Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Ourph]

The question each publisher has to ask themselves when they create an RPG in the post-OGL/D20 world is this: Is my game so much better than an OGL/D20 option that I want to force my customers & players to pay a tax to play that game, and will those people perceive the value I'm offering and voluntarily submit to that taxation?

Whoa! Is it just me or did somebody just spill a 55 gallon barrel of hubris in this thread?!

Publishers might also ask themselves, "Is the OGL/d20 option really good enough that I want to forego trying to make something better?". In other words, it's not beyond the realm of reason to ask youself if the game design you get when you use the OGL option is worth what you paid for it.

Another question they might want to ask is, "What real proof is there that learning different rules for different games is something the consumer actually thinks about when making gaming purchases?". The only evidence I've ever seen has come directly from the entity that benefits most if such a thing is believed to be true by their competitors. Yet, no OGL/d20 game even comes close to competing with D&D in the way that the Storyteller system or GURPS do, despite their "obvious" handicap in having a different ruleset than the market leader.

 

[romp]

The question each publisher has to ask themselves when they create an RPG in the post-OGL/D20 world is this: Is my game so much better than an OGL/D20 option that I want to force my customers & players to pay a tax to play that game, and will those people perceive the value I'm offering and voluntarily submit to that taxation?

I had come to pretty much the same conclusion myself a while back, in setting forth into the brave little industry of RPG publishing, do you wnt the familiarity of the d20 logo on your product? If not then you need a lot of redeeming qualities on your side to get customers to buy a product that will demand extra time and effort (tax) to learn and use.

 

[Staffan]

I can tell you based on lots of readily available data that "percentages" are less "user friendly" than whole numbers - that's not an RPG thing, that's just a math thing. And percentages are one of the first things you see when you open the book. That's just one of many, many things that makes the game "complex".

If you're going to use percentiles as multipliers, perhaps (e.g. "Your carrying capacity is 25% of your strength score"). But used as success rates, they work pretty darn well.

On the Swedish RPG market, the absolute dominant game in the 80s was Drakar och Demoner, the first edition of which was a translation of Basic Roleplaying. Its market dominance in Sweden was akin to the dominance Dungeons & Dragons had in the US, possibly even more (though part of that probably had to do with Sweden having a smaller market overall, and thus less room for other games). That game used percentiles for skills. There was an expansion (Drakar och Demoner Expert) that changed the percentiles into d20 skill values, but the basic game still used percentiles, and it seemed to do pretty well with newbies.

 

[romp]

I have always preferred percentages in game stats, and I am not a math person despite having an engineering degree. So I guess that I am bucking at least one trend in terms of the "mainstream".

 

[RyanD]

Have you accounted for the possible effects of market saturation as part of the business slow-down? Or the changing demographics of the core audience for RPGs?

Yes. I accounted for it. Then I helped sell 300,000 player's handbooks in a month.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Yes. I accounted for it. Then I helped sell 300,000 player's handbooks in a month.

The cut-throat pricing then didn't hurt with that volume either.

 

[RyanD]

The cut-throat pricing then didn't hurt with that volume either.

The SRD was posted essentially the same day and was totally free.

 

[The Shaman]

Thus, "sales" are not an DETERMINATOR of "quality". Sales are, over an extended period of time, an INDICATOR of quality - they represent a series of decisions made independently by a large number of people that the game is worth investment of limited resources - that it is, in fact, "better" in the opinion of the players, with both intrinsic and external factors fully valued than its competition.

This is a strong argument - I concur.

The issue of not using D20 (or any other game system) is not necessarily an issue of instrinsic "quality".

Absolutely.

The question each publisher has to ask themselves when they create an RPG in the post-OGL/D20 world is this: Is my game so much better than an OGL/D20 option that I want to force my customers & players to pay a tax to play that game, and will those people perceive the value I'm offering and voluntarily submit to that taxation?

My opinion is that for most games, that answer is usually "no". Which is not the same thing as saying "Ryan says no other games should be published" or "Ryan thinks D20 is the only viable game" or even "Ryan thinks all RPGs should be D20". It would be fair to say that my opinion is that "RPGs that feature parties of characters who band together and seek challenges and be rewarded with increased power, sold through the traditional hobby gaming market, and designed to be played by hobby gaming players, will sell better and be more popular if they are OGL/D20 games than if they are not."

I think your 'tax' analogy falls flat - if the players enjoy the system, then the 'tax' is willingly paid in full - but the section I've highlighted above I can accept as valid.

In all sincerity, I appreciate your time and effort to parse that out.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Nobody can give me an example of a "bad quality" game that suceeded over time (let us say a minimum of 12 months) because it was backed by great marketing or a fantastically popular license.
"

I can. 3rd edition D&D. You'll never convince me being kicked in the groin is a "good" thing. I've experienced it. I don't like it. Same with D&D. I don't care if every other person in the world likes it. That still makes it a bad game, as far as I'm concerned.

Role playing one battle and a shopping trip afterwards that takes up two gaming nights is not my idea of fun. Wal-Mart the rpg might appeal to some folks, but not me. Now, I'm not dissing D20 or the OGL in general, I like C&C, but 3e has way too many problems for me to ever consider it a good game.

Thus, I prefer C&C. It is a "good" game, because I enjoy it. Nothing else matters. I have fun when playing it. I do not have fun playing 3e, so that makes it a "bad" game. Only my experience counts. Not yours, not the rest of the fricking world's either. I'll continue to delude myself into thinking I'm having fun while I whitewash Tom's fence and play C&C.

 

[Devall2000]

In regard to naming a 'rules lite' RPG that lasted longer than 5 years, the one that pops out in my mind is the Marvel Super Heroes RPG that was put out by TSR from 1984 thru the early 90's.

-Jamie