Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[MoogleEmpMog]

The collective sigh of relief in the WFRP fan community when it was announced that WFRPv2 would NOT be d20 would lead me to believe otherwise. The attitude that most Warhammer fans were fans simply because of the setting, not the system, is the elitism I'm talking about. I've had tons of discussions with people about Warhammer with other Warhammer fans and while the setting is always part of the appeal, the combat, skill and career systems are also major parts of what people talk about enjoying about Warhammer. I can certainly understand that not everyone feels that way, but to assume that the majority of people could care less about the system is, IMO and IME a stretch.

Here's the problem you have with what I, at least, am saying, and what I think JohnSnow is saying, too. (I mean, the problem you have aside from throwing around terms like "d20 elitist" in reference to at least one person who prefers HERO and SilCore to d20 and True20 to regular d20 and all of them to actual D&D).

First, when you say "Warhammer fans," you mean fans of the relatively niche Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. I mean fans of the wildly successful, industry-leading, multiple-electronic-game-spawning, stores-across-multiple-continents Warhammer Fantasy Battle. Some of whom may have played WHFR, but, if sales are any indication, many of whom did not.

If you asked me to sit down and design a Warhammer roleplaying game, I'd start with the battle and skirmish games and extrapolate the system from them. Obviously, character development and non-combat resolution systems would have to be put together, and having 1 Wound might be a bit lethal even for Warhammer , but that would be the baseline from which I worked. It would be a d6 system with stats in the 1-10 range if it seemed at all possible. In fact, if I could swing it, I'd make the whole thing compatible with the battle/skirmish rules. D&D grew from Chainmail; WHFR should, in my opinion, grow from WHFB.

From the sounds of it, neither d20 nor WHFR would suit my conception of a Warhammer Roleplaying Game based on system, which means that either would have to do so purely based on how well the system modelled the setting - independent of any system-based expectations I might have.

 

[buzz]

I can certainly understand that not everyone feels that way, but to assume that the majority of people could care less about the system is, IMO and IME a stretch.

I was not making the assumption that people could care less about the system. On the contrary.

I was basing my comments on anecdotal evidence from RPG fora that, while some people loved the WFRP1 system and some did not, one thign everyone could agree upon was that the setting rocked, and adventures like The Enemy Within were some of the best RPG adventuers any system had ever seen. Ergo, my observation that what really matters more than anything bout WFRP is the feel. I.e., turning the WFRP setting into FR (cinematic and high-magic) or Blue Rose's Aldea (horror-free, egalitarian and romantic) would take away everything that makes the Warhammer world what it is. Changing the die used to resolve actions would not.

Given that I don't think ay one of a single d20, two d10s, or a pool of d6s really screams "gritty" or "cinematic" any more than the other, I don't see that the "feel" of the Warhammer world needs to be married to any one in particular.

However, I can perfectly understand how a fanbase that's associated specific types of mechanics with roleplaying in the Warhammer world for about 20 years might associate those mechanics with the "feel" of it. I can also see why a publisher would want to build off this familiarity when marketing to said fanbase, and thus keep a revision as similar as possible.

This is not a qualitative statement about these mechanics; it's a marketing statement.

 

[Akrasia]

... To say that more people play d20 than any other system is not exactly a matter for debate. If you asked marketing people why, most of them would have to conclude, as Ryan did, that it was because most of the people playing decided it was "better." That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't room for other systems....

The fact that WotC products are far more available than other RPG products, and the name recognition that goes with "Dungeons and Dragons", were probably significant factors in determining d20's current position in the RPG market. (Not the only factors, to be sure, but I think it's rather simplistic to assume that d20's popularity is simply because people judged it to be 'better'.) I wouldn't be surprised if a huge number of people playing D&D are unaware of the existence of other RPGs. (The economic model of perfect competition with fully informed consumers is worlds away from the actual RPG market.)

...
I suppose you could draw the computer OS analogy here, with d20 being Windows and Warhammer being the Mac OS. Personally, I think that analogy's false, as I think the Mac OS is superior, but don't feel the same way about Warhammer...

I actually like that analogy, since I think WFRP is *much* better than 3e in capturing a 'grim and gritty' dark fantasy 'feel'. I also think WFRP does a very good job in combining lots of options for PCs, with relatively streamlined mechanics. (Of course, the fact that the mechanics are tied to a specific world helps enormously in accomplishing this -- an option not available to D&D.)

...
I played Warhammer with my group for the first time a few weeks ago. It was okay, but learning the system was a barrier for me. In fact, I was able to make a character without having the slightest idea how the system would work in play. We played a simplified version because we didn't know it. And for me, I don't see what the system added to my gaming experience. As an aside, our group has sorta decided that we only need one dark fantasy game - and we really like Midnight (two of us were eager to DM it), so we'll be shelving Warhammer except for sub-in games...

I played in that session as well, and my experience was the opposite (though, because it was a 'test session', it is important not to be too quick in making conclusive judgements about the game).

I thought that the mechanics were great: they were simple, intuitive, and seemed to do a good job in combining options with simplicity.

Playing in that WFRP session made me want to keep playing that game -- and the fact that the *system* did such a great job in supporting the *setting* is what led me to that view. In contrast to John, the system definitey added to *my* gaming experience.

Finally, as an aside, the fact that new players can generate WFRP characters with minimal understanding of the overall rules is a huge boon for the game.

It is a pity, John, that you're 'shelving' the WFRP game (I thought Steve wanted to keep going with it). If I were still over there, I would have voted differently. Oh well, Midnight look okay too...

...
And that's the point. We're making the decision to play Warhammer based on its setting, not its system. I'd say the same thing is true for all but the most diehard of the old WFRP fans.

Both the system and setting work for me. (Geez ... I'm starting to sound like a WFRP fanboy now ... )

 

[Ourph]

Here's the problem you have with what I, at least, am saying, and what I think JohnSnow is saying, too. (I mean, the problem you have aside from throwing around terms like "d20 elitist" in reference to at least one person who prefers HERO and SilCore to d20 and True20 to regular d20 and all of them to actual D&D).

I'm not really intending to call any one person a "d20 elitist". It's more of a label for an attitude I perceive in a lot of people to varying degrees, where the baseline assumption is that once the OGL was published any game designer or game fan who stuck with their own system must be doing so for some less than legitimate reason like "nostalgia" or "rebel counterculture mentality" rather than the perfectly legitimate reason that d20 isn't the only good RPG system in existence and not every game would actually benefit from being converted to a different set of rules.

First, when you say "Warhammer fans," you mean fans of the relatively niche Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

"Relatively niche" compared to what? Compared to WHFB....yeah, I'll give you that one, but then again RPGs have always been a "niche" compared to miniature wargaming. Compared to D&D3e? This year is the first time WHFRP has been in print since D&D3e came into being. In the days of GW WHFRP, it was much more than a niche game in the US and rivaled (in some countries even outdistanced) D&D in Europe. I guess my point would be, of the people who are familiar with Warhammer as an RPG, the vast majority care about more than just the setting material to at least some extent (and not just because it's what is "familiar" but because the system is actually a well designed game).

I was not making the assumption that people could care less about the system. On the contrary.

Yeah, I know. I was responding to John's post, not yours.

I was basing my comments on anecdotal evidence from RPG fora that, while some people loved the WFRP1 system and some did not, one thign everyone could agree upon was that the setting rocked, and adventures like The Enemy Within were some of the best RPG adventuers any system had ever seen.

I guess I'm not included in the definition of "everyone" then; since I've always felt TEW campaign, while it made good reading, was a railroady, description-heavy nightmare in actual play.

Given that I don't think ay one of a single d20, two d10s, or a pool of d6s really screams "gritty" or "cinematic" any more than the other, I don't see that the "feel" of the Warhammer world needs to be married to any one in particular.

I agree. If all you're after is the "feel" of Warhammer you can get it with most of the fantasy RPG systems out there. If what you're after is the actual mechanics, you can only get that with WHFRP. You seem to be under the impression that the "feel" is the only thing WHFRP fans like about the game - which IME is dead wrong. You also seem to be under the impression that the only possible reason someone might retain the WH game mechanics rather than converting to d20 is a marketing one - which IMO is also dead wrong. Another, and I think equally compelling, reason would be that the WFRPv1 system was good game design and scrapping it completely for something different wasn't necessary.

 

[JohnSnow]

This year is the first time WHFRP has been in print since D&D3e came into being. In the days of GW WHFRP, it was much more than a niche game in the US and rivaled (in some countries even outdistanced) D&D in Europe. I guess my point would be, of the people who are familiar with Warhammer as an RPG, the vast majority care about more than just the setting material to at least some extent (and not just because it's what is "familiar" but because the system is actually a well designed game).

Absolutely correct. But was the game's success in Europe due to superior mechanics, first mover advantage, or Games Workshop's strengths? I, for one, haven't a clue. In the US, it was a niche game, when compared to D&D. I think it's safe to say that more people have played D&D than have played WHFRP. So, if you accept that, there's a wider potential market that already knows how to play D&D than knows how to play WHFRP. And, details & additions aside, the d20 System is mechanically similar to old D&D.

I'm not saying that people who played WHFRP are inferior or that their game is inferior. What I am saying is that people who played WHFRP are outnumbered by those who've played D&D. Not everyone who has played D&D played WHFRP (I never did), but I imagine most, if not all, of those who played WHFRP had some D&D experience.

The ones who preferred WHFRP to D&D would be turned off by ditching the old mechanics. The ones who didn't care would not. Those who never played Warhammer certainly don't care about retaining the old mechanics. If the latter two groups is larger in size than the first, then to the extent that they have some experience with D&D or the d20 System, then the potential market would have been larger for a d20 version of WHFRP than it was for the revised version of the classic game.

MoogleEmpMog is probably correct that something closer to Warhammer Fantasy Battle would have an even larger target market from which to draw its sales (and potentially greater network effects). Note that I'm talking about market size, not what's needed to cater to a fan base. I am also not rendering any judgements on that fan base's opinion about the game, just arguing that a new system (and the WHFRP system is new to many people) is a barrier to entry for people interested in the product.

Now maybe you believe most of your sales are going to be to the people who preferred WHFRP to D&D, in which case retaining those customers is your goal. But that means that you've abandoned a significant fraction of your potential market, and instead chosen to serve a particular niche.

Niches can still be quite large. They are defined in business as being a smaller, more targeted piece of a larger market.

 

[JohnSnow]

As an aside, I'd suggest that if GW really feels that the mechanics of the WHFRP are unique and marketable, they should license those mechanics and let the market decide which system is superior.

But I doubt that'll happen.

 

[The Shaman]

If GW really feels that Warhammer's mechanics are unique and marketable, I'd suggest they OGL those mechanics and let the market decide which system is superior.

Is this really how we decide if something is 'better' than something else? By holding what amounts to a commercial popularity contest?

Is McDonalds the 'best' food because of its sales figures? Is Wal-Mart the 'best' store because of its market dominance?

Did all of those game companies who took advantage of the OGL do so because d20 is such a 'superior system', or because they could make a buck by piggy-backing on the name of Dungeons and Dragons and Hasbro/WotC's marketing machine?

This is the whole part of the Mearls/Dancey argument that I find repugnant: that the most objective measure of product's quality is its market share.

I have a Feathered Friends down sleeping bag, one of the finest bags of its kind produced in the world - however, Feathered Friends' sales wouldn't be a blip on the radar of Kelty. Does this mean that Kelty makes a superior product? Not on any day ending in the letter 'Y', it doesn't.

 

[JohnSnow]

Is this really how we decide if something is 'better' than something else? By holding what amounts to a commercial popularity contest?

This is the whole part of the Mearls/Dancey argument that I find repugnant: that the most objective measure of product's quality is its market share.

Well, in a market economy - yes. It is, in fact, the only objective standard we have. Alternatively, we could appoint some blue-ribbon panel of "gaming experts" to determine what kind of game we should all play. Of course, they might pick a game the majority of people didn't like. Since the success of a game comes down to "do people like it," the only non-elitist approach is to make several different games and let people decide for themseves what they want to play (and therefore buy). If more people want to play something, it's safe to say that as far as the majority is concerned, that game is "better."

Obviously, there is room for niche products, but those are going to be much smaller portions of the larger market. Which is all Ryan and Mike said to begin with!

If you could somehow charge more for a higher-quality game, you'd have what's called "market segmentation" which is precisely what happens in the case of restaurants (and sleeping bags).

 

[The Shaman]

Obviously, there is room for niche products, but those are going to be much smaller portions of the larger market. Which is all Ryan and Mike said to begin with!

No, what they said is that d20 is a better system because it sells better - that's a akin to saying that Big Macs are better than prime rib because there are more Big Macs sold in a day than there are prime rib dinners.

The only thing that sales can reliably tell you is what sells better - whether that can be attributed to the quality of the product, the number of venues in which it sells, the marketing and advertising budget, or any of a number of other factos it doesn't say. This is as hollow an argument as they come.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Wal-Mart is the "best" store in terms of consistently providing low prices. That appears to be the #1 issue for most consumers. In my experience, it also usually has solid customer service, clean stores and a broad if not deep selection.

In almost every measure that isn't entirely subjective, Wal-Mart probably is the "best store." Which isn't to say I like it - I prefer a deep, narrow selection.

As for McDonald's, it's primary appeal is not that most people like it the best, it's that very few people really dislike it. Thus, it's often the choice for mixed groups whose tastes in more specific foods vary. It's also relatively cheap.

I would assume that Mongoose, who have made non-d20-based games and who use neither the d20 logo nor any reference to Dungeons & Dragons, made OGL Conan a d20-based game because they liked the mechanics. I would assume that Green Ronin developed Mutants & Masterminds and later Blue Rose and True20 from d20 for the same reason. d20 seems as good a system as any for Warcraft or DragonMech or the Iron Kingdoms. Did some companies jump on the bandwagon to try to take advantage of D&D? Sure. Do the ones who are still around and making d20 products use the system for that reason (considering that that reason failed to actually, y'know, WORK)? I doubt it.

I fail to see what makes Mearls' and Dancey's argument "repugnant," even if it may, in fact, be wrong. For that matter, I'm not entirely sure where they made this argument. Dancey's initial piece discussed the difference in "handling time" between Rules-Lite and Rules-Heavy, as shown by his study. Mearls posted that to his blog and has discussed game design theory.

What keeps Feathered Friends sleeping bags from competing with Kelty's? I assume the former suffer from either a) limited market exposure, b) high price or c) limited supply. Also, some people (perhaps many?) are allergic to down, which limits the market somewhat.