The name of the game is this. Two very similar RPGs, which emerged at more or less the same time. One of them ends up being considerably more successful than the other. Analyze why.

For example, Shadowrun did better than Cyberpunk.  It seems to me that the reasons for this could in part have to do with Shadowrun's world, which is very developed; but then Cyberpunk had a pretty developed setting too!
So I think the conclusion had to be that people more people liked than hated the mix of cyberpunk and fantasy.

RPGPundit

Vampire and its series versus Nightlife.


I think a lot of it had to do with marketing, and the art style/fiction--let's be honest the kind of people who bought into Vampire themes liked the fiction in the books. They might have even preferred the fiction to actually playing the game. While 2E versions of the books were somewhat high quality in production department, the 1E Vampire book wasn't really "higher" in quality to Nightlife 1E (both had some good art, and bad art, both softcover.) You may add to that the marketing "flyer" for Vampire was fairly high quality..

I agree with Pundit about Shadowrun & CP.

GURPS vs. HERO. I think GURPS ultimately did better than HERO, even though HERO had a few years' head start, and became a full-on generic system around the same time that GURPS came out. The most obvious reason is that GURPS is easier to grasp even though it probably doesn't play any faster. (No division in chargen, no phased action sequence.) GURPS took a more traditional approach to magic, in the form of spell lists, while HERO's more flexible approach called for designing spells from scratch--at least at first--and generally requires a degree of discretion and skill in doing so fairly and efficiently. This was especially important because fantasy is more popular than supers.

I also think it's likely that SJG was run better, as a business, than Hero Games, and benefited from a wider variety of assets along with the talent and intention to maintain a diverse portfolio of products. This meant that GURPS development, distribution, and marketing could maintain continuity and avoid interruptions in contact with the fanbase.

In conclusion, GURPS has done better than HERO because it was more straightforward to learn, easier to use for fantasy, took a "lists" approach instead of a "calculation" approach to supporting a variety of settings & genres (even though that's less flexible), and had a stronger company developing and marketing it.

Quote from: Silverlion;275663Vampire and its series versus Nightlife. [...]While 2E versions of the books were somewhat high quality in production department, the 1E Vampire book wasn't really "higher" in quality to Nightlife 1E (both had some good art, and bad art, both softcover.) You may add to that the marketing "flyer" for Vampire was fairly high quality..

I've seen the 1e and 2e Nightlife books. I don't have a good sense of the quality of the character art in Vampire, but the overall layout and production values of Vampire 1e struck me as far more seductive and eye-catching, even though I can't make heads or tails of it from a functional standpoint.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;275669In conclusion, GURPS has done better than HERO because it was more straightforward to learn, easier to use for fantasy, took a "lists" approach instead of a "calculation" approach to supporting a variety of settings & genres (even though that's less flexible), and had a stronger company developing and marketing it.

Not to mention that it's the best cross-referenced and indexed role-playing games on the market to this day still.  I really appreciated that extra attention to detail from SJG.

How are we defining success here -- selling more units, stayed in print longer, etc.?  That's what it looks like people are using as the criteria (as opposed to a game that is more successful at meeting its design goals or providing a good play experience, for example), but this should be clarified.

I infer from the original post that we're talking about "got played more widely, and over a longer period of time".

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;275669In conclusion, GURPS has done better than HERO because it was more straightforward to learn, easier to use for fantasy, took a "lists" approach instead of a "calculation" approach to supporting a variety of settings & genres (even though that's less flexible), and had a stronger company developing and marketing it.

I think GURPS doing better than HERO had little to do with qualities of the game, so much as Cybergames' acquisition and the whole "let's dual stat everything with Fuzion" phase. GURPS always enjoyed stability and owners who gave a squat about the game.

Quote from: Rezendevous;275823How are we defining success here -- selling more units, stayed in print longer, etc.?  That's what it looks like people are using as the criteria (as opposed to a game that is more successful at meeting its design goals or providing a good play experience, for example), but this should be clarified.

While "successful" may be ambiguous, the phrase "did better than" isn't (except perhaps for non-native speakers of English).  Not to mention that no clarification should be necessary for those who read the initial post.

Quote from: hgjs;276011Not to mention that no clarification should be necessary for those who read the initial post.

+ 1

  I seem to notice a geat deal of semantic parsing "what the meaning of is, is" lately.

  Both here and  RPGnet it seems that more and more people seem to want to percisely clarify the tiniest ambiguities, when the posters intention is obvious if you just read the post as a whole.

 Maybe it's not as common as it seems - it just drives me nuts everytime I come across it.

 And Shadowrun did better than cyberpunk because you had elves, dwarves, orcs, magic! etc. In short you had more cool powerz. And People dig the cool powerz.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;275841I infer from the original post that we're talking about "got played more widely, and over a longer period of time".

That's basically what I was going for, yes.

RPGPundit

I think both those comparisons (GURPS vs HERO and CP2020 vs Shadowrun) follow the same trend - one got better marketing and had a stronger company behind it, while the other didn't.

Steve Jackson Games and FASA (at the time) were companies that had the power to put out lots of books of good quality.

Now I love me some CP2020 but R.Talsorian has had a lot of issues with getting books out, company issues - heck just getting new printings was tough.

GURPS and Shadowrun also have the "glitz & glam" factor - nice looking books with lots of cool art and style. HERO is a collection of textbooks and CP2020 suffered from poor quality in the visual department for many of their books.

Visuals are usually much more (esp since the late 90s) of a factor than anything else. People crap on Palladium and RIFTS all the time - but its sells - because dam are those books full of nice art. Look a the last two D&D editions - full color everything.

My first post and my 2 cents.

At the time that the issue was in doubt, though, GURPS and Hero were both publishing square bound paperbacks with glossy illustrated covers and b&w art inside. GURPS had more books but otherwise they were pretty similar. E.g. GURPS Swashbucklers vs Hero Pirates.

Similarly was there a big diiference in production values in early editions of CP and SR?

Quote from: Chris_Smith;276182I think both those comparisons (GURPS vs HERO and CP2020 vs Shadowrun) follow the same trend - one got better marketing and had a stronger company behind it, while the other didn't.

Here's a couple that are the opposite case:

* Rifts did much better than Gamma World (despite TSR's large resources and marketing) because it had better art presentation, a more interesting world, and a lot more kewl powerz.

* Traveller did much better than Star Frontiers (despire TSR's large resources and marketing) for a variety of reasons - Traveller got there first, Traveller was marketed more towards adults, and Traveller was simply better written.

Quote from: jgants;276234Here's a couple that are the opposite case:

* Rifts did much better than Gamma World (despite TSR's large resources and marketing) because it had better art presentation, a more interesting world, and a lot more kewl powerz.

Rifts was really contemporary with TORG though.  Someone recently asked why nobody had told them about the game since "Its Rifts without the suck!".

Hell, I remember an issue of Dragon Magazine comparing and reviewing both games together as they were somewhat similar in concept.