Do we want one dominant game, and why?

[Hussar]

Then we agree, because that was my point.



Please tell me where I made either conjecture. All I said was that there are arguments that oppose your statements. Those arguments, like your statements in the post I quoted from, are completely conjecture.

You may be right; you may be wrong.

Not only are neither you nor I in a position to tell, we are not in a position to determine even what is most likely.

EDIT: And, just so we are clear, I think it is perfectly okay that you disagree with me. You can set the bar of your skepticism for any claim as high, or as low, as you wish, and I'm absolutely fine with that. I'll even defend your right to do so, should anyone dispute it.



RC

So, because you can make up tinfoil hat conspiracy conjecture, it somehow invalidates my point? I mean, sure, I can't prove a negative. I can't prove that people aren't playing the game.

But, then, I don't have to. The point on the table was that 1e retained its audience. I reject this because there is no way that the audience for 1e is anywhere near the size it was in 1982.

And the proof of that is pretty much everywhere. If the numbers WERE there, then you'd see far more 1e tables at conventions. You'd see MASSIVE sales of 1e and OSRIC material. I'd be able to go down to my local gaming shop and ask ten different gamers what they were playing and several would answer 1e.

But, none of this is true. While there might be 1e tables at conventions, they are certainly nowhere near as numerous as 3e or 4e tables. You don't see massive sales of 1e material. You don't find groups of 1e players at gaming shops.

So, where are these gamers? They don't buy anything, they don't go anywhere. They don't have any online presence to speak of. They're apparently invisible.

But, this is the counter to my point?

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, because you can make up tinfoil hat conspiracy conjecture

Why do you feel the need to insult people?

Your point is conjecture; I don't have to counter it. You haven't provided anything to counter.


RC

 

[DragonLancer]

For many years D&D was the intro level game. You played D&D and then you either added to what you played or you moved on to something else. I don't see there being a problem with D&D being the dominant game in the RPG universe, but it shouldn't be the only thing that people play.

 

[Umbran]

So, because you can make up tinfoil hat conspiracy conjecture, it somehow invalidates my point?

Why do you feel the need to insult people?

Gentlemen, from out here it looks like you two are going to butt heads for some time, to nobody's advancement. I'm giving you both an excuse to disengage now before things get ugly. Please change your tone, or just cut this line of discussion. Thanks.

 

[Hussar]

Why do you feel the need to insult people?

Your point is conjecture; I don't have to counter it. You haven't provided anything to counter.


RC

Sorry about the snark. My bad.

But what? Ok, fair enough, I don't have exact numbers. But, I don't need them. I can make a point, provide ample supporting evidence for my point and present it on the table. Saying "Nuh uh" doesn't really do anything.

You claimed that that the audience for 1e is equal in size to 3e or 4e. You are saying that this is the counter to my point that 1e has lost its original audience.

I can provide evidence. Unless there is this giant, silent community, there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that the 1e audience is as large as you claim. They do not appear in public. They do not have a signficant online presence, nor do they appear to be a large factor in game production.

While I 100% applaud the whole OSR thing, I think it's great. I'm also under no illusions that it's a tiny community. If the current number of 1e gamers world wide (defined as playing at least once a month - that's how they define current gamer IIRC) was even 20% that of either 3e or 4e, then where are they?

You original words were:

Hussar, it is arguable that there are as many people playing 1e today as there are playing 4e or 3e. It is also arguable that there are not.

Frankly, whether or not 0e and 1e managed to keep the audience is entirely conjecture.


RC

My point is, no, it is not arguable. For it to be arguable, there would need to be at least a tiny shred of evidence. But, there isn't. There's no massive 1e gaming convention similar to the big gaming con's like Gen Con. Sites like Dragonsfoot (which is an excellent, high quality site) are nowhere near the size of something like EN World or WOTC's own forums.

I really don't understand why this would even be a point of contention to be honest. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone try to say that 1e gaming is even remotely the same size as 3e or 4e gaming audiences. Or that 1e managed to retain the same size as it had during the early 80's. Every indication points in entirely the other direction.

So, in order for it to be arguable, you need to show more evidence.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry about the snark. My bad.

Apology accepted.

As for the conjecture, my point is that it is conjecture, which you seem to be taking for fact. I have no interest in proving you "wrong"; I am not at all certain that I believe you are wrong.

You are allowed to accept whatever evidence you want, or set the bar of your skepticism as high or as low as you like. I fully support your right to do so. Moreover, I would agree that it is rational to do so.

At the same time, though, it might be of use to you to realize that others might be more skeptical that Gen Con or EN World accurately represent how many people are playing 4e or 1e or any given e.

And that is an equally reasonable position to hold.

Because, the reality is that there is no real evidence on either side. We are, at best, taking stabs in the dark.



RC

 

[Ariosto]

You claimed that that the audience for 1e is equal in size to 3e or 4e.

Originally Posted by RC
Hussar, it is arguable that there are as many people playing 1e today as there are playing 4e or 3e. It is also arguable that there are not.

Hussar, when you quote right there in your own post what he actually wrote, why do you insist that he "claimed" something else?

You are saying that this is the counter to my point that 1e has lost its original audience.

Frankly, whether or not 0e and 1e managed to keep the audience is entirely conjecture.

I really don't understand why this would even be a point of contention to be honest.

Perhaps the answer is that you choose to make it what you make it.

Before you all start telling each other what the other fellow "is saying", why not ask him what he is saying?

I would give some benefit of the doubt to the fact that "how many people today are playing 3e and 4e" is very clearly a different thing than "how many were playing 1e in 1982." It seems a bit of a leap to conflate those when they are not even in proximity.

Rather than rush to make that leap, one might ask RC whether he means by "keep the audience" that the numbers in 2010 are on par with the numbers in 1982.

I see plenty of reasons to think they are not -- but no reason to ask for how it is arguable that they are, if nobody is in the first place claiming that's a reasonable possibility.

However, when I consider the responses of some players of my acquaintance to their trip to this year's DundraCon, it hardly encourages me to make the investment. When I consider what I see at the FLGS, I find nothing to recommend making that trip.

There is a fraction of overlap with 3e/4e in my AD&D group, but the majority are rarely if ever to be found in such venues. I may be the only one of 8 who frequents online RPG forums at all, and among those I frequent, the ones to do with old games outnumber those to do with 3e/4e by at least 2:1.

Even "back in the day", going to conventions and chatting on Compuserve were exceptional activities among D&Ders I knew. Even local meet-ups pretty clearly did not attract numbers anywhere near the numbers of rules sets sold at shops in town. Moreover, there were other games seeing play whose enthusiasts quite reasonably did not go out of their way to attend D&D-focused functions.

It simply does not require any of that to referee old D&D (or other old RPGs). All it takes, once one has the rules-book, is paper, pencil and dice (or functional equivalents), imagination, time, and a friend (preferably at least two). To play as a player-character requires less.

It is easy enough for someone to go along without even knowing that there are such things as "3e/4e". I didn't know there was such a thing as 3e until one day I had some time to kill and happened to notice a "comics and games" shop (and not much else of interest) nearby. No doubt I would have heard of it sooner if I had been going to online D&D sites, but I was not. If my fellow gamers were, they did not mention it.

 

[Ariosto]

Getting back on topic:

In my experience, D&D was not what I would call "dominant" in the 1970s-80s. It was in first, going for about a year with effectively no competition, and -- as Gygax was pleased to point out -- basically had thereby attained a huge lead in market share.

That's no guarantee in perpetuity, of course.

A key point, though, is that the D&D market share was not exclusive. It was not a case of having to buy and play either D&D or another RPG.

That is why I would not call it "dominant". I would call it pervasive or prevalent, and note its facility (back then) as a "common tongue" in the hobby. (With what "edition" means these days, that facility is a lot more limited.)

When influence is so diffuse, so much in the background, so often secondary (or tertiary, or less) to the importance of whichever game happens to be at hand, I am not inclined to think of it as "dominant".

It would be like calling the tricycle "dominant" because most probably someone driving a bicycle, motor scooter, motorcycle, automobile, truck, train, plane, nuclear-powered submarine or skateboard started out riding a tricycle.

It was an accident of a particular time. There was also a time when one could pretty much count on a video-gamer having played Space Invaders, because it was the first to get installed all over the place.

I don't know that it's an especially good thing to have something like that. It might be associated with proximity to a small-scale stage of development, whether on the rise or on the decline. As the business/hobby grows, it may be increasingly more likely for someone not yet to have had anything to do with this or that "classic" of the field.

At any rate, it is not what "dominant" means to me.

"Dominant" to me means the game shoves others aside. When people will play only "X edition D&D", then I think there's potential for dominance. It depends on how common such people are.

Now, I see that potential in the retail distribution chain. WotC offers only D&D, and WotC plus a couple of others (maybe varying by locale) make up most of what's on offer at what seems to me a typical FLGS. If something is outside of those, it's pretty random whether it's on the radar.

It can be pretty mind-blowing what a shopkeeper has never heard of, and even more how little interest he may demonstrate in a chance to sell it to the inquirer. (If the population of LGS is declining, this lack of F-ness -- of basic business sense, really -- may be one reason why.)

It can also be mind-blowing to look at shelves of marked-down inventory gathering dust, on top of the dust gathered in the "d20 System" glut that came well before 4e made those products obsolete to the crew concerned with perhaps the best candidate at the moment for "one dominant game".

Shades of the Potato Blight, maybe.

 

[nedjer]

Getting back on topic:

It can be pretty mind-blowing what a shopkeeper has never heard of, and even more how little interest he may demonstrate in a chance to sell it to the inquirer. (If the population of LGS is declining, this lack of F-ness -- of basic business sense, really -- may be one reason why.)

It can also be mind-blowing to look at shelves of marked-down inventory gathering dust, on top of the dust gathered in the "d20 System" glut that came well before 4e made those products obsolete to the crew concerned with perhaps the best candidate at the moment for "one dominant game".

Shades of the Potato Blight, maybe.

I kind of get the impression that FLGS don't get an whole lot of suggestions - maybe they don't encourage them/ maybe a vocal minority are the only ones with suggestions?

E.g. posted a thread recently with a picture of a big blue dice and it got hundreds of views in no time. Posted a thread recently about FLGS and posted it missing. Appears few players are kind of 'engaged' with their FLGS?

Which seems the wrong way round. I'd have thought if you wanted to check out cool dice you'd start by teling your FLGS to keep an eye out for them.

 

[Hussar]

At the same time, though, it might be of use to you to realize that others might be more skeptical that Gen Con or EN World accurately represent how many people are playing 4e or 1e or any given e.

And that is an equally reasonable position to hold.

No, it really isn't. A claim that has absolutely no evidence to back it up is not an "equally reasonable position to hold". There is no evidence that there are millions of 0e and 1e players currently. None. There's no sales evidence, there's no physical presence and there's no online presence to indicate this to be true.

So, no, it's not a reasonable position. A reasonable position would have evidence, even circumstantial evidence, to back it up.

The position that any counter argument must be given equal weight is the bane of discourse. There are far too many real world examples that we can't bring up here that show this.

If someone wanted to argue that the 3e and 4e audiences of current gamers were similar size, I could see that. Looking at conventions, publications, and online presence, you can certainly make a reasonable argument for this.

But 0e and 1e managed to retain all of their audience from their peaks? That's not reasonable. 0e gamers moved on in large numbers to 1e. 1e gamers moved on to 2e. Not all, most certainly. And there is definitely a lively, thriving 0e and 1e gaming population. Don't deny that in the least. But, this population has retained the hundreds of thousands, to a couple of million that it had in the early 80's? Sorry, there's no evidence of this.

So, no, it's not a reasonable claim to make.