dragoner
KosmicRPG.com
Supposedly Bunkie Knudsen said it to Eisenhower, and Ike rejected the idea, all must serve the people. In following, it's the people that are important to the hobby, not the corporations.
D&D General What is Good for D&D ... is Good for the RPG Hobby- Thoughts?
- Thread starter Snarf Zagyg
- Start date
MichaelSomething
Legend
there's plenty of cool TTRPGs out there if you're willing to look!
Like Convictor Drive!!
Or Thirsty Sword Lesbians!
and Monster Hearts!
buriedwithoutceremony.com
Like Convictor Drive!!
Or Thirsty Sword Lesbians!
and Monster Hearts!
Monsterhearts 2 - Buried Without Ceremony
A roleplaying game about the messy lives of teenage monsters. Create stories about sexy monsters, teenage angst, personal horror, and secret love triangles.
buriedwithoutceremony.com
Aldarc
Legend
I don't think that there is a singular meta-narrative here. However, I think that one of the side-effects that 4e D&D (and Pathfinder 1) had on the market was that it caused players to look around for alternative games and game designers to create alternatives. For whatever their reasons, there were a number of designers/publishers who didn't bother designing for 4e and, instead, created their own games.
Some of these games came from people who were on the D&D Next team (e.g., Monte Cook, Rob Schwalb) or even past 3e/4e lead designers (e.g., Tweet & Heinsoo). So there was partially a "how I'd do it..." feeling from a lot of the d20-based games, which was also true for Joseph Goodman's DCC.
From what I heard, Vincent Baker partially designed Apocalypse World in response to how players would play d20 system style skill checks (e.g., "I roll Perception" rather than fiction-first approaches). It was also designed to accomodate his wife Meguey Baker's more free form roleplaying style. But some fairly indie creators - Vincent Baker (Apocalypse World), Evil Hat Productions (Fate), Cam Banks (Cortex Plus) - were mostly doing their own thing regardless of what the Dragon Game was doing.
It's also worth pointing out that the OSR movement, which had already begun during the 3e period (e.g., Castles & Crusaders, OSRIC, etc.), began to explode with retroclones following Swords & Wizardry (2008) by Matt Finch. A lot of this was came from a general dissatisfaction with the direction that WotC was taking the game, starting in 3e, since many wanted to keep playing their TSR dragon games of "old." Ironically, Matt Finch's article "A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming" (2008) also signalled a move to "philosophical OSR" or "Nu-OSR" territory, at least as it was picked by some OSR enthusiasts. This is where OSR-inspired games like Torchbearer (2013), Dungeon World (2012), or Into the Odd (2015) come into the picture.
There was simply a LOT of design going on during this time frame (i.e., 2008 - 2015).
In terms of designers looking at 4e for inspiration? It has really only happened within the past five or so years that designers have openly cited 4e D&D as inspiration for their games: e.g., Lancer/Icon, Beacon, Fabula Ultima, Gubat Banwa, etc. That is partially the result of the Edition Wars dying down (though some still beat that dead horse) and hobbyists looking back at 4e with fresh eyes or detached retrospection about what sort of games that it did well.
It's honestly one reason that the OGL fiasco actually gave me hope. I never once had the silly notion that D&D would be dethroned as king of the hobby, but, rather, I hoped that would we see a similar creative period re-emerge. I'm dismayed that with so many people running back into the arms of WotC to kiss their royal ring, that all this talk of designers and hobbyists making their own game will likely die in favor of continuing to feed the overfed Dragon Game since that is where the money is.
All this brings us back round to the original question: "Is what is good for D&D "good" for the hobby?" Maybe we should first ask these as separate questions: (1) "What is good for D&D?" and (2) "What is good for the TTRPG hobby?" Or even ask this question in reverse: "Is what's good for the hobby good for D&D?"
I sometimes feel that original question is often asked to justify the continued existence and divine right of the Hobbesian Leviathan (i.e., D&D) to rule and to put other non-D&D games "in their place."
Last edited:
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
It's one of those quotes that people use to mean one thing, and it's famous for that, even though the actual use was different (which is why I caveated it). It's similar to Pauline Kael's quote about Nixon in that way.
Anyway, it Charles Wilson, and it wasn't to Ike, it was to a Senate Committee, and the context was that it was with regard to a conflict of interest; specifically, Wilson was holding on to GM stock despite being proposed (and then confirmed) as Sec'y of Defense.
So it was a weird way of saying that he couldn't imagine a conflict (have to sell his stock). But the actual quote is different. Anyway, much like "Play it again Sam," the idea of what was said was better.
dragoner
KosmicRPG.com
Apocryphal iirc it was Knudsen up for sec. of transportation; though I think it was repeated to show Ike's "yardstick" of how he measured everything by what was good for the people vs corporate America. Not that he was a brilliant angel or something, as fascism was very corporate as well, so for them it was easy to reject. Now with "greed is good" corporatism has returned, nowhere more obvious than with wotc, and the current tussle. However, even business 101 says people will look for substitutes, so it is up to dnd to keep itself relevant, not the other way around.It's one of those quotes that people use to mean one thing, and it's famous for that, even though the actual use was different (which is why I caveated it). It's similar to Pauline Kael's quote about Nixon in that way.
Anyway, it Charles Wilson, and it wasn't to Ike, it was to a Senate Committee, and the context was that it was with regard to a conflict of interest; specifically, Wilson was holding on to GM stock despite being proposed (and then confirmed) as Sec'y of Defense.
So it was a weird way of saying that he couldn't imagine a conflict (have to sell his stock). But the actual quote is different. Anyway, much like "Play it again Sam," the idea of what was said was better.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Charles Erwin Wilson - Wikipedia
Wilson's nomination sparked a controversy that erupted during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, based on his large share ownership in General Motors. Reluctant to sell the stock, valued at the time at more than $2.5 million (or about $24 million in 2018), Wilson agreed to do so under committee pressure. During the hearings, when asked if he could make a decision as Secretary of Defense that would be adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered affirmatively. But he added that he could not conceive of such a situation "because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa." That statement has frequently been misquoted as "What's good for General Motors is good for the country." Although Wilson tried for years to correct the misquote, he was reported at the time of his retirement in 1957 to have accepted the popular impression.
I think that we are getting too far into politics, but I will briefly say that the "greed is good" corporatism of the 1980s is different than what we see today.
When I wrote a post (partly tongue in cheek, and requiring an explainer!) about selling out-
D&D 5E - Sell Out: Hasbro and the Soul of D&D
Well I know you can't work in indie games all your life But don't sign that paper tonight The lawyer said "But it's too late" The recent announcement that D&D had been promoted within Hasbro has been met with various degrees of happiness and/or skepticism; admittedly, "D&D" itself has not been...
www.enworld.org
D&D 5E - The Pitfalls of Success: Hasbro Success Story, Take 2
Most of the time, I just let a post out and see where the conversation goes; rarely does it seem so many misunderstand what I wrote (albeit @Mistwell got it pretty quickly). Admittedly, a fair number of people commented based on the title without reading the piece, but then again, it did have...
www.enworld.org
A common response was that I just didn't get it, and that it was totally cool and acceptable today to sell out to "The Man" (aka, corporations).
Comes to mind, because I ended the posts with the following questions-
What I Assumed Were Interesting Issues for Discussion:
1. Will "D&D" be a good managed brand? Is D&D the type of IP that Hasbro will be able to successfully mine like the DCEU and Marvel in a happy, profit-maximizing, cross-media synergizing, shareholder-pleasing way?
2. Now that Hasbro has elevated the D&D and MtG (WoTC) "brands" into a new division (along with digital licensing), what types of products do you expect to see?
3. What concerns, if any, do you have about the need for even more performance from D&D? Is this a permanent change that Hasbro should be counting on for continued meteoric growth, or is this a reflection of unique factors, such as the Pandemic and the success of certain streaming shows (similar to the late 70s and early 80s having unique circumstances) that will cause the growth to dissipate?
dragoner
KosmicRPG.com
The greed is good set do look at selling out as a positive, read generation of swine, is it legs mcneil? Anyways, I saw a copy of protocols with a foreword by ford in a museum exhibit, so I doubt anyone there had little doubts, hell, the bush grandfather was named in the trading with the enemy act, and he used to golf with ike.Charles Erwin Wilson - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Wilson's nomination sparked a controversy that erupted during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, based on his large share ownership in General Motors. Reluctant to sell the stock, valued at the time at more than $2.5 million (or about $24 million in 2018), Wilson agreed to do so under committee pressure. During the hearings, when asked if he could make a decision as Secretary of Defense that would be adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered affirmatively. But he added that he could not conceive of such a situation "because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa." That statement has frequently been misquoted as "What's good for General Motors is good for the country." Although Wilson tried for years to correct the misquote, he was reported at the time of his retirement in 1957 to have accepted the popular impression.
I think that we are getting too far into politics, but I will briefly say that the "greed is good" corporatism of the 1980s is different than what we see today.
When I wrote a post (partly tongue in cheek, and requiring an explainer!) about selling out-
D&D 5E - Sell Out: Hasbro and the Soul of D&D
Well I know you can't work in indie games all your life But don't sign that paper tonight The lawyer said "But it's too late" The recent announcement that D&D had been promoted within Hasbro has been met with various degrees of happiness and/or skepticism; admittedly, "D&D" itself has not been...D&D 5E - The Pitfalls of Success: Hasbro Success Story, Take 2
Most of the time, I just let a post out and see where the conversation goes; rarely does it seem so many misunderstand what I wrote (albeit @Mistwell got it pretty quickly). Admittedly, a fair number of people commented based on the title without reading the piece, but then again, it did have...
A common response was that I just didn't get it, and that it was totally cool and acceptable today to sell out to "The Man" (aka, corporations).
Comes to mind, because I ended the posts with the following questions-
What I Assumed Were Interesting Issues for Discussion:
1. Will "D&D" be a good managed brand? Is D&D the type of IP that Hasbro will be able to successfully mine like the DCEU and Marvel in a happy, profit-maximizing, cross-media synergizing, shareholder-pleasing way?
2. Now that Hasbro has elevated the D&D and MtG (WoTC) "brands" into a new division (along with digital licensing), what types of products do you expect to see?
3. What concerns, if any, do you have about the need for even more performance from D&D? Is this a permanent change that Hasbro should be counting on for continued meteoric growth, or is this a reflection of unique factors, such as the Pandemic and the success of certain streaming shows (similar to the late 70s and early 80s having unique circumstances) that will cause the growth to dissipate?
There is nothing good about any of it, and I don't trust a word for sure:
Clint_L
Hero
1. I think that D&D certainly has a lot of untapped potential, but because it isn't as character-driven, in terms of having broadly recognized IP, it does not have the inherent synergy that a comix company has with media. It's a fantasy game, but on screen the game part is lost and so what you really get is a rather generic style of fantasy. Basically, they are hoping that the movie will create the IP needed to power a franchise. Lotta eggs in that basket! Maybe they should try to purchase Critical Role (just kidding; I don't want them to do this).
2. Any media deal that they can get a major corporation to sign. Kind of like TSR in the 80s but with more muscle, given that Hasbro is no stranger to these sorts of deals and D&D is more marketable. Edit: also, they won't be relying on Gary Gygax who, to put it charitably, found himself very smitten with what we shall discreetly call a "Hollywood lifestyle."
3. I personally am not that invested, because the game always goes through ebbs and flows, none of which particularly affects me. In a broad sense, I think the growth of D&D/RPGs is just generally good for humanity, so I want it to do well. But continued meteoric growth is an unreasonable objective. I expect it to contract in the near term and then hopefully shift to managed growth.
Last edited:
MichaelSomething
Legend
I also have a tweet for this situation...
EthanSental
Hero
I guess the take away for those starving indie devs mentioned in the tweet….create a 5e based game for money to then help fund their individual game creation?
MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Most of my TTRPG time is spend running 5e. But when I want to try a different system, I like to try something VERY different than D&D. As someone else mentioned above, even different core mechanics don't appreciably change the general experience for me with most systems. For example of one recent game, The Expanse uses very different rules to give a more theatrical, episodic style of play (I believe it is based off the FATE system). And, of course, the theme and setting is very different than typical D&D games. But, really, it still feels very D&D like to me. I feel that I could get a similar experience playing Starfinder. Others will argue with me strongly on this point, but in so many of the TTRPGs I play, I could just swap the mechanics. I don't feel that they create a very different play experience.
Which is why games like Dialect, Where Is Alice, or InSPECTREs really grab me as the play experience is so different.
And I've recently come to another realization, these "way-out-there", highly niche (from the typical TTRPG fan perspective) are MUCH better systems to bring brand new people into the hobby. I have to live with colleagues at work for weeks at a time overseas. There is a group of us that play a lot of board games. But they are not interested in D&D. But we have a pretty sizable and regular group that plays Werewolf (the party game, not the WoD TTRPG). That's a big step closer. From there, I'm sure I could get them to play InSPECTREs for a session. Dialect would interest a good number, especially given that it is is a very multilingual group with a lot of language geeks. Then ease them into Dread, which would be another easy sell, I think.
From there, it is a small jump to a more traditional but rules light TTRPG system (still thinking what that should be, maybe Awfully Cheerful Engine or Gumshoe?). THEN I might be able to have enough folks conditioned to play a more crunchy, long-form, TTRPG like D&D, FATE, Cortex, etc. Anyway, this is my diabolical plan to convert my colleagues into TTRPG fans and save myself from another night of Settlers of Catan.
My point is, I feel that D&D is this very large bubble, but it is still a bubble. There is still a barrier to entry that keeps a larger majority from even dipping their toes into the hobby. The best argument I have for people to expand their experience with other systems, especially those that are radically different from D&D is that you have more tools to bring in a wider group of people into the hobby. Take a break from the polyhedral dice and hundreds of pages of core rules now and then. If you can learn to enjoy games with fun mechanics, whose rules take up less space than many board games (or even fit on a single page in some cases), you'll be able to find many players to play with--outside of the D&D bubble.
Which is why games like Dialect, Where Is Alice, or InSPECTREs really grab me as the play experience is so different.
And I've recently come to another realization, these "way-out-there", highly niche (from the typical TTRPG fan perspective) are MUCH better systems to bring brand new people into the hobby. I have to live with colleagues at work for weeks at a time overseas. There is a group of us that play a lot of board games. But they are not interested in D&D. But we have a pretty sizable and regular group that plays Werewolf (the party game, not the WoD TTRPG). That's a big step closer. From there, I'm sure I could get them to play InSPECTREs for a session. Dialect would interest a good number, especially given that it is is a very multilingual group with a lot of language geeks. Then ease them into Dread, which would be another easy sell, I think.
From there, it is a small jump to a more traditional but rules light TTRPG system (still thinking what that should be, maybe Awfully Cheerful Engine or Gumshoe?). THEN I might be able to have enough folks conditioned to play a more crunchy, long-form, TTRPG like D&D, FATE, Cortex, etc. Anyway, this is my diabolical plan to convert my colleagues into TTRPG fans and save myself from another night of Settlers of Catan.
My point is, I feel that D&D is this very large bubble, but it is still a bubble. There is still a barrier to entry that keeps a larger majority from even dipping their toes into the hobby. The best argument I have for people to expand their experience with other systems, especially those that are radically different from D&D is that you have more tools to bring in a wider group of people into the hobby. Take a break from the polyhedral dice and hundreds of pages of core rules now and then. If you can learn to enjoy games with fun mechanics, whose rules take up less space than many board games (or even fit on a single page in some cases), you'll be able to find many players to play with--outside of the D&D bubble.
Aldarc
Legend
The Expanse RPG is based on Modern AGE, which uses Green Ronin's AGE System, first developed for the Dragon Age RPG (2010). It's not exactly a coincidence that "it still feels very D&D like." History lesson time.
Chris Pramas began work on the Dragon Age RPG in 2007 when BioWare approached Green Ronin about making a tabletop RPG for their unreleased and still in-development Dragon Age: Origins game. The date is important because one of Green Ronin's major product lines at the time was True 20 (2005), which was a generic toolkit d20 system that spun-off from Blue Rose RPG (2005) by Jeremy Crawford, Steve Kenson, John Snead, and Dawn Elliot. I say this because you can see a lot of the design DNA from True 20 in the AGE system, though modified for (a) a 3d6 dice resolution system, and (b) a Dragon Age TTRPG adaptation. (There are some Warhammer Fantasy RP influences too, but that's indebted to Chris Pramas, who was also the designer of WHFP 2e.) Support for the True 20 system stopped and AGE became the new flagship lines alongside Mutants & Masterminds.
But Chris Pramas's goals was to make a RPG that was easy to learn and get started in, which is one reason why it uses 3d6 and feels simplified when compared to 3e D&D (or even 5e D&D). The GM's authority and responsibilities is much the same as in D&D or other trad games, so that is a big step in making the game feel familiar to people who are used to D&D.
Since Dragon Age RPG, Green Ronin used the system for a more generic fantasy game system: Fantasy AGE (2017). This then spawned the classless Modern AGE game, which was the basis for the Expanse RPG. From what I recall, the Expanse novels actually started as co-author Ty Franck's d20 Modern (d20 Future) homebrew and hacked game. So the move from d20 Modern to Modern AGE is hardly a big step considering their shared roots in the d20 system.
All that said, I can personally vouch for the success of Chris Pramas's design goals with the AGE System. My non-TTRPG gaming partner and some of my neophyte gamer friends absolutely bounced hard off 5e D&D, but they found Fantasy AGE so much easier to learn and fun to play. My partner has even asked if we could play it again once we try a few other games that have been on our list (e.g., Numenera, Fate, The One Ring, Avatar Legends, etc.). This is all, of course, anecdotal, but from what I have seen through running a number of other groups, the AGE System succeeds at Chris Pramas's design goals. It's not perfect. No game is. But if I can play something that "still feels very D&D like" while also playing something that my partner and table finds more enoyable and easier to learn than D&D 5e, then MAZEL TOV! to everyone.
Thomas Shey
Legend
If you don't mind a question, what level did you folks play up to? While the group I ran Dragon Age for quite liked some elements, we found it started to break horribly about level 8, and my reading of FAGE didn't suggest it was going to avoid the same problems.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Should I produce deep, meaningful art that I want to make and fulfills me and speaks to the soul of all of us, or should I make stuff people buy? Decisions, decisions.
-Thomas Kinkade, probably.
MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Thanks for the history lesson! I love this stuff. I agree that the AGE system, or at least as it was adapted for The Expanse is easy to pickup and runs smoothly. I definitely want to try some other systems that use the AGE engine. While I like the mechanics of The Expanse and really enjoy reading through the book (big fan of the TV show, never read the books), the setting itself doesn't do much for me. I wouldn't enjoy trying to run a campaign for it. I also don't like running games in well known IPs with heavy amounts of canon, especially if the players are big fans of the setting. I'd rather take a more generic setting and make it my own. But I do like the rules.
Aldarc
Legend
I have played Fantasy AGE to about 16th level across various groups. I also ran the playtest at various levels to try things out. I don't find that the game "[breaks] horribly," though this is not to say that the game is without problems, though opinions about the problems and solutions will naturally vary with gaming preferences. I have heard that Fantasy AGE dialed down some of the problems from Dragon Age. Likewise, I do think that overall Modern AGE is a more polished product than Fantasy AGE.
I also have no idea, however, what Fantasy AGE 2e will look like, since they apparently decided to flat out call it a 2nd Edition, which they resisted doing during the initial playtest in 2020. They may make more changes than we saw then. I personally wish that Green Ronin would move towards making a more generic system, much like they did with True 20 rather than separate Fantasy Age and Modern Age lines.
Thomas Shey
Legend
My read of Modern AGE was at least the problems would be far less severe. I was interested in your experience with Fantasy AGE because a similar read did not suggest the problems would be reduced much. Thanks for the response.
Yeah, I'm not clear what purpose the separate games are doing, per se.
Aldarc
Legend
You may find this Fantasy AGE 2E preview article interesting in light of your earlier question: "Fantasy Age 2nd Edition Preview: Advancement and Damage!"
wicked cool
Adventurer
D&D is the big fish/shark in the ocean. Pathfinder and some others are not as big and could survive without the shark but are never going to be dominate
The rest are the examples of mutualism. The small ones produce a product that can be used with d&d and d&d benefits from more exposure
The rest are the examples of mutualism. The small ones produce a product that can be used with d&d and d&d benefits from more exposure
Similar Threads
