Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5255251" data-attributes="member: 80487">Getting back on topic:In my experience, D&amp;D was not what I would call &quot;dominant&quot; 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&amp;D market share was not exclusive. It was not a case of having to buy and play either D&amp;D or another RPG.That is why I would not call it &quot;dominant&quot;. I would call it pervasive or prevalent, and note its facility (back then) as a &quot;common tongue&quot; in the hobby. (With what &quot;edition&quot; 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 &quot;dominant&quot;.It would be like calling the tricycle &quot;dominant&quot; 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 &quot;classic&quot; of the field.At any rate, it is not what &quot;dominant&quot; means to me.&quot;Dominant&quot; to me means the game shoves others aside. When people will play only &quot;X edition D&amp;D&quot;, 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&amp;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 &quot;d20 System&quot; glut that came well before 4e made those products obsolete to the crew concerned with perhaps the best candidate at the moment for &quot;one dominant game&quot;.Shades of the Potato Blight, maybe.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5255251, member: 80487"] 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 [b]the D&D market share was not exclusive[/b]. It was not a case of having to buy and play [i]either[/i] D&D [i]or[/i] 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 [i]only[/i] "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. [/QUOTE]

Verification