Quote from: estar;1053897(shrug) Define success? Success as one likes it? Success as in a number of hobbyist played it? I define success as having a diverse range of works with more authors writing, along with increasing the number of hobbyists playing. Given that of course not everything is going to be one's tastes and there will be some clunkers, some wild successes, and most muddling along in the middle.

I agree with this. My favorite flavors of d20 have been horrible failures by market standards.

I could apply your definition to the English language too... LOL

Quote from: Itachi;1053905Success as in being recognized as a well designed game or adaptation, through word of mouth, awards or sheer number of people who play them.

 D&D5, RQ6/Mythras, Beyond the Wall, Blades in the Dark, etc. fall in this category and are all louded by their well done designs.

On the other hand, Engel d20, Paladium system, Synnabar, Fatal, etc. are notorious by their bad design.

This kind of success.

Don't confuse popularity with "good design". D&D is an outlier. The very name defines it's success - if only for a time (see 4e). But I have no doubt there are many people that play the various editions of D&D because that was their jam and they stuck to it.

The gravity-well of D&D in the RPG industry cannot be underestimated. That is the both the curse and the boon of those that try to design alternatives to it (specifically d20).

Yep, I agree. I would say considering all those indicators (awards, popularity, word of mouth, etc) and specially actual play experience may give someone a good idea on a given game quality/accomplishment of it's design goals.

Quote from: Itachi;1053905Success as in being recognized as a well designed game or adaptation, through word of mouth, awards or sheer number of people who play them.

All of which happened to D20 derived products.

Quote from: estar;1053916All of which happened to D20 derived products.

I'd avoid generalizing like that. Which products specifically were regarded as well designed or adapted? Im not a d20 player but what I hear is that what happened was a sort of bubble from midway forward on the engine lifecycle that ended up producing a fair share of lazily adapted or designed stances. I know I met some of it (again, see Engel d20).

Just to be clear: I brought up popularity as another indicator to be taken into consideration together with the other ones (awards, word of mouth, actual play tests, etc) not as the sole measurement of quality.

Quote from: Itachi;1053925Im not a d20 player but what I hear is that what happened was a sort of bubble from midway forward on the engine lifecycle that ended up producing a fair share of lazily adapted or designed stances.

Not exactly. The d20 glut was a feature of 3.0 2000-2003 and probably peaked in 2001, maybe 2002, while the edition ran 2000-2008. The release of 3.5 in 2003 really killed the bubble.

Cool. Thanks for the info.

It reminds me a bit of PbtA, an engine that I like, and which also saw a fair number of hacks that simply ape it's concepts without understanding them well, thus resulting in questionable implementations imo.

Quote from: Itachi;1053927It reminds me a bit of PbtA, an engine that I like, and which also saw a fair number of hacks that simply ape it's concepts without understanding them well, thus resulting in questionable implementations imo.

What's funny is that, at least in my opinion, Apocalypse World 2e somehow managed to fall into this category in spite of being written by the same dude as 1e. Sure, some of the changes were for the better, but a lot of them were just change for change's sake, and more than a few of the changes and additions(like the Battle Moves) seemed to totally miss what made 1e and its better adaptations so great in the first place.

Quote from: Itachi;1053925I'd avoid generalizing like that. Which products specifically were regarded as well designed or adapted?

Off of the top of my head, Mutants and Masterminds and Pathfinder spring to mind. I will see if I can come up with a list.

Quote from: Itachi;1053925Im not a d20 player but what I hear is that what happened was a sort of bubble from midway forward on the engine lifecycle that ended up producing a fair share of lazily adapted or designed stances. I know I met some of it (again, see Engel d20).

S'mon states the issue correctly. D20 based products were flooding the distribution channel and then somewhat unexpectedly Wizards announced D&D 3.5 and suddenly most were unsaleable. hence the d20 bust. The whole 3.5 thing left a sour taste in everybody's mouth and a strong trend towards Wizards only took hold in regards to the 3PP market.

Quote from: estar;1053950Off of the top of my head, Mutants and Masterminds and Pathfinder spring to mind. I will see if I can come up with a list.

Yes, only heard good things about these two. Does Star Wars Saga also counts?

Also, are there some less known adaptations that you like?

Quote from: GeekEclecticWhat's funny is that, at least in my opinion, Apocalypse World 2e somehow managed to fall into this category in spite of being written by the same dude as 1e. Sure, some of the changes were for the better, but a lot of them were just change for change's sake, and more than a few of the changes and additions(like the Battle Moves) seemed to totally miss what made 1e and its better adaptations so great in the first place.

I have to agree. The good changes are subtle (gigs for everybody, cleaning up fronts/threats, establishing personal goals for characters from the start, etc) while the bad ones seem more prevalent and completly against the spirit the same author established in 1e (I'm looking at you, Battle moves).

I think the best PbtA hacks thrive on the quality of their Moves (which is an obvious thing), and also the players dynamics it entices at the group (which is a not so obvious thing). It may even relate to the fruitful void thing we talked about earlier, where something may not be immediately recognizable by looking at rules, but when you sit down to play you totally see this hidden layer and... Oh! now everything makes sense! That's why the likes of Dungeon World doesn't resonate much with me while, say, Monsterhearts totally does.