----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:14 PM
Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] Market Share
Brad and any other readers, it dawned on me after I wrote this reply
that I may come across a bit short at times. I apologize if I come across
that way, I really don't intend to do so. If I do succumb to the temptation
or my written word fails to convey the tone I would intend (which is polite
at best, neutral at worst), please let me know. I do value your opinion,
even when I may firmly disagree, I just want to understand it better. I
doubt we will find that we fundamentally agree much, but at least we may see
where each is coming from.
> > Voivode
> >
> > Please illuminate me then. . . I don't see how the succes of D20
> > , which I do think will be successful, is going to impact the
> > rest of the established gaming industry negatively.
>
> "Negative Impact" is too subjective and vague to quantify, so I'll just
say
> that I think it will cause fewer new games to be released with totally
> home-grown rulesets.
That fits nicely under "negative impact" in my eyes and that is a good
answer, saying that you "think it will "is OK for me. It is just that no
one has yet to show me "how" D20 will reduce the number of other games/rule
systems.
> It will create a situation which encourages D&D gamers
> to try new settings, while allowing gamers who are outside of the D&D fold
> to be lured into D&D-like gaming through new and creative settings.
You see, we agree, it's settings that get new people into the game.
However, to attract the established players I think you need to cater to
their style of play. The real question is "do I/You want to?" The problem
is that new players don't know anything about systems so they don't care,
but established players tend to prefer one style of game over another,
though most will occasionally play others. If your after the new players th
en whether it is D20 or D6 or Storyteller is basically immaterial, but if
your after the established players you need to look at what they play. I
admit that most play D&D, but that doesn't say anything about attracting
those who don't play D&D away from what they already play. I don't mean we
shouldn't try new systems, since the right way for each person often changes
with time, it sure has in my gaming styles.
SNIP discussion of specific mechanics
> Of course it will require effort on the part of a designer, but it will
> require less effort to start with a balanced system and modify then it
will
> to start with no system and design from scratch.
That presupposes a lot. We have nothing that shows it will be balanced.
However, I am willing to say, for the sake of this discussion, that D20 will
be balanced. If we are concerned about balance, then tweaking a balanced
system is very likely to cause it to unbalance. In this case it might be
better to start from scratch so that we know from beginning to end what most
of the system will impact. They will both require much playtesting to find
out and from the design standpoint I think the different positives and
negatives of each end up equal.
> What many players know
> intellectually but fail to grasp intuitively is that randomized mechanics
> are nearly all the same, but expressed differently. All the clever tricks
> that most designers come up with are simply variations on one of a handful
> of basic themes. d20 standardizes the expression of those themes, so the
> illusionary differences fall away, leaving only the basic randomizer.
Saying that "randomized mechanics are nearly all the same, but expressed
differently" is, to my eyes, stepping so far away from the forest of trees
as to have no perspective to know anything about the trees, much less the
forest. It is no different than Ryan's assertion that all RPGs are
basically the same, sure by his criteria he is right, but the criteria is so
vague as to be useless. It does nothing to further the discussion or
analysis. So to with your statement. The randomizer is basically there to
do the same job in each game, but it is a tangible and real difference to
the GM and player and to ignore that is to not care what the player and GM
thinks is important when your trying to sell them something. That looks to
me like the road to financial disaster.
>
> To me, d20 is more than D&D, more than fantasy, more than flat
randomizers,
> more than Classes, Levels and Skill progression. It is a philosophy of
> mechanics whereby high numbers are better, the skill/ability of a
character
> is measured with positive modifiers to a die roll, and the obstacles of
> circumstance describe the target difficulty of the task to be performed.
> Its hallmark is consistency. Think of it as a common mathematical
notation
> more than mathematics itself. Many games don't have this philosophy (2e
D&D
> is a notable example), but I think the vast majority of the game systems
out
> there could benefit from a generous application of this philosophy, just
as
> Newtonian calculus was much more accessible using the modern system of
> notation.
Again, I think that it ends up so vague as to be useless for the purpose
of discussion or analysis. It says not much more than why you like it,
which while certainly valid, doesn't explain much more than why you will
probably buy it. (I am buying it, I have already paid for it, so I am not
slamming you for liking it, I think I will like it, but I don't think it
will take over gaming)
>
> > I don't
> > see this "situation" changing. What I do see possible and
> > actually hope for
> > is that the number of gamers rises to 200. There is a great possibility
> > that there will still be 15 gamers playing the other games. It
> > is even more
> > likley that another 5 or so from the additional 100 will end up playing
> > other games because D20 doesn't suit their desires.
>
> Once the OGL gets rolling and every wanna-be game designer throws in their
> two cents worth, virtually every system ever conceived will be available
to
> those who want to use the d20 logo. The only people who resist d20 at
that
> point will do so emotional rather than intellectual grounds (despite their
> vocal claims to the contrary). That will never change, but they will
always
> be a small minority of the players.
Before I misconstrue what your saying, let me ask if this is what you
mean to say in the above: "After D20 gets going, it will be modified to be
like every other system out there, (becoming the systems it is purported to
drive out), and the only people out there who aren't interested in getting
into it will not do so because they are idiots or at least only thinking
with their glands."
That is really how I read your above paragraph, I am sure that isn't what
you mean, could you please elaborate?
>
> > Sure this means that
> > where once 15% of the gamers were playing other games and now
> > only 10% are,
> > but the actual number of "gamers playing other games" has gone
> > up. This is
> > a win for those companies that make other games. They don't need to
> > increase the percentage of the market, just the numbers.
>
> I never expect d20 to achieve 100% acceptance. A 90% acceptance rate
would
> indicate that it was wildly successful in my opinion. However, if the RPG
> player market can be accurately modeled as a synergistic network, then the
> more people who play d20, the more powerful the draw will be to continue
to
> use it.
Certainly, but you have to garner that draw in the first place, that is
the part I don't see happening to the level that some here seem to think.
You have to get more people to play D20 and not move on to other games that
may fit their style better.
>A unified front in the industry will make it that much more able to
> fight against computer games and card-trading games for new players. The
> majority of the money spent in this endeavor will come from WOTC - there
is
> no other player in the RPG industry large enough to make a significant
> impact. Therefore, it makes sense that if RPGs are to move from a cottage
> industry to a modern standardized industry, it should be based around the
> system provided by WOTC, if that system is sufficient to encompass the
> desires of the vast majority of gamers. D20 is flexible enough to do just
> that.
A problem here is that there may never be more than a cottage industry
in RPGs, at least as we know them. And if there is it seems like you want
it to end up a monopoly under D20, or at least Open Gaming. Another problem
is that monopolies work best under situations where there is a perceived
NEED for something, most gamers have desires to play, not needs. This makes
it difficult for such a setting to occur. If their desires are not met then
they will quite simply stop buying and play the games that they already have
if they have other games, or simply drop out if there aren't any.
I do not think that we can debate the pros and cons of whether the
system is flexible or sufficient. If it is made more able to change (which
at the moment it isn't), if it changes too much it becomes another system in
practice, if not in name. Then we are talking about D20a, D20b and D20c,
not "D20."
Later,
Ryan Fisk
Riinamiib Isirk (for the Vilani in the audience)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
