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

[Umbran]

But it doesn't do it by having you lift less; it just does it by letting you do the same more efficiently.

What do you think "more efficiently" means? It means that I have to extert less force to do the same job. I literally do less lifting by using a good design over a poor one.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I pretty much stopped reading DnD stuff on twitter. People are so aggresive, angry, black-and-white-ish. Intolerance all over.

Civility over everything else is a trait adopted only by those who either have no stake in a conflict or who would do anything to see the situation stay the same. Anger is the emotion of the unheard, of the wronged; it is the catalyst of change. To try and tone-police the anger borne out of compassion for the unfortunate is to try and delegitimize their struggles.

That said, I don't know what thread you read, but I didn't read Basilisk as being aggressive and out-of-control at all. It was a pretty succinct and to-the-point outline of most of WotC's recent major controversies.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Although, if you do want anger, check out the QRT's in response to WotC's latest survey. They're getting torn apart.
Some of my favourite commentary:

 

[Thomas Shey]

What do you think "more efficiently" means? It means that I have to extert less force to do the same job. I literally do less lifting by using a good design over a poor one.

Doesn't necessarily follow. First of all (and, admittedly, analogies are full of fail) at the end of the day, even a lever doesn't change the amount of actual energy needed to move something; it just changes the amount of waste energy in the process. Secondly, a "good design" is not a given just because something has less moving parts; maybe it offloads more onto the GM and/or players, maybe it simply doesn't have as much nuance or engagement.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, but some of those responses are also nonsensical. For example:

"...They're marketing tools for retaining the old guard. The goal isn't to fix issues with the game or reach new audiences. It's so they can say whatever they release next is "what 98% of real gamers want"

They did the same thing for 5e's release"

The same thing for 5e's release resulted in... an explosion of new, young gamers. So, maybe the criticism is flawed, there.

And, while I can see how the repsentation of the questions could be improved, a company publishing a complex game really does want to know how much you know about the rules when they consider your responses. Along with other information, it can tell them that they need to improve presentation of those rules, or need to make them easier to look up, and so on.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Honestly, its one of those things I can see both sides of. On one hand, some of the survey may get useless noise if you don't have respondents who at least know the game system and culture somewhat; on the other hand, like a lot of non-blind playtesting, it means that you're probably going to overselect for people already on board what you're doing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Although, if you do want anger, check out the QRT's in response to WotC's latest survey. They're getting torn apart.
Some of my favourite commentary:

Why are you wallowing in Twitter negativity here, though? We don’t come here to be on Twitter.

 

[Manbearcat]

sYeah, but some of those responses are also nonsensical. For example:

"...They're marketing tools for retaining the old guard. The goal isn't to fix issues with the game or reach new audiences. It's so they can say whatever they release next is "what 98% of real gamers want"

They did the same thing for 5e's release"

The same thing for 5e's release resulted in... an explosion of new, young gamers. So, maybe the criticism is flawed, there.

And, while I can see how the repsentation of the questions could be improved, a company publishing a complex game really does want to know how much you know about the rules when they consider your responses. Along with other information, it can tell them that they need to improve presentation of those rules, or need to make them easier to look up, and so on.

My take on that one is a bit different. Sort of a collection of all of the above:

* The playtest surveys 100 % funneled an accretion of responses toward "tradition and nostalgia" (in both design and in tropes). It did this via (a) the actual vessel of the funneling itself (the questions/prospective answers themselves and the surveys' "evolution" as time marched on), (b) and via the (not insignificant...I know probably 50 people who stopped responding early on) disenfranchisement of anyone either (i) looking for alternative design/focus or (ii) who weren't keen on aspects of the "tradition and nostalgia" they were funneling toward in their surveys and design (including the OSR elements they were affiliating with).

So...yeah, they absolutely could cynically say "x outrageous majority of respondents LOVED our tradition and nostalgia approach!" That is what happens when you put your thumb on the scale and disenfranchise people who disagree to the point they they exit stage left!

* The reality is, WotC clearly wanted to do all of the below:

• Court the OSR
• Seduce 3.x and PF players back into the fold
• Make a DIY-demanding, table heterogeneity producing, free-wheeling BIG GM storytelling game with some skilled play that they could move AP units with and expand market by catering to the vast expanse of casual gamers who just wanted a less demanding experience that entails interacting with a cool metaplot and beloved setting + fight bad guys + engage in theatrical performative stuff at your discretion + get a Power Fantasy fix.

Placate the old and expand into the casual market.

* However, at the same time, Marvel movies made nerd-dom cool + 5e D&D pulled in celebrities and a lot of the virtual tabletop tools + voyeur culture streaming avenues came online simultaneously. Some of this they absolutely lucked into. But there can be no doubt that this was certainly part of "the business plan."

---

The bottom line? The net gain? Whether clumsy or cynical or luck or Ozymandias mustachio-twirling brilliance (its pretty much all of that in reality), a lot of things came together (including outside forces that had nothing to do with WotC or D&D or TTRPG culture) such that IT WORKED.

Yeah, WotC and 5e D&D disenfranchised people like me. But the number of people that it enfranchised or re-enfranchised? Staggering. And its worked in concert with other media to make nerd culture mainstream and to make nerd culture more hospitable (it certainly still has a way to go) to beleaguered, disenfranchised groups.

I only run the game when I'm forced to run it (about once every 6 weeks). But I have to give its due for the trajectory of the cultural space (including inclusivity and creativity and progressive design) that we're presently occupying.

 

[Campbell]

If you see all RPG play through the prism of GM storytelling or collaborative storytelling utilizing the principles of improvisational theater you will never understand how the other half lives or why system is important to them. Rules that have teeth and an impact run counter to the purpose of your play, but are necessary for challenge oriented play or play focused on finding out what happens together. For me what roleplaying games add over just roleplaying is that we do not have to rely on consensus. We get to block in a way that does not simply shut down play. We get to play out legitimate conflict. Sometimes character do not change.

For example the following principles of improv are generally not stuff I enjoy applying in RPG play (taken from Rules of Improv) :

1. Say “Yes and!”

For a story to be built, whether it is short form or long form, the players have to agree to the basic situation and set-up. The who, what, and where have to be developed for a scene to work.

By saying yes, we accept the reality created by our partners and begin the collaborative process from the start of a scene. The collaborative process or group mind helps make us giants, animals, villains, saints and more importantly put us in situations that we would normally avoid.


3. Don’t Block.
The opposite of saying “yes’and” is blocking or denial.
Denial destroys or stops the addition of new information or worse negates what has already been established. Blocking is a way of minimizing the impact of new information. It is also a method for the performer to play it safe. The performer maintains control and avoids vulnerability by blocking. But in improv we say the opposite of what we would say in real life, “go there.”, rather than don’t go there.

Blocking at its simplest levels involves saying “no,” or avoiding a subject. At a more advanced level, blocking is something that keeps the action from moving forward or the players from changing.


4. Avoid Questions.
Another form of blocking (in its more subtle form) is asking questions. Questions force our partners to fill in the information or do the work. It is a way of avoiding committing to a choice or a detail. It is playing it safe. However, on more advanced levels, questions can be used to add information or tell your partner the direction to go in.

Example:
I know you’ve been seeing Jenny for four years.

Rather than:
Are you going to tell me about her?

Example:
I can see how excited you are about going to Pirates Isle in the ghost ship, me too!

Rather than:
Are how do you feel about going to Pirates Isle in that ship?


8. Change, Change, Change!
Improv is about character change. The characters in a scene must experience some type of change for the scene to be interesting. Characters need to go on journeys, be altered by revelations, experience the ramifications of their choices and be moved by emotional moments. We go to the theater to see the unusual days characters have, not the everyday moments of stasis and stagnation.

Asking questions, being willing to accept that sometimes characters do not change, blocking in a fair way, and embracing conflict are the lifeblood of Story Now play for instance. You need systems with teeth to make this sort of play functional.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Honestly, its one of those things I can see both sides of. On one hand, some of the survey may get useless noise if you don't have respondents who at least know the game system and culture somewhat; on the other hand, like a lot of non-blind playtesting, it means that you're probably going to overselect for people already on board what you're doing.

Did those rules questions actually exclude anyone from important parts of the survey?

If they did, then you might be right that it will result in over selecting. Otherwise, it's just a useful data point.

Personally, having taken the survey myself, I think getting information on what more casual players think about the product would be just as useful as from those with a lexicon like knowledge of the rules.