In defense of Open Gaming

[bwgwl]

Re: levelling vs. slow advancement

I've played slow advancement games such as GURPS. Yuck! 1 feat or skill point per session? It's not substantial enough to get excited about. Especially compared to D&D, where there are certain key levels such as 5th level for Wizards, and 6th level for fighters where certain benefits suddenly kick in (like more attacks, or 3rd level spells) and it really does feel good.

I don't think anyone can argue that it's insignificant.

IMO this is exactly why leveled systems like D&D are more newbie-friendly.

for someone who's never gamed before, if they only ever see incremental increases, it's not enough to really "register on the radar," and it doesn' t feel like they're going anywhere. no perceivable improvement often equals no more gaming...

with a system like D&D (particularly 3e), around the third session or so, BAM! 2nd level. immediate and noticeable improvement. newbie is hooked.

Joshua: i understand your comments about there being many other "carrots" available in a game: increased social position, wealth, fame, land, followers, etc. but (again IMO) i don't think anything "grabs" gamers like personal power -- what my character can do, by himself. and that's what leveling is all about!

 

[Umbran]

Actually, I think it can be explained by the player's network entirely. Sure, if the game literally sucked, it wouldn't have been enough to carry it where it is. That's not reason to try and link specific mechanics causally to the success of D&D.

Well, I guess you may believe what you wish. I personally think that position relies on gamers being sheep. They start playing D&D only because others are doing it, and lack the initiative to try something else and choose it as better. Humbug to that.

In fact, those same mechanics are what allowed White Wolf to steal away tons of D&D players during the early/mid 90s.

I make a mild joke here - you say this as if D&D game mechanics could have disallowed it: "I'm sorry, Jim, but on page 75 of the PHB, it says that D&D players cannot play WW games..."

More seriously - Your contention that this stealing took place is unsupported. At least at first glance, it is even in contradiction with Mr. Cook and Mr. Dancey, who say that D&D is so big that other games don't really show upon the radar by comparison. In order to have remained so through the 90s, the number of players actually stolen cannot have been particularly large.

In my personal experience, I didn't see any players stolen. I now a whole bunch of D&D players who tried WW. None of them abandoned D&D. Mind you, that's anecdotal evidence only.

It was not game mechanics that got players for White Wolf games. It was game-world style, and social fashions. In the wake of Yuppies, being grim, dark, and morally relative was more attractive to some folks than the more four-color, epic heroism or standard D&D. The early success of White Wolf games had more to do with why black became a fashionable color for teens than it did with the specifics of game mechanics.

Oh, by the way, your position has a certain illogic to it. You say that Monte cannot claim that game mechanics are a reason for D&D's success, yet you use game mechanics as a reason for White Wolf's success. That's a double standard.

 

[Corinth]

Then we'll have to get the word out and change public perception that the Open Gaming License is not only for the d20 System but for any open rules system.

I'm doing this at RPG Net, in the usual beat-it-through-their-skull manner that is necessary there. (If I didn't enjoy fighting so much, I'd left long ago.)

I mean after over a year since their introduction, they still confused the trademark license with the Open Gaming License, and it doesn't help when no one is willing to go forth and produce an OGL-based product without the market value of the trademark brand.

That's because there are precious few folks who know this and possess both the time and the inclination to do so. I do what I can, but sometimes it feels like I'm alone against the zombie hordes.

So here's hoping that S&SS will succeed with EverQuest ... Although I have had earlier hope that AEG would stick to their original gameplan of making Spycraft and the hoping-to-see-soon Farscape as OGL-based products.

It may be an unwise move, but Action! System are gaining support from third-party publishers, especially those who "spat" on Wizards.

I eagerly await to see what becomes of this, especially if it turns out as expected and fails.

 

[Desdichado]

Umbran:
It was not game mechanics that got players for White Wolf games. It was game-world style, and social fashions. In the wake of Yuppies, being grim, dark, and morally relative was more attractive to some folks than the more four-color, epic heroism or standard D&D. The early success of White Wolf games had more to do with why black became a fashionable color for teens than it did with the specifics of game mechanics.

Oh, by the way, your position has a certain illogic to it. You say that Monte cannot claim that game mechanics are a reason for D&D's success, yet you use game mechanics as a reason for White Wolf's success. That's a double standard.

Not really. There's a difference between claiming that bad mechanics can cause folks to leave a game and claiming that good mechanics will make a game successful over other factors. Not only are D&D's mechanics -- especially of prior editions, which is what really matters in this case, since Monte's speaking of 25 years of history -- not good enough to be a significant factor in keeping players, but they have in the past been bad, inflexible and arcane enough to actually turn people to other games.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

*clutches copy of 1977 PBH to chest*

1e mechanics are great! None of that storyteller stuff for this gamer!

 

[Umbran]

Not really. There's a difference between claiming that bad mechanics can cause folks to leave a game and claiming that good mechanics will make a game successful over other factors.

You might want to go back and reread Monte's original article. He actualy does not say that the good mechanics made the game successful over other reasons. To say that one thing is neccessary does not imply that it is the only necessary thing. The fact that Monte does not address other factors does not constitute an active statement that they are not important.

Not only are D&D's mechanics -- especially of prior editions, which is what really matters in this case, since Monte's speaking of 25 years of history -- not good enough to be a significant factor in keeping players, but they have in the past been bad, inflexible and arcane enough to actually turn people to other games.

Yes, you made the same assertion before. Restating it does not constitute support. Would you care to try to expain why your bad-game-rule explanation is superior to my game-world-fashion explanation? Even if actual evidenceis not available, perhaps you'd like to try for a compelling argument?

As an aside, if you read Monte's article, he specifically states:

"The genius (or luck, or both) that I am talking about has to do with the early days of the game's development..."

The early days does not equate to the whole history of the game. Later, he implies that many of these facets do, in fact, have influence over the whole history, but his thesis is about the early game, which suggests that he is more talking about times before the "network externalities" become a major influence.