Unpopular opinions go here

[Cadence]

I was not a 4E fan, but watching its fans after helped reinforce that I will never go full tilt into a game that does not have an expansive game license that guarantees support can be there from other sources.

I also love that it has monsters/NPCs not beholden to following the rules players had to follow.

 

[Bacon Bits]

That (all of it, not just what I quoted) is a reasonable discussion of the way we usually hear TTRPGs defined. I expect it will not be unpopular.

I'd prefer to see a way of looking at TTRPGs that isn't so much other things mashed together, but a cohesive idea. (I doubt I could articulate it, but I'd like to /see/ one. Kinda how I felt about balance, really, until, ironically, I looked outside TTRPG discussions...)

I definitely think there is a cohesive idea behind them. I don't think we would quite be able to so easily identify a TTRPG instead of confusing it for a board game, or a war game, or a party game, or a parlor game.

I don't think a GNS style or Big Model style breakdown is useful or meaningful. Those feel like they're built to tell us a story about what TTRPGs ought to be. They're very is/ought oriented. Doesn't feel useful to me.

But I don't know if you learn anything by trying to pin it down to one thing. It's kind of like... defining what Christmas is. It's variable, and nebulous, and imprecise. So I'm not really interested in a prescriptive defining of the box that TTRPGs have to fit in. Like are TTRPGs just Warhammer 40k plus Legacy elements? Kind of, yeah. But also no, they're also sometimes writer's room spitballing except not writing down the script. But sometimes both, and sometimes neither? It simply feels like the best definition of a TTRPG is, "a game where the players are encouraged to roleplay that is played at a table," which is just tautological.

I'd rather talk about the different kinds of subgames we collect together, and why the relationship between the sub games and minigames might help to reinforce or generate themes in gameplay and storytelling for some particular end. A more functional rather than categorical approach, because I don't think the categorical approach is working. I don't think the categorical approach can work until we've explored a bigger design space than what TTRPGs already have.

Like is a murder mystery an RPG? How about a Blood Bowl league? Or Risk Legacy? And if they're not, what do you have to do to them to make them an RPG? Is that even a useful question? What are we trying to draw a line around? I keep coming back to it feeling like categorization as a means of gatekeeping what a de jure TTRPG is, and I'm not sure that's helpful or useful for creating the most diverse or interesting games.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I remember EN World being a very unpleasant place during that period of time, mostly due to a small group of very vocal

..fans of prior editions who's game books hadn't disappeared, and could still play their prefered game, supported vial OGL/SRD & OSR offerings, in theory, forever, and were not playing 4e, but still demanded the choices they missed from prior editions, like the gnome, half-orc, Barbarian, & Bard (actually, I don't recall anyone going 'where's da Bard,' (PH2) Or, the Monk, and, y'know, Psionics (PH3)...

I was not a 4E fan, but it helped reinforce that I will never go full tilt into a game that does not have an expansive game license that guarantees support can be there from other sources.

I also love that it has monsters/NPCs not beholden to following the rules players had to follow.

Really, 3e was the odd edition out, that way. TSR era D&D did that (with monsters - with NPCs it was often either just a shorthand write-up or, the NPC breaking the rules to do stuff PCs could only dream of), so does 5e.

 

[Alzrius]

..fans of prior editions who's game books hadn't disappeared, and could still play their prefered game

...which describes the 4E fans of today, despite their saying they've been "forced out" and "had the door slammed behind them."

 

[Tony Vargas]

I definitely think there is a cohesive idea behind them. I don't think we would quite be able to so easily identify a TTRPG instead of confusing it for a board game, or a war game, or a party game, or a parlor game.

Someone mentioned Fiasco, it's clearly a parlor game, but I've heard it described as a better introduction to RP than D&D....

I don't think a GNS style or Big Model style breakdown is useful or meaningful. Those feel like they're built to tell us a story about what TTRPGs ought to be. They're very is/ought oriented. Doesn't feel useful to me.

Interesting. I get a very different impression from them, and the Forge, generally. They seem to me like they're looking for answers about the relative popularity and success of the many TTRPGs that have come out over the decade. Like, why is D&D so successful? Well, clearly, simulationism is super-popular. But Champions is hella simulationist, how is it not pupular? Well, it's purist for system, the popular simulationism is more about exploration, which D&D does well.

But, I also conclude it's not useful, since the success of TT games is primarily a marketing question.

But I don't know if you learn anything by trying to pin it down to one thing. It's kind of like... It simply feels like the best definition of a TTRPG is, "a game where the players are encouraged to roleplay that is played at a table," which is just tautological.

Nod. There's a lot of thought about the RP in TTRPGs, I guess since that's what sets them apart from other TT games. But RP is, itself, maybe not so easily defined? In usage outside the hobby, you'll find it in psychology, as an exercise to give you insight into someone else's PoV or feelings, and, of course, roleplay is totally a thing in The Scene, among swingers, and for vanilla couples just looking to spice things up....

But, the context of a TT game is pretty different from either of those.

I'd rather talk about the different kinds of subgames we collect together, and why the relationship between the sub games and minigames might help to reinforce or generate themes in gameplay and storytelling for some particular end. A more functional rather than categorical approach, because I don't think the categorical approach is working.

OK, what do you mean by subgames and a functional approach?

I keep coming back to it feeling like categorization as a means of gatekeeping what a de jure TTRPG is, and I'm not sure that's helpful or useful for creating the most diverse or interesting games.

There is definitely gatekeeping in the hobby, though the biggest perpetrator doesn't even do it on purpose (exactly), because there is a literal gateway to the hobby: the one TTRPG that managed to become a household name c1980, I think y'all may have heard of it. It's a de-facto gate-keeper, because, afterall if you try it and don't like it and never play a TTRPG again, well, you've been gatekept... not kept, literally, the opposite, the gate sent you packing.

 

[overgeeked]

...which describes the 4E fans of today, despite their saying they've been "forced out" and "had the door slammed behind them."

A lot of 4E was focused on digital tools like the character builder. There were a lot of promises made and broken. A lot of people invested in the digital tools and once the edition was on its way out, the digital tools stopped being updated. Shortly after the edition died the digital tools died. So yes, a lot of people's books disappeared. That's why quite a few people are incredibly leery of digital toolsets now. The moment the license is revoked or the edition changes, their investment goes up in smoke.

 

[Alzrius]

A lot of 4E was focused on digital tools like the character builder. There were a lot of promises made and broken. A lot of people invested in the digital tools and once the edition was on its way out, the digital tools stopped being updated. Shortly after the edition died the digital tools died. So yes, a lot of people's books disappeared. That's why quite a few people are incredibly leery of digital toolsets now. The moment the license is revoked or the edition changes, their investment goes up in smoke.

And that would be a very salient observation if the complaints in question had been directed toward WotC, rather than the fandom.

 

[Cadence]

A lot of 4E was focused on digital tools like the character builder. There were a lot of promises made and broken. A lot of people invested in the digital tools and once the edition was on its way out, the digital tools stopped being updated. Shortly after the edition died the digital tools died. So yes, a lot of people's books disappeared. That's why quite a few people are incredibly leery of digital toolsets now. The moment the license is revoked or the edition changes, their investment goes up in smoke.

I was going to mention the "digital tools" above when I said:

I was not a 4E fan, but watching its fans after helped reinforce that I will never go full tilt into a game that does not have an expansive game license that guarantees support can be there from other sources.

But it felt like if something had a good open license and was popular that someone would make tools for it if it died. Would 4e have had a Paizo-standin pop-up if it had a decent license?

 

[RoughCoronet0]

Unpopular Opinion: We need even more dragons in D&D.

 

[MGibster]

I appreciate the (in)validation, but I still really am a cat person. A pile of dogs is most distressing.

Whereas a pile of cats is a good start?

Edit: No cats were harmed in the creation of this post.