Came across this blog post on Roll for Initiative today bemoaning the current state of the RPG world.
Have to say that I agree more than disagree. Too many games, often with very similar systems- none of which are really supported.
And thus there's little reason to buy into them. I already own such systems as BRP, HERO, and so on. And I can adapt them as easily to a setting as any designer, and do so to my own taste and not theirs.
And even better- I can continue to make adventures and expansions for them. Something the game companies no longer do.
As a result, to catch one's interest a RPG publisher would have to offer something new- but they don't. Instead they give us Fudge yet again or maybe yet another version of D20. And we yawn. And we keep our money.
The disagree part?
Small things. I think the OGL made much of the fragmented market possible and removed the entire OSR crowd from the hobby along the way.
I also think the Edition wars matter, be they for D&D or HERO System. Someone sticking with a edition abandoned by its publisher no longer needs anything from the publisher. The result is a publisher who has lost not only one of their best customers, but one of their best salesman as a result.
I doubt the hobby will recover, until it near dies. Shouldn't be long now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
I heard that in 1985.
Patience.
It takes time for stuff to die off. Horses are still around for example even after the car took their place.But only a fool would call them the transport of choice for the typical person seeking to travel.
There will always be rpgs, but it's clear to anyone who's willing to look that under the current conditions they're fading.
Gleichman, thanks for the hat tip. My thinking on the OSR and the D&D edition wars is as follows. In the former case, the OSR guys have pretty much always been a lost market share for the industry. They have no real interest in whatever innovation may come along in game design. There really isn't anything game publishers can offer them, so why bother trying to attract them.
In the case of WotC vs. Paizo, I honestly don't think these two companies are doing much to harm each other or the industry. Paizo is taking over the mantle once owned by TSR, the premiere tabletop rpg publisher, while WotC is quickly becoming something else. With the deep pockets of Hasbro behind them, tabletop rpgs are becoming an afterthought in their business plan. However, they can afford to experiment with new ideas which may not work out for them, but may be more successful for smaller publishers a few years down the road. I'm thinking particularly about D&D Insider. DDI has had its problems, but I don't doubt that other publishers are watching closely to see what they can learn from it.
Well as I said, Rognar there are points where we disagree.
The OSR guys weren't a lost market until 4th edition. Now they're not just a lost market, they're also just plain lost.
4th edition wouldn't have happened as it did if WotC hadn't thrown away their IP with the OGL.
Paizo wouldn't exist if not for that mistake with the OGL, and it exists only only because it's the biggest vulture on D&D's decaying body.
DDI and the like is too expensive for a shrinking hobby. It will fail and no one else will pick up the concept for a decade or more.
Check back in 2021, we'll see who between us was right.
I think I agree.
I think the OGL thing was a step in the right direction, but was perhaps a bit TOO open. Ideally, I think I'd like to see the various rules engines be something anyone could "license" for a nominal fee (or some other control to keep the quality level at some minimal level), and keep the IPs as a separate layer.
As it stands, there are too many systems with not enough differences between them. I haven't seen really any innovation in rule designs in a long time, and when rules and IP are inseparably connected, you get a lot of noise.
Of course, you could argue that the reason we are in this mess in the first place is because gamers have different tastes, and there isn't a one-size (or few-sizes) fits all rule set. But when I compare GURPS and, say, Warmachine... at the basic level, they seem to follow the same basic rules at their core. Its just the fluff around them.
Indeed. Similar systems, all with little to no support.
Due to Print on Demand, we have access to a huge number of games. But they differ only in fluff. And even the fluff isn't supported or extended.
Imperator may wish to say this all reminds him of 1985, but I've lived through the entire history of RPGs and frankly 1985 was one of the best periods- whoever was feeding him a line about the rpg dying was in any practical measure lying- or only speaking of D&D which was under serious pressure at the time.
The hobby has never seen the pressures it has today, pressures that will keep things small, unsupported, and uninteresting.
Well, as you said we'll see in a few years. But frankly, these days we have the biggest amount of games available, most medium for publish and communicate our ideas than ever, more gamers, more stores, PbP, play through Skype... I can't see how 1985 was better barring nostalgia.
A simple count of games tells you nothing, other than Print on Demand allows anyone to put something out that at little to no start up cost.
Heck, I could publish a RPG tonight if I wanted to.
People might even buy a dozen copies. One person might even play it.
But it would have no support, it would have no market. And it will disappear from today's limited attention spans almost immediately.
That is the nature of your 'golden age'.
Meanwhile the 80s produced game lines with such a wealth of support that I was never able to play all the adventures they offered as published modules let along all the ones inspired by what they offered me.
That was a real Golden Age.
Something serious will have to happen before we see it again.
"More stores" definitely does not describe the situation in the Boston area at present.
I bet more people play World of Warcraft than all tabletop games combined now.
Post a Comment