Quote from: chaosvoyagerIt's not the rules.

This should make all you 'Swine' hating folks very happy, as it basically shows that the endeavors of the Forge ARE a based on a flawed premise and are a load of crap.

The Forge is wrong about why rules matter and how much they matter -- very wrong -- but I think the rules have a lot to do with why D&D is popular; a lot, but not everything.

I think D&D is popular because it is accessible and fun across a large dimension of potential players

1. Most people can get into being treasure hunters and adventurers.
2. Class structure lets you create iconic archetypical characters easily; they also let you put together a functional group pretty well -- something that is challenging in less structured games (and with the prolifieration of classes, people who want variation can find that also).
3. The basic mechanics (levels, combat, etc.) are all fairly easy to grasp and even simple (the multiple layers of complexity on top of them is another story, but it's not hard to figure out how hit points work).
4. It gives lots and lots of fan-service in terms of magic goodies and level-ups that reward you for playing at a well-designed schedule (e.g. not too often, not too rarely).
5. Fantasy as a generic genre is popular enough to get its own section in the book store. Clearly it strikes a chord with a lot of people

So I think it's a combination of an accessible genre and a brilliant design.

I think a lot of MMORPGs built on some of the same foundations demonstrate that the model works across a spectrum of cultures and expecatations.

I also think D&D appeals to people who want story games -- there's nothing in it that prohibits deep, character-based drama or story-telling or any of that stuff. It really more or less works for most people.

Cheers,
-E.

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.

D&D3.x is most certainly not a shitty system. For D&D. If classes-levels-hitpoints are your bag 3.x/d20 is the shit.

Now 3.x is not my thing - for my playstyle it is a shitty system. But if my prefferred playstyle was different I'd be playing D&D/d20 like everyone else.


.

D&D is not successful because it's McDonald's or VHS...

Can we leave those tired cliches behind already...

VHS won because it was a better product; the only way in which Beta was superior was in the recording. By many other measures, VHS was better (longer recording, easier to use, price point, open standard, etc.).

I can say "McDonald's is a quality establishment," with a straight face, because it's about more than the food, it's about speed, convenience, price, consitency, and a million other things McDonald's is constantly trying to understand about it's clients and serve.

So what are you left with - equating "quality" with "quality of the rules."  In an RPG? Yeah, right.  There's no subjectivity there, is there? It's like arguing against McDonald's because the food tastes bad.  Really? To whom? To you? Cause, ya know, I like those god damn hamburgers.

So D&D is not successful in spite of low quality. It might very well be successful despite your dislike of the rules, but the two are not equal.

Hell, at least with sometihng like McDonalds, you do have objective food quality categories you could point to, like the standard of the ingredients or something.

With RPGs you have, what?  Quality of editing?  Of layout and organization?  Well sure, you could go on that, but it'd make for a boring argument (like all those RPG reviews that go on for six paragraphs about the bindings and paper weights and shit), and besides, that's something just D&D frankly kicks the competition in the ass on.  They crank out some damn tight books.

Current D&D is successful partly due to branding, and partly due to the current edition having incredibly well designed and solid rules.

The OP is based on a false premise, the question of why D&D has always been successful may take you to factors other than the rules predominantly, but the question of why 3/3.5e is successful is intimately tied up with it being a great ruleset.

Quite honestly, until one can recognise that DnD is a fucking good game and a great piece of design, regardless of whether one personally likes it or not (and I don't like 3/3.5e one whit really), I don't think one can say much about rpgs with any great claim to understanding them.

DnD3 is a great ruleset, that is integral to its success though not the only factor I entirely admit.  Deny the greatness of the ruleset and many of its detractors will applaud you but you'll never then understand why it sells.

D&D reliably provides fun gaming with a solid ruleset that is well playtested and that delivers a reliable play experience.  Most games only dream of meeting that set of criteria, which is in large part why most games are not as good.

Sadly for me, I don't actually like the reliable play experience it provides much, but then I don't like chess either and that doesn't make chess a bad game.

Yes, I did just compare D&D to chess, sue me.

Quote from: BalbinusYes, I did just compare D&D to chess, sue me.

You're painting it as incapable of anything but Hack & Slash!

*Froth*

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYou're painting it as incapable of anything but Hack & Slash!

*Froth*

Eh.  I never took that as much of an insult really.  I mean sure, it's lame 'cause you can do just as much "pure roleplaying" with D&D as you can with anything else, but fuck, I LIKE hack and slash.

Sometimes I just feel like killin'.

Quote from: J ArcaneEh.  I never took that as much of an insult really.  I mean sure, it's lame 'cause you can do just as much "pure roleplaying" with D&D as you can with anything else, but fuck, I LIKE hack and slash.

Sometimes I just feel like killin'.

There is nothing more satisfying than spending all day at school with annoying spoiled brats, Eminem wannabe suburb gangstas, bitchy drama-ridden prostitots, whiny emo kids, and mark-grubbing whiners, on top of the endless mountain of marking, new board/department/school directed initiatives each of which adds to the neverending increases to your daily workload, and plopping down in front of the game table and frying the almighty fuck out of a large group of goblins with a Firey Maximized Fireball of Fire (I love my Warmage).

Quote from: HackmastergeneralThere is nothing more satisfying than spending all day at school with annoying spoiled brats, Eminem wannabe suburb gangstas, bitchy drama-ridden prostitots, whiny emo kids, and mark-grubbing whiners, on top of the endless mountain of marking, new board/department/school directed initiatives each of which adds to the neverending increases to your daily workload, and plopping down in front of the game table and frying the almighty fuck out of a large group of goblins with a Firey Maximized Fireball of Fire (I love my Warmage).

Bingo.  I personally consider a little cathartic virtual violence to be an important part of my psychological coping mechanisms.

Doom didn't lead me to violence, it kept me from being violent.

Quote from: J ArcaneEh.  I never took that as much of an insult really.  I mean sure, it's lame 'cause you can do just as much "pure roleplaying" with D&D as you can with anything else, but fuck, I LIKE hack and slash.

I think Levi meant chess, which is almost totally devoid of narrative.  Just maneuver and slaughter, non-stop.  Stupid game really.

Quote from: HalfjackI think Levi meant chess, which is almost totally devoid of narrative.  Just maneuver and slaughter, non-stop.  Stupid game really.

Quote from: HalfjackI think Levi meant chess, which is almost totally devoid of narrative.  Just maneuver and slaughter, non-stop.  Stupid game really.

A review of chess, by Greg Kasavin, Gamespy editor

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYour clutter is someone's toybox.

Maybe.
 
I'm being extreme here, but the thing is, I see D&D like a steaming pile of shit. And there are all these people eating the shit and they keep trying to tell me it's good. There are others that agree with me that yes, D&D is shit, but it's the best tasting shit you'll ever eat. And then you get guys like Pundit trying to tell me that it's popular therefore it must taste good.
 
But as far as I'm concerned, it's still shit and I'm not eating it. And I'm not going to think very highly of those that do.
 
If that makes me elitist swine, then so be it. But just as no-one should feel ashamed of the games they like, I believe it equally true that no-one should feel ashamed of the games they dislike.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkAnd I'm not going to think very highly of those that do.
 
If that makes me elitist swine, then so be it.

I don't know if you're a swine, but looking down on others for their tastes certainly makes you a cock.

QuoteBut just as no-one should feel ashamed of the games they like, I believe it equally true that no-one should feel ashamed of the games they dislike.

I appreciate the way you attempt to re-cast contempt for others as confidence in one's own likes and dislikes.

I kind of agree with Tyberius.  Not that D&D is a steaming pile of shit, but that he  should be allowed to be critical of people who play something he has no respect for.  I like good bourbon.  If I see someone drinking Jim Beam and going on and on about how good it is, I do not deny that they are happy.  But I also recognize that they have poor taste.  Now don't get me wrong, unlike gaming, mediocre bourbon (it's difficult for me to say there is actually any truly bad bourbon, just as a thing itself it is so good) is definitely better than no bourbon.  But that doesn't mean I can't say, "that dude really doesn't know what good bourbon is.  He's missing out."

Now fair enough, Booze is probably easier to rank than rpg's.  And even then, I am sure there are some ugly internet fights over Blanton's versus Knob Creek.  But still, if you consider something not as good as something else, to my mind it is perfectly acceptable to consider that people using the not as good thing could be better off trying the better thing.