Quote from: RedFoxThat 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.

I think you misunderstood me.  I was being slightly hyperbolic, but I'll rephrase my comments as a question:

How many D&D players would have to quit playing D&D for it to not be top dog anymore?  Or rather, how big is its lead?

I mean, from what I can tell, if 50% of D&D players stopped roleplaying altogether, right now, D&D would still be top dog.  How many will buy a new edition, just because it's a new edition?  I think that even if only 1 in 4 current players bought the new edition, it would still be top dog.  I bet more people will buy it than play it if 4th edition sucks.  

The numbers from just people buying it to see it will justify its existence to WoTC.

Quote from: RedFoxThat 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.

You mean you find it hard to believe that people don't know any better?

I don't

That everyone who plays D&D is fully informed of other RPG options available to them?

They aren't

I can tell you that the MAJORITY of D&D players who come into my store (Borders) do not know that other RPG's even exist, even though they sit on the same damn shelf.

Quote from: KrakaJakYou mean you find it hard to believe that people don't know any better?

I don't

That everyone who plays D&D is fully informed of other RPG options available to them?

They aren't

I can tell you that the MAJORITY of D&D players who come into my store (Borders) do not know that other RPG's even exist, even though they sit on the same damn shelf.

Terry Goodkin got it wrong. It's not that people are stupid, it's that people are asleep. They go through life oblivious to the world, never noticing what goes on around them. And this includes some of the people on this forum.

People don't notice things because they shut themselves off from the world. They, in a word, walk around asleep. Seemingly awake and alert, but as closed to the new and different as any person a snooze in his bed. You want to see a change, you have to wake them up.

Quote from: James J SkachIMHO 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).

Our game last Monday was canceled due to GM illness, but I'll broach it again next week and see if we can hammer out how we got there.

QuoteThe 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.

Comfort of the familiar. Cheapness, as far as getting new systems is concerned. As J's statements suggest, a sense that "Well, they're all basically -as bad-, and I know this one already". Possibly other stuff...I'll see if we come up with reasons Monday.

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

Just fucking priceless....

I don't think it'd be a problem, no. What about it makes it so funny to you, anyhow?

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

I dunno, you from the island?

Quote from: KrakaJakThat everyone who plays D&D is fully informed of other RPG options available to them?

They aren't

Yeah, we were totally these guys. I mean, I knew about other games and even owned a bunch...but it didn't really matter. We liked fantasy gaming, for which we had D&D, plus we had W:tA and CP2020 and CoC for our non-fantasy needs. We'd never really thought about changing FRPGS.

QuoteYeah. I mean, as physics engines go, so to speak, they all suck.

Ok, that's beautiful.  It says so much about gaming in one simple, concise statement - "physics engines."

You want to role-play the rest, but give me a "physics engine" so the world will react to my actions.

QuoteThey just suck in different ways.

Yup, they all do.  A real "physics engine" would be so intensive as to require a computer to model it and then it would have to be a supercomputer, and then it would still not be quite right. So..

QuoteYou pick the one that gives you the results closest to what you wanted and you run with it.

And because you can't get it right in a rules set, you do exactly that.  You find one that models reality - a "physics engine" - to your tastes.  It's why there are so many arguments about games and gaming, even among people who like the same "types" of games.  Because even if that's the case, there are so many ways to decide which is the right "physics engine."

QuoteWhen you're choosing between unrealistic reality simulators, you're basically picking a lesser evil.

And in a hobby where people tend to defend their choice to the death, this is just a sad/funny/tragic viewpoint.  "My game sucks less than yours." It's going on my list of mantras.

Take it all together - it's gold man. Just gold.

YMMV, of course.

Quote from: James J SkachOk, that's beautiful.  It says so much about gaming in one simple, concise statement - "physics engines."

You want to role-play the rest, but give me a "physics engine" so the world will react to my actions.

Yeah, that's pretty much how we do our thing, with a little tiny bit of "drama engine" in there.

QuoteYup, they all do.  A real "physics engine" would be so intensive as to require a computer to model it and then it would have to be a supercomputer, and then it would still not be quite right. So..

Provided you even wanted something realistic, of course.

QuoteAnd because you can't get it right in a rules set, you do exactly that.  You find one that models reality - a "physics engine" - to your tastes.  It's why there are so many arguments about games and gaming, even among people who like the same "types" of games.  Because even if that's the case, there are so many ways to decide which is the right "physics engine."


And in a hobby where people tend to defend their choice to the death, this is just a sad/funny/tragic viewpoint.  "My game sucks less than yours." It's going on my list of mantras.

Take it all together - it's gold man. Just gold.

YMMV, of course.

Well, fair enough, I can see it. I guess since this is how I've looked at gaming for years, it's kinda weird to think of it as 'funny'. It's gaming; the rules are to cover everything in between the roleplaying.

Quote from: Christmas ApeWell, fair enough, I can see it. I guess since this is how I've looked at gaming for years, it's kinda weird to think of it as 'funny'. It's gaming; the rules are to cover everything in between the roleplaying.

Me too.  This quote just makes such a good representation of that.  It sums thing up so nicely.

It's not how funny it is, per se.  It's what it says about a particular approach to gaming - one with which I am aligned in large part.

So thanks.  It will stay for a while.

Quote from: Christmas ApeWell, fair enough, I can see it. I guess since this is how I've looked at gaming for years, it's kinda weird to think of it as 'funny'. It's gaming; the rules are to cover everything in between the roleplaying.

I think it sounds funny because online discussions have recently been dominated by people with a different perspective, so we don't hear it all that often.  But what I personally want the rules for is to create a common proxy physics for the game setting that all of the players and the GM can agree on, understand, and use without having to discuss how things work.

Quote from: John MorrowI think it sounds funny because online discussions have recently been dominated by people with a different perspective, so we don't hear it all that often.  But what I personally want the rules for is to create a common proxy physics for the game setting that all of the players and the GM can agree on, understand, and use without having to discuss how things work.

Ah my children, I have taught you well.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI dunno, you from the island?

No, originally from BFE Pennsylvania.  Didn't have or even know of other games outside of TSR's because we could get TSR games at toy stores back in the day.    So we had D&D, Star Frontiers, and later Marvel Superheroes.  D&D was still the only game were we could attract more than 3 players.  Palladium's Robotech was the first non-TSR product we had exposure to.  To get other Palladium products we had to order through the mail.  It wasn't until our later teen years that we actually started to try other fantasy systems because then we could travel an hour to the nearest hobby shop.   Played those systems like we played D&D only to find vastly different results.  Never played again and went back to D&D.  I think exposure to other systems happened to late for us.

Quote from: mythusmageAh my children, I have taught you well.

About the time I hit this discussion was when I also started wondering why it seems like nobody is asking for a system that's unobtrusive and fades into the background, once a very common desire, anymore.  That's when I realized that there has been a shift such that people no longer consider the system a necessary evil but something that's desirable and put squarely in the foreground.

Further, I would add that if a system seems too bland, it's not enjoyable. So a system has to have "character." It's not satisfying for the players to interact with each other and the GM; they want to feel like they're interacting with the game, as well.
I was baffled by GURPS bottom position on the "worst of" list here until I considered this aspect of play. As involved and noodly as GURPS can be, it tends to fade into the background while playing. Apparently a large number of gamers lose some of the richness of the experience when this happens. Go figure.

Quote from: JamesVI 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.

Well, another reason for d20's success:

D&D had a few things going for it that its competitors in the late 70's did not enjoy:

1) Availability - D&D was the only game that could be found regularly in large
chain bookstores and toy stores

2) Production value/quality - at the time of AD&D's intro in 1977-79, no other
game company would venture into hardcover books - the first competitors
(Traveller, RuneQuest and Tunnels and Trolls) did not have nearly the production
value D&D enjoyed).

D&D had such a huge impact on gaming (it was the only game in town for many
people, the competitors were already fighting for scraps) that it rocketed to
the top. People became used to the system, some left the fold to find alternatives,
but at that point it was a fractioning of a small part of the overall market.
The mechanics did what the game promised to do, and did it well enough to
enthrall its fans.

-V

Quote from: VagabondWell, another reason for d20's success:

D&D had a few things going for it that its competitors in the late 70's did not enjoy:

1) Availability - D&D was the only game that could be found regularly in large
chain bookstores and toy stores

2) Production value/quality - at the time of AD&D's intro in 1977-79, no other
game company would venture into hardcover books - the first competitors
(Traveller, RuneQuest and Tunnels and Trolls) did not have nearly the production
value D&D enjoyed).

D&D had such a huge impact on gaming (it was the only game in town for many
people, the competitors were already fighting for scraps) that it rocketed to
the top. People became used to the system, some left the fold to find alternatives,
but at that point it was a fractioning of a small part of the overall market.
The mechanics did what the game promised to do, and did it well enough to
enthrall its fans.

-V

Since I was just born in that time period, I'll take your word for it, it probably helped D&D get the lead and keep it in the early RPG market.