Quote from: Jaeger;1084164Traveller being not Star Wars sealed the deal for them.

Yeah, Traveller is a classic in its own right, but it is too specifically its own thing to be used as a generic sci fi system. You would never use it to play a Star Wars or Star Trek game. (Though it obviously makes a perfect system for Firefly.)

There was never a sci fi RPG that captured the genre the way D&D captured fantasy. I think Jaeger's Point #3 is part of the answer. There just isn't the same default adventure template for sci fi. For instance, if you're playing Star Trek, are you playing the bridge crew, or an away team?

Another important point in D&D's successful formula: Magical Healing. It lets you go out, have meaningful fights where player characters can get injured and die, and then keep on going.

Otherwise, it would play like: Party enters dungeon. Party fights goblins. Party buries Doug and Steve, and limps back into town to heal up for a month.

Quote from: Lurkndog;1084247Another important point in D&D's successful formula: Magical Healing. It lets you go out, have meaningful fights where player characters can get injured and die, and then keep on going.

Otherwise, it would play like: Party enters dungeon. Party fights goblins. Party buries Doug and Steve, and limps back into town to heal up for a month.

What blows me away is how many DMs want to put their parties through this sort of game.

Quote from: EOTB;1084256What blows me away is how many DMs want to put their parties through this sort of game.

Greetings!

LOL! Good point, EOTB. I think you're quite right with that. Like if you really did run with a campaign like that. I'm all for having a brutal campaign where the danger of death and maiming it high--but still, you know? The "charm" of rolling up new characters every other session or two wears off pretty quickly. Why do you think that so many DM's want to particularly run campaigns like this?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Lurkndog;1084244There was never a sci fi RPG that captured the genre the way D&D captured fantasy. I think Jaeger's Point #3 is part of the answer. There just isn't the same default adventure template for sci fi. For instance, if you're playing Star Trek, are you playing the bridge crew, or an away team?

I think D&D has a very successfully template for doing D&D fantasy - but I don't think that it captures fantasy fiction in general. Even taking only Tolkien, I find that if I want to do Middle Earth I tend to go with a different system than D&D. In my opinion, D&D worked by creating its own genre - not by capturing fantasy fiction.

RPGs that try to capture or emulate fiction generally are successful with fans, but don't have wider influence. I think one of the better examples of a sci-fi RPG that created its own genre is Paranoia, which had a structure that really worked with the role-playing structure - in this case by parody.

Quote from: SHARK;1084257Why do you think that so many DM's want to particularly run campaigns like this?

I don't think many DMs particularly start with the group in mind.  The group is seen (consciously or unconsciously) as an audience for the DMs creativity, instead of the DM as the servant-leader.

Quote from: Jaeger;1084164TFT, was just too disjointed. it wasn't until 1980 with into the labyrinth that it became an actual RPG that could compete with D&D. And its publisher closed in 83. It never really got the push needed to be a viable alternative.

1)TFT didn't exist until it was released as a boxed set with Advanced Melee, Advanced Wizard, and In the Labyrinth.

2) You claimed that no other RPG system had the same elements as D&D, I replied with two counter examples, the fact that the company folded 1983 is not germane to the point I was making.

Quote from: Jaeger;1084164Traveller being not Star Wars sealed the deal for them.

Not being a Star Wars Licensee wasn't relevant. Everybody in my neck of the wood who wanted to play Star Wars in the late 70s figured out how to do with Traveller including myself.

Quote from: Jaeger;1084164This would be a worthy 6th point. Product support! Even now you see people on forums not wanting to play a 'dead game'. D&D had it's supplement treadmill going early on.

Dead Games are a factor but again not germane to the point I was making. That by 1980 compared everybody else there was an order of magnitude more material for D&D.

I agree with estar on this.

D&D has always had so much of a head start on gathering "brand name recognition" and published so much adventure content and got store distribution, that there has never been room for a major challenge to it's market share.

So if you care about market share, it's been "game over" since day one, on that score.


Most of the other 4 factors you list don't particularly ring true for me:

1. TFT (my first favorite game) is even easier to create characters for, at least non-wizards.

2. Rules complexity? Well, 0D&D was nigh untintelligbible and incomprehensible without having someone who already knew how to play, and the kids I knew "playing" even Basic D&D didn't actually understand more than half of the rules - they were just combining their "I know how to play make-believe" with "no one else knows the rules either, but it doesn't matter - I'm the DM and what I say goes so I can fake it".

3. "Easily grasped default play mode" - you mean hack & slash dungeons? Ok, that might be a reason for more popularity I guess...

4. Easily understood setting? I suppose, but I don't see it being any easier to understand than some other RPG settings. Actually, it seems really hard to GM the way I want to, because of how gonzo and overwhelming all the suggested weird monsters/magic/alignments/races etc are. What I think did/does make the "setting" accessible is that there is tons of content published for all the DMs who can't or don't want to make their own settings. Again, that's down to the early arrival and store presence and publishing tons of content versus new games trying to start from scratch.

5. Easy reward system? Um... well it does seem to inspire fixation, but other RPGs have advancement systems too, including all the systems that basically copied D&D (but  lacked its name recognition)


But again, that's about popularity and market share.

Well, and also that it was the first to copy tropes from Tolkien and other aspects of ancient/medieval lore, and so it claimed an association with those in public thinking.

As someone who has always found D&D unappealing and some other RPGs much more appealing, it doesn't look to me like D&D had/has any compelling design aspects responsible for its success other than familiarity, store presence, brand name recognition/association, tons of content, and all the social forces that go along with massive brand name association and popularity - thousands of computer games and board games and books have copied its tropes, etc.

D&D's rules have always been arcane and counter intuitive.  I think that probably added to its appeal as a geek counter culture with a language all its own.  But yeah being easy to get into or figure out was never its strong suit.  As for T&T well, as of 5th edition Mike Stakepole is just a better writer than Gygax plain and simple.

Quote from: Skarg;1084292D&D has always had so much of a head start on gathering "brand name recognition" and published so much adventure content and got store distribution, that there has never been room for a major challenge to it's market share.

So if you care about market share, it's been "game over" since day one, on that score.

In plenty of other markets (gaming and otherwise), there has been a leading product - but that product has still been displaced. There is the argument that RPGs are special compared to other games. That whatever game came out first, that game would be dominant.

We don't see the same dominance effect from any RPGs other than D&D. That's not the same situation, but I think the network effect should still be visible. There are RPGs that became popular, but were displaced by other RPGs. Games like Shadowrun, Vampire, and Savage Worlds rose to prominence later in the history of RPGs, and successfully carved out a market for themselves, over more established competitors.

I think there's a fair argument that there is something special about D&D that is keeping it in the top slot. I agree that #1 and #2 clearly aren't too important - many other games do that better. But I think #3 - simple hack-and-slash dungeons as a default - is pretty important combined with other factors (including #4 and #5).

Quote from: jhkim;1084300I think there's a fair argument that there is something special about D&D that is keeping it in the top slot. I agree that #1 and #2 clearly aren't too important - many other games do that better. But I think #3 - simple hack-and-slash dungeons as a default - is pretty important combined with other factors (including #4 and #5).

Yeah; I think it's mostly the easy default play mode - D&D adventures are easy to write, to run, and to play - combined with the reward mechanisms. In many RPGs players and GMs can easily be left wondering "So what do we do now?" - indeed many trad RPGs are little more than a character generation system + a combat system, with no good answer to "So what do we do?"

Quote from: jhkim;1084300I think there's a fair argument that there is something special about D&D that is keeping it in the top slot. I agree that #1 and #2 clearly aren't too important - many other games do that better. But I think #3 - simple hack-and-slash dungeons as a default - is pretty important combined with other factors (including #4 and #5).

Yes.  Only being partly flippant, I would summarize that fair argument as, "D&D is the opposite of Fantasy Wargamer in almost every way."  If there is a sixth point to derive from that, I would say that the writers of D&D did not treat their potential audience in a condescending manner.  It's probably no accident that the times D&D has hit some rough spots almost exactly conform to when they backed away from that habit.

I don't think D&D rules as expressed in B/X or the BE portion of BECMI are arcane or counter intuitive to the average novice or even the average hobbyist. Particularly levels 1 to 3 in most editions.

Most complaints stems from those with at least some knowledge of how melee combat works or have particular idea of how melee works. Enough that you can count on one in nearly every group of novices. Definitely one or more in a group of hobbyist who play RPG regularly.

The same issue afflicts magic, it even more problematic these day due to post Shannara flowering of the fantasy genre. Depending on which fantasy novels one was exposed too, D&D's vancian system (or multiple system of the last three editions) can be just as off putting as how D&D abstract melee combat.

The key thing to keep in mind is how easy it is to explain the rules. I had a friend complain incessantly about D&D combat, and one day I asked him, do you have a problem comprehending the rules? You seem to know when to roll initiative, how to make a to hit, what to roll for damage, and what you can do within a round.

His reply was more forceful but boiled down "it doesn't make sense". To whit I replied, "and that why we played GURPS for 20 years, but for this campaign we are playing D&D so we can get some of my stuff playtested".

And he ignored the fact that I explained how I would be translating the results of the to-hit roll, and damage dealt. Along with they are free to attempt to disarm or to do any other of the maneuvers he could do in GURPS.

In his mind a roll is a swing of a weapon, the target should get a defense (doesn't have to be a roll a target number suffices) , that armor should absorb damage, and hit points are a physical characteristic that doesn't increase because you gain more experience.

Quote from: estar;1084364I don't think D&D rules as expressed in B/X or the BE portion of BECMI are arcane or counter intuitive to the average novice or even the average hobbyist. Particularly levels 1 to 3 in most editions.

Most complaints stems from those with at least some knowledge of how melee combat works or have particular idea of how melee works. Enough that you can count on one in nearly every group of novices. Definitely one or more in a group of hobbyist who play RPG regularly.

The same issue afflicts magic, it even more problematic these day due to post Shannara flowering of the fantasy genre. Depending on which fantasy novels one was exposed too, D&D's vancian system (or multiple system of the last three editions) can be just as off putting as how D&D abstract melee combat.

The key thing to keep in mind is how easy it is to explain the rules. I had a friend complain incessantly about D&D combat, and one day I asked him, do you have a problem comprehending the rules? You seem to know when to roll initiative, how to make a to hit, what to roll for damage, and what you can do within a round.

His reply was more forceful but boiled down "it doesn't make sense". To whit I replied, "and that why we played GURPS for 20 years, but for this campaign we are playing D&D so we can get some of my stuff playtested".

And he ignored the fact that I explained how I would be translating the results of the to-hit roll, and damage dealt. Along with they are free to attempt to disarm or to do any other of the maneuvers he could do in GURPS.

In his mind a roll is a swing of a weapon, the target should get a defense (doesn't have to be a roll a target number suffices) , that armor should absorb damage, and hit points are a physical characteristic that doesn't increase because you gain more experience.

You can't really go from GURPS to D&D and expect everyone to be happy. D&D's a worst system once you are over the learning curve of GURPS.

Most games selling point (for players) over GURPS is less rules or "this was designed to be a fun game" (which GURPS is more designed to be a less offensive simulation with abstracted, streamlined rules that are still immersive). D&D tends to still have plenty of rules and if chipping away at bloated HP numbers doesn't feel like an accomplishment, then the game itself isn't that fun either (some people do just love every attack that hits to do something).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1084380You can't really go from GURPS to D&D and expect everyone to be happy. D&D's a worst system once you are over the learning curve of GURPS.

I didn't and it wasn't my point. The player was complaining about not understanding D&D yet during the last session he had no trouble doing what he wanted to do as his character. My point is that he understood the mechanics of D&D just fine but didn't like the design and how it represented melee combat.

That doesn't make a system arcane or counter intuitive. I am skeptical of people here claiming they don't understand how to run classic D&D combat. I do understand if they don't like, despise, or even hate classic D&D combat.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1084380D&D tends to still have plenty of rules and if chipping away at bloated HP numbers doesn't feel like an accomplishment, then the game itself isn't that fun either (some people do just love every attack that hits to do something).

Sure however every system has issues like chipping away at HP numbers. For GURPS it is either the target continually making defense rolls or the character enters the death spiral unable to recover due to the penalties resulting from injuries occurring round after round.

Or in Harnmaster where combat result in both sides having made repeated injury saves so they are not out but so injured their respective skills are shit and they are literally flailing away at each other. In Harnmaster, injuries are tallied and directly reduce physical skills and the odds of making attribute save. It is possible but unlikely both sides have injuries enough without failing a shock roll or any other type of roll that their weapon skills are in the 5% to 15% range. Thus greatly prolonging the resolution of the combat.