Being first mover is obviously important, perhaps the most important thing, but it's somewhat absurd to say the qualities of a particular game system play no part whatsoever.
I Made no such claim.
I said that there is
nothing inherently special about D&D's system that makes it the Market Leader in most of RPG land.
Because being
Good Enough is all that is needed when you are the First Mover, and you service your customers.
Evidence of this claim was given when I cited how games with completely different systems became ascendant over D&D in their home countries.
If you want to argue that the magic system of D&D does not play any part than you need to address the points I made,
Which I did.
I said: "It's all about
First, Good Enough, and
Servicing your customer base."
Notice that there are
three separate, and distinct things in that statement:
1- The Game must be First: First mover advantage in RPG land is HUGE! Because it establishes the social network effect that RPG's rely on to establish, maintain, and grow their player base. Tabletop RPGs rely on The Network Effect for their value. That is why many tabletop RPGs have a hard time justifying their existence to users of the dominant network.
D&D has the dominant network in English speaking countries. And with 2 slight bobbles has continues to maintain it. In a few other countries it had abdicated its First Mover status by failing to properly service its customer base. Which those few cases allowed other RPGs to supersede D&D's First Mover status and establish the dominant network effect in those countries.
2- The Game must be Good Enough: This is where system comes in. The Game must be good enough
as a game that there is no compelling reason for the players to give up the games established network effect to switch to a competitors product.
i.e. Its system must not suck to the point that a competitor is a clearly better alternative.
This is why games like Sword World in Japan, and the Dark Eye in Germany were able to stay ahead of D&D after they subsumed its first mover status. Their game systems were Good Enough that there was no compelling reason for their players to give up the games established network effect to play the latest translation of D&D.
We have two games that have two mechanically different systems than D&D, that became ascendant over D&D in their home countries for decades. Which
proves that there is nothing mechanically special about D&D
as a game system, other than it is
Good Enough that its players have no clear reason to give it up its dominant network effect and supplant it with a competitors product.
3- The Game must be Servicing its customer base: New content, otherwise known as the Supplement treadmill. For various reasons people like to play "supported" games. Not "dead" game lines. So people like their
new adventures, splat books, and setting guides...
The failure to consistently provide this support in non-English speaking countries is what allowed in a few cases other home grown RPG's to subsume D&D's
First Mover status, because D&D had not yet built up a dominant network effect.
The lack of servicing the customer base is also
one of the reasons why CoC has now become ascendant in Japan over every other RPG - the level of support is magnitude times better than anything else over there. Both in translations of English material - but also with a very vibrant culture of homegrown supplement creation.
CoC's dominance in Japan is further proof that so long as the game system does its job
Good Enough for those who play it; it is factors other than the game system mechanics that really determine which RPG is the most popular in any given country.
So because people actually enjoy playing D&D we're just doing it because it's a sunk cost?
It is a bit more nuanced than that.
But the short answer is:
Yes. It's because of sunk costs... (the sunk cost being the investment in the market leaders dominant network)
Now for the nuance.
Much of this is covered in my breakdown above of the reasons why the qualities of: "
First, Good Enough, and
Servicing it's customer base." Are the driving factors for ascendency in RPG land over any specific implementation of a games rules.
Tabletop RPGs is a medium that are utterly dependent upon the Network Effect for product value, and tabletop RPGs are a hobbyist commercial niche whereupon a very small number of actual hobbyists support a four-fold or greater number of players who rarely buy anything but instead play casually as a pastime. Hobbyists, if they are not good salesmen - and most are not - have to go where the biggest pool of players are, which means they play the biggest game, and that slot's been filled in most English speaking countries since 1974: Dungeons & Dragons.
As the market leader, with its massive network effect and support system, D&D
as a game is
Good Enough that most players do not feel a compelling reason
to even look at a different fantasy RPG.
It takes a unique set of circumstances for Being
First + Good Enough +
Service to not =
No can defend.
The market leader has to either stop servicing its customers, or commit own goals of epic proportions that cause its player base to turn away from their product. It is the subject of another thread, but IMHO, 4e is an example of the latter.
If there were a better game for the masses (not just your personal preference) there was plenty of opportunity for it to compete. That didn't happen.
Making a "better" game system
is not enough to effectively challenge the market leader when faced with the fact that First mover status in RPG hobby is HUGE. And Established RPG IP fans are very long-suffering.
The market leader has to make a huge mistake that alienates the fanbase, or be incompetent enough, long enough, for you to take a big enough chunk out of their market share, (preferably both at the same time) so that the network effect for your game is built up to the point that it becomes worth the effort of the First Mover RPG's player base to switch to your games player network.
That is a tall order. Especially considering that in the current RPG market that means releasing a minimum of 4-6 supplements per year. On top of the expectations of having a Character creation app, and your adventures adapted to virtual table tops. And you have to keep at it long enough to be around when the market leader makes a significant mistake.
That is really hard when you factor in that RPG's have always been a very niche hobbyist industry. There is just not that much money in it
unless you are the market leader. Generally speaking, the economic incentives for a second tier game company to try and go head to head with the top-dog are not that great. This hill has become even steeper to climb now that D&D is under the WotC/Hasbro umbrella and is now backed by serious corporate money...
