Quote from: RPGPundityour amazing Forge-game about Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding
RPGPundit

Damnit Pundit I've got enough projects on my plate without you going and suggesting a prank of that magnitude.  It must be done mind you.  It's brilliant and I think they'd totally take the bait.  But damnit I'm just too busy.  Besides which I never could get my head around the whole narrativist game design perspective.

Of course, I could get into why I feel simulation is the one true path of narration, but why bother?

Well, they totally fell for Professor Curtis.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI can only think of one game designer who openly embraced everything great about D&D, and did it with a lot of talent. Kevin Siembieda.

Did Kevin Siembieda get an audience by doing this? I'd say he did. I'd also say he designed a game or two that was better than D&D back in the times of AD&D2nd edition, a few times over. I totally dropped AD&D2nd in favor of Palladium (and Earthdawn) during the 90s.  They were doing it better. It was the rules. These were better games. They were easier to manage campaigns with, and they more fun. Kevin hired good artists and writers.

But, Abyssal, if they were better, and being first doesn't matter, why didn't they convert more people?

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut, Abyssal, if they were better, and being first doesn't matter, why didn't they convert more people?

More than they got? I have no idea. Tastes aren't monolithic, and they can't force anyone to like anything.

...but there is such a thing as a predictable trend.

D&D gained the huge following it got because it's a really great game. The end.

Yeah... guess the reason McDonalds is the "most succesful fast food restaurant" is because they're just better...Ya think? I mean it's not like Burger King, or Wendy's or any other place has better tasting product, right?

:rolleyes:


Somebody's gotta play devil's advocate.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckPeople will jump ship when a superior product comes along. Dark Age of Camelot wasn't able to dethrone Everquest, but World of Warcraft sure has.

Point to take home, folks.

D&D probably isn't the best system out there by a number of measures one might care to use.

But if it were the shitty failure of a system that it's detractors make it out to be, it would have long ago fallen from its throne.

Speaking completely anecdotally, I can only say that the rules of DnD / d20 are the biggest obstacle to my playing it.  Too much prep time required of the gm and too much to be remembered by the player.

That approach clearly works for some people, but not all of us.  So there's one possible reason why DnD doesn't rule unopposed.

It's not because it's quick and simple
Because, frankly, D&D isn't quick and simple.  It's complex and full of niggly little bits, and people enjoy and play with those bits.  They build classes, feats, and spells, magic items and so on.  Which means that if you create a quick, simple system, chances are that you will not attract the people that want to play with "fiddly stuff" - your game will, in fact, not appeal to a significant portion of gamers.  What appeal it might or might not have depends on what it can do while being quick and simple.

...

Some folks don't seem to grasp this one.  I design little games despite it, but thankfully not in ignorance or denial of it.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadBut if it were the shitty failure of a system that it's detractors make it out to be, it would have long ago fallen from its throne.

I don't think that even the most ardent of detractors would claim that D&D is a shitty failure of a system.  Rather, it is a shitty successfull system.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI don't think that even the most ardent of detractors would claim that D&D is a shitty failure of a system.  Rather, it is a shitty successfull system.

Your clutter is someone's toybox.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt's not because it's quick and simple
Because, frankly, D&D isn't quick and simple.  It's complex and full of niggly little bits, and people enjoy and play with those bits.  They build classes, feats, and spells, magic items and so on.  Which means that if you create a quick, simple system, chances are that you will not attract the people that want to play with "fiddly stuff" - your game will, in fact, not appeal to a significant portion of gamers.  What appeal it might or might not have depends on what it can do while being quick and simple.

...

Some folks don't seem to grasp this one.  I design little games despite it, but thankfully not in ignorance or denial of it.

This is the first thing in this whole thread I can unequivocally agree on.  

There's this embedded groupthink that I run into all over the bloody web that simpler is automatically better.

Patronizing posts about how some newer simpler game will somehow magically suck in bazillions of gamers and topple 3.0 once and for all.

It ain't happening.  The public digs the crunch.

Well, hey, there might be vast swaths of currently non-gamer people that could dig a really, stupefyingly simple RPG system.  Maybe.

But that system is going to be a low-profit item.  And showing it those vast swaths is expensive.  For a "maybe"...

Which makes it pretty damn unlikely for that to actually, y'know, occur in any kind of standard marketing fashion.

Quote from: Ghost_FaceYeah... guess the reason McDonalds is the "most succesful fast food restaurant" is because they're just better...Ya think? I mean it's not like Burger King, or Wendy's or any other place has better tasting product, right?

:rolleyes:


Somebody's gotta play devil's advocate.

Didn't this get said, like, yesterday in another thread? Didn't it go all Spanish-inquisition-themed flamewar for ten pages after that?

It sure as hell isn't 'cause it's cheaper, or presented in a single sourcebook.

It's neither of those things and somehow succeeds. My current theory is that those sourcebooks sell so well because they seem to appeal to players. As opposed to having all the player options in one book and targeting setting supplements (and such) at GMs, they have... really only a few books specifically targeted at GMs. Most of their books (the Completes, Races, Tomes, Heroes) seem specifically aimed at players. Even those not specifically targeted at players still present more playable options. Hell, even the monster manuals now have ways of playing the monsters (I don't know exactly what the story is on previous editions... maybe they had it too.)

The difference between targeting players and GMs is that there are something like four players for every GM... I'm guessing on this point, but there have gotta be more players than GMs... I can't imagine it being otherwise.

However, D&D is successful because it was quick & simple.

D&D 3.x would have failed very quickly in 1974.

Which brings us to a non-reason for D&D's success: it's not successful because it ignored the need to grow & respond to a changing marketplace. However, any innovation has generally not been so extreme as to alienate the existing player base.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadPoint to take home, folks.

D&D probably isn't the best system out there by a number of measures one might care to use.

But if it were the shitty failure of a system that it's detractors make it out to be, it would have long ago fallen from its throne.

True enough.  If it were totally terrible, as some might argue 2nd edition was approaching (and almost did fail, though there were also extenuating management circumstances), it would probably be gone. However, there is a cost to entry to a new system (partially because the cost to entry into D&D is quite high, plus the good "fiddly bits being attractive to gamers" points that others have made, plus if you are playing in a D&D-based setting), so D&D has a built-in resistance to change.  Economists have some term for this but I forgot what it is.  Anyhow, it creates a significant inertia that makes it easier for Wizards to sell new splat books to its users than it does for some other company to come in and try and sell a whole new system and setting.

It's easy to switch from Burger King to McDonald's.  It's quite hard to go from Windows to Mac.  Roleplaying systems lie somewhere in between that.  That is very much to D&D's advantage.