In defense of Open Gaming

[Orcus]

I wasnt saying the people who run Decipher dont have a clue. I dont know them. I have no idea. I was just talking about the people who were posting on that specific thread.

Clark

 

[Desdichado]

Henry:
In Monte's perspective, Classes and levels (along with hit points and the concept of dungeon-based play) were two of the things that have kept D&D both the most popular RPG and from fading into oblivion years ago.

And he's got a lotta evidence to back it up. You've gotta think about it - no other RPG has lasted in the sales numbers it has and staying power of its players for the past 25 years - ever. Its sales figures, from TSR till now, register in the millions of copies sold, versus the thousands or tens of thousands of copies sold by all other companies.

Personally, I think Monte seriously underestimates the momentum and network externalities of D&D relative to other companies. He actually has no evidence to back up his assertions, because he makes no attempt whatsoever to link those particular mechanics causally to the success of D&D.

I'd go so far as to agree with him that conceptually he's right: simplicity of play is a major factor in any game gaining lasting success. However, this is where his argument also falls apart, because D&D, especially of past editions, has never been a simple game. Holding out the example of hit points as a simplification hardly negates the scores of other factors that are needless complex (his other example of classes being one, for instance.) His assertion that levels are an important carrot for continued play also rings false as plenty of other carrots could be (and should be if the GM is any good whatsoever) offered in place of simple levelling. He makes no good case for classes other than ease of play for beginners, which is hardly something to base the continuance of the hobby on (especially when Wizards of the Coast market research shows that new gamers are rare and they're essentially selling to their established customer base already.)

In other words, there's plenty of reasons why D&D is the biggest by far of the roleplaying games out there. Holding out any specific mechanic (or play function, like dungeoneering) as a mechanism of that success is completely unproveable, and extremely unlikely in my opinion.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

I still frequent Palladium Book's messageboards because I still post up notifications of some of my homebrew stuff, answer questions, etc., and, unfortunately, the d20/WotC bashing on those boards are the worst I've ever seen. Most of the people there (including the moderators), have an entirely misinformed or uneducated understanding of the OGL and d20 STL (even those who say they've had copyright lawyers review the OGL and d20 STL). Messages such as "OGL and WotC suck" or "WotC is evil" are quite common. There are also people who, from time to time, try and convince other posters to go to d20 dedicated boards and spam them. Sometimes you just can't rely on people to remain mature when they can hide so easily behind the faceless nature of the Internet.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

levels, customer bases, and the d20 license

Joshua writes:

especially when Wizards of the Coast market research shows that new gamers are rare and they're essentially selling to their established customer base already

This is absolutely not true. I've certainly read Anthony Valterra or Ryan Dancey on these very boards say that D&D is so big that there's no way they could grow by taking market share away from the other RPGs, so they HAVE to grow the RPG market.

In fact, that's the basis for the OGL/d20 license. Everyone else in the business eco-system produces the low margin/niche products to keep existing players happy while WoTC gets to go after the new gamer.

I agree with Monte (and have written at length on this very topic in other threads). Levels are an amazing carrot. If you don't believe me, check out computer RPGs, where there is effectively no CRPG that don't use levels. Even the skill based ones like Fallout feel the need to make leveling a big deal and give you substantial OOMPH.

My guess is that any non-levelling based CRPG would totally flop.

 

[Desdichado]

Thorin Stoutfoot:
This is absolutely not true. I've certainly read Anthony Valterra or Ryan Dancey on these very boards say that D&D is so big that there's no way they could grow by taking market share away from the other RPGs, so they HAVE to grow the RPG market.

Umm, dude, I used the same quote to make my point. Prior to the release of 3e and the conscious effort to recruit new folks into the fold, WotC market research showed that they were essentially selling to an already established market base. Saying that you have to grow the market doesn't contradict the statement that in the past the market has not grown. Reread the entire statement: it clears it up pretty well. And the point remains: using a mechanic that really only benefits new players doesn't contribute to 25+ years of success of a game that hasn't been growing the market. Therefore, it can't possibly be considered a fundamental building block of D&D's history of success relative to other RPGs.

Now, your statement about levelling and CRPGs isn't really valid, because in a CRPG levelling up is just about the only carrot you can offer, especially in the extremely popular massive multiuser environments like Asheron's Call or EverQuest. However, in a pen and paper RPG that isn't true. There are tons of carrots; story-related, item-related, quest-related, etc. that can be incorporated and tailored by the GM as needed. CRPGs don't have that luxury, so they really aren't a good comparison.

 

[Zulkir]

Anthony rants

>>2) Has allowed WotC, a company many of us feel is the evil empire, to gain even more control over the game industry. The game industry is now, essentially, being controlled by a bunch of suit-wearing morons who don't actually play the games they sell. <<

This is the part that ticks me off enough to respond. This is, in my humble opinion, unmitigated b*llsh*t! All of the people who are directly involved with the creation of RPGs play D&D.

Thus:
Everyone in R&D plays all of the time
Everyone on the business team is in a regular game
Everyone who does our marketing plays
Everyone on the D&D Project Management team plays
Everyone in Direct Sales plays
Our hobby sales person plays
Everyone who works on Dungeon and Dragon magazines plays
Everyone who worked in conventions plays (I think, there might have been one or two exceptions to this one)

Now, those who may not play (once again there might be some exceptions)

Our accountants (finance)
Our payroll people
Our janitors
Our lawyers
Some of the people who only work on our other products or only do Administrative functions (and alot of them play too)

Is it impossible that this guy heard someone from WotC make a rude comment about gamers and say that they never play the game? No, its not impossible. But it wasn't anyone who had any contact with D&D in any way.

Anthony Valterra (a gamer since junior high and I'm 38 years old)

 

[Mark]

Re: Anthony rants

Anthony Valterra (a gamer since junior high and I'm 38 years old)

Looks like we've been playing about the same length of time.

You certainly don't fit the sterotype some of those morons would like to portray to bolster their idiotic arguments.

Out of curiosity, how often do you have to actually wear a "suit" to work?

 

[GrimJesta]

I just cant believe that people would whine and say that "WotC sucks" just because tehy dont play D&D! Who cares if you dont play the game: that doesnt mean you should bash it just to make yourself feel beter. Ugh, I hate BS elitism...

-=Grim=-

 

[Umbran]

And the point remains: using a mechanic that really only benefits new players doesn't contribute to 25+ years of success of a game that hasn't been growing the market. Therefore, it can't possibly be considered a fundamental building block of D&D's history of success relative to other RPGs.

Actually, I think it can. How?

Well, think - how many D&D players were there in 1977? In 1989? In 2000? Maybe in the last few years of 2E, the group didn't grow much, but over the long haul, D&D has been hooking new gamers. D&D didn't become the biggest boy on the block based solely on first printing 1E players.

And, even if it wasn't growing the market, you need new gamers to sustain the market. People drop out of gaming all the time - they get jobs, have babies, get other interests. If you don't replace them with new gamers, the market shrinks. If the market was not shrinking at a precipitous rate, you can be sure there were new gamers getting hooked.

And being the biggest boy on the block has played a major role in the game's longevity. Being big means greater numbers and diversity of adventure and campaign products, which in turn keep player interest longer...

So, you don't become biggest without hooking new gamers. You don't stay biggest without hooking new gamers to replace those who drop out. And being biggest increases longevity. So, those aspects which are attractive to new gamers do help account for D&D's long-term success.

 

[Desdichado]

Umbran: those are actually good points: even for the market to remain the same, there had to be some turnover in players.

However, I question whether or not the presence of classes is what caused those new folks to turn to D&D instead of some other game. I think the network externalities are what caused this; i.e. the fact that there is a much larger, more visible and more easily accessible base of fellow players.