The Escapist on D&D Past, Present, and Future

[Alphastream]

Second: *this* is generalization:

That was just the most obvious (and obviously incorrect) generalization. The number of 4E players that grew up on Gygax is huge. Coupled with the success of Encounters at bringing back old players, you have a really high number of 4E gamers that played with AD&D or earlier.

Overall, I honestly felt the article was useful. It is a snapshot of a view and a possibility.

But, the article is unfair if it is taken as gospel. There is just a lot the article doesn't cover, and the author has potential reason to show bias. The article focuses too narrowly and ends up saying little as a result beyond suggesting the demise of D&D. Meanwhile, wizards has had many successes the past three years. Paizo is likely the only company that doesn't absolutely drool over Wizards' revenue, and even Paizo likely has a number of things they wish they could do as well (for example, in-store programs, advertising, or convention support).

I do take heart that the "future" article seemed to turn things around and wish for a more unified community. A shame he didn't provide some ways that could happen and write an article that helped make it happy. For example, we could easily re-spin the entire article to read "several RPGs have been strong, including indie games and notably Paizo... could this, coupled with an innovative Wizards, strengthen the industry in years to come?"

 

[I'm A Banana]

The game didn't stay that way

Ah, that's the rub.

Because circa 2008, with James Wyatt telling me that talking to guards, exploring ruins, and interacting with the fey were not fun and should be skipped, I could almost here him saying, "Let's just pretend that this is a minis combat game, mkay? Don't worry about talking to giants -- giants are there to provide 10 rounds of minis combat."

And I was all, "Wait. No. My D&D has always been more than that!"

And that's part of why 4e has trouble resonating with me. All editions of D&D have been pretty combat focused (you need rules for things you do a lot of!). What has made them interesting to me is that there is more than that. The game didn't stay CHAINMAIL. 4e seemed to come out in places and tell me rather explicitly that I was doing it wrong, by using it as a vehicle for something much broader than a combat engine.

Of course, it's not an absolute statement. There are parts of the game that don't hew to that (problematic though Skill Challenges and Rituals are). It's just an indication from the rules, and a few choice bits of advice. It's a tone.

 

[Rechan]

Because circa 2008, with James Wyatt telling me that talking to guards, exploring ruins, and interacting with the fey were not fun and should be skipped, I could almost here him saying, "Let's just pretend that this is a minis combat game, mkay? Don't worry about talking to giants -- giants are there to provide 10 rounds of minis combat."

And I was all, "Wait. No. My D&D has always been more than that!"

And that's part of why 4e has trouble resonating with me. All editions of D&D have been pretty combat focused (you need rules for things you do a lot of!). What has made them interesting to me is that there is more than that. The game didn't stay CHAINMAIL. 4e seemed to come out in places and tell me rather explicitly that I was doing it wrong, by using it as a vehicle for something much broader than a combat engine.

Were we reading different books? Did James Wyatt say that to you personally? I never got that impression.

 

[mudbunny]

Were we reading different books? Did James Wyatt say that to you personally? I never got that impression.

Can we not start this argument...again...for the umpteenth time??

Lets just leave it at the following:

The passage in question can be interpreted a number of different ways, and discussion of those ways has never, ever resulted in anything other than eventual mod-text in the thread.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Can we not start this argument...again...for the umpteenth time??

It's a little weird that it keeps cropping up. It's not like getting that impression should be shocking or unexpected by this point.

In deference to the above message, I'll only say that it doesn't take a madman to see 4e circa 2008-9 as rather explicitly a minis combat game. If you want to seek the discussions, they're out there. Start a thread in General, if you're confused, and I bet you'll get a lot of response. It's more than the particular quotes as well. From powers to monsters to rituals to magic items to skill challenges to the early adventures, it wasn't hard to infer that the game's intent was to be played like that.

If that wasn't the intended message, then they didn't communicate their intent well. If that WAS the intended message, it's probably the wrong message to communicate.

And I think if Mearls & Monte are smart (and I believe they are!), they'll ensure 5e is explicitly designed and described to be as much about talking to guards and faeries as you want it to be. I'm pretty optimistic about what the future holds!

 

[fjw70]

A very strange article. The following quote (attributed to Mike Mearls) seems really strange.

"It's all about player power now - the DM is just the rules guy - and the DM can't contradict what the players say."

How is the DM more of a rules guy in 4e when the rules are the most clear of any edition. And if the DM is just the rules guy then who is creating adventures and describing the world and giving life to he NPCs. I have a hard time thinking Mearls really said that.

 

[Stormonu]

There was a quote in there about comics that got me thinking: the state of roleplaying games is somewhat like the comic field right now:

You have the well-known Marvel and DC (D&D and Pathfinder), and some other less well-known publishers (Image, Dark Horse, etc. which would be akin to SJG, WW/Eden, etc.).

Nobody is attempting to force all those comic book readers under one monolithic world that has Batman rubbing elbows with Captain America and the X-Men and the Justice League trying to take down the combined Legion of Doom and Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. Sure, sometimes we see team-ups or crossovers, but that's a very rare thing these days.

Instead, each publisher takes their comics in the direction that (hopefully) their fans enjoy. They aren't trying to (overtly) steal each others fans, and fans can freely read DC, Marvel or whatever without having to be devoted to one superhero universe or the other.

The roleplaying game community should take a long look at that; we've now got a variety of systems that appeal to the different styles of play we each enjoy. We don't need to try and unite both sides in some misguided attempt to force our ideals on everyone else. We can survive having multiple versions of D&D just like the comic industry - or movie industry - or video game industry, if we back off and stop trying to tear out each other's throats and just play the damn game we like.

 

[Rechan]

The roleplaying game community should take a long look at that; we've now got a variety of systems that appeal to the different styles of play we each enjoy. We don't need to try and unite both sides in some misguided attempt to force our ideals on everyone else. We can survive having multiple versions of D&D just like the comic industry - or movie industry - or video game industry, if we back off and stop trying to tear out each other's throats and just play the damn game we like.

That's unlikely to happen IMO.

Too many people are either:

1) Casual gamers, in that they've played D&D, or MAYBE Vampire/Werewolf, but really they don't look very far. We here on ENWorld who come here to talk about RPGs are the die-hardcore people, not your typical gamer. These folks play what their friends are playing.

2) Refuse to play any other system. These are people who Play Their System and That's It. It might be D&D, or it might be GURPS, but whatever it is, they won't budge.

You also have to consider how people get their games. Walk into a gaming store and if it's a decent gaming store, you'll find D&D, Pathfinder, WH40K, White Wolf titles, and... maybe two others? No indies. This gets even smaller when you walk into say, a Barnes and Nobles which likely has D&D but not Pathfinder, and certianly no indie stuff.Whereas with any comic book store they have a wall of comics, and stock a lot of your non-Marvel/DC stuff.

To stretch your analogy, most of your indie games are like webcomics. There are a million out there, and only a few will get popular enough to that enough people know they exist. Mostly they have a small fan base and little new traffic.

Many times I have proposed on this board, "If you want to play style x, go look for a system that does x well" and never makes any traction.

 

[delericho]

Many players are introduced to the game by someone who already knows it; I don't know that a bunch of newbies picking up some books and trying to play is all that common (it's debatable as to whether it could or should be).

Also, if you're learning with experienced players, oftentimes you don't need to spend anything; you borrow books until you decide if its worth it or not.

Yes, but that's entirely the issue. If the game is set up so it's extremely daunting to come at cold (1,000 pages of Core Rules, $100 buy-in, whatever), then you're basically only selling to people who are already enthusiasts. The hobby can only grow by the network expanding organically - you have to know someone on the inside to help you along.

But that network isn't terribly easy to find. Many games don't talk about their hobby, for fear of ridicule (or, in some places, worse). Many others have their group, are happy with that, so feel no need to seek out (or even welcome) new players.

I had lived in Falkirk for three years before I found any other gamers in the place, and it wasn't that I wasn't looking. Given that I was actively searching, and that I already knew what to look for, what chance does a curious kid without that experience have?

If the game is created for, marketed to, and sold to those who are already enthusiasts, and if it remains hard to come in to cold, then Ryan Dancey is pretty much right - we're heading for the fate of model railways. Those kids who would be curious about the game, but don't have an immediate and obvious connection to the network? They'll go play WoW instead.

 

[Shemeska]

And I was all, "Wait. No. My D&D has always been more than that!"

I can't give you XP again yet, alas.