Why DO Other Games Sell Less?

[woodelf]

So do you think the "RPG Industry" pretty much = D&D?

That's the real question I guess I'm wondering. Why don't other companies sell in the market as well as D&D?

Take the video game industry... There are several different styles of games, and game makers, but is there one like dominant game maker, and the rest just follow along?

IS it just because of all the publicity D&D has had (good or bad) over the years, that makes it recognizable, so people start playing it more often then others? ("Hey, I've heard of that game... lemme check it out...")

that's what I mean with if D&D stopped existing... Would the other companies get enough new players to continue? Or without that "Hey I recognise the name D&D" name recognition would it turn into "WTF is a Role Playing Game... isn't that something dirty?"

Unfortunately, i suspect that a lot of new RPers would disappear along with the D&D name, if the D&D name disappeared. So, from a market/industry standpoint, it would probably be a bad thing. A lot of proto-gamers don't go looking for "an RPG" they go looking for "D&D", and if that isn't an option, they might not move on to the next option (which, for the uninitiated, is "a game like D&D").

But, from an artistic standpoint, i've long said that the D&D brand being somehow removed from the RPG world would be an immensely good thing. Right now, a lot of proto-gamers choose D&D for no reason other than name recognition. This then becomes their game of choice again because of no other reason than it being their first game. [This is not to say that some, maybe even most, who play D&D predominantly, don't play it because they prefer it to other choices. Just that at least some subset is playing D&D because of its market dominance, not any characteristic of the rules themselves.]

Similarly, the market muscle of D&D has a huge distorting effect on the design of other RPGs: most other RPGs are designed either to be like the dominant game(s), or to contrast with the dominant game(s) in a particular way. Take away that easy target, and i think more RPGs would be designed to satisfy their own reasons, irrespective of how they related to other RPGs on the market. Similarly, right now there's a huge market force to make your D20 System game compatible with D&D--greater than merely the force of that compatibility itself. Without the D&D brand, and presumably therefore the D20 System logo, D20 System game designers would never have to face the choice between tweaking the mechanics to better suit their vision, and leaving them alone to better match D&D. The latter incentive wouldn't exist, so games would end up similar because it was what made for the best game, not because of the ability to associate your product with the D&D brand.

 

[woodelf]

I think the reasons for D&D selling alot are:
[snip]
5) Marketing. I am no expert in this field but it seems to me that WotC have avoided several of the pitfalls in which many of the competitors have found their death (or, atleast, fall in sales), such as being overzealous with copyright enforcement (it killed TSR), bad quality control (it killed many games), writing yourself into a corner (i.e. focusing only one one niche market) or rule overcomplications.

The last point ("overcomplicated" rules) is so highly subjective, that i'm not sure you can make any generalization about it. I, and several of my friends who were formerly huge fans of D&D3[.5]E, think that D&D3E is considerably overcomplicated, especially for the degree of detail it provides. And i'm someone who loves Aria. More importantly, some systems that are in one way or another more complex than D&D3E are not only popular, but have kept companies afloat against all odds (Hero System, i'm looking at you).

As for "overzealous copyright enforcement", i don't think anyone's been as zealous in these matters (well, more IP enforcement in general than copyright in particular) as Palladium, and it hasn't seemed to hurt them financially (unless you consider their current problems somehow karmically related). As much as fans like to believe otherwise, i've seen no evidence that TSR's internet policies actually caused them much loss on the bottom line, however bad of a PR move they were. And it's well documented that what killed TSR had very little to do with RPGs at all, and everything to do with the book trade.

 

[Lazybones]

Interesting points.

I think that the future model will be interactive software. I have already replaced my PnP game with NWN campaigns, due to the advantages in scheduling and location (my last group met a 50 min. drive away, and with 8 adults in the group, it was rare to have 4 able to make in on a given Saturday). Others use OpenRPG and other nascent computer-assisted gaming systems. Some have argued that there has been a decline in social activitiy in general over the last few decades, replaced to a degree with online microcommunities.

I wonder what the numbers would be if one compared the total number of people who have played tabletop D&D in the last 15 years, with the total number of people who have played a D&D computer game (gold box series, Baldur's Gate series, Icewind Dale series, NWN). I'm sure there's a lot of overlap, but there's no doubt also a lot of people like myself, who have only occasionally played D&D since college (where finding/creating groups was easy due to the proximity of like-minded individuals), but who have spent hundreds of hours and dollars investing in computer software with the D&D brand.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Reasons why other games don't match up?

1. Brand awareness/Marketing
2. Solid ruleset (with 3.0 - 2.0 drove people away).

Definitely 1. More people are aware of D&D. Both from the positive and the moreso negative view of the game. But alot of people have heard of it, one way or another.

The other game companies have to compete with that kind of visibility. And to try to appeal to D&D gamers as well as those who have become disillusioned with the game for one reason or another. And yet to be different from D&D for that exact same reasoning.

And frankly they're not going to compete on the same level as Wizards. Wizards can garner better deals with writers, artists, and printers to give you a shinier project than most 2nd party publishers can offer. And usually at better cost/quality ratio. (not including editing snafus)

There's game systems I hadn't heard of before until I was scoping the games at NC Gameday. None that I'd play on my own but would there at Gameday. I doubt my circle of D&D gamers would go much for those due to the extra cost of the game books. ::shrug::

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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?

D&D is my favorite game, and always has been, but I'm not really sure why...

Anyone else have any idea?

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?

It's like Microsoft (in a good way). Everyone who knows even a tiny bit about computers in the US is familiar with Microsoft. Someone who has just been introduced to computers isn't likely to use Linux, no matter what you tell them - they might never have heard of it. More experienced users are more likely to switch.

I've played a few Sci-Fi games and have simply never found them satisfactory. Alternity probably did it best - decent campaign settings that were big enough that you could ignore what you didn't like, and minimal tech creep, but concepts you rarely used in a more modern game (eg spaceship combat) still had big issues. I even had issues with D20 Star Wars and D20 Future (huge issues with the latter). The inability to predict technology, or the overuse of it (eg Star Trek) is a big problem. A Firefly-like setting might work; the amount of high tech is so low that FTL travel might not exist, no one uses ray guns, and you can use a ship without weapons. The ship becomes a plot device. Good! (IMO.)

Modern is a bit easier, but adventures are either harder to write than fantasy adventures (and the market is too splintered to make adventure writing all that profitable), or are goofy Urban Arcana-style things. I actually find it easier to take Shadowrun adventures and move them into the modern era or convert Alternity Dark Matter adventures rather than try to turn Urban Arcana adventures into anything that makes sense.

Fantasy is even easier. DnD is close enough to Tolkien (and everyone has heard of wizards, elves and dwarves) that many people come to it with some degree of comfort. Writing adventures is relatively easy beyond the rules - anyone who knows the basic plot of Lord of the Rings or a few other fantasy novels knows what they're getting into. The range of campaign types is broad enough to satisfy a large number of players and GMs.

 

[Mark CMG]

Why DO Other Games Sell Less?

I'd have to agree that the primary factor is brand recognition.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

How about that D&D is just a better game than many other RPGs. Plain and simple. D&D has been around for 30+ years; that's a lot of time to refine your product.

All this hocus-pocus about marketing and rule sets is fine and all, but if your core product isn't a popular one, you just won't be around for very long.

 

[sullivan]

How about that D&D is just a better game than many other RPGs. Plain and simple. D&D has been around for 30+ years; that's a lot of time to refine your product.

All this hocus-pocus about marketing and rule sets is fine and all, but if your core product isn't a popular one, you just won't be around for very long.

It isn't that plain and simple. Being first or being #1 gets you in the game, and it will get you by limping on brutally lame crap through a number years. Witness the 90's. As well all you need is to maintain the top slot is "good enough", and a little on the bland is usually better since you don't want to alienate too many people. Anything remotely close to a tie gets a nod towards the widely market leader. You can call it "hocus-pocus", but that's just how people work.

As well it isn't the years put in that refines it. It's the cash to spend, and the name brand to justify risking the cash, to plan out, thoroughly develop, and polish up, and widely promote the product. As well D&D's default setting, faux medieval swords and wizards, has a lot of geek resonance. It is at once removed and accessible, and like rainbows, unicorns, and monster trucks just has this base appeal. So they have the inside track on the choice genre.

P.S. Not that it isn't better that a lot of stuff that is out there, because there is a lot of crap out there with not so many gems in the pile of rocks. But also there is a lot of stuff that is relatively indistiquishable from it.

 

[Turjan]

How about that D&D is just a better game than many other RPGs. Plain and simple. D&D has been around for 30+ years; that's a lot of time to refine your product.

Without making any statement about the quality of D&D, this logic is flawed. Betamax was definitely a suprerior format to VHS, but despite its superiority it didn't succeed. VHS did was it supposed to do and was popular, and the fact that most people had already bought the equipment to play VHS movies can be compared to the networking effects that have been mentioned for D&D. Only a vastly different (and better) technology was able to replace VHS.

Btw, I agree with your wording that D&D is a better game than many other RPGs. It's definitely much better than Spawn of Fashan or World of Synnibarr. On the other hand, I don't think it's vastly better than HERO or Gurps.

 

[Turjan]

Sorry, double post.