Do we want one dominant game, and why?

[SethDrebitko]

Yes.
For the previously mentioned reasons on capturing new business. Really the industry is primarily a cannibalistic machine. WoTC leverages capital to draw new people in with mmo's, and narrative boardgames. Smaller companies target players board of D&D and start trying to capture WoTC's audience. WoTC keeps trying to draw more people in to stay at a level player base.

Really WoTC is providing a public service to small press publishers because they are capturing an interested audience than gathering them around easy to find community banners.

Dominant game ='s less marketing work for indie publishers.

 

[Bluenose]

First off, "one dominant game" to me does not mean "there are no other games". For the entire existence of the hobby, there has been one dominant game (D&D). That has not prevented dozens of other games from also existing.

From there - Yes, we want one dominant game. The reason? Ecology.

Having a Big Boy in the neighborhood is a stabilizing influence, and a draw, to the gaming community. It is the one dominant game that creates the unity that brings us together, creating the large interconnected pool of gamers required to have a healthy pool of smaller games. Meanwhile, the smaller games are the font of creativity that feeds into the Big Boy.

So, the big and the small support each other, and need each other to be healthy in the long run.

While I agree with what you're saying, I think there's a caveat in there. If the 'big boy' swamps evrything else, as happened to some extent early in the D20 OGL era, their system can for a time be the only thing that matters. And frankly, iI think t's nonsense to suggest that any system can be suitable for all genres and particularly for all styles of play. It's not that other systems don't exist and aren't still being published, but they get overlooked because of the 'one system to rule them all'. Or there's a rush to get into that market, and you end up with an original system being neglected while people try (and often fail) to adapt an unsuitable system for a setting/playstyle that it just doesn't work with.

 

[Umbran]

While I agree with what you're saying, I think there's a caveat in there. If the 'big boy' swamps evrything else, as happened to some extent early in the D20 OGL era, their system can for a time be the only thing that matters.

Well, that had less to do with the Dominant Game, and a whole lot more to do with the New Business Model that the OGL brought to the table. Note how the Big Boy has retreated from that model? It screwed up the ecology.

And frankly, iI think t's nonsense to suggest that any system can be suitable for all genres and particularly for all styles of play.

Yes, well, that will be a notable point when someone makes that suggestion, and not before.

 

[Henry]

Well, that had less to do with the Dominant Game, and a whole lot more to do with the New Business Model that the OGL brought to the table. Note how the Big Boy has retreated from that model? It screwed up the ecology.

I have to disagree - not about WotC dropping OGL, but about it screwing up the ecology. We have a lot of the games we have now, both indy and not, because of the presence of the OGL. Heck, the initial glut had already begun to stabilize by 2004-2005, and a lot of the current indy designers worked in opposition to the OGL, and I firmly believe its polarizing effect was just as important as its "Star Trek Borg" effect. I still feel there's a loss because WotC stopped contributing to it, and never took from it, but that's just my opinion.

 

[nedjer]

First off, "one dominant game" to me does not mean "there are no other games". For the entire existence of the hobby, there has been one dominant game (D&D). That has not prevented dozens of other games from also existing.

From there - Yes, we want one dominant game. The reason? Ecology.

Having a Big Boy in the neighborhood is a stabilizing influence, and a draw, to the gaming community. It is the one dominant game that creates the unity that brings us together, creating the large interconnected pool of gamers required to have a healthy pool of smaller games. Meanwhile, the smaller games are the font of creativity that feeds into the Big Boy.

So, the big and the small support each other, and need each other to be healthy in the long run.

Dear Sauron

Would that be a stabilising or controlling unity?

 

[Dausuul]

I like fences.

My initial impulse was to agree with Umbran. D&D is the tide that lifts (or lowers) all boats in the RPG world. There's a strong case to be made for that.

And yet... I'm hesitant to embrace that position fully, because we've never had it any other way, and D&D's status as the "gatekeeper" for the gaming community may be limiting us in ways we don't realize. I remember back in the '90s, when Vampire: The Masquerade was pulling in a lot of people who'd never played D&D and weren't particularly interested in elves and dwarves and dungeon crawls. I don't think it's a coincidence that V:tM's rise came at the same time as TSR's death spiral.

The "Big Boy, Little Friends" model works, but it breeds dependence. To survive and thrive, the Little Friends must tailor their designs to the types of people who were attracted to the Big Boy in the first place. When the Big Boy is on his deathbed, the Little Friends have to go out and find their own players... and some of them may find they can pull in players the Big Boy never reached.

But is that enough to grow and sustain what has long been a desperately niche hobby? Or is "Big Boy, Little Friends" the only workable answer despite its shortcomings? I don't know.

 

[the Jester]

I voted no, not because a big game drawing people in to the hobby is a bad thing, but because two or three or four big games drawing people into the hobby is a better thing.

I want a dominant fantasy game, a dominant sci-fi game and a dominant game written for those who want heavier social gaming (strongly oriented towards bringing girls into the game).

 

[nedjer]

I like fences.

My initial impulse was to agree with Umbran. D&D is the tide that lifts (or lowers) all boats in the RPG world. There's a strong case to be made for that.

And yet... I'm hesitant to embrace that position fully, because we've never had it any other way, and D&D's status as the "gatekeeper" for the gaming community may be limiting us in ways we don't realize. I remember back in the '90s, when Vampire: The Masquerade was pulling in a lot of people who'd never played D&D and weren't particularly interested in elves and dwarves and dungeon crawls. I don't think it's a coincidence that V:tM's rise coincided with TSR's death spiral.

The "Big Boy, Little Friends" model works, but it breeds dependence. To survive and thrive, the Little Friends must tailor their designs to the types of people who were attracted to the Big Boy in the first place. When the Big Boy is on his deathbed, the Little Friends have to go out and find their own players... and some of them may find they can pull in players the Big Boy never reached.

But is that enough to grow and sustain what has long been a desperately niche hobby? Or is "Big Boy, Little Friends" the only workable answer despite its shortcomings? I don't know.

Can anyone clarify on this 'death spiral'. A lot seems to be based (not necessarily that comment) on a 3.5 figure of 3.5 million and a more recent figure of 1m. That's a heck of change in a short period. Is there more (solid) data to explain or confirm this? It sort of underpins a lot of these debates, so some degree of confirmation would help (me)

p.s. data only please, no arguments allowed

 

[Dausuul]

Can anyone clarify on this 'death spiral'. A lot seems to be based (not necessarily that comment) on a 3.5 figure if 3.5 million and a more recent figure of 1m. That's a heck of change in a short period. Is there more (solid) data to explain or confirm this? It sort of underpins a lot of these debates, so some degree of confirmation would help (me)

TSR's death spiral is well established. The company was massively in debt, sales were plunging, and they were enduring round after round of layoffs. They were on the edge of bankruptcy when they were bought out by WotC in 1997.

Lots of former TSR employees have commented on this. Wikipedia gives a fair overview here. Ryan Dancey lays things out in more (and more emotional) detail here.

 

[Umbran]

Heck, the initial glut had already begun to stabilize by 2004-2005

"Already"? As if it was quick? Take a look at what you're saying there. By your words it took four or five years to begin to correct - we're talking half a decade there. I don't think we are yet so old that that isn't a significant percentage of our gaming careers.

I don't claim that the OGL had no good results. If nothing else, I am immensely pleased that it means 3.x can live forever if folks want it to. But I think the point about too much focus on one game is correct - it effectively made the Big Boy too big, and that would not have been good for the long term, either economically or creatively.

Now, the license exists, and it can be used by smaller games to keep them cross-fertilizing happily.