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

[Micah Sweet]

You realize that it doesn't change anything, right? In my opinion, and in the opinions of everyone I played with 4E was a radically different game.

No argument here. What did I say that stated otherwise?

 

[Reynard]

You realize that it doesn't change anything, right? In my opinion, and in the opinions of everyone I played with 4E was a radically different game.

I don't think that is what's at issue. 2E and 3E were also radically different games, and that was astoundingly clear at the time, but somehow in the intervening years (maybe because of 4E?) people have backpedaled and decided it wasn't that big of a change.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think that is what's at issue. 2E and 3E were also radically different games, and that was astoundingly clear at the time, but somehow in the intervening years (maybe because of 4E?) people have backpedaled and decided it wasn't that big of a change.

I just disagree. The math changed but it felt like the same game. My wizard still cast spells, my fighter still swung their sword.

 

[Reynard]

I just disagree. The math changed but it felt like the same game. My wizard still cast spells, my fighter still swung their sword.

Okay. I don't buy it, though. I think you are viewing it through rose colored glasses. It was a major change and everyone knew it at the time.

 

[Oofta]

Okay. I don't buy it, though. I think you are viewing it through rose colored glasses. It was a major change and everyone knew it at the time.

What rose colored glasses? They fixed the math, gave PCs some different options. I don't care if you "buy" it. It felt and played like the game we had always played with some tweaks that should have been made years earlier.

We looked at the changes, said "thank goodness they fixed these stupid aspects of the game" and kept playing.

 

[Reynard]

What rose colored glasses? They fixed the math, gave PCs some different options. I don't care if you "buy" it. It felt and played like the game we had always played with some tweaks that should have been made years earlier.

We looked at the changes, said "thank goodness they fixed these stupid aspects of the game" and kept playing.

Just because you kept playing it like you had been doesn't mean the game did not change significantly. it just means you were so wrapped up in your preferred playstyle that you ignored the fundamental shifts in design.

 

[Jaeger]

I'm probably just being grumpy today due to non game related stuff, but I really, really want D&D to stop dominating the hobby, industry and community surrounding TTRPGs. …

I wouldn’t even begrudge D&D still being the market leader.

I just think It would be nice if we went back to having a solid number two rpg that was fairly popular within the hobby, and that also wasn’t a D&D clone…

…Sadly, i don't see other ttrpgs going out there and trying to capture that same wide casual crowd.

The cost of competition is high, and our economy has fundamentally changed in the last thirty years as D&D has established its mega dominance.

Much, much harder to do today than it was in the late 80’s, early 90’s…

That's true, but my subjective experience in the 80s and 90s tells me that other RPGs had a bigger piece of the pie prior to now.

Your own two eyes were not lying to you.

Back then VtM was the solid number two rpg. And gaming store shelves held a variety of rpgs beyond the big two.

Nowadays if gaming stores have anything beyond D&D I’d be shocked if it wasn’t Pathfinder…

One of the things I enjoyed about old Dragon magazine was that everything in it wasn't hyper-focused on D&D, or even TSR, or even RPGs. It had a book review column, a mini review, articles about other company's games, general advice...we have definitely lost something precious.

It was the corporatization of the hobby.

It stopped being about the love of gaming, and became all about promoting the house brand above all else…

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just disagree. The math changed but it felt like the same game. My wizard still cast spells, my fighter still swung their sword.

Those things are also true of Dungeon World, or GURPS Fantasy. Are those the same game?

 

[GrimCo]

I don't think that is what's at issue. 2E and 3E were also radically different games, and that was astoundingly clear at the time, but somehow in the intervening years (maybe because of 4E?) people have backpedaled and decided it wasn't that big of a change.

I wouldn't call them radically different. They streamlined mechanics, get rid of THAC0, turned NWP into skills. But class design was fairly similar and it played very similar. Wizards could still run out of spell and they had to prepare spells in slots, paladins still had role play restrictions, fighters still only had weapon attacks. It was evolution, rather than revolution. 4e was revolution, with their at-will, encounter, daily, utillity powers for classes, roles, leveling going up to 30 by default, etc. It felt very different in play. IMHO, if 4th and 5th changed places, it would be better evolution chain.

 

[Aldarc]

I wouldn't call them radically different. They streamlined mechanics, get rid of THAC0, turned NWP into skills. But class design was fairly similar and it played very similar. Wizards could still run out of spell and they had to prepare spells in slots, paladins still had role play restrictions, fighters still only had weapon attacks. It was evolution, rather than revolution. 4e was revolution, with their at-will, encounter, daily, utillity powers for classes, roles, leveling going up to 30 by default, etc. It felt very different in play. IMHO, if 4th and 5th changed places, it would be better evolution chain.

Just like with Skills and Powers, I do think that some of the writing was on the wall for 4e if people bothered picking up the later 3e books like Bo9S or even d20 Star Wars Saga. Of course I know that many people didn't buy those books so 4e was surprising. For those of us who did, 4e wasn't that surprising.