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.

Um, what the fuck.

I answered your question specifically, noting two big mechanical things D&D does to seperate itself from the pack.

Id also say Tyberious Funk gave an excellent answer, again noting specific mechanics.

Were we just supposed to agree with you and say "wow, it IS all branding, I never noticed that!"

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.

As far as I can tell, what Chuck has offered isn't "it's solid design" (though it is, it's not unique in this aspect), but that it has features that many other designers demonize and design themselves out of, despite being something that players seem to like.

You can sit there and pretend that what you have is concrete and shuck off anything anyone else does that doesn't follow your analysis, but in fact, I don't think your evidence is that much more compelling than Chuck's.

QuoteApparently, 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 statement is a total mischaracterization of what others have offered. If you insist on stomping and sulking off because people didn't follow your thesis, I'm not feeling sorry for you.

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.

How could anyone really say why unless we were able to dissect the whole examine all parts independently and in other games? Personally, I have reasons why I think it sells, but those are just my own opinions.

Seanchai

Actually if WEG and ICE had confabulated to produce the d6 powered Lord of the Rings Adventure Game in the early nineties that and Starwars would have given D&D a real run for its money.  As it is, ICE claims to have run at number 2 quite often in the early days of MERP.  But imagine the hype at the height of Starwars d6's popularity if there was a compatible LotR.

Anyhow, d20's success is as Bradford so often anounces solely the result of network externalities.  Which isn't to say d20 is shite, mind you, it runs on par with a number of popular games really.  Indeed I'd play d20 as readily as most iterations of BRP, or StarWars d6 (which I never liked), or Storyteller (see I just can't stand dice pools)

It's no Rolemaster Standard System, but nothing else is right?

James, there's a lot of things d20 does that appeals to players and other games don't do in the same way.

First off, D&D's startup is medium fast.  It's not d6, "what do you want to call your smuggler? Okay done" fast.  But what it does better than most, design a character game is parcel out the steps.  Look at GURPS for instance, you're drowning in choices which is really hard to get a handle on for newbies.

Next up, D&D's magic system looks simple.  You get this many spells of this level per day.  Most of the complexity is hidden in the unstructured and incoherent spell lists.  What I mean by that is that in GURPS a regular spell works like a regular spell and a missile spell works like a missile spell.  In D&D there's no real structure to how spells operate.  Though at least 3e lets you save against Sleep.

D&D is also pretty good about handing out goodies and kewl powerz, which appeals more to most players than any personal in character accomplisment.  Especially when you consider that a first level character is already a heroic individual well above the crowd.

There's also the issue of support materials.  Far too few games these days have any published adventures.  This may seem unimportant to many seasoned DMs but honestly, adventures tend to be where the maps are and we all love maps.

Quote from: David JohansenActually if WEG and ICE had confabulated to produce the d6 powered Lord of the Rings Adventure Game in the early nineties that and Starwars would have given D&D a real run for its money.  As it is, ICE claims to have run at number 2 quite often in the early days of MERP.  But imagine the hype at the height of Starwars d6's popularity if there was a compatible LotR.

Anyhow, d20's success is as Bradford so often anounces solely the result of network externalities.  Which isn't to say d20 is shite, mind you, it runs on par with a number of popular games really.  Indeed I'd play d20 as readily as most iterations of BRP, or StarWars d6 (which I never liked), or Storyteller (see I just can't stand dice pools)

It's no Rolemaster Standard System, but nothing else is right?

I think sales-wise the closest another company has come to TSR was probably White Wolf, but if I heard it was ICE when they were also making GURPs, that wouldnt have surprised me either.

Still, I think you follow the money, and both Monte Cook and Aaron Allston left ICE to go to TSR, even at a time when TSR was in trouble.

That says a lot.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckUm, what the fuck.

I answered your question specifically, noting two big mechanical things D&D does to seperate itself from the pack.

Id also say Tyberious Funk gave an excellent answer, again noting specific mechanics.

Were we just supposed to agree with you and say "wow, it IS all branding, I never noticed that!"

Yeah, that's about my reaction.  You've made some spot fucking on points here, and I don't see how James could've reacted theway he did if he was actually reading the thread.

D&D is successful because it utilizes game mechanics people are very fond of.

To the extent that other forms of entertainment that borrow those mechanics, have become successful entirely independent of a direct named association to D&D.

Quote from: SettembriniThe key feautres of D&D aren´t class & level.

They are:

tactical variability through:

(snip!)

Well, that's what appeals to single-unit wargamers anyway. ;-)

But here's a suggestion. d20s success is due to a variety of reasons. Some of these include;

a) Creating and promoting the OGL license from a position of market leader. The second caveat is very important because it does encourage, as Monte pointed out so many years ago,  for smaller companies to feed off the scraps.

b) Because the game system is better. No really, it is. D&D3e is a better game than AD&D2e, which is somewhat better than AD&D1e.

c) Because casual players, rather than the types who inhabit webforums like ourselves, find it easier to deal with consistent and simple rules - class and level are an example here, although I strongly prefer them to be a abstract style element rather than a determing part of the mechanics.

Quote from: David JohansenD&D is also pretty good about handing out goodies and kewl powerz, which appeals more to most players than any personal in character accomplisment.  Especially when you consider that a first level character is already a heroic individual well above the crowd.

I think that this is a very good point.  How many games out there have the "goodies per level" loot system?  How many have treasure tables?

Think about that.  That's extremely appealing.  Not just to players, but to GMs who otherwise have little idea of how "balanced" kit is until it's in-play, and what the rate of doling out goodies should be.

Don't underestimate the appeal of hordes of treasure and cool goodies.

Quote from: J ArcaneD&D is successful because it utilizes game mechanics people are very fond of.

And really, if you think about it, how many RPGs produced for the console/PC do NOT have classes and levels?

Diablo? Both.

Final Fantasy? Characters begin with a well defined archetype, with the ability to grow into other archetypes (so multi-classing basically) and levels.

World of Warcraft? Both.

EQ? Both.

Marvel Ultimate Alliance? Levels but no classes.

Fallout? Levels but no classes.

DragonQuest? No named classes, but each character has a set of defined abilities, and levels. I'll call this one (effectively) multiclassing again.

Noticing a trend here? They all have one, many have both, classes and/or levels.

Now let's look at Tabletop games. A much, much lower percentage have EITHER classes or levels.

In other words, for all "videogamey" is used as an insult by some gamers  videogame RPGs seem to have learned the lesson of the grand-dad of their genre BETTER than the format where that genre originated.

QuoteDragonQuest? No named classes, but each character has a set of defined abilities, and levels. I'll call this one (effectively) multiclassing again.

ACtually, DQ's 6 and 7 had classes too.  You essentially started out generic, but after you hit a certain level, you can choose a class.  They even had multiclassing and prestige-class like things.

Quote from: J ArcaneACtually, DQ's 6 and 7 had classes too.  You essentially started out generic, but after you hit a certain level, you can choose a class.  They even had multiclassing and prestige-class like things.

I'm pretty sure they mean DragonQuest the roleplaying game from SPI and TSR rather than DQ the computer game...

(Rereads thread: whoops, my bad)

Quote from: J ArcaneACtually, DQ's 6 and 7 had classes too.  You essentially started out generic, but after you hit a certain level, you can choose a class.  They even had multiclassing and prestige-class like things.

Ah, good to know. Some of the older Square games did have classes I remembered. DW 8, the one I remember clearly, had three or four ability trees for each character. So they were more or less unique, which is the same as a class, since you had a limited range of choices that fit the archetype assigned to each character.

Quote from: lev_lafayetteI'm pretty sure they mean DragonQuest the roleplaying game from SPI and TSR rather than DQ the computer game...

No I meant the video game

I was pointing out that when you have a budget the size of a small movie, in the millions of dollars, magically the mechanics seem to move much closer to those employed by D&D/d20.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckI think sales-wise the closest another company has come to TSR was probably White Wolf, but if I heard it was ICE when they were also making GURPs, that wouldnt have surprised me either.

Still, I think you follow the money, and both Monte Cook and Aaron Allston left ICE to go to TSR, even at a time when TSR was in trouble.

That says a lot.

Errr...ICE was publishing HERO at one point not GURPS.  They were at their peak in the mid eighties.  Anyhow, ICE made a very bad liscencing deal to keep Middle Earth at the very end of the eighties.  Sadly it never made them any money after that.  Sure it brought in revenue, but never enough to match what they were paying for it.  (no, the ccg actually never made enough to do more than catch up on back payments)

But, MERP wasn't exactly an ideal entry point to gaming or even an ideal middle earth game.  d6 LotR might really have done well.