Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1967894" data-attributes="member: 10201">Sure. I've got some minor disagreements with the applicability of the theory of network externalities, but i think it's basically sound. It's the Skaff Effect that i think is bunk.     No, i didn't miss it. Thus my example. Among those who frequent The Forge, there is a sub-group of vocal D20 System-haters. I'm confident that many of that sub-group (1) travel in circles where nobody is going to offer them a game of D&D and/or (2) would choose not gaming over playing D&D. To disprove the notion that "all RPG sales ultimately benefit the RPG market leader", i only need to find one counter-example. Now, like i said, i'm willing to believe that the market leader in a genre benefits disproportionately from its market share--the theory of network externalities. The theory of network externalities is also a tried and accepted theory bigger than the RPG (or adventure gaming) world. The Skaff Effect is a hypothesis that doesn't, IMHO, pass the sniff test. It's the "all" formulation that i think is BS (or at least wishful thinking).  I think there's a noticeable segment of RPers who don't come back to D&D. Not a huge segment, but a measureable one. It's made up of indie-loving D20-System-haters, die-hard Palladium fans, WoD fans who are "too sophisticated" for D20 System, and other little segments, all over the place. [to be clear: i know that there are Forge-ites, Palladium players, and Storyteller fans who playd D20 System. There're also at least a few who don't.]    And as much as i wish it were otherwise, that seems to be the way it is for many gamers.  And if you want to promote this, then, yes, the fewer systems out there, the better. However, i think that fewer systems is a bad thing, in and of itself, so i think it's a bad end, whatever it may also be a means towards. Because, for me, part of the interest of new RPGs is now mechanics, not just new settings. Also, because i want to see greater innovation in RPGs, and thus faster evolution, i actively fight against the existence of a "default" RPG, and will continue to do so. If i can't actually prevent it, i'll certainly do anything possible to change that dynamic. If i can't set up a different dynamic, i'm certainly not interested in aiding a "bad" dynamic.   And, apparently, that is true for a vast chunk of the market. But not all of it. I happen to travel in a circle of gamers where the predominant attitude towards D20 System in general, and D&D3E in particular, is best summed up as "love/hate". It comes around on a regular basis not because it's the only game everybody likes, but because it's the only game everybody doesn't hate. People come out of the woodwork for particular GMs, not particular game systems--if Dan or Seth or Jere runs it, the game'll be full. Regardless of system. I don't personally know any gamers who'll only play D20 System, i know a couple who absolutely won't, but mostly i know gamers who either do or don't want to try something new. For those who don't want to try something new, that means they stick to the 3-4 systems they're already familiar with (usually Storyteller, Fading Suns, and, yes, D20 System). In fact, among the people i game with the most, the sure way to have a full table is to offer to run something that nobody's played before.   And, to be absolutely clear, the above has nothing to do with my ideologies on RPGs. I'm mostly talking about other gaming groups, that i have no direct interaction with. These are just observations.</blockquote>

Verification