D&D General The Eternal Braid: Why D&D Continuing Dialogue With RPGs is its Success

[Voadam]

in the 4e era, people played pathfinder because they didn't like the new D&D. So... yeah

For me it was the reverse.

When 4e kicked off I was really enjoying 3.5/Pathfinder and WotC did not do enough to get me to try out 4e. No free SRD to learn and reference the rules for example while I had free online references, plus existing rules knowledge, plus enjoying the existing game, plus owning tons of resources, plus owning adventures for the pathfinder game I was very interested in running meant I was happy to continue on with 3e/d20.

It wasn't until I joined a group that was playing 4e that I bought the 4e PH at all fairly deep into the 4e era (when they had a Christmas PH I&II deal).

Once I was playing it and was reading the books there were a bunch of parts I really liked and I enjoyed the game itself.

 

[Ancalagon]

More than a toolkit, I wonder if it was not actually the multiple worlds and in a sense the openness and « weakness » of those which made D&D what it was, what it is. Most other RPGs come quite a fairly well defined universe. But in the end, for these games to be successful, you need to like the ruleset and the universe, both. For D&D, you only need to love D&D, then you can use many worlds that are not that strongly defined, or create your own very easily. It never was as simple with most of games…

I think you are onto something, but there are some notable exceptions. In some cases, both the rules AND the universe are worth using. I've used the warhammer frpg rules in a non warhammer world (it worked well - and I will note that the reverse, using D&D rules in warhammer, doesn't work so well, BUT other rulesets, like Troika! or the GLOG, would). Also, there are a number of systems that attempt to be universal - GURPS for example, or HERO.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

The irony is that if you read OD&D and then read Empire of the Petal Throne, Petal Throne is way more easily digested and understood when it comes to mechanics. I think the hiccup was the setting, as rich and detailed as it was. D&D worked so well at first in part because its setting was implied and vague.

It is difficult to explain just how thoroughly D&D defined and dominated the early conversation regarding RPGs. While people today joke about the ways that D&D dominates the market, or how "laypeople" use D&D as a generic term for RPGs, D&D really was the RPG. As in ... the only game in town. Many of the seminal early RPGs that we think of today were simply outgrowths of D&D. For example, Empire of the Petal Throne was, for all practical purposes, a translation of M.A.R. Barker's world (Tekumel) into "D&D" after Barker was shown D&D.

With branded RPGs, I think there's almost always a degree of tension between the the RPG mimicking the source material and the RPG having to function as a game. There've been a bunch of adapted properties where, in service of presenting the source material, they've made cumbersome design decisions, or one option is so clearly better than all the others, because that's the world of the source material.

1. "Why don't branded RPGs do well?" This came up in a conversation about Star Trek, but it could be regarding any branded RPG- whether it's some derivation of Tolkien, or Marvel, or Dr. Who, or even Star Wars. And the answer is ... well, they aren't D&D. So they will never do "well." They might do better, or worse, compared to other RPGs (Star Wars is better, Star Trek is worse, usually), you might change the definitions to make them look better (if you consider CoC "branded" then they do really well ... for "not D&D"), but in the end, the reason they don't do well is because they aren't D&D.

 

[Jaeger]

A. How OD&D and the Early RPGs defined the Conversation.

My take is a bit different for this:

IMHO being first is VERY powerful when it comes to RPG's

But, D&D also just got certain things right pretty much straight out of the gate from a game design perspective.

yes, OD&D did assume previous wargaming knowledge to fill in the gaps.

But it was first! And no one had seen anything like it before.

TSR also upgraded the game fairly quickly to keep up with and stay ahead of the upstart competition.

OD&D only had a 3 year edition life until Holmes basic and AD&D started rolling out. And they kept refining the B/X side of the game which covered for any of AD&D's foibles.

TSR upgraded and clarified things, while holding on to the things that it got right.

And once those elements were refined into what became B/X D&D starting with the blue box, none of D&D’s early “competition” had anything for them.

In addition to being first:

The 5 points that secured D&D's early dominance:

1: Easy PC creation: You could make a character and begin play in a matter of minutes. A selling point for new players.

2: Graspable Rules complexity: The first levels are not rules heavy. The mechanics were understandable. New players gradually got introduced to any additional complexity, easing the gateway for new players.

3: Easily grasped Default play mode: The Dungeon, an easy to understand and grasp mode of play. New players knew what they were gonna do right away. Explore a forgotten crypt, kill things and take their stuff.

4: Easily understood setting: Common Sword and sorcery fantasy tropes with lots of 'Tolkienesque" elements; Elves Dwarves, Halflings/Hobbits, Fighting evil Orcs, Trolls, monsters, etc... And Dragons! New players could easily imagine the kind of medieval fantasy land their PC's were adventuring in.

5: Straight-forward reward mechanism: The leveling mechanic is a great 'gratification' reward for killing things and taking their stuff. New players unambiguously knew how many XP they needed for the next level, and what to do to get it.


Yes you can point to the rules bloat of 2e and 3e, and how 4 or 5e fudge some of them and legitimately argue that some of those points got stretched more than a bit.

But by that time; it didn't really matter as D&D had already cemented its market leader position. And the network effect of being the 800lb. Gorilla in the room smooths over any rough edges the system has.

Because as the market leader, D&D was/is Good Enough that most players do not feel a compelling reason to go to a different fantasy RPG.

It takes a unique set of circumstances for Being First + Good Enough to not be a winning advantage.

What is particularly interesting is that when you really think about things, virtually all of D&D's early competitors failed miserably on more than one of these points.

IMHO how the early competition fell short:

Tekumel: Obtuse setting not newbie friendly.
Tunnels and Trolls: Group combat is a deal killer – Individual heroics in combat was gone. No other successful rpg has done combat the T&T way.
Chivalry and Sorcery: System complexity + Obscure default play mode = Ouch.
RuneQuest: Glorantha. I could just stop with that… But also character creation, and certain system elements. While a technically a more straight-forward system they dropped the ball on most of the other points.

In every case, D&D was delivering a more newbie accessible, better overall game, than any of its early competitors.

 

[Lyxen]

I think you are onto something, but there are some notable exceptions. In some cases, both the rules AND the universe are worth using. I've used the warhammer frpg rules in a non warhammer world (it worked well - and I will note that the reverse, using D&D rules in warhammer, doesn't work so well, BUT other rulesets, like Troika! or the GLOG, would). Also, there are a number of systems that attempt to be universal - GURPS for example, or HERO.

Of course, there are exceptions, I fell in love with Glorantha/Runequest for example, the only thing that I'm saying is that you have to love both, which could limit the popularity of games other than D&D.

 

[overgeeked]

Here are some random thoughts.

Early dominance. D&D came out of wargaming and pulled from free Kriegsspiel to give us the open-ended style of play we recognize as RPGs. The rules were also light, maybe even sparse, and meant more as an open-system toolkit for the referee to customize and play in whatever style or mode they wanted with the people at their tables. It was also a game about fantasy literature. As such, it kind of captured the hearts and minds of many in those two fandoms. Others despised it or turned their noses up at it. But it was new, cool, and just structured enough that the really imaginative people in those communities could grab on and do anything with the game.

Mainstream popularity. When Gygax shafted Arneson and screwed him out of royalties by making AD&D, he turned his back on the free Kriegsspiel ideals and went from an open system that could do anything to a closed system that was meant to be played a specific way and do a specific thing and do it exhaustively. This pivot turned the game from something you needed to engage with imaginatively and customize into something that you could just pick up and play (after slogging through the Old High Gygaxian). I don't mean that this dumbed down the game, but it did remove the need for that extra level of tinkering and creativity, paving the way for mainstream success. Helped in no small part by the early adopters and the various moral outrages.

Continued dominance. I think D&D was just the big dog up through 3X. It did it's thing, it dominated the market and with the OGL it go a lot of other games and designers to simply get on board mechanically. It had completely captured the market. But then 4E came out. It was more game than RPG. It shifted what it was kind of drastically. Not just away from what people expected of D&D and RPGs, but it basically transformed itself back into a wargame with vestigial RPG components. One of the big reasons I think 5E is so popular is that they went back to first principles...and they remembered some of the history. 5E is the juggernaut it is because it doesn't try to be unique. It doesn't try to be amazing at any one thing. It does everything kinda meh at best. So it hearkens back to the early days. The lighter rules let the players and referees do whatever they want with the game and make it work however they want. Not that it's rules light, just lighter for a D&D game.

I think this is a constant tension in games. Especially D&D. Over-design the game and it becomes too specific and unplayable...decreasing your audience. Under-design the game and it becomes too loose and generic...decreasing your audience. The only way to solve that is to find the middle ground. Specific enough but playable, loose but broadly focused.

 

[dave2008]

But does that really count? Pathfinder branded itself as a continuation of 3.5 D&D, so it was fundamentally D&D vs. D&D as the top competitors in the market. The fact that it wasn't WotC publishing Pathfinder or called D&D was more a technical distinction than really one that reflected the true nature of the situation.

I think @Ancalagon's point was that even playing pathfinder was a reaction to D&D, so D&D was still part of the conversation when playing that game (of course PF as still D&D too).

 

[MichaelSomething]

What about DM empowerment? Doesn't that play a large part??

 

[Fanaelialae]

Something I don't think that has been touched upon is that D&Ds 800 lb gorilla position isn't ubiquitous.

For example, I believe the top game in Japan is Cthulhu. I've also heard that The Dark Eye has been more popular than D&D in Germany. I doubt that those are the only two such cases.

 

[Jaeger]

Something I don't think that has been touched upon is that D&Ds 800 lb gorilla position isn't ubiquitous.

For example, I believe the top game in Japan is Cthulhu. I've also heard that The Dark Eye has been more popular than D&D in Germany. I doubt that those are the only two such cases.

My info may be dated as it's hard to keep up with things in countries that you do not speak the language in, so:

The Dark Eye from Germany, which still (just) beats out D&D there. I think...
Trudvang Chronicles which is Drakar och Demoner in Sweden.
Sword World - Japan - Beat D&D, but the crown was given up to CoC 5+ years ago though.
Tormenta - Brazil (Evidently a d20 based system)
Evidently Warhammer Fantasy 2e was really big in Poland and beat D&D there for a long time. Who Knew...

Worth noting though that every single one was a reaction to a translation of D&D in their home market. As TSR was unable for a variety of reasons to continue to provide translations of supplements or new editions; the native products were able to move in and fill the void D&D left.

This made it much harder for D&D to gain a meaningful foothold when it "came back" with later translations because there was an active home grown competitor that had already established a dominant network effect.

CoC in Japan is a little bit fuzzier as there were IMHO several cultural and market specific reasons why it eventually rose to prominence in that country. But D&D was largely suppressed by Sword World at the time as well.

Those games simply prove the point that there is nothing inherently "superior" about d20/D&D as a system.

As the other games more or less hit on the same 5 points that D&D did as I mentioned above, and were Good Enough; Being able to establish a dominant player network effect in D&D's absence allowed them to assume the same 'market leader' status in their home countries that D&D enjoys in the US.