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

[Theory of Games]

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.

I knew you'd respond with those and based on the conversation I was having upthread, you're incorrect:

There have pretty much always been multiple alternative games out there with different approaches, different focus, different styles.

I'd argue that there was a time when there weren't multiple alternative games with different approaches out here. For a long time it was D&D, and then came games that had similar rules and similar gameplay objectives.

All of the early games I can think of that "don't play like D&D" in my mind are in '77 or '78. There are likely earlier examples.

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.

The original description was "different approaches, different focus, different styles". None of the rpgs you listed fit that description, from a pure design perspective. They're all 'tactical turn-based action' rpgs, all mimicking D&D in function just like most video games, which were also primarily inspired by D&D's structure. The only clear difference some ttrpgs have from D&D is genre, but how most of the game engines actually function (dice +/vs. stat) and the options the players have (negotiate, fight, collect gear) are nearly identical in play to D&D. And yeah we can quibble over what "different" means YMMV

When I think "different approach/focus/style", the first game that really changed things IMO was the Dallas ttrpg, because there was no combat system - the whole game was based on social intrigue. That was 1980, six years after D&D hit shelves. Since then we've had some truly different rpgs created like Fiasco, Alice is Missing and Hillfolk.

Finally I think Mearls is right: the hobby is leaning towards has embraced easier to operate games, with the success of OSR and PbtA games as evidence.

 

[dbolack]

You know what else is a fantasy heartbreaker? Pathfinder, Daggerheart and Draw Steel. A fantasy heartbreaker is just someone's fantasy RPG that makes less money than D&D, which is all fantasy RPGs.

Is that the definition these days? That's a hell of an expansion.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Is that the definition these days? That's a hell of an expansion.

I am being tongue in cheek.

But the larger point is this: Every fantasy RPG is a cute little sideline compared to D&D and always* has been. And as long as people find, play and enjoy those games, it doesn't matter whether those games sold one copy or one million copies.

* Well, maybe not 4E and Pathfinder, but the people who know the actual numbers aren't talking.

 

[Minigiant]

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

That's another thing.

3e, 4e, and 5e are lumped into the same generation even though they have totally different player to DM relationships in publishing and total publishing schedules.

But the first 25 years of D&D is carved into 3 generations.


5e's player focused but no way like 4e or 3e. 3e designed aspects to work exactly as the fiction said it did and had no problem adding new mechanics and settings when it added a new concept. This is why DMs worried when players brough material they didn't own. 4e was a rejection of that. 4e went out its way to ensure DMs that everything was in the same guardrails so that players could feel free to buy whatever since there was a low chance anything was either broken or tone breaking. 5e kinda when all the ways back before 3e in design and scope to give DMs a simpler base to deal with.

So by Mearls' logic we are in the 7th generation.

 

[dbolack]

The original description was "different approaches, different focus, different styles". None of the rpgs you listed fit that description, from a pure design perspective. They're all 'tactical turn-based action' rpgs, all mimicking D&D in function just like most video games, which were also primarily inspired by D&D's structure. The only clear difference some ttrpgs have from D&D is genre, but how most of the game engines actually function (dice +/vs. stat) and the options the players have (negotiate, fight, collect gear) are nearly identical in play to D&D. And yeah we can quibble over what "different" means YMMV

Yeah.

I suspect we won't agree on the day of the week, let alone this topic.

 

[overgeeked]

While it is true that you can place a lot of the popularity of D&D (and particularly the fantastic rise of 5e) can be placed squarely on the shoulders of Critical Role (the number of people who ever even tried 4e is a fraction of the 5e fanbase, so I doubt any rejection of that edition played any kind of major role in it).

No, I mean in the design of 5E and how the existing playerbase at the time embraced 5E upon release. The designers and fans at the time rejected 4E, which lead to 5E being widely accepted and adopted by the tiny RPG community circa 2014. Critical Role started streaming in March 2015 and Stranger Things started in July 2016. It's after those dropped that 5E really exploded beyond the confines of the existing RPG community.

But it's important to note that Critical Role was only as big as it was because it was using D&D

That's an unprovable assumption.

before they went public with it it was home game using Pathfinder.

Yes, and before that they used D&D 4E.

They had to make the deliberate choice to switch to 5e in order to attract people to watch their game in the first place. They stick with PF and there's a strong chance it's never as big as it becomes. So that's a bit of a two-way street itself.

If we could peak into alternate dimensions we could know, short of that...not so much. The alternative is that CR pushes PF to be as dominant as D&D is now. Or, more realistically, slightly less dominant due to the difference in crunch.

The Six Cultures of Play is a better model than GNS or whatever Mearls is putting out there but it's focused on the same kind of classification as GNS and thus subject to many of its same flaws. For my money the 8 Aesthetics of Play is the best model out there because it's about classifying players rather than styles of games or some nebulous concepts of semi-deliberate "movements".

Yeah, absolutely agreed. That MDA Framework / 8 Aesthetics of Play is a wildly better model all around. I wish people would get over their knee-jerk anti-videogame stance when it comes to tabletop RPG play and design. There's so much that could be learned by cribbing their notes.

 

[Jolly Ruby]

I am not familiar with the publishers you reference and will accept your claim, but I think that the new 5e core and Dragon Delves is a big leap forward in usability for WoTC.

I haven't seen the new Dragon Delves yet but it's really good to hear WotC is improving their usability! I'll see if they have a free preview like the previous adventure compilations had.

 

[haakon1]

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.

Mearls said the first generation was 1974-1983.

Gen X is born 1965-1980. Anyhow, I started playing in 1982, with AD&D. Most gamers I played with from my class or about +/-5 started with AD&D 1e, which was 1978 to 1988.

That Mearls first generation is OD&D and AD&D overlap, and cuts off AD&D 1e in 1983 instead of 1988, is a bit odd. Apparently the publication of Ravenloft matters more in his view than editions.

 

[haakon1]

Not sure if Shadowheart and Daggerdark will be a new generation…

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Apparently the publication of Ravenloft matters more in his view than editions.

I think Ravenloft and Dragonlance were definitely a sea change in D&D's design and direction. Most of the material the OSR was originally influenced by is specifically before the publication of both of those as well.