D&D General D&D's Utter Dominance Is Good or Bad Because...

[TheSword]

One thing I’m interested in is whether different makes it easier or harder to make the switch.

- Similar (Pathfinder to 3e or Level Up to 5e) means the cost of learning new rules is mitigated. But you end up wondering whether the switch is worth the effort if it’s not that different. A much easier sell if the edition is going out of print like 3e.

- Different (5e to Alien RPG) means there is a big potential payback if it works out, but more investment in rules and creative effort to get there.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure. Time is precious. If we assume that some folks will never switch and other folks will switch at the drop of a hat… the interesting bit is what could make folks in the middle be willing to change.

Games that want to be played need to work at making that process as easy as possible. If they did that then the Rising Tide that is 5e really does provide an amazing opportunity to grow your own product.

I would argue that this (path dependency, sunk costs, time-is-money cost of switching) is the reason that new entrants to the market do best to the extent that they are:

1. Relatively rules-lite (in the sense that they can be picked up and played relatively quickly); or

2. Somewhat similar to 5e.


Exceptions, such as PF2, need a base of committed users already.

In other words, it is harder for TTRPGs with complex rules to get a lot of traction in the market.

(Just a working theory, by the way.)

ETA- I see that you posted something similar when I posted this.

 

[Aldarc]

My point is if D&D disappeared and no other RPG company promoted another RPG to the massive scale similar to D&D, would TTRPGs grow, shrink, or remain the same?

I fear the middle one.

So what? This fear is not IMHO a good reason to keep feeding the 800 lb. gorilla.

 

[TheSword]

I would argue that this (path dependency, sunk costs, time-is-money cost of switching) is the reason that new entrants to the market do best to the extent that they are:

1. Relatively rules-lite (in the sense that they can be picked up and played relatively quickly); or

2. Somewhat similar to 5e.


Exceptions, such as PF2, need a base of committed users already.

In other words, it is harder for TTRPGs with complex rules to get a lot of traction in the market.

(Just a working theory, by the way.)

ETA- I see that you posted something similar when I posted this.

I guess it would be useful to look at new products on the market in the last few years and work out which got some genuine traction and which fell by the wayside… and why.

If you need a loyal following in the first place then that creates difficulties for any new games.

Other folks will have more experience of a broader range than I do. The alternatives to base 5e I have tried recently are IP related (WFRP/Imperium Maledictum/Wrath and Glory) or variants of 5e (Adventures in Rokugan, Adventures in Middle Earth and Level Up)

 

[Oofta]

So what? This fear is not IMHO a good reason to keep feeding the 800 lb. gorilla.

So people should quit playing a game they enjoy, even though it would mean fewer people playing TTRPGs, why exactly?

 

[Aldarc]

So people should quit playing a game they enjoy, even though it would mean fewer people playing TTRPGs, why exactly?

(1) I didn't say anything to that effect.
(2) Stop trying to start fights over nothing.
(3) Don't load your questions so heavily.
(4) I will engage further if you can prove that you can engage with what I actually said. If not,...

 

[Reynard]

TTRPGs are businesses first and foremost.

No, they are a hobby first and foremost. Long after the business of TTRPGs dies, the hobby will remain. You can see it in a hundred other hobbies that went from obscurity to fad to obscurity. People still wargame and build model trains, even if it is a lot harder to find businesses built around those things in your home town.

 

[Campbell]

Why does a discussion about the value of having different sorts of games on these boards always end up in a discussion about how to mass market?

 

[Reynard]

People saying that other games need to just market harder don't really understand marketing budgets or access to distribution networks, I don't think.

 

[Swanosaurus]

So people should quit playing a game they enjoy, even though it would mean fewer people playing TTRPGs, why exactly?

I think the point is that there is no need to frantically support D&D; everyone can just buy and play what they like. Sometimes, people who prefer other RPGs and put their money there are accused of dividing the hobby, and that any financial success any other RPG might have spells doom and gloom for the whole industry, because if D&D sinks, everyone sinks.
(Not that anyone here has said it, and I actually haven't seen that point made very often; but occassionally there are people arguing more or less "why can't everyone just publish for D&D5, it would be better for everyone if everything were compatible and we all supported one big system to ensure its economical health!")