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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 5030845" data-attributes="member: 151">I didn't mean to suggest that they were simpler...only different.  If 3.5 is standard spaghetti sauce, then perhaps M&M is d20 'robusto', while Blue Rose is 'extra chunky' and Midnight is 'garden variety'.  This isn't to say that D&D couldn't be simpler or that simpler version would not be successful...just that it isn't the only factor that influences decisions.  Just like Gladwell mentions in the video: they had a breakthrough when they shifted focus from an individual style to what factors of that style appealed to consumers (and then found a third of the market was virtually unserved).D&D was simpler than AD&D...but I don't think that was the sole reason that it was so popular, even while AD&D was at the peak of its popularity.  I think that 'Basic' D&D took an approach that appealed to some folks differently than AD&D did. The problem, as I mentioned and you illustrated, is that collecting such data would likely too expensive and too difficult to do for an industry this small.  Do you just analyze con-goers?  Do you pool at random?  Most people have had spaghetti sauce...far fewer have ever actually played D&D.  We don't even know how many people actually play, for that matter.  Unlike spaghetti sauce, where sales can tell us something about our customer base's size, D&D could sell one set and service one person or potentially dozens.  If someone could overcome that hurdle and do the research for very little money...then maybe they could determine the answer.Certainly, the success (relatively) of several different settings both under TSR and WotC suggest that such a thing might be viable.  But making it a financially sound move is another thing entirely.</blockquote>

Verification