>> >> >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?
[MERP as an example]
>> 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
>But it seems like all those millions of D&D players out there who
>haven't played in years would suddenly have the "LotR awareness"
>and would be much more likely to buy a D20 (ie D&D) MERP that they
>would to buy a "non-standard" game based on an unfamiliar system,
>ie "D20 - that's just like D&D - I played that in high school..."
My thesis is that they'd be just as likely to buy a D20
product as they would be to buy a GURPS product or ANY ruleset,
given equivalent marketing dollars spent in the same way. As I
said, there's no way to prove it, but that's what I think.
>Or, stated another way, if your thesis is 100% correct, shouldn't
>ICE's MERP have been the best selling game of all time???
Nope. I was speaking ONLY of mainstream IP's licensed to
the RPG medium. D&D's success has nothing to do with that in the
specific sense (although I could go into great detail on why I
believe that D&D's success is because of LotR). Don't broaden
the scope of my assertions.
>> >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 ...
>But not invalid, ... Anecdotal evidence (like mine) is unsed to
>provide some understanding of "why" the numbers look the way they
>do.
Fine. So where are the numbers that statistically prove that
D20 is better than Shadowrun or <insert ruleset here>? My point to
you is that EVERY ruleset has problems (yes, even D&D). I am aware
of no study that proves that D20 will solve this problem, and in
fact I fully expect D20 to have as many homebrews as anything else.
>My question back to you would be: Think of all the roleplaying
>games that you used to like, but for one reason or another no
>longer play (and no longer buy). If *any* of those systems were
>updated to D20 and re-released would you consider buying them?
Nope. Not a one. This is not a flippant answer: I have
carefully considered it, and I can't think of one game setting
that would cause me to plunk $20-$30 down for the same info
reheated for half an hour at the D20 setting.
>If the answer is "yes" for any single one of those systems, then
>the D20 "concept" has just created more value for the IP in that
>system.
Has it? Is the one more sale that I would be worth all of
the effort to rewrite a book and assume the fiscal risk of
reprinting it? I don't agree with your assertion. One person's
opinion on these issues is NOT statisically relevant, and it's
statistically relevant successes that will drive D20 should it
succeed.
>>Your experience lends
>>no credibilty to any argument about the strength of the D20
>>ruleset, and neither does mine.
>I disgree, but only because of the absolutism inherent in your
>statement. I object to beeing relegated to the category of
>"completely meaningless" and will fight like heck to hold onto
>the exhalted position of "mostly insignificant." *smile*
I said "statistically meaningless". I used it in a
specific, scientific sense. I stand by what I said.
>> 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?
>For one (and only one) reason. Because the publisher believes
>(rightly or wrongly) that the benefits of a wider audience
>outweigh the lost value of a wholly owned rules system. I think
>this is the part that we really can't speculate about with any
>authority. Time will tell..."
That would indeed be my point, but I think that the D20
branding will not be strong enough to fit the bill.
>ANOTHER QUESTION:
>We all know Ryan's statement that for WotC the profit lies in the
>core rulebooks. Is this uniformly true for other RPG systems?
>It seems to me that Shadowrun might be one exception to this, as
>players often buy the supplements to have access to better
>equipment or spells? Does anybody have any info on this?
As far as I'm aware it is true. Every system I've done any
study on has been driven by core book sales (both first ed. and
updates), with expansion rules being the next tier of sales and
adventure material being at the bottom.
>Or alternately: Is this uniformly true because the CORE rulebook
>is something thet EVERY player buys at least once (and sometimes
>multiple times, as new versions come out...)?
I have my suspicions as to why, but I don't feel that I
have enough evidence to guess.
--
Joseph Cochran
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
