Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 178107" data-attributes="member: 2205">Unfortunately, this thread has fallen from a discussion of Monte's article to one in which the merits of the specific mechanics he mentions are debated.  In my opinion, that's completely beside the point.Anyone who's ever played a game outside of D&D knows very well that the D&D way of doing things isn't the only way, and that other ways may work better, just as well or worse.  There are tons of ways to give players "a carrot" without resorting to levels.  There are tons of ways to focus players in a relatively easy chargen process without resort to classes.  There are tons of ways to simulate combat without hit points.  There are tons of ways to focus GMs on how to play the game and what to do with the game without dungeons.It's ridiculous to say that D&D's methodology is a just-so superior product to anyone elses in any of these regards.  Monte makes some good points about why these mechanics may be good, but fails to take into account the fact that many other games will actually do one or all of those same tasks better, and yet it still isn't a bigger seller than D&D.  He makes no effort whatsoever to successfully link these mechanics causally with D&D's success.  In addition, he often uses 3e examples for things that weren't true in earlier editions (flexibility of class design, being a notable example.)In my opinion, he's also much to quick to dismiss other factors that actually make much more sense.  The learning curve for RPGs combined with the network externalities (the amount of people that play it) basically maintain an almost monopolistic grip on the market for D&D and likely will continue to do so for some time to come.  While given groups may have no problem learning and playing other systems, if you change groups, pick up a new group, or whatever, what are the chances that they will be playing something other than D&D?  Therefore, most games are read more often than they are played, and purchased much less often than D&D.In addition, as this thread has pointed out, D&D offers the kind of gaming experience that most gamers want, I think, and is smart enough to really have tons of stuff out there flooding the market with product so that gamers can pick and choose and tailor the game to their tastes without have to build from scratch or modify things too much.In short, if the things Monte claims about D&D are what makes it successful, then D&D is staring into the face of the grim reaper.  Computer RPGs offer the same experience, and are much easier to pick up and play, further reducing the need for D&D to even exist.  In my opinion, pen and paper RPGs that model something other than the CRPG experience, and allow for GMs and players to do something other than, essentially, play Might & Magic or Ultima are those that are successful.  D&D can offer that, but certainly not because of any of the things Monte credits with its success.</blockquote>

Verification