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

[Minigiant]

I think everyone pretty much agrees that the blog post could be better written.

Do you disagree with his point -- which seems to be mostly about the "4th and 5th generations" -- that WotC focused on selling players lots of books for the good of the bottom line, and now new games (often from indie creators) are going strongly in the opposite direction?

I disagree.

I am saying that TSR published D&D in an idiotic manner.

WOTC's player focus sales strategy is what any publisher who was smart would do if they have the money to do so.

Indie creators don't do it because they don't have the money to do it. But if they blow up and suddenly have the revenue stream to do it (Paizo)... Guess what...they doing exact same thing that WOTC did.

Even Shadowdark's expansion Kickstarter has a TON of player options.

 

[Don Durito]

Like other people I'm confused about the idea that this is happening now. For one as mentioned upthread, 5e already seemed to be moving away from that player centric culture when it was released (and all those adventure paths were aimed at DMs). Some of the games mentioned as indicative of recent trends like DCC have been around forever now. (As has the OSR as a whole). I mean 13th Age is a lot easier to GM than 5e and it came out first.

I would say that 5e sort of failed to some degree to move away from player centric design both because the demand was still there and the existing culture of play and it's design was somewhat undermined from the open playtest.

If more seems to be happening now I think it's simply because of the whole OGL debacle and the fact that a bunch of people have decided to make their own games. It's only now that the D&D space is perceived to have opened up that other companies are making their own games. It's less a new trend as it is one that has now been around for a long time becoming more visible due to a wave of new games.

 

[Gradine]

And what I'm saying is it doesn't make sense because according to him the First 3 gens are DM customer based and then there is 1 Player customer based Gen, then it returns to a DM based generation.

Which is a silly way to categorize since the first 3 gens share an alignment THEN the first generation with a different alignment contains 3 completely different editions.

That's like saying burger generations are

1. Hamburger
2. Cheeseburger
3. Bacon Cheeseburger
4. Pizza
5. Cheeseburger with Mushrooms

Clearly everyone has lost the plot here. The generations are obviously:

1. Kanto
2. Johto
3. Hoenn
4. Sinnoh
5. Unova
6. Kalos
7. Alola
8. Galar
9. Paldea

 

[Bacon Bits]

Eh, I think Mearls is just being wildly D&D-centric. And I say that as someone whose TTRPG history is wildly D&D centric.

"First came D&D, and it was like the hex maps and dungeon crawls of donkeys. Then came DL1-12, and, lo, there was roleplay. And it was good. Then from the wastes came the mighty Dark Sun, and it was different. And Planescape did walk upon the 144,000 realms, and it, too, was different. Then at last came the time of Feats and Prestige Classes, and the subgame of character creation was made holy. In the name of the Gygax and of the Arneson and of the d20. Amen."

I just think games like RuneQuest, GURPS, Fudge/Fate, Call of Cthulhu and Champions throws a big wrench into the timelines.

IDK, I just think Jon Peterson had better framing.

 

[Charlaquin]

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).

That’s not what he’s saying. He called 5e a 4th generation game, and he thinks the successors to 5e will split between continuing the 4th generation design, or starting the new, 5th generation of design. He’s considering the post-2024 5e to fall into the former category.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That’s not what he’s saying. He called 5e a 4th generation game, and he thinks the successors to 5e will split between continuing the 4th generation design, or starting the new, 5th generation of design. He’s considering the post-2024 5e to fall into the former category.

Of course, 5.5 is even more player-centric than 5.0 was.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

By that metric, though, nothing has ever changed in RPG land since, other than maybe the 4E era, D&D has always dwarfed every other RPG.

But we know that RPGs have changed and evolved over time, so "is D&D the dominant game" can't be the measure we use.

I agree with you. I'm using the article's own metric. Seen here;

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 definition, we are nowhere near a generational shift. 5e continues to dominate both play and design activity. There’s no mass migration, no collapse of the center. That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t explore other systems, but we should be honest about the scale of what’s happening. Frustration with 5e is real, but framing a wave of niche diversification as a generational shift, especially in the wake of the OGL debacle, seems more like wishful thinking than a reflection of the actual momentum or market reality.

People can claim the article is too D&D-centric, and many have, but when it comes to it's assessment of the 5th generation, based on it's own metric, it is grossly underselling 5e's popularity. By the article's metrics we are still in the 4th generation.

 

[Charlaquin]

Of course, 5.5 is even more player-centric than 5.0 was.

Right, which is why Mearls is still classifying it as 4th generation.

 

[cbwjm]

I read the article and pretty much agree with it, the trends are very broad but they are noticeable when it comes to the changes in DnD.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree with you. I'm using the article's own metric. Seen here;



By that definition, we are nowhere near a generational shift. 5e continues to dominate both play and design activity. There’s no mass migration, no collapse of the center. That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t explore other systems, but we should be honest about the scale of what’s happening. Frustration with 5e is real, but framing a wave of niche diversification as a generational shift, especially in the wake of the OGL debacle, seems more like wishful thinking than a reflection of the actual momentum or market reality.

People can claim the article is too D&D-centric, and many have, but when it comes to it's assessment of the 5th generation, based on it's own metric, it is grossly underselling 5e's popularity. By the article's metrics we are still in the 4th generation.

I mean, even if 5e was completely failing, the fact that he’s arguing that its successors are split between continuing the character creation focused design and moving on to ease-of-DMing focused design would still mean a new generation has not yet started according to his definition. I think what he’s trying to say is, based on the trends he’s observing, he thinks that when the 5th generation does start, it will be defined by ease of DMing.