Quote from: SeanchaiSome? Name some markets where they don't.

Any market where there are switching costs.

Excuse my memory, but weren't you the one that said you worked in marketing (or am I getting confused)?  Surely you're familiar with such things?

How often do I change my home loan?  My mobile phone provider?  My utilities?  Most of these services have lock-in clauses that prohibit churning within a particular time period.  Oh?  What's that?  D&D doesn't have any lock-in clauses?  Of course not... but you asked me to provide some examples.

How often do you switch your car?  Not often I bet.  Why not? It's not like there are any lock-in clauses.  Because it's costly... and it can be costly to switch RPGs too.  Particularly if you have a fair bit invested in a particular game.  I recently started a game where the GM laid out a (rather small) selection of books and basically said "These are the games I own, so these are the game we can play."  Are we playing the best possible game?  Who knows... most of the group don't spend any time searching for alternatives.

There are switching costs in shifting RPGs.  Not just in terms of the actual monetary cost of alternative games, but in terms of the time and energy invested in learning a particular system and finding potential players.  For the DM in my old D&D group to switch systems, he would effectively lose thousands of dollars invested in the game.  Plus, he'd be taking a risk of losing some players (a very low risk, I think... but it might be much higher in other groups).  Consequently, he's not even contemplating potential alternatives.

It's the QWERTY effect.

Or are do you pretend that markets are perfect?

QuoteAnd?

We're right back to D&D is popular because players are "advertized", cajoled, tricked, forced, brain-washed, etc., into playing.

Has anyone claimed such?

QuoteIf what you really want is a steak but because of other factors you pull into a McDonalds, you still chose the McDonalds. If your desire for a steak was greater than the other factors, you'd have passed by the McDonalds gone for the steak. But the other factors won out and McDonalds meet the majority of your needs in that regards.

This is all well and good, but to then turn around and say that McDonalds won because they produce superior burgers would be misleading.  Your decision to purchase McDonalds was based on a variety of factors such as price and immediacy.  Or are you suggesting that McDonalds sells billions of burgers world wide because they are damn fine burgers?  Because that's my reading of what is being asserted in regards to D&D.  Remember, that's what Pundit's rant started as.

Quote from: Tyberious Funk... and it can be costly to switch RPGs too.  Particularly if you have a fair bit invested in a particular game.  I recently started a game where the GM laid out a (rather small) selection of books and basically said "These are the games I own, so these are the game we can play."  Are we playing the best possible game?  Who knows... most of the group don't spend any time searching for alternatives.

I'm that GM, guys And hey, it wasn't a "small selection", there were about 10! From Fate to GURPS, quite a range! How many do you want, mate?

I think that in this case we're seeing people contemplating the "time and effort" cost more than the money cost; I think this is true of game groups across the developed West.

One of the group won't suggest other systems because he's expecting to leave the country in September, so doesn't want to have to lug around books. Another is new to gaming, so doesn't want to spend effort on something he's still not sure he'll do for a long time. Another two are hesitant to suggest other systems because I said, "I'll GM the ones I've got here, if you want to have another system, that's fine, I'll be a player in them not a GM"; so those two obviously weren't keen on the idea of the effort of GMing.

That left me. In my case, there's not really a reluctance to try other systems, more a feeling of, "well, what I have already covers a wide range of game play styles, adding another one wouldn't add to the kinds of games we can play." It also comes from my personal philosophy of gaming, where a system is overall the least important contributor to how much people enjoy the session.

But in general, I'd say that the "time and effort" is more significant to people than the money. It can also happen in a game group that most of the group is indifferent to what system is used, but one or two people are really keen on some particular system, so that's what gets played. Tyberious Funk has described this well with his old D&D group, where it was the GM who was really keen on it and had spent thousands of dollars and more thousands of hours on the thing - to move long-term to some other system would involve drama with that guy, or booting him out, and people didn't want that. I've also had a similar experience which Tyberious Funk shared, of our group sticking with GURPS because that's what one guy was really keen on. As soon as we insisted on another system, he suddenly became too busy to game with us anymore.

Sometimes changing the system just isn't worth the drama. That's the social part of that "time and effort."

None of which have anything to do with whether D&D and d20 are good games or not. But it does explain why many groups tend to pick some particular game system and pretty much stick to it, even if not everyone is thrilled with it.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkIt's the QWERTY effect.

Important line in that write-up:

"As such, QWERTY will apparently continue to be the most popular keyboard layout, despite its apparent weaknesses, as it is 'good enough' for a user's needs."

If a new product is clearly superior to the existing product (e.g., DVDs over video tape, CDs over vinyl and tapes, various video game upgrades, etc.), people will switch regardless of the switching costs.  What that suggests is that while D&D isn't perfect, it's also either "good enough" for most people or the alternatives haven't been a sufficient improvement over what it has to offer to get people to switch despite the switching costs.

Quote from: John MorrowImportant line in that write-up:

"As such, QWERTY will apparently continue to be the most popular keyboard layout, despite its apparent weaknesses, as it is 'good enough' for a user's needs."

If a new product is clearly superior to the existing product (e.g., DVDs over video tape, CDs over vinyl and tapes, various video game upgrades, etc.), people will switch regardless of the switching costs.  What that suggests is that while D&D isn't perfect, it's also either "good enough" for most people or the alternatives haven't been a sufficient improvement over what it has to offer to get people to switch despite the switching costs.

In other words, average D&D players are having a good time with a game that meets their needs. Of course that's just me being silly and a booster of a clearly inferior system.

You know, I have plenty of games with varying systems and run/played many of them over the course of decade and a half. I've had a ball with all of them. What mattered to me most and what made it most fulfilling was that I was playing with people whom I liked and had a good time playing too. What kind dice I rolled to take a piss ranked pretty low, because they all did the job in a way that didn't annoy us.

I guess I don't understand why folks get all worked up over all of these people who are happily playing D&D and need nothing else. They're not utter suckers for market share, they're not locked into an unfulfilling rut, they're not even necessarily ignorant of That Other Game*.

The kids are all right. I'm beginning to think maybe we're the screwy ones for debating it.

*Other games I've seen in my Barnes & Noble: RIFTS, WHFRP 2nd, Promethian, NWoD, Exalted, Shadowrun 4th, Serenity, Secret of Zir'An, CoC

Quote from: Tyberious FunkSurely you're familiar with such things?

Anyone with a cell phone is familiar with them. And yet despite these costs, people switch companies all the time. That's why cell phone companies go to such great lengths to keep it from happening...

Again, it happens all the time. It's why you're not composing your posts on an Apple IIe. And movies come on DVD. And people buy CDs. And so on.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkHow often do you switch your car?

Leasing is surprisingly popular. Dumb, but popular...

Quote from: Tyberious FunkParticularly if you have a fair bit invested in a particular game.

We're back to the D&D players are stupid argument. Why would anyone invest heavily in a game they weren't getting something out of? And if they were getting something out of purchasing that much in product, how is this anything but a moot point?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkWho knows... most of the group don't spend any time searching for alternatives.

Then their behavior is working for them, isn't it?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkNot just in terms of the actual monetary cost of alternative games, but in terms of the time and energy invested in learning a particular system and finding potential players.

And yet, they spent the time, effort and money to learn D&D and form a group. So, clearly, if they feel something is worth it, they'll put in the time and effort. And if they're not putting in the effort, why not? 'Cause the result isn't worth the cost.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkFor the DM in my old D&D group to switch systems, he would effectively lose thousands of dollars invested in the game.

If he had thousands of dollars invested in D&D and switched, whatever is motivating him is probably worth it in his eyes.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkHas anyone claimed such?

Continuously.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkThis is all well and good, but to then turn around and say that McDonalds won because they produce superior burgers would be misleading.

First, I could care less about subjective statements like "best." If you're unhappy with such terms being used, take it up with the folks using them. There's no way to measure "best," so it's pointless to bring it up.

Second, yeah, McDonalds is producing a "superior" (or as I would say, quality) experience/service/product. That's why more people stop there than the steakhouse.  

Quote from: Tyberious FunkOr are you suggesting that McDonalds sells billions of burgers world wide because they are damn fine burgers?

I'm suggesting McDonalds sells billions of burgers world-wide because they produce a quality service/product. That is, their service/product better meets the needs of the consumer than the services/products of the alternatives and competitors.

I'm also suggesting the same is happening with D&D. I agree that there other factors—such as being the first, being in a better position to market their product, et al.—but on the whole, people play D&D because it's a quality game.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkRemember, that's what Pundit's rant started as.

If you want to argue with Pundit's statements, go right ahead. But I have no intention of answering for his comments.

Seanchai

I came to D&D in 2004. I played lot of different stuff before.
3.5 is not only good enough, it´d very sophisticated and does what it does extremely well.

As an old timer playing since 1979, it been my experience people switching to different system cite the following.

1) Classless, or Yah! I can make a wizard that can use a sword.
2) Better, more realistic, cooler combat Woohoo I get a defense roll and do feints.
3) More crunch or Ok I spent 45 points and make a 100 hex area effect teleport that only works on living matter.

Quote:
GM thinking: Living matter only? Sounds stupid.
hours later...
GM: You see a horde of orcs emerged from the forest.
Player: Ok I cast teleport and move every orc within 100 hexes, 1 hex to the right
GM thinking: Oh Shit! No armor or weapons!

4) Better Roleplaying or My mind I can't stand the sight I feel my sanity slip away, or I am a creature of the night,  feel my pain.

5) It is the only system that simulates an interesting genre. Call of Cthulu, Cyberpunk, Traveller, Vampire, all fell into this catagory one time or another.

The one caveat I have to my own observation is group dynamics. Sometimes on the strength of one member's personality a group switches to a different rule system. Mostly this occurred along with #5.

The strength of D20 that is addresses these common compliants far better than earlier editions.

#1 is addressed by multi-classing rules
#2 and #3 are addressed by feats
#4 D20 is weak on this but alternative rpgs based on D20 (True20, etc) have some success meeting this need.
#5 D20 partially address this as shown By D20 Modern, Future, Star Wars, etc. The System is extendable by a skilled designer to cover a new genre an example is Mutants and Masterminds.

Rob Conley

Quote4) Better Roleplaying or My mind I can't stand the sight I feel my sanity slip away, or I am a creature of the night, feel my pain.

...

#4 D20 is weak on this but alternative rpgs based on D20 (True20, etc) have some success meeting this need.

There is nothing about D20/D&D whatsoever that makes it "lesser roleplaying" in any fashion.

That is a load of fucking bollocks.

Quote from: J ArcaneThere is nothing about D20/D&D whatsoever that makes it "lesser roleplaying" in any fashion.

That is a load of fucking bollocks.

You are missing the point. AD&D was the system that 90% of gamers played back then (and somewhat true in lesser number today) that meant you get every type of gamer at the table. Either different people's playing style clashed or more common DM was running boring plot from the point of view of one or more player.

Also important is that many players played AD&D (and D20) as a GAME the objective of which was to get more experience, treasure, kingdoms (for the high levels) for your character.

Certain players were unhappy about this, and when they discovered Runequest, Call of Cthulu, and later Vampire. RPGs that had a strong role-playing setting built in they jumped ship.

AD&D and D20 don't have a strong role-playing setting built into the core rule books. Doesn't mean you can't do role-playing but if you aren't exposed to the concept then it hard to start doing it.

But Games like Runequest, Call of Cthulu, etc does have it as part of their core rule books and for players that liked this style of play it was like a major revelation when they found one of these games.

Rob Conley

As somebody who publishes d20 work for a living, I can say with some degree of certainty that The Secret of d20's SuccessTM  is as follows:

There's money to be made.

Simple as that.     I'd love to be doing some original rules designs, but it comes down to this -- I can do so, and sell 10-20 copies per month, or I can do the same genre treatment as a d20 rules set, and sell 50-100 per month.

When you're talking about sales, it's no contest.  More gamers play d20 games than don't.

Quote from: GMSkarkaAs somebody who publishes d20 work for a living, I can say with some degree of certainty that The Secret of d20's SuccessTM  is as follows:

There's money to be made.

Well sure but why? Surely people aren't suggesting that WoTC can put out any turkey slap D&D on it and have it be a success.

Here's one more thought about calling D20 "best".

We have as given that a majority of people who get into gaming play D20 in the form of D&D.  We might have as a given that a majority of those players are only ever exposed to D&D.  If they are exposed to no other games (and exposure is actually playing, not just seeing it on the shelf), we can't really say they've "chosen D20".

Now, the remainder of the gamers have been exposed to D20 and an indeterminate number of other games.  Once again, a gamer who is only exposed to D20 systems isn't terribly authoritative about what is "best" (outside of d20 variations).  Yes, the system may meet his needs, but he has no basis to say D20 is better than anything else.  He hasn't actually compared.

Now we are left with a small number of gamers who have tried different systems, hardcore gamers for whom system matters and the issue of system has driven them to try various games.  Some will choose D20 as the best system.  Some will choose other systems.  They will have much more valid opinions as to which system is better rather than the massive numbers of more casual gamers who make up the bulk of the gaming market.

I don't know what the breakdown would be, but judging from the discussion here (and I'm fairly sure we're all omnigamers), the result of which game was the best would be far from unanimous.  D20/D&D would have a good number of votes, but I don't think it or any other game system would obtain the majority.

Edit: If I'm off topic for this thread, please forgive me.  I've become hopelessly confused as to which of these several d20 threads is which.

Quote from: Gabrielwe can't really say they've "chosen D20".

This is what Ryan was talking about when he meant that D&D had the advantage of social networking behind it.

Rob Conley

Here a little thought exercise. Suppose D&D 4th Edition is a crap game. A undeniable crappy game. A lot of money is invested and it bombs after a few month. Then Hasbro throttles D&D's (and WoTC) budget limiting what WotC could do about it.

This not to debate the merits of D&D or D20 but rather what it would take for any rpg to dethrone D&D.

Quote from: GabrielHere's one more thought about calling D20 "best".

Did someone call D&D/d20 the "best?" I mean, I can see people defending it's strengths and even harping on it's weaknesses in an attempt to determine why it is successful.

But the "best"?  At what? To whom?  If you're countering someone's claim that d20 is "the best" in some objective way - I'm behind you 100%.

Problem is, I can't recall seeing that. As I said, if I missed it - you rock on and fight the man.

But this may say more about how you might be linking people saying D20 is successful with people saying it's the "best."

EDIT: perhaps this is just thread-cross, in which case, forget what I said