Why DO Other Games Sell Less?

[sullivan]

Besides the PHB, I would also say that the Complete series has an unprecedented level of design quality for an RPG supplement. That an entire series is so well written and mechanically balanced is bizarre by the norms in this industry.

Your typical RPG supplement after the core book(s) is just a grabbag of neat ideas that have no been well thought through. It is normal for an RPG supplement has little or no playtesting. Consequently, it is pretty typical for 10-30% of the material in a supplement to be outright toxic to an ongoing campaign due to dire balance and power creep issues.

Maybe 5% of the Complete series is problematic, but the power creep is relatively modest and the problems areas are isolated and not too bad.

I did not feel that Sword & Fist and its siblings were significantly better than the industry norm. But WotC learned from its experience and followed on in 3.5 with a product that stands as unprecedented as the 3e PHB in terms of quality. (While not as good as the PHB, keep in mind what "par for the course" is in this context.)

WTF? Seriously. I mean the quality is pretty good. Certainly compared to AD&D. However this is a function of progression of gaming as a whole. When 3e was released it was, in many aspects, a highwater mark in quality. Certainly within the D&D line. Those supplements certainly applied some lessons learned from the prior 2e supplements. All in all this was good, it helped move the industry forward. Because WotC wasn't the only people to learn (and in some cases people that worked on the product moved on taking their learnin' with them).

However that's been 6 years since 3e, and I'd argue that in many ways 3.5 really was just a paint job. It tweaked a few things here and there, but left the larger problems alone because it was functioning within the structural framework laid down by 3e. It is still pretty good quality, top tier for sure. But nothing particularly abnormal.

I've seen stuff from one man working in on a game as a second job, and play tested by friends, come up with an RPG game that in many ways more fundementally sound than 3e/3.5 could even hope to be. Of course it didn't have the same full colour art, only B&W line drawings. It also doesn't have a plethoria of supplemental books. Although it isn't, like D&D is for obvious marketing reasons, designed in that way. So it isn't actually something that is missing....except the sales of course.

You also have companies like Green Ronin going off and building derivative rules that in ways surpasses the original and provide a fresh take, shaking of some of 3e's baggage.

You really think that's why vampire gained so much popularity?

I'm saying that TSR's tanking sales and general mismanagement, along with AD&D's insane direction, helped move WW 'up' a rung relatively.

There are people that talk about a 10ish year cycle from D&D, but Third edition was arguably a couple years late, and 2e was more a paint job that probably should have been more of a redo. That's why I hope that 4th changes go deeper than a rearranging of the chairs on the deck (and they do it around 2008). Not nessasarily because I want to play it, although I will come back to D&D with a gusto if I like what they've done, but because I want to see them learn from others and leap frogging to up the ante to drive even better games out of everyone else.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just to satisfy my curiousity, of those how many are kissing cousins to D&D (roughly d20 based, with a mixture of other dice tossed in, examples being True20, C&C, Black Company)? How many are fairly different, but use a different dicing system like V:TM, Exalted, or Shadowrun, one of the Tri-Stats systems, etc. Then how many are really out there, fundementally different in mechanics. Like maybe Amber, Riddle of Steel (very different combat premise), etc.

D&D in its OD&D/1Ed/2Ed/3.x versions take up the most shelf space. #2 is HERO, #3 is RIFTS. Don't let that fool you, though- HERO is my favorite system, followed by Mutants & Masterminds and 3.5Ed D&D.

Of the games gracing my shelves, the "pure" D20 games are 3.X D&D, D20 Modern/Urban Arcana, Star Wars, Spycraft (1&2), Mutants & Masterminds (1&2), Midnight 2, Iron Heroes, Iron Kingdoms, Swashbuckling Adventures, Nyambe, Northern Crown, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, DragonMech, X-Crawl and Dragonstar.

I also have D20 versions of some of my other games, like Call of Cthuhu, Traveller, Prime Directive, Deadlands and Stormbringer, all of which I own in one of its original editions (or in Traveller's case, all of its editions).

I have several of the WoD games (old, not new), Rune/Heroquest system based games, West End games stuff, some Tri-Stat, MechWarrior, Dream Park, GURPS and so forth.

Then there's probably stuff you've never heard of, like the original Universe, by SSI, or ACE (never published- I was a playtester- it was pretty nice).

For the record, some of the ones that got sold include Aria and TORG.

The rationale for all of the D20 stuff is double: 1 it gives me the (probably false) hope of running a non-FRPG game in a system that my buddies will recognize, and thus not reject out of hand because it would involve taking up their precious time learning a new system AND 2 it gives me a wide variety of sources from which to draw. I still remember a light going on in my head when I read that Wookies had Rage as a racial, not class, ability, and there are so many opponents in those other games that my fellow gamers will have no clue as to what they are...no more of that "Oh, its a blahblahblah- we'll need to do the following..."

 

[eyebeams]

So, apparently D&D is a huge force in the RPG market. It's the big seller, and other games just sell less... Why is this? What gives D&D such a huge spot in the market? Is it just because it was first? Because of its history?

I'd make it three reasons in no particular order:

1) D&D's branding places it at the forefront of recognition. This is because it was first, catchy or what-have you.
2) The fantasy genre has broader appeal than any other genre in gaming.
3) D&D is structured using the values of mainstream games more than many other RPGs. It does not strive for emulation or theme any more than Monopoly tries to be about the real market forces and feel of trading real estate in Atlantic City.

Would the RPG "industry" exist if D&D stopped existing? (I'm not predicting doom, just a question.) Would it have died out altogether if WOTC had not purchased D&D back in 96, and TSR went under?

No and no. The TINI (There Is No Industry) crowd doesn't understand that "industry" is not really defined by scale, but by a community with sustainable commercial interests. For example, there ae several local industries in my area far smaller than the RPG industry but with serious, consistent business interests.

By that standard, many people that profess to be a part of the industry aren't (they don't have sustainable commercial interests) and in that sense, the TINI crowd are right about such observations but wrong about the rhetoric.

The seminal games that came about after D&D did so to pursue genres D&D didn't cover and out of dissatisfaction for D&Ds rules set. This is a fairly constant demand and there's no reason to doubt that the existing network for these games would continue to recruit players.

You'd end up with a smaller player base, but among other things, gaming would be more explicitly delinked from computer games that are curently satisfying the D&D play experience better than D&D for people who enjoy fantasy gaming.

Other companies would have to choose smart strategies to make their distinct place known to potential customers and help groups along. I think that White Wolf made a strategic mistake in designing their LARPs in a way that increased the barrier to entry. Live action play was *huge* in the 1990s and probably could have been turned into a significant institution of its own. It is still an underestimated segment (Camarilla events and memberships are almost always significant direct sales for White Wolf).

A pluralistic industry would also need to have strong, effective collective representation -- something GAMA is unable to fulfill.

In fact, if D&D had died in the 90s, the industry might have shrunk and then benefitted in terms of long-term sustainability. The network externality effect was exploited as a negative effect on third parties. That's the nature of externalities, as a externality is, by definition, the effect of a transaction on a third party -- and it was never the intent of the OGL to create a beneficial effect for significant third parties.

 

[BryonD]

I'd make it three reasons in no particular order:

1) D&D's branding is places it at the forefront of recognition. This is because it was first, catchy or what-have you.
2) The fantasy genre has broader appeal than any other genre in gaming.
3) D&D is structured using the values of mainstream games more than many other RPGs. It does not strive for emulation or theme any more than Monopoly tries to be about the real market forces and feel of trading real estate in Atlantic City.

I think this is correct. In particular items 2 and 3.

To a large extent D&D seems to be the only game out that has evolved with the specific end of wider base appeal. People complain about the high degree of magic item reliance in D&D, for example. But I think that is a piece of what makes it popular. The whole "get the next gadget" appeal is what a lot of casual gamers want. And thta has grown in D&D to more service that desire. That is just a for instance, I think there are others. And I'm certainly not claiming this makes D&D either better or worse as an RPG. Just that it gives the game has evolved to give the larger gaming community what it comes to the table for.

 

[Chiaroscuro23]

I'm not sure that D&D was "first". When I first got online one group of D&D-haters said that it was, and that was the only reason it was popular, instead of their favorite game. Another group of haters said it was not, because it was important to them that people who pretended to be elves in the same manner as they did be regarded as superior to those who pretended to be elves in a different way. The "roll playing v. role playing" and "D&D suxxors" crowd. Part of that involved insisting that their hobby was distinct from a lowly wargame like D&D.

Ron Edwards, who I will not label a hater, has suggested that D&D didn't originate roleplaying as such, but was instead just the first text to market, and even then only in incomplete form. I'll quote him. From http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/20/

To repeat my point, the concept that Dungeons & Dragons "invented role-playing" is patently false. Rather, D&D was the first publishing epiphenomenon of role-playing as a hobby, intertwined with its development but providing, itself, only raw material, not procedure. It provided the first official role-playing texts, but those texts themselves invented very little; rather they provided patchy stuff that had to be shaped into role-playing at the local level.

...

During this time, what was established about role-playing per se? Even if there was no actual, single D&D, the perception that some such thing existed was widespread, and ultimately it became a (partly) self-fulfilling perception. So what was it?

* Players fell into categories of the team member, the rules-lawyer, and the advancer/powergamer.
* Character creation was conceptually locked into the Column A, Column B method of Class + Race, to the extent that different combinations were playing by almost-completely different rules sets.
* Character behavior fell into two categories - (1) Strict alignment-based parameters, taken essentially as Social Contract for any and all play of characters; and (2) complete laissez-faire based on metagame priorities of the moment, using alignment, if at all, merely for Color.
* The process of long-term play focused on the Gamble to start, evolving into Crunch-heavy play as character effectiveness and survival-probabilities increased, and eventually into a Powergamer phase.
* A certain degree of rules-customizing was forced to be standard, particularly regarding magic systems and anything else pertaining to fantastical elements.

...

The honeymoon was over long ago. Even in terms of this first phase of D&D history alone, I suggest that we all would do well to recognize that role-playing as an activity did not stem from a single game text, or most importantly, from a single most-common mode or priority of play. Judgments aren't the issue; whether all this was a good or bad thing is completely beside the point. What matters are the consequences of this recognition, including:

* No one role-playing technique may be cited as "the original" way.
* No single combination of rules and presentation formats may be considered archetypal.
* "D&D" as a term cannot be taken to indicate any particular form of play, especially in reference to the origins of the hobby

I think Edwards' agenda is pretty plain in his conclusion there, but it does pose an issue for this question: if D&D was not really the first RPG, then how did it get the branding as such?

It's easy to imagine that an incoherent initiator in a different arena might be quickly overtaken by an imitator who has great branding, network externalities, and people incorrectly believe was "the first". For example, it might be that Microsoft stole someone else's thunder in the early days of personal computing. I mean, I don't know if that's true, but it's certainly plausible. So why didn't Tekumel, The Fantasy Trip, RuneQuest or something steal D&D's market when D&D was just three poorly laid out pamphlets which were summarizing a pre-existing adventure gaming hobby? (Assuming Edwards is right and I'm not misrepresenting him.)

-C.

 

[sullivan]

if D&D was not really the first RPG, then how did it get the branding as such?

Ron, in his ever overanalyzing way , is talking about roleplaying the concept. D&D was the first 'RPG' pen and paper product to market (or very, very close).

Tekumel had, at the least, setting issues. Sure it is fresh to some people now, but back when RPGs were relatively new every genre was fresh and what passes for fresh now was just plain wierd.

RuneQuest was, from what I've seen, was like D&D geeked out. I don't know about The Fastasy Trip.

 

[eyebeams]

Yes, if you are sufficiently vague, you can confuse the concept of roleplaying games with general roleplaying and deny D&D its credit. Since virtually all subsequent RPGs follow a demonstrable chain extending from the publishing of D&D to some extent, denying the importance of it coming first as an identifiable roleplaying game is not particularly useful.

 

[sullivan]

Yes, if you are sufficiently vague, you can confuse the concept of roleplaying games with general roleplaying and deny D&D its credit....

...and blame.

Seriously though, I don't think his intention was to confuse or be confusing. He was just talking about something else, and from my brief exposure to him he tends to use a page where a sentence will do. I've got in my inbox an email from him that in a screen and half, 8 point font on a 1600x1050 screen, of sound and furry said something that should have been summed up in 3 sentences. Tops. I now make sure I in no way attract his attention.

His point, at least as I see it, is a good one, if you are inclined to try design an RPG. To challenge every convention of what an RPG consists of and how it works. Not just assume something that appears in D&D is the one and only way, the 'natural' way, or optimum way to go about something. But to also look to even ealier or pararllel human endevours for inspiration.

Since virtually all subsequent RPGs follow a demonstrable chain extending from the publishing of D&D to some extent...

As in they all get sold at similar stores? Or people that wrote the games at one point or another played D&D?

 

[painandgreed]

You really think that's why vampire gained so much popularity? I dissagree...

My own choice (and my groups choice) to play the WOD games came after hearing about it from another gamer at a Hobby Shop game we played in. It had nothing to do with problems with 2E or anything to that nature... It just sounded pretty cool, and I think Vampires were en vogue at the time... Bram Stoker, Ann Rice... Vampires were just cool...

Ya, I can't remember anybody complaining about 2E. Vampires were big at the time, the game sounded interesting, and girls said they would play it because of those two reasons (where they wouldn't play D&D). Given the choice of another "guys night out" playing D&D or getting our D&D hating girlfriends to play an RPG, it really wasn't a choice and most everybody I knew switched to V:tM. Given a new crop of role players who wanted to actually role play and not kill things and take their stuff, a good system that rewarded that, and an interesting backstory and mythology, it stuck.

 

[eyebeams]

...and blame.

Perhaps. But many RPGs got their start trying to do something D&D couldn't do, so D&D was an excellent inspiration even to people who didn't care for it (or parts of it). Tunnels and Trolls and Runequest are examples of such games. Both are reactions to things the designers didn't like in D&D but each went in radically different directions.

His point, at least as I see it, is a good one, if you are inclined to try design an RPG. To challenge every convention of what an RPG consists of and how it works. Not just assume something that appears in D&D is the one and only way, the 'natural' way, or optimum way to go about something. But to also look to even ealier or pararllel human endevours for inspiration.

Sure, but that process is *still* a reaction to D&D. It's a conscious attempt to get D&D out of your ideas about design. I think the idea that there are other possible roots to base an RPG on is valuable, but it also does nothing to lessen D&D's importance -- or that of successors. Edwards' own Sorcerer is, for example, a fairly obvious response to Vampire, and Vampire's chain of inspiration from Ars Magica (which explicitly reacts to the magic user archetype in D&D) is no big secret.

As in they all get sold at similar stores? Or people that wrote the games at one point or another played D&D?

See above. I cannot think of an RPG whose antecedents (in terms of sources of inspiration) don't eventually take you back to D&D. People graft other influences from outside that chain all the time and it's smart and necessary, but that chain leading from Your Game to D&D is still there.

D&D is a powerful, pervasive influence on all RPG design to such an extent that I think people often don't take time to look at some very deep-seeded assumptions. The indie gaming crowd has made an attempt, but it's been uneven when it comes to challenging some very deep-seeded ideas about RPGs.

Here's one example: The basic paradigm behind virtually all combat systems is based on attacking and defending against strikes. The only exceptions are games that don't deal with combat in enough reolution to have a distinct system for combat at all. This comes straight from D&D. In mythology and in common-sense observations of violence, grappling is at least as central, if not more so (animals grapple; they don't "claw/claw/bite" like they have three knives). But in almost *every* combat system with a significant amount of inbuilt detail, grappling is a set of exceptions grafted on to a striking paradigm and there has *never* been an RPG that does it the other way around. Even gamist "indie" systems like The Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel never challenge this basic assumption.