Mike Mearls Talks (er, Tweets) About the Industry

I think history has proven Mike wrong. The problem is that D&D isn't a game. D&D is a framework that allows 5 players to make a game.

So if you like boardgames, you got lots of different games to choose from. If you like RPGs, you got lots of games to choose from. But those games are the things GMs do with D&D. My campaign is my own game I've developed. Your campaign is yours.

I think there's a market for lots of different RPGs in that sense. Because each gaming group playing D&D is running its own unique game, in their own homebrew setting with their own house rules.

But I don't think there's a market for different *frameworks*. I think there's demand for *a* framework, that players use to develop lots of different games.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I mean 3.5 more then doubled the run of the official 3e

True. And Pathfinder isn't D&D 3.25, is it.

and I am sure that Essentials sold just as well as 4e as well as doubling the life of the edition so obviously it works.

No to both: Essentials got it's ass kicked by Pathfinder on release (for one quarter), while the earlier release of Pathfinder didn't beat the 4e supplements it was up against, which were reputedly under-performing the 4e release dramatically. So, by inference, Essentials did pretty badly. And, Essentials only lasted 2 years - unless you want to give it credit for lingering on store shelves, with no new books, while Next was developed & playtested. Really, the Essentials form factor was abandoned immediately, with HoS and later books published in the usual hardcover format, and they pulled back slightly from the Essentials design philosophy, after HoS, as well. So even two years is kinda pushing it.

During that time, though, D&D went back to out-selling Pathfinder. Until it stopped putting out new books, then it lagged (publishing nothing new but staying #2) until 5e came roaring back.

It'll be interesting to see how 5.5 goes....

I dont really like stealth errata where we can both be playing from what looks like the same book but my rules are different to your rules. After the debacle with Veterans Armour I do not think "official" errata is appropriate for my table except in a case by case basis.

Veteran's armor was profoundly broken before the errata, profoundly nerfed afterwards. Fairly typical of 'update' style errata, really, and, IMHO, indicative of a cynical formula: sell a book with a few (or more than a few) broken bits that powergamers will salivate over. Wait a little while, then cut those bits out from under them with an update that nerfs 'em. Lather, rinse, repeat. Essentials moved away from frequent updates, and left more broken stuff in longer.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The game you describe would be golden, but unfortunately it's a mere dream (and for many years to come, since most of the issues are totally independent of whether you would watch this sim on a monitor or with VR), even the best open world games like GTA V are but a pale shadow of your vision of what freedom such a game should provide

The problem with VR worlds is just a compounded version of the problems with MMORPG worlds, etc. AUTHORSHIP. In D&D you simply make up the important bits, and at most the GM has to fill in a few things along the way as the game goes on. Its work, but its quite easy for one person to make up a campaign world and run it every week, we all do it.

But a VR world can't be made that way. The whole point being that it is totally immersive. If it doesn't provide universal detail, then it won't work. As a DM I can map out 100 trees in the forest, just the ones that are near the encounter areas, and a map of the trails, and etc. Heck I can repurpose those maps, make stuff up on the fly, etc. If you make the VR forest you gotta come up with all 100 million trees, and that's just the start.

Sure, you can try to do procedural environments and blah blah blah, but the human brain can tell. Its VERY good at catching that kind of thing, and we're FAR from having invented the type of authoring tools that would allow a 'godlike GM' to simply say "OK, I want an early medieval Frankish motte with a village, a road over here that goes to a city on the other side of forest, a creek over there, etc etc etc and have it all come out. Not without spending VAST time.

This is why movies cost a quarter billion $ a pop if they're full of CGI, why MMORPG worlds are really so limited and paltry when it comes down to it, and why stuff like spinozajack's fantasy is pure fantasy. It is unlikely to be reality in our lifetimes is the truth. We're moving forward on all fronts but its a HUGE increment of software advance to get there still.

And then think about the ramifications. Its going to be expensive, so it will be costly to play. Will such a VR really replace D&D if it costs $7/hr per player, every week? Plus whatever it costs to store your characters, and etc. Nor does VR actually solve all the problems of playing an RPG. It has in fact many of the problems that LARPs have. You can't exceed your own limitations. How do you play a monkish gong-fu artist when you're a stumbling clod? The system isn't just going to have to be "hey, I can move around in this world!" you have to be able to function in both the meta-game and the in-game reality within that application. I'm sure people will eventually work it out, but the early games in this genre will be CRUDE.

I think D&D and its ilk are safe for a while. In fact I think telepresence is the real killer where RPGs are concerned. I mean we play online now, but its PRIMITIVE. What will come MUCH sooner than some fantasy VR world is a real VTT that works. One that kicks ass and makes it as good as being there. That will open some real floodgates.

 

[Iosue]

"Yeah, current RPG fans have a script that plays out badly for publishers when those publishers are part of a publicly-listed toy company with unrealistic expectations about the value of a tabletop RPG, a problem that disappears when the tabletop RPG belongs, instead, to a smaller, private company."

[snip]

In reality, the script playing out badly for publishers really only refers to WotC; plenty of other publishers - Paizo, Pelgrane, MCG etc... - seem to have found their niche and are thriving. It's the big corporate expectations which are WotC's problem and hiving off the tabletop RPG while retaining IP rights is the only way to deal with that.

I don't agree. The whole context of this discussion is "Where is the science fiction RPG with the same kind of market penetration as 5e?" To say that Paizo, Pelgrane, MCG etc. have "found their niche" is exactly the problem. No other RPG can compete with 5e's market, except for possibly Pathfinder, which is still fantasy D&D. And even Paizo is looking at alternative revenue streams to supplement the RPG.

And the problem is, successful RPGs find their initial success with RPG fans, who, as Mearls notes, then demand more options, more complexity. Answering that demand is great for the game's short term, continued success, but makes it difficult to slowly and steadily build a market of non-RPG fans, as D&D did. So, does the publisher respond to the short-term demand, or do they play the long game, hoping they can eventually break into the mainstream? To what extent is the latter made difficult by the fans' response to the rejecting the former? We already see how much flack WotC is getting for slow-playing expansion. They (and D&D) are big enough to take the short-term hit and still play the long-game. What non-D&D fantasy game and/or publisher out there is big enough to do the same?

The Dancey Roundtable a while back was instructive. You have two heavyweights: WotC/D&D and Paizo/Pathfinder. They can count units sold in six or seven figures. Everyone else, even the most successful, are waaaay behind. Perennial ICv2 Top 5 finisher Evil Hat games has, lifetime, sold 211,000 units of everything in their RPG lines. Per this, WotC was selling that much in Player Handbooks per year during 3e. They probably sold at least twice that in 5e PHBs this year. Burning Wheel sold 5,000 units and people in the industry were agreeing that that was a success.

Most of the other companies are thriving based on Kickstarter, which lets them come up with an idea, test the market, and then publish to the exact size of the market willing to buy the product. That's great for giving them stability and avoiding costly failures. But it also means that it's highly unlikely that a game they produce will ever get the market penetration D&D has. Their niche becomes well-protected, but it is nonetheless a niche.

Changing subjects, regarding using settings as "expansions", I think this is a viable strategy. The problem with TSR was not that they used settings as expansions, but that they were trying to do them all at the same time. Ideally, what they'd do (and what I suspect they are trying right now) is have a setting expansion. Support it for a bit, and then stop. Let whatever product that is out there in the wild do its thing, and move to the next expansion (setting). Support that for a while, and then stop. You can still get the richness of variety of different settings, but you're not killing your return on investment.

 

[Jester David]

If that is your criteria then the Players Options books do not fit. They never replaced the core books. They did not serve as a way to get errata in print. They never claimed to be an evergreen product or a tweek to the rules.

I meant the reprint of the core rulebooks that preceded the Player's Option line.

The best comparison is the Pathfinder Unchained where they give you the optional rules from which you can choose to use or not. I have a friend who loved the critical hit tables but I did not use them in the games that I ran.

Or Unearthed Arcana for 1e or 3e.

Everyone knows it is a cash grab but that does not stop the fans from buying it anyway.

Except all the fans that don't. In two years, 3.0e sold almost twice as many PHBs as 3.5e sold in five years. And many of those sales would have been new players or replacement copies and would have applied to the 3.0 books had those been available instead.

I mean 3.5 more then doubled the run of the official 3e and I am sure that Essentials sold just as well as 4e as well as doubling the life of the edition so obviously it works.

Again, how long 3e would have continued without the 3.5e revamp is debatable. It might have gone on another three or four years. The impetus for the 3.5e release was because the management of WotC likely wasn't used to publishing and the low sustained profits it produces and wanted something more in line with Magic where there's a Core set that sells well every year or two. But that didn't work.
Arguably, 3e could have continued just as long and just as well if they had released all the books following the 3.5e relaunch instead.

Essentials went over worse. The manager of the D&D line resigned, they cancelled a half dozen books, delayed one to turn it into a hardcover rather than a softcover, and immediately started work on 5e. Essentials killed 4e. Which is the danger of a relaunch...

I dont really like stealth errata where we can both be playing from what looks like the same book but my rules are different to your rules. After the debacle with Veterans Armour I do not think "official" errata is appropriate for my table except in a case by case basis.

I'm talking about real errata. Typo fixing and clarification. Not the updates of 4e, which I don't think anyone wants.

Problematic rules can be fixed via the Unearthed Arcana and Sage Advice columns.
If, after a few years, there's enough content there they could amalgamate that into a book. Or do an optional revised PHB that incorporates some of that stuff,

 

[Polyhedral_Columbia]

Twelve actions for transforming the 6th Edition of D&D into a Eurogame without boardgamizing it.

Twelve actions for transforming the 6^th Edition of D&D into a Eurogame without boardgamizing it.

Action 1: Keep it Simple. Boil down the rules to the very barest minimum, with the very least bookkeeping...basically "5e Basic Rules meets the OD&D White Box". Much more succinct than 5E Basic. Take the most streamlined options from all editions. Four races. Four classes. Only "coins" (no GP, SP, CP). No skills...only ability checks. No feats. Level up after each adventure (no XP). Reach level 20 in twenty sessions.

Action 2: Core D&D is D&D. Make this Core D&D set...simple as it is...the baseline for all further products and Organized Play. It's not just a "lead in" to the "real" game. The Core D&D text...I'd call it a booklet, rather than a book...is available at various price-points: as a free PDF, as a super-low-cost black-and-white “poor-boy’s” paperback, and as a deluxe hardcover with original, full-color art. But the text is the same.

Action 3: A Cultural Community of Authors. Offer a simple “D&D Compatible” license from the start. So that gamers take up the role of stakeholders, instead of just "customers" and “fans/fanatics.” This is a requisite for evoking a long-term culture. Craft the license so that (like Pathfinder Compatible) these Third Party offerings may not be standalone, and must refer back to the Core D&D book. Other than that, keep it simple. Promise up front to keep this Core D&D edition stable for exactly 10 years. (No 3.5E rupture of the community substance.)

Action 4: World-Hopping is D&D. Make an extradimensional nexus the "Core Setting"...either the World Serpent Inn, or the City of Doors. The D&D version of Monte Cook's "The Strange." Write and publicize D&D in such a way that world-hopping is an “expected” way to play D&D. (In Gygax’s day, it was!) Retool the D&D Multiverse to be viewed as a single "mega-setting". 5E is already going in that direction; for example, by listing all the worlds (even Mystara and Birthright) in the DMG, and by how in the newest APs, there are suggested placement notes for each world. (Despite my griping about the state of D&D, this is a good move -- thanks Mearls!)

Action 5: All Genres are D&D. For 6E, “D&D” just means “RPG”, in a similar way that “Kleenex” means “facial tissue.” This is already happening: during the 4E era, Gamma World was branded "D&D.” For 6E, incorporate every single RPG IP which is owned by WotC into the D&D Multiverse. Not only FR, GH, DL, EB, DS, BM, MY, BR, RL, PS, and SJ...but also Nerath, Jakandor, Pelinore, Thunder Rift, Ghostwalk...every d20 Modern/Future/Past campaign model...every Alternity setting...every Amazing Engine setting...the old TSR IPs: Dawn Patrol, Boot Hill, Top Secret, Gangbusters...the worlds of standalone TSR novels such as "Jewels of the Elvish"...WotC’s former peripheral lines: Dreamblade, Mirrorstone Books...everything. It's all in the D&D Multiverse. The various Earth-based campaign models (Urban Arcana, Boot Hill, Dark.Matter) are parallel timelines of “D&D Earth.”

Action 6: In the Business of Excursions. This is the business model: churn out stand-alone, high-quality, but relatively short, one-shot Excursions (=adventures or adventure paths) to each of these worlds. The Excursions double as a succinct world sourcebook. As far as genre: mostly Fantasy Excursions, but some SF, some Modern and Past (set on D&D Earth), some Superhero. Include in the Excursion what new, specific rules modules are necessary for that particular setting. But make sure it’s all 100% compatible rules-wise...to the extent that a PC could really multiclass in Fighter/Star Pilot/Gunslinger/Wheelman/Superhero Brick. Beyond the one-shots, only continue those lines which sell best. But with the one-shots themselves, take risks...experiment. Try one Magic: The Gathering excursion.

Action 7: Appendices for Localizing and Scaling. At least within the same genre, each Excursion has an appendix containing notes for placing it in any of the other D&D worlds of that genre. In regard to Fantasy Excursions, if it turns out that Forgotten Realms really is far and away the bestseller, then “cynically” brand most of the fantasy Excursions as FR; as long as there are good conversion notes included for each world, it’s fine by me! Furthermore, each Excursion has a second appendix for scaling the challenge level...anywhere from level 1 to 20! Instead of a 1st-level stirge, there’s the 20th-level “legendary stirge”. Instead of the ancient red dragon, there’s a red wyrmling, okay? I’m serious. Totally modular. Zany? Maybe. Doable? Yes.

Action 8: Mastery and Renewal of Worlds. Really make it possible for newbies to master the old campaign settings. Connect the newcomer with the rich depths and intricacies of the D&D Mulitverse, instead of treating the consumer like we're amnesiacs. Like this:
• The D&D Classics PDFs are a great start. Keep them coming and low-priced. Connect them with a print-on-demand service.
• But more importantly, hire some freelancers to gradually, over the course of five years or so, convert each and every D&D Adventure from previous editions into a Core D&D Excursion, by offering a free PDF web-enhancement which contains updated 6E statblocks, along with the two appendices (Localizations and Scaling), so that the Classic adventures are “officially” modular for any setting and any challenge level! Officially place every fantasy adventure in every fantasy world (except for ones which don’t fit at all, such as underwater adventures in Dark Sun.) Once all the Classic PDFs are available and placed in each world, make a map which shows where all the adventure sites are (at least in WotC’s version of that world).
• Also in the new 6e Excursion to those worlds, include a complete product guide along with the URL for the D&D Classics website, and the URL for the official “aficionado (fan) website”, such as the Vaults of Pandius for Mystara.
• Promote these old official aficionado websiites. If they’re inactive, designate another. This connects the newcomer with the existing cultural communities.
• Offer a Community Use License for each setting IP (not only the rules system), which allows individuals to publish world-specific resources, as long as they refer back to one of the WotC-published Excursions. This would basically be a “Greyhawk Compatible” license (and “Mystara Compatible”, “Dragonlance Compatible”, and so forth). Maybe call it something like: the “My Own Greyhawk” license, since it would a legitimate way of publishing our own parallel versions of those worlds. Again, they couldn’t be standalone, but you could say exactly how your own world is the same or different than the WotC-published version...and even sell it as a game product in stores. This would really get the community’s cultural juices flowing.
• Expand the Community Use License to allow for arts and crafts, costumes, props, coins, artifacts, music, films, and cultural events. Try this with one of the “lesser used” worlds first, as an experiment, to see if anything blossoms.

Action 9: A Cross-Platform Effort. To get the Core D&D movement rolling from the get-go, negotiate deals with several other RPG publishers...from large to small... for them to produce a one-shot Excursion which converts one of their worlds to Core D&D...it could be a just-released setting or a classic “old school” world: Titansgrave, Freeport, Aquaria, Glorantha, Golarion, Call of Cthulhu, Conan, Deadlands, DC Adventures, Dr. Who, World of Darkness, MnM/Earth-Prime, RIFTS, Pendragon, Tunnels & Trolls, Talislanta, The One Ring, Tekumel, Zeitgeist. As an appendix, include an official conversion guide to and from Core D&D and their house system, and a complete product listing for their world. This would be a tremendous act of goodwill, which would cross-fertilize interest in the offerings of both publishers, while invigorating the TTRPG culture as a whole. From a commercial perspective, the "D&D Compatible" license is crafted to inspire any and all TTRPG publishers to offer Excursion Worldbooks and other resources which synergistically fuel sales of WotC's Core D&D booklet (which is required to play any D&D Excursion). But all publishers are lifted by the cross-fertilization.

Action 10: Forays into Strange Waters. Beyond the TTRPG scene, actively seek out one-shot deals with a whole slew of fantasy and SF novel IPs, video game IPs, action figure IPs, trading card game IPs, children's book IPs, comic books IPs, cartoon IPs, television and film IPs, boardgame IPs...even unexpected genres: the worlds of Stephen King, Barsoom, Pro Wrestling, Soap Operas, Sitcoms, Major League fantasy sports leagues, the worlds of Cartoon Network, Capcom Fighters, the Wizard of Oz, Sesame Street, Tom Clancy, mystery authors, Final Fantasy, Legend of Zelda, Mario World, Looney Toons, Harlequin Romance, Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, the Wonderful Worlds of Disney, Settlers of Catan...if it’s a story...it can be a D&D game. Really stretch the limits of what the six attributes can do. (In some cases, the attributes could be renamed to more flavorfully fit the genre...such as Perception or Willpower for Wisdom.) Advertise these Excursion/Worldbooks in non-RPG venues. Toy lines Hasbro already owns could be a place to start: Candy Land, Transformers, GI Joe, Duel Masters, Monopoly (there is actually an in-world story which has been developed through various offshoots), Risk, Zoids, M.A.S.K., Pound Puppies...and My Little Pony. Some of these would use the “Kid's D&D" rules module...even more streamlined than Core D&D...like WotC’s “Monster Hunters” or “Pokemon Junior Adventure Game” or Monte Cook’s “No Thank You, Evil!"

Action 11: Advanced is Unearthed. What we now call D&D, with its massive, gearheady PHB and DMG, in 6E is called “Advanced D&D”. The AD&D book is a gigantic Ptolus-sized tome which serves as a combined Advanced PHB, Advanced DMG, and Unearthed Arcana rolled into one. The AD&D book contains comprehensive rules and guidelines for crafting one’s own Excursions and for Worldbuilding. The goal is to really provide the aficionado with the tools and resources necessary to write and self-publish nigh-professional-quality Excursions. The AD&D book isn’t even released until a year or two after Core D&D and a whole bunch of Excursions.

Action 12: Plastic is Chintzy. Use wooden tokens instead of plastic figurines!

 

[Bluenose]

Um... Yes.

Sci-fi and fantasy are different, they've been perceived differently at different times, with sci-fi often coming out more 'legitimate' than fantasy. But they're also different in some basic ways. In fantasy, you can have a story or setting with a peculiar type of magic and explore the implications of it, but, most of the time, magic is just something that's assumed because it's fantasy, and there's no particular foundation laid for it, nor any deep examination of what it implies about the world beyond just enabling part of the story. In sci-fi, that's called a "throwaway detail." The real focus of sci-fi is details that aren't thrown away, but are explored - the social consequences of cloning, the moral implications of thinking robots, a humanity croweded on an overpopulated earth, or spread thin over a million worlds by efficient FTL, etc, etc. Fantasy is all throwaway details. You have magic that can flatten mountains, and monsters that can fly, but people still build castles and fight with swords.
Fantasy worlds thus mostly look the same, while sci-fi settings don't.

There can be 'generic fantasy' - and that's what D&D is, by virtue of mashing together every fantasy trope available in the 70s.

There is no 'generic sci-fi.'

So a fantasy FRPG can have broader appeal than a sci-fi RPG.


There's also the history of RPGs. D&D was the first RPG. It's the only TTRPG most people who have never played RPGs have ever heard of. Thus, most of us start with D&D, and those who didn't like it don't stick with the hobby. So D&D has a staying power that no other TTRPG can come close to.

WarHammer 40K is the SF game that is the equivalent to D&D in being a hotch-potch of influences from all over the place without any really coherent plan to their inclusion; and in later developing into a genre of it's own, which really isn't imitated outside itself or imitating anything outside itself. It just happens not to be an RPG (and to be much bigger than any RPG). The potential to design an RPG which does start from a fairly basic set of rules and then add in all sorts of influences from all round the SF genre is there, but I don't think it's likely to be attempted because it hasn't been successful before.

 

[aramis erak]

I feel like my experience shows it to be very hard to get people to consistently volunteer to play things besides D&D. That is, you'll find that there are 100 other systems out there that some people like, but if you get 6 random gamers together, they'll all probably play D&D. Its the Lingua Franca of RPGs and nothing has changed on that score in 30+ years. No other system has ever really challenged it in that sense.

I think its because fantasy is the central genre, all the other genre of RPG still contain some element of fantasy, but D&D just IS fantasy. And its a pretty broad generic fantasy that's hard to completely differentiate from. The system has a very steep power curve too, which is really still quite rare in RPGs.

As far as Eurogames go, I think its the design and play conventions that make those games. This has NOT happened in RPGs. 4e was informed BY Eurogames in its design, but there's very little consistency in that sense across other games. You cannot define a genre of RPGs that group together based on a physical design sensibility, which is ALL that defines Eurogames.

Mike seems to be quite fixed on the Eurogame analogy too. The 4e designers certainly pushed hard for a design language that was informed by them. I'm just not sure it works. I'm not sure there IS anything to 'figure out' with RPGs. Just publish what people clamour for and will buy. If production costs are too expensive? Lower the costs!

Mine experiences is similar...

Get 10 together...
1 refuses to ever play D&D. Either religious or mechanical objection (even odds).
1 hasn't played D&D. Would rather not.
2 have played D&D, and will play, but would rather play something else. Don't agree on which else.
2 are happy to play D&D or something else, but don't agree with each other nore the prior 4 on the something else
2 won't play anything other than D&D.
4 just want to play, and D&D is fine by them, and gets you 7 players... but if the issue is pressed for a something else, each agrees with one of the first 6.

D&D is both the lingua franca and the lowest common denominator. Kind of like Corn Flakes & Oatmeal. Few really prefer corn flakes, but if you're feeding a large number of people, Corn Flakes are the #1 cold cereal, and oatmeal the #1 hot cereal, and many who prefer something else will eat them rather than skip a meal.

And, to top it off, There's the nostalgia factor - probably 80% of gamers started with some D&D flavor.

And the Cheese factor - D&D is anything BUT realistic. And that can be fun. (Spitting in the Fathomer's eye to startle him so he doesn't kill you? Priceless.) Many of us play/run D&D for the explicit permission to be silly about it.

 

[aramis erak]

Also comparable to half-eds.

Really, every prior ed of D&D has had a significant course-change/core-updating product.

0e: Greyhawk (radically changed the exp system to move the game away from monster-killing to treasure-hunting, or so I've been told).

Actually, it didn't CHANGE the XP system... it merely includes it. (That XP is based upon treasure is explicit in OE, but the award for the monster was missing except in the explanatory paragraph, which only gave one example...)

But it makes huge other changes, too.
It added the Thief ... and the thief skills. Peak at 14th level.
It added also Paladins.
It created the HD system which would remain a staple until present. (Prior was not one die per level.)
It added variable damage by weapon type (OE prior was always 1d6).
It expanded the Wizard to level 22, and cleric to level 20.
It added a bunch more monsters.
It presumes use of d4, d8, d10, and d12 in addition to the d6 and d20 used in OE.

Essentially, OE D&D without Sup 1 is a VERY different game - almost as different as the 3.5E-4E or 4E-5E jumps.. With it, it starts to look like the D&D we know.

 

[delericho]

Except all the fans that don't. In two years, 3.0e sold almost twice as many PHBs as 3.5e sold in five years.

Do you have a cite for that? I know the 3.0e PHB sold about 800k units (and about 300k in the first month), but hadn't seen any similar number for 3.5e. Needless to say, a figure of "only" ~400k is a bit of a surprise.

 

[pemerton]

the feel of a game world is significantly tied to its system. There are a few cases where the world can transcend the system, but in most cases it can't.

While I take your point, I think it's important not to exaggerate.

For instance, I've run Greyhawk games using AD&D, Rolemaster and Burning Wheel. I don't think any of them has a monopoly over what Greyhawk "feels" like - all give you a fairly classic fantasy experience of sword and sorcery with a hint of heroics. I reckon Greyhawk could be run using Runequest too, or some pretty close cousin of it, without significant loss of fidelity (RQ would actually make those Fighter/Illusionist viking kings easier to stat up!).

I've run Orienal Adventures/Kara-Tur using AD&D and Rolemaster. Again, I would say neither has a monopoly on the feel. I haven't used Bushido for Kara-Tur, but I suspect it could be done without too much trouble. And so could 4e, I think (whereas I'm not sure that 4e would do Greyhawk as well - I don't think it's upper paragon an epic are quite the right fit).

There are some worlds whose fictional details really do depend on mechanical oddities of a system (I don't know it very well, but maybe FR is like that?). But I don't think this is true for all of them.