Why Darrington though? Because it happens to be the current new release? Why not Chaosium (Call of Cthulhu is massive) or Paizo? Or Modiphius or Free League? All comparable companies, some larger than Darrington.
D&D 5E (2024) Is There A New Sheriff in Town?
- Thread starter Theory of Games
- Start date
Imaro
Legend
Yeah, it's been what... Just over 2 weeks since Daggerhearts full release... so 3 weeks of good sales and its suddenly a D&D killer... I really like the game but this all seems a little premature by at least a year or two, maybe even 10.
Im also not so sure Daggerheart is actually outselling D&D 2024 in any meaningful way... is it seeing a great release bump in sales...yes. Has it sold anywhere near '24 numbers... doubtful.
Im also not so sure Daggerheart is actually outselling D&D 2024 in any meaningful way... is it seeing a great release bump in sales...yes. Has it sold anywhere near '24 numbers... doubtful.
Agreed. And it isn't just the companies we should be considering, but the games themselves.
In order to be a D&D killer, it has to be a game that tens or hundreds of thousands of people will play over and over and over, for years. When most of the folks we know are making it their game of choice for like a decade, then it can be a D&D-killer. If it is something people pick up for one campaign, and then leave for something else, it isn't killing anything.
mamba
Legend
some other game eventually, sure, given enough time any empire crumbles. Daggerheart now, a lot less likely…
Theory of Games
Storied Gamist
For me, seeing Perkins & Crawford join DP is very promising, due to their credentials. But, yeah - there are a few ttrpgs that IMO could take the top spot. I'm really interested in what Dungeon World 2e will be and if Draw Steel will make a big splash.
It's an exciting time IMO
It's an exciting time IMO
Jacob Lewis
Ye Olde GM
Edit: This came off a little harsher than intended. I make no apologies for what I wrote, but for the way I worded it. I'll remove or change the snarkiest bits.
Neither Daggerheart, nor any other game system before or since, needs to "dethrone" D&D to be successful, or relevant, or matter. This is not how most small companies measure their success, let alone their own viability. We’ve all seen how online discussion around RPGs tends to fixate on dramatic binaries—what’s going to ‘dethrone’ D&D, or what game will ‘kill’ another. That kind of framing is less about real insight, and more about engagement algorithms and surface-level hype.
Personally, I am fine with (current) D&D continuing to be a household brand name. I used to think D&D’s dominance was earned purely on the strength of its design. Over time, it became clear that its staying power has more to do with familiarity, accessibility, and social gravity than systemic excellence. That's not to say it isn't a good game, but the design itself is not its true strength. It's just simple enough, complex enough, appealing enough, accessible enough, and popular enough to gain (and keep) the largest audience. What does it say about a market when the most widespread systems succeed not by being the most refined, but by being the most available and comfortable? Is that a flaw in the systems—or just in how we engage with games in general?
For many people, it's still good enough. It is simply convenient because it's easier to find people who feel it is enough, or even more than enough. More importantly, it is harder to find people who are interested in anything else because what they have is enough. And who can blame them? If every other game traces its roots and origins to the original concept of D&D and offers nothing different, why bother if only to compare it with the game you already know how to play and can find dozens more people to play with?
Now Daggerheart has gotten my interest, which is saying a lot. I thought I was pretty much done with new RPGs. I have gotten over D&D since 5e, as well as other game systems that require extra space on my shelves than I am willing to afford them. But I am still looking over these materials, reading the discussions, and watching some videos to gain some better insight. I don't see a system trying to emulate existing game mechanics or designs that reinvent the wheel, but a system designed to enhance what really matters most: the play experience itself. It is most definitely a game enjoyed better in a live group that can interact on a personable level that a VTT or online chat cannot fully immerse.
Can Daggerheart usurp D&D? Nope, and it doesn't need to because it's not occupying the exact same space. What it offers is something else that D&D and similar games only hint at, but don't always hit the mark. Daggerheart doesn’t just permit narrative expression; it anchors mechanics to it. Maybe this system can peel away some of the market that is looking for that kind of game, and it may be just enough to give the majority a new option: another way to play with enough players eager to do something different for a change.
Neither Daggerheart, nor any other game system before or since, needs to "dethrone" D&D to be successful, or relevant, or matter. This is not how most small companies measure their success, let alone their own viability. We’ve all seen how online discussion around RPGs tends to fixate on dramatic binaries—what’s going to ‘dethrone’ D&D, or what game will ‘kill’ another. That kind of framing is less about real insight, and more about engagement algorithms and surface-level hype.
Personally, I am fine with (current) D&D continuing to be a household brand name. I used to think D&D’s dominance was earned purely on the strength of its design. Over time, it became clear that its staying power has more to do with familiarity, accessibility, and social gravity than systemic excellence. That's not to say it isn't a good game, but the design itself is not its true strength. It's just simple enough, complex enough, appealing enough, accessible enough, and popular enough to gain (and keep) the largest audience. What does it say about a market when the most widespread systems succeed not by being the most refined, but by being the most available and comfortable? Is that a flaw in the systems—or just in how we engage with games in general?
For many people, it's still good enough. It is simply convenient because it's easier to find people who feel it is enough, or even more than enough. More importantly, it is harder to find people who are interested in anything else because what they have is enough. And who can blame them? If every other game traces its roots and origins to the original concept of D&D and offers nothing different, why bother if only to compare it with the game you already know how to play and can find dozens more people to play with?
Now Daggerheart has gotten my interest, which is saying a lot. I thought I was pretty much done with new RPGs. I have gotten over D&D since 5e, as well as other game systems that require extra space on my shelves than I am willing to afford them. But I am still looking over these materials, reading the discussions, and watching some videos to gain some better insight. I don't see a system trying to emulate existing game mechanics or designs that reinvent the wheel, but a system designed to enhance what really matters most: the play experience itself. It is most definitely a game enjoyed better in a live group that can interact on a personable level that a VTT or online chat cannot fully immerse.
Can Daggerheart usurp D&D? Nope, and it doesn't need to because it's not occupying the exact same space. What it offers is something else that D&D and similar games only hint at, but don't always hit the mark. Daggerheart doesn’t just permit narrative expression; it anchors mechanics to it. Maybe this system can peel away some of the market that is looking for that kind of game, and it may be just enough to give the majority a new option: another way to play with enough players eager to do something different for a change.
Last edited:
If daggerheart was to upend anything, it would be due to the clout of Critical Role rather than the system. And Daggerheart is honestly not that different enough from dnd to upend anything imo. Now will the fame of CR get a lot more people to try it than most other indie RPGs....sure I believe so. But will it provide the sustained force needed to really erode the Dnd fanbase? I just don't see it.
As mentioned early in this thread, the only thing that can likely kill the King is dnd itself, aka Dnd goes in such a terrible direction (like an even worse 4e) that people got turned off from it. But its just damn hard for indie RPGs to compete against the monolith, I think even more so now that dnd has really entered pop culture and is no longer that "secret things some people do in their basement"
Most people don't even know other RPGs exist, they only know dnd.
As mentioned early in this thread, the only thing that can likely kill the King is dnd itself, aka Dnd goes in such a terrible direction (like an even worse 4e) that people got turned off from it. But its just damn hard for indie RPGs to compete against the monolith, I think even more so now that dnd has really entered pop culture and is no longer that "secret things some people do in their basement"
Most people don't even know other RPGs exist, they only know dnd.
bedir than
Full Moon Storyteller
To put some scale on this.
Umbran is off by at least two orders of magnitude.
To dethrone D&D you need more than 1 million (maybe even 10!) people playing it year to year. 100s of thousands of books sold every year.
You need when normies see the actual play they think its the actual game being played, not D&D (see Harmontown for an example of everyone thinking it was D&D).
Intentionally so, as I didn't want to sound hyperbolic.
Similar Threads
D&D 5E (2024)
D&D Update: 2024 Rulebooks & Survey Results
D&D General
D&D Creator Summit--VTT & One D&D
