The pressures shaping the next decade of RPG zines

The next decade of RPG zines will be shaped partly by decisions made outside the page. A payment provider can affect a sales route. A publisher’s tools can change which formats are practical. A library’s purchasing system can determine whether a small press is reachable at all.

These are already observable relationships. Their future combinations are uncertain. I would plan for several plausible conditions, then identify the evidence that would make one condition more relevant to a particular collection.

The three scenarios below are my own planning constructions for 2026–2036. They are not forecasts, assigned probabilities or claims that every RPG publisher will follow the same path.

Start with changes that can be observed

In July 2025, itch.io reported deindexing adult NSFW content under pressure involving payment processors. Its statement distinguished discovery from access to previously acquired files and linked a subsequent reindexing update. The episode shows a historical dependency between payment infrastructure and visibility. It does not establish a continuing blanket condition in October 2026 or a count of affected RPG zines.

Publishing events also use different organisational arrangements. Zine Month’s organisers describe a creator-run event across platforms. Zinetopia 2026 organised a group event on BackerKit with cross-project rewards. Those records establish available approaches to coordination, while the proportion of all RPG-zine publishing represented by either event would require a wider account of publications that appear within and outside the event calendar.

Finally, Jacob Wood’s 2026 account of Accessible Games describes changes in publishing tools, outstanding commitments and the possibility of an HTML-based product. One maker’s account cannot measure a whole sector. It can identify concrete factors that a sector-wide prediction would need to take seriously.

Compare conditions rather than extrapolating a total

Paul Schoemaker’s 1995 account of scenario planning recommends defining scope and considering interacting uncertainties through distinct possible states. That method is useful here because a single campaign total cannot describe the future relationship between discovery, production and access.

My first scenario is a field increasingly organised around a few large platforms. Discovery and purchasing become convenient within those services, while changes in their rules affect many creators at once. The scenario is plausible as a dependency to examine, not established as the direction the field must take.

For a library, the relevant signal would be its own concentration of acquisition routes. If most selected titles can only be obtained through one service, the collection has a practical dependency regardless of that service’s share of the wider market. I would record that concentration and maintain lawful copies and acquisition records under the terms that apply to them.

That action does not require predicting a platform’s failure. It requires knowing what the library holds, what it can retrieve and which parts of its discovery work would need rebuilding if a service changed. The preparation remains useful while the platform continues to operate normally.

A distributed field asks more of discovery

The second scenario is a more dispersed publishing environment. Creators use personal shops, local fairs, several funding platforms and small distributors. More routes can give publishers choices, while making it harder for a librarian to maintain a current view of relevant work.

The signal would be repeated discovery failures within the collection’s stated scope. Readers might request titles that never appear through the library’s usual suppliers. Local creators might publish regularly but remain absent from an event-centred selection process. Those observations would justify changing the search method.

I would then test a bounded addition to that method. A public library could establish a paid acquisition relationship with a local fair or creator network. An academic library could document a defined set of small publishers over a fixed period, recording both discovered titles and gaps. The aim would be a better account of the chosen area, with enough detail about the search method and its omissions for another librarian to understand which questions the resulting list can answer.

This scenario also changes descriptive work. A title might move between shops or appear in several formats. Stable local records of creator, title, edition and acquisition route become valuable when the current sales link no longer explains the copy in hand.

Format diversity can expand while capacity remains scarce

The third scenario combines more publication formats with constrained production time. A creator may offer a small print run, an HTML rules text and a downloadable booklet, each serving different readers. Maintaining all three may become part of the publication’s continuing cost.

The useful signal is a mismatch between what readers need and what a collection can actually provide. A tagged PDF, a printed foldout and a web text may support different tasks. Counting all three as interchangeable access can hide an unresolved need.

I would make format decisions through a specific use. A public play program might need a printable aid and a readable digital reference. A university course comparing material design might need the physical edition alongside an accessible text. In either case, the library should establish whether the relevant versions exist and what supporting work it is prepared to fund.

A commission for an additional accessible edition can be valuable when it is agreed, paid and maintained. It should not appear as an unpriced expectation attached to buying a cheap zine. The scenario makes that labor visible before an institution builds a service around it.

Use the scenarios to revise a real decision

These futures can overlap. A creator might depend on one payment service while distributing through several shops and maintaining several formats. The purpose of separating the scenarios is to expose different pressures, then ask which combination is becoming relevant locally.

I would review the acquisition routes, unmet reader requests and format needs at a defined interval. A change in those observations can justify a specific response. A dramatic headline or a large funding total, by itself, cannot.

RPG zines have room for many futures because their production and circulation already take several forms. A library can remain useful across those futures by preserving evidence, paying attention to makers’ actual capacity and keeping its commitments responsive to the people who read and use the work.