Should D&D (or any other RPG) actually attempt to be "All Things to All People"?

[innerdude]

I can't remember if it was pemerton or someone else in the Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition? who brought up the fact that (A)D&D has, for much of its existence, sort of assumed that rightly or wrongly it had to be "all things to all people."

And I'm wondering if:

1. That expectation is real, or if it was more the result of D&D being the figurative "only game in town" for much of its formative years,
2. If it's even a realistic mind set for a game designer to have in the first place, and
3. Do we as players now naturally assume that there's going to be "the right tool for the right job" (i.e., a specific system designed for a specific style of play), or would we naturally gravitate to a system that made the attempt?

When I think what an "All things to all" type of system would require, it sounds less and less like something that is feasible. There's just too many things it would have to cover:

• It would have to support as many game styles as possible: Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist, Actor/Author/Director, etc.
• It would have to be simple enough for beginners, yet complex enough for later players (or be "modular" or "scalable" enough for both).
• It would have to present robust combat and out-of-combat actions, without becoming unwieldy.
• It would have to allow for a broad range of character concepts without being "unbalanced."
• It would have to support both minis-based encounters, as well as free form.
• It would have to support some form of community/"living" play.
• It would need to have a feasible third-party licensing structure.

When I look at it in a list form like that, it seems such an overwhelming task that I'm almost willing to shake the hand of anyone who's ever tried to build an RPG even if it didn't quite turn out the way they wanted/expected it to.

But is this REALLY what we, the gaming community wants? Do we really want a "Unified Game Edition," or are we happy with the current diversification in our chosen hobby?

 

[ahayford]

It seems to me, when you are at the point where you have to ask someone if you are playing DnD5eFreeFormGamistLiving or DnD5eMinisSimulationist or...whatever....You may as well just package them as different products. I'm not really sure if the "dials" technique that Mearls spoke of would even be possible to market. Can you imagine marketing trying to sell that system?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Any form of entertainment that tries to be everything to everyone will be stuck playing to the lowest common denominator. It will also generally make more money.

In general, I prefer that entertainment be made for its strongest fans, which is less profitable but produces a better quality product.

D&D is in a somewhat unusual position, however, of being a "gateway drug". It is still the only pnp rpg whose name is recognizable outside of the gaming community. So it does have a responsibility to touch on all the major facts of gaming so that people introduced through the hobby through D&D understand what rpgs can be.

It is possible to strike a balance.

 

[KidSnide]

As in all things, you need to strike a balance. It would be foolish for D&D to try being all things to all people, but it could still be more flexible than 4e is.

-KS

 

[Nagol]

There are a bunch of "universal" game systems. D&D has never been one of them.

The "universal" game systems -- GURPS, Hero, FUDGE, Mutants and Masterminds to name a few -- end up being toolkits to design an RPG for a specific campaign experience and have little individual flavour. The lack of flavour is a necessary condition for their universality, but it has its drawbacks. There is little to inspire a scanario/campaign structure in the game itself and guidance for play structure is pretty limited.

I adore Hero and am willing to put the extra work into a campaign to use it when I think it's warranted, but make no mistake it takes a lot of extra work to build the constraints and guidance for player expectation, character design, and genre emulation to hit the notes I want struck by any particular campaign.

 

[Balesir]

I honestly don't believe that the "One System to Rule Them All" is feasible any more.

RPGs that are suited to specific "modes" or "agendas" of play seem to me to be like information/ideas. Once they are released, there is no going back - the "genie is out of the bottle". Before 4E I would play 3.x for certain types of play, but for other aims in play I had abandoned D&D long since because I found other systems that "did it better". With 4E, there is nothing that 3.x offers that I can't find better somewhere else (personally - I'm not trying to claim some kind of universal inferiority, here).

It now seems to me that, whatever next comes along, it may well excel at some specific play mode, eclipsing, perhaps, the system(s) I currently use in that niche. But to eclipse them all would require the game to improve on a gestalt of what has gone before in so many ways that I cannot think it even remotely possible.

 

[The Shaman]

My personal preference is for purpose-built roleplaying games.

One-size-fits-some I can do without.

 

[OpsKT]

Personally I think you can do really good "One size fits most" games, or multi-genre systems with different levels of realism.

For example, Savage Worlds is very good for a Pulp or Cinematic style of game, and does most Genres well (I personally think it lacks in the hard sci-fi area). BRP is good for games where you want a high level of realism while still being simple, with small amounts of 'magic' or the supernatural. GURPS or HERO is good for realism and details. LOTS of details.

But you'll never make one game for everyone. Just can't be done.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

[*]It would have to support as many game styles as possible: Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist, Actor/Author/Director, etc.

To be frank, you're never going to make most of these folks happy, especially if you try to please more than one group at a time.

* It would have to be simple enough for beginners, yet complex enough for later players (or be "modular" or "scalable" enough for both).
* It would have to present robust combat and out-of-combat actions, without becoming unwieldy.
* It would have to allow for a broad range of character concepts without being "unbalanced."
* It would have to support both minis-based encounters, as well as free form.
* It would have to support some form of community/"living" play.
* It would need to have a feasible third-party licensing structure.

All of the remaining list is pretty easy, and most editions of D&D managed it just fine.

 

[Mouseferatu]

My personal preference is for purpose-built roleplaying games.

One-size-fits-some I can do without.

This. I've been gaming for decades, and I have never, ever had the urge to play GURPS or HERO. If I'm playing fantasy, I want a game designed from the word "go" for fantasy. Same for horror, sci-fi, or whatever.