>> More marketable? Yes, it's another hook someone can use to
>>sell the game. Measurably more sales? I doubt it. In any case of
>>a popular mainstream IP, it's the IP that drives sales: the game
>>system is secondary.
>I agree, but if the IP drives sales, all the resolution system
>can do is eliminate potential sales. If you use a "non-
>standard" system it drives away people that would buy it that
>don't want to learn a new system ...
Please note that I said MEASURABLY more sales. I think that
the sales you say a company would lose aren't all that numerous
when you look at the overall sales that the IP will bring in. It's
an impossible point to prove either way, and the reason is that
sales of a mainstream IP are related to how popular that IP is,
NOT how popular the ruleset is. But my opinion is that the IP is
the bigger factor, and the rules are a FAR second.
>It also seems to make it *much* cheaper for the producer, because
>they don't have to pay for months worth of game design and
>playtesting.
I disagree with this for two reasons:
1) Great IP's won't necessarily fit into a formula (which is
in one sense what the D20 rules), particularly if their genre
doesn't match that of the formula. I mean, look at the Matrix or
Tom Clancy's novels. Both are great settings for roleplaying, but
I don't think D20 would be my first choice. Game companies have
many creative people in them who are capable of tailoring the
needs of the IP, and if they're going to have to alter D20 or
OGL, you're already wasting that "saved effort".
2) Cheapest for a publisher is to use the system its
designers know best. They don't want to pay for months of testing
for their designers to learn someone else's system, either.
>> More trouble for the licensee? You betcha. Licensors don't
>>as a rule like the perception that their stuff is open. Now, all
>>of us here on this list realize what "open gaming" means, but a
>>licensee will have to go through the headache of convincing Big
>>Studio's legal division.
>Only the FIRST time...
You would think. But that's not necessarily the case.
In any case, the expense of it may not be worth the
return if the IP drives the sales (which is my thesis).
>> Just as an FYI: WotC is doing the Star Wars RPG now.
>Of this I was aware but not of the details. Does anybody know
>the details of whether Lucas paid WotC to do this and gets a
>percentage, or whether WotC paid Lucas for the rights???
Most assuredly WotC paid Lucas. No movie studio in their
right mind would seek out a RPG publisher: the return for the
effort isn't that high. For the same editorial effort, they
could make 1000 times the money (or more) on trinkets.
>> >2. Is it reasonable to assume that older games based on
>> >popular books, stories, and movies could get a much wider
>> >readership and a new lease on life if they are converted to
>> >d20?
>> IMO, no. While there are always those who will buy
>>anything with the IP of their choice on it, by and large
>>older games will get the "been there, done that" from gamers,
>>who will be glad to use the books they've already got and
>>run it under D20 in their own way.
>Maybe so, but with the new "Lord of the Rings" movie currently
>in production, I'll bet you could get a lot of mileage out of
>a D20 MERP game about the time the first film is released...
But once again, it's the IP that would drive those
sales, NOT the D20 system. A new LotR release will expand the
awareness of LotR into the mainstream, and THAT would drive
sales. Nobody'd care about it being D20. MERPers who already have
ICE's stuff aren't going to flock to the stores to buy D20 MERP:
heck, it'd probably be flogged beyond death on usenet. But sales
would be great because of the IP.
>> >3. Other games, such as Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, etc. might very
>> >well see some marketing benefit from rewritten to be based on
>> >a gaming system (d20) that was recognized as the market leader.
>> First, you have to make the assumption that D20 will be
>>recognized as a market leader.
>If "D20 rules system" = "D&D rules system" there really is no
>question or do you mean that people won't recognize it as such??
Correct. D20 may be seen as D&D's poor cousin if the marketing
doesnt' go well. It may be seen as WotC's attempt to take over the
industry. Heck, it may even be seen as Ryan's pet project with no
backing within Hasbro. Who knows? If its perception is tarnished
early on, it could be a deathblow for D20 and/or OGL.
>All I have is my own limited experience on this, but ... I GM'ed
>Shadowrun games for years - probably 20 campaigns in all. Love
>the story, love the characters, but ... [I didn't like the rules
>so I jiggered with them]
Your experience is what is known as anecdotal evidence, and
is statistically meaningless. Name me ANY published rule system,
and I will find someone who has done the same thing. The simple
fact is that not every ruleset is right for every person, and that
as a whole, gamers modify rules all the time. Your experience lends
no credibilty to any argument about the strength of the D20
ruleset, and neither does mine.
>Now when the rules subtract from the roleplaying experience, you
>have one indication that there are some problems with the system.
No, you don't. See above. Only when a statisically large
portion of the population has this problem is your assertion true.
>Although I love the stories and the roleplaying potential I
>personally might never play again and I sure won't buy a Shadowrun
>book again - but if they rewrote it for d20 I most certainly would
>give it a shot...
But how many Shadowrun players would feel that FASA had
sold out to WotC and stop buying products? If there are two of
them to one of you, FASA shouldn't do it. If there is even ONE of
them to one of you, it's not worth the extra development cost.
>> But even given that (for the moment), I seriously doubt
>>that companies are going to be lining up to rewrite their games
>>into other systems: usually house systems are popular within a
>>company because it's their own IP, and that has more value. D20
>>would have to be the messiah of all gaming systems for the sales
>>of a translation to be worth it, I think.
>This is the rub I guess. If I was one of the designers of the
>Shadowrun system I would probably be pretty PO'd if someone
>suggested I should re-write my whole game for D20. I think the
>phrase " ... and the horse you rode in on ..." sums up the way I
>would react.
It's not an ego thing. There may BE an ego thing, but
that's not what I was talking about. I was saying that there is
inherent value in a ruleset that is wholly owned by a company,
and that it is more valuable to a company to build upon the
value of their own designers' work than it is to build on the
work of someone else. The more GURPS books that there are, the
more value the GURPS rules have, and the more brand value SJ
Games has. The more Storyteller books that there are, the more
value White Wolf has.
And here's the rub: the more D20 books there are, the more
value **WotC** has. Why is another publisher going to build
WotC's brand over its own?
--
Joseph Cochran
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
