So what exactly is the root cause of the D&D rules' staying power?

So I made my first real RPG purchase in over three years this week---I picked up a copy of Genesys RPG.

I think it's pretty well known around here that I'm a big fan of Savage Worlds. Reading through Genesys evoked the same vibe I got when reading Savage Worlds for the first time. I could easily picture the style of gameplay Genesys was aiming for---fast, narrative, semi-"pulpy" action while still giving characters enough flavor and character-building options to keep things interesting.

I honestly felt like Genesys in some ways could be a sideways evolution of Savage Worlds in some respects, though you wouldn't necessarily see it by simply focusing on say, the core resolution mechanics.

But later that day, I went downstairs and looked at my RPG shelf, and saw what little 3.x era material I had sitting on it (the FR and Pathfinder campaign settings + a few adventures), and I was struck by this feeling I couldn't quite describe. It was this idea that I was so totally over my past life where 3.x was the ONLY system I'd ever known, and ever wanted to know. It was . . . odd to even look at materials from that time in my life, because they somehow made me . . . melancholy. As if I had to mourn a little bit inside for the poor, naive man I had been in the early 2000s when I had NO IDEA that there were systems out there that would give me way better experiences than D&D 3.x ever did.

I'm now so far removed from caring about the actual D&D product line that four months ago I loaned out my 5e PHB to a kid who lives two houses down from me. He came to me maybe two weeks ago and said, "Hey, I'll get that 5e book back to you pretty soon!" and I was like, "Eh, no hurry." Like, if that 5e PHB never actually ends up back in my possession, I will think on it for all of three seconds before shrugging and whispering, "Use your newfound power for good, my lad." The $32 I spent on the book is a small price to pay for the enjoyment the kid will hopefully get out of it.

But it got me thinking today a little more about just what it is about the actual D&D rules---from OD&D to 5e (I'm including Pathfinder in this discussion too)---that continues to demand so much mind share amongst the overall gamer population. Why is it so . . . hmmm, what's the word . . . omnipresent even today, especially when I can think of at least six systems off the top of my head that I'd rather play or GM than anything ever published by TSR, WotC, or Paizo?

Is it simply the matter of being first? Is it simply too ingrained into the social fabric of the hobby and its participants? Is it nostalgia? Is it the idea that if you're going to "play an RPG," you might as well start with the thing that gave birth to the concept in the first place? Is it that computer RPGs have so liberally cribbed its core conceits that coming to pen-and-paper from computer RPGs is that much easier? Is it that most GMs' collective knowledge of the system is too hard-earned to give up? Is it that the ecosystem of supporting adventure and campaign material is now so ubiquitous that it's just the obvious, easiest choice to get a game up and running?

Why does D&D and its offspring continue to have such a vice grip on the hobby, and what is it that stops people from even considering anything else? Because I can honestly say, once I took a look outside the D&D window, I've never looked back.

I was like that, but the other way round. Now all i play is D&D, and lots of it. Demand is very high. Actually I should say I run. That's all I really do, is run games, no matter the rule set.

A story perhaps?

One day I asked a Farmer why he paints his barn red. He said it was because the red paint was so cheap. Aha! I thought, now I know.

A few days later I was at that farmers local paint supply and I asked the owner why red paint was so cheap, she said it was because farmers buy so darn much of it. Aha! Oh, wait. Dang.

It was D&D red.

There is a self repeating cycle to it.

However d&d does what it does well. It's a pretty casual game with enough crunch to satisfy the theorists and a lot of unique flavour, but with enough creative space to put you own idwas into.

However it does demand a certain play style, and sometimes i get bored of that and what something else.

Strangely a lot of people I've met who play d&d seem scared to play anything else, as if it's out of their comfort zone or something. It's usually the same people that have a heart attack of you suggest a house rule..

A couple of years ago, someone posted a story here about Heinz ketchup, and how nobody was really able to compete with it, because it combines a lot of things just right. And while you can then vary the individual elements for different tastes, you can't actually better the base formula because it hits all the right notes.

D&D is pretty much like that - it combines a bunch of elements just about right. Other games may hit other combinations better for some people, but nobody has been able to better the base formula.

Or something like that.

I'll try almost any system once. But a lot of systems are also tied to specific lores (like CoC or Warhammer) that don't interest me as much. I largely stick with D&D because of the large range of gameplay it can produce. From low-fantasy gritty horror to high-fantasy wuxia and everything in-between. I can almost always be sure to find a D&D game with a new and exciting setting, but I can almost always expect other games to always be the same. And yeah sometimes I'm up for a Star Wars game, or a dark-fantasy Wild Wild West-style game or goofing around as anthropomorphic dogs, but far far less often.

D&D is "good enough" at what it tries to do and already has the advantage of network externalities: decently large current and lapsed player base and a brand created by multi-decade marketing/public awareness. Any store that sells RPG material will almost certainly stock D&D (unless it is an organ for a specific rival company like GDW) because of its large base of players. And that means any prospective new players will get some exposure to the game.

Games that are better* at any one or set of aspects have to compete for any attention without those network advantages. "Good enough" goes a long way when you are trying to get several people to agree on what to spend time on. It's like pizza: get a bunch of people together to share pizza and you'll end up with one you wouldn't necessarily order for yourself, but it's good enough.

* subjectively at least though there are potentially some objective measures that an be used across rulesets

Name recognition.

That's it. I guarantee that if nobody had heard of Dungeons & Dragons, and the name everyone had heard of was something else, we'd be having this discussion about a completely different game, and D&D would be in a position like Tunnels & Trolls or Rolemaster or something.

Now, *because* of that name recognition we have an incredible amount of materials for D&D, including the expansive multiverse (which I love with a passion, and is the main draw to D&D for me), a plethora of settings, and a library of novels and video games. But that is all an effect of the ongoing name recognition, that then reinforces it.

D&D's core rules systems aren't superior to other game systems. Most people could find, or be presented with, a system they would find they like better.

And I absolutely stand by these claims.

Sword of Spirit said:

D&D's core rules systems aren't superior to other game systems. Most people could find, or be presented with, a system they would find they like better.

Click to expand...

I'd say this is likely true for a large majority of players. D&D may actually be the right "fit" for some, but as you say, most could find a game they like better if they'd just take a chance.

But therein also lies some of the problem---it's a chance. Maybe a player might like something better---but then again, maybe not. There's a risk that players might end up trying something, but it ends up only being different, not better.

Plus, all of the other factors (system knowledge, ecosystem of material, etc.) seem to self-reinforce the risk aversion. "Well, maybe I'll like it better, but even if I do like it better, I have to totally commit to learning a new system, AND teach my players how to play it, AND buy new books, AND find setting material and adventures for it, AND there's unlikely to be play opportunities at my local game store and conventions."

When I look at it this way, it totally makes sense why people stick with D&D almost blindly at times . . . but it still surprises me just how far people will take it.

I've had players tell me to my face (my old GM would be one of those) that "D&D is all I've ever wanted or needed in an RPG" when they literally haven't tried anything else. And the funny thing is, in 2003, I would have been one of those people. Because why would I have tried anything else? What else was there that was any good? Wasn't D&D "the best" RPG?

Another hint, I suppose, should be the continued popularity of Pathfinder. A large portion of the player base is basically still playing an extension of a rules system that came out 18 years ago. (Holy cow, that's a little crazy to think about).

By the same token, though, 3.x / Pathfinder are case positive of my point. You have to be willfully blind to look at 3.x / PF and say it's this amazingly engineered, well balanced system. My experience with Pathfinder was fun, but at no point when I was GM-ing it would I call it "elegant."

I suppose it's telling, though, that when given the choice between 4e, sticking with 3.x (Pathfinder), or branching out to something new, a substantial portion of the player base stayed with Pathfinder. By the time 4e rolled around, I was darn good and ready for something different. 4e ended up being exactly the wrong kind of different, so I went looking elsewhere.

innerdude said:

By the same token, though, 3.x / Pathfinder are case positive of my point. You have to be willfully blind to look at 3.x / PF and say it's this amazingly engineered, well balanced system. My experience with Pathfinder was fun, but at no point when I was GM-ing it would I call it "elegant."

Click to expand...

Honestly, Pathfinder isn't that bad, especially if you ignore certain supplements. The base system has a lot going for it in terms of consistency, but its ambition definitely exceeded its reach in a couple of places. You could say the same thing of 4E.

To contrast, I'm not sure if there are any games that work better than core Pathfinder or 5E, or a retroclone like Basic Fantasy. Every system has its own trade-offs, after all. There are a lot of bad games out there, but decent games mostly seem to be of comparable quality.

Let me ask the question this way:

How many core elements of your favorite game system (whatever it is) have entered into the cRPG market and stuck there?

My guess is that unless your favorite game system is D&D, the answer is close to none.

Consider the lowly much scowled at "hit point". I doubt there is a core game mechanic of any system that has ever had so much derision heaped on it. And yet, it abides. It not only abides, it is pretty much universal in computer gaming. Why is the "hit point" so successful. Well, for a lot of reasons, but one very important answer is that it is statistically predictable. It allows you to make a good estimate of how a combat is going to play out. The ablative protection of a hit point means that you can easily do the math and that no one role necessarily need be decisive. If you are designing an RPG encounter, whether on a computer or in a table top game, that predictability and that ability to tweak the result is golden.

And so it goes.

I've been there. Back in the early '90s, frustrated with the limitations of 1e AD&D, I had all those opinions as well - classless, wound based systems, mana point based magic, skill based systems, point buy, and so on and so forth. By golly, I wasn't going to play an old fashioned inelegant unrealistic system any more.

So I played a lot of systems. Some of them were even good, but the more different systems I played, the more I realized most of my objections were seriously short sighted.

I'm glad you've found a system that works for you. But from my perspective, "Savage Worlds"??? Seriously? I think that just goes to show that there is no one system that makes everyone happy, but personally I've had a ton of fun running 3e D&D. With some tweaks, it does what I want it to do. Whereas, Savage Worlds does absolutely nothing for me.