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

My take (and I'm not really caught up on the discussion) is that I broadly agree about the OGL and 2024 triggering a major generational shift in RPGs, and I think that he's sort of the right about people bifurcating toward rules-lite games on the one side and more complex games on the other.
It seems like that, but I dont really think its working out that way. I mean, the internet, like Pepperidge Farms, remembers the OGL debacle, but most folks have moved on and it doesnt seem to have hurt the brand. I think the shifts were already in place between folks that were D&D fans, OSR players, and the RPG outliers. The size of the pieces of the pie have increased in favor of the non-D&Ds, but its also important to note that the entire pie is a lot larger now too. (Im not disparaging anything not D&D, just noting their smaller player bases. However, I think its important to note how much better indie designers and products have gotten. Indie's are getting fanbase footholds that folks could only dream of 20 years ago.)
But I don't think I agree with him about characterizing the rules lite games as a newer generation, I'd guess that if anything, we're still at the start of an era where tooling moots a lot of their strengths, and the move towards VTTs like foundry and players embracing apps makes the more complicated character build and long term games compete better on accessibility.
I agree, I think rules lite is too general of a catch all for the next generation. I think its rules specific systems that cut the fat and deliver a focused experience; Whether thats OSR or not.
To my mind, I think that games like Shadowdark are a latter part of 5e's general movement towards courting old fans and trying to keep things light and homebrew heavy, along with the PBTA surge of interest and now culminating in Daggerheart as well, but then there's been the ongoing backlash to that, that's made games like Lancer, Pathfinder 2e, Fabula Ultima, and so forth popular with players-- joined now by Draw Steel.
Excellent points. Folks love to write the latter off around here because, well, everybody is a geezer around here. They went through 3E and 4E and came out on the other side wanting rules lite stuff. Though, some folks still want crunch, and new players are looking for it too, the playerbase is not a monolith. Its easy to think that way via EN World because of how much outlier traffic has plummeted. There wasnt many talking PF1 during 4E here, and there is even fewer talking PF2 despite the larger playerbase it enjoys. As an example.
Everyone always said 4e was ahead of it's time in some ways, I think we're arriving at that time, in this sense I guess if 3e/4e were fourth gen games, 5e through Shadowdark and Daggerheart are 5th gen games, and those 4e-like games I listed are actually sixth gen games, owing their generational difference to 5e blowing up before they released-- I guess you could call 4e sixth gen then, but things get weird, and it's mostly because 4e wouldn't be imitated as strongly until later.
My head hurts trying to wrap around "which is what gen". I dont think its helpful putting differently designed RPGs into different generational buckets. Its sort of what the OSR folks are doing at the moment.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm not sure if "generations" is the right term. @overgeeked already mentioned Cultures of Play, which was a blog article that talked about the cultures in the TTRPG space, though I would almost prefer the term "subcultures."

However, I also think that this article needs an "update" in terms of how it represents things outside of the author's wheelhouse (e.g., "story games" and Neo-Trad/OC). Though it's also possible, if not likely, that we could also be dealing with generations within subcultures, like branching multi-generational families.
 

And then 3.5e was just taking changes that had been added to 3e over the years and adding them in to a new official product, same as 2e.
You've got some good points in how you're characterizing the editions, but I don't think I'd really agree with this one. There weren't many years to accumulate additions to 3e and make them official. Plus, too many of the changes weren't additions - they were changes in approach and standardization that kind of repudiated some of the additions (like the other hit point adding feats of the splatbooks beyond toughness). There were some things that were definitely fixes to under-performers or problems such as the ranger, bard, harm spells, and reducing the front-loading of character abilities exploited in multiclassing. But there were a lot of changes made to further regularize ranges, areas of effect, and durations - some of which might be based on the experience of stat-boosters and metamagic becoming dominating strategies, but others of which indicate an increasing focus on "the encounter" as the most important unit of concern when designing/balancing the game rather than adventures or adventuring days - and that shows the evolution toward 4e's mode of thinking.
The other major proud nail of 3.5e, if you ask me, is the shift to weapon/armor sizes being an issue. It's the only D&D edition that really does it. I can't decide if it's a push to take the way 3.0's effort to increase the rationalization of the game through game mastery to a higher level or someone's quirky take on "the way things should work, hang the game's history".
 

It seems like that, but I dont really think its working out that way. I mean, the internet, like Pepperidge Farms, remembers the OGL debacle, but most folks have moved on and it doesnt seem to have hurt the brand. I think the shifts were already in place between folks that were D&D fans, OSR players, and the RPG outliers. The size of the pieces of the pie have increased in favor of the non-D&Ds, but its also important to note that the entire pie is a lot larger now too. (Im not disparaging anything not D&D, just noting their smaller player bases. However, I think its important to note how much better indie designers and products have gotten. Indie's are getting fanbase footholds that folks could only dream of 20 years ago.)

I agree, I think rules lite is too general of a catch all for the next generation. I think its rules specific systems that cut the fat and deliver a focused experience; Whether thats OSR or not.

Excellent points. Folks love to write the latter off around here because, well, everybody is a geezer around here. They went through 3E and 4E and came out on the other side wanting rules lite stuff. Though, some folks still want crunch, and new players are looking for it too, the playerbase is not a monolith. Its easy to think that way via EN World because of how much outlier traffic has plummeted. There wasnt many talking PF1 during 4E here, and there is even fewer talking PF2 despite the larger playerbase it enjoys. As an example.

My head hurts trying to wrap around "which is what gen". I dont think its helpful putting differently designed RPGs into different generational buckets. Its sort of what the OSR folks are doing at the moment.
I think a lot of it does come down to how you perceive the before and after of the OGL, my perception is that DND took a big hit from a mixture of that and lukewarm reception of the 2024 rules, but has the sheer numbers that a big hit can be reconciled with continued success and visibility, obviously.

But a lot of that impression admittedly comes from a combination of seeing DND players on reddit have a mixed reception to it, seeing a lot of hype for other games from former DND players, the back and forth between Mearls and Winniger on here and some of the corporate action and people leaving the company.

I feel like I don't see much with people going for a "focused experience" outside of the indie space that's been on that train for a long time now, I lowkey kind of see the opposite with more push for being able to take one set of mechanics and use it for a bunch of different things, and a lot of resistance to trying new systems without some promise that learning a new ruleset altogether will be infrequent.
 

I think a lot of it does come down to how you perceive the before and after of the OGL, my perception is that DND took a big hit from a mixture of that and lukewarm reception of the 2024 rules, but has the sheer numbers that a big hit can be reconciled with continued success and visibility, obviously.

But a lot of that impression admittedly comes from a combination of seeing DND players on reddit have a mixed reception to it, seeing a lot of hype for other games from former DND players, the back and forth between Mearls and Winniger on here and some of the corporate action and people leaving the company.

I feel like I don't see much with people going for a "focused experience" outside of the indie space that's been on that train for a long time now, I lowkey kind of see the opposite with more push for being able to take one set of mechanics and use it for a bunch of different things, and a lot of resistance to trying new systems without some promise that learning a new ruleset altogether will be infrequent.
That’s the thing about internet places they are like side view mirrors on cars, objects not as as they seem. Whatever internet corner you frequent is gonna make it seem like everyone agrees when it’s just everyone in that corner.

10 years is a big milestone for an RPG. I think it’s only natural some folks will tire out. As for being mad at Wizbro that’s been going on since at least the late nineties. Folks keep trucking with D&D all the same.
 

That’s the thing about internet places they are like side view mirrors on cars, objects not as as they seem. Whatever internet corner you frequent is gonna make it seem like everyone agrees when it’s just everyone in that corner.

10 years is a big milestone for an RPG. I think it’s only natural some folks will tire out. As for being mad at Wizbro that’s been going on since at least the late nineties. Folks keep trucking with D&D all the same.
It's a tad frustrating to live in world where your eyes always lie, the people around you are the exception, and the majority is apparently very, very stealthy. I say this not as a criticism of your position but as a kind of reflection on the discourse as a whole's ability to percieve of and parse the larger patterns and movements.
 

It's a tad frustrating to live in world where your eyes always lie, the people around you are the exception, and the majority is apparently very, very stealthy. I say this not as a criticism of your position but as a kind of reflection on the discourse as a whole's ability to percieve of and parse the larger patterns and movements.
I enjoy discourse with you a lot magic sword when it’s specifics you are one of the best on PF2 for example. Though it’s not really a starter to declare larger patterns with a simple “Reddit says”. I’m not picking on you either it’s my entire premise of why I think Metals blog is just off.
 

You've got some good points in how you're characterizing the editions, but I don't think I'd really agree with this one. There weren't many years to accumulate additions to 3e and make them official. Plus, too many of the changes weren't additions - they were changes in approach and standardization that kind of repudiated some of the additions (like the other hit point adding feats of the splatbooks beyond toughness). There were some things that were definitely fixes to under-performers or problems such as the ranger, bard, harm spells, and reducing the front-loading of character abilities exploited in multiclassing. But there were a lot of changes made to further regularize ranges, areas of effect, and durations - some of which might be based on the experience of stat-boosters and metamagic becoming dominating strategies, but others of which indicate an increasing focus on "the encounter" as the most important unit of concern when designing/balancing the game rather than adventures or adventuring days - and that shows the evolution toward 4e's mode of thinking.
The other major proud nail of 3.5e, if you ask me, is the shift to weapon/armor sizes being an issue. It's the only D&D edition that really does it. I can't decide if it's a push to take the way 3.0's effort to increase the rationalization of the game through game mastery to a higher level or someone's quirky take on "the way things should work, hang the game's history".
I can, largely, agree... but.

Between July of 2000 and July of 2003 there were:

8 player-focused splatbooks (Savage Species was the last of them)
4 monster-focused splatbooks
2 Optional Rulesets (Epic Level and Vile Darkness)
2 Settings (Oriental Adventures, Forgotten Realms)
7 Forgotten Realms splatbooks (with player options)
3 Environment/Situation splatbooks
1 Spell and Item splatbook
1 Starter Set

That's 28 books. 9 books a year, or 1 book every month and a half. And that's the OFFICIAL books.

The first 3 years of 3e were INSANE in the 3rd Party space as everyone jumped on the OGL bandwagon and released great gobs of stuff. Including ways to streamline gameplay or shift things around... some of which became part of 3.5e since the OGL is a two way street.

Don't get me wrong. There was definitely cleanup of material. But in 3 years there were 28 official books to 5e's 36 across 11 years. And that's including the tiny releases like the Plane Shift series and One Grung Above. Take those 7 off and it's 28 vs 29, 3 years versus 11 years.

That said, you're right that 3e definitely needed some reigning in as part of the reason 3.5e came about so very, VERY, quickly...

And then they went on to do another:

19 player-focused splatbooks
11 monster-focused splatbooks
7 Optional Ruleset books
6 Environment/Situation splatbooks
1 Campaign Setting (Eberron)
16 Eberron splatbooks
12 Forgotten Realms splatbooks
3 Spell and Item splatbooks
3 Starter Sets

And a partridge in a pear treeeeeee... 78 more books in the 5 years before 4e.

And the first three 3.5 player-splats replaced and added on to the previous player splats. Complete Arcane replaced and expanded on Tome and Blood, Complete Warrior replaced and expanded on Sword and Fist, and Complete Divine replaced and expanded on Defenders of the Faith -AND- Masters of the Wild, before the Complete Adventurer replaced Song and Silence. And hey, Expanded Psionics replaced the Psionics Handbook the same year. FUN.

Which goes back to the core idea of "Taking old ideas and refining them to work in the new system while also adding new stuff)... even though the books being replaced were only 2-3 years old.
 
Last edited:

I'm not sure if "generations" is the right term. @overgeeked already mentioned Cultures of Play, which was a blog article that talked about the cultures in the TTRPG space, though I would almost prefer the term "subcultures
I like waves because it forces styles to prove they've made a massive impact on the community before claiming a stake in the fabric of TTRPGs. They need to make waves before classification.
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top