There is a lot of stuff out for D&D right now, and sales are doing fine (Amazon)

[Ratskinner]

I didn't read the article, but the title suggest to me that the article would be about non-D&D worlds that they would like see in D&D. Was the author claiming these other worlds are D&D or that they would to play a D&D campaign in those worlds?

The author listed everything from other rpgs (Mashed) to media properties (The Last Airbender) in multiple genres, and some that were both without mentioning the rpg in question. In the Mashed section, they seemed to refer to the Mashed PbtA game as "D&D". So, I suspect the author was really trying to say that they would like to play an rpg set in each of those settings, and yet not realizing that all those other games aren't really D&D. Alternatively, they thought that the D&D-Bandaid label was pervasive enough that their meaning would be clear.

It made the article a little confusing for me to read, especially as the first few had me thinking "Why on earth would you want to use D&D mechanics to play that?"

 

[Ratskinner]

Extremely facetious, I can assure you.

There is no "become" about it, "D&D" means RPGing to people and pretty much always has. Powered by the Apocalypse, as far as even experienced and knowledgeable players, is basically "D&D with less math."

Network externalities might play a role. A bigger factor in this continued success is that WotC spent years studying how people play RPGs, what they look for in a game, and built a system fit to purpose. That, multiplied by those network externalities, is a potential force.

I agree. We saw how well it worked out (market-wise, not personal preference-wise) when they went the other direction.* I'm not as sure that one works without the other. That is, if D&D didn't already have those externalities built-in, I'm not sure that the research/development would matter nearly as much. I can't think of an rpg example, but I would point to some of the early social media competitors as examples of the network not being enough. Some of the those products built up massive networks very quickly, but the weakness of the underlying engine was weak and that made the networks fragile. (I would say that Facebook is a middling example, and their current struggles are them rapidly trying to adjust their engine before their network becomes too fragile and disintegrates.)

*In particular, the development phase with the massive playtesting is/was a far better way of assessing how people actually use the game than whatever it was they did to develop either of the previous editions.

 

[Ratskinner]

5 years ago there was a lot of talk about how D&D might be dead.

Now the talk is 'of course it's doing very well, it's D&D'.

In that timeframe, D&D's main competition (and the only one that ever overtook it within the marketspace, as far as we can tell) was essentially a clone(PF). If the edition wars nearly broke or killed D&D, it was because they broke the network externalities that (usually) keep it on top of the market. When a new entrant into the market couldn't figure out what game to pick up (4e, 3e, Pathfinder or whatever else was on the shelf) it adds a cost of entry that can turn them away. My son even experienced that, he had friends playing each of the three, and they couldn't come together on a system. (Not for all the edition war reasons, they were just trying to goof off and learning three versions of the game was just not worth it for them.)

We are at peak RPG right now. Most of the people playing all RPGs (incl. 5e) are not hobby gamers and started playing with 5e.

The 'find a group to play in' is true of hobby gamers looking for an RPG.

5e has caught on among non-hobby gamers because they like it. They could be playing board games or doing other things. They're playing an RPG because the RPG is good.

Or because of a lot of other reasons like: other ttrpgs aren't as easily available, you can't find groups to actually play those other rpgs, plain old brand recognition, production value, etc.

None of which directly addresses why we are seeing the surge in ttrpg play (and/or sales) in general, and I'm not making any particular argument as to why that is going on. I don't believe we actually have access to enough data to discount or support any of the theories I've seen put forth in that regard. (Its a post-eurogame effect, kids are craving actual face-to-face interaction, 5E is just that awesome, the rise of streaming live play, modern helicopter parents like it, celebrities "coming out" as D&D players, and a host of lesser and sometimes crackpot-ish theories as well. Heck, it could be some weird confluence of any number of them.)

What you prefer in a game is what you prefer, but to call 5e mediocre is absurd.

Amongst the various D&D's, I actually think 5e is superb. However, its not exactly bleeding-edge ttrpg mechanics, nor is it perfect or complete in all respects (witness the zillion or so arguments and "how do I do X?" threads on this very site). D&D is a product that relies heavily on Network Externalities to maintain its market share. One of the (rather obvious) design goals of this edition was to create an easily adoptable version of the game in order to capitalize on (and fix the edition-war torn) network of the game. I mean, that's why (from a marketing point of view) they were motivated to appeal to players of all editions, and I think they succeeded. Sure, they wrapped it up in all kinds of (at times smarmy) language about healing the community, but if that network had stayed broken....I think we'd be looking at whole different ballgame.

 

[ad_hoc]

In that timeframe, D&D's main competition (and the only one that ever overtook it within the marketspace, as far as we can tell) was essentially a clone(PF). If the edition wars nearly broke or killed D&D, it was because they broke the network externalities that (usually) keep it on top of the market. When a new entrant into the market couldn't figure out what game to pick up (4e, 3e, Pathfinder or whatever else was on the shelf) it adds a cost of entry that can turn them away. My son even experienced that, he had friends playing each of the three, and they couldn't come together on a system. (Not for all the edition war reasons, they were just trying to goof off and learning three versions of the game was just not worth it for them.)



Or because of a lot of other reasons like: other ttrpgs aren't as easily available, you can't find groups to actually play those other rpgs, plain old brand recognition, production value, etc.

This all applies to 4e.

4e came out after Pathfinder.

4e had the D&D brand.

3e wasn't being made anymore.

Why do people suddenly not have the problem of knowing what to play now? 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder all exist, so shouldn't that be even worse than with 4e?

You've assumed there are 'new entrants' then they pick out what RPG to play.

People recommend 5e to their friends. Then their friends try it and like it. Hobby gamers are a minority of RPG players now.

4e was chasing after a splintered player base. Non-hobby gamers had no interest and the ones that were around already had games they liked.

No one could have predicted that 5e would be able to gain this sort of momentum. Yes, when a bunch of geeky people getting together and trying to figure out what to play that usually falls on the most recent edition of D&D. What doesn't happen though is that non-hobby gamers are introduced, love it, and then start up games for their friends and so on. And that is what has happened.

Amongst the various D&D's, I actually think 5e is superb. However, its not exactly bleeding-edge ttrpg mechanics, nor is it perfect or complete in all respects (witness the zillion or so arguments and "how do I do X?" threads on this very site).

Forums are so small as to be virtually meaningless.

D&D is a product that relies heavily on Network Externalities to maintain its market share. One of the (rather obvious) design goals of this edition was to create an easily adoptable version of the game in order to capitalize on (and fix the edition-war torn) network of the game. I mean, that's why (from a marketing point of view) they were motivated to appeal to players of all editions, and I think they succeeded. Sure, they wrapped it up in all kinds of (at times smarmy) language about healing the community, but if that network had stayed broken....I think we'd be looking at whole different ballgame.

That was the original goal. To get RPG players to come together to play 5e as their main thing.

And while that goal succeeded, it has grown far past that. The number of new RPG players significantly outnumber older ones now.

 

[Mistwell]

I also wonder if there a still distribution issues with the new ones (which seem pretty low for new releases). I was at at B&N last night and at first I was shocked to see all the D&D accessories available: minis, gird packs, map packs, dice, board games (wrath of ashardalon, dungeon, & another one that escapes me at the moment). I hadn't seen so many D&D accessories at major retailer for years in my area. Then I noticed they didn't have WDDH or DotMM or GMGtR! A later realized the had whole new display in a more prominent position that did have the new books, WDDH & DotMM and AA, but there was still no GMGtR. Either it was selling much better, or they don't have enough. Not sure which.

Man these acronyms really suck.

People know what the Ravnica book is...not "GMGtR" (one letter difference, massive change in communication). They know what Dragon Heist is, not WDDH. They know Mad Mage is not DotMM (which by the way is only a savings of two letters for far less communication). And even I have no idea what AA is other than Alcoholics Anonymous.

 

[dave2008]

Very few know what your acronyms mean.

You're speaking complete jargon. Total failure to communicate with a meaningful portion of your audience. WDDH, DotMM, GMGtR, WTF? English, do you speak it?

I thought they were common knowledge on these boards (it is after all were I got them from). I also thought the audience, given the context could figure them out:

WDDH = Water Deep, Dragon Heist
DotMM = Dungeon of the Mad Mage (though it should be WDDotMM - Water Deep, Dungeon of the Mad Mage)
GMGtR = Guild Master's Guide to Ravnica

EDIT: But really, does it make any difference how well I communicate on this post

 

[dave2008]

double post

 

[Mistwell]

I thought they were common knowledge on these boards (it is after all were I got them from):

WDDH = Water Deep, Dragon Heist
DotMM = Dungeon of the Mad Mage (though it should be WDDotMM - Water Deep, Dungeon of the Mad Mage)
GMGtR = Guild Master's Guide to Ravnica

They are not really common knowledge, no. Once we get to this many books in, I don't think saving a couple of letters typed for an acronym with diminishing numbers who can keep track of them all is wise. I mean, if you're getting the responses you want when using them, then cool. But, I suspect different.

 

[dave2008]

They are not really common knowledge, no. Once we get to this many books in, I don't think saving a couple of letters typed for an acronym with diminishing numbers who can keep track of them all is wise. I mean, if you're getting the responses you want when using them, then cool. But, I suspect different.

I'm not looking for any response really - so I guess they worked!

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not looking for any response really - so I guess they worked!

By the way, what IS the "AA" on that book shelf?