D&D General Mike Mearls' blog post about RPG generations

[Rainbow Scissors]

I agree with a lot of what he said to cover 1st through 4th Generation.

I don't agree with the conclusion that he arrived at. I don't agree with how 5th Generation is defined. Even if I did agree with how 5th Generation is defined, the idea that D&D 5th Edition has shifted into a game that's easier to run and DM is something that I do not agree on.

I haven't found the 2024 rules to be a shift toward being easier for the GM (nor the players).

 

[Aldarc]

That’s been a fairly consistent point of contention since the inception of Forge theorizing.

However, I would say that the Forge expanded what Simulation was previously, which seemed to be more restricted and narrowly defined in terms of realism, internal consistency, and modeling. From what I recall, Edwards mostly just reframed Simulationism in terms of the players' play priorities as "the right to dream."

I think that the idea that Edwards was biased against Simulationism kind of falls flat on its face when actually interrogated considering that Edwards LOVES RuneQuest, which was a game that was far more Sim-focused than D&D. But I also understand that having to admit that Edwards wasn't prejudiced against Simulationism can be a difficult preconception to let go. This is not to say that his ideas of his Simulationism may or may not be wrong.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I guess depends on what part of Gen X. Only the oldest of us were old enough to be part of the first wave in the 70s.

Don't make me smack you with my Nirvana-branded cane.

 

[TwoSix]

However, I would say that the Forge expanded what Simulation was previously, which seemed to be more restricted and narrowly defined in terms of realism, internal consistency, and modeling. From what I recall, Edwards mostly just reframed Simulationism in terms of the players' play priorities as "the right to dream."

I think that the idea that Edwards was biased against Simulationism kind of falls flat on its face when actually interrogated considering that Edwards LOVES RuneQuest, which was a game that was far more Sim-focused than D&D. But I also understand that having to admit that Edwards wasn't prejudiced against Simulationism can be a difficult preconception to let go. This is not to say that his ideas of his Simulationism may or may not be wrong.

Agreed. My reading isn’t that Edwards was biased against all Sim; merely that there was visceral dislike of the storyline and setting driven play that was the assumed standard for most of the major games of the 1990s.

 

[dbolack]

Care to name a few?

Sure. Though I think it will depend greatly on how far you think something has to shift to meet "don't play like D&D."

My first thoughts were Traveller, Runequest, and Superhero 2044. FGU had several titles, such as Flash Gordon and Swordbearer, in the late 1970s to early 1980s that were several steps different. The Fantasy Trip. Universe.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's the part I don't get

Fourth generation TTRPGs, taking their lead from video games, were the first generation to take a business model into account. The idea is simple. If you can get players to purchase expansions on the regular, you’ll make a lot more money. There are four or five players per GM, so your market just grew enormously.

That's every generation.

Every edition sold to players for money.

The difference was how they related the player sales to how the DM was to handle it.

If I were to do it it was

1. Tie it to the simulation. Run the sim.
2. Tie it to the background story. The rules will decide who gets to be the hero and who gets to be wormfood
3. Tie it to the setting. Only allow setting stuff and it's fine.
4. Figure it out. We out here designing what sounds cool.
5. Everything uses the same rules and designed to the same power scale so allow what you want.
   1. BRANCH No! Back to 4 but more balanced
6. Tie it to the simplified characters. Assume the PCs are big heroes and run it how it says
   1. BRANCH No! Complex characters
   2. BRANCH No! Mix in some 2&3
   3. BRANCH No! Put some responsibility on the players.to rule the narrative
   4. BRANCH No add in some 5.

 

[Stormonu]

I can agree with Mearls on 1st and possibly 2nd Gen, but the problem is that D&D stayed locked into what it was until 2000 while the rest of the RPG community took a hard left away from TSR design. He's too narrowly focused on D&D, which has been struggling to keep up with the direction just about every other RPG went and D&D at times has been grasping at incorporating the leagues-ahead advancement the rest of the RPG sphere has been using, for at times years.

Personally, I'd say after 2023 the rise of "cozy" RPGs - which often eschew combat for scenes of character growth, world discovery or internal conflict is what is now on the rise. Outside of the D&D sphere, it really seems like other RPGs have turned combat into a sideshow or "one roll resolve", and then move on back to exploring or interacting with the world or other characters (PCs or NPCs). I see this in the likes of Blades in the Dark, Ryuutama, Obojima, Tales from the Loop and whatnot. Even in games where there is combat - Aliens - it's one or two rolls to quickly resolve (and a HUGE incentive not to get into combat in the first place) and then you're back to the story.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Here's the part I don't get

That's every generation.

Every edition sold to players for money.

There were almost no purely player facing BD&D or 1E materials. It was 99% sold to DMs, except for hapless stuff like the players screens.

Splatbooks being sold to players were a thing starting in 2E. And even then, it was almost certainly part of the "publish at a loss; we'll make it up in volume" strategy, and not about selling specifically to players. Even in 2E, most of what they were selling was DM-focused.

Compare to 3E, where there was a steady and aggressive flow of books sold to players that DMs -- often on these boards -- said they felt forced to use, since their whole table showed up with books the DMs didn't purchase and didn't want. WotC wasn't doing that out of a desire to do players a solid, per Mearls, but because it was what was best for WotC.

And in contrast, the fifth generation -- which is not 5E -- fantasy RPGs are often one-and-done books sold to the DM, with supplemental books also being aimed at DMs, not at players.

 

[dbolack]

I can agree with Mearls on 1st and possibly 2nd Gen, but the problem is that D&D stayed locked into what it was until 2000 while the rest of the RPG community took a hard left away from TSR design. He's too narrowly focused on D&D, which has been struggling to keep up with the direction just about every other RPG went and D&D at times has been grasping at incorporating the leagues-ahead advancement the rest of the RPG sphere has been using, for at times years.

Even chunks of TSR Design took hard lefts when allowed. Amazing Engine, the Dragonlance and Marvel card-based games, even the second Buck Rogers (High Adventure one) RPG was closer to Forgotten Futures than Forgotten Realms.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I disagree that we're in the midst of a generational shift. The article claims:

I consider a generational shift to settle in when the majority of design and play activity shifts from one type of game to another.

By that standard, we’re not even close. The majority of play and design is still centered squarely on 5e. A handful of successful Kickstarter projects; like Shadowdark, Draw Steel, Vast Grim, or Coyote and Crow, are interesting and worth following, but they represent a tiny fraction of the broader player base. Their momentum is niche, and far from industry-defining.

What we’re seeing isn’t a migration away from 5e, but a diversification around it. Players are dipping into other systems, but the gravitational center of the hobby hasn’t moved. Most tables are still playing 5e, and most third-party designers are still designing for it.

There’s simply no hard evidence of a generational shift. The new games getting attention are droplets compared to the ocean that is 5e. You could argue that they show a future trend, but the article greatly overstates what is actually happening, in my opinion.