D&D 5E The Overwhelming Dominance of D&D is Bad for Everyone...

[MGibster]

Well I've been lectured by try hard hipsters since about 1996 about why D&D sucks.

Yeah, and this thread is not meant to be a "D&D Sucks" discussion. I think D&D is successful largely because every version has been pretty good. If it was bad, I don't think people would play it.

It is not universally bad. D&D dominating the market has some positives and let's draw a clear distinction between D&D dominating the market and WOTC dominating the market.

And I'm certainly not arguing that it's universally bad. As a consumer, one of the positives is that I've always been able to find a D&D game going on no matter my location. For a company, I can understand why they hitched themselves to the WotC wagon because it's a lot easier to move product that way. But many companies who are dependent on WotC have had to make some business decisions in light of this leak.

As a consumer, I do believe things will get worse for us. With WotC's plans to monetize D&D, I expect they'll attempt to control how we play in order to make it easier to sell us digital product. I'm not sure exactly what form it will take, but I don't have positive expectations for where WotC plans on taking D&D over the next few years. In other threads, many people balked at those of us leery about WotC's monetization plans, but changing the OGL is part of those plans.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I have been thinking this for years. I've never understood why so many gamers will only play 5e OGL systems (or maybe Pathfinder). The reason I most commonly hear is that gaming groups either cannot learn too many systems (eg, not enough time money to learn) or simply refuse to because it's what their group enjoys. But maybe to a lesser degree, some gamers simply don't know there are other TTRPG's out there?

With regards to thinking that groups can only play one or 2 systems, I find that dubious, and I wonder if these groups have even tried? As a pre-teen and teen in the 80s, using just the allowances of our gaming group, we bought and played so many games it would probably make people's heads here spin. I could probably name close to 30 game systems we played in a 6 year time span (I actually just started listing them down...and so far have 32 games I could remember off the top of my head). Granted, a few of those games we may have only played 1-4 sessions, but at least we gave it a try. Could we afford every supplement and module? No, but that's what imagination is for anyhow.

If the problem isn't money or lack of time, I suppose it could just be an unwillingness to try out anything else. But that's also just anathema to me. It'd be like eating pizza everyday for the rest of your life. Sure, pizza is great and switching the toppings around might be a small change, but I'd get sick to death of pizza too if that's all I ever ate.

As for gamers who aren't aware there are other TTRPG's beyond 5e OGL (or even D&D), I wouldn't have thought it possible in this day and age with the internet. But I was just watching a Youtube video from The Gaming Group where they listed 29 fantasy games that didn't use the OGL. Many comments were along the lines of "thank you so much...I wasn't aware these other games existed!". Back in the pre-internet days, I was lucky. We played at a hobby store that sold lots of RC cars, train sets, plastic models, and a decent amount of wargames and TTRPGs. In those days, I only remember a handful of stores in my state that were dedicated to TTRPGs, Board Games, or Miniature games (CCG's weren't really a thing until the early 90s with MtG). For example The Compleat Strategist and Enterprise 1701 (now Sci Fi City). These days, if there isn't a dedicated game store, they seem to combine with comic and collectible card stores. But in the age of the internet, I honestly scratch my head how people aren't aware of the vast universe of TTRPGs out there.

It also makes me wonder where the majority of people play now? At a store? At a member's house? On VTTs? If it's not at a store, then I can somewhat see why people may not be aware of other games, but it's still surprising to me.

I think it might actually be easier now than back when I started to not know about other games.

You hear about 'Dungeons and Dragons' in pop culture, decide to paly and order the books from Amazon. Then you head to Youtube and look up some lets plays and advice. The game is either at the table or Roll20. Either way, the link algorithms start advertising D&D stuff and serving D&D videos. Occasionally something Pathfinder might slip through, but mostly you could easily exist in a D&D only ecosystem.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The first mover RPG benefits from network effect. Same as Facebook, or operating systems. It is easier to get players for the system that everyone knows.
Social Media and the internet may change that.
WoTC may repeat the network effect if they can make their vtt dominant in the market.

 

[theCourier]

Yes, it is bad. Especially when D&D isn't even the best version of D&D out there.

 

[RareBreed]

I find it interesting that many folks seem to think that if there's a mass exodus away from D&D, whether by consumer boycotting, or 3PP no longer willing to hitch themselves to their bandwagon, that this will be bad for the hobby.

On one hand, I can see it, because by no longer having just one game system that the vast majority of gamers will buy, there will potentially be many. This means 3PP either have to create multi-system compatible products, or hope that some other system becomes the golden goose so they can concentrate their effort on that system.

But on the other hand, I see diversity of the TTRPG as a good thing from the player perspective (if not for the 3PP). I'm a believer in "system matters". I've heard many folks want to shoe-horn every genre and theme possible to run in 5e game mechanics. I've often wondered if these same people have ever played something other than 5e. But by using d20 OGL mechanics, you very much limit the style and feel of play. I think that when people discover new game mechanics and worlds/genres not touched by 5e rule systems, it will open their eyes even more.

While it's true that there may be less content available because there may be less 3PP producing it for your chosen system, there IS more to gaming than that. We used to play back in the day where there effectively was no 3PP and you couldn't even hop on the internet to find inspiration or ideas from others.

I also believe that the 3PP can evolve to become more world, setting and adventure focused, rather than game mechanic or stat focused. In other words, less focused on extending game system rules, including things like classes or character options or even new rules. Many world settings don't really need a lot of game mechanic specific info (except maybe for modern or sci-fi settings that's very equipment focused and the game system is very detailed about that). I think a lot of groups already do a lot of house rules and experimental home brews and even have fun doing it. I think what's really challenging for a Game Master is adventures and the worlds to play in.

The other fear I think, is people think if D&D crumbles, then there will no longer be a "poster child" for mass media to talk about. And that if this happens, then there will no longer be an effective recruitment tool for new gamers. But I think TTRPG has reached a critical mass where it's already entered the popular culture and as long as people play it, it will continue to be something new generations will look at. Heck, how many gamers here have introduced their children into the hobby? If Stranger Things had chosen say, Runequest, would that have bumped its popularity? Or would people have gone, "what in the heck game were they playing?". I'd argue that as popular as Stranger Things was, people would have looked up what Runequest is (look how the obscure song 'Running Up That Hill' got to #8 in 2022, even though it only got to #30 in 1985!!)

 

[Zardnaar]

I find it interesting that many folks seem to think that if there's a mass exodus away from D&D, whether by consumer boycotting, or 3PP no longer willing to hitch themselves to their bandwagon, that this will be bad for the hobby.

On one hand, I can see it, because by no longer having just one game system that the vast majority of gamers will buy, there will potentially be many. This means 3PP either have to create multi-system compatible products, or hope that some other system becomes the golden goose so they can concentrate their effort on that system.

But on the other hand, I see diversity of the TTRPG as a good thing from the player perspective (if not for the 3PP). I'm a believer in "system matters". I've heard many folks want to shoe-horn every genre and theme possible to run in 5e game mechanics. I've often wondered if these same people have ever played something other than 5e. But by using d20 OGL mechanics, you very much limit the style and feel of play. I think that when people discover new game mechanics and worlds/genres not touched by 5e rule systems, it will open their eyes even more.

While it's true that there may be less content available because there may be less 3PP producing it for your chosen system, there IS more to gaming than that. We used to play back in the day where there effectively was no 3PP and you couldn't even hop on the internet to find inspiration or ideas from others.

I also believe that the 3PP can evolve to become more world, setting and adventure focused, rather than game mechanic or stat focused. In other words, less focused on extending game system rules, including things like classes or character options or even new rules. Many world settings don't really need a lot of game mechanic specific info (except maybe for modern or sci-fi settings that's very equipment focused and the game system is very detailed about that). I think a lot of groups already do a lot of house rules and experimental home brews and even have fun doing it. I think what's really challenging for a Game Master is adventures and the worlds to play in.

The other fear I think, is people think if D&D crumbles, then there will no longer be a "poster child" for mass media to talk about. And that if this happens, then there will no longer be an effective recruitment tool for new gamers. But I think TTRPG has reached a critical mass where it's already entered the popular culture and as long as people play it, it will continue to be something new generations will look at. Heck, how many gamers here have introduced their children into the hobby? If Stranger Things had chosen say, Runequest, would that have bumped its popularity? Or would people have gone, "what in the heck game were they playing?". I'd argue that as popular as Stranger Things was, people would have looked up what Runequest is (look how the obscure song 'Running Up That Hill' got to #8 in 2022, even though it only got to #30 in 1985!!)

RPGs would still exist but consider this. Pre 5E

The RPG market was 13-15 million dollars around 2013

Paizo revenue was around $11 million 2012.

RPG market now apparently is around $100 million.

If D&D died there wouldn't be a mass exodus to other RPGs you would just have a very tiny RPG market.

Not sure if the trickle of D&D players trying something else would be more or less than no D&D at all for other RPG systems to pick up.

History suggests not many.

 

[RareBreed]

RPGs would still exist but consider this. Pre 5E

The RPG market was 13-15 million dollars around 2013

Paizo revenue was around $11 million 2012.

RPG market now apparently is around $100 million.

If D&D died there wouldn't be a mass exodus to other RPGs you would just have a very tiny RPG market.

Not sure if the trickle of D&D players trying something else would be more or less than no D&D at all for other RPG systems to pick up.

History suggests not many.

But you're assuming that if people abandon D&D, they also abandon the TTRPG altogether. In fact, it's this very notion that D&D/5e and TTRPG are one in the same (or almost all the same) is what could lead this to becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If people think 5e/D&D is the only TTRPG there is, and people abandon D&D, then yes, the hobby will collapse greatly. But if people realize that there's more to the TTRPG world than 5e/D&D then I think this could actually be a good thing. And at least given the comments I saw in that one Youtube comment section, it leads me to hope that people have started to wake up that there's more to the TTRPG universe than all things 5e OGL (including of course, D&D).

 

[ECMO3]

RPGs would still exist but consider this. Pre 5E

The RPG market was 13-15 million dollars around 2013

Paizo revenue was around $11 million 2012.

RPG market now apparently is around $100 million.

If D&D died there wouldn't be a mass exodus to other RPGs you would just have a very tiny RPG market.

Not sure if the trickle of D&D players trying something else would be more or less than no D&D at all for other RPG systems to pick up.

History suggests not many.

I don't think the RPG market is relevant to Hasbros strategy.

They are concerned with expanding the D&D brand into media and consumer goods which will dwarf the RPG market.

For comparison - Avengers Endgame is a single movie that grossed over $2 Billion, that is a lot more than Disney is making selling the Comic books the movie is based on, I am sure it is more than the entire comic book market. The money is not in the comics, but the Marvel/Avengers brand.

Hasbro wants the same thing with D&D. How much do you think the upcoming D&D movie will make? Add in coffee mugs, video games, a Fast Food tie in and stuffed Mind Flayer dolls. That is what Hasbro wants from D&D.

It is about the brand, not the game and if their strategy pays off Hasbro won't care if no one plays D&D at all anymore as long as they can market the D&D brand.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think the RPG market is relevant to Hasbros strategy.

They are concerned with expanding the D&D brand into media and consumer goods which will dwarf the RPG market.

For comparison - Avengers Endgame is a single movie grossed over $2 Billion, that is a lot more than Disney is making the selling Comic books the movie is based on. The money is not in the comics, but the Marvel/Avengers brand.

Hasbro wants the same thing. How much do you think the upcoming D&D movie will make? Add in coffee mugs, video games, a Fast Food tie in and stuffed Mind Flayer dolls. That is what Hasbro wants from D&D.

It is about the brand, not the game and if their strategy pays off Hasbro won't care if no one plays D&D at all anymore as long as they can market the D&D brand.

I think the D&D will make a couple of hundred million or three at the box office. Minor hit or minor flop imho.

WotC won't get that of course the studio will get around half of the box office. No idea if WotC get a cut if that number or they paid them a flat fee.

The movie could also bomb so I wouldn't count chickens before they hatch. Kreo worked out so well (no idea how D&D merch will go that's a we'll see).

 

[ECMO3]

I think the D&D will make a couple of hundred million at the box office. Minor hit or minor flop imho.

WotC won't get that of course the studio will get around half of the box office.

The movie could also bomb so I wouldn't count chickens before they hatch.

Sure their strategy might fail. But the point is the players are largely irrelevant to their strategy. If the movie flops and they dont get demand for the media and consumer goods, then they will come back to the table with their tail between their legs. But that will be after it fails and only if it fails.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure their strategy might fail. But the point is the players are largely irrelevant to their strategy. If the movie flops and they dont get demand for the media and consumer goods, then they will come back to the table with their tail between their legs. But that will be after it fails and only if it fails.

I was gonna start a D&D movie flop/hit predictions thread in about a month.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I don't think the RPG market is relevant to Hasbros strategy.

They are concerned with expanding the D&D brand into media and consumer goods which will dwarf the RPG market.

For comparison - Avengers Endgame is a single movie that grossed over $2 Billion, that is a lot more than Disney is making selling the Comic books the movie is based on, I am sure it is more than the entire comic book market. The money is not in the comics, but the Marvel/Avengers brand.

Hasbro wants the same thing with D&D. How much do you think the upcoming D&D movie will make? Add in coffee mugs, video games, a Fast Food tie in and stuffed Mind Flayer dolls. That is what Hasbro wants from D&D.

It is about the brand, not the game and if their strategy pays off Hasbro won't care if no one plays D&D at all anymore as long as they can market the D&D brand.

Better be one hell of a movie!

But I agree that that's most likely their thinking and their priority, as well as having their movie and TV properties feed back into a videogame-like VTT with its own digital merch and synergistic marking for the next show or film or whatever else. An endless loop of product ecosystems and other horrible buzzwords ready to be bullet-pointed on PowerPoint slides.

I happen to think D&D doesn't actually have lore or worldbuilding with mass appeal, and that in a market already exposed to prestige fantasy properties like House of the Dragon and even Rings of Power, anything uniquely and distinctly D&D will come across goofy and cartoonish. But this definitely seems like an attempt to get into the big leagues, tightening up the brand identity while turning their tabletop gamers into focus groups and hype ambassadors.

I hope the plan fails spectacularly.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think D&D has been bad for the hobby, and I think the OGL has been good in giving people a common system (which makes things pretty easy). Ending the OGL is, I believe, bad for the hobby. That said, I generally play other games and am often a bit nostalgic for pre-2000s era RPGs. Ideally though these two things would co-exist in a more balanced way. But at the end of the day, you can't force people to play games they don't want to, and you won't win them over by being critical of the game they do love. In many ways a lot of it falls on those of us who love other systems to be better advocates for them.

 

[Steel_Wind]

The "I only play D&D" gamers are, similarly, people I have only encountered in forums, not among gamers I have met in real life in school, stores, or at conventions.

I've been gaming for a very long time, since 1977 with OD&D -- and more or less continuously since 1980. In terms of campaigns I have played (many sessions, 15+ as part of a long-term campaign) I have played in a lot over the years. There are many more one-off or 2/3 session palate cleanser games over the course of time than are listed below -- typically between AD&D, RM, D&D, or PF campaigns. Where there is an asterisk, I have played/run in multiple campaigns over the years:

AD&D *
Traveller *
Gamma World
Top Secret
Call of Cthulhu *
James Bond 007
Rolemaster *
SpaceMaster *
Stormbringer
GURPS
D&D 3.x *
LUG Star Trek
PF1 *
Star Wars: Saga Ed
Starfinder
PF2 *
5e *
Mutants & Masterminds
Runequest

Of those which received hardcore continuous play over a ~ 5 year span or more? AD&D 1st ed, Rolemaster, D&D 3.x, PF1. The ones which weave in and out most often are Call of Cthulhu and Traveller.

It's clear that FRPG is my genre of preference, but I'm not tied to the D&D brand. I stopped AD&D from 1984 through 2000 -- when we were neck deep in Rolemaster and eschewed 1st/2nd ed. Indeed, I only played 2nd ed at conventions or as a CRPG, never in a home game campaign. We sat out 2nd ed in its entirety. It was 3rd edition which brought us back into the D&D fold, as it were.

I guess the bottom line is that I don't have much of a point of reference with those who don't have similar experiences. All of the people I have met -- including everyone I game with remotely online over the past decade have similar past RPG experiences. So.... seeing people double-down on the "I only play D&D" here is more than a little odd to me.

 

[Zardnaar]

The "I only play D&D" gamers are, similarly, people I have only encountered in forums, not among gamers I have met in real life in school, stores, or at conventions.

I've been gaming for a very long time, since 1977 with OD&D -- and more or less continuously since 1980. In terms of campaigns I have played (many sessions, 15+ as part of a long-term campaign) I have played in a lot over the years. There are many more one-off or 2/3 session palate cleanser games over the course of time than are listed below -- typically between AD&D, RM, D&D, or PF campaigns. Where there is an asterisk, I have played/run in multiple campaigns over the years:

AD&D *
Traveller *
Gamma World
Top Secret
Call of Cthulhu *
James Bond 007
Rolemaster *
SpaceMaster *
Stormbringer
GURPS
D&D 3.x *
LUG Star Trek
PF1 *
Star Wars: Saga Ed
Starfinder
PF2 *
5e *
Mutants & Masterminds
Runequest

Of those which received hardcore continuous play over a ~ 5 year span or more? AD&D 1st ed, Rolemaster, D&D 3.x, PF1. The ones which weave in and out most often are Call of Cthulhu and Traveller.

It's clear that FRPG is my genre of preference, but I'm not tied to the D&D brand. I stopped AD&D from 1984 through 2000 -- when we were neck deep in Rolemaster and eschewed 1st/2nd ed. Indeed, I only played 2nd ed at conventions or as a CRPG, never in a home game campaign. We sat out 2nd ed in its entirety. It was 3rd edition which brought us back into the D&D fold, as it were.

I guess the bottom line is that I don't have much of a point of reference with those who don't have similar experiences. All of the people I have met -- including everyone I game with remotely online over the past decade have similar past RPG experiences. So.... seeing people double-down on the "I only play D&D" here is more than a little odd to me.

Think it's more a general observation. I'll play other RPGs but I can't find the ones I want to play so basically have to convince the D&D group tonplay something else occasionally.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Think it's more a general observation. I'll play other RPGs but I can't find the ones I want to play so basically have to convince the D&D group tonplay something else occasionally.

I guess, looking back at that list and looking at the years I spent playing, even then, it was Rolemaster 10+years, PF1, 10+ years vs. 1st ed (4) 3.x (7) and 5e (1).

That makes me a true outlier I guess.

 

[MGibster]

I happen to think D&D doesn't actually have lore or worldbuilding with mass appeal, and that in a market already exposed to prestige fantasy properties like House of the Dragon and even Rings of Power, anything uniquely and distinctly D&D will come across goofy and cartoonish. But this definitely seems like an attempt to get into the big leagues, tightening up the brand identity while turning their tabletop gamers into focus groups and hype ambassadors.

Several D&D novels have made the New York Times bestseller lists in years past. That's what I call good evidence in favor of mass appeal. The basic plot of the original Ravenloft module would make a fantastic movie. Francis Ford Coppala's Bram Stoker's Dracula even used the same plot device with Mina being a reincarnation of Dracula's old love.

I don't think D&D has been bad for the hobby, and I think the OGL has been good in giving people a common system (which makes things pretty easy). Ending the OGL is, I believe, bad for the hobby.

D&D itself isn't the problem, it's the over reliance of the RPG ecosystem on D&D that's the problem. The fact that ending the OGL is such a big problem for so many publishers is good evidence that the overwhelming dominance of D&D is a bad thing. If D&D was just a big fish, this wouldn't be such a problem, but since D&D is the industry that's why we're in this situation now. Ending the OGL is bad for the hobby, sure, but it's bad for the hobby because it isn't healthy to have one company be the hobby.

The "I only play D&D" gamers are, similarly, people I have only encountered in forums, not among gamers I have met in real life in school, stores, or at conventions.

I've sometimes had a hell of a time finding anyone willing to play something besides D&D. When third edition was first released, I could find tons of D&D players, but most people weren't interested in other games. I did find others who were willing to play a variety of games, some of whom I still game with today, but the D&D only crowd most definitely exists. And very often when I do get them to play another game, they just end up treating it as if they were playing D&D.

And I want to be clear, I'm not knocking those who choose to just play D&D. If that's how they want to spend their free time, then who am I to say they're doing something wrong?

 

[cbwjm]

Well with all the people apparently willing to jump ship over the OGL changes, perhaps there will be a surge in non-dnd rpgs for people to play.

As an aside, why are people afraid of WotC trying to control how people play the game? I figure the only way to do that would be to release digital only and even then, you'd be able to use the digital books for a pen & paper game.

 

[MGibster]

Well with all the people apparently willing to jump ship over the OGL changes, perhaps there will be a surge in non-dnd rpgs for people to play.

I don't know if the timing is just a coincidence, but apparently Pinnacle Entertainment Group is launching their own Savage Universe.

SavageUniverse.com - SavageUniverse.com

savageuniverse.com

 

[Steel_Wind]

Well with all the people apparently willing to jump ship over the OGL changes, perhaps there will be a surge in non-dnd rpgs for people to play.

As an aside, why are people afraid of WotC trying to control how people play the game? I figure the only way to do that would be to release digital only and even then, you'd be able to use the digital books for a pen & paper game.

Because when it comes to VTT software -- the amount of time it takes and the sheer number of people involved in a community like Foundry VTT leverages the large hold that D&D has on the hobby. I think the userbase for Foundry is about ~60% 5e 25% PF2, with the rest taken up by, well, a few hundred systems in various states of playability. And that's in a VTT where PF2 has a very large presence (it has almost none at all on Roll20 and FG).

That community depends on 5e sales to make the whole thing go vroom-vroom. So when it comes to economies of scale necessary to get premium bells and whistles in VTT software products, the D&D brand has, so far at least, been necessary.

Now, as it so happens, Foundry VTT is probably big enough now -- and its PF2 system is so polished, that it will likely survive and that will probably be enough to last through what seems to be a threatened interregnum. But it's by no means a sure thing.

It seems evident from your comment you still think of gaming as something you do in person at the table. The trend line there is firmly against that view surviving this decade. Indeed, that is probably the #1 reason why we find ourselves here at this juncture right now; because it will soon no longer be true.