Do we want one dominant game, and why?

Starfox

Adventurer

• Jul 15, 2010

• #1

Written in response to What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted? and similar threads. A basic assumption of posts like these always seem to be that there is a self-evident need for "one game to rule them all", one dominant system that most gamers know.

Is this true? Would the hobby benefit from one monolith towering over the rest? I can see arguments for both sides, but I'd love to hear what others have to say first.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

AngryMojo

First Post

• Jul 15, 2010

• #2

As a gamer, I prefer to have multiple systems competing for my dollars. It leads to better products.

 

Jan van Leyden

Adventurer

• Jul 15, 2010

• #3

Sort of Yes and No.

I'd like to distinguish between a dominant entry-level game and a big selection of specialised ones catering for the more experienced gamers.

I want a dominant system published by as big a company as possible with lots of marketing expertise and dollars to infiltrate the unwashed masses with the message. If asked about her hobby, I want to be able to say "D&D" and be certain that the other guy has an image of roleplaying in his mind.

If the dominant game succeeds in drawing in many thousands of new gamers, 75% of this group will leave the hobby within one or two years. Another 15% will keep playing their entry-level game more or less regularly. And 10% will want to see what's available beyond D&D, growing to be the next generation of "real" roleplayers.

So yes, I want a dominant game, as only such an entity will prepare the fertile ground on which new roleplayers and roleplaying games are grown.

 

fanboy2000

Adventurer

• Jul 15, 2010

• #4

I predict your going to get a lot of "no" votes. The fact is, no matter what someone may feel about any particular edition of D&D, no one really wants just one edition out there. Or even one RPG.

Why?

Because we get board. Because we get tired of playing one game, or one set of rules, or one set of options. Because we want to play superheroes, or Star Wars, or Vampires, or we want to go modern, or simulationist, or we want to go gonzo.

Geek hobbies are built on imagination, why chain it to one set or rules for all time? As Mark Hamill once said "I like ice cream, but I'm not going to eat it every day."

I think what your seeing is simply people expressing a preference for one game. Sometimes, because people don't want to wax lyrically about the subject, it seems like gamers push one game above all others. But really I think people just forget or fail to mention how much fun they have with other games.

 

S

Stalker0

Legend

• Jul 15, 2010

• #5

To me, its less about one gaming system for everyone, and more about one gaming system per table.


Not everyone is going to like every gaming system, but you always hope that everyone in your gaming group likes the game system you intend to run. Maybe its not their absolute favorite, but its fun enough that everyone has a good time.

Increasing a game's appeal to a wider range of people makes this more possible.

 

nedjer

Adventurer

• Jul 15, 2010

• #6

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them,
One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

 

Bold or Stupid

First Post

• Jul 15, 2010

• #7

NO.

Lots of games, lots of systems, I even think the OGL is bad as it meant people just used d20 rather than creating something new and specific to their setting/game style.

 

Dice4Hire

First Post

• Jul 15, 2010

• #8

Yes,

Because a dominant game gets the games into the mass market, where new players can see them. I would not have gotten into D&D if I had not seen the game and there are undoubtadly other potential players like me out there.

 

nedjer

Adventurer

• Jul 15, 2010

• #9

Dice4Hire said:

Yes,

Because a dominant game gets the games into the mass market, where new players can see them. I would not have gotten into D&D if I had not seen the game and there are undoubtadly other potential players like me out there.

Click to expand...

There seems to be a slightly rose-tinted view of the impact of a monopoly, and the resultant danger of a monopsony.

On the plus side I was looking for a topic to blog on - ta very much

 

S

steenan

Adventurer

• Jul 15, 2010

• #10

Definitely no.

If one game is too dominant, it becomes hard to find players for more niche ones. It also biases how people (both players and non-players) see and judge RPGs, and what play styles are preferred.

I love diversity. I'd like the RPG market to have around 4-5 big games (games that a lot of people play, that have regular release of supplements, that are identifiable by non-gamers). Each of these games should represent a different focus and different view on gaming. Such competing market is good for quality and prices, it also gives players a wide array of choices.
Of course, there should also be a lot of games from small companies and independent publishers. I can't imagine myself limited to a few games, even very good ones.