Oofta
Legend
I used to golf, but just got so frustrated by that darn windmill. I just couldn't time it right. Don't even get me started on that creepy clown!
D&D General D&D (and potentially other TTRPG's) is a sport
R_J_K75
Legend
Yes and I beat the 18 pack every time.
Of course, its hard maneuvering and climbing around the other players to get another beer and use the head. We had a player out last game who tore a bicep in the d20 warm up cage, he's out between 3-6 adventures.
Why do you think 18 packs originally came with golf course maps on them, because drinking is a sport and I'm a fierce competitor whether its D&D, golf or manning the grill.
LuisCarlos17f
Legend
The question is if D&D can become an e-sport where streamers can earn money.
R_J_K75
Legend
Its already called Magic: the Gathering
Lyxen
Great Old One
I don't think it's exciting enough. Even the best shows out there are going on for way too long between exciting things, in the day and age of the easily bored, I don't think there's a chance.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
I don't think it's amenable to being an e-sport where streamers can make money.
But what I do think is that it is inarguable that it is an entertainment where streamers can make money. (See, e.g., Critical Role).
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I think you’re onto something, but I think you may have missed the mark a bit. It doesn’t help that the line between game and sport is pretty blurry. However, I would say D&D is, or at least is meant to be, a game, and games do have certain features in common.
Mark Rosewater, lead designer of Magic: the Gathering wrote an article (technically a two-part article) in 2011 called “10 things every game needs” and while it is ultimately just one man’s opinion, it is the opinion of a man who lives and breathes game design, and I think we can learn a lot by examining D&D under that lens.
So, what are the 10 things every game needs?
1. A goal or goals
2. Rules
3. Interaction
4. A catch-up feature
5. Inertia
6. Surprise
7. Strategy
8. Fun
9. Flavor
10. A hook.
Of those 10 things, there are some I think it’s pretty uncontroversial that D&D has - rules, interaction, surprise, fun, flavor, and a hook I think just about everyone would agree are features of D&D.
A bit less uncontroversial is strategy. Some level of strategy certainly exists in the combat sub-game, and arguably in character optimization. Outside of that though, many DMs actively try to avoid making strategy an element of gameplay, seeking to eliminate “player skill” from influencing the outcomes of out-of-combat actions. Personally, I think the game is made better as a game (as Mark Rosewater defines it) if strategy plays a role in all parts of gameplay, though I recognize this is far from a universal preference. I think this comes from a desire for D&D to be at least as much collaborative storytelling as game, if not more.
Inertia and a catch-up feature are a bit odd. I would argue that inertia (defined here as something that keeps the game moving along towards a conclusion) can exist in D&D, but it has to be consciously built into the structure of the adventure. Things like time pressure encourage players to push on towards their goals (though more on goals later), but certain sandbox-type play tends to lack this type of inertia.
A catch-up feature is also an interesting choice, as it seems even more than the other items on the list to be more indicative of what Mark Rosewater considers to make a good game, rather than an essential defining feature of game-ness. That said, I would argue D&D kind of has a catch-up feature in the form of DM intervention. If the players are struggling, the DM can help them out, either by easing up on the difficulty, or by giving the players more power, such as through magic items. But it’s mostly on the DM to handle this; there is very little built-in at the mechanical level in the way of a catch-up feature. I guess you could maybe argue that’s what short rest recovery abilities and hit dice are?
And then of course we get to what I suspect to be the most controversial item on this list as it relates to D&D, but also arguably the most defining features of game-ness: a goal or goals. I am personally a believer that goals - either plot-related, personal, or ideally both, are an essential feature of D&D. And no, “to have fun” doesn’t count because fun is a separate item on the list. D&D, as a game, needs goals the players and the characters can pursue, which the DM can create obstacles towards achieving, thus creating conflict and therefore gameplay. Maybe that’s a hot take, but it’s where I sit.
Mark Rosewater, lead designer of Magic: the Gathering wrote an article (technically a two-part article) in 2011 called “10 things every game needs” and while it is ultimately just one man’s opinion, it is the opinion of a man who lives and breathes game design, and I think we can learn a lot by examining D&D under that lens.
So, what are the 10 things every game needs?
1. A goal or goals
2. Rules
3. Interaction
4. A catch-up feature
5. Inertia
6. Surprise
7. Strategy
8. Fun
9. Flavor
10. A hook.
Of those 10 things, there are some I think it’s pretty uncontroversial that D&D has - rules, interaction, surprise, fun, flavor, and a hook I think just about everyone would agree are features of D&D.
A bit less uncontroversial is strategy. Some level of strategy certainly exists in the combat sub-game, and arguably in character optimization. Outside of that though, many DMs actively try to avoid making strategy an element of gameplay, seeking to eliminate “player skill” from influencing the outcomes of out-of-combat actions. Personally, I think the game is made better as a game (as Mark Rosewater defines it) if strategy plays a role in all parts of gameplay, though I recognize this is far from a universal preference. I think this comes from a desire for D&D to be at least as much collaborative storytelling as game, if not more.
Inertia and a catch-up feature are a bit odd. I would argue that inertia (defined here as something that keeps the game moving along towards a conclusion) can exist in D&D, but it has to be consciously built into the structure of the adventure. Things like time pressure encourage players to push on towards their goals (though more on goals later), but certain sandbox-type play tends to lack this type of inertia.
A catch-up feature is also an interesting choice, as it seems even more than the other items on the list to be more indicative of what Mark Rosewater considers to make a good game, rather than an essential defining feature of game-ness. That said, I would argue D&D kind of has a catch-up feature in the form of DM intervention. If the players are struggling, the DM can help them out, either by easing up on the difficulty, or by giving the players more power, such as through magic items. But it’s mostly on the DM to handle this; there is very little built-in at the mechanical level in the way of a catch-up feature. I guess you could maybe argue that’s what short rest recovery abilities and hit dice are?
And then of course we get to what I suspect to be the most controversial item on this list as it relates to D&D, but also arguably the most defining features of game-ness: a goal or goals. I am personally a believer that goals - either plot-related, personal, or ideally both, are an essential feature of D&D. And no, “to have fun” doesn’t count because fun is a separate item on the list. D&D, as a game, needs goals the players and the characters can pursue, which the DM can create obstacles towards achieving, thus creating conflict and therefore gameplay. Maybe that’s a hot take, but it’s where I sit.
Li Shenron
Legend
Similar Threads
