Nebraska Dave News and Reviews

There is another thread about Ken Hite and Robin Laws comments that D&D is good for the hobby. Evidently that was in response to "Posted as a catch-all rebuttal to the grumpy hubris expressed in some of the replies" in this post. Because Hite and Robin must know more about the industry business and market than other people.

I'm starting another thread because I would like to talk about this a little more systematically than in those other threads. But caveat; I don't have hard quantitative data to use here. And I have extreme doubts about most data I have seen anyway.

First about me

I'm not Ken Hite, who is prolific and awesome. I am an indie publisher though. My company is called Sons of The Singularity and we published a GUMSHOE/ CoC campaign and a Campaign for The Lore System and compatible with 5e. I have gone to GAMA. I believe that unlike Hite, I also do have a background in marketing and an MBA degree. My business partner is an IP lawyer. I also mod /r/RPGdesign for the last 4 years. So yeah… I don't have the depth of experience of some people But I think think I have enough experience and skills to give a valid opinion.

Subjective Observations

35 years ago, people were trying all sorts of games. D&D was the most popular, but many other games were played by different groups. It was common to go to a FLGS and discover new games.

Today, many groups of younger (20-30 y/o) players I encounter only play 1 game, and that game is usually WotC D&D 3.5, D&D 5.0 or Pathfinder. There seems to be less willingness to try new things. This observation is based on in-person groups I have met in Southern California, and while living abroad in China and in Japan.

It seems that there are much fewer FLGS, just as there are much fewer book stores nowadays. Furthermore, I have met many people that prefer to play online, which means that they have more interface separation between players.

It seems clear to me that non-Americans often try a larger variety of games in their native languages.

Many people say there is a trend for TRPGs to gain mainstream acceptance. I have not seen this trend but I will take people's word on it. It appears to me that many people are noticing that TRPGs is actually a cool thing that nerds do and take interest in it as such, but that does not mean it has lasting mainstream acceptance.

Speculation and Analysis.

The "System Investment" Argument

A former mod of /r/RPGdesign hates D&D. His reasoning was as follows: If it's your first game, you think all RPGs are just like D&D. D&D requires continuous system learning as one progresses, and there are "wrong" character build choices. Therefore, as a character levels up, the game changes, requiring more learning. This is not a bad thing if that's what you like to play. But it requires a time investment. And if you switch to another game, it requires a lot more time investment, assuming that other game is just like D&D.

Furthermore, D&D is structured into multiple books, requiring multiple purchases. This is a money investment issue.

The argument goes that if one thinks all TRPGs are like D&D, then one thinks all RPGs require large time and money investment just to play.

I counter this argument; “Yeah, but when I was younger I saw that other games were different. Why wouldn’t other people see the difference today?” The counter-rebuttal to this is related to market changes and player base changes.

Player Base Changes

New players are used to more packaged products, with less game-style experimentation, and less exposure to other games.

In the past, in the 80s, we all came into the hobby as taught by someone in our community or we figured it out ourselves when the box set landed in our lap and we realized we have to recruit others to play it. Invariably, we all encountered different play styles, all of which developed organically and in relative isolation.

Now new players have celebrity youtube channels to learn from, and as it comes from popular media, it impacts people’s perception on how the game should be played. Instead of developing unique play styles in isolation, people watch a video to learn and often try to mimic a style.

Now, players who learn the game at FLGS often learn as part of “Adverturer’s League”, WotC published scenarios where in modules are rather rail-roady, combat oriented, emphasis on battle-maps, and structured around 3 hour time slot. In short, the game comes in a more game-y format. Which is fine. Good even IMO. But there isn’t the uncertainty of figuring out a play style or alternate use pattern.

A little off track here in this paragraph. Anyone remember Season 6 Community, when the library gang plays D&D and Abed gives his “I’m the Dungeon Master. I don’t have to do anything for you.” spiel? That was a traditional (probably autistic) DM experience. When challenged by a player – “Hey what if I just start walking south? What happens if I don’t follow your path? Haha” – Abed pulls out his filled 3-ring binder which has notes on the material composition of bridges. No problem. Go south. Well… that’s sand-box play. Or one way of doing it anyway. Dan Harmon was making commentary about the hobby with that scene. . How to run that sandbox and how to play it developed organically. Some people liked playing only in this style. People learned how to play sandbox, on their own, without the internet or guides to teach them. And they found different systems handle this better. Well… many (not all of course) newer players don’t get that the game can be played in this way if they stick with the Adventurers League games. I’ve also met people that don’t understand that battles can be run in the theater of the mind.

In America, FLGS are generally struggling (well… like all brick and mortar businesses) and generally don’t make money on RPGs. So when they do promote RPGs, they promote the most packaged, productized RPG thy can. Which can also help them up-sell miniatures. Therefore, players come to the hobby with narrower game experiences, with less diverse selection of games, at fewer and fewer game stores.

The other difference that doesn’t really need to be said is that there are a lot more, great alternatives to TRPGs today than there were 35 years ago. For many, video games do some core functions of many TRPGs better than TRPGs. This limits the mind-share that people will dedicate to the hobby.

Market Consolidation

The market has consolidated, making it much more difficult for new and independent developers unless said developers have high capitalization.

Now, D&D is mostly consolidated onto two markets – The DM’s Guild and Amazon. On the DM’s guild, WotC has complete control. You publish there, you can keep the rights to your IP, but you have given WotC exclusive rights to publish it. It’s virtually impossible to publish explicitly D&D compatible content independently now. So you make content for WotC, or you make content that few will see.

Now, of course brand and celebrity count for a lot. Ken Hite and Robin Laws and Sandy Peterson and Monte Cook, etc… they can sell in many different places because they have gotten a brand name over time. They can make a pretty penny and sell 2000 -5000 books after a Kickstarter, and put $100K in their pocket. But that’s a small part of the RPG hobby. And that is not being brought up by new D&D players.

The brand power counts for a lot in other areas. GenCon is sort of like an “old boys network” from a new publishers viewpoint. Except for Mothership, the Enies gave most awards to Chaosium Repeat and older exhibitors get large discounts on booth registration. 3 years ago there was a new developers row on the main hall (and it was clearly labeled as such, to promote new entrants). Where did that go?

OGL Sham and Legal Stuff

Another point about consolidation. Every single week there is at least one post on r/RPGdesign asking if it’s ok to have a stat blocks without the WotC’s OGL sham. Or if they use a d20 + mod system will they get in trouble unless they attach an OGL. WotC has convinced people that they need a license to make something in order to get permissions which WotC does not have the right to give. On other forums, when someone makes a new setting for a game, it’s called a “home-brew” or a “hack”, not a new game.

I cannot believe that this does not have a negative influence on the RPG hobby. WotC has convinced people that, essentially, they own some “code” that is integral to most RPGs.

On top of this, it is very easy for anyone to claim they have control over an IP to issue forth a take down notice to Kickstarter or DTRPG, even if there were no violations of copyrights or trademarks. Kickstarter, Amazon, and DTRPG will always side with the larger IP holder; their policies are designed this way.

Conclusion

It may be that what Ken Hite and Robin Laws say in their blog is right; rising tide raises all ships and all that. But there are structural changes to both the market, the legal environment, and the player usage patterns which put big limits on where our hobby is going.