Do we want one dominant game, and why?

[Thornir Alekeg]

I don't want a dominant game.

I have no issue with D&D (or someday some other system) as an iconic game that might dominate as an entry point into the hobby, but untimately I want multiple strong systems battling for the top position.

 

[gamerprinter]

Of course not

Of course I do not want a dominant game, and since there really isn't a dominant game - I don't see the problem. There was a dominant game until 4e now there are only dominant people claiming there's a dominant game, when that just isn't true anymore.

While I'm a Pathfinder guy, I think 3.5 is still the dominant game, more so than Pathfinder or 4e.

Things are better now that there is no dominant game - but it could be better.

GP

 

[Uder]

Fence sitter. I think having a game named D&D as the market leader makes it easier to fill slots in my home game which shares the same name (if not the same rules). I would prefer it if someone more along my mindset owned the trademark, though, so here I am enjoying the fruits of their labors at the same time I'm wishing ruin on them.

 

[Starfox]

I guess it would depend largely on who "we" are.

"We" on ENworld is presumably the enworld community and its posters.

 

[Starfox]

Wow, thats a pretty big discussion from my small poll. Very interesting to read. I said I would post my own views later, and think my views are pretty well summed up by Dausuul.

One giant is better than no giant, but two or more giants would be far healthier than just one.

Beginning of the End expresses this well too:

I would love it if there were multiple RPGs actually competing as entry-level products to the industry. That would be fantastic. I mean, it's never actually been true in the entire history of the industry, but it would be fantastic.

It is much easier to talk about RPGs with non-gamers by referencing a strong label like DnD. And it is nice to have a common ground of discussion with other gamers, a system of reference we can compare out individual tastes to. It gives us a common language.

A completely different topic is if D&D in general and 4E in particular is good as the dominant system. I agree with those saying DnD has the makings of a niche game, and more so with 4E than earlier editions; something much more rules-light would probably be better. But changing it seems next to impossible. Chaosium tried this with Basic Role Playing in the early 80's and didn't succeed. Considering how much smaller (and presumably easier to penetrate) the market was back when they failed, I think it would be very, very hard to try today.

 

[SiderisAnon]

I voted "No" for two reasons:

The first is that I do not believe any single game can satisfy every player and all genres. Part of the reason we have so many different games is because some games do one thing better than others. By having a number of choices available, it allows us to find the game that best suits what we need.

The second is because I hate being forced to play a game I hate just so I can keep playing, and I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way. Right now if I want to find a new game at my FLGS, I must play D&D 4th Edition. Those are the only games available. One has to find and find a way into a private group to play anything else... which isn't easy considering I've been looking for players for over two months and never had a single person respond to my advertisement. (Though the gamer seeking gamer type systems online have shown some results.)

 

[nedjer]

Wow, thats a pretty big discussion from my small poll. Very interesting to read. I said I would post my own views later, and think my views are pretty well summed up by Dausuul.

Beginning of the End expresses this well too:

It is much easier to talk about RPGs with non-gamers by referencing a strong label like DnD. And it is nice to have a common ground of discussion with other gamers, a system of reference we can compare out individual tastes to. It gives us a common language.

A completely different topic is if D&D in general and 4E in particular is good as the dominant system. I agree with those saying DnD has the makings of a niche game, and more so with 4E than earlier editions; something much more rules-light would probably be better. But changing it seems next to impossible. Chaosium tried this with Basic Role Playing in the early 80's and didn't succeed. Considering how much smaller (and presumably easier to penetrate) the market was back when they failed, I think it would be very, very hard to try today.

Yeah, you can immediately communicate the entry costs, the three hour combats, the image associated with some 'extraordinary' movies and . . . spread the shared language that Assassin's Creed 2 is going to be more fun over the first 20 hours.

And the reason why BRP struggled (apart from the name) wouldn't have anything to do with new players being constantly refered to "a strong label" by existing players. Not, perhaps, a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

 

[Tuft]

Given that reality, I would like D&D to:

(1) Be as broadly appealing as possible.
(2) Strongly compete with other entertainment mediums, particularly interactive ones (i.e., video games).

One of the problems with 4th Edition is that it moved D&D away from both of those points: It narrowed the appeal by adopted a design ethos of "pick a sweet spot and spread it across the entire game" (great if it was your sweet spot, terrible if it wasn't). And it moved the game towards specifically the types of gameplay where tabletop RPGs can't effectively compete with video games.

I also think an entry level game needs to be broad, simple and fast-paced.

It needs to be broad enough to appeal to those that like to go "traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people", and actually support this, rather than ridiculing it as WoTC did in its promotion for 4E. You should have things for those not interested in the minutiae of square-by-square movement and intricate interrupt rules, and who are bored by four-hour fights.

You know, those that would love to play a "Bishop" character in an "Aliens" game, or one of the non-violent healers the fantasy literature is filled to the brim with.

As for fast-paced, one of the things OD&D really had going for it as an entry level game was that it (at least as I remember it) was that it was fast-paced. My at-that-time DM loved big groups - around 10-15 players, and was meticulous with his book keeping - he kept track of every spell effect's duration, the time an alarm would take from we hit the first outpost of the dungeon until the main enemy force was alerted and battle-ready, the speed for enemy spell casters' reinforcements and resupply, everything. His turn-by-turn battle records usually went into the hundreds and two-hundreds of turns - and that was played in one or two game sessions. (as an aside, this numbers of turns meant that strategy actually mattered - outmaneuvering reinforcements, distracting enemy Command and Control, recon and information gathering being of essence.)

 

[Beginning of the End]

I agree with those saying DnD has the makings of a niche game, and more so with 4E than earlier editions; something much more rules-light would probably be better.

I think it's very common for experienced gamers to think that "rules light" is a good idea for an introductory RPG.

I also think it's very, very wrong.

It may be true for players who are being introduced to the game as part of an experienced group. But if you're talking about a game that's being sold to entirely new players, then the ideal quality for an introductory game is one which can always provide a solid answer to the question, "What am I supposed to be doing?" And it should be able to answer that question for both the GM and the player.

And for that to be true, you need lots of detailed crunch. New players want the rules to tell them a 20-foot jump is a DC 20 check.

The other quality an introductory game should have is a default scenario structure that, similarly, guides the players and GM in obvious ways. The D&D dungeon crawl is ideal for this: The PCs are in a room. They can either do something in that room or they can take one of (several) obvious exits and go to the next room.

For the players, the dungeon crawl never leaves them wondering, "What should I do next?" And the structure of the dungeon crawl makes it very difficult for a player-proposed action to leave the DM wondering, "What should my response be?" (You look at the map and describe the next room.)

And if this default scenario structure is also extraordinarily easy for the newbie GM to homebrew new scenarios for, then you've definitely got a winner.

And, finally, the game also needs to be flexible enough to expand beyond that starting point. And broad enough in its appeal to support the interests of many different types of players interested in pursuing many different playing strategies (and I'm not just talking combat strategy here).

In short, I think D&D's success wasn't a fluke. I think it was extraordinarily well-designed to appeal to new players (despite the opaque quality of the original manuals).

A couple final thoughts:

(1) If true storytelling games like 3:16 and Shock: Social Science Fiction ever get their acts together in creating a game structure and rulebook which is friendly to people who are not already intimately familiar with the conceits and forms of interactive fiction tabletop games, they have a real potential to create a breakout title.

(2) If you ever win the lottery and want to create a new RPG giant to compete with D&D, your best shot is to (a) look around and find a popular non-RPG video game property; and (b) license it under the condition that your 24-page introductory rulebook will be distributed in the next version of the game.

If your introductory rulebook is designed as effectively as the Basic D&D boxsets were -- featuring a ruleset friendly to completely new groups of players -- then you'll have introduced yourself to a million+ potential customers. Get a 1% conversion rate and you'll be in good shape. Get a 10% conversion rate and you'll be huge.

Will you ever earn back your investment? Depends on how effective you are in capitalizing in the window of opportunity you'll have opened for yourself.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I thought it was a good idea when I saw a whole bunch of licensed games getting their own systems. Then I saw it in practice with d20. What sounded good as an idea didn't work so well in reality, in my opinion.