This is a follow up to jdrakeh's thread.

I don't think 'd20' has been successful in general. People make games using the system, some decent, some bad. I don't see any of these games bringing lots of new people into the hobby though.

So really the question is: has D&D 3 been successful?

I'm not sure. I see some people playing it in my community. It's certainly _more_ successful than any other RPG currently out there, where 'success' is defined in terms of butts in seats playing the game per unit time. (That's how I define success, from a hobby point of view. You could also define it from a money point of view or from an art point of view, but I'm not concerned with those in these thread.)

Now: are there more people playing RPGs now because of D&D3 than there were six years ago? I think there arguably are, actually. I don't know how many more, but I have the vague sense that there's some slow growth coming on. So by that measure, it's a success.

However, there are two sources for doubt:

1) D&D 3 is a complex system. It's a hassle to write your own material for as a hobbyist, which is why I got out just at the point where I was starting to get opportunities to write material for various RPG companies. However, a lot of the joy of old D&D and AD&D was just the relative ease of making shit up. I think the new design improves a lot of tinkering problems but greatly reduces the ease of making shit up. Will this sustain an interest among gamers in an age of increasing sophistication of computer games? Will it attract intelligent, dramatic people to be the 'good DM' that 'made the game' for earlier versions? If not, how will it substitute for that?

The worry here is that D&D will die a slow death because the system cannot sustain interest in itself over the long term, except among a core demographic of irritating teenage boys (of whom I used to be one, of course).

2) If the design had been more friendly to the public in certain ways, would D&D be even bigger now? Is the success much less of a success than it could have been if something had been done differently?

At least Ryan Dancey once supplied some numbers. He said there´s now a million more people playing D&D each month than were there at the final days of 2nd Edition.

Quote from: SettembriniHe said there´s now a million more people playing D&D each month than were there at the final days of 2nd Edition.

I believe there are still fewer players than in the early 80s with AD&D and B/X D&D.

1st Ed > 3rd Ed > 2nd Ed

Quote from: SettembriniAt least Ryan Dancey once supplied some numbers. He said there´s now a million more people playing D&D each month than were there at the final days of 2nd Edition.

Which is pretty meaningless because it's saying, "There's a million more people playing D&D each month during the highest point of the D&D3 craze than were playing AD&D2 during it's lowest ebb of popularity."

Are we discussing D&D, d20 or d20-not-counting-D&D?  Anyone who doubts the success of D&D should trying buying all their RPGs off the shelves of chain bookstores for six or twelve months, just to see how that works out.  You'll find that D&D has the most mainstream penetration the hobby has seen maybe since the last big D&D boom.

The rest of the d20 world is a much more tenous thing to discuss in terms of success.

- With respect to d20, I don't think the whole system has had much 'success' except as it attaches to D&D, so I'm focusing on D&D.

- I agree with you about market penetration, Jeff. I think the game has been at least a mild success from a hobby point of view. The questions are (a) can the system sustain or improve on that success and (b) could a different system with similar marketing/sales etc. behind it do even better with the D&D name? At least, that's what I'm interested in.

A) The only way I see Wizards improving or sustaining their position is to answer the New Player Question and the What About MMORPGS Issue.  The first question could be solved by a return to more modular complexity in the vein of the Basic/Expert/Companion/Master system.  Maybe not that exact methodology, but something similar.  Regarding the second issue I have no real answer to propose.

B) At this point I think the only way D&D could be unseated is by a better system that markets first to a non-English market, dominates that markets, then appears in America and England with a full head of steam as the new great game from Korea or China or whatever.  Like the way manga seem to be slowly choking the life out of DC and Marvel.

Quote from: jrientsAre we discussing D&D, d20 or d20-not-counting-D&D?  Anyone who doubts the success of D&D should trying buying all their RPGs off the shelves of chain bookstores for six or twelve months, just to see how that works out.  You'll find that D&D has the most mainstream penetration the hobby has seen maybe since the last big D&D boom.

The rest of the d20 world is a much more tenous thing to discuss in terms of success.

Interesting thing: in those mainstream bookstores I frequent here in the UK, if there's D&D books there's always World of Darkness books as well. There will probably be Star Wars D20 books. Beyond that? It's a real crapshoot. Non-D&D, non-Star Wars D20 games have as much chance to crop up as, say, WFRP or Big Eyes Small Mouth or Conspiracy X.

Quote from: GabrielWhich is pretty meaningless because it's saying, "There's a million more people playing D&D each month during the highest point of the D&D3 craze than were playing AD&D2 during it's lowest ebb of popularity."

That's not meaningless, it's just not saying what Dancey wants us to believe it says.  The real message here is that Wizards has recaptured a hardcore base.  I suggest that the next logical step would be to broaden the appeal to widen the demographic.  Like running an election campaign right or left in a primary but then making a beeline for the center for the general election.

Quote from: CalithenaI don't think 'd20' has been successful in general.

Well, I think you're wrong.  I see stuff like "d20 Modern" and its official offshoots everywhere.  Every gamer I've met knows about the game.  Many of them play it.

What the hell kind of measure of "success" are you aiming for here anyway?  Does the game have to cure cancer and bring us into peaceful communication with extra-galatic aliens?

It's a numbers question, Tony. You may be right; I'm just guessing. My anecdotal evidence seeing what people around me play, 3e is king, a few people play Star Wars and nWoD and AD&D, and the rest seems to just be noise.

I don't know of anyone who was into, say, chess or anime or spy movies or 'lost' or whatever, who picked up d20 modern cold and said, "huh. This looks fun - I never played a game like this before, but why don't I give it a whirl." That's a major part of the kind of success I'm talking about. Maybe there are one or two, but basically it's a game for people who already game.

I guess I also have to count what Jeff mentions as success though - if some guy hasn't played D&D since 1992 and gets back into it because he sees the PHB on the shelf at Borders, then that seems like it's a success.

Also, if someone makes a game that gets people who read and think about games to actually play, that's a success on my view too.

People spending time gaming at the table who wouldn't be doing that otherwise. Butts in seats playing RPGs. That's the kind of success I'm after, and I don't think any d20 product other than D&D or maybe Star Wars has really done that to any significant measure. But I'm happy to be wrong if so.

Quote from: CalithenaI don't think 'd20' has been successful in general.

Define "success." 'Cause d20 is selling. Here's a quick comparison from Amazon.com:

d20 Modern: released November 1, 2002, Sales rank 10,190
nWoD corebook: released September 30, 2004, Sales rank 210,355
Savage Worlds second printing: released March 1, 2005, Sales rank 108,535
GURPS core character book: released January 2005, Sales rank 42,905

d20 Modern is doing damn well for a book released so long ago. Does sales=success? Well, if we're talking business, I'd say it does.

Quote from: CalithenaIt's a hassle to write your own material for as a hobbyist, which is why I got out just at the point where I was starting to get opportunities to write material for various RPG companies.

Whether or not it's a hassle is a matter of taste.

Quote from: CalithenaThe worry here is that D&D will die a slow death because the system cannot sustain interest in itself over the long term, except among a core demographic of irritating teenage boys (of whom I used to be one, of course).

Except time has already proven you wrong.

Quote from: Calithena2) If the design had been more friendly to the public in certain ways, would D&D be even bigger now?

Demonstrate that the public wants something other than what D&D is offering. When you can demonstrate that it's the mechanics that are keeping the public from picking D&D or d20 up, then we can proceed along these lines.

Seanchai

Quote from: Calithena- With respect to d20, I don't think the whole system has had much 'success' except as it attaches to D&D, so I'm focusing on D&D.

And yet is apparently outselling other "generic" games, even ones you might forward as more friendly to the public.

Seanchai

d20 is already dying, but D&D will live.

Seanchai,

I'm offering the theses for argument. You defend your side spiritedly. But I'm not necessarily on the other side.

Do you think those amazon d20 modern buyers are new gamers? Because as I said, making a million dollars or creating a genuinely new and interesting way to roleplay are NOT success for purposes of this thread. The ONLY thing that counts as success for my purposes in this thread is creating more butts in seats playing RPGs. You can talk about other stuff if you want of course - it's a free internet.

I think the jury is still out on 3rd edition's long-term success in this sense. I grant that it has had some and I do believe (based on anecdotal and a limited amount of inside information) that it's undergoing something of a 'second wave' (or even third) now.  WotCs annual report supports that too. Is this 'proven wrong'? Well, first of all, I didn't assert it, I asked it as a question, and second, I wonder if it would be possible to do better.

I agree with you that one thing the public wants is very close to what D&D is offering. The question - which I wouldn't be asking if I had a convincing answer ready to go - is whether the current rules actually provide that as well as they could, granted that they provide it to a certain degree. The answer might be yes or no, that's what I was hoping to get some insight into out of this thread.