A New "anti-D&D" Era

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Thus fulfilling Ryan Dancey's original goal for the OGL.

 

[payn]

Except this does not work for a long term game. Sure it's great that everyone can play the super easy RPG, but then what? There is no reason to leave the other stuff to others.

Also, it's a bit sad that there is the idea that RPGs are "so hard" that normal folks can't play it, so you need a special easy tarter game.

The "special easy tarter game" sells like gangbusters. More so than catering to the hardcore crowd focus did.

 

[Jer]

Also, it's a bit sad that there is the idea that RPGs are "so hard" that normal folks can't play it, so you need a special easy tarter game.

First - RPGs are a category of game that you need to teach people to play. Candyland exists for kids to teach them how to play boardgames - very few people step into a board game of even moderate difficulty without having played at least one easy board game before it. Why would you expect RPGs to be different?

Second - there's an audience for whom the rules of an RPG get in the way of their fun rather than enhance it. If it turns out that that group is larger than the reverse then a simpler game is going to pick up a bigger audience than a more complex one. That's just numbers - and it does seem that that is in fact what has been going on with D&D's uptake over the last decade.

 

[dirtypool]

I honestly don't quite understand the point of Black Flag in a world where not only is the 5E SRD in the CC but 1D&D isn't particularly far removed from 5E. But who knows, maybe Black Flag will be more of a 5E Arcana Unearthed than a 5E Pathfinder.

Based on where it is at now, clearly Black Flag has been in the works for much longer than the OGL crisis. The point appears to be that they were using the OGL to hedge their bets by having a completed 5e based game to act as the core for their setting materials in case OneD&D strayed too far. Makes more sense than gambling that 2024 won't disrupt your process by seeing the introduction of a game that doesn't quite jibe with your design space any longer.

 

[Gubber Bittencourt]

the only backlash was pathfinder 1e. People didn't play vampire because they had problems with d&d but because they wanted to play another kind of theme.

There are always groups that get tired of playing a system.

But what drives rpg is the theme. In the 80s and 90s there were movies and other media that made people play other types of games and after that comes the need for a system.

Conam, Interview with the Vampire etc. every system has a books, movies, and games that creates a need for a system.

today the scenario is dominated, in addition to tokien who is eternal the greatest inspiration, by Super heroes who are always very difficult to create good systems.

I imagine the big space today would be something today would be the "harry potter" theme.

 

[Reynard]

the only backlash was pathfinder 1e. People didn't play vampire because they had problems with d&d but because they wanted to play another kind of theme.

That's not true at all.

 

[dirtypool]

Except this does not work for a long term game. Sure it's great that everyone can play the super easy RPG, but then what? There is no reason to leave the other stuff to others.

It seems to work for long term gaming just fine.

Also, it's a bit sad that there is the idea that RPGs are "so hard" that normal folks can't play it, so you need a special easy tarter game.

Is anyone actually presenting that idea of other games as being particularly difficult? I think what is being expressed is the idea that D&D is, and has long been, the sort of gateway to the hobby. The entry level

 

[dirtypool]

the only backlash was pathfinder 1e. People didn't play vampire because they had problems with d&d but because they wanted to play another kind of theme.

There is a very excellent documentary about the World of Darkness that features interviews with lots of Masquerade players who state they in fact DID play because they had specific issues with D&D

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Makes more sense than gambling that 2024 won't disrupt your process by seeing the introduction of a game that doesn't quite jibe with your design space any longer.

Yeah, the Kobolds were in the RPG business (although not as their own company yet) through the 3E/3.5 transition. Hard to forget how many companies ran into catastrophic trouble due to that changeover.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I imagine the big space today would be something today would be the "harry potter" theme.

There are a lot of games in the magical school space and none of them have been monster hits. I think HP mania has peaked.

 

[Nijay]

I think it can be faulty to think that a bunch of new fantasy TTRPG's is necessarily a good thing. What I see potentially happening is a splintering, which could be bad, ultimately backfire and prove a lot of these current efforts to be heartbreakers, leaving One D&D in a similar position as 5e holds today. Which is to say, how many systems do people learn and play at one time? How many roughly similar fantasy systems? Even now, when people talk about the upcoming laundry list of competitors, the first thing people usually point out is that there are already several existing options. What will make the new options different than the existing ones? Are any of these going to be big enough to consolidate players in a sizeable enough group to really compete with D&D? I kind of dread a future where the pie is evenly divided, as ideal as that might sound. How hard will it be to get table consensus on a system a year or so from now? What systems do TPP publishers choose to create content for (all the ones easily compatible/convertible with One D&D/5e)?

I think if some of these groups were to collaborate on just 2 titles, like an alternate 5e (a la PBF) and a separate non-5e-adjacent fantasy system, and work together to ensure convertibility between these games (create conversion tools), there would be a greater chance of long term success. But idk, maybe the buckshot approach will work, and at worst, give us a lot of systems to pull together our Frankensteins from.

 

[Gubber Bittencourt]

the only backlash was pathfinder 1e. People didn't play vampire because they had problems with d&d but because they wanted to play another kind of theme.

There are always groups that get tired of playing a system.

But what drives rpg is the theme. In the 80s and 90s there were movies and other media that made people play other types of games and after that comes the need for a system.

Conam, Interview with the Vampire etc. every system has a books, movies, and games that creates a need for a system.

today the scenario is dominated, in addition to tokien who is eternal the greatest inspiration, by Super heroes who are always very difficult to create good systems.

I imagine the big space today would be something today would be the "harry potter" theme.

There is a very excellent documentary about the World of Darkness that features interviews with lots of Masquerade players who state they in fact DID play because they had specific issues with D&D

I'm old enough that I don't need movies to tell me what happened. Of course everyone lives in bubbles.

But I doubt it's the motivation of the majority, I doubt it's the motivation of an important part.

Screams of revolts always sound louder than their representativeness, even more so under the lens of someone who wants to pass an image. If scientific studies can be extremely biased, in the case of movies bias is almost always the purpose of the movie's existence.

 

[dirtypool]

I'm old enough that I don't need movies to tell me what happened. Of course everyone lives in bubbles.

I'm old enough that I was there too, but I'm not the one declaring categorically what other peoples motivations were as if I'd conducted a poll at the time.

But I doubt it's the motivation of the majority, I doubt it's the motivation of an important part.

Yes but you didn't say "only a minority of people played Vampire because they had problems with D&D." You declared how things were.

Screams of revolts always sound louder than their representativeness, even more so under the lens of someone who wants to pass an image. If scientific studies can be extremely biased, in the case of movies bias is almost always the purpose of the movie's existence.

... Kay

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I think it's good to see a more diverse and robust RPG landscape, period. But I also think that outside of internet discussion channels, D&D still has a massive fanbase that didn't even blink at the OGL debacle.

I do feel like 5E is burning out D&D. A lot of people love how "easy and simple" 5E is.....at first. But it does not have the staying power of a long term game. The big hole is that it simply does not have the rules. I, myself, add a ton of house rules to 5E to make it more like 2E. But that is a lot of work for most people.

Assuming One D&D still is on-schedule for 2024, 5e D&D will have lasted longer then Original, 3e, and 4e D&D. And 1e and 2e have only 1-2 more years on it, depending.

 

[Reynard]

I think it can be faulty to think that a bunch of new fantasy TTRPG's is necessarily a good thing.

Who said anything about fantasy being the focus?

 

[Lanefan]

It seems to work for long term gaming just fine.

Does it?

First, let's define "long term". To me, long-term gaming means campaigns lasting (or intending to last) for a minimum five (real-time) years, if not for ten years or even more.

By specific and clearly-stated intention, none of the WotC editions are designed to last that long. 3e was intended to go 1-20 in two years; 4e 1-30 in a little less, and 5e - while less clearly defined - seems to be more or less back to the 1-20 in two years paradigm.

Trying to turn 3e into a long-term game (which we did in the 00s), mostly by slowing down the level-advance rates so characters didn't level up so fast, didn't really work worth a damn. There was a poster in here (I forget who, now) who spoke of a long-running 4e campaign, so I guess it can in theory be done; but I'm not sure how much kitbashing it took, and that's just one DM.

Couple this with the rise of the single-AP-is-the-whole-campaign playstyle (thanks for nothing, Pathfinder) and true long-term play becomes a real outlier. Which makes me ask: unless you've kitbashed its little face off, how can you say that 5e works just fine for long-term gaming when both its design and its published adventures are fighting against this at every turn?

 

[Lanefan]

I think it's good to see a more diverse and robust RPG landscape, period. But I also think that outside of internet discussion channels, D&D still has a massive fanbase that didn't even blink at the OGL debacle.

On that you might be surprised.

All I can give is an anecdote, but I think it's telling: through being online all the time and paying attention, teenage gamers [who are a) either the largest or second-largest RPG-playing cohort and b) the future of the game] were very much keeping up on what was going on with the OGL mess.

 

[dirtypool]

Does it?

Yes

First, let's define "long term". To me, long-term gaming means campaigns lasting (or intending to last) for a minimum five (real-time) years, if not for ten years or even more.

Well that's a very arbitrary definition that excludes 3 and 4 year long campaigns, but you do you.

By specific and clearly-stated intention, none of the WotC editions are designed to last that long. 3e was intended to go 1-20 in two years; 4e 1-30 in a little less, and 5e - while less clearly defined - seems to be more or less back to the 1-20 in two years paradigm.

And yet there are people still playing in campaigns well after the designed level progression, they post about their experiences all the time in forums just like this one. Particularly 3.X players

Trying to turn 3e into a long-term game (which we did in the 00s), mostly by slowing down the level-advance rates so characters didn't level up so fast, didn't really work worth a damn. There was a poster in here (I forget who, now) who spoke of a long-running 4e campaign, so I guess it can in theory be done; but I'm not sure how much kitbashing it took, and that's just one DM.

That one DM, you assume is the ONLY DM who has ever made claim of a long running 4e campaign

Couple this with the rise of the single-AP-is-the-whole-campaign playstyle (thanks for nothing, Pathfinder) and true long-term play becomes a real outlier. Which makes me ask: unless you've kitbashed its little face off, how can you say that 5e works just fine for long-term gaming when both its design and its published adventures are fighting against this at every turn?

Because people won't shut up about how they're playing in long term games using 5e, as a non 5e player I hear 5e players brag about their long term games often. That, and the fact that the only one who says you must exceed a 5 year long threshold to be considered a long term game is you.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes

Well that's a very arbitrary definition that excludes 3 and 4 year long campaigns, but you do you.

And yet there are people still playing in campaigns well after the designed level progression, they post about their experiences all the time in forums just like this one. Particularly 3.X players

That one DM, you assume is the ONLY DM who has ever made claim of a long running 4e campaign

While I'm obviously not assuming that DM to be the only one anywhere, of the numerous 4e DMs in here (of which there were a lot in 2008-12 and still some now) that's the only one I 've seen.

Because people won't shut up about how they're playing in long term games using 5e, as a non 5e player I hear 5e players brag about their long term games often.

Again, though, what's their definition of long-term?

That, and the fact that the only one who says you must exceed a 5 year long threshold to be considered a long term game is you.

Actually my own usual long-term threshold is ten years, I was tossing five years out there as it's a round number and over double what the design expects.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The "special easy tarter game" sells like gangbusters. More so than catering to the hardcore crowd focus did.

I know it's naive, but I'm so tired of "sells like gangbusters" being everyone's primary metric.