but I suspect the reference being made is to industry-level creativity rather than creativity at the individual or game-group level.

That said, as long as the creativity at the individual or game-group level remains healthy and ongoing, the hobby will survive no matter what happens at the industry level.

Lan-"can you translate those positive reviews into a Rookie of the Year award?"-efan


----------



## Perram (Oct 26, 2010)

eyebeams said:


> My reply is at:
> 
> The Zombie RPG Industry | Mob | United | Malcolm | Sheppard
> 
> ...




Have you actually read the Dresden Files RPG?  It isn't getting the praise it is getting because it is set in the Dresden universe.  All industries are filled with licensed properties that merely 'Cash In.'  Video Games, for example, are especially notorious for this.

It is getting the praise because of an extremely well used FATE system and a presentation that was absolutely fantastic.  The margin notes alone sold half the copies at my FLGS.

That book is incredibly creative and original, and to condemn it because it happens to be licensed is a foolish dismissal.  There are tons of BAD licensed games out there, it takes something special to make a GOOD one.


----------



## eyebeams (Oct 26, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Would you care to unpack this? I'm pretty sure you're spouting nonsense, but I'd like you to confirm exactly what sort of nonsense it is before I dismantle it.




You immediately knowing what this is would have been a basic qualification to demonstrate that you are informed enough to have a conversation about this. So, no.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 26, 2010)

eyebeams said:


> You immediately knowing what this is would have been a basic qualification to demonstrate that you are informed enough to have a conversation about this. So, no.




So, you are the indisputable authority and anyone who disagrees with you is too uninformed to possibly discuss the matter.

..._Or_, you don't think your point can hold up under debate and are dodging the question.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Oct 26, 2010)

eyebeams said:


> The top 5 are 2 versions of D&D and 3 licensed IP games. That represents basic creative failure.





I'm very interested in hearing what a creative success in an RPG would be, even if you paint it in very broad strokes.  

Do you think the licensed RPGs are successful mechanically, but since they're licensed, they fail in terms of backstory and setting?  Would Pathfinder be a success if it was based on Golarion, but used different character creation and conflict resolution methods?  Do you want to see games that don't use dice, or don't include the concept of magic, or that are set in settings unlike anything you've seen before?

Would love to know.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Oct 26, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> So, you are the indisputable authority and anyone who disagrees with you is too uninformed to possibly discuss the matter.
> 
> ..._Or_, you don't think your point can hold up under debate and are dodging the question.




Wanted to give you XP for calling out this silliness, but must spread it around.  So instead:

QFT.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 26, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> So, you are the indisputable authority and anyone who disagrees with you is too uninformed to possibly discuss the matter.
> 
> ..._Or_, you don't think your point can hold up under debate and are dodging the question.



[Devil's advocate hat]
_Or_, BotE was seen as posturing and uncleverly insulting in his question--"_you're spouting nonsense_", "_I('ll) dismantle it_"--telegraphing his style of answer and found not worth the time spent typing a detailed reply.
[/Devil's advocate hat]

I know a fair amount of good people who will just walk away from such believed posturing.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 26, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> [Devil's advocate hat]
> _Or_, BotE was seen as posturing and uncleverly insulting in his question--"_you're spouting nonsense_", "_I('ll) dismantle it_"--telegraphing his style of answer and found not worth the time spent typing a detailed reply.
> [/Devil's advocate hat]
> 
> I know a fair amount of good people who will just walk away from such believed posturing.




*shrug* The way to walk away is to simply not reply. Responding to posturing by escalating to a higher level of posturing is mock-worthy.


----------



## eyebeams (Oct 26, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> So, you are the indisputable authority and anyone who disagrees with you is too uninformed to possibly discuss the matter.
> 
> ..._Or_, you don't think your point can hold up under debate and are dodging the question.




No, I'm thinking of a specific point of fact that anybody who knows what they are talking about knows, and is why book trade sales are not immediately counted as indisputable examples of a trend. It is the reason why the actual creators of the DFRPG are not getting angry at Gareth the way you are on their behalf. DFRPG seems to be a great game, by the way.

The fact that nobody has hit upon this exceedingly obvious fact yet is unfortunate.


----------



## Perram (Oct 26, 2010)

eyebeams said:


> No, I'm thinking of a specific point of fact that anybody who knows what they are talking about knows, and is why book trade sales are not immediately counted as indisputable examples of a trend. It is the reason why the actual creators of the DFRPG are not getting angry at Gareth the way you are on their behalf. DFRPG seems to be a great game, by the way.
> 
> The fact that nobody has hit upon this exceedingly obvious fact yet is unfortunate.




Well spit it out, then.  What are you talking about that is /so/ obvious?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 26, 2010)

eyebeams said:


> No, I'm thinking of a specific point of fact that anybody who knows what they are talking about knows, and is why book trade sales are not immediately counted as indisputable examples of a trend. It is the reason why the actual creators of the DFRPG are not getting angry at Gareth the way you are on their behalf.



May I take a dumb-guy guess? Do book trade sales include sales to distributors? Sales to distributors are not sales to buying customers.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2010)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> I disagree, I would say that a huge percentage of gamers were brought in by somebody who already played the game.




Riddle me this: if nobody were selling games on the retail market, who would have ever brought anyone in? 

Ultimately, the hobby gets drive from the retail market.  Individual groups do not have to be strongly driven by retail in order for this to be true - the sellers work on the aggregate.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> The top 5 are 2 versions of D&D and 3 licensed IP games. That represents basic creative failure.




By the logic I suspect is behind that, then anyone doing Shakespeare is engaging in basic creative failure.  And even writing a sonnet is questionable, as you didn't make up the form yourself.  

Needless to say, I disagree with you.  Sometimes, great creativity comes from working within a structure, rather than blue-sky brand-spanking new creation.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 26, 2010)

Does WotC sell their new D&D books directly to their big customers, such as Amazon, Borders, Barnes & Noble, etc ...?  Or do they use a book trade distributor middleman to sell to Amazon, etc ... ?


----------



## Chrono22 (Oct 26, 2010)

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]:
That would probably be true, if piracy didn't exist.
Not saying I'm an advocate of it, but it's a reality that you don't actually need to cash in to play. Then there is the free-to-play material- tons of it- that any of us hobbyists could turn to in the absence of a retail market.
As long as there is role playing, there will be role playing games. And role playing is second nature to us (humans), just like speaking. Children do it without any encouragement. Even if this branch of RPGing dies off, it's just a matter of time before someone else hitches a set of rules to make-believe so that things start over again.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 26, 2010)

eyebeams said:


> No, I'm thinking of a specific point of fact that anybody who knows what they are talking about knows, and is why book trade sales are not immediately counted as indisputable examples of a trend. It is the reason why the actual creators of the DFRPG are not getting angry at Gareth the way you are on their behalf. DFRPG seems to be a great game, by the way.
> 
> The fact that nobody has hit upon this exceedingly obvious fact yet is unfortunate.




Dodging the question, got it.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Oct 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Riddle me this: if nobody were selling games on the retail market, who would have ever brought anyone in?
> 
> Ultimately, the hobby gets drive from the retail market.  Individual groups do not have to be strongly driven by retail in order for this to be true - the sellers work on the aggregate.




Um, the same people who bring people into out-of-print games today and the same people who will bring others into soon to be out-of-print games.

Again, I disagree. This might have been true in the 70s/80s/90s but I think your being a bit archaic. With the rise of the internet and it's involvement in everyday life, grass-roots gaming is only going to get stronger and stronger, with or without retail gaming.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2010)

eyebeams said:


> The fact that nobody has hit upon this exceedingly obvious fact yet is unfortunate.




Please cut out the, "I know something you don't know," presentation.  In order for this to be useful, the audience needs to see you as an authority figure they get encouragement from and want to please.  Since you aren't such, in this venue it comes off as condescending and egotistical, so that it is thoroughly non-constructive.

It should go without saying - those who read it as condescending and egotistical should ignore it, and move on, rather than respond to it by butting heads.  If you don't like what he's saying, ignore it and move on.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 26, 2010)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> Um, the same people who bring people into out-of-print games today and the same people who will bring others into soon to be out-of-print games.
> 
> Again, I disagree. This might have been true in the 70s/80s/90s but I think your being a bit archaic. With the rise of the internet and it's involvement in everyday life, grass-roots gaming is only going to get stronger and stronger, with or without retail gaming.




The problem is, your signal gets swamped by the noise.  Sure, people get brought to  OOP games today  by existing gamers.  No one will question that.  But, the basic math question is, are enough being brought in to replace those who leave?

I have no idea.  But, I do know that existing gamers + retailers brings more people into the hobby than just existing gamers.

Considering how hard it already is to find a game outside of suburban centers, stripping away the retail aspect is not going to help.

After all, I would doubt that the first game that most OOP gamers play is an OOP game.  In my mind, it would be much more likely that someone tries a print game first and then slides into an OOP group.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Oct 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, the basic math question is, are enough being brought in to replace those who leave?
> 
> I have no idea.  But, I do know that existing gamers + retailers brings more people into the hobby than just existing gamers.
> 
> ...




Who said they have to bring in enough to replace those who leave? So what if roleplaying shrinks, it won't die out and that's what this thread is about.

This isn't retail vs grass-roots, it's what if retail dies out. That's the point I'm making. I could care less if retail dies out because I know with the internet and the supporter base roleplaying has now, it will continue.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2010)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> Again, I disagree. This might have been true in the 70s/80s/90s but I think your being a bit archaic.




No, I'm quite evidence-based.  I think you overestimate how many folks are gung-ho enough to search it out like that, in the face of new entertainments that are being actively sold to them.  There is a reason that marketing is viewed as evil - it is because it is _powerful_.  




Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> Who said they have to bring in enough to replace those who leave? So what if roleplaying shrinks, it won't die out and that's what this thread is about.




Well, by simple logic: if nothing stops the shrinking, it does, in fact, die out.  Eventually the number playing reaches zero.  As the current gamers age, they eventually stop playing (unless someone invents playing across the veil of death).  If those current players don't get replaced, then eventually there's nobody playing.  QED.

You need more to play than a document of rules.  You need players.  I return to my ecological analogy - any species has a minimum population size to remain viable.  For our purposes, you may consider it this way: eventually, the pool of players shrinks to the point where you cannot find people willing to play the game you want to play, and so you stop playing as well. 

Already on EN World (actually, for years here), even with internet support, there are folks with just this complaint - they haven't played in some time, because they cannot find others to work with.

The retail market's ability to create new players to work with notably exceeds the individual gamer's.  I may not be able to create new gamers to play with, but a company can throw more (and more effective) effort at it than I can.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Oct 26, 2010)

Morrus said:


> 3) Just because #5 on a list sold 3000 units doesn't mean you can conclude that #1 sold 3005 units. #4 on the list may have sold 50,000 units. We don't know.




And while 3000 may be a small number, you need to know how many units #5 sold last year before you can draw lines to the industry declining. 



Morrus said:


> In my opinion, GMS' conclusions aren't backed up by his evidence or reasoning. I'm not saying that the market _isn't _shrinking - frankly, I don't know - but GMS' evidence is shaky, and his reasoning unsound, in my opinion. Based solely on the evidence he cites, I can't reach the same conclusion as he does. If he has any further information, of course, I'd be happy to read it.




That's what I concluded too.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Oct 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> No, I'm quite evidence-based.  I think you overestimate how many folks are gung-ho enough to search it out like that, in the face of new entertainments that are being actively sold to them.  There is a reason that marketing is viewed as evil - it is because it is _powerful_




Okay, well I'm just going to call it here. I don't agree with you and it's clear your not going to accept my position either.

I guess we'll see who's got the right idea if this theoretical future comes to past.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 26, 2010)

eyebeams said:


> The top 5 are 2 versions of D&D and 3 licensed IP games. That represents basic creative failure.




Hm. In the very early days, you had D&D, Marvel Super Heroes, Star Wars, James Bond, and Buck Rogers. Then you had several D&D derivatives, such as Rolemaster, Harnmaster, Palladium, and Tunnels & Trolls. Then a few  genre games, like Boot Hill, Golden Heroes, and Gangbusters. Going into the Basic D&D era, you can add DC Heroes, Call of Cthulu, Doctor Who, Star Trek, Amber and so forth.

In terms of truly independent creations, I think you can count Gamma World early on, then Teenagers From Outer Space and Vampire: The Masquerade later on, though both were genre-consolidation games. Ars Magica might qualify, although it's pretty much a mage-centric version of Pendragon's romantic history. 

The really weird stuff just doesn't crop up until the early 90s.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Oct 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> As the current gamers age, they eventually stop playing (unless someone invents playing across the veil of death).




If I'm not able to play RPGs in the hereafter, I'm going to be _terribly_ disappointed.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I agree with most of what you say, but I think your logic here is flawed.
> 
> Yes, there are games out of print that are still played every weekend.  But that's generally going to be play by people who came by the game while it was in print.  And eventually, for one reason or another, each of those people will stop playing.
> 
> ...




Then... the game industry withers away. There is nothing flawed in believing that day will come. GMS argued that the industry will collapse in 5 to 10 years. I think that is wrong. His concerns are largely mythical. 



> Who has the real vested interest in reaching out and finding new people to play?  People with an economic interest - those who are trying to sell games.




People who play games have, if anything, a stronger vested interest. People who are interested primarily in money can always make money at something else. In fact, if you are in the RPG business, it's probably a good idea to look elsewhere for your first million.


Certainly, it's not hard to think of endeavors, like the poker industry, that essentially exist because there is a hobby to support them. Professional golf. The opera.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 26, 2010)

> No, I'm quite evidence-based. I think you overestimate how many folks are gung-ho enough to search it out like that, in the face of new entertainments that are being actively sold to them. There is a reason that marketing is viewed as evil - it is because it is powerful.



My MBA is in sports & entertainment marketing (and with my law degree, I'm just short the power to turn into a supermodel of becoming RULER OF THE WORLD!!!) and there's a lot of truth there.

But while the hobby needed the specialty stores to get started, Pandora's Box has already been opened.  While the industry needs sales, all the hobby needs to survive is players teaching others to be players.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Then... the game industry withers away. There is nothing flawed in believing that day will come. GMS argued that the industry will collapse in 5 to 10 years. I think that is wrong. His concerns are largely mythical.




I also think he's wrong - I don't think his concerns are so much mythical, as they are poorly supported.  He leaves out too many important factors.



> Certainly, it's not hard to think of endeavors, like the poker industry, that essentially exist because there is a hobby to support them. Professional golf. The opera.




My point is actually that there's a back-and-forth between them.  The industry exists because of the hobby, but the hobby also exists because of the industry.  They walk together, basically inseparable.  And that's not a bad thing.  It isn't a sign of weakness in either the hobby or the industry that they're mutually supporting - this is how human systems work normally. 

Just to highlight how these things walk hand in hand - remember that the first folks to play modern RPGs as a hobby were the ones who created the business!  How much more interconnected can you get?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 26, 2010)

> How much more interconnected can you get?




Just had an image of VGER...and the Borg.


----------



## eyebeams (Oct 26, 2010)

Perram said:


> Well spit it out, then.  What are you talking about that is /so/ obvious?




How can a game have high first month sales through the book trade and make no money?

*Mod Edit:* Folks, here's a hint.  Don't declare that knowing a fact is a prerequisite to engaging in a conversation, and then continue to tease the conversation with said fact, after warnings and several requests not to from other posters.  It's rude, and gets you booted from the thread. ~Umbran


----------



## nedjer (Oct 26, 2010)

Wednesday Boy said:


> If I'm not able to play RPGs in the hereafter, I'm going to be _terribly_ disappointed.




That won''t be a problem


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I also think he's wrong - I don't think his concerns are so much mythical, as they are poorly supported.  He leaves out too many important factors.




He has claimed that players are unwilling to buy product and the motivation is low. I call that a mythical concern. I see no reason to believe that in just a few years, the players who created the d20 explosion basically don't exist; there simply isn't a product that creates as much enthusiasm at present. 

He also claimed that tabletop gamers segregate themselves socially from other gamers. The amount of WoW, City of Heroes, etc. players on tabletop RPG websites suggests otherwise. Myth. 

He stated that RPG play is industry driven. During its period of greatest growth, RPGs were supported primarily by pirated, mimeographed copies of the D&D rules. During the d20 glut, he would have you believe that there was a bubble in the industry which then popped; I would argue instead that the d20 boom was fan-driven, during which time, some fans were able to work in a semi-professional capacity, driving creativity and publication. He equates hobby health to in-print games. Myth.

He does have concerns which are real: declining sales, inevitibily declining numbers of players playing older games, competition with other forms of entertainment for new players, etc. The dwindling numbers of "hardcore" gamers may be fairly accurate, or not -- that is a possible but unsupported position.



> My point is actually that there's a back-and-forth between them.  The industry exists because of the hobby, but the hobby also exists because of the industry.  They walk together, basically inseparable.  And that's not a bad thing.  It isn't a sign of weakness in either the hobby or the industry that they're mutually supporting - this is how human systems work normally.
> 
> Just to highlight how these things walk hand in hand - remember that the first folks to play modern RPGs as a hobby were the ones who created the business!  How much more interconnected can you get?




Well, of course. But kill all the present publishers, and you would have new ones soon enough. The demand exists, independent of current marketing being done by publishers.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Oct 26, 2010)

man if there's one thing I can't stand it's guys who all post up on the internet like they got something to say.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 26, 2010)

eyebeams said:


> You immediately knowing what this is would have been a basic qualification to demonstrate that you are informed enough to have a conversation about this. So, no.




Okay, fine. There seem to be three possibilities:

(1) You're assuming that the missing sales from the distribution totals are returnable copies. This is untrue as a 30 second perusal of the links would have demonstrated. The missing sales are from direct sales from the publisher's website, sales from other online storefronts, and sales of PDF copies.

If you think that Gareth should have dismissed returnable copies from his sales figures, then Gareth's evidence is even more bankrupt: He _included_ all the potential returnable copies while _excluding_ the sales figures from sources which are definitely _not_ returnable.

(And this assumes that there are _any_ copies of DFRPG sold on a returnable basis. That's a highly questionable assumption on your part, since the RPG industry, by and large, doesn't operate under those conditions.)

(2) You think that Gareth can legitimately disregard non-distribution sales because Gareth is only interested in commenting on the health of hobby stores. But Gareth's claim is not "the FLGS is a dying business model"; Gareth's claim is that the entire RPG industry is collapsing. The fact that Gareth cites a survey based on retailer sales doesn't mean that retailer sales are automatically the only point of data worth considering. The fact that sales are moving online does not indicate an industry collapse.

(3) You are just stringing words together without really understanding what they mean.
*Admin here. What's with the insults? If you want to stay part of the discussion, please find a way to discuss your opinion without insulting other people. ~ Piratecat*
As I said before, the fact that your phrasing was imprecise and vague makes it difficult to determine exactly which type of nonsense you were spouting.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2010)

I start by saying that I largely agree with you.  

Now I'll deal with the rhetorical strength of your position - if you are claiming someone else is spouting myth, you kind of need to be solid... and you aren't.



pawsplay said:


> He has claimed that players are unwilling to buy product and the motivation is low. I call that a mythical concern.




I'll grant that one.



> He also claimed that tabletop gamers segregate themselves socially from other gamers. The amount of WoW, City of Heroes, etc. players on tabletop RPG websites suggests otherwise. Myth.




Not a strong position.  Tabletop RPG websites do not account for much of the TRPG gaming population WotC has claimed their market research reveals. And, we are of highly pre-selected types.  We don't represent gamers as a whole.  So, while we may not segregate, it may be that the masses of other players do.

My instinct is that there is huge crossover between the groups.  However, the presence on sites like this is not a solid indicator.



> He stated that RPG play is industry driven. During its period of greatest growth, RPGs were supported primarily by pirated, mimeographed copies of the D&D rules.




As a matter of style and rhetorical strength - if you are going to try to call someone else's position a myth, I would recommend against using unprovable, anecdotally supported assertions to do it.  It is well known that sales data for the early days does not exist - Gygax himself said so, IIRC - leaving your position unprovable.  Basically, you're pitting your legend against his myth.  



> During the d20 glut, he would have you believe that there was a bubble in the industry which then popped; I would argue instead that the d20 boom was fan-driven, during which time, some fans were able to work in a semi-professional capacity, driving creativity and publication.




I don't think these two are mutually exclusive, so your assertion really doesn't counter his.  I think you could easily both be correct.



> Well, of course. But kill all the present publishers, and you would have new ones soon enough. The demand exists, independent of current marketing being done by publishers.




At the moment, I agree that this is likely.  Someone would step in to try to be the next Paizo.  But that's if all the publishers disappeared tomorrow.  Today, demand exists, but times change.  If companies disappeared after, say, five years of slide into economic failure and increasing player apathy, such revival would be rather less assured.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 26, 2010)

I think really the health of the industry should be measured on how many new players are joining.

Or at the very least out of those sales figures, how many of those sales are going to people whom have not been gaming for the past 20 years...


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> However, it is possible that a certain few- big dogs like D&D, for instance- may survive for centuries, like chess, checkers, go and others, due to a hard core of players teaching the games to friends, family and acquaintances.
> 
> .




Please dont compare real games like chess, and checkers, to a published IP like Dungeons and Dragons.

No offense, but....
I think its important to point out, the main differance between a game like chess and D&D publications, is that publishing companies dont design games to be played forever (thats why I dont call D&D a "real" game).
Publishers produce books about games and then design the books to become obsolete, as soon as possible. This is done so they can sell more books.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 26, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Hm. In the very early days, you had D&D, Marvel Super Heroes, Star Wars, James Bond, and Buck Rogers. Then you had several D&D derivatives, such as Rolemaster, Harnmaster, Palladium, and Tunnels & Trolls. Then a few  genre games, like Boot Hill, Golden Heroes, and Gangbusters. Going into the Basic D&D era, you can add DC Heroes, Call of Cthulu, Doctor Who, Star Trek, Amber and so forth.




I do think you have to distinguish story and rules. Dark Sun was D&D, yet the setting was very derivative. Amber may be licensed, but the rules were like nothing before it. (Both 1991 publications, btw.)


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Not a strong position.  Tabletop RPG websites do not account for much of the TRPG gaming population WotC has claimed their market research reveals. And, we are of highly pre-selected types.  We don't represent gamers as a whole.  So, while we may not segregate, it may be that the masses of other players do.




GMS specifically identified the online TRPG presence as shrinking down to a small, hardscore group who identify as "gamers" in a way that does not include playing other games. 



			
				GMS said:
			
		

> The problem, though, is that what we’re left with in the tabletop community are the hardest of the hardcore — which can be both a positive and a negative. They’re dedicated (obsessive), loyal (rigidly orthodox), and constant (inflexible). This is their preferred method of gaming — but for most, that’s led to an almost self-segregation from the rest of gaming: console, online, PC, board, cards, etc. A lot of these folks don’t even seen these other platforms as part of the same hobby. When they say “gamer”, they mean “tabletop gamer” — the rest of the wider gaming world is part of some other hobby.
> 
> I posited to my friend that I don’t think the overall level of negativity and vitriol found in the community online has changed much since the dawn of the internet. What has changed is the size of the community — the negativity is at the same level, but the community is far smaller. Part of that is probably because we’ve dwindled to the True Believers — the ones most strident in their identification with the hobby, and therefore possessed of the most passion in arguing about it.




Pre-selected or no, GMS's gamers 
who only play tabletop games are mythical. 



> My instinct is that there is huge crossover between the groups.  However, the presence on sites like this is not a solid indicator.




It's true I don't have extensive marketing data, but I know of no tabletop gamers, none, who is not involved in at least one more of MMOs, trading card games, miniature wargaming, or board games. When I visit gaming stores, many of the players there are tuned into Halo and WoW and so forth. Game Chest, at Valley View, has a huge RPG section, selling back to back with board games, and the front desk is flooded with collectible card games and more. Why would these all be sold at the same place if they aren't sold to a somewhat unified group of customers?



> As a matter of style and rhetorical strength - if you are going to try to call someone else's position a myth, I would recommend against using unprovable, anecdotally supported assertions to do it.  It is well known that sales data for the early days does not exist - Gygax himself said so, IIRC - leaving your position unprovable.  Basically, you're pitting your legend against his myth.




My point doesn't hinge on those anecodotes. Tossing that whole discussion out the window, it's obvious that many gaming groups have more players than they have copies of the rules. I also see plenty of AD&D books in stock at Half Price. As those books came from somewhere, that implies someone has stopped playing AD&D, which means that sometime in the last couple of decades, they WERE playing AD&D. 

In college, I was involved in playing many games which were unavailable at local game stores, including Torg (OOP at the time), Tales from the Floating Vagabond, and Synnibarr. I also played in a Hero System conversion of Forgotten Realms with some Palladium add-ons. In fact, during my two years of college, I don't think I saw anyone purchase brand new RPGs of any kind apart from Vampire and Werewolf.



> At the moment, I agree that this is likely.  Someone would step in to try to be the next Paizo.  But that's if all the publishers disappeared tomorrow.  Today, demand exists, but times change.  If companies disappeared after, say, five years of slide into economic failure and increasing player apathy, such revival would be rather less assured.




Considering how long AD&D has held its head above water, I am confident many current products can look forward to a long life.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 26, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> publishing companies dont design games to be played forever (thats why I dont call D&D a "real" game).
> Publishers produce books about games and then design the books to become obsolete, as soon as possible. This is done so they can sell more books.




And you think Hasbro designs games to be played forever? Monopoly: Today's Cartoon edition? Monopoly City? Monopoly the Card Game? Monopoly the Flame Thrower? I bet they strictly control quality on Operation, so that parents won't feel cheated, but it does break down before it can get passed around too much. There was one Clue variant that depended on a website that Hasbro promised to keep alive until 2011; how's that for forever?

Hasbro board-games has as much vested interest in keeping you buying new games as does Hasbro-WotC. And a book, with a little bit of care and luck, can last a century without problem. Books don't loose pieces like board games do, and they certainly don't have mechanical breakdowns like a lot of board games do.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 26, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> And you think Hasbro designs games to be played forever?




No, I think its obvious that hasbro produces game products, and wants to make sure that they will need to be replaced for either poor replay, or low production quality.

And though this policy is great for making the company money, its not so good for a hobby.


----------



## Chrono22 (Oct 27, 2010)

Well, to point out an analogy, I don't think RPGs are going to die out for the same reasons mountain climbing isn't going to die out. Curiousity/the drive to explore is a human trait, just like speaking or role playing.
Even if all the sport shops on the planet were to stop selling mountaineering gear and climbing equipment, people would just keep climbing those mountains. Furthermore, as long as the population continues to expand, the number of prospective mountain climbers can only go up. Growth would be less than if the sporting good stores supported them, proportionally, but I believe this analogy still holds for the RPG hobby and industry.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> It's true I don't have extensive marketing data, but I know of no tabletop gamers, none, who is not involved in at least one more of MMOs, trading card games, miniature wargaming, or board games.




I have one counterexample to this assertion.

Personally I am one of those "mythical" tabletop gamers who is not involved in MMOs, trading card games, miniature wargaming, or board games.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 27, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Please dont compare real games like chess, and checkers, to a published IP like Dungeons and Dragons.
> 
> No offense, but....
> I think its important to point out, the main differance between a game like chess and D&D publications, is that publishing companies dont design games to be played forever (thats why I dont call D&D a "real" game).
> Publishers produce books about games and then design the books to become obsolete, as soon as possible. This is done so they can sell more books.



I reject this dichotomy, no offense.

I daresay that nobody designed games to be played forever.  The rules for all those classic games I mentioned evolved over centuries.  And for all we know, centuries from now, chess may be virtually unrecognizable to us.

And there is nothing preventing anyone from using the OD&D rules- assuming they have a copy- 3000 years from now.  (And they'd better invite diaglo.)


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 27, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Well, to point out an analogy, I don't think RPGs are going to die out for the same reasons mountain climbing isn't going to die out. Curiousity/the drive to explore is a human trait, just like speaking or role playing.




For one, I think Mountaineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia gives decent evidence that mountain climbing as sport is only three hundred years ago. The first attempt on Mont Blanc, the obvious challenge sitting in the middle of a populated, wealthy area was only attempted 235 years ago. The end of national parks, the end of readily available maps and mountain climbing tools, and the end of the social spirit that encouraged those things, and mountain climbing would die out.

Secondly, roleplaying games are about 35 years old. I think that when claiming that something is an immortal part of the human spirit, that thing needs to be more than 35 years old.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 27, 2010)

ggroy said:


> I have one counterexample to this assertion.
> 
> Personally I am one of those "mythical" tabletop gamers who is not involved in MMOs, trading card games, miniature wargaming, or board games.




Do we need a maiden to catch you? 

I've managed to stay out of MMOs, and BattleTech is more a boardgame than a miniature wargame, but I must plead guilty to having extensive TCG, Boardgame and RPG collections... and playing all of them a lot.

Personally, I think there's no doubt that the economy is causing a lot of grief in the hobby game business. As to the state of RPGs at present: I'm not in a position where much of any sort of meaningful data is coming in. 

I have a suspicion that the current state of D&D 4E is not what Wizards would really like it to be. Apart from the problems caused by splitting the market with the release, the aggressive release schedule of the more popular books leaves them in the state where most new books will be third tier in the realms of popularity. 

This is all complicated by D&D Essentials, which is meant to get a lot of _new_ players into D&D, but has been confused by a haphazard release schedule. 

I was curious to see what new D&D releases came out in Q3 2010. Here's the list:

Late September:
* Master Tiles: Dungeon
* Rules Compendium
* Heroes of the Fallen Lands
* Lords of Madness (minis)

Early September:
* Red Box

End August:
* Castle Ravenloft boardgame (now sold out -as of Oct 8)

Mid August
* Dark Sun Creature Catalog
* Marauders of the Dune Sea
* Psionic Power
* Dark Sun Campaign Setting

Mid July
* Demonicon
* HS2 Orcs of Stonefang Pass
* Vor Rukoth
* Tomb of Horrors

(Of note: Marauders of the Dune Sea is *still* not available in Australia).

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Oct 27, 2010)

Just spotted this:



			
				GMS Article said:
			
		

> What has changed is the size of the community — the negativity is at the same level, but the community is far smaller. Part of that is probably because we’ve dwindled to the True Believers — the ones most strident in their identification with the hobby, and therefore possessed of the most passion in arguing about it.




Ummm, what?  The online gaming community is _smaller_ now than in the past?  Hasn't En World practically doubled in size in the past five years?  I thought I saw somewhere something like 90k members.  WOTC's site is ginormous.

How has the online community gotten smaller?


----------



## MerricB (Oct 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Just spotted this:
> 
> Ummm, what?  The online gaming community is _smaller_ now than in the past?  Hasn't En World practically doubled in size in the past five years?  I thought I saw somewhere something like 90k members.  WOTC's site is ginormous.
> 
> How has the online community gotten smaller?




The problem with the site numbers is that they don't generally count _active_ members, just _total_ members.

Conversely, BoardGameGeek.com has 250,000 members, of which 60,000 are actively on a monthly basis. It dwarfs the size of any RPG site.

My impression is that - at present - boardgames are on the rise as a hobby game - although they may have hit their peak. Warhammer and Magic are fairly constant. RPGs are probably trending downwards, although we can hope that D&D Essentials help turn that around.

Cheers!


----------



## SteveC (Oct 27, 2010)

My reaction to this is: what companies had any sort of releases other than the ones listed here?

I mean, we have D&D, Pathfinder, Warhammer Fantasy and Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader before Dresden Files. What were the other major releases, period, during this timeframe?

I guess what I'm saying is that the sky isn't exactly falling yet.

--Steve


----------



## KeepFlying (Oct 27, 2010)

SteveC said:


> My reaction to this is: what companies had any sort of releases other than the ones listed here?
> 
> I mean, we have D&D, Pathfinder, Warhammer Fantasy and Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader before Dresden Files. What were the other major releases, period, during this timeframe?
> 
> ...




Another release? ICONS. Though, this is a self-serving comment.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 27, 2010)

MerricB said:


> The problem with the site numbers is that they don't generally count _active_ members, just _total_ members.




Correct.  EN World's 95K+ includes everyone who as ever registered - including spammers and folks who haven't posted in years.  Active members are, iirc, in the single-digit-percentage of the total - it depends on what you call "active"...

So, the message board community population is in the thousands, maybe tens of thousands, while WotC was suggesting the overall gamer population was more like a million, last I heard.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Just spotted this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It just looks smaller to GMS because he is moving away from it.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 27, 2010)

The thing that makes the stats on BGG interesting is that we [know[/i] they had 60,000 active members (who visited the site) over the course of a single month, out of their 250K signed-up members.

Cheers!


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 27, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Please dont compare real games like chess, and checkers, to a published IP like Dungeons and Dragons.
> 
> No offense, but....
> I think its important to point out, the main differance between a game like chess and D&D publications, is that publishing companies dont design games to be played forever (thats why I dont call D&D a "real" game).
> Publishers produce books about games and then design the books to become obsolete, as soon as possible. This is done so they can sell more books.




This seems to be an overly pessimistic outlook, as if RPG companies have a similar mentality as car manufacturers or electronics makers. But most RPG companies are run by gamers, by people who love to game; Hasbro may be an exception, even its subsidiary WotC; but I would be surprised if anyone within the Dungeons & Dragons didn't love to play D&D.

Your view implies that the makes of D&D 4E deliberately made it a bad game, that they designed flaws into it that they can fix. I highly doubt that this is the case. This doesn't mean that there isn't a bottom line factor to WotC--there certainly is--but it doesn't come through the design of the game itself, it comes through what is produced and when.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I daresay that nobody designed games to be played forever.  The rules for all those classic games I mentioned evolved over centuries.  And for all we know, centuries from now, chess may be virtually unrecognizable to us.
> 
> And there is nothing preventing anyone from using the OD&D rules- assuming they have a copy- 3000 years from now.  (And they'd better invite diaglo.)




Your first paragraph is key: D&D is not any particular version of the game, but the whole "living currrent" itself, from the first stirrings of inspiration in the minds of Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, to D&D Insider and beyond. In a similar sense that when we ask, "What is human civilization?" we cannot look to any particular iteration and say, "It is the Greeks in High Antiquity" or "It is the Italian Renaissance"; it is both and more, it is the entire historical development past, present, and future.



ggroy said:


> I have one counterexample to this assertion.
> 
> Personally I am one of those "mythical" tabletop gamers who is not involved in MMOs, trading card games, miniature wargaming, or board games.




Ha! Me too. Well, I have a size-able miniature collection but I don't actually wargame - I bought them because I like little metal dudes, in paticular the sadlly now out of production Rackham Confrontation line. But I've never played or want to play an MMO, I am not drawn to TCGs, and I rarely play a board game. My love is for tabletop RPGs because, to quote a child that Gary Gygax once asked why he preferred radio to TV, "the pictures are better." TTRPGs utilize imagination as primary, whereas all the other games either minimize it or actually impede it.



MerricB said:


> The problem with the site numbers is that they don't generally count _active_ members, just _total_ members.




I have a sneaking suspicion that a large majority of EN World and RPG.net accounts are duds and duplicates. I also suspect that only a small percentage of members visit the forums regularly, and an even smaller percentage participate on a monthly basis.

EN World has almost 100,000 memberships. Let's say half of those are duds; it may be less, but it is more likely more; this brings us to 50,000 "real" members. Let's say that half of those never visit anymore, which brings us to 25,000 registered readers. How many post at least once a month? Maybe 5,000? And how many of those post weekly? 1,000? Daily? A few hundred?

It reminds me of the supposed "six million" active world-wide D&D players, or the three million that supposedly play monthly in the US (according to a 2004 article I am too lazy to link to, but will if someone insists); I just don't buy it. I don't think that 1-in-100 Americans play D&D on a monthly basis. 1-in-1000, maybe. But where does this 3/6 million figure come from? (On other hand, of the few hundred people that I have had conversational contact with in the last year or two, I would guess that well more than 1-in-100 play D&D regularly, but that includes five other people I play with; in other words, there are "gamer friendly circles" and vast swathes of people that don't play RPGs at all or know anyone that plays RPGs).

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong? Maybe there really are six million D&D players worldwide, and three million in the US. I would love some decent figures on this. My guess is that the reality is a fraction of those numbers, maybe 1-2 million worldwide, and 1 million or less in the US. Who knows?


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 27, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I reject this dichotomy, no offense.
> 
> I daresay that nobody designed games to be played forever. The rules for all those classic games I mentioned evolved over centuries. And for all we know, centuries from now, chess may be virtually unrecognizable to us.
> 
> And there is nothing preventing anyone from using the OD&D rules- assuming they have a copy- 3000 years from now. (And they'd better invite diaglo.)




　
Ok, so games may not be designed to last forever, but chess has changed very little in over a thousand years, and in thirty-five years D&D publications have changed almost every year.
Im not going to speculate on the designers reasons for conceiving a new game, but the inventor of chess probibly didnt have to worry about a deadline, bottomline, or future sales.
So your right, people might play OD&D three thousand years from now, but i think we can agree, it was not published with that intention.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 27, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> Ha! Me too. Well, I have a size-able miniature collection but I don't actually wargame - I bought them because I like little metal dudes, in paticular the sadlly now out of production Rackham Confrontation line.




I never got into miniatures games.

The only miniatures I got was several hundred pre-painted plastic D&D minis, which a friend sold to me for a pittance awhile ago.  (This particular friend needed fast cash).  So far I haven't used them in a D&D game yet.  (I haven't DM'ed a regular D&D game in 9+ months).


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 27, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But while the hobby needed the specialty stores to get started, Pandora's Box has already been opened.  While the industry needs sales, all the hobby needs to survive is players teaching others to be players.



One issue here is that there is a failure to define terms.  What exactly does it mean when you say "the hobby is surviving."  If 6 people in the world are roleplaying, but doing it on a weekly basis, is that "surviving"?  Technically, yes.  For most of us, that doesn't meet the standard.  

When our hobby shrinks, it becomes harder to find people to game with.  It especially gets harder when we want to play some of today's niche RPGs.  That doesn't mean it is impossible, and it doesn't mean that we might not recruit more.  However, when we reach a certain point, the difficulty in finding like-minded, available players because too much of a hurdle for many.  Those players drop out, thus shrinking the hobby more, and compounding the problems.

I certainly don't believe the hobby surrounding roleplaying games is going to disappear in any of our lifetimes.  However, I certainly consider it possible that it will decline to a level where the number of players is only a very small fraction of today's players.  To me, not having several groups of local players to game with would consist of, at best, the hobby "barely surviving."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 27, 2010)

> Ok, so games may not be designed to last forever, but chess has changed very little in over a thousand years, and in thirty-five years D&D publications have changed almost every year.




Your math is a little off: chess as we know it today dates back to 1475- 535 years ago- with the exception of the current rules for stalemate, which only date back to the 18th century.

However, you can still find players of other forms of the game, which is why you'll sometimes see our chess called "Queen's Chess" (because of the distinguishing characteristic of the Queen being the most powerful piece) or "Western Chess" (because it is the primary form played in the West).

And don't think that means chess is static: speed chess has at least 3 variations, and I've even played a variant that only uses half of the board (which means the pieces start adjacent to each other and the first few moves perforce take pawns).

There is no inherent reason that some version of D&D couldn't stand the test of time.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 27, 2010)

SteveC said:


> My reaction to this is: what companies had any sort of releases other than the ones listed here?
> 
> I mean, we have D&D, Pathfinder, Warhammer Fantasy and Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader before Dresden Files. What were the other major releases, period, during this timeframe?
> 
> ...




What time frame are we talking?  I know M&M, Savage Worlds, GURPS, HERO and RIFTS have all had multiple releases in the past 18 months.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 27, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Your math is a little off: chess as we know it today dates back to 1475- 535 years ago- with the exception of the current rules for stalemate, which only date back to the 18th century.





My math is just fine.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#History


> The earliest evidence of Chess is found in the neighboring Sassanid Persia
> around 600 where the game came to be known under the name chatrang


----------



## ggroy (Oct 27, 2010)

Glyfair said:


> When our hobby shrinks, it becomes harder to find people to game with.  It especially gets harder when we want to play some of today's niche RPGs.  That doesn't mean it is impossible, and it doesn't mean that we might not recruit more.  However, when we reach a certain point, the difficulty in finding like-minded, available players because too much of a hurdle for many.  Those players drop out, thus shrinking the hobby more, and compounding the problems.




In my limited personal experience, this is already the case for the more niche and/or older OOP rpgs.  The only times I get around to playing niche rpgs, is at gaming conventions or the occasional one-shot evening games with certain particular gamer friends.



Glyfair said:


> I certainly don't believe the hobby surrounding roleplaying games is going to disappear in any of our lifetimes.  However, I certainly consider it possible that it will decline to a level where the number of players is only a very small fraction of today's players.  To me, not having several groups of local players to game with would consist of, at best, the hobby "barely surviving."




In my expanded circle of local gaming acquaintances, most niche rpgs are for most practical purposes "nonexistent".  It's only the few really hardcore rpg gamers, which are even aware of anything beyond D&D.

For example, many of the casual gamers in my local gaming circles don't even know what Pathfinder is.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 27, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> My math is just fine.
> 
> 
> Chess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Nope, your math is still off, just as i said- read further down _in the same article:_



> Around 1200, rules of shatranj started to be modified in southern Europe, and around 1475, several major changes made the game essentially as it is known today.[32] These modern rules for the basic moves had been adopted in Italy and Spain.[35][36] Pawns gained the option of advancing two squares on their first move, while bishops and queens acquired their modern abilities. The queen replaced the earlier vizier chess piece towards the end of the 10th century and by the 15th century, had become the most powerful piece;[37] consequently modern chess was referred to as "Queen's Chess" or "Mad Queen Chess".[38] These new rules quickly spread throughout western Europe, with the exception of the rules about stalemate, which were finalized in the early 19th century. To distinguish it from its predecessors, this version of the rules is sometimes referred to as western chess[39] or international chess.[40]


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 27, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> My math is just fine.
> 
> 
> Chess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




You said it has changed very little, in a thousand years, which is not true. In the west, it gained castling in the past couple of centuries after several variants were tried. Meanwhile, in Japan, it spawed a completely different lineage which led to shogi, which solidified into a 9x9 variant a few centuries ago, as well. Meanwhile, there is also Chinese chess, and a number of other chess variants in the Arab and Turkish world, all of which have different rules.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 27, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nope, your math is still off, just as i said- read further down _in the same article:_





Looks like chess to me.

Shatranj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 27, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What time frame are we talking?  I know M&M, Savage Worlds, GURPS, HERO and RIFTS have all had multiple releases in the past 18 months.




GURPS? Correlating between GURPS: Generic Universal RolePlaying System and Amazon.com (which seems to be the easiest source of printing dates), in hardcopy, GURPS has released one new hard-back in the last 18 months, GURPS Vorkosigan Saga, and a softback, 88-page, edition of GURPS Psionic Powers, which I believe originally came out in PDF sometime before that. GURPS is massively scaled back from its heyday, and is mostly doing shorter direct to PDF releases, along with PDF reprints of their archives.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 27, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Looks like chess to me.
> 
> Shatranj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Did you look at the rules? The pieces don't move at all the same. I don't know how you can complain about the changes in D&D between 1977 and 1999 if you consider that to be the same.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 27, 2010)

> Looks like chess to me




Then either we're talking about different games or you need to look closer to notice the lack of a piece that moves like the Queen; the inclusion of a piece that jumps spaces on the diagonal (which is not the same movement as the knight type piece, which is also present) AND only moves 2 spaces (IOW, not a bishop); pawns which cannot move 2 spaces at once (or en passant); no castling at all; and a White King whose initial position was not fixed.


----------



## jonesy (Oct 27, 2010)

And you can win without a stalemate. And a stalemate isn't a win if your opponent captures your last piece (other than the king) on his next turn. And by Medina rules that's a win, so getting a bad stalemate can actually make you lose.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 27, 2010)

3D chess in Star Trek.


----------



## jonesy (Oct 27, 2010)

ggroy said:


> 3D chess in Star Trek.



Much older than Star Trek:
Three-dimensional chess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hussar (Oct 27, 2010)

What confuses me is how incorporating new ideas = designed obsolescence.  

Do you honestly think that Gygax thought of, say, Action Points when he wrote the 1e DMG?  That he had the entire idea in his head, but kept it secret so that it could be released at a later time?

Perhaps he also held onto the entire ruleset for GURPS, keeping it secret in cabalistic fashion until someone came along with the right secret handshake.

Games change ALL the time.  Not because of "designed obsolescence" but because we, from time to time, learn new things and want to incorporate them into the game.  It has nothing to do with putting out books while keeping key things back, it's about putting things out, letting them float out there in the sea of fandom for a while, and then going back and trying something new.

This is generally how almost everything works.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 27, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Then either we're talking about different games or you need to look closer to notice the lack of a piece that moves like the Queen; the inclusion of a piece that jumps spaces on the diagonal (which is not the same movement as the knight type piece, which is also present) AND only moves 2 spaces (IOW, not a bishop); pawns which cannot move 2 spaces at once (or en passant); no castling at all; and a White King whose initial position was not fixed.





Well if you concider changing 1% of a games design qualifies as a completely different game. then yeah were talking about different games.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> What confuses me is how incorporating new ideas = designed obsolescence.
> 
> Do you honestly think that Gygax thought of, say, Action Points when he wrote the 1e DMG?  That he had the entire idea in his head, but kept it secret so that it could be released at a later time?
> 
> Games change ALL the time.  Not because of "designed obsolescence" but because we, from time to time, learn new things and want to incorporate them into the game.



And, in the case of Gygaxian 1e, because we were to a large extent told to change it and make it our own by the author of the game.  From that perspective, 1e D+D might be the least static game ever published.

Lanefan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 27, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Well if you concider changing 1% of a games design qualifies as a completely different game. then yeah were talking about different games.



1%?
A bishop with the power to cover the full diagonals as opposed to just 2 squares?

Replacing a piece with a move of 1 with the Queen?

Castling and radically different stalemate rules?

Sure, that and the other changes may account for 1% of entire _text_ of the rules, but they completely revolutionized the game, overturned standard tactics...no, not the same game, and hardly minor.

*Live by the wiki, die by the wiki:* if you don't agree with the timeline in the article you cited to support your position, I can hardly accept you as an honest debater.

Done.


----------



## Ghostwind (Oct 27, 2010)

Here is an interesting rebuttal.

The End is Nigh! « NeoGrognard


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 27, 2010)

ggroy said:


> In my expanded circle of local gaming acquaintances, most niche rpgs are for most practical purposes "nonexistent".  It's only the few really hardcore rpg gamers, which are even aware of anything beyond D&D.
> 
> For example, many of the casual gamers in my local gaming circles don't even know what Pathfinder is.



I have to admit I haven't played a lot of niche RPGs lately.  However, I have a circle of acquaintances with whom I know I could get enough for at least a one-off of most RPGs, niche or not.

However, I have had a strong gaming store in my area since '81.  It has always encouraged gaming on site (either in the store, or in the attached game club) throughout it's history.  It also was started by a circle of friends.  It also is lucky enough to be in a college town (Newark, DE).  

In my experience (direct and from visiting other stores while traveling), that is the perfect storm of having a vibrant gaming community. 

1)  A hobby gaming store - It keeps RPGs available and handy.  It also is a business with an interested in #2 below.

2)  On site gaming - Important for creating a community of gamers that interact.  With community interaction and a place to play, you can experiment with a lot of RPGs to see what you like without having to buy them all initially.

3)  A college town -  College students are the ones who have the necessary time and interest in doing something like gaming.  There is also a steady evolution of the gaming groups as some graduate and move away and others come into town and join the community (of course, many graduate and stay around at some level).  Most of the very successful gaming stores I have seen over time have been in college towns.

I admit, a strong gaming club without a retail store can be a lesser substitute for 1 & 2 above. However, a lot of these tend to be somewhat limited (for example, college clubs usually require members to be students).  Also, you can't underestimate the ability to play in a spot where you can buy supplies on the spot (I know many dice sales have happened because someone forgot their dice), or decided to buy and try a new game from wandering the store and discussing something on the shelf before or after a game.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 27, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> My math is just fine.




But your definition of "changed very little" apparently needs a lot of work.

Here's the problem with your position: _Chess_ didn't spring forth wholly formed from the brow of Zeus. The game as we play it today was simply the dominant variant among many different variants, and it took nearly 800 years for that variant to appear.

D&D has been around for 30 years. Maybe we should give it a little more breathing room?

Plus, as someone else already pointed out, whatever game you're thinking of as "Chess" isn't the only popular game being played today that has been ultimately derived from that 1000+ year old game you're citing as the Dawn of Chess. And that's ignoring the thousands of fairy chess variants which are constantly being churned out by Chess enthusiasts every year.

Saying that D&D can't be a "real game" because it has a lot of variants and then pointing to Chess as your example of what a "real game" looks like is, frankly, _ludicrous_.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 27, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1%?
> A bishop with the power to cover the full diagonals as opposed to just 2 squares?
> 
> Replacing a piece with a move of 1 with the Queen?
> ...





Sure dude, the board is the same, the peices are the same, the board is set up the same, a bishop still moves diagnaly, etc. but if you want to consider making a little change to how a couple of peices move a whole new game, thats up to you.

edit.. btw this thread is not about chess, if you want to continue discussing this topic i suggest a you make a new thread, or direct your posts back toward the threads oriignal purpose.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 27, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Saying that D&D can't be a "real game" because it has a lot of variants and then pointing to Chess as your example of what a "real game" looks like is, frankly, _ludicrous_.





Actually I said D&D not a "real" game because its a published IP, and the publishing industry doesnt produce games it produces books about games.


Chess is not a contained in a book, D&D is, and real games are played and not read.

oh and please give me a good example of a thousand year old game thats printed in books and changes every year. I dont think one exists.


----------



## Chrono22 (Oct 27, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> For one, I think Mountaineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia gives decent evidence that mountain climbing as sport is only three hundred years ago. The first attempt on Mont Blanc, the obvious challenge sitting in the middle of a populated, wealthy area was only attempted 235 years ago. The end of national parks, the end of readily available maps and mountain climbing tools, and the end of the social spirit that encouraged those things, and mountain climbing would die out.
> 
> Secondly, roleplaying games are about 35 years old. I think that when claiming that something is an immortal part of the human spirit, that thing needs to be more than 35 years old.



One, people climbed mountains for recreation before it was called "mountaineering".
Two, any kind of make-believe with rules included qualifies as a role playing game. This is something children do at a very early age without encouragement.
These things _are_ an immortal part of the human spirit. RPGs weren't invented 35 years ago. Climbing mountains wasn't invented 235 years ago. Come on now.


----------



## jonesy (Oct 27, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Actually I said D&D not a "real" game because its a published IP, and the publishing industry doesnt produce games it produces books about games.





I think your definitions need a bit more work.



> Chess is not a contained in a book, D&D is, and real games are played and not read.



Well, there goes every single reading game.



> oh and please give me a good example of a thousand year old game thats printed in books and changes every year. I dont think one exists.



Chess. The official tournament rules are revised almost every year. And all of the rules for all of the versions are printed somewhere. Or do you honestly believe it moves on by word of mouth alone?


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 27, 2010)

jonesy said:


> I think your definitions need a bit more work.
> 
> 
> Well, there goes every single reading game.
> ...





Are you suggesting that chess is in some way a form of published intellectual property?

Becuase if your not, I cant figure out how your post releates to what ive said.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 27, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> *Live by the wiki, die by the wiki:* if you don't agree with the timeline in the article you cited to support your position, I can hardly accept you as an honest debater.
> 
> Done.




Or you could, you know, accept that maybe another person has different standards than you for what qualifies as "the same" and not get all hyperbolic and start insinuating they are dishonest.

Just sayin'.


----------



## jonesy (Oct 27, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Are you suggesting that chess is in some way a form of published intellectual property?



You'd be surprised how complicated that question used to be:
Copyright on Chess Games by Edward Winter


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 27, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Or you could, you know, accept that maybe another person has different standards than you for what qualifies as "the same" and not get all hyperbolic and start insinuating they are dishonest.




The problem is he's implying that AD&D had major changes between 1980 and 1984, and yet Chess without the queen, with other major changes, is still the same. It's a double standard.


----------



## Cergorach (Oct 27, 2010)

Get your chess our of my RPG!!!  ;-)


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 27, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> One, people climbed mountains for recreation before it was called "mountaineering".




The first attempt to climb to the top of Mont Blanc was 235 years ago. The first climb to the top of Ben Nevis, the highest point in Britain (all of 1,344 meters tall), was only 4 years earlier. You can always stretch definitions to make something as old as you want it, but people did not habitually go around saying "hey, that's a tall mountain; I think I'll climb it." until a couple hundred years ago.



> Two, any kind of make-believe with rules included qualifies as a role playing game. This is something children do at a very early age without encouragement.




Again, a game of definitions. If all that survives is a game that children play that bears a close resemblance rules-wise to Calvin-ball, I will not consider that a survival of the hobby. The definition of RPG I use requires a little more sophistication, and puts the first RPG at around 35 years ago.


----------



## Chrono22 (Oct 27, 2010)

You're missing my main point, then. RPGs came out of the make believe games children naturally intuit (this includes things like wargames). The ability to project onto objects, to imagine, is something people do in their formative years, it's part of growing up. Mountaineering came out of the natural human desire to explore the unknown and test ourselves. I mentioned mountaneering- but really you can expand my idea to encompass any form of exploration. Let's not belabor the point by trying to niggle on the details.

Even if the industry side of these hobbies were to vanish without a trace, the hobbies would persist. And eventually the industry would come back anyway, to fill the needs of these hobbyists.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 27, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> RPGs came out of the make believe games children naturally intuit




Granting that that's true in a sense, so what? The fact that ox head soup comes out of the human habit of eating doesn't tell you whether or not it's still being cooked.



> I mentioned mountaneering- but really you can expand my idea to encompass any form of exploration. Let's not belabor the point by trying to niggle on the details.




But I think the details are relevant here. Things we presume are immortal aren't. Hobbies do appear and disappear. 



> Even if the industry side of these hobbies were to vanish without a trace, the hobbies would persist. And eventually the industry would come back anyway, to fill the needs of these hobbyists.




I don't see how you're supporting this. And I don't see it as a meaningful question; hobby industries are filled with hobbyists trying to make a buck in the field they love. If they're gone, the hobby is gone. If the hobby is there, they're there.


----------



## jaerdaph (Oct 27, 2010)

Cergorach said:


> Get your chess our of my RPG!!!  ;-)




Chessex

Ahh - now it all makes sense and comes full circle!





Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Conway Twitty...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og1QRtcWdEY]YouTube - conway twitty - hello darling[/ame]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 27, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Or you could, you know, accept that maybe another person has different standards than you for what qualifies as "the same" and not get all hyperbolic and start insinuating they are dishonest.
> 
> Just sayin'.




I have no problem with people having a different position than mine; that isn't my issue.

My issue is he made a statement about chess having no major changes for 1000 years, and was challenged in it.

When he cited the wiki to support his position, I pointed out it mentioned that "major changes" occurred _precisely_ as late as I had said when I corrected him.  His appeal to authority expressly supports my timeline, but he keeps going as if it didn't.

IOW, he's not just disagreeing with me, he's _disagreeing with the source he's citing to support his claim_.  It's bad scholarship and bad form at the very least- if not intentionally dishonest- to continue to assert a position your own sources contradict.

Had he cited a second source that actually supported his timeline by presenting a different timeline, I wouldn't have reacted as I did.  Instead, we get a second wiki about the rules of chess' precursor, which is as not even as similar to Western chess as Five Card Stud is to Texas Hold 'Em.

I'm sorry if you think I've overreacted, but I don't think so.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 27, 2010)

ggroy said:


> I have one counterexample to this assertion.
> 
> Personally I am one of those "mythical" tabletop gamers who is not involved in MMOs, trading card games, miniature wargaming, or board games.




A-ha! So you're the one destroying the tabletop industry!


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 27, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Plus, as someone else already pointed out, whatever game you're thinking of as "Chess" isn't the only popular game being played today that has been ultimately derived from that 1000+ year old game you're citing as the Dawn of Chess. And that's ignoring the thousands of fairy chess variants which are constantly being churned out by Chess enthusiasts every year.




Perhaps he will next claim that chess is the same as shogi.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 27, 2010)

D&D comes from fantasy wargaming, which was influenced by the Braunstein type scenario, which came from historical wargaming. Historical wargaming derives from a type of amusement/education/training in which cadets (or bored members of the upper crust) were given command of imaginary armies. The participants would move the miniatures around and a referee or teacher would adjudicate the success of these strategies. Historical wargames fused the strategy game with formalized rules similar to boardgames. 

In some cases, these games were formalized into having limited moves, formalizing the game into a logically based, more abstract game, that would teach strategic principles. Or, perhaps, existing principles of boardgame design were adapted to the idea of a wargame. One of these games is chaturanga, the ancestor of chess.

Thus, D&D and chess are ultimately descendents of the same type of game. If one wishes to argue that chess has been unchanged for one thousand years, one must contend with the idea that two thousand years ago, chess and D&D were the same thing.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Thus, D&D and chess are ultimately descendents of the same type of game. If one wishes to argue that chess has been unchanged for one thousand years, one must contend with the idea that two thousand years ago, chess and D&D were the same thing.




And, that modern birds are still dinosaurs.

Interestingly, in some venues, this assertion is held as entirely true.  In other venues, it's crazy talk.  Go figure.


----------



## jonesy (Oct 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> D&D comes from fantasy wargaming, which was influenced by the Braunstein type scenario, which came from historical wargaming. Historical wargaming derives from a type of amusement/education/training in which cadets (or bored members of the upper crust) were given command of imaginary armies...



Not to downplay your comparison of D&D to chess, but D&D came from actual wargaming with actual units. There was simulation of historical scenarios, sometimes. Here's the source himself telling the story:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/294250-interview-david-wesely-inventor-rpgs.html


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 27, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Not to downplay your comparison of D&D to chess, but D&D came from actual wargaming with actual units. There was simulation of historical scenarios, sometimes. Here's the source himself telling the story:
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/294250-interview-david-wesely-inventor-rpgs.html




The Braunstein scenario was created by David Wesely. As I noted, the Braunstein scenario came about from historical wargaming, which I believe is what you are describing as actual wargaming with actual units. What do you believe we are in disagreement about?


----------



## jonesy (Oct 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> The Braunstein scenario was created by David Wesely. As I noted, the Braunstein scenario came about from historical wargaming, which I believe is what you are describing as actual wargaming with actual units. What do you believe we are in disagreement about?



I'm not convinced we are. 

Well, I think it was the part about 'fantasy wargaming'.

Edit: diaglo is going to come over any minute now and hit me over the head with a copy of Chainmail, isn't he?

Edit to edit: actually, I have no idea what my point was supposed to be. My train of thought steamed right into a mountain.


----------



## Erik Mona (Oct 27, 2010)

Paizo is having its best year ever.

I think part of the problem is that folks who view, say, D&D or Pathfinder or a licensed game as "too derivative" are looking for a kind of tabletop gaming industry playing field in which oddball ideas without much commercial interest in the first place perform as well as brands that have multiple decades of fan interest, or that are based on genres that are very popular.

I contend that that sort of atmosphere has _never_ existed in the marketplace. It's not that the sort of market folks like Malcolm and Gareth hope for has disappeared, it's that it never really existed the way they envision it in the first place.

--Erik

PS: That's not to say that there aren't some real threats to the industry, but there is still a ton of money to be made my people at all levels of the game industry.

You just have to make something that people actually want.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 27, 2010)

Erik Mona said:


> You just have to make something that people actually want.




Like instead of deciding what you want and telling everyone else that's what they've got to like too?

Never catch on. To start with you'd be in danger of getting lots of new players and having too much money. Worse, ordinary non-gamer members of the public might start getting interested and enjoy themselves. Abandon this reckless plan before it gets out of hand


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> D&D comes from fantasy wargaming, which was influenced by the Braunstein type scenario, which came from historical wargaming. ....
> 
> Or, perhaps, existing principles of boardgame design were adapted to the idea of a wargame. One of these games is chaturanga, the ancestor of chess.
> 
> Thus, D&D and chess are ultimately descendents of the same type of game.



With the key differentiator being that in most wargames - including chess - a single player controls multiple units, forces, troops, pieces, or whatever; where in most RPGs a single player controls a very limited number of individual characters.

That's why Braunstein is such an important link; it's the game that took players from controlling multiple units to controlling a single character. (and at the same time to pretty much LARPing it; LARPs to a great extent also have Braunstein to thank for their existence)

Lan-"the chancellor"-efan


----------



## carmachu (Oct 28, 2010)

Ghostwind said:


> The Designer Monologues » Blog Archive » Tabletopocalypse Now
> 
> Gareth raises some good points but despite the decline in sales, I feel that gaming as a hobby remains fairly strong.
> 
> Comments?




He also raises some invalid points. I have to agree with a friend- he uses a niche of a niche of a niche product (Dresden files product) to illustrate his point? Or as he said:

Pointing to the sales of the Dresden Files RPG as a landmark is disingenuous, in my opinion.

I'd be much more interested to see sales numbers on, say, DEATHWATCH. Something that isn't so much of a niche product by a no-name publisher.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 28, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> And, in the case of Gygaxian 1e, because we were to a large extent told to change it and make it our own by the author of the game.  From that perspective, 1e D+D might be the least static game ever published.
> 
> Lanefan




This is very true and something to keep in mind in discussing whether D&D is a game or an IP.  When the developers of the game (and this is not limited to 1e, it's appeared in EVERY edition of the game) straight up tell you to go forth and kitbash the game, isn't it pretty much guaranteed that the rules are going to roam far and wide?

This is one point where RPG's really do diverge from traditional games.  Traditional games generally aren't built around the idea that every group of people playing them will be playing differently, although, to be fair, many games are.  But, changing the rules isn't a base assumption of most game's rulesets.

It certainly is a base assumption in RPG's.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 28, 2010)

carmachu said:


> He also raises some invalid points. I have to agree with a friend- he uses a niche of a niche of a niche product (Dresden files product) to illustrate his point? Or as he said:




It's the fifth best selling RPG right now, according to some figures. That's not niche of a niche.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 28, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> It's the fifth best selling RPG right now, according to some figures. That's not niche of a niche.



 The answer to that really depends on the difference between 1 and 5, If 5 sells 3000 units and #1 sell 3100 units the no but if #1 sell 15000 units then yes. The problem is that outsiders like us have no real idea of what amount of product Paizo and WoTC are shifting in any timeframe. 
Personally I suspect that it an order of magnitude over #3+ it may even be more but I have no real way of knowing.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 28, 2010)

Erik Mona said:


> Paizo is having its best year ever.
> 
> I think part of the problem is that folks who view, say, D&D or Pathfinder or a licensed game as "too derivative" are looking for a kind of tabletop gaming industry playing field in which oddball ideas without much commercial interest in the first place perform as well as brands that have multiple decades of fan interest, or that are based on genres that are very popular.
> 
> ...





This is a good point. Over the last few decades hundreds of different RPGs have arisen, yet most gamers stick with D&D and a few other games; many of those that branch out and try something new end up coming back to D&D. There is only a relatively small segment of the gamer population that seems "mobile" in terms of its gaming choices. It also seems that a large percentage of indie and "oddball" games end up with very few players, no matter how critically received. They might be played by a small group of people for a short period of time, but those people tend to be fickle anyways and move onto the next new clever thing. A lot of the most cutting edge/avante garde games in terms of design end up being museum pieces in collections; sure, they're clever and well-designed, but why aren't people sticking with these games, and why do people always come back to (or stick with) D&D? Does anyone play _Legends of Alyria _or _Sorcerer & Sword _or _Mechanical Dream _behind their creators and a few friends?

This isn't to harp on such games, but to point out that for various reasons they just don't stick. Part of it is similar to the reason that very few independently produced records or books will end up gaining popularity; if you don't have a big record company or publisher distributing and advertising for you, it is hard to get the traction needed to make it big. But this is not the only or even main reason that _Mechanical Dream _is not a popular RPG; I would say that it has to do with particularity, specificity, and a kind of arcane quality that a lot of indie games have: They are created less for playability and game-table enjoyment and more as a kind of artistic rendering or snapshot of RPG potentiality. A game like _Tribe 8, _for instance, is very focused and flavorful thematically, but it has both limited appeal and scope, and potential for ongoing games.

I would say that one of the main reasons that D&D (and its largest child, Pathfinder) is so popular, year after year--aside from the big publishing house factor, which is significant--is that its play style, from OD&D to Essentials, is particularly conducive to a kind of ongoing, neverending, adventure game feel that you just don't get with many games. Whether we're talking about the sandbox or a tightly crafted epic campaign; there is a sense that the D&D Universe, in all its variations, from the published settings to the thousands of homebrews, is eternal, it exists and goes on. So even if your epic campaign ends with an apocalyptic bang, a new world can arise. To quote Merlin in _Excalibur, _"There are other worlds, this one is done with me." 

There are other D&D worlds, countless of them, yet they are all part of one vast, populated, eternal mythos. Yet there is only one _Mechanical Dream _or _Legends of Alyria, _and it is self-contained, a creation of one or two minds; even though D&D was originally the creation of only a  few, it has become the ongoing creation of millions. When you play a game like _Mechanical Dream _you are exploring a foreign land, a place you go to for a time but eventually come home. When you play D&D you are exploring your own world, your own land, and discovering new things about it. Exploring new regions, yes, but also exploring with fresh eyes, especially when you take into account that many of today's D&D players have played during different phases of their lives, from the "Golden Age" of childhood and middle school, to the "Silver Age" of high school, to the "Bronze Age" of college, to the Iron or Dark Age of early to mid-20s to the early 30s when many gamers leave aside such "childish things", to a potential revival and new Golden Age in one's mid-30s and on.

But I've rambled.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 28, 2010)

Mercurius, this is something that certainly jives with my own experiences over the years.  I've wandered away from D&D from time to time, but, I always seem to come back and I think you nailed it right on the head - D&D is one of the few games, IME, that is so conducive to long term play.

I find a lot of other games are loads of fun, for an handful of sessions.  Maybe six months.  But, then I find myself gazing longingly back at my D&D books and start banging away at yet another campaign idea because I know that it will come back around sooner rather than later.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 28, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Not to downplay your comparison of D&D to chess, but D&D came from actual wargaming with actual units. There was simulation of historical scenarios, sometimes. Here's the source himself telling the story:
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/294250-interview-david-wesely-inventor-rpgs.html





Great interveiw. My favorite parts are where he explains his drama with the publishing industry, and another, was when he talks about how he originated the uber-referee who gets to invent all the rules for the game, and change them whenever they want.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 28, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> Part of it is similar to the reason that very few independently produced records or books will end up gaining popularity; if you don't have a big record company or publisher distributing and advertising for you, it is hard to get the traction needed to make it big. But this is not the only or even main reason that _Mechanical Dream _is not a popular RPG; I would say that it has to do with particularity, specificity, and a kind of arcane quality that a lot of indie games have: They are created less for playability and game-table enjoyment and more as a kind of artistic rendering or snapshot of RPG potentiality. A game like _Tribe 8, _for instance, is very focused and flavorful thematically, but it has both limited appeal and scope, and potential for ongoing games.
> 
> I would say that one of the main reasons that D&D (and its largest child, Pathfinder) is so popular, year after year--aside from the big publishing house factor, which is significant--is that its play style, from OD&D to Essentials, is particularly conducive to a kind of ongoing, neverending, adventure game feel that you just don't get with many games. Whether we're talking about the sandbox or a tightly crafted epic campaign; there is a sense that the D&D Universe, in all its variations, from the published settings to the thousands of homebrews, is eternal, it exists and goes on. So even if your epic campaign ends with an apocalyptic bang, a new world can arise. To quote Merlin in _Excalibur, _"There are other worlds, this one is done with me."
> 
> ...





Much the same was said of the Indie music scenes in the  80s and 90s, until they became the new standard. You seem to be suggesting no one has ever or will ever want to move on from (the TRPG equivalents of) Phil Collins and Barry Manilow.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 28, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Much the same was said of the Indie music scenes in the  80s and 90s, until they became the new standard. You seem to be suggesting no one has ever or will ever want to move on from (the TRPG equivalents of) Phil Collins and Barry Manilow.




But *are* they the new standard? Would they have gotten as far without some media outlets, like *Spin* in its heyday, flogging them?

And keep in mind that the big corporate record company acts include far more more than tepid stuff like Manilow or Phil Collins. How about the Stones? Pink Floyd? Metallica? All major acts that have benefited from massive amounts of promotion from record companies and big media. Is an indie band ever going to have the same kind of sales as either the Stones or Floyd? Is any indie record ever going to have the same penetration into the market as *Dark Side of the Moon* or *Thriller*? Or even Barry Manilow? He has been a *massive* success over the years.

Making comparisons with musical acts is full of problems in general. For one thing, enjoying a CD is very different from enjoying a role playing game. The time and effort commitments are very different. It takes little effort to get Manilow, Floyd, and the Stones on your iPod and enjoy them equally with a collection of indie or small label titles. I can have the Stones or Zeppelin on my iPod along side Liz Phair, LukeSki, Billy Bragg, Modest Mouse, and a host of other obscure local bands putting their stuff on CDs made on the cheap. 

But if I want to really enjoy a role playing game, I've got to put some time and effort into running or playing it. In the time I can sit down for one session of a game (and that doesn't even include prep), I could have 3 or 4 different CDs playing in the background. That difference could just exaggerate the issue even more.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 28, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I can have the Stones or Zeppelin on my iPod along side Liz Phair, LukeSki, Billy Bragg, Modest Mouse, and a host of other obscure local bands putting their stuff on CDs made on the cheap.




Wow, someone else who knows LukeSki.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 28, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Wow, someone else who knows LukeSki.




Local boy. He has performed at a few local cons for years, sometimes with guest artists like Art Paul Schlosser or Raymond and Scum.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 28, 2010)

billd91 said:


> But *are* they the new standard? Would they have gotten as far without some media outlets, like *Spin* in its heyday, flogging them?
> 
> Is any indie record ever going to have the same penetration into the market as *Dark Side of the Moon* or *Thriller*? Or even Barry Manilow? He has been a *massive* success over the years.
> 
> ...




OK now I'm plain confused. Pink Floyd and the Stones were Indie before the term/ genre was invented. And we both know Thriller and Barry are the worst kind of bad wrong fun. The distinction is as clear as lots of girlfriends v's lots of lager and kebabs.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 29, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Much the same was said of the Indie music scenes in the  80s and 90s, until they became the new standard. You seem to be suggesting no one has ever or will ever want to move on from (the TRPG equivalents of) Phil Collins and Barry Manilow.




Hmm...you seem to be saying that D&D is to RPGs what Phil Collins and Barry Manilow are to pop music: shmaltzy, run-of-the-mill talents that were popular because of their mediocrity not despite it. I don't think that is true, but that there is something deeply appealing and evocative about D&D that other, more intellectually innovative RPGs haven't been able to capture. It is similar to why J.R.R. Tolkien created one of the great classics of literature but Hal Duncan or Jeff Vandermeer probably never will; Tolkien tapped into something deeply archetypal, that resonates with something soulful within humans, whereas Duncan and Vandermeer--while clever, innovative, and "literary"--don't tap into the same depths and thus don't inspire in the same way.

If I have to make a musical analogy, I suppose D&D is more like classic rock, the Beatles or Doors or Pink Floyd, none of which are necessarily the best music ever created but offered something real, something archetypal to the consciousness of the modern era. 

I am saying that D&D is to the RPG world what _The Lord of the Rings_ is to fantasy literature. The are "better" books than LotR, there are ideas that are just as imaginative, characters much more deeply realized, more intricate and cleverly wrought plots. But LotR is a true classic; it is _the _fantasy novel of the 20th century, the central, defining text. 

This is not to say that it is impossible that another RPG comes along and redefines the field and opens up new realms of possibility. Actually, Vampire did this, and maybe a few others on different scales. But why is it that most RPGers go back to, or never leave, D&D? Is it the same reason that most people buy Kleenex and not other brands of tissue? That certainly plays a part. But I think there is much more to it than that, and that "much moreness" is where things get interesting and, perhaps, worth exploring when we're discussing the future of the hobby.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 29, 2010)

Umbran said:


> And, that modern birds are still dinosaurs.
> 
> Interestingly, in some venues, this assertion is held as entirely true.  In other venues, it's crazy talk.  Go figure.




I'm trying to imagine a venue in which "robins aren't real birds like chickens, because chickens haven't changed since they were velociprators" would be considered "entirely true".

I'm coming up a little short.



Chaos Disciple said:


> oh and please give me a good example of a  thousand year old game thats printed in books and changes every year. I  dont think one exists.




Chess.

... were you just not paying attention to the post you were replying to?


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 29, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Chess.
> 
> ... were you just not paying attention to the post you were replying to?





Can you provide a link to where I can get copies of all those books?

I really want to see how many rule changes ive missed.


----------



## Chrono22 (Oct 29, 2010)

^You haven't played chess much, have you? There are many varieties of chess, and every one of those has particular playing styles. There are boatloads of chess books, chock full of alternate rules and advice, check amazon or your local hobby shop.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 29, 2010)

For chess variants, many can be found here:  http://www.chessvariants.org/rindex.html

Here's their overall list of of chess variants:
The Chess Variant Pages -- Query Results

Here they are sorted by board size & shape:

http://www.chessvariants.org/Gindex.html

And there are others out there not cataloged at that site...


----------



## billd91 (Oct 29, 2010)

nedjer said:


> OK now I'm plain confused. Pink Floyd and the Stones were Indie before the term/ genre was invented.




There's a difference between being 'indie' and being a band without a record contract yet, an undiscovered/undeveloped band. When your debut album is on a major label like Columbia/EMI for the Floyd and Decca for the Stones, you're really not in indie territory.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 29, 2010)

Smells like a teen spirit argument out of a black hole sun to me, but I don't want to get into the even flow with 10,000 (or more) maniacs!  Even if you put my buddy Alice in chains and show me lots of Barenaked Ladies, it won't cause any more than little earthquakes in my life.  My r.e.m. sleep will be just fine.

Certainly, there is a detectible art of noise coming from all genres, and even a blind melon is ripe twice a day.  I'd go on, but I have faith no more in my ability to really start up with you gorillaz.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 29, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> ^You haven't played chess much, have you? There are many varieties of chess, and every one of those has particular playing styles. There are boatloads of chess books, chock full of alternate rules and advice, check amazon or your local hobby shop.





Actually ive been playing chess the same way for 25 years. But if the rules for the game have changed every year, and i missed one book of changes each yeart for all the years ive played. Thats 25 book of improved rules on the game that people now call chess, that ive never read or even know about.


And if these books of changes have been printed every year for over a thousand years. thats alot of books, and alot of changes, so im looking for those books BotE was reffering too.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 29, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Actually ive been playing chess the same way for 25 years. But if the rules for the game have changed every year,




Again, I feel you're changing the rules. A game that's supposedly gone unchanged for 1000 years, and now you want changing every year, a claim that's clearly unsupportable for D&D. In any case, United States Chess Federation's Official Rules of Chess is now up to the fifth edition. Or you could play by the FIDE Handbook which is a different set of rules--which include rules against competing when high. Or we could have ICCF Playing Rules - ICCF - The International Correspondence Chess Federation which are valid from 1/1/2009. (And if a whole new real-time subgame to chess involving the hitting of a clock is not new rules, then there's only once or twice D&D has had new rules.)


----------



## Elric (Oct 29, 2010)

Ghostwind said:


> The Designer Monologues » Blog Archive » Tabletopocalypse Now
> 
> Gareth raises some good points but despite the decline in sales, I feel that gaming as a hobby remains fairly strong.




I haven't had time to read this thread, but does seeing a rating of Dungeons and Dragons as tied with Pathfinder for sales strike anyone else as implausible?  I'd be shocked if Dungeons and Dragons didn't have much higher sales than any other game over any one-year period.  

Now, it's possible that this was a low-release quarter for D&D and a super-huge quarter for Pathfinder, but I doubt it.  Given that, I'm not sure how much I trust these ratings.  Maybe Dresden Files is fifth because the survey is incomplete?


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 29, 2010)

Elric said:


> I haven't had time to read this thread, but does seeing a rating of Dungeons and Dragons as tied with Pathfinder for sales strike anyone else as implausible?  I'd be shocked if Dungeons and Dragons didn't have much higher sales than any other game over any one-year period.




So why don't you read the thread? The reason statistics was invented was because our guts frequently produce bad answers, and I think the evidence introduced in the thread makes it clear that at the least, Pathfinder is a serious contender.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 29, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> Again, I feel you're changing the rules. A game that's supposedly gone unchanged for 1000 years, and now you want changing every year, a claim that's clearly unsupportable for D&D. In any case, United States Chess Federation's Official Rules of Chess is now up to the fifth edition. Or you could play by the FIDE Handbook which is a different set of rules--which include rules against competing when high. Or we could have ICCF Playing Rules - ICCF - The International Correspondence Chess Federation which are valid from 1/1/2009. (And if a whole new real-time subgame to chess involving the hitting of a clock is not new rules, then there's only once or twice D&D has had new rules.)







Begining of the End is the one who claimed chess was an example of a game thats been around over a thousand years, is printed in books and changes each and every year.


I just wanted to know where to get all these books, so i could read about the specific changes that were made each year.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 29, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> I just wanted to know where to get all these books, so i could read about the specific changes that were made each year.




I'd try Amazon, or Barnes&Noble. Maybe there are bookshops close to where you live, they might have books on chess.

Also, this site seems to have a wide range of books on chess:

Chess Books | Wholesale Chess Book Library

It seems a bit expensive to buy all those books, though, so I'd settle for a few books on chess history to start with. I'll see if I can use Google to locate a few recommendations for you.

/M


----------



## Hussar (Oct 29, 2010)

In my mind, the entire problem with GMS's idea is that we have no idea how much the 5th place guy sold any other quarter.  I'm not going to bother looking up the actual number (I'm just too lazy) but let's say that 5th place sold 5000 units.  Ok, now, D&D traditionally takes up about 80% of the market.  Let's split it evenly between Pathfinder and 4e, cos, AFAIC, it's still D&D.

So, 80% to the top two, with the remaining 20% for everyone else.  Let's make some really convenient assumptions and split that evenly - the remaining three on the top 5 list and an even share for everyone else.  So, that puts 5% with 5000 units.  That makes 80000 units for the top two.

Is that really bad for a quarter for RPG products?  Doesn't sound too bad to me.  40k a piece is not a bad quarter at all.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Oct 29, 2010)

Hussar said:


> In my mind, the entire problem with GMS's idea is that we have no idea how much the 5th place guy sold any other quarter.  I'm not going to bother looking up the actual number (I'm just too lazy) but let's say that 5th place sold 5000 units.  Ok, now, D&D traditionally takes up about 80% of the market.  Let's split it evenly between Pathfinder and 4e, cos, AFAIC, it's still D&D.




Actually, Fred Hicks is very open about his sales, you can read various entries on his blog.

Deadly Fredly | Gaming. Publishing. Media. Food. Fatherhood.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 29, 2010)

Maggan said:


> Also, this site seems to have a wide range of books on chess:
> 
> Chess Books | Wholesale Chess Book Library



He could also listen to "The Story of Chess" on the soundtrack of the musical _Chess_. It's not very informative, but it's a wonderful song. I rarely pass up an opportunity to recommend _Chess_. It has so much more going for it than "One Night in Bangkok".


----------



## jonesy (Oct 29, 2010)

If you're thinking about 'the rules of chess' as only covering the movement of the pieces you are looking at them from a very narrow perspective. From that perspective it might indeed seem as if the rules changed very little from time to time. But take a look at the current World Chess Federation version:
Handbook

It has points such as this:
*12.2	
Players are not allowed to leave the ‘playing venue’ without permission from the arbiter. The playing venue is defined as the playing area, rest rooms, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter.*

It might not be useful or even relevant to the casual player, but it is a rule of chess. In championship games it's even been one of the most important. Players have lost games for going to the bathroom without checking how to do it.


----------



## jonesy (Oct 29, 2010)

[MENTION=52905]darjr[/MENTION] : there should be a way to give exp for an exp comment. =)

Oh, and here's something interesting:

Bathroom Dispute Halts Chess Championship
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2006/09/bathroom_dispute_halts_chess_m.php


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 29, 2010)

Elric said:


> I haven't had time to read this thread, but does seeing a rating of Dungeons and Dragons as tied with Pathfinder for sales strike anyone else as implausible?




Not really. One possible scenario: D&D probably sold big when it came out to a huge, enthusiastic audience. Pathfinder is slightly smaller, but has fans, and a built-in potential supply of players in the form of 3e holdouts, ready for the long haul.


----------



## WizarDru (Oct 29, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Certainly, there is a detectible art of noise coming from all genres, and even a blind melon is ripe twice a day.  I'd go on, but I have faith no more in my ability to really start up with you gorillaz.




Apropos of nothing, one of the members of Art of Noise is a DM. One of my friends played a couple of games with him at Dreamation last year. Nice guy and a fun DM, or so my friends tell me.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 29, 2010)

WizarDru said:


> ... one of the members of Art of Noise is a DM...



I just love the video for "Close to the Edit".


----------



## Ghostwind (Oct 29, 2010)

The argument about chess is intriguing but can we get back on topic? 

The biggest fallacy with the whole sky is falling point GMS is trying to make is using ICVN's numbers as gospel. Those are numbers that are drawn from voluntary reports in much the same way that Inquest used to report sales based strictly on whatever retailers mailed in.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Oct 30, 2010)

Well, like I explain in this thread, ICV2 uses the same methodology that used to be used by Billboard and Nielsen raitings, before computers made them more accurate.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ace-icv2-q3-rpg-sales-list-3.html#post5344980

Just because it involves polling retailers does not make it a "crapshoot" like some people are suggesting.  In fact, I would say ICV2 is one of the more accurate models out there for the hobby chains.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 30, 2010)

I'm an Entertainment attorney in the music biz so I know about the metrics we use.

Regardless of the metric, though, they primarily measure sales- IOW, the business- catering to the need.  They are not measuring the need themselves.  It's like predicting the size and shape of something by looking at it's shadow.

The health of the RPG industry is not the health of the hobby.


----------



## Ghostwind (Oct 30, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> Well, like I explain in this thread, ICV2 uses the same methodology that used to be used by Billboard and Nielsen raitings, before computers made them more accurate.
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ace-icv2-q3-rpg-sales-list-3.html#post5344980
> 
> Just because it involves polling retailers does not make it a "crapshoot" like some people are suggesting.  In fact, I would say ICV2 is one of the more accurate models out there for the hobby chains.




So the fact that retailers often inflate those numbers to make it sound like their sales are better than they actually are carries no weight?


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 30, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Actually ive been playing chess the same way for 25 years. But if the rules for the game have changed every year, and i missed one book of changes each yeart for all the years ive played. Thats 25 book of improved rules on the game that people now call chess, that ive never read or even know about.




That's nice. There are people who have been playing the same edition of D&D, unchanged, for 30+ years. The fact that there are other versions of D&D hasn't affected them, just like the fact that there are other versions of Chess apparently hasn't affected you.

And if you're really interested in reading about thousands of variations on the rules of chess, here ya go.

And if you're really interested in reading hundreds of books about Chess, here ya go.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 30, 2010)

Ghostwind said:


> So the fact that retailers often inflate those numbers to make it sound like their sales are better than they actually are carries no weight?




Why would store owners lie to a confidential survey, and why would their lies preferentially favor Pathfinder? Frankly, if we do dismiss this and the Amazon numbers and the statements from Paizo, we absolutely cannot entertain the conclusion that D&D 4 is doing better than Pathfinder; we do not, and at the level of certainty we're demanding, can not, know that.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 30, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> That's nice. There are people who have been playing the same edition of D&D, unchanged, for 30+ years. The fact that there are other versions of D&D hasn't affected them, just like the fact that there are other versions of Chess apparently hasn't affected you.
> 
> And if you're really interested in reading about thousands of variations on the rules of chess, here ya go.
> 
> And if you're really interested in reading hundreds of books about Chess, here ya go.




Your post doesnt provide any proof of your claim about the thousand + year old books on chess.
　
Go back and try agian, or just agree with me that they dont exist.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 30, 2010)

Ghostwind said:


> So the fact that retailers often inflate those numbers to make it sound like their sales are better than they actually are carries no weight?




Sounds like an accusation. Got anything to back it up?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 30, 2010)

Ladies & Gents, I considered posting several other sources (besides the wiki entry Chaos Disciple cited) that all agree that modern Western chess dates back only as far as the late 1400s to early 1500s, but decided to stick to my guns and not engage with _a poster who disagrees with his own sources._

If he disagrees with his own sources, what makes you think he'll agree with ones not of his own choosing?  Why are you still talking to him?


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 30, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Your post doesnt provide any proof of your claim about the thousand + year old books on chess.




I don't remember making any claims about 1000+ year old books about Chess. But since you're interested, here ya go.

Any other words you'd care to put in my mouth? Any further revising of your bat- claims you'd like to make? I mean, if you just keep rewriting your position long enough I'm sure you'll _eventually_ manage to make a claim that can't be trivially disproven with 30 seconds of googling.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 30, 2010)

> I don't remember making any claims about 1000+ year old books about Chess. But since you're interested, here ya go.




Nice link- and I notice the first one about modern chess dates to the 1400s.

_NOW_ can we just let him sputter without responding?


----------



## Maggan (Oct 30, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _NOW_ can we just let him sputter without responding?




Sigh ... ok, but that's not as much fun. 

On topic then, I used to think that the health of the business side was intrinsically linked to the health of the hobby. Now, as the Internet, digital publishing and social networking has changed the whole picture, I think that the hobby might not have such as strong link to the business side of gaming.

Either way, it doesn't change my gaming, so I'm not losing too much sleep over it. 

/M


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 30, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> I don't remember making any claims about 1000+ year old books about Chess. But since you're interested, here ya go.
> 
> Any other words you'd care to put in my mouth? Any further revising of your bat- claims you'd like to make? I mean, if you just keep rewriting your position long enough I'm sure you'll _eventually_ manage to make a claim that can't be trivially disproven with 30 seconds of googling.




Putting words in your mouth?? go read post #188 in this thread.


Then post a link to the over one thousand books (one for each year) you claimed exist.


Oh and thanks for proving to DA that chess really is over 1000 years old. You saved me the trouble


----------



## jonesy (Oct 30, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> ...go read post #188 in this thread.



Hmm. What he said about what you said can be interpreted a number of different ways. One of which doesn't have him saying there are thousand year old books about chess, but rather books about a thousand year old game (which is what you said to him in the quote). And now you're saying he was actually talking of thousands of books.

I myself have a habit of getting stuck in semantics sometimes because I find it important to say what I actually mean, but this is getting a bit silly, don't you think? Why is this so important?


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 30, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Hmm. What he said about what you said can be interpreted a number of different ways. One of which doesn't have him saying there are thousand year old books about chess, but rather books about a thousand year old game (which is what you said to him in the quote). And now you're saying he was actually talking of thousands of books.
> 
> I myself have a habit of getting stuck in semantics sometimes because I find it important to say what I actually mean, but this is getting a bit silly, don't you think? Why is this so important?




　
However you want to look at it "chess" was the wrong reply to that request.

But, I should problaby just let him have his opinion, or misunderstanding, or whatever, and stop asking for that link, because this is getting "silly".


----------



## jonesy (Oct 30, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> But, I should problaby just let him have his opinion, or misunderstanding, or whatever, and stop asking for that link, because this is getting "silly".



That's not what I said, or asked.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 30, 2010)

jonesy said:


> That's not what I said, or asked.




Your right, thats what I said, and its not a question.


----------



## nedjer (Oct 30, 2010)

15 pages in - seems about time I went and actually read the post


----------



## Ghostwind (Oct 30, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Sounds like an accusation. Got anything to back it up?




Yep. When Inquest was collecting data, they wanted hard sales numbers for that month. Show me a retailer who is willing to open share his sales numbers where his competition can see them. Business owners are often reluctant to share any data where a competitor can use it to his advantage. Additionally, many stores do not track sales, they reorder based upon visual inventory. If they sell their one copy of Pathfinder, they reorder one for the next week. Ask them how many they sold in a month and they might know or they might not. So, they will usually give a guestimate. Not every FLGS has an up-to-date POS equipped with a scanner and can print out sales data as needed. Some still use old fashioned paper invoices.

Simply put, there is no way you can get an accurate measure of RPG sales based solely on voluntary input from retailers. For that, you have to go directly to the publisher. To my knowledge, Fred Hicks and a couple others are the only ones who are willingly to openly show their sales data. No one else will, especially Wotc or Paizo.


----------



## Elric (Oct 30, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> So why don't you read the thread? The reason statistics was invented was because our guts frequently produce bad answers, and I think the evidence introduced in the thread makes it clear that at the least, Pathfinder is a serious contender.




Because I read the first page and a half and no one brought it up, and I didn't want to search through posts on chess to see if it was ever brought up?  But if you want to link to a couple of highly relevant posts from the middle pages, feel free.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 30, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> Why would store owners lie to a confidential survey, and why would their lies preferentially favor Pathfinder?




Because they're gamers with an axe to grind?

Granted, that skews both ways and might favour WotC as the incumbent. But I have known game store owners who I could imagine would have reported 0 sales of D&D just out of spite. Or 0 Pathfinder, and 10 Call of Cthulhu because they think that game rocks.

/M


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 30, 2010)

(Breaking my own rule, I know, but nobody misrepresents me.)



> Oh and thanks for proving to DA that chess really is over 1000 years old.




Did you flunk math?  Or English?

Here's some _Modern_ chess dates garnished from the various cited sources and hrown around this thread- all AD- subtracted from today's year:

2010 - 1430 = ?
2010 - 1470 = ?
2010 - 1700 = ?

Note: none of those problems have an answer of 1000+

Nobody here is battling the strawman that chess' roots aren't more than 1000 years old.  We are battling your assertion that chess has undergone no major changes in that time- a position which no source _*including your own *_has supported.

Your posts in defense of the indefensible are fast reaching Pythonesque levels of absurdity.


Do you wish to continue your dishonest scholarship?


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 30, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (Breaking my own rule, I know, but nobody misrepresents me.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Im not sure what you mean by dishonest
I actually agree with you in post #145



Chaos Disciple said:


> Well if you concider changing 1% of a games design qualifies as a completely different game. then yeah were talking about different games.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 30, 2010)

> Im not sure what you mean by dishonest
> I actually agree with you in post #145



Which you follow with repeated claims about the 1000 year old game which nobody is really talking about- you continue to conflate them quoth your rhetoric.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 30, 2010)

Erik Mona said:


> Paizo is having its best year ever.
> 
> I think part of the problem is that folks who view, say, D&D or Pathfinder or a licensed game as "too derivative" are looking for a kind of tabletop gaming industry playing field in which oddball ideas without much commercial interest in the first place perform as well as brands that have multiple decades of fan interest, or that are based on genres that are very popular.
> 
> ...




Yeah, the stuff that many folks don't want to hear.

The fact is, if you're a foodie, you may get this awesome idea for "Escar-to-go!", the World's Finest Fast Food Snail Joint. That ain't gonna fly in Texas! You could put one up next to McDonald's, which sells some of the world's most unpalatable commercial beef products (Texans eat beef like it's going out of style... we know about this stuff!)... and you'll still watch people lining up to eat McDogpoop and few ever come to the Snail Joint drive-thru (and even the few that do ask for a burger half the time). And Heaven help you if you set up next to Whataburger. You'll be done for in no time.

Sure, after you go belly up you could stand around and complain about how the restaurant industry is dying because nobody wants to buy the Goose Liver Pate Kid's Meal with Belgian Endive and a toy surprise inside. Or how every time you ask your customers whether they want to add a side of Raw Antelope Nuggets they always blanch and decline. But the fact is that you were hoping to have a mass market approach to a niche market, and that is why it turned out to be disappointing.

I'm not sure if that's what Gareth is on about; I can only speculate as to what eyebeams wants as well. But I _do_ think that product in the role playing game industry is selling... but it's probably not mostly niche product. Niche product is niche. Sure, I think niche can get a "bump" and get big for a while... but I think it will usually tend back down to niche status. As to the stuff that is selling... you can call it "McGaming" if you want, but if it sells, it sells. People must obviously be having some fun with it or I suspect that they'd just stop buying it.

I think it's cool that you could write a game called _Mandelbrot_ where people play sentient fractals fighting it out in Plato's Realm of Forms, and using cut-ups of proofs from Symbolic Logic as a resolution system. I think it's cool that you could publish it online or as print-on-demand. I think it's cool that there is probably at least one group on Planet Earth that would actually play it, and maybe even write up an After Action Report or two. But I'm not especially bummed that you cannot make a career out of writing games like that, because I try not to get bummed about things that are so completely obvious.


----------



## GreyLord (Oct 30, 2010)

I don't know WHAT the person who keeps on going on about Chess is discussing, but I think they are confused about the rules of the game vs. competitive rules of the game.

The first, the actual rules of Chess haven't had a major change in over 100 years, and that was simply to add stalemate rules standardization...other than that the rules haven't changed in over 500 YEARS.

Either that or you state that chess didn't exist prior to the creation of FIDE (official rule keepers of Chess today) in which case you would be arguing chess is no older than 100 years old (which everyone would say is ridiculous).

For ease of commentary, how about we go the public route (since public rules and opinion is probably more accepted than a few dozen people here on EN, or even a few thousand via the Chess organizations)...and do the Wiki thing...

Chess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Around 1200, rules of shatranj started to be modified in southern Europe, and around 1475, several major changes made the game essentially as it is known today.[32] These modern rules for the basic moves had been adopted in Italy and Spain.[35][36] Pawns gained the option of advancing two squares on their first move, while bishops and queens acquired their modern abilities. The queen replaced the earlier vizier chess piece towards the end of the 10th century and by the 15th century, had become the most powerful piece;[37] consequently modern chess was referred to as "Queen's Chess" or "Mad Queen Chess".[38] These new rules quickly spread throughout western Europe, with the exception of the rules about stalemate, which were finalized in the early 19th century. To distinguish it from its predecessors, this version of the rules is sometimes referred to as western chess[39] or international chess.[40]




Irregardless, with the stalemate rules, the rules were solidified and have been solid basically for the past 200 YEARS...as they are today.  Not changing year to year...solid rules.



Rules of chess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> he rules of chess (also known as the laws of chess) are rules governing the play of the game of chess. While the exact origins of chess are unclear, modern rules first took form during the Middle Ages. The rules continued to be slightly modified until the early 19th century, when they reached essentially their current form. The rules also varied somewhat from place to place. Today Fédération Internationale des Échecs (FIDE), also known as the World Chess Organization, sets the standard rules, with slight modifications made by some national organizations for their own purposes. There are variations of the rules for fast chess, correspondence chess, online chess, and chess variants.




Now there are the rules of chess...and the rules (competitive) of chess.  The former are not changing any time soon, the latter do change.

The difference is one of actual rules vs. ettiquette.  It's like D&D.  1e D&D is not changing anytime soon, probably because it's out of print.  However, houserules do change...as well as other items.  For example...rules such as...though shalt not have drink within 5 feet of any other player's character sheet or you are banned from the table...and...When you roll a d20 you shalt not spit on it, you shalt not blow on it, you shalt roll it, and the roll shall ensure that it revolves completely at least thrice against the table...

Are house rules and etiquette rules.

So let's stop this entire shenanigance on Chess and get back to the actual real fun of watching people argue what is or isn't D&D and whether it's going to self implode into the third Stellar Nova of the Dark Sun...or whatever people are trying to convince us of...


----------



## ggroy (Oct 30, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> As to the stuff that is selling... you can call it "*McGaming*" if you want, but if it sells, it sells. People must obviously be having some fun with it or I suspect that they'd just stop buying it.




Send the McPlayers into the McDungeon to kill the McOrcs and McGoblins, while slaying the McDragon and stealing all its McLoot.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 30, 2010)

Ghostwind said:


> Yep. When Inquest was collecting data, they wanted hard sales numbers for that month. Show me a retailer who is willing to open share his sales numbers where his competition can see them. Business owners are often reluctant to share any data where a competitor can use it to his advantage. Additionally, many stores do not track sales, they reorder based upon visual inventory. If they sell their one copy of Pathfinder, they reorder one for the next week. Ask them how many they sold in a month and they might know or they might not. So, they will usually give a guestimate. Not every FLGS has an up-to-date POS equipped with a scanner and can print out sales data as needed. Some still use old fashioned paper invoices.
> 
> Simply put, there is no way you can get an accurate measure of RPG sales based solely on voluntary input from retailers. For that, you have to go directly to the publisher. To my knowledge, Fred Hicks and a couple others are the only ones who are willingly to openly show their sales data. No one else will, especially Wotc or Paizo.




This isn't backing much up. This is speculation. Now, I understand that getting a survey respondent to answer truthfully and accurately isn't always going to happen. They forget, they are mistaken, and sometimes they misrepresent. But I assumed you really had something when you dropped that bomb about them inflating their numbers.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 30, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which you follow with repeated claims about the 1000 year old game which nobody is really talking about- you continue to conflate them quoth your rhetoric.





Well you can believe chess is as old as you want, but some people might not agree with you.


And just so you know im not the only one who believes chess is more than 1000 years old.

Chatrang



> Chess sprung from nowhere in the beginning of the 7th century AD in Sassanian Persia.




Now, ill tell you before you post a reply, that im not going to change my opinion, and i dont expect you to change yours.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 30, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> And just so you know im not the only one who believes chess is more than 1000 years old.




Before I bow out, I'll just point out the obvious: no one is disputing that chess has roots that are a thousand or more years old.

/M


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 30, 2010)

Maggan said:


> Before I bow out, I'll just point out the obvious: no one is disputing that chess has roots that are a thousand or more years old.
> 
> /M





I dont recall "has roots" being in that link i posted.

Maybe you should read the quote.

It doesnt say "The roots of chess sprung from nowhere in the beginning of the 7th century AD in Sassanian Persia." now does it? It says "Chess sprung from nowhere in the beginning of the 7th century AD in Sassanian Persia."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 31, 2010)

> I dont recall "has roots" being in that link i posted.




Like before, you read and cite only as far as it suits your purpose, since lower down on that same page it says:



> Chatrang, the eldest member known of the Chess family.



It does not equate Chatrang with chess, it is but one of a family of games with common origins and similar rules.  As the oldest known member, it may be THE root game, but it is not anything like modern chess.

I look a lot like my Dad- enough that I'm sometimes mistaken for him- but I'm not him.

And later still:



> No more details are known. Later, Arabic writers were the first to give the complete rules of their Shatranj. It is supposed that the rules were unchanged from Chatrang to Shatranj, so the reader may look at Shatranj to guess how Chatrang was played, but with no certainty.




It compares it to Shatranj, a game we've already pointed out is significantly different from chess in many significant ways.  The writer of that page cannot even reliably state what its rules are- he _presumes_ it's rules are the same because of similarity between the games' use of similar board and pieces.

That is like deductive reasoning akin to knowing the cards & rules to Texas Hold 'Em, that the older game 5 Card Stud (that you don't have the rules for) is played the same.  IOW, pure supposition.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 31, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Maybe you should read the quote.
> 
> It doesnt say "The roots of chess sprung from nowhere in the beginning of the 7th century AD in Sassanian Persia." now does it? It says "Chess sprung from nowhere in the beginning of the 7th century AD in Sassanian Persia."




Yeah, but I wasn't talking about what it says in the article you linked to, was I?

EDIT: funnily enough, we can trade links all night. This link adds to the picture:

http://www.mark-weeks.com/aboutcom/aa06a14.htm

/M


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 31, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Like before, you read and cite only as far as it suits your purpose, since lower down on that same page it says:
> 
> 
> It does not equate Chatrang with chess, it is but one of a family of games with common origins and similar rules. As the oldest known member, it may be THE root game, but it is not anything like modern chess.
> ...







"Chess sprung from nowhere in the beginning of the 7th century AD in Sassanian Persia. "

Are you suggesting that this statement is incorrect?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 31, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> "Chess sprung from nowhere in the beginning of the 7th century AD in Sassanian Persia. "
> 
> Are you suggesting that this statement is incorrect?




I'm saying it's incomplete, and that the rest of the page- IOW, that statement's contex- clarifies it and refines it so that we see the statement you quote is referring to chess' roots, not chess as it is played today.

Honestly.

You could find a statement of similar construction regarding the origins of man and evolution, but in no way would the author intend the reader to infer that the humans running around today, reading his book, are australopithicenes.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 31, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Send the McPlayers into the McDungeon to kill the McOrcs and McGoblins, while slaying the McDragon and stealing all its McLoot.



While searching for the McMcGuffin?

McLanefan


----------



## Summer-Knight925 (Oct 31, 2010)

are they dying? yes

does that mean they cant be saved? no

it can be done, what is needed is a wider....range of ideas perhaps?

I could ask for a genre and you could tell me everything within, say steam-punk....of those that know what it is, they love it, who wouldnt?

same with D&D, warhammer, ect. ect.
its all about the social idea of it all
when someone who plays halo all day is called names, staying up all night with friends eating junk food and, as a minor foot note, slaying a dragon, it brings fear, and fear is bad

I am in no way saying any table top gamer is a coward, infact you are braver than most people who are "to afraid to play"...i know people like that
im fine with who I am, so what if I spent homecoming night in undermountain? frankly, I dont care, I perfer to have choices, if skipping out on being stuck in a dark room with lots of people I see everyday and listen to music that makes me want to take a cheese grater to my face is "uncool" then fine...anyone who thinks that is lame

D&D and games like that ARE SO COOL! like...they created "cool" as cool back when, not sure about that so dont quote me (someone is going to, I know) and the fact there are 11 pages of people talking about this, thats reason enough to know that it is not...just the market is hidden and everyone has their fingers in it...how many games are fantasy tabletop games? and scifi or other genres, but true Tolkien fantasy? lots

more than you could name, games have been around and will be around, as technology advances, people will begin to see that the future is gloomy, light by computer screens...and then the escape will be tabletop games, mark my words (not really) the age of the table top is not dying! not yet! it will take all of humanity being wiped out by demons, aliens, an astroid, nuclear war, the creation a super disease, zombies, or unearthing dragons (reign of fire FTW) and even then, im pretty sure all of the said sentient beings play games, its just the awsome thing to do


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 31, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm saying it's incomplete, and that the rest of the page- IOW, that statement's contex- clarifies it and refines it so that we see the statement you quote is referring to chess' roots, not chess as it is played today.
> 
> Honestly.
> 
> You could find a statement of similar construction regarding the origins of man and evolution, but in no way would the author intend the reader to infer that the humans running around today, reading his book, are australopithicenes.





Actually the page says absolutly nothing about "roots".

In fact the titile of the page clearly states these games are "the oldest Chess" as in, the very begining of the game "Chess".

I agree that the modern chess is slightly different, but even the oldest versions of the game (llike those from the 7th centry) are still often referred to by the name chess.


----------



## Ghostwind (Oct 31, 2010)

billd91 said:


> But I assumed you really had something when you dropped that bomb about them inflating their numbers.




How about the fact that I am retailer and the fact that on several industry forums for retailers we've had multiple discussions on this very subject and common consensus is "Screw that! I'm not giving anyone accurate sales data about my store."

Beyond that, you'll just have to take my word.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 31, 2010)

Could we drop the cyclic arguments about Chess please?  Or at least fork it?

Sheesh.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 31, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> Could we drop the cyclic arguments about Chess please?  Or at least fork it?
> 
> Sheesh.




You're talking to a tourist
Whose every move's among the purest
I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 31, 2010)

Yeah, I'm done with him- he's impervious.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 31, 2010)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Putting words in your mouth?? go read post #188 in this thread.




Okay. I see me saying that Chess is (a) 1000 years old; (b) printed in books; and (c) gets changed every year. I said absolutely nothing about 1000+ year old books about Chess.



> Then post a link to the over one thousand books (one for each year) you claimed exist.




That's yet another claim I never made. But conveniently the link I posted in post #212 already cites 15,000+ Chess books, so I didn't even need to do any fresh googling for this one. Are you just not bothering to follow these links we're posting?

Makes sense, I suppose. We already know you don't bother reading the links _you're_ posting.



Chaos Disciple said:


> And just so you know im not the only one who believes chess is more than 1000 years old.
> 
> Chatrang




Case in point. In your dual claims that (a) the game of Chess as it is played today originated 2000+ years ago and (b) that Chess is a game without any variants, you have linked to a site that (a) confirms that the modern rules of Chess are only 600 years old (and weren't finalized until roughly 100 years ago) and (b) features a couple dozen variants.

I mean, that entire section of the site you've linked to is _dedicated_ to tracing the complicated history of how the rules of Chess have changed. Linking to it in an effort to claim that the rules of Chess have never changed is _bizarre_. It's like a Flat Earther linking to NASA's website and saying, "There? You see? The Earth is totally flat."



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yeah, I'm done with him- he's impervious.




Ditto.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 31, 2010)

Elric said:


> Because I read the first page and a half and no one brought it up, and I didn't want to search through posts on chess to see if it was ever brought up?  But if you want to link to a couple of highly relevant posts from the middle pages, feel free.




Right now, Amazon.com Bestsellers: The most popular items in Fantasy Gaming has the Gamma World RPG at #1* and the Pathfinder RPG Core book at #2. Followed by 5 D&D Essentials books, the Pathfinder APG and Warhammer 40K Deathwatch. So, no, we aren't justified in dismissing out of hand the concept that Pathfinder is selling as well as D&D.

* All numbers adjusted for the fact that three poorly categorized generic fantasy books are on top.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 31, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> Right now, Amazon.com Bestsellers: The most popular items in Fantasy Gaming has the Gamma World RPG at #1* and the Pathfinder RPG Core book at #2. Followed by 5 D&D Essentials books, the Pathfinder APG and Warhammer 40K Deathwatch. So, no, we aren't justified in dismissing out of hand the concept that Pathfinder is selling as well as D&D.




And both Pathfinder and D&D are being outsold by Gamma World! It's gonna be interesting to see ICv2's next set of top seller lists. 

/M


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Oct 31, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> I said absolutely nothing about 1000+ year old books about Chess.





Ok, thats all i wanted to know.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 31, 2010)

Maggan said:


> And both Pathfinder and D&D are being outsold by Gamma World! It's gonna be interesting to see ICv2's next set of top seller lists.
> 
> /M




I doubt it. Amazon's top seller list is always a brief snapshot over a limited time. You'd expect a new release to temporarily spike over an evergreen product quite often without necessarily having a significant impact on the longer term sales surveys like ICv2's.


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 31, 2010)

I do not believe the hobby is in decline.  If it is, nobody around where I live must be aware of that because it seems to be rapidly growing here (not necessarily D&D, but tabletop rpgs.)  As evidence of this, I point to the fact that back when I started playing these games, I struggled to even find one other person to play around here.  Currently, I am involved in three seperate face-to-face groups; I am also currently teaching some of my family members how to play one of the rpg systems I play... (they asked about how to play.)

This might just be an anomaly unique to this area.  It would not be the first time that my experiences in this area conflicted to what I had read on the internet.  Other oddities which I've experienced around here have been 3.5 Bards and Monks being useful in a game; gaming with people who feel that -to some extent- reality and fantasy can mix, and girls who game.  Maybe I live in some sort of RPG Twilight Zone?


----------



## Diamond Cross (Oct 31, 2010)

I miss the computer game Battle Chess.


----------



## Odhanan (Oct 31, 2010)

Battle Chess? Here you go!


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 31, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I doubt it. Amazon's top seller list is always a brief snapshot over a limited time. You'd expect a new release to temporarily spike over an evergreen product quite often without necessarily having a significant impact on the longer term sales surveys like ICv2's.




It's been up there a while. If they count it separately from D&D, I doubt that it will push D&D or Pathfinder off the lists, but there's not that many games that have multiple books on Amazon lists, so I could see it making 3rd, 4th or 5th. Dresden Files RPG, book one, would be #40ish based on overall rank if it were listed as a gaming book; I wonder if the fact that Amazon isn't selling Dresden Files new pushed it up the gaming stores stats.


----------



## GreyLord (Oct 31, 2010)

If we are talking about the demise of RPG's however, wouldn't it be MORE telling that the top selling Amazon RPG is #4?  What's even more important on that is that 3 relatively unknown fantasy books are outselling EVERY ONE of the RPG's according to that posting just previous to this?


----------



## Elric (Nov 1, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> Right now, Amazon.com Bestsellers: The most popular items in Fantasy Gaming has the Gamma World RPG at #1* and the Pathfinder RPG Core book at #2. Followed by 5 D&D Essentials books, the Pathfinder APG and Warhammer 40K Deathwatch. So, no, we aren't justified in dismissing out of hand the concept that Pathfinder is selling as well as D&D.
> 
> * All numbers adjusted for the fact that three poorly categorized generic fantasy books are on top.




As mentioned, it's not clear what timespan this bestseller list is over.

As of this writing, D&D's rules compendium is ahead of Pathfinder core book by one spot.  Ignoring other product lines, then there are 3 more D&D books, 1 Pathfinder and 6 more D&D products. Hard to see Pathfinder as having similar Amazon numbers from that.  

Were there any posts that I missed from the middle of the thread with further evidence?


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Nov 1, 2010)

I wrote a reaction to the "Tabletopapocalypse" on my ENWorld blog.


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 1, 2010)

GreyLord said:


> If we are talking about the demise of RPG's however, wouldn't it be MORE telling that the top selling Amazon RPG is #4?  What's even more important on that is that 3 relatively unknown fantasy books are outselling EVERY ONE of the RPG's according to that posting just previous to this?




Overall, the fantasy is the 697th bestselling book, and Gamma World is about 1000. I don't know what historically it's been, but the top computer programming book is about 1250, so we're still somewhere in the range of non-mainstream but still popular sidehobby. I mean fiction sells; the top of the Computers and Internet category is a WoW novel.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 1, 2010)

Elric said:


> As mentioned, it's not clear what timespan this bestseller list is over.




it says "updated hourly" if you navigate to it via the left hand menu system.

So, updated hourly.

EDIT: although, of course, how they update it is not divulged, so we don't know what happens of Pathfinder sells 1 and Gamma World 0 one hour, and then reverse that the next hour.

/M


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 1, 2010)

Maggan said:


> it says "updated hourly" if you navigate to it via the left hand menu system.
> 
> So, updated hourly.



OK, updated hourly; but are the sales numbers that are being updated hourly a snapshot of just that hour's sales?  Of that day?  Of the 7 days preceding that hour?  Of the month to date?  Year to date?

"Updated hourly" isn't very informative without also knowing what is being updated.

Lanefan


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 1, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> OK, updated hourly; but are the sales numbers that are being updated hourly a snapshot of just that hour's sales? Of that day? Of the 7 days preceding that hour? Of the month to date? Year to date?
> 
> "Updated hourly" isn't very informative without also knowing what is being updated.
> 
> Lanefan



 The is the issue in all of these debates, where we have metrics (Amazon rankings or ICV2 survey) we have no context and thus no way to assign meaning to the metrics we are looking at.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 1, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> The is the issue in all of these debates, where we have metrics (Amazon rankings or ICV2 survey) we have no context and thus no way to assign meaning to the metrics we are looking at.




Whenever you see a metric, you should ask yourself the purpose of its presentation, to help you decide if it is pertinent to your use.

Amazon does not provide ranking metrics to give you a good idea of how well different products are selling within their market spaces - Amazon's not in the business of providing market analysis.  They're presenting them in the hopes they may influence your purchasing choice.  Their metric is not likely to be appropriate for analysis.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 1, 2010)

If we can get all gamers implanted with an RFID chip, we can find out exactly how many gamers there are and see how often they gather in significant groups, much like how zoologists gain data on certain animals that are hard to study.

Presumably, those most of those groups would either be in game shops or as game groups.  Counting the groups would give us a better snapshot on the health of the hobby.

So, who wants to be chipped?!









Or do I have to get out my tranq gun?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 1, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Whenever you see a metric, you should ask yourself the purpose of its presentation, to help you decide if it is pertinent to your use.
> 
> Amazon does not provide ranking metrics to give you a good idea of how well different products are selling within their market spaces - Amazon's not in the business of providing market analysis. They're presenting them in the hopes they may influence your purchasing choice. Their metric is not likely to be appropriate for analysis.



 Um! Are we not saying the same thing? I am not the one waving the Amazon ranking or the ICV2 survey to prove anything. Nor am I trying to prove one game/company has more market share than an other.

Looking it up it appears that the Amazon ranking is compiled hourly and the formula has changed ouver time. So extracting meaning from it is difficult even if you know how many book you have sold.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 2, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> Um! Are we not saying the same thing?




Pretty much.  What, did you think that responding to you meant I disagreed with you?


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 2, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Whenever you see a metric, you should ask yourself the purpose of its presentation, to help you decide if it is pertinent to your use.




When you're in our shoes, you collect what data you can find and you draw a picture.  You've got to keep in mind what quality of data you have, and know that your picture is going to be inaccurate, but it's better to be the guy who said that there are five planets and they move around the Earth, then the guy who didn't waste any time looking at the stars.

In any case, I was responding to this post:


			
				Elric said:
			
		

> I haven't had time to read this thread, but does seeing a rating of Dungeons and Dragons as tied with Pathfinder for sales strike anyone else as implausible? I'd be shocked if Dungeons and Dragons didn't have much higher sales than any other game over any one-year period.




Yes, Amazon numbers are much, much more reliable then your gut. So are the ICV2 numbers. Even given what I said above, it's one thing to ignore the stars, and yet another to argue about them without reference to, or in denial of, what is known.


----------



## Squnk (Nov 2, 2010)

I'm still a noob to d&d but I could easily say that the rise in video games especially MMO games over the last 10+ years help cause a drop in sales, video games are easier to pick up and learn as well as provide an immediate visual stimulus.  Atleast for the younger crowd I can understand why they can find video games more appealing than sitting down at a table with pencils and books.  Another reason why I believe table top games sales have declined is the buying and selling of used books.  I haven't been playing for too long but from what I have seen the most popular versions of tabletop games seem to be the older versions that are often discontinued.  So many of these books and assessories are being sold used and don't contribute to the profits to these major companies.  But most of all I just think it is the image and misconceptions people have about these games, I have only been playing for about 4 months now and prior to playing I thought most of these roleplaying games were losers that were so unhappy with their own life's that they had to play dress up and pretend to be these fictional heroes.  But once I got dragged to a d&d game I came to find out I was completely wrong, it isn't a bunch of nerds playing pretend but instead a group of friends creating a story together.  Every since then I have completely become addicted to the game.  I know there are so many reasons why tabletop games are on a down slop but it is good to see a place like this where so many people come together because it really shows the health of this game world.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 2, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Pretty much. What, did you think that responding to you meant I disagreed with you?



 By virtue of replying no, but I did think I was being lectured at, so sorry about that piece of talking past you.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 2, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> When you're in our shoes, you collect what data you can find and you draw a picture. You've got to keep in mind what quality of data you have, and know that your picture is going to be inaccurate, but it's better to be the guy who said that there are five planets and they move around the Earth, then the guy who didn't waste any time looking at the stars.
> 
> In any case, I was responding to this post:
> 
> ...



 Looking at the stars or the motions of the planets gives access to raw data and so one know what any measurement means. For that matter the ICV2 list has a pretty cleear meaning but you cannot draw inferences as the the health of the industry from it since a simple ranking does not tell you weither this years sales are greater than or less than last years.


----------



## carmachu (Nov 2, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> It's the fifth best selling RPG right now, according to some figures. That's not niche of a niche.





Of course it is. Number 1 is the 8000 ound gorilla, Wotc. The next step down is Pazio, who doesnt do nearly the numbers WotC does. Then is WHF and DH/RT which does no where near Paizo sales numbers....then comes Dresden- which did according to the 3rd quarter.....3000 sales.

Thats a niche of the niche hobby.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 2, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> By virtue of replying no, but I did think I was being lectured at, so sorry about that piece of talking past you.




Gotcha.  And sorry for making you feel lectured at.  I was intending to expand a bit on your point, not school you on your own point.


----------



## Elric (Nov 3, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Whenever you see a metric, you should ask yourself the purpose of its presentation, to help you decide if it is pertinent to your use.
> 
> Amazon does not provide ranking metrics to give you a good idea of how well different products are selling within their market spaces - Amazon's not in the business of providing market analysis.  They're presenting them in the hopes they may influence your purchasing choice.  Their metric is not likely to be appropriate for analysis.




The inference to make here is that Amazon's "bestsellers" is based on a more recent period of time than what we'd want to analyze the relative sales of industry products.

Still, in the Amazon snapshot I pointed to earlier, over this unknown (but likely short) time horizon D&D is significantly outselling Pathfinder if the books at the top have relatively similar sales to the books farther down and slightly outselling Pathfinder if the books at the top have much larger sales than the books a little further down the list.

I wonder how the ICV2 survey came up with a "tied" ranking for D&D and Pathfinder.  Did they calculate a margin of error below which they call two companies equal?  If anyone knows/can link to details of how the survey and rankings work, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 4, 2010)

Elric said:


> I wonder how the ICV2 survey came up with a "tied" ranking for D&D and Pathfinder.  Did they calculate a margin of error below which they call two companies equal?  If anyone knows/can link to details of how the survey and rankings work, I'd appreciate it.




One thing to keep in mind is that how D&D vs Pathfinder sells in the FLGS market is likely different than how it sells in the mass market, like on Amazon.

It seems logical to me that D&D would outsell everything else by a wide margin on Amazon and other similar retailers, while having Pathfinder as a serious contender in the hobby market.  If I understand correctly ICv2 only polls the hobby market, and not the big retailers . . . right?


----------



## nedjer (Nov 4, 2010)

Squnk said:


> a group of friends creating a story together.




That's one of the simplest and best explanations I've come across. Your XP will be along in a minute


----------



## billd91 (Nov 4, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> If I understand correctly ICv2 only polls the hobby market, and not the big retailers . . . right?




That is correct. There are, however, other tools that report fairly reliably on those too. ICv2 focuses on the hobby market because that's their area of expertise having come out of the distribution biz.


----------



## Elric (Nov 4, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> If I understand correctly ICv2 only polls the hobby market, and not the big retailers . . . right?




So by "hobby market" you mean that ICV2 doesn't poll the likes of Borders stores, and also doesn't poll online operations?

That makes sense, as I have rarely been to a Borders or Barnes and Noble store with a significant selection of non-D&D RPG books compared to D&D books relative to the ratio you see in dedicated gaming stores.  

It isn't clear to me that smaller games would sell similar numbers of products online versus in hobby stores.  So even if the 5th game on ICV2's list sold few products, that doesn't necessarily mean that there weren't significant orders of some other game that didn't sell many products through stores.  I doubt there's any good data here, though.  

Speaking just for myself, of the last 10 RPG books I've bought (some D&D, some not), half were pdfs and the other half were books I ordered online.  So I wonder how much of the market even for non-D&D games is covered by ICV2's survey.  

Supposing that D&D has similar numbers to Pathfinder among dedicated gaming stores and significantly outsells  it among Amazon online retailers and Borders-type physical stores, the next question is what the relative share of sales of RPG books among these types of stores is.  Doubt there's available data on that either.


----------



## czak (Nov 4, 2010)

Bookscan tracks bookstore sales and amazon so that data is available. - http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard...hfinderIsTiedFor1stCongratsToPaizo&page=3#118


----------

