Do we want one dominant game, and why?

[jasonbostwick]

No.
While a single dominant game system is great for bringing people into the hobby (supposedly - though I know of a fair number of people whose first RPG was a White Wolf Game or Mutants and Masterminds.), I appreciate the diversity of products that a mixed market encourages.


Case in point: right now I'm using Warhammer FRP 3E to run a sandbox game based on Paizo's Kingmaker mixed with a slurry of old-school dungeons. I'm also patronizing the new 4E Open Design project, and might incorporate parts of it into said sandbox.

More game systems (and more companies making them) makes for better and more diverse products.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I guess it would depend largely on who "we" are.

 

[Jhaelen]

More game systems (and more companies making them) makes for better and more diverse products.

Indeed, competition is always healthy.

I doubt we'd have ever seen D&D 3e or 4e if there hadn't been other (successful) rpg systems around. We _might_ have seen D&D 2.5 and D&D 2.75, i.e. systems with minimal adjustments. But there'd have been zero innovations; no one would have dared to make any significant changes to the game rules.

However, having a system that is _somewhat_ dominant isn't so bad. It can become the common evil that everyone else is comparing against and trying to differ from

 

[IronWolf]

No. There is room for multiple systems. And what scratches my itch might not scratch someone else's. So multiple systems help for there to be a system out there for everyone that chooses to play RPGs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Count me in for another NO.

Even if that game could be RCFG, and even if it netted me millions of dollars.








Well, okay, I'd like the millions of dollars.




AFAICT, there is no "one true game".


RC

-

 

[UniversalMonster]

It isn't a matter of what we want, it's a matter of how it is. It isn't as if we all got together and elected for things to be one way or the other. It just turned out that way because that's where the interest went.

It doesn't help that other designers look at the most dominant game and think "I can do better, I'll do everything different than that.." rather than "I should do everything the most played game does..but better".

Because doing that first thing leads to a much narrower band of players. That second thing leads to a much larger community.

 

[Umbran]

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.

 

[amerigoV]

I voted yes. I do not think that a dominate player precludes market diversification in this area. I wish I kept link, but someone had listed every RPG made by year and there has always been tons of games available no matter how strong D&D has been at any particular time.

So why do I want a dominate player? Simple - the hobby is not a large one. One dominate brand with strong name recognition helps bring in new people. Also, it is fun to sit down with a game everyone is at least familiar with at a con or pick up game.

 

[Aus_Snow]

God, no. It's unhealthy for the hobby, apart from anything else.

 

[Raven Crowking]

OK, Umbran has convinced me. I would like to change my vote.

RCFG can be dominant.



I'd like those millions of dollars now.......




RC