[Gen Con 2008] Post-Mortem

[tonyd]

I can provide a newbie perspective here. I hope it's helpful.

Having the Forge Booth infrastructure in place meant that I could go to Gen Con (something I've wanted to do literally since I was a kid) and it gave me a goal to help me develop my game. The booth is living up to its goal of providing a point of entry for new designers. If I'm going to have to get creative to find a place for myself at Gen Con in the next 2-5 years, I feel like I can take on that challenge thanks to the experience and connections I'm building here.

The Forge Booth felt like it had the right balance of business and pleasure; like we were all having fun, but it was serious fun. I think that the Ashcan Front and Play Collective sometimes had a bit of a socializing traffic jam in front of their tables.

I could have used some kind of survival guide posted as far back as January with tips like "we all stay at the Embassy Suites" and "don't register for Gen Con on your own if you're buying in".

There were times when I couldn't find anyone to demo my game too. At those time the ropers and Forge veterans came to my aid. Most of the time I barely had to get up from my seat between demos. My game sold well, and I attribute this success directly to being able to demo it as much as I wanted. The collective spirit is alive and well in the booth. Also, getting demos from the other designers meant I was able to pitch their games when they were away from the booth.

[Jonathan Walton]

I had to cancel last minute for GenCon this year, so take my comments with a spoonful of salt but...

Honestly, I think a diverse plethora of small booths are a great future for indie games at conventions like GenCon.  6-8 designers at a booth, and having booths whose composition changes every year: this is a great way to increase the inter-designer connections within the community.  Honestly, despite the Forge booth's mandate, I don't think it's a bad model for first time designers either, as long as the other folks at a booth are more experienced.  Elizabeth Shoemaker seemed to do just fine at the Play Collective.  Contrasting Anna's worry about geographical cliques, the Design Matters booth was composed of people from NY, NJ, Boston, and the UK, and we would have been glad, I think, to have taken people from anywhere as long as their games and approach to sales fit what Kevin & Nathan were trying to put together.

As for priority points, I think there are three approaches: 1) seeing individual booths as fluid things, so they collect points but aren't really firmly attached to a group of designers, 2) fuck 'em, who cares? pitching out a bit of extra dough didn't seem to hurt Design Matters that much this year, 3) once we can prove that a different model is successful, lobby GenCon for a more reasonable approach to incentives.

Honestly, even if I wasn't moving to a non-commercial model of distribution (more on that below), I find it REALLY difficult to imagine why any designer who was going to be at GenCon, releasing a major new product, would prefer to be at IPR instead of independent at a 6-8 person booth. IPR has so many other products to present that it's hard to give anything, especially a major new release, the attention that a separate booth can.  Perhaps it would make more sense for games that are selling in the 15-25 copies range, of which there are still a bunch, but if you're expecting (from experience) to move 30+ copies, it seems like getting your own booth is the way to go.  IPR definitely still needs to be there, but I worry that looking for the next SOTC or Dogs to finance con visits is going to distort IPR's convention priorities, in the way that IPR's retail priorities also seemed stacked towards titles that move a ton of copies.

As for testing the non-commercial waters for the first time this year, I moved 50+ copies of the beta edition of Geiger Counter (I don't know how many Nathan had left) by giving it away for free when people purchased products from the Design Matters booth.  I bought in a half-share in Design Matters to do that and, though I'm really bummed that I couldn't go, I consider that a unqualified success for distribution.  Play wise, I'll have to wait and see.  I'm not sure what kind of distribution the other ashcans there had or what they were aiming for.  By piggy-backing on booth sales, my intent was to get these games in the hands of folks who were already playing and buying "alt roleplaying" products, instead of counting on them stopping by the Ashcan Front in addition to the other indie game booths.

Can anybody here speak to Game on Demand and how well that integrated with sales / play of the small press games from our little series of booths?  Were people grabbing tables to play D&D?  Did people try out games and then come back and buy them?  We've talked a bit about demos not translating into sales, but did full-on play translate into sales? Because that's more what the Design Matters folks were hoping for, I think.

[Judd]

It feels like we have this discussion about demo's leading directly to sales every year.  I'm not sure it shakes out that way.

Demo's add to the vibe of the booth, make it a place people want to walk over to, making the booth a destination, a fun place to be.  Sometimes people go away without the game and come back later when you aren't around or tell their friend about it or look up the game next week online.  Don't sweat the immediate sale, just sweat getting the game across and having a good time playing it.

[Jason Morningstar]

OK, we have a direct counter-example to the demo-to-sale model at Design Matters this year.  Can you guys speak to how your approach did and/or did not work?  I'm so indoctrinated into the demo model that I was really skeptical when you announced you wouldn't be running tables, but you obviously did very well.  How?  And what did you learn in the process?

[Darcy Burgess]

I'll just throw this out there so that it's been asked.  It may sound like insanity (I kind of think it does!), but maybe there's something to be mined from it:

1) Do we need GenCon?

2) If we do need GenCon, do we need the exhibitor's hall?

D

[Ron Edwards]

Jason, I think the issue about demos is very booth-specific. The Design Matters booth was composed of people who are all well-known among a strong well-paying subset of the GenCon purchasers, i.e., you and me and the rest of the independent-nuts crowd. That was its target market.

When I talk about the efficacy of demos, I'm always focused on the real target market of the Forge booth, which is not the familiar-with-it crowd. It's the people who walk by who have no idea about independent publishing and almost no idea about the possible diversity of design for role-playing. Those are the folks who get into the demos and go, "Boink! What the hell is this? This is really good! What, there are more of these?" The ones who turn the hairy eyeball onto their rather-frightened significant other and insist that they buy Bacchanal or The Roach or whatever.

But that's the Forge booth's target; for other booths, it doesn't have to be, and in the case of Design Matters, it arguably shouldn't even be much solicited.

So it seems to me that we're not talking about demos vs. not-demos for all booths. We're talking about a difference in primary target customers per booth. Design Matters did best by putting forward a distinct visual aesthetic which matched the shared goal and vision of the people who were promoting their games there, and by living up to that aesthetic with their games. It didn't rely on blowing the minds of people unfamiliar with it, but rather on confirming and exciting the expectations of people who were.

Best, Ron

[Judd]

I'll just throw this out there so that it's been asked.  It may sound like insanity (I kind of think it does!), but maybe there's something to be mined from it:

1) Do we need GenCon?

2) If we do need GenCon, do we need the exhibitor's hall?

D

Darcy, that isn't at all insanity.  I ask that of myself and my  boothmates after every Gen Con.

[Ron Edwards]

Further thoughts on some posts so far.

Jonathan: yes. What you said. I am on exactly that same wavelength.

Darcy, one of my dreams dating back a couple of years is to see as many Forge Midwests and Nerdlycons and similar things emerge as possible. I guess we could dub them "playcons." They're diametrically opposed to the current big conventions, in that there's no distinction made between publisher and congoer, and no emphasis at all on marketing of future play - rather, it's on playing, period. They could range from smallish local get-togethers that aren't much more than an inclusive game night for a given area (Go Play Peoria is like this, or a grade up from it), to pretty-unique events that are more like the weekend camping thing that Nerdly did, with strong cross-country or even international draw. Forge Midwest is about midway between these two examples..

I would like to see at least some of them include commercial opportunities, as we did a little bit with the last Forge Midwest. Not booths or static exhibitor tables, but more of a front-pocket to front-pocket buying situation for those who decide they might bring some stock.

As I see it, GenCon is a fine thing, but it does exhibit the limitations that Paul described for independent publishers. I think it's also important to recognize that no, independent publishers do not need it. It's there to be utilized if it works for a given publisher, and that's all. I'm encouraged by the appearance of so many playcons over the last couple of years, and I hope they grow into a more definite environment of our burgeoning scene. It may be that attending a couple of these per year becomes more cost-effective and more successful in terms of business (perhaps in intangibles that become tangible, like long-term sales and powerful playtesting) than attending GenCon.

Best, Ron

[Adam Dray]

I occupy a position on the borderline between Forge-insider and pure-consumer, I think. Here are my impressions of some issues (large or small) in the Forge booth this year.

Too many choices. I was overwhelmed by the number of products on the bookshelf, which rivaled many other publishers. The number of products kept me from picking any of them up and browsing through them and that meant I was less likely to buy based on a read-through. A table with one copy of each book on it -- and a limited number of books total -- would have been better. Laying out a book on a table invites me to pick it up and look at it. I feel less comfortable pulling a pristine copy off a stack of them and reading. So many great choices! Gah!

(Aside: At one of the booths, as I purchased a little Isis figurine, I noticed a fabulous-looking Egyptian miniatures game book next to the cash box. I picked it up and read it and almost bought it. When I put the book down, the clerk moved it to another table and said, "Let me get this out of the way." I told her, "It was in the right place; you got me to pick it up." She left it "out of the way," though.)

Tired ropers. The ropers at GenCon 2006 had more energy, I feel. When I went to the Forge booth on Thursday, the ropers were great. When I went back on Saturday, they were only satisfactory. (This might be due to people knowing me, I admit, and thus perhaps they're thinking I don't need "help." But I buy a lot of product!) There were some pretty big chunks of time on Saturday when I saw customers standing by the corner table, looking at pamphlets, but getting no attention from ropers (I said some nice words to them and told them about the demos).

Selling past the close. Dude, don't make me gnaw off my own leg to get away from you, especially once I've said I'm going to buy it. A related problem: selling past the point that I stopped caring. When everyone at the table is going "uh-huh, uh-huh," pointing their feet away from the table, trying to stand up, etc., let them go. Thank them for their time. You don't want to make potential customers want to escape the entire booth just because they don't like one game.

Long demos. Some of you ran demos that ran past the 20-minute mark. Was this intentional this year? I remember in 2006 how everyone was working hard to get their demos down to ten -- even five -- minutes. A couple of the demos in which I participated went long. My personal feeling is that if you haven't hooked me in ten minutes, every minute past ten that you don't hook me makes me less inclined to buy the game: the lack of a quick hook gets exaggerated over time.

Where's the product? Play to the flow of traffic. The product was tucked between the crowded tables and the back, so people wandering by the booth couldn't browse. I didn't get the impression that many people wandered through the middle. As I understand it, the sales model is thus: a) people wander by the booth and see lots of people having fun at tables, b) ropers invite them into a game, c) gamers play demos and love the game, and d) they buy the game. Maybe they buy other games they see on the shelf, too. My personal feeling is that the shelves should be right out facing the aisle so that wanderers see the games and can flip through them. Or maybe you keep the shelves in the back and put a "browse table" on the aisle. In any case, people in the main aisles pick up the games and look at them. Rope those people into demos. Demos turn "maybes" into "yesses."

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Adam,

I think most of what you're saying reflects the growth in size and widening of product at IPR. This was the first year where the gap of IPR stock, the "store" side of things, had diverged fully from the Forge mission of showcasing these particular publishers who'd showed up. That's pretty much the reason in a nutshell for having IPR be its own thing from now on.

I appreciate the advice and observations. A lot of what you're saying will enter straight into the booth approach next year.

Best, Ron

[Graham W]

Coming back on an earlier point.

3. Subject to Andrew's approval and collaboration, I'd like to run a kind of phone center for Games on Demand, with (get this) a list of volunteer GMs who are OK with being on-call for some of the con. So if someone wants to play a game of Sorcerer or Thou Art But a Warrior or something, I'd call someone who had committed for that game and that block of time and set up the Game on Demand more directly. Kind of, "Agent X! Thou Art But a Warrior! Can you do it at 1300? Over!" "Check! Check! Thou Art But a Warrior, 1300 hours, over and out!"

Yes, do this!

Here's this thing that happened this year, two or three times.

1. We'd have groups of people at Games On Demand, wanting to play. Sometimes they'd demand a particular game ("I really want to play Misspent Youth"), sometimes not.

2. I'd run over to the Forge Booth and Ashcan Front.

3. I'd grab someone, who would come over to GoD and run their game.

This worked pretty well, I think. Once, Tony came over and ran Misery Bubblegum. Once, John Harper came over and ran 3:16.

So, some formalisation of this would be great. At a basic level, it would just need a list of phone numbers. We could call not just for timeslots ("Can you do Thou Art A Warrior at 1300?"); but also for instant games ("We've got 10 players! Send someone!") and instant specific games ("Robert, we've got six people wanting Misspent Youth, can you spare the time?").

I think this might work particularly well for the Ashcan Front, whose raison d'etre is playtesting games.

Also, it would help if the booths could coordinate their when-we-man-the-booth slots with Games On Demand, as far as is possible. Often, Tony would come over to run a game, but need to leave before the game was finished. This isn't a complaint, just a lesson learned.

Graham

[Robert Bohl]

Yeah it just about killed me that I couldn't take advantage of that, Graham. Thanks for trying.