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...
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Upcoming Releases
-
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
