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

[Corinnguard]

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.

True. I can understand the drawbacks to external playtesting. Internal playtesting too. So a moderate mix of both would be needed.

 

[Reynard]

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.

Sure, except that it tells us almost nothing. Are you playing TotV? Shadowdark? Old School Essentials?

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

The only useful difference is that if you say D&D, we know you are talking about WotC's version of the game.

Again, all semantics. 5E and D&D as interchangeable terms works fine for a certain sphere of discussion, and really poorly outside it. We have had many, many arguments on this board about what, exactly, D&D is and we are getting there with the same question about "5E."

 

[Oofta]

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.

D&D is a mass market game, targeted at selling to as broad an audience as possible. So I disagree, I don't believe extreme fans are holding the game back any more than listening to a vocal minority is good for game design. The game is, and always will be, full of compromises because you can't please everyone. It's not like they rely solely on external testing, they do significant internal testing and with specific groups as well.

 

[Wolfpack48]

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.

Well, then I think you get into New Coke territory. I am guessing that Hasbro wants to protect the core brand and emphasize "real D&D" (Coke Classic). I think the OGL is basically the path for experimental versions of D&D.

 

[TwoSix]

The only useful difference is that if you say D&D, we know you are talking about WotC's version of the game.

Well, it would be a useful difference if it was the common jargon, but it isn't, so....

Again, all semantics. 5E and D&D as interchangeable terms works fine for a certain sphere of discussion, and really poorly outside it. We have had many, many arguments on this board about what, exactly, D&D is and we are getting there with the same question about "5E."

Hey, I totally agree it's all semantics. I'm not the one who said "WotC 5e" is fine, but "WotC D&D" goes too far, after all.

I'm only saying that "WotC D&D" makes sense as a synonym for "official 5e D&D, using only WotC books." That's a large, coherent block of play, and anything outside of that will need more specific context to understand what's being discussed because of how many flavors of play are contained within it. But there's still a value in a term that simply indicates you play D&D but not mainstream D&D.

 

[Reynard]

D&D is a mass market game, targeted at selling to as broad an audience as possible. So I disagree, I don't believe extreme fans are holding the game back any more than listening to a vocal minority is good for game design. The game is, and always will be, full of compromises because you can't please everyone. It's not like they rely solely on external testing, they do significant internal testing and with specific groups as well.

The external testing is marketing. if it wasn't, they would actually produce an alpha or beta document that let people run the game extensively enough to actually know whether it works as intended.

And the number of innovations that have been wiped out because of survey results is indicative of a failure to have a clear vision and implement that vision well. "it's different! I don't like it!" has killed a number of potentially cool ideas.

There are tens of millions of D&D players if you ask WotC. How many people respond to the playtest surveys, do you think? And how do they rate among fans, on a casual to dedicated scale?

 

[Wolfpack48]

Well, it would be a useful difference if it was the common jargon, but it isn't, so....


Hey, I totally agree it's all semantics. I'm not the one who said "WotC 5e" is fine, but "WotC D&D" goes too far, after all.

I'm only saying that "WotC D&D" makes sense as a synonym for "official 5e D&D, using only WotC books." That's a large, coherent block of play, and anything outside of that will need more specific context to understand what's being discussed because of how many flavors of play are contained within it. But there's still a value in a term that simply indicates you play D&D but not mainstream D&D.

I like "D&D" (WOTC) and "OGL-D&D" (non-WOTC)

 

[Oofta]

The external testing is marketing. if it wasn't, they would actually produce an alpha or beta document that let people run the game extensively enough to actually know whether it works as intended.

And the number of innovations that have been wiped out because of survey results is indicative of a failure to have a clear vision and implement that vision well. "it's different! I don't like it!" has killed a number of potentially cool ideas.

There are tens of millions of D&D players if you ask WotC. How many people respond to the playtest surveys, do you think? And how do they rate among fans, on a casual to dedicated scale?

Good to know you know how the playtests are handled and the internal motivations behind them. I guess all public feedback is just gathered for PR by every company that has something to sell?

Innovation isn't inherently good. There are any number of "innovative" games out there that never sell significant amounts. D&D 4E was quite innovative, it was also far less successful than 5E. At a certain point, the proof is in the pudding. With one version of they game they did radical, but "innovative" design change based on ideas from a small number of vocal fans and the game sold well at first and then dropped off rapidly. The next version? Best selling TTRPG ever that vastly exceeded expectations and continued to grow for a decade.

The difference was that 5E did extensive public playtests and gathered feedback from the broader public. Just like they are doing now. I'll take public playtests and polls* over so-called innovative design, thanks.

*polls never reach the majority of the target audience, that doesn't mean they can't be informative.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sorry, one side note. Why do you need to specify WotC D&D? Is there any other D&D?

Interesting question.

To be specific, I think that there are two ways of viewing this.

First, there is the dominance of WoTC 5e D&D. That's one topic.

Then, there is the dominance of "D&D" construed more broadly.

D&D, IMO, is not just WoTC 5e D&D. It's also all the prior editions of D&D. It's all the OSR games and retroclones that try to recreate the "D&D" experience. It's all the OGL versions of D&D that try to re-create D&D, but make it either more simple or more complex (see, e.g., Level Up). It's Pathfinder and arguably PF2 which use the common tropes and accepted play of D&D. Heck, it might also include games that have completely different a priori playing styles but still seek to mimic essential aspect of D&D (see, e.g, Dungeon World). Viewed through that lens, D&D is not just dominant. It's ... well, really really dominant.

Therefore, you are presented with a more interesting issue. Looked at one way, this is simply that a specific edition of a specific game from a specific company is dominant.

Looked at another way, this is a question of why there is an essential gestalt that is prevalent within the TTRPG community that is dominant.

To me, the second issue is actually more interesting. Because it raises questions that are more fundamental- about the prevalence of fantasy in TTRPGs. About the presence (and appeal) of a certain style of play. And, of course, about the presence and acceptance of "D&Disms" within the broader hobby.

 

[Reynard]

D&D 4E was quite innovative, it was also far less successful than 5E. At a certain point, the proof is in the pudding. With one version of they game they did radical, but "innovative" design change based on ideas from a small number of vocal fans and the game sold well at first and then dropped off rapidly. The next version? Best selling TTRPG ever that vastly exceeded expectations and continued to grow for a decade.

5E's success is not really attributable to its design. there are other, far more powerful factors that caused D&D's popularity to blossom and since inertia has effectively taken over. there is no evidence that a true new edition would hurt the game or its popularity, either.