Death spirals make things less dynamic, but combat quicker.

If that's the price I pay for my sword swings to do more than make imaginary numbers smaller, then I'm all for it.

(GURPS is still an HP system, it's mitigated by things not having much HP)

Quote from: jhkim;1084300In plenty of other markets (gaming and otherwise), there has been a leading product - but that product has still been displaced.

That hasn't been the German experience. In fact, the German experience points to the importance of building a big community first and then it all becomes self-perpetuating success. Not even using 3d20 for skills could break DSA/The Dark Eye's standing, though popularity has been eroding over long periods of time. As for D&D itself: Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, The Big Bang Theory, Stranger Things. Need I say more?

I have had these conversations before and ultimately you can't really determine how much comes down to there being any special quality to the game of D&D itself and how much it's the combined effect of brand awareness (which includes not only the above but also being the first RPG) and having a huge network of gamers. Fans of the game will attribute it more to the former, whereas people like me, who are unimpressed with the game, will attribute the game's success more to the latter. There's no definite answer as far as I can tell.

However, by thinking about such issues I have grown to recognize how important it is for many gamers to improve their own public perception by adorning themselves with the latest fashionable games ("I don't want to play a dead game"). It's quite astounding to see public image being such a big factor in what TTRPG, of all things, to buy and play.

Quote from: estar;1084394Sure 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.

How is an active defense a problem? I get that both active defense and death spirals have detractors - but they also have players who like them. However, I don't think there's too many gamers enthusiastic about chipping away bloated amounts of HPs in the early rounds of combat. It's not a design that you see non-d20 games strive to emulate.

Here's the thing: the most successful RPG out there, which holds market dominance, has such glaring design flaws (flaws which other games would struggle to overcome). And it does not affect its popularity.

There are so many flavors of D&D out there now.  It's like Baskin Robbins and ice cream.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1084462Here's the thing: the most successful RPG out there, which holds market dominance, has such glaring design flaws (flaws which other games would struggle to overcome). And it does not affect its popularity.

Perhaps D&D's market anchor isn't intense gamers who spend a lot of time on RPGs - unlike the games designed more to such enthusiasts' tastes.

Perhaps its design isn't flawed in delivering what those people desire.

Quote from: EOTB;1084467Perhaps D&D's market anchor isn't intense gamers who spend a lot of time on RPGs - unlike the games designed more to such enthusiasts' tastes.

Perhaps its design isn't flawed in delivering what those people desire.

Well, fair enough. And, yes, there's so many versions of D&D. But it's kinda ironic in light of the flaws of the highly successful 3.x, in particular. Flaws that get admitted by avid D&D players themselves, particularly in hindsight, after a new edition is out. HP bloat, ivory tower design, caster supremacy, overly complex rules, etc.

Why didn't more people play other fantasy games, all of which have flaws of their own, to be sure, in 2003 again? I find it hard to attribute it to 3.x's superior design. But then again it delivered, for the most part, on the 5 point winning formula.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1084495Why didn't more people play other fantasy games, all of which have flaws of their own, to be sure, in 2003 again? I find it hard to attribute it to 3.x's superior design. But then again it delivered, for the most part, on the 5 point winning formula.

  It was taking a while for the flaws to become evident, and just as they were, WotC reset the environment with 3.5. Plus, don't forget that that was also the timeframe when, with the d20 glut, it was probably the most supported RPG on the market by a couple orders of magnitude.

Too much of this thread assumes RPGs are a mature fleshed out market where the rules for other markets apply.

Even simple axioms about "marketing" are basically irrelevant, the biggest splash for interest in D&D (in terms of raw not relative numbers) came from the success of Critical Role, which boosted 5e to the top spot. That had basically nothing to do with Hasbro or WotC.

Most of my favorite RPG books are written by people who do this in their spare time. RPGs are barely past the "hobbiest" stage of a market and supports maybe a dozen full time developers (most professionals are publishers or scrambling from contact to contact).

Quote from: Jaeger;10835973: Easily grasped Default play mode

This is the killer app of D&D.  Most rpg's have better mechanics but really only D&D let you play by just rolling up some shit on random tables.  And none of them have the depth of random shit generation that D&D has.  If a fantasy rpg doesn't have random dungeon and treasure tables, I can't use it.  I'm not a writer.  I want the game to provide the structure for all elements of play - not just character creation and combat rules.  

It's also why Traveller was so popular for so long.  No dungeons, but you could go trading and explore the entire galaxy with all the random tables and play an entire campaign without a premade adventure.

Yet Vampire became extremely popular - and it really wasn't all that clear how you were supposed to play it.

D&D has huge brand recognition which helps it sell imo. Being considered by many to be one of the rpgs that built the hobby. Thanks to TV shows and podcasts even non-gamers may nit know the rules yet have heard if D&D.

The title as well evokes the sense of adventure. Pathfinder  has the name of an SUV and Pathfinder potential compeititor Popyhra translates to  Cold water seaweed the rpg. Product names matter imo and D&D may not have the most original it is an exciting name imo.

Easy rules to grasp. The only issue I wver had with learning the rules was with 1E. Not so much the actual rules so much the actual rules so much the very piss poor organization of the presentation of the rules.

Many other rpgs either gave better mechanics yet not as easy to learn. Or in the case of the Dark Eye unnessarily complex. I remember hearing about the rpg and looking through the 3E core book . Then putting it down because the complexity does not enhance gameplay imo just complexity for the sake of it. Which is why no matter what the owners of the Dark Eye do it will never catch on in North America imo. Not with a gaming population spoiled by D20.

Rpg companies that never fix the flaws of their fantasy rpg. Palladium Fantasy and Harn both have interesting backgrounds and ruled. Yet the flaws outweigh the benefits. One cannot mention revising the rules without getting told by both companies to do it yourself. Or worse to take the door and don't let it hit one on the way out.

Not much originality in settings. Beyond Talilanta too many just seem to want copy as much of D&D except using their rules. Humanity inexplicably at tbe top of the food chain and more powerful than more powerful non-human races is a noring, stale , trope of too many fantasy rpgs past and present.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1084462How is an active defense a problem?

Prolongs combat and on average players dislike making a to-hit only to ultimately fail.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1084462I get that both active defense and death spirals have detractors - but they also have players who like them.

I refereed GURPS since 1988 through 3 editions, I am well aware of the pros and cons along seeing the reactions of dozens of players in the three decades I been doing this.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1084462However, I don't think there's too many gamers enthusiastic about chipping away bloated amounts of HPs in the early rounds of combat. It's not a design that you see non-d20 games strive to emulate.

1) Dragon Age/Fantasy Age, Palladium Fantasy RPG, and so on.

2) What hit points originally were designed for is to represent that a hero can last four times longer than a ordinary warrior. This is a creative choice, some RPG like Dragon Age  and Palladium Fantasy made a similar choice, other like Runequest, GURPS, Fate, did not. If you don't think that a hero should last four times as long in combat then D&D in any of its edition (or the above RPGS) is not going to cut it for you.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1084462Here's the thing: the most successful RPG out there, which holds market dominance, has such glaring design flaws (flaws which other games would struggle to overcome). And it does not affect its popularity.

You need to read the history of the development of these RPGs. While all of them have element that the author in hindsight would have done different. The core concepts of these systems are the result of deliberate creative choices. It may not be explained well or presented well at times, but it is rare for something to be "just because". It not how writes operate.

However if one is ignorant of the history of how RPGs developed then its design can seem arbitrary designed. When I learned how hit points and the mechanics of D&D developed, that gave me the insight I needed to how to translate anything the PC wanted to do into rulings consistent with the system. The same with Runequest, Harnmaster, GURPS, and the other system I ran.

Quote from: goblinslayer;1084595This is the killer app of D&D.  Most rpg's have better mechanics but really only D&D let you play by just rolling up some shit on random tables.  And none of them have the depth of random shit generation that D&D has.  If a fantasy rpg doesn't have random dungeon and treasure tables, I can't use it.  I'm not a writer.  I want the game to provide the structure for all elements of play - not just character creation and combat rules.  

It's also why Traveller was so popular for so long.  No dungeons, but you could go trading and explore the entire galaxy with all the random tables and play an entire campaign without a premade adventure.

What was the last edition of D&D that had rules for random dungeons (not in some splat material deep into the life of it)?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1084652What was the last edition of D&D that had rules for random dungeons (not in some splat material deep into the life of it)?

  4th and 5th Editions both have random dungeon generators in the DMG.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;10846544th and 5th Editions both have random dungeon generators in the DMG.

So does 3rd.  2nd edition is the only one that didn't iirc.  That is part of why the 2nd edition DMG is usually considered the worst.