D&D 5E The Mainstreaming of D&D

[The-Magic-Sword]

I think its a mixed bag in some ways, its unambiguously wonderful that its all getting more popular and its growing inclusivity is an unmitigated good thing, but popularity can have knock on effects that I think I'd prefer to moderate-- there are cultural changes ala gentrification when a niche subculture break out (I'm thinking in terms of game design, and what the general public values in that sphere-- I've seen arguments where the very act of retaining 3.5e / 4e style gamist rules in the hobby at all, is painted as reactionary or anti-populist) that come with mainstreaming that can push out the people who were already here artistically, we've seen that in a lot of music genres once big, ruthlessly capitalist labels formed or stepped in to capitalize on growing interest in it-- hip hop, rap, punk rock, but then we've also seen them be reclaimed and many new fans yearn for more, and more authentic works too.

But that isn't a problem we solve by not welcoming people, its a problem we solve by standing up for ourselves, preserving the things worth protecting, innovating in our own right, selling new people on the scene we want to see thrive, and basically doing the work of allowing multiple aesthetic movements within the hobby to vibrantly coexist.

So it isn't really a crisis since even if the core DND license changes its design focus to try and fit whatever it understand the new movement to want, there's always going to be people interested in other designs and games that are serving them, the hobby itself might evolve into a bigger tent, but the spaces within that tent can drill down into an ever growing profusion of niches and subcultures if we go to the effort of making sure they aren't swept aside and new gamers have lots of choices, instead of just having to put up with the dominant zeitgeist. There certainly might be an LCD at any given time, but they don't have to define everything, and that's as simple as creating spaces and works that are comfortable with being an (ideally healthy and vibrant) niche of their own.

There's nothing bad about many games that serve a variety of different interests, from a game design perspective, and if DND continues to be and focuses on being a gateway game, where some of the people interested in it will find more niche homes eventually-- well, I think that's ideal really.

 

[Parmandur]

I like WWN! The layout is functional, with topics being confined to 1-2 pages and with headings that are easy to read. Pretty much every page has a heading at the top that lets you know where you are in the book. The world building tools are extensive and I haven't tried to use them myself, but I like how straightforward the game is in saying "in this game the GM builds a world, and here are a bunch of concrete steps and tools to build that world." The 5e dmg tries to do that but between the terrible organization (step 1: create the multiverse), the vague and verbose writing (did you know that stories have a beginning, a middle, and an end?), and uninspiring random tables it does not work out well. I'm just looking at it now. Look at p. 81, where the important topic of Creating Encounters starts in the middle of the page, runs over 5 pages with interspersed unrelated art getting in the way, with headers like on p. 84 that start at the end of the page and has one sentence on that page before the rest is on the next page. What I want from this section is a 2 page spread with a flowchart and all the important tables with another 2 page spread with any contextual information, preferably in bullet point form where possible, and some art because you have extra space from being so concise. <end rant>

But yes, world building with WWN is exactly the thing I get excited about more than pulling out any official 5e book anymore

The index is kind of crap, but I've never had particular trouble with using the DMG, and find the writing style enjoyable to read for it's own sake, in addition to being useful in practice.

 

[Yora]

RPGs in the 21st century have a huge advantage in that access to distribution channels is trivially easy. Required production costs for content are also basically nonexisting. You can write your own RPG material on your computer using free software and then export the file as a pdf. You can upload it on your own webspace, a free hosting service, or even a commercial site where you can get money for downloads of your file.
Getting noticed by people who want to download your game material is of course a challenge, but an RPG can exist with a worldwide audience without any commercial publisher involved.
If you want to create and share content for the love of the art, you can. We do not require our games to come from the one company that can put the D&D logo on their new releases.
AD&D is still being played and gets new content. Basic/Expert is still being played and gets new content. That another game is having the D&D name on the cover now makes little difference to people who enjoy the old style of content.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay, I think I might not actually have tried reading the 5th edition DMG. Only looked up the tables for monster creation and magic items. If the comprehensibility is compared negatively to WWN, that's really bad.

It’s organized pretty poorly, but it’s still well worth the read! I think every 5e DM should read it at least once. It is, after all, a guide for just such people, and I’ve found that a lot of common complaints about 5e (“too easy” and “not enough structure for exploration and social challenges” especially) are directly addressed by rules in the DMG.

 

[Stephen Shomo]

It’s organized pretty poorly, but it’s still well worth the read! I think every 5e DM should read it at least once. It is, after all, a guide for just such people, and I’ve found that a lot of common complaints about 5e (“too easy” and “not enough structure for exploration and social challenges” especially) are directly addressed by rules in the DMG.

Chapter 9... worth the read if you want to toughen up your game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure.

Speak for yourself. 6-8 medium encounters (as defined by the encounter building guidelines) in a day is pretty typical in a dangerous adventuring location in my experience.

Unless I say otherwise, I am always speaking for myself.

Regardless of gameplay norms, though, it’s a wild notion that a group of explorer-mercenaries would face 6-8 dangerous encounters per day, even as an average, much less as a flat out norm.

It may be fun, but like many dndisms, it’s a wild notion in any in-world sense.

 

[Charlaquin]

To get back to the mainstreaming and "feel" - one thing that doesn't jibe with me personally is the comparison of D&D to an action movie (or certain kinds of anime) and the expectation it play out that way. This is not necessarily "new" (lots of people played "story-forward" D&D as far back as the early 80s, if not earlier) I just hear it as a point of comparison more often it seems when describing the game to newer players.

[If you're feeling tl;dr-ish just jump down to "But here is the important part"]

I mean, I like action movies fine (I love Die Hard - nearly perfect movie and when it comes to anime I prefer something like Grave of Fireflies) and I think certain elements or encounters can have an action movie or over the top anime feel and be hella fun, but I don't play or run the game to feel like I am in an action movie (my guess is other systems would be better for that anyway), I play/run to experience a world and make changes to it if (as a player) I get powerful and influential enough but am happy to just survive it and do the best I can in the process OR to mediate that experience for others (as DM) and just see what happens - so for me, I don't want any kind of "plot protection" in my games, I don't want cut scenes flashing back to the past or having scenes the PCs are not present for described to me (don't cut away to the BBEG plotting). If Luke, Han, Leia and Chewy are escaping the Death Star we know they aren't going to be shot and killed (most likely - might be why I have never much enjoyed licensed franchise games much), but if Redgar, Alhandra, Krusk, and Eberk are trying to escape the Dark Lord's palace, I expect there to be a decent chance one or more will be killed or captured. I want things described as our characters would sense them, not as if on a screen we are watching (I don't want close-ups or aerial views or tracking shots - DMs using film language to describe a scene irks me - on the other hand using comic book language to describe a Supers game feels right), let us go totally off the rails and be wrong and never even get to adventure climax if our choices drive us there. If we didn't bring enough rope and there is none to be found, I don't want to handwave if there is rope. If we find 20,000 cps, I want to actually try to figure out if there is a convenient way to carry it all out or if it is even worth trying - a puzzle is a puzzle and our characters decide which puzzles are worth our time. If I decide to leap off an exploding tower tied to fraying remains of what rope we have, I want there to be a decent chance I actually die or am grievously wounded from doing something desperate and unlikely, rather than happen to find a window to leap into clear of the blast because of "coolness" factor. There is no narratively appropriate time for a PC to die in my eyes. Or if there is, it is because in-game someone took the opportunity to craft the story so it sounds good to NPCs being entertained at the inn, not because it necessarily played out that way.

I think you’re getting at something here that I’m going to have to borrow some Forge jargon to describe. A lot of pixels have been spilled on what the Forge called “Story Before” and “Story Now”: respectively, coming up with a story first and playing it out at the table, versus creating a story as you play. But I think there’s another approach to story that didn’t really get attention on the Forge, tending to be lumped in with one of the other two. You might call it “Story After”: where there is no story planned out, and no particular effort is made during play to craft a story out of what’s happening; rather, you explore the world and as you put it, just see what happens. It’s only in looking at the events that occurred during play retrospectively that a story emerges. The story is neither something the DM plans nor something that occurs during play, it’s what you tell when you’re looking back on the game, saying, “remember that time when…”

 

[Parmandur]

Unless I say otherwise, I am always speaking for myself.

Regardless of gameplay norms, though, it’s a wild notion that a group of explorer-mercenaries would face 6-8 dangerous encounters per day, even as an average, much less as a flat out norm.

It may be fun, but like many dndisms, it’s a wild notion in any in-world sense.

So are Magic Missiles, 700 year old Elves or being able to shoot 12 arrows in a minute while doing acrobatic stunts. The game is not really going for "realism" as such.

Not saying everyone has to play that way, and I love that they designed a game that allows for fun when not going full throttle.

 

[Parmandur]

I think you’re getting at something here that I’m going to have to borrow some Forge jargon to describe. A lot of pixels have been spilled on what the Forge called “Story Before” and “Story Now”: respectively, coming up with a story first and playing it out at the table, versus creating a story as you play. But I think there’s another approach to story that didn’t really get attention on the Forge, tending to be lumped in with one of the other two. You might call it “Story After”: where there is no story planned out, and no particular effort is made during play to craft a story out of what’s happening; rather, you explore the world and as you put it, just see what happens. It’s only in looking at the events that occurred during play retrospectively that a story emerges. The story is neither something the DM plans nor something that occurs during play, it’s what you tell when you’re looking back on the game, saying, “remember that time when…”

Emergent narrative, absolutely.

 

[Reynard]

I think you’re getting at something here that I’m going to have to borrow some Forge jargon to describe. A lot of pixels have been spilled on what the Forge called “Story Before” and “Story Now”: respectively, coming up with a story first and playing it out at the table, versus creating a story as you play. But I think there’s another approach to story that didn’t really get attention on the Forge, tending to be lumped in with one of the other two. You might call it “Story After”: where there is no story planned out, and no particular effort is made during play to craft a story out of what’s happening; rather, you explore the world and as you put it, just see what happens. It’s only in looking at the events that occurred during play retrospectively that a story emerges. The story is neither something the DM plans nor something that occurs during play, it’s what you tell when you’re looking back on the game, saying, “remember that time when…”

The "story" is the one you tell with beers afterward.