Ryan Dancey said:
Here's the logic in a nutshell. We've got a theory that says that D&D is the most popular roleplaying game because it is the game more people know how to play than any other game. (For those of you interested researching the theory, this concept is called "The Theory of Network Externalities.")
[snip]
If you accept (as I have finally come to do) that the theory is valid, then the logical conclusion is that the larger the number of people who play D&D, the harder it is for competitive games to succeed, and the longer people will stay active gamers, and the more value the network of D&D players will have to Wizards of the Coast.
Just a nitpick, here: he makes 3 conclusions from the initial premise:
- Given: the more people who play a given game, the easier it is to find players for that game
- Therefore, the more people who play D&D:
- (1) The harder it is for competitive games to succeed
- (2) The longer people will stay active gamers
- (3) The more value the network of D&D players will have [to WotC]
(3) is a direct application of the notion of Network Externalities. Seems reasonable.
(1) is using the Skaff effect (unstated in the above quote) to extrapolate from the Network Externalities to the notion that it is specifically finding
existing players for a game that is necessary for the game's success (as opposed to creating new players). That is a reasonable, but not necessarily correct, theory. It is at least reasonable that the former effect tends to dwarf the latter in the real world.
But (2) is an unfounded statement. It assumes that a playerbase of 5N will lead to the existing players sticking around longer than a playerbase of N. A reasonable assumption
if most gamers are regularly switching groups, and thus needing to find new players. If, on the other hand, most gamers find a group they like and stick with it for years or decades, then it doesn't matter how many other players there are out there, when judging how long a given player sticks with the game. Obviously, in the real world, we have a mix of those two behaviors: lots of people stick with a group for many years, but many (even most) of them eventually find themselves in a situation where they need to find new gamers; while some people regularly need to find new gamers for one reason or another. It is not a provable conclusion of the Network Externalities theory that
existing players stick around more, as the playerbase gets larger, just that new players are easier to recruit.
Now, it is true that you can make a derivation that, since it's easier to recruit new players, when the existing players do eventually need to find new players, the network externalities will make the job easier. But that, again, assumes something--namely, that those who can't find players of the game they want to play, won't play at all. That they will cease being gamers. Which goes against the notion that the theory is founded on: that the game doesn't matter, the network matters. I.e., that what matters is finding other gamers, and the specific game is a secondary concern. After all, if people have strong game system preferences, then choosing to switch games
to the dominant game is not an option. And if they don't have strong game system preferences (as posited by the theory), then switching
away from the dominant game
is an option. So, there's no need to posit that those who can't find their particular game will cease being players, even in the case of the dominant system.
Certainly, my experience has been that the network in question is one of
gamers, not
D&D players. And i've found it much easier to keep the existing players and switch games, than to keep the existing game and switch players. IOW, most RPGs, despite differences in system, have more in common than they have differences, so the playerbase is roughly as large as all RPG players, rather than just those who have previously played whatever system you're playing. Yes, people have game preferences. But, in practice, their first choice seems to be to play an enjoyable game with people they enjoy gaming with, and the system is secondary (didn't even Diaglo play a D&D3E game at one point?). Just as the theory of network externalities claims. But, that therefore means that it doesn't matter which game they can find, so long as they can find a game.
Or, mathematically, i see no evidence that games with market shares of 90N, 9N, and N generate a larger total pool of players than games with market shares of 50N, 30N, and 20N. If it is, say, 4th-order scaling, the theory of network externalities claims network values of 65million, 6500, and 1, vs. 6.5million, 800000, and 160000. But i think it's closer to 100million in both cases. It may even be that the ratios between them are proportional to the 4th order, but i don't see any basis to the claim that the total market would be smaller with a less-dominant game, which seems to be the consequence of the theory of network externalities, as applied by Dancey. That is, the heavily-skewed market divisions don't diminish or increase the overall value of the network, just change the share it gets. Maybe the latter case ends up as 56million, 7million, 2million--still disproportionately favor of the bigger share, but with the total market just as big as it was when the market was more skewed.
