TheRPGSite

Before Pundit and Red Fox step in with the "It's successful because it does everything better!" hyperbole, I need to make it clear that this thread is about actually discussing what makes d20 so successful, not pushing subjective value judgements as some kind of universally applicable fact. If you've got that kind of claptrap in your head, shake it out now.

That said, I think that d20 success can be attributed to two things -- branding and licensing. To be clear, I am not saying that the game is mechanically weak, but there is no factual evidence to suggest that it works (mechanically) better than other popular game systems (e.g., GURPS, BRP, etc).

On the other hand, mountains of factual evidence to suggest that the OGL and d20 System license made d20 popular with publishers and, thus, bolstered its popularity among consumers (as, for a while, many publishers were designing exclusively for d20).

Note that D&D is the only d20 System game (so far as I am aware to crack the C&G Top 5 games, whereas games such as Rifts and GURPS tend to crak it regularly and repeatedly (D&D has, however, pretty much held onto the number one spot for since 2000).

This seems to indicate that, as a system, while d20 is popular among publishers, only one of its many variations seems to be outstripping other game systems where consumers are concerned (which may explain why companies liek AEG dropped their remaining d20 lines recently).

So, as Bradford Walker was so fond of screaming for years over at TBP, the secret to d20's success seems to be two-fold: branding and licensing. There are, of course, other reasons that people play d20 System games (I myself play them because it's next to impossible to find players for anything else) -- these two factors simply seem to be vital to why it continues to proliferate as it does.

Quote from: jdrakehBefore Pundit and Red Fox step in with the "It's successful because it does everything better!" hyperbole, I need to make it clear that this thread is about actually discussing what makes d20 so successful, not pushing subjective value judgements as some kind of universally applicable fact. If you've got that kind of claptrap in your head, shake it out now.

Fuck you man, I never said that.

Quote from: jdrakehThat said, I think that d20 success can be attributed to two things -- branding and licensing. To be clear, I am not saying that the game is mechanically weak, but there is no factual evidence to suggest that it works (mechanically) better than other popular game systems (e.g., GURPS, BRP, etc).

Oh look, claptrap!

:rolleyes:

Quote from: jdrakehThat said, I think that d20 success can be attributed to two things -- branding and licensing. To be clear, I am not saying that the game is mechanically weak, but there is no factual evidence to suggest that it works (mechanically) better than other popular game systems (e.g., GURPS, BRP, etc).

Give me a criteria whereby we can judge what is popular, then we can start looking at mechanical comparisons.

Success? I haven't been following this closely at all, but I thought there's a growing feeling all round that as of 2007 time's up for d20? And that the Ennies trying to broaden their base is the clearest symptom of that?

Quote from: jrientsGive me a criteria whereby we can judge what is popular, then we can start looking at mechanical comparisons.

Yeah, because otherwise we get bogged down into "it's marketing brainwashing!" "it's a good game!" argument again.

Quote from: jdrakehThat said, I think that d20 success can be attributed to two things -- branding and licensing. To be clear, I am not saying that the game is mechanically weak, but there is no factual evidence to suggest that it works (mechanically) better than other popular game systems (e.g., GURPS, BRP, etc).

I disagree, there are many mechanics found in d20 games that has established it as a market leader.

QuoteOn the other hand, mountains of factual evidence to suggest that the OGL and d20 System license made d20 popular with publishers and, thus, bolstered its popularity among consumers (as, for a while, many publishers were designing exclusively for d20).

This implies that D&D was not the world's most popular RPG before the OGL. It was. Therefore the branding and "mindshare" advantages that D&D gained from the OGL were gravy. They let it lap the pack AGAIN. They are not the reason for its success, mechanics are.

This doesn't mean D&D is BETTER. That's a decision between every gamer and his conscience.

It does mean, however, that the majority of gamers have made that decision in one recognizable direction.  

QuoteNote that D&D is the only d20 System game (so far as I am aware to crack the C&G Top 5 games, whereas games such as Rifts and GURPS tend to crak it regularly and repeatedly (D&D has, however, pretty much held onto the number one spot for since 2000).

You're using some pretty flawed data though. Looking at amazon's most popular list, I see the d20 Modern Core Rules and the SW d20 Core Rules currently clocking in at #10 and #11, following a top then that's 100% D&D (on the games front).

I hate to break this to you, but d20 Modern and d20 Star Wars are d20 games.

So you're argument doesn't really hold a lot of water in the MUCH larger publishing world outside the C&G numbers. You're basically looking at a map of Antarctica and then predicting the weather in Florida based on that data.

QuoteThis seems to indicate that, as a system, while d20 is popular among publishers, only one of its many variations seems to be outstripping other game systems where consumers are concerned (which may explain why companies liek AEG dropped their remaining d20 lines recently).

This has more to do with AEG than it does with d20. When WOTC drops d20, let me know.

QuoteSo, as Bradford Walker was so fond of screaming for years over at TBP, the secret to d20's success seems to be two-fold: branding and licensing. There are, of course, other reasons that people play d20 System games (I myself play them because it's next to impossible to find players for anything else) -- these two factors simply seem to be vital to why it continues to proliferate as it does.

No, they're not vital.

D20 has things it does mechanically better than other systems.

It was the #1 game before the license, so attributing its CONTINUED success to the license is just intellectually dishonest.

Sorry.

It really is a good game.

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

Quote from: jdrakehOn the other hand, mountains of factual evidence to suggest that the OGL and d20 System license made d20 popular with publishers and, thus, bolstered its popularity among consumers (as, for a while, many publishers were designing exclusively for d20).

Here's a look at the state of the industry pre-OGL:

QuoteWhen I started full-time in the industry at Iron Crown Enterprises, at the time the publishers or both Rolemaster and Champions, a smart guy (it was either Kevin Barrett or S. Coleman Charlton, I no longer remember which -- perhaps it was both... they're both smart guys) told me that TSR, the market leader at the time (by a long way) and the company that owned D&D, wasn't the enemy. We weren't in competition with D&D, and we'd be kidding ourselves to think it. Our 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). To be blunt, we lived off TSR's scraps. But we lived quite happily on those scraps -- it was a viable niche, and one best served if those within it recognized that we were in it. That awareness stayed with me over the years, even as I went to work for TSR and then Wizards (who became the market leader after buying TSR), and when I left again.

That's Monte Cook about the state of the industry in the 80's and 90's.

What do we notice about this quote?

Oh yeah, it's basically the way it is now, except back then all other games lived of TSR's scraps and today they live off WOTC's scraps.

But the top dog has still not been knocked off.

If you think the quality of the game MECHANICALLY has nothing to do with that, then you're a sucker.

What (in the name of the nine hells) is it that you think d20 does so spectacularly well in mechanical terms?

Quote from: GRIMWhat (in the name of the nine hells) is it that you think d20 does so spectacularly well in mechanical terms?

I believe classes and levels are the two main components of d20's (and D&D's before it) success mechanically.

The first thing most non-d20 games do (and even a couple of recent d20 games) is get rid of classes and levels.

Here's a secret that most game designers I talk to KNOW, even when *they personally* design a game without classes and levels: the vast majority of gamers like those things.

Let's look at classes first:

Most gamers like building from an archetype. They don't have a deep unique vision of their character as a person when they create him. That does (and really SHOULD) come later from play.

What they know when they create the character is what ROLE they like to play in the party. D&D classes give you that role right up front. At its most basic you're either a Fighter, Healer, Thief or Mage.

Players like this individually, since it stops them from making important decisions before play begins, like in GURPs where you need to figure out your character's personality pre-game.

Collectively, this makes party cohesion a dream. It's not like CoC where I have seen players do a "role call" of important skills pre-game to make sure all the bases are covered by someone in the party.

In D&D you can tell this at a glance. If you have a good mix of fighters, healers, thieves and mages, you're good to go.

Now let's look at levels.

Levels occur often enough to make you feel like your character is growing and advancing mechanically. Players like this. It keeps them involved in the game.

Levels are enough of a power boost to be noticeable when they occur. Again, players like this. They feel like they've accomplished something.

Finally, and this ties back into classes, Levels are quick and easy to apply.

Compare this to point based systems. In a system like GURPs or HERO you get a few points here, a few points there, you get them a LOT. Like every few sessions.

You constantly have to decide if you want to spend them or save them. If you spend them, where? Each adventure's XP doesn't make much of a difference but it adds up over the long haul.

This basically forces you to construct a plan, based on your party role to continue to grow the character into the niche the party needs that he was designed to fill.

D&D/d20 does this for you.

Most designers, when they go to design their own system, immediately cut out the two things that have contributed to D&D's success for decades.

Chuck

Quote from: GRIMWhat (in the name of the nine hells) is it that you think d20 does so spectacularly well in mechanical terms?

I'm curious about this as well, for my own reasons.

Oh, and no d20 analysis is complete without me saying "network externalities".

There you go. :)

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerOh, and no d20 analysis is complete without me saying "network externalities".

There you go. :)

Thank you, Bradford, we were starving here.

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

Quote from: jdrakehThat said, I think that d20 success can be attributed to two things -- branding and licensing.

That'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...

Quote from: jdrakehTo be clear, I am not saying that the game is mechanically weak, but there is no factual evidence to suggest that it works (mechanically) better than other popular game systems (e.g., GURPS, BRP, etc).

Personally, I don't think it's mechancially better than other systems, but I do believe it's better at or delivers more of what more gamers want. Chocolate and coffee favored are both ice cream. One doesn't outsell the other because it's more "ice creamier"—chocolate outsells coffee because more people want the taste of chocolate than they do coffee.

People have more choice than every before. It's easier to get games and they come in a wider variety.

Quote from: jdrakehOn the other hand, mountains of factual evidence to suggest that the OGL and d20 System license made d20 popular with publishers and, thus, bolstered its popularity among consumers (as, for a while, many publishers were designing exclusively for d20).

I think you've got that backwards. The OGL and d20 were popular with publishers because some many people played D&D.

Consider that the OGL/d20 license is just one of many open ones. Yet it's the one that so many publishers chose to use. If the publishers could select a license and bolster its popularity among consumers, the smart thing to do would be to choose small system to license, produce a good product, bolster the popularity of the system, make a lot of money, then duck out as other companies rushed in to compete for market share. Rinse and repeat.

You won't see that happening, however, because publishers (particularly the ones we're talking about) have a damn limited ability to convince consumers that their product should be the one to be purchased.

Again, marketing and advertising don't make things popular. They allow the consumers to latch onto a product or service they're already pre-disposed toward enjoying.

Quote from: jdrakehNote that D&D is the only d20 System game (so far as I am aware to crack the C&G Top 5 games, whereas games such as Rifts and GURPS tend to crak it regularly and repeatedly (D&D has, however, pretty much held onto the number one spot for since 2000).

You have to demonstrate that the C&G Top 5 is reprenstative of the market as a whole, however. It's data, and that's always good, but it's plenty easy to get skewed data.

Quote from: jdrakehThis seems to indicate that, as a system, while d20 is popular among publishers, only one of its many variations seems to be outstripping other game systems where consumers are concerned (which may explain why companies liek AEG dropped their remaining d20 lines recently).

And they're smart to do so.

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckIf you think the quality of the game MECHANICALLY has nothing to do with that, then you're a sucker.

I do think that D&D has mechanical features that make it popular, but I think there is something else that the "scraps" line (a term I've used myself) points to.  D&D is one of the only games that has what Ryan Dancey has referred to as an "entry level product or acquisition path".  Other games don't bring new people into the hobby the way D&D does (and to a lesser extent, WW does).  Yes, you'll see the claim that games like Everyway or Fudge are great for beginners but that's only true if there is an experienced GM running it.  What other games lack is the box that a kid can get for Christmas and figure out how to play on his or her own.  And where the whole dungeon theme is useful is that it's very easy for a beginning GM to wrap their mind around and do.

Quote from: John MorrowI do think that D&D has mechanical features that make it popular, but I think there is something else that the "scraps" line (a term I've used myself) points to.  D&D is one of the only games that has what Ryan Dancey has referred to as an "entry level product or acquisition path".  Other games don't bring new people into the hobby the way D&D does (and to a lesser extent, WW does).  Yes, you'll see the claim that games like Everyway or Fudge are great for beginners but that's only true if there is an experienced GM running it.  What other games lack is the box that a kid can get for Christmas and figure out how to play on his or her own.  And where the whole dungeon theme is useful is that it's very easy for a beginning GM to wrap their mind around and do.

I agree with this.

Id also point out that many of things we think of as "D&D" are in fact things people just flat love to do in games.

Exploring the unknown.

This is one a few games have the POTENTIAL to have on their side, like Traveller (though most Traveller games I played in back in the day cast the PCs as merchants, smugglers or mercs so there was no exploration). Hell, even most Star Trek games Ive played have been more about kicking Klingon ass than exploring.

This is something modern games notoriously miss out on, unless you're running a pulp "Lost Worlds" type campaign.

Dungeons!

This is another one that people constantly point to as a "problem" with D&D. A problem with everyone except the majority of the RPG customer base. This is another element that many non-d20 designers work their hardest to exclude from their games.

The Old World.

Ever notice all the RUINS in a D&D game? There's a huge civilization that was much more advanced than the current civilizations that went extinct in the distant past of 90% of fantasy game worlds, from Greyhawk to Middle Earth to Hyboria to Spira.

Tactical Combat.

Most gamers enjoy interesting combat. Some more than others to be sure, but again, the vast majority of gamers likes a challenge that makes them think, maneuver, use character abilities and lose hit points.

Now a lot of these things are NOT a large part of any fantasy novel. While three of them can be found Middle Earth, and three can be found in Hyboria (just not the same three), they were included in original D&D in much larger doses because... players liked them.

One thing D&D has done for a lot of its lifespan that helps explain how it has maintained popularity is give the people what they want.

It plays to the groundlings.

And while other game designers sniff and refuse to include classes, or levels or dungeons or combat or splatbooks in THEIR unique snowflake of a game, D&D has continued to sit on the top of the hill.

Chuck

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckOh yeah, it's basically the way it is now, except back then all other games lived of TSR's scraps and today they live off WOTC's scraps.

But the top dog has still not been knocked off.

If you think the quality of the game MECHANICALLY has nothing to do with that, then you're a sucker.

So 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.

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.

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.

^^^ Doh! Yes, I meant Hero.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckIn 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.

My view is that they've completely failed to pick up on 30+ years of RPG innovation and they're the worse for it.

You don't notice it so much in single player CRPGs, but Class/Level fucks multiplayer in the arse, especially when there is player conflict. Yet they stick with it regardless.

Quote from: GRIMMy view is that they've completely failed to pick up on 30+ years of RPG innovation and they're the worse for it.

You don't notice it so much in single player CRPGs, but Class/Level fucks multiplayer in the arse, especially when there is player conflict. Yet they stick with it regardless.

I agree. I just quit playing WoW (amongst other reasons) because grinding for levels bores me to tears. And quests: I hate the motherfucking quests.

I think a reason that has been touched on, but not explored, is that despite the doom-mongers that crop up everywhere saying the gaming industry is dying and that we need 'new blood', there are more young people playing tabletop RPGs than people realise.

Games that give character growth structure and give out goodies in the form of class abilities, feats, skill growth, items (or whatever name they go by in the game concerned) etc in bite sized chunks appeal to people. d&ds success lies a bit on the game entry side, but it's also on the 'cool' side. Starting gamers, young gamers, and many 'traditional gamers' aren't that interested in being limited to playing one type of character forever. Nor are they that interested in exploring their id, motives, place in the game world, angst, 'why am i here' thoughts or even playing in a world that they don't relate to, to some degree. There's a reason that the more strange game worlds aren't very popular, it's about relating to it. Now, more mature or experienced gamers can do that fine if they so choose, which leads me to my conclusion that there are more young gamers and traditional gamers out there than any other type.

This is of course backed up by d20 (d&d) having always been the top dog and the reason that most high selling systems that aren't d20 follow the design goals of that game:

Easy Entry level

A relatable setting with relatable character types for a generic fantasy setting

Choice that isn't too restricted or too diverse (too much choice is no choice, although, i guess it's getting that way with feats & PClasses now)

Character improvement that is regular and delivers mechanical advantages as the character gains power, but with only ocassional book-keeping

A vast amount of critters to defeat. It seems that an awful lot of gamers enjoy the monsters. And why not? It's a staple of fantasy literature. d&d has always delivered them in spades

Apart from the rules to generate and advance characters, players do not need to read countless material on world setting, special conditions of play (such as chivalry or passions in Pendragon for example) etc. I guess this figures into easy entry level.

Treasure, treasure, treasure. You can never underestimate the treasure. Who doesn't want excaliber, baba yaga's hut, a conjuror's hat? Again, genre convention as well as bloody cool.

No artificial aids to 'victory', other than your characters skills, equipment and the players ingenuity. I think that many gamers want success, but they want to earn it. Hero points, actions points, narrative points etc and other 'inovations' aren't present.

Tactical combat. Very tactical. To get the best out of it, minis are useful (but not mandatory). Toy soldiers man, toy soldiers. Old as time and just as popular with all ages (as well as the younger demographic of course).


I think that's all for now. :D

Quote from: ImperatorI agree. I just quit playing WoW (amongst other reasons) because grinding for levels bores me to tears. And quests: I hate the motherfucking quests.

Anyone who hates WoW quests needs to go and find the old Ultima parody Zerg.  I hearby command the go forth and slay one kobold!

Quote from: David JohansenAnyone who hates WoW quests needs to go and find the old Ultima parody Zerg.  I hearby command the go forth and slay one kobold!

Linky?

Quote from: GRIMMy view is that they've completely failed to pick up on 30+ years of RPG innovation and they're the worse for it.

You don't notice it so much in single player CRPGs, but Class/Level fucks multiplayer in the arse, especially when there is player conflict. Yet they stick with it regardless.

They stick with it because its popular with the largest segment of their market.

And since these games have budgets the size of movies, CRPG designers have to go for the largest part of the market.

They have to play to the groundlings. They can't afford to be artists going for the "fit though few".

Given that those games that you say are "suffering" are games with MILLIONS of players, Im sure they're suffering all the way to the bank.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckGiven that those games that you say are "suffering" are games with MILLIONS of players, Im sure they're suffering all the way to the bank.

Again, popularity does not mean something is done well.

Yes, GRIM, classes and levels are inherently bad, so they stop people having fun.

Yes, GRIM, millions of people are playing a game they don't really enjoy.

So either they are all doing something they don't enjoy, for reasons no-one has adduced, or else... they think they're having fun, but really they're not! ZOMFG they must be literally brain-damaged!1111!

Quote from: JimBobOzYes, GRIM, classes and levels are inherently bad, so they stop people having fun.

Yes, GRIM, millions of people are playing a game they don't really enjoy.

So either they are all doing something they don't enjoy, for reasons no-one has adduced, or else... they think they're having fun, but really they're not! ZOMFG they must be literally brain-damaged!1111!

I think GRIM's label isn't brain-damaged, but rather "consumer whore."

D&D as the RPG equivalent of McDonald's is a compelling argument, but ultimately flawed.

Quote from: GRIMAgain, popularity does not mean something is done well.

Not exactly, but close. It means that it meets people's needs. If people are continuing to purchase D&D, it must be doing something right.

Seanchai

Quote from: GRIMAgain, popularity does not mean something is done well.

Nope it doesn't.

But a rational person might be willing to admit that if millions of people like something, it might actually have some value, even if it's not their cup of tea.

Quote from: JimBobOzYes, GRIM, classes and levels are inherently bad, so they stop people having fun.

Yes, GRIM, millions of people are playing a game they don't really enjoy.

So either they are all doing something they don't enjoy, for reasons no-one has adduced, or else... they think they're having fun, but really they're not! ZOMFG they must be literally brain-damaged!1111!

No, millions of people are eating McDonalds without necessarily knowing there's a nice cheap friendly Italian place just around the corner.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckNope it doesn't.

But a rational person might be willing to admit that if millions of people like something, it might actually have some value, even if it's not their cup of tea.

'Some value' is fairly wide, so I'll accept that.

I think it's a multitude of factors as why D&D 3 is doing well.

Name: The D&D name was the first, and due to LOTS of negative publicity  (For being Satanic and what not) has become synonomous with the term RPG. Parents still call PS2's and Xboxs Nintendo's. Just like gamers call Exalted "It's like D&D but different".
 D&D means RPG in American culture. Someone who has never played an RPG knows D&D is an RPG. Just like videogames and Nintendo, Pro-Wrestling and Hulk Hogan.

Better than 2nd Edition: After many fans left D&D in droves, when there was rumor of a new and improved D&D coming out, they all went back. D&D and AD&D are good, fun games. D&D 3rd is also a good fun game.

Vanilla: For lack of a better term, D&D is not meant for the advanced palette. Because it's name is synonomous with the term RPG (as mentioned above) it is the standard by which all other games are based.

Creatively Complete: Everything in D&D is well defined, evrything has a system that has been play balanced and tested. It requires no creative input from it's DM's, instead providing systems for creating successful dungeons, cities and even worlds.
 This is the only System (which has been in place since before D20) piece I think that has contributed to it's success. It lowers the barrier of entry by making even the worst DM's able to run a balanced and successful D&D game.

Hasbro/WotC: The current mega success of D&D comes from Hasbro. Their marketing team, combined with their distribution channels took the previous selling points and taken D&D to loftier heights than it has ever been before. Partly trough branding and extending the D&D IP to collectible miniatures, posters, kids books, chess sets and mainstream movies.


Luck: I don't think Wizards or Hasbro could have planned for D&D to be as big as it is now. It hit at just the right time when the maket was ready for it and gaming grognards hadn't completely written it off as "history". The impact D&D 3 has had on our hobby couldn't have been predicted by anyone.

As far as the System debate goes I offer my 2 cents again...

The fact that D&D3 is a fun game and has a decent system kept D&D 3rd edition from being a failure. If the game's system had been horrible twice in a row, I don't think Gamers would have forgiven the brand and would have moved on to other games permanently.

Quote from: GRIMNo, millions of people are eating McDonalds without necessarily knowing there's a nice cheap friendly Italian place just around the corner.

That could be. Finally we're getting to the actual power of marketing/advertising: informing folks about alternatives they might like.

Here's some more reality: Millions of people don't care about the Italian resturant. All the advertising in the world won't change that. Because out of the folks eating at McDonalds, a large section won't like Italian food. Or sit down resturants. Or tipping. Or trying to get their kids to behave. Or waiting to be seated. Or a hundred thousand other little things.

While people might not know that our particular Italian resturant exists, they do know that there are alternatives to McDonalds. And they still choose McDonalds.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiWhile people might not know that our particular Italian resturant exists, they do know that there are alternatives to McDonalds. And they still choose McDonalds.

Metaphores always break down if you take them too far, but a substantial number of people in the real case wouldn't know about the alternatives at all.

Quote from: GRIMMetaphores always break down if you take them too far, but a substantial number of people in the real case wouldn't know about the alternatives at all.

Which real case, D&D or McDonalds? I guess it really doesn't matter because, again, you're just flat out wrong.

Seanchai

"D&D Is like Mcdonalds!" (or alternately "Britney spears" or whatever else seems uncool at the moment) is the most tired fucking argument. I've heard it since 2001.


"Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good". Sure. Whatever.

But the truth is, things that are awesome, that are well loved, that serve the fans-- those things become popular.. and then they stay popular. For years.. maybe decades.

Trying to deny that fucking fact is a sign of deep, pervasive, intellectual dishonesty. The truth is obvious to anyone who even glances at reality.

It takes a seriously lame person to compare the chart to the coastline, and when they don't match up, somehow declares the coastline to be wrong rather than the chart.

Here's a much more accurate metaphor: You want to know what D&D is like? D&D is like rock and roll. It's the People's fucking Choice. It's large enough to encompass everything from Rockabilly to Pop-Rock, Punk to Metal and everything in between.

 Now, sure, you may like polka music, or showtunes, or pan flute solos, or whatever the fuck else you like. Thats just fine. You may even feel perplexed and confused why the rock fans just aren't interested in your peruvian fucking flute music or whatever the hell else. Thats ok too. And really, I personally have nothing against Zamfir, but I think his opinions on how to throw down a middle-eight or bust out a screaming guitar solo are worthless.

Thats the metaphor we shall henceforth be using. We rock and you blow.  Fuck this Mcdonalds crap, and fuck any loser that dares invoke it. It was tired false bullshit 6 years ago.  






....


...man, I enjoyed that!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw...man, I enjoyed that!

So did I.  It was a hell of a rant!

:win:

Quote from: SeanchaiThat could be. Finally we're getting to the actual power of marketing/advertising: informing folks about alternatives they might like.

Here's some more reality: Millions of people don't care about the Italian resturant. All the advertising in the world won't change that. Because out of the folks eating at McDonalds, a large section won't like Italian food. Or sit down resturants. Or tipping. Or trying to get their kids to behave. Or waiting to be seated. Or a hundred thousand other little things.

While people might not know that our particular Italian resturant exists, they do know that there are alternatives to McDonalds. And they still choose McDonalds.

Seanchai

I live on the West Coast.

Over here, there's a killer burrito joint like every 5 fucking blocks, and yet, people still go to Taco Bell.  

I personally can't stand Taco Bell, and am always baffled that people will go down the street from the killer burrito place, and pay the same price for Taco Bell.

Thing is though, when asked, most poeple will tell you they just don't expect the same thing as those other places when the go to Taco Bell.  Taco Bell isn't Mexican, it's just it's own thing which bares a vague resemblance to Mexican, and they appreciate it on it's own merits.

To be honest, I think they've taken the more admirable and open-minded position.

Quote from: J ArcaneI live on the West Coast.

Over here, there's a killer burrito joint like every 5 fucking blocks, and yet, people still go to Taco Bell.  

I personally can't stand Taco Bell, and am always baffled that people will go down the street from the killer burrito place, and pay the same price for Taco Bell.

Thing is though, when asked, most poeple will tell you they just don't expect the same thing as those other places when the go to Taco Bell.  Taco Bell isn't Mexican, it's just it's own thing which bares a vague resemblance to Mexican, and they appreciate it on it's own merits.

To be honest, I think they've taken the more admirable and open-minded position.

Bingo.  I live not ten miles from the border, and this area is rife with absolutely the best, cheap mexican food you could ever want.

Yet there's still two Taco Bells and two Del Tacos in town.  And I eat occasionally at both.

Not because they have superior mexican food, but because they have Taco Bell and Del Taco food.

Quote from: SeanchaiWhich real case, D&D or McDonalds? I guess it really doesn't matter because, again, you're just flat out wrong.

Stop thinking I'm talking in absolutes and re-read what I actually wrote.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHere's a much more accurate metaphor: You want to know what D&D is like? D&D is like rock and roll. It's the People's fucking Choice. It's large enough to encompass everything from Rockabilly to Pop-Rock, Punk to Metal and everything in between.

Pop, not rock (but rock used to be pop, you get what I mean).
Yes, it is the People's choice, they grey mediocrity you get from populism.
It doesn't encompass everything, that would be roleplaying as a whole.

d20 and D&D aren't mediocre. Only game groups are mediocre. People matter, bitch!
Order of importance in having an interesting and fun session:

• People
• Snacks
• Setting
• System

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckAh, 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.

Final Fantasy V, and Final Fantasy Tactics are most loved because of their robust class systems.

One of the only things I liked about the final Fantasy XI online game was the way they handled multiclassing.  hell, offering it at all is a step ahead of most MMOs, which outright don't allow it.

Quote from: JimBobOzOrder of importance in having an interesting and fun session:

• People
• Snacks
• Setting
• System

My name is Zachary, and I approve this message.

Its obvious that classes and levels are good design; the video game industry uses them for a reason. They allow you to make clear characters that fit archetypes, if they're WELL done on top of that they allow you to individualize tons as well.

People who dislike these things, well, they're either people who just hate D&D because they hate its success; or they hate levels and classes because they'd rather min-max and be munchkins. Yes, those are pretty much the only possible reasons when you come down to it.
(note: those aren't the only reasons to LIKE point-buy systems, but they are the only reasons to HATE class/level systems; sorry)

As for D20's success, I'm glad that in this thread at least, the other side is mostly admitting that it IS successful. BTW; those who claim "no D20 game other than D&D have made the top 5" are probably wrong, both Star Wars D20 and D20 modern have in different times been in the top 5. I wouldn't be surprised if M&M were as well.

D20 is successful because its a great system, its adaptable, it has great network externalities, and its well promoted. IN THAT ORDER.

RPGPundit

Naw, I hate D&D because it's a stain on the reputation and perception of the industry as a whole.  FATAL and RaWaHo aren't as successful but I don't hate them any less for it.

I hate classes and levels in 3e specifically because they are completely undermined in their function by the skill system and feats.  D&D's sacred cows all relate to being able to put a couple hundred figures on the table and be done in time for dinner and cease to make sense in the muddled mess WotC has made of it in their rabid quest to fuck the rest of the industry over.

D&D's network externalities do as much harm to the industry as they do good.  They certainly keep more people out than they bring in.

Damnit I'm starting to love this place.  I'd've been banned for three weeks for saying that at TOP. :D

Quote from: David JohansenNaw, I hate D&D because it's a stain on the reputation and perception of the industry as a whole.  FATAL and RaWaHo aren't as successful but I don't hate them any less for it.

I hate classes and levels in 3e specifically because they are completely undermined in their function by the skill system and feats.  D&D's sacred cows all relate to being able to put a couple hundred figures on the table and be done in time for dinner and cease to make sense in the muddled mess WotC has made of it in their rabid quest to fuck the rest of the industry over.

D&D's network externalities do as much harm to the industry as they do good.  They certainly keep more people out than they bring in.

Damnit I'm starting to love this place.  I'd've been banned for three weeks for saying that at TOP. :D

Considering that D&D is more than 90% of the industry, what's good for them IS good for the industry.

By that measure, d20 Modern has been a huge win for the industry overall.

Given that D&D *started* the industry, wishing they'd go away in favor of lousy games like FATAL is just dumb.

Wow...Talk about a failed reading comprehension roll.

I was disputing RPGPundit's assertion that people only hate D&D 3e because it's successful, I pointed out that I hate RaWaHo and FATAL as much as D&D 3e and they aren't successful (in the terms D&D is anyhow blah blah milage may vary blah blah blah).

What is good for D&D is good for D&D and d20 is an effort to corner the market and squeeze everyone else out.  It's not inclusive or helpful.  It dooms us to be a failing dying market piloted by the bottom line of a company that doesn't really even like gaming (Hasbro...).

If you call that healthy, I've got some nice carcinogenic compounds to sell you for your own health.

Quote from: RPGPunditIts obvious that classes and levels are good design; the video game industry uses them for a reason.

They don't know any better and to many computer game players RPG means the system of character advancement and levels. Not the act of playing a role. That said, a few do break with the mould.

Quote from: RPGPunditThey allow you to make clear characters that fit archetypes, if they're WELL done on top of that they allow you to individualize tons as well.

The base problem is the classes though. Skills, feats and multiclassing are like sticking plasters to address the problem. Its like adding a spoiler and blower to  a sinclair C5. Classes are boxes, roles, like in MMORPGS tank/nuker/buffer etc. Team slots, not characters.

Quote from: RPGPunditPeople who dislike these things, well, they're either people who just hate D&D because they hate its success; or they hate levels and classes because they'd rather min-max and be munchkins. Yes, those are pretty much the only possible reasons when you come down to it.

Or because they like individual characters and don't like the vastly dispirate spread of character power that tends to associate with levels. As to the min-maxing issue you haven't seen min-maxing untl you've seen the various broken d20 character builds.

Quote from: RPGPunditAs for D20's success, I'm glad that in this thread at least, the other side is mostly admitting that it IS successful. BTW; those who claim "no D20 game other than D&D have made the top 5" are probably wrong, both Star Wars D20 and D20 modern have in different times been in the top 5. I wouldn't be surprised if M&M were as well.

Commercially successful certainly. Whether it succeeds in other goals is extremely questionable.

Quote from: RPGPunditD20 is successful because its a great system, its adaptable, it has great network externalities, and its well promoted. IN THAT ORDER.

By definition it is the default system, that doesn't mean it is great. I'm sure even you can think of various systems that cover various aspects of rules etc in various subjectively better ways than D&D does. The adaptability is largely a myth, if by 'network externalities' you mean - lots of people play it - that's a self perpetuating thing but doesn't mean it is necessarily best.

Quote from: GRIMPop, not rock (but rock used to be pop, you get what I mean).
Yes, it is the People's choice, they grey mediocrity you get from populism.
It doesn't encompass everything, that would be roleplaying as a whole.

Here (http://www.musicradio77.com/died.html) is an page (I've posted links to it before) that talks about the end of the most popular pop music station in the United States (Musicradio WABC in NYC) and in the beginning of the page, I think it does a pretty good job of covering the pros and cons of music stations designed to appeal to everyone vs. niche stations in a way that's applicable to D&D and niche games.

Quote from: GRIMCommercially successful certainly. Whether it succeeds in other goals is extremely questionable.

What other goals do you think WotC has for it other than commerical success?

Seanchai

Quote from: John MorrowHere (http://www.musicradio77.com/died.html) is an page (I've posted links to it before) that talks about the end of the most popular pop music station in the United States (Musicradio WABC in NYC) and in the beginning of the page, I think it does a pretty good job of covering the pros and cons of music stations designed to appeal to everyone vs. niche stations in a way that's applicable to D&D and niche games.

Again, metaphores always break down if you take them too far. The singles market pretty much collapsed and everything is still shaking down to take into account music downloads etc now.

Quote from: SeanchaiWhat other goals do you think WotC has for it other than commerical success?

Who cares? Gaming groups aren't WOTC. Their measure of success isn't the same as a game's measure of success.

Quote from: RPGPundit(note: those aren't the only reasons to LIKE point-buy systems, but they are the only reasons to HATE class/level systems; sorry)

Please tell me that you're just saying that shit to provoke and not because you are actually dumb enough to believe it.

Quote from: GRIMAgain, metaphores always break down if you take them too far. The singles market pretty much collapsed and everything is still shaking down to take into account music downloads etc now.

Actually, you are making it sound like it's still a pretty good metaphor, given downloads and PDF for RPGs, too.

The insight that I think that essay offers is that when people do the same thing (whether it's listening to the same music, watching the same TV shows, or playing the same game), there is a cultural connection that's lost when everyone does their own thing.

Quote from: GRIMWho cares? Gaming groups aren't WOTC. Their measure of success isn't the same as a game's measure of success.

So you're saying the measure of whether or not a RPG is successful overall is based on whether or not it meets individual gaming groups' goals? That's dumb.

Seanchai

Quote from: John MorrowActually, you are making it sound like it's still a pretty good metaphor, given downloads and PDF for RPGs, too.

The insight that I think that essay offers is that when people do the same thing (whether it's listening to the same music, watching the same TV shows, or playing the same game), there is a cultural connection that's lost when everyone does their own thing.

Its unclear whether PDFs are really going to take off in the same way that downloadable music has. The pricing issue still doesn't seem to have been learned by the larger companies and while its a growth area, it doesn't feel like a major chunk of the business yet.

Quote from: GRIMWho cares? Gaming groups aren't WOTC. Their measure of success isn't the same as a game's measure of success.

QFT

Quote from: GRIMWho cares? Gaming groups aren't WOTC. Their measure of success isn't the same as a game's measure of success.

People wouldn't buy and run a game that didn't meet their needs. While surely some buy without completely using, I'm one of them. I'm pretty sure most people don't, they just don't like the expense. They check out the book in a store, check a review, or ask friends, and if they like it, they buy it with the intent to use it. D20 stuff, D&D in particular is the most purchased and played game in the market. It has to be scratching that game itch or Joe and Jane Rolepayer would not waste their time and money playing it.

Your idea is right, and it does well to explain the success of the system on the consumer level.

BTW, this whole series of threads debating the success of D20 is the best  example of how elitist some gamers have become after exposure to the internet's ugly side of gaming theory.

For 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?). For all of your arguments about how much D20 sucks has it ever occurred to you that for these many groups all over the place, the rules work just fine for them, because it let's them have the fun they want? Furthermore could you possibly lower yourself enough to admit the possibility that if the rules were so bad that people couldn't have any fun playing that they would be smart enough to stop wasting their money and time and do something else? Every time I think that maybe the Pundit's concept of gaming Swine is exaggerated someone comes along and blows my mind with the bulk of their own arrogance. I'm just glad the instances are few and far apart.

If I have to choose between the following images of the average D&D/D20 player:
A) Brain-dead idiot who's wasting their money on a brand they've fooled themselves into believing is fun, and doesn't recongize the genius of That Other Game.

and

B)People who are having a good time with the game that meets their needs.

The choice is fucking simple for me.

QuoteIf I have to choose between the following images of the average D&D/D20 player:
A) Brain-dead idiot who's wasting their money on a brand they've fooled themselves into believing is fun, and doesn't recongize the genius of That Other Game.

and

B)People who are having a good time with the game that meets their needs.

The choice is fucking simple for me.

Seriously.  

You'd think someone who does so much chest thumping abotu how "logical" and "rational" he is over certain subjects would be able to understand a simple concept like Occam's Razor.  

People play D&D, because they like playing D&D.  That really is it.  And it's really such a simple conclusion to come to, that I'm a bit baffled as to how it's so hard for some people.

Quote from: JamesVIf I have to choose between the following images of the average D&D/D20 player:
A) Brain-dead idiot who's wasting their money on a brand they've fooled themselves into believing is fun, and doesn't recongize the genius of That Other Game.

and

B)People who are having a good time with the game that meets their needs.

The choice is fucking simple for me.

Excellent strawman argument.

Here's my most recent experience playing D&D...

The group consisted of about 10-12 people on and off.  Rarely more than 8 at any given time, nor less than 5.  If I had to categorise their views on D&D, it would go something like this:

• 1 x player decided he hated the system and quit the game.
  
• 1 x player decided he hated the system, but stuck around in order to continue to socialise.
  
• 1 x player decided he hated the game and quit.  I don't think he ever really thought whether the system was at fault or not.
  
• 1 x player decided he disliked the system, but kept playing (again, in order to continue to socialise with friends)
  
• 5 x players where rather "meh" over the system.  No strong opinions either way.
• 1 x player liked the system.  His exposure to other systems was incredibly limited, though (mainly WEG Star Wars).
  
• 1 x player loved the system.

So in a group of some 10-12 people, we had only two people that really liked the system.  And yet, most of them continued to play, week in, week out.  It's interesting to note that the one person that loved the system was the DM.  Most of the others happily played whatever he put in front of them (generally as long as it was fantasy).  They enjoyed the social gathering - a chance to munch on some snacks and chew the fat with friends.  It could have just as easily been GURPS, Hero, Star Wars or Dogs in the Vineyard they were playing.  

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: 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing#Economics) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing#Economics) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing#Economics) 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.

Quote from: SeanchaiSome? Name some markets where they don't.

Any market where there are switching costs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switching_costs)

Excuse my memory, but weren't you the one that said you worked in marketing (or am I getting confused)?  Surely you're familiar with such things?

How often do I change my home loan?  My mobile phone provider?  My utilities?  Most of these services have lock-in clauses that prohibit churning within a particular time period.  Oh?  What's that?  D&D doesn't have any lock-in clauses?  Of course not... but you asked me to provide some examples.

How often do you switch your car?  Not often I bet.  Why not? It's not like there are any lock-in clauses.  Because it's costly... and it can be costly to switch RPGs too.  Particularly if you have a fair bit invested in a particular game.  I recently started a game where the GM laid out a (rather small) selection of books and basically said "These are the games I own, so these are the game we can play."  Are we playing the best possible game?  Who knows... most of the group don't spend any time searching for alternatives.

There are switching costs in shifting RPGs.  Not just in terms of the actual monetary cost of alternative games, but in terms of the time and energy invested in learning a particular system and finding potential players.  For the DM in my old D&D group to switch systems, he would effectively lose thousands of dollars invested in the game.  Plus, he'd be taking a risk of losing some players (a very low risk, I think... but it might be much higher in other groups).  Consequently, he's not even contemplating potential alternatives.

It's the QWERTY effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QWERTY_effect).

Or are do you pretend that markets are perfect?

QuoteAnd?

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

Has anyone claimed such?

QuoteIf 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.

This 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.

Quote from: Tyberious Funk... and it can be costly to switch RPGs too.  Particularly if you have a fair bit invested in a particular game.  I recently started a game where the GM laid out a (rather small) selection of books and basically said "These are the games I own, so these are the game we can play."  Are we playing the best possible game?  Who knows... most of the group don't spend any time searching for alternatives.

I'm that GM, guys ;) And hey, it wasn't a "small selection", there were about 10! From Fate to GURPS, quite a range! How many do you want, mate? :p

I think that in this case we're seeing people contemplating the "time and effort" cost more than the money cost; I think this is true of game groups across the developed West.

One of the group won't suggest other systems because he's expecting to leave the country in September, so doesn't want to have to lug around books. Another is new to gaming, so doesn't want to spend effort on something he's still not sure he'll do for a long time. Another two are hesitant to suggest other systems because I said, "I'll GM the ones I've got here, if you want to have another system, that's fine, I'll be a player in them not a GM"; so those two obviously weren't keen on the idea of the effort of GMing.

That left me. In my case, there's not really a reluctance to try other systems, more a feeling of, "well, what I have already covers a wide range of game play styles, adding another one wouldn't add to the kinds of games we can play." It also comes from my personal philosophy of gaming, where a system is overall the least important contributor to how much people enjoy the session.

But in general, I'd say that the "time and effort" is more significant to people than the money. It can also happen in a game group that most of the group is indifferent to what system is used, but one or two people are really keen on some particular system, so that's what gets played. Tyberious Funk has described this well with his old D&D group, where it was the GM who was really keen on it and had spent thousands of dollars and more thousands of hours on the thing - to move long-term to some other system would involve drama with that guy, or booting him out, and people didn't want that. I've also had a similar experience which Tyberious Funk shared, of our group sticking with GURPS because that's what one guy was really keen on. As soon as we insisted on another system, he suddenly became too busy to game with us anymore.

Sometimes changing the system just isn't worth the drama. That's the social part of that "time and effort."

None of which have anything to do with whether D&D and d20 are good games or not. But it does explain why many groups tend to pick some particular game system and pretty much stick to it, even if not everyone is thrilled with it.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkIt's the QWERTY effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QWERTY_effect).

Important line in that write-up:

"As such, QWERTY will apparently continue to be the most popular keyboard layout, despite its apparent weaknesses, as it is 'good enough' for a user's needs."

If a new product is clearly superior to the existing product (e.g., DVDs over video tape, CDs over vinyl and tapes, various video game upgrades, etc.), people will switch regardless of the switching costs.  What that suggests is that while D&D isn't perfect, it's also either "good enough" for most people or the alternatives haven't been a sufficient improvement over what it has to offer to get people to switch despite the switching costs.

Quote from: John MorrowImportant line in that write-up:

"As such, QWERTY will apparently continue to be the most popular keyboard layout, despite its apparent weaknesses, as it is 'good enough' for a user's needs."

If a new product is clearly superior to the existing product (e.g., DVDs over video tape, CDs over vinyl and tapes, various video game upgrades, etc.), people will switch regardless of the switching costs.  What that suggests is that while D&D isn't perfect, it's also either "good enough" for most people or the alternatives haven't been a sufficient improvement over what it has to offer to get people to switch despite the switching costs.

In other words, average D&D players are having a good time with a game that meets their needs. Of course that's just me being silly and a booster of a clearly inferior system.

You know, I have plenty of games with varying systems and run/played many of them over the course of decade and a half. I've had a ball with all of them. What mattered to me most and what made it most fulfilling was that I was playing with people whom I liked and had a good time playing too. What kind dice I rolled to take a piss ranked pretty low, because they all did the job in a way that didn't annoy us.

I guess I don't understand why folks get all worked up over all of these people who are happily playing D&D and need nothing else. They're not utter suckers for market share, they're not locked into an unfulfilling rut, they're not even necessarily ignorant of That Other Game*.

The kids are all right. I'm beginning to think maybe we're the screwy ones for debating it.

*Other games I've seen in my Barnes & Noble: RIFTS, WHFRP 2nd, Promethian, NWoD, Exalted, Shadowrun 4th, Serenity, Secret of Zir'An, CoC

Quote from: Tyberious FunkSurely you're familiar with such things?

Anyone with a cell phone is familiar with them. And yet despite these costs, people switch companies all the time. That's why cell phone companies go to such great lengths to keep it from happening...

Again, it happens all the time. It's why you're not composing your posts on an Apple IIe. And movies come on DVD. And people buy CDs. And so on.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkHow often do you switch your car?

Leasing is surprisingly popular. Dumb, but popular...

Quote from: Tyberious FunkParticularly if you have a fair bit invested in a particular game.

We're back to the D&D players are stupid argument. Why would anyone invest heavily in a game they weren't getting something out of? And if they were getting something out of purchasing that much in product, how is this anything but a moot point?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkWho knows... most of the group don't spend any time searching for alternatives.

Then their behavior is working for them, isn't it?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkNot just in terms of the actual monetary cost of alternative games, but in terms of the time and energy invested in learning a particular system and finding potential players.

And yet, they spent the time, effort and money to learn D&D and form a group. So, clearly, if they feel something is worth it, they'll put in the time and effort. And if they're not putting in the effort, why not? 'Cause the result isn't worth the cost.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkFor the DM in my old D&D group to switch systems, he would effectively lose thousands of dollars invested in the game.

If he had thousands of dollars invested in D&D and switched, whatever is motivating him is probably worth it in his eyes.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkHas anyone claimed such?

Continuously.

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.

First, I could care less about subjective statements like "best." If you're unhappy with such terms being used, take it up with the folks using them. There's no way to measure "best," so it's pointless to bring it up.

Second, yeah, McDonalds is producing a "superior" (or as I would say, quality) experience/service/product. That's why more people stop there than the steakhouse.  

Quote from: Tyberious FunkOr are you suggesting that McDonalds sells billions of burgers world wide because they are damn fine burgers?

I'm suggesting McDonalds sells billions of burgers world-wide because they produce a quality service/product. That is, their service/product better meets the needs of the consumer than the services/products of the alternatives and competitors.

I'm also suggesting the same is happening with D&D. I agree that there other factors—such as being the first, being in a better position to market their product, et al.—but on the whole, people play D&D because it's a quality game.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkRemember, that's what Pundit's rant started as.

If you want to argue with Pundit's statements, go right ahead. But I have no intention of answering for his comments.

Seanchai

I came to D&D in 2004. I played lot of different stuff before.
3.5 is not only good enough, it´d very sophisticated and does what it does extremely well.

As an old timer playing since 1979, it been my experience people switching to different system cite the following.

1) Classless, or Yah! I can make a wizard that can use a sword.
2) Better, more realistic, cooler combat Woohoo I get a defense roll and do feints.
3) More crunch or Ok I spent 45 points and make a 100 hex area effect teleport that only works on living matter.

Quote:
GM thinking: Living matter only? Sounds stupid.
hours later...
GM: You see a horde of orcs emerged from the forest.
Player: Ok I cast teleport and move every orc within 100 hexes, 1 hex to the right
GM thinking: Oh Shit! No armor or weapons!

4) Better Roleplaying or My mind I can't stand the sight I feel my sanity slip away, or I am a creature of the night,  feel my pain.

5) It is the only system that simulates an interesting genre. Call of Cthulu, Cyberpunk, Traveller, Vampire, all fell into this catagory one time or another.

The one caveat I have to my own observation is group dynamics. Sometimes on the strength of one member's personality a group switches to a different rule system. Mostly this occurred along with #5.

The strength of D20 that is addresses these common compliants far better than earlier editions.

#1 is addressed by multi-classing rules
#2 and #3 are addressed by feats
#4 D20 is weak on this but alternative rpgs based on D20 (True20, etc) have some success meeting this need.
#5 D20 partially address this as shown By D20 Modern, Future, Star Wars, etc. The System is extendable by a skilled designer to cover a new genre an example is Mutants and Masterminds.

Rob Conley

Quote4) Better Roleplaying or My mind I can't stand the sight I feel my sanity slip away, or I am a creature of the night, feel my pain.

...

#4 D20 is weak on this but alternative rpgs based on D20 (True20, etc) have some success meeting this need.

There is nothing about D20/D&D whatsoever that makes it "lesser roleplaying" in any fashion.

That is a load of fucking bollocks.

Quote from: J ArcaneThere is nothing about D20/D&D whatsoever that makes it "lesser roleplaying" in any fashion.

That is a load of fucking bollocks.

You are missing the point. AD&D was the system that 90% of gamers played back then (and somewhat true in lesser number today) that meant you get every type of gamer at the table. Either different people's playing style clashed or more common DM was running boring plot from the point of view of one or more player.

Also important is that many players played AD&D (and D20) as a GAME the objective of which was to get more experience, treasure, kingdoms (for the high levels) for your character.

Certain players were unhappy about this, and when they discovered Runequest, Call of Cthulu, and later Vampire. RPGs that had a strong role-playing setting built in they jumped ship.

AD&D and D20 don't have a strong role-playing setting built into the core rule books. Doesn't mean you can't do role-playing but if you aren't exposed to the concept then it hard to start doing it.

But Games like Runequest, Call of Cthulu, etc does have it as part of their core rule books and for players that liked this style of play it was like a major revelation when they found one of these games.

Rob Conley

As somebody who publishes d20 work for a living, I can say with some degree of certainty that The Secret of d20's SuccessTM  is as follows:

There's money to be made.

Simple as that.     I'd love to be doing some original rules designs, but it comes down to this -- I can do so, and sell 10-20 copies per month, or I can do the same genre treatment as a d20 rules set, and sell 50-100 per month.

When you're talking about sales, it's no contest.  More gamers play d20 games than don't.

Quote from: GMSkarkaAs somebody who publishes d20 work for a living, I can say with some degree of certainty that The Secret of d20's SuccessTM  is as follows:

There's money to be made.

Well 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.

Here's one more thought about calling D20 "best".

We have as given that a majority of people who get into gaming play D20 in the form of D&D.  We might have as a given that a majority of those players are only ever exposed to D&D.  If they are exposed to no other games (and exposure is actually playing, not just seeing it on the shelf), we can't really say they've "chosen D20".

Now, the remainder of the gamers have been exposed to D20 and an indeterminate number of other games.  Once again, a gamer who is only exposed to D20 systems isn't terribly authoritative about what is "best" (outside of d20 variations).  Yes, the system may meet his needs, but he has no basis to say D20 is better than anything else.  He hasn't actually compared.

Now we are left with a small number of gamers who have tried different systems, hardcore gamers for whom system matters and the issue of system has driven them to try various games.  Some will choose D20 as the best system.  Some will choose other systems.  They will have much more valid opinions as to which system is better rather than the massive numbers of more casual gamers who make up the bulk of the gaming market.

I don't know what the breakdown would be, but judging from the discussion here (and I'm fairly sure we're all omnigamers), the result of which game was the best would be far from unanimous.  D20/D&D would have a good number of votes, but I don't think it or any other game system would obtain the majority.

Edit: If I'm off topic for this thread, please forgive me.  I've become hopelessly confused as to which of these several d20 threads is which.

Quote from: Gabrielwe can't really say they've "chosen D20".

This is what Ryan was talking about when he meant that D&D had the advantage of social networking behind it.

Rob Conley

Here 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.

Quote from: GabrielHere's one more thought about calling D20 "best".

Did someone call D&D/d20 the "best?" I mean, I can see people defending it's strengths and even harping on it's weaknesses in an attempt to determine why it is successful.

But the "best"?  At what? To whom?  If you're countering someone's claim that d20 is "the best" in some objective way - I'm behind you 100%.

Problem is, I can't recall seeing that. As I said, if I missed it - you rock on and fight the man.

But this may say more about how you might be linking people saying D20 is successful with people saying it's the "best."

EDIT: perhaps this is just thread-cross, in which case, forget what I said :)

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.

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. :D

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. :D

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.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkHere's my most recent experience playing D&D...
snip

My experience was sorta similar: two gung-ho D&D3E-loving players; 5 who had no previous experience with any RPG, but grew to dislike D&D3E; one experienced gamer who started out loving D&D3E, and ended up very frustrated; and me (i started out very skeptical, then gave it a fair shake, and discovered it wasn't anywhere near as bad as i thought, but, the more i learned the system, the more i found bits that drove me batty, and i wasn't finding the gems that pleased me to compensate, so my opinion went steadily downhill). We still stuck with it for a couple years of mostly-weekly games, before finally switching systems.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkThey 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.

Ditto. While I've had tons of fun playing various RPGs, including D&D of various versions, I don't think i can credit much of the fun to the game itself, as distinct from the getting-together-with-friends and the general playing-of-an-RPG. And, to be fair, i've recently had a great time playing With Great Power..., but if our fun had been dependent on deriving solely from the rules, it would've been a merely mediocre time. IOW, we had a great time, but for reasons other than the quality of the system. [In fact, we were fighting the system *almost* as much as when we played D&D3E, though for completely different reasons.]

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

Dunno if he'd say that, but, depending on the degree of "bad", yeah, i'd say that. I would basically never pick any sort of game but RPGs, given the choice. I really don't get any enjoyment out of playing other sorts of games. 'Cept Robo Rally. Nonetheless, i'll gladly spend a day playing Power Grid or Settlers of Catan, or whatever, with my friends, 'cause that's what they want to play. And i'll have fun, but that fun really won't have anything to do with the particular game i'm playing. So thinking that people might, similarly, play D&D, and have fun at it, but not consider D&D itself enjoyable, doesn't seem at all bizarre to me.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckIt really is a good game.

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

Depends on what you mean by "good". If by "good" you simply mean "not bad", then, yeah, it must be--'cause if it were bad, people would seek something eles out. But if by "good" you mean "better than average", that's not necessarily so. It coudl well be true, but simply showing that people play it and stick with it doesn't necessarily prove this.

First, there could be ignorance--if people haven't tried other games, they have no basis of comparison, so if D&D3e doesn't actively drive people away on its own [lack of] merits, they'll keep playing it.

Second, inertia: again, provided that people are not disappointed with what they're getting out of D&D3E, even if they are aware that they could--or maybe even would definitely--get better results with another system, what they have is good enough, so why exert the effort to switch?

So, D&D's popularity is proof that it's "good enough"--but since there are plausible explanations why people would stick with it even if it were no better than any other system out there, or even if it were worse than the rest, we can't conclude that it is necessarily better than other alternatives, even in the minds of those who choose it.

To be clear, i'm not saying it's *not* great--just that you can't conclude that based solely on its popularity.

Quote from: RPGPunditIts obvious that classes and levels are good design; the video game industry uses them for a reason. They allow you to make clear characters that fit archetypes, if they're WELL done on top of that they allow you to individualize tons as well.

People who dislike these things, well, they're either people who just hate D&D because they hate its success; or they hate levels and classes because they'd rather min-max and be munchkins. Yes, those are pretty much the only possible reasons when you come down to it.
(note: those aren't the only reasons to LIKE point-buy systems, but they are the only reasons to HATE class/level systems; sorry)

Or, there are no classes to do what you want. Though i suppose that might not be a critique of the class system itself, depending on how you look at it. Nonetheless, when playing D&D I have yet to come up with a character concept that could be easily modeled with the D&D3E classes--we always end up using something other than D&D3[.5]E for our D&D games (Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, etc.), or i end up building a custom class.

Quote from: woodelfTo be clear, i'm not saying it's *not* great--just that you can't conclude that based solely on its popularity.

Inasmuch as you can give any objective measure to great, popularity as well as the ability to "get the job done" is pretty much it.  D&D succeeds at both.

Now you may think D&D stinks.  That's perfectly acceptable.  But that doesn't mean it's not a great game (save, again, for you).  It just means that it's not to your tastes.