The State of Our Hobby

Wisdom Penalty said:
I'm somewhat disappointed - not despondent, but getting there - about the current state of our beloved hobby. It seems to me that we're watching the customer base of D&D fracture into so many smaller parts. This belief stems from the numerous D&D derivatives and editions that are being played - 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, 3.75E, True20, Microlite d20, D6, Conan, Black Company, Iron Heroes, Arcana Unearthed, etc.

You list D6 in your countdown of D&D derivatives; if you mean this game, it's not a d20 derivative; far from it. It's descended from West End Games' original Star Wars RPG.

As for your general point -- I'm not seriously concerned. My hobby is gaming, not (just) D&D. There's always been a variety of RPG systems aside from D&D; indeed, I've probably played more non-D&D than D&D, given that I didn't play D&D for 13-14 years, and was an active gamer the whole time.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wisdom Penalty said:
There will always be splinter groups.

Based on my own (by definition, limited) experience, every group is a splinter group. Every single group is different to one degree or another from every other group. The house rules are a bit different. The play styles are different. The environment is different. The goals are different. The social mores are different. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. :)

For me, the most basic problem with the "hobby" per se is the search for the "one true system" that everyone will use. Ryan Dancy had this idea and the OGL was one means of achieving it. It failed in that purpose, not because the OGL was inherently flawed (though it does have flaws), but because people and groups are not all the same.

The success of RPG's will depend on what it's always depended on - how well those who want to engage in this hobby can play the kinds of games they want to play. The future of the hobby, IMO, lies not in one dominant game, that requires significant effort and time from GM's and players to adapt to their needs, but in a game system that allows any group to easily play the kind of game they want. Since I suspect such a system is decades away (if ever), the next best thing is a plethora of good systems. We need games that make it worth our time and effort to play them.

Yes, multiple systems can make it harder to find players, but consider - players often have good reasons why they stick to one system. Most often, it takes too much time and effort to learn multiple systems. But maybe they've tried other systems which don't really fit their play style or match what they want out of a game. Maybe they're on a budget and can't afford to buy multiple rulebooks. Whatever the individual reason, the game has to meet the needs of the gamers, not the other way around. And no game, most definitely not DnD, meets every gamer's needs.

If this hobby survives another generation, it will do so by becoming less centralized and more flexible, recognizing that every single gamer and every single gaming group is different.
 


Wisdom Penalty said:
First, I think many of the splintered groups will eventually return home (in this case - return to 4E), much as has occurred in the past whenever we've entered the Time of Troubles.

Home? 4E is NOT my home. I don't even consider it to be D&D. It is some other system with the D&D logo slapped onto it. 4E is not only not my home, it's not even my outhouse. It's not even on my property.

Wisdom Penalty said:
Second, I think the acrimony and declarations for different systems is a natural response to change - especially when that change is not properly marketed, explained, and demonstrated prior to its implementation.

Or, maybe people think that the "new and improved!" features being touted are not actually improvements.

Wisdom Penalty said:
Third, I believe enough of the core base will move to 4E - weakened through defections certainly -

"Defections" makes it sound like people are crossing the Berlin Wall or something. :)

Wisdom Penalty said:
I want the new edition to succeed. We should all want this new edition to succeed. I know that's hard to say if you dislike what you've seen of 4E, but - for the hobby as a whole - it must be a success, for all those reasons I outlined above.

At this point, I totally disagree. The best thing for D&D is for 4E to crash and burn and for Hasbro to close its D&D division. The game needs to return to the garages and basements of hobbyists. D&D is about the imagination, and the worst enemy of the human imagination is a Marketing Department. In my opinion, D&D was at its best when its publisher was the least corporate (OD&D 1974), and at its worst now that the publisher is at its most corporate.
 


Ranger REG said:
I want them to succeed. I'm just not there yet. I just hope 4e is still around 2010.


That's the beautiful part about where we are now.

I mean, would it have really sucked to have skipped Sword and Fist and Defenders of the Faith and gone straight to Complete Warrior, the 3.5 PHB, ad Spell Compendium?

I can play my existing game for the next year or two, with Paizo support, and wait for the most serious issues with 4.X to be resolved.

Ken
 

Wisdom Penalty said:
I'm somewhat disappointed - not despondent, but getting there - about the current state of our beloved hobby. It seems to me that we're watching the customer base of D&D fracture into so many smaller parts. This belief stems from the numerous D&D derivatives and editions that are being played - 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, 3.75E, True20, Microlite d20, D6, Conan, Black Company, Iron Heroes, Arcana Unearthed, etc. More distressing, of course, is the acrimony that seems to be accompanying the splintering.

On the surface, a list of similar but diversified products may appear appealing to the end consumer. It gives everyone options.

Likewise, on the surface, it shouldn't matter to me what the gaming group down the street is playing. Let them play whatever they enjoy. If that's a move to 4E, great! If that's sticking with 3.0E, great!

But I think both of those thoughts are myopic. I don't think our industry has the clout to withstand so many derivatives. As someone posted in another thread, these games - regardless of the edition/type - are games you play with other people. There needs to be some shared understandings, some norms, between us gamers. Further, the end consumer gains his power via numbers - companies that produce the material we use to game listen to us because we (supposedly) vote with our dollars. Each time our base breaks into a splinter group, we lessen our ability to propel the game forward in a manner that pleases the majority.

There will always be splinter groups. I understand it. I get it. There are people that play oD&D and 1E like their lives depend on it. I think that's fascinating and extremely cool. But the types of divisions we're discussing now seem to be much more far-reaching than iconoclast groups that stick with an older edition irrespective of the marketplace.

I vividly remember the unfortunate era of D&D when everything was collapsing. I skipped 2E all together, as did many, many others. WotC saved our game. 3E saved our game. We were very close to having our hobby become a punchline for a 1980s Trival Pursuit game. I don't want to go back into such a dark age in the hopes we get another miracle.

So, those are the reasons I'm worried and the reasons why I feel such worries are pertinent to everyone who picks up a d20. I wish I could convey my sentiments better but I'm not finding it too easy to do so.

I do, however, have some things that keep me hopeful.

First, I think many of the splintered groups will eventually return home (in this case - return to 4E), much as has occurred in the past whenever we've entered the Time of Troubles.

Second, I think the acrimony and declarations for different systems is a natural response to change - especially when that change is not properly marketed, explained, and demonstrated prior to its implementation.

Third, I believe enough of the core base will move to 4E - weakened through defections certainly - that, when coupled with new players, will ensure our hobby maintains its forward progress. Getting new players is extremely important to us - or it should be. We're a dying breed. If 4E had a mentality to "get new players, even at the risk of alienating some long time fans" then...that's unfortunate, but - if successful - it's also justified.

Fourth, I think we - meaning those of us that come to this messageboard and others like it - are a very, very small fraction of the base. I have two different groups of eight players, and not one of them - not one - visits EN World. (Their loss, I know.) They only know about it because of me. Nor do they know about Green Ronin, Necromancer, Paizo, etc. Hell, I bet some think D&D is still under TSR. And these aren't stupid people; they have wives and kids and jobs, and they're only concerned with the game itself and having fun. In many ways, I envy them.

Fifth, I think the most vocal of us who declare our undying loyalty to one game system or one edition are a fraction of the above fraction. I think our best and brightest are those lurkers who casually review the boards, but refrain from engaging in the often antagonistic and unwinnable verbal sparring that occurs. More power to them.

I guess what I'm saying is I want this all to pass. I want the new edition to succeed. We should all want this new edition to succeed. I know that's hard to say if you dislike what you've seen of 4E, but - for the hobby as a whole - it must be a success, for all those reasons I outlined above.

W.P.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

I think the state of our hobby is in good shape. Maybe not as good as a few years ago, but still alive and vibrant.

We have several companies making great games in response to the demands of their customers (WotC, Paizo EN Publishing, Malhavoc and WW to name but a few) ...

We have the 800 lb gorilla about to launch a new edition that will be generating new press, new gamers, new adventures and a new interest in the hobby...

We have an active, independent and creative gaming scene that pushes the envelope ...

And we are about to enter into a new era for 3rd party developer support for what will assuredly become the most popular game in the market today (i.e. 4E).

But most importantly (in my eyes at least) is that the life of the hobby is not tied to a single company or game. We have many great systems and settings available to explore by the click of a mouse. If 4E and WotC fell apart, we would still have a hobby available for us, with other publishers doing their best to fill the void. Would we be better off without WotC & D&D ? Of course not. But the hobby wouldn't die.

I mean no disrespect, but I believe your perceptions are myopic, as you equate D&D with the entire RPG industry. We (the RPG consumers) have all grown well past that, and (IMHO) its those gamers who are unable to see the forest because they are only willing to look at the D&D tree's that are doing a disservice to the industry.
 


Wisdom Penalty said:
I don't think our industry has the clout to withstand so many derivatives. As someone posted in another thread, these games - regardless of the edition/type - are games you play with other people. There needs to be some shared understandings, some norms, between us gamers. Further, the end consumer gains his power via numbers - companies that produce the material we use to game listen to us because we (supposedly) vote with our dollars. Each time our base breaks into a splinter group, we lessen our ability to propel the game forward in a manner that pleases the majority.
Here's the good news. Most gamers buy lots of crap they never use, including games they never play or only play rarely. Most gamers will also play whatever someone else happens to be willing to run. The term "splinter group" is, IMO, a non sequitur when it comes to gaming. Playing an RPG you aren't familiar with isn't like switching careers. You sit down at the table, you roll the dice the other players tell you to, you have fun, eventually you learn the rules. That's how it's always worked. That's how it's always going to work. The hobby is bigger and more popular than it was in 1978 (when I first found out about this new thing called RPGs) and we still had lots of fun playing back then, despite limited products and a much smaller pool of players.

The sky is not falling, despite what you may read on the intarblog.
 


Remove ads

Top