New Survey on Getting into RPGs by Necropraxis

[dbm]

What I don't like is when people use 'D&D' as a catch-all label for the entire rpg industry, disregarding all the other games out there.

That’s just how language works...

At home we hoover with our Dyson, but I am sure geeks of the subject would correctly call it ‘vacuuming’.

 

[Jetstream]

What I don't like is when people use 'D&D' as a catch-all label for the entire rpg industry, disregarding all the other games out there. That walks the line between ignorance and rudeness to me. It's a little annoying with the general public does it, but it's just plain rubbish when rpg hobby enthusiastis do it.

I’m going to think about that while I Hoover the house later. I dare say this point here shows that you have moxie.

Hope y’all don’t mind, I’m just gonna make some notes here. I should pick up some Kleenex and some cokes at the store later. Then get some Bubble Wrap so I can mail this Crock Pot later.

Yeah okay making coherent sentences is boring now, I’ll just list them. Nintendo, Aspirin, Cellophane, Astro Turf, Dry Ice, Heroin, Xerox, Kerosene, Adrenaline, Hacky Sack, Laundromat, Teleprompter, Trampoline, Band-Aid, Sellotape, Muzak, Videotape...

 

[Mankcam]

But we aren't the General Public.
We aren't like Everyone Else ...

WE... ARE... ROLE PLAYERS !!!

 

[EmperorNorton]

Actually the ones I think are most alike are D&D and Nintendo. In that almost no one who actually uses the two would ever use them as a genericized word, while people outside of it would.

Like, I think everyone just calls them bandaids for instance. Or says they are going to xerox something. Those are genericized even within their own niche.

 

[Mankcam]

'Xerox' isn't a word used for fasimilie machines everywhere, we just call them 'photo-copiers' or 'fax machines'. Although Xerox must of been prominent in the USA, as numerous movies used the term and we had to work out what they were talking about

I'll agree with 'Band-Aid' however, I've never heard of anyone cutting themselves, then yelling for someone to go grab the adhesive plasters!

 

[EmperorNorton]

Yeah, in the US, almost everyone I've ever know has used Xerox. Also:

 

[Mankcam]

Yeah, in the US, almost everyone I've ever know has used Xerox. Also:

heh heh yeah that is so absurd that it had to be real life

I think I should point out, that before I offend anybody, my own background sometimes uses words that tend to have different meanings elsewhere, especially so in the USA.
Occasionally makes things a bit tight on forums, and I keep reminding myself not to tell Americans that I love wearing thongs all summer!

Sorry for the major thread derail, but here's Margot to explain it better (although she seems to have forgotten one or two of them):



Now back to the D&D Survey discussion (wearing my thongs as I type this )

 

[robertsconley]

I don’t know - I still hold that D&D was fairly accidental in it’s success.

People forget that tabletop roleplaying was accompanied by a massive hex and counter wargaming boom that lasted to 1981. Along with the rise of video and computer games. The 70s was the era where people were looking for more sophisticated games. Within that ferment some type of game that allowed people to experience adventure in a free form manner was inevitable. But it took the work of specific individuals to get the hobby we have today. There were larger forces at play but it wasn't accidental you make it out to be.

It was a terrible system for a start, which is what gave other companies an incentive to develop new systems.

The game behind an RPG are a reflection of the author view of the reality of the setting, of course there will be differences of opinion leading to different RPGs even for the same genre.

The test whether something is a classic in the same way like chess or go is how it endures the test of time. The core of what makes D&D, D&D has persisted through several editions and remains the #1 RPG still being played. The network effect and brand name only takes you so far as the trouble of D&D 4th edition illustrates. So much of the classic game was ditched by that edition that another form of the classic game, Pathfinder was able to supplant it as the #1 RPG.

Also there is the example of the OSR, which was able to carve out a stable niche within the industry and hobby on the strength of the appeal of the classic edition directly.

The thing I think which is significant in 'D&D' is that it’s name is frequently used almost synonymously with the hobby name, ‘RPG’.

Kleenex, Velcro,etc are all brand names that became synonymous with a product type. Yet is not a given that Kleenex, Velcro, etc. are still the leading brand of that catagory. In some cases yes, and some case no. If they are then it a result of factors other than the fact they became the default label.

It may surprise you that classic D&D is not my favorite RPG, that honor goes to GURPS. For decades I played and ran fantasy campaigns using systems other than a form of D&D. But after I read up on the history of the hobby, after reading the anecdotes relayed by Gygax, Arneson, and others. I now understand better how our hobby and industry came to be. That D&D itself it not a random assemblage of ideas from Gygax and Arneson. That it was a result of over a decade of the two playing wargaming and not just playing but trying out new things and seeing how they work.

By 1972 both men were at the top of their game, Dave invented tabletop roleplaying, and with Dave's help, Gygax built on Dave's ideas and did the work to build D&D during the Greyhawk campaign. The major issue of OD&D as it was released in 1974 that it was written for the wargaming community of the early 70s. Relied on their common experience built around conventions, fanzines, and magazines. Which meant when it spread to a larger public those assumptions remained unexplained. D&D has been catching up in that department ever since. Until the rise of the OSR and the parallel rise in Historical RPG scholarship, nobody had a clear idea why thing are what why are in D&D or roleplaying in general. Now we do.

 

[robertsconley]

I think Diplomacy seems like a likely candidate to produce a mutant offspring that we could call ttrpgs. Peterson writes about political role-playing games at universities that sound not too far off from what we would consider rpgs. Considering Diplomacy's direct influence on Gygax shouldn't it be considered more significant in the development of the hobby than it is?

If Dave never ran Blackmoor I could see a series of ever more sophisticated Diplomacy style games where the central appeal is a group of players interacting verbally with each other. My personal opinion that without Blackmoor what we would gotten are much more narrowly focuses roleplaying type games. More like adventures that also included the game mechanics. The central innovation that Dave developed was the idea that if it made sense in terms of the campaign, Dave would figure out a ruling to make it happen. This lead players to trying more and more thing until the focus of Blackmoor became not fighting out the scenario but pursuing the individual goals of their characters.

Considering Diplomacy's direct influence on Gygax shouldn't it be considered more significant in the development of the hobby than it is?

From reading about it, Diplomacy was an important factor in two respects
1) Diplomacy Variants became foundation of ongoing wargame campaigns. Hobbyists of the time could see how they could use a Diplomacy variant to manage the larger picture before moving to the sand table to play out the battle.

2) An important mechanic within Diplomacy was negotiating with other players, this lead naturally to hobbyist play-acting as a leader or general. People also tried adding this to other games they played notably with great success with Wesely's Braustein.

 

[AsenRG]

(roll eyes)
I have to wonder just how many decades will have to pass for D&D before one says "You know there may something about it that just works"

*rolls eyes*
Which answer do you want, the fun one or the long one?

The fun one:
"It works? I keep hearing that it works, and yet I'm yet to see it!"

The long one:
Sure it works...for the kind of games that people ended up playing with it (which is =/= as the kind of games the creators intended to play with it and used it for).
But I've never had much interest in the kind of games that D&D works for. And it's almost terrible for pretty much anything else.

Your pick which one you're going to answer to!

 

[yojimbouk]

The problem with this survey is that it is too D&D focused

I didn’t get into RPGs via D&D but rather Fighting Fantasy game books. I think this was the case for a lot of British role players. I got Moldvay Basic D&D for my 10th birthday but couldn’t make head nor tail of it from the rule book. It was only playing FF books and then playing D&D at school that I finally grokked it.

Also, after playing Call of Cthulhu I became a fan of BRP games, which are still my favourite. This poll is clearly aimed at Old Schoolers who only play D&D based games. So while D&D was an entry point for me, it didn’t remain the only game I played.

 

[3rik]

Basically, as a GM, I went GURPS -> oWoD -> CoC -> BoL, Unisystem -> diversify (recently including OSR). So no D&D.

 

[robertsconley]

*rolls eyes*
Which answer do you want, the fun one or the long one?

The fun one:
"It works? I keep hearing that it works, and yet I'm yet to see it!"

The long one:
Sure it works...for the kind of games that people ended up playing with it (which is =/= as the kind of games the creators intended to play with it and used it for).
But I've never had much interest in the kind of games that D&D works for. And it's almost terrible for pretty much anything else.

Your pick which one you're going to answer to!

I poised a rhetorical question in my reply of how many decades would it take for D&D to endure in order for it to be recognized as a classic. As you declined not answer that directly then I will choose not to answer directly either of yours.

I will answer instead that one doesn't have to like chess in order to appreciate it importance or quality as a game. The world works just fine with Chess, Go, Checkers, and Backgammon all co-existing each other. The hobby of RPGs works just fine with a form of D&D as the dominant RPG and most common gateway for learning tabletop RPGs. That despite D&D dominance there always been alternatives to learning about tabletop roleplaying.

 

[AsenRG]

The problem with this survey is that it is too D&D focused

I didn’t get into RPGs via D&D but rather Fighting Fantasy game books. I think this was the case for a lot of British role players. I got Moldvay Basic D&D for my 10th birthday but couldn’t make head nor tail of it from the rule book. It was only playing FF books and then playing D&D at school that I finally grokked it.

Also, after playing Call of Cthulhu I became a fan of BRP games, which are still my favourite. This poll is clearly aimed at Old Schoolers who only play D&D based games. So while D&D was an entry point for me, it didn’t remain the only game I played.

Yup. Technically, the Bloodsword gamebooks were my first introduction to RPG systems... or maybe it was earlier with Shadows of Orm and (Battle) Arena 3 ?
Then, when my first GM explained roleplaying to us, he just said "like a gamebook, but you tell me what you do, I don't give you options".
I still use a variant of this for gamebook fans that are somehow unfamiliar with roleplaying - but I also add "The book is in my head, so you have to tell me what your character does".
Back then, we didn't quite picture it clearly (I'd missed the part with the gamebook being in the GM's head), but we gave it a try. And the examples in the PHB, which we were required to read, mostly cleared up the rest.
These days when I get players who think that reading some 20 pages of rules is too much, I almost feel like weeping. Not for the game, I can summarize the rules in 5 minutes (lots of practice)...but for the world as a whole!

And my way across RPGs was much longer and harder, but these days, stuff like Traveller and BRP is what I use the most. Admittedly, I also use quite a few others, but...there's quite a few similarities between our RPG lives, it seems!

 

[AsenRG]

I poised a rhetorical question in my reply of how many decades would it take for D&D to endure in order for it to be recognized as a classic. As you declined not answer that directly then I will choose not to answer directly either of yours.

I identified it as a rhetorical questions, but thought we're not supposed to answer those?

Also, I do recognize D&D is a classic, at least because of its historical importance, popularity, and innovation (controlling your own unit, can you imagine that?).
If that's what you were asking, I'm not debating the point.

But if you're asking how long would it take before I accept it as "a good entry point for new players", then the answer is going to be: "until the heat death of the Universe, or until a new edition fixes the stuff that I see as problems, whichever comes first". Pesonally I'm betting on the former!
Now divide by 10 and you have the number of decades...

And, givent that you now have your answer, are you going to answer one of mine?

 

[Voros]

People forget that tabletop roleplaying was accompanied by a massive hex and counter wargaming boom that lasted to 1981.

Is ‘massive’ really the right term for wargaming in the 70s? My impression is more of a niche scene with a handful of small companies.

In the history of Gencon Arneson notes that soon after the release of D&D (so as early as the mid to late 70s) one of things that pissed off the wargamers was having their relatively small groups of wargamers swarmed by kids excited to play D&D.

 

[robertsconley]

Is ‘massive’ really the right term for wargaming in the 70s? My impression is more of a niche scene with a handful of small companies.

1975 to 1980 is considered the golden age of wargaming and like D&D, various Avalon Hill and SPI offering spread into the retail channel. And had sales compared or exceeded that of Tabletop roleplaying.

In the history of Gencon Arneson notes that soon after the release of D&D (so as early as the mid to late 70s) one of things that pissed off the wargamers was having their relatively small groups of wargamers swarmed by kids excited to play D&D.

That accurate from everything I read. It was a case where both hobbies expanded and crossfed on each other throughout the 70s. Basically came to an end in 1982 when TSR bought SPI in a highly controversial move. Avalon Hill and GDW limped along for a while they both came to an end by the mid 90s.

Wargaming continued to evolve with Warhammer, Magic the Gathering, and especially Eurogames. Then the internet picked up steam so old niche that imploded was able to stabilize.

 

[tenbones]

I think another corollary question is : of the people that stick with the hobby, how many stay exclusive to D&D (and it could further be asked which flavor?) The more editions, the more OSR, the more other games draw real hobbyists into these other camps... the less coherence as to "what" D&D actually is... other than a corporate brand-name.

D&D does work. I mean... who would dispute that? It will generally be the ultimate gateway into the hobby. That will never not be the case for the foreseeable future simply by dint of marketing power. I'm more interested in its holding capacity of keeping people in. Maybe it doesn't matter since WotC/Hasbro only needs to sell books rather than curate the hobby.

The rest of the market will see to the needs of the hobby for those that hang around. I'm with them.

 

[robertsconley]

Heat Death of the Universe divided by 10. Well that is an answer to how long.

Your pick which one you're going to answer to!

I will pick both.

"It works? I keep hearing that it works, and yet I'm yet to see it!"

I have, notably the two period I was involved in Boy Scouts of America. One back in the late 70s and early 80s when I was in school, the other centered around 2015 when I was involved because of my youngest. In both I saw the gamut from the self-taught to those who were taught by older folks.

Now if one was in Germany then it likely not D&D that was first but rather the Dark Eye RPG. The UK, France, etc all had their own unique gaming mix leading to different games being the gateway into tabletop roleplaying. But here in the US and Canada. D&D was and continues to be the primary gateway. It retains that position because of it own mix of mechanics and the fantasy genre.

The long one:
Sure it works...for the kind of games that people ended up playing with it (which is =/= as the kind of games the creators intended to play with it and used it for).
But I've never had much interest in the kind of games that D&D works for.

True from it initial release that D&D offered the most aide for mazes with room filled with monsters, treasure, and traps stacked in levels. However even in the 1974 release other fantasy elements had support, support that was only expanded in it later editions. So I disagree that is for a particular kind of fantasy campaign. Now it may not be suited for a specific setting that has distinct spin on fantasy tropes like Middle Earth, or Glorantha. But as Adventures in Middle Earth effectively demonstrates that can be fixed by altering the list of "stuff" the games uses (classes, monsters, items, and magic)

And it's almost terrible for pretty much anything else.

Yet somehow I did not have trouble adapting OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry to my Majestic Wilderlands. Despite the fact that by 2010 I used GURPS for 20 years to run MW campaigns.

However what made it easier in 2010 compared to 1986 when I abandoned AD&D for Fantasy Hero, were several things.

What matters in tabletop roleplaying is not what is consistent with the rules but what is consistent with the setting. If the players action make sense in terms of how their character is described and how the setting described then the action should be allowed irregardless of the rules as written. The rules are an aid to make rulings consistent.

The key to use any set of rules with a given setting is understanding how those rules handle the reality of it's implied setting. Either specific like with MERP and Middle Earth or general like with D&D and fantasy, or GURPS and Fantasy. Any element of the rules not consistent with the setting needs to be changed if you want to use that setting for your campaign. Beyond personal aesthetics what makes a set of rules more or less useful is the amount of work one need to do to make it work with a given setting.

For D&D the ongoing issues is that the original rules were written for the wargaming community as it stood in 1973. The assumptions that were shared never were explained well. Subsequent editions of D&D never corrected that. Except now today we have several years worth of scholarship into the origins of hobby and the origins of the mechanics of D&D. Thus a better understanding what Armor Class, Levels, and Hit points represent.

With that knowledge I was able to better use Swords & Wizardry to run the same kind of campaign I ran when I used Fantasy Hero and GURPS for the Majestic Wilderlands. What it doesn't mean that everything handled in the same level of detail. A lot more is abstracted in Swords & Wizardry compared to GURPS or Fantasy Hero.

Having said that, rules aesthetic are hugely important. Some system work better with how one thinks than others. I like GURPS over BRP for that reason although the two are comparable in scope and complexity. But I have no problem having fun with BRP if it came down with it. Because like D&D, I understand enough about where the authors are coming from to adapt the system to how I run things and the settings I use.

 

[robertsconley]

I think another corollary question is : of the people that stick with the hobby, how many stay exclusive to D&D (and it could further be asked which flavor?)

Exclusively? I would peg it at 25%. As their primary system 2/3rd of the hobby. Exclusively means that they never play other genres or other settings. So overall I think it would be 25% only play fantasy campaign with D&D. But when it comes to fantasy campaign 2/3rd stick with D&D and other genres are a mixed bag.

I don't have any statistics to back my claim. And the big difficulty towards getting an answer are the various isolated groups where the only point of contact with the wider hobby is the referee who had bought the books.

I'm more interested in its holding capacity of keeping people in. Maybe it doesn't matter since WotC/Hasbro only needs to sell books rather than curate the hobby.

The only hard example we have to date is D&D 3.5->D&D 4e->Pathfinder->D&D 5e. Which suggest if the market leader fails to put out a version of that is devired from classic D&D, OD&D + Greyhawk supplment, the hobby will turn to somebody who will.

But then there is the game changing nature of the internet. Which makes niches of niches easier to maintain and support for both the hobby and the industry.

The internet make future prediction very hard to do in terms of what the majority will go for ten years from now.

One thing I read a few month ago that left me thinking is survey are consistent in pointing that campaigns generally only go as far as level 5 to 8 on average even with 20 level support in 5e. I can't help think that with the trend of euro-games to light mechanics that allows for deep levels of strategy that it would be exploited in RPGs. Basically a E6 or E9 D&D RPG with some serious backing.

 

[Luca]

For anyone who still doubts that a relative majority of people actually *WANT* the dungeon experience, and it has little to do with the fact that D&D came up first, might I point out that in 1975, when the total number of RPGs available on the market was two (D&D and Tunnels and Trolls), TSR put out a second house RPG, in a deluxe boxed set no less, called Empire of the Petal Throne.

A deluxe boxed set for an RPG which was certainly quite far removed from the "vanilla fantasy dungeon" experience. And yet, D&D was the one to stand the test of time.

Being first certainly helped, but it's most definitely NOT the whole story. As WOTC itself realized with D&D 4th and Pathfinder.

 

[tenbones]

Exclusively? I would peg it at 25%. As their primary system 2/3rd of the hobby. Exclusively means that they never play other genres or other settings. So overall I think it would be 25% only play fantasy campaign with D&D. But when it comes to fantasy campaign 2/3rd stick with D&D and other genres are a mixed bag.

I don't have any statistics to back my claim. And the big difficulty towards getting an answer are the various isolated groups where the only point of contact with the wider hobby is the referee who had bought the books.

My sentiments are pretty close to yours - and that is simply a guesstimate based on people I talk with and general observations of LFGS's here and online discussions with people in/out of the biz. I know a lot of people these days are "getting into" the hobby because now it's apparently cool to do D&D *specifically*. But I also know many of them have not stuck around. The few that have come back, at least half of them are back to play D&D, OR some licensed property of geek-culture: FFG Star Wars is a big one. And I know The Witcher is getting a lot of sniffing around these parts.

The only hard example we have to date is D&D 3.5->D&D 4e->Pathfinder->D&D 5e. Which suggest if the market leader fails to put out a version of that is devired from classic D&D, OD&D + Greyhawk supplment, the hobby will turn to somebody who will.

But then there is the game changing nature of the internet. Which makes niches of niches easier to maintain and support for both the hobby and the industry.

The internet make future prediction very hard to do in terms of what the majority will go for ten years from now.

One thing I read a few month ago that left me thinking is survey are consistent in pointing that campaigns generally only go as far as level 5 to 8 on average even with 20 level support in 5e. I can't help think that with the trend of euro-games to light mechanics that allows for deep levels of strategy that it would be exploited in RPGs. Basically a E6 or E9 D&D RPG with some serious backing.

Yeah I agree with you here. I think D&D could (and should) service this phenomenon you're citing in the survey. I don't think it's a coincidence that people hit the 5-8 lvl mark and drop either. Those of us that have been playing this game and running it for decades already know the sweet spot for the system is right about this range. But the real issue is GMing advocacy.

Running games at the 8th+ lvl range of the pool is where GM's have to start doing a little bit of work to maintain the game (D&D specifically). And St. Gary knew this. The demands for GM's to run D&D post 10thlvl for an extended period are typically beyond the skillset of new and middling GM's. Usually for reasons having to do with a whole host of issues that arise naturally from long-term gaming - but more importantly due to the mechanical realities of the ruleset.

It's both a good/bad thing. GM's that can handle that level of play have to cut their teeth a LOT to keep their games rolling at this level. And frankly those GM's are relatively few and far between. I *really* wanna do a Fantasy Heartbreaking E10 of epic proportions someday for publication.

That will never* happen from WotC.


*meaning - probably never.

 

[tenbones]

For anyone who still doubts that a relative majority of people actually *WANT* the dungeon experience, and it has little to do with the fact that D&D came up first, might I point out that in 1975, when the total number of RPGs available on the market was two (D&D and Tunnels and Trolls), TSR put out a second house RPG, in a deluxe boxed set no less, called Empire of the Petal Throne.

A deluxe boxed set for an RPG which was certainly quite far removed from the "vanilla fantasy dungeon" experience. And yet, D&D was the one to stand the test of time.

Being first certainly helped, but it's most definitely NOT the whole story. As WOTC itself realized with D&D 4th and Pathfinder.

This gets to my allusion that casual gamers, yes, want the "dungeon crawling" experience. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say - that's because they have GM's that largely are only willing/capable of running such fare.

GM's that will put the work into running a good sandbox (or elements of sandbox play), regardless of the setting, can/will/do incorporate dungeon-crawling, exploration, combat, stronghold-play, questing, etc elements into their campaigns and tailor that for their players. But being that kind of GM takes a LOT of time and effort that most people aren't willing to put the work in to achieve. WotC is not expressly catering to those GM's... and frankly it's because they don't need to. Those GM's are going to do all the heavy lifting *regardless*.

The best thing WotC could do, imo, for long-term gain is create content to help skill GM's up. More GM's = more players because GM's create games that keep and attract players that last, because they *want* to GM. GM's that only do the job because no one else will... well those players will get exactly what they signed up for. Which is why the dot-to-dot adventures are so popular in the short-term.

But maybe that's pie-in-the-sky and in the final calculus WotC is fine with the status-quo. And why shouldn't they be? GM's that go the distance will likely be the ones that jump ship to other games/genres and take their players with them. At which point they can always just toss out another Adventure Path and gauge general interest... then drop another Edition. Thus relegating all other gaming companies to being the well-fed remoras and pilot fish to the WotC Great White Shark. The wheels keep churning.

 

[Ladybird]

The problem with this survey is that it is too D&D focused

I didn’t get into RPGs via D&D but rather Fighting Fantasy game books. I think this was the case for a lot of British role players. I got Moldvay Basic D&D for my 10th birthday but couldn’t make head nor tail of it from the rule book. It was only playing FF books and then playing D&D at school that I finally grokked it.

Also, after playing Call of Cthulhu I became a fan of BRP games, which are still my favourite. This poll is clearly aimed at Old Schoolers who only play D&D based games. So while D&D was an entry point for me, it didn’t remain the only game I played.

The first Played was FF (Forest of Doom), but the first game I ever ran was Monster Horrorshow; one of the many "me too!" books that publishers put out for some of that sweet FF money, but with some surprisingly forward-thinking ideas (Don't obsess over character gen! If in doubt, just come up with a vague difficulty number for players to roll against! And of course, the classic...

...along with some decent guidance on how to work out the fun for your players).

GM's that will put the work into running a good sandbox (or elements of sandbox play), regardless of the setting, can/will/do incorporate dungeon-crawling, exploration, combat, stronghold-play, questing, etc elements into their campaigns and tailor that for their players. But being that kind of GM takes a LOT of time and effort that most people aren't willing to put the work in to achieve. WotC is not expressly catering to those GM's... and frankly it's because they don't need to. Those GM's are going to do all the heavy lifting *regardless*.

The best thing WotC could do, imo, for long-term gain is create content to help skill GM's up. More GM's = more players because GM's create games that keep and attract players that last, because they *want* to GM. GM's that only do the job because no one else will... well those players will get exactly what they signed up for. Which is why the dot-to-dot adventures are so popular in the short-term.

This is something that I found disappointing about Advanced Fighting Fantasy 2e - the first edition had a couple of scenarios in the book, starting straight away with a simple simple-seeming hostage rescue for utter newbies (With pregen characters) and culminating in an epic city chase. New rules were introduced in each encounter in the first scenario, and each scene had guidance on how to run it for the GM (What the NPC's want, how to handle things that each PC might try) which gradually tapered off as the scenarios progressed and the GM got more practice. At the end, there were a bunch of hooks the GM could use for their own adventure, plus the campaign continued in the supplements.

Solid book, solid concept, and it's a shame it isn't in print any more.

 

[AsenRG]

For anyone who still doubts that a relative majority of people actually *WANT* the dungeon experience, and it has little to do with the fact that D&D came up first, might I point out that in 1975, when the total number of RPGs available on the market was two (D&D and Tunnels and Trolls), TSR put out a second house RPG, in a deluxe boxed set no less, called Empire of the Petal Throne.

A deluxe boxed set for an RPG which was certainly quite far removed from the "vanilla fantasy dungeon" experience. And yet, D&D was the one to stand the test of time.

Being first certainly helped, but it's most definitely NOT the whole story. As WOTC itself realized with D&D 4th and Pathfinder.

Yes. The facts that the game was, reportedly, overpriced for its time, and pictured a setting at a time where most GMs came up with their own dungeons first and the setting second, certainly have no bearing on the matter!
Neither does the fact that Tekumel had acquired, by mistake of its own fans, the reputation of "that place that requires you to have a PhD in Tekumeliani Studies in order to run it right".

Thank you for enlightening us! Nothing more to see here, circulate, circulate...
Or else: consult the first paragrpaph of tenbones post if you want my opinion on the matter.

Heat Death of the Universe divided by 10. Well that is an answer to how long.

I knew it that you wouldn't bet on WotC fixing things, either...

I will pick both.

Two for the price of one? Thank you!

I have, notably the two period I was involved in Boy Scouts of America.

Stop right here, robertsconley
I told you I've never seen it. It's not that I don't know of people that claim to have success with it, I do.
But I've never seen it. And your account only adds one to the number of stories I've read about D&D being used successfully as an intro game...which are already numerous.
(Please note: Successfully, in my parlance, means the majority of players would keep playing RPGs after the campaign. OK, I should have probably specified it earlier...but you know how we all have assumptions we consider natural? That definition is one of them for me!
So yes, I've seen new people being introduced via D&D. I just haven't seen them deciding to keep playing - but I've seen people that decided to continue despite the experience. I'm one of those).

True from it initial release that D&D offered the most aide for mazes with room filled with monsters, treasure, and traps stacked in levels. However even in the 1974 release other fantasy elements had support, support that was only expanded in it later editions. So I disagree that is for a particular kind of fantasy campaign.

Well, in my experience:
Either D&D is far better at a particular type of fantasy campaign...or it's me that has troubles making it work for any other kind of campaign.
And that includes the kind of campaigns I've run with systems as varied as ORE, Savage Worlds and Cepheus Engine...
So either D&D doesn't work, or I can't make it work for the kind of campaigns I can, seemingly, run with pretty much anything else.
Realistically, there's no way to know what the reason is without a large and ultimately pointless analysis.
In practical terms, I know which variant I'm betting on!

Now it may not be suited for a specific setting that has distinct spin on fantasy tropes like Middle Earth, or Glorantha. But as Adventures in Middle Earth effectively demonstrates that can be fixed by altering the list of "stuff" the games uses (classes, monsters, items, and magic)

Specific settings (as opposed to a mish-mash of fantasy tropes, which is what D&D is good at) are what I like to run.
And there's a reason why AiME is a separate game. So basically, you're telling me that D&D can work, as long as you rewrite it to lose many elements that people associate with D&D?
Yeah, right. I'd rather do that by starting from a system that's closer to the goal to begin with.

Yet somehow I did not have trouble adapting OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry to my Majestic Wilderlands. Despite the fact that by 2010 I used GURPS for 20 years to run MW campaigns.

Congrats!
But my experience with your setting and the system was simply that one of them is doing the other a disservice... (Hint: the setting was doing nothing to the system!)

The key to use any set of rules with a given setting is understanding how those rules handle the reality of it's implied setting.

Yes. And in some cases, one has to conclude that the answer is "badly or not at all".

Either specific like with MERP and Middle Earth or general like with D&D and fantasy, or GURPS and Fantasy. Any element of the rules not consistent with the setting needs to be changed if you want to use that setting for your campaign. Beyond personal aesthetics what makes a set of rules more or less useful is the amount of work one need to do to make it work with a given setting.

Exactly. And that's why D&D is an awful starting point IME!

 

[cranebump]

I got into the hobby via D&D red/blue box, but needed to actually play with someone else who had knowledge of it before I could grasp it. If I had the same video resources back then that I have today, I'm not sure how I would have entered the fray. The barrier today is definitely lower than it was, if for no other reason than a LOT of folks play via "adjacent" online apps that feature common D&D conceits. When I mention D&D at school (teacher for 23 years), I'll ask, "Do you play any games that feature the following: character attributes/abilities (that increase over time)? Creatures/foes to defeat? Gear/Loot? Levels? Then you're playing some form of D&D?" I've noted, as well, that the number of young people running their own D&D games has increased, and that it isn't always easy to pry them off of the game to try something else. I don't sweat that, though, because, if their experience is anything like mine, as they get older, and adulting makes getting a group going a much more difficult prospect, they'll likely look into systems/versions that are simpler/quicker to run and maintain.

On that subject:

I have introduced RPing to newbies via FATE and Dungeon World, and always have more young players than I can easily handle. Even so, I've introduced more new players with those systems (and Microlite d20 [Purist essence]) in the last 20 years than any other systems. Some of my old proteges have gotten deep into crunchier systems, when they can afford the books. Of course, price is less of a barrier these days, if folks are willing to grab freebies (another reason I stick with things like FATE [though I have purchased their books--felt like the right thing to do]). I send the ones that seem really into this hobby toward the free stuff (as well as share the freebie files).

The statement, "that's all we had," has a ring of truth to it. That said, we greybeards know we had other things, as well, and many of us stuck with the grandaddy over the decades. So the observation, "something about it just works" resonates, as well. A healthy D&D line is good for the hobby, and it feels pretty healthy right now.

Wish I could say the same for Strat-o-matic baseball...:-(

 

[Ladybird]

Wish I could say the same for Strat-o-matic baseball...:-(

Didn't that market (And ones for football, cricket, american football, etc) basically go to management sims on the computer, because unlike computer RPG's, they could offer the same experience, but better and with less work?

 

[Dumarest]

​

 

[Voros]

For anyone who still doubts that a relative majority of people actually *WANT* the dungeon experience, and it has little to do with the fact that D&D came up first, might I point out that in 1975, when the total number of RPGs available on the market was two (D&D and Tunnels and Trolls), TSR put out a second house RPG, in a deluxe boxed set no less, called Empire of the Petal Throne.

A deluxe boxed set for an RPG which was certainly quite far removed from the "vanilla fantasy dungeon" experience. And yet, D&D was the one to stand the test of time.

Being first certainly helped, but it's most definitely NOT the whole story. As WOTC itself realized with D&D 4th and Pathfinder.

But the premise of Empire of the Petal Throne was still dungeon crawling. I’ve read the original set and that’s what it seems to me: the PCs explore the underground ruins of the ancient advanced civilization the current world is built on top of.

Its relative failure is hard to pin down all these years later, could have been distro issues, etc. but most likely the world was too far from the Tolkien-lite assumptions that most were interested in playing at the time. The later success of FR backs that idea up I think.

 

[cranebump]

Didn't that market (And ones for football, cricket, american football, etc) basically go to management sims on the computer, because unlike computer RPG's, they could offer the same experience, but better and with less work?

You're right. It has gone to that. Offers a similar experience, to be sure. As for Stratomatic itself, the official online game is mainly about drafting and ballpark selection. You don't get the face-to-face of dice rolling, or making in-game adjustments. The computer makes substitutions and pitching changes, based on preferences and toggles (and it doesn't always make the decisions I would've made). The stat tracking is awesome, of course, and I do play a lot of solo leagues. But the population that plays the official online game seems very gray. I don't see a lot of new players getting into it. I think that's because baseball, in general, faces falling popularity, if for no other reason than the games take too damned long to play. It's very little work to actually play Strat -- roll some dice, occasionally check a chart (with the complexity there depending on whether you play basic, advanced, super advanced, and so on). A basic game runs about 15 minutes. Knowing the sport helps, but, as my record against my non-sport following wife attests, you don't need to know the game that well to win (she's like 7-1 against me, which is just ridiculous -- you'd think the dice would fall my way more often).:-)

 

[robertsconley]

Either D&D is far better at a particular type of fantasy campaign...or it's me that has troubles making it work for any other kind of campaign.

Or the amount of stuff (character types, monsters, items, magic) is broad enough to encompass a wide variety of campaigns. Omission doesn't take a lot of works.

Yeah, right. I'd rather do that by starting from a system that's closer to the goal to begin with.

Sure which is why I wound up with Fantasy Hero then GURPS in the first place. But...

And there's a reason why AiME is a separate game.

If you look at the non-magical AiME classes they are close to their core 5e counterparts. The big difference lies in descriptions there is not a lot of mechanical changes between a AiME warrior and a 5e Warrior. The biggest of course occurred in the scholar class because like with many fantasy setting the magic is different in Middle Earth then what D&D has.

But the example of AiME suggest that you could run a Middle Earth campaign with core 5e if you omitted the magic system and the spellcasters. Have a selected list of magic items one used. That combination would be good enough for many. This is easily achievable within the time one has for a hobby.

AiME is better because more work has been done to give the system a Middle Earth flavor, the reworked scholar, the mechanics of the culture-races and the virtue system which replaced feats.

Finally note what they did to alter 5e into a Middle Earth RPG. The mechanics of combat, abilities, etc did not change. All the changes were in altering the list of stuff.

How far can one get by just not using everything a edition of D&D has but just use what fits the setting?

 

[robertsconley]

So basically, you're telling me that D&D can work, as long as you rewrite it to lose many elements that people associate with D&D?

Like I said above core D&D comes with a kitchen sink collections of character types, items, and monsters. Enough that over the decades it covered a wide variety of setting.

The problem I see people assume that if you X system that you have to use all the option that in that system's core. What I found through my own writing endeavor that often it just a bunch of small tweaks that needed to make a given system feel right for a setting. Especially if the RPG is designed to be used with a genre instead of a specific setting.

I have to stress though this is not a 100% thing or even a 80% thing. There are plenty of setting that would take a lot of work to run with System X. In that case I agree use a system that already has the work done.

For instance the biggest issue for fantasy campaign is often the magic system which is hard to get around. The biggest issue for science fiction campaigns is the equipment and technology lists. For Horror it is the list of monsters that the PCs have the contend with. In most RPGs they are pretty long list thus take a lot of work to do for somebody to spend their hobby time on.

ORE, Savage Worlds and Cepheus Engine

You said that you can use Savage Worlds to run the kind of campaign you like. Yet the Savage Product line is like GURPS or Hero System, a core book with a wealth of support product to tweak it for various genres and settings.

Why does D&D get criticism for being too specific when there are numerous example of publishers for various editions including the OSR who treated D&D the same way Pinnacle treat Savage Worlds. Tweak one or more aspect of the system to fit a subgenre or setting better. Just like Cublicle7 did with 5e with AiME.

To lesser extent Cepheus has been treated the same by publishers using it. Many of come out with versions of Cepheus tweaked for their settings or subgenre. Of course it helps that Mongoose designed MgT 1e, Cepheus' foundation. to support more science fiction settings than the Third Imperium.

If you look at what Cepheus, Savage World, does most of the work is in tweaking the stuff, the careers, the equipment, the creatures, and the extra things characters can do in the setting like magic and psionics.

D&D in it various editions except for 4e* is no better or worse than Savage Worlds or GURPS to adapt to a particular setting or genre. Pathfinder has Starfinder, Swords & Wizardry has White Star, and so on.

Fourth edition unfortunately takes an order of magnitude of more time to revamp due its exception based design. To impart a different feel you have to do the same amount of work they did on the original system. Because once all the exceptions are stripped away the core system is minimal by design.

 

[Voros]

This gets to my allusion that casual gamers, yes, want the "dungeon crawling" experience. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say - that's because they have GM's that largely are only willing/capable of running such fare.

GM's that will put the work into running a good sandbox (or elements of sandbox play), regardless of the setting, can/will/do incorporate dungeon-crawling, exploration, combat, stronghold-play, questing, etc elements into their campaigns and tailor that for their players. But being that kind of GM takes a LOT of time and effort that most people aren't willing to put the work in to achieve. WotC is not expressly catering to those GM's... and frankly it's because they don't need to. Those GM's are going to do all the heavy lifting *regardless*.

The best thing WotC could do, imo, for long-term gain is create content to help skill GM's up. More GM's = more players because GM's create games that keep and attract players that last, because they *want* to GM. GM's that only do the job because no one else will... well those players will get exactly what they signed up for. Which is why the dot-to-dot adventures are so popular in the short-term.

But maybe that's pie-in-the-sky and in the final calculus WotC is fine with the status-quo. And why shouldn't they be? GM's that go the distance will likely be the ones that jump ship to other games/genres and take their players with them. At which point they can always just toss out another Adventure Path and gauge general interest... then drop another Edition. Thus relegating all other gaming companies to being the well-fed remoras and pilot fish to the WotC Great White Shark. The wheels keep churning.

I think the more common reason games don’t get past 8+ is simply the time commitment required to reach those higher levels. Most groups can’t maintain that kind of consistent, long term play.

Mearls has noted that most active groups haven’t even completed one hardback adventure by the time the next one comes out and that’s even with the (in some circles) much criticized ‘slower’ production schedule of 5e. That’s one reason they decided to put out the shorter adventures in The Yawning Portal and Ghosts of Saltmarsh.

 

[robertsconley]

Congrats!
But my experience with your setting and the system was simply that one of them is doing the other a disservice... (Hint: the setting was doing nothing to the system!)

Not sure what you mean here. Are you speaking more general or something I published or blogged about?

 

[EmperorNorton]

You know, while I personally don't like D&D, I have nothing really against its players or creators or anything (and play it some myself), but I swear there are some people who if they were the ones running everything, its the only game we would have ever gotten, because apparently it was perfect and there was never any reason to make anything else, because it works guys why would you need anything else! If you have a problem with it, clearly you are at fault, and not the perfect D&D system.

 

[robertsconley]

There many RPGs who have hobbyists with that sentiment. However D&D has it both ways. Those who you describe and those who get ridiculed constantly for using a broken game especially if it is an older edition.

 

[tenbones]

This is something that I found disappointing about Advanced Fighting Fantasy 2e - the first edition had a couple of scenarios in the book, starting straight away with a simple simple-seeming hostage rescue for utter newbies (With pregen characters) and culminating in an epic city chase. New rules were introduced in each encounter in the first scenario, and each scene had guidance on how to run it for the GM (What the NPC's want, how to handle things that each PC might try) which gradually tapered off as the scenarios progressed and the GM got more practice. At the end, there were a bunch of hooks the GM could use for their own adventure, plus the campaign continued in the supplements.

Solid book, solid concept, and it's a shame it isn't in print any more.

Yeah! The real issue is that when thinking about game design today - most new systems aren't burdened with D&D's history, and need to adhere to their own traditions in order to justify their existence.

The Sacred Cows of D&D are a herd of beasts, from the hoary past that should remain corralled in D&D specifically. I never understood why any D&D inspired knockoff adopted those cows without the intent of expressly trying to steal those D&D Steak lovers to their table.

Most modern games should make considerations for how to scale their games (if at all) and make plans to support those tiers of play. Or don't imply them. This is the problem I have with the 20-lvl progression that got drilled into everyone's heads in 3e. Before that it was never assumed anyone would play at that level. The assumptions of the game were at 10th level you're a fantasy super-hero. So obviously with the XP curve at 15th lvl you're approaching demigod level play. And the mere idea that level of play by implication needs to be supported by the system is a difficult task to say the least.

But it CAN be done.

BECMI obviously did it. I'm not sure who made it to Immortal Rules... but I've always thought that D&D (and any flavor of it) could do a rock-solid 10-lvl game. It could hold all the modern conceits for D&D - no "dead levels", constant progression. And condensed into that block, you set all the fluff conceits needed to explain what those levels of play actually mean in terms of the content. At 10th level you're doing the big stuff: fighting dragons, leading armies, founding kingdoms etc.

By adhering to a 10-lvl scale, it's much easier to design for because you can keep number bloat down.

You could condense XP totals to make those level gains more meaningful. And you'd be incentivised to create as many adventures people can handle, while creating ever larger regions of play, from the starting point of the game to flesh out the world and breadcrumb GM's into ad-hoc creating their own sandbox along the way.

This could be done with tables, with adventure hook creation methods that teaches new GM's how to create relevant content on the fly. Worldbuilding rules - which for the creatively challenged could also be generated via tables.

And if it worked and the will was there - you could do an "Advanced game" for levels 11-15, for truly super-hero fantasy. It would be complete with super-human levels of doing crazy stuff and make it totally optional. All settings could b designed around this strategy, and since it is optional - the idea is that if you made the E10 core rules right, you should have groomed a lot of GM's to be ready to dip their foot into this end of the pool. Hopefully that would justify sales. And if you worked this content out right... it should be designed around the potential option for Immortal rules (level 16-20) - but only if it's justified.

Anyhow... i'm digressing.

 

[Trippy]

The game behind an RPG are a reflection of the author view of the reality of the setting, of course there will be differences of opinion leading to different RPGs even for the same genre.

The test whether something is a classic in the same way like chess or go is how it endures the test of time. The core of what makes D&D, D&D has persisted through several editions and remains the #1 RPG still being played.

The ruleset of the D&D game from OD&D to 5E has changed massively, incorporating ideas from other games. To make some sort of claim that the D&D design has endured like Chess is absurd. The original game didn’t fit ‘reality’ as much as it was the tentative steps of how RPG systems could work, without having any other point of reference from any other source.

 

[Voros]

Yeah! The real issue is that when thinking about game design today - most new systems aren't burdened with D&D's history, and need to adhere to their own traditions in order to justify their existence.

The Sacred Cows of D&D are a herd of beasts, from the hoary past that should remain corralled in D&D specifically. I never understood why any D&D inspired knockoff adopted those cows without the intent of expressly trying to steal those D&D Steak lovers to their table.

Most modern games should make considerations for how to scale their games (if at all) and make plans to support those tiers of play. Or don't imply them. This is the problem I have with the 20-lvl progression that got drilled into everyone's heads in 3e. Before that it was never assumed anyone would play at that level. The assumptions of the game were at 10th level you're a fantasy super-hero. So obviously with the XP curve at 15th lvl you're approaching demigod level play. And the mere idea that level of play by implication needs to be supported by the system is a difficult task to say the least.

But it CAN be done.

BECMI obviously did it. I'm not sure who made it to Immortal Rules... but I've always thought that D&D (and any flavor of it) could do a rock-solid 10-lvl game. It could hold all the modern conceits for D&D - no "dead levels", constant progression. And condensed into that block, you set all the fluff conceits needed to explain what those levels of play actually mean in terms of the content. At 10th level you're doing the big stuff: fighting dragons, leading armies, founding kingdoms etc.

By adhering to a 10-lvl scale, it's much easier to design for because you can keep number bloat down.

You could condense XP totals to make those level gains more meaningful. And you'd be incentivised to create as many adventures people can handle, while creating ever larger to the starting point of the game to flesh out the world and breadcrumb GM's into ad-hoc creating their own sandbox along the way.

This could be done with tables, with adventure hook creation methods that teaches new GM's how to create relevant content on the fly. Worldbuilding rules - which for the creatively challenged could also be generated via tables.

And if it worked and the will was there - you could do an "Advanced game" for levels 11-15, for truly super-hero fantasy. It would be complete with super-human levels of doing crazy stuff and make it totally optional. All settings could b designed around this strategy, and since it is optional - the idea is that if you made the E10 core rules right, you should have groomed a lot of GM's to be ready to dip their foot into this end of the pool. Hopefully that would justify sales. And if you worked this content out right... it should be designed around the potential option for Immortal rules (level 16-20) - but only if it's justified.

Anyhow... i'm digressing.

Beyond the Wall has a 10 level limit which fits well with its setting.

 

[tenbones]

I think the more common reason games don’t get past 8+ is simply the time commitment required to reach those higher levels. Most groups can’t maintain that kind of consistent, long term play.

Mearls has noted that most active groups haven’t even completed one hardback adventure by the time the next one comes out and that’s even with the (in some circles) much criticized ‘slower’ production schedule of 5e. That’s one reason they decided to put out the shorter adventures in The Yawning Portal and Ghosts of Saltmarsh.

I don't think I'm anything special at all, I think *most* people could run learn to run mid-to-high level games. But they have to want to. All my players are professionals in real life, most with wife and families, other hobbies, pets whatever - we play weekly, all afternoon until midnight (usually 1am-2am). I know I'm more busy than anyone half my age. Yet from my recent recruiting process - young people are actually surprised I run weekly games... which is weird to me. Some will play multiple games bi-monthly, but the idea of playing 1 game every week seems to stun them. But that's what I require to join my group. No exceptions.

The commitment to run games at that level (8th plus) comes with experience. If you don't do it consistently then you'll never do it. And frankly I feel the sweet spot is 8th-13th. Is it for noobs? Nope. But the corollary of your observation is "everyone seems to enjoy playing low-level adventures" without every experienced having GOOD mid-to-high level adventures seems to be ignoring a massive amount of potential we all know exists.

Ironically this is related to my last post - WotC doesn't *care* about catering to GM advocacy. And they should. It would improve *everything* about the hobby - not just for D&D either. Catering to the lowest common denominator is precisely why I don't play 5e. I, and my players, want more substance than what 5e offers. Ideally D&D should be leading that cause for their own benefit (it would keep a lot of us playing D&D) - but they're choosing the path of least resistance.

I don't even think it would require much work either. Much of this could be done as supplemental material online or sold as PDF only... But hey, if it mattered enough they'd already be doing it.