D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[JConstantine]

The subreddit overall isn't nasty to D&D-related discussions nor sneers on people saying they play D&D or the like so I can't see it as overall "hostile to D&D", even if some individual posters dislike it (and they often get downvoted if they're particularly sassy, I will note).

You must be visiting the sub at a very different time of day than I then, but the anti-5e stuff is a plurality and highly upvoted.

Presumably mostly specific to certain systems or approaches? In those cases I think you always see certain peccadillos and preferences, and most "hostility" to 5E comes simply from the fact that it would be odd to bring it up in those contexts.

I go to game-specific subs and discord channels for discussion about those games on their own merits, so agree it would be weird to be bring up any other game in such context, unless you're trying to help a newcomer understand through comparison to something they're familiar with (eg. this game is similar to that game in X regard, but differs in Y regard), but it's the respective game's fans that bring up 5e in order to sneer at it and score points among a sympathetic group, not outsiders.

 

[JConstantine]

unless you're proposing it as a "good generic system" or something equally absolutely demented.

5e being good or bad as a "generic" system is unproveable either way, and completely subjective. But to state that opinion, that DnD is good, is "demented."

It doesn't seem any better or worse than any other "generic" system. Sure, it will have a specific tone, but so does Savage Worlds, and BRP, and GURPS. But then I prefer bespoke/dedicated systems, myself.

 

[JConstantine]

You can also be sick of D&D being the 800-pound gorilla while simultaneously liking the game. I still play plenty of 5e, despite the fact I would be thrilled to see it commercially capsize.

I'd like to see other games grow without D&D "commercially capsizing", myself. It's not a zero-sum game in that manner.

 

[robertsconley]

It doesn't seem any better or worse than any other "generic" system. Sure, it will have a specific tone, but so does Savage Worlds, and BRP, and GURPS. But then I prefer bespoke/dedicated systems, myself.

Certainly Kevin Crawford is getting some mileage out of it with his X without Number series of RPGs.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It doesn't seem any better or worse than any other "generic" system. Sure, it will have a specific tone, but so does Savage Worlds, and BRP, and GURPS. But then I prefer bespoke/dedicated systems, myself.

I'm sorry, are you trying to all seriousness argue that a very much non-generic, heroic fantasy-specific RPG is "basically the same" as RPGs intentionally and consciously designed to be generic and genre-mutable? Because you should pull the other one, that one has bells on!

That's just funny and deeply unserious position. D&D is obviously not designed for that, and is much narrower and more specific than any of those three, all of which are actually designed to bend/flex to accommodate genres.

As for "Well obviously it'll have a specific tone!", I mean, sure, they all do, but where you might compare all of those to a piece of bread in terms of their "basic tone" and capacity to work with ingredients, D&D would be a very strongly flavoured slab of heavily-spiced meat or something, which tends to quickly overwhelm anything else you put on it. For some people that's an asset but let anyone suggesting D&D as a "generic" system is being ridiculous. It's not one, and it's requires way more effort to make it into one that either:

A) Using a genre-specific RPG as you say you prefer (which I also do).

or

B) Using a generic RPG and supplements that make it into that specific genre/setting.

The funny thing is there even are more generic versions of D&D which can be more easily used, but they sure as hell aren't the very heroic fantasy-centric 5E.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Certainly Kevin Crawford is getting some mileage out of it with his X without Number series of RPGs.

Crawford isn't using 5E though, which is what's usually suggested, but a very heavily modified OSR variant of D&D, which is in fact, basically its own generic RPG at this point, with a ton of peculiarities specific to it, and also capable of mechanically doing a bunch of stuff that literally no TSR or WotC edition of D&D can do (like one-shot stealth kills as a routine part of gameplay).

They are excellent but let's not pretend they're "D&D" in the sense being discussed here.

Also let's particularly not pretend they attract any of the hostility that is being discussed. No-one gets mad about "D&D" when Worlds Without Number gets mentioned. They get mad about D&D when someone says they want to run a game like John Wick and some numpty suggests 5E D&D rather than one of the several RPGs that either specifically are about that (Outgunned World of Killers, for example) or a generic RPG which can handle that reasonably well (of which there are several, it's actually one of the settings generic RPGs tend to do better with).

EDIT - I do feel like Crawford could probably manage an "Bullets Without Number"-type game too!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Certainly Kevin Crawford is getting some mileage out of it with his X without Number series of RPGs.

They are some of my very favorite games!

 

[TwoSix]

I'd like to see other games grow without D&D "commercially capsizing", myself. It's not a zero-sum game in that manner.

I don't think it's "zero-sum", but I don't necessarily agree with ideas like "a rising tide lifts all boats" or "a strong D&D makes for a strong TTRPG market."

But I'm anticipating a weakening 5e market and an inability to make a viable 6e will prove to be a test bed for this particular thesis in the near future (5-10 years).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK, now you are just inventing a scenario that proves your point. The thing is, in order to do so, you've assumed the GM isn't actually following the principles we're espousing. So, of course it doesn't work out the way I or others have been saying our games work.

And your response tells me that something is failing to get communicated here. I'm not inventing anything, GMSs in this paradigm are absolutely making these decisions. That's not my invention, it's definitional. You cannot simply dismiss it. It's trivial to arrange this as 'plausible', and there's nothing wrong with that within this type of play! Obviously situations and perceptions of what makes sense in a given game can vary. But I'm not proposing anyone play in a way that violates any of you principles. The point is that they're actually very weak constraints and leave so much leeway that the result is simply DM fiction. This is exactly the core contention and nothing you have said contradicts it in any way.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Reread what Micah Sweet actually wrote, he’s not talking about personal attacks.

No, I understand what he said.

Why does he need to defend his playstyle preferences to? Why would anyone feel that need?

What I'm saying... and this probably applies to you, as well... is that when someone identifies so closely with a thing they view a criticism of the thing as a criticism of them. And I think that's what's happening with @Micah Sweet .

If you disagree, by all means go ahead and explain why. But don't tell me what I'm allowed to say or not, and please stop trying to tell me what my motives are for posting. You've done it several times now... all but outright accused me of posting in bad faith. I've pointed it out, but largely let it slide.

Don't ascribe motives to me again, Rob.

Your reply reframes his comment into a separate conversation about personal attacks, one that he wasn’t having. That kind of rhetorical pivot derails the discussion and sidesteps the underlying point: the exhaustion that comes from constantly having to defend one’s preferred style of play.

And this isn’t the first time. Throughout this thread, you’ve repeatedly redirected critiques into abstract debates about semantics. The result is a pattern where concerns get deflected rather than addressed, and where reasonable frustration gets treated as oversensitivity or misreading.

You’re a thoughtful poster, but when someone says they’re tired of justifying their playstyle, the better move isn’t to reframe that as “no one’s attacking you.” It’s to ask why that frustration keeps coming up, and what role our responses might play in fueling it.

I offered a reason that the frustration is coming up... he wants a casual conversation and is taking part in one that is not casual. To me, there seems to be a simple solution. For instance, I have no real interest in Warhammer. If I'm in a thread that is either about Warhammer or for some other reason winds up being primarily about Warhammer, I just don't take part. I don't constantly post in such threads to defend my preference of not liking Warhammer.

As for me "reframing" things... no, I'm offering my take. That's what it seems like to me. The thread is about challenging the status quo of D&D. I mean... it's on the tin. Now, it's perfectly fine for people to join the conversation to say that D&D doesn't need to change or that X or Y may not be a good fit for D&D or whatever... again, I'd expect that as part of the conversation. But no one needs to or is required to defend their preferences.

Much of this discussion consists of people who want a conversation about challenging the status quo to approach from the viewpoint of the status quo. Which doesn't really make any sense. If I'm going to look for new ways for D&D to do things, I'm not going to look to D&D... I'm going to look at other games. I'm going to look at the entirety of what the RPG hobby may offer. Why would anyone taking part in such a discussion expect otherwise? And if they'd feel so strongly about such challenges to the status quo, why expose themselves to the discussion?

Maybe it's because... the conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting?