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

[UngainlyTitan]

Which I read as "It's bad that people get into 5E and enjoy something other than my preferred style of play." The vast majority of people who play are not gaming geeks (being a gaming geek is not at all a bad thing). They don't give a fig about "innovative" or "clean" design, they just want to sit down with a game with others that they have fun playing.

I've introduced quite a few people to D&D, especially 5E, over the years and the vast majority simply enjoy the game for what it is. Since most of them are, and always will be, casual players, I personally think D&D's overall design and themes have a lot to do with it's popularity. Many other games target much more of a niche or enforce an overall style, D&D is more flexible than many of those games. There is no monopoly power to D&D, the TTRPG market is very open. Currently D&D dominates but as others have said there have absolutely been times when other games could have risen to dominance and they didn't. Shows like Critical Role certainly play a part in that, but there's nothing from stopping people streaming any game they choose.

In any case, one thing I do think happened that stifled diversity is the OGL. We can't go back in time to see what effect the OGL had, but it seems like the majority of creatives that want to do something in the same basic target niche as D&D have reinforced the brand by using the OGL instead of doing something new.

I think you are correct about the OGL, which is what the OGL was designed to do which makes the efforts to get rid of it kind of funny.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nah. For you it is all black, when speaking of WotC or modern D&D.

Not necessarily. I don't like their general philosophy and plans for the future, but some of their recent products are ok. Planescape turned out better than I thought it would, and I would likely buy the Book of Many Things if I had $100 to spend on it. I also love (love love love) the DMs Guild. It's the best thing WotC's involved with IMO, and I'm happy they decided on that particular way to maximize profits.

 

[DEFCON 1]

We move on to the Next Thing which goes through the honeymoon of discovery, the disappointment of aging, the death of resentment and the eternal life of memory. Live fast, die young, and leave a good looking corpse.

Which is exactly why game companies produce new editions of their games. To produce something new and old at the same time.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think that the question itself presupposes some definition of "good," or "bad," which is not necessarily helpful and will just allow people to project their own preference on to the answer.

That said, I have previously given the issue of D&D's dominance a fair amount of thought. I would say that the following points are interesting, at least to me-

1. RPGs are always a niche hobby. Most people enter the hobby through playing D&D. Maybe the number of people who play D&D and then move on to other games is 10%. Maybe it's 35%. I don't know the figure. But the point is this- to the extent that D&D grows the pie, that means that there are more people out there that will eventually try other games. Which I think is a good thing.

2. Having a single game that is so popular does allow for a relatively thriving market for 3PPs. It is much harder to make money publishing products for games that don't have the reach of D&D. I would say that this is somewhat counteracted by the increase over time for people that desire to only play "WOTC" products, but even so, it is easier to make money on 3PPs for a game with a large market share than for a niche product.

3. I have previously stated that many people don't understand the lessons on D&D; that they have their own particular game that they like that they claim is designed better and that D&D is a poorly-designed game that just happens to be the market leader. I would argue that this misses the point; D&D is not a perfectly designed game for everyone, and, of course, it can always improve and get better (that's why we see it getting revise, get new editions, and have supplementary material). However, many of the aspects of D&D that some people don't like, whether it's the power-fantasy aspects (zero-to-hero), of the char-gen minigame, or the campaign, or the overly "game-y" aspects, or even the legacy of murderhobo combined with weak narrative ... those are the things that are broadly appealing to many people. In fact, the weak "prescriptive" elements of D&D (that you can play it so many different ways, even if isn't particularly great at any given mode of play) is what makes it so broadly appealing.

Understanding this crucial distinction is what can allow people to realize that D&D's design choices are those that are made to appeal to a broad undifferentiated market, and to move D&D to a more specific direction (for example, I think certain games, such as Ten Candles, are far better for melancholy horror, and I can usually create a bespoke game that will do a much better one-shot than D&D can ever provide) would actually be a bad thing for D&D. Once you understand this, you can realize that D&D's design is well-suited for its purpose, and avoid making pejorative and stupid comments about how people who like D&D for what it is are brain-damaged, or simpletons, or don't understand good design.

 

[Swanosaurus]

3. I have previously stated that many people don't understand the lessons on D&D; that they have their own particular game that they like that they claim is designed better and that D&D is a poorly-designed game that just happens to be the market leader. I would argue that this misses the point; D&D is not a perfectly designed game for everyone, and, of course, it can always improve and get better (that's why we see it getting revise, get new editions, and have supplementary material). However, many of the aspects of D&D that some people don't like, whether it's the power-fantasy aspects (zero-to-hero), of the char-gen minigame, or the campaign, or the overly "game-y" aspects, or even the legacy of murderhobo combined with weak narrative ... those are the things that are broadly appealing to many people. In fact, the weak "prescriptive" elements of D&D (that you can play it so many different ways, even if isn't particularly great at any given mode of play) is what makes it so broadly appealing.

Understanding this crucial distinction is what can allow people to realize that D&D's design choices are those that are made to appeal to a broad undifferentiated market, and to move D&D to a more specific direction (for example, I think certain games, such as Ten Candles, are far better for melancholy horror, and I can usually create a bespoke game that will do a much better one-shot than D&D can ever provide) would actually be a bad thing for D&D. Once you understand this, you can realize that D&D's design is well-suited for its purpose, and avoid making pejorative and stupid comments about how people who like D&D for what it is are brain-damaged, or simpletons, or don't understand good design.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Personally, I'd still be happier with a maybe smaller RPG scene and less D&D dominance, because it would be easier for me there to communicate about my hobby.
I'm not saying that D&D should step down/make room, or that it should be designed differently - I just wish that it hadn't that utterly dominant role it has right now, because for me, personally, that would be preferable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is a theory that the more popular something becomes, the more they have to "sell out" what made them good to achieve that popularity. For example, the truest expression of a band is their indie era before they get signed because once they do, they sacrifice their uniqueness for an album and even more for a hit single. It's called Hipster Theory and it exists because people who believe it think popular and good have an inverse relationship.

Couple that with Nostalgia Theory (things were always better in the past, when you first were exposed to something) and you get the Grand Unified Theory of Fandom: the point you discovered something is the peak of that thing's quality and it is destined to only get worse the longer it goes. Bands change sounds, media evolves, etc. The answer is of course a paradox: for something to remain good and "pure", it must die. Bands break up. Games stop getting updates. It lives in a perfect state in our memory, nostalgia buffing off the rough edges. We move on to the Next Thing which goes through the honeymoon of discovery, the disappointment of aging, the death of resentment and the eternal life of memory. Live fast, die young, and leave a good looking corpse.

The Grand Theory of Fandom is a thing, I agree, but saying it like that dismisses it as essentially never being true.

But sometimes the makers of popular things do "sell out" or change what they make to increase its mainstream appeal. A person who doesn't like those changes isn't being a "hipster" or wearing nostalgia goggles for feeling that way.

And sometimes newer iterations of a thing are not simply better than what came before. Implying otherwise is insulting to anyone not on the leading edge of anything in which they have an interest.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that the question itself presupposes some definition of "good," or "bad," which is not necessarily helpful and will just allow people to project their own preference on to the answer.

That said, I have previously given the issue of D&D's dominance a fair amount of thought. I would say that the following points are interesting, at least to me-

1. RPGs are always a niche hobby. Most people enter the hobby through playing D&D. Maybe the number of people who play D&D and then move on to other games is 10%. Maybe it's 35%. I don't know the figure. But the point is this- to the extent that D&D grows the pie, that means that there are more people out there that will eventually try other games. Which I think is a good thing.

2. Having a single game that is so popular does allow for a relatively thriving market for 3PPs. It is much harder to make money publishing products for games that don't have the reach of D&D. I would say that this is somewhat counteracted by the increase over time for people that desire to only play "WOTC" products, but even so, it is easier to make money on 3PPs for a game with a large market share than for a niche product.

3. I have previously stated that many people don't understand the lessons on D&D; that they have their own particular game that they like that they claim is designed better and that D&D is a poorly-designed game that just happens to be the market leader. I would argue that this misses the point; D&D is not a perfectly designed game for everyone, and, of course, it can always improve and get better (that's why we see it getting revise, get new editions, and have supplementary material). However, many of the aspects of D&D that some people don't like, whether it's the power-fantasy aspects (zero-to-hero), of the char-gen minigame, or the campaign, or the overly "game-y" aspects, or even the legacy of murderhobo combined with weak narrative ... those are the things that are broadly appealing to many people. In fact, the weak "prescriptive" elements of D&D (that you can play it so many different ways, even if isn't particularly great at any given mode of play) is what makes it so broadly appealing.

Understanding this crucial distinction is what can allow people to realize that D&D's design choices are those that are made to appeal to a broad undifferentiated market, and to move D&D to a more specific direction (for example, I think certain games, such as Ten Candles, are far better for melancholy horror, and I can usually create a bespoke game that will do a much better one-shot than D&D can ever provide) would actually be a bad thing for D&D. Once you understand this, you can realize that D&D's design is well-suited for its purpose, and avoid making pejorative and stupid comments about how people who like D&D for what it is are brain-damaged, or simpletons, or don't understand good design.

Thank you for putting this into context for me. You make some excellent arguments in favor of WotC as market leader, and I will think on it seriously.

Do you have a newsletter to which I could subscribe?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I agree with pretty much all of this. Personally, I'd still be happier with a maybe smaller RPG scene and less D&D dominance, because it would be easier for me there to communicate about my hobby.
I'm not saying that D&D should step down/make room, or that it should be designed differently - I just wish that it hadn't that utterly dominant role it has right now, because for me, personally, that would be preferable.

And that's great. It's good when all of us are able to distinguish our opinions and feelings as being personal opinions and value judgements versus stating things as an empirical "truth". It makes discussion for all of us overall easier-- because we can save a lot of time no longer needing to disprove someone's statement of "empirical truth" when it actually isn't and is just a personal preference.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Which I read as "It's bad that people get into 5E and enjoy something other than my preferred style of play." The vast majority of people who play are not gaming geeks (being a gaming geek is not at all a bad thing). They don't give a fig about "innovative" or "clean" design, they just want to sit down with a game with others that they have fun playing.

I've introduced quite a few people to D&D, especially 5E, over the years and the vast majority simply enjoy the game for what it is. Since most of them are, and always will be, casual players, I personally think D&D's overall design and themes have a lot to do with it's popularity. Many other games target much more of a niche or enforce an overall style, D&D is more flexible than many of those games. There is no monopoly power to D&D, the TTRPG market is very open. Currently D&D dominates but as others have said there have absolutely been times when other games could have risen to dominance and they didn't. Shows like Critical Role certainly play a part in that, but there's nothing from stopping people streaming any game they choose.

In any case, one thing I do think happened that stifled diversity is the OGL. We can't go back in time to see what effect the OGL had, but it seems like the majority of creatives that want to do something in the same basic target niche as D&D have reinforced the brand by using the OGL instead of doing something new.

As someone who DM/GMS a group of mostly people introduced to RPGs via 5E and had them try other games and genres., Trust me. Getting them to "scale down" from 5E is rough. We've tried everything from Vampire to Shadowrun to Cthulhu to AD&D to Walking Dead to The One Ring etc etc etc.

And while yes I can only tell you about MY group, believe me, scaling down is hard for some of them. One of players, if whatever character she's playing in whatever game isnt about as powerful as her 5E Dwarf Druid, she's generally not happy.

Which is probably why they all liked Vampire tM, because you are powerful compared to humans.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Thank you for putting this into context for me. You make some excellent arguments in favor of WotC as market leader, and I will think on it seriously.

Do you have a newsletter to which I could subscribe?

@Snarf Zagyg posts their "newsletter" here on the message boards almost every month! We've got like over a dozen of Snarf's pieces of RPG literature for us to peruse at our leisure, LOL!