D&D 5E Heteroglossia and D&D: Why D&D Speaks in a Multiplicity of Playing Styles

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly, I think these discussion would be better served by the separation of "D&D the genre and tropes" and "D&D the game." This claim, and the claim in the OP about kids playing D&D without dice or rules are both speaking to D&D as genre and a set of tropes while expressly denying that D&D is, in fact, a game with actually codified rules and systems. The idea that a massive hack of D&D is still D&D rather than a different game is one I struggle with -- you've completely changed the game, why are you attributing your design work to others? Is it just a claim to membership in the club?

D&D's market dominance over nearly 50 years has led to the idea of "playing D&D" being synonymous with role-playing in general, especially to the mainstream. As a result, what counts as D&D casts a much, much wider net than any other game, for good or ill.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I take real moral offense when others pretend to some moral authority to govern my tastes and preferences, but for that very reason I will never, ever try to govern theirs. I expressly am not competent for that and would not want to be; they alone are fit for such decisions. And this includes to what extent they choose to investigate other options for their hobbies.

Assuming Mill's Harm Principle reasonably satisfied, why should other people's choices and enjoyments cause me any stress? That's none of my business, is it?

 

[Umbran]

I think you're referring to this old article.

Yes! For some reason, my search of the archive didn't turn it up. Thanks!

 

[Mercurius]

A few stray thoughts...

I think there are many reasons that D&D has maintained its popularity and top dog status for almost five decades - some of which are intrinsic to the game itself, some not. It is impossible to divide its "popularity share" between the two, intrinsic and extrinsic, but my main point is that we have to consider BOTH, that to focus on only intrinsic elements--what the game itself does--ignores the broader context of RPG history, just as focusing only on the extrinsic elements--the fact of name recognition and such--ignores what the game actually offers as a game.

I mean, there are so many factors we can consider. In terms of extrinsic factors, for instance, we can use monetary wealth as as an analogy: it takes money to make money, and people with lots of money usually don't end up with no money. On the other hand, if you have no or little money, it is hard to get more money. So wealth begets itself, and rich people stay rich (and often get richer) and poor people stay poor (and often get poorer).

So we cannot ignore D&D's central place in RPG history, and the fact that it was first to the top of the hill. If you play King of the Hill, it is far easier to stay on top then get to the top.

On the other hand, we should not cynically reduce D&D's sustained success to just being the first, or equate 5E with a rich and pampered heir who lives off daddy's wealth. For one, 5E is a much larger success than any edition that came before, or at least since 1E, so we have to consider what it brought to the table to build that hill up higher. But even then we cannot ignore extrinsic factors; for instance, Stranger Things is a huge part of why 5E is so popular now (among others, but I'm thinking it is probably the biggest single factor).

I'll share my own personal experience, because in the end I can only speak authoritatively about my own experience. Like lots of old-timers on this board, I started playing D&D in the early 80s. At the time, it was (almost) the only show in town. There were other games, but as a kid still shy of middle school, I didn't know about Runequest or Tunnels & Trolls. I vaguely remember seeing them in a hobby shop, but people mostly played D&D.

By the late 80s I was reading Dragon regularly so started hearing about other games. "No Elves!" declared Talislanta and I thought, "But I like elves!" But then I flipped through the book and bought and loved it. Did I play it? Only once or twice, because, well, most people I knew were playing D&D. At one point a friend brought in a copy of Ars Magica to our D&D group (around 1990ish, I think), and when he explained the magic system, I thought, "Wow, that's how magic should be!" Did we play it? No, because, well, we knew D&D.

Throughout the 90s and into the 00s I explored the world of RPGs beyond D&D, even dabbling in this or that game as the opportunity arose. Over the decades I bought dozens, even hundreds of different games, most of which remain(ed) curiosities on my game shelf. I always came back to D&D for several reasons, but most centrally two:

One, everyone played it. Sure, I'd encounter groups playing other games, and during the mid-90s when I lived in Burlington VT, there was a massive White Wolf LARP going on run by an acquaintance who was a barista at my favorite coffee shop - people would come in and touch base with him, the Storyteller, as he made lattes. But for the most part, most people I knew played D&D.

Two, it felt like home. I grew up with it--so yes, imprinted with it--and it felt familiar and comfortable.

Those are the largest two, but not that far behind is a third: And that is that the game itself works for an enjoyable experience. If it were just the first two, I probably would have moved on. But I like using all the polyhedral dice. I mean, Platonic Solids! I like silly but familiar rules like "saving throws" and "hit points" and weird monsters like the catoblepas and displacer beast. Meaning, crunch and fluff that is intrinsic to D&D.

I do think that there are many fantasy games that are "better" designed, or at least that I find more aesthetically pleasing. I think Ars Magica's magic system makes D&D's Vancian magic look anachronistically primitive. I love the simple d20 system of Talislanta, as well as the richly psychedelic world. It is hard to beat the flexibility and ease-of-use of Savage Worlds. Etc, etc. But for a wide range of factors, the melange that is D&D is just pleasing to me, so I come back to it, again and again.

Oh, one truly final note: I think the editions are a feature and not a flaw of what makes D&D what it is. If it is was just one version over 50 decades, it would grow stale. But a new edition allows us to experience the game afresh. There's a sweet-spot, of course, and the inherent problem of leaving people behind for whom the latest version isn't their cup o tea. But I also like seeing new versions of the same game - and it is the same game, for ultimately the most essential elements of D&D remain intact, edition after edition. It is the secondary elements that we argue over.

That said, I think there are other ways they could handle editions, but that's a different conversation. But in short, I still like the idea of the "complexity dial" and "modular options" that was talked about circa 2013, but has been left behind (for the most part), presumably because it is easier to talk about in the abstract than actually design and publish. But still, I can imagine a theoretically D&D with a simple core rule set and many different modular options that can be used to customize the game as desired by each group. One can dream...

 

[MichaelSomething]

Oh, one truly final note: I think the editions are a feature and not a flaw of what makes D&D what it is. If it is was just one version over 50 decades, it would grow stale. But a new edition allows us to experience the game afresh. There's a sweet-spot, of course, and the inherent problem of leaving people behind for whom the latest version isn't their cup o tea. But I also like seeing new versions of the same game - and it is the same game, for ultimately the most essential elements of D&D remain intact, edition after edition. It is the secondary elements that we argue over.

Sid Meier, the creator the Civilization video game, has discovered that sweet spot of change. One third should be untouched, one third should be adjusted, and one third should be redone.

 

[Campbell]

A playstyle is far more than a particular type of fiction though. It is also the experience of running and/or playing the game. Games that place us under constraints offer us something we can never get in games that lack them - the fundamentally unwelcome outcomes. Outcomes that no one at the table would choose if not for the constraints we are operating under, but are still very compelling when they happen. Even in the same sphere of D&D likes you will never get to the experience the same set of playstyles that Pathfinder Second Edition enables within the context of a 5e game where the same constraints and reward systems are not in place. The set of playstyles enabled by a game are entirely dependent on the actual process of play.

Rulings over rules is an excellent play process to enable specific sorts of play, but it is no panacea to open up a verifiable ocean of play experiences that players of other games get to experience. Acting like it is only serves to diminish the creative accomplishments of game designers, GMs and players of other games.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I believe I can see what you are championing here, let me restate this to see if I understand it.

"Because D&D gives authorial control to one person, who therefore requires the trust of the players and a certain set of skills (heh), areas unsupported by mechanics are still open to skillful adjudication and play as befitting the table."

I think this is where you are going, if I understand I'll dive into it, but I don't want to accidentally go off on a tangent from misunderstanding.

This isn't the point I was making. Instead, it really is just about the negative space of D&D. What remains unsaid can be as important as what remains said. This has nothing to do with so-called skilled play, which isn't really a common style of play at all in 5e. Instead, it's about the understanding that D&D is much more than the rules , and that a focus purely on the rules is to miss the point of D&D.

If someone, today, was to try and understand OD&D (or 1e) purely by looking only at the core rules, they would likely come away with close to no understanding of the overall play of either system at the time. This has always been a truism of D&D - what remains unsaid in the rules is just as important as what is said.

In that way, D&D more closely resembles a common law system than it does a prescribed civil law system. It is built up over time, through a constant conversation with the past and the present. It exists in a dialogue with both older versions of itself, with the community as a whole, as well as with the TTRPG field (given it has always been the market mover).

For that reason, the constant refrain of, "Oh, it's just the brand," misses the point completely.

 

[pointofyou]

A few stray thoughts...

I think there are many reasons that D&D has maintained its popularity and top dog status for almost five decades - some of which are intrinsic to the game itself, some not. It is impossible to divide its "popularity share" between the two, intrinsic and extrinsic, but my main point is that we have to consider BOTH, that to focus on only intrinsic elements--what the game itself does--ignores the broader context of RPG history, just as focusing only on the extrinsic elements--the fact of name recognition and such--ignores what the game actually offers as a game.

I mean, there are so many factors we can consider. In terms of extrinsic factors, for instance, we can use monetary wealth as as an analogy: it takes money to make money, and people with lots of money usually don't end up with no money. On the other hand, if you have no or little money, it is hard to get more money. So wealth begets itself, and rich people stay rich (and often get richer) and poor people stay poor (and often get poorer).

So we cannot ignore D&D's central place in RPG history, and the fact that it was first to the top of the hill. If you play King of the Hill, it is far easier to stay on top then get to the top.

On the other hand, we should not cynically reduce D&D's sustained success to just being the first, or equate 5E with a rich and pampered heir who lives off daddy's wealth. For one, 5E is a much larger success than any edition that came before, or at least since 1E, so we have to consider what it brought to the table to build that hill up higher. But even then we cannot ignore extrinsic factors; for instance, Stranger Things is a huge part of why 5E is so popular now (among others, but I'm thinking it is probably the biggest single factor).

I'll share my own personal experience, because in the end I can only speak authoritatively about my own experience. Like lots of old-timers on this board, I started playing D&D in the early 80s. At the time, it was (almost) the only show in town. There were other games, but as a kid still shy of middle school, I didn't know about Runequest or Tunnels & Trolls. I vaguely remember seeing them in a hobby shop, but people mostly played D&D.

By the late 80s I was reading Dragon regularly so started hearing about other games. "No Elves!" declared Talislanta and I thought, "But I like elves!" But then I flipped through the book and bought and loved it. Did I play it? Only once or twice, because, well, most people I knew were playing D&D. At one point a friend brought in a copy of Ars Magica to our D&D group (around 1990ish, I think), and when he explained the magic system, I thought, "Wow, that's how magic should be!" Did we play it? No, because, well, we knew D&D.

Throughout the 90s and into the 00s I explored the world of RPGs beyond D&D, even dabbling in this or that game as the opportunity arose. Over the decades I bought dozens, even hundreds of different games, most of which remain(ed) curiosities on my game shelf. I always came back to D&D for several reasons, but most centrally two:

One, everyone played it. Sure, I'd encounter groups playing other games, and during the mid-90s when I lived in Burlington VT, there was a massive White Wolf LARP going on run by an acquaintance who was a barista at my favorite coffee shop - people would come in and touch base with him, the Storyteller, as he made lattes. But for the most part, most people I knew played D&D.

Two, it felt like home. I grew up with it--so yes, imprinted with it--and it felt familiar and comfortable.

Those are the largest two, but not that far behind is a third: And that is that the game itself works for an enjoyable experience. If it were just the first two, I probably would have moved on. But I like using all the polyhedral dice. I mean, Platonic Solids! I like silly but familiar rules like "saving throws" and "hit points" and weird monsters like the catoblepas and displacer beast. Meaning, crunch and fluff that is intrinsic to D&D.

I do think that there are many fantasy games that are "better" designed, or at least that I find more aesthetically pleasing. I think Ars Magica's magic system makes D&D's Vancian magic look anachronistically primitive. I love the simple d20 system of Talislanta, as well as the richly psychedelic world. It is hard to beat the flexibility and ease-of-use of Savage Worlds. Etc, etc. But for a wide range of factors, the melange that is D&D is just pleasing to me, so I come back to it, again and again.

Oh, one truly final note: I think the editions are a feature and not a flaw of what makes D&D what it is. If it is was just one version over 50 decades, it would grow stale. But a new edition allows us to experience the game afresh. There's a sweet-spot, of course, and the inherent problem of leaving people behind for whom the latest version isn't their cup o tea. But I also like seeing new versions of the same game - and it is the same game, for ultimately the most essential elements of D&D remain intact, edition after edition. It is the secondary elements that we argue over.

That said, I think there are other ways they could handle editions, but that's a different conversation. But in short, I still like the idea of the "complexity dial" and "modular options" that was talked about circa 2013, but has been left behind (for the most part), presumably because it is easier to talk about in the abstract than actually design and publish. But still, I can imagine a theoretically D&D with a simple core rule set and many different modular options that can be used to customize the game as desired by each group. One can dream...

This very much aligns to my own experiences. While my journey though different games and different styles of play and GMing has been different from yours I have also kept coming back to D&D. I think the biggest advantage for me is that you can almost always find a table or a DM or players. This is not often the case with other games.

 

[Blue]

This isn't the point I was making. Instead, it really is just about the negative space of D&D. What remains unsaid can be as important as what remains said. This has nothing to do with so-called skilled play, which isn't really a common style of play at all in 5e. Instead, it's about the understanding that D&D is much more than the rules , and that a focus purely on the rules is to miss the point of D&D.

If someone, today, was to try and understand OD&D (or 1e) purely by looking only at the core rules, they would likely come away with close to no understanding of the overall play of either system at the time. This has always been a truism of D&D - what remains unsaid in the rules is just as important as what is said.

In that way, D&D more closely resembles a common law system than it does a prescribed civil law system. It is built up over time, through a constant conversation with the past and the present. It exists in a dialogue with both older versions of itself, with the community as a whole, as well as with the TTRPG field (given it has always been the market mover).

For that reason, the constant refrain of, "Oh, it's just the brand," misses the point completely.

First, I don't ascribe that negative space to just D&D. RPGs as a whole are a bit esoteric as a hobby, and for any of them - D&D or not - just plopping the rules down in front of a group of people who have never heard of them would be an uphill climb to get to an understanding of play. But the shared-greater-community-experience is not locked into D&D at all, and works perfectly well cross-RPGs. It feels like every time you say D&D above, I could strike it and write in "an RPG" and have it work. D&D, as game with the most players, is definitely a big deal in that space. But that has nothing to do with D&D per se (outside the brand), and all towards the size - if D&D was a tiny indie game and some other game had the long-standing brand and players of D&D it would be in the same place.

What you are talking about is the community, and that literally only is this size because of the brand, and nothing to do with the game itself. Without the brand it would be another small niche game, like many d20 games which share similar bones, foundation, and potential connection to the community are. There is nothing inherent in D&D above other RPGs to fit the role you are projecting except the recognition of the name and brand.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

First, I don't ascribe that negative space to just D&D. RPGs as a whole are a bit esoteric as a hobby, and for any of them - D&D or not - just plopping the rules down in front of a group of people who have never heard of them would be an uphill climb to get to an understanding of play. But the shared-greater-community-experience is not locked into D&D at all, and works perfectly well cross-RPGs. It feels like every time you say D&D above, I could strike it and write in "an RPG" and have it work. D&D, as game with the most players, is definitely a big deal in that space. But that has nothing to do with D&D per se (outside the brand), and all towards the size - if D&D was a tiny indie game and some other game had the long-standing brand and players of D&D it would be in the same place.

What you are talking about is the community, and that literally only is this size because of the brand, and nothing to do with the game itself. Without the brand it would be another small niche game, like many d20 games which share similar bones, foundation, and potential connection to the community are. There is nothing inherent in D&D above other RPGs to fit the role you are projecting except the recognition of the name and brand.

I think that this is entirely wrong, something that I have written about numerous times, and something that we will have to agree to disagree on.

This experience does not work as well for all RPGs. It simply doesn't. On the most basic point, the vast majority of RPGs have not been around for almost 50 years- very few (Traveler, GURPs for example) have that kind of longevity, and none of those have the vast history and vast player base. So no, you can't simply cross out D&D and substitute in "an RPG."

That would be like saying, "Every time someone says Tolkien, I can simply cross his name out and put in the name of any other rando fantasy author." I mean - yeah, you could do that, but then you're probably going to miss the point of what someone is saying.

So it's not just about the size. It's about the combination of the size and the history. And this is something that is paramount in the actual design of the game. This is something incredibly basic, but also profound. You can't design D&D to be Fiasco, or BiTD. And it's also not some niche game- this is like saying, "I don't get why McDonald's doesn't just make Pho. I like Pho. I eat Pho. Why doesn't McDonald's make it?" At a certain point, you have to understand what something is, before you can begin to appreciate both what it can do and what it can't. If you keep saying, "Oh, that's just a brand," then you're stuck with an insult without insight.