Popular and damaging

[Marco]

Hmm.

The quote that kicked this thread off was discussing the "damage" done by GURPS by being a "universal system" that taught "system doesn't matter." (leaving CoC aside for a bit).

But I confess a minor amount of annoyance that we seem to have moved directly to: "the problem with GURPS was that it took too long to start up." (And not because it's "off topic"--it just seems kinda dodgy. Not that it *is* a dodge--just that on my side of the computer it sorta seems that way).

Okay.

The first thing that's clear is that if long start times (whatever they are) were a bad thing then the game should have died--or sold less well than the other, quicker start games out previous (certainly Top Secret combined both a mainstream genre with a small rulesbook, no?).

But market effects get trammeled in this discussion (people either point--eronously, I think--in the direction of network effects or decide that the forces of demographic segmentation are *so strong* with RPGS--as opposed to major blockbuster movies in the same segment--that superior products simply cannot be marketed).

So let's look at start-up time == damage to the industry. NOT a game with a big startup time is a bad game. This argument says that a game with a large startup time is a) popular with gamers and b) unpopular with everyone else.

Here's how I see it. Oh, and yeah: GURPS got named. Not some of the other usual suspects:

1. GURPS was not significantly more rules-heavy than Hero (and, y'know, Role-Master and a bunch of other games that did things like include cubing numbers (V&V) and square-roots for computing travel time (Traveler, IIRC) and stuff like that). What it didn't do was give you a default world out of the box.

So either:

a) It wasn't GURPS after all. The game that sunk the industry came earlier and was too complicated (GURPS was following the trend) --or--

b) It was GURPS because by not giving you a default world they increased startup time beyond all measure because you had to read a 128pg world book and buy High Tech and GURPS Magic and stuff just to get anywhere.

Do I have that right? Or is there a c) or d) or f)?

-Marco

[Valamir]

I am more than open to discussing whether or not I've targeting the appropriate "culprits" or if there was some other game that fits the bill better.  But I think I made it clear above that what I was interested in identifying was the game that set the standard for subsequent industry development; and not "which game was more or which game came first".

Maybe GURPS wasn't the defining game...maybe it was Hero...or Rune Quest.  But IME niether of those games were of the "swept the industry" variety.  Throughout both my jr & sr high days as well as my college days, Hero was almost non existant and Rune Quest completely absent.  Now obviously there were people playing both of those and alot of them, so maybe this was just a geographical aberration.  Certainly would be an interesting topic to discuss.  At this point, I refer to GURPS because it seems to me to have far more wide reaching effects than either of the other two (and no this is not to say that there were no influential effects from the others).

I think the definitive game here was GURPS.  To replace GURPS with something else we'd have to establish a game that not only has the "standard" characteristics the industry came to expect in an RPG, but also was widely played and followed and mimicked to be identified as the real trend setter pre-GURPS.  What would be good candidates.


As for changing topics...well, one can't very well take a tangental comment that was kept intentionally brief because it was fairly off topic for the thread it was in, and expect that that brief line includes everything I'd had to say on the topic.

The issue for me is the game that set the standard for what a RP Design is supposed to look like and really represents the key fulcrum transition from the eclectic universe of games that had existed to the standardization of RPG design.

What do I mean by standard:  Many things, including (in no particular order of importance):  format of the book (including size and page count), reliance on the freelancer / publisher system of creation, attributes, and skills, and extras (ad and disads and such), careful definition and elaboration of gear and equipment, attempt to model "how things would work in reality", rule subsystems to cover a variety of special cases (fire damage, drowning damage, falling damage, vehicle combat, etc), enforced game balance among PCs, what an "adventure" looks like and how to prepare for one, the relationship between GM and players, the role of rules as defenders of territory between participants, mechanics that don't need to be customized to setting. etc.

There are certain "standard" answers to all of these that I think form the basis of what the typical gamer expects to find in a "complete" RPG.  GURPS is the system to me where we find all of these elements together in a game with a very widespread following, and one which subsequent designs actively set about to mimick.

Should this instead be Hero...or RQ, or RM.  Is GURPS merely a trend follower rather than the trend setter...maybe.  As I said, I'm open to discussions along those lines.

[Marco]

Hi Ralph,

Well, that's all good--and I think I'd agree that GURPS was a distillation of several emergant trends in the industry combined with an interesting take on "completeness" (which is the various sub-systems, the world-book/freelance authors, etc.)

Now, here's the question: Let's take GURPS as, (as you say), if not the first, the textbook case of universal sim-oriented game design.

What's the damage?

Is it that the listed design is too hard for people to get into?

Is it that it shows/teaches that "system doesn't matter"?

Is it that it sets an expectation for games like Over The Edge ("where's the vehicle combat system, man?")

What was the damage?

-Marco

[Valamir]

By "damage" I specifically mean "raises the barrier to entry for new participants" leading to fewer gamers, and fewer dollars suppporting the industry.  

My hypothesis, as it were, is that there was a transitional period fairly early on in this hobby (for which I see GURPS and CoC as being poster children representatives of) in which that barrier was ratcheted up higher than it could have been (if design had gone right instead of left, so to speak), thus limiting the size of the hobby to a smaller niche than it might have obtained otherwise.

I think all three of the questions you ask at the end are symptoms of this.  

If the design requires too much up front investment of time before the payoff its going to appeal to fewer people.

If the design asks you to learn 100 pages of rules and then turns around and says "they really don't matter, change whatever you want" I think only the devotees really find that appealing.

If the ingrained expectations of these devotees cause alternative approaches to be squashed, or causes them to try to adhere to "standards" so they don't upset the critics, I think that just keep reinforcing that barrier by closing off doors.

So yeah, I'd answer yes to all of them.

[John Kim]

The issue for me is the game that set the standard for what a RP Design is supposed to look like and really represents the key fulcrum transition from the eclectic universe of games that had existed to the standardization of RPG design.  

On the one hand, I agree with you that far too many RPG designs follow in well-worn tracks defined by (among other games) CoC and to some degree GURPS.  On the other hand, I think it is completely backwards to blame games like these (i.e. the "standard-setters") as doing damage.  

You are attempting to blame innovators, when what you should be blaming is the other non-innovative designs which chose to imitate rather than break new ground.  It's not like Chaosium forced other game designers to accept CoC as the standard.  Rather, other designers made it a standard by imitating rather than trying new approaches.  In 1981, Call of Cthulhu expanded the diversity of RPGs, being the first successful foray into the horror genre.  This was a good thing and was a boon to the industry.  

IMO, the blame falls not on the trend-setters, but the trend followers.  (Incidentally, I disagree with you on the importance of GURPS, but that is a side matter.)  To be fair, there have been various efforts to try new approaches: like Ghostbusters (1986), Prince Valiant (1989), Amber (1991), Over the Edge (1992), Theatrix (1993), and Everway (1995).  However, the results of these have not been very promising.

There are certain "standard" answers to all of these that I think form the basis of what the typical gamer expects to find in a "complete" RPG.  GURPS is the system to me where we find all of these elements together in a game with a very widespread following, and one which subsequent designs actively set about to mimick.

Should this instead be Hero...or RQ, or RM.  Is GURPS merely a trend follower rather than the trend setter...maybe.  As I said, I'm open to discussions along those lines.  

GURPS came pretty late to innovate in mechanics (1986).  By that time, Palladium, Chaosium, and Hero Games had already established the practice of house systems and what they look like.  GURPS simply took the next logical step to house systems and published core rules separately.  

So I do blame GURPS to some degree, for following trends rather than setting new ones.  To me, the key damage which GURPS did is that it resists improvement.  Because the books are not self-contained, they needed to keep the system the same in order to maintain backwards compatibility.  In contrast, you can see that Chaosium did some innovative things with its house system, such as Pendragon (1985).  This was much more difficult for GURPS.  It is interesting to see that some of the newer GURPS books are breaking this trend and including core rules in a self-contained package.

[Jonathan Walton]

By "damage" I specifically mean "raises the barrier to entry for new participants" leading to fewer gamers, and fewer dollars suppporting the industry.

This, I believe, is just indicative of a general shift in the roleplaying industry: no longer making games for new roleplayers, but only for the existing gaming audience.  This is demonstrated by many games ceasing to publish "What is Roleplaying?" sections and simply assuming that newcomers to the game will be already familiar with roleplaying.  There is little marketing for roleplaying outside of magazines that cater to existing roleplayers.  Think of every major release in the past 10 years.  Besides games that built on an existing intellectual property (like Tolkien, Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.), most were advertised to roleplayers and written for roleplayers.  The only one I can think of that didn't take this route is the new Marvel game, and that's because Marvel's directly involved with the game and wants to see it reach a large audience.

This also means that most games can be as complex as they want, because they have, in effect, a captive audience that is already committed to roleplaying.  They don't have to appeal to newcomers or be easily understood and explained.  Desity is seen, by existing gamers, as a positive thing.  There's more "meat" in the game to be explored.

So, I think gaming stepped onto this road a long time ago, but not because of CoC or GURPS.  It was an industry-wide choice, made by a whole host of publishers and gamers.  "Let's make games for people like us."

[Valamir]

Hey John, glad to see you jump in.  I know you have a pretty extensive knowledge/database of gaming history to draw upon.

I'm actually currently inclined to setting that transitional period at somewhere in the mid 80s.  From my own recollection (which is a bit fuzzy because I was pretty young in the hobby late 70s / early 80s) supplemented by that least rigorous of investigative techniques --- the anecdote, the time before the mid 80s seems to be a pretty eclectic mix different ideas and techniques with the period of the late 80s and 90s becomeing more and more homogenous.

I tend to view the less than promising results of some of the games you mention as largely being the result of that growing homogenity which penalized games that didn't fit the mold.  I'm inclined to believe that those games may well have been more successful if that trend hadn't evolved as it did.  

It seems to me, at any rate, that OTE is actually a much more highly respected and admired game today than it was when it was released.

[Marco]

Hi Ralph,
I do wonder what the mechanism is that promotes homogeniety and penalizes innovation (especially considering that CoC was innovative, Vampire was innovative, Champions was pretty innovative--and all of these were *rewarded*--and fairly handsomely for it).

But let's look at the three questions:

1. Too hard to get into: this is hard to judge (and by saying that, I mean: maybe it's true). The big counter to that is V:tM. Widely carried in conventional stores with slick production values the books were, still, pretty damn big. It was hard to get into and opened new venues for gaming well above the D&D crowd. So it's a good counter example--but not a great one (although in the Artwork Does Matter essay it's a great one).

Also serving as counter examples is the fact that simpler systems have not done as well. Everyone loves Over The Edge. Few play it. Fudge is designed to be ultra-low BTE but it hasn't taken over.

Some people finger distribution (although my FLGS carries a pretty big spread so at least the *comics* guys get to see several games ... and the *magic* kids get to see a buncha different games--but when I go to Boarders ... oddly, I see things like Mech Warrior (WTF?).

Raven said that people buy crap and blames network effects. This, I think, is due to a misudnerstanding of network effects (yes, I know how they can be applied to people who "can't find a group" but network effects are ultra-weak in the RPG field compared to the electronics or software field where the term came from).

So ... maybe rules-heavy games push out rules-lite ones due to distribution channels. Maybe. But I see nothing conclusive there. But I'm not a major distributor ... maybe I wouldn't.

2. System Doesn't Matter. Well, GURPS isn't claiming that (quite the opposite, really)--but it may be rubbing several people's nose in the fact that if you dig GURPS you may dig Hero equally (or BRP or D20 or ...) Since those systems do fairly align, I think.

It's not "teaching a lie." It's, IMO, pointing out a truth (a pedantic truth, perhaps, but a truth nontheless.)

3. Completeness: I expect a game that I have chosen to satisfactorily resolve whatever I throw at it. It's a bonus if it appeals to me in more than one way.

Forex: vehicle combat (being that I'm making a vcbt sub-system right now)

A. I want to distinguish cool combat vehicles *in the system.*--that means if my character has a souped up car, I want it's faster-ness to be somehow illustrated in the system. So, for me, that's one requirement (and I don't think I'm alone there).

B. I like a bit of tac-challenge in my play--maybe not as focus--but I find the odd tactical combat cool (I will not say Gamist here since, cannonically, it isn't--and I'm therefore unable to articulate this really clearly)--but while I don't want a steady diet of tactical combat, I do, on occassion, enjoy it. So if a system can provide that, I'm impressed with it.

C. Having a vehicle/vehicle combat system that feels just like a man-to-man combat system would (SDM?) not (SDM?) be quite as good (SDM?) as one that works somehow differently--specifically to illustrate the differences in what is occurring (IMO/IME).

So if you put those three requirements together you get something that's likely to have a bit of a design section (telling you how to differentiate your car) and a bit of a combat subsystem (telling you how vehicular combat differs both in feel and mechanical handling)--and it'll probably be slightly more complex than "add up your good, subtract your bad, and roll" if you want tactical challenge.

While you don't have to get into cube-roots to do that, you are going to move away from OtE's generic resolution system at least somewhat, if not substantially.

Finally, I think that those three requirements are not only "common amongst 'true-gamers' " but are "common amongst anyone who will play an RPG." I find my newbies liking the tactical combat (so long as it's not overwhelming) and liking distinguishing themselves in system and liking a (say) martial arts fight to play out with a different feel than a firefight.

So I think that those design strategies are pro rather than con ... across a whole lot of "the board."

-Marco

[Valamir]

Hi Ralph,
I do wonder what the mechanism is that promotes homogeniety and penalizes innovation (especially considering that CoC was innovative, Vampire was innovative, Champions was pretty innovative--and all of these were *rewarded*--and fairly handsomely for it).

I actually consider these games to be very similiar.  MECHANICALLY they are different.  But the differences are mainly in the form of different approaches to the same end desires.  How one determines ones attributes and skills differs between these three...but they're all built around the assumptions that having both is necessary...nor do they even question whether having EITHER is necessary.   These are all pretty homogenous in approach.

Also serving as counter examples is the fact that simpler systems have not done as well. Everyone loves Over The Edge. Few play it. Fudge is designed to be ultra-low BTE but it hasn't taken over.

Relative sales figures here are pretty meaningless.  NONE of these games have ever been targeted at a mainstream audience so there's no way of judging which would have been the better seller if they had been based on actual sales numbers.  In my view gaming went down the path of catering to the hard core devotee...showing how certain games didn't sell well to the hard core devotee doesn't say much.  Of course they didn't.

3. Completeness: I expect a game that I have chosen to satisfactorily resolve whatever I throw at it. It's a bonus if it appeals to me in more than one way.

A. I want to distinguish cool combat vehicles *in the system.*--that means if my character has a souped up car, I want it's faster-ness to be somehow illustrated in the system. So, for me, that's one requirement (and I don't think I'm alone there).

Spoken like a true hard core devotee.

I think that in the main what most people would expect in a game is radically different from what most gamers would expect.  The threshold for what is necessary to engage interest is alot different.

"somehow illustrated in the system" is a pretty broad brush.  A game targeted at illustrating a cool souped up vehicle for a mainstream audience would IMO have a decidedly different approach to this differentiation then one targeted to gamers.

A key problem we're faced with as designers, however, is that that mainstream audience is so dramatically turned off on RPGs that even getting them to want to try it would be a herculean effort.  Which is why game designers stick with the audience they already have and the cycle continues.  

I don't think it had to be that way; but now I'm not certain that it could be any other way going forward.

B. I like a bit of tac-challenge in my play--maybe not as focus--but I find the odd tactical combat cool (I will not say Gamist here since, cannonically, it isn't--and I'm therefore unable to articulate this really clearly)--but while I don't want a steady diet of tactical combat, I do, on occassion, enjoy it. So if a system can provide that, I'm impressed with it.

[snip]

Finally, I think that those three requirements are not only "common amongst 'true-gamers' " but are "common amongst anyone who will play an RPG." I find my newbies liking the tactical combat (so long as it's not overwhelming) and liking distinguishing themselves in system and liking a (say) martial arts fight to play out with a different feel than a firefight.

But that doesn't mean you need 100 pages of rules to accomplish it.  Don't paint the issue as the difference between "having interesting mechanics that are complex vs. having simple mechanics that are bland and boring".

There's a lot of room in between.

Further I would point out one counter point to this.  OD&D and AD&D.  Argueably the single most widespread popular RPGs of all time.  How was martial arts different from swords, different from bows, different from mounted combat with lances, different from steam powered war chariots in those games...not very.  So is that what people REALLY want.  Or again are we back to thats what devoted gamers want?

[Marco]

Hi Ralph,

GNS wise, I suppose Champions, CoC, and V:tM *are* pretty similar. But, IMO,  this is missing the forest for the trees. Not only did they appeal to vastly different sects of the gamer demographic, they accomplished their goals in vastly different fashions. Diametrically different fashions in some cases (V:tM's fixation on gothic music and literary quotes with lots of high-gloss art vs. Champion's line art and moderately dry mechanical focus).

The goal, of course, for all three, is traditional roleplaying. Yes. They are all RPG's. None of them are so far out of the box as to be "alternative." But saying they're all the same is the same as saying all indie games are "the same" because they're "trying to be different."*

They were, mostly printed on paper too. And made good use of (in many cases) serriffed fonts. They too involved dice. The similarities (and I would argue that V:tM made a moderately good a case for advocating something like vanilla Nar play) are more numerous than the differences.

But I think the differences are far more profound.

As for the vehicle system: You need about 74 pages to accomplish it, it seems. Maybe more if you do out a bunch of "threat vehicles" and don't stick them in the Monsters book. But I digress.

Something "for gamers" assumes that "What gamers want" is different than what "normal people want." I start by questioning this. Who are these gamers and what do they want?

I want the system that does what I outlined but does it in 10 pages. Considering that I have more than 10 pages worth of gear this doesn't seem likely (much of it with cool, flavor-ful names or interesting described-in-English effects, I would have to conclude that either "normal people" do not want a list of cool pieces of gear to choose from or perhaps that they would prefer a very small typeface).

The issue of tactical challenge is, of course the major issue. How much of a tactical exercise do I want combat to be? The answer is: as much as I enjoy and no more. Considering that the market for strategy games is far larger than the market for RPG's though, where are you going to take that?

You mention that in AD&D all combat is about the same--and maybe people want that--who knows? No numbers exist and anecdotal evidence is very hard to vett. But I do know this:

There is an argument that a certain type of mechanic is superior: the mechanic that is most closely bound to the important aspect of what it resolves (genre, setting, etc.).

I find it interesting that when this aspect is setting you like it. When it is situation, it seems you don't especially.

-Marco
* this is intentional misuse of the TF's definition of "indie." I didn't put it in quotes because while the speaker might be generalizing about most of those small-press/creator owned games, he most certainly thinks he knows what he means by "indie" and it isn't what The Forge means.

[Valamir]

There is an argument that a certain type of mechanic is superior: the mechanic that is most closely bound to the important aspect of what it resolves (genre, setting, etc.).

I find it interesting that when this aspect is setting you like it. When it is situation, it seems you don't especially.

I'm not sure I'm able to parse this correctly.  I certainly was trying to bring any personal mechanics preferences into the discussion.

In trying to find a context for this remark I read over my last post...perhaps my identifying you as a "true hard core devotee" carried too much of a me vs you connotation.  Certainly I would fall into the same category for the vast majority of my gaming experience.

I'm the guy who thought Dungeoneers and Wilderness Survival Guide were the pinnacle of game design evolution and who dismissed OtE when it came out as a piece of froofy incomplete crap trying to pass itself off as a legitimate game.  We spent several years grafting Top Secret SI rules on top of Car Wars so we could play an RPG with a real vehicle combat system.  I am not trying to paint the "hard core devotee" in a bad light; because at the time this transition was going on (mid 80s)...I was one lock stock and barrel.  I participated firmly in the direction the hobby went.  In 1990 I tossed Prince Valiant aside with a sneer while grabbing for the latest Vampire splat.

I'm just saying that going down that road and catering to gamers like me was probably not the best thing for the industry in terms of long term profitability.

[Marco]

Well, maybe not.

Certainly some things like Soap (with appropriate marketing) would be a good step in the right direction. I suspect the ultimate mass-market game would be played in 1-2 hours, contain a very low level of weirdness, and require little by way of GM. Maybe the story would be set up universalis style or like Mad-libs (we are actually considering doing a pack of "mad-lib" mini-scenarios for an anime book).

But I do agree: if a niche market can be identified, catering to it is not a primary method to expand one's cachet. Perhaps time will tell what the true market potential is for RPG's--and perhaps that will give us more insight into what an RPG really is (the game I outline above would maybe be fun once in a while--but it's not what I'm truly looking for most of the time).

-Marco

[Dauntless]

There is another possibility that RPG'ing is not a mainstream activity simply because it does not suit the interests of the majority of people, rather than due to 80's games influencing and shaping how RP'ing is done.

Let me address the first point, the first being RP'ing as a mainstream hobby.  First I think you have to define what you mean by making RP'ing a more mainstream hobby.  Is it acceptance value?  In that case there are many hobbies which have only niche audiences, and there should be no attemtpt to make them more popular (bungee jumping, street luging, skate boarding, certain gambling games, and even certain computer games).

Look at the movie industry.  Some of the top grossing films of all time are movies I haven't seen (ET and Titanic for example).  Why?  Because they simply held no interest for me.  However, the majority of people found something intersting about these movies.  Now here comes the important part.  Getting people to accept something and like it is a different goal than just getting people to tolerate it or be exposed to it.  

I admit that I wish more people would express interest in and enjoy certain genres or types of gaming style.  However, it would be folly for me to expect them to do so.  Instead, the best I can hope for is to showcase my ideas and hopefully they will come.  Getting out my ideas and letting people see them IS the battle.  Getting them to accept and like it however is up to the mainstream audience.  If they like it, great, but if they don't oh well.

So in this case, the mainstream simply thinks D&D IS roleplaying.  Perhaps this is because through whatever means they have not been exposed to different kinds of games.  Now who's fault is this?  I"m not sure...perhaps several.  It could be the gamers themselves for only choosing games like GURP's or D&D, therby only letting non-gamers see these kinds of games.  It could be the designers for not producing more varied game types and producing incestual bastardizations (clones) of previous games.  But to counter my own suggestion, I find blaming gamers themselves somewhat hard to swallow.  For example, if I loved martial arts movies, then I'm probably going to hunt and look around for different martial arts movies.  Without this inborn interest and curiosity, I might be stuck thinking the only kind of martial art movies there are are old 70's kung fu flicks, Bruce Lee and Jean Claude Van Damme.  Never mind Jet Li, Donnie Yen, Jackie Chan, Yuen Biao or Sammo Hung.  

So should we blame the designers for not being creative enough?  I think this is akin to the chicken and egg question.  On one hand, designers want to make money....and they know product X is succesful, so why not regurgitate product X?  It could also be the case that they simply think, well, product X IS roleplaying, so we just have to alter it because well, that's the only way you CAN make a game.  However, I think that's a discredit to the ingenuity and creativity of designers.  So that leaves a more easy to swallow answer that if games like GURPS and CoC have influenced game design, it's because it is what the designers themselves like.

In essence, people will gravitate towards what suits their perrsonality.  If someone is already interested in the hobby, then they will seek out as much variety as they can until they find something that appeals to them the most.  I think there already is a good deal of variety (at least if we count OOP games), so I think the the real battle isn't changing games they way they are now, but simply presenting them to the public in a way that will strike their fancy and make it seem socially acceptable.

[Mike Holmes]

I think I have a nifty little insight into all this. And I'm going to agree with Marco. Well, only insamuch as I disagree with Ralph on where to lay the blame.

As John points out, these games hit the shelves and were popular in their time, and still are today. So, the fact that follow ons were not so different isn't too impoprobable. But there's a problem here. If the mainstream was getting into RPGs, and then there was this left turn away from what RPGs were, then who was it who was buying these new RPGs?

It was us nerds, AKA, the GMs.

See, I've never seen a player buy an RPG. The only people that I know who've bought RPGs were GMs. Oh, sure, there are exceptions, but I'll bet that for the most part that GMs represent 90% of the market. So these are the guys to market too, right?

Well, there's your problem. See, the GMs are they guys for whom the "order of magnitude" of preparation is a neat thing. But then they take and present this new way of gaming to their mainstream players. And what happens? It dries up.

It's GM's not anticipating what their "mainstream" friends (or not caring) wanted to play that caused the problem, IMO. We did it to ourselves. By selecting more and more complex games with more and more prep time, play time, and other barriers to the "normal" folk, we sequestered the hobby from them.

We asked for GURPs. Hell knows I did. I was overjoyed when I got my first copy. Then I was surprised when it started to get hard to get players. I shoulda known it had something to do with that Cubing of the Mass in KG in the Damage die calculation in Villains & Vigilantes, but I kept telling myself that I could do all the math for the players. Nevermind that they were bored out of their skulls as I sat and did the calculations.

The designers can't be blamed, nor the games themselves. Things did take a left turn in the early 80s: right where we wanted it to go. It was our own shortsightedness that doomed the hobby to it's continued niche status.

OTOH, I have no problem with that.  

Mike

[jdagna]

Mike, I think you make a good point about the game market: that only a small number of people we'd call gamers actually purchase product, and they're the ones who don't mind demanding or difficult material.

This puts the industry in a catch 22.  Cater to the ones who are buying and keep the status quo going, or cater to the ones who aren't buying in a futile attempt to change the status quo.  In the former scenario, you eke out a few sales.  In the second, you usually don't even do that well.

Of course, I still think Atari (followed by SEGA, Nintendo, and Sony) are more to blame than anyone else.

Anyway, there is no lack of products have tried to reach the larger audience with simple, quick and GMless games.  Take the "How to Host a Murder" games for instance.  Is it a dinner party?  Improv theater?  An RPG?  All of the above?  And they sold reasonably well, enough that I saw them in places like B&N and Wal-Mart.  

The bottom line is that RPGs cater to a relatively small segment of the population.  I don't think anything has particularly hurt the hobby.  It just hasn't grown much because that small segment of the population reached saturation pretty quickly.