Report To The Stakeholders

[philosophyguy]

Originally Posted by Tom H.

I also wanted to suggest my personal spending priorities for GURPS.

I prefer lots of aids that are more directly related to me playing and running actual games.

GURPS is amazing in the ability to refine the rules in detail, but those supplements detract me from getting to the playing which is already somewhat deferred due to the inherent nature of RPG's versus say card games.

This is a great point that deserves emphasis. To a zeroth approximation, more players and more playing time drive more purchases from the GURPS line.

I have a hard time imagining someone who would say, "I'd like to play GURPS, but I won't until they write rules for [X]." By contrast, lots of the new GURPS releases are great for existing players/GMs but won't appeal to folks who haven't already invested in GURPS.

I'd love to see more products that are designed to get people playing: quick start guides, pre-built characters, adventures and encounters, GURPS applied to settings. No one product may have a huge base, but when there's a critical mass of these products then it's easier to sit down and play GURPS--whether it's a new session or a brand new group of gamers. That grows the audience for the huge catalog of GURPS products that exist right now.

[Randyman]

Originally Posted by philosophyguy

This is a great point that deserves emphasis. To a zeroth approximation, more players and more playing time drive more purchases from the GURPS line.

I have a hard time imagining someone who would say, "I'd like to play GURPS, but I won't until they write rules for [X]." By contrast, lots of the new GURPS releases are great for existing players/GMs but won't appeal to folks who haven't already invested in GURPS.

I'd love to see more products that are designed to get people playing: quick start guides, pre-built characters, adventures and encounters, GURPS applied to settings. No one product may have a huge base, but when there's a critical mass of these products then it's easier to sit down and play GURPS--whether it's a new session or a brand new group of gamers. That grows the audience for the huge catalog of GURPS products that exist right now.

This is the classic dichotomy for a long-standing, niche market product line. What will be best for the product line and the company: new product targeting the existing customer base, or new product targeting a potential new customer base? Which has the more preferable risk/return ratio? Which will fragment the total customer base the least (that is, which will have higher sales numbers overall)?

The short-term answer is invariably "new product for existing customers". The long-term answer is seldom as clear cut. But any targeting of new customers is higher in risk, both in terms of failing to bring in the new customer base and in terms of the existing customer base not buying those products.* This means that any "new customer targeted" product requires specific investment into the product that may not yield return in the same timeframe as "existing customer targeted" product would.

Note that the above is generic. Specifics for SJG and GURPS are unknown to me, and none of my business anyway.


*D&D 4e is a good gaming industry case study for an almost worst-case outcome of the risk not yielding the reward. WotC intentionally pursued MMO gamers as the target group for expanding the customer base of D&D, failed to gain any appreciable number of that target group (for a variety of reasons, some not under their control), and not only lost a significant portion of their existing customer base but lost those customers to a rival whose existence WotC had enabled.

[Tom H.]

Originally Posted by philosophyguy

I'd love to see more products that are designed to get people playing: quick start guides, pre-built characters, adventures and encounters, GURPS applied to settings. No one product may have a huge base, but when there's a critical mass of these products then it's easier to sit down and play GURPS--whether it's a new session or a brand new group of gamers.

I really agree with your critical mass comment.

Contrary to insider opinion, GURPS adventures should be the game's real strength and asset instead of a marketing liability. Based on one set of rules, there is an opportunity to capture the market of so many genres that are currently dedicated to their own rule set and brand.

I know the refrain about the marketing numbers for old adventures. It may be true. However, some of the 3rd edition adventures I purchased didn't seem to have the enthusiasm and quality of say an iconic D&D introductory adventure.

The only real issues I see as to GURPS's long-term success could be the current accumulated stigma of the game (OwlCon 2016 currently has no GURPS events for example) as well as the vision to take risks by trying things that just aren't feasible for a business dammit ;-)

(Again, it's easy for me to say not having to be financially responsible for those risks.)

It's all good; I still enjoy the thought of preparing my GURPS worlds for the day when I stop playing convenient D&D adventures with my nephews ;-)


P.S.
If I'm inappropriately clogging up this forum with off-subject content, just let me know, and I'll switch to the recommended place.

[Tom H.]

Originally Posted by Randyman

This is the classic dichotomy for a long-standing, niche market product line.

The problem with dichotomies is that there may be a Hegelian solution to them for a clever marketer.

Could WotC have chosen to retain “Pathfinder” in-house as well as experimenting with a Fourth Edition?

Is the RPG market pie always a fixed size where expansion risks fragmentation?

I think the real reason for failure of a product line is more aligned with the intimidating complexity of assuring that the right attention is given to all the many significant variables of which the shortcoming of any unsuspecting particular one may turn off a sensitive public.

In my opinion, D&D third edition needed to be simplified. Now, there are a thousand ways to approach simplicity. The 4th Edition attempt may have addressed some of the wrong aspects. But 5th Edition didn’t give up trying to determine which were the correct aspects.

[RogerBW]

An idea that has occurred to me a few times: GURPS adventures in the style of an indie RPG. No wait, don't laugh…

It is received wisdom that GURPS adventures don't sell because only a small proportion of GURPS players are in campaigns where those adventures will fit. A dungeon bash can be crowbarred in to most dungeon-bash campaigns; a Transhuman Space adventure only sells to GMs running games in that setting.

So consider: a GURPS product that contains an adventure with basic world background, and either pre-gen characters or enough templates that you can whip up a party in a few minutes. The only other material you need is the Basic Set, or maybe even GURPS Lite. The adventure lasts a session, or two, or three, and that's it.

I will readily admit that this is inspired by my experience demonstrating GURPS as a Man in Black: I hand out character sheets (skipping over the complexities of character generation), say "roll 3d6, low is good", then we're off into the adventure. And players love it.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

An idea that has occurred to me a few times: GURPS adventures in the style of an indie RPG. No wait, don't laugh…

It is received wisdom that GURPS adventures don't sell because only a small proportion of GURPS players are in campaigns where those adventures will fit. A dungeon bash can be crowbarred in to most dungeon-bash campaigns; a Transhuman Space adventure only sells to GMs running games in that setting.

So consider: a GURPS product that contains an adventure with basic world background, and either pre-gen characters or enough templates that you can whip up a party in a few minutes. The only other material you need is the Basic Set, or maybe even GURPS Lite. The adventure lasts a session, or two, or three, and that's it.

I will readily admit that this is inspired by my experience demonstrating GURPS as a Man in Black: I hand out character sheets (skipping over the complexities of character generation), say "roll 3d6, low is good", then we're off into the adventure. And players love it.

I will second this approach. This is what I've been doing day 1 since becoming an MIB. You hide GURPS complexity and let the gameplay make the mechanics shine - and it does. The only thing I foresee as a problem is that adventures just don't seem to interest GURPS GMs - these are the numbers - both from what I've heard/seen on w23 and what I've glimpsed through my blog. I've put out three adventures/settings so far and the reception is lukewarm at best. It could be that GURPS GMs don't want to pay for adventures, but I don't know. People cry out for them, but they don't want them. It's very confusing. It's why no one bothers to write adventures - they just don't sell. The only way that changes is if someone is brave enough to put out an adventure and then people buy it like crazy - buy it even if you can't use it because that's the only way to set the precedent that their is a demand for adventures.

TL;DR - go buy one of the standalone adventures from w23 and spike the market. That may generate interest. May.

[Randyman]

Originally Posted by Tom H.

The problem with dichotomies is that there may be a Hegelian solution to them for a clever marketer.

Or not. Hegelian solutions do not always exist, and the underlying philosophy is by no means a magic solution.

Originally Posted by Tom H.

Could WotC have chosen to retain “Pathfinder” in-house as well as experimenting with a Fourth Edition?

No. Pathfinder was never in-house, and not even the 800 lb. gorilla of the RPG market can or will support two successive editions simultaneously. 4e was as much "we need an new edition to revitalize sales" as it was "we need a new direction to capture MMO gamers"; that is, it was both-and.

Originally Posted by Tom H.

Is the RPG market pie always a fixed size where expansion risks fragmentation?

Ideally, no. Empirically? All evidence suggests that, at the very least, RPGs are of appeal to a limited customer base in the current cultural context vis-a-vis recreational activities. Expanding that customer base is a significant challenge. "Stealing sheep" from other RPGs is a lesser one, but still risky from a product management standpoint, which also perpetuates the "denominational" fragmentation of the customer base.

Originally Posted by Tom H.

I think the real reason for failure of a product line is more aligned with the intimidating complexity of assuring that the right attention is given to all the many significant variables of which the shortcoming of any unsuspecting particular one may turn off a sensitive public.

There are, IMO, far more factors in the failure of a product line than you've addressed. Note that I do not consider D&D 4e as a singular, failed product line in this context; I consider it a less successful direction for the D&D product line than its predecessors.

Originally Posted by Tom H.

In my opinion, D&D third edition needed to be simplified. Now, there are a thousand ways to approach simplicity. The 4th Edition attempt may have addressed some of the wrong aspects. But 5th Edition didn’t give up trying to determine which were the correct aspects.

Yes, the right combination of complexity and playability remains a work in progress for D&D, as well as all other RPGs. This is one factor in the limited appeal of RPGs in today's recreational context relative to other forms of games, as noted above. The perceived difficulty of entry into a PnP RPG (for at least one participant, the GM) is in fact a barrier to entry, especially when there are other forms of games (physical and digital) that are far more easily accessible. Hence the empirically identified popularity of card games, dice games, and board games, as demonstrated by actual sales numbers and the resultant product decisions.

[Tom H.]

Originally Posted by Randyman

No. Pathfinder was never in-house, and not even the 800 lb. gorilla of the RPG market can or will support two successive editions simultaneously. 4e was as much "we need an new edition to revitalize sales" as it was "we need a new direction to capture MMO gamers"; that is, it was both-and.

I meant that if WotC kept supporting 3.5 D&D, then (as far as I know) there would not have been the strong need for Paizo to produce Pathfinder (WotC already had "Pathfinder".)

Now, I don't know about profits, but the RPG market did in fact purchase Pathfinder, D&D Fourth Edition, and then Fifth Edition simultaneously.

[Randyman]

Originally Posted by Tom H.

I meant that if WotC kept supporting 3.5 D&D, then (as far as I know) there would not have been the strong need for Paizo to produce Pathfinder (WotC already had "Pathfinder".)

Now, I don't know about profits, but the RPG market did in fact purchase Pathfinder, D&D Fourth Edition, and then Fifth Edition simultaneously.

Again, no publisher supports two (or more) successive editions of a game simultaneously, in spite of the inevitable "Edition Wars" that accompany the publication of a new edition. To do so would undercut the financial motivation* for publishing a new edition due to A. the division of resources between the separate editions and B. the provision of a familiar alternative (the older edition) to fans, undercutting sales of the newer.

What was unique in the case of D&D 4e was the existence of the OGL, which enabled Paizo to create Pathfinder as what some fans called "D&D 3.75", that is, a further development of D&D 3.5. This action by Paizo was a "Black Swan" event that could not have been reasonably anticipated by WotC. Thus they had no incentive to "keep supporting D&D 3.5", and every incentive, as outlined in the previous paragraph, to move fully into 4e.


*There is often also a creative motivation for a new edition, whether to explore a new idea or to implement lessons learned during the lifetime of the previous edition(s). Both the creative and the financial motivations are usually discernible in any new RPG edition.

[Tom H.]

Originally Posted by Randyman

Again, no publisher supports two (or more) successive editions of a game simultaneously, in spite of the inevitable "Edition Wars" that accompany the publication of a new edition. To do so would undercut the financial motivation* for publishing a new edition due to A. the division of resources between the separate editions and B. the provision of a familiar alternative (the older edition) to fans, undercutting sales of the newer.

It also occurred to me that in addition to the simultaneous marketing of Pathfinder and D&D 4th edition, WotC further flooded the market with the core books of the first three editions of D&D.

I think it's interesting to note what the market may bear in spite of conventional wisdom.

If one company had provided all the diversity, then they would reap all the profits.

Granted that company would have had to increase resources between products, but they would still own all the market share.

Another interesting observation is that this "Black Swan" event demonstrated the customers' desire for the older edition as well as the new. Without the OGL, a negative feature of the standard transition to a new edition would have been WotC ability to coerce the market into adopting what was more beneficial for their labor cost instead of the customers' needs.

So the best case financial scenario for WotC would have been to get everyone into D&D 4th edition. The second best case would have been for WotC to have supported both 3.5 and 4th (or 5th) editions in house. The worst case scenario for WotC (of these three) was for Paizo to steal their business with Pathfinder while WotC created a "correction" edition.

I know case two isn't a conventional goal for a company, but it's preferable to case three.

And in other types of products, there is a well established pattern of a company "competing" against itself. Next time at the store, just check how few companies really own all the different brands of shampoo for example.