Joseph Cochran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wouldn't know, since I haven't seen the D20 specs. But I
> *do* know that just adding skills and stuff to rules is STILL
> going to require design work and playtesting, and obeying the
> D20 document is going to require editorial effort that a new
> game won't.
And making a whole new game requires origination, playtesting, and editing as
well--all the more, as there is no base to come from.
> Yes, if you learn D20 once you can then use it
> over, but LUG has done the same thing with their ICON system, WW
> with Storyteller, etc. etc. GURPS etc., so I don't see D20
> having an advantage there.
Neither does Ryan Dancy, quite simply. The point is that d20 has a *size*
advantage, and if everyone is using the same system, then there are no
barriers to learning a different game... and the industry as a whole can
grow.
This is, admitidly, a far-fetched goal... but it makes logical sense.
> Big "if". And here's another if: those modern-world rules
> would also have to be good enough that a publisher felt like they'd
> work. So the publisher spends time learning a new system which he
> or she may not even use? Hmm.
"designer," you mean. Considering the proportion of D&D players, the chances
are that they ALREADY KNOW d20. Yet another bit on the game's favor.
> BTW, your "all that'd [sic] needed to be done" certainly
> sounds like a lot of effort to me. It's not a simple matter to apply
> rules to a world. At least, not if you're trying to make a well-
> balanced game.
Compared to making a world from whole cloth?
And I won't mention the never-ending argument over "game balance." At best,
it's an illusion... in reality, it's just a "balancing" of different elements
of a game to get a certain feel.
> And for
> that expanded market, the requirement of a D&D book could be
> confusing and possibly detrimental.
And it "could" be the drive that expands the market for everyone, and causes
the number of worldwide gamers to increase tenfold or more.
The mainstream market quite possibly already associates "role-playing games"
with "Dungeons & Dragons."
> Not my mistake. Please reread the thread. From my very first
> message, I was speaking of game publishers as licensees of
> mainstream IP's, or as creators of their own worlds. At no point
> did I express or imply any expansion to other publishers.
You sure implied it, as that's what I got from your words. The purpose of
language is to communicate your point to your audience... and since I am part
of your audience, and your point was miscommunicated, there was a failure of
language.
I don't keep records of the threads, simply because I don't have the space.
And then there are folk who don't read most of the thread, and join in
halfway. On a mailing list, you should make your point on each letter clear
and require little or no reference to anything other than the immediately
prior letter.
> >> That's your assertion, yes. Mine is that D20 would have
> >>little impact on sales, but that the ... IP would have GREAT
>
> >Allrighty. We're in difference over the significance of d20's
> >impact--not it's existance. We'll have to wait and see.
>
> I'm afraid I don't follow. Where did I ever imply that
> D20 wasn't going to exist??
Not d20, it's impact.
DM
Looking for a game? I DM in Upstate NY, twice a month at Artemis Games in New
Hartford, NY (a suburb of Utica)
Even better, I've got irregular games where I live, in Charlton (near Albany).
Drop me a line and we'll game!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM: Planesdragon ICQ: 26106342
____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
