Car News

Responses in context below, with some sections snipped out for brevity-
sake...

On Wednesday, September 29, 2010 03:14:07 pm Bob Scranton wrote:
> There is a general weakness in the table-top gaming community. This
> fact needs to be addressed and corrected. This weakness comes from
> several fronts.
<snip>

> In this thread I will discuss The protective attitude of Game
> Masters, Game Stores, and Game Manufacturers. Part II discussed the
> concept that cheaper is better.
>
> There is a general trend in the gaming community by game masters to
> protect what they believe to be theirs. What they seek to do is to
> keep and maintain areas they perceive to be theirs. What this does
> is create a strong kernel of players who feel special about their
> gaming group. The GM does this to protect his ability to play every
> weekend. He believes that his group is all important. Thus, he
> strives to maintain the core group. This has the effect of
> isolating them from the larger community. When isolation occurs,
> the group and the GM will believe everything is alright, ok.
>

Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that this is cause of
those actions, rather than a symptomatic response to other issues
possibly?
I tend to be a much more open than typical GM in adding new players in
the perspective of allowing new players (and I usually have anywhere
from 1-5 different groups going at any one time, not counting
conventions of course). However, I do have an interview process (not at
all daunting, and completely open to completely novice, brand new
players, which I, my children, and my fellow gamers are frequently
trying to introduce to the joy of RPGing). The reasons that I do NOT
select some players, and/or ask players to leave a group are more
behavioral-related issues. You list some in your over all table of
contents on this thread:
Inability to get along with others and participate in a collaborative
fashion.
Bathing/breath/body odor, or other unpleasant mannerisms.
Overly argumentative and/or disruptive to game play and player (and
GM!) enjoyment.
I am sure many could add other items to the list.

> However, what really occurs is a limiting of the gaming community
> because they, in their perceived rigid stability, do not seek to
> expand their group.

Generally, only so many players can participate in a gaming session, 4-5
being usually the "sweet spot". After about 6+ players there tends to be
longer waits between each player having a turn in actions and
participation. There is usually a little bit of natural "attrition" as
players change careers, family dynamics, geographical locations, etc.
Some groups die under these circumstances (too many) while others are
"forced" to find replacement members to continue the balance of the
group.
A GM can usually only run so many groups, considering the investment of
time for GM's to prepare a quality campaign. At my peak, when still in
my teens, before moving out on my own, and having optimal free time, I
was not able to run more than 4 different gaming groups simultaneously
in any given week. The time investment was significant, so there are
limits.
Forward this into the adult world with job responsibilities,
spousal/family obligations, etc. time becomes even more finite.
The number one reason I hear for groups dying off, is either the members
moving or "not enough time" related. Whether it is conflicting schedules
so the group can only get together rarely, or the GM only having a
limited amount of time available to work on a campaign.

> The fact that they believe they have the perfect
> group causes them to turn inward instead of outward. This protective
> stance causes an overall calcification or static nature to occur in
> their group. No new players equals same constant attitudes towards
> the game. Here we see the gaming group move from a genuine deep
> desire to play the game towards a more general camaraderie that
> halfheartedly plays the game. When this occurs, the overall group
> will tend to shift from a genuine love of playing the game to a more
> genuine enjoyment of hanging out.

Is there actually anything wrong with developing that camaraderie?
It seems a great addition when engaged in lengthy campaigns spanning
years of "real" time.

>
> This slow death of the game portion of the group results directly
> from the sameness that occurs over and over each time the group
> plays.

That is assuming a GM and/or players who do not inherently have an
interest in "mixing things up". There certainly are groups like that,
but personally my experience has been otherwise. I wonder how many other
have experienced either end of that spectrum, versus something more in
between?

> What the group did not understand nor the GM was the fact
> that new players will result in unique or different tactics at
> playing.

Agreed that new gamers definitely have that effect. That would seem to
be known by most experienced gamers though.

> Often, players will set-up a game and then proceed to play
> it and replay the same game in the same manner with the general same
> results. Thus, the excitement of playing the game must shift to an
> excitement of coming together to enjoy the company of good friends.

I am sorry, has this been your experience? That sounds terribly boring
if the groups do not try different things. Rotating GM's, completely
different campaign settings, different game systems, special house
rules, existing campaign "radical" events (plague anyone). Are you
saying this is a common occurrence or more of a worst-case scenario?
Due to different folks schedules, each week, we determine which campaign
(and system) we player based on which mix of players makes it that
night.
For example, if players 1, 3 and 5 are in attendance, we play Twilight
2000.
If players 1,2,4, & 6 in attendance, then Ea RPG (d20 adapted to Middle-
earth).
If the entire group it might be classic AD&D 1st Edition Dragonlance or
Babylon 5 (pre-d20).
If 3,4,5, & 6, it might be a rousing single night of Paranoia.
The list goes on.
It is preferred when the consistency is there from week to week, but it
is a way to adapt to dynamic situations without having to always NPC
another's characters (that is always an option too of course).

>
> We need to leave this type of coming together to the back-yard
> barbecue or the weekend social.

Really??? I guess if you are a gaming professional that would make
sense, but wouldn't the majority (90%+) fit more into the gaming to have
fun category, and as a by produce receive the many benefits inherent in
this _cooperative_ _SOCIAL_ _recreational_ activity?

> Gaming needs fresh views and unique
> perspectives to keep it alive and interesting.

Certainly.

> The overall
> protectionist attitude employed by many if not most GMs

I am very sorry if this has been your experience. Where are you
geographically? My experience in Utah, California, Idaho, Oklahoma, and
Eastern Washington so far has not been anything like that. There
certainly are individual groups and GM's like that, and I wouldn't know
about the exclusionists, since they would keep to themselves, so I
generally know the many GM's I've hired at my conventions, and my
players who have become GM's themselves, and so that has been a very
rare experience personally.

> and through
> them the gaming group directly results in a slow destruction of the
> game itself.

I can see how that kind of approach would definitely contribute to that
potentially, of course depending on many other variables as previously
mentioned.

> We often wonder why some groups seem to continually
> remain viable while others seem to drift off and then dissipate.

Marriages? Children being born? Work demands? Moving? Changes in tastes?

> One
> of the main answers comes when we analyze how GMs set the tone for
> their gaming groups. When gaming groups are welcoming to all players
> both old and new, the group remains viable and dynamic.

Indeed.

>
> What this general trend towards stasis means to the gaming community
> is two things. The first and most damaging problem is the rejection
> of new players. When any new player is rejected from playing a game,
> the results are a general reduction in the market sales of the gaming
> products to which game stores cling. Without these new infusions of
> cash, the game store struggles and eventually closes its doors. We
> must remember that gamers do not continually purchase the same rule
> books just to ensure that game stores stay open. In fact, as has
> recently been pointed out, EVERYONE is cheap, small minded, and
> childish since they keep their eye on the pocket book instead of the
> larger picture.

Sheesh

> Heck, they even tell me it is impossible to spend
> extra when a cheaper outlet is available. They seem to not care that
> child labor is involved or that their favorite location WILL go out
> of business as long as they can save a dollar or two. So, how can
> we expect them to re-purchase a rule book when they already have
> one? We cannot. Thus, in order to sell another rule book, we will
> have to have fresh new players.

Umm, interesting perspective. I have spent tens of thousands of dollars
on gaming paraphenelia since the 1970's, but I have ALWAYS had to live
within a budget even with the good fortune (and hard work) of being able
to semi-retire at age 33, 7 years ago. One of the beauties of RPG games
is the great return on investment and low TCO (Total Cost of Ownership)
compared to card games, war games, and computer games (and possibly why
the uptick in sales the past two years during the economic down turn).
But calling people who are attempting to be sensible in their spending,
and not overly impulsive in consumptive spending as small minded is
definitely a singularly narrow view of economic dynamics. Though it
_does_ make sense in the point you have been trying to make in the
previous and current email.

Many (if not most) of the "best" RPGs have been created (at least
initially) by individuals and groups who have made them a labor of love,
and if they get paid as a by product of their work, then so much the
better. Even Gary Gygax commented on the remarkable "pull" of the RPG
industry vs. the typical "push" of most industries.
It seems to me that it is the over emphasis on trying milk everyone on a
regular basis (e.g. WotC, collectible card games, Warhammer, etc.), with
less "meat" in rulebooks and new verions these days of major RPG systems
(having to by a PH 1 & PH 2, ad naseum) each with successively less real
content than the previous versions, that has certainly reduced my
frequency in buying new RPG products any more.

It would be one thing if the new versions of the games were actually
better, but they are increasingly dumbed down, bloviated, and offering
less real value for the money. You previously went on about cheapness. I
agree cheapness is bad, but wanting quality from a product, at any price
is very different than the cheap quality of much of the mainstream
products these days.

The business model you seem to be suggesting is what the gaming industry
has enjoyed especially from the collectible card games, and something
which I am utterly disgusted with.

>
> When the GM sets the tone that he has enough players, or that the
> players he has should not expand,

How far can a gaming group expand? What do you think is a realistic
number? 4, 5, 6,? 9? 10? 20?

> we see a general calcification of
> the overall gaming community structure. GMs need to understand that
> it is their responsibility to expand the player base as they are the
> ones who set the tone of their gaming groups.

But how do you suggest a GM do this beyond GMing 1 or 2 groups a week?
Are you suggesting GM's should become full time, 40+ hours per week, and
GM several groups per day before they are breaking out of this
"calcification" and meeting their "responsibility to expand"? I ask this
out of genuine interest to understand what a realistic scenario looks
like please.

>
> PART 3b)
>
> Game stores also have a problem with their protectionist attitudes.
> They seem to think that it is not their role to help other game
> stores survive and prosper.

I have seen otherwise from a number of game stores in many locations
over 4 decades.

> However, what they fail to understand
> is the fact that more game stores in their area (not necessarily
> right across the street) will equal more sales for game
> manufacturers.

This depends significantly on market saturation of an area.

> Plus, they will also see an upswing in their sales.
> However, it may not be measurable as to from where these sales
> result. This means that the game stores will not desire to help
> other stores succeed. The protectionist attitude by game stores
> results, in part, in a general lessening of sales across the board.
> The stores need to be in the mind set of increasing overall sales in
> the area not in their stores. This will result in a total increase
> of sales for the general gaming community.

True from an altruistic utopian perspective, but if you have 5+ stores
in a certain square mile area, natural selection is going to eventually
weed them down to just 1 or 2, or at most 3 stores, usually with some
sort of differentiating (specializing) factor to make them distinct from
their competitors.

>
> Game stores also have the reductive habit of seeking to promote
> certain game types or games over others. They do this because they
> too have an eye on their pocket books.

Um, oh no, not that. ;-)

> When they seek to maintain
> certain games by restricting an open door policy to all games,

Generally there are restrictions on cubic space, total cost of inventory
(they can only spend so much depending on market size, and carry so much
overhead before they go bankrupt).

> the
> result is a sameness to their player base.

Certainly can happen if they specialize, which is often caused by the
supplying vendor terms. For example, to be a Warhammer reseller, they
have VERY expensive inventory requirements about the minimum you must
purchase to be allowed to sell any of their product (I had been told 4
years ago it was a minimum of $25,000.00 USD, though I have not
personally verified what that store claimed). Often vendors will give
additional bulk discounts, and "preferred partners" discounts if a store
will carry only their range of products, etc. However, this means that
more than one store can be open, because the other stores will have
completely different content foci, potentially. This doesn't hold up as
well for the "big box" stores though.

> There will be a general
> trend to then label each store as a (insert game name here) game
> store. The word will spread to the gaming community that players
> wishing to play game X should go to game store X. The game stores
> that do this do in fact protect that game type or game as a viable
> game line, but at what cost?

Indeed..... ?
Let's see, I go to a bakery for bakery goods, not tires and rims.
I go to an automotive shop for vehicular items.
I guess they should be bakery and tire shops all in one?
I know this is an "absurd" extreme, but seems relevant as a
counterpoint.

>
> Many different kinds of people enter these game store. They all will
> have unique desires. Thus, they will want to purchase and play a
> multiplicity of games.

So you are saying that specialty stores, in the RPG realm are anathema,
and they should all be mega-broad-generalists?
That leads to more Wal-mart, Barnes & Noble, Borders, Hastings, type
"mega" stores, that become more and more homogenized, reduce diversity
of selection (based on the results of those examples).
Whereas specialty stores (not too specialized, but something making them
distinctive from their competitors) can thrive when certain market
verticals are in demand, and may have to change their foci when the
market demand changes. Yes, this is somewhat of a tyranny of the
majority, but then it opens up opportunities for smaller shops to open
with the "hard to find" non-mainstream content to differentiate
themselves, and thus the cycles ebb, flow, rinse, repeat... ;-)

> When the game store has a protectionist
> attitude towards a specific game, these new potential players often
> times will not see the viability of purchasing these new games. Why?
> The answer lies in the way players function in the game store. The
> ads promoting a game to be played in a store on day X will not
> encourage players to come to the game store and play game Y. Thus,
> there will be a restriction or reduction in the potential player
> base, since the only visible game being played at the store is the
> one being protected by the store owner. He will not see new players
> nor new sales. There will only be a cycle of sameness occurring in
> these types of stores.
>
> We have all been to these types of stores. The shelves are lined
> with the complete array of all of the products available for game X.
> However, there is a meager showing for the rest of the many games
> out there. This does not mean that the store should not carry game
> X nor does it mean that the store should carry ALL of the games out
> there. What this does mean is that the store should figure out a
> method that brings to light other games and promotes game play in
> the store that is different. This could be accomplished through
> stock rotation.

That is generally how it works regardless. If their offerings slow down
significantly in sales, then they stop ordering more of that product,
and order more of the product that is currently in demand, however, this
might be restricted by their vendor/supplier and/or theme, or geographic
locations (some product sales will only allow one store per capita to
avoid over saturation). These are all chances and risks that business
owners take, and fail to adapt at the risk of becoming extinct.

> Distinct game play can be ensured by reservation of
> specific game tables for other games or game types. Distinct game
> play can be nurtured by obtaining new GMs who want to play these
> other games. When there is a new game that is being attempted to be
> played, the store will have to make sure that the GM (who will
> initially have no players) does not feel isolated. The store owner
> can do this by being friendly to these GMs who are trying to grow a
> player base for this new game. Often, the efforts of new GMs will
> fail because they become disheartened by the lack of activity and
> people with which to play. So, to ensure that this does not happen
> and that the GMs will not give up, it is the direct responsibility
> of the owner to make it fun for the GMs while they are trying to
> grow their player base.

Ok. An interesting perspective on the placement order of the cart,
horse, yoke, harvest, miller, buyer supply chain cycle.

>
> The protectionist attitude by game stores to protect the strongest
> game ultimately results in lower sales.

That seems inherently an oxymoron "strongest game" assuming to be
strongest because of the greatest sales. If strongest is meant in some
other terms, then possibly that makes sense. If the store owner stays
locked into a product that _was_ the strongest product, but no longer
is, according to what the local market is demanding, _then_ it would
result in lower sales if the store owner is foolish enough to not
adjust.

> There will be no new players
> or if there are, their sales will be limited to obtaining just enough
> product to play game X. Moreover, the addition of new players will
> be slow. Thus, further limiting sales. We need to see variety and
> fun spreading throughout the game stores so that the many different
> kinds of players will feel welcome and see these game stores as a
> home not a place to slink in a purchase a game and then rapidly
> retreat because the game you like is not the one accepted by the
> store-protected by the store.
>
> PART 3c Game Manufacturers
>
> Game Manufacturers are culpable of restrictive practices.

Indeed.

> These
> leaders of the community do not desire to have programs that will
> increase the player base for ANY game company. All they see is an
> increase in sales for themselves.

While there are such narrow minded folks in businesses in every
vertical, my experience from the long term successful ones, is that if
you grow the market, you grow the potential for your total margins and
total profits point. Different people have different attitudes, some are
happy to be the little fish in the big pond, getting 2% of a multi-
billion-dollar market, versus a big fish in a little pond, owning 50% of
a 5 million dollar market.

> This results in a general
> destruction of other game manufacturers. When we have more games out
> in the community, the general result is more gaming. By focusing
> solely on their products without regard for other manufacturers, we
> see again a stultification of the gaming community. Thus, there will
> be a general trend of less money than more, of fewer players than
> more, of limited amounts stores than more. They will watch, from the
> ivory tower of the giant manufacturer, the total collapse of table
> top gaming.
>
> When all of these factors come together, the general trend is a slow
> spiral to the end of table top gaming. However, it is not too late.
> We need to help all three areas understand that open and helpful
> policies are the best. This proves true because these are the kinds
> of policies that expand not retract the gaming community.

I don't believe in the "too big to fail" philosophy at all. Collapse of
a business or market, means new opportunities for new entrepreneurs and
businesses to attempt different new approaches. The fall of a giant
company can mean the creation of dozens of small businesses finding more
successful business plans, and able to adapt more quickly to market
environmental changes.

Cheers!
--
------
-Hawke
http://www.rpgresearch.com
The mission: A large scale, long term, multi-variable, triple-blind
research
study on the therapeutic aspects of role playing gaming. The purpose
is to determine the causal characteristics of role playing games, rather
than relying on correlative data as other studies have done in the past.
(509) 481-5437
RPG Research Project beginning in 2003 and continuing.
Retired Computer Scientist.
Recreation Therapist & Research Scientist (in training).
Role Playing Gamer since 1979.
Game Master since 1984.
"Holistic medicine treats the person rather than the disease,
its concern lies with the 'whole person' and with permitting
individuals to assume self-responsibility for their own health.
Whereas illness is the sole concern of 'traditional medicine',
holistic 'well medicine' deals with wellness and health promotion"

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CAR-PGa" group.
To post to this group, send email to car-pga@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to car-pga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/car-pga?hl=en.