Does D&D Need to Appeal to the Mainstream?

[mmadsen]

What I mean, does D&D -- the way it is packaged and designed -- need to take "normal people" or even "normal geeks" into account? If D&D, whatever edition, were packaged and designed for D&D-players (and their friends and kid brothers/sisters) -- rather than for a nebulous pool of potential players that may or may not exist-- would it be any worse for it?

D&D is already designed for D&D players rather than potential players. If it wants to grow and thrive, "D&D needs to be comprehensible and accessible to the mainstream," as T. Foster said, "so that those who are curious can pick it up and have a chance of understanding it."

If the designers of the game went back to the roots of what makes D&D D&D, and what made it popular with and beloved by the people who would be D&D players, I think they'd find some measure of success and a whole lot of satisfaction.

I don't think the current players would necessarily agree on what makes D&D D&D. Some people seem to think AC and hit points are what make D&D D&D, or magic missile spells that use a d4 for damage. I can't imagine anything less important. To me, the allure was always in playing through challenging scenarios where you could do "anything" to defeat your manxome foe.

 

[Moggthegob]

really... look at the initiative system. plus that system forced each dm to have different rulings on dozens of thing. all 3.x did was standardize responses. plus didnt the original set reference different games' rulesets?

 

[T. Foster]

Dude. The original D&D (1974) rules are fast and simple

They are. The 1981 Basic/Expert version of the game is pretty fast and simple too (and if reworked a bit could've been even moreso -- extend the Basic Set up to level 6, include more monsters and treasures and all the rules needed for dungeon/underworld adventuring and it becomes a complete stand-alone game; the Expert Set covers higher levels and adventuring outside the dungeon and is an option/expansion, not a requirement (also change the names from Basic and Expert Set to something like Classic DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: Core Game and Classic DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Expansion Game: Beyond the Dungeon)).

The idea that all of the complicated detail and rules-heaviness of AD&D and 3E is necessary in order for the game to "be D&D" is completely false. Yeah, that level of detail should exist and be available for those experienced/dedicated/hardcore hobbyists who want it (which is the purpose AD&D served vis-a-vis OD&D and B/X D&D in the 70s-80s) but the default game, the casual/popular/mainstream version that's expected to appeal to people who aren't hardcore hobbyists, should be much simpler -- something like a 64pp rulebook (my preference is actually for a slighter longer rulebook (~96pp) in smaller format (9x6 or 10x7 -- trade-paperback or comic-book-sized)) that a complete newbie DM can read and grasp within a couple days and that potential players aren't expected/required to read at all -- perhaps the rulebook could include a 1 or 2 page spread covering the absolute basics that the DM could photocopy and pass out to newbie players.

I remember a couple years back somebody posted notes from a WotC presentation where they divided the D&D fanbase into several segments -- curious, casual fans, and hardcore "lifestyle gamers" -- and stated that their goal was to shepherd as many people as quickly as possible into the 3rd category. I always thought that was a bad idea and still do. The hardcore gamers are responsible for the most sales per capita (I assume) and are likely to stick around longer than casual fans, most of whom will probably only play the game for a few months up to a year or two beforing moving on to something else, and may never make a purchase beyond the core rules, but they're almost by definition always going to be a subset, and likely a fairly small subset, of the casual fanbase. Therefore, the way to grow the hardcore fanvase isn't by trying to make all the casual fans into hardcore fans, but rather by increasing the number of casual fans (which will, proportionately, increase the number of hardcore fans as well).

 

[RFisher]

Although I have a really hard time understanding it, I have to face the fact that there are people who won't enjoy TRPGs. It's not because they are lesser beings that those of us who do enjoy TRPGs, they just have different tastes. If recognizing this makes me an elitist, then color me guilty.

It is important for the hobby to reach out to those people who will enjoy TRPGs but who haven't discovered them yet.

It's a waste of time to court people who aren't ever going to enjoy TRPGs. Plus, if a particular game persues this route too eagerly, they risk losing the elements that TRPG fans like so they'll end up with nigh no audience.

 

[Hussar]

Although I have a really hard time understanding it, I have to face the fact that there are people who won't enjoy TRPGs. It's not because they are lesser beings that those of us who do enjoy TRPGs, they just have different tastes. If recognizing this makes me an elitist, then color me guilty.

It is important for the hobby to reach out to those people who will enjoy TRPGs but who haven't discovered them yet.

It's a waste of time to court people who aren't ever going to enjoy TRPGs. Plus, if a particular game persues this route too eagerly, they risk losing the elements that TRPG fans like so they'll end up with nigh no audience.

*Gets out a bucket of paint for RFisher...*

I completely agree with this. Look at 2e for a moment. The whole Demon/Tanarri fiasco and removing demons from the game for quite a while. They were appeasing a group that actively hated the game while pissing off those that were buying their product. Bad, bad idea.

 

[Rothe]

Dude. The original D&D (1974) rules are fast and simple

...and grossly incomplete. You needed Chainmail to play IIRC and there were only rules for you-swing-I-swing combat (if you had Chainmail). Climbing, jumping, swimming, sneaking, flanking, attacking from horseback, attempting anything besides swinging a sword or casting a spell, nadda, no rules or guidannce (oops except a reference to another game Outdoor Survival). You didn't have thieving skills until a supplement.

I think you need to look to BD&D (say Rules Compendium) and The Fantasy Trip to see some fast, simple, and self contained games that cover more than just you-swing-I-swing.

I still love OD&D but I'd call is simplistic and not simple, it requires much house ruling to play for any length of time. I like that, but it turns something fast and simple on paper into something not so fast and not so simple as you must house rule in play.

Nevertheless I strongly agree with the sentiment that D&D can be fast and simple, yet "complete", and still be D&D.