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

[Corinnguard]

I'm on board with specifying "WotC 5E" in the current era given how broad the 5E landscape is now, especially post OGL kerfuffle, but "WotC D&D" is kind of overdoing it.

Thanks to the OGL, D&D hasn't been WoTC D&D for some time. There have been quite a number of 3pp's producing material for D&D. Then there are the brewmasters like Laser Llama.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, just to put the history into perspective:

1st-2nd edition TSR
3rd edition WOTC
4th-5th edition WOTC/Hasbro

Point of order: Hasbro owned WotC during 3e, but as a subsidiary rather than a division. The only period of time where WotC solely owned D&D was 97 - 99, after that it was corporate to lesser of greater degrees.

 

[Reynard]

Thanks to the OGL, D&D hasn't been WoTC D&D for some time. There have been quite a number of 3pp's producing material for D&D. Then there are the brewmasters like Laser Llama.

I mean, I get what you're saying, but D&D is the brand owned by WotC/Hasbro. If we are going to call all OGL derived material "D&D" then the term becomes essentially meaningless or at least cumbersome. If Pathfinder, Shadowdark, OSE and 13th Age are all "D&D" then it has ceased to be a useful term for discussion

 

[DEFCON 1]

Does D&D 5E have to be the biggest RPG there is? No. Or as big as it is in comparison to all the other RPGs? Also no.

But it IS both of those things. So so what?

At this point in the conversation I think a more interesting side question might be "Would (general) you be more okay with D&D 5E being the biggest RPG and market leader if it wasn't owned by Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast?" Because I suspect a good number of people don't like 5E being as big as it is due strictly to a "corporation" having its foot on top of the hobby (with all the positive and negatives that come with that.) But if an independent company say like FASA was the publisher of 5E and the game was as big as it currently is, with as many employees as it has, and as much cultural cache as it has... would as many people be bent out of shape over it's size? I'm sure some still would of course... because some of those folks still wouldn't be able to find players to play whatever esoteric RPG they want to get on the table... but I do think a lot of people are just so "corporation averse" that they reflexively will say 5E's dominance is bad just for who owns it. So it's not the idea in and of itself that is the problem, but merely who it is in this current configuration.

 

[TwoSix]

I mean, I get what you're saying, but D&D is the brand owned by WotC/Hasbro. If we are going to call all OGL derived material "D&D" then the term becomes essentially meaningless or at least cumbersome. If Pathfinder, Shadowdark, OSE and 13th Age are all "D&D" then it has ceased to be a useful term for discussion

I think if you're playing 5e, but the bulk of your supporting materials (races, classes, subclasses, etc.) are being derived from non-WotC sources, then saying you're playing "D&D, but not WotC D&D" makes a lot of sense.

One could also argue that "D&D" has reached a level like "Xerox" or "Kleenex" or "Jell-O" where it's a brand name that's colloquially used to describe an entire category.

 

[Reynard]

Does D&D 5E have to be the biggest RPG there is? No. Or as big as it is in comparison to all the other RPGs? Also no.

But it IS both of those things. So so what?

At this point in the conversation I think a more interesting side question might be "Would (general) you be more okay with D&D 5E being the biggest RPG and market leader if it wasn't owned by Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast?" Because I suspect a good number of people don't like 5E being as big as it is due strictly to a "corporation" having its foot on top of the hobby (with all the positive and negatives that come with that.) But if an independent company say like FASA was the publisher of 5E and the game was as big as it currently is, with as many employees as it has, and as much cultural cache as it has... would as many people be bent out of shape over it's size? I'm sure some still would of course... because some of those folks still wouldn't be able to find players to play whatever esoteric RPG they want to get on the table... but I do think a lot of people are just so "corporation averse" that they reflexively will say 5E's dominance is bad just for who owns it. So it's not the idea in and of itself that is the problem, but merely who it is in this current configuration.

I think the only value to that question is "would D&D be more experimental" if it weren't owned by a publicly traded company. That seems to be one of the major concerns anyway. I would say, though, that while the publisher of the game might be more willing to experiment, it would not be in aggregate any more "experimental" than it is now with a strong 3rd party support industry. You can find any sort of subsystem or hack of 5E you can imagine, made with high production values and (probably) some design expertise. That WotC isn't publishing that stuff is not particularly relevant, unless you are one of those people that thinks a book needs the official company logo to be worthwhile.

 

[Corinnguard]

"Would (general) you be more okay with D&D 5E being the biggest RPG and market leader if it wasn't owned by Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast?"

It would depend on the quality of this non-corporate company's products, the amount of care that went into each of it's products, the artist and design teams it employed, the amount of player feedback that influenced it's development, etc. I don't think I could boil it down to just one thing. But I think I would be okay if it wasn't owned by Hasbro/WoTC.

 

[Reynard]

I think if you're playing 5e, but the bulk of your supporting materials (races, classes, subclasses, etc.) are being derived from non-WotC sources, then saying you're playing "D&D, but not WotC D&D" makes a lot of sense.

One could also argue that "D&D" has reached a level like "Xerox" or "Kleenex" or "Jell-O" where it's a brand name that's colloquially used to describe an entire category.

You are playing 5E -- a rules system -- with specific rulebooks and supplements. I think it is reasonable to assume that someone who says they are "playing D&D" is probably using the WotC core books unless they specify otherwise. But if you are playing Tales of the Valiant, you aren't playing "Kobold D&D."

I mean, it is all semantic and not particularly important. Usually context will tell us what people mean.

 

[Reynard]

It would depend on the quality of this non-corporate company's products, the amount of care that went into each of it's products, the artist and design teams it employed, the amount of player feedback that influenced it's development, etc. I don't think I could boil it down to just one thing. But I think I would be okay if it wasn't owned by Hasbro/WoTC.

Emphasis mine.

I think this has been a net megative. Public playtesting is a combination of marketing BS and kneejerk reactions to the most extreme fans. Designers should design their games. of course they should actually playtest, but these performative playtests that ultimately kill innovative ideas because only the most ardent fans reply to surveys is not good for game development.

 

[TwoSix]

You are playing 5E -- a rules system -- with specific rulebooks and supplements. I think it is reasonable to assume that someone who says they are "playing D&D" is probably using the WotC core books unless they specify otherwise. But if you are playing Tales of the Valiant, you aren't playing "Kobold D&D."

I mean, it is all semantic and not particularly important. Usually context will tell us what people mean.

So then, since the need to specify otherwise exists (since you're saying that "D&D" should be the default term for D&D using WotC books), then "non-WotC D&D" seems like a perfectly apt shorthand term.

Considering the ubiquity of the 5e rule set, I see no issue using "5e" and "D&D" interchangeably.