What do gamers need?

[Matt Snyder]

In the Supplement Treadmill and spawned thread "D&D specifically," I asked the Forge what gamers need:

That begs a question in my mind. What do d20 gamers need? For that matter, what do gamers need?

I mean, besides a job and a shower and a girlfriend and all that stuff real people really need. I'm not interested to hear from anyone that "no one needs any gaming material, it's a hobby, yadda yadda." Yes, I get that.

What I'm asking is what a marketer would ask himself of the market. What market need can my resources provide?

Mike Mearls answered that query as it relates to his serious D20 mojo.

In this thread, I'd love to hear what others think gamers need (that is, need as I've described it above) for other games, and especially indie games. What does this tiny little market need, especially in terms of supplemental material?

Discussion of needs for games, rather than supplemental material, is fine too, I guess. (We could all use at least some some market think, I argue, whether we're producing supplements or not.)

[Christopher Kubasik]

Need?  Really, actually, need?  Not just more stuff to buy because gamers are, almost genetically speaking, collectors too, and want more stuff to add on to the stuff they already bought bearing the brand impint already on their shelves?  Cause God knows there's no *need* to buy 90% or what's published -- though the buying of it and the reading of it seems to give lots of people lots of pleasure.

Because even after we pass that hurdle (the need for pleasure of the purchase -- a core American pleasure, and, seriously, in hobby, who can say such a pleasure is not a need -- that is, we're here for the pleasure of it, right, and really, I *do* mean that sincerely), there's what different tastes of players need.

Players who want to wallow in the details of strange world obviously *need* more details.  There's no way around this.  It's tough, as a GM, to come up with whirling sets of creative data to confound and astonish your players.  Gamers have been paying, for years, people to produce work that would actually *suprise* the people in their group about world background and whatnot.  A GM is going to kind of create details along the lines of what his group would expect (they're in the same group after all), but a bought sourcebook will always offer nuggets that are simply alien (but not too alien!) in concept.

Gamers who want to manipulate rules and to win via strategy want more rules, more things to manipulate, more prizes to win.  This is a need.  Witness Squad Leaders endless supply of rules.  Not an RPG, but the same point applies: we need more rules to master if the game's novelty is to stick.  (Some games: Chess, Diplomacy, Go, even though the core rules are rock solid and infinitie in permutation, spawn variants as well for the same reason.)

And those going for more of an aethstetic experience?  A) more games trying out new permutations.  But I'd say, significantly, B) ideas and essays talking about the possibilities of games -- like sex manuals with new idea for sexual positions.  Consider the significance of the essays in Over the Edge, Sorcerer & Sword, the RMap chapter in Sorcerer & Soul.  Peole talk about the value of these essays on chat sites the way other people talk about dice pool conventions -- they MATTER to a certain group of RPG players because they open their style of play up in ways just like setting and rules open up other styles of play.  I'll be going to a museum tonight because, I realized, I haven't seen a group of paintings since I opened my own show two weeks ago.  I *need* to be fed ideas on how *other people do it*; what's *possible.*  To steal, to borrow, to twist and change *how* information is presented, communicated, what hte *experience* can be like from a language/story/thematic perspective is what I think folks with this kind of concern need.  And I mean NEED.  Because art depends on constantly feeding on more art.

At the basics, I think people NEED one set of rules they love, with supplemental material as outlined above to feed the needs of their mode of play to keep things fresh.   And even then, I think they need a lot less of it then they think.

Christopher

[Jack Spencer Jr]

They need understanding.

[Christopher Kubasik]

And that too, yes.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Don't misunderstand me. Although understanding in the don't we feel good and the birds are singing under the rainbows sense is nice, the sense I mean is they need to understand what it is they do when they play. They need to understand it. In every sense of the word, I would imagine.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Oh.  I thought you were making a joke.

But now you're not playing by the spirit of the thread at all, which is, what, if anything, can a publisher provide that a gamer needs.

[Matt Snyder]

Was I unclear? I tried to explain that I'm not at all interested in discussing things like "gamers don't *need* anything, it's a luxury." Further, I specifically framed the question as a matter of publishing, of fulfilling a need within a market -- however large or small. Guys, if you can package up understanding, please let me know. I want in on the IPO.

Kidding aside, I'm looking for far more practical suggestions, down and dirty ideas, stuff publisher can actually produce (and, specifically, indie publisers). I do think supplemental material can do what you're getting at -- again, Ron's Sorcerer supplements took this approach to a great degree of success, I think. They weren't more demon powers or great setting ideas. They were manuals on how to assess the activity of role-playing, and role-playing Sorcerer specifically.

Let me try to reorient the thread (and no offense intended -- I am not dismissing Christopher's and Jacks' comments, I'm just trying to make their ideas more actionable for a given publisher). Assume a few things in my question. Assume that you're in the position to advise someone on a profitable venture in the RPG publishing vein (how much profit is irrelevant, just know you must make a profit).

HOw do you do that? One way is to assess the market. (I'm eager to hear others, of course) Examine it. Research it. Since you have no research budget, go with what you already know or can easily assess from others. . . .

Ok, you've assessed the market; you know what you need to know about the people within it. They have plenty of this game over here and that supplement over there. But, look here! They have a need for Supplement X, or perhaps Game Y, or maybe even Service Z. We'll create that, and fulfill a need.

Players who want to wallow in the details of strange world obviously *need* more details. There's no way around this.

They do? I'm not seeing that. In fact, I see Mike Mearls specifically casting doubt on this very idea in the "D&D specifically" thread I referenced. He's said that, for the d20 market at least, feats/pretige classes/etc. and setting are the two things d20 publishers create the most ... and two things the market needs the least. This is the biggest market in the industry, so it leads to a reasonable assumption that setting details may not, indeed, be what gamers need at all.

Gamers who want to manipulate rules and to win via strategy want more rules, more things to manipulate, more prizes to win. This is a need.

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, Mearls also supports what you say here, for example. He says the best thing he can bring a d20 customer is a new take on the d20 rules that will invigorate the customer's hobby. So, I think this is very much in line with what he's saying. And, on the face of it, I agree, too.

But, I can see it another way. I'm not very familiar with Squad Leader. Is this a situation in which more rules are expanding the game's scope? Or, does this endless stream of rules supplant existing rules frequently? If so, it strikes me as poor design. But, again, I'm not familiar with the model.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ok, so thus far I'm hearing suggestions for the following somewhat vague needs:


1) Material that helps gamers assess and understand what their hobby actually is, how it actually works, and why it really is they enjoy (or don't enjoy) a given aspect of that hobby.

2) Material that expands and/or alters a core rules set, which presumably must have some minimal critical mass (i.e. some community or several communities playing the game).

3) Prizes and/or rewards for playing games. (Christopher, did you mean to indicate rewards OTHER THAN what we on the Forge generally refer to as metagame mechanic rewards and the like? I presume so.)

I think there's a fourth suggestion in Christopher's paragraph on aesthetics, but I'm having trouble parsing it out.

So, Christopher, any ideas there?

What about other ideas entirely? Remember, folks, the more practical, the better. Pretend you are advising a publisher what he really should be doing with his resources to best reach his market. Because, in fact, that's what you will be doing.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Matt,

First, I will fail you.  I can't in good faith give an concrete advice to anyone wanting to make a profit at RPGs.  Seriously.  I don't know.  I was approaching it from the consumer end.  These are things *I* need depending on the kind of game I want to play.

So, let me quickly clarify a couple of points.

1) By more details for the "world" I meant sourcebooks and such.  Whether its Glorantha, Star Wars, Shadowrun, or the WoD, if we're into exploring this other or alternate world, I'm gonna need details, because my brains not big enough to figure out what Los Angeles in the WoD is like on the fly while making it compelling and unexpected in ways my group would never guess (ie I didn't write it.)

2) As far the aesthetics goes -- that bit was about all the essays I referenced and more like them.  Specifically, concretely, essays like those found in the Sorcerere Books.  Narrativist players want more tricks and tools to jiggle up the game, bring more relationships, themes and whatnot to bear.  Ron's essays have done this explicitely.  This isn't a matter of providing more "rules" (or what people think of as rules.)  Nor is a  matter of providing more background material.  It's a matter of saying, "When interacting as a group, you might want to frame things his way -- between players, between characters" and so on.  

Ron's RMap, Ron's RPG authorship essay and more are tools people are actively using right now.  People need things like this: detailed explanations of tools that people can used to engage each other in play in new ways.  

I know you're looking for this "Book X" and so on.    But lets keep something in mind: just because *some* people need something, that doesn't make it economically viable.

The truth is, as I noted above (and I wasn't being specious at all, but let me unpack the point), is that most gamers are like little league players who have a baseball, glove, cleats, baseball hat, bat and even a uniform.  And there's a park down the street.   They really, really, really do have everything they need.  They have rules.  They have dice.  They're good to go.  

All the talk about "dead" games, betrayals by publishers and whatnot is usually nonsense.  The games they've got are good enough, and they need to play them.  Almost everything past that is just filling the need for novelty.

I stand by my statements about sourcebooks.  Some people are going to need more information about Glorantha to help both themselves and their players get (somewhat) transported to another world.  That's why you would invest in the core rules for Glorantha in the first place.  

I'll also stand by my statement of need for essays and aestetic tools and techniques for some players.  Sorcerers rules were in that first book.  But when people got hold of the first two supplements, they could go, "Oh!"  Not because the rules were incomplete, but because the info in the supplements opened up ways of thinking about RPGs that let the Sorcerer rules unfold fully.  I consider the chapters on Authorship and RMaps to be a need for the game...  I consider some of the work Chris B and others have done around here making HeroQuest all Nar a need to getting the right feel off HeroQuest.  

And now... I must go paint.  I wish you luck on your venture.  I posted to help frame the issue from my (perhaps limited) point of view.  But I really, really meant it.

Take care,

Christopher

[daMoose_Neo]

*assuming a gaming system is established*
Find a way to ask?
Conventions are good for that- at the booth or demonstration ask around, see what players feel is missing from Game X.
Or, do as Chris did and approach it as a "fellow gamer". If you don't know the system, learn it and see what you personally feel is missing. OR, what direction could it possibly go that is so totally different odds are only one guy in his parents basement thought of it and he's just sitting on it (because statistically almost every idea is "taken" in some form or another- its the presentation or assembly that sets them apart).

*assuming its a new system*
Kinda ditto~
Find out what people like/don't like about current systems and what other things they might rather do.

Gotta do the research though, else fly by your pants with a gut idea~
Personally, I lothe supplement after supplement, especially frivelous ones (ie D&D 3.5, I could play fine with 3, why do I really need 3.5? Why not produce a GOOD, SUBSTANTIAL book?) that claim they are updating or overhauling the existing system. I like detail, I like fodder. A core plus some decent background material that I can play with makes me one happy camper: I enjoy writing and somtimes all I need is a seed of an idea (plot hook) to get me started on my own full fledged adventure. A book or card set that simply rehashes what I already know/use with some kind of flashy gimmick drives me nuts and is more likely to make me stop buying from the company- it feels like an insult to my intelligence that they think I'll pay $100 for 5 books that all say the same thing.

[Bankuei]

Hi Matt,

Looking at supplemental material in general, it seems to follow the line of the 5 elements- System, Setting, Situation, Character and Color.  Most supplements tend to provide in one or more of these facets.  All 5 of these are necessary for play, although there is no formula for how much of each a publisher is required to provide in order to satisfy folks.

Of course, there is also the stuff that looks higher up on the heirarchy, and starts getting into CA's and Social Contract...or helping folks understand what this roleplaying thing is all about.

What gamers NEED, is they need that magic mix of comprehending how to play + the 5 elements necessary to kickstart play.  Its a matter of enough System for functional play, and enough of the other 4 to excite and get everyone hyped to play.

Chris

[Matt Machell]

Hmm, this turned out more rambling than I hoped, anyway:

One thing I've noticed over the years is the need of gamers for icons and factions (both in game and out of game). Many games/supplements that do well focus on particular archetypes and how they are cool. So that gamers can show their "tribal loyalty". Or maybe it's just brand loyalty. A social statement of which niche you belong to, same as having the latest nike trainers. I think many gamers need that sense of community, and some publishers exploit it better than others.

Look at the pinbadges and other game branded tat. These addons aren't even part of the game experiences, but still sell well, so players can show their loyalty to a publisher or settign related creation. I know people who even got tatoos of Vampire clan symbols.

Actually, a sense of belonging isn't just a thing a big puiblisher can exploit. How many games have you bought from other guys at the Forge?


-Matt

[Sean]

I kind of think this question is too broad to admit of a straightforward answer. What kind of gamer are you, and what system are you playing? Also, what particular need do you have?

For instance, a lot of D&D3 gamemasters (and GMs for other systems involving heavy prep) need modules, because the backwork involved for statting stuff out properly is pretty onerous for the casual GM. But it's widely believed that there's no money in modules, or only very little, because only DMs and mad collectors buy them. That's part of why there's such a focus on feats and splatbooks - the player market is much bigger, so you're selling a competitive advantage to a wider group, even though they do less in terms of day to day gameplay.

I tend to buy two things most often: cool, evocative setting materials, even if I don't buy the system that the setting is written for, and innovative rules, even if I never plan on playing the game with the rule set in question. But I'm a mad tinkerer and fantasist and surely don't represent more than a tiny fraction of the gaming community.

I think what a large fraction of gamers really need is an improved play experience, but how to sell that to them?

[Christopher Weeks]

To some extent, players need content that can make them feel superior.  I'm completely serious.  I see a lot of purchases made and a lot of conversations held in which that is quite obviously the primary driving factor.  Sad?  I dunno...I think it's nature and in any case, it is what it is.

This typically takes the form of some kind of esoterica.  If you want to make it high-quality also -- so that you can genuinely improve their play experience (because I'm still not sure what need means, but I don't want to be a dick about it), then I'd suggest doing research that the average joe isn't going to take the time for (or doesn't even know how) and make it accessible.

A good suppliment for Dust Devils could be six chapters, each of which talks about a classic western film, refers back to the written source material from which the screenwriters were drawing, ties it into history  as much as is possible without becoming boring and lame and then frames it as an adventure idea -- specifically painting game-important issues, like the various characters' devils.  That sounds awsome to me.  I'd buy it in a second.  But I don't think you'd be able to pay yourself a living wage to do it.  This would provide the kind of intellectual superiority that people would get off on while also enhancing the game.

I think that Sorcerer needs an extended rewrite by someone other than Ron that ties in content from the suppliments and all the threads hereabouts that are really just necessary for play -- and a big, fat index.  I'm not sure that appeals to the superiority thing, but I think it would facilitate play.

I don't think that idea-packs have really ever been exploited properly.  I still use the 25 year old books of site-plans from Judge's Guild.  But how cool would it be to have a map (of an island or a keep or a cave or a town...) that was pretty along with a couple of drawings (or photos or renderings) of significance and just a sketch of possible use ideas?  I haven't scoured the market for thirty years, but most of this kind of stuff is either just maps or whole adventures (even when low-overhead adventurelettes).  I think the extra imagery that could be provided to the players would play upon the superiority factor while also giving a real play aid.

I know people buy arcane books (history, occult lore, primitive architecture, whatever) to suppliment their games.  Doing research on any of these subjects and dumping it as a game suppliment that is chok-a-block with ways to apply the info to games (specific systems or not) would be satisfying these needs.

Chris

[smokewolf]

For me, I need challenge. I think that is true with most of the other gamers I game with. All of them hardcore, lifelong gamers each with over 15 years of gaming. Whatever the product is that is produced, we what to be challenged. We have all had the 20+ level bad ass gods. We are done with that, now we want to be challenged, we want to play things, people, events that intrigue us, cause us to think and act like we have never done so.

Sure we like comfortable too, but what keeps me playing is the thought that this is something I have never done before. Lets try it. And I do not mean its the same package in a different wrapper.

I think when selling to younger players (either in age or experience), they see the game as something to succeed at. Something that needs winning. When you sell to older gamers, they see the game as something to experience. Now if you can find the product strategy that works for both, then I think you might have the billion dollar answer.




With regards to D20: After a while the game has been done. How long does it take to have played each of the core classes (a couple of months). And then lets face it, after that much of whats out there is just min/maxing. Whats the challenge of that.

This is one of the reasons I do not think the D20 idea will dominate forever. One system to rule them all seems like a good idea, learn one set of rules, and play in any environment. Its been done before (Gurps, Palladium, TSR [they had several different setting in which to play in from fantasy to Sci-Fi all using the same rules], etc.). But I for one play different games for two reasons, one is the setting, the other the rules. Deadlands with their original card playing system was unique novel and made it feel as if you were part of the setting.

I realise that each system has its place, each is to compliment to game it is used in. Take Buffy for instance, Buffy is designed to play like the TV show. D20 would actually take away from that light hearted but exciting experience. Whereas the Unisystem (?) plays well with the atmosphere that is created. That is what a system is supposed to do.

[madelf]

For instance, a lot of D&D3 gamemasters (and GMs for other systems involving heavy prep) need modules, because the backwork involved for statting stuff out properly is pretty onerous for the casual GM. But it's widely believed that there's no money in modules, or only very little, because only DMs and mad collectors buy them. That's part of why there's such a focus on feats and splatbooks - the player market is much bigger, so you're selling a competitive advantage to a wider group, even though they do less in terms of day to day gameplay.

I tend to buy two things most often: cool, evocative setting materials, even if I don't buy the system that the setting is written for, and innovative rules, even if I never plan on playing the game with the rule set in question. But I'm a mad tinkerer and fantasist and surely don't represent more than a tiny fraction of the gaming community.

I think there's an answer in this.
Modules don't seem to sell very well, even though they seem like they should be an incredibly usefull item. I suspect it's because Sean is not representative of as tiny a fraction as he thinks.

Every GM I've ever spoken with, who uses modules at all, does not use them as written. I don't either. While I've never specifically questioned others as to the reason, I do know why I use them the way I do.

The reason (I believe) is that every module, almost without exception (I'm sure there are some exceptions out there), that I have ever read, looked over, or used... has been poorly designed. Not that they were badly written or anything. They just don't adequately acknowledge the capability and tendency of both GMs and players to tinker and come up with unexpected ideas. They are universally too limited and linear, too tied to a plot that comes unravelled if the players do something unexpected, and are too difficult for the GM to modify to his tastes. The result is that most GMs only use bits and pieces of the modules (building plans, npcs, story hooks) if they use them at all.

I think modules would sell a lot better if they were collections of potential. A little piece of a setting with maps, plans, etc, and some npcs who have certain goals, tied in with some discussion of what the goals and intended activities of the npcs are and some broad ideas, or hooks, that could get the players involved. Make the whole thing open-ended enough that anything can happen. As an example, rather than explaining that in X-situation the npc does Y, rather describe the npc's personality, goals, and motivations in enough detail that the GM will understand what the npc will do in any situation (without trying to shoehorn the adventure into a restricted set of pre-defined situations).

Of course this is just a theory.