Forked Thread: [Ryan Dancey's D&D Death Spiral] - D&D doomed to cult status?

[Korgoth]

What's the cost of full-on "cult" status? Why does it matter? I don't think it's an issue of quality - I still maintain that the very best stuff produced for the hobby was basically a "garage" effort. So if D&D is reduced to a loose-knit association of hobbyists who make their own quirky stuff and publish/distribute it over the internet (like the Old School Renaissance) then we'll still have plenty of quality stuff out there.

The real pain of cult status is that it makes it harder to find players IRL. There will be a smaller pool, on average, of available players and it may be harder to get some games off the ground. The key in that situation is, as others have pointed about above, simplicity.

Look at WWII naval miniatures wargaming. There's a niche hobby for you! Now there are a number of rules sets from which to choose: General Quarters, Seekrieg, Victory at Sea, etc. Mongoose's Victory at Sea has been a bit of a boon for that hobby, despite its flaws (we're talking Mongoose here) as a set of rules. Why? Well, for one thing, it is simple. For another, it is very easy to house rule (such as Dave Manley's collection of house rules online).

So say I want to put together a battle game or even a campaign. I get some nice, cheap castings from Panzerschiffe and my simple set of rules. I'm not happy with some aspects of the rules, so I print up a 1-page sheet of house rules. Now I just need players.

I'm at an advantage in this if I have a simple set of rules. If I mention a game where you have to do trigonometry to fire a spread of torpedoes, it is going to be a harder sell. If I mention a game in which some guy in the local area got stuck in a 15-hour session and only fired one shot with an anemic 5" gun, it is going to be a harder sell. The larger commitment of time the rules and the individual sessions require, and the slower the pace of the game, the harder a sell it is going to be. After all, my fellow wargamers only have a limited amount of free time, and they ought to spend it well.

If I come in with a simpler, faster-playing ruleset then we can probably get something started. If someone says "I don't like how aircraft work in VaS" (who does?) then we can talk about house rules. But it's not too hard to get something written out that everyone can pretty much agree on. And then we get down to gaming.

In the end, it's not the gaming products themselves that get people to the table and keep them there. It's the interpersonal interactions. If I come across a complete newbie who is willing to try, say, a naval game, I better be able to put something in front of him that he can grok. And it better not take 20 hours to play. Likewise, in trying to get my fellow grognards to the table, I better be able to put something out there that everyone will at least sort of like and not feel like bamboo is being shoved under their fingernails every time we resolve a movement phase.

To be clear, it's not about having the "perfect" set of rules. That's going to be different for everybody. It's about having the "good enough" set of rules. And that set of rules should be accessible (complexity-wise), manageable (time-wise), and able to be heavily modded so that it can be tailored to the preferences of each unique group.

Part of D&D 4E's problem is that it is so rarefied. Not only is it extremely focused on tactical combat, the actual semantic content of the game world is divorced from the mechanics (why does this half-naked pirate have an AC of 21? Because he's a level-appropriate foe and your Striker is supposed to roll a 10+ to hit him. He could be wearing plate armor or he could be totally nude... no mechanical difference). So not only does a potential player have to really enjoy the tactical combat aspect, and enjoy 4E's particular take on tactical combat at that (it's dimensions of Wuxia, etc.), he also has to not care about the "fluff" of the setting and how it interacts with "Combat Mode". This is a series of design decisions that just whittles down the potential audience. I think there's no way it can be the "gateway game" to the hobby.

 

[rounser]

Dragon-men and demon-men are readily understood by mainstream people.

Contemporary examples? Costumes with demon horns and tail, Hollywood depictions of Lucifer, or Buffy/Charmed demons, maybe, but all these are fully fledged demons in concept, not hybrids. And the tiefling look is very stylised in an ungeneric way. Dragonmen I'm kind of struggling to think of a contemporary example.

A big hint that they're kind of a niche concept is the lack of a clear name you can point to for them. Would have gone with "cambion" and "mandrake" (yes, I know it's a root) myself if we had to have the things everywhere in the core, although no-one really knows what a cambion is either, so that's hardly much better.

Let's face it - these are "Dragon Lite" and "Demon Lite", just as the shifter is "Lycanthrope Lite" (or less cryptically, "Werewolf Lite"). The real problem here is that a watered down "blood-of" race doesn't have a proper name in english that's readily understandable to the uninterested bystander without jarring direct references (as in the case of the IMO awkward-and-contrived-sounding dragonborn and shifter names).

What D&D really wants is Dragon, Werewolf and Demon there in the races section, but there are obvious reasons why this cannot be done without severe repercussions. I object to the "Monster Lites" in the core implied setting, because I disagree that they're the same great monster taste, less calories (or, if you prefer, don't relegate worldbuilding to an oddball kitchen sink mishmash of an implied setting by default, nor sit awkwardly next to the real mccoys).

 

[Krensky]

Los Piratas are big in Spain, but I wouldn't call any of these mainstream. DJ Gollum is established, but not mainstream.

I haven't got the faintest clue what S.P.O.C.K is.

That said, if the claim would be "no mainstream music bands are referencing Gollum", then I guess that's true. Although I don't follow mainstream that much. I'm sure there are instances out there.

/M

Swedish synthpop band form the 1990s. They had a... fetish for science fiction. Songs titles included Mr. Spock's Brain, Dr. McCoy, Never Trust a Klingon, E.T. Phone Home, In Space No One Can Hear You Scream, and Charlie X.

 

[Galloglaich]

Look, Mallus, I'm sorry if my post rubbed you the wrong way, please give me the benefit of the doubt on the whole email subtext thing, I'll do the same. I probably worded my post less diplomatically than I could have with a little more time, I'm not trying to be a jerk, just honestly express some ideas and observations. YMMV.

As for 1), I'm not sure the game was any easier to get into back in the early days, if only for the fact RPG's represented an entirely new kind of (board? board-less) game, whereas nowadays the basic conceit of "your playing piece is an imaginary person" is thoroughly a part of mainstream culture.

As for 3)... when, precisely, was not D&D not associated w/geek culture? I'm recently 40, and that's the most true now, after decades of mainstreaming of traditional geek-y pursuits.

I think DnD gotten much less mainstream over the years. I'm around the same age you are and my observation is that it was a lot more mainstream when I was a kid.

The question we have to ask is, why has DnD continued to get such a hostile reception in our culture while many of the elements of DnD have achieved wide mainstream acceptance in other vehicles such as World of Warcraft of Peter Jacksons Lord of the Rings films, and the basic concepts like fantasy role playing, clearly still have an appeal? What is it about DnD / tabletop FRPGs that engenders all the popular derision?

First off, you can play the newer editions of D&D a wide variety of ways. Spend some time reading the Story Hour section of ENWorld and you'll find ample proof of that.

I have read the Story Hour section somewhat, often found it quite inspiring, I know there are many creative people who can do a lot with any version of DnD and really make an art form out of it, that is not my point, I'm talking about what the system increasingly slants things toward.

Second the earlier versions of D&D where chock-full of adolescent high fantasy. They were the poster children for it. Jello monsters, trips to Wonderland (complete with enamel-grinding puns), crashed spaceships... yes, you can play 1e in a serious vein, but a great deal of the published support material suggested a vastly different mode of play.

Most of what you are talking about here, the adventures in particular, were add-ons, not part of the Basic rules. Most people I knew in the early days of the game used the box or Basic Set and never saw a module other than maybe B1 or B2.

These other modules you mention are fine and / or fun and appealing to a certain audience, but not something everyone had to buy-into just to play the game (like the idea of a Teifling or a Dragonborn). It was also much easier in the earlier days to pick and choose things you wanted or didn't want from the core rules too, like say removing Gelatenous cubes if you thought they were stupid. Making major changes to 3.5 or 4E, IMO, is much trickier and I say that as a published game designer and industry writer.

Third, there's always going to be something adolescent in fantasy adventure stories. There's no shame in that. That what appealed to the boy could still appeal to the man... I don't see the need to put away The Lord of the Rings in favor of In Search of Lost Time because I am now of a certain age. I can have both (can't I?)

Sure you can have both, but forcing a certain mixture of both aspects that you find appealing may not resonate with a wider audience.

And I personally don't think there does have to be something adolescent in fantasy adventure, for example I don't actually find Lovecraft or Robert E Howards original conan books to be particularly adolescent, at least not in the same way as say more modern incarnations such as Beastmaster or the second or third Conan Movies. They were a yarn, but had broader mass appeal that you didn't have to be an adolescent boy (of whatever age) to get into.

The same is true for sci fi and fantasy films, IMO. The 'grown up' ones, that didn't carry tons of baggage of compromised cliches that are acceptable to just that one demographic, had broad appeal and did very well, even though they were often technically detailed and not at all homoginzied. Matrix, LOTR, Blade Runner, Alien, Mad Max, these were films almost anybody could and usually did like. And were widely successful as a result. Compare those to say, Dungeons and Dragons the movie or the average Star Trek film...

Another analogy I often use is cartoons. To me, Buggs Bunny is appealing to people of all ages and both sexes. The best ones are like that. Whereas a cartoon like say He-Man / Masters of the Univese is really for a much more narrow range of boys from mental age of 8-12 or something like that. I think DnD is designed in a manner much more aimed at the latter kind of niche than the former unfortunately. (Not that I'm saying it forces you to play that way if you are a creative and experienced gamer.)

You think? I've been in quite a few bars that I wouldn't want to base my general opinion of drinking on.

True, good point...

Please, feel free to speak for as many people other than yourself as possible.
(snip)
Can you pack any more condescension into that sentence? It's interesting to plumb the limits of language.

Normal people like you, presumably. Normal people like me and my social circle find it quite accessible.

I'm sorry if I overreached with some of my examples, this is just how it appears to me. I'm not trying to be offensive, and I don't know anything about you, you seem articulate and fairly reasonable. I don't mean to have offended you.

You also might find that fewer people than you suppose enjoy pretending to be an elf or Conan, and there's no shame in that, either.

Ignoring your core audience is never a good idea. You aren't going to make opera more popular by making it more like pop music (Have you ever been an event with opera geeks? You think gamers and F/SF nerds are bad...). Sometimes you have to accept you're a niche product and that's that.

I don't think you should ignore your core audience at all, I think your core audience and your entry level audience are different audiences. Thats why I advocate a modular game.

I also don't think there should be any shame frankly in Geeking out all you like, I certainly geek out into all kinds of things, what I'm saying is that I think the core entry level of the game should not carry all that particular geek baggage, it should be as accessible as possible to a wide audience, not by dumbing it down or making it overly simplistic or bland, but by taking it out of this particular rut and making it grown up in it's assumptions enough that kids will respect it as much as adults do. Like Buggs Bunny

G.

 

[Galloglaich]

What's the cost of full-on "cult" status? Why does it matter? I don't think it's an issue of quality - I still maintain that the very best stuff produced for the hobby was basically a "garage" effort. So if D&D is reduced to a loose-knit association of hobbyists who make their own quirky stuff and publish/distribute it over the internet (like the Old School Renaissance) then we'll still have plenty of quality stuff out there.

I kind of agree with you... But introducing more amateur enthusiasts into the game is what keeps this garage scene vital, IMO.

So not only does a potential player have to really enjoy the tactical combat aspect, and enjoy 4E's particular take on tactical combat at that (it's dimensions of Wuxia, etc.), he also has to not care about the "fluff" of the setting and how it interacts with "Combat Mode". This is a series of design decisions that just whittles down the potential audience. I think there's no way it can be the "gateway game" to the hobby.

Well said.

G.

 

[jim pinto]

point of interest

anyone interested in discussing the death-spiral or cult status of RPGs should check out an essay by james wallis in Hobby Games: The 100 Best.

not only does he make a great case for why ghostbusters is such a good game, he very clearly distilled down everything that went right and wrong in game design during the 80s and 90s... and effectively what drove people away from the table and to the computer.

some might consider this axiom an inevitability, but wallis' essay is certainly worth the read.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Agreed, agreed, agreed!!! M O D U L A R. That was the key to the success of the old games. You could start out simple and casual, and move on into as complex and deeply involved as you wanted to be. This is the way the next big RPG is going to be made, mark my words.

I have to take small issue with this. Before 3E, where was this modularity? Yes, there were piles and piles of extra material, but 90% of these were either fluff or glorified house rules, none of which really fit the definition of modular. 3E was modular, and was unique in this regard as far as D&D goes.

As far of being simple and casual, moving on to be more deeply involved, where does 4E fail at this? You can either play out of just the original 3 books and be simple and casual, or you can add in all that has come after, including Dragon magazine.

 

[Mercurius]

Great thread, glad I started it . To respond to but a few of the many strong contributions...

Agreed, agreed, agreed!!! M O D U L A R. That was the key to the success of the old games. You could start out simple and casual, and move on into as complex and deeply involved as you wanted to be. This is the way the next big RPG is going to be made, mark my words.

Yes, I agree. And I would say this could be 5th edition, if WotC (or whoever takes D&D over) plays their cards right.

And yeah, miniatures are definitely a ghetoisng factor. They are percieved, not without some reason, as being symbols of geekdom, of being in a certain kind of rut. This is symbolic of the kind of buy-in / investment most people don't want to make when just learning a game. By making DnD so heavily based on minatures in recent versions, they really subdue a lot of the actual subversive appeal of it (i.e. unleashing the imagination), and require people to feel like they have to do something complex, expensive, time consuming and kind of childish and cheesy, especially given the crappy quality of most minatures.

Yes, exactly. I'm in my mid-30s but just got into miniatures; but I've never bought an official D&D miniature and probably never well...I own mainly Rackham, some Reaper, and a few others. But I buy them mainly to paint, secondarily to use in my game; however, I don't like the fact that I have to use them in 4ed combat...mainly because of the reason you said, that they can and often do impeded "unleashing the imagination" (and am playing with the idea of modifying the rules so that I don't have to).

And unleashing the imagination is what is at the essence of RPGs, imo. It is what sets it apart as a hobby; the disclaimer, of course, is that other activities unleash the imagination, obviously, and there are other important, enjoyable aspects of RPGs, but in my opinion this is The Essential Thing.

We have to ask ourselves why there is so much repulsion? Is it just the media and hang-over of "DnD is a Satanic Cult" hit pieces from back in the 80's? Or is there a more valid reason? Have we just gotten used to certain distasteful aspects of Geek culture like the boiling frog syndrome?

Right. I think the main thing is the stereotype of the D&D player, or other variants of nerdom: unattractive, unhealthy, overly obese or emaciated, etc. And certainly the "shadow" of the RPG community has to do with a prevalent dissociation from the body, from being "in this world." Again, before someone gets offended I am not saying that all gamers or even most gamers are such, but that this sort of thing is quite common. I am also not saying that obese people are bad (hey, I could lose a few myself although am not quite obese )--just that washing down a family sized bag of Doritos with a couple liters of Mountain Dew is...well, unhealthy.

Agreed, there is still something deeply subversive and broadly appealing about the Role Playing Game part of DnD. Not the +4 vorpal swords or the miniatures or the elf porn you can download on RPGNow, the unleashing of the imagination has a universal appeal. All the other stuff is clutter, some good, some bad, which people elaborate their gaming experience with. The initial opening should be as free of this kind of Geek baggage as possible; hip, simple, logical, and universally accessible... and from there you can open up enhancements and advanced versions that all of us can geek out on to our hearts desire.

I couldn't agree more. The highlighted part, imo, is the future of RPGs: If they begin to really focus on this then they will survive and flourish and possibly morph into something else. Heck, we have Model UN at my school and that is a kind of roleplaying. I am also planning on teaching a class on World Building to high school kids--how cool would that be?

The key, in other words, is the development of imagination and the usefulness of RPGs as a tool to do so.

Third, there's always going to be something adolescent in fantasy adventure stories. There's no shame in that. That what appealed to the boy could still appeal to the man... I don't see the need to put away The Lord of the Rings in favor of In Search of Lost Time because I am now of a certain age. I can have both (can't I?).

Yes you can. I would also add that healthy maturation does not involve the death of the child (in particular, play) but its enfoldment within a larger self. In truth, I would say that the antipathy towards D&D--and fantasy/SF in general--is not only about the overweight guys that hang out in game stores but a common dissociation from healthy forms of play. I've noticed that the high school kids that are the most aggressive towards D&D are those that are trying the hardest to be "adult". The adults that are the most negative towards D&D are those that have lost a sense of play (and often imagination).

Ursula Le Guin wrote a great essay entitled "Why are Americans Afraid of Dragons?" Highly recommended; it is compiled in her beautiful book, The Language of the Night.

Normal people like you, presumably. Normal people like me and my social circle find it quite accessible.

Then you and your social circle are the exception, not the rule. D&D is not accessible to "normal people" (non-gamers). The baggage of rules and geek-trappings is excessive; you and I are used to it and have been wading through it for decades, but to someone who is not then it is extremely off-puting.

It is not dissimilar to when a techy tries to explain to a non-techy how a computer works (or a car mechanic, etc): they often don't realize how something so easy and comfortable to them is complete gibberish to the other. This is why math teachers often suck

Ignoring your core audience is never a good idea. You aren't going to make opera more popular by making it more like pop music (Have you ever been an event with opera geeks? You think gamers and F/SF nerds are bad...). Sometimes you have to accept you're a niche product and that's that.

I agree, the core audience should not be ignored. But what I think G. and I are agreeing on is that D&D (and RPGs in general) need a "softer" core product, which is why I like the idea of a Basic ruleset with countless Advanced options. Imagine this product:

Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set
*Player's Manual (basic rules, classes, races), 32 pages
*Dungeon Master's Manual (incl. monsters, treasure, etc), 64 pages
*Dice

Fully compatible with Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, which would be similar to the books we see now. How could we possibly get everything we need into 96 pages? Well, you only include the four archetypal classes--fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue--and the 3-4 main races--elf, dwarf, human, maybe halfling); then you simplify Powers to Attack and other "types" (how many different kinds of attacks do we need?); then you give the DM some nifty guidelines on how to skillfully use DM Fiat and come up with appropriate target numbers for skill checks, etc. You include only the classic monsters and a simplified group of treasures. It isn't that hard, really (and I'm tempted to try it myself, if I have the time).

We wouldn't be losing anything, yet we'd be gaining a simple, core rules set that is accessible to anyone who wants to play.

I think the new edition is not opening to the mainstream, but venturing into its own very specialized niche - tiefling and dragonborn serve as good examples of "D&Disms" that are not really familiar to anyone outside D&D.

Maybe it would have been better to broaden the game, offer more options for different playstyles and backgrounds, instead of narrowing both.

This is where the modular approach would excel. You have a simple, core and relatively "generic" fantasy game, Basic D&D. Then you have as many optional rule books and campaign settings and play styles as you like. I think 4E has gotten a little closer to this but is still requires too much start-up (the three core books).

In the Basic/Advanced set-up, you could have entire splat books dedicated to different styles of play: Sword and Sorcery, Quest Fantasy, etc, as well as the usual class/power books, campaign guides, beastiaries, and rules expansions.

I think WotC's plan was to move its M:tG audience straight into D&D and create an immediate new generation of roleplayers. That audience fits into a younger demographic base, which is why 4E contains so many "contemporary" features.

Yes, probably true, but probably doomed from the get-go. D&D cannot compete with M:tG or World of Warcraft, or at least it cannot beat them at their own game. D&D has to develop its own strengths, its own unique qualities, which is--as G. said about--the power to "unleash the imagination." M:tG barely does this and WoW not at all (if anything it stultifies it).

What's the cost of full-on "cult" status? Why does it matter? I don't think it's an issue of quality - I still maintain that the very best stuff produced for the hobby was basically a "garage" effort. So if D&D is reduced to a loose-knit association of hobbyists who make their own quirky stuff and publish/distribute it over the internet (like the Old School Renaissance) then we'll still have plenty of quality stuff out there.

First off, I meant "doomed" lightly. On the other hand, there is a quote that goes something like "The Renaissance was a movement that only included about 1,000 people while it was happening"--but it changed the entire world.

Secondly, I agree insofar as D&D is "just" a hobby. Even if no book was ever produced again we could keep on playing and having one hell of a time. In fact, it might even inspire us more because we wouldn't have someone else making stuff up for us! But I'm also interested in the larger picture, in how D&D--and what it represents--interfaces with culture as a whole, and whether there is something within it that can take root and grow.

To be clear, it's not about having the "perfect" set of rules. That's going to be different for everybody. It's about having the "good enough" set of rules. And that set of rules should be accessible (complexity-wise), manageable (time-wise), and able to be heavily modded so that it can be tailored to the preferences of each unique group.

Yes, and a "good enough" set of rules, imo, would be one that is modular, that can be played in a relatively simple fashion but with whatever degree of complexity a given group desires. No RPG that I know of has been able to achieve this (maybe not even really tried).

Part of D&D 4E's problem is that it is so rarefied. Not only is it extremely focused on tactical combat, the actual semantic content of the game world is divorced from the mechanics (why does this half-naked pirate have an AC of 21? Because he's a level-appropriate foe and your Striker is supposed to roll a 10+ to hit him. He could be wearing plate armor or he could be totally nude... no mechanical difference). So not only does a potential player have to really enjoy the tactical combat aspect, and enjoy 4E's particular take on tactical combat at that (it's dimensions of Wuxia, etc.), he also has to not care about the "fluff" of the setting and how it interacts with "Combat Mode". This is a series of design decisions that just whittles down the potential audience. I think there's no way it can be the "gateway game" to the hobby.

True. I'm reading over an adventure I'm running tonight and am baffled by a 7th level Elite half-orc that has 166 Hit Points! Or maybe it is just the simulationist part of me warring with the gamist tendency of D&D?

 

[Remathilis]

Contemporary examples? Costumes with demon horns and tail, Hollywood depictions of Lucifer, or Buffy/Charmed demons, maybe, but all these are fully fledged demons in concept, not hybrids. And the tiefling look is very stylised in an ungeneric way. Dragonmen I'm kind of struggling to think of a contemporary example.

A big hint that they're kind of a niche concept is the lack of a clear name you can point to for them. Would have gone with "cambion" and "mandrake" (yes, I know it's a root) myself if we had to have the things everywhere in the core, although no-one really knows what a cambion is either, so that's hardly much better.

Let's face it - these are "Dragon Lite" and "Demon Lite", just as the shifter is "Lycanthrope Lite" (or less cryptically, "Werewolf Lite"). The real problem here is that a watered down "blood-of" race doesn't have a proper name in english that's readily understandable to the uninterested bystander without jarring direct references (as in the case of the IMO awkward-and-contrived-sounding dragonborn and shifter names).

What D&D really wants is Dragon, Werewolf and Demon there in the races section, but there are obvious reasons why this cannot be done without severe repercussions. I object to the "Monster Lites" in the core implied setting, because I disagree that they're the same great monster taste, less calories (or, if you prefer, don't relegate worldbuilding to an oddball kitchen sink mishmash of an implied setting by default, nor sit awkwardly next to the real mccoys).

Ok, lets take a different example...

half-vampires have been popular (and steadily growing) in American pop culture for about 20 years. From Vampire Hunter D to Buffy to Underworld to Castlevania to Twilight, vampire/human romances (and subsequent children) have become so common as to be cliche. Yet they can stand against full-vampires with no trouble to their stories, despite all the vampire lore that has come before them.

Tieflings, Dragonborn and Shifters are D&D's "half-vampires"*. Designed for PCs who want to play a monster (esp the iconic ones in D&D) In D&D, I can't play a devil/dragon/lycanthrope because the latter are too dang powerful, but a race that captures the spirit of them while allowing a human/good side? that's fine for me.

You might not like such "pseudo-monsters" in your game, but for some of us whose fantasy has grown along the lines of "half-vampire" fantasy, its no stretch of the imagination.

* Yes, I know D&D has its own half-vampire race (well a template in 3e and a feat-chain in 4e) as well. This is the game that developed the half-ogre race; something I'd personally rather forget.

 

[Maggan]

Swedish synthpop band form the 1990s. They had a... fetish for science fiction. Songs titles included Mr. Spock's Brain, Dr. McCoy, Never Trust a Klingon, E.T. Phone Home, In Space No One Can Hear You Scream, and Charlie X.

Swedish, huh? Guess I should have known about them, but alas. I'll check them out though, should be easy enough to find someone who has a record or two.

Thanks for the tip!

/M