D&D (2024) I think we are on the cusp of a sea change.

[Professor Murder]

Is this the problem though? I'm in my mid-40s, and I'm not really interested in gaming with people in their 20s. It's not that I have anything against younger players, I'm glad they're coming into gaming, but I don't have anything common with them and they probably don't want to hang out with me either. I don't imagine that influx of new gamers are going to be the type of people the old guard are doing to want to game with for the most part.

I think that will always come down to personal tastes. Im 46 and I'm happy to play with whomever age wise. Hell, teaching first time gamers is a sacred duty for any gaming vet.

 

[Mercurius]

Agreed with all of this--especially the point about how people's priorities change as they progress through life. Supposedly we all go through a new life stage every seven years, so what the core audience values now, will likely shift over time.

WOTC has produced tons of splatbooks expanding player options, but not a lot of expansion support for DMs. This is probably because everybody buys the player options books, but more DMs than players will buy DMs Guides, resulting in less sales.

5th Edition is a pretty flexible game system. I can't see why WOTC can just put out a book of "Game Modes" for D&D, with tutorials on multiple approaches to play. Then, write up a chapter teaching how novice DMs could DIY their own setting, put together using templates provided in the book.

You could have a chapter on each genre or play style. This could serve to include your entire player base, encourage them to try out different kinds of play styles under the "D&D Umbrella", and capture all of the customers. This would also increase interaction between groups of players, and introduce cross pollination of play styles and bring disparate players together as groups tried out each others' games.

There could be chapters on short term campaigns, and running very long campaigns. You could also have an introductory rules set, intermediate and hard mode. The hard mode could increase player mortality, and up the challenge in general, for players who are less casual and enjoy beating challenges as a team.

Genre chapters could include: Gritty Swords & Sorcery play, Planetary Romance/Science Fantasy play, CW-style fantasy teen relationship play (which I think is what Strixhaven is), Epic Heroic Fantasy, Classic Dungeon crawls, Crit Role style comedy romp/set piece action sequence games, Mysteries (like Candlekeep), Historical Realism or Arthurian Romance.

Good stuff. I think this is basically what they're doing through their settings, with each expanding the umbrella, or fleshing it out.

Now they might find that certain things are more popular and they could put extra focus on those, but everything shifts so quickly, so even if they produce, say, more books in the broad style of Strixhaven for a few years, there's no telling how long it lasts.

What I find strange is when it seems some either want D&D to move away from certain things or avoid expanding into other things. Both extremes tend to exist as a sub-current in some of these discussions.

Meaning, why not both/and? Why must it go in a certain direction and eschew others? I mean, within reason of course. But I imagine combat-heavy and adventure-focused products will always be part of D&D, while at the same time they try out other things and expand what D&D can be.

 

[Mordhau]

Good stuff. I think this is basically what they're doing through their settings, with each expanding the umbrella, or fleshing it out.

Now they might find that certain things are more popular and they could put extra focus on those, but everything shifts so quickly, so even if they produce, say, more books in the broad style of Strixhaven for a few years, there's no telling how long it lasts.

What I find strange is when it seems some either want D&D to move away from certain things or avoid expanding into other things. Both extremes tend to exist as a sub-current in some of these discussions.

Meaning, why not both/and? Why must it go in a certain direction and eschew others? I mean, within reason of course. But I imagine combat-heavy and adventure-focused products will always be part of D&D, while at the same time they try out other things and expand what D&D can be.

As I said in another thread, the vast majority of people want D&D to be basically the same except for the few things they personally would really like to change.

...now if we could just somehow reach a consensus on those few things!

 

[Scribe]

Dungeons are boring.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I said how they're similar. Stat + Skill with Advantages and Disadvantages.

I didn't say they were similar in all ways. I think the many ways they are different makes the points where they converged more striking.

I'm not sure I even consider that a particularly good description of GURPS to be honest. Unless Savage Worlds fell far from the tree, it shouldn't be one for Deadlands, either.

 

[cowpie]

It certainly looked like one to me at the time.

In the late 90s we were playing.
Storyteller Games
Gurps
Fading Suns
Deadlands
Legends of the Five Rings
7th Sea
Silhouette games: Tribe 8, Heavy Gear
Unisystem games: All Flesh must be eaten

Am I missing any big games from the period that used a radically different design approach?

I can't remember when the Forge got started exactly, but that really seemed to be the green shoots of something new (but was pretty small for a long time).

Here are some more that I played into the 2000s:
Whispering Vault,
Hero Wars

Continued with:
Champions 4th Edition
Call of Cthulhu
Traveller

I'm pretty sure the Forge started up around 2001 ish -- that's when I experimented with story gaming (specifically My Life With Master, Sorcerer, KPfS & Dogs in the Vineyard, later Trail of Cthulhu and Dread.

 

[Mercurius]

As I said in another thread, the vast majority of people want D&D to be basically the same except for the few things they personally would really like to change.

...now if we could just somehow reach a consensus on those few things!

Unless we single out what those things are, I can only comment so much. But again, I think part of this could be solved if people better understood that a "big umbrella" approach serves everyone and that D&D can facilitate a wide range...but people have to be OK with seeing stuff that doesn't directly appeal to them, or challenges their sensibilities in some way. Or as I said before, people need to be flexible and realize that the game isn't written just for them, but thankfully they can customize it to their heart's content.

That said, this approach is better served by a relatively "vanilla" core game. I personally like the idea of keeping the core game relatively simple and classic, and then offering variations through supplements and settings. But some folks seem intractable that certain things must change in the core rules...and WotC seems to be listening to them, at least to some extent. I don't think we'll get to the point where the Lavender Elves of the Sparkling Spring Faction is part of the core rules.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Good stuff. I think this is basically what they're doing through their settings, with each expanding the umbrella, or fleshing it out.

Now they might find that certain things are more popular and they could put extra focus on those, but everything shifts so quickly, so even if they produce, say, more books in the broad style of Strixhaven for a few years, there's no telling how long it lasts.

What I find strange is when it seems some either want D&D to move away from certain things or avoid expanding into other things. Both extremes tend to exist as a sub-current in some of these discussions.

Meaning, why not both/and? Why must it go in a certain direction and eschew others? I mean, within reason of course. But I imagine combat-heavy and adventure-focused products will always be part of D&D, while at the same time they try out other things and expand what D&D can be.

Well yeah, why not?

they do Harry Potter stuff. Whatever. I buy out of the abyss. They do x y z. I don’t care. I don’t like most of the new stuff but I still have my core books.

now they start screwing up its the basic ideas of the game and move away from traditional play. They have my attention but will be hard pressed to get my dollars.

I was a whale—-probably some thousands in minis, lots of books. How quickly they forget. It’s ok I guess. I can still explore dungeons and have wars with what I have. But they are really discouraging me from adding to my collection.

I like situations to adapt to and overcome, not stories I write that the DM has to accommodate and cater to.

It’s cool you have a story line and some ideas that would be interesting, I appreciate that. But we still want to kill monsters win teasures and conquer things to.

it they want to write divergent books for interested parties, fine. But total shift? Not down with all of this.

 

[Mordhau]

Unless we single out what those things are, I can only comment so much. But again, I think part of this could be solved if people better understood that a "big umbrella" approach serves everyone and that D&D can facilitate a wide range...but people have to be OK with seeing stuff that doesn't directly appeal to them, or challenges their sensibilities in some way. Or as I said before, people need to be flexible and realize that the game isn't written just for them, but thankfully they can customize it to their heart's content.

That said, this approach is better served by a relatively "vanilla" core game. I personally like the idea of keeping the core game relatively simple and classic, and then offering variations through supplements and settings. But some folks seem intractable that certain things must change in the core rules...and WotC seems to be listening to them, at least to some extent. I don't think we'll get to the point where the Lavender Elves of the Sparkling Spring Faction is part of the core rules.

D&D is not just a toolkit though. It's also a fandom.

 

[cowpie]

Also, perhaps it is just me, but I am liking the shift in priorities, the widening of playstyles. This is coming from someone who started with 1st ed ADnD. Dungeons are boring.

Boring dungeons are boring--the ones with the smell of mildew on the wet dungeon walls.

Cool dungeons are cool--the ones with Heavy Metal music blaring, soul sucking Gems, and Elric swordfighting with Legolas' estranged brother "Deathseeker".