Skip to main content

#RPGaDay2018 - Day 3: What gives a game 'Staying Power'?

I honestly don't know what this means. Staying Power means... what, the ability of a particular system to stay in the modern marketplace? Or the ability of a particular tabletop group to keep things rolling on a given storyline/group of characters?

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't know. I mean, tabletop gaming / roleplaying games as a genre aren't really old enough to have anything really fade out; there are still folks who loudly and proudly play 1e Dungeons & Dragons, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are folks who would like to bring back Chainmail or some shit like that. I think Dungeons and Dragons holds onto the marketspace by being both well-funded and willing to reinvent itself on a regular basis. I think that Paizo holds up in second place by being "D&D, only moreso". And anyone else is kinda making money by accident (I think Evil Hat and Lumpley are committed to being businesses, don't get me wrong, I just think that the actual marketspace is still in "hobby" territory so their success is effectively incidental).

Ask me again in 50 years, when we have a long enough timeline to make decisions about 'staying power'.

As for specific tabletop games keeping going, I figure it's a random mix of alchemical reactions between players, plus the availability of free time for the affected folks.

I dunno. Maybe I'm cynical.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Money and Happiness as a fungible resource

Money really does buy happiness. Anyone who tells you differently has a vested interest in keeping you poor, unhappy, or both. I know this because I grew up on the ragged edge of poor, and then backed my way into a career in IT, which is where the modern world keeps all the money that isn't in Finance. So I am one of the extreme minority of Generation X that actually had an adulthood that was markedly more financially stable than my parents. And let me tell you: money really does buy happiness. To be clear: at 45 years old, I'm now in a relationship and a period of my life where our household is effectively double-income, no kids. I live in the city, but I own a house, and can only afford to do that because of our combined income. We also have two cars -- one new, one used (though neither of them is getting driven very much these days) -- and we have a small discretionary budget every month for things like videogames, books, and the like. What my brother used to call DAM -- Dic

Occasional Media Consumption: Man of Steel (2013)

Every so often, there's a movie where I watch it and think, "that was pretty bad", and then time goes by, and I see other people talking about it, and so I watch it again, thinking I was too harsh on it, and after watching it again, I think "not only was that movie bad, it was worse  than I remember". I try very hard not to hate-watch anything, movies or TV or whatever, because that's a waste of time, energy, and emotion. My expectation was that my first reading of this film was overblown, that my reaction to it was as an outsider, someone who didn't know the depth and breadth of the Clark Kent / Kal-El story, and who couldn't appreciate the subtleties or easter eggs or whatever. But in the intervening years, I've read a bunch of DC comics, and many of them Superman comics. And I've come to a conclusion upon rewatching this movie, one that surprised me given the budget, the cast, and the story being told. Rarely has any movie so misunderstood

Occasional Media Consumption: Justice League (2017)

So let's get this out of the way first: this movie is bad. I mean, it's bad . And not in the way that most superhero movies are bad, though it is bad in that way too: inconsistent characterizations, lack of understanding of motivations, weirdly-shot fight scenes, dodgy use of CG, etc. I mean, it is bad in all of these ways too, especially the whole thing where they digitally removed a mustache from Henry Cavill, who's honestly doing his best with a bad script and a character he's fundamentally unsuited to play. Gail Godot, in an iconic roll for her, suddenly shoved out of the way to make room for (also fundamentally-miscast) Ben Affleck's the Batman and Cavill's Superman, And Ray Fisher and Ezra Miller trying to introduce characters that honestly deserve their own movies. Jason Momoa's Aquaman got his own movie, but as far as I can tell he's just stepped into this one from a whole different universe and is basically pretending to live in the grim-n-gritt