Revised CT?

[jchurchill]

Malefant sayeth:

"Actually, it's well known that d20 is the system that most people buy. Even if only a fraction of people who buy d20 books play it, there's still probably more people playing a d20 game than there are non-d20 Traveller players. From a market point of view, it certainly makes sense to use the system that is most commonly bought by gamers."

It may be true that more people buy D20 systems than D6 systems or CT/MT. It probably is true but that does not necessarily mean that the D20 system is inherently better. The Betamax/VHS struggle proved that popular did not mean better.

Further, to extend that same logic to its full and ugly consequences, the seal of approval from the marketplace doesn't necessarily mean "better" either. While D20 may outsell D6 systems/CT/MT, video games/play station/xbox/ outsell both D20 games and CT/MT Etc. Basically we are dinosaurs playing dinosaur games. The popularity of Resident Evil and the like far outweigh Traveller.
If economic might makes right then we should throw Traveller into the tarpit and jump in right after it. But we don't, do we?

 

[Gruffty]

If economic might makes right then we should throw Traveller into the tarpit and jump in right after it. But we don't, do we?

Because, as humans, we value the enjoyment it gives us, the mental stimulation it provides and the opportunity to be "not me" for a while.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by secretagent:
It may be true that more people buy D20 systems than D6 systems or CT/MT. It probably is true but that does not necessarily mean that the D20 system is inherently better. The Betamax/VHS struggle proved that popular did not mean better.

Ah, but "better" isn't coming into this argument. The market buys what the market buys - as you say, the Beta/VHS is a good illustration of that. If an RPG publisher wants to sell more copies of something, then if they have any sense they'll make it compatible with the most popular system around - which in the case of RPGs is still d20, by miles. That way, they get a chunk of the biggest part of the market, which means they make more money.

Making RPGs isn't cheap business. I'd imagine something that Hunter is considering in all this is whether QLI would be getting its money back from sales once the production costs are paid back (assuming that sales from a revised CT would even pay for the latter). Certainly, if QLI ends up losing money by making a revised CT then it would have been a very bad idea indeed (I'm assuming that QLI is in the black at the moment...!). I certainly don't want to see QLI lose monet - or worse, go bankrupt - over this.

Further, to extend that same logic to its full and ugly consequences, the seal of approval from the marketplace doesn't necessarily mean "better" either. While D20 may outsell D6 systems/CT/MT, video games/play station/xbox/ outsell both D20 games and CT/MT Etc. Basically we are dinosaurs playing dinosaur games. The popularity of Resident Evil and the like far outweigh Traveller.
If economic might makes right then we should throw Traveller into the tarpit and jump in right after it. But we don't, do we? [/QB]

No, because that's a silly argument

- tabletop RPGs aren't aimed at the same people who buy console games (though there is some overlap).

 

[jchurchill]

"Because, as humans, we value the enjoyment it gives us, the mental stimulation it provides and the opportunity to be "not me" for a while."

Exactly. Video games could provide that at some level but -- for us at least -- it doesn't.

 

[Takei]

Originally posted by Malenfant:

Making RPGs isn't cheap business. I'd imagine something that Hunter is considering in all this is whether QLI would be getting its money back from sales once the production costs are paid back (assuming that sales from a revised CT would even pay for the latter). Certainly, if QLI ends up losing money by making a revised CT then it would have been a very bad idea indeed (I'm assuming that QLI is in the black at the moment...!). I certainly don't want to see QLI lose monet - or worse, go bankrupt - over this.

And conversely, if QLI ended up making money, then that would be a good thing, right? And more money means more supplements, which will be dual-statted, which sell to a wider audience.

Hunter's not stupid. QLI seems to be doing well, so I'm assuming that him mentioning it in the first place means he thinks there's the potential to make more money. That's certainly how his comments read to me.

The d20 side of things is already covered with T20. Trying to sell more product to the CT market seems like a sensible move to me.

 

[jchurchill]

"Ah, but "better" isn't coming into this argument."

It appeared that one of your arguments was that D20/T20 was better and that a revised CT was a waste of time because more gamers bought "the better system" -- T20. True?

"The market buys what the market buys - as you say, the Beta/VHS is a good illustration of that."

Yes.

"If an RPG publisher wants to sell more copies of something, then if they have any sense they'll make it compatible with the most popular system around - which in the case of RPGs is still d20, by miles. That way, they get a chunk of the biggest part of the market, which means they make more money."

Right. I think we are in agreement on these basic facts.


secretagent:

"Further, to extend that same logic to its full and ugly consequences, the seal of approval from the marketplace doesn't necessarily mean "better" either. While D20 may outsell D6 systems/CT/MT, video games/play station/xbox/ outsell both D20 games and CT/MT Etc. Basically we are dinosaurs playing dinosaur games. The popularity of Resident Evil and the like far outweigh Traveller.
If economic might makes right then we should throw Traveller into the tarpit and jump in right after it. But we don't, do we? [/QB]"

Malefant:

"No, because that's a silly argument - tabletop RPGs aren't aimed at the same people who buy console games (though there is some overlap)."

It may be an argument ad absurdum but I think there is a point in it. Prior to video/console games the tabletop RPG market was certainly more "robust." AS a younger and slightly less cynical secret agent I worked in a store that sold RPGs and was tasked with tracking such matters as sales and the industry. In economic terms RPGs would be "substitute goods" to console games...although the RPG came first it is still cheaper than most console games and certainly when one factors in the costs of support for a console game -- big ass TV or fast computer -- a book and some dice is a good bit cheaper.

Your point was that the marketplace drives all this and I'm saying under that logic Hunter would be better off economically making console games. And if the marketplace and popular taste is right then CT and D20 RPG are both "inferior" to console games.

Personally I would rather play CT over a console game [or D20 games] but apparently the marketplace says I'm wrong to do so.

 

[jchurchill]

And in the words of a great US Air Force commander:

General Jack D. Ripper : Your Commie has no regard for human life. Not even his own.

 

[Michael Taylor]

Quote: "The d20 side of things is already covered with T20. Trying to sell more product to the CT market seems like a sensible move to me."

This is the reason for dual-stating the epic adventures, so they can be used by CT as well as T20 players.
Imagine if they were Quin stated though: for CT, MT, TNE, GT and T20

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Takei:
And more money means more supplements, which will be dual-statted, which sell to a wider audience.

They're already dual-statted though.

Hunter's not stupid. QLI seems to be doing well, so I'm assuming that him mentioning it in the first place means he thinks there's the potential to make more money. That's certainly how his comments read to me.

Sure, and I never said or implied that he was stupid

. I just said that he must be thinking about the bottom line. I don't know how he knows there's enough people out there to warrant selling a Revised CT and actually being able to make money from it though. (plus, people saying "oooh, I'll buy it!" does not mean that they WILL go out and buy it if/when it comes out)

The d20 side of things is already covered with T20. Trying to sell more product to the CT market seems like a sensible move to me.

It's only sensible if it's actually going to bring in more money after production costs, author and artwork payments etc. If it costs QLI more than it gets back, then it's not sensible at all - unless QLI has lots of money to throw around and can afford to lose some, and I don't think that's the case.

 

[Malenfant]

It appeared that one of your arguments was that D20/T20 was better and that a revised CT was a waste of time because more gamers bought "the better system" -- T20. True?

Not really. It's that d20 is more popular and therefore sells more.

"better" doesn't come into it - for one thing that's an entirely subjective argument. CT is an old system, and gaming, gaming style, tastes, and presentation have moved on a lot since then, and T20 and GURPS Traveller basically updated Traveller to fit the modern market.

What I don't see the point of is spending time and effort and money rehashing an old system when there's a perfectly decent one - T20 - that needs a few tweaks and that could do with that attention instead.

 

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by secretagent:
"Because, as humans, we value the enjoyment it gives us, the mental stimulation it provides and the opportunity to be "not me" for a while."

Exactly. Video games could provide that at some level but -- for us at least -- it doesn't.

There's also the human interaction element which is out of the frame completely in console games, even when playing multi-player. Most humans like doing nice things with other humans

because of the social interaction aspects. This is where RPGs win over console games (IMHO).

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by secretagent:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Malenfant: [qb]Ah, but "better" isn't coming into this argument.[/qb

It appeared that one of your arguments was that D20/T20 was better and that a revised CT was a waste of time because more gamers bought "the better system" -- T20. True?</font>[/QUOTE]Uh, I have never seen Malenfant claim d20 was "better".

But really, the two base questions are this:
- Would CT Revised pay for itself?
- Would CT Revised eat into T20's market?

If CT Revised won't make enough money to pay for itself, it won't be made. It wouldn't make sense. Likewise, if CT Revised significantly eats into T20's sales, it won't be made.

However, if enlarges the pool of players by providing a T20 compatible rules set for use by the anti-d20 crowd (and that crowd is large enough to make CT Revised profitable), then it makes perfect sense.

As for it "taking away" from other products, keep this in mind. Rules sets sell far, far more copies than any other type of product. As such, if CT Revised is economically viable, it should be made sooner rather than later, as it will help the QLI's bottom line, thereby increasing the chances of those other products being made.

 

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by daryen:
the anti-d20 crowd

That's the "non-d20 crowd", thankyou

Or the "d20-ally challenged crowd"

 

[jchurchill]

""better" doesn't come into it - for one thing that's an entirely subjective argument."

Perhaps I was importing that sentiment from other posts -- it is fair to say that you clearly prefer T20 to CT though?

"What I don't see the point of is spending time and effort and money rehashing an old system when there's a perfectly decent one - T20 - that needs a few tweaks and that could do with that attention instead."

And on this point I agree with you. One can either play the old Ct system or find the MT system on line or even buy the complete reprint sets. A new revised CT doesn't make sense to me -- I would not buy it. If T20 is in fact much of CT converted to d20 then what is the real point of "revised CT?"

 

[jchurchill]

"Uh, I have never seen Malenfant claim d20 was "better"."

There is no fun in all of this if I can't distort what malefant said for purposes of discussion.

Even if Malefant did say that in his opinion T20 was a better system that of course is his right. We all tend to prefer one ruleset over another anyway.

 

[jchurchill]

"There's also the human interaction element which is out of the frame completely in console games, even when playing multi-player. Most humans like doing nice things with other humans because of the social interaction aspects. This is where RPGs win over console games (IMHO)."

Gruffty,

Absolutely. sadly it seems that modern society, well modern US society, is moving away from that social interaction. I may be overstating that and it is just based on random observations of friends' children who seem more and more absorbed by TV and computers but then as I said before....I'm probably a dinosaur.

 

[Gruffty]

Same here in the UK, secretagent. My nephews thought I was talking PS2/xBox when they were talking to me about the Spica project.

Nephew: "Wotcha doing'? Looks kewl..."
(looks over my shoulder at rough Spica map, LBBs and MT books)
Gruffty: "Working on the Spica sector map for Traveller RPG."
Nephew: "Kewl! Traveller RPG! PS2 or xBox?"
Gruffty: "Errm, it's not that kind of RPG...."
(Brief explanation of Traveller & RPGs ensues)
Nephew: "Traveller? Never heard of it. Sounds like cr*p to me...." (walks off to play Magic The Gathering!!)

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Gruffty:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by daryen:
the anti-d20 crowd

That's the "non-d20 crowd", thankyou

Or the "d20-ally challenged crowd"

</font>[/QUOTE]Uh, I am one of them, too. Truth be told, I have bought both the Gateway book, and the 1248 preorder. But I still haven't bought T20 itself. At some point, I may; but I haven't yet.

And if I did buy T20, I would use the standalone stuff, then backfill the d20 stuff with CT/MT. So, CT Revised is of great interest to me, as it would do for me that which I plan on eventually doing, anyway.

So, while I want QLI to make good business decisions, if CT Revised is a good business decision, I will buy it.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Well one of the three local game/comic stores just dumped all their games except for D20 D&D and WH40K. Apparently nothing else was selling at this time. They will, of course, do special orders but at this time nothing else will be stocked. So lets see, what is selling D20 (Fantasy on the D20) system and WH40K (SciFi tabletop game....) Hmmm Sci FI and D20... What does that bring to mind?

Sorry couldn't resist.

 

[aramis]

My LGS has basically gone to a D20, GURPS, WWG, and Palladium approach, with GW for minis. Almost noting else.

Partly, because of their ordering clerk. He's a GURPS and Traveller nut. He sees WWG and Palladium as big enough to bother with, and D20 as the lumbering giant which he must keep up with.

Hence, in august, they discounted almost all the non"Big Name" stuff. They also flushed their pre-3.5 SRD stuff, both OGL and D20... except traveller T20 and FFE CT-Reprint...

Since only the big four, and Hackmaster are available, that's what new players are seeing. And even GURPS and Traveller, his faves, are in a back aisle, out of sight to walk-ins. Soo... when "Mom" walks in looking for a game supplement or corebook, all she's going to see is the GW minis stuff and the D20/OGL stuff.

By doing this, he's m,ade a buisiness decision which encourages more D20 at the expense of everything else, and reinforces the sales thereof, which further reinforces his belief that D20 is killing the other systems. Even on the "New" pillar, GURPS was not in line of sight of the door nor registers. Same shelf as World of Darkness core-book. New T20 materials don't even make that pillar. So, by implying buisiness-wise that D20 is the only thing of value to the store, he's acting so as to make D20 the only VISIBLE system, and thus is getting those results.

I doubt that they are the only store going that way. Whats more, that is the commercial environment into which CTR/M will be venturing.

D20 is surviving because Stores and Gamedesigners bought the lie that D20 will replace all other systems. Since the Designers did, the stores had to follow to some degree; many whent whole hog. Also, the distribution network is KEY.. as many store only buy what their distributor reccomends, and Alliance apparently went WHOLE HOG AND WALLOW pro-D20.

Revised CT is a great Idea. I'll buy it, if only as a reference. But unless my LGS changes, only a scant few of us will ever even see it... let alone buy it.

It needs mainstream mass-market availability. Waldenbooks, BDalton, Barnes and Noble, Borders, and even Toys-R-Us and KB Toys and Powells Books... This would break it out to a much wider audience. (There are a number of smaller towns where gaming materials are bought almost exclusively at Waldenbooks.)Possibly see if you can cut a printing deal with Baen or some other novel/literature house...

Likewise, T20 could have a major renaissance by so doing.

I remember how Tunnels and Trolls found its way there: as a trade paperback, journal sized (6x9 inch, roughly, published under license by Corgi Books.) I still love my Corgi ed of T&T... it is a comfortable and portable format.