Topic: The World vs. one.
Started by: Eric J.
Started on: 7/7/2002
Board: RPG Theory
On 7/7/2002 at 6:06am, Eric J. wrote:
The World vs. one.
I feel alone sometimes. Very alone. There are thousands of people working on new books, new games, new ideas, and new inventions constantly. I am but a single individual, a pebble throughout the entire industries that exist. I know that this has been brought up a million times but that fact alone ties into my point. I mean to ask this question.
How many different RPGs have you played?
How many exist?
I know that this is an elementary way of looking at it so I'll bring up the other factors that help us:
Our RPGs will be continually updated with new source material.
Our RPGs will probably be less costly.
Our RPGs will probably be more original than ones owned by monopolies.
There are other reasons, but I just can't see games like Sorcerer and Hero Wars being as successful as they diserve. I know that it's petty to complain about this problem when it's concept has existed for the entire stretch of humanity, but it's still there. More things are being patented, I know, but I just don't feel that I can make it. I know that horrible books will be read before mine. I know that people will buy games with high-quality graphics that their computers don't even support than the most innovative storylined CRPG that I produce. And I shureasheck know that people will play dozens of D&D clones before my game about time travel. People will play games because they're popular, rather than their value. I'm not stating this as a grudge, but as a fact. Any advice? I reiterate: I'm not a pessimist. I'm a realist.
On 7/7/2002 at 4:33pm, Le Joueur wrote:
What is Success?
The way you make it sound, "success" is making a lot of money. While making a lot of money is good (if you like money), I don't think that Ron measures the "success" of Sorcerer by whether it makes buckets of money or not.
Part of the problem with your expression of "success" is what you also complain about. "New source material," cost, or originality, are not always compatible with making wheelbarrows of money. For example, you make more money by raising the cost to as high as the market will bear. Flooding the market with "new source material" makes the 'market penetration' shallower meaning less profit, less money, and less "success." And finally, in order to appeal to more people, to sell more units (and make more money), a product cannot be 'totally original.'
A completely unheard of idea has the double problem of having to 'teach itself' to every new user (no possibility of preconceived notions) and without completely expressing itself, it has to catch their interest. (For example, a game about little yellow globs fighting against the encroaching salt crystals on the surface of their neutron star home, is certainly original, but will that make money and therefore be "success"ful? Probably not.)
On some level a product must be distinctive enough that it won't be confused for other, more successful, products, while at the same time being comfortably familiar. This is what 'suppresses originality' in products created by "monopolies" (which I argue is only an illusion, none actually exist - that's a subject for a different thread).
I have some idea how you feel. Will I be successful? Will anyone care? Why am I doing this? These are questions each of us has to answer for themselves. First you have to shed the idea that "success" is only measured in monetary terms. Unless I am mistaken, Ron considers Sorcerer very much a success. I know that I consider Scattershot a success in every way I value (except speed of production); I want to create a game that receives positive, critical feedback, has some innovative ideas that provoke thought in the indie rpg arena, and is 'familiar enough' that most gamers can 'pick it up' in short order. Success on all counts.
For me, the act of creation is where I receive my gratification. Money is nice, but being a father is better (both the reason for my production speed and for our poverty level). The Forge stimulates this so I spend a fair amount of time here.
Ultimately, you have to answer for yourself what success is, how you get it, and when you feel it (most importantly this last one). Judging by the criteria you list for your games, I think it would be a hopeless goal to choose money as your 'measuring stick.' (Especially since there will be none until the design is quite far along.) Find what makes you feel it is 'worth doing' from moment to moment and go with that. (Also keep an eye on it, in case 'it' changes.)
Good luck.
Fang Langford
On 7/8/2002 at 2:49am, Eric J. wrote:
RE: The World vs. one.
I don't judge sucess by monotary value. I judge success based upon how many people play it. Money is not a bad thing, for it allows the product to grow and expand, allowing it to be discussed with other people and expanded further. I judge the lightbulb as successful because it has had posative effects on humanity.
The inspiration of this post comes from my friends comment: "Your card game will just be a ripoff of magic." He has over 3000 magic cards. On my first day as a magic player, I beat him even though my deck only costed me a dollar. His Aunt works for WOtC, and we got into a conversation on how substantial and justful WOtC's control on gaming industry actualy is. He argued that WOtC's games were the best and most original while I argued that his lack of experience didn't constitute any thing, and that they were simply the most popular. He constantly condescends my attempts to accomplish anything, related to RPGs, Card games, and books. I take his outlook as the average person, because he's the most average person I really know. One reason that I had for creating this thread was to ask how valid that inferance is.
When I say that Sorcerer and Hero Wars aren't as succesful as they deserve to be, I mean that their compolation and premise surpass most systems on higher levels, and that I should be able to go to local gaming stores and join a Sorcer gaming group on Thursdays instead of a D&D group. It is a compliment to thoes games as I can muster.
On 7/8/2002 at 3:10am, Ring Kichard wrote:
Angst.
You know, I hate Chicken Soup for the Soul. That series of books bugs the hell out of me. "Problems solved in under 1,000 words," blech.
I was going to write something like that, but I just stopped myself.
The truth of the matter seems to be, "business is hard, RPG business doubly so." We're in a niche of a niche industry, right now. Indie games are growing strongly but we're just a fraction of a small hobby.
Now, Ron may measure success differently, in fact I'm pretty sure he does, but the reason I consider him a success is that he has made something downright good. Maybe someday sorcerer will reach the "success" of D&D, but probably not and I don't think he'd want that.
What do I aspire to? I want to make a Damn Good Game. I want people that play it to think, "This is a Damn Good Game." If people buy my Damn Good Game I'll be happy. If people play it, I'll be happier. If people start talking about it the way they do Sorcerer, I'll be ecstatic. It will mean that I have achieved some fair skill in this field. If this never happens, that's ok too. I enjoy writing games; it feels like I'm a village toy maker. If only my friends play with my toys, at least they enjoy it. And if this game isn't good enough to earn its stripes, maybe the next one will be.
Someone once told me that a good game design takes 2 years at the least to develop. I've been thinking about mine pretty much every day for an hour or so at a time (some times much longer) for six months. I feel like I'm about a quarter done, so I buy this estimate.
So, what's my counter Chicken Soup message? Game design is hard, do it because you enjoy it, and take your time; life is long!
On 7/8/2002 at 6:10am, Le Joueur wrote:
Measuring by 'People Playing It' Isn't Much Better
Pyron wrote: I don't judge sucess by monetary value. I judge success based upon how many people play it.
Then we're right back to square one with originality and "new source material." Getting population of a game system again runs counter to these because of something they call the 'lowest common denominator' effect. That is, in order to reach the greatest number of people, a product must appeal to the lowest common denominator amongst them. Truly original games fail to reach the lowest common denominator inherently and as I pointed out, saturating your market often has the opposite effect of broad market penetration (this is actually one of the toughest things to 'peg,' too few products and they don't reach their market, too many and too few 'get through' to the broadest number).
Pyron wrote: The inspiration of this post comes from my friends comment: "Your card game will just be a ripoff of magic."
...I take his outlook as the average person, because he's the most average person I really know. One reason that I had for creating this thread was to ask how valid that inference is.
Using his rationale, Magic: the Gathering is a ripoff of War, or Cribbage, or Poker, or pretty much any game that uses cards. The inference is bad unless you wish to assume that average people are ignorant stereotypists as a group. (Certainly many 'average' people will be ignorant and many 'average' people will stereotype, but when you take them as a group, as an audience, they tend to be neither or at least not both.) I personally see 'average' people as perhaps saying what he does, but acting differently.
Likewise, it's more important to note that Magic: the Gathering was first, but not necessarily best. So what if another game is a 'ripoff;' if it does it better and people like it more soon the original won't be considered 'best' anymore. Take Steve Jackson's Illuminati game for example, almost the exact same premise, done without 'cards' (well, not the way Magic: the Gathering does it). It's been around for a lot longer and has a huge fan-base. I'd say, at the very least, Magic: the Gathering is a ripoff of that. (After all, look how little change was necessary to convert it into Illuminati: New World Order, completely a card game.) The point is your friend is talking out his ear probably because he suffers from publisher-envy or publisher-mystique (the idea that the published game is somehow inherently superior to one in design because it was made by 'professionals;' who, by the way, weren't 'professionals' when they did it).
Pyron wrote: When I say that Sorcerer and Hero Wars aren't as successful as they deserve to be, I mean that their compolation and premise surpass most systems on higher levels, and that I should be able to go to local gaming stores and join a Sorcerer gaming group on Thursdays instead of a D&D group. It is a compliment to those games as I can muster.
One step at a time, my friend; these games have only been around for a few years. Dungeons & Dragons is nearing 30; let's see how well they compare in another 25 years. Then we can truly judge. Saying that a babe in the woods is not as successful as it should be is assuming way too much. I think Sorcerer and Hero Wars are doing incredibly well for their age (especially campared to Dungeons & Dragons' first five years). You want to be able to join a Sorcerer group? I say start one! Why aren't you giving those games the compliments "they deserve?" (Or for that matter, making it possible for others "to go to local gaming stores and join a Sorcerer gaming group on Thursdays?")
Besides, weren't we talking about your motivation as a game designer? For that I say, "bullocks to your 'average' friend, full steam ahead!" Until he's had years of experience in the publishing industry, I hardly think you should take his advice on what is original or worthy.
Just do what you like.
Fang Langford
On 7/8/2002 at 7:13am, Eric J. wrote:
RE: The World vs. one.
Just a note: I have been trying to start a sorcerer group, but they just won't listen to me. The belief that Star Wars D20 is the ultimite RPG (despite it's inherent connection to D&D and thousands of problems) is all encumbersome.
On 7/8/2002 at 9:58am, Victor Gijsbers wrote:
RE: The World vs. one.
Pyron wrote: I don't judge sucess by monotary value. I judge success based upon how many people play it.
How strange. If we used that definition of success for books, J.K.Rowling's books are more successful than those of Milton or Tolstoj; if we used it for music, the songs of the Backstreet Boys are more successful than the music of Bach. (At least at this moment.)
Now obviously, you can define success this way; it is not even very counter-intuitive. But why, using this definition, would you want to achieve success anyway? Is it not beter to be Bach than to be the Backstreet Boys, better to be Tolstoj than Rowling?
I'd call an RPG successful if it was just damn good. Of course, if nobody played it, that would be sad; but I wouldn't mind my RPG being played only by a small group of people. Who wants to make mass-culture anyway?
On 7/8/2002 at 3:04pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: The World vs. one.
Hi there,
I guess I've been mentioned enough on this thread that I oughta say something, although Fang has covered all of the relevant points as well as anyone could possibly do.
Eric, it so happens that Sorcerer makes money. Adept Press is not in debt, and there are very few role-playing game companies that can say that during the first year that they published. Financially, "success" is defined by staying in the black. I'm there.
It is also a big part of my concept of "success" that people play the game. However, what does not matter to me is the proportion of actual role-players out there who play it. Maybe it appeals most to only 2% of the role-players. OK, that's fine - I consider it successful if those 2% are playing and enjoying it. I have no idea what the real percent is, by the way, which is why I keep promoting the game.
But that's enough about me. To return to the real point of the thread, Fang's right. Not much more to say.
Best,
Ron