D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[JConstantine]

To me, this is an example of what @Campbell posted about upthread, of treating a certain sort of RPG - basically, conventional D&D - as normative.

D&D5e is the single largest, most commercially successful RPG to date. It utterly dwarfs every other single RPG in existence. A few years ago, over on the /rpg subreddit, one of the Paizo devs stated that he reckons they (Paizo) have "no more than 2%, and probably less than 1%, market share" (almost verbatim). Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if D&D exceeded the rest of the RPG sphere combined. It's dominance is such that it is the only RPG to date that could ever be considered mainstream, such that it has become a lifestyle brand, and to some people is synonymous with RPGs the way Kleenex is with tissues in the US. The narrativist scene is tiny. The OSR scene is tiny. Other RPGs get talked about in comparison to D&D. It's the entry point for huge swathes of the community. Like it or not, D&D is normative.

 

[Pedantic]

I would push back on the idea that there was a single thing. Due to the whole, what's the reward for play and what techniques are emphasised. I mean what games would you consider representative of the standard model?

I think I've explained myself poorly, that's my point precisely. There isn't a standard we've agreed on, and energy/design work is spent largely on pursuing new models or smashing together favored mechanics, instead of iterating on a fixed set of design goals.

The framing of "modern design" vs. "GM doing design work on the fly" is incorrect; those aren't on an axis together. We aren't doing development on the same fundamental things, and we end up using critiques of delivery on given design goals as criticism of those goals themselves.

 

[Campbell]

The issue isn't entirely that I don't want to do these things (although I mostly don't), it's that I don't want to play a game where the GM or whatever is required to do these things or they aren't following the rules.

Don't want to play them? Cool.
Don't want them to exist when so many games require a set of play-style that is similar to yours? Not so cool.

That's basically asking people like me to be permanent second-class citizens in this space? When 5th Edition D&D leaves no room for people like me to play it why should Apocalypse World accommodate mainstream playstyles? Why should I be denied games designed for the stuff I want so everything can be made for you, even the stuff meant for me?

You have your space, your games, that are just yours. Why can't we have the same without being treated interlopers? Why must your norms pervade the entire hobby?

 

[Bedrockgames]

The issue isn't entirely that I don't want to do these things (although I mostly don't), it's that I don't want to play a game where the GM or whatever is required to do these things or they aren't following the rules.

Yeah, I think it is constraints being absolute, where for the most part, I feel like one of the things that makes RPGs work is the flexibility on the GM side. Again, the ability to go beyond the rules, to expand what is possible, sometimes requires the ability to invoke something like rule 0

 

[pemerton]

There was an obstacle and I had figured out a potential combat encounter. That combat encounter didn't happen because they figured out a way to bypass the guards. If I ran a railroad like some people insist, that combat encounter would have happened anyway because I would have just used quantum guards that appeared for some other reason.

I'm just struck by the language of "bypass", that's all.

Especially in conjunction with the idea of an "obstacle", to me it suggests the idea of the players trying to reach a "finish line".

When I am GMing Burning Wheel or even Torchbearer, I think in terms of situations that trigger tests. And failed tests have consequences. But I don't think in terms of "proto-" or incipient encounters that the players might "bypass".

Really? I had already explained it to you at length when you “couldn’t understand” it when I described a player choosing to bypass a plot hook I offered. Since I went into great length to answer your multiple questions about it, the fact that you’re asking someone else suggests that you either completely forgot what I said or are coming into these discussions with a deliberate and rather rude belief that people who GM trad games invariably railroad players or otherwise force them into specific actions.

Perhaps that’s a belief you want to drop.

I'm not talking about forcing anyone into specific actions. I'm talking about this notion of "an encounter" being a thing that exists independently of play, which the players can "bypass".

To me, that is quite curious.

To make a loose comparison: when I GM a D&D combat, and the PCs win by defeating their opponents, I don't normally describe this as "bypassing" a TPK. And I don't think I've seen others use that term either. So these "bypassed" encounters or "bypassed" plot hooks seem like something different from consequences that didn't happen. And I'm curious about what they are.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Don't want to play them? Cool.
Don't want them to exist when so many games require a set of play-style that is similar to yours? Not so cool.

That's basically asking people like me to be permanent second-class citizens in this space? When 5th Edition D&D leaves no room for people like me to play it why should Apocalypse World accommodate mainstream playstyles? Why should I be denied games designed for the stuff I want so everything can be made for you, even the stuff meant for me?

I have no problem with AW being a thing. I think it is good we have games like that. But I also think people can have expectations and desires around D&D without being accused of being exclusionary. Not every version of D&D is what we want. It is the single biggest game and has to do a lot of balancing to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. I don't know where the line is, but I do know that I personally wouldn't be interested in an edition of D&D that felt like it was trying to be BitD or AW. But that is just me. Just not what I am looking for with that system. Heck, 5E isn't even really what I am looking for with D&D either. So in all likelihood, neither you nor I are especially fond of what WOTC happens to be putting out these days for D&D (if for different reasons). There is a lot of stuff there that just doesn't appeal to me, so I play older editions.

One of the cool things about the state of the hobby now, though perhaps this is less certain given the OGL fiasco, is we live in a time where people can make different versions of the game. You could make a variation of D&D that has exactly what you are talking about, and if there is a market for it, I am sure it will do well. Something like this probably even already exists.

You have your space, your games, that are just yours. Why can't we have the same without being treated interlopers? Why must your norms pervade the entire hobby?

What space is he occupying that you can't participate in? I get that there is a conflict of style here and a debate about what a game like D&D ought to be, but he is just one poster, with one opinion. I feel like most of my options are pretty outlier on EnWorld. Mainstream hobby is definitely not reflective of my own tastes. That is just the nature of something being mainstream. That doesn't mean people are trying to exclude me or enforce a norm. It just means my tastes are a little more niche (it is like listening to pop radio and asking why they aren't playing more 90s grunge or jazz)

 

[robertsconley]

The narrativist scene is tiny. The OSR scene is tiny. Other RPGs get talked about in comparison to D&D. It's the entry point for huge swathes of the community. Like it or not, D&D is normative.

Yup, I know exactly where the projects I’ve successfully released fall on the scale of things in the hobby.

However, the good news is that even 0.01% of the numbers D&D 5e pulls are sufficient for the cause. The efficiency created by the internet and digital technology allows many projects to be realized with the time and resources one has for a hobby. And if you're lucky enough to have more, due to some capital to invest or being part of a team, some very nice, creative visions can be brought to life.

That's not even touching on what open content IP brings to the table.

Unlike the days of limited game store shelf space, warehouse space, and large capital outlays for manufacturing, it's no longer a zero-sum market. There’s room for everyone.

 

[SableWyvern]

Especially in conjunction with the idea of an "obstacle", to me it suggests the idea of the players trying to reach a "finish line".

Is it really so hard for you to imagine that the PCs may, at any given time, have an objective in mind that they are trying to achieve? Or that there may be obstacles that lay between where they are now (physically or metaphorically) and where they want to be, that they need to overcome in some way if they are to reach that objective?

 

[Bedrockgames]

D&D5e is the single largest, most commercially successful RPG to date. It utterly dwarfs every other single RPG in existence. A few years ago, over on the /rpg subreddit, one of the Paizo devs stated that he reckons they (Paizo) have "no more than 2%, and probably less than 1%, market share" (almost verbatim). Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if D&D exceeded the rest of the RPG sphere combined. It's dominance is such that it is the only RPG to date that could ever be considered mainstream, such that it has become a lifestyle brand, and to some people is synonymous with RPGs the way Kleenex is with tissues in the US. The narrativist scene is tiny. The OSR scene is tiny. Other RPGs get talked about in comparison to D&D. It's the entry point for huge swathes of the community. Like it or not, D&D is normative.

Yeah, I don't quite get the complaint. When 4E came out, I was a bit bummed, but I just went back to playing older editions. You can't can't really control the mainstream space of a hobby. I'd love it if modern movies were more like classic films, but that isn't going to happen. It isn't other peoples fault if they like Marvel movies or things with more CGI than I enjoy.

One observation I have here is back when we first got into publishing, Bill, my business partner, and I used to always say "Pathfinder and D&D are king" because anytime we went to a convention, a game store or any kind of public venue for playing RPGs, it was split down the middle: half the tables were pathfinder, and half were D&D. But it seems like D&D pretty much reclaimed its central position in recent years (perhaps Stranger Things is a contributing factor?)

 

[AlViking]

I'm just struck by the language of "bypass", that's all.

Especially in conjunction with the idea of an "obstacle", to me it suggests the idea of the players trying to reach a "finish line".

When I am GMing Burning Wheel or even Torchbearer, I think in terms of situations that trigger tests. And failed tests have consequences. But I don't think in terms of "proto-" or incipient encounters that the players might "bypass".

I'm not talking about forcing anyone into specific actions. I'm talking about this notion of "an encounter" being a thing that exists independently of play, which the players can "bypass".

To me, that is quite curious.

To make a loose comparison: when I GM a D&D combat, and the PCs win by defeating their opponents, I don't normally describe this as "bypassing" a TPK. And I don't think I've seen others use that term either. So these "bypassed" encounters or "bypassed" plot hooks seem like something different from consequences that didn't happen. And I'm curious about what they are.

I don't care about "tests". It made sense for what was happening that there would be guards. I set up what I think will interesting obstacles, opportunities, interactions.

I lean more into the simulation side of things, trying to make a living breathing world for the characters interact with. We just have different approaches and want different things out of games.