D&D 5E Is 5e's Success Actually Bad for Other Games?

[Thomas Shey]

Small, yes. I never suggested otherwise.

"Vanishingly" was not an accidental inclusion in my post.

Although, I expect that as a professional editor, you likely wouldn't hear from someone who is capable of doing their own editing, since that would be somewhat redundant. Editing is serious work though, no doubt, and a professional editor is invaluable (I used to work professionally as a proofreader for translations, and I've edited the works of a few friends, albeit "unprofessionally", so I have some understanding of the process).

You'd think, but I did editing for people who were perfectly capable of doing their own editing, but had simply run out of time. Its one of those things that an small group or individual cannot avoid on occasion (in fact, that was probably the biggest part of my work life, in addition to individuals who did not feel competent to do their own editing in general; larger groups had their own editorial staff that were more likely to be able to absorb an occasional work surge, barring special projects).

(And a tip of the hat if you proofread translations. I distinctly left that to specialists).

Usain Bolt is unique. Kevin Crawford's success is a rarity, I won't even argue that. However, it is not unique. It might currently be unique in the RPG industry, but as stated that market is tiny by most measures. In terms of small businesses, he is not the only successful one-man-band out there.

My argument is that there really aren't too many other businesses that closely parallel ultra-small RPG publications. As I noted, even self-published authors normally hire someone else to do their editing (and I've never seen an example of someone who didn't with anything with technical elements where it didn't come out a trainwreck, and very few that were with fiction or non-technical nonfiction. Even people who are competent at both writing and editing are usually bad at editing their own work.)

By way of citation, I'll point to my friend James' dad, who ran a very successful business by himself for many years, supporting a bit of old software that no one else was willing support anymore.

Yes, but note the fact I was including a number of different things in that. I effectively ran my own business for a while, but all I had to do was A) Edit, B) Do a vaguely competent job of doing the limited marketing I did, and C) Manage my own finances. A self-operated game designer has at least three more elements there than that, and I suspect its more likely to be five.

(As I noted before in another context, if I'm given a choice about fighting with a landlord and a printer, I'd do the landlord every time, especially given how often the printer these days isn't even in the country).

For those who aren't a one-man-band, they'll need to find their own strengths to be successful, to compensate for their weaknesses. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that running a small business is easy (quite the opposite). I've known quite a few successful small business owners, and it is an tremendous amount of work, with no assurance of success. If you don't put the work in though, failure is all but guaranteed.

I'm simply arguing you're probably underestimating just how particularly multi-task a game company is, even a tiny one. I'm frankly astonished anyone can do it with less than three people, and that's assuming they're jobbing out all the artwork.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It doesn't matter. Out of the box, 5E has very much in common with videogames (classes, xp, ridiculous power curve, looting all the dead bodies, etc) than it has with works of Robert Howard, J.R. Tolkien or Michael Moorcock.

And no other system out there emulates Diablo so closely.

Eh. As I've mentioned before, its a little off to get pointed about D&D resembling computer games, when most computer fantasy RPG or action RPGs either have modeled many of their mechanics off D&D, or are descended from other computer games that did. Faulting something for resembling another thing that has actively imitated them is a kind of pointless exercise.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah I think at this point it's kind of a feedback loop, with some people expecting the game to run like a modern crpg, like The Witcher 3 except with the dm orchestrated the cut scenes and story. I'm struck by this whenever people refer to "open world" dnd games. Like, aren't all dnd games open world in theory? More open than any "open world" computer game?

Not necessarily. There's nothing stopping you from running a D&D game that's entirely about a royal sponsored troubleshooting squad that doesn't (and possibly can't for legal reasons) ever do much but what the king sends them to do. There are other campaign premises that are similarly constrained (and yes, some people object to constrained campaign premises, so if one of them wants to come and respond to this they can have my reserved eyeroll right up front).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, not implying that D&D is some sort of one true way...but it ain't chopped liver, and just because someone enjoys something else more doesn't make one game "objectively" "superior" or "inferior." I do think an awful lot of TTRPGs try too hard to avoid D&Disms, often weirdly the very features that gave gone mainstream in electronic gaming.

Well, some people don't like them any better there, either. The fact a particular structure (zero to hero, say) is popular doesn't mean its going to serve what you're trying to do.

 

[pemerton]

If a core rules book, and maybe a supplement or two, are all that are ever put out for a game, then I consider that a failure, If I invest in a set of core rules, I am doing so on the expectation that the supplements will continue, not dry up and disappear.

We are quite different, then.

If I acquire a RPG, what I'm looking for is fun play. In my experience that is largely independent of the length of the rules or the number of books and supplements.

I've spent well over $1000 on D&D 4e and have dozens of books for that system. I spent less than $100 on Prince Valiant and have two books for that system (the only two that exist - Core Rules plus Episode Book). I downloaded Cthulhu Dark for free: it's a 4-page PDF.

I've had fun play in all of them, and anticipate having more fun play in the future. None of them is a failure, and Prince Valiant is a candidate for one of the best RPGs ever released (I think it's Greg Stafford's best game; others prefer Pendragon).

The different production and publishing models that one sees in the world of RPGs are obviously relevant for the commercial strategies of the different producers, but they don't matter to me as a RPGer.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, some people don't like them any better there, either. The fact a particular structure (zero to hero, say) is popular doesn't mean its going to serve what you're trying to do.

No, but if a something is popular, it may be worth investigating the reaaons.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, but if a something is popular, it may be worth investigating the reaaons.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but--why? There are all kinds of things that are popular but can still be contrary to what you're trying to do with a game.

I mean, I like chocolate probably more than the next guy, but the fact a lot of people like it too doesn't mean it belongs in every dish.

 

[Parmandur]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but--why? There are all kinds of things that are popular but can still be contrary to what you're trying to do with a game.

I mean, I like chocolate probably more than the next guy, but the fact a lot of people like it too doesn't mean it belongs in every dish.

No, but there might be reasons people prefer rocky road ice cream to pistachio, beyond being benighted and basic corporate tools.

 

[Malmuria]

There's a qualitative difference between an open world D&D game where a sandbox has been genuinely prepared, and the illusion of an open world game where the railroad tracks are being quietly laid down by the DM just a few feet beyond the horizon of the players' sight.

Yeah - improving within the bounds of one's own setting is one thing, but I find dming-as-illusionism boring both as player and dm. What strikes me, though, is the way that dnd-inspired video games start by trying to imitate aspects of table top play, but over time the language ("open world") and conventions of play start to inform how dnd is played. From what I hear I guess 4e was the apotheosis of this in some ways, intentionally or not. Justin Alexander had an interesting tweet about this:

 

[loverdrive]

Eh. As I've mentioned before, its a little off to get pointed about D&D resembling computer games, when most computer fantasy RPG or action RPGs either have modeled many of their mechanics off D&D, or are descended from other computer games that did. Faulting something for resembling another thing that has actively imitated them is a kind of pointless exercise.

I'm not faulting 5E for having so much in common with video games. On the contrary, I really like it.

What I'm saying is, emulating video games is something 5E is just naturally good at — if you just play it without putting any effort into steering it away from videogameness (?) it will resemble Diablo. You've got XP for monsters, you've got magic item rarity, you've got ridiculously big HP pools and all that jazz.

Who imitates who isn't important. It doesn't matter that, say, Shadowrun setting is basically a rip off of Count Zero — if someone likes SR, I will recommend the Sprawl trilogy to them.

I understand that "ugh, it feels like a videogame" is mostly thrown around as something negative, but it wasn't my intention. Emulating videogames is just a field where 5E just freaking shines. It's basically the only thing that doesn't require work and I can safely say that the game runs itself (which is what I define as "supporting a playstyle").

Everything else requires effort — if I want to get something resembling LotR or tales of Conan, I'll have to constantly react and readjust naughty word in order to not break the keyfab — and if I have to do all the work, where is my support?