I don't think that. There are many games designed from the ground up that are better for a given setting - but not all are. But by the same token I certainly don't think taking D20 and converting it to another setting means that it will be an automatic success.
Neither do I.
Your right there are a lot of people that think those games work. But we are going on Web based opinion poles. Where there are a lot of people who won't play anything but D20. A lot of people who thought that when WFRP 2nd came out it was some way based on D20 and a lot of people who simply don't know.
Well, anecdotally, every game shop I've gone to, if it has tables set aside for gaming, has had an overwhelming majority of the people playing D&D. That is, if they were playing RPGs at all. Most of them played minis games. I've been in game shops from one coast to the other here in the US. So while I don't have anything but anecdotal evidence, the sales and online traffic indicates a majority, or maybe a plurality, of people play d20 in one form or the other. Most of those would be playing one iteration or the other of D&D, going by how well WotC does in relation to any other game company.
I love this logic loop, it's almost as good as I don't want to pay for another rule book. RPG's aren't difficult things to learn mechanically if you know how to run an RPG. Personally I find it to be a great advantage to know more games - but that's just me perhaps.
And how old are you? How many obligations do you have? While I like to spend a lot of time on my hobby like anyone else, being 40 and trying to run my life makes time a luxury. I don't want to expend that luxury on learning new games all the time. Hell, I did that back in my teens and 20s - my gaming library numbers in the hundreds. But I don't think I'm alone - most people my age that I have either asked or have actually gamed with say the same thing - they're not interested in the hobby of RPGs to learn new games. They're in it to actually play. They don't find the expenditure of time worthwhile. They - and I - don't find learning new games fun, particularly now, when gaming time and players are at a premium. I will say that if I had a lot of time to game, then yeah, I'd learn new games (or play more games other than D&D or a d20 variant). So when you say that's something you like, great. I envy you the time you have to do so. But you should bear in mind many of us don't. Enjoy it while you can, because it sucks when the time and players dry up.
No argument there. But again what makes an RPG good? Volume of sales or quality of game? When it comes to Star Wars I don't even think WEG was a good system. But by default then it doesn't automatically mean D20 is good.
No, it doesn't, But sales volume does indicate a number of things - among them good word-of-mouth. If a game is horrible, then people won't play it no matter how much marketing is done, and won't recommend it to others.
Why wouldn't they? Both games have far more normalized character development.
That's a subjective viewpoint.
They cover the grim and gritty aspects better in their combat systems.
Depends on what you mean by grim & gritty. Plus, I've read all of Howard's Conan stories, and while there is a lot of violence, Howard doesn't go into extreme detail regarding it. The action is fast & furious.
The magic in both games has that mysterious and feared quality that is inherent in the Conan setting.
So does the Conan magic system. Check it out, especially the Scrolls of Skelos. Very Conanesque in mood.
The power creep never sets in to the same level as it does in D20. Seems like they both form a pretty solid foundation for a Conan style epic. But You doubt it so why does D20 shine? Volume of sales - or is it just because you like salad?
Conan clearly became a tougher and better fighter, able to deal with far tougher enemies, as he got older. Seems like as good an example of levels as anything else in fiction. If you don't see it that way, cool. But it's an indication that this is a discussion about subjective views, and cannot be resolved with an "I'm right/you're wrong" solution.
Why does Conan d20 shine? Because it captures the mood and feel of the setting. Is the combat fast and furious? Frankly, no. But it doesn't go into detail that Howard never went into, like games with hit locations and the like do.
My bad didn't realize that marketing was now qualifier for a good game. That changes everything.
What does marketing have to with it? Those companies didn't spring for the license, so we'll never see how good such a Conan game would be. Wanna try your hand at doing it on your own? I'd look at it.
But all sarcasim asside. What if D20 didn't pick up Conan. What then what system would you suggest is a better system for Conan or Star Wars or any other realm D20 has bought into?
I've played RQ, and while I figure it could handle Conan, I don't see it as being especially suited for it. Warhammer, maybe, but in my experience, WH evokes a far more chaotic, supernaturally-based mood than Howard's Conan stories. But it could be done. I have the GURPS Conan book, and frankly, it just doesn't do it for me at all. I have TSR's old Conan RPG from 1985, a totally different system from D&D. It seems to do an OK job, but not as well you might think. I might say a revision of that game would work.
Star Wars? I dunno, honestly. Some aspects of the d6 game evoked the feel of the setting. But so did some of the d20 game. I like the d20 game, but I liked the d6 game too.
Black Company seems pretty damned well-served by the d20 game developed for it. I like it as it is. Thieves World is the same way.
Babylon 5 seems to handle the setting well. But GURPS might do a good job with it if need be, or even Classic Traveller. Yeah, Classic Traveller might be fun for a B5 game.