Why DO Other Games Sell Less?

[sullivan]

If I play a game that is influenced by DND and then design another game based on that game, then my game is influenced by DnD. That seems pretty direct. If I never play DnD, but play Rifts instead, and then design a game with mechanics based on Rifts, then there is a pretty direct chain from my game to DnD.

You need to go back to his posts though. Even if the game is something else D&D is at the heart of it. It's more akin to crediting the creator of the first loaf of leaven bread with the creation of the automobile. Splitting hairs into meaninglessness. Hello Ron.

Not in many games. Yes, there are a few games out there that may not, but, by and large, every game that involves combat uses a "strike" as the base maneuver. Any maneuver that is more complicated adds additional rules to the strike, but, at no point are those maneuvers considered the base action. And, let's be honest, that's D&D in different clothing. I believe that is what Eyebeams is referring to.

Strike isn't the base maneuver at all in Burning Wheel. What Eyebeam is doing is that he sees Striking as the 'crux' and then is projecting that, I mean that in the psychological way, onto every game. In short he is defining all games through the eyes of D&D, and thus it becomes a self fufilling proclaimation that D&D is at the bottom of every game.

 

[TerraDave]

30 years is a long time. And being first is not always enough. Bought an IBM PC or made a phone call with AT&T lately?

Role playing has not been monolithic. I think what I am missing in a lot of posts is just how competitive the hobby is, or at least used to be. My experience as a gamer for a long time was meeting people who played all these other games. Now a lot of those games are out of print or limping along.

The impresion I have is that D&D is more dominant in table top roleplaying then it has been in about 25 years. It takes up more of the shelf space at places that still sell games, it seem to have more buzz (of what little buzz there is), and those people with those other games are not around like they used to be. As was pointed out in an early post, "middle tier" game companies (which at some point where probably large game companies) seem to be disapearing. (of course the irony is that even with its dominance, WotC may still be loosing money on it).

Does it really make sense that the growth of D&D from 2000-2004, and the decline of so many other games, is because D&D was the first out of the blocks 30 years ago? The other argument might be that D&D had elements--often derided by others--that has allowed it to stay in the market and thrive even as others have came and went.

 

[sullivan]

30 years is a long time. And being first is not always enough. Bought an IBM PC or made a phone call with AT&T lately?

It certainly isn't a lock. They got out firsted a number of times after that, and never really saw it as their core. Generally with the more money and more growth potential that there is the more viable competitors you will see. How much money and growth potential is there in pen and paper RPGs? The answer is not a lot, relatively speaking.

Oddly within the history of the PC there is actually an excellent example of first ruling. Microsoft software on the PC.

As for AT&T millions and millions of Americans still do. Of course the name has changed for many. But those regional phone companies are still 'fragements', huge freaking ones at that, of AT&T. AT&T just was so successful that the governement mandated it be fragmentated.

 

[eyebeams]

You need to go back to his posts though. Even if the game is something else D&D is at the heart of it. It's more akin to crediting the creator of the first loaf of leaven bread with the creation of the automobile. Splitting hairs into meaninglessness. Hello Ron.

No, I'm actually referring to what actual game designers have said about their inspirations, like:

1) Jonothan Tweet and Mark Rein-Hagen's Ars Magica specifically refers to the game being a reaction to the conventions of D&D in terms of the power of wizards and the use of historical myth instead of a wholly invented world. This is in the text of the 2nd edition, in fact.
2) Vampire was descended from Ars Magica to the point of using aspects of Ars' setting.
3) Ron Edwards cited his dissatisfaction with games like Vampire (and specifically names Vampire in multiple posts and articles). Accordingly, Sorcerer uses a Humanity stat to represent the power/alienation conflict that the game shares with Vampire.

Incidentally, this chain of influence recurses on itself, as Ars Magica was a design inspiration for 3e.

So by *taking games designers at their word* you can draw a claer line of development from D&D to Sorcerer. This is based on the actual facts as the designers of these games relate them and not on your feelings about paragraphs more than a sentence or two long.

Strike isn't the base maneuver at all in Burning Wheel. What Eyebeam is doing is that he sees Striking as the 'crux' and then is projecting that, I mean that in the psychological way, onto every game. In short he is defining all games through the eyes of D&D, and thus it becomes a self fufilling proclaimation that D&D is at the bottom of every game.

I've cited Strike's place in the game's actual text, since, y'know, I actually own The Burning Wheel. Quoted sections from The Burning Wheel characterize strike as the basic maneuver. Essentially, you're arguing with Luke Crane, not me.

You are, however providing an excellent example of how the striking model of combat is so ingrained that it is transparent for a typical gamer.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I don't think that even D&D needed to interpret the wargame paradigm in that fashion. When applied to units, weapons and armour are general measures of lethality and toughness. Wargaming is really concerned with the results of those mass engagements, not the process of individual combat.

Not sure what you mean. Early editions of D&D has a large number of bizarre scaling issues that come directly from its wargame roots. Many rules made no sense at all when applied to individuals.

Even the "I attack, I hit, here is your damage" mechanic of D&D is simply a straightforward wargame mechanic that already existed in various forms. D&D pushed the scale to the extreme. In some cases the scaling broke, but we did not care because we were having fun, and innovation followed from looking at the broken pieces.

FREX, the margin of difference between unconsciousness and death has been strangely thin in all editions of D&D. That is a direct application of a mass combat mentality where we really put no thought into units that have completely lost cohesion as they do not affect the outcome of the battle.

I think striking is also a *handy* central metaphor. I just wonder what it would be like if there was a different one . . .

It would look like some kind of generic opposed skill check, which may or may not use an normal initiative system. This kind of thing actually appears in some games, such as Shadowrun in places, to name one.

 

[rgard]

It's not just Metcalfe's Law, it's actually even more pronounced than that.

Metcalfe's Law states that the value of a communications network is proportional to the square of the number of users, i.e. proportional to the number of pairwise connections that can be made across the network.

However, roleplaying is not just a 2-person game/communication. It's an n-person game. If we assume the typical roleplaying group is one DM and about 4 players, that means the value of the network grows with the fifth power of the number of players! It's not just that the rich get richer, the rich get richer far faster than the poor. This is what Ryan Dancey referred to when he mentioned "network externalities":



Put it another way, if game A has 10 times fewer players than game B, then it will be 10 times harder to find another "A" player, but 100 times harder to find two "A" players, and 10,000 times harder to find 4 other players! (In reality, it doesn't quite get that bad, because players do cluster into communities, but the scaling principle still applies.

I'll echo my post over on the Solomon Kane thread. Given the popularity and familiarity of the D20/OGL system, I don't understand why smaller companies insist on publishing licensed material with their 'house' system alone.

Maybe I am missing something, but as I publisher, if I wanted to sell alot of game books, I would at least publish a conversion document for OGL if not the game in OGL.

Now I know many out there in the rpg world have time to devote to several different game systems, there are also many of us who don't have the time or are just plain comfortable with the D20/OGL.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[sullivan]

No, I'm actually referring to what actual game designers have said about their inspirations...

Oops, missed that bit of comedy.

Pure Ron. Just when I didn't think the hair could get any thinner you take another run at it. That's what I said. So even when D&D, or some other RPG, cocks something up really bad and the designer goes and builds it differently it is all about. Um, D&D?

I've cited Strike's place in the game's actual text, since, y'know, I actually own The Burning Wheel. Quoted sections from The Burning Wheel characterize strike as the basic maneuver. Essentially, you're arguing with Luke Crane, not me.

You cited a partial excert from the flavoury text, and then left out the part that Strike is 'sprinked in' in scripts. As opposed to the norm, because if all you did was Strike and move you butt would be on a platter. Of course there isn't an example for using Lock on a stationary target. Why would you try to Lock, or Counterstrike, or Block a stationary target? It would be like saying "I use my Dodge on the Gazebo", only not quite as funny.

That's why the Weapons Mechanics section reiterates Striking as the basic task of a weapon (p. 171),

What? You'll need to come up with a quote and/or try explain this because that's not what my book says on page 171.

 

[sullivan]

It would look like some kind of generic opposed skill check, which may or may not use an normal initiative system. This kind of thing actually appears in some games, such as Shadowrun in places, to name one.

It obviously isn't what he is thinking of. Because the system in question, Burning Wheel, uses an opposed skill check when you are acting against someone or something (be it Strike, Lock, Push, etc.) that is allowed a roll. I.E., not a rock.

 

[Glyfair]

Maybe I am missing something, but as I publisher, if I wanted to sell alot of game books, I would at least publish a conversion document for OGL if not the game in OGL.

Yes, I think you are overlooking something.

Most game publisher's primary interest isn't selling a lot of books. Yes, they do hope for that. They want to do that. However, it's not their primary goal.

Their primary goal is to get their vision into print. They want to put their mark on the hobby. They don't sit down and say "what would sell in this market?" They say "I have this product I want to produce, and I hope it will sell."

I would wager 95% of the companies in the RPG industry are like this. The only company I'm sure is in the "what would sell in this market" group is WotC. I'm not certain of any others. Even a luminary like Monte Cook puts out his products because those are the products he wants to release.

 

[rgard]

Yes, I think you are overlooking something.

Most game publisher's primary interest isn't selling a lot of books. Yes, they do hope for that. They want to do that. However, it's not their primary goal.

Their primary goal is to get their vision into print. They want to put their mark on the hobby. They don't sit down and say "what would sell in this market?" They say "I have this product I want to produce, and I hope it will sell."

I would wager 95% of the companies in the RPG industry are like this. The only company I'm sure is in the "what would sell in this market" group is WotC. I'm not certain of any others. Even a luminary like Monte Cook puts out his products because those are the products he wants to release.

Cart before the horse.

Sure, this works if you are independently wealthy and can afford to not sell out the print run.

Thanks,
Rich