I certainly don't think EVERYTHING pundit wrote actually IS self-evident, and I certainly have problems with his logic. But I'm not out to correct his philosophy homework and point out all the places he's wrong. I also want to say where he's onto something, even if he hasn't expressed it quite right. Not everyone is strong at logic, but some people make up for it with really good heuristics.
I would hope so, but I can't say 1) what kind of theory that is or 2) how one could possibly support that statement beyond the notion that if they weren't having fun, why would they do it? Which I suppose is the closest thing to self-evidence we're going to find in this post.
Yes, that's exactly it. "Fun" is entirely subjective. It isn't something that can be measured or directly observed. You can, however, observe what people do. That's not to say people can't be mistaken about what they think will bring them fun. There's even scientific jargon for this: Stated Preference vs Revealed Preference. Persistent popularity is a sign of revealed preference and it says more about what gamers actually find fun than any intensive study involving opinion polls ever could.
Highly unlikely. Hence the vast, vast outpouring of independent games, heartbreakers, etc.
This is not valid counter-evidence to Pundit's claim. Again. There can be a divide between what people "think" will be fun and what they find actually "is" fun. Where's the popularity? Where's the persistency?
He's not saying nobody genuinely has fun doing something else. Me personally, I don't much care for the direction D&D has gone, and I've moved onto another system as my main go-to game, and it's been my go-to for 15 years now, so it's not just a horrible mistake. We actually have more fun with this other game. That doesn't mean I'm going to bias myself to the point of ignoring reality.
If anything, the vast outpouring has provided a natural experiment. One would think, just by dumb luck, that just one game of the vast outpouring would have unseated D&D by now. You can't say "Well, D&D is just the name most people know because it was first." If that were a valid argument, we wouldn't be googling things. We'd be yahooing them. And I'm willing to bet if I walked into a con where I didn't know anybody, I'd have a better chance of getting a start-up game going with old school AD&D than I would with some random "modern" game. There's something to D&D that has staying power.
Most people being people who don't play RPGs. Of course, what "D&D" means to someone is completely up in the air, since its a brand name attached to a variety of disparate systems, some only tentatively connected by theme and a few catchphrases. A person who plays OD&D is not likely to offer a definition of RPGs thats the same as someone who plays AD&D, let alone 4th edition D&D.
And this is what makes Pundit's conclusions so strong. Yes, a person playing OD&D could view things differently from someone who plays AD&D. And AD&D had a pretty big fan divide back in the day between 1st Ed and 2nd Ed. Here's the thing. They're all basically the same rules. Second only to my new go-to game is AD&D 1st Ed. But I have a huge D&D collection that spans from OD&D and includes AD&D 2nd Ed as well. I can use it all together in the same game. That's the breadth and flexibility that D&D offers. That's it's strength.
I find it unfortunate that 3E and onward is no longer backwards compatible with older editions. That was the deal-breaker for me. If I'm going to learn a whole new system and render my old collection useless, I'm going to shop around for a new game. I found one I liked better, so I'm not a D&D player anymore. I imagine a lot of people went through something similar. And yet still D&D remains the #1 game.
Counter-intuitive to the extreme. Apparently this means "financial success", in which case the majority of games that most resemble D&D have largely been huge financial failures, with only a few exceptions such as Pathfinder. And there's no reason "successful-design should be equated with financial success or popularity.
Ehh.. you're straying from reality here. How else would you measure successful design if not by whether people actually want to play it or would pay good money for it? Are we supposed to use some strictly academic measure? Or some other "objective" set standards?
The financial failures of D&D wannabees (and the success of Pathfinder) seem perfectly explainable from the "big tent" thesis of broader, more inclusive play. Speaking for myself, I want to add content to my library. Not re-invent the wheel. If a D&D wannabee gives me the same monsters, magic, treasure, and potential for adventure as D&D, why the hell would I want to learn a whole new system just to do the same damn thing? If instead, the D&D wannabee uses the exact same system but gives me new monsters, magic, treasure and new potentials for adventure, I've already got my credit card out.
Yes, part of being successful also means doing the legwork. You could create the perfect RPG, but if all you do is sit in your basement just waiting for the world to recognize your genius, you'll be waiting a long, long time. This is also reasonable in the world of RPGs since a huge part of the value of a game is having people to play with (another fact that favors the big tent thesis). If you go out and actively "market" and get people playing, you're adding value to the RPG. But that only works out in the long term if the RPG is actually good enough for people to want to continue playing.
I'm going to cut my response short there for time management reasons. I will say that one thing you call baseless assumption I consider to be inescapable conclusion. That will have to come some other time. Pundit maybe didn't spell out the case in the best way, but his heuristics are working pretty well.