Why DO Other Games Sell Less?

[Ogrork the Mighty]

D&D is simply a better game than pretty much every other RPG out there. All the haters can say what they want, but D&D has thrived whereas virtually every other RPG has either failed or been relegated to such a niche market that it's virtually unheard of outside of RPGers.

If only the strong survive, then D&D is the strongest. It's weathered the storms and it's still here. If D&D wasn't the "best", it wouldn't be the undisputed king of RPGs that it is. When people say, "... role-playing games, such as Dungeons and Dragons", there's a reason for that. They don't say Star Wars, or Palladium, or Vampire, or whatever. They say D&D.

That's not to say D&D doesn't have flaws. It does. It's just that those flaws are trivial in comparison to how great the D&D game is. But then, the internet is home to haters afterall so I'm not surprised that so many people don't want to give the game its due.

 

[sullivan]

If D&D wasn't the "best", it wouldn't be the undisputed king of RPGs that it is.

That is, of course is totally oversimplified crap. What it is the "best" at is selling product. Contributing factors being:
1) being the 'first', as has been pointed in detail, out has enormous advantages
2) popularity of genre, faux magical fantasy, that it is targeted at
3) marketing prowess, bought by past monetary success, for creating the image that you are sold on, and that it can do everything under the freakin' sun, and then structured in such a way as to create more sales (i.e. the focus was ultimately the best for creating larger sales, not nessasarily the best for playing, though that is going to be a very close second)
4) being good enough, and for the most part it is reasonably tweaked instrument for what it does

I'm not a D&D hater, hey I have had fun playing it. But I am realistic about the quality of the product it is. It has more than just 'trivial' flaws. It has out and out brutal limitations and glaring problems. If the people I play in one of our groups hadn't started out in D&D years, in some cases decades, ago we likely wouldn't playing it now at all. Another group I play in has absolutely no desire to play D&D, zippo. Because they consist of a number of people with a bit of time and inclination to look around and see what is available, and find D&D sorely lacking. So lacking in some ways that with experience limited to D&D you are unlikely to even imagine things that it comes up short in.

 

[Umbran]

TBut I am realistic about the quality of the product it is. It has more than just 'trivial' flaws. It has out and out brutal limitations and glaring problems.

Yes, but what system doesn't? If all systems have "brutal limitations and glaring problems", then D&D can have them, and still be best. I submit that finding a favorite game is a process of finding one that has such faults where you don't mind them.

Honestly, there isn't any objective definition of best - at least not folks here will agree on. The only measure we have available to us is the findings of the court of public opinion, by way of sales. But, given that D&D had a head start, many are not willing to take those findings as meaningful of quality.

I maintain that the game isn't just "good enough". I think that for the majority of the overall audience, it is actually "good, better than most others". Remember, the thing was designed after research the likes of which no other company could perform - WotC was able to target it's design. That of course means the game has some problems with respect to those who don't fit the target very well. But then, there is no accounting for taste.

 

[sullivan]

Yes, but what system doesn't? If all systems have "brutal limitations and glaring problems", then D&D can have them, and still be best. I submit that finding a favorite game is a process of finding one that has such faults where you don't mind them.

I find a game that purports to be a "roleplaying" game that aids as little, and in some cases actively discourages the player to have the PC act with personality of that character as much as D&D does to be flawed extrodinarily deep.

Honestly, there isn't any objective definition of best

Exactly.

I maintain that the game isn't just "good enough". I think that for the majority of the overall audience, it is actually "good, better than most others".

That is what "good enough" is. Better than most. But better than most is not "best". The cold, hard facts of the industry is that there isn't enough pie to justify someone investing the kind of money to seriously challenge the market position of overall total sales. They simply aren't competing with D&D.

Remember, the thing was designed after research the likes of which no other company could perform - WotC was able to target it's design.

That research being targeted at creating revenue means it was aimed at being the best selling, not nessasarily the best quality of actual play. While those aren't mutually exclusive, there are places where that priority not only influenced but won out. It was also handcuffed by the bagage of it's success, which is really just a manifestation of priority of revenue. The "sacred cows" if you want to call them that. The priority of maintaining Brand.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It has more than just 'trivial' flaws. It has out and out brutal limitations and glaring problems.

If you dissect ANY RPG, you will find "brutal limitations and glaring problems.

Original Traveller used quirky math (as in, not base 10)- definitely a bar for the mathematically disinclined. A later game, Universe, did star-system and ship to ship combat MUCH better than it did.

GURPS (and my favorite system, HERO) can have an AMAZINGLY long and involved PC generation process. Some of the mechanics of both can lead to power spirals or completely ineffective abilities.

D20 IS a better system than most- its relatively accessible, has fairly consistent mechanics, and PC gen is fairly painless...at least up until the Feat selection process begins.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If only the strong survive, then D&D is the strongest. It's weathered the storms and it's still here. If D&D wasn't the "best", it wouldn't be the undisputed king of RPGs that it is. When people say, "... role-playing games, such as Dungeons and Dragons", there's a reason for that. They don't say Star Wars, or Palladium, or Vampire, or whatever. They say D&D.

As has been pointed out in this thread (or other recent threads on General), D&D seems to be the 800-lb. gorilla here in America but not elsewhere. This alleged superiority has had 30 years to prove its stuff in other countries and has generally failed to be more than just another horse in a crowded field.

That looks a lot like a pretty good game that happens to dominate through timing and externalities rather than any objective intrinsic superiority.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What Ridley's Cohort is describing is indicative of a product that, due to being first, dominated the American market (the original market) but was probably one of several products introduced roughly simultaneously worldwide, thus not having a significant edge in the worldwide market.

In other words, while D&D was first- really only- horse out of the gate in America for some time, worldwide, it was just another horse in the race. In America, the game enjoys almost a monopoly, while worldwide, its in competition...

Not unlike the automobile market, really.

 

[Glyfair]

If you dissect ANY RPG, you will find "brutal limitations and glaring problems.

This is exactly what I decided after spending 25 years playing various RPGs. There is no "perfect RPG." Every system has some sort of hole it doesn't fill.

The point is, what system works best for you and your group?

I decided to mostly stick with D&D because I like the system, and it's the easiest system to find other players for. If I'm playing in a spy game I'd choose James Bond, because that's the system that models the spy campaign I'd want to run or play in best.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The point is, what system works best for you and your group?

It depends on a few factors 1) what we're playing and 2) who I'm playing with, and 3) what systems I'm most up to speed in.

My current group is a D20 only group- actually, they're D&D only- so 3.5 is all we use right now. I'm currently designing a campaign that will feature a modified version of the Vancian magic system- I hope they'll play it, but I have no guarantees. Most of them won't even touch a non-WotC product.

However, my favorite system is HERO, and I've run all genres in it. Still, it works best (IMHO) for supers, modern, or sci-fi. Love it though I do, I'd probably run D&D for a fantasy game than HERO, and Traveller for sci-fi before HERO. I might even use Spycraft for Modern before HERO...

And at times, I've been extremely familiar with the inner workings of RPG systems I don't like. One of my past groups contained several playtesters for SJG, so we played LOTS of GURPS. Hate it though I do, I probably could have run a very good GURPS campaign at one time...I definitely had some kick-butt PCs...

 

[Numion]

As has been pointed out in this thread (or other recent threads on General), D&D seems to be the 800-lb. gorilla here in America but not elsewhere. This alleged superiority has had 30 years to prove its stuff in other countries and has generally failed to be more than just another horse in a crowded field.

That looks a lot like a pretty good game that happens to dominate through timing and externalities rather than any objective intrinsic superiority.

I don't know about the finnish scene beyond my own experiences. The roleplayers I've met at random (school, work, etc..) since 2000 play 3E. A small sample, yes, but I think 3E is going pretty strong.

Why I switched to this game:

1) It was fixed with 3E
2) Support. I like getting my Dungeon / Dragon magazines after couple of games I had invested heavily on died in my hands.