Quote from: StuartSo if this was the nature of the industry pre-d20, and things don't change with the arrival of d20, then it stands to reason that d20 is not responsible for this situation.

The things that make D&D the #1 RPG go back further than d20 but they are still a part of d20.

So classes, levels, archetypes, exploring the unknown, dungeons... these elements are not new to d20 if that's what you're saying, but d20 has emphasized them in some tangible ways.

For example, the classes in 3rd edition/d20 tend to be much more balanced. This lends strength to the class system as a whole.

Also, note that I've never denied that the OGL has helped D&D/d20. The OGL has strengthened d20's market share even more, especially over the 3rd party market.

And the OGL is something unique to 3rd edition/d20.

I just think it's silly to say the qualities of the game have nothing to do with its success.

It's not an empty brand. Branding is not hypno-magic mojo.

I mean, and its silly that Im spending this much time arguing this (even sillier that I HAVE TO) but all I've been saying is that D&D has innate quality that has led to its market position.

Does branding help? Sure. Having the best brand helps you. How did D&D get the best brand? Was it the only game in town? Nope, challenged almost immediately, by some quality competition.

Was it a monopoly? Please. RPGs are part of the publishing market. Who do you think has sold more books Monte Cook or Stephen King? Mike Mearls or JK Rowling?

When you look at what novel authors sell, you get a sense of scale.

Does network externalities help or whatever the fuck you want to call it? I prefer to use the less jargony expression "player base". But sure, whatever you call it, having the most players sure helps your game.

But again, how come D&D has the most players? Could it be because its good?

So yeah, D&D has been dominant for awhile. But d20 isnt some new magical game that came from nowhere. OSRIC is god's own proof of that.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckIt really is a good game.

If it wasn't, people would *gasp* play something else.

Nonsense, people played 2nd edition for years.  People play Rifts.  People even play FATAL.

Anyhow d20's/D&D's success is largely a result of the failure of others to capitalize on opportunities to unseat D&D from the number one spot.

Traveller could have done it in the early eighties.  If only GDW hadn't made a hobby of screwing their fans repeatedly.  Traveller 2300, Megatraveller & TNE
all seriously jerked around the solid fan base rather than providing any real improvement on the existing mechanics.  Heck if GDW'd done a better job of TNE & made it a generic sf game with a cleaner rules core and better editing they might have even pulled it off in the early nineties.

Rifts could have done it in the early nineties if KS would have been smart enough to clean up the system and go open source with it.  (yes any scenario where KS is smart or sane is pretty far fetched)

GURPS could have done it when TSR died in the late nineties if SJ'd had the vision to do GURPS 4th edition before WWII and Transhuman Space.  Yes, ten years was long enough for even us die hard fans to figure out that 3rd edition was terminally flawed.  Steve Jackson's stubborn refusal to create an affordable entry point for 4th edition pretty much ensures he'll be staying down at #6 or less.

White Wolf could have done it by the late nineties if they hadn't kept pissing on their customers and playing up the pretentiousness.  No, sorry guys, you're still geeks, wearing black and growing a goatee or a pony tail won't cure that.

Quote from: David JohansenNonsense, people played 2nd edition for years.  People play Rifts.  People even play FATAL.

Sure people played 2nd edition, and you might think 2nd edition sucked, I know I did, as I've oft said 2nd edition is known to my players as "when we played GURPs and Hero".

But that doesn't mean it wasn't meeting the needs of folks who were playing it at that time.

In other words, even if you think 2nd edition sucked, just as people think 3e sucked, that doesn't mean it wasn't meeting the needs of the people who were playing it.

They weren't playing it because they had been hypnotized by branding.

To paraphrase what someone said in another post, companies can make coffee flavored ice cream. You can hate coffee flavored ice cream. But that doesn't mean the person who IS eating coffee-flavored ice cream really hates it too and is blinded by branding.

They might LIKE coffee flavored ice cream and buy it knowingly, regardless of how crazy you might think that is.

I'm curious, Chuck. You give us this quote,

Quote from: Monte CookOur audience was made up almost entirely of people who had played D&D and now were looking for something else (or who still played D&D and were looking for something more).

And then you complain,

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckMost designers, when they go to design their own system, immediately cut out the two things [classes and levels] that have contributed to D&D's success for decades. To be blunt, we lived off TSR's scraps.

So you tell us that Monte Cook says success (on "scraps") comes from giving gamers "something else" after D&D, but then you tell us that game designers are stupid for... giving them something else?

If people want D&D, they can just play D&D. Why would they go for the crappy imitation when they can have the real thing? If they want something different to D&D, then surely the first thing a game designer should do is rip out the main concepts - classes and levels?

It's like saying that most people like football, so if you want a successful new sport, it has to have a single largeish ball, played on open field, and if you remove those key elements and make a sport with a small ball whacked around with racquets and just two players on a small field with a net, no-one will like it.

Note that I am not saying classes and levels are inherently bad, or unpopular. Obviously they're very popular and have many things to recommend them. I'm just saying, like Monte Cook was saying, why imitate... people come to your non-D&D game because they want something different. Why is it a bad idea to give it to them? If I have a restaurant next to McDonalds, should I try to serve burgers and fries? Or would I be better off making pastas, and salads, and so on? As a guy who's worked a good part of his life in restaurants, I tell you - I'd go for something different. I'm never going to beat them in their own submarket, I need to create my own.

Quote from: JimBobOzAnd then you complain

I wasn't complaining.

I was explaining why D&D has remained on top for so long: because the key features that make it so attractive mechanically (in my opinion obviously), are consciously avoided by many designers of non-D&D/non-d20 games.

I was not complaining about this, I was pointing out a fact, because someone asked me what D&D had going for it mechanically and why it had maintained its position as a dominant market leader for so many decades.

QuoteSo you tell us that Monte Cook says success (on "scraps") comes from giving gamers "something else" after D&D, but then you tell us that game designers are stupid for... giving them something else?

No, I'm saying avoiding the mechanical aspects of D&D that make it a market leader is fine if you want to live off TSR's scraps.

Just don't complain when you live off TSR's scraps.

Which means, in part, that when the big dog doesn't eat as well, YOU don't eat as well, which means it's in the interests of every one of those companies living off WOTC's scraps to hope they do well.

Something else Monte said "As Wizards goes, so goes the RPG market".

QuoteIf people want D&D, they can just play D&D. Why would they go for the crappy imitation when they can have the real thing?

If four wheel drive SUVs are the most popular brand of car. Should you design little 4 cylinder shitboxes or 4-wheel drive SUVs? If you choose to make the little 4-cylinder shitboxes, don't wonder why you don't own the world's largest car company.

All I was saying is that it's not a surprise to me no game has been a serious contender for the largest segment of the gaming market, because no game has TRIED TO BE.  

QuoteWhy is it a bad idea to give it to them? If I have a restaurant next to McDonalds, should I try to serve burgers and fries? Or would I be better off making pastas, and salads, and so on?

Well in my town, there's a Burger King right next to the McDonald's, and it was like that in Tampa where I went to college too.

If you want to run a successful mom and pop restaurant, going with pasta and salads is fine. If you want to be McDonald's, you better find something a segment of the market wants that's as big as burgers and fries.

Again, I never said it was a bad idea to give people something different.

All I was doing was pointing out that many games specifically choose NOT to compete for the largest gaming market out there.

They very well might be right not to do so. I was attempting to point out to people in this thread why D&D has maintained its dominance for so long on the strength of its mechanics and gameplay.

Not, as has been suggested, purely on the strength of branding and marketing.

You took what I said (and mangled the quote no less, your second sentence is half me and half Monte from the previous paragraph), read something into it I didn't say, and then attacked me with that.

Quote from: SeanchaiThat's because you don't work in marketing. I do. I read AdAge every week, along with a ton of other marketing articles, books, etc.. The general consensus is that advertising/marketing as we know it is dead, that it no longer works. The marketing world is abuzz with the idea that a new and different model must be found.

Believe me, if just branding or advertising your product would ensure that folks would buy it, you'd be pouring New Coke on your cereal instead of milk. The Coke brand is the number one brand out there. It's literally worth billions and billions and billlions of dollars. Trust me, Coca-Cola does not have a license to print money despite having possibly the most powerful brand that's ever existed. They still have to work at it, just like everybody else...

Seanchai

Branding works fine. It's helps you remember what products are good, and what products are shit. New Coke was shit. The problem isn't with branding, it's with product quality. BTW, branding isn't what the ad agency does exclusively, branding includes the feedback the customers give, and if they dump on your goods there's a good chance your goods suck.

Quote from: mythusmageBranding works fine. It's helps you remember what products are good, and what products are shit. New Coke was shit. The problem isn't with branding, it's with product quality. BTW, branding isn't what the ad agency does exclusively, branding includes the feedback the customers give, and if they dump on your goods there's a good chance your goods suck.

Whoa, you mean product quality matters? Marketing isn't hypno-mojo that renders people blind to a products actual strengths and weaknesses?

That's crazy talk.

The key feautres of D&D aren´t class & level.

They are:

tactical variability through:

monsters
 special qualities
 immunities
 special abilities
 etc.
magic items
spells
maneuvres
weapons
equipment

Those have been around since the very first incarnations.

Quote from: mythusmageBranding works fine. It's helps you remember what products are good, and what products are shit. New Coke was shit. The problem isn't with branding, it's with product quality.

Yeah, that's my point. Branding isn't a magic pill that'll make anyone who happens to swallow it instantly in love with the product. Branding isn't why D&D has been at the top of the heap for decades.

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckWhoa, you mean product quality matters? Marketing isn't hypno-mojo that renders people blind to a products actual strengths and weaknesses?

That's crazy talk.

Consider the source.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThank you, Bradford, we were starving here.

Now, if John Wick would care to join us, it'd be like a Y2K rpg.net reunion.

Glad to see you're taking it as seriously as I do. *laughs*

You know what. . . never mind. I wanted to talk about why d20 was successful in concrete terms -- none of this "It's solid design!" shit. It might be full of solid design but simply saying that it's solid ain't objective and over the course of two threads, not one person (other than myself) has actually provided a single example of why it's solid or what it's doing that other systems aren't.

They just say that it's "popular" or "selling well" -- well duh. What's secret about that? Nothing. That's what. I was hoping to talk about why the system sells well (and again, outside of D&D, I'm not sure that there is a lot to suggest that it does). . . you know. . . maybe pin down the secret.

Apparently, most people here aren't willing to move beyond the "It roxxorz!"/"It suxxorz!" realm and get into some actual objective discussion, so I won't push it.

It looks like a game.  It plays like a game.  No role-playing needed to play it right.  Easy to learn, hard to master, with plenty of support available out there.  All you need is a cave, some monsters, and treasure to loot from them and you are good to go.  Everything else plays out much like the boardgames or CRPGs that new gamers are already familiar with, so picking it up isn't that hard.

Quote from: jdrakehYou know what. . . never mind. I wanted to talk about why d20 was successful in concrete terms -- none of this "It's solid design!" shit. It might be full of solid design but simply saying that it's solid ain't objective and over the course of two threads, not one person (other than myself) has actually provided a single example of why it's solid or what it's doing that other systems aren't.

They just say that it's "popular" or "selling well" -- well duh. What's secret about that? Nothing. That's what. I was hoping to talk about why the system sells well (and again, outside of D&D, I'm not sure that there is a lot to suggest that it does). . . you know. . . maybe pin down the secret.

Apparently, most people here aren't willing to move beyond the "It roxxorz!"/"It suxxorz!" realm and get into some actual objective discussion, so I won't push it.

...

This is an internet fan forum about roleplaying, not a symposium on economics and product development.  Even if it were, you won't find objective analysis of why it's so popular and selling well, because it's not a science.  People making decisions based on their individual needs and desires are involved.

It's like asking why vanilla is objectively the most popular flavour of ice-cream.  You're not going to get much better than, "Because most people really like vanilla."

Ok, looking specifically at the system mechanics, here are a couple of theories from me;
 
1. It presents easily recognisable archtypes.  If I want to introduce a new person to roleplaying, and their only exposure to such things is through fantasy literature and movies, then it is fairly easy.  You've just finished watching Lord of the Rings and want to play Legolas?  Fine, pick an Elven Fighter, focus on the long bow.  Want Gimli?  Dwarven Fighter, specialise in the axe.  It's quick and it's simple.  Sure, not all of the archtypes quite "work", but they are often close enough.
 
2. It's quick to get started.  For all the complexity of the system overall, character generation is actually pretty quick.  Providing you start at first level and don't plan to stray too heavily from the archtypes.  And it's been that way through most iterations.  Role you attributes, pick a class and select a few abilities.  3E makes it even easier with example characters for each class.  
 
3. Actually, thinking about the complexity of the system, it scales well.  I don't mean the game itself scales that well, but the complexity of the game grows with the characters.  Low level characters are usually pretty simple to play.  Skill checks are a simple d20+mods.  Combat is usually just attack roles and minimal tactics.  Wizards will only have a very small handful of spells.  It's only as characters get more powerful that tactics become more viable and some of the more detailed sub-systems (eg, Feats and magic items) start to kick in.  This means that for a typical player, the complexity of the game grows as their knowledge grows.
 
4. The system emphasises fun over realism.  Take hit points as an example.  You can take a pounding and feel absolutely no effect until you hit zero.  Is it realistic?  No.  But who wants to get smacked in the first round of combat and then spend the rest of the session with a limping character?
 
Ok... so those are some of my thoughts for the time being.  I'm sure more will come in time.