D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Crimson Longinus]

Point of information - in the 90s White Wolf were a meaningful challenger to the version of D&D that almost actually killed the game. It was, however, basically dead long before 2014

Yeah, I'm bummed about that. I really liked their games. Though I might be biased as I used to freelance for them.

 

[Oofta]

Good luck getting players for any of those games.

If you want to actually play vs GM good luck X10.

Slight exaggeration.

If you want to play in person there are things like meet up to find a group if you're in a city. If you want to play online the world is your oyster. The options to find people with interest in the same game as you are exponentially greater than they used to be.

I'll repeat: I guarantee there are games out there that are just as good, if not better. But the growth we've seen for 5E wouldn't have happened with a crap product.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There are hundreds of other games out there. WOTC does not have and cannot enforce a monopoly. That doesn't make them the best there is, it just means that it works as a source of entertainment that works well enough for a lot of people. People have more distractions, more options for entertainment than ever before. D&D isn't just competing against other TTRPGs in an open market they're competing against games like Gloomhaven, more traditional board games, streaming entertainment, tik tok or whatever the current craze is, on and on. Yet it's still seeing double digit growth for a decade, that doesn't happen with a bad product when there is an open competitive environment.

I guarantee there is probably a better game for any given individual. But for broad mass market appeal? If D&D were not competent it wouldn't be where it is today. You may not like the game, no game can be for everyone. But it works for millions.

This.

It's a very strange argument for people to make. Look, we all recognize that not only are there competitors to D&D, there are hundreds of competitors to D&D. In fact, if you include historical games and editions, there are tens of thousands of different games.

Not only that, it is relatively easy to create your own games. I do it all the time! I love creating one-shots, and enjoy running them.

Moreover, the existence of multiple on-line communities means that if you want to play on-line, you have even more options than ever. If you go to the various communities on-line, whether it's the widely-available ones (Roll20 etc.), or the more specialized ones that serve a particular game, or even just looking for various discord communities ... you will be able to find "Not D&D."

That said, we do see the common retort that "But it's hard. A lot of people just want to play D&D." Well, that's true. D&D is the most popular alternative. But it's outright bizarre what people are taking from that; instead of understanding that this popularity with the community at large likely indicates that D&D is doing something right, the response, instead, is that D&D must be doing something wrong because it doesn't appeal to that particular person. In other words, the argument is that D&D must fundamentally change, despite being incredibly popular, because it isn't the game for this individual (or individuals). Which ... okay? Most of the suggestions, IMO, would arguably make D&D less appealing as a mainstream product, because it would force it to appeal to a more niche audience.

I truly want people to get what they want, but this always seems like such a bizarre way to look at it; D&D is too popular, therefore it must be changed. Not sure that it survives close examination. IMO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Zardnaar]

If you want to play in person there are things like meet up to find a group if you're in a city. If you want to play online the world is your oyster. The options to find people with interest in the same game as you are exponentially greater than they used to be.

I'll repeat: I guarantee there are games out there that are just as good, if not better. But the growth we've seen for 5E wouldn't have happened with a crap product.

Online may as well be the moon for me. Very little interest in online gaming.
. It's a social thing woukd probably pick no D&D vs online. Online more for pvp for me.

Any other rpg is kinda like having a red super car. And no Petrol. Here you get to play sonething else occasionally often a one shot sustained campaign good luck may as well be faeries.

RPGs still fairly niche essentially mono genre. Other ones technically exist.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So seems like most prefer D&D 5e then, which to me implies it is a decent product.

Again, no it does not. Being successful is far from being a good product.

Ask anyone who uses Windows. Drop a line in the WoW subreddit sometime. Being the BMOC--being by far the most-popular product in a given category--simply doesn't tell you that it's a decent product. Far too many confounding variables for that.

Personally I have not experienced issues getting people to try different games though, I'm playing Blades in the Dark today.

Sincerely: I'm glad. I will try not to be envious.

 

[Zardnaar]

Again, no it does not. Being successful is far from being a good product.

Ask anyone who uses Windows. Drop a line in the WoW subreddit sometime. Being the BMOC--being by far the most-popular product in a given category--simply doesn't tell you that it's a decent product. Far too many confounding variables for that.


Sincerely: I'm glad. I will try not to be envious.

No offense been hearing similar remarks since the 90s and Vampire.

D&D endures.

 

[Minigiant]

find it hard to find a game - but not hard to run one.

That's the rub ain't it

It's easy to DM alternative games or Houserule D&D in the style you like

It's hard to play alternative games or Houserule D&D in the style you like

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This.

It's a very strange argument for people to make. Look, we all recognize that not only are there competitors to D&D, there are hundreds of competitors to D&D. In fact, if you include historical games and editions, there are tens of thousands of different games.

Not only that, it is relatively easy to create your own games. I do it all the time! I love creating one-shots, and enjoy running them.

Moreover, the existence of multiple on-line communities means that if you want to play on-line, you have even more options than ever. If you go to the various communities on-line, whether it's the widely-available ones (Roll20 etc.), or the more specialized ones that serve a particular game, or even just looking for various discord communities ... you will be able to find "Not D&D."

That said, we do see the common retort that "But it's hard. A lot of people just want to play D&D." Well, that's true. D&D is the most popular alternative. But it's outright bizarre what people are taking from that; instead of understanding that this popularity with the community at large likely indicates that D&D is doing something right, the response, instead, is that D&D must be doing something wrong because it doesn't appeal to that particular person. In other words, the argument is that D&D must fundamentally change, despite being incredibly popular, because it isn't the game for this individual (or individuals). Which ... okay? Most of the suggestions, IMO, would arguably make D&D less appealing as a mainstream product, because it would force it to appeal to a more niche audience.

I truly want people to get what they want, but this always seems like such a bizarre way to look at it; D&D is too popular, therefore it must be changed. Not sure that it survives close examination. IMO, YMMV, etc.

Then you have completely misunderstood what I said. Perhaps that is my fault.

I absolutely did not make the blatantly ridiculous argument, "Because lots of people play D&D, it's bad." Never. Not once ever have I made that argument. If you feel you can prove otherwise, please, feel free.

Instead, my argument is, and always has been, that you cannot claim that popularity means what they're doing is definitely and inarguably right.

"X is popular, therefore X is good" is not a sound argument. It is possible for something to be popular and outright bad. It is possible for something to be popular and a mixed bag, containing anything from great elements to terrible elements and anywhere in between. It is possible for a product to be popular for specific reasons, despite specific flaws (well-known or not.) It is possible for a product to be genuinely great for one particular use, and genuinely terrible for another use in the same general space. It is possible for a product to do many right things but still fall short in some ways, not necessarily being bad, but being inadequate.

You cannot simply say, "D&D is popular, thus absolutely everything it ever does must be good." But that's the argument I keep getting--including from you!

 

[payn]

This.

It's a very strange argument for people to make. Look, we all recognize that not only are there competitors to D&D, there are hundreds of competitors to D&D. In fact, if you include historical games and editions, there are tens of thousands of different games.

Not only that, it is relatively easy to create your own games. I do it all the time! I love creating one-shots, and enjoy running them.

Moreover, the existence of multiple on-line communities means that if you want to play on-line, you have even more options than ever. If you go to the various communities on-line, whether it's the widely-available ones (Roll20 etc.), or the more specialized ones that serve a particular game, or even just looking for various discord communities ... you will be able to find "Not D&D."

That said, we do see the common retort that "But it's hard. A lot of people just want to play D&D." Well, that's true. D&D is the most popular alternative. But it's outright bizarre what people are taking from that; instead of understanding that this popularity with the community at large likely indicates that D&D is doing something right, the response, instead, is that D&D must be doing something wrong because it doesn't appeal to that particular person. In other words, the argument is that D&D must fundamentally change, despite being incredibly popular, because it isn't the game for this individual (or individuals). Which ... okay? Most of the suggestions, IMO, would arguably make D&D less appealing as a mainstream product, because it would force it to appeal to a more niche audience.

I truly want people to get what they want, but this always seems like such a bizarre way to look at it; D&D is too popular, therefore it must be changed. Not sure that it survives close examination. IMO, YMMV, etc.

The real crab bucket is that D&D is the only RPG available to play.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You cannot simply say, "D&D is popular, thus absolutely everything it ever does must be good." But that's the argument I keep getting--including from you!

1. I did not respond to you, did I?

2. I did not quote you, did I?

3. Since you seem very concerned about people quoting the things that you say, why don't you show me exactly where I made the argument that you just attributed to me? Given that I have repeatedly written on design, in multiple place, it should be easy.

I'll wait.