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

[Grendel_Khan]

I think what would help indie/smaller games more than anything, would be a website that helps gamers looking for other gamers interested in certain games find each other.

Granted, we have a lot of those. I think ENWorld has a forum for gamers looking for groups, as does Roll20, etc. However, the problem is that indie games tend to have relatively small audiences to begin with. By spreading them out over dozens of different LFGs, you're either forcing them to post on dozens of sites (which, let's face it, nobody wants to do), or you're spreading them too thin among those sites, such that they'll be lucky to ever find each other.

What I'm thinking would be like the Facebook of LFG (in terms of popularity - practically no one uses MySpace anymore, and G+ died out). Of course, that's easier said than done. You'd need a robust site, and you'd probably need a significant amount of advertising to get it the traction it needs. Which is, again, easier said than done, especially since this site is unlikely to draw FB-like advertising revenue.

I think the key for this sort of site/platform working is fully getting rid of the grumbling about and resistance to remote gaming. I don't mean that everyone should love it and be totally on board with it, obviously. But every time I hear or read someone complaining about it I feel like it's contributing to a chilling effect. In-person gaming shouldn't, imo, be considered the default any more, and remote the weird/desperate/last-resort option. They should both be on an equal footing. That's the only way some indie-playing gamers will ever really be able to connect with others. But for that to happen more publishers might have to put in a bit more effort to create Roll20 character sheets or a tiny bit of Foundry assets...and the gaming community at large should probably try to stop stigmatizing it.

That might come off as more broadly scoldy than intended, but I do think it's sort of a group effort.

 

[Campbell]

I think one of the biggest impediments to trying new games (which is getting better at least with younger gamers) is the centrality of the set gaming group where you have a specific set of people you play all the RPGs you play with, often with a set GM or maybe like 2 or 3 who rotate. Being willing to break with that set group was a huge factor in me finally finding the sorts of play experiences I was looking for. Being willing to play Vampire with these people over here, Apocalypse World with some different people, and D&D with yet a different group of folks.

I mean it's fairly natural for us to do this with video games or board games. We know Tony is a bad fit for Risk, that Sam loves Settlers of Cataan, and that there's certain people that make for great chess partners.

Not knocking the set gaming group by the way. It works for a lot of people.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think one of the biggest impediments to trying new games (which is getting better at least with younger gamers) is the centrality of the set gaming group where you have a specific set of people you play all the RPGs you play with, often with a set GM or maybe like 2 or 3 who rotate. Being willing to break with that set group was a huge factor in me finally finding the sorts of play experiences I was looking for. Being willing to play Vampire with these people over here, Apocalypse World with some different people, and D&D with yet a different group of folks.

I mean it's fairly natural for us to do this with video games or board games. We know Tony is a bad fit for Risk, that Sam loves Settlers of Cataan, and that there's certain people that make for great chess partners.

Not knocking the set gaming group by the way. It works for a lot of people.

I agree. My main group doesn't really like trying systems aside from D&D (except for homebrewed systems). But I have a side group that loves trying different systems.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the key for this sort of site/platform working is fully getting rid of the grumbling about and resistance to remote gaming. I don't mean that everyone should love it and be totally on board with it, obviously. But every time I hear or read someone complaining about it I feel like it's contributing to a chilling effect. In-person gaming shouldn't, imo, be considered the default any more, and remote the weird/desperate/last-resort option. They should both be on an equal footing. That's the only way some indie-playing gamers will ever really be able to connect with others. But for that to happen more publishers might have to put in a bit more effort to create Roll20 character sheets or a tiny bit of Foundry assets...and the gaming community at large should probably try to stop stigmatizing it.

That might come off as more broadly scoldy than intended, but I do think it's sort of a group effort.

I can get that some people have a problem with it, for the same reason some people really have trouble engaging with video chats and the like. Me, I kind of think not having people's faces is a virtue when gaming (but then, I quite enjoyed text based gaming in my MUXing days, and thought it made it easier to engage with a character on their own level). My big complaint is technical issues and the tendency for people to talk over each other when remoting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think one of the biggest impediments to trying new games (which is getting better at least with younger gamers) is the centrality of the set gaming group where you have a specific set of people you play all the RPGs you play with, often with a set GM or maybe like 2 or 3 who rotate. Being willing to break with that set group was a huge factor in me finally finding the sorts of play experiences I was looking for. Being willing to play Vampire with these people over here, Apocalypse World with some different people, and D&D with yet a different group of folks.

I mean it's fairly natural for us to do this with video games or board games. We know Tony is a bad fit for Risk, that Sam loves Settlers of Cataan, and that there's certain people that make for great chess partners.

Not knocking the set gaming group by the way. It works for a lot of people.

You also can have a situation where you've got a very large group of associate players who rotate in and out, and that can sometimes help people be more willing to fish in strange ponds. When I was young, I was part of a group of about a score of interlocked players (about 6-8 of which GMed at least on occasion) that transitioned from D&D to mostly Runequest and sometimes Champions around the time AD&D came out, and because of its size you were more likely to be able to get enough people on-board a tryout game on occasion (and sometimes they stuck, like my Aftermath game).

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I can get that some people have a problem with it, for the same reason some people really have trouble engaging with video chats and the like. Me, I kind of think not having people's faces is a virtue when gaming (but then, I quite enjoyed text based gaming in my MUXing days, and thought it made it easier to engage with a character on their own level). My big complaint is technical issues and the tendency for people to talk over each other when remoting.

I agree about the lack of faces! The groups I play with are all on Zoom now, so we actually do have our faces viewable (for the most part). But when I'm GMing I usually have too many windows open to see what's happening on Zoom. I'd say that I prefer that more radioplay approach now, but I've been gaming remote-only for so long I barely remember the alternative.

And I totally hear you about the crosstalk problem. I've noticed that with 3 or 4 players (plus the GM) it generally isn't that of a big deal, but when I hit 5 players it became a huge issue, and even a source of conflict. I'm not sure exactly how to address that except to ask for raised hands (IRL or with the on-screen reaction/icon) which is a bit silly. You could also avoid games where there's a whole lot for players to discuss between them, and just push the action, but that seems like admitting defeat.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I agree about the lack of faces! The groups I play with are all on Zoom now, so we actually do have our faces viewable (for the most part). But when I'm GMing I usually have too many windows open to see what's happening on Zoom. I'd say that I prefer that more radioplay approach now, but I've been gaming remote-only for so long I barely remember the alternative.

And I totally hear you about the crosstalk problem. I've noticed that with 3 or 4 players (plus the GM) it generally isn't that of a big deal, but when I hit 5 players it became a huge issue, and even a source of conflict. I'm not sure exactly how to address that except to ask for raised hands (IRL or with the on-screen reaction/icon) which is a bit silly. You could also avoid games where there's a whole lot for players to discuss between them, and just push the action, but that seems like admitting defeat.

Something I really enjoyed about playing online was how easy it was to have a side conversation, private conversation, or make puns in chat without interrupting whoever was speaking.

That said, there has to be come kind of push-to-talk solution out there that only lets one person talk at a time (and queues up anyone else who wants to speak). If not, there really ought to be. Also, while I'm making demands of reality, it needs to be named Talking Stick.

 

[Campbell]

The issue we are currently having in my Apocalypse Keys group with Discord video chat is that as working professionals everyone is used to Zoom calls so we get less interaction with each other and more with the GM than is typical when we play in person. I sometimes have to remind people it's not a meeting and they can talk to each other.

Hopefully the stigma around virtual play has been lessoned by this last year. I know it's gotten me playing a lot more.

 

[Retreater]

I agree. My main group doesn't really like trying systems aside from D&D (except for homebrewed systems). But I have a side group that loves trying different systems.

Some of my friends in the hobby see it as a litmus test for who they want to game with. They reason if someone is a friend that you like to game with, you'll try other systems with them. If you're just there for "D&D" (or whatever system it is), then you're just there for the hobby. In that case, they don't want to game with you.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Some of my friends in the hobby see it as a litmus test for who they want to game with. They reason if someone is a friend that you like to game with, you'll try other systems with them. If you're just there for "D&D" (or whatever system it is), then you're just there for the hobby. In that case, they don't want to game with you.

Not in my case. I've been friends with some of them for over 20 years. They've helped me move. I've helped them move. They were groomsmen at my wedding. I was a groomsman in some of their weddings. One of them was my best man.

Nah, we'd be good friends even if we stopped playing RPGs altogether. They're just old and stubborn and sometimes remind me of a saying about taking a horse to water...