Has D&D become too...D&Dish?

[ThirdWizard]

Given the good, but not runaway, success of products like Castles and Crusades and True 20, there's a certain segment that feels this way.

Note that by WotC standards, C&C and T20 are not doing well. They are for d20, you can't compare them to D&D.

The D20 system is designed to be easy to learn in play, and, in my experience, it is. Play through D&D (or ANY d20 system game) once and you can learn the basic mechanics of the game. So I'm wondering if rather than the rules getting in the way, it's the genre conventions (D&Disms) that present the "barriers to entry" for attracting more players to the game.

I think the success that D&D has as a game pretty much rules out this whole line of thought. There isn't really much barrier to entry at all. People are playing it, people are enjoying it, and that's more people than you seem to think.

 

[JohnSnow]

I think the success that D&D has as a game pretty much rules out this whole line of thought. There isn't really much barrier to entry at all. People are playing it, people are enjoying it, and that's more people than you seem to think.

Not really. Just because the game has been successful doesn't mean it couldn't me MORE successful. I'm raising the concern as a theoretical. That's why the topic is a question: "Has D&D become too D&Dish?"

I suppose I need to clarify by what I meant by the original statement. Put another way, I guess I'm asking a few different questions:

1. Is D&D more caught up in its own particular "form" of fantasy than it used to be?
2. Does that "feel" detract from its ability to attract more players?
3. If so, what should be done, if anything?

The answer to the first question seems to be a resounding NO. Primarily, however, that "no" seems to come not because people think D&D IS NOT caught up in its own particular form of fantasy, but because it always HAS BEEN. Fair enough.

So if that's the case, should it stay that way? Hence question 2, to which I think the following post is relevant...

I'd say that the majority of new players today are going to be more familliar with console and PC RPGs that owe their roots to D&D, than they are with the fantasy literature that spawned D&D itself. As such they are pretty well prepared for the stock D&D-isms like parties, quests and random encounters. There are more people playing World of Warcraft right now than have ever played D&D, yet because the creators of WoW play D&D and knew a good idea when they saw one, all of those people are now more likely to 'get' D&D than someone who has only read Morcock and Vance.

That tends to answer question 2 with a resounding No. If a game based on D&Disms is doing better than D&D, then it's not the D&Disms hurting the game's success. So, if that's the case, it should be left alone and people who want to adjust the game for a different genre can take care of it themselves, or buy third-party products that do it. In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

One could make the argument that console games are appealing to a whole different demographic than roleplaying games. Basically, WoW handles the core of what D&D is about while being easier to pick up and play as far as the vast majority of gamers are concerned.

In other words, MOST people who want to "kill things and take their stuff" are going to play WoW, not D&D, because it's easier to pick up and learn. So, D&D will remain a niche subset of gaming which serves those people who particularly enjoy the experience of face-to-face roleplaying games.

But debating that issue is a whole separate topic...I think.

 

[Vanye]

However, it is my impression that in "the old days" (that is, pre 3e), characters used to advance more slowly.

Yes, but that's because it required 2000xp for a fighter to hit second level, and 2500 for a wizard/mage.

It took a rogue only 1250, and a cleric 1500.

Levelling slowly, however, once you hit 10th level, was very true. When it took 100,000+xp to level up, and you were getting 2-3k experince per encounter, it made a difference.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I suppose I need to clarify by what I meant by the original statement. Put another way, I guess I'm asking a few different questions:

1. Is D&D more caught up in its own particular "form" of fantasy than it used to be?
2. Does that "feel" detract from its ability to attract more players?
3. If so, what should be done, if anything?

From my perspective ENWorld is not representative of the D&D gaming population as it stands. Or, more precisely, D&D's target demographic. The target demographic is much younger than the average ENWorlder, even I at "only" 26 years old. What you want out of the game, what you see as flaws, and such, are not actually flaws in the system. You can't say to yourself "I don't like this," and think that that detracts people from D&D because its a detracting matter for you or for me, or for the general thoughts expressed at ENWorld.

So, I think the answer to #2 is also a resounding NO.

In other words, MOST people who want to "kill things and take their stuff" are going to play WoW, not D&D, because it's easier to pick up and learn. So, D&D will remain a niche subset of gaming which serves those people who particularly enjoy the experience of face-to-face roleplaying games.

Anecdotal: I know many tabletoppers who also play WoW. WoW has attracted several demographics. I hang out at a forum dedicated to catering to female gamers of all types (even though I'm a guy), and we've got the old school red boxed set gamers, the CRPG players, free forming play by post roleplayers, and other types, and I know all these types who also play WoW. Heck, my dad, hitting his mid 50s and a businessman, plays WoW occasionally for fun!

WoW is an interesting phenomoinon.

But, yeah D&D will remain a niche subset of gaming, no matter what WotC does with it. I don't really mind that. I don't think taking the "D&D" out of D&D is going to make it more successful. In fact, it would probably make it less.

I think the "shallow" front that D&D puts out is important to the nature of attracting new players. D&D is a game where you can kill things and take their stuff. It's simple. It's focus on combat means that its easy to pick up and play and new players won't feel so silly about it. Compare the amount of entry through D&D to WoD, for example. I think part of the reason for that is that most people aren't as interested in improvisational theater as they are about seeing their enemies driven before them.

People can move into a more immersive game as time goes on. Think of it as a gateway drug. Kill things and take their stuff, yeah... until next year you're running an intrigue campaign centered around a kingdom you created for the game. Or they can just stay killing things and taking their stuff. It's all about the fun times, and magical item aquisition, crazy feats of insanity, and leveling up are all parts of it that make D&D as popular as it is.

 

[Scribble]

If I'm in error, I'll happily apologize. Monte has made no secret of two opinions in everything I've ever read of his writings about fantasy roleplaying games:

1. That his favorite classes are the ones that cast spells.
2. That he likes his "fantasy" to be "over-the-top" "high-magic."

By contrast, Iron Heroes offers a whole lot of love for the non-spellcasters in what most people would call a "low-magic" assumed setting. I don't think I'm out of line to believe that's not Monte's "preferred style." But like I said, if I'm wrong, I apologize.

For the record, I'm using "style" to mean "setting and tone."

Well... From what I've seen come out of Malhavoc Press, and the products I've seen Mr Cook write, I'd consider him to be two things:

An excellent (and proven) author of gaming products.

A knowledgeable business man.


These two traits seem to allow him to both know what types of products will sell, and the people are looking for, and give him the ability to write them.

Iron Heros, while maybe not his normal "style," is a product people were demanding.

That's kind of how I see 3rd edition as well. Basically he (and many others) saw what people were asking for in D&D, or ignoring D&D for other products due to lack of, and found a way to work them in.

Even in second edition my players were always asking every shopkeeper they ever met if they happened to have any magic items...

3rd edition, as others have said, doesn't say you have to have every shopkeeper sell magic, but a clearly defined rule set for the cost of a bought magic item helps aliviate those endless "Dude that's way to expensive!" arguments...

 

[JohnSnow]

From my perspective ENWorld is not representative of the D&D gaming population as it stands. Or, more precisely, D&D's target demographic. The target demographic is much younger than the average ENWorlder, even I at "only" 26 years old. What you want out of the game, what you see as flaws, and such, are not actually flaws in the system. You can't say to yourself "I don't like this," and think that that detracts people from D&D because its a detracting matter for you or for me, or for the general thoughts expressed at ENWorld.

So, I think the answer to #2 is also a resounding NO.

I'm not actually trying to frame this strictly in terms of "what I like." I grant, my comments tend to be colored by "what I like" (mentioning Iron Heroes, etc.). But basically, I'm looking at a huge surge in the popularity of fantasy and thinking the following:

"Harry Potter books are hugely successful. It's hard to imagine that of all those millions of HP reading kids, more of them don't become D&D players. I wonder why that is..."

I can brush off The Lord of the Rings movies. They're movies. I can brush off the popularity off fantasy video games (again, different, more passive level of involvement). But I can't look at the popularity of a series of novel like Harry Potter and not think that a substantial portion of them would be as eager to play in Harry Potter's world (or something similar) as I was to play in Middle-Earth (or something similar) after reading the Lord of the Rings. And yes, I admit that the Harry Potter novels have magic shops and might not be any more "low magic" than default D&D is.

The point is D&D isn't getting those people. They're looking at D&D and thinking "huh, I'll pass." Or their parents and the other adults in their lives are looking at D&D and NOT thinking "Hmm, he likes Harry Potter, maybe he'll like THIS." D&D seems too different.

RPGs (all RPGs, D&D included) are games for gamers who read and want to be creative/imaginative. And D&D is no exception. In my mind, it seems more sensible to make the game appeal to readers who already have to imagine how the stories they're reading look (and who maybe could be encouraged to game), than to make it appeal to gamers (who'd have to be encouraged to read and be creative and imaginative).

Maybe that's an insurmountable problem. But maybe there's a way to appeal to that crowd of readers. I'm just suggesting that maybe D&D isn't doing as well as it could because it's become too focused on the "gaming" aspect and not focused enough on the "attracting new gamers" aspect.

Basically, I think the drug analogy is more apt trying to hook readers on "gaming" than trying to hook gamers on "reading and imagining."

Make sense?

 

[ThirdWizard]

D&D isn't getting those people. They're looking at D&D and thinking "huh, I'll pass." Or their parents and the other adults in their lives are looking at D&D and NOT thinking "Hmm, he likes Harry Potter, maybe he'll like THIS."

This all comes from someone who hasn't read a single HP book, but has seen the movies, so with a grain of salt...

Are you sure? Isn't Harry Potter more like D&D than it is like the old pulps? Magic academies, prevalance of magical items, even gaining levels can be seen in Harry Potter as Harry seems to be up one level or so every book. Eberron brings that to a head with the prevalence of magic (minus the muggles?) to be very Potter-esque in my mind.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Iron Heros, while maybe not his normal "style," is a product people were demanding.

Actually, I think Iron Heroes meshes with Monte's style. When I think of Monte, I think of high fantasy, amazing earth shattering events, and riding moons from orbit as they come crashing down onto the planet. Big Things. And Iron Heroes, while low in magic, keeps the Big Things genre alive and well within its pages.

 

[JohnSnow]

Okay, I give. I unjustly maligned Monte as being pro-wizard and pro-magic. :\

But that wasn't the major point. Which was that D&D has particular conceits that are UNIQUE to D&D. And 3e, rather than leaving them there, chose to emphasize them. And in so doing, it separated the game from its root goal: emulating fantasy closely enough that people who enjoyed fantasy could PLAY fantasy. And before I get raked over the coals for it, I'll grant the high magic thing is not one of the conceits that's "unique" to D&D.

Are you sure? Isn't Harry Potter more like D&D than it is like the old pulps? Magic academies, prevalance of magical items, even gaining levels can be seen in Harry Potter as Harry seems to be up one level or so every book. Eberron brings that to a head with the prevalence of magic (minus the muggles?) to be very Potter-esque in my mind.

Yes, Harry Potter is more like D&D than it's like the old pulps. But D&D doesn't do a very good job of capturing the "feel" of Harry Potter. Harry's got some great "stuff" but he doesn't kill things to get it. He's got his magic, he's got his stuff, he lives in this cool magical world, and he has adventures in it.

I dunno. Obviously, I'm not making sense. Or are you arguing that D&D is enough like Harry Potter that it has attracted every Harry Potter fan who would be interested in gaming? If that's the point, fair enough. I'm not sure I agree, but fair enough.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Yes, Harry Potter is more like D&D than it's like the old pulps. But D&D doesn't do a very good job of capturing the "feel" of Harry Potter. Harry's got some great "stuff" but he doesn't kill things to get it. He's got his magic, he's got his stuff, he lives in this cool magical world, and he has adventures in it.

Ah true. Harry Potter has sort of that Superhero's Code (not to kill). Which isn't surprising, since its aimed at kids. I hadn't thought of that point. I don't know. Like I said, I don't read Harry Potter, so everything I say about it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I dunno. Obviously, I'm not making sense. Or are you arguing that D&D is enough like Harry Potter that it has attracted every Harry Potter fan who would be interested in gaming? If that's the point, fair enough. I'm not sure I agree, but fair enough.

You might be right, I don't really know.