----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 11:11 PM
Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] Market Share
> No one will be able to show anything until the d20 is actually released.
> The how is simply through creating a path of lesser resistance for
creating
> new games (making a d20 game will be easier than creating a new system
from
> scratch). The reduction of other systems will be through attrition (as
> older games die out and more new games are d20, then d20 will gradually
> reduce the number of other systems). It do not believe any major existing
> games will port to d20.
I see what you mean. I still don't "agree" but I understand. Actually
if we just say "making a partially modified D20 game to fit a setting..." I
will even say we agree. Except about the attrition, but that is one that,
as you say, only time will tell.
>
> > 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?"
>
> I happen to think that established players are also attracted first to
> settings and second to style of play. Many players gravitate to a
> particular style (whether it is class or skill based, flat or exponential
> randomizers, high fantasy or dark and dangerous), and some will ignore a
> setting because it uses a style they have had a bad experience with in the
> past, but in my own personal experience, it is the story and setting that
> carry a game. In many cases, this boils down to the interpersonal
> relationships between the players. Great players have fun with every
> system, while poor players find fault with them all. Most of us fall in
> between. I think players gravitate towards a particular system because
such
> a system reminds them of a particular situation where everything
'clicked',
> and they are making an effort to reclaim that experience.
I didn't actually mean to exclude settings as attractive to established
players, but it could be read that way. I think that established players
tend to buy the setting and convert it to their own system, but from a
publisher's point of view that doesn't really matter if all you want to do
is sell them books.
As for personal preferences I really am open about what I play and buy,
I am just very picky about what I run, and will tend to try and play within
that system given a chance. I do, however, mostly agree with your comments,
nonetheless. It is just that getting the GM types (typically established
players who often convince others to play the game) to want to play your
system is good way to get repeat sales and I think they tend to be the
consistent buyers of a game system & setting. This is where I think system
is important.
> > We have nothing that shows it will be balanced.
>
> The 3e playtesters have all raved about the balance of the new system.
Which is one of the reasons I was willing to say it was so for the sake of
discussion. I have said in other posts that I think D20 will be the best
version of D&D ever, at least from what I have seen so far. It is very
likely to bring me back into playing D&D, but I am still likely to be a
holdout in regards to GMing and I don't plan to purchase much past the basic
setting books.
SNIP some items I basically agree with, or at least agree enough not to want
to banter about it :-)
> > 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.
>
> For an experienced, veteran designer, you are probably correct. For the
> other 99% of us, I think having a good place to start is very comforting.
> Others will find it restricting, but I think many will find it so because
of
> NIH syndrome - Not Invented Here. When the flashes and sparks of ideas
> spring into our minds, it is only human nature to assume that you have
come
> up with something that is different, unique, and inherently better than
what
> has come before. In most cases, we're wrong. On those rare occasions
when
> it is true, the whole world can be changed overnight.
True, lets hope that it will actually be flexible enough to handle these
sorts of ideas.
> > 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.
>
> That isn't exactly what I said. I said that all randomized mechanics
could
> be distilled down to a handful of distinct processes, but that implies
that
> those processes are distinct with respect to each other, otherwise they
> would have been factored out of the group. All randomizers are NOT
created
> equal.
Agreed. Thanks for elaborating.
>
> > It does nothing to further the discussion or
> > analysis. So to with your statement.
>
> It is highly relevant - if every expression if a randomizer is not unique,
> then they can be standardized without loss to the expression. This
> standardization is the goal of d20. In fact, d20 depends on the mechanics
> being irrelevant to the setting. I think this is MOSTLY true, but that
> mechanics can lend a subtle feel to a game which is otherwise hard to
> quantify. What we need to do is distil these disparate mechanics down to
> the most basic level, so that we can focus on the settings and simply use
> the mechanics as a means to an end.
I disagree, if they can be "distinct with respect to each other" then
they are effectively unique. They may serve the same purpose, but they
(each of the handful of distinct processes) do it with a distinct
feel/expression. I don't think you can distil the disparate mechanics to
less than that handful. However I do like the idea of mechanics being
irrelevant , though I tend to desire that to really mean they are
unobtrusive. The problem here is that I tend to find flat randomizers
obtrusive, while the guy next to me find bell curves obtrusive, whereas the
girl across the table thinks shallow bell curves lend a better feel than
flat randomizers or deep/extreme bell curves. They can lend a distinct feel
to the game. The shallower the bell curve or a flat randomizer makes the
extremes much more likely whereas a deeper bell curve allows for a greater
likelihood of a normal result. Then there are dice pools and even the
difference between grainy (1d6) and fine randomizers(1d100). There is a feel
involved with each of these. I don't think that they can be distilled down
and addressed at a more common level while retaining any meaning to the
conversation. I hope this makes sense to someone besides me. . .
>
> > Again, I think that it ends up so vague as to be useless for
> > the purpose of discussion or analysis.
>
> I see d20 as an attempt to introduce standardization to the gaming
industry.
> That in itself is relevant to the discussion.
Ah, then why didn't you says so? :-) (BIG GRIN! No mail bombs,OK? I
understand that we often need to go through these iterations to make our
thoughts clearer to the other party)
SNIP because I think we are just going to have to "agree to disagree" on the
issue of whether or not someone can intellectually decide to not like D20
standardization. (Hope you don't feel I paraphrased you too incorrectly).
> > 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.
>
> The OGL is the key to making that happen. That's why d20 doesn't work
> without Open Gaming. It is not enough to simply allow others to
contribute
> legally to the most popular RPG game in history. You must also give them
> the freedom to express their own opinions about the game. Let them change
> d20 to fit their style. At first it will be chaotic, but within a few
years
> the system begin to reassemble itself into a handful of compatible
> incarnations. At that point, d20 will encompass all of the most popular
> styles, so there will only be setting to lure you away from it. And once
> d20 does encompass the most popular styles, there will be very little
reason
> not to develop a setting under it.
I guess I basically agree, but I don't see it happening that way, maybe I am
too cynical.
>
> > 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.
>
> Monopoly is the wrong word. Standards is the right word. I want
> interoperability, not between individual games but between the systems
that
> make up those games. IEEE creates standards, not monopolies. Our laws
> allow all of our cars to operate on the same roads, but no one company has
a
> monopoly on cars. They all have four wheels, except for the ones with two
> or three. These are the distinctive differences between transportation
> systems. I believe the randomizers and character styles create the
> distinctive differences between RPGs.
I don't know if this is really likely, it may be possible, but if it really
is possible to come up with a good set of standards that allow maximum
interoperability, then I am for it. Thanks for clarifying.
>
> The real reason this will happen is efficiency. All of the disparate
> designs consume a disproportionate amount of resources - both in terms of
> designers creating the same systems over and over again and players
learning
> the new expressions of the same systems over and over again. This is why
> d20 will have a strong impact on the industry - not because we need it to,
> but because those who take advantage of the efficiencies it offers will
have
> a competitive advantage over those who don't.
That we will have to wait and see about. I don't accept it now, but I am
willing to remain open minded about the future.
>
> > 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."
>
> I think it is flexible, and open to change, through the terms of the OGL.
> The character creation and experience thing is a minor annoyance and I
> believe a short-term one.
Let's certainly hope so.
>
> As for D20a, D20b, and D20c, well, if there is a way to easily swap out
the
> pieces of D20a with the pieces of D20c to create D20g, then isn't it still
> reasonable to call them all D20?
Yes, but that seems like a big "if" at this point to me.
Thanks for the clarifications. I still disagree a bit, but I think I now
have a clue where your coming from.
Later,
Ryan Fisk
Riinamiib Isirk (for the Vilani in the audience)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
