# another rpg industry doomsday article (merged: all 3 "Mishler Rant" threads)



## ggroy (Jul 15, 2009)

Semi-informative rambling from an insider.

Part I
Adventures in Gaming: The Doom of RPGs: The Rambling

(updates)
Part II
Adventures in Gaming: The Rambling II: Replies and Ripostes

Part III
Adventures in Gaming: The Rambling III: Finale


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 15, 2009)

That's fascinating. Thanks you for the link.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2009)

Good catch ggroy.  Interesting read.

I'm not sure if I buy entirely into his doom and gloom predictions (for example, he totally blows off younger generations as being only interested in Britany Spears, despite the fact that teen readers are actually buying books and reading in record numbers in the US currently) but, his basic point is very solid.

Gaming is too cheap.  He's not the first to say this.  Everything he says about trying to make money on RPG's is, IMO, spot on.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 15, 2009)

I almost stopped reading when I realised he was guessing on 4e's success based on amazon rankings. Makes me wonder how much of the rest is just pure guessworked pulled out of his rear.

But was a fun read.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 15, 2009)

All I can say is the 4e core books cost me slightly more than the 1e core books did when I purchased them back in the mid 1980s, in currency unadjusted for inflation, or for the fact I, along with a big chuck of the graying RPG market, have a lot more disposable income now than we did as adolescents. That's not a sustainable pricing model. 

Good read. Some dumb curmudgeonly remarks about the 'kids of today'... but still, a good read.

I think the future of RPG's is found right here; in Internet communities, fan creations, and cottage/vanity industries --with very different distribution models that aren't-- that, for the most part, people's primary source of income.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 15, 2009)

It was an interesting read.  

1. He misses one potential solution (or mitigator).  You can trick consumers into paying more by selling them multiple books instead of one really thick book.  Consumers who would never, ever pay $100 for a big, thick hardcover book with high production values will in fact pay $100 for three medium sized hardcover books with high production values.  This probably extends to other types of products as well.

2. While I agree that the pdf "race to zero" is going to have an effect on the overall market for RPG materials, he seems to be directly and specifically blaming Paizo.  I'm not sure that's warranted.   Consumers were going to demand cheap pdfs relative to book costs whether or not Paizo led the way.

3. The "blame young people for being too lazy to game or even hang out with friends" thing is moronic.  If I ever start doing that, I hope my wife has me put down.

4. I don't entirely agree with his assessment of the initial days of 3e- I think that reviving a flagging product line was as much or more of a factor than bringing back older former gamers.  

5. He doesn't address the whole "competition with WotC" thing.  WotC's ability (and the ability of other larger game companies) to sell in bulk and set prices based on bulk sales sets not only expectations, but also sets the cost of products with which a small publisher's products must compete.  Willingness to pay a set MSRP isn't based solely on things like "entitlement" (whatever the heck that is), but also on what you could purchase instead for the same money.  The rise of big game publishers is going to, by its nature, have an effect on smaller game publishers.  Its no different than Borders pushing out your local privately owned book store.

6. I do not believe that edition wars are instigated by an unconscious desire to tear down other game companies so that your favorite one can survive.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jul 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Role-playing gaming as an avocation will survive, as a vocation, not so much.




Yes.  This right here.  We, as fans, should worry about the survival of the hobby, which as far as I'm concerned isn't in any real doubt.  The industry is only there to support the hobby.  I think too often in discussions of these types, people get that reversed, and the tail wags the dog.

I sometimes see people saying we need to buy product to keep the hobby healthy.  I think, a lot of the time, your money might be more efficiently used by supporting sites like this one, funding local gaming clubs, and other hobby-building activities.


----------



## malraux (Jul 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Good catch ggroy.  Interesting read.
> 
> I'm not sure if I buy entirely into his doom and gloom predictions (for example, he totally blows off younger generations as being only interested in Britany Spears, despite the fact that teen readers are actually buying books and reading in record numbers in the US currently) but, his basic point is very solid.



I would have liked to see actual numbers and market research to substantiate everything after the seemingly informed info on publishing costs.  For example: 







> Third Edition did not succeed based on new acquisitions in the youth market; the bulk of their market was in gamers returning to the fold.



  That's a big claim.  Without significant market research, I don't know how you can claim it correct.  His "4e is really WoW on the tabletop" trolling wasn't much better either.



> Gaming is too cheap.  He's not the first to say this.  Everything he says about trying to make money on RPG's is, IMO, spot on.




That I can agree with.  I just got an old copy of _Against the Giants_ off of ebay.  Comparing that to what you get with a modern module, the modern modules have much better art direction, layout, quality of paper, etc, yet the inflation adjusted prices are almost the same.


----------



## malraux (Jul 15, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 3. The "blame young people for being too lazy to game or even hang out with friends" thing is moronic.  If I ever start doing that, I hope my wife has me put down.t believe that edition wars are instigated by an unconscious desire to tear down other game companies so that your favorite one can survive.




Oh dear god yes.  If you want to make a "kids these days" argument, you have a very high bar to clear.  It was wrong when Hesiod made it in almost 3000 years ago, it was wrong when everyone said that about Gen X, it'll probably be wrong in the future.  The inability of older generations to specifically not learn from their elders says something about the older generations, not the current youth one.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 15, 2009)

I almost stopped when he said comparable products have increased at a much higher rate than RPG books.  I don't think that's true.  I've been buying paperbacks as long as I've been buying RPGs, and they've paced each other fairly well, I think.  Which makes sense, as in a sense, they have most of the same cost inputs.

Comic books, on the other hand, have increased in cost tremendously, but then again, so have the inputs.  Full color (as opposed to 4-color) and shiny, quality paper as opposed to newsprint; my old comic books are really, really noticeably different than today's comic books.

Anyway, CPI hasn't increased by that amount either.  I right away got the impression he was just pulling numbers out of thin air.  The rest of the article didn't convince me otherwise.


----------



## kitsune9 (Jul 15, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Semi-informative rambling from an insider.
> 
> Adventures in Gaming: The Doom of RPGs: The Rambling




Thanks for the article. I think with the rpg industry, we'll always be reading that the barbarians are at the gates, but whether this is the year that they storm the city is always up in the air.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 15, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 3. The "blame young people for being too lazy to game or even hang out with friends" thing is moronic. If I ever start doing that, I hope my wife has me put down.



Good lord, yes. For the most part the article is interesting and well-written, if not particularly innovative. But smack in the middle is an absolutely ridiculous "kids these days" screed. I only skimmed the remainder of the article after that part, because I couldn't take anything he said seriously after that.


----------



## OchreJelly (Jul 15, 2009)

It was an interesting read but I had to disregard some of the ramblings on current youth culture, and recession-era spending.  

I don't think his argument on recession-era spending has enough data to back it.  He simply says people are saving and not negative spending and leaves it at that.  There have been studies, for example, that while it's true that big-purchase sales are down, some smaller-ticket luxury markets are actually seeing a bit of a boom.  The psychology goes that as you have to cut back more on big ticket items, like a new car or a vacation, there is a tendency to make up for it by investing in "smaller luxuries".  Imported beer was one example.  

Also it's a bit of a stretch to say that there will never be another golden age of sales.  His example of 3E hitting right when young adults who grew up with DND were starting families suggest to me that maybe the children of those families may grow up to play the game their dad taught them.  I can certainly buy that it's a cyclical market, but to say it could never happen again seems a little severe.


----------



## darjr (Jul 15, 2009)

Comparable products? I wonder about rpgs vs boardgames and videogames. I know that it's almost an apples to oranges things when talking about videogames becuase they have changed so much in so many ways. But what about boardgames?


----------



## stuart (Jul 15, 2009)

Interesting article! 

It's worth contrasting with this piece from CNN Money:

Board games are back - Jul. 10, 2009



> n 2008, board game sales climbed 23.5% to about $808 million, and they're expected to grow more this year.Of course, board games have lived in the shadow of video games for the past decade. Through 2007, video game sales had been growing steadily by more than 7% a year -- sales that year totaled $12.4 billion -- while board games had been experiencing a steady slide since their heyday in the '80s.
> But with the onset of the recession, as video games have suffered from the dip in consumer spending, their older, less-costly cousins -- Clue, Candy Land, and the like -- have benefited.
> The economic downturn has created what many experts call a "recession-resistant" industry -- one that, for families operating on tight budgets who have children to entertain, is attractive no matter the economic climate. And in the case of board games, they might even be most attractive in the worst times.




It was the worst of times... it was the best of times.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 15, 2009)

Might as well crosspost my blog comment here...

----

There's a lot of good stuff here, but also a lot of bold assertions and back of the envelope nonsense, in my opinion.

Part of the problem, here, is that you're assuming that anyone can make any kind of money at all selling 1000 units of just about anything. I'm not sure that's ever been true at any time in the history of the tabletop gaming industry, and it's certainly not true now.

You've got to find a way to develop and audience for your product that is larger than 1000 potential sales. Every product Paizo produces, for example, must endure a rigorous cost/profit analysis before it gets the green light. Everything we do has realistic break-evens in the sub-2000 units category, and only extremely rarely does a product in our lineup not sell significantly more copies than that.

If your potential audience is fewer than 1000, you probably are better off either throwing in the towel and finding more lucrative business opportunities, or going for some sort of "deluxe" high-end approach that more reasonably charges gamers for the time, effort, and resources put into your product.

Ptolus is a good example of this. Yes, it was outrageously expensive both to produce and to buy, but Monte Cook (who, despite the drawing power of his name, is really just a guy working with his wife to create cool games) found a way to build the book affordably (mostly by writing it himself and offloading production costs on a better-capitalized print partner with strong distribution). As you say, there are only a limited number of gamers willing to fork out $100+ for a book like Ptolus, but Monte had them lining up at its release, and the book is now completely sold out and almost impossible to find. Oh, and I'm confident Monte made a ton of money on it.

No one in this business, from the smallest one-man publishing operation to the biggest wholly owned subsidiary of a multinational corporation, is entitled to a successful career in gaming. 

People producing niche products for a niche market (which is what producing material for Judge's Guild is) are never going to make much money at it, and success is going to come (if it comes at all) from spending more time building the audience than writing the products. Or from realizing that the older market you serve is probably willing to pay more for a product (PDF or otherwise) that caters directly to their interests. The good news is that fans who are familiar with Judge's Guild and want to see it continue probably have a lot more disposable income than fans interested in, say, an anime game or something, so the potential for a supporting cadre of essentially patrons is much more likely in your case than in most.

And as far as the "Pathfinder Effect," I find your statement on PDF pricing regressive and myopic. If Paizo is not worried about the effect our subsidized Core Rules PDF pricing will have on even our other non-deep-discounted PDFs, why is it that other publishers are so convinced it will affect their business?

Lastly, if you're in the business of selling core rules, getting those rules as widely distributed as possible and then making money off of the support products sold to that audience is, I think (and hope!) a very viable business strategy. 

You've got to have an audience if you want to make any money, in this business or anywhere. 

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing


----------



## SteveC (Jul 15, 2009)

There is a fair bit of insight in this article, but it's mixed in with a "here's what's wrong with kids these days," screed that dilutes the good stuff.

I'm an old fart, but I still volunteer and work with college students and even high school students. From that I can tell you that the kids are doing just fine. There are a lot of them who are into gaming, or could be marketed to by gaming companies. Really.

I don't believe the sky is falling yet...things are just changing, as they always do. The companies that adapt will be still around, the ones that don't will be gone. It's as simple as that, and it has been as simple as that since gaming first gained any real acceptance in the marketplace.

--Steve


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 15, 2009)

Thanks Eric, that was some interesting information about Paizo and the economy (ie sales) of Pathfinder products.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 15, 2009)

The "get off my lawn" stuff about Britney Spears and recession/depression economics, seemed kind of naive and silly.

Though with that being said and digging deeper into the article, I wonder how exactly he got that "Rule of 5" figure of pricing an rpg product's MSRP = 5 times the unit print costs (ie. cost to print + ship the books back to your own warehouse or garage).

This is in contrast to the older alleged "Rule of 10" figure from back in the day.

If these two "rules" have any validity, they assert that something like a Pathfinder AP or Chronicles book would have a unit print cost of $2 to $4.  For the 4E D&D core books, these two rules assert that they have a unit print cost of $3.50 to $7.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jul 15, 2009)

> From the article [Note: I maintain that we are entering an economic dislocation the likes of which has not been seen since the *Roman Crisis of the Third Century*.]



If this is true we all get to play D&D (or Gamma World) for real wielding  swords made from old car parts and in a world where treasure = food/water.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 15, 2009)

I also find that I don't think that's a crisis, particularly.  I've already done it; migrated from being a consumer to primarily only a player, who only occasionally still buys stuff (most of that from Paizo anymore, but that's neither here nor there.)  I don't care if there's an industry to support me nearly as much as I care about there being a hobby to support me.  I don't need to find new products, I need to make sure I can find players (I'm good for now, but assuming, say, that I move out of the wasteland in which I live in the next few years, I've gotta start from scratch.)

Also; this so called pdf price wars thing is completely speculative.  And most of his economic conclusions were questionable.  To say the least.  I think his final conclusions sound reasonable, but some of his reasoning to get us there was iffy.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 15, 2009)

On second read, I found this statement in the original screed laughable: 

---
In the adventure game industry, if a writer gets more than five cents per word, he’s doing well; at 10 cents per word, he is counted among the RPG demi-gods. At that point, the much, much, much better rates in fiction and other genres become more attractive and such opportunities open up, regardless of his or her desire to continue writing for games (a writer can earn 10 to 20 times or more this rate writing even poor fiction
---

If James Mishler knows of a fiction market that regularly and reliably pays 10 to 20 times RPG rates (that's $.50 to $1.00 a WORD) for "even poor fiction," he should probably be writing for that market instead of peddling niche PDFs and complaining about how he can't make any money off of it. 

Hell, if he could post the link, I'm sure every freelancer here on EN World (myself included) would love to be writing for that company. 

--Erik


----------



## amysrevenge (Jul 15, 2009)

Well.  I agree with some of the criticisms of the post, but there are some valid overall points too (wishy-washy enough?).

It could very well be that the era of the very small dead-tree RPG publisher is over.  That doesn't have to mean the death of the entire industry, though.  I wouldn't think you could even compare between small and large in this case.  The factors would all be very different.


----------



## gunboatnip (Jul 15, 2009)

darjr said:


> Comparable products? I wonder about rpgs vs boardgames and videogames. I know that it's almost an apples to oranges things when talking about videogames becuase they have changed so much in so many ways. But what about boardgames?




Longtime lurker but first time poster here... I think the sentiment that the industry is changing is the correct one here. I'd say a comparable industry could be seen to be 'punk rock' if you would. It has had the same level of 'inflation resistance' as RPGs. You can still get a 7(45 rpm/33rpm 'single' for those that don't know.) record for $3-5 bucks today which was the price it was 20 years ago. Also you have the same diminishing market that RPG's have. Kids today are more into hanging out on myspace/going to the warped tour once a year then really supporting local bands. You have the big hitters in the music business(labels that release albums that sell 40k+ copies) but you also have a wide range of smaller labels/collectives what have you that are able to release records that maybe sell 1000 copies. Sure they're not making any one rich but with the right kind of marketing/hardwork you can definitely be able to support yourself doing it. 

It seems like the niche market for many might be a totally valid way to create a viable business. I know in punk rock there is a lot of 'branding' that people buy into. Whether just buying a certain label's releases or subscribing to a single series. Maybe things like the Kobold Quarterly style subscription/direct support model is the future?

Sorry a head of time if this is rambling.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 15, 2009)

gunboatnip said:


> Longtime lurker but first time poster here... I think the sentiment that the industry is changing is the correct one here. I'd say a comparable industry could be seen to be 'punk rock' if you would.




So in this "punk rock" analogy, would Green Day be the "WotC" of punk rock?


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2009)

We get a sunshine and bunnies article and we get a hail and earthquake article.

lol

I'll take Option C.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 15, 2009)

Yeah, I disagree.  I don't know from punk rock, but I know some other niche genres of music that used to be mainstream and aren't any more (like synthpop) and very few of the artists make a "liveable income" off it.  They moonlight as musicians.  They don't quit their day jobs.

Which, frankly, is just fine.  It hasn't hurt the fans any; they can get more good music than ever due to the opening up of distribution channels, specialist stores that sell via the internet, and mp3 downloads from Amazon, or iTunes or whatever.  It may not be a golden age for the artists, but they do OK, and like what they do, and it certainly is a golden age for the fans.

I suspect "niche" industries like roleplaying games will migrate, eventually, to the same business model, really.  In fact, arguably it already has.


----------



## JeffB (Jul 15, 2009)

I generally Like James and his postings in varous internet foums- but I think in a few places he went off the deep end with this one.

I wonder how his own (as mentioned by someone else) extremely niche products color his viewpoints- No offense to him, but when his AGP products (JG stuff for C&C) was announced a couple years ago, there was alot of "big talk" about what was going to come out , and the reality is that the  AGP products that have actually surfaced are far from the quality and type to be expected from those initial press releases and messageboard posts. Maybe AGP's issues have something to do with Bob (Bledsaw's) death, IDK, but AGP has failed to live up to expectations- combined with much of the  "4E is WOW" and "young kids these days" blatherings - color me a skeptic.


----------



## ki11erDM (Jul 15, 2009)

gunboatnip said:


> Maybe things like the Kobold Quarterly style subscription/direct support model is the future?
> 
> Sorry a head of time if this is rambling.




Yea i would really like to see the DDI numbers... with the backing it seems to be getting right now it must be going well...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 15, 2009)

Misses what WotC learned in their pre-3e survey -- Sell minis, and you make money.


RC


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 15, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> On second read, I found this statement in the original screed laughable:
> 
> ---
> In the adventure game industry, if a writer gets more than five cents per word, he’s doing well; at 10 cents per word, he is counted among the RPG demi-gods. At that point, the much, much, much better rates in fiction and other genres become more attractive and such opportunities open up, regardless of his or her desire to continue writing for games (a writer can earn 10 to 20 times or more this rate writing even poor fiction
> ...



I assumed he was talking about overall income to a full time novelist, including both advance and royalties over the publication life of a novel... I don't know enough about the writing business to know if that makes sense.  Do you, and if so, does it?


----------



## GMSkarka (Jul 15, 2009)

I'm not even going to try to be nice and say that he's got some good points, or that the article is well-written, etc.

It's nothing more than a rant from a publisher looking for reasons as to why his product line, comprised of largely text-only material for a niche-of-a-niche-of-a-niche Retro-clone, isn't raking in the cash.

Couple that with some stunningly, flat-out-wrong assumptions on how things work (which others have already pointed out), and a seeming lack of understanding of how the industry is changing (with a heaping spoonful of "kids these days" resentment)....


Yeah.  Not a fan.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 15, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Full color (as opposed to 4-color)




Psst.  4-color = full color.

You can use Pantone's proprietary six-color CMYKOG format.  But still, 4-color is the same as full color.  That part has not changed.


----------



## mhensley (Jul 15, 2009)

JeffB said:


> I wonder how his own (as mentioned by someone else) extremely niche products color his viewpoints- No offense to him, but when his AGP products (JG stuff for C&C) was announced a couple years ago, there was alot of "big talk" about what was going to come out , and the reality is that the  AGP products that have actually surfaced are far from the quality and type to be expected from those initial press releases and messageboard posts.




Yep, that's what I thought of too.


----------



## stuart (Jul 15, 2009)

GMSkarka said:


> It's nothing more than a rant from a publisher looking for reasons as to why his product line, comprised of largely text-only material for a niche-of-a-niche-of-a-niche Retro-clone, isn't raking in the cash.




I didn't realize this until just now, but James is "former Editor of _Comics & Games Retailer_ and _GamingReport.com_, and a former Associate Editor of _Scrye_ and _Comics Buyer's Guide_. " (from his website)

Not sure what to make of his article / opinion, but I'm considering it more than I would the typical "rant from a publisher".


----------



## GMSkarka (Jul 15, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I assumed he was talking about overall income to a full time novelist, including both advance and royalties over the publication life of a novel...




Nope -- doesn't make sense even if you assume that.

Most authors never see much in the way of royalties -- often the novels don't "pay out" the advance.    

The average advance in SF/Fantasy field is $5K.   

5 cents a word on a 256-page rulebook (say 500 words per page, for a total of 128,000 words --roughly the same word-count as a standard SF/F novel) would be $6400.

So -- His view of 10-cent a word authors leaving for markets that pay 10 to 20 times that for "even poor fiction" is just massively ill-informed.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jul 15, 2009)

stuart said:


> Not sure what to make of his article / opinion, but I'm considering it more than I would the typical "rant from a publisher".




You really shouldn't.     He's talking from the point of view of a publisher, not as somebody who edited articles for two defunct magazines, one magazine from a related industry, and a website.


----------



## timbannock (Jul 15, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> If this is true we all get to play D&D (or Gamma World) for real wielding  swords made from old car parts and in a world where treasure = food/water.




I love Tribe 8!


----------



## ggroy (Jul 15, 2009)

GMSkarka said:


> You really shouldn't.     He's talking from the point of view of a publisher, not as somebody who edited articles for two defunct magazines, one magazine from a related industry, and a website.




In an analogy to the music world, the original James Mishler post does remind me a lot of the ranting that failed rock musicians and bands make when they never made it into big time rock stars.

Rants like:
- "Why didn't we become as big as Metallica ?!?!?!"
- "Nirvana killed our careers !!!"
- "This town sucks ...."
etc ...


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 15, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> It was an interesting read.
> 
> 1. He misses one potential solution (or mitigator).  You can trick consumers into paying more by selling them multiple books instead of one really thick book.  Consumers who would never, ever pay $100 for a big, thick hardcover book with high production values will in fact pay $100 for three medium sized hardcover books with high production values.  This probably extends to other types of products as well.



Very good point. For example, I wonder how many people bought all of the "War of the Burning Sky" books, but won't by a massive, compiled tome. Or who buy every issue of Pathfinder, but think the Shackled City hardcover is too expensive.



Cadfan said:


> 2. While I agree that the pdf "race to zero" is going to have an effect on the overall market for RPG materials, he seems to be directly and specifically blaming Paizo.  I'm not sure that's warranted.   Consumers were going to demand cheap pdfs relative to book costs whether or not Paizo led the way.



This (along with the "kids these days" nonsense) is definitely the weakest point in his entire post. He takes 1 data point - the low price of PFRPG PDF - and extrapolates an entire trend in PDF pricing. One single data point. I can list many reasons why that's an outlier, but it's actually easier to point to all of the publishers that offer PDFs priced at or near the physical book price and I can draw just as unfounded a conclusion as he does.



Cadfan said:


> 6. I do not believe that edition wars are instigated by an unconscious desire to tear down other game companies so that your favorite one can survive.



Considering the edition wars started LOOOOOONG before most companies "picked sides", this armchair psychology is clearly wrong.



Erik Mona said:


> If James Mishler knows of a fiction market that regularly and reliably pays 10 to 20 times RPG rates (that's $.50 to $1.00 a WORD) for "even poor fiction," he should probably be writing for that market instead of peddling niche PDFs and complaining about how he can't make any money off of it.
> 
> Hell, if he could post the link, I'm sure every freelancer here on EN World (myself included) would love to be writing for that company.



Exactly! Makes you really wonder where he gets some of the assumptions his argument relies on from. I hear you can get those sorts of rates in main stream magazine article writing. Sitting down with Google for 2 minutes shows that 5 cents a word is a good pay rate in the SF&F fiction market. As one website labels 5 cents and up "markets to drool over". (That's just one site, but spend some time with Google and it's clear it's a consensus across many.) 

Maybe he's considering the "even poor fiction" earning $1.00 per word market to be the Oprah's Book Club market. I'd consider that style of 'misery fiction pretending to be deep and thoughtful' market that pays very well for poor fiction.  


In general, the best that post says is that "business as usual won't work for small press anymore". That's true, but considering how many small publishers folded over the past several years, it's not that surprising of an observation. Currently, however, publishers big and small are innovating. DDI is the clearest and largest example of this. But also the shift towards utilities rather than books is another major one. Also, I expect to see something better than PDFs coming around that make electronic products at least as valuable as physical books.

So publishers need to innovate (and actually are) and get out of the business as usual mindset. Yes, if you want to be a small publisher, you can't expect to just hire some freelancers, print a couple thousand books at a traditional printer, get them in stores everywhere, and then watch the money come in. But that hasn't been true for 4-5 years, I'd say. Calling that business model unprofitable in 2009 is beating a long dead horse.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 15, 2009)

kenmarable said:


> Exactly! Makes you really wonder where he gets some of the assumptions his argument relies on from. I hear you can get those sorts of rates in main stream magazine article writing.
> 
> Maybe he's considering the "even poor fiction" earning $1.00 per word market to be the Oprah's Book Club market. I'd consider that style of 'misery fiction pretending to be deep and thoughtful' market that pays very well for poor fiction.




Wonder how many bucks per word somebody like a Stephen King, John Grisham, or Dan Brown would make for writing.​


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 15, 2009)

The RPG industry has some unusual competition most things don't have to deal with:

1. A newly published book must compete against the secondary market for older books. RPG players tend to be the collecting sort who never throw anything away, and older RPG books are fairly easy to find at a discount(for the most part), particularly for people who have heard of eBay.

2. A newly published book must compete with doing it yourself. This is particularly true of system expansions, campaign settings, and adventures. 

3. A newly published book must compete against hobbyist publishers who produce more for the love of the game than making money.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 15, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Wonder how many bucks per word somebody like a Stephen King, John Grisham, or Dan Brown would make for writing.​




He aint one of those you mention, but still a writer. J.J Abrams made a $60 million deal with Warner Bros. TV and Paramount Pictures in 2006 for his writing. Not too shaby, no matter the amount of words


----------



## GMSkarka (Jul 15, 2009)

At this point, it may be beating a dead horse to continue to point out errors within the original blog post -- but here's another:


_"Now, if he goes with print on demand, he has no worries about inventory (well, mostly… even with print-on-demand you need to keep a little inventory, as gamers these days do not go for the four to six week ship time that would be required if you did true print-on-demand). However, print on demand is more expensive per unit, with little or no discount for more units, so your gross margin per unit is even less… which means you still have to cut the costs of your other inputs.

And don’t get me started on Lulu, where the printing cost per unit is astronomical!"_


Again, it appears that he has no idea of the current facts of the market.  

 The cost per unit at Lulu is quite high -- he's right about that.   Far too high for use within traditional distribution, where the publisher is only going to see 35-40% of the MSRP.    For direct-to-consumer, though, it's just fine -- and makes you more than you'd see through traditional distribution.

But, aside from that issue:

"Four to six weeks ship time that would be required"???   Buh?    To use Lulu as an example -- production takes 2 to 5 business days, with shipping occuring immediately afterward.   Even if you take the slowest shipping option available, you'd see your book in two weeks, not four to six.   And most shipping methods would have it to you within a week to a week and half at most.

"Little or no discount for more units" -- also not true.   Again, using Lulu as an example -- discounts start at 25 copies for softcover, and 10 copies for hardcover.   Just as an example (from my own records) -- on a 192 page softcover supplement, a 25 copy order gives me a 25% discount, 100 copies  gives me a 30% discount, 250 copies a 41% discount, and even more from there.

So, it's more than evident that he has no real understanding of the current state of print-on-demand.    The things he's complaining about haven't really been a factor for 2 to 3 years or more.


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 15, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> If this is true we all get to play D&D (or Gamma World) for real wielding  swords made from old car parts and in a world where treasure = food/water.



 I can't help but be reminded of last Sunday's Dilbert comic...


----------



## ggroy (Jul 15, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The RPG industry has some unusual competition most things don't have to deal with:
> 
> 1. A newly published book must compete against the secondary market for older books.




How much is this different than, say, the college/university textbook business (especially for freshman year textbooks)?  Within a few weeks after the release of a new textbook, the secondary market for used copies is already in effect.  After awhile, the secondary market for used copies starts to "cannibalize" the market for new copies.  These days it can be as soon as a year or so after the release date.  It doesn't help that university bookstores are also in the business of selling used textbooks.

To combat this problem, typically what the textbook publishers do is release a new edition every few years, to destroy the secondary market for the previous editions.  These days for some very popular freshman college/university textbooks, new editions are pumped out as fast as every 3 years.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 15, 2009)

ggroy said:


> How much is this different than, say, the college/university textbook business (especially for freshman year textbooks)?  Within a few weeks after the release of a new textbook, the secondary market for used copies is already in effect.  After awhile, the secondary market for used copies starts to "cannibalize" the market for new copies.  These days it can be as soon as a year or so after the release date.  It doesn't help that university bookstores are also in the business of selling used textbooks.
> 
> To combat this problem, typically what the textbook publishers do is release a new edition every few years, to destroy the secondary market for the previous editions.  These days for some very popular freshman college/university textbooks, new editions are pumped out as fast as every 3 years.




The difference is that your college class might require you to use the new edition, while there is no such requirement in the RPG world outside of peer pressure from those you game with. 

I don't think the RPG market cannibalizes the market for new copies to the extent that it happens with college textbooks, but I do think the availbility and price of older books does limit what you can charge for a new book. I think one of the reasons retro-clones have a hard time establishing themselves is that you can pick up the core books for AD&D 1E or 2E for $10-15 in good shape.


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 15, 2009)

ggroy said:


> How much is this different than, say, the college/university textbook business (especially for freshman year textbooks)?



Because the Teacher is supplied the the _Teacher's Book_ through the school since the School probably gets a kickback on the new books. The student does not get the chance to say to the teacher, *do we need to use a new edition?*


----------



## stuart (Jul 16, 2009)

frankthedm said:


> Because the Teacher is supplied the the _Teacher's Book_ through the school since the School probably gets a kickback on the new books. The student does not get the chance to say to the teacher, *do we need to use a new edition?*




If it's anything like the University I'm at the school doesn't get a kickback on the books. I get to select the course textbook for my classes and the department secretary lets the bookstore know what they should order for the students to buy. The students don't *need* to buy the textbooks there though, and they can get them from another store, 2nd hand, Amazon, Ebay, etc.

Quite often the publishers/distributors will send me a copy of their textbooks to evaluate hoping that I'll pick their book for the textbook for my class.

Maybe it's different for other schools/profs... but my experience is that there's no kickback to the school / teacher on new books.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jul 16, 2009)

From the article [Note: I maintain that we are entering an economic dislocation the likes of which has not been seen since the *Roman Crisis of the Third Century*.] 


And he's worrying about RPGs?

I'm reminded of the old George Carlin joke, "it seems the weather radar has picked up a flock of Russian ICBMs, so I wouldn't worry about the thundershowers."


----------



## ggroy (Jul 16, 2009)

James Mishler's rant about depression style economics is laughable.

Every time there's a recession or some economic hiccups, all kinds of permabears talk about the "next great depression" like a chicken little.  After so many years of seeing crap like this, it becomes like the "boy who cried wolf".

Rinse, repeat, and recycled every time.


----------



## JoshuaFrost (Jul 16, 2009)

I started gaming in 1988.

In the 21 years since then, I've heard every single year that this industry was on the cusp of failure. I don't think the assertion is any truer now than it was 21 years ago.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 16, 2009)

JoshuaFrost said:


> I started gaming in 1988.
> 
> In the 21 years since then, I've heard every single year that this industry was on the cusp of failure. I don't think the assertion is any truer now than it was 21 years ago.




It's nothing more than cannon fodder for rpg industry "armchair pundits" and other "monday morning quarterbackers".  Though it is amusing to speculate to wild extremes.  

In the business consulting world, this type of extreme "armchair punditry" is better known as "scenario planning".

Scenario planning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## an_idol_mind (Jul 16, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Wonder how many bucks per word somebody like a Stephen King, John Grisham, or Dan Brown would make for writing.​




For what it's worth, Stephen King talked at my university some years back and was asked something along these lines. His only answer was that if he were to stop writing entirely, he would still be pulling in about $50 million a year.


----------



## tylerthehobo (Jul 16, 2009)

Mallus said:


> All I can say is the 4e core books cost me slightly more than the 1e core books did when I purchased them back in the mid 1980s, in currency unadjusted for inflation, or for the fact I, along with a big chuck of the graying RPG market, have a lot more disposable income now than we did as adolescents. That's not a sustainable pricing model.




I realize you're quoting the author's logic, which is largely sound, and applying it to the core books, but my take from a marketing perspective would be that WotC (and even TSR back in the day) is applying the "Give away the razor, sell the blades" model that Gillette has applied to their razors for about a century.  Make the core products hyper-affordable (or even a loss leader like the XBox is) and make the money off of the ancillary products (the blades for a razor, the modules/accessories for d&d, and the games for XBox).  

Not saying it's right or wrong of them to assume that - just saying I think that's what's at work here.


----------



## Ulrick (Jul 16, 2009)

Well, here's my plan to save the industry...

1. From here on out, every RPG book must have a "tastefully" scantily clad woman on the cover. Perhaps getting actual pictures of celebrities dressed up in fantasy constumes might help. 

2. A certain portion of each book will be dedicated to advertising. Such adverstising would cater to the average gamer, everything from miniatures to deodorant. Coupons could be included. 

3. Maybe each book could contain a centerfold of the person on the cover. 

4. Along with tips and advice of performing well at table, relationship advice could also be included. "10 ways to tell if that gamer girl is into you!" Or "Only gamer chick at the FLGS? Try these 7 things to WoW them!"

5. Gaming books releases should be monthly (they practically are now anyway). 

6. Perhaps the teen demographic could be reached with books that contain articles for them. "Miley Cyrus: D&D or not D&D?" "Parents think you worship Satan? 10 ways to prove them wrong!" 

7. All RPG books can repeat the same topic every 2-3 years or so. (Wait minute...they almost do that already...)

----

Even though I'm not really being serious, upon closer consideration these ideas might actually work...


----------



## ggroy (Jul 16, 2009)

Mallus said:
			
		

> All I can say is the 4e core books cost me slightly more than the 1e core books did when I purchased them back in the mid 1980s, in currency unadjusted for inflation




There's also the possibility that the 1E AD&D core books may have been way "overpriced" back in the day, compared to today's 4E D&D core books.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 16, 2009)

Part II of James Mishler's rant.

Adventures in Gaming: The Rambling II: Replies and Ripostes


----------



## ggroy (Jul 16, 2009)

*Mishler's rant part II.  (Forked Thread: another rpg industry doomsday article)*

Forked from:  another rpg industry doomsday article 

Part II of James Mishler's rant.

Adventures in Gaming: The Rambling II: Replies and Ripostes


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 16, 2009)

Well, that's certainly a rant. He ends up sounding like a 3E/OGL fanboy upset that the current gaming market doesn't make it easy(or perhaps even possible) to turn a profit producing 3E/OGL games. That seems to be what he wants to do, as he has shown a clear disdain for 4E.

Edit: addition

He also seems to equate his take on the "adventure game" industry as the same as the industry as a whole. We've been a community since 1974, and if one thing can be said its that D&D always wins. Before the OGL, we had alternative systems and the indie gaming movement. The OGL marginalized both of those, with the exception of White Wolf. The release of 3.5E and WotC's decision to stop supporting the OGL community during 3E marginalized the OGL community, and the release of 4E was just the final nail in the coffin. The "alternative to D&D" section of the RPG community is at a low ebb thanks to external factors, and is being currently dominated by previous editions of D&D of all things and not new products. I believe there is a demand for alternatives to D&D, and those alternatives will turn up at some point, probably being something new we haven't seen before.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 16, 2009)

The angry ranting in the second part kind of casts a shadow over any points he may have accidentally made in the first post.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 16, 2009)

1. His response to Hobo is dishonest. He's comparing the price on a trade paperback to the price on a mass market paperback. He works in publishing, he has to know that these are not the same thing. The same book experiences about a 50% cost swing as it shifts between those two types of publication. Two minutes in a Barnes and Nobles should be enough to notice this.

2. His comment about boardgame profits and the possibility that more expensive boardgames are being purchased is probably very wrong. First, lets note that its at best a conspiracy style apologetic- he isn't saying that his theory IS true, or even that there's reason to SUSPECT that his theory is true. He's just saying that the stats given _fail to disprove_ his theory, and that therefore the more intuitive explanation of the available data should not be accepted. While I love my eurogames, I would be very, very VERY surprised if eurogames were responsible for an increase in dollars of product sold at the same time as copies sold was declining. The success of Catan notwithstanding, the typical eurogame is something that Mishler should be quite familiar with- a small print run luxury good with a print run in the low thousands that is sold in specialty stores and on the internet. In contrast, Monopoly or Apples to Apples sells in my grocery store.

3. His argument about the devaluation of Pathfinder's core rules due to them being available in the OGL is not likely correct. 3e counts as an experiment regarding the validity of this argument.

4. His repeated assertions that Paizo is screwing themselves by expecting the majority of their profits to come from the sale of supplementary material that customers do not actually need, and his actual career, are somewhat at odds.

5. As I browse his page, I'm not sure why I should even respect someone who thinks that rolling up a character instead of using point buy makes you a more hardcore gamer. Why am I writing this response? I'm out.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jul 16, 2009)

stuart said:


> If it's anything like the University I'm at the school doesn't get a kickback on the books. I get to select the course textbook for my classes and the department secretary lets the bookstore know what they should order for the students to buy. The students don't *need* to buy the textbooks there though, and they can get them from another store, 2nd hand, Amazon, Ebay, etc.
> 
> Quite often the publishers/distributors will send me a copy of their textbooks to evaluate hoping that I'll pick their book for the textbook for my class.
> 
> Maybe it's different for other schools/profs... but my experience is that there's no kickback to the school / teacher on new books.




This is how it works at every university I've had experience with.  I suspect it is how it works at all universities.  The university doesn't get a kickback, and neither do the professors, unless you count the free teacher's edition you often get to evaluate a given text.

At university, we use new editions because quite often the information changes.  Especially in the scientific fields, which is what I'm most familiar with.

IMO, textbook prices are so high because it is a limited market (you won't find most of them at your local B&N or Borders), and that market is also somewhat of a captive audience (hard to pass the class without purchasing the text).


----------



## Dire Bare (Jul 16, 2009)

tylerthehobo said:


> I realize you're quoting the author's logic, which is largely sound, and applying it to the core books, but my take from a marketing perspective would be that WotC (and even TSR back in the day) is applying the "Give away the razor, sell the blades" model that Gillette has applied to their razors for about a century.  Make the core products hyper-affordable (or even a loss leader like the XBox is) and make the money off of the ancillary products (the blades for a razor, the modules/accessories for d&d, and the games for XBox).
> 
> Not saying it's right or wrong of them to assume that - just saying I think that's what's at work here.




I'm not going to go do any internet homework on this one, but I'm pretty sure that while razors tend to sell at a thin profit margin or even perhaps a loss . . . that razors sold today are significantly more expensive than razors sold in the 1970s.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jul 16, 2009)

Oh what a silly little guy.



> As to the point of game sales picking up during a recession, we are not in a recession, *we are in a depression*; very different sets of economic circumstances obtain, and in this case, it is even different from the *Great Depression*. The Great Depression was described as a time of want in a time of plenty; this depression, the *Greater Depression*, is a time of want in a time of penury.




The word "Depression" has no meaning in an economic sense.  Other than as a reference to a period of history, it has no definition in terms of a poor economic climate.

"The Depression" was actually a _spin _on the term Recession, because a recession actually means a reduction in job and economic output.  Hoover and his crack team decided that to encourage spending we should avoid implying that the economic situation was receding at all, but instead use a word that implied that it was merely the output and spending habits that were being hampered.

Other than being cute, "The Greater Depression" is a nonsense word.  Playing at coining phrases during a response to criticism is not considered a strong defense of your point.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 16, 2009)

Mishler's economic depression stuff sounds like the words of a permabear.  "The sky is falling" type of rhetoric.

On the other hand, it is kinda funny seeing permabears on financial news shows.  The ultimate super-curmudgeons, trying to rain on everybody's parade.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 16, 2009)

I got quoted!

Whoever knows this guy, tell him to do his research on WotC sales better, there is much more info to be had, and it's even been posted on this board. Of course, that info doesn't fit well with his ideas, so maybe that's why he chose to ignore them.

Anyway, from the blog



			
				OP said:
			
		

> "You may find in the end that you have a lot of people playing Pathfinder RPG, but unwilling to buy any further support material at anything resembling a full mark-up. You may call that  if you want; I merely call it prophecy."






			
				EM said:
			
		

> Yep, I call it .
> 
> The difference between me and you is that I'm staking a successful company on it, and you are pulling guesses out of your ass on the internet.




Made my morning, XP for mr. Erik Mona


----------



## No Name (Jul 16, 2009)

I see his type in FLGSs often. The loud, obnoxious guy who can't see reason and claims to be an expert on everything. It's best to just ignore him and hope he grows out of it. After all, you know what they say about kids these days...


----------



## pogre (Jul 16, 2009)

I see the board game revival as a positive thing. I remember when RPGs were "dead" because of MTG and then bam - 3E. We'll see another non-computer gaming boom. It may be a new genre or a revival. 

Honestly, I'm not sure economy has a lot to do with gaming. I know that sounds non-intuitive, but I don't think the economy was doing particularly well when 3E hit the shelves. People tend to spend money on entertainment when times are tough. One of the biggest growth industries in the Depression for example was motion pictures.

I look at model railroading as a good example of what _might_ happen to conventional fantasy roleplaying. Fantasy roleplaying as we know it may fade, but there will be another boom in gaming.

EDIT: In both of these threads I see a bit of name calling against Mr. Mishler. He has not done that. You and I may not agree with everything he says, but it really is against the spirit of the ENW board to label him or call him names.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 16, 2009)

Y'know, I read the first screed and I was willing to at least listen.  Sure, it was back of the envelope style calculations, but, at least it sounded like he knew what he was talking about.  But, for some very bizarre reason, he cannot seem to stick on task and instead devolves into random lashing out, like his little 4e rant:



> It is unfortunate that one cannot speak of the role-playing game market without mentioning 4E; otherwise I would gladly ignore it altogether, as I tire of dealing with fans that willfully ignore the realities of the game they play. Call it trolling if you will, it is simply base, bald fact: 4E was designed to capture the WoW experience on the tabletop. It can be adapted for use for other game styles, to be sure, but that is not what it was designed to do.




If you are going to talk about the state of the gaming industry, why would your personal feelings about a product possibly enter into things?  Why would you even consider wanting to ignore the largest segment of the industry simply because you happen to prefer a different game?  It's mind blowing.  It's like a Pepsi fan talking about the state of the soft drinks industry while bemoaning the taste of Coca-cola.

/singing "One of these things is not like the others... One of these things just isn't the same.


----------



## malraux (Jul 16, 2009)

> “His ‘4E is really WoW on the tabletop’ trolling wasn't much better either.” -- Malreaux
> 
> It is unfortunate that one cannot speak of the role-playing game market without mentioning 4E; otherwise I would gladly ignore it altogether, as I tire of dealing with fans that willfully ignore the realities of the game they play. Call it trolling if you will, it is simply base, bald fact: 4E was designed to capture the WoW experience on the tabletop. It can be adapted for use for other game styles, to be sure, but that is not what it was designed to do.



Yes, I'm clearly the one ignoring reality.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 16, 2009)

So, what is the final verdict? If we ignore 4E and if we ignore Paizos success so far, the sky is falling and the RPG industry is doomed? 

Yes, if we ignore everything succesful, it looks as if there was no hope.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So, what is the final verdict? If we ignore 4E and if we ignore Paizos success so far, the sky is falling and the RPG industry is doomed?
> 
> Yes, if we ignore everything succesful, it looks as if there was no hope.




No no no.  You missed the point.  Because personal preference denotes success, 4e cannot possibly be successful, thus the RPG industry is doomed.


----------



## Destil (Jul 16, 2009)

> t. Now game consumers will wonder why they can’t buy every PDF at the same ratio; they will neither understand nor care that Paizo is using the PDF as a loss-leader to get consumers to buy into Pathfinder, with the hopes that they will, down the road, buy Pathfinder products at the full MSRP (print or PDF).



 Since this, right here, is the crux of the arguement for the death of PDF I have to say it just dosn't work that way. No normal consumer looks at price ratios for a leisure product. They look at cost, end of story. Pathfinder PDF modules can sell at a significantly higher ratio because they'll still be under some abstract cost that the buyer considers significant. There is a value vs. cost ratio, but it's not at all linear. The same people who will buy a big hardcover RPG pdf for $10 will buy a module for $5, even if the first is listed as $50 in print and the latter is $15. And they'll get roughly the same sense of value.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 16, 2009)

Hussar said:


> No no no.  You missed the point.  Because personal preference denotes success, 4e, Pathfinder, and PDFs cannot possibly be successful, thus the RPG industry is doomed.




Edited for omissions.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 16, 2009)

Ugh.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 16, 2009)

Well, at least he finally managed to make 4e fans and 3.5/Paizo fans agree about something...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 16, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> Well, at least he finally managed to make *4e fans and 3.5/Paizo fans about something*...



This (part of sentence) no verb... 

My prediction: 
The edition wars will soon be fought with 3 parties - 4E, Pathfinder, OSR 

It was about time this war opened a second frontline!


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jul 16, 2009)

> EDIT: In both of these threads I see a bit of name calling against Mr. Mishler. He has not done that. You and I may not agree with everything he says, but it really is against the spirit of the ENW board to label him or call him names.




This is true.  As well as I find it a little ruder to not respond to the man on his blog but instead snark elsewhere.

I also think Erik Mona's being a little bit too defensive, when there really is legitimate criticism, but I'll respond on his blog rather than engage in numerous cross posting. 



> If you are going to talk about the state of the gaming industry, why would your personal feelings about a product possibly enter into things? Why would you even consider wanting to ignore the largest segment of the industry simply because you happen to prefer a different game? It's mind blowing. It's like a Pepsi fan talking about the state of the soft drinks industry while bemoaning the taste of Coca-cola.




You completely missed his point.  If you read that statement carefully he doesn't want to talk about 4e not because of his personal like or dislike, but because of the visereal reaction he gets from the fans who feel the need to defend 4e or attack anybody who is critical of it.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> This (part of sentence) no verb...



Heh... I meant to write agree. I'll edit the post.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 16, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> This is true.  As well as I find it a little ruder to not respond to the man on his blog but instead snark elsewhere.




I snarked him just fine on his blog.


----------



## JeffB (Jul 16, 2009)

Yikes. More rant.

I really think alot of these BLOGS get drawn along party lines anymore- I notice the OSR crowd in general flocks to posts like James', spewing doom and gloom because the hobby industry is not like it was in (insert fave year from D&D's heyday)  When the people who are actually successful in the market today like WOTC, Paizo and Goodman, say they are doing well- they get jumped by all the negative nellies. 

More importantly, As an original LBB'er and OSR fan who also totally digs 4E, who do I get pi$$ed off at at now?.. Paizo??? White Wolf??  Which Bandwagon do I jump on?


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 16, 2009)

JoshuaFrost said:


> I started gaming in 1988.
> 
> In the 21 years since then, I've heard every single year that this industry was on the cusp of failure. I don't think the assertion is any truer now than it was 21 years ago.




"This time for sure!"  /Bullwinkle


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Jul 16, 2009)

Ulrick said:


> Well, here's my plan to save the industry...
> 
> 1. From here on out, every RPG book must have a "tastefully" scantily clad woman on the cover. Perhaps getting actual pictures of celebrities dressed up in fantasy constumes might help.
> 
> ...




You sir, are a marketing genius!

<hastily scribbles cribbed notes>


----------



## Saracenus (Jul 16, 2009)

And then there is the guy who thinks those young whippersnappers are the future of the hobby:

*The Inevitable Future of Tabletop Gaming*
The Inevitable Future of Tabletop Gaming | SquareMans

*D&D: The Lost Art of Adventure Writing & The Death of the Hobby*
D&D: The Lost Art of Adventure Writing & The Death of the Hobby | SquareMans

I honestly don't understand folks who think that because their business model worked yesterday it should always work. 

If you cannot adjust to conditions in the market or better yet find new markets your endeavors are doomed to mediocrity or failure.


----------



## carmachu (Jul 16, 2009)

Part of teh orignial author's problem is that he equates the PDF and hardcover book as having the same value. They arent, and dont. I dont value a PDF the same as a actual book. I dont think anyone does.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 16, 2009)

carmachu said:


> Part of teh orignial author's problem is that he equates the PDF and hardcover book as having the same value. They arent, and dont. I dont value a PDF the same as a actual book. I dont think anyone does.




To me, PDFs are worthless other than as an easy way to browse through a book.  I don't have a laptop, and I find it annoying to read through PDFs on my desktop computer.  I usually just buy the books instead.


----------



## seskis281 (Jul 16, 2009)

Huh.

Well, the thing I find interesting is - why is everyone so easily worked up and pissed off over this? 

James posted his own opinions and ideas on his own blog, as he or anyone has the right to do lol. He didn't come here and open this or other thread.. others brought it here. 

James has a pretty gloomy vision of the industry (not the hobby, as he says), but also says he hopes he's wrong. The man's entitled to his opinion, and he has experience that gives him a point of view... others have the right to say "I disagree." Hell, he even titles his own blog "ramblings..." I know James and I love the guy - he's one of the best GMs you could ever have - but I don't necessarily agree with every point of view he holds... big deal, that's America heh....  but he says what he thinks...

I am a bit saddened by how Erik Mona came into this so strongly. I've never met him but have always enjoyed his writings and his opinions. I understand an impetus to defend one's company, but all James did was say he didn't like the approach being taken by Paizo on the pdf pricing for the Pathfinder rulebook. Coming back with a bit of namecalling and denegrating James on a personal level strikes me as a bit off... James Mishler's blog and opinion is a threat to the Pathfinder release? 

In the end I just have to ask - why do you guys care so much to get so worked up over it?


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 16, 2009)

Maybe this is a naive thing to say, and even though I love many of them, I really don't think the "hobby" is dependent on 95% of the publishers that currently exist in order to thrive.  1-3 biggies is all that's needed to keep it viable in stores.  (Maybe the glut of publishers and systems has even contributed heavily to the problem.)

Taking it a step further, I'd even go so far as to say the hobby really doesn't need *any* new product from publishers at this point for it to go on anyway.  RPG Publishers need consumers more than consumers need RPG publishers.  

If all publishers shut down tomorrow, the hobby would go on.  I would still play.  Many would still play.  Cons would still go on, though they may certainly get smaller.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 16, 2009)

Saracenus said:


> *D&D: The Lost Art of Adventure Writing & The Death of the Hobby*
> D&D: The Lost Art of Adventure Writing & The Death of the Hobby | SquareMans




There was a section from this blog post which asserts:



> WotC went through a period, mostly concurrent with D&D3, where they tried to offload the burden of adventures, never super profitable, onto third party publishers using the OGL. At least, that’s how it was pitched to the top brass there by Ryan Dancey. *If you knew Ryan, though, and paid attention to what he said in other venues, you knew Ryan was really tricking WotC into opening D&D because he didn’t like the idea of D&D’s fate being tied to the success of one company.*



In the highlighted text, I wonder how much of this was really Ryan Dancey's true intentions.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jul 16, 2009)

seskis281 said:


> In the end I just have to ask - why do you guys care so much to get so worked up over it?




Because this industry has a long-standing problem of people, many of them well-intentioned, holding forth in public without much in the way of real knowledge...    and forum readers believing them, because they're 'insiders'.

This can actually have a knock-on effect -- a bit like a run on a bank (less drastic, to be sure, but just as real), where sales can be effected because of the pervading mood that things are on a downturn.   Believe it or not, but people tend to purchase more if they feel that their purchases will be supported going forward by a healthy industry.   If they're convinced (because they heard it from people who "should know") that its not healthy, they're less likely to purchase.


It's not his opinion which is the problem -- opinions are like...   Well, you know.

It's that he supports his opinion with "facts" which are flat-out wrong (and in some cases, perhaps even purposefully misleading), and gamers might believe him (leading to very real impact on business) unless those errors are pointed out.


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 16, 2009)

JeffB said:


> More importantly, As an original LBB'er and OSR fan who also totally digs 4E, who do I get pi$ off at at now?.. Paizo??? White Wolf??  Which Bandwagon do I jump on?




I think White Wolf is okay. 

Wait, no -- Ethan Skemp, Werewolf developer and White Wolf employee, posts here frequently, and mentions how much fun he's having playing D&D 4e. Dang. 

Well, there's always video and computer games. (Though you should make sure you've played them before attempting to describe the way they play. One never wants one's negative rants to come off as ignorant to anyone who's ever played, or even watched an episode of Attack of the Show or X-Play.)


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jul 16, 2009)

ggroy said:


> To me, PDFs are worthless other than as an easy way to browse through a book.  I don't have a laptop, and I find it annoying to read through PDFs on my desktop computer.  I usually just buy the books instead.




Yes, but people are missing the whole point of the essay saying that, while customers think PDFs are "worth less" (or "worthless"), that does not change the fact that there are certain fixed costs to publishing and it's not just the cost of printing and warehousing.  Just because people are cheap doesn't mean that it makes sense to lower prices.



> This can actually have a knock-on effect -- a bit like a run on a bank (less drastic, to be sure, but just as real), where sales can be effected because of the pervading mood that things are on a downturn. Believe it or not, but people tend to purchase more if they feel that their purchases will be supported going forward by a healthy industry. If they're convinced (because they heard it from people who "should know") that its not healthy, they're less likely to purchase.




On the other hand, James has a lot of knowledge from what I've seen, and I see attempts to debunk him as akin to people who don't want to hear negative news about their product--even if its true--because they don't want the stock price to go down.  I see this a lot, being a fan of XM Radio and how things went crappy and stock holders thinking things are fine, say anything negative and tons of stock holders come into message boards complaining of bias.


----------



## seskis281 (Jul 16, 2009)

GMSkarka said:


> Because this industry has a long-standing problem of people, many of them well-intentioned, holding forth in public without much in the way of real knowledge... and forum readers believing them, because they're 'insiders'.
> 
> This can actually have a knock-on effect -- a bit like a run on a bank (less drastic, to be sure, but just as real), where sales can be effected because of the pervading mood that things are on a downturn. Believe it or not, but people tend to purchase more if they feel that their purchases will be supported going forward by a healthy industry. If they're convinced (because they heard it from people who "should know") that its not healthy, they're less likely to purchase.
> 
> ...




See I don't get this part of the argument. James does have experience and does have some interesting facts - could his perceptions of the meaning of these be wrong? Sure. He also has the facts that he's been exposed to, which don't include everything and are certainly an incomplete picture - but that's true of every single post or opinion that uses "facts" regardless of how inside or outside someone is, and he supplements these with his guesses and anecdotal evidence - which he even SAYS is anecdotal... so it comes back to just someone voicing their concerns and opinions, and people jumping on it.

Does James Mishler have biases for and against games and business models? Of course he does. So do Erik Mona, Monte Cook, Andy Collins, Mike Mearls, Jim Ward, myself, and every person, known and unknown, who come here. For instance, thecausaloblivian slammed James pretty strongly during this, so looking at something he said on a forked thread:



> My response to this thread brings up an interesting point. In the current tabletop RPG world, alternatives to mainstream D&D are at a low ebb. Aside from White Wolf chugging along as the number 2 publisher, doing its own thing as always, what is really selling outside of 4E? 3PP 4E books aren't, outside of Goodman being modestly successful selling adventures. The OGL has slowed down considerably. Indie games and non-d20 systems are barely on the radar. Most people who haven't switched to 4E are playing old games. Either retro clones of a previously released game(and I would include Pathfinder in this), older editions of D&D, or playing older games that haven't been updated recently. A few blips here and there, but not a lot. There's 4E, and White Wolf puts out new games for their system, but outside of that, nothing new is really happening.




Now, these are assertions and opinions. Where's the facts to support? (Erik'll probably be upset at the "other than 4e and White Wolf nothing's happening...." guess Paizo's not doing anything....) But, they are just as valid for him to make as James. Lots of people post with assertions and arguments ensue over the merits of points made. Causal has every right to make assertions, just as James does.

What bothers me is this: GMSkarka especially said this is "dangerous" when people who have some "experience" as "insiders" make assertions - this means the more someone has had in experience the more their assertions are dangerous and need to be squelched? The further outside the better when making claims about the RPG community?

You don't have to agree with James. You don't even have to ignore - it's quite possible to have a solid debate on the specifics of the arguments and his assertions. 

What bothers me, and it seems to be a real problem here and on many message boards, is that people who disagree immediately turn to personal attacks and denegration to "knock down" those that voice opinions they disagree with.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jul 16, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> On the other hand, James has a lot of knowledge from what I've seen




...which means, I suppose, that you're ignoring the factual errors that have been pointed out, over and over again, both here and on his blog entry.

I'm not talking opinions -- he's welcome to those.  I'm talking about verifiable *fact* (such as his incorrect view of the state of POD production, for example, or his bizarre ideas regarding the word rates of mainstream writing, or his perhaps-purposeful conflation of trade paperbacks with mass market paperbacks in order to make his point about inflation, etc.).

He "has a lot of knowledge", sure -- it's just that a good amount of it is wrong.


However, based on your posts here and on his blog, it's pretty obvious that you've made up your mind, so I guess there's not much point in further discussion.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jul 16, 2009)

seskis281 said:


> What bothers me is this: GMSkarka especially said this is "dangerous" when people who have some "experience" as "insiders" make assertions - this means the more someone has had in experience the more their assertions are dangerous and need to be squelched? The further outside the better when making claims about the RPG community?




No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that when you speak from a position of authority, you bear the responsibility of that authority.

Really, that's not a radical concept.



To use an exaggerated example to show you what I mean:  Opinions regarding medicine coming from, say, a Registered Nurse are going to be given a lot more weight that those coming from Joe the Plumber (although maybe not, in some circles -- but I digress).

As such, the RN should be a lot more careful about what they say, because they're speaking with authority about the subject.


Clearer?


----------



## ggroy (Jul 16, 2009)

Interesting quote in a comment by BlackDiamond, who runs an FLGS.

Adventures in Gaming: The Doom of RPGs: The Rambling



> 2) Usability. My thoughts on RPG products are that a LOT of them were being bought, pre recession, as interesting reading or source material for OTHER games. I think this type of material is something around 30% for our store (about $75k/year in RPGs). When economic times are hard, this spending is cut sharply and we learn who is really playing what. My guess is some publishers have seen their sales grind to a screeching halt and may not know why. I wonder if this is a more universal trend and if anyone has noticed this?


----------



## carmachu (Jul 16, 2009)

ggroy said:


> To me, PDFs are worthless other than as an easy way to browse through a book. I don't have a laptop, and I find it annoying to read through PDFs on my desktop computer. I usually just buy the books instead.



   Same here...I have a ton of PDF's from Piazo from subscriptions but I never use them. Their a nice add on, but they have no value to me.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 16, 2009)

GMSkarka said:


> No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
> 
> I'm saying that when you speak from a position of authority, you bear the responsibility of that authority.
> 
> ...




A lawyer can be disbarred for giving misleading or outright wrong legal advice.


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 16, 2009)

carmachu said:


> Part of teh orignial author's problem is that he equates the PDF and hardcover book as having the same value. They arent, and dont. I dont value a PDF the same as a actual book. I dont think anyone does.



As I pointed out in the blog comments, as a matter of fact Paizo values PDF at 70% of printed price. Green Ronin values them at 55%. Malhavoc at generally 57%.

Now, those are publishers, but they are also successful publishers and Green Ronin and Paizo at least have pretty stable PDF prices, so (this is a logic leap due to a lack of sales info) I would presume they are happy with their PDF sales. So, when looking for actual facts, I'd say that the market valuing PDFs in the 55-65% of print price range is probably pretty accurate and stable.



seskis281 said:


> I am a bit saddened by how Erik Mona came into this so strongly. I've never met him but have always enjoyed his writings and his opinions. I understand an impetus to defend one's company, but all James did was say he didn't like the approach being taken by Paizo on the pdf pricing for the Pathfinder rulebook. Coming back with a bit of namecalling and denegrating James on a personal level strikes me as a bit off... James Mishler's blog and opinion is a threat to the Pathfinder release?



Well, I was surprised at how strongly Erik came on as well, but to be fair James didn't just say that he didn't like Paizo's approach, he claimed that the PFRPG PDF was going to start a "Race to Zero" and pretty much decimate the PDF market. That seems a fair bit more harsh than "I don't like it". If someone accused your company and their biggest project in years as the harbinger of doom to an entire market, well, I can understand some emotion from Erik.

It's also an utterly unfounded argument. As I probably rambled too long in response to his 2nd post, he's looking at a single data point and claiming it's the beginning of a trend, while ignoring the overall stability of PDF to print pricing across years and dozens of products. 

Not only is it bad statistics, but it's also bad logic. And having gotten half way to a PhD in philosophy, bad logic hurts me.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jul 16, 2009)

kenmarable said:


> Well, I was surprised at how strongly Erik came on as well, but to be fair James didn't just say that he didn't like Paizo's approach, he claimed that the PFRPG PDF was going to start a "Race to Zero" and pretty much decimate the PDF market. That seems a fair bit more harsh than "I don't like it". If someone accused your company and their biggest project in years as the harbinger of doom to an entire market, well, I can understand some emotion from Erik.
> 
> It's also an utterly unfounded argument.





It's not wrong when there's tons of economic data outside of gaming.  I mean, I learned this stuff in college 20 years ago.

Loss leader - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Marketing academics have shown that retailers should think of both the direct and indirect effect of substantial price promotions when evaluating their impact on profit.[4] To make a very precise analysis one should also include effects over time. Deep price promotions may cause people to bulk-buy (stockpile), which may invalidate the long-term effect of the strategy. This is the association rule analysis.[5]




Loss Leaders, which is what Paizo is doing, can be risky to a market.


----------



## seskis281 (Jul 16, 2009)

ggroy said:


> A lawyer can be disbarred for giving misleading or outright wrong legal advice.






GMSkarka said:


> No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
> 
> I'm saying that when you speak from a position of authority, you bear the responsibility of that authority.
> 
> ...




Fair enough. 

But that means everyone associated with the business, including yourself as a publisher, needs to give "facts without interpretation?" My own experience (and this is just MY opinion lol based on submissions, etc.) is that the 3-5 cent per word is pretty accurate for RPG writing - which is different from the 6-9 cents one might get from fiction writing for magazines. Did James perhaps overemphasize with a statement like "10 to 20 times?" probably - so note that and say I think he's wrong on this here.

But as to "responsibility of the authority," why does this apply to a small, one-man co. and blog differently than to larger entities? His only "responsibility" is to his customers, so if he's saying things he wants with an agenda towards making knocks at other companies, heh - well, that happens all the time - many representing WotC and many other companies give interviews or post things that are clearly meant to make knocks at competitors - this is called pushing the product and competing - nothing wrong with it and certainly expected - doesn't make them bad or good, right or wrong, just the nature of competing business - should we criticize and say "don't trust Mike Mearls or Scott Rouse!!" because they don't release sales specifics to back up assertions that 4e is doing better than 3e? Of course not, because we assume the nature of the biz and that they're gonna stand up for the product. If it's true then all the good for them and the market, if not, the market will determine a change or course-correction in the future.

Same thing with James's assertions - time will prove him right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle....

The RN and Lawyer comparisons are a bit problematic - yes, a lawyer can be disbarred for that - if he is in the process of acting in a contracted way as a lawyer. If a lawyer gives some bad info over a couple of beers or just venting on his own.... rambling on a blog is just venting personal feelings, and god help us if we start saying "you have the responsibility of not saying anything on your OWN site that might offend me."


----------



## mearls (Jul 16, 2009)

Whenever anyone posts their thoughts on where the industry is going, they're telling you where their personal slice of the industry is heading. They might spin it as some global thing, but that very rarely applies.

I think we'd be all far better served if prophets of doom worked on, and delivered, solutions to the problems they see.

Frankly, it's bizarre to see someone simultaneously proclaiming doom while crapping on a lot of the efforts made to boost sales and get new blood into the industry.


----------



## carmachu (Jul 16, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Yes, but people are missing the whole point of the essay saying that, while customers think PDFs are "worth less" (or "worthless"), that does not change the fact that there are certain fixed costs to publishing and it's not just the cost of printing and warehousing. Just because people are cheap doesn't mean that it makes sense to lower prices.




There seems to be a contradiction there. If people think PDF's are worth less then a print copy, then having a higher PDF price, instead of a lower one makes no sense either.

The costs are already done with with the book. So what if people are cheap. There are some that arent going to buy the book anyway. But I'd hazard that there are still far many ones that will, and do, buy the print version no matter how cheap the PDF is.

I think the OP is just flat out wrong in that regard.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 16, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Loss Leaders, which is what Paizo is doing




I do not see the Pathfinder RPG $10 PDF as a loss leader.

joe b.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 16, 2009)

Ryan Dancey chimes in on the Mishler's rant.

The Real Costs and Truths About The Industry So a fellow… | RPGpundit's Xanga Site - Weblog


----------



## mhensley (Jul 16, 2009)

nevermind, ggroy beat me to it


----------



## carmachu (Jul 16, 2009)

kenmarable said:


> As I pointed out in the blog comments, as a matter of fact Paizo values PDF at 70% of printed price. Green Ronin values them at 55%. Malhavoc at generally 57%.
> 
> Now, those are publishers, but they are also successful publishers and Green Ronin and Paizo at least have pretty stable PDF prices, so (this is a logic leap due to a lack of sales info) I would presume they are happy with their PDF sales. So, when looking for actual facts, I'd say that the market valuing PDFs in the 55-65% of print price range is probably pretty accurate and stable.




True, but the other end of the spectrum is what the consumer is willing to pay for them(and of course the dead tree print version). If people are buying it at that price, great. If not....

There are more than a few people that have said they just dont value PDF's at all.

Personally I see exactly why the Pathfinder PDF is priced at $10. I've seen more than a few  folks that have said they werent even going to look all of a sudden decide to take a look. I hope the strategy works out for them.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jul 16, 2009)

Saracenus said:


> And then there is the guy who thinks those young whippersnappers are the future of the hobby:
> 
> *The Inevitable Future of Tabletop Gaming*
> The Inevitable Future of Tabletop Gaming | SquareMans
> ...




The second blog is an really interesting article and I wonder if Gleemax in it original conception was ment to foster that user generated content?


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jul 16, 2009)

Wow, I thought people were overreacting here, the RPGPundit seems to be filled with venom.

Interesting to see Ryan seeing the gaming market as grim too.

Not sure I agree with him on author rates though.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 16, 2009)

While the Pathfinder PDF might contribute to unprofitable expectations among gamers who gauge prices on a per-page basis, I don't think the problem is either new or insurmountable.

It seems to me likely that knowing and catering to an appropriate market can make a big difference. If you don't even have the capital to do a print run of 5000 copies, then it might not be very relevant whether potential short-term sales are in that league.

If one is not depending on the business for one's daily bread, then are probably ways to make the hobby at least pay for itself. Don't try to compete in a field in which supply is plentiful, but go for one in which there is more clearly unmet demand. Target a demographic willing to pay more for quality in the creative department -- and maybe not so hung up on expensive production values.

I personally am not a fan of glossy paper, and while spot color (or occasional full-color plates) can be something I appreciate, the added expense may not be worth it to me. I find black and white usually eminently appropriate, and the 3E books hard on my eyes. For a module of 8 to 64 pages, saddle-stapling is fine. The classic TSR format of nicely printed separate card-stock cover with maps inside is to me quite nifty, but it's no big deal if removal requires opening staples. I don't see the need for anything fancier unless it's going to get heavier use (and then the _quality_ of a paperback or hardbound binding is significant).

I don't know how eccentric I am in all that, but I suspect that there are at least 1500 others who could make it worthwhile for someone acting in the first place on a drive to create a work of great imagination even if only for the pleasure.

The PDF and POD facilities, coupled with sites for people to shop on the Internet, seem to have opened opportunities even in a contracted market.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 16, 2009)

TheArticle said:
			
		

> Are role-playing game consumers spoiled? Have role-playing game consumer incomes not kept up with the incomes of other consumers? Were role-playing game publishers unwilling to increase prices due to competitive fears from other game markets? Is there a natural downward pressure on role-playing game products due to the infinite re-usability of the core rulebooks? Probably a bit of all these things; but the end result is, gamer consumers expect to pay less today for their games, in relative costs, than most any other leisure market.




Who is this guy talking to?  I'm "spoiled" because I'd rather write my own adventures than shell out money for some junk that I could easily do myself?  I have *way* more money than I did in 1979.  What I don't have is a lot of patience for the recycling of ideas from 1979 with 4e statblocks.  I don't care about artwork, or spelling, or any of that.  None of that translates into actually *playing the game* which I often suspect is not something commonly done by most publishers or reviewers.

My games would run just fine with black-and-white low budget printouts of *good ideas*.  According to the article such products would be "laughed out" of the industry - an industry that ironically is anxious about failing?  So who should be laughing?

All of this editing and artwork stuff is unecessary anyway, I can get the same inspiration in a more palatable format by watching a movie or surfing the internet.  Apologies to those folks who buy RPG materials just to read them and look at the art work.  I guess you can't please all of the folks all of the time.

The whole reason I play RPGs is the amount of autonomy, creativity, and involvement that I have.  Anyone whose longing for a situation where I turn into a consumer-oriented drone that spends piles of cash to be entertained by someone else has picked the wrong business to be in.  RIP I say and I look forward to the future when RPG designers will have day jobs and view themselves more as peers with the people who play the games.


----------



## carmachu (Jul 16, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Wow, I thought people were overreacting here, the RPGPundit seems to be filled with venom.
> 
> Interesting to see Ryan seeing the gaming market as grim too.
> 
> Not sure I agree with him on author rates though.





I totally disagree with his use of Games workshop "raise rates every year even through the complaints". As I pointed out, one look at their reports, they've been losing slaes and decreased revenue since 2001 with a slight bump up in 2004 till I last read them in 2007....


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 16, 2009)

seskis281 said:


> In the end I just have to ask - why do you guys care so much to get so worked up over it?




Discussion forums are for discussion. This is a discussion forum. God forbid people would discuss things here.


----------



## carmachu (Jul 16, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I'm not sure if I buy entirely into his doom and gloom predictions (for example, he totally blows off younger generations as being only interested in Britany Spears, despite the fact that teen readers are actually buying books and reading in record numbers in the US currently) but, his basic point is very solid.
> 
> Gaming is too cheap. He's not the first to say this. Everything he says about trying to make money on RPG's is, IMO, spot on.





Thats a yes and no there. As seen with Ptolus from Monte, if you actually have a quality product-the MSRP was $119, gamers will buy it.

But too many products, thats WOTC's included, are simply not worth the cover price now. So saying Gaming is too cheap isnt the only problem. 

I have no issues dropping $50 on Pathfinder, or $120 on Ptolus, but the vast majority of Wotc books, and many 3PP ones are not. The ultimate dungeon or what not that was $100 from AEG...didnt feel worth the $100 price tag(and no I didnt pay it).


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 16, 2009)

seskis281 said:


> I am a bit saddened by how Erik Mona came into this so strongly. I've never met him but have always enjoyed his writings and his opinions. I understand an impetus to defend one's company, but all James did was say he didn't like the approach being taken by Paizo on the pdf pricing for the Pathfinder rulebook. Coming back with a bit of namecalling and denegrating James on a personal level strikes me as a bit off... James Mishler's blog and opinion is a threat to the Pathfinder release?
> 
> In the end I just have to ask - why do you guys care so much to get so worked up over it?




I object to three things, in the main, and they are responsible for me getting snarky and a bit defensive in my responses to James yesterday.

1) I have tons of evidence in the form of sales data, trending, and current business relationships with current buyers and distributors in the industry, and I can say FOR SURE that the "industry" is not dying. The fact that his misguided rant came in on the same day when we received final orders for the Pathfinder RPG from all channels--orders higher than for any other product we have ever published. Faced with so much real evidence to the contrary, his original rant struck me as ill-timed and ill-informed.

2) I REALLY don't appreciate an armchair quarterback with a bunch of outdated data points and myopic, 20th century ideas of business models and new technology trying to coin a term (i.e. "The Pathfinder Effect") to blame his own economic woes on a product that:
   1) Is associated with a one-off discount aimed at increasing the player base for the game, which is good for all channels because more players = more potential customers.
   2) Is an affordable electronic version of a very expensive book that is priced outside the affordability of many gamers.
   3) Is not even out yet.
   4) Is not distributed at RPG Now or DriveThru, and hence isn't even on the radar of the bulk of PDF customers and has no influence on the industry's major PDF marketplaces outside Paizo.com.
   5) Is based on an open system anyway, and will be available FOR FREE from several different sites a la d20srd.org within days of it coming out.

3) His calling the decision to price the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook PDF at $10.00 "the final nail in the coffin of the RPG industry" really raised my hackles. The only segment of the RPG industry that I know of that has publicly admitted abject failure (or at least abject frustration at an inability to make ends meet) is Mr. James Mishler. One one-man operation on the brink of failure does not a failing industry make.

So that's my take. James is free to have his own opinions, and there are a lot of things about his essay that make sense and that I agree with. But his ridiculous claims about Paizo and its influence on the industry, though flattering in their misguided audacity, are flat out  wrong, and deserve to be challenged head on lest they become part of some sort of conventional wisdom among pundits and customers in the industry.

--Erik


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 16, 2009)

carmachu said:


> True, but the other end of the spectrum is what the consumer is willing to pay for them(and of course the dead tree print version). If people are buying it at that price, great. If not....
> 
> There are more than a few people that have said they just dont value PDF's at all.
> 
> Personally I see exactly why the Pathfinder PDF is priced at $10. I've seen more than a few  folks that have said they werent even going to look all of a sudden decide to take a look. I hope the strategy works out for them.



Exactly. I know I'm making a logical leap here, but if Paizo and Green Ronin have stable PDF to print ratios over the past 2-3 years, I'm thinking they are probably happy with the PDF sales. Now "being happy with PDF sales" is of course really fuzzy. But in lieu of actual sales and production data, I'm thinking the simplest explanation is that they are doing fine with PDF sales and people are buying them at that price. Of course their print products are the real money makers, which brings up the additional point that predicting a trend in PDF prices based even just on PDFs of products in print may also be flawed. I haven't seen an argument to convince me that if a PDF copy of a print book goes down in value, that all PDF-only products would be dragged down as well. 

And as for people claiming that PDFs are worthless to them, that's irrelevant. 4e products are worthless to people who don't play the game. Pathfinder products are useless to my parents who have never played an RPG. If something has no value to a consumer, then they don't really have any relevant say in determining the price, in my opinion.

Of course, I don't want to spend too much time defending PDFs since I think they are a dead end format and will be gone from the RPG industry in 5 years. (Ok, 5 may be pushing it since they are so easy to produce, but definitely within 10 years.) But that's just me.

I just think even a single Loss Leader product won't cause this Race to Zero for the entire PDF market. In fact, if consumers were going to start demanding that more products be closer to the 20% PDF/Print ratio, we would have been hearing it sometime since the price was announced (since we're talking decreasing the perceived value of PDFs, knowing the PF RPG price should be enough to at least begin this collapse of PDF pricing). I don't see the devaluing happening yet. Maybe we're just slow and in August or September the Race to Zero will be demanded. However, I'm thinking people are very happy with the price on that one product, but aren't seeing it as entitlement to demand lower prices on all PDF products. It's simply not happening.



JohnRTroy said:


> It's not wrong when there's tons of economic data outside of gaming.  I mean, I learned this stuff in college 20 years ago.
> 
> Loss leader - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Loss Leaders, which is what Paizo is doing, can be risky to a market.



But that quote refers to stockpiling products. As I understand it, buying a ton now so I don't have to buy any later (and company doing the promotion is hurt in the long run). Yeah, that is definitely a bad outcome of loss leaders. But this isn't a consumable product, it's an information product. People would no more stockpile an individual RPG book than they would Stephen King's latest novel. Once you have one, that's all you need. 

I'm not sure what other indirect costs it might have. Sure, James' idea that it would devalue PDFs in consumers' minds is *possible*, but as I said, if we haven't seen it even start yet, I doubt it'll be that earth-shattering. I'm guessing the PDF pricing is pretty stable right now, and people see this promotion exactly for what it is - a unique, one time deal to get people interested in the new game. Part of this (and I'm jsut pulling out of my butt guessing) is that RPG PDF consumers tend to be those of us online reading these boards, reading blogs, etc. and are generally more informed. Yes, the average EN World user isn't necessarily the typical print RPG consumer, but I'm *guessing* that we're not far off from the typical PDF consumer.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jul 16, 2009)

This bit from Ryan is something I didn't realize 







> Most pubilshers offer a discount of 60% >OFF< SRP to their wholesalers.  That's right; the publshers get $0.40 for every $1 of retail price.  This is a pricing structure that is insane.  In most retail businesses, an extremely good margin is called a "keystone" margin, and it's 50% off of SRP.  When Hasbro or Mattel sells to Wal*Mart, the discount is closer to 30% off of SRP.  Why in the world do we have an industry where 60% of the value of the products is captured by the distributors and the retailers?




That is an insane pricing margin.  In consignment for poetry books, the standard split is 60/40, where the store buys the book for 40% of the cost, not 60%.  The idea that a retailer takes more than half of the retail cost of the work is ridiculous.  I think Ryan might have a point there.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 16, 2009)

What Mishler is truly ranting about is that its a bad time to be an unsuccessful, unestablished producer of RPG materials. He is ranting about the loss of the OGL boom, and the free pass to anybody who wanted to produce games it granted.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 16, 2009)

This whole discussion reminds me of Goodman's comment on OGL companies valuing themselves based on their numbers during the 2000-2001 OGL boom. If you are basing your perceptions of the industry and what you feel you should be able to do as a publisher on that period, you are going to have a skewed view of reality.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 16, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> He is ranting about the loss of the OGL boom, and the free pass to anybody who wanted to produce games it granted.




Wonder if this is the start of a trend of developers ranting and raving about the rpg industry's woes.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 16, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Wonder if this is the start of a trend of developers ranting and raving about the rpg industry's woes.




Its not ranting about industry woes. Its ranting about being unwilling or unable to adapt to changing conditions.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 16, 2009)

seskis281 said:


> For instance, thecausaloblivian slammed James pretty strongly during this, so looking at something he said on a forked thread:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, these are assertions and opinions. Where's the facts to support? (Erik'll probably be upset at the "other than 4e and White Wolf nothing's happening...." guess Paizo's not doing anything....) But, they are just as valid for him to make as James. Lots of people post with assertions and arguments ensue over the merits of points made. Causal has every right to make assertions, just as James does.




For what its worth, you are misquoting me a bit. My point in that thread was that outside of WotC and White Wolf, there really aren't any fresh new major releases. I did not say Paizo wasn't doing anything. They are doing something rather major right now. What I said was that Paizo wasn't doing anything new. They are making a flashy, bells and whistles, rehash of 3.5E Dungeons and Dragons. A fresh coat of paint on an older, existing game as opposed to something new and original.

Now, thats an opinion that can be disputed, but its different than saying Paizo isn't doing anything.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 16, 2009)

I think editing is important, and blind-testing even more so. As a writer, one can all too easily see what one expects to see and miss both errors and omissions that would leap out to someone looking with fresh eyes.

It should not be too hard to find volunteers to provide such eyes, if the project is exciting enough in the first place. I seem to recall that SPI, Yaquinto and other companies back in the heyday of wargames cultivated local groups of playtesters.


----------



## tylerthehobo (Jul 16, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm not going to go do any internet homework on this one, but I'm pretty sure that while razors tend to sell at a thin profit margin or even perhaps a loss . . . that razors sold today are significantly more expensive than razors sold in the 1970s.




The model for selling the product hasn't changed, even if the price is higher.  Pretty much every kid's "welcome to college" kit from companies in the states includes a free Mach 3 (or Mach 10 or whatever they're up to now), and there are still plenty of freebies of the razor itself sent via mail, trying to get consumers to buy the blades.

Regardless, the point is that a sensible business model for sustainable continuity products is that you give away the intro piece and charge for the secondaries.  That's why after the Wheel of Time series hit book a hundred and eleventy two, all of a sudden the first book was available at book stores for only 99c.  Hook someone on the first one and then there are all the sequels to sell.

Same thing, in my opinion (and yes, with marketing there are more opinions than people), holds true for gaming products.


----------



## carmachu (Jul 16, 2009)

kenmarable said:


> I just think even a single Loss Leader product won't cause this Race to Zero for the entire PDF market. In fact, if consumers were going to start demanding that more products be closer to the 20% PDF/Print ratio, we would have been hearing it sometime since the price was announced (since we're talking decreasing the perceived value of PDFs, knowing the PF RPG price should be enough to at least begin this collapse of PDF pricing). I don't see the devaluing happening yet. Maybe we're just slow and in August or September the Race to Zero will be demanded. However, I'm thinking people are very happy with the price on that one product, but aren't seeing it as entitlement to demand lower prices on all PDF products. It's simply not happening.




Right. Its a one off, I dont see the consumers clamoring for lower priced PDF's based on this(and its not even out yet).

 I have no idea if its a dead end product, but frankly with Wotc shutting down their products at drive thru.....not sure if it will last.


----------



## carmachu (Jul 16, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> For what its worth, you are misquoting me a bit. My point in that thread was that outside of WotC and White Wolf, there really aren't any fresh new major releases. I did not say Paizo wasn't doing anything. They are doing something rather major right now. What I said was that Paizo wasn't doing anything new. They are making a flashy, bells and whistles, rehash of 3.5E Dungeons and Dragons. A fresh coat of paint on an older, existing game as opposed to something new and original.
> 
> Now, thats an opinion that can be disputed, but its different than saying Paizo isn't doing anything.





Thats simply just your opinion. Some of us see it quite nicely as something new. And not just a coat of paint or a rehash of 3.5.....


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jul 17, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> What Mishler is truly ranting about is that its a bad time to be an unsuccessful, unestablished producer of RPG materials. He is ranting about the loss of the OGL boom, and the free pass to anybody who wanted to produce games it granted.




You're not really reading his statements well if you believe that.  Ad Hominem attacks on James are really unwarranted.  

If you want to debunk his theories, feel free, but turning his opinions into simplistic statements like "he's bitter because he's a failure" really ignores his insightful points.


----------



## tenkar (Jul 17, 2009)

Ulrick said:


> Well, here's my plan to save the industry...
> 
> 
> 5. Gaming books releases should be monthly (they practically are now anyway).
> ...




James tried that... he lasted, two months maybe?  

He certainly went for the gold ring right from the start, but fell off the carousel fairly quickly.


----------



## dvorak (Jul 17, 2009)

After reading the blog I was sad, until my Netflix movie came.


----------



## seskis281 (Jul 17, 2009)

Actually I have no problem with discussion - I just think it devolves into the personal too much - and I mean this on all sides.

I appreciate Erik's clarification today, because it explains alot, and everyone can get snarky and too defensive - we're all just human - same thing with James folks... 

This all started on another board and another topic, when a suggestion that the reason any material must not sell is usually only because of bad editing. (This was asserted by one of my closest and dearest friends actually) This hit a nerve with James, I believe, because he's always meticulous about his own editing, and started the whole blog about his experience with the publishing side.

James' stuff, by the way, is always excellent IMHOP - but he is interested, as many of us are, in creative endeavors in niche markets - and it is easy to get defensive about the limitations and problems facing wanting to write and create to one's own vision or passion in the game. To Mike and Eric, it can sometimes feel like there's a constant drumbeat of "get with the times and join us are go away." I like C&C, not because I think either 3.5 or 4e or Pathfinder are bad - I played 3.0 for years - and I think all are well-designed games, but with different approaches and foci than my interest. I contribute now and have some adventures published in Crusader. TLG is a very small company, heh, so those of us who do this are getting very little (mostly company swag for me).... 

Like Erik, there are things that can rub nerves the wrong way.... for me it's the idea that the only appropriate business model is the one followed by the big players, that niches are dismissible because they aren't playing on the same field as WotC or Paizo. Chris Pramas said Green Ronin's doing fine - I know Steve Chenault feels very good about where TLG and C&C are - despite the enormous blow of the Gygax IP withdrawal a year ago. Are these companies "successful"? Absolutely. If compared with 4e or Pathfinder? Apples and oranges. For TLG, if they garner several dozen new customers in a month and a couple of hundred a year, that's a "Boom" which will multiply profits (and I mean regular consumers who purchase multiple products - not just casual purchase of core rules). If that was the "growth" for Pathfinder, it would be disastrous - hence the different business model approaches.

I imagine part of James's frustrations come from his love of the Wilderlands, which is a niche but with more d20 devotees from Necro's releases, and C&C, which is another niche... he is also, as I said, meticulous and likes to "do it all" on his products... which can make for a frustrating endeavor - not to mention the pilling on people give because AGPs stuff is very simple saddle-stitched with very quality material but very minimalistic in comparison to other co's products. But if you read it, it's some of the best RPG writing around.... the 2007 GenCon "XXXI" was terrific. I do wonder how many who criticize have actually read his stuff...

I actually disagree with James's doom and gloom scenaio, and I know and like the guy enormously. I don't feel that either WotC or Paizo are headed for "doom," but I also doubt that things are as sustainably rosy as is sometimes presented. However, my hopes are that all these games are successful, for all the fans who love and play them. I have no animosity at all towards 4e or any other game.... 

When I first came back to gaming, I discovered the ask Gary thread here at ENWORLD - it was the 1st board I joined and his thread is what led me to C&C. At one point, I made a snarky comment about 3.5 I think, and Gary told me "each to his own - play what you like and have fun."

Guys, seriously - James writing a negative blog can't possibly have any impact on sales for WotC or Paizo or anyone else, really excepting his own pr.... if it could the situation would be worse than even he describes. 

Can't have it both ways - if the RPG industry is that phenomenally healthy, then there really shouldn't be any fear of one little voice in the wilderness like this.... 

Just my thoughts. And I mean it when I say I hope all our games and endeavours are successful....

... by whatever standard we each measure our success!


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 17, 2009)

I'm kind of surprised by the tack this thread has taken.  James likes to throw down with the best of them, and provoke arguments and fights.  He LOVES tossing out comments like, say, that anyone who doesn't actually roll dice for a character is somehow less of a true gamer.

Whatever he needs, it isn't other people defending him from harsh words.  Dude loves himself a flamewar.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Jul 17, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> My point in that thread was that outside of WotC and White Wolf, there really aren't any fresh new major releases.




I don't think that's true. A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying and Dark Heresy are both recent major games. Coming up we've got a new Dr. Who game, Eclipse Phase, and the Dragon Age RPG. The latter is a team-up between Green Ronin and BioWare, which is pretty major IMO.


----------



## seskis281 (Jul 17, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I'm kind of surprised by the tack this thread has taken. James likes to throw down with the best of them, and provoke arguments and fights. He LOVES tossing out comments like, say, that anyone who doesn't actually roll dice for a character is somehow less of a true gamer.
> 
> Whatever he needs, it isn't other people defending him from harsh words. Dude loves himself a flamewar.




Actually you're probably right 

I probably am jumping in on this myself because the dude is such a great guy personally, one of the best GMs I've every played with, and....

He got married this weekend. Congrats James!


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 17, 2009)

I should point out that, although The CasualOblivion and I don't always see eye to eye, I certainly understand what he is saying vis a vis Pathfinder and originality, and I don't take that as an insult or a slight at all.

--Erik


----------



## GameDaddy (Jul 17, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> What Mishler is truly ranting about is that its a bad time to be an unsuccessful, unestablished producer of RPG materials. He is ranting about the loss of the OGL boom, and the free pass to anybody who wanted to produce games it granted.




Ummm. no.

You can still produce and distribute games using the OGL. Many Independent RPG companies though are simply choosing to publish their games without using the OGL, and a few are sticking with the OGL. That market has fragmented, however plenty of new games are being published. A Song of Fire and Ice, Pathfinder, C&C, Old School Clones, Shard RPG, CoC, Dragon Age, and Fantasycraft to name but a few...

RPG's as a whole are underpriced or only just comparablly priced compared to where they were twenty years ago... As adjusted for inflation.

RPG's have lost ground to the traditional fantasy & Sci-fi publishing Industries, to the Movie Industry, and is also a victim of the electronic age MMORPG's and the like.

Mr. Mishlers' observations on the general state of the economy are sobering, and just because gas is down to two-fifty or three dollars a gallon, that doesn't mean the economy is bouncing back. We are very much standing on the precipice of a potentially disasterous global economic fall. Very few people living in the U.S. today have experienced that.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 17, 2009)

It's really hard for me to take this guy seriously.

He says several things about the PDF market that are just flat wrong.

See, between Vigilance Press (my own imprint) and RPGObjects, I have seen the numbers at RPGNow continuously since 2002.

I wasn't the FIRST by any means, Monte, ENW and others were there before me, but I was really early.

In those days, almost every product was $5. If you wanted to add value to a product, you made it bigger!

But almost no one charged more than 5 bucks for anything. 

Today, looking at the average price of the top 75 selling products at RPGNow, their average price is 9.40

So the price of the best sellers today is almost twice what it was 6 years ago.

That's the weirdest "race to zero" price war I've ever seen!


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 17, 2009)

seskis281 said:


> Intelligent post on business stuff




The thing is that conditions are brutal right now. Its not the heyday of the OGL anymore. If you aren't a big name entity with a solid reputation, its hard to sell things. The reputation is often more important than the resources. People expecting things to be like they were in the past are bound to be disappointed. 




Erik Mona said:


> I should point out that, although The CasualOblivion and I don't always see eye to eye, I certainly understand what he is saying vis a vis Pathfinder and originality, and I don't take that as an insult or a slight at all.
> 
> --Erik




I didn't mean it as an insult, though I said it in the aggressive style I tend to post with. I think Pathfinder will be a big success, and I wish Paizo well. I get cranky when I start hearing things from their sillier fans when they start putting Pathfinder on the pedestal of "Edition War Savior" more than anything. If I were to name a problem I did have, it would be the quibble that I don't find Pathfinder to me as much of a fix as was originally advertised when it was announced. 



GameDaddy said:


> Ummm. no.
> 
> You can still produce and distribute games using the OGL. Many Independent RPG companies though are simply choosing to publish their games without using the OGL, and a few are sticking with the OGL. That market has fragmented, however plenty of new games are being published. A Song of Fire and Ice, Pathfinder, C&C, Old School Clones, Shard RPG, CoC, Dragon Age, and Fantasycraft to name but a few...
> 
> ...




Point taken, but I after reading these sorts of threads for some time now I really get the sense for two main things. People who believe in the OGL tend to believe in it almost to the extent that it is a religion. Open gaming is a big shiny ideal after all. This level of believing in a cause can cause a loss of objectivity. The other thing is that people got starstruck by the big successes the OGL has had in the past, which have not been sustained. I see people thinking that the rough times right now are the aberration, instead of the boom. 

Between believing in a righteous cause, and thinking that OGL-boom type success is possible and deserved in the current environment, I see a lot of people being very unrealistic.


----------



## tenkar (Jul 17, 2009)

The OGL boom is long gone.  Best we can hope for now is a GSL quickie 

In any case, ranting about the current market won't change the realities of the market.  If the marketer can't adjust he simply won't succeed.


----------



## seskis281 (Jul 17, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The thing is that conditions are brutal right now.




Yep - which was actually the gist, however he got there, of the original vent on the blog.




> If you aren't a big name entity with a solid reputation, its hard to sell things. The reputation is often more important than the resources.




Absolutely - in all deference to Erik and Mike M., they have enormous advantages today that smaller publishers don't have. The one fallacy that does get me cranky, self-admittedly, is the "if it were good it would sell as well as D&D." There may be a lot of crap out there, but there's lots of good products that disappear in the back bins of LGSs. 



> though I said it in the aggressive style I tend to post with.




Ya know, I teach communications and communication theory, and my analysis of message boards, blogs, and forums is really moving toward the idea that "viral" theory is mostly a negative phenomenon. The truth is, most of us don't "know" each other outside the very specific text as we type it, and this often acts as accelerence on negativity. The next thing you know, people are at the "let's take it outside!" moment, but on boards there's no "outside" to go to lol. Just the recent events have had two people I know and have always thought "damn these guys should meet and would get along great" throwing down on other blogs lol....



> Pathfinder will be a big success, and I wish Paizo well. I get cranky when I start hearing things from their sillier fans when they start putting Pathfinder on the pedestal of "Edition War Savior" more than anything. If I were to name a problem I did have, it would be the quibble that I don't find Pathfinder to me as much of a fix as was originally advertised when it was announced.




Agreed - always best to remember these are game systems, and when we talk about "problems" with x in "y system" it's not like we're talking about the problems of terrorism, climate, energy or economics in the macro sense. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's really just a matter of individual taste.


In the end it probably wasn't anyone around here that really got my gander up, it was that one really virulent post linked at top of previous page where the guy was dumping on James with "you dip*@*t," "YOU M*$&$&THERF$&#&KER", "your piece-of- work" and then I saw later Ryan D.'s admonition to the op., saying more diplomatically that he had some major disagreements with the blog while supporting James as an individual...

That's really all I wanted to say myself in all this, and thanks to Ryan Dancey for saying it there.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 17, 2009)

seskis281 said:


> Absolutely - in all deference to Erik and Mike M., they have enormous advantages today that smaller publishers don't have. The one fallacy that does get me cranky, self-admittedly, is the "if it were good it would sell as well as D&D." There may be a lot of crap out there, but there's lots of good products that disappear in the back bins of LGSs.




The thing is, that the current situation has been the norm for pretty much every year of gaming except the one year OGL/3.0 boom. Good products have nothing to do with it. Finding other people to play with is king in the RPG world, and the big boys almost always win because of it. That one small taste of success has a lot of the indie crowd having unrealistic expectations and the mistaken conclusion that because they can't succeed like they could during the OGL boom that RPG gaming is dying. 



seskis281 said:


> Ya know, I teach communications and communication theory, and my analysis of message boards, blogs, and forums is really moving toward the idea that "viral" theory is mostly a negative phenomenon. The truth is, most of us don't "know" each other outside the very specific text as we type it, and this often acts as accelerence on negativity. The next thing you know, people are at the "let's take it outside!" moment, but on boards there's no "outside" to go to lol. Just the recent events have had two people I know and have always thought "damn these guys should meet and would get along great" throwing down on other blogs lol....




I've had the same flamewars in person at the local FLGS as I've had here. We do shake hands and grab a beer afterwards, but during the argument it gets just as bad as it does online.


----------



## seskis281 (Jul 17, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I've had the same flamewars in person at the local FLGS as I've had here. We do shake hands and grab a beer afterwards, but during the argument it gets just as bad as it does online.




Wow, I guess I'm just lucky - never had that happen face to face as of yet....

Then again I'll be at GenCon for the 1st time ever....

(Passes metaphorical beer across to everyone.....)


----------



## Shroomy (Jul 17, 2009)

Um, who's James Mishler?  No, really.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 17, 2009)

I recently said in the other thread that I feel that people say that gaming is dying because smaller games aren't selling like they did during the OGL boom. They might be giving other justifications for it, but deep down thats what they're saying.

I just said it again.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 17, 2009)

*Mishler's rant part III.  *ugh* (Forked Thread: Mishler's rant part II.)*

Forked from:  Mishler's rant part II.  (Forked Thread: another rpg industry doomsday article) 


Part III of Mishler's rant.

Adventures in Gaming: The Rambling III: Finale


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 17, 2009)

seskis281 said:


> Absolutely - in all deference to Erik and Mike M., they have enormous advantages today that smaller publishers don't have. The one fallacy that does get me cranky, self-admittedly, is the "if it were good it would sell as well as D&D." There may be a lot of crap out there, but there's lots of good products that disappear in the back bins of LGSs.




The main advantage Mike Mearls has (or, rather, the main advantage of his employer) is that he works with Dungeons & Dragons, a brand with 85% name recognition in the GENERAL PUBLIC, and a brand with a 35-year tradition of high quality and market leadership. His is also the best-capitalized company in the industry, with long-established market dominance in the hobby and mass market retail channels. Dungeons & Dragons has an existing network of players (i.e. customers) that is at least two, possibly three or four orders of magnitude larger than that of any other brand in the industry.

The main advantage Erik Mona has (or, rather, the main advantage of his employer) is that he works with an Open Game Licensed version of Dungeons & Dragons, which allows his company to tap into the largest player network in the industry. His company also has a robust online community (built-in self-selected audience of potential customers), a strong electronic publishing initiative, an innovative subscription-based revenue model, and competitive representation in the hobby and retail channels. It's also not a wholly owned subsidiary of a multinational corporation, which means it can get by happily on modest success thanks to lower overhead costs.

There is no existing fallacy among gaming professionals, from independent operators like James Mishler to brand managers and major corporations like Scott Rouse, that "if it were good it will sell as well as D&D." Anyone with an even basic understanding of the RPG industry knows that _no_ pen and paper RPG will sell as well as D&D. It would take a CATASTROPHIC failure of game design, distribution, and probably the economy overall for the D&D business to falter to the point at which another company can even contemplate selling in the sort of numbers that Wizards sells.

Most gaming stores, if they carry RPGs at all, carry only Dungeons & Dragons. No, I'm not talking about good stores, but ALL stores that carry RPGs, which vastly outnumber the good stores. When Paizo was publishing 3.5 products with production values and quality equal to or exceeding that of Wizards of the Coast, we continually ran into retailers who refused to carry our line (or the products of any other publisher), because it "wasn't D&D". This is even though we published 100% official D&D in the form of Dragon and Dungeon magazines for FIVE YEARS. Many of the same stores that ordered a few copies of Dragon a month didn't bother to check out our stuff, and still haven't. 

That's after 7 years, about 20 ENnies, contributions from many of the biggest artists and writers in the industry, and an awesomely loyal fan base.

Companies that are basically one dude with some desktop publishing software working out of his basement, or who only do PDFs, or who can't get the interest and attention of honest-to-god hobby distributors like Alliance or ACD are completely screwed out of participation in the "industry," and frankly aren't really a part of it in the traditional sense. 

This in some ways makes them immune from the challenges that come with major distribution of printed product, which has its advantages to be sure. That's why a lot of folks in this category have been able to find market niches for themselves like direct sales of PDFs, POD, patronage models, etc. You've got to have some sort of angle, because until you can prove to people like Diamond Book Distributors or PSI that you have an audience ready to buy your product in significant numbers, you're never ever going to see one of your products in a bookstore.

Even then, modest success is going to net you something like 3,000 sales, and a huge success would sell maybe 10,000 copies. I hear from a lot of PDF-only publishers that moving 1000 units is a huge, smashing success.

If Wizards of the Coast sells 10,000 copies of a book, they have probably lost money. If a product line routinely sells this number of products, that line will likely be canceled next time it's time for the managers to solicit new products. 

A tremendous success in this industry for any company (including Paizo) would likely be viewed as a terrible, terrible failure at Wizards of the Coast.

Thus has it been for the publishers of D&D and the publishers of games that follow in its wake since, oh, about 1974.

And I don't expect it to change.

--Erik


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 17, 2009)

Backed down on the ranting quite a bit. Almost detected some contrition and in the second part he backs down from the whining and kind of lets us in on the fact that he was venting about his own struggles from attempting to do what he loves. 

My comment from the blog itself:



> thecasualoblivion said...
> 
> On one hand, the RPG industry lasted from 1974 to 2000 without the OGL. It can do so again, and the loss of the OGL community is not the end of gaming.
> 
> ...


----------



## darjr (Jul 17, 2009)

dang....

sobering


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jul 17, 2009)

Well at least he's stopped trying to coin awkward phrases about the "GREATER DEPRESSION" since he has been called on it.

That said, look at the definable shill he makes at the end of this 3rd (and final!) Rant:



			
				the OP said:
			
		

> For the next week, I'm putting *Wilderlands of High Adventure: Imperial Town of Tell Qa* on sale. Sorry to say that I am going back on my word from the *Wondrous Wedding Sale*, and offering this at *a dirt cheap price*: merely $1.80, rather than the usual $9.




Now allow me to quote from Ryan Dancey, who from the text at least implicitly has Mishler's respect by being someone outside the most virile scorn of "Try working in the industry for a little while, then maybe I'll give a damn about your opinion. Until then... *you haven't earned the right to have an opinion*." 



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> *There's a rule in brand management that says that if you can't charge a premium for your brand, your brand isn't worth anything.  *In other words, the difference between "generic store cola" and "Coke" is the value of the Coke brand.  If you are charging for your branded RPG products what the market is charging for generic D20/OGL products, your brand is worthless.  In fact, most people are afraid to test this and find out how much their brand is actually worth, for fear that they'll be dissapointed.
> 
> 
> When we priced the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting at $40, I received a call from a distributor who will remain unnamed.  That distributor told me that because of the pricing decision, his buyers were told to cut their orders for the book in half.  $40, you see, was simply too expensive for an RPG product.  $30 was the correct price.  If I would change the price to $30, he would restore his order to its full amount.
> ...





So it seems that, at least according to the logic put forth by Ryan Dancey, a person Mishler at least refuses to say has no right to an opinion, Mishler has placed his product (an adventure that in no way intrinsicly sells other adventure-based product other than on a brand-recognition basis) at what Ryan Dancey would say is "_not worth anything_".


----------



## ggroy (Jul 17, 2009)

Part 3 is more "get off my lawn" stuff, but with somewhat less vitriol.


----------



## seskis281 (Jul 17, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> There is no existing fallacy among gaming professionals, from independent operators like James Mishler to brand managers and major corporations like Scott Rouse, that "if it were good it will sell as well as D&D." Anyone with an even basic understanding of the RPG industry knows that _no_ pen and paper RPG will sell as well as D&D. It would take a CATASTROPHIC failure of game design, distribution, and probably the economy overall for the D&D business to falter to the point at which another company can even contemplate selling in the sort of numbers that Wizards sells.




Actually I didn't think there was amongst the publishing side - so my amends if that came across that way - but it does keep coming up around the various online communities amongst posters, and I've definitely seen it thrown as an argument against C&C, True20, etc., so I was just pointing it out as something that irks me....



> Most gaming stores, if they carry RPGs at all, carry only Dungeons & Dragons. No, I'm not talking about good stores, but ALL stores that carry RPGs, which vastly outnumber the good stores. When Paizo was publishing 3.5 products with production values and quality equal to or exceeding that of Wizards of the Coast, we continually ran into retailers who refused to carry our line (or the products of any other publisher), because it "wasn't D&D". This is even though we published 100% official D&D in the form of Dragon and Dungeon magazines for FIVE YEARS. Many of the same stores that ordered a few copies of Dragon a month didn't bother to check out our stuff, and still haven't.




Well, you'll be happy to hear that locally Gnome Games in Green Bay has Pathfinder stuff in their "prime" rpg shelves, along with D&D on the top shelf and C&C (which makes me happy) in between the two. 



> Companies that are basically one dude with some desktop publishing software working out of his basement, or who only do PDFs, or who can't get the interest and attention of honest-to-god hobby distributors like Alliance or ACD are completely screwed out of participation in the "industry," and frankly aren't really a part of it.




Ah but here I have to disagree, if for nothing else than this:

The tradition of D&D back to the early days you mentioned.... was Gary and his kids and a few others sitting with a typewriter in his kitchen, putting product together by hand.

And while that's not a good "business" model for long term, it represents a tradition of creativity and passion that really wants for and needs the lone guy (or gal!) sitting at the computer making a pdf.... and whether you call it a part of the "industry" or not, it is a part of the hobby and, IMHOP, a part of the heart of it too...

I do thank you for your response here.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 17, 2009)

seskis281 said:


> The tradition of D&D back to the early days you mentioned.... was Gary and his kids and a few others sitting with a typewriter in his kitchen, putting product together by hand.
> 
> And while that's not a good "business" model for long term, it represents a tradition of creativity and passion that really wants for and needs the lone guy sitting at his computer making a pdf.... and whether you call it a part of the "industry" or not, it is a part of the hobby and, IMHOP, a part of the heart of it too...




I agree with this statement. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that the tabletop RPG _hobby_ is in danger of dying out in the short (or even medium) term. Lots of factors are actually making hobby businesses more lucrative than at any time in the history of tabletop RPGs.

The only trouble is, most of these do an end-run around the retail and distribution sides of the business. They are, in effect, operating parallel to the traditional RPG "industry," and aren't so much a part of it in the way that publishers were part of the RPG "industry" 10 or 20 years ago. If everyone shifted to a direct-to-consumer business model like patronage or PDF sales, for example, the local game stores would die out, which would mean the distributors would die out, which would mean the trade shows would be gone, and then just about all of the traditional trappings of the "industry" are gone.

But the hobby? It's like a cockroach. We'll be here forever. 

--Erik


----------



## ggroy (Jul 17, 2009)

Heh.

A "shadow" rpg economy?


----------



## ggroy (Jul 17, 2009)

From Mishler's part III ramble:
*



			I give the role-playing game division of the adventure game industry 10, maybe 20 years, before complete and utter collapse as an industry.
		
Click to expand...



Famous last words?  
*


----------



## rounser (Jul 17, 2009)

> I get cranky when I start hearing things from their sillier fans when they start putting Pathfinder on the pedestal of "Edition War Savior" more than anything.



Why are they silly?  Because you, a 4E fan, don't see anything to be saved _from_?  An in-print 3E clone does represent saviour from the 4E game for some, make no mistake.


----------



## Wepwawet (Jul 17, 2009)

What, there's another one?!
This guy is prolific


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 17, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> That said, look at the definable shill he makes at the end of this 3rd (and final!) rant.




Didn't he earlier assert that there is an industry-wide trend toward lowering the price of PDFs when there, in fact, isnt't?


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 17, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Didn't he earlier assert that there is an industry-wide trend toward lowering the price of PDFs when there, in fact, isnt't?




Yes, in fact he said there was a "PDF price war" going on that was a "race to zero".

Neither of which are true in my experience.

There's some short term downward pressure on prices, cause the economy is crap, so there's going to be more sales, or more products created with a value in  mind.

And of course, some folks might strategically price a PDF lower for some reason, like if they want a big base of core books to give them a bigger pool to sell supplements to. 

But there's zero evidence that there's any sort of consistent downward pressure heading toward zero.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 17, 2009)

Since I spent a lot of time that should have been spent proofreading the Pathfinder Bestiary to write my response to Mishler's latest post, I figure I might as well get extra mileage out of it by reposting it here:

James, you're probably correct to predict that the tabletop RPG industry in its current form is living on borrowed time, but even giving it 10 to 20 years is like kicking the ball so far down the field that you can't even see it anymore.

Think about the different between the RPG market 10 years ago. D&D2 was at the bottom of a long decline, with non-core books selling in the four digits and almost all of the steam out of the thing. The industry had survived the TSR implosion circa 1996, and 3E was in playtesting, with an uncertain future.

In the large break room at Wizards of the Coast, Ryan Dancey and Cindi Rice were holding bi-weekly "brand/category interface" meetings at which they attempted to explain the concept of Open Gaming and the d20 License to a largely incredulous design staff, but word of a D&D licensing operation had hardly escaped Renton.

There was no such thing as a "PDF Market" for games. White Wolf was ascendant. Pokemon was just gearing up, building on a trend started by Magic and radically changing the way hobby stores stocked their shelves, managed their cashflow, and balanced their product. And, frankly, the way distributors serviced their publishers and retail clients, managed their preorders and inventory, and set the bar for success.

Wizards of the Coast had a national chain of retail stores. They were also running Gen Con and Origins, having recently acquired Andon Unlimited.

Game designers and company men, for the first time since Gygax, were becoming millionaires.

Anyone making any kind of prediction around that time frame of where the business was headed in 10 years (or a "prophecy," if you will) would have probably failed to have predicted the following major market forces that have significantly shaped how games are bought and sold in today's industry:

    1. Successful launch of third edition reinvigorates core RPG business.

    2. OGL triggers an initially successful product boom that founds or firmly establishes companies like Green Ronin and Fantasy Flight, and briefly pulls companies like Atlas, Pinnacle, and Chaosium into its orbit.

    3. Pokemon surges strong, then fades. TCG market continues to shake out "dabbler" companies too numerous to mention.

    4. Monte Cook proves electronic PDF products viable, essentially creating a parallel distribution channel that cuts out traditional distributors and retailers, allowing semi-profitable boutique publishing operations.

    5. Wizards of the Coast diaspora that founds companies like Paizo, Hidden City, Sabretooth, and Privateer Press.

    6. Establishment of online retailers like RPG Now/DriveThru and Paizo.

    7. Wizards undercuts online retailers by pulling extensive PDF catalog of the most popular gaming brand in history from all online retailers, removing the most reliable and profitable spine of the PDF "industry".

    8. WizKids invents and exploits affordable pre-painted miniatures.

    9. Wizards does it better, creating a new sub-category for retailers and a healthy revenue stream for itself.

    10. WizKids flames out spectacularly.

    11. InQuest, Dragon, Dungeon, Comics & Games Retailer, Scrye: DEAD.

    12. Blackhawk Distributors: DEAD.

    13. WotC gets out of the retail, magazine, and convention business.

    14. Peter saves Gen Con.

    15. Peter almost loses Gen Con.

    16. WotC releases 4th edition, a major revision of the most popular brand in the industry. It does OK, but for a variety of reasons fails to re-ignite the fire of 3e's launch.

    17. WotC doesn't release 4e under the OGL, creating a host of interesting dilemmas for a lot of companies, who react in a host of interesting ways.

    18. White Wolf releases a lackluster revision of their core RPG, then gets bought by a hugely capitalized Icelandic MMO company.

    19. Global economic recession.

    20. New technologies such as iPhone apps, virtual tabletops, and augmented reality hint at major paradigm shifts to come.

In 1999, the most talented prognosticator and industry expert could not have guessed a fifth of those things, no matter how many years they had spent writing a column for a gaming magazine, running a store, or even publishing RPGs.

Ryan Dancey probably would have come closest, and that's only because he was at ground zero of about a third of the things on the list.

If the RPG industry as it is today has 10 or 20 years of gas left in the tank, it's going to be around for changes like the ones listed above that none of us have even thought of yet.


P.S. One more thing I just remembered.

I seem to recall it was your old magazine, Comics & Games Retailer, but it may have been another that ran a column by Mike Stackpole that lamented how Wizards of the Coast was mis-managing the Dungeons & Dragons brand, offering $1 million to buy the brand with no questions asked.

That was about a year before 3e came out. I remember it because someone, I think Ryan Dancey, was so bemused by the idea that he pinned the article to the corkboard outside the D&D R&D department.

That was about 1999, which goes to show how reliable decade-out predictions are in this business.

--Erik


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 17, 2009)

Wepwawet said:


> What, there's another one?!
> This guy is prolific



It sure drives a lot of interest to his blog. Sometimes it helps just to be controversial, not to be right.


----------



## wedgeski (Jul 17, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> That was about 1999, which goes to show how reliable decade-out predictions are in this business.
> 
> --Erik



Hmm. I predict Erik's post will be quoted a lot in the next few years. ;P


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 17, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> I seem to recall it was your old magazine, Comics & Games Retailer, but it may have been another that ran a column by Mike Stackpole that lamented how Wizards of the Coast was mis-managing the Dungeons & Dragons brand, offering $1 million to buy the brand with no questions asked.
> 
> That was about a year before 3e came out. I remember it because someone, I think Ryan Dancey, was so bemused by the idea that he pinned the article to the corkboard outside the D&D R&D department.
> 
> ...




It was indeed Mike Stackpole.

And even more amusing (in light of what later happened), one of the reasons he felt the D&D brand was being mismanaged was because TSR had never adopted a sweeping metaplot to drive their RPG lines, as FASA's mech games had done (which were what Mike was working on at the time).

His contention was that TSR's collapse was because the lack of a metaplot had burned the audience out. 

At least, that's how I remember his article where he expounded on what TSR had done wrong and made his offer to buy the brand.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 17, 2009)

rounser said:


> Why are they silly?  Because you, a 4E fan, don't see anything to be saved _from_?  An in-print 3E clone does represent saviour from the 4E game for some, make no mistake.




I'm talking about the people who think 4E is going to fail and Pathfinder will take its place as the RPG leader.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 17, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> The main advantage Erik Mona has (or, rather, the main advantage of his employer) is that he works with an Open Game Licensed version of Dungeons & Dragons, which allows his company to tap into the largest player network in the industry.




The main advantage Erik Mona has is that he was publisher of official Dragon and Dungeon magazine and helped him build a name, perfect for serving as the standard bearer of the displeased fans of some practices of Wotc business plan and being able to take advantage of this to further develop his name.

The whole deal is about building and keeping momentum. D&D has lots of it and with the OGL opportunities were opened to take advantage of it.

If Wotc did not have a big name due to its huge success of MtG but was an unknown entity instead I am not sure, even if it produced the same 3e as it did in 1999 that D&D and OGL would have had the boom effect they did.

To check out the overall health of the hobby you have to check the health of the overall momentum wave of game consumer population. In this set, RPGs are in theory the most versatile subset due to their toolbox -make your own- nature. Publishers do not want to realize this but instead struggle with all their efforts to capitalize on the current trends, always having in mind the ones that rocketed rpgs to the top positions in the market.

In the end, D&D as a name has nothing to do with it. If D&D fails to pump the necessary waves it will die. If someone manages to create a new wave source, he creates the potential to prevail, even if D&D is not the label name. As we stand, in the current business model, D&D definately has its own brand value but it definately is not the whole deal regarding the dynamics of the hobby market. And in the not so long run the current priority balance of the marketable rpg products will die. Even if people may now want to dismiss this notion due to general impredictability, common sense does not let me buy into this.

Today, in this brutal age, as some people put it, the industry has to start re-realizing the balance of its principles and itself right now if it wants to create a perspective of marketable tabletop rpgs in the long run. But sadly, the current industry gives me the impression that it does not care. It makes me believe that it does not have any power to care and look towards the future.


----------



## seskis281 (Jul 17, 2009)

xechnao said:


> In the end, D&D as a name has nothing to do with it.




Oh, I think having the brand "Dungeons & Dragons" to put on a product might help just a teensy bit....


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 17, 2009)

And here we go, it's still online too, here

Here's my favorite bit I think, though there's so much fail here.



> How did I pick the year 2000 as when I'd snag TSR? Well, that's when I figure it'll be at its lowest point, approximately three months after the release of the Third Edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. I predict that product will tank big-time and I'm willing to point out my reasons for that scenario now, a good 18 months out, so TSR can correct the problems and prevent the disaster. And I'm willing to do this even if it will cost me the chance to buy TSR.
> 
> The biggest problem I see with the coming product is the direction from which TSR is coming at it. I think the folks working on the project may not be designing a game suited to today's market. I think they may be using this opportunity to turn AD&D3 into what they think AD&D should have been. Game designers (and gamers) are all notorious for this: thinking we know better than the original designer of the game. Working from a basis of nostalgia that contains not a little contempt for the changes made when the second edition came out, I think TSR may be working on a game that would have been state of the art in 1982. I worry it will be rules-heavy, written in an impenetrable style, unintelligible to a beginning player and idiosyncratic enough to annoy players outside the design team. I fear it will come out in a series of five books, each of which will run $35. Sales will spike with the first one, then spiral down in flames. (And, in an attempt to recover from this disaster, TSR could offer a Classic Coke-New Coke dichotomy in subsequent products, but those things couldn't roll out until 2001, which will be far too late.)
> 
> The second problem is that TSR's missed what has been successful in the past. Since 1985, with Dragonlance, and certainly 1989 with Vampire and Shadowrun, the lesson in the industry is that worlds sell, not game systems. Deadlands is the latest example of this: The game system is inelegant, but the world is so exciting and vital that folks buy the products. To be able to move AD&D3 and make it a big hit, TSR needs to design a new game world that will be fresh and exciting and pull a lot of readers in. The difficulty there is, as I have pointed out endlessly, TSR/Wizards of the Coast's track record leads one to worry that it couldn't develop an intellectual property if a gun were held to designers' heads. TSR staffers look at things like BattleTech and Shadowrun -- which they contemptuously consider dead lines -- and wonder why they continue to sell. Here's the secret, boys: They continue to sell because the lines reinvent themselves over and over again. Take BattleTech, for example. Since 1987 I've been working to shape the history of that universe. We had the Fourth Succession War (two years), the Clan Invasion (three years), The Chaos March War (two years). and the Twilight of the Clans (two years) -- and that's leading into the new era. FASA has been doing event-based releases for more than a decade that keeps BattleTech fresh and trucking right along. Things are shaped to appeal to the market, to our changing audience.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 17, 2009)

> Well, that's when I figure it'll be at its lowest point, approximately three months after the release of the Third Edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. I predict that product will tank big-time ...




Heh.

Famous last words.


----------



## kitsune9 (Jul 17, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Forked from:  Mishler's rant part II.  (Forked Thread: another rpg industry doomsday article)
> 
> 
> Part III of Mishler's rant.
> ...




Actually, I like reading these and everyone's responses. I avoid making a stark opinion on this topic as I tend to think it's much ado about nothing. To me, I'm just a gamer. I've got my games and my friends. Sooner or later, life will change, friends will go, games go away, etc., etc. It's a part of life in that good things eventually come to an end. Will it be tomorrow, one year, five years, 10 years from now? Who really knows? Right now, it's the time to just play, have a blast, and roll for initiative.

Happy Gaming!


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 17, 2009)

Mike Stackpole is actually one of my game design heroes.

But there is just so much arrogance oozing from that article.

It's also interesting to see a 1999 perspective that TSR was losing its way because of a lack of focus on WORLDS.

Most people today seem to think those same world tanked TSR.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 17, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> And here we go, it's still online too, here




Has anyone read any subsequent analysis from Stackpole?

/M


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 17, 2009)

I like the "thinking we know better" part in Stackpole's article. Indeed.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 17, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> It's also interesting to see a 1999 perspective that TSR was losing its way because of a lack of focus on WORLDS.




"Worlds sell games" was the dominating school of thought among many game designers at the time, myself included.

I'm still not sure that is totally wrong, as I believe not many roleplaying games could sell strictly on rules even today, unless they are D&D or linked to D&D somehow (e.g. by being a retro-clone or Pathfinder).

So IMO World is still important for many games, but maybe not so much for D&D.

/M


----------



## xechnao (Jul 17, 2009)

seskis281 said:


> Oh, I think having the brand "Dungeons & Dragons" to put on a product might help just a teensy bit....




Your quote is out of context. I am talking about the principal perspectives of the gaming market. Brand name is a value, but the entertainment and creative markets are by their nature volatile. D&D has remained relevant in the market so far only by trying to keep reinventing parts of itself but this cant go on for ever. In fact, 4e being a more focused and less versatile game shows that the cycle of the business model D&D has had so far has been closing as a long living entity of a certain traditional identity.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2009)

Maggan said:


> "Worlds sell games" was the dominating school of thought among many game designers at the time, myself included.
> 
> I'm still not sure that is totally wrong, as I believe not many roleplaying games could sell strictly on rules even today, unless they are D&D or linked to D&D somehow (e.g. by being a retro-clone or Pathfinder).
> 
> ...




I don't know.  Savage Worlds, for example, is worldless by design and seems to be doing pretty healthily.

I get what you're saying, but, I think the market is big enough that generic games can chug along as well.


----------



## stuart (Jul 17, 2009)

GURPS is still around and doing well isn't it?  (I've never played it myself, but I see a lot of people talking about it online)


----------



## malkav666 (Jul 17, 2009)

Wait a second....

Did this guy not trash Paizo in the first post for lowering the price of the their PDF version of the PFRPG to 10 bucks? (I mean "Pathfinder Effect" en wot?)

Then in the final post he lowers the price of one of his core PDFs to 1.80$
from 9$?

That is the exact same price cut ratio he was crying about Paizo using. Seems silly to me. I think this guys is crying just to hear the sound of his voice. There is some insight to be found hidden between the garbage in the post. But most of it reads to me as anger over the state of his own affairs, rather than industry insight. Comparing his small shop to large players and assuming that he knows about how they work or should be working based on his experience with very small shops, seems to me like a berry farmer assuming that he knows everything about growing melons because they are both fruit.

love,

malkav


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 17, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> And here we go, it's still online too, here
> 
> Here's my favorite bit I think, though there's so much fail here.



That is very funny!

The second paragraph you quoted basically boils down to "I think you will make crappy products, and if you do make crappy products they will fail." Well, technically, the second part of that is correct. If D&D 3.0 was unintelligible garbage, I'm pretty sure it would have tanked. Doesn't take any insider knowledge to guess that horribly bad products won't sell well. 

The third paragraph is typical narrow-vision punditry. The more and more I read "insider opinions" the more I think they are probably not worth nearly as much as we think they are. It seems to be VERY common to view everyone else's companies through the lens of your own experience. That's like newspapers printing movie reviews from competing directors. Or even worse, having someone who makes PBS documentaries commenting on the viability of the latest Hollywood blockbuster or vice versa. Although they can be a mixed bag of usefulness, at least with movies there is a group of commentators outside of the film industry. Here in RPGs, we have to put up with publishers telling other publishers "If you did everything my way, you wouldn't fail!" or even just taking their own experiences and extrapolating to the entire industry. Thankfully, some are smart enough to merely claim "This is my experience, your mileage may vary."

But, going out of order, I really like that first paragraph the most. It is so very funny that someone who otherwise has a decent idea what he is doing can be so remarkably wrong. Anytime anyone claims to predict what *will* happen to the industry or claim to know what is best for another publisher should be made to write that paragraph out 100 times on the chalkboard. That is a classic!


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 17, 2009)

Maggan said:


> "Worlds sell games" was the dominating school of thought among many game designers at the time, myself included.
> 
> I'm still not sure that is totally wrong, as I believe not many roleplaying games could sell strictly on rules even today, unless they are D&D or linked to D&D somehow (e.g. by being a retro-clone or Pathfinder).
> 
> ...




I'm not sure that was ever true, at least, not in the way that people thought it was true. 

D&D existed before Greyhawk and it existed for quite awhile before Forgotten Realms showed up. 

The Dragonlance modules didn't even have a PRIMER of the world until DL 4 or DL 5 as I recall, having been buying them religiously as they were released.

I found the tantalizing hints of the world from the short stories and previews in Dragon magazine exciting and they added a lot of color to the modules, but the modules clearly didn't need the world supplement to be successful. 

In fact, what the WORLD of Dragonlance sold was the novels.

Which is great- it was a huge discovery of a new gaming business model, to use game worlds to feed novels, which then feed back into game worlds.

It made TSR a lot of money, as well as companies who also used this business model, like FASA, which coincidentally got Mike Stackpole his start as a novel writer, writing Battletech novels. 

But I really don't think the game has ever NEEDED published game worlds. They're a nice, optional game supplement, like splatbooks and modules. 

Handy? Yes. Entertaining? Sure. Necessary? Nope.


----------



## seskis281 (Jul 17, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Your quote is out of context. I am talking about the principal perspectives of the gaming market. Brand name is a value, but the entertainment and creative markets are by their nature volatile. D&D has remained relevant in the market so far only by trying to keep reinventing parts of itself but this cant go on for ever. In fact, 4e being a more focused and less versatile game shows that the cycle of the business model D&D has had so far has been closing as a long living entity of a certain traditional identity.




Dude - being tongue-in-cheek there.... 

(This is where I wish ENWORLD had more emoticons sometimes)

On the serious side, I think the value is pretty high - so much so that I catch wind on many of the boards dedicated to the OSR, where people are happy with the "alternative channels" for retro-clone successes, yet even when happy there's always the wistful wish "wouldn't be great if OFFICIAL D&D just went back and reprinted the the 1e, the 2e, OD&D, etc. rules...." - the want for that brand name to be on top of one's favorite rules set is pretty strong, and leads to really amazing amounts of animosity between gamers. 

Of course that could derail thread into another "what IS 'D&D'?" which I promise I don't want to do


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 17, 2009)

malkav666 said:


> Wait a second....
> 
> Did this guy not trash Paizo in the first post for lowering the price of the their PDF version of the PFRPG to 10 bucks? (I mean "Pathfinder Effect" en wot?)
> 
> ...



He could try to pass it off as "Argh! See what Paizo is forcing me to do because they sell for so low!"


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 17, 2009)

stuart said:


> GURPS is still around and doing well isn't it?  (I've never played it myself, but I see a lot of people talking about it online)




It is, but GURPs, while "generic", is hardly world-less.

In fact, GURPs is a successful example of having TONS of worlds for your game and not getting drowned by them.

GURPs does their worldbooks as one-offs. They have additional crunch that could be applicable to your game no matter where its set, and they also require nothing but the core book to use. 

TSR tried to turn each world into its own full product line, with its own PHB and Monster Manual.


----------



## malkav666 (Jul 17, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> He could try to pass it off as "Argh! See what Paizo is forcing me to do because they sell for so low!"




But his blog already stated it was for the "wedding sale". My opinion of the man's expertise based on the commentary and "facts" he has provided are already not so hot. If he started changing his stories and motives around that would be the end of all credibility in my eyes. But thats just me, I make no attempt to speak for others.



love,

malkav


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> It is, but GURPs, while "generic", is hardly world-less.
> 
> In fact, GURPs is a successful example of having TONS of worlds for your game and not getting drowned by them.
> 
> ...




Actually, I would argue that GURPS is very "world less".  Like you say, the tons of worlds are not linked to each other, nor are the rules even remotely linked to any world.  GURPS is the true generic in every sense of the word.  There certainly is no meta-plot a la Mechwarrior or World of Darkness to be found in the core GURPS books.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2009)

xechnao said:


> /snip In fact, 4e being a more focused and less versatile game shows that the cycle of the business model D&D has had so far has been closing as a long living entity of a certain traditional identity.




I do not think the word "fact" means what you think it means.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 17, 2009)

seskis281 said:


> "wouldn't be great if OFFICIAL D&D just went back and reprinted the the 1e, the 2e, OD&D, etc. rules...."



They are dreaming about a top market position for their preferred D&D iteration on D&D's edition wheel model. The problem though is that this wheel is made to go round, not go ahead. What I am saying is that such a wheel at some point will either turn full cycle or its turning gears will be consumed in the process and in the end, in each case, it will have to stop moving.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I do not think the word "fact" means what you think it means.




Then I ask you to rethink. Look around at the internet and tell me that D&D is not starting to face more and more fragmentation at this point.


----------



## Saracenus (Jul 17, 2009)

ardoughter said:


> The second blog is an really interesting article and I wonder if Gleemax in it original conception was meant to foster that user generated content?




I may be wrong but it was my impression that Gleemax was supposed to be a social networking site for Gamers of all stripes with the added benefit of being a Safe Harbor for producing (for free) content based on WotC IP (i.e. Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Mystra, Al Quadim, etc.) and your own private material.

WotC would get rights to that content if you posted it on their website.

Gleemax over promised and waaaaaaaaaay under delivered. Basically there were sites out there that were doing Web 2.0 that could be adapted quicker and more feature rich than Gleemax could without handing over your rights to WotC.

Now, we have things like iplay4e.com and Obsidianportal.com doing things that Gleemax only dreamed.

I think that DDI is a small step in the right direction but it is handicapped by you are in or you are out subscription system. I think they would make more money and get wider adoption by releasing a free, working core kernal of the game and then offering specials, additions, and upgrades using micro payments.

Basically a the first hit is free model.

Having re-read Square Mans' The Inevitable Future of Tabletop Gaming again I am more convinced that unless WotC and D&D start opening up their IP to broaden its acceptance instead of ratcheting down with things like the GSL they are providing an opportunity for another company or start-up to claim the Micro payment/Augmented Reality model and leave pen and paper D&D in the dust with young tech-savvy gamers.

BTW, Ryan Dancy poked his head in the comments section of Square Mans blog. He is pretty bullish on the idea of a smart phone driven gaming space.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 17, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Your quote is out of context. I am talking about the principal perspectives of the gaming market. Brand name is a value, but the entertainment and creative markets are by their nature volatile. D&D has remained relevant in the market so far only by trying to keep reinventing parts of itself but this cant go on for ever. In fact, 4e being a more focused and less versatile game shows that the cycle of the business model D&D has had so far has been closing as a long living entity of a certain traditional identity.




Though you don't specifically mention the OGL here, again we have the ENWorld overestimation of the value of the OGL. Prior to 3E, we had AD&D which was far less flexible and less focused than 3E, though not as focused as 4E. There was no OGL, and TSR's aggression against 3rd parties makes WotC's handling of the OGL/GSL look like tender loving care. D&D was the dominant market leader for this entire time, and the end of the 3E business /creative paradigm is in no way the beginning of the end of D&D.

What 4E has sacrificed is catering to niche tastes, and has done so to better serve their base.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Then I ask you to rethink. Look around at the internet and tell me that D&D is not starting to face more and more fragmentation at this point.




I was more questioning your "fact" that "4e being a more focused and less versatile game" is even remotely true.  Personally, I don't find 4e any more focused or any less versatile.

Obviously, YMMV and all that.

But, on your second point, I also don't mistake Internet rage with having any real impact on the hobby.  I recognize that we are a very small part of the gaming community (though not an unimportant one) and the "fragmentation" that you see between various pundits is more much ado about nothing than any sort of real effect.

I have not seen any hard evidence that 4e is failing.  I've seen lots of anecdotal stuff in both directions, but, nothing concrete.  Until such time as we see anything concrete, very little of what you, I or anyone else thinks about the "state of the hobby" is anything more than posturing from a position of ignorance.


----------



## rounser (Jul 17, 2009)

> What 4E has sacrificed is catering to niche tastes, and has done so to better serve their base.



I think you've got it backwards.  Where it used to cater to a broad church, it now serves a niche taste, such that some of us don't even identify it as D&D anymore.


----------



## Saracenus (Jul 17, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> <<SNIP>>
> 
> 20. New technologies such as iPhone apps, virtual tabletops, and augmented reality hint at major paradigm shifts to come.
> 
> ...




Erik,

I am curious, did you come across the augmented reality (AR) meme like I did from Square Mans' blog (link) or is this something that you and/or Paizo have been thinking about for awhile? 

If that wasn't the entry point for you, where did you first come across the AR meme.

Thanks,


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2009)

rounser said:


> I think you've got it backwards.  Where it used to cater to a broad church, it now serves a niche taste, such that some of us don't even identify it as D&D anymore.




Potato, potahto.  

Eric Mona, in one of these threads, perhaps this one, talks about how the sales of a WOTC book are such that they would consider it a failure to sell similar to what 3pp consider a stellar success.

I would think that would mean that they are catering to the majority don't you?

I'm not talking about quality here at all.  Or even whether or not a given person likes the system.  Heck, I don't even play 4e.  But, when one producer produces more than every other producer combined, then it's pretty disengenious to claim that that producer is the niche.

I'll use the same phrase as before.  I do not believe "niche" means what you think it means.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 17, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Though you don't specifically mention the OGL here, again we have the ENWorld overestimation of the value of the OGL. Prior to 3E, we had AD&D which was far less flexible and less focused than 3E, though not as focused as 4E. There was no OGL, and TSR's aggression against 3rd parties makes WotC's handling of the OGL/GSL look like tender loving care. D&D was the dominant market leader for this entire time, and the end of the 3E business /creative paradigm is in no way the beginning of the end of D&D.
> 
> What 4E has sacrificed is catering to niche tastes, and has done so to better serve their base.




Prior to the OGL, TSR had been trying to expand the versatility of D&D by creating various settings. As D&D was going ahead in a developing market it had to develop versatility if it wanted to remain ahead of competition and stay afloat.

TSR in the end failed. Having reached considerably big proportions as a company and having to experiment at the same time it was natural that it was highly propable it could not manage to find the right formulas to sustain itself. 

The market potentials now have been more or less developed. And the market is different. Lots a different with the internet and stuff. But potentially more stable at the same time. These are very important details.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 17, 2009)

malkav666 said:


> That is the exact same price cut ratio he was crying about Paizo using. Seems silly to me. I think this guys is crying just to hear the sound of his voice.



The more cynical might be inclined to believe that that was his intention all along; drive traffic to his blog via controversial posts, then "oh, hey, while you're here, have I got a deal for you!"


----------



## rounser (Jul 17, 2009)

> I would think that would mean that they are catering to the majority don't you?



Nope.  It only proves that the brand name is powerful.

I think the majority would initially trust the book which has that name on it to be D&D.  Some subset of the former audience would be happy with what was offered, and another maybe realise that it didn't do what it said on the tin in living up to their expectations of what that name implied, leading to a significant and ongoing fracturing of the D&D community.  Kind of like what has happened, maybe.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I was more questioning your "fact" that "4e being a more focused and less versatile game" is even remotely true.  Personally, I don't find 4e any more focused or any less versatile.
> 
> Obviously, YMMV and all that.
> 
> ...




I think you have been misunderstanding what I am saying. 4e may be performing as to reach the biggest success levels Wotc has put. I am not saying it is failing here. I am saying that the borrowed time of reinventing D&D so to keep it a commercial success in the gaming community has been running out. If tabletops want to remain relevant as an industry the propulsion model has to change. It has to be remade as a fitting and functional model on a ship that manages to stay afloat by itself so it can rest when needed without risking to sink.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2009)

rounser said:


> Nope.  It only proves that the brand name is powerful.
> 
> I think the majority would initially trust the book which has that name on it to be D&D.  Some subset of the former audience would be happy with what was offered, and another maybe realise that it didn't do what it said on the tin in living up to their expectations of what that name implied, leading to a significant and ongoing fracturing of the D&D community.  Kind of like what has happened, maybe.




Well, you're certainly welcome to your interpretation.  Me, I'll stick with the English language when discussing things and not try to reinvent words simply to make a point.  If the majority are buying a particular product, then that product BY DEFINITION is not a niche product. 

But, hey, I absolutely, positively know that nothing I say is going to make the slightest dent in the welded steel trap you have constructed out of your version of the facts, so, let's just agree to disagree shall we?



xechnao said:


> I think you have been misunderstanding what I am saying. 4e may be performing as to reach the biggest success levels Wotc has put. I am not saying it is failing here. I am saying that the borrowed time of reinventing D&D so to keep it a commercial success in the gaming community has been running out. If tabletops want to remain relevant as an industry the propulsion model has to change. It has to be remade as a fitting and functional model on a ship that manages to stay afloat by itself so it can rest when needed without risking to sink.




I'm confused.  What industry out there can afford to remain at rest.  Name a single product that has no need to change, reinvent itself, be modified or otherwise re-evaluated periodically.

In RPG's that means new editions.  That is the only way you can go forward.  There is no other way.  I suppose you could continually try to tinker your way into new areas by modifying existing rules sets, but, eventually, that's going to bite you in the ass.

NOTHING remains static.  Everything changes.  It's swim or drown in every single industry.  Why should RPG's be any different?


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 17, 2009)

Hobo said:


> The more cynical might be inclined to believe that that was his intention all along; drive traffic to his blog via controversial posts, then "oh, hey, while you're here, have I got a deal for you!"




Which, honestly, is a bit ridiculous. I mean, I disagree with a large portion of what he had to say, and think his responses to the criticism became ever more unreasonable...

...but the dropping of the price on that product was clearly intended as part of his point. Presumably he'll sell the item for cheap in an effort to prove how much value he ends up losing in the long run from this process, as a follow-up on his criticism of Paizo. 

I think it is silly and likely to backfire on him regardless of the results, but I think it seems the most likely explanation - certainly far more so than claims that this entire thing was a conspiracy to shill a product, or that he is a hypocrite for making this sudden sale, despite the context of the situation making it obvious the sale was intended as some form of commentary on the situation already under discussion.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I'm confused.  What industry out there can afford to remain at rest.  Name a single product that has no need to change, reinvent itself, be modified or otherwise re-evaluated periodically.




All of the living industries have static power. Food industry, entertainment industry etch all are static in the big picture. As of relevant entertainment products, sports for example remain mostly the same. Board games, that are more close to tabletop rpgs have various examples from Monopoly to chess. Gleemax was a business idea build around this logic. It failed due to technical problems. RPGs are distinct and versatile enough that can have their classic time-resistant representative powers.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jul 17, 2009)

Mishler is known in the industry, even if many fans don't know him by name.  He's a member of the "cabal", my code word for the game designers who made the "secret mailing list".  So I doubt this was any sort of deliberate trolling--he was simply answering somebody's honest questions and he got 

As far as GURPS goes, I'm a fan, but I'm not sure GURPS is as healthy as it once was.  I remember when they were releasing 6-8 supplements a year or so and the amount of stuff coming out has really dwindled over this decade.  I think they were the victim of the d20 glut--as more d20 games got popular they suffered.   I'm disapppointed because I loved GURPS, but wish they'd make more supplements.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> What industry out there can afford to remain at rest.  Name a single product that has no need to change, reinvent itself, be modified or otherwise re-evaluated periodically.




Oil?
AK-47's?


----------



## darjr (Jul 17, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Oil?
> AK-47's?




Uh.. Oil is a very bad example of a static industry. Just look at the oil sands boom in Canada and the folks looking to drill in the deep ocean or the fluctuating price that one day makes a previously closed unprofitable well a gold mine, and then suddenly less than worthless as examples of the ever changing nature of the Oil industry.

Edit: actually let me restate that, Oil isn't a good example of a static industry. Maybe not a 'very bad' one.


----------



## darjr (Jul 17, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> As far as GURPS goes, I'm a fan, but I'm not sure GURPS is as healthy as it once was.  I remember when they were releasing 6-8 supplements a year or so and the amount of stuff coming out has really dwindled over this decade.  I think they were the victim of the d20 glut--as more d20 games got popular they suffered.   I'm disapppointed because I loved GURPS, but wish they'd make more supplements.




Thanks for pointing out who he is. I know, but was still a bit fuzzy.

As far as GURPS output, they are actually quite prolific in the PDF arena. The e23 has quite a few new releases from them. Ironically it seems to be a growing model for them.


----------



## malkav666 (Jul 17, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Mishler is known in the industry, even if many fans don't know him by name.  He's a member of the "cabal", my code word for the game designers who made the "secret mailing list".  So I doubt this was any sort of deliberate trolling--he was simply answering somebody's honest questions and he got




Nah this is the same Mishler that gave us this....
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





And I remember the article and where he placed all the systems he liked and where he placed newer systems. I can dig up some links (I know the RPG.net links are still there) about it. But it was a nasty bit that has been removed from his blog.

I am just not really interested in this guy telling me "how it is" or "how it is going to be". I disagree with many of his opinions, and most of facts are either incorrect or poorly presented, or in some cases just his own opinions being stated as facts. 

I get it. He is into older D&D and the games derived from them. Newer D&D's (and the games derived from them and players) are false, "doing it wrong", and/or destroying the hobby for this reason or that, depending on weekday and whats being talked about on the interwebs. I think if you throw in some post dissection and name calling, that sums up the blog series nicely.


love,

malkav


----------



## wedgeski (Jul 17, 2009)

malkav666 said:


> I am just not really interested in this guy telling me "how it is" or "how it is going to be". I disagree with many of his opinions, and most of facts are either incorrect or poorly presented, or in some cases just his own opinions being stated as facts.



It's his blog. Honestly what do you expect? He didn't ask to get quoted lock-stock-and-barrel on ENW.


----------



## Eridanis (Jul 17, 2009)

Merged threads. No need for three on the same writer and topic.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 17, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> It's his blog. Honestly what do you expect? He didn't ask to get quoted lock-stock-and-barrel on ENW.



One can have a blog while still avoiding ridiculous bagwrongfuniness.


----------



## malkav666 (Jul 17, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> It's his blog. Honestly what do you expect? He didn't ask to get quoted lock-stock-and-barrel on ENW.




If he did not want to get quoted, then it should have been a private document. As it stands he posted in a format viewable to all, which leads me to believe that the intent was to share it. The information wants to be free 

And I am OK with him placing his opinions on his blog. I don't read his blog, but I do read ENW (which is where I found the article). All I am saying is that this guy has a history of flame(ish) postings, and I can't help but wonder if getting quoted on ENW is not exactly what the guy intended.

But I withdraw. I am not going to debate about some grogblog. the guy obviously has some strong feelings on newer systems. I don't like 4e either, but the difference, is that I don't think it is systemic of/or a portent of an industry problem. I think it is just a matter of taste. (obviously, you could insert any system into that statement right where 4e is for me).

love,

malkav


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 17, 2009)

Saracenus said:


> Erik,
> 
> I am curious, did you come across the augmented reality (AR) meme like I did from Square Mans' blog (link) or is this something that you and/or Paizo have been thinking about for awhile?
> 
> If that wasn't the entry point for you, where did you first come across the AR meme.




My art director, James Davis, showed me some YouTube video about the time they were pimping the new Metal Gear game for the PS3, so it's been on my radar for a while. 

--Erik


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 17, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Oil?
> AK-47's?




AKS-47.
RPK.
AKM.
AKMS.
AK-103.
AK-74.
AKS-74.
AKS-74U.
AK-74M.
RPK-74.
AK-101.



(Thanks, GURPS High Tech!)


----------



## Rokes (Jul 17, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> Since I spent a lot of time that should have been spent proofreading the Pathfinder Bestiary to write my response to Mishler's latest post...




Stop that!  Get back to work! That book needs to be in my hands in less(?) than two months!


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 17, 2009)

xechnao said:


> RPGs are distinct and versatile enough that can have their classic time-resistant representative powers.




I end up arguing with you a lot, so I'll keep this short and sweet:

What? RPGs are durable, and outside of new editions don't need to be replaced. They may indeed be time resistant, but a time resistant durable product is a bad business model. If the gaming companies can't profit, we aren't going to have as high a quality product as we would if they could. In other words, they can but they shouldn't.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jul 17, 2009)

I'd like to dispel at least one misconception that I've seen repeated a few times in this discussion:  the whole "PDF as Loss Leader" thing.


PDFs, regardless of price,  are no more a "loss leader" for the print version of a game product than an iTunes download, vinyl or cassette album is a "loss leader" for the CD.

It's a different format, with a different price.   Nothing more.


Or are you seriously going to tell me that paperback novels are "loss leaders" for hardcovers?   (Mishler most likely would, since he seems to think that if it's the same content, it should be exactly the same price, regardless of format -- at least according this his latest bizarre assertion about trade paperbacks vs mass-market paperbacks....)



But hey, what do I know.   I'm just the "King of Snark", apparently.


----------



## rounser (Jul 17, 2009)

> If the majority are buying a particular product, then that product BY DEFINITION is not a niche product.



From what we've heard of WOTC's sales related to the legal case, the majority of the former D&D audience are _not_ buying 4E, with sales in the hundreds of thousands and the former audience estimated in the millions, from memory.


----------



## tenkar (Jul 17, 2009)

GMSkarka;486911

But hey said:
			
		

> Hail to the King Baby!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 17, 2009)

rounser said:


> From what we've heard of WOTC's sales related to the legal case, the majority of the former D&D audience are _not_ buying 4E, with sales in the hundreds of thousands and the former audience estimated in the millions, from memory.



I am still not sure what you are saying.  Are you saying that 4e D&D is a niche product in the RPG industry?

It is the 800lb gorilla.

Maybe Erik M. can let us know if he thinks 4e D&D is a niche product...



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> I think you've got it backwards. Where it used to cater to a broad church, it now serves a niche taste, such that some of us don't even identify it as D&D anymore.




I agree that 4e fragmented the (huge) base that was built by WOTC during the 3.x era, but it is not serving to a niche taste.

Where it used to cater to a massive megachurch, it now serves a regular sized megachurch, such that a relatively insignificant number of [you] don't even identify it as D&D anymore.

There are people that still play OGL 3.x games that at least recognize that 4e is D&D too, just another flavor.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 18, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Name a single product that has no need to change, reinvent itself, be modified or otherwise re-evaluated periodically.



Sex. I guess that's really a service though, not a product.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 18, 2009)

Erik, get back to work.

We're the idiots, Mishler is trolling teh intarwebs and we're falling for it.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 18, 2009)

The only thing that seems inaccurate about his post is his analysis of PDF sales.

Heck, even with his 5 to 1 rule PAizo is still making as much profit on selling the PDF at $10 as they are selling the print version for $50.00. So a loss leader? I don't think so.

Plus, WOTC and Goodman have both clearly stated that PDF sales are pretty much a meaningless part of their revenue stream. Paizo has even gone so far as to say PDF sales are not exactly significant.

However, he very well may be right about the game market shrinking, I know several publishers (smaller ones) are walking fine lines of survival and closing shop. Since they are publishers I like I hope their doors stay open.

Will it crash and burn into oblivion? No, I don't think so, but I don't think that is what James was saying either. It is walking the line between being the way it is and radical change, and I think the change is inevitable.

Getting back to PDF's, their sales suck for one simple reason, most of us consumers know they are far, far cheaper to produce and distribute than print books, so we simply refuse to pay such over inflated pricing for them. Simple as that. I know the book industry would love to make the ugly profit margins Microsoft and the video game industry makes on their video games, but books are not video games or software programs. So its not going to happen unless consumers become much less savvy. So if the book market wants PDF sales to explode, then they better slash their pricing to a reasonable profit margin, instead of price gouging us like the video game industry does.

So if a book company makes $10 per book in the print trade then that should be the PDF price. Not an inflated profit margin by acting like we are being given a deal over print versions by pricing PDF's at 60% of retail. We are not, we are being price gouged.

That is where I think Paizo is going down the right path. They know they only will make about $10 per print book sold through distribution, considerably more from books they sell directly through their subscriptions and website sales.

So selling the PDF for $10 is simply fair pricing, not a "loss leader". A fair price I think Paizo is going to reap rewards from. I know at least 6 people who had no interest in PF, but since I told them about the $10 PDF price point, they have since said they will now check PF out when it is released. Wy? Because the PDF price was such a reasonable one. IE not the over inflated price we see with too many companies. One of which is PAizo, with the prices they sell most of their PDF's at.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 18, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Sex. I guess that's really a service though, not a product.




Sex is like Pizza, even when its bad its still pretty good. Its hard to get sex wrong, as sex is generally always preferable to the alternative.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jul 18, 2009)

Treebore said:


> The only thing that seems inaccurate about his post is his analysis of PDF sales.





 ...and his statements about Print-On-Demand ship times and discounts.

 ...and his statements regarding inflation of paperbacks, where he compared apples (mass market paperbacks) to oranges (trade paperbacks), which he is now claiming is immaterial because the content is identical -- so I guess that a hardcover should cost the same as a paperback, too, for the same reason

 ...and his statements about pay rates in mainstream publishing.

 ...and his insistence that we're in a "Greater Depression" the likes of which hasn't been seen since the "Roman Crisis of the Third Century."

 ...and his deciding to take a single data point (the price of a game that hasn't been released yet) and claim that it represents a trend.

I could, of course, continue.    But really, there is no point.   He has his fanboys, who will insist that he's insightful and correct in his analysis, by virtue of the fact that _they like his games._


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> From what we've heard of WOTC's sales related to the legal case, the majority of the former D&D audience are _not_ buying 4E, with sales in the hundreds of thousands and the former audience estimated in the millions, from memory.




I'd say if you look at the number of people who are former D&D players, I'd imagine that if you were to look at how many were former players because of 4E, that number would be quite small. Most people who are former players of D&D are so because of life reasons that have nothing to do with the game itself, like moving, lack of free time, moved on to other things, ect. D&D has existed since 1974. I'd imagine that 90%-99% of former D&D players left before 4E was even announced.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 18, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> I am still not sure what you are saying.  Are you saying that 4e D&D is a niche product in the RPG industry?
> 
> It is the 800lb gorilla.
> 
> Maybe Erik M. can let us know if he thinks 4e D&D is a niche product...




Something like this:



Erik Mona said:


> The main advantage Mike Mearls has (or, rather, the main advantage of his employer) is that he works with Dungeons & Dragons, a brand with 85% name recognition in the GENERAL PUBLIC, and a brand with a 35-year tradition of high quality and market leadership. His is also the best-capitalized company in the industry, with long-established market dominance in the hobby and mass market retail channels. *Dungeons & Dragons has an existing network of players (i.e. customers) that is at least two, possibly three or four orders of magnitude larger than that of any other brand in the industry.*
> 
> There is no existing fallacy among gaming professionals, from independent operators like James Mishler to brand managers and major corporations like Scott Rouse, that "if it were good it will sell as well as D&D." *Anyone with an even basic understanding of the RPG industry knows that _no_ pen and paper RPG will sell as well as D&D.* It would take a CATASTROPHIC failure of game design, distribution, and probably the economy overall for the D&D business to falter to the point at which another company can even contemplate selling in the sort of numbers that Wizards sells.
> 
> ...


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 18, 2009)

Thanks for saving me the trouble of cutting and pasting that reply, TCO!

My sentiments exactly!

--Erik


----------



## ggroy (Jul 18, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I'd imagine that 90%-99% of former D&D players left before 4E was even announced.




Of the 25-30 people I knew who regularly played D&D when I was growing up (ie. from my school and college years), only 4 or 5 of them still actively or occasionally play any rpgs these days.  The rest have very little to no interest in playing any rpgs or board games these days.

Even myself, I took a long hiatus from playing rpgs.  I stopped playing any rpgs shortly after the 1E AD&D Forgotten Realms grey box was released.  (I had other priorities in those days).  I didn't play at all during the 2E AD&D and 3E D&D eras, but still occasionally read news about the hobby via usenet newsgroups whenever I was really bored.  I occasionally picked up several rpg books during that time (but never played them), mainly from previous rpg acquaintances selling old rpg books they didn't need anymore for a pittance.  (ie.  Stuff like these particular acquaintances' wives threatening to leave them if they didn't stop gaming, etc ...).  I got back into playing rpg games regularly after 3.5E was released, but didn't buy many books at first.  I only started to buy more rpg books, when I was DM'ing again.


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 18, 2009)

GMSkarka said:


> I'd like to dispel at least one misconception that I've seen repeated a few times in this discussion:  the whole "PDF as Loss Leader" thing.
> 
> PDFs, regardless of price,  are no more a "loss leader" for the print version of a game product than an iTunes download, vinyl or cassette album is a "loss leader" for the CD.
> 
> ...



Well, I would say that in the case of the PFRPG PDF (and only that specific case), Paizo is using it *like* a loss leader. Technically, it's pretty dang near impossible for them to actually lose money on it, but they are pricing it at 20% of print cover price rather than their usual 70% for the explicitly stated reason of drawing in more customers. So that one PDF isn't technically a loss leader, but I'd say they are deliberately treating it as an "underpriced leader".

But, of course, this is for the one single PDF that Paizo is pricing far below their usual rate. In general, unless you are giving them away for free, I agree that PDFs are just another format at a different price. (Of course, by Mishler's reasoning, I could hire a plane to sky write the entire contents of a novel and it's just the same content in a different size and format. So where's my $8 for you looking up at the sky and reading my book?)


----------



## rounser (Jul 18, 2009)

> Something like this:



I don't see the refutation, here.  It's trading off of a name, yes I agree.  But the game design has arguably changed quite dramatically from including a broad church of play styles to a rather narrow niche (e.g. long gamist tactical combats based on miniatures).  It's a testament to the power of that name that the game still sees some success regardless, IMO.  To reverse the scenario as a rhetorical question, would 4E have sunk without a trace without that name to bouy it?


----------



## ggroy (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> To reverse the scenario as a rhetorical question, would 4E have sunk without a trace without that name to bouy it?




If I had seen the 4E books at a FLGS or bookstore without the "Dungeons and Dragons" name on the front cover, I don't think I would have even given it a second look.  I probably would have skimmed through the book relatively quickly, and put it back on the shelf afterward.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> But the game design has arguably changed quite dramatically from including a broad church of play styles to a rather narrow niche (e.g. *long gamist tactical combats based on miniatures*).




Man, next you'll be telling us that long gamist tactical combats based on miniatures weren't what spawned D&D in the first place 

And yes - if 4e D&D was some other RPG, it wouldn't have done nearly as well, for the reasons Erik listed above. That doesn't really have any bearing on its merits or lack thereof, though.


----------



## rounser (Jul 18, 2009)

> Man, next you'll be telling us that long gamist tactical combats based on miniatures weren't what spawned D&D in the first place



This has been soundly refuted in other threads.  OD&D didn't assume the use of miniatures, most didn't use them, and even said it didn't in the text.  It offered little tactical options, and had swift combat resolution.  4E is the odd man out here, much as wishful thinking and assumption would have it otherwise.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jul 18, 2009)

> Companies that are basically one dude with some desktop publishing software working out of his basement, or who only do PDFs, or who can't get the interest and attention of honest-to-god hobby distributors like Alliance or ACD are completely screwed out of participation in the "industry," and frankly aren't really a part of it.




You would actually be surprised at this being the status of other publishers.  Many of the so-called "big names" are like this.  The other "dudes" are freelancers.

A lot of them don't admit this, but I found out a few you'd think are "big names" could fall into jepoardy if something happened.  About the only person I see admitting this publicly is Clark Peterson of Necromancer games.  There are several shops out there who would be in trouble if something happened to their spouse or day-job.

It's hard to see that with the authority being a publisher can do.  All you have to do is have a good website and use official language such as the public "we" and you're a professional.

You would have to ask publishers this list of questions to find out.

* Do you work on the publishing full-time without doing any other work, or do you have a second job to supplement your income, or numerous freelance gigs inside or outside of writing not related to your publishing career?

* Are you married or living with somebody?  Does your spouse work?  Does your spouse make more than you?  Do you have kids?

* Are you retired, on disability, or getting any other government assistance to supplement your income?  

* Did you win the lottery or have any other windfalls of income?  

* Are you living with family members?

* Are you making a living wage?  Or are you suffering for your art?

Assuming they would answer these questions, since in some aspects it's not our business, but let's say somebody was willing to take the test.  My bet would be many would not be able to answer all of the first five with "no".  

It would be tough to guess.  I know WoTC and White Wolf have full-time staff.  I suspect Paizo has enough money for a staff, and Steve Jackson Games.  I remember finding out from Gary Gygax that his publisher partners (TLG and Inner City Games) were partially funded by spouses--in other words, key people can work full time because their spouse makes enough "real world" money so salary isn't an issue.

We know Clark Peterson of Necromancer isn't depending on his stuff for his income. I'd suspect people like Mishler and GMS couldn't pass the "5 nos" test, as well as many people who are publishers here in the publishing forum.  It makes me wonder what places like Green Ronin are like.



> PDFs, regardless of price, are no more a "loss leader" for the print version of a game product than an iTunes download, vinyl or cassette album is a "loss leader" for the CD.




I know when I used the term loss leader I meant comparing PDFs to other PDFs.  While James also mentioned cannibalization, I think he had a key point, that a $10 PDF of as high quality as Pathfinder can make it look to the public that PDFs are overpriced.  And he did make good points into the fixed costs of publishing.  There are some good points he did make, even if all of them aren't as solid as I once thought.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 18, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Something like this:






Erik Mona said:


> Thanks for saving me the trouble of cutting and pasting that reply, TCO!




  That's sorta what I thought.  I was wondering if rounser had seen it, even though it was posted earlier.



rounser said:


> I don't see the refutation, here.  It's trading off of a name, yes I agree.  But the game design has arguably changed quite dramatically from including a broad church of play styles to a rather narrow niche (e.g. long gamist tactical combats based on miniatures).



The 4e I play has a lot more elements to it that just "long gamist tactical combats based on miniatures". As a matter of fact it has as many different things going on as it did when I was DMing and playing 3e.  And quite frankly, my 4e game acts more like my old AD&D games, though the combat adds more of a tactical element than in my 1e past.

I am not sure who DMed your 4e game, but did you play it as a one shot or a campaign with story (or sandbox) and a consistent, cohesive, ongoing series of game sessions?

But I didn't quote you to mention that, as I am still baffled by your comment that 4e D&D is a niche product in the RPG industry.  Seriously, do you really believe that?


----------



## rounser (Jul 18, 2009)

> But I didn't quote you to mention that, as I am still baffled by your comment that 4e D&D is a niche product in the RPG industry. Seriously, do you really believe that?



No, I think that it's niche _game design_, whereas D&D's game design used to support a broader church of play styles (probably more through good luck than good judgement).  IMO it's extremist in design philosophy and resulting play style, and is viable I think _in spite_ of that.  Some will pat it on the back for focus, others rubbish it for the compromises and babies thrown out with the bathwater made in attaining that focus.  i.e. IMO it's narrower and caters less for a broad church of play styles than what D&D's audience have grown to expect from D&D.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> To reverse the scenario as a rhetorical question, would 4E have sunk without a trace without that name to bouy it?




There is no way anyone could possibly answer this question.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> This has been soundly refuted in other threads.  OD&D didn't assume the use of miniatures, most didn't use them, and even said it didn't in the text.  It offered little tactical options, and had swift combat resolution.  4E is the odd man out here, much as wishful thinking and assumption would have it otherwise.




Ok, first, OD&D most definitely assumed miniatures.

The cover of OD&D, which I am looking at right now, says "Rules for fantastic medieval wargames playable with paper, pencil and miniature figures".

Spell ranges and areas are also given in inches. No mention is made of feet. 

Measuring in inches was how miniature movement was handled in those days. It's every bit as much an assumption that minis will be used as giving movement and ranges in squares.

Only difference is OD&D using inches assumes you're moving minis on a tabletop, using a ruler, rather than on some map grid. 

Character movement for a human is listed as "6 inches". Again, no feet conversion is even given. 

In book 3 of OD&D, we finally get our first mention of converting inches to feet, where it is specifically mentioned that "in the underworld" (ie in dungeons) you convert inches to feet.

And of course, why would you go to feet "in the underworld"? Because that *is* the place where you are going to be consulting a map with a grid perhaps?

Sorry, but D&D's roots have always been as a miniature game. The only edition that even TRIED to separate itself from the game's wargaming roots was 2nd edition.


----------



## rounser (Jul 18, 2009)

> Ok, first, OD&D most definitely assumed miniatures.
> 
> The cover of OD&D, which I am looking at right now, says "Rules for fantastic medieval wargames playable with paper, pencil and miniature figures".



It was only called that "because we didn't know what else to call it", according to one of Gygax's players (RPG as a term hadn't been coined at that stage), and the text _explicitly says_ that the rules don't assume the use of minis. And fantasy minis mostly _did not exist_ back then, and the majority of groups didn't use minis at all, on the advice of people who were there.  Your assumptions are wrong, explicitly refuted by people who were there.  Don't drag this dead horse out for another beating, your arguments have been refuted before, and are based on assumption.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> It was only called that "because we didn't know what else to call it", according to one of Gygax's players, and the text explicitly says that the rules don't assume minis.  RPG as a term hadn't been coined.  And fantasy minis mostly _did not exist_ back then, and the majority of groups didn't use minis at all, on the advice of people who were there.  Your assumptions are wrong, explicitly refuted by people who were there.  Don't drag this dead horse out for another beating, your arguments have been refuted before, and are based on assumption.




No, they're based on the text of the books.

Seriously, I dont care how others played the game.

Its hardly an "assumption" on my part to go by the rules as written.

You saying its an "assumption" of me to RTFM just because some old-timers didnt use minis?

There have ALWAYS been people who didnt.

But the books always were written for minis.

Its no harder to handwave movement and ranges in 3e than it was in 1e, based on MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

I suppose you'll tell me my personal experience is wrong, just like me bothering to read the books is an "assumption".


----------



## Menexenus (Jul 18, 2009)

*C'mon Erik!*



> Yep, I call it .
> 
> The difference between me and you is that I'm staking a successful company on it, and you are pulling guesses out of your ass on the internet.





I just saw Erik's reply to Mishler's second post (above).  Erik, I think you owe it to yourself to apologize.  The guy is simply stating his view and backing it up with his well-considered and carefully laid-out reasons.  Of course, you don't have to agree with his conclusions.  (I don't.  I think he's way too pessimistic about the state of the overall economy.  He thinks we're in a Depression and considers a Japanese style "lost decade" to be a best case scenario.)  Heck, you don't even have to respond to them!  You could just ignore him.  Instead, the response you did give (on his website to his post) was rather insulting and mean-spirited.  While you may not like what he said about the implications he thought Paizo's PDF pricing would have for the industry as a whole, nothing he said was personal or petty, and it didn't deserve the response you gave it.

I'm sure what you wrote was written in the heat of the moment.  (I know there are a number of things I've written over the years in posts and emails that I wish I could "unwrite".)  I'm also sure you're a better person than the way you came off in that post.  As an impartial observer who doesn't know either one of you, I think you owe the guy an apology.  

I hope you'll think about it, Erik.  (You might be surprised how good it actually feels to give someone a sincere apology.  I know I have been!)


----------



## Thanlis (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> It was only called that "because we didn't know what else to call it", according to one of Gygax's players, and the text explicitly says that the rules don't assume minis.  RPG as a term hadn't been coined.  And fantasy minis mostly _did not exist_ back then, and the majority of groups didn't use minis at all, on the advice of people who were there.  Your assumptions are wrong, explicitly refuted by people who were there.  Don't drag this dead horse out for another beating, your arguments have been refuted before, and are based on assumption.




The text says:

"LAND COMBAT: The basic system is that from CHAINMAIL, with one figure representing one man or creature." (Page 25, Underworld & Wilderness Adventures.)

It also says, on the same page:

"PLAYING AREA: Paper counters and a hexagon or staggered-square playing board should be used in those cases where it is not possible to use miniatures figures."

The mention of paper counters is fascinating, because the quote typically used to prove that D&D didn't use miniatures is this:

"Minature figures can be added if the players have them available and so desire, but miniatures are not required, only esthetically pleasing." (Page 5, Men & Magic.)

Except people often skip the context. That sentence continues: "Similarly, unit counters can be employed -- with or without figures -- although by themselves the bits of cardboard lack the eye-appeal of the varied and brightly painted miniature figures."

I interpret that as meaning that you use figures, but if you don't have figures, it's cool -- you can use unit counters instead. I think that interpretation is borne out by the text from U&WA, which clearly says that you use those counters if you don't have minis.

Now. Did players of the time actually use miniatures or cardboard counters all the time? I dunno, I wasn't there; I wouldn't be surprised if the play evolved away from the rules as written. Play always does. But the text of the original booklets is not terribly ambiguous.


----------



## rounser (Jul 18, 2009)

> No, they're based on the text of the books.



The text of the OD&D books _explicitly tells you that the rules do not assume use of miniatures!_  And the usual way to play was without them!  All you've done is draw out assumptions based on what you're reading into the text based on what you want to believe, when the book itself and people who were there _explicitly contradict you_.  Your argument seems plausible to the casual observer, but people who were there have told us that what you're suggesting isn't true.


----------



## rounser (Jul 18, 2009)

> I interpret that as meaning that you use figures, but if you don't have figures, it's cool -- you can use unit counters instead. I think that interpretation is borne out by the text from U&WA, which clearly says that you use those counters if you don't have minis.



A member of Gygax's group from back in the day has contradicted your interpretation.


----------



## Wormwood (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> A member of Gygax's group from back in the day has contradicted your interpretation.



Unfortunately, most of us didn't have personal access to Gygax, and only had his written word to guide us.

Or were all those thousands of lead minis advertised in early Dragon magazines intended for some other game?


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> The text of the OD&D books _explicitly tells you that the rules do not assume use of miniatures!_  And the usual way to play was without them!  All you've done is draw out assumptions based on what you're reading into the text based on what you want to believe, when the book itself and people who were there _explicitly contradict you_.  Your argument seems plausible to the casual observer, but people who were there have told us that what you're suggesting isn't true.




Page 6: As with any other set of miniatures rules...

Page 7: miniatures are not required, only esthetically pleasing; similarly unit counters can be employed

As others have pointed out, he's clearly saying you don't 100% NEED minis to play the game, nor do you need counters.

That doesn't change the fact that there is no other reason for movement and spell ranges to be listed in inches (and only inches) except for use of tactical miniatures. 

And you quoting how any old time gaming group did their gaming is an appeal to false authority.

Quoting the book is not "superficial", nor is it an assumption. Its a demonstration of how the game was meant to be played.

That you can play it other ways doesn't change that.

OD&D also says you can play it in SPACE.

If some old group of grognards who you claim played with Gary told you they played it in space, does that also mean I'm making an assumption that it's a fantasy game?


----------



## rounser (Jul 18, 2009)

> Or were all those thousands of lead minis advertised in early Dragon magazines intended for some other game?



_Thousands?_  How early are we talking?  In the early days, fantasy minis mostly didn't even exist.  They had enough trouble sourcing polyhedral dice.  Where you gonna get your bugbears from, a booster pack? Why not pick up some M:tG cards while you're there?  Better get on ebay while you're at it, the prices for OD&D draconians might be cheaper there...


----------



## rounser (Jul 18, 2009)

> And you quoting how any old time gaming group did their gaming is an appeal to false authority.



A player in Gygax's group from the OD&D days is not in "any old time gaming group", and in a position to know what the designers intended.  And also in a position to know how people actually played the game.  You're the false authority here.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 18, 2009)

> Yep, I call it .
> 
> The difference between me and you is that I'm staking a successful company on it, and you are pulling guesses out of your ass on the internet.



Personally if I was betting my company and money on something, I would certainly be putting a positive spin on it.  It would look very bad if I was trashing my own firm's products and/or services.   (If I had thought the product and/or service was crap, I probably would have closed down or sold the business a long time ago).

Even though I'm not a convert to the Pathfinder RPG, I'll hope for the best.  It would be a shame if the opposite happened, with Paizo falling into bankruptcy from a hypothetical fallout by the Pathfinder RPG core books flopping badly.  (Hopefully this won't happen).  But hey, nobody knows what will happen in the future.  Back in 1990, who would have thought that TSR would be almost bankrupt by 1997?


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> _Thousands?_  How early are we talking?  In the early days, fantasy minis mostly didn't even exist.  They had enough trouble sourcing polyhedral dice.  Where you gonna get your bugbears from, a booster pack? Why not pick up some M:tG cards while you're there?  Better get on ebay while you're at it, the prices for OD&D draconians might be cheaper there...



Thousands might be an overstatement (depending on when you are talking about).  The TSR catalog containing miniatures is advertised in _The Strategic Review_ ('75-'76) with a refund of the cost with a purchase of $10 in miniatures.  Fantasy miniatures are explicitly advertised starting with the first issue of _The Dragon_.  Within a year or two the ads certainly hit hundreds of fantasy miniatures per issue.

Now, I started playing Holmes and AD&D about '78.  We started using miniatures quite early.  We mostly used them as representations of our character, for marching orders, and to show where we were in a room (for trap detection, etc).


----------



## Thanlis (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> A member of Gygax's group from back in the day has contradicted your interpretation.




I did say that I was perfectly happy to believe that play drifted from the text and that people didn't use miniatures. I'm not talking about what people in Gygax's group did in practice, I'm talking about what the rules said.

Here's why this matters: "But the game design has arguably changed quite dramatically from including a broad church of play styles to a rather narrow niche (e.g. long gamist tactical combats based on miniatures)."

If you're going to stand up and tell me that the way I /play/ 4e is irrelevant, and all that matters is the way it's designed, then I would like it if you'd apply the same critical lens to your own favorite edition. If you'll excuse your preferred text on the grounds that actual play varied quite a bit, I would appreciate it if you'd excuse my favored text when I tell you I've found it very easy to play outside any niche.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 18, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Personally if I was betting my company and money on something, I would certainly be putting a positive spin on it.  It would look very bad if I was trashing my own firm's products and/or services.   (If I had thought the product and/or service was crap, I probably would have closed down or sold the business a long time ago).



The problem with this theory is you can discount everyone not in the industry because they don't have access to actual numbers, everyone who left the industry as disgruntled and everyone in the industry because they will be putting positive spin on it.  No one can give real relevant, accurate facts, so we can spin any argument we want.

At some point you need to trust that someone isn't blowing smoke or walk away from the discussion because it can't be constructive.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> It was only called that "because we didn't know what else to call it", according to one of Gygax's players (RPG as a term hadn't been coined at that stage), and the text _explicitly says_ that the rules don't assume the use of minis. And fantasy minis mostly _did not exist_ back then, and the majority of groups didn't use minis at all, on the advice of people who were there.  Your assumptions are wrong, explicitly refuted by people who were there.  Don't drag this dead horse out for another beating, your arguments have been refuted before, and are based on assumption.




Actually, this I have to agree with.  I didn't play OD&D with miniatures, nor did we think that the inches thing meant actual inches measured on a tabletop with minis. 

In our 1e AD&D PH and DMG, it told us that outdoors 1" meant 10 yards (if I recall correctly, my books aren't here, with me.) and indoors it meant 10ft.  So we assumed it was just a notation that I could use to determine distance indoors and outdoors, as ranges changed their base measurement from feet to yards.

AD&D very rarely, if ever, had a mini tabletop element for my group for many, many years, 1e thru 2e mostly, though I dabbled with minis a bit more in 2e for no more than curiosity sake.

I didn't know anyone at my jr-high or highschool, or at the local game shop as a kid, that played AD&D with minis.

Obviously, this is all anecdotal.  Have some sodium.


----------



## rounser (Jul 18, 2009)

> If you're going to stand up and tell me that the way I /play/ 4e is irrelevant, and all that matters is the way it's designed, then I would like it if you'd apply the same critical lens to your own favorite edition.



I don't care about the way you play 4E.  4E as a whole is irrelevant to me, except insofar as it is taking up space as to what currently passes for in-print D&D, and what it bodes for the future of the game.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 18, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> The problem with this theory is you can discount everyone not in the industry because they don't have access to actual numbers, everyone who left the industry as disgruntled and everyone in the industry because they will be putting positive spin on it.  No one can give real relevant, accurate facts, so we can spin any argument we want.
> 
> At some point you need to trust that someone isn't blowing smoke or walk away from the discussion because it can't be constructive.




PR and propaganda are all about blowing smoke.  Punditry is all about blowing smoke and re-blowing somebody else's smoke.

The final decisions are obviously based on what the financial books look like.  If a product or service turns out to be a flop, I'm not going to putting any more money into further development.  No use in throwing more money into a black hole.


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 18, 2009)

{thread whiplash}
Wow! We've gone from "pulling guesses out of our... butts" about what the gaming industry will be in 20 years to trying to divine the intentions of Gygax when he created the game over 35 years ago (not to mention discussing the meaning of an "inch") - all in the same thread!

Zowie!


----------



## ggroy (Jul 18, 2009)

kenmarable said:


> trying to divine the intentions of Gygax when he created the game over 35 years ago




Bring on the Ouija board.


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 18, 2009)

Technically, I think this is becoming a replay of a thread from last week. Or the week before that. Or both. In which, IIRC, no one was persuaded of anything, except maybe that "hey, people play the game in various different ways, now and in the past." Add doses of "But mostly they play[ed] like me!" to taste.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 18, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> Technically, I think this is becoming a replay of a thread from last week. Or the week before that. Or both. In which, IIRC, no one was persuaded of anything, except maybe that "hey, people play the game in various different ways, now and in the past." Add doses of "But mostly they play[ed] like me!" to taste.




The lowest common denominator.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> I don't see the refutation, here.  It's trading off of a name, yes I agree.  But the game design has arguably changed quite dramatically from including a broad church of play styles to a rather narrow niche (e.g. long gamist tactical combats based on miniatures).  It's a testament to the power of that name that the game still sees some success regardless, IMO.  To reverse the scenario as a rhetorical question, would 4E have sunk without a trace without that name to bouy it?




The church of play styles I would agree was broad for 3.5E, but I'd say at least 80% fell into casual generic action-fantasy with an emphasis on combat, with length(3.5E was similarly slow), minis focus(3.5E was nearly as minis focused), and gamism as non-handicaps. D&D has always been the casual hack and slash game of choice. 

Simulationists, OGL-worshippers, noncombat, anti-miniatures, are all small high strung minorities, dwarfed by the big picture. 

I don't deny that 4E has excluded some playstyles with prejudice. Its still broad enough to cover 80% of the D&D people were playing during 3.5E, and 4E covers that 80% better than 3.5E did and has more appeal to new players.


----------



## Thanlis (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> I don't care about the way you play 4E.  4E as a whole is irrelevant to me, except insofar as it is taking up space as to what currently passes for in-print D&D, and what it bodes for the future of the game.




Yes. And your assumptions about what it bodes for the future of the game all assume that 4e players are incapable of making the same sort of play adjustments that original D&D players made in practice.

This is probably a fruitless conversation -- we've gone back and forth a couple of times now and you're carefully refusing to notice page 25 of Underworld & Wilderness Adventures. But hey, everyone else can remember those special words the next time someone claims OD&D wasn't written as a miniatures game:



> PLAYING AREA:
> Paper counters and a hexagon or staggered-square playing board should be used in those cases where it is not possible to use miniature figures. It is also necessary that height be noted by use of a counter. Counters numbered in 1" increments can be prepared, and the appropriate one be placed with the unit when the turn is finished, thus indicating height in inches.




And everyone else should remember that in practice? A lot of people, including Gygax, ignored that "should" and that "necessary". Because actual play always differs from the rules.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 18, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Simulationists, OGL-worshippers, noncombat, anti-miniatures, are all small high strung minorities, dwarfed by the big picture.





The insulting tone seen in this post was not necessary.  It has earned a thread-ban.  Please don't respond in kind, or you shall share that fate.


----------



## malraux (Jul 18, 2009)

> "Those Damn Kids" -- Name one other era in history when schools had to be guarded by armed guards, drug-sniffing hounds, and metal detectors. Name one other advanced state in the world where a majority of the "students" in the schools can not identify their own state on a map. Name one other advanced state in the world where the functional literacy of its youngest cadre is so poor. Name one other state in the world, other than maybe Somalia, where the teachers often have to fear the students. Anyone who looks at the crop of youth today as a whole, and does not see the sea change that has occured in the last 20 years, is fooling themselves.



This is somewhat unrelated to everything else, but is a pet peeve of mine.  Kids today are smarter than they were a few decades ago, and kids a few decades ago were smarter than their elders.  The Flynn effect is pretty clear and unmistakable.  While it might appear that kids are getting dumber, in many cases what is happening is that the educational system is bringing in more and more of the kids who wouldn't have had as much education in times past.

On the specifics.  Lets see, armed guards, drug hounds and metal detectors were in place in the 90s.  Moreover, here are some military units in a school, not just some rent a cops.

Places where teachers fear the students:  Time Line of Worldwide School Shootings — Infoplease.com  Registering "fear" of students is pretty hard.  Certainly big events like school shootings are not limited to the US.  And really the big difference is that this sort of violence moved into the "good" schools, not that it hasn't always been around.  Heck, right now it looks like juvenile violence crime is at a relative low point: Trends

Literacy rates: Functional illiteracy for the youngest cadre seems like you don't know what you are talking about.  Functional illiteracy is an adult issue, not a young child issue.


----------



## seskis281 (Jul 18, 2009)

Just a little bit based only on my own experiences..

I've been teaching freshman entering college now from 1992 to the present, so my own perceptions are this:

"Intelligence" isn't as easily locked down...

Over the past 17 years I can say I see an increase in "knowledge" in some areas, especially in technological saavy and awareness. I agree that more students progress onward to higher levels than did in generations past, because of the cultural shift in expectations (both in general and specifically in employment demands - where a high school degree once served an Associates is needed, and Bachelors are becoming more the "norm" rather than the exception). 

There are also areas where "knowledge" has certainly slipped quite a bit... "cultural capital" is one - a colleague was wearing a "Yale" sweatshirt and one of our top academic students walked up and asked "Yawhlee... what's that?" Younger generations of students today have greater extent of available knowledge, via the internet and mass media, but don't absorb as much depth within any specific area because, as one student queried me "why bother learning it - I can just google whatever I need to know anytime, even from my phone." Even the old buggaboos of film and tv, which were supposed to "warp our children's" minds, are actually slipping away from the radar a good bit. It used to be easy for me in a film or theatre class to come up with one or two cultural totems that almost everyone had seen for a common reference ("Titanic" during late 90's and early 2000's for instance) - that is no longer true.

Reading is also an area that has dropped dramatically. Just seven years ago, at LSU, there were always the students who just didn't read, but if I asked the question "so what did you read in high school" I'd get answers - often with a "yeah it was boring, I hated that one...." Now, a common answer is "I didn't read a book in high school...." To which I respond "None were required?" To which the response was "sure, but you could pass without bothering to read... just look up a synopsis on Wiki or something.." There have been "surges" around certain popular series such as Harry Potter and now the "Twilight" series, but an interesting phenomenon is that younger readers just repeat their reads of these more often than expanding to different novels or genres.

Finally there is the phenomenon of information bloat.... one thing that gets lost and forgotten is the mere fact that, in so many areas, there is always a continually growing spectra of knowledge to be covered, but without longer time to teach or learn it. Simple ex. - when I first took Intro to Film myself in 1988, there was just over 90 years of film history and movies to cover. Now, we have had 2 decades more, and that's A LOT of material added on when I teach the course now. Same with history, lit, most social sciences and humanities. Even sciences have changed and expanded rapidly. Only mathematics (at this level - higher levels of graduate studies different yes) remains relatively static. Because of this, simple assumed facts become "left behind" or skimmed so quickly they are not retained - if I asked "who fought on which side in World War II" you would be surprised at the fumbling around for answers. 

For my speech class, my 1st project is a mad-lib excercise designed to get everyone up, speaking a bit of funny nonsensical text to help with comfort in public speaking.... when I pass this out, hands go up - "what's an adverb? what do you mean by infinitive verb...?" 

These students are not "stupid," there are just big holes in their knowledge base. On the other hand, if I have a computer question, a tech communication question, I will ask my students before I ask my colleagues with PhDs.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## malraux (Jul 18, 2009)

I'll admit that there has been a huge shift in how information is handled by the younger generations.  It will take time to deal with the idea that information in electronic form is almost as available as information in nerve cells.  My generation saw this more in the calculators are better at simple arithmetic than the brain is, but I can't say that much was lost in that change.

In addition, there is somewhat less of a homogenizing force in cultural matters and there is a much larger pool of people participating in cultural issues.  I won't deny that there are some big issues to deal with as human knowledge continually expands and our methods of accessing so much of that change radically, but that's a dramatically different statement from the age old "kids these days" sort of rant.


----------



## seskis281 (Jul 18, 2009)

It is a struggle and a challenge I can tell you, and pedagogically speaking many of us do indeed adapt and change.

It is easy to say "these damn kids today," which has probably been uttered by older generations for centuries in some form or another. It is difficult to sometimes reconcile the differences and changes, and sometimes the changes can be so negative as to be dangerous unless fought against... (I'm speaking in general eductaion - I'm far afield from RPGs or gaming here lol)

As I said, I see the knowledge base issues and I work hard to not get peeved about them, but to deal with them.

The one area I might, myself, sometimes rant about in a "these damn kids" kind of mode is merely inquisitiveness... the past decade, and as Mal said technology increasingly replacing the need for nerve processing, I've seen a distinct shift to a paradigm where students have very little desire to QUESTION - a 4-year-old will never stop asking questions like "why is the sky blue?" or "what's that" when pointing a newly encountered object. College freshman used to routinely raise a hand or give me a quizzical look if they didn't understand a term or concept. Now, a blank stare is far too common in many classes. It's not a lack of intelligence or ability that I often get most frustrated with, it's the lack of CURIOSITY. 

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread arguments lol.


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 18, 2009)

Just to continue the "kids these days" discussion, I wonder if part of the issue of "I'll just look it up" attitude is a shift away from consumption to production? Between a truly awe-inspiring amount of readily available information online and the tools to allow easy content production and sharing, I'm thinking it is having a major cultural impact on children. Back when I was growing up in the 80's entertainment you could interact with (from D&D to Atari) was just beginning. The majority of the entertainment and information I experienced was fed to me - TV, movies, the set of encyclopedias my parents bought, or for really big matters - a trip to the local library. But all of it was static information that was not only presented to me, but seemed so far from anything I could produce. I still remember the one afternoon in the mid 90's when I first saw a web page and the code behind it. What astounded me the most actually was how easy it was to have pictures and text together on the computer screen, and link to other pages! I had visions of making "Choose Your Own Adventure" books on the world wide web. I was a senior in college and something that simple was amazing to me.

Even further, for my parents, interactive entertainment was seeing the neighbor kids were home. Heck, growing up for them the "TV schedule" was the times when shows were even broadcast, the rest of the time was a test pattern.

My kids however are leaps and bounds past us. My 9 year old daughter maintains several websites. She's even made several movies with iLife on our Mac. All of them (even our youngest who can't even read yet) prefer interactive websites to watching TV. They would rather spend an hour on Webkinz where they can *interact and create* than sit and stare at a TV show they can't do anything to. 

So I can see that sort of attitude leading to not bothering to learn "facts" (after all, facts and information are trivial to find nowadays). It's a shift towards creating content and interacting with content than just being fed static information. It's pretty significantly different from how I was raised, and how my parents were raised. So if we're not careful, their education might not account for this different mindset and it's much harder to teach them. We also have to make sure it doesn't swing too far and we wind up with the students mentioned above who not only don't have much factual foundation but even begin to lose curiosity.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> The text of the OD&D books _explicitly tells you that the rules do not assume use of miniatures!_



The text stating that doesn't make it so, necessarily. If the 4E DMG stated "these rules do not assume the use of miniatures", would that counteract the fact that many of the rules rely on specific placement and positioning?

At best we can say the OD&D rules were contradictory, because though they claimed not to assume the use of minis, many rules were in fact written in direct reference to minis.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 18, 2009)

Menexenus said:


> I hope you'll think about it, Erik. (You might be surprised how good it actually feels to give someone a sincere apology. I know I have been!)




I have thought about it, I thought about it at the time, and I'm still thinking about it.

I do not apologize.

James made some terribly misinformed comments about the state of the industry, and in doing so literally said Paizo's pricing of one PDF was putting the nail in the coffin of the industry, and he was attempting to coin a phrase that put the onus of his own difficulties in a challenging industry on my company.

Which was BS, and I called it BS.

I can appreciate that you'd have preferred a more even-keeled response, and to that all I can point to are the thousands of words of passionless factual commentary I've posted on this issue over the course of the last week.

--Erik


----------



## Treebore (Jul 18, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> James made some terribly misinformed comments about the state of the industry, and in doing so literally said Paizo's pricing of one PDF was putting the nail in the coffin of the industry, and he was attempting to coin a phrase that put the onus of his own difficulties in a challenging industry on my company.
> 
> --Erik





Ah! I haven't been following most of this... discussion, however I did read the beginning and didn't get why you were upset, but this definitely clarifies it. Yes, James can lament and try and blame, but the saying "survival of the fittest" is alive and well in the world of business and failure to adapt and thrive will still lead any company to extinction.

So to blame other companies for the failure of the other companies in a given "market" is just avoiding responsibility for their own failure to successfully adapt and prosper. People do hate to look in their own mirrors to see who is ultimately responsible for their own success or failure.

So I doubt you can avoid such blame, Erik. People tend to point the finger of blame everywhere but where it belongs.

James has awesome content, but his business plan has been turning into a dismal failure, and I can only assume he isn't able to acknowledge his own mistakes. When your a business, and you fail again and again to deliver on promises, you fail as a business. That is completely in James' own lap.


----------



## Dilandau Kale (Jul 18, 2009)

Not really sure how the King of Snark comment came about since from what I've seen of this thread Skarka hasn't really been all that snarky he has asked that questions be answered (Which I notice still haven't been) and he has provided evidence that proves that some of the things that Mischler said were wrong. So to me it seem like he is trying to avoid the subject.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 18, 2009)

rounser said:


> This has been soundly refuted in other threads.  OD&D didn't assume the use of miniatures, most didn't use them, and even said it didn't in the text.  It offered little tactical options, and had swift combat resolution.  4E is the odd man out here, much as wishful thinking and assumption would have it otherwise.




I agree that this is true about 1e previous editions.  During the latter half of 2e(Combat and Tactics), the books all specified the effects of abilities based on where you were standing on a grid compared to your enemies.  There was increasing complexity in combat based on the kind of weapon you were using, the action you were taking, and what abilities you took with your proficiencies.

When we were playing 1e, we put the minis on a board, but they were mostly there for visualizing distance and position.  Which we only used to figure out if we could move up to an enemy in one round or two..and if the magic missile was in range.  But we also used it to determine if we were "behind" a creature in order to get the bonuses.  It was much easier than keeping track of things in our head and the books recommended it.

However, we were all bored of having so few options.  Tired of having the game be an exercise in rolling attack and damage rolls.  We happily accepted Combat and Tactics when it came out.

When 3e came out, the entire rulebook had information on position on a battle mat.  Nearly every power talked about how close you needed to be to someone in tactical distances.  Creatures had abilities like cones and bursts that were defined by the squares they took up on a battle map.  Creatures were defined by the squares they took up.  All abilities from the ground up assumed the use of a battle map.  Of course, distances were listed in real world units to avoid converting back and forth and for legacy purposes.  Powers were explained in plain english to avoid confusing people.

And, by everything you've said and other people have said, this was the biggest edition of D&D ever.

But what they learned from 3e was that, since everyone was using a battle map anyways, we were doing MORE converting by constantly converting distances into squares and squares back to distances.  They also learned that when you list abilities in plain english it causes MORE arguments due to misunderstanding of the language(something they learned from the early days of MTG as well).  So, they fixed these two issues.

Other than that...4e isn't a major departure or "odd man out".  It's just another step in the inevitable shift towards the way most people were playing the game.

I also keep seeing the phrase "it is proven and agreed that most people did not use minis".  I disagree that this has been proven or agreed.  I saw a survey done with some gamers that showed the majority of them DID use minis which keeps being thrown around with the statement, "Yeah, but the way the question was asked means the answer is most likely wrong."


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 19, 2009)

When he insists that based on his "15 years of working in the game industry" he knows not just that the world is in an "economic depression", and not just that we are in a "Greater Depression" but that he literally projects the future of the entire world economy for decades to come...I dismissed what he had to say entirely.  And I think that's a fair position for me to take.  If he is going to speak with such firm authority on a topic he clearly has no background in whatsoever, then I feel it is safe to assume his comments about the industry he is in might well be just as unfounded.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jul 19, 2009)

Nah, nevermind...


----------



## stuart (Jul 19, 2009)

An interesting historical quote on minis + early D&D...

From a column by Gary Gygax in _The Dragon_ #15 (June 1978):
For about two years D&D was played without benefit of any visual aids by the majority of enthusiasts. They held literally that it was a paper and pencil game, and if some particular situation arose which demanded more than verbalization, they would draw or place dice as tokens in order to picture the conditions. In 1976 a movement began among D&Ders to portray characters with actual miniature figurines.​Now, before anyone thinks I'm a minis hater... do a quick Google search for "making miniatures for D&D" 

Minis are lots of fun, but they do change the style of game you're playing quite a bit. D&D has been played both with and without minis from basically the very beginning -- so it's no surprise that people _still_ like playing it both with and without minis.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 19, 2009)

Charging $29.95 for a PDF that is not even a set of rules is a pipe dream. Most PDFs are probably five times too expensive. As a result, the market is sluggish and an audience has yet to appear, because they are not being dealt with fairly. PDFs are electrons, and it's not the buyer's fault your PDF sales do not do enough volume. 

The criticism in the article not only fails to grasp the future, it misses the present by a mile. PDF sales are not direct competition to print sales, as has been demonstrated time and again. PDFs cost too much. The market has never developed because publishers treat buyers disrespectfully. If publishers can get down a reasonable pricing point, the audience grows, which helps drive future sales. Currently, PDF sales tend to be in the hundreds, maybe the thousands, and that's where the problem is. Solve that problem, and you solve not only the production cost problem but the PDF pricing "problem."

Show me a lineup of $5 RPGs, and I'll show you an evergreen future with a great profit margin. I'd buy one of those every month!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 19, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Mishler is known in the industry, even if many fans don't know him by name.  He's a member of the "cabal", my code word for the game designers who made the "secret mailing list".  So I doubt this was any sort of deliberate trolling--he was simply answering somebody's honest questions and he got
> 
> As far as GURPS goes, I'm a fan, but I'm not sure GURPS is as healthy as it once was.  I remember when they were releasing 6-8 supplements a year or so and the amount of stuff coming out has really dwindled over this decade.  I think they were the victim of the d20 glut--as more d20 games got popular they suffered.   I'm disapppointed because I loved GURPS, but wish they'd make more supplements.




GURPS is a victim of SJG success of it's other children, in particular Munchkin.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jul 21, 2009)

rounser said:


> A member of Gygax's group from back in the day has contradicted your interpretation.




Gygax lies, misinterprets, and obfuscates a LOT.

For example, the original creation of the Owlbear, Bulette, and Rust Monster, three of the most classic and original monsters ever created in OD&D, were in fact inspired by MINIS USED IN GARYS GAMES.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The owlbear is among the earliest monsters in _Dungeons & Dragons_ and like the bulette and the rust monster, was inspired by a Hong Kong-made plastic toy purchased by Gary Gygax for use as miniature in a _Chainmail_ game.[1]




To act as if D&D was ever a 100% non-miniature intended game is an exercise in futility.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 21, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> To act as if D&D was ever a 100% non-miniature intended game is an exercise in futility.




My 2e PHB states that miniatures are 100% optional, and that, at best, they should only be used in specific conditions to make combat positioning easier.  Furthermore, it states that only the DM should have a battlemap, and that the players should not ever see them.  Lastly, it recommends that, if you do use miniatures, you can use just about anything as a token, not just an official miniature.

But I guess I'm just gving an exercise in futility


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jul 21, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> My 2e PHB states that miniatures are 100% optional, and that, at best, they should only be used in specific conditions to make combat positioning easier.  Furthermore, it states that only the DM should have a battlemap, and that the players should not ever see them.




A single iteration of a game that has more than 5 individual designs (OD&D, AD&D 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E) is statistical noise, for one. 

And even considering 2E to be the One True Game doesn't preclude my claim that miniatures are integrated into the elemental game-play of the system in regards to combat positioning.  Because the combat system as-built uses singular "spaces" of representative figures only acting during a set "initiative order".  This is a miniature-based combat system, whether or not you actually use miniatures.



> Lastly, it recommends that, if you do use miniatures, you can use just about anything as a token, not just an official miniature.




Semantic arguments are wastes of time and an immature debating tactic.  "Tokens" are miniatures by any other name.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 21, 2009)

Well, it seems this thread has progressed to the point of calling dead men liars.  Isn't that special.  

You know, the guy probably wasn't a saint.  He probably told a fib here or there in his life.  But how utterly classless are we willing to be to score a point in an internet discussion?  Talk about defenseless targets.

There's a bunch of other sub-standard arguing methods going on here, too.  So, folks, here's the deal.  Agree to disagree.  Agree that maybe your point is subject to interpretation.  Whatever - just treat people with a modicum of respect.  'Cause if you have to be a jerk to make your point, really, your point isn't strong enough to make.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 21, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> Gygax lies, misinterprets, and obfuscates a LOT.





You are the first person to ever, on any message board, give me reason to put them on the ignore list.


----------

