D&D General D&D's Utter Dominance Is Good or Bad Because...

[Campbell]

One area I think a fair number of people who aren't primarily D&D fans even if they enjoy playing it is the idea that the rest of us are dependent on D&D to exist. That its current boom is good for you regardless of what you play. Anecdotally that's just not true for me. This is not the best time there has ever been to find players for Vampire, Exalted, Legend of the Five Rings, Apocalypse World, etc. It actually has been better for me, but for a different reason - now the people I find for games like L5R and Vampire are actually really into the game in question and not just for something to play like they were back in the day when the games were more popular in the cultural zeitgeist.

I just think the idea that roleplaying games are arrayed in such a way that the rest of us need to somehow bow the knee is something I just don't agree with (which is the overall tenor of there must always be a behemoth talk). Frankly that general belief among the D&D Only fanbase that my greater roleplaying game hobby makes me less likely to support and play D&D despite genuinely enjoying 5e in short bursts.

 

[mamba]

This is the D&D that we demanded from WotC. We got what we demanded. I have zero sympathy for those, like me, who have been thrown under the bus for the past decade and steamrolled by the fandom, only to now start whingeing that WotC isn't doing enough.

I am not sure I understand this part… so you were thrown under the bus by 5e and want something else?

 

[mamba]

Is that "the fandom" or a vocal but small subset of fans? How many of the 30 million D&D players respond to the playtest surveys? Why would WotC cater everything to that small group, as opposed to some other small group?

because that is the only small group they know enough about to be able to cater to

 

[Reynard]

One area I think a fair number of people who aren't primarily D&D fans even if they enjoy playing it is the idea that the rest of us are dependent on D&D to exist. That its current boom is good for you regardless of what you play. Anecdotally that's just not true for me. This is not the best time there has ever been to find players for Vampire, Exalted, Legend of the Five Rings, Apocalypse World, etc. It actually has been better for me, but for a different reason - now the people I find for games like L5R and Vampire are actually really into the game in question and not just for something to play like they were back in the day when the games were more popular in the cultural zeitgeist.

I just think the idea that roleplaying games are arrayed in such a way that the rest of us need to somehow bow the knee is something I just don't agree with (which is the overall tenor of there must always be a behemoth talk). Frankly that general belief among the D&D Only fanbase that my greater roleplaying game hobby makes me less likely to support and play D&D despite genuinely enjoying 5e in short bursts.

I expect something of a "other games" renaissance when 5E starts to flounder, as people who have played it for a few years drift off to find other games that better fit their needs rather than constantly hacking at 5E and supporting a lot of frankly questionable 5E kickstarters.

 

[DEFCON 1]

One area I think a fair number of people who aren't primarily D&D even if they enjoy playing it is the idea that the rest of us are dependent on D&D to exist. That its current boom is good for you regardless of what you play. Anecdotally that's just not true for me. This is not the best time there has ever been to find players for Vampire, Exalted, Legend of the Five Rings, Apocalypse World, etc. It actually has been better for me, but for a different reason - now the people I find for games like L5R and Vampire are actually really into the game in question and not just for something to play like they were back in the day when the games were more popular in the cultural zeitgeist.

I just think the idea that roleplaying games are arrayed in such a way that the rest of us need to somehow bow the knee is something I just don't agree with (which is the overall tenor of there must always be a behemoth talk). Frankly that general belief among the D&D Only fanbase that my greater roleplaying game hobby makes me less likely to support and play D&D despite genuinely enjoying 5e in short bursts.

You bring up a good point and smartly (I think) make it clear that from an "individual" perspective it might be one way, even if it could be the other way for the "non-individual" or "masses" perspective.

Having a "behemoth" game such as 5E can easily be a roadblock towards any one individual's happiness or success in the hobby, because for example (as many people have brought up and made mention)... having D&D be so popular makes more people just want to play that game at the expense of any others... reducing that individual's ability to find/run games of other types because there just aren't interested other players.

But on the flip side... having a "behemoth" game such as 5E-- a game so big that it can reach out into the "non-gaming" world and help bring many more new players into this world... increases the numbers of players in total, and thus increases the odds that some of them will branch out and try new games. Which is true and great from the amorphous "masses" perspective. More players in the hobby overall means more players amongst the masses potentially available to play non-D&D 5E games.

The problem of course though... is that just because there are more players "out there" willing and interested in playing those other games... doesn't mean that any one specific individual will see any of them. So while it's great from a philosophical perspective that the "Roleplaying Game Player" pool has gotten larger... what did this greater player pool actually accomplish for that one individual? Potentially nothing. So what use was it?

It's the endless philosophical debate... can something that helps a large group of people that does not include (general) you... still be good? And how well or willing can (general) you separate the two?

 

[Oofta]

One area I think a fair number of people who aren't primarily D&D fans even if they enjoy playing it is the idea that the rest of us are dependent on D&D to exist. That its current boom is good for you regardless of what you play. Anecdotally that's just not true for me. This is not the best time there has ever been to find players for Vampire, Exalted, Legend of the Five Rings, Apocalypse World, etc. It actually has been better for me, but for a different reason - now the people I find for games like L5R and Vampire are actually really into the game in question and not just for something to play like they were back in the day when the games were more popular in the cultural zeitgeist.

I just think the idea that roleplaying games are arrayed in such a way that the rest of us need to somehow bow the knee is something I just don't agree with (which is the overall tenor of there must always be a behemoth talk). Frankly that general belief among the D&D Only fanbase that my greater roleplaying game hobby makes me less likely to support and play D&D despite genuinely enjoying 5e in short bursts.

I think that there would always have been some dominant game for TTRPGs or the TTRPG community would be much smaller as a whole but that just because of my guess on what the market would look like. I happen to enjoy D&D and, for a variety of reasons, don't play other TTRPGs but that doesn't mean I put D&D on a pedestal.

I'm not blaming you for this idea that anyone needs to "bow the knee" to D&D because other people say it as well. But I've never seen anyone say or even imply that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You bring up a good point and smartly (I think) make it clear that from an "individual" perspective it might be one way, even if it could be the other way for the "non-individual" or "masses" perspective.

Having a "behemoth" game such as 5E can easily be a roadblock towards any one individual's happiness or success in the hobby, because for example (as many people have brought up and made mention)... having D&D be so popular makes more people just want to play that game at the expense of any others... reducing that individual's ability to find/run games of other types because there just aren't interested other players.

But on the flip side... having a "behemoth" game such as 5E-- a game so big that it can reach out into the "non-gaming" world and help bring many more new players into this world... increases the numbers of players in total, and thus increases the odds that some of them will branch out and try new games. Which is true and great from the amorphous "masses" perspective. More players in the hobby overall means more players amongst the masses potentially available to play non-D&D 5E games.

The question, though, is does it? That's an assumption, really. If 99% of the new players get sucked into the D&D ecosystem they're going to have to make active effort to get out of it. As often pointed out, with VTT play that's more practical than it once was, but that's probably still going to only be a thing for a tiny fraction that wasn't already playing that way.

Essentially, I'm not sure the impact is at all visible, once you spread it around among multiple other games, some still in the D&D sphere (PF2e, 13th Age, the OS sphere).

The problem of course though... is that just because there are more players "out there" willing and interested in playing those other games... doesn't mean that any one specific individual will see any of them. So while it's great from a philosophical perspective that the "Roleplaying Game Player" pool has gotten larger... what did this greater player pool actually accomplish for that one individual? Potentially nothing. So what use was it?

As you say here. If you increase the non-D&D player pool by 5%, who's going to actually notice?

It's the endless philosophical debate... can something that helps a large group of people that does not include (general) you... still be good? And how well or willing can (general) you separate the two?

Its not even an issue of being beneficial to an individual; its a question of whether, in practice, its visible to anybody.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not blaming you for this idea that anyone needs to "bow the knee" to D&D because other people say it as well. But I've never seen anyone say or even imply that.

You see an awful lot of presentation of "a rising tide lifts all boats" with D&D, and everyone else should be glad of that, without a lot of evidence presented its true.

 

[FrogReaver]

You see an awful lot of presentation of "a rising tide lifts all boats" with D&D, and everyone else should be glad of that, without a lot of evidence presented its true.

My current group started out as 5e only. We have since played Blades in the Dark, Stars without Number, Lancer, Old gods of Appalachia and even one guys homebrew RPG. That said most of those only lasted a few sessions. But we do occasionally cycle back to them for a few more. Probably 90% of our time is spent on 5e.

I’d say if it wasn’t for 5e those 4-5 other boats wouldn’t have been lifted by my group either. I’m sure I’m far from the only one.

 

[mamba]

You see an awful lot of presentation of "a rising tide lifts all boats" with D&D, and everyone else should be glad of that, without a lot of evidence presented its true.

I am not seeing any evidence to the contrary either however… the premise certainly makes more sense than the alternative to me. If you have no one attracting players, how does that benefit anyone?

I can certainly see a case that once attracted to TTRPGs some people will branch out from the game they started with. I know I did