Polygon: Indie TTRPG Companies are "sitting in their own little corners of the internet and wringing their hands"

[The-Magic-Sword]

Well, let's deconstruct the article.

The opening paragraph is pretty boilerplate - the author immediately falls back on a cliched metaphor in comparing D&D to Kleenex because both are ubiquitous. It concludes with a vague claim that D&D is "on the threshold of something new, but still not fully realized." Okay, thanks. That tells me nothing. So the initial tone is a kind of vague clairvoyancy: "I can see the future," so trust my opinions here.

Curiously, he then goes from describing WotC's two recent, flagship publications as "excellent," to claiming that "you can’t help but smell the enshittification of the beloved role-playing game" on the horizon. So it's on "the threshold of something new," heralded by two "excellent" books...and thus you can smell "enshittification"? Huh. So...not exactly a super rigorous argument being developed. Also,"enshittification" is Internet speak for "I want to criticize something but don't have reasons that I can clearly express, so I'm going to appeal to Cory Doctorow's meme word." The paragraph finishes with some strong evidence, "There just aren’t as many books coming out this year as I was expecting." Because WotC has altered its typical four D&D publications per year to...four publications per year. There is a point that Project Sigil seems stalled, again based on little evidence, and set against WotC pushing Maps instead. So basically the WotC half of the article is trendy thesis vaguely supported by impressionistic evidence, often self-contradictory, masked as informed opinion.

I have to start work, so I'm not going to unpack the back half of the article right now, except to point out that, once again, we have a bit of actual reporting on the Mothership Backerkit...or at least some quantifiable numbers, but really it's more opinion supported by vague assertions, all leading up to the author offering some boilerplate advice to Indie publishers: "Ask yourselves: Who is your audience, and what is your audience looking for? Where are they looking for it, and how can you best give them more of it? And what does success look like?"

Wow. I bet they never thought of that!

I suspect the author was given the assignment, or had the idea, of doing an article on Mothership, and then was looking to sexy it up by stirring the pot a bit. Poke the bear, drop a catchphrase, get some clicks. And this is reporting in the Internet Age: impressionist assertions based on a few anecdotes, wrapped in cliches and written to basically troll readers, rather than inform them. To create a controversy rather than add insight. To get clicks. To get people talking on sites such as this one.

It seems to have worked, so I guess...mission accomplished.

"Enshittification" indeed.

I feel like enshittification in this case is really specific rather than vague, its in reference to services becoming worse/annoying to facilitate monetization, which as I recall has been a running theme with WOTC the last few years and more or less an explicit promise to investors-- that they needed to monetize DND more aggressively, particularly in the digital space.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

they needed to monetize DND more aggressively, particularly in the digital space.

I think "in the digital space" has been something that players assumed, rather than something that was actually stated.

Since that earnings call, we have seen WotC go nuts with licensing deals, including for online gambling. Meanwhile, we've yet to see any sinister digital monetization strategies at all. They got rid of a la carte purchases on D&D Beyond (boo!) which was their only digital microtransaction to date, unless you count the digital dice that they presumably sell a dozen or so of a year. And they've opened up the D&D Beyond platform to other publishers by invitation (and an NDA) only.

We are deep into Waiting For Godot territory with D&D doing something sinister in the digital space, even if it feels logical that they someday will. But WotC doesn't do a lot of things that seem to make logical sense. This could just end up being another weird decision, just one that benefits the players this time.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I can state that just doing a non-fantasy 5e game is a huge drop off.

In pitching Esper Genesis an action sci-fi 5e game to the press, I had one reporter reply with, "I don't know if my audience would be interested in anything not fantasy." And this was a game that got an ENnie nomination despite getting little coverage before that.

And from what I understand, these mergers are killing off ttrpg coverage as the new owners look to tighten their belts and see how small the traffic is for ttrpg compared to their other beats.

It is really interesting to me how persistent this actually seems to be, both in terms of the game itself, and in terms of the fantasy genre. You'd think espionage and other modern stuff like super heroes at least, would be similar, but that stuff isn't really on the radar for a lot of people. Something about fantasy adventuring parties really grabs people.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I think the "in the digital space" has been something that players assumed, rather than something that was actually stated.

Since that earnings call, we have seen WotC go nuts with licensing deals, including online gambling. Meanwhile, we've yet to see any sinister digital monetization strategies at all. They got rid of a la carte purchases on D&D Beyond (boo!) which was their only digital microtransaction to date, unless you count the digital dice that they presumably sell a dozen or so of a year. And they've opened up the D&D Beyond platform to other publishers by invitation (and an NDA) only.

We are deep into Waiting on Godot territory with D&D doing something sinister in the digital space, even if it feels logical that they someday will. But WotC doesn't do a lot of things that seem to make logical sense. This could just end up being another weird decision, just one that benefits the players this time.

Admittedly, I don't know that we're waiting, or if the community keeps spooking them into holding off on it-- which is a self-fulfilling anti-prophecy in that it won't happen until the community lowers its guard or they think they're on stable enough ground to just force the matter.

They did try a la carte DND Beyond material, and they did try to make the licensing for 3rd party products way rougher bia the OGL fiasco (remember, the Creative Commons was uh, not their first plan.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

They did try a la carte DND Beyond material

That predates the "monetization" call and they got rid of it after the call. So it's not really proof that greater monetization means microtransactions.

if the community keeps spooking them into holding off on it-- which is a self-fulfilling anti-prophecy in that it won't happen until the community lowers its guard

I think if they were highly reactive to community sentiment, they'd make much different large scale business decisions.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

That predates the "monetization" call and they got rid of it after the call. So it's not really proof that greater monetization means microtransactions.


I think if they were highly reactive to community sentiment, they'd make much different large scale business decisions.

I think there's levels of it, they can tolerate grumbling, but less so mass outcry and the internet mass trying to sell new players on other games, which is where the OGL thing was starting to go.

 

[Von Ether]

It is really interesting to me how persistent this actually seems to be, both in terms of the game itself, and in terms of the fantasy genre. You'd think espionage and other modern stuff like super heroes at least, would be similar, but that stuff isn't really on the radar for a lot of people. Something about fantasy adventuring parties really grabs people.

Even crazier, what is one of the top things gamers want to do if they fall in love with an action adventure/pulpy/sci-fi ttrpg? "This game is great! Could we get a fantasy version of it?"

I don't know if it is the dungeon feedback loop or that D&D has created a ur-text where as long a player know which mountains the dwarves live and which forest are guarded by elves, they are ready to rumble.

You run a sci-fi game and suddenly you players have tons of world-building questions, yet most gamers don't question the occult in their game, "Obviously that spell should have more material components and less verbal!"

Just once, I'd like to run a sci-fi game and when someone asks why this or that works that way, someone else at the table just says, "Because it's Science." ... and then everyone else at the table nods and we move on.

 

[Aldarc]

Just once, I'd like to run a sci-fi game and when someone asks why this or that works that way, someone else at the table just says, "Because it Science." ... and then everyone else at the table nods and we move on.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Even crazier, what is one of the top things gamers want to do if they fall in love with an action adventure/pulpy/sci-fi ttrpg? "This game is great! Could we get a fantasy version of it?"

I don't know if it is the dungeon feedback loop or that D&D has created a ur-text where as long a player know which mountains the dwarves live and which forest are guarded by elves, they are ready to rumble.

You run a sci-fi game and suddenly you players have tons of world-building questions, yet most gamers don't question the occult in their game, "Obviously that spell should have more material components and less verbal!"

Just once, I'd like to run a sci-fi game and when someone asks why this or that works that way, someone else at the table just says, "Because it Science." ... and then everyone else at the table nods and we move on.

I think I have a whole post about "denominator settings" honestly, but I'm not sure it even really answers the question fully.

 

[rhythmsoundmotion]

If I think about how TV would be if as many people demanded the fantasy genre on tv as they do in RPGs. Well let’s say the smiling face of the Yellow King lies in that direction.( People insist that being consistently irrational about what they like is being rational.)