Quote from: JamesVYour idea is right, and it does well to explain the success of the system on the consumer level.

Scratching that 'game itch' means you have to be able to play a game. It speaks nothing of whether that game is necessarily a good game, well designed, particularly enjoyable, whatever. This isn't an argument for D&D being a good game, good system... all it says is D&D has the most market exposure and that's somewhat of a self-perpetuating cycle.

Quote from: JamesVFor God's sake GRIM, are you even listening to yourself? You are claiming that the average D&D player is some mirage-addled idiot in the desert, throwing their dice and pretending they're having fun, while the Obviously Superior Game is just one dune over (Brain-Damaged even?).

You're shadowboxing, not actually arguing with me.
I write for d20, fairly often, its a perfectly adequete system, its just not a good system for anything bar D&D which is a genre unto itself with its wn preconceptions.

Viewed objectively as a system it doesn't really accomplish any of the goals I can think of for being a good system. It doesn't even do a good modelling job on the fantasy genre, which is why I tend to regard D&D as a genre unto itself.

What it has, and has always had since its inception, is the 'high ground'. It was first, it was and is biggest. It has the most recognition, it was most people's starting game (not mine). Otherwise our experience is much the same as Tyberious Funk's, it's a 'grin and bear it' system because otherwise you might not be gaming, that or 'embrace the cheese' and play D&D as a law unto itself.

Quote from: GRIMScratching that 'game itch' means you have to be able to play a game. It speaks nothing of whether that game is necessarily a good game, well designed, particularly enjoyable, whatever. This isn't an argument for D&D being a good game, good system... all it says is D&D has the most market exposure and that's somewhat of a self-perpetuating cycle.

You're saying, in essence, that "bad gaming is better than no gaming". Am I reading you right here?

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckYou're saying, in essence, that "bad gaming is better than no gaming". Am I reading you right here?

Well, I'd say 'Bad or mediocre gaming', but yes. I know there's a resistance to that in some quarters but for me at least I've certainly sat through games I wasn't particularly enjoying for those moments in it I did/could because it was the only game in town. Like the old joke.

I mean hell, I've even played Rifts.

Quote from: Tyberious Funk*snip* ...They weren't mindless drones, fooling themselves that they were having fun.  They definitely were having fun.  But mostly the fun wasn't because of D&D.  And that's not a criticism of D&D because it could have just as easily been another system.  So I bristle when I hear people try and equate the popularity of D&D with it's superiority as a system.  My experience just doesn't support the theory.

Quote from: GRIM*snip*... Otherwise our experience is much the same as Tyberious Funk's, it's a 'grin and bear it' system because otherwise you might not be gaming, that or 'embrace the cheese' and play D&D as a law unto itself.

Since you two have similar points, I hope you don't mind me answering them in tandem. In my argument, I never said it was superior, though I guess it could be inferred. Something that is obviously 'superior' may be unecessary if what you have does the job and makes you happy, espcially since as a game these criteria are mostly inherently subjective.

If the game is not getting in the way of the fun then it's doing just fine, and again the popularity of D&D shows this. Maybe I'm just a freak, but again I'm giving people more credit than "Bad or mediocre gaming is better than no gaming". If they're not having a good time, they'll do/play something else.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkMy experience just doesn't support the theory.

I got food poisoning from chocolate cake once. My experience supports the idea that all chocolate cake leads to people getting sick.

Your personal anecodote given all the weight it's due, people buy D&D. Tons of it. The majority of gamers play D&D. They do it knowing what they're going to be getting. Clearly, it's meeting their needs or they'd do something else.

Seanchai

Quote from: GRIMScratching that 'game itch' means you have to be able to play a game. It speaks nothing of whether that game is necessarily a good game, well designed, particularly enjoyable, whatever. This isn't an argument for D&D being a good game, good system... all it says is D&D has the most market exposure and that's somewhat of a self-perpetuating cycle.

Except this is, in fact, saying that people don't know exactly what they're getting when they buy or play D&D. That's hogwash. Of course, they know, and they're still choosing to do it. So that means said purchase or activity is fulfilling some need or needs that outweigh other needs.

Take "good" out of the equation. That's subjective. D&D is a game that sells well because it meets the majority of gamers' needs. In a business sense, that makes D&D a quality product.

You can say that D&D sells for some other reason than that it meets people's needs, but that's hogwash.

Seanchai

Quote from: GRIMViewed objectively as a system it doesn't really accomplish any of the goals I can think of for being a good system.

Pick your favorite system. I think a goal of the system should for it to be a pony. Pick your next favorite system. I think of goal of that system should be for it to quack like a duck. Pick your third favorite system. I think a goal of that system should be that it touches Newt Gringrich on the behind.

Gosh, looks like all your favorite games are bad systems and failures.

Do you see why using "viewed objectively" and "goals I can think of" in the same sentence is completely retarded? If you really want to view it objectively, you have to move away from the sphere of what you think and move toward that of numbers, sales, etc..

Quote from: GRIMWhat it has, and has always had since its inception, is the 'high ground'. It was first, it was and is biggest. It has the most recognition, it was most people's starting game (not mine).

Which would mean diddly squat if it wasn't meeting people's needs. People migrate to new products and services that better meet their needs all the time! Constantly. People can—and would—do it with D&D if they were motivated to do so.

Quote from: GRIMOtherwise our experience is much the same as Tyberious Funk's, it's a 'grin and bear it' system because otherwise you might not be gaming, that or 'embrace the cheese' and play D&D as a law unto itself.

I agree with this to a degree, but there's a reason big chains carry products other than just D&D: They sell. That means someone is buying them. And someone is buying all the games that aren't top sellers as well. These people don't all live in the Yucatan. I agree that it may not be as easy to find people that are into games other than D&D, but they exist.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiWhich would mean diddly squat if it wasn't meeting people's needs. People migrate to new products and services that better meet their needs all the time! Constantly. People can—and would—do it with D&D if they were motivated to do so.

People do migrate to new products and servies all the time.  In some markets.  But not all products are the same, and consumer behaviour across different markets can be quite varied.  In my experience, and this spans more than just D&D, game migration is relatively uncommon.  I see a lot of satisficing behaviour going on in most game groups.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkPeople do migrate to new products and servies all the time.  In some markets.  But not all products are the same, and consumer behaviour across different markets can be quite varied.  In my experience, and this spans more than just D&D, game migration is relatively uncommon.  I see a lot of satisficing behaviour going on in most game groups.

And I "migrated" to D&D from other games.  Because I thought it was fun.  Before that I'd "migrated" from Rifts/Palladium to WoD.  because I found it more interesting, and I liked the mechanics better.

I've moved around quite a bit.  I didn't start with D&D, in fact, I didn't try any form of it until I'd alreadcy been into the hobby for a couple of years, and I didn't really get into it until a year or two ago.  

Three of my four fellow D&D groupers all moved from WoD to D&D, and one actually now refuses to play anything else.  

Now, I could, just as you have, draw silly conclusiosn from that, indeed, I could even borrow one of Pundit's "Swine" rants, what with all the WoD -> D&D converts, but I won't.

'Cause personal anecdotes mean shit.  Though I would say, that given the sheer number of D&D players out there, my wild-eyed speculation would probably be a hair more accurate than yours.

Just 'cause to me, the simple logical conclusion when I see a large number of people who are all playing the same game, is to assume they like the game, as opposed to the bizarre mental contortions it takes to ignore the game entirely and claim it has nothing to do with why all those people are palying it.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkPeople do migrate to new products and servies all the time.  In some markets.

Some? Name some markets where they don't.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI see a lot of satisficing behaviour going on in most game groups.

And?

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

If 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.

If people are settling for D&D, it's because D&D is meeting whatever needs are dominate at the time. If playing a non-D&D was their dominant needs, they wouldn't be playing.

Seanchai

Quote from: James VIf they're not having a good time, they'll do/play something else.

In my experience that's not the case.  They just quit playing.  Happened with second edition and then happened again with third edition.  Try something else?  Nope they're done.  Unless you're saying they'll do something besides RPGs.  That is true in my experience.

Quote from: GunslingerIn my experience that's not the case.  They just quit playing.  Happened with second edition and then happened again with third edition.  Try something else?  Nope they're done.  Unless you're saying they'll do something besides RPGs.  That is true in my experience.

That's what I was saying, they'll do anything else, it doesn't have to be playing another RPG.

As far as not playing another RPG goes, you could argue that That Other Superior Game could take it's place, but that would have happened at some point, and became a phenomenon all on it's own. This maybe happened with Vampire, but I think it was more totally new players, than dissatisfied old players, but that IMO. Beyond that, my experiences have told me that many people who completely quit playing RPGs, quit because of the people they first played with, not the game.

It's a pointless argument the way it is structured because you're talking past each other.  Look at this quote from the Wiki article on satisficing:

Quote from: WikiIn decision-making, satisficing explains the tendency to select the first option that meets a given need or select the option that seems to address most needs rather than the "optimal" solution.

There's an assumption built in here to have used this particular phrase - the existence of an "optimal" solution. Sadly, there is none. There are for individuals, but to assume one exists for the RPG community is incorrect.

So you're arguing whether or not D&D/d20 is the "optimal" solution?  I don't even think WotC/Hasbro would use that term.  I think they've been successful in finding the sweet spot of "the option that seems to address most needs."

So one side argues D&D is not the optimal solution while the other side argues it seems to address many peoples' needs - enough to be predominate in the market. You're both right.

The part that's just plain wrong, then, is the part that assumes people are having needs met by marketing and licensing. Something about D&D/d20, beyond the branding, continues to convince people that it's meeting their needs.

Quote from: J ArcaneNow, I could, just as you have, draw silly conclusiosn from that, indeed, I could even borrow one of Pundit's "Swine" rants, what with all the WoD -> D&D converts, but I won't.

Huh?  Where are any of my conclusions "silly".  I don't really see any conclusions presented.  I just tried to refute JamesV rather silly dichotomy.

Quote'Cause personal anecdotes mean shit.  Though I would say, that given the sheer number of D&D players out there, my wild-eyed speculation would probably be a hair more accurate than yours.

Right.  You smart, me dumb.  What a great argument.

QuoteJust 'cause to me, the simple logical conclusion when I see a large number of people who are all playing the same game, is to assume they like the game, as opposed to the bizarre mental contortions it takes to ignore the game entirely and claim it has nothing to do with why all those people are palying it.

Now this just gets on my fucking goat.  Because at no point have I made this statement.  All I have posited, is that the popularity of a game does not necessarily equate to it's quality.  And that there are many other factors that make a game popular.  That's not to dismiss the (presumably) millions of people that play D&D because they actually think it is good.  But that isn't the only reason.