The Forge Archives

Yesterday on EN World, Ryan Dancey was championing the glory of the OGL and the benefits the market will reap from its existance. It got me wondering what it actually means to the independent publisher, and what we, as indie publishers, think of the business strategy espoused by Mr. Dancey.

Some issues that arose I'm particularly interested in discussion:

He suggests the hobby is growing, not shrinking, and ties this to the use of the OGL and the D20 game. How do retailers view this? Is D20 the big cash cow for THEM?

That the design philosophy they attacked (the creation of non-standardized game systems) was "killing the RPG category" and the dramatic and substantial change introduced by the OGL is the saviour that has kept the market from dying.

Of particular interest are the following quotes:

QuoteI said that making it possible to use the D&D rules at zero cost should drive support for other game systems to the lowest level possible in the market, and create customer resistence to the introduction of new game systems.

QuoteI said that making it possible to use the D&D rules at zero cost should make it harder to convince consumers that using a non-D&D based ruleset was a good idea.

Meaning that WotC wishes to muscle out any competition, not merely allow the cream to rise to the top, but quite sincerely choke off anyone who is not publishing D20 games (which is what "making non-D&D based rulesets a bad idea" means). This, of course, is a direct threat to independent publishers who choose not to utilize D20.

Mr. Dancey also claims there has not been a successful release of a brand of new non-D20 game since d20 launched (giving one exception). He cites 10,000+ units as successful.
Question to those in the know: how many successful launches, by the definition given above, of non-D&D games were there prior to the launch of D20?
He goes on to state there has been no reasonably successful launch of a non-D20 game since d20 launched. I presume he means a launch considered successful by a smaller company for whom 10,000+ units is simply beyond their current ability.
Same question to those in the know: how many reasonably successful launches, by the definition given above, of non-D&D games were there prior to the launch of D20?

Finally, I want to point out the following item:

QuoteI constantly hear consumers asking people who publish non-d20 games "why not use d20". That's a question that publishers have to face and answer now. They can answer it, but they have to be prepared with a reasonable response other than "we don't like WotC".

I've heard this, too, repeatedly. In fact, I was there when Ron was asked at GenCon (of Sorcerer), "Why don't you make this a D20 game?"

I, of course, know the answer: because "System Matters." But is the word getting out to the consumers? Cruising the various message boards at RPGnet and ENWorld, it would seem not -- the consumers believe in all truth that "d20 can do ANYTHING" when it quite obviously can not fulfill the desires of all gamers, even "tweaked."

Finally, an opinion, though Ryan states that he is not biased due any connection with d20, using statements about his lack of earnings from the OGL or the strategy employed to support his claimed non-bias, I find that due the criticism he has recieved over it and his strong sustained support of the concept, his ego is as entrenched in the success or apparent success of the OGL/d20 system that the criticisms of a bias are perfectly valid and reasonable.

My opinions:

1) Dancey is the greatest business mind to enter the rpg arena... ever.
2) Nothing Dancey says, does, or desires has any impact on anything I put my hands to in the rpg arena.
3) 10K+ units as a benchmark for success sure as shit squezes the hell out of the competitive arena.  The fact that he has such a high benchmark means that a) he could care less about micropublishing (as it should be, frankly) and b) we could care less about him (as it should be, frankly).  

Dancey's OGL was a wonderful marketing tool for D&D3E.  We have seen the brilliance there (where are we now? 3.5 or something?).  Great.  So what?

D&D serves a purpose in the rpg industry, and that is to provide a common anchor for people to latch onto.  It *is* a rallying point for our subculture (opinions of the game aside).  Fine.  Let it be that.  

What we (and by "we", I mean game designers, as opposed to product designers... ooh, that may have had teeth) are doing is advancing the industry, the subculture, and our specific playerbase.

Besides, if 10K+ units is the benchmark, Apophis has sold over that (in total, not of the core product).  Obsidian2 launched at the same time as D&D3E...  

But that aside, success, as has been mentioned once or twice at the Forge, should *not* be measured by turnover, but by solvency and actual play.  Sure, I own D&D3e... some very kind people gave me tons of the stuff, but I have played it once... just once.  It did what it was supposed to (I guess), but that ain't my can o' worms.  

I would consider D&D3e a further cry from success than, say, Obsidian or Sorcerer... mainly because of the impact, growth, and solvency attributable to the later 2 games.  Black is the new black, as it were.  

More on this later, I gotta get to a club now and do some dancin' with some pretty people.

Dav

Quote from: greyormI constantly hear consumers asking people who publish non-d20 games "why not use d20"

You know, I can deal with what Ryan says because a decent chunk of it is simply hype. It's this kind of thing that gets to me. The masses dancing to the piper's tune. Why not use d20? Because I don't need to. In fact it's better without it.

*shakes head*

Life's too short to wasted time with this.

Some answers to your questions, from the point of view of someone who works as BOTH an industry marketing and operations consultant as well as an indie designer:

Quote from: greyorm
He suggests the hobby is growing, not shrinking, and ties this to the use of the OGL and the D20 game. How do retailers view this? Is D20 the big cash cow for THEM?

No, it's not a "Cash Cow".  The cash cows of the past couple of years have been Yu-Gi-Oh and the various Clix miniatures games.

That said, it has substantially increased RPG sales for most retailers, and all of that increase was due to D&D3e and D20 products.

Quote
Meaning that WotC wishes to muscle out any competition, not merely allow the cream to rise to the top, but quite sincerely choke off anyone who is not publishing D20 games (which is what "making non-D&D based rulesets a bad idea" means). This, of course, is a direct threat to independent publishers who choose not to utilize D20.

Um....No.    That's not what the quote means, and your interpretation is more than a little bit over-stated.  Understand that he's referring to the "lowest level possible in the market", which is where the overwhelming majority of the independant designs occupied ANYWAY.   Remember the economy of scale we're dealing with here.

Quote
Question to those in the know: how many successful launches, by the definition given above, of non-D&D games were there prior to the launch of D20?

3-4 per year.  Most would come from established companies (such as when White Wolf would roll out a new World of Darkness core book).

Quote
Same question to those in the know: how many reasonably successful launches, by the definition given above, of non-D&D games were there prior to the launch of D20?

I would say that averaging out to every two years or so, you'd see a breakout release from a new publisher that hit that level--Deadlands is a good example.

QuoteI've heard this, too, repeatedly. In fact, I was there when Ron was asked at GenCon (of Sorcerer), "Why don't you make this a D20 game?"

I, of course, know the answer: because "System Matters."

Yes, system does matter---which is why D20 remains the most popular game engine in use.   It may not be a popular fact among indie designers, but the reason why D20 is so popular is because it suits the needs of the majority of gamers in the market.   It gives them precisely what they want.

QuoteBut is the word getting out to the consumers? Cruising the various message boards at RPGnet and ENWorld, it would seem not -- the consumers believe in all truth that "d20 can do ANYTHING" when it quite obviously can not fulfill the desires of all gamers, even "tweaked."

Two things here:

1) The word IS getting out to the consumers...it's some designers that are ignoring the word.    It's not rocket science, folks.   Economics bear it out.  D20 is what the majority of gamers want.  If you design for something other than D20, don't complain about a smaller audience, because you're purposefully designing for a minority niche by not using the most popular rules-set.   THERE ISN'T ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS.   Niche marketing is just as valid, and a reasonable business decision, as long as you realize that you're never going to "break out" and reach the larger numbers.   It just doesn't make sense to complain about it.

2)The reason that consumers think that D20 can do anything is because, simply, in the hands of any reasonably talented game designer, IT CAN.   (Then again, so could any other rules-set, given a talented-enough designer).   The "tweaks" you deride are actual game design, and no different or less valid than designing the latest over-academized, jargon-heavy "GNS/pervy/vanilla/abashed game with drift and a such-and-such stance".

Quote
Finally, an opinion, though Ryan states that he is not biased due any connection with d20, using statements about his lack of earnings from the OGL or the strategy employed to support his claimed non-bias, I find that due the criticism he has recieved over it and his strong sustained support of the concept, his ego is as entrenched in the success or apparent success of the OGL/d20 system that the criticisms of a bias are perfectly valid and reasonable.

In my opinion, too many people--gamers, designers, publishers and consumers--have a near-pathological obsession when it comes to Ryan.   Anything the man says must be suspect...Anything he does must have the worst possible interpretation...and he sure as hell can't ever be RIGHT, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

It's not only sad, it's more than a little bit infuriating.  The man is one of the best (if not THE best) business minds in this industry, and, like it or not, is responsible for literally saving the game industry in the long run.  One need only look at the growth in income, and the growth in the number of people able to work in the industry to see that clearly.

GMS

I would respect Ryan's assertions much more if he were ever correct about matters where I have the facts. I know that he is consistently wrong about White Wolf's business - occasionally over-inflating, more often grossly understanding - and that he keeps making assertions after people who have legitimate access to the data say "it isn't so". I also know that he makes claims about the historical rise and fall of gaming sales which directly contradict the experience of both publishers and retailers of my acquaintance.

I do think that the Open Gaming License is a remarkably good idea, and I think it took someone with his level of confidence and drive to make it happen. I also acknowledge that I was dead wrong about whether WotC would use it as a tool to mess up anyone using it who became inconvenient to their plans. I think I had reasons for that skepticism, given the company's history of capricious change of plan on no notice, but the fact is that they didn't do it.

But I don't think he's the savior of gaming. I don't think the industry would have died without the stuff he and the others set in motion. Or at least I don't think it would have died any sooner - I don't think there's more than somewhere between five and twenty years in the current gaming retail market anyway, as technological and cultural changes make it easier and easier for alternatives to compete with stagnant lazy service. I don't think D&D3 will change that.

I'm also persistently annoyed at his general refusal to acknowledge that gaming companies may legitimately pursue goals other than his and be successes by standards he happens not to hold. He acts as though there are no precedents like Arkham House or Realworld Music or the Sundance Festival or Fantagraphics or Utilikilts - successful, profitable enterprises which do not seek for or wish to compete with Bertelsmann and A&M and Fox and the Gap, but which are for true businesses making for true money and enjoying good relations with their customers. I know that he's focused on being #1 in whatever field he's in, but that's not a lot of creators' drives and in some cases it can be an active distraction from success measured by other criteria.

Quote from: Bruce Baugh
I'm also persistently annoyed at his general refusal to acknowledge that gaming companies may legitimately pursue goals other than his and be successes by standards he happens not to hold. He acts as though there are no precedents like Arkham House or Realworld Music or the Sundance Festival or Fantagraphics or Utilikilts - successful, profitable enterprises which do not seek for or wish to compete with Bertelsmann and A&M and Fox and the Gap, but which are for true businesses making for true money and enjoying good relations with their customers.

I dunno---isn't his oft-quoted "lowest level possible in the market" basically a statement about the Arkham House/Realworld/Sundance model?   It always seemed to me, both in reading that, and in conversations I've had with him, that he's perfectly happy with the idea of game publishers operating on that level who do not seek for or wish to compete with the Bertelsmanns, Foxes, or Gaps of the industry...

GMS

I have never seen Ryan acknowledge the possible desirability of any goal but being #1, or act as though a business which completely dominates a distinct niche and is economically successful at it even though much larger players dominate the rest of the field can be considered successful. And I and others have brought this up over the years. (It's not just Ryan, of course - pretty much everyone who spoke or speaks for WotC takes the drive to be #1 very seriously. Sometimes this leads to amusingly tortuous rhetoric about why, for instance, there was never a Dominaria D&D book.)

I should repeat, since a friend browsing asked, that I really do think Ryan's got accomplishments that warrant a fair amount of pride and congratulation. He's done stuff in the face of not just skepticism but hostility, and done it in the midst of a corporate culture I couldn't function in at all. That's very substantial stuff. I don't want my substantial disagreements to diminish that - I intend them to add a dimension of complication to the picture, but not to deny or diminish the reality of the good stuff.

Hello,

Here are some impressions gathered over the last couple of years. Just consider it data, or "data from one man's perspective."

Bit of perspective: You guys should know that I keep some pretty good relationships going with a number of retailers and often give them very careful, very clear attention. These are the ones who know a bit about what's on their shelves, encourage a lot of actual play in their stores, and keep an eye on long-term success of a line. They are also the ones who've been in business for quite a while without outside subsidy.

1. Many retailers of this description would very much like to have some RPG material to sell which is not D20. They are currently experiencing a "floundering in the surf" phase in their ordering strategies which is pretty frustrating. They'd really like a game which they simply can say, "Its name is X, it's about X, and it plays like X. It isn't 'like' anything else particularly and it's not 'part of' any bigger thing in particular."

They didn't say this four years ago. They are saying it now. Common dialogue at GTS: "Is it a D20 game?" "Nope." "Oh thank God." Interestingly, and to illustrate that we are dealing with non-dummies here, they do think that highly appropriate (e.g. D&D fantasy compatible material) might do well to have a D20 section in the back

2. A good company, to them, is one which puts out books when they say they will, and one who keeps close contact with distribution so that the distributor doesn't run out of copies and simply forget about it (a common thing, with smaller-press games). It's also one which remembers their names, shoots'em an email once in a while, participates at the Game Industry Forum perhaps, and puts store info up at the website. (These guys do not mind direct-sales from websites at all, especially if they're sold at MSRP and especially if the website promotes the stores as well.)

What I'm saying is that having a non-D20 game does not constitute business suicide, if you know the business and act strategically.

3. "Success," if you're involved in the actual-book trade, is largely a matter of being in the "automatic re-order" category in the retailer's mind. Run out of Sorcerer? Oh, order it next order-period. Even better, running low on Sorcerer? Order it so we don't run out. Once you have that relationship with a certain number of stores, such that the cash flows in at a certain rate (whatever it takes to fund your expenses), then you are successful.

I agree with Ryan Dancey in nearly every descriptive particular, excepting those when he over-speaks himself about specific companies' current finances (which I can understand and overlook once in a while). Where we differ concerns only what "success" means, and hence, the necessary "what to do" when running your game company.

For example, he is very concerned with market share - the proportion of "gamers out there" which buy product X vs. product Y. This variable is so completely off my radar screen as to be almost Martian instead of English. He speaks of people "complaining" because D20 (or what-have-you) represents a large market share; I think of such complaints, if they exist, as also Martian.

4. I do think one crucial variable is being smoke-screened by every minutes of the bandwidth out there on this topic: that "present in large quantity on the shelves" does not represent "overwhelming gamer demand." And furthermore, when a large quantity is present on the game store shelves, observably high sales of that game are quite likely due to a certain degree of supply-side "push" rather than to demand-side "grab."

You guys do know, 'cause we've talked about it here at lot, that a "sale" really needs to be qualified as a "distributor sale," a "retailer sale," or a "customer sale." Not the same animals at all.

What this means is that waving high numbers in one another's face, or using empty qualifiers like "reasonable success" (a gov-speak phrase if I ever saw one, easily translated to "my kind of success"), is doubly meaningless.

Best,
Ron

Darned good points on all fronts, Ron. Most particularly about the difference between kinds of sales, he said, looking at the figures for a beloved project which came in significantly lower than it would have overall because a distributor collapse stranded more than a thousand copies. What really counts for gaming as a thing people do rather than as someone's business (which is only of interest to business people, by and large) is the sales to customers and their enjoyment of what they've got.

Quote from: Bruce BaughWhat really counts for gaming as a thing people do rather than as someone's business (which is only of interest to business people, by and large) is the sales to customers and their enjoyment of what they've got.

Actually, if I understand Ron correctly, even the business people should be more mindful of customer sales than distributor or retailer sales. These are the actual sales to the end user and sales here will eventually lead to more sales in the other two tiers in the form of reorders. Counting your ditributor or retail sales is very much counting chicken before they've hatched.

QuoteUm....No.    That's not what the quote means, and your interpretation is more than a little bit over-stated.

Well, I'll disagree with you there. "Other games systems are bad" means nothing other than "other game systems are bad." Whatever the level of scale we're talking about..."what he really meant when he said" is creating a quote to examine rather than examining the one presented and actually given.

This concerns me directly. Other say I'm too small a fish to count, and I don't believe for one minute I'm competing directly with WotC or the big d20 publishers, however, what the above strategy does do is create an atmosphere among gamers where they will be less inclined to try my products because they aren't d20 products -- economies of scale have nothing to do with that.

Quote3-4 per year.  Most would come from established companies (such as when White Wolf would roll out a new World of Darkness core book).
...
I would say that averaging out to every two years or so, you'd see a breakout release from a new publisher that hit that level--Deadlands is a good example.

So, what happened to these releases after d20?
Why are there suddenly four-to-five fewer successful launches?
The influence of D20?

QuoteYes, system does matter---which is why D20 remains the most popular game engine in use.   It may not be a popular fact among indie designers, but the reason why D20 is so popular is because it suits the needs of the majority of gamers in the market.   It gives them precisely what they want.

Gamers don't "want" d20...the fact that the majority have experienced nothing else and are even unaware of the variety of other game systems available to them is the main reason I find this "fact" you present to be suspect.

You can't "want" something when you don't even know what the alternatives are. Gamers are "fed" d20 after a fashion -- it is often an entry-point into the hobby -- but it doesn't "suit" the majority: don't confuse ignorance with choice.

Even when you branch out into other systems, gamers are also introduced to specific styles of play, and as a group tend to consider that role-playing is all about that style. When they've never experienced other styles of play, and (more importantly) believe there are no other ways to do it, there is no firm basis for anyone to make a "choice."

QuoteNiche marketing is just as valid, and a reasonable business decision, as long as you realize that you're never going to "break out" and reach the larger numbers.

I'm opposed to that attitude, especially considering RPGs are, themselves, a niche, nor do I see d20 or D&D becoming anything else or being able to be anything else. We discussed this in The Big Five: getting games to the mass market rather than the niche market.

D20 won't do it, Indie designers will -- at least that's where I'd put my bets right now. The new Marvel game, and similar companies producing similar items, would be the second place to look, IMO. This is another reason why I don't think d20 is the saviour of the market.

QuoteThe reason that consumers think that D20 can do anything is because, simply, in the hands of any reasonably talented game designer, IT CAN.   (Then again, so could any other rules-set, given a talented-enough designer).   The "tweaks" you deride are actual game design, and no different or less valid than designing the latest over-academized, jargon-heavy "GNS/pervy/vanilla/abashed game with drift and a such-and-such stance".

I find a number of points with those statements highly disputable. Whether you think it motivated by some sort of GNS-fanboy nonsense or not, I support simple logic, and that simple logic is that no system, not even d20, can do everything. Whatever you think of the actual GNS categories and divisions, I think it is undisputable that certain designs appeal to certain individuals, and not all designs will appeal to all gamers.

Yes, you can "tweak" d20 so that it does work better for certain types of play, but the problem is that it isn't going to be the best tool for the job. Case in point, in order to play many of the games I prefer and enjoy, I would have to "tweak" d20 so hard it would not be called d20 anylonger. Rather like trying to tweak Monopoly into a game like Risk.

There is no system that can do everything, because each system is focused differently and provides different play experiences.

Quote...and he sure as hell can't ever be RIGHT, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Like Bruce, the reason I suspect him is because the evidence he likes to present is often suspect if not downright false. It's something I've seen over and over again from other industry professionals: Ryan needs to get his facts straight.

I suppose this is totally naive, but it seems to me that Ryan is very useful for indie designers if, as Ron describes, the latter have and encourage relationships to various retailers/distributors/etc.  Surely people who like to sell RPGs like RPGs?  I mean, in the main?  And I'd think that those people, believers though they often are in the nuked applecart, would really like to have their customers return to buy more stuff.  Surely the best way to promote this is to encourage customers to buy things they will genuinely like?

So, for example, you have a customer who comes in, flips through the latest D20 material, and looks kind of bored and annoyed.  The shopkeeper says, "Are you looking for something?"  "Yeah, I played a couple of these D20 things, but they really weren't all that great.  Are any of these other ones better?"  "Well, perhaps, and I'd have to know what supplements you played, but maybe D20 isn't your thing.  There are other options."  "Really?"  "Oh, yes.  What kind of game did you want?  I mean, like the world, or the stuff you like in movies, or whatever."  "Oh, I dunno, I kinda like modern magic horror stuff."  "Are you into combat a lot, or more like exploring the agony of it all?"  "Oh, I'm sick of guns and ammo, actually."  "Really.  Have you tried Sorcerer?"  "Never heard of it."  "Uh huh.  Here.  It's not real expensive, but it's pretty fantastic.  Give it a try.  Come back and tell me how it went, okay?"  "Great!  Thanks!"  Now this is a customer who's going to go back to the shop, I'm betting, to ask for more suggestions and advice ... and to buy more stuff.

I know this is an ideal case, but I'd have thought this was the whole advantage of a knowledgeable retailer: you get them into the shop using somebody else's expensive flashy products, but you get them out carrying a copy of something quite different.

If Ryan wants to carry on and make a fuss about success and money, then he's going to attract attention to the hobby.  How is this a bad thing?  He can't squeeze others out, even if he wants to, after all.

Quote from: greyorm
Gamers don't "want" d20...the fact that the majority have experienced nothing else and are even unaware of the variety of other game systems available to them is the main reason I find this "fact" you present to be suspect.

You can't "want" something when you don't even know what the alternatives are. Gamers are "fed" d20 after a fashion -- it is often an entry-point into the hobby -- but it doesn't "suit" the majority: don't confuse ignorance with choice.

If you honestly believe that after 30 years of other products being regularly available that people are ignorant to the alternatives, then I don't think we really have anything to discuss here.  


GMS

If you believe they aren't ignorant of alternatives, then you're right, we don't have anything to discuss here.

Quote from: clehrichIf Ryan wants to carry on and make a fuss about success and money, then he's going to attract attention to the hobby. How is this a bad thing? He can't squeeze others out, even if he wants to, after all.

If all that fuss and thunder is reaching people outside the RPG niche, then sure, sounds good. I don't know if it is, but my guess is that it isn't...as to squeezing others out, well, that's precisely what the plan is, and Ryan Dancey believes it is succeeding.

Well, as Ron points out, believes is succeeding since we don't know if those sales figures are actual in-the-hands-of-consumers sales or bought-and-paid-for-but-sitting-on-the-shelves.

Hence my questions above about it, which I'd really like to get back to. Any other publishers out there with thoughts on them?