Does it though? Does D&D define itself as the central game of the hobby or do we do that? I mean, its the obviously the largest in market share and WotC certainly will note that, but do they brand it as the "central game of the hobby"?
Aside from that, I know its a rub but leaving many partially unsatisfied is better than the alternative of leaving them completely unsatisfied. Those tensions unfortunately are here to stay no matter the path taken.
They absolutely do, though — D&D is explicitly branded as
“the world’s greatest roleplaying game” and continuously positioned as the origin and foundation of the hobby itself. And to be fair, it has earned much of that distinction. Its legacy, reach, and influence are undeniable, and its current dominance in market share reinforces that claim. But that status comes with responsibility. When you define yourself as
the roleplaying game — the standard-bearer and reference point for everything else — you inherit a kind of stewardship over the hobby. That’s what makes its design philosophy matter so much: every creative decision doesn’t just shape one game, it shapes how millions of people understand what tabletop roleplaying
is and
can be.
That’s what I’m getting at with the “one game” problem. D&D has positioned itself as the central hub, but that also means everyone who wants to participate in that shared culture must accept whatever form the current version takes. The reason 4E failed wasn’t because it was objectively bad, but because it was marketed as a replacement — as
the D&D — when it represented a radical departure from what came before. The audience split not because they didn’t want innovation, but because they lost the familiar game they expected to still exist. If 4E had been presented as an
alternative D&D — built on the same principles and lore but emphasizing different design goals — we might still have both today.
We keep saying “this is as good as it gets” because we know the company won’t give us another option. But why not? Why can’t we have both a “core” D&D and an officially supported alternative that leans into different playstyles — tactical, narrative, or otherwise? Why can’t the modularity they promised ever extend beyond optional sidebars and small-scale tweaks? Instead, it seems that all the work of shaping the game to your table’s preferences has been outsourced to the players and third-party creators, without any unifying framework to support those variations. The result is a game that’s flexible in theory but rigid in practice, where satisfaction depends on how much compromise people are willing or needing to accept.
To be clear (again), this isn’t about advocating for 4E specifically. It’s a practical example of a system that emphasized play very differently from the “core” D&D everyone expected, and its failure illustrates the danger of forcing divergence under a singular banner. Theoretically, the open license allows anyone to develop alternatives independently, but in practice, that fragments the market and leaves players hunting for a version that fits their table. Third-party solutions are not a failsafe—they cannot guarantee a coherent vision of D&D that everyone can rely on. Officially supported alternative play modes, coexisting alongside the core system, would provide clarity and consistency while preserving the integrity of the primary game, making the experience fully accessible without requiring outside creators to capture what
should could be a fundamental part of D&D’s design.
