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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 175789" data-attributes="member: 2205">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.</blockquote>

Verification