D&D General D&D's Utter Dominance Is Good or Bad Because...

[TheSword]

I just want to be clear: you are saying that any game could unseat D&D if the ones producing it matched WotC's marketing budget?

Of course not. Unseating D&D is neither necessary or desirable.

Any game (that is good enough) could compete for D&D’s immense player base by marketing effectively even with a relatively limited budget. Competition is about gaining market share not being the biggest. It’s all relative.

What I am tired of seeing is a stream of alternatives to D&D turning into the lesser-of-who-cares, because they couldn’t stay viable. We see one possibly two three products then they are relegated to obscurity.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No.

But in the economy of multimillionaires, someone has to be the multimillionaire.

Is there anything stopping TTRPGs from having 3-5 huuuuge corporations/companies?

Nothing but the weight of history and precedent behind WotC's wholly-owned IP. That's IMO the difference. They make a decent game, but so do other people.

 

[Minigiant]

Disagree. As I said above, no one has to be that big.

No one has to do anything. No one has to be that big.

I just don't think TTRPG maintains half its economic market without someone trying to be that big.

No big dog bark. People look the directions of the big rooster crowing or the big cat roaring.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But your goal is still to beat that game on honour mode. Not to fail.

My goal in video games is usually just to see how far I can get, and have fun doing it. Is there another?

 

[Reynard]

Any game (that is good enough) could compete for D&D’s immense player base by marketing effectively even with a relatively limited budget.

I find this argument unconvincing. Given the number of games we have available right now, there would almost inevitably have to be an example of what you are proposing, and there certainly isn't.

The brand power based on it being nor just first but the definition of "rpg" is much more powerful than you are proposing.

 

[SteveC]

Let me try to bring something up that hasn't been talked about to death already. D&D is that number one behemoth, but what does that mean in practical terms?

When people not in the hobby talk about RPGs, they're talking about D&D because that's what they know. People who don't know what RPGs are will know what you mean if you say D&D. Although this is changing, I'd say that the view of what D&D is pretty outdated. And that's one thing that 5E being where it is and as big as it is can change. You know that celebrities who are open about gaming. D&D as behemoth is changing that perspective. Whether that is good or bad depends on what you think of those changes.

It makes the pie bigger. That's what I think about when we talk about how big D&D is. D&D isn't my favorite game at the moment (even though I'm playing in two games right now) but it creates a market for games that are more what I'm into. A huge D&D is part of the reason there is a huge MCDM or Avatar or Shadowdark or ... pick your favorite recent game. The current self inflicted OGL wounds have created at least half a dozen alternatives which would not even be gaming options otherwise.

It sets expectations. I think the single biggest drawback to D&D being number one boss RPG is that it sets the expectations for players who enter the hobby. I play with a lot of experienced players, but I still enjoy conventions and gaming at local stores where I meet new gamers. D&D very strongly influences what these players think RPGs are, and I like some games where those assumptions are wrong. That can make things difficult. I'd say D&D and Matt Mercer have a huge effect on what players expect gaming to be. No, CoC is not a kick in the door style of play, and neither are most other games I enjoy playing (not that kicking in the door is bad, mind you...).

Okay, some thoughts. Hopefully that was interesting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My point is if D&D disappeared and no other RPG company promoted another RPG to the massive scale similar to D&D, would TTRPGs grow, shrink, or remain the same?

I fear the middle one.

There were plenty of RPGs that were still functional in periods with D&D was significantly smaller, so I think that's a jump to conclusions. The "a rising tide raises all boats" idea is just that--an idea. One you can make an argument for, but its not a clearly correct argument. There was an RPG industry prior to 2000.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, D&D did have first mover advantage. And they capitalized on that. Pick any industry, there is always one top dog, in lot of cases, one who first managed to quire most of market share.

Matters of degree matter. There are plenty of industries that don't have one as dominant as D&D.

 

[TheSword]

I find this argument unconvincing. Given the number of games we have available right now, there would almost inevitably have to be an example of what you are proposing, and there certainly isn't.

The brand power based on it being nor just first but the definition of "rpg" is much more powerful than you are proposing.

The problem is precisely the volume of games, that have limited runs without sustained support that don’t make themselves easily accessible and market themselves effectively.

We have a real wood for the trees problem.

D&D is and will be for the foreseeable future be the entry level game that stimulates the market. It’s up to the rest to convert these into other players. I’m saying that in many cases they’re not very good at doing so.

 

[Minigiant]

There were plenty of RPGs that were still functional in periods with D&D was significantly smaller, so I think that's a jump to conclusions. The "a rising tide raises all boats" idea is just that--an idea. One you can make an argument for, but its not a clearly correct argument. There was an RPG industry prior to 2000.

But the TTRPG market shrunk during that time and its reach was the smallest.

The big dog barking pulls the attention. If other industries have big dogs and you have none, you will likely only reach those already looking for you.