So when should a publisher ditch d20 and develop their own system?

[woodelf]

So Serenity is currently outselling every other SF game I could think of, including three other licensed games (Babylon 5, Star Wars, and Star Trek) which one might expect to sell to fans who are not normally gamers.

Well, while you might expect that in the abstract, i wouldn't expect it in the case of Babylon 5 D20 RPG. I haven't seen much publicity for the 2nd edition, and the 1st edition was designed in about the worst possible way for selling to non-gamers: as an incomplete game, requiring the non-gamer to go out and buy another, pretty-much-unrelated $30 RPG book (D&D3E PH, D20M, etc.), and without clearly identifying either what parts of that other book you actually needed (only a couple dozen pages, maybe less), or conversely explicitly identifying what portions of the "original" rules were changed by the B5 RPG rules. I suspect that most proto-RPers that did buy it never cleared that hurdle, or already had gamer friends that had been trying to get them into RPGs. And i wouldn't expect anyone burned by that, or turned off by that, to still be looking at the B5 RPG by the time the 2nd, complete, edition came out a couple years later. Mongoose pretty much wasted any opportunity to be a crossover hit with non-gamer B5 fans, so the fact that it's Amazon rank is lower than other licensed properties that *are* accessible to the non-gamer license fan isn't much of a surprise.

The answer seems to be "yes - when that publisher wants to sell to a fan base which is largely outside the established RPG community." In other words, if they hope to grow the market and attract customers who (perhaps) have hitherto been put off by the complexity of what we think of as the mainstream.

That's long been my point, and my experiences support it: IMHO, the market for games of the complexity and expense and outside-of-game time investment of most commercially-visible RPGs is near maximum--there just aren't a lot of people out there who would like to play D&D3E or V:tR, and aren't. [I mean, i'm sure there are people who can't find a group, or who can't find the time, just not a lot of people who would like to if they were aware the game existed, but haven't had a chance to check it out or try it.]

However, IME, there're a lot of people who are very much interested in RPing in the abstract, but are turned off by the vast majority of commercially-visible RPGs for reasons not inherent to their RPG-ness. So, if you actually want to grow the RPG market, i don't think you'll do it with D20 System--or anything else familiar-looking to the vast majority of current RPers. Because if that sort of game (and, let's face it, the vast majority of RPGs are pretty much the same mechanically, with just different ranges of numbers and names for stats) appealed to these people, they'd already be playing it.

Heck, in essence both the freeform chat-based online RPing communities, and a subset of the MMORPG and adventure/"RPG" console&computer gamers are exactly these sorts of markets--they're interested in the essential activity of the RPG (the RPing), but not in the specific details of implementation that come with the vast majority of published tabletop RPGs.

 

[jgbrowning]

they're interested in the essential activity of the RPG (the RPing)

Some view the G as the essential part of RPG.

joe b.

 

[NanocTheCivilized]

I have no idea where that URL came from. Here's the right one:

http://www.rampant-books.com/mgt_amazon_sales_rank.htm

Ryan

Thanks, that's very interesting - as is the page it links to and which gives a slightly higher estimate. In the end though I guess it doesn't tell us much about total sales of a book - Amazon isn't the only outlet after all - but it does say someting about relative popularity.

Nanoc

 

[eyebeams]

Heck, in essence both the freeform chat-based online RPing communities, and a subset of the MMORPG and adventure/"RPG" console&computer gamers are exactly these sorts of markets--they're interested in the essential activity of the RPG (the RPing), but not in the specific details of implementation that come with the vast majority of published tabletop RPGs.

Yep; it's a lesson yet to be learned by people talking about omnline gaming or popularizing the form. There are lots of roleplayers who can play *without* RPGs. Unless RPGs find some feature that makes them attractive in a way that other games aren't you won't reach these people.

Ironically, the thing that holds most of these freeform groups together is a strong media IP storyline. In other words: metaplot, which a certain forced orthodoxy in the RPG community thinks holds is universally bad. That's one example of the divide between roleplayers and RPG players -- groups that are similar but not the same.

 

[NanocTheCivilized]

Well, while you might expect that in the abstract, i wouldn't expect it in the case of Babylon 5 D20 RPG. I haven't seen much publicity for the 2nd edition, and the 1st edition was designed in about the worst possible way for selling to non-gamers: as an incomplete game, requiring the non-gamer to go out and buy another, pretty-much-unrelated $30 RPG book (D&D3E PH, D20M, etc.), and without clearly identifying either what parts of that other book you actually needed (only a couple dozen pages, maybe less), or conversely explicitly identifying what portions of the "original" rules were changed by the B5 RPG rules.

Excellent points - and pretty much sums up my feelings about the B5 RPG as well. I bought it, glanced through it (mainly to check out the stats for my favourite characters) and filed it on the bookshelf.

And getting back to the OP's question, this is another reason to avoid d20 for a licensed game - people who aren't gamers want a complete game, and will be unwilling to buy an additional core book. WotC realised this when they published the d20 versions of Star Wars and Call of Cthulhu - both are complete games. Other publishers cannot do this because of the d20 license restrictions, so they'll be better off using a different system.

Of course, for other games (standard fantasy or SF as opposed to licensed products) the market is mostly established gamers who already own the relevant core books, so sticking with d20 probably makes more sense.

Nanoc

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Some view the G as the essential part of RPG.

joe b.

Except the G is shoddily implemented. For starters, most tabletop RPGs don't even have victory conditions.

 

[buzz]

Other publishers cannot do this because of the d20 license restrictions, so they'll be better off using a different system.

With the OGL, this is not an issue.

 

[catsclaw227]

Well, while you might expect that in the abstract, i wouldn't expect it in the case of Babylon 5 D20 RPG. I haven't seen much publicity for the 2nd edition, and the 1st edition was designed in about the worst possible way for selling to non-gamers: as an incomplete game, requiring the non-gamer to go out and buy another, pretty-much-unrelated $30 RPG book (D&D3E PH, D20M, etc.), and without clearly identifying either what parts of that other book you actually needed (only a couple dozen pages, maybe less), or conversely explicitly identifying what portions of the "original" rules were changed by the B5 RPG rules.

With OGL games, this is generally not an issue either. For the most part, they are self contained.

 

[buzz]

In fairness, I'll react to this data and raise my sales estimate to 10 copies a week.

Aside: Spirit of the Century sold 3 copies a day between mid-December and the end of January over at IPR.

This makes me happy.

 

[woodelf]

As opposed to the low fantasy heavily inherent in the Citybooks? :\

Even without game stats, the City Books include a number of implicit and explicit assumptions in my opinion.

Very few demi-humans. Very little magic. Very little in terms of magic items. Very little in terms of planar travel, etc...

Just because you don't agree or see assumptions, doesn't mean that they're not there for others to see.

But as I noted to Diaglo, I love the series. But if it was a great seller and a proven point of 'generic' superiority, wouldn't they have compilations of them in hardcover format and new material?

Oh, from a marketing standpoint, i agree--the more generic, the less it sells. Which is why i've been waiting so long for something like the new Freeport. I'm just hoping it's because people overlook generic stuff, not because there's an active market hostility to it. (Because if it's the former, than something moderately prominent like Freeport may awaken people to the possibility, while if it's the latter, it'll just mean Freeport does poorly, too.)

As to assumptions, you maybe want to reread them. Biggest problem incorporating CityBooks into "standard" D&D settings? The CityBooks had a bigger variety, and greater incidence of non-humans. As for the level of magic--it was, if anything, more ubiquitous than in standard D&D, if of generally lower power. Lots of characters with minor magical abilities (that there really was no by-the-book way to do in those days). Like the orcish tattoo artists. And there was certainly more planar travel in the CityBooks settings than i encountered in the D&D settings of the day. Like an inn that wandered the planes.

Yes, tehre are always setting assumptions. But, really, they were all over the map. Some of the individual establishments were much more magical than the D&D rules assumptions, others were much less. Likewise for other general setting assumptions (like incidence of non-humans). With lots of authors, and lots of ideas, i never really got a consistent set of setting assumptions. And some of the books were, overall, considerably lower or higher fantasy than others, too. Only place they seemed consistently in one direction, was fewer magic items than D&D assumed. But that's trivially adjusted (unlike the degree of inherent magical ability, or races of NPCs, frex)--just give the NPCs some magic items.