D&D General What is Good for D&D ... is Good for the RPG Hobby- Thoughts?

[Ruin Explorer]

For that reason, I think it's helpful to consider (5), The Greater D&D Universe, when discussing "D&D."

I think when you define D&D this way, which is fine, then sure the answer is "yes".

But if you define D&D as "WotC D&D", then the answer is much less clear, I'd suggest. Indeed one could make a reasonable case that it wasn't consistently true.

I'd be more pragmatic about D&D being the 800lb Owlbear in the room if it was capable of delivering a fuller, richer experience than what has become D&D-fantasy. If there's going to be one game that in-the-darkness-binds-them, it would need to be a more complete (complete, not complicated) rule set with either better settings or better world-building tools.

I'm ambivalent at best about D&D. Sure, it's the hook and line but these days I think it's also the sinker.

I think this is a major issue.

On of the big problems with D&D (and this does apply to PF2 etc.) is that it's complex and clunky, and really a bit old-fashioned in a not a very good way. I'm not sure it remains as a particularly great introduction to RPGs,

 

[Aldarc]

That could be, I just wasn't aware of them!

• Apocalypse World (2008) -> Powered by the Apocalypse
• Trail of Cthulhu (2009)
• Fiasco (2009)
• Pathfinder 1e (2009)
• Cortex Plus (2009) -> Cortex Prime
• Dragon AGE RPG (2010) -> AGE System
• Stars Without Number 1e (2010)
• The One Ring RPG (2011)
• Dungeon Crawl Classics (2012)
• Star Wars: Edge of the Empire (2012) -> Genesys System
• Fate Core (2013)
• Torchbearer (2013)
• Numenera (2013) -> Cypher System
• Mutant: Year Zero (2014) -> Free League's MYO Engine
• Shadow of the Demon Lord (2015)
• Mutant Chronicles (2015) -> 2d20 System

I'm sure that there are plenty more. But many systems that commonly get mentioned, almost with the exception of Blades in the Dark (a PbtA inspired spin-off), came from this era.

I also agree with Snarf that a lot of games sold under different names and by different companies, more or less are D&D. Just with different skins on. When you get past the superficialities of what dice they use or how they distribute skill checks, abilities and so on, the tabletop experience is not particularly distinct. So this limits the incentive to switch games, because really, you are just having to learn new rules to play more D&D, except maybe with a space setting or a cosmic horror theme or whatever. That can be fun, and I love me a good game of Call of Cthulhu myself. But I don't think it's enough to drive a big D&D exodus.

Step 1: Minimize the creativity and work of other game designers by convincing everyone that most other games are just D&D with a different slab of paint regardless of different mechanics.
Step 2: Tell everyone that they are better off playing D&D.
Step 3: The rising tide continues only lifting D&D's boat.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes, there's also the exposure, but as one example I remember discussing a co-worker's WoD campaign and ... it just wouldn't have worked for me like D&D does. If other games work for you, fantastic. I'm not going to tell you that Cthulhu is a bad game just because it doesn't work for me, I'm just going to say that the premise and style doesn't work for me.

That's fine but I think there's an assumption among a lot of people, especially at D&D-centric websites like this, that D&D is the system/style/premise that works best for "most people", and at 44, after 30+ years of gaming with all sorts of people, I just definitely don't think that can be treated as a fact. I strongly suspect something less combat-oriented, less crunchy, and less medieval-fantasy-ish would probably work better for most people if it was presented to as many people as D&D, certainly in 2023. I also suspect that even in, say, 1994, had, say, the WoD got the same mainstream exposure that D&D got, things might look pretty different right now.

 

[dave2008]

• Apocalypse World (2008) -> Powered by the Apocalypse
• Trail of Cthulhu (2009)
• Fiasco (2009)
• Pathfinder 1e (2009)
• Cortex Plus (2009) -> Cortex Prime
• Dragon AGE RPG (2010) -> AGE System
• Stars Without Number 1e (2010)
• The One Ring RPG (2011)
• Dungeon Crawl Classics (2012)
• Star Wars: Edge of the Empire (2012) -> Genesys System
• Fate Core (2013)
• Torchbearer (2013)
• Numenera (2013) -> Cypher System
• Mutant: Year Zero (2014) -> Free League's MYO Engine
• Shadow of the Demon Lord (2015)

I'm sure that there are plenty more. But many systems that commonly get mentioned, almost with the exception of Blades in the Dark (a PbtA inspired spin-off), came from this era.

I thought you said indie games. I don't consider many of those indie games. I am familiar with many of them, though honestly my sense of time is really messed up form the past 2.5 years of mess.

 

[Aldarc]

I thought you said indie games. I don't consider many of those indie games. I am familiar with many of them, though honestly my sense of time is really messed up form the past 2.5 years of mess.

Separate sentences/thoughts. Indie designers said that 4e was the best thing that happened to them. AND lots of creative, innovative games came out during that time.

Edit: Also added Mutant Chronicles (2d20 system), which came out during that time.

 

[dave2008]

Separate sentences/thoughts. Indie designers said that 4e was the best thing that happened to them. AND lots of creative, innovative games came out during that time.

OK I understand now. That very well may be true, I am again less familiar with completely new systems during the 5e run (though more familiar than I was during 4e as I was more focused on 4e than what others were doing). However, the innovation applied to 5e and 5e adjacent systems is quite staggering.

 

[overgeeked]

However, the innovation applied to 5e and 5e adjacent systems is quite staggering.

Not compared to the innovation applied to games outside the 5E bubble.

 

[Scribe]

Not compared to the innovation applied to games outside the 5E bubble.

Right, but whats the barrier to entry on those outside the bubble, vs within it?

 

[dave2008]

Not compared to the innovation applied to games outside the 5E bubble.

That could be, but I am more interested in what one can do in the bubble.

I am an architect, I deal with building codes and physics. I am inclined to be more interested in what one can do within constraints than what one can do without them. How far can we push that cantilevered floor and such.

 

[Aldarc]

OK I understand now. That very well may be true, I am again less familiar with completely new systems during the 5e run (though more familiar than I was during 4e as I was more focused on 4e than what others were doing).

The same, but this really only became obvious for me in retrospect when I noticed how a lot of game systems that get discussed now initially came from this time in one form or another.

However, the innovation applied to 5e and 5e adjacent systems is quite staggering.

I thought the same during the d20 system era when all I knew was what was in the d20 system bubble.

Right, but whats the barrier to entry on those outside the bubble, vs within it?

The main barrier seems to be the Sunk Cost Fallacy and the prejudice that learning other systems takes anywhere as long to learn as D&D.