D&D: The Kleenex of RPG's

[MtlGuy]

Why is D&D like Kleenex? They're both brands of products that have become synonymous with the product itself. Tissue paper is often referred to as 'kleenex' the same same way D&D is synonymous with 'Fantasy themed RPG.'

D&D is inarguably the most popular and best known brand of fantasy RPG across the world. But what distinguishes D&D from other fantasy RPGs? What makes the D&D brand, D&D? Is it the rules? Is it the publisher? The setting and theme? Until someone can provide a better answer than "the brand makes it the brand" I'll leave it as they simply got there first, bringing their product to market, or it might have been called Monsters and Mazes (Dexter's Lab parody version). I may not be able to define its unique character, but I can define the product:

D&D, a fantasy themed RPG, is comprised of three core rule books (PHB/DMG/MM) that use a set of polyhedral dice as random number generators to determine the outcomes of actions taken in accordance with said rules. The three core rulebooks may be supplemented by additional rulebooks, campaign settings, miniatures, table maps, adventure modules et al. The product is promoted in and by other media such as video games, a cartoon, movies, and novels.

These questions are interesting to me because of the competition between Paizo and WotC over TSR's legacy. For TSR, it wasn't D&D's core book sales that did the company in, it was the saturation of the hardcover fantasy novel market that caused TSR to fail a saving throw vs. death by massive financial damage. That's important to point out, because if it was the core books that didn't sell, that would suggest that the core product itself had lost value, instead of the spin-off products that supported same. That being said, the lesson is the success or failure of the company that published the game had little to do with publishing the game. It also didn't help that TSR's response to WotC's MTG (Dragon Dice) was also a wash.

I think WotC's biggest problem isn't version wars, it's brand integrity and ownership. When someone describes Pathfinder as D&D 3.75 or 3.5/with a facelift and not "a fantasy RPG" WotC risks losing precisely what they bought from TSR. People aren't distinguishing the brand from the product and if Paizo's claims are to be believed they're not even buying WotC's brand.

[Grinner]

Nothing is just one thing.

• A religion is not just a set of beliefs.
• Food is not just a pile of chemicals gathered for incorporation into an organism's body.
• A computer is not just a device for performing complex calculations.

Actually, these things are just as described. Realistically, they are so much more.

D&D as a product is just like you said; it's a fantasy game played with polyhedral dice. D&D as a pastime is something else altogether, and it's different for each person.

[Tengu_temp]

Actually, the supreme dominance of DND, where it's synonymous with RPGs and a lot of people aren't even aware non-DND RPGs exist, is a mostly American thing. In most European countries, the RPG scene is much more varied. Here, for example, DND only started growing to prominence in the early oughties, and was a small, niche game before that - and even now it covers maybe half of the market, not 90% of it. And there are almost no people who only play DND or use the word "DND" to mean "all RPGs".

[Totally Guy]

I have only seen a handful of D&D games being run at RPG cons. Then again I've not attended cons where Paizo or WotC are directly represented.

Actually I now remember WotC were at NYCC when I was there in 2010 running some D&D. But that's not primarily an RPG con. I think that D&D have the brand recognition on their side to put in an appearance in such a situation.

[Zombimode]

I have only seen a handful of D&D games being run at RPG cons. Then again I've not attended cons where Paizo or WotC are directly represented.

In my experience D&D is seldom played at convention not because it is unpopular, but because people come to conventions often for experiencing something new (or to promote lesser know games on the DM's side).

Also, D&D is normally played (and designed for) continuously over many month or even years with the same characters. The one-shot nature of convention adventures doesn't suit D&D very well, but there are LOADS of system that DO work very well under those conditions.

[Eldan]

Actually, the supreme dominance of DND, where it's synonymous with RPGs and a lot of people aren't even aware non-DND RPGs exist, is a mostly American thing. In most European countries, the RPG scene is much more varied. Here, for example, DND only started growing to prominence in the early oughties, and was a small, niche game before that - and even now it covers maybe half of the market, not 90% of it. And there are almost no people who only play DND or use the word "DND" to mean "all RPGs".

Yeah. I know a dozen or so people who play RPGs. They play the Dark Eye, Vampire and Shadowrun. One has played D&D, once.

[Alejandro]

D&D does cause its gamers to go through a lot of Kleenex when they argue about editions. :D

[Felhammer]

I think WotC's biggest problem isn't version wars, it's brand integrity and ownership. When someone describes Pathfinder as D&D 3.75 or 3.5/with a facelift and not "a fantasy RPG" WotC risks losing precisely what they bought from TSR. People aren't distinguishing the brand from the product and if Paizo's claims are to be believed they're not even buying WotC's brand.

That's the risk WotC ran when they invented the OGL and its a legacy they will be dealing with for, well, ever.

[Berenger]

Why is D&D like Kleenex?

Both are used by teenagers during some kind of wish fulfillment that is awkward to explain to your parents?

[Arcanist]

Both are used by teenagers during some kind of wish fulfillment that is awkward to explain to your parents?

Stop. Please for the love of Mystra, stop.

OT: I'd imagine it was because of all the controversy it caused, thus elevating it's notoriety and making more well known amongst the RPG circuit to the point where, in the eyes of the mass American public, the game is the ONLY table top RPG in existence (despite games like Monopoly and Chess having more fame technically qualifying as table top, but are referred to as "board games".)

Inviting a random person on the street to play a game of Pathfinder or Call of Cthulhu and they'll most likely not understand what you're talking about, but invite them to play D&D and they'll ask to roll up a Bard (not in such a term). Hell, most non-dedicated players aren't even aware there was an edition war, the OGL, version wars, and cross company politics so this might lead people to believe that any game involving polyhedral dice is D&D.

[Prospero7]

In my experience D&D is seldom played at convention not because it is unpopular, but because people come to conventions often for experiencing something new (or to promote lesser know games on the DM's side).

Also, D&D is normally played (and designed for) continuously over many month or even years with the same characters. The one-shot nature of convention adventures doesn't suit D&D very well, but there are LOADS of system that DO work very well under those conditions.

Excellent point. At GenCon, the D&D Open is still relatively popular as well as many of the 'living' games but I play enough D&D outside of cons to get my fill. I'd rather try something my group doesn't normally play whether it be Warhammer, Call of Cthulhu, Star Frontiers (yeah, I still love that game), etc.

[Larkas]

That's the risk WotC ran when they invented the OGL and its a legacy they will be dealing with for, well, ever.

I think that WotC also believes that. I also think that it's a mostly flawed belief. The problem isn't that OGL was ever made. The problem is that they abandoned it. If, instead of issuing 4E as they did, they had made an OGL 1.2 (or 2.0, or what have you, and I'm not even saying that they should've made "D&D3.75", I'm just saying that they should've made the core of 4E freely available, as they did with 3E), they wouldn't have lost such a large player base. Pathfinder continues to show us that. It also has something to do with "backwards compatibility", though. Every D&D edition up to 3.5 has had a way and advice for converting previous edition's characters to the newest game. I know some people who are playing the same campaign for the past 25 years, and they've updated their rules up to 3.5. 4E is explicitly incompatible; Pathfinder isn't. That group is seriously considering updating for PF.

But I digress. D&D is certainly the face of RPG here in Brazil, but it is by no means its synonym. People who never played RPG probably know the acronym, but have no idea what D&D stands for... Until you bring up the cartoon, of course.

[Jay R]

And there are almost no people who only play DND or use the word "DND" to mean "all RPGs".

I've never met such a person. I have met a few (non-gamers) who haven't heard of any others and use the term "DnD" to mean, not "all RPGs", but "the only RPG".

[MtlGuy]

I think that WotC also believes that. I also think that it's a mostly flawed belief. The problem isn't that OGL was ever made. The problem is that they abandoned it. If, instead of issuing 4E as they did, they had made an OGL 1.2 (or 2.0, or what have you, and I'm not even saying that they should've made "D&D3.75", I'm just saying that they should've made the core of 4E freely available, as they did with 3E), they wouldn't have lost such a large player base. Pathfinder continues to show us that. It also has something to do with "backwards compatibility", though. Every D&D edition up to 3.5 has had a way and advice for converting previous edition's characters to the newest game. I know some people who are playing the same campaign for the past 25 years, and they've updated their rules up to 3.5. 4E is explicitly incompatible; Pathfinder isn't. That group is seriously considering updating for PF.

But I digress. D&D is certainly the face of RPG here in Brazil, but it is by no means its synonym. People who never played RPG probably know the acronym, but have no idea what D&D stands for... Until you bring up the cartoon, of course.

From the encouraging responses I've read, I think I ought to have specified that my perspective is that of a Canadian gamer. My gaming and market watching experiences may not be congruent with those of others. So as a typical Canadian... Sorry. I also should have distinguished between 'expert' gamers and the mainstream. Of course, an expert is going to have a higher degree of knowledge than a non-expert. As Tengu_Temp and Jay R comment, a dedicated D&D player will distinguish between D&D and other RPGs, but a casual player generally will not. For the casual player, I would stand by my assertion that the brand captured the product, much like Kleenex tissue paper example. Say Kleenex and you know what product is being discussed even though a brand is all that has been mentioned, (again this may be more true to North America than other places with respect to this specific example.)

Conspiracy theories in general are crap, but its hard to read over the history of the OGL and not imagine it as a premeditated bait and switch. I see it as a business decision by WotC that has ultimately backfired. The brand's image is probably safe with casual gamers who as Arcanist writes are likely unware that D&D has even experienced edition wars, let alone a change in ownership. 'Pathfinder' wouldn't mean anything to a casual player until someone interjects that "Pathfinder is the new D&D" (which is precisely the scenario WotC doesn't want happening). More dedicated players each have their preferences, lets leave it at that. Lastly, the backwards compatibility issue is a really good point to bring up, especially as PCs may live longer than editions of the game. I haven't noticed any character conversion PDFs for 5th edition yet, but I have not updated my packet since June 2013.

[Aron Times]

Perhaps WotC could compromise and release a partial SRD for D&D Next. Perhaps covering only the first ten levels? This will allow the game to spread without giving away everything for free.

As a devoted 4e fan, one of the biggest mistakes WotC made with this edition was to eschew releasing a free SRD. This really hurt the adoption of the then new edition because people could continue playing 3.5 and Pathfinder for free, whereas they had to pay to play 4e.

[Larkas]

From the encouraging responses I've read, I think I ought to have specified that my perspective is that of a Canadian gamer. My gaming and market watching experiences may not be congruent with those of others. So as a typical Canadian... Sorry. I also should have distinguished between 'expert' gamers and the mainstream. Of course, an expert is going to have a higher degree of knowledge than a non-expert. As Tengu_Temp and Jay R comment, a dedicated D&D player will distinguish between D&D and other RPGs, but a casual player generally will not. For the casual player, I would stand by my assertion that the brand captured the product, much like Kleenex tissue paper example. Say Kleenex and you know what product is being discussed even though a brand is all that has been mentioned, (again this may be more true to North America than other places with respect to this specific example.)

Now you've made me think. I guess that around here, RPG is merely RPG to the uninitiated, D&D is RPG to the casual players and RPG is RPG to the more dedicated players. If that made any sense.

Conspiracy theories in general are crap, but its hard to read over the history of the OGL and not imagine it as a premeditated bait and switch. I see it as a business decision by WotC that has ultimately backfired. The brand's image is probably safe with casual gamers who as Arcanist writes are likely unware that D&D has even experienced edition wars, let alone a change in ownership. 'Pathfinder' wouldn't mean anything to a casual player until someone interjects that "Pathfinder is the new D&D" (which is precisely the scenario WotC doesn't want happening). More dedicated players each have their preferences, lets leave it at that. Lastly, the backwards compatibility issue is a really good point to bring up, especially as PCs may live longer than editions of the game. I haven't noticed any character conversion PDFs for 5th edition yet, but I have not updated my packet since June 2013.

Hmmm, I don't believe so. It would have been a TERRIBLE miscalculation if they really considered a bait and switch strategy. I'm more inclined to think that the Hasbro overlords pressed for a more "profitable" model without any regards for the medium and the real target market. Which would ALSO be a terrible miscalculation, but one that we see made all the time by companies that haven't adapted to this "Internet age" we're living in.

Regarding 5E's backwards compatibility, I haven't seen anything about it either, but it was purportedly one of the goals of the project, long before playtesting began. If that's still a goal, your guess is as good as mine.

[Felhammer]

I think that WotC also believes that. I also think that it's a mostly flawed belief. The problem isn't that OGL was ever made. The problem is that they abandoned it. If, instead of issuing 4E as they did, they had made an OGL 1.2 (or 2.0, or what have you, and I'm not even saying that they should've made "D&D3.75", I'm just saying that they should've made the core of 4E freely available, as they did with 3E), they wouldn't have lost such a large player base. Pathfinder continues to show us that. It also has something to do with "backwards compatibility", though. Every D&D edition up to 3.5 has had a way and advice for converting previous edition's characters to the newest game. I know some people who are playing the same campaign for the past 25 years, and they've updated their rules up to 3.5. 4E is explicitly incompatible; Pathfinder isn't. That group is seriously considering updating for PF.

But I digress. D&D is certainly the face of RPG here in Brazil, but it is by no means its synonym. People who never played RPG probably know the acronym, but have no idea what D&D stands for... Until you bring up the cartoon, of course.

I completely agree. The OGL was what made 3.x so wildly popular. Managment sees it as an albatross around their necks but when you get down to it, even if people are buying other companies products, they are still, in the end, buying products for your game.

4E floundered for a lot of reasons, not least of which was it abandoning the OGL. If 4E had been just as open as 3.x, I think the system would have been hacked by third party companies and made better. About the time WotC was looking to make 5E, they would have been instead looking at 4.5, which would have incorporated all the best ideas the third party companies had generated.

[Grinner]

I completely agree. The OGL was what made 3.x so wildly popular. Managment sees it as an albatross around their necks but when you get down to it, even if people are buying other companies products, they are still, in the end, buying products for your game.

4E floundered for a lot of reasons, not least of which was it abandoning the OGL. If 4E had been just as open as 3.x, I think the system would have been hacked by third party companies and made better. About the time WotC was looking to make 5E, they would have been instead looking at 4.5, which would have incorporated all the best ideas the third party companies had generated.

Then again, I think Hasbro cares only for its own bottom line, not that of other companies.

[Kaiisaxo]

Well, here on my country (as in not-america) or at the very least on the general area I live (including the big city across the neighboring state), roleplaying games aren't specially popular. (wargaming and Tcgs are more well known and spread), but until recently roleplayers were a very distinct sect among geeks and in some cases bordered on being a urban tribe, and while not many get into it, it still has an special aura attached to this day. Every time you spot a roleplaying group on a convention or a hobby store, it catches everybody's attention.

Sadly my country got stuck on the 90's, Call of Cthulhu and Vampire the masquerade are the synonimous for rpgs here, with few people ever being aware about D&D on itself, and many gamers will still look down on it. To the date I only known of two stores in the whole state that actually house supplements, one only does it on request and the other one has very limited quantitites of anything on there that quickly ran out. Dice on the other hand are more easilly obtained. In fact my first roleplaying was on an entirely homebrewed system (a cool one that mixed dice with tarot cards, it was lots of fun). So yeah, replace D&D with vampire and you get the situation for my country.

[Felhammer]

Then again, I think Hasbro cares only for its own bottom line, not that of other companies.

Their bottom line is good for your bottom line when everyone is playing your game. When everyone is playing your game, it means consumers are far more likely to buy the products you produce rather than than if they were playing another company's game.

For example, if a consumer was playing a d20 fantasy based game, then he would be far more inclined to purchase The Complete Warrior from WotC than if he was playing World of Darkness.

However, the bean counters at Hasbro saw the OGL as "we are supplementing the income of other companies. We need to stop that!"

Which is completely the opposite of the attitude one must take when dealing with Open Licenses.

[TheOOB]

D&D, a fantasy themed RPG, is comprised of three core rule books (PHB/DMG/MM) that use a set of polyhedral dice as random number generators to determine the outcomes of actions taken in accordance with said rules. The three core rulebooks may be supplemented by additional rulebooks, campaign settings, miniatures, table maps, adventure modules et al. The product is promoted in and by other media such as video games, a cartoon, movies, and novels.

None of that is what makes D&D D&D. D&D is a crunch(rules) heavy combat focused fantasy roleplaying game with heavy wargaming roots and a very strong class and level ability based advancement system when-in character abilities and actions have clearly defined rules.

One of the things that, ironically, makes D&D easier for a lot of people to grasp is how rules(and combat) heavy the game is, it feels more like a video game or board game as answers to questions like "What happens when I hit that with my sword" or "What can my wizard do with magic" are clear cut and in the rules(for the most part.). The system empowers the players, giving their characters, and the dice, more influence over the flow of an encounter than the DM in many situations. It also does not require really any roleplaying at all to function properly.

This is also why there have been dozens of successful D&D video games, and like 2 Vampire the Masquerade games, neither of which were successful.

[Larkas]

Their bottom line is good for your bottom line when everyone is playing your game. When everyone is playing your game, it means consumers are far more likely to buy the products you produce rather than than if they were playing another company's game.

I'm not so sure the guys at Hasbro got that either...

[DeltaEmil]

Then again, I think Hasbro cares only for its own bottom line, not that of other companies.

For Hasbro, D&D is just a rounding error, if they even know about the D&D brand at all. Wizards of the Coast can do whatever they want with D&D, as long as it doesn't impact the more valuable Magic: The Gathering Franchise.
So long as Magic: The Gathering makes money, WotC can try to make a D&D 6th edition if D&D 5th edition would be a financial failure, and a 7th edition, and an 8th, and so on. Also, all two-and-a-half D&D editions that WotC created have made most money at the beginning of the cycle, so D&D has never really been a financial failure for WotC. It just makes less and less money after a while, until they fan the flames with a new edition.

WotC could make a hundred D&D editions, as long as they always make some profit at the beginning. The profit is negligible for Hasbro, but they won't say no to a little pocket money.

[Larkas]

For Hasbro, D&D is just a rounding error, if they even know about the D&D brand at all. Wizards of the Coast can do whatever they want with D&D, as long as it doesn't impact the more valuable Magic: The Gathering Franchise.
So long as Magic: The Gathering makes money, WotC can try to make a D&D 6th edition if D&D 5th edition would be a financial failure, and a 7th edition, and an 8th, and so on. Also, all two-and-a-half D&D editions that WotC created have made most money at the beginning of the cycle, so D&D has never really been a financial failure for WotC. It just makes less and less money after a while, until they fan the flames with a new edition.

WotC could make a hundred D&D editions, as long as they always make some profit at the beginning. The profit is negligible for Hasbro, but they won't say no to a little pocket money.

Yeah, that's not how these corporations work. If D&D was really so negligible, they would've already made WotC sell the brand, probably to Paizo. The brand has some serious recall, and as such, enjoys some solid value. Besides, developing and printing a new system costs money. If the business, small as it supposedly is, doesn't turn a profit, production of newer editions would be forcibly abandoned.

It doesn't matter if D&D is just pocket change (hint: it isn't), most big companies want to have profit from ALL their projects (and those that don't usually have, and show, a very good reason for it), otherwise they will be discontinued, regardless of how little they cost. See Google and its recently discontinued Reader: all it cost was the maintenance of an old server and a little bit of Internet band. It didn't stop Google from pulling the plug.

No, 4E was clearly a (shortsighted) shot at maximizing revenue. WotC was led to believe that, by centralizing all supplement production for the game (or rather, denying the production of supplements by other publishers), they would achieve a bigger profit. That's why they decided their contract with Paizo for making Dragon and Dungeon wasn't in their best interests anymore, for example.

[DeltaEmil]

It doesn't matter if D&D is just pocket change (hint: it isn't)

In the dimensions that Hasbro is dealing, it is. It's not even worth being mentioned in WotC's financial report. Neither D&D 3.0, nor 3.5, or 4th edition is. D&D 5th edition will be a new attempt at breaching that 50 million dollar mark to be noteworthy. If it fails, but still recuperates its cost like its predecessor, there will be a new attempt with D&D 6th edition, D&D Vista edition, D&D 7th edition, so long as they make enough money to pay back whatever has been invested in Research, Development, Advertisement and Production to make D&D whatever edition.

Hasbro bought WotC for Magic: The Gathering. That's what matters for Hasbro. D&D is a nice extra, and only really worth for its ability to be licensed to Atari (or whoever is renting those licenses) for making video games.

[Larkas]

In the dimensions that Hasbro is dealing, it is. It's not even worth being mentioned in WotC's financial report. Neither D&D 3.0, nor 3.5, or 4th edition is. D&D 5th edition will be a new attempt at breaching that 50 million dollar mark to be noteworthy. If it fails, but still recuperates its cost like its predecessor, there will be a new attempt with D&D 6th edition, D&D Vista edition, D&D 7th edition, so long as they make enough money to pay back whatever has been invested in Research, Development, Advertisement and Production to make D&D whatever edition.

Hasbro bought WotC for Magic: The Gathering. That's what matters for Hasbro. D&D is a nice extra, and only really worth for its ability to be licensed to Atari (or whoever is renting those licenses) for making video games.

Honest question: do you have access to Hasbro's financial report? I'd really like to look at it.

Be it as it may, I won't dispute that D&D is very small when compared to the whole of Hasbro's business. It doesn't change any of what I said, though. And one thing that most people don't realize: WotC bought D&D while already a subsidiary of Hasbro. This means that, in a sense, Hasbro itself has bought the intellectual property. I don't think they'd spend the money if they didn't see the potential in it.

You are mostly ignoring the most important objective of any enterprise: maximizing their profits. If D&D was operating at a loss, small as it is, and expected to keep operating like that, it would have already been sold, MtG's results nonwithstanding. It would probably be the same even if it was operating at a small profit or just breaking even. Subsidiaries are allowed some autonomy, but you're not allowed to utterly ignore your stakeholders like that. If Hasbro didn't expect D&D to be profitable, WotC would already have abandoned it.

In other words, MtG isn't a "screw up however you like" card given to WotC by Hasbro. WotC must strive to maximize its profit, present and future, or see itself in some serious dire straits.

[Jay R]

Honest question: do you have access to Hasbro's financial report? I'd really like to look at it.

Of course I do. So does everyone else in the world. Publicly traded companies have public financial records.

[Alejandro]

Agreeing with Larkas, as a businessman and major myself. It doesn't matter how small it is, or how big another part is. Companies care about one thing: maximizing revenue from resources invested. D&D is no different.

[Felhammer]

Yeah, that's not how these corporations work. If D&D was really so negligible, they would've already made WotC sell the brand, probably to Paizo. The brand has some serious recall, and as such, enjoys some solid value. Besides, developing and printing a new system costs money. If the business, small as it supposedly is, doesn't turn a profit, production of newer editions would be forcibly abandoned.

It doesn't matter if D&D is just pocket change (hint: it isn't), most big companies want to have profit from ALL their projects (and those that don't usually have, and show, a very good reason for it), otherwise they will be discontinued, regardless of how little they cost. See Google and its recently discontinued Reader: all it cost was the maintenance of an old server and a little bit of Internet band. It didn't stop Google from pulling the plug.

No, 4E was clearly a (shortsighted) shot at maximizing revenue. WotC was led to believe that, by centralizing all supplement production for the game (or rather, denying the production of supplements by other publishers), they would achieve a bigger profit. That's why they decided their contract with Paizo for making Dragon and Dungeon wasn't in their best interests anymore, for example.

As with comic books, D&D's profit comes from peripheral products and licensing. Even at its height D&D (the game) only made 30 million a year. That's nothing when you compare it to all the novels and video games produced with D&D's logo.

[Larkas]

Of course I do. So does everyone else in the world. Publicly traded companies have public financial records.

Yeah, I found that shortly after I asked about it. I wasn't sure if Hasbro was publicly traded, and I'm not too familiar with American laws regarding financial records. Should've googled it first.

Agreeing with Larkas, as a businessman and major myself. It doesn't matter how small it is, or how big another part is. Companies care about one thing: maximizing revenue from resources invested. D&D is no different.

Exactly. If there's one thing I learned from all the years spent studying for my bachelor's at Economics, it was this. Specific companies might have a few lesser objectives (quality of service, offering small bits of free stuff, social responsibilities, etc.) that might compromise the bottomline a little, but you don't last long operating at a net loss, and you don't want to have a business that does just that all the time. Since we're talking about D&D here, just look at TSR.

As with comic books, D&D's profit comes from peripheral products and licensing. Even at its height D&D (the game) only made 30 million a year. That's nothing when you compare it to all the novels and video games produced with D&D's logo.

Hmmm, interesting, I never thought about it that way. That only makes the miscalculation made by WotC/Hasbro even more terrible: if the game isn't as important for revenue, what's the real problem about offering the core rules for free?