Quote from: estarHere 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.

This seems like a great idea for a new thread.  I'm sure in which sub-forum, but it certainly would be interesting.

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.  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.

Well, my first question would be: Superior?

I agree that my decision to buy McDonalds is based on a number of factors.  In fact, my wife dislikes it, but the kids love it, so this is something we go through all the time (when we're deciding where to go on special fast-food nights). But I will tell you this - if we didn't like the burgers, all of the marketing and playgrounds and cheap prices couldn't make us eat them.

Personally, I like McDonalds burgers.  Sometimes I find them vastly superior to burgers in high falutin sit-down joints that cost 2-3 times as much. So yeah - they do make damn fine burgers - to me.

And this is where you might be tempted to step in and say "well, that's your taste but most people would disagree."  Well, that might be, but what evidence do we have? Other than sales, which unfortunately make us also consider a number of other factors, how do we tell which burger in the marketplace is superior?

Perhaps we could rank the importance of various aspects and how they figure into the decision to purchase/play d20/D&D - system, availability, physical aspects (artwork, etc.), familiarity, whatever.  If someone could figure that out, then we could really get an idea of whether or not marketing accounts for it's success.  Otherwise, we're all just speculating and anything being stated as a fact is actually merely opinion.

This is the real problem too. Sales and player base are really the only objective numbers to define a game's success.

So of course the folks here who think d20 is overrated discount the only hard numbers and throw out a bunch of opinions, which they try to masquerade as objective by talking about "branding" and "market share".

This is jdrakeh's cue to flounce in and denounce us all for not holding the right discussion and then flounce back out I think.

Quote from: estarSurely people aren't suggesting that WoTC can put out any turkey slap D&D on it and have it be a success.

And why not?  If d20 was a truly shit-tastic engine, it probably would have a sold a shit-ton of books, yeah?

Third edition had good timing and good hype.  The bubble would have burst a long while ago without the OGL or a decent system, but I think D&D would still be top dog even if its system sucked.

Quote from: joewolzAnd why not?  If d20 was a truly shit-tastic engine, it probably would have a sold a shit-ton of books, yeah?

Third edition had good timing and good hype.  The bubble would have burst a long while ago without the OGL or a decent system, but I think D&D would still be top dog even if its system sucked.

That makes no sense at all, in any fashion.  That's Bizarro Universe talk.

You really and honestly think that people would buy and continue to play a game that was absolute ass, just because it's "D&D"?

That's the thing that continually takes me aback about this thread.  That people honestly believe this shit.

D&D 3.5 seems to be a fine game.

I do not like it, but that is no reflection of its quality, still less of its popularity. People are not crazy or stupid because they like D&D 3.5. To believe that you would have to be a professor of bat penises who writes games which are much praised but rarely played.

Joewolz is right, in a weird way.

The basic premise, core story, and ressource system of D&D is so rock solid, that even a sub-par incarnation will be market leader.
That´s what 2nd Edition was. But as long as the heart of the meta-mechanics remain (core story, monster selection & variaton, immunities, spell selection, magic items, character/ player roles, challenge as core of the endeavour, fantasy as backdrop to it), the game will live.

But: Quality does help. A lot.

It´s just so that the meta-mechanical setup of D&D can take a lot of punishment before it crumbles. It´s design work, not marketing, mind you.

There's actually some admittedly anecdotal evidence to lean in that direction.

Before you raise the stake and start piling dry brush around it, hear me out.

The GM for my Monday night L5R game has been a part of my playing group for about 12 years now, let's call him J. With J I've played 3 editions of L5R, 2 and a half editions of D&D with varying levels of house rules, RIFTS, Mechwarrior, CoC, CP2020, two or three oWoD games, and a small handful of other less interesting titles - we're not as well-versed a group as some, but we've wandered about the RPG world a bit. Now, I generally bring things from the internet to my group (no Swinery, mind), as well as starting the more abstract discussions - "What's fun about gaming?" rather than "Remember that awesome scene where..." or "I'd like to run a....". And one day, while discussing my temporary desire to run a RIFTS game with TriStat dX, we had an exchange I'd never have expected.

J: "I don't see what you've got against the Palladium system."
CA: "Uh, it's ten gallons of ass-gravy in a five gallon drum?"
J: "It's not that bad. It's about (2e) D&D bad, sure, but it's not awful."
CA: "Are you drunk? It's much worse than D&D. It's an endless series of bonus-stacking roll-offs, heavy with rules where it should flow and lacking rules it desperately needs. Have you managed to figure out how to be good at noticing details yet?"
J: "Eh, it's as bad as any other system, really. I'd just as soon play it with the published system."

Here is where I kind of stammered. As bad as any other system?

J: "Yeah. I mean, as physics engines go, so to speak, they all suck. They just suck in different ways. You pick the one that gives you the results closest to what you wanted and you run with it. When you're chosing between unrealistic reality simulators, you're basically picking a lesser evil."

For my part, I played 2e D&D for a long time without really wanting to, or finding that it gave the characters I thought about playing. It gave me their D&D versions, which was good enough at the time because we were playing D&D, so D&D was the game to know. I know, it's circular; we didn't think about this much. When I later talked about it with the group a couple months ago after a hiatus, we all came to the same agreement: despite each of us having played it off and on for the better part of fifteen years, we didn't really like playing D&D so much as we liked fantasy gaming. Once it was being discussed in the open - and I mentioned how many free or nicely cheap FRPGs are out there - we noticed we'd played D&D in its second edition because that's what we had books for and had bought 3e because it seemed to make sense to do so.

It can happen, man. I'm not so bold as to suggest D&D players are miserable, but ignorance can make some strange things seem reasonable.

Quote from: SettembriniJoewolz is right, in a weird way.

The basic premise, core story, and ressource system of D&D is so rock solid, that even a sub-par incarnation will be market leader.
That´s what 2nd Edition was. But as long as the heart of the meta-mechanics remain (core story, monster selection & variaton, immunities, spell selection, magic items, character/ player roles, challenge as core of the endeavour, fantasy as backdrop to it), the game will live.

But: Quality does help. A lot.

It´s just so that the meta-mechanical setup of D&D can take a lot of punishment before it crumbles. It´s design work, not marketing, mind you.

Thank you, you mad Prussian. I was trying to find a way to ask after the abstracted elements of the foundation of D&D, and you go and spell them out.

You see, I'm inspired by the Pundit challenge - to construct a gaming theory that centers on D&D. I envision the 'Model' being something like a sphere, with D&D occupying the core (as gravitational center of the hobby) and both poles (as 'rules for dealing with the non-roleplaying stuff' and 'tactical boardgame' playstyles, respectively), with the longitudinal lines being the axes of player satisfaction elements as they veer between 'supporting story' and 'supporting game'.

I may not enjoy playing D&D (though I think I understand how I would, now - by taking it literally and not shoe-horning ideas into it), but I sure as shit respect the dragon about whose feet all others walk.

BTW, this meta-mechanical robustness is what also floats another (as in 2nd) sub-par Rules System:

Palladium/Rifts.

All the mentioned aspects are there, and if you know D&D, you can jump into Rifts. Allright, it´s totally muddled up, but the variables to play with are all there.

That´s why Rifts "works" mechanically, you have enough stuff to re-arrange in a D&D way, and you have a totally awesome (as in "with monkeys!") background.

If you do not grok D&D, you will not know how to use Rifts in proper way.

Also, those age old variables of D&D are second to none in regards of usefulness, accessability and recombination.

I started becoming internet active, because I sought for a game system, that supports those deep variations and high level-variables for non-combat, non-fantasy environments.

I´m still searching.

Quote from: Christmas ApeIt can happen, man. I'm not so bold as to suggest D&D players are miserable, but ignorance can make some strange things seem reasonable.

IMHO it's an odd perspective, but I certainly understand it. Two things spring to mind. Thie first is to understand how one gets in the circular situation you mention - perhaps a topic for a different thread (and please please please not specific to D&D so it avoids flamewars).

The second is to understand why that experience, which doubtless happened to more than just you and your group, gets extrapolated to a fact that this is how D&D becomes dominant - particularly in this day and age of so much choice.

Finally - do you think your friend J would mind if I cribbed this for a sig - it's priceless...

Quote from: JYeah. I mean, as physics engines go, so to speak, they all suck. They just suck in different ways. You pick the one that gives you the results closest to what you wanted and you run with it. When you're choosing between unrealistic reality simulators, you're basically picking a lesser evil.

Just fucking priceless....

Quote from: estarWell 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.

It's a cycle.  

There are more gamers playing D&D than any other RPG.  This is because of a combination of several things -- the game created the hobby, it's the most recognizable brand (nobody ever created a "Pepsi" to D&D's "Coke"), and, perhaps most importantly, for what a majority of gamers want out of a game, it works well (pound the monster, grab stuff, power up).  Secondly, it works well enough for the rest, who want to do more with it.   Together, these gamers form a huge segment of the market.

So, companies produce stuff to sell to them.  More stuff is made to support the d20 mode of play, so more gamers continue to purchase and play, etc. etc.   It feeds itself.

In a lot of ways, it's comparable to the PC/Mac/Linux thing.   PCs essentially created the home computer market, and do just fine for what the majority of users want out of a computer.   Other people like Macs (myself included) for what they offer, and some like Linux.  But PCs have more users, so more stuff is made for them, so that reinforces the market share, etc. etc.

Quote from: GMSkarkaThere are more gamers playing D&D than any other RPG.  This is because of a combination of several things -- the game created the hobby, it's the most recognizable brand (nobody ever created a "Pepsi" to D&D's "Coke"), and, perhaps most importantly, for what a majority of gamers want out of a game, it works well (pound the monster, grab stuff, power up).  Secondly, it works well enough for the rest, who want to do more with it.   Together, these gamers form a huge segment of the market.

I know I've said similar in this thread, and IMO, this is the reason for D20s success and unless someone has a really great (and I mean killer) insight that challenges this position, I don't know what's left to discuss.

Quote from: Christmas ApeBefore you raise the stake and start piling dry brush around it, hear me out.

Christmas Ape are you one of the guys I played with in high school?  That was a beautiful illustration of exactly what we went through.

Quote from: GMSkarkaIt's a cycle.  

There are more gamers playing D&D than any other RPG.  This is because of a combination of several things -- the game created the hobby, it's the most recognizable brand (nobody ever created a "Pepsi" to D&D's "Coke"), and, perhaps most importantly, for what a majority of gamers want out of a game, it works well (pound the monster, grab stuff, power up).  Secondly, it works well enough for the rest, who want to do more with it.   Together, these gamers form a huge segment of the market.

So, companies produce stuff to sell to them.  More stuff is made to support the d20 mode of play, so more gamers continue to purchase and play, etc. etc.   It feeds itself.

In a lot of ways, it's comparable to the PC/Mac/Linux thing.   PCs essentially created the home computer market, and do just fine for what the majority of users want out of a computer.   Other people like Macs (myself included) for what they offer, and some like Linux.  But PCs have more users, so more stuff is made for them, so that reinforces the market share, etc. etc.

Hmm, good point.  And like the PC/Mac/Linux thing, you have absolute fanatics that villainize those who choose the other side, particularly the most popular choice.  And the accusations that that choice is devoid of merit. And that continues to astound me.

Disclaimer: I'm a long-time PC user who recently converted to a Mac-fan.  I'm also a long-time player of just about every other game who recently started digging on D&D.