Do we want one dominant game, and why?

[Starfox]

But when I'm replying to someone who says that all editions of D&D have "the makings of a niche game [...] something much more rules light would probably be better".

As this refers to me, I'll give a shot at a reply. I'll expand on my argument and point out some weaknesses in it.

First, DnD is a niche game (IMO) not because it is complex, but because of its focus on combat. While later editions of DnD have become increasingly complex, this was not so for earlier editions, especially not the various basic sets.

Second, in this stage/part of the discussion I was playing at being a visionary. If you check my reply to you, you'll see that I did recommend that my proposed game should not even be called a role-playing game - what I was trying to get at was more along the line of a communal storytelling exercise. I also said this type of game would need a new audience, as the current RPG audience might not like it.

Well, the obvious reply to this is to say that if it does not quack like a duck and does not walk like a duck, then it is not a duck. A RPG that is not called and RPG and would not appeal to the RPG crowd is not an RPG at all. And this is true; what I was proposing used ideas from what we today call RPGs to make something quite different. Once Upon a Time and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen might be the closes we have at the moment. And neither did spectacularly well.

This said, I still think a game along these lines could be a blockbuster, but I doubt that anyone in the current gaming hobby could make one. I think it would take someone raised outside the hobby and the many hobby tropes to bring out the full potential of our hobby.

 

[doctorhook]

I voted yes, because I want to win the edition wars, and because I like to think that I will someday.

 

[nedjer]

I voted yes, because I want to win the edition wars, and because I like to think that I will someday.

Both sides lost the edition wars. They were on the same team but they 'dropped the ball' to beat up on each other, allowing the videogame and entertainment team to smash therough their defensive line for a profitable touchdown.

The few individuals who keep the myth of a 'glorious war' alive are much the same as those poor Japanese soldiers posted to remote Pacific islands where no one told them the war was over.

It's over, time to move on

 

[Raven Crowking]

Seriously? This is what you're going to try to argue? That the 1e gaming population is equal to either the 3e or 4e gaming populations?

No. Read what I wrote:

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.

Emphasis added because you apparently missed it before.


RC

 

[Beginning of the End]

I mean, just who are these people? I did not identify any of the individuals from whom I drew my generalization!

This, right here, is the root of your problem: The message you were replying to was rooted in the very specific, quoted context of the message it was replying to. You are ignoring that context in your effort to redefine the term "rules light" to mean something completely contrary to what the term has generally been understood to mean.

This behavior is not conducive to meaningful, mature conversation.

In other words: Please stop thread-crapping.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

How to put this....

Chill out. Really, dudes, chill. Step back. Take a breath. Be nice. Stop getting in each other's faces.

Is this somehow unclear, don't understand what I mean? Then E-mail or PM a moderator to discuss it.

 

[Hussar]

No. Read what I wrote:

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.

Emphasis added because you apparently missed it before.


RC

Yes, it is conjecture. I don't have exact numbers. I do however, entirely reject the idea that the number of people currently playing 1e is even remotely close to the number of people playing either 3e or 4e. We're talking an order of magnitude difference here.

Look, OSRIC, when it came out, had fantastic downloads. About 10 k according to its writer. Ten... thousand. That's it. I'm sure there have been more since, since that was a few years ago. But, still, if there were anything close to the couple of million current 3e or 4e gamers, you'd think that the first 1e product in twenty some years would gain a few more than a handful of thousand free downloads.

Which, in turn, means that 1e was not able to keep its audience. Because once upon a time, 1e DID have a million players (at least sales would indicate that - 1 million copies of Keep on the Borderland had to go somewhere). So, no, it could not keep its audience. It lost its audience over the years.

Heck, it lost half its audience when 2e came out.

In the end, I reject both of your conjectures - that there are even remotely close to similar numbers of current players, and, that from 1980 to now, there has been no drop in the number of 0e or 1e gamers.

 

[billd91]

Look, OSRIC, when it came out, had fantastic downloads. About 10 k according to its writer. Ten... thousand. That's it. I'm sure there have been more since, since that was a few years ago. But, still, if there were anything close to the couple of million current 3e or 4e gamers, you'd think that the first 1e product in twenty some years would gain a few more than a handful of thousand free downloads.

Why would someone need OSRIC if they have their original 1e rule books? That's what I'd turn to if I were planning on running 1e again. It's what I did turn to when I was playing it just a few years ago.

Fishing out a single old-school-oriented product (where there are quite a few more out there) and looking at its download stats (now over 40,000 for the 2008 version) won't tell you a hell of a lot reliable. Too much selection bias to infer much about the size of the 1e-playing community.

So let's not get crazy with the assumptions and shaky inferences here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, it is conjecture.

Then we agree, because that was my point.

In the end, I reject both of your conjectures - that there are even remotely close to similar numbers of current players, and, that from 1980 to now, there has been no drop in the number of 0e or 1e gamers.

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

 

[Ariosto]

In the end, I reject both of your conjectures ...

Please tell me where I made either conjecture.

Here's a really wild idea: Just accept that he is not making either conjecture.

The attempt to do the other thing seems just to devolve into claiming that someone did not really mean that he really meant just what he actually wrote.

If you are just dead set on believing that he really meant instead what he did not write, then it is all on you, a closed loop.