D&D 5E Is 5e's Success Actually Bad for Other Games?

[Kurotowa]

Good enough is okay, sure. I just don't think that 5E is actually good enough.

Good enough for what purpose? I mean, I have my complaints about pain points in 5e's design, how short rests don't quite work and the limited scope of martial class abilities and such. But is 5e good enough to be both the most popular edition of D&D and the most popular TTRPG ever? It is both those things, and those things don't happen by accident or luck or mischance.

 

[Campbell]

So I think there are some major issues with market design when it comes to tabletop RPGs. Basically you have very few companies with the capability to perform any kind of market outreach. The games those companies are selling all pretty much fit in the same mold (cooperative action adventure with an emphasis on GM as storyteller). So when you have games that are meant to appeal to a different sort of audience they usually have to sell themselves to a market where initial participation requires an interest in the dominant mode of play.

That being said I think a lot more could be done outreach wise to attract less traditional customers who might be interested in something like Monsterhearts or Vampire, but would never have any interest in something like D&D. You're starting to see some signs of this on platforms like itch.io and Kickstarter, but really there needs to be a lot more done.

We know that given the right resources something like this can work because Vampire used to be a thing. You had all sorts of nontraditional hobbyists entering the hobby during the 90s because there was a compelling game with real resources and marketing muscle behind it.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

We know that given the right resources something like this can work because Vampire used to be a thing. You had all sorts of nontraditional hobbyists entering the hobby during the 90s because there was a compelling game with real resources and marketing muscle behind it.

And Vampire is being a thing again. They are taking advantage of the whole podcast/streamed games and are still having online conventions for their games. And have announced several new products in the past couple of weeks. Oh, and several new video games set in the World of Darkness being released this year too. Plus, wasn't there some news about a new Vampire TV series being worked on?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You don't really see this issue with board games, and neither in video games aside from the most dedicated Skyrim modders.

Maybe you don’t. It just goes the other way in board games. It’s much easier to get people to play an evening of short games with simple systems because they can “play and forget” each game, without really investing anything in it. Getting players for the big 4 hour Cthulhu games is much harder, because people don’t want to invest that much time or mental bandwidth into a board game.

Video games are the similar. Most are played through a couple times and then you replace them with soemthing else. MMOs differ, but that is likely because MMOs are a time sink, and you need to invest time and mental bandwidth to get the most out of them, and most people don’t want to do that for multiple games.

Like with MMORPG players, the vast majority of moderate to long term TTRPG players I’ve ever met have played between 2-6 TTRPGs, found the one they like best, and eventually stop trying new systems because they’ve already invested in and learned the one they like.

In all cases, people don’t want to bounce around between many high-investment, time-intensive, long-form gameplay oriented, games, but doing so with very small, rules light, fire-and-forget, games is no big deal. Folks who don’t find that sort of “low-investment” gameplay satisfying for TTRPGs will probably find a more robust system that they enjoy, and stick with it.

 

[tetrasodium]

Default/Vanilla 5e has more "Tactical combat" than a lot of other ttrpgs, I don't see any way that isn't true.

There's this weird thing I see online a lot (particularly from fellow nerds) where we assume that if a person enjoys something, then they would enjoy the pure, unadulterated, extreme version of it more than a moderate version. In reality, I think the opposite is true and most people who enjoy a thing in moderation are less impressed by the more extreme/pure version.

It's wrong to assume that 5e squarely into some kind of golden mean. There are too many elements cranked well beyond 11 or stripped down to the point of intangibility for that to be the case though. In a lot of ways 5e embodies those extremes you mention & goes a step further by designing other elements so changing that extreme is often needlessly difficult. Since you mentioned tactical combat I'll use that.

For purposes of discussion, lets say that you are right & that 5e is in the golden middle between wargames like wh40k(or whatever represents the extreme) & narrative based games like fate where movement is so abstract that it's measured in zones which are generally of explicitly vague nonspecific size. 5e is obviously less tactical than the most tactical of wargames so it's definately below 11 on the purity dial there. However it is a trivial matter to bolt grid combat onto fate and get a level of tactical gameplay virtually identical to 5e because moving between zones can effectively provoke an AoO with different terms there. Not only that, but fate goes above & beyond 5e by extending that tactical grid combat rough equivalence with the narrative & tactical power imparted by aspects & compels to make 5e less tactical in many ways than fate with about an index card worth of rules bolted on.

 

[Umbran]

2. There will always be a contingent of people that will grow dissatisfied with D&D over time, and will branch out to other games.

So, everyone, think back to the last satisfying meal you had. Something that was tasty, that you were pleased to have eaten.

Are you planning to repeat that meal over and over, forever, every time you eat until you die? If you don't repeat this meal over and over, does it mean that the meal actually wasn't satisfying?

I've seen this word choice a few times around and about now, and it is annoying. Games are not marriages. Choosing to play another game does not necessarily mean you were "dissatisfied" with D&D.

 

[darjr]

So, everyone, think back to the last satisfying meal you had. Something that was tasty, that you were pleased to have eaten.

Are you planning to repeat that meal over and over, forever, every time you eat until you die? If you don't repeat this meal over and over, does it mean that the meal actually wasn't satisfying?

I've seen this word choice a few times around and about now, and it is annoying. Games are not marriages. Choosing to play another game does not necessarily mean you were "dissatisfied" with D&D.

Wow! Great point!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So, everyone, think back to the last satisfying meal you had. Something that was tasty, that you were pleased to have eaten.

Are you planning to repeat that meal over and over, forever, every time you eat until you die? If you don't repeat this meal over and over, does it mean that the meal actually wasn't satisfying?

I've seen this word choice a few times around and about now, and it is annoying. Games are not marriages. Choosing to play another game does not necessarily mean you were "dissatisfied" with D&D.

D&D is not a marriage; it is easier to try something new (and less expensive when you do).

On the other hand, D&D is also not a meal; it's very easy to have any other food- in fact, it's quite hard to eat the same thing every day.

Bad analogies are bad. I've seen bad analogies a few time around here now to support a nitpicking point, and it is annoying.

Usually, if someone is perfectly happy (satisfied) with a product that has path dependency or reliance interests (either in terms of costs or time spent), they are unlikely to consider new products. If D&D is fulfilling all of someone's needs, they are unlikely to try new games, even if that need is as simple as, "I want something that isn't the fantasy genre."

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Speaking from the experience of my groups, I just had two leave OSR games to return to 5e because of familiarity, a "middle ground" approach, and ease of finding resources (in person, online). They have resisted trying other systems (Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, Pathfinder 1 or 2), because 5e does everything they want it to do.
Do you think 5e is so successful that it actually takes away players from other systems?

I dont think that it takes players away from other systems. I think the way its designed and it's simplicity will prohibit most of it's players from trying anything else different or more complex.

 

[Mallus]

I honestly think that vast majority of people who enjoy D&D would enjoy Dungeon World more -- a game that actually delivers on the promise of exciting adventures in a fantasy world.

I honestly think if you're honestly curious about what other people enjoy, you should simply ask them and then take them at their word when they reply.

Honestly, my group has had fun with PbtA-derived games, but Dungeon World wouldn't work any better for us than AD&D or 5e (less so, in fact). It doesn't help that the DW book is roughly 5 - 6 times as long as it needs to be and slightly full of jargon.