Worst Tabletop RPG

[SwordCoastTaxi]

Well, D&D is a wonderful gateway into the tabletop RPG hobby, yes? There's so many people that want to begin or return to it, yes?

I started a 600+ member group a few years ago. The hard part was finding GMs.

I start groups voraciously. I want to see our hobby grow. I want RPGs to replace videogames as THE gaming media because I know the gaming experience is greater.

But is D&D the best game? I think some systems do D&D better than D&D but, you can walk an established group towards those systems.

But, D&D is a hell of a gateway into where you, as GM or player, want to go.

[Morty]

Well, D&D is a wonderful gateway into the tabletop RPG hobby, yes? There's so many people that want to begin or return to it, yes?

I started a 600+ member group a few years ago. The hard part was finding GMs.

I start groups voraciously. I want to see our hobby grow. I want RPGs to replace videogames as THE gaming media because I know the gaming experience is greater.

But is D&D the best game? I think some systems do D&D better than D&D but, you can walk an established group towards those systems.

But, D&D is a hell of a gateway into where you, as GM or player, want to go.

What is your point here, exactly? How does it address criticisms people have put forward?

[SimonMoon6]

How does the Diplomancer know the difference between someone being immune to his attempt and a simple failed roll?

There are no failed rolls for a good enough Diplomancer. Skills don't automatically fail on a natural 1. And the DCs to alter someone's personality are fixed. So, for example, someone who has +34 to their Diplomacy check will *always* succeed (even if they roll a 1) in turning someone who was hostile into someone who is friendly. It doesn't matter who the target of the Diplomacy check is. If they get to make a Diplomacy check, they *always* succeed, no matter what... unless they try this on a PC. In that case, it automatically fails, and this is the only way that it can fail.

[RifleAvenger]

As I understand it, the core criticism of D&D that qualifies it for "worst game" is that is suppresses interest in other systems. D&D winds up being kitbashed into scenarios that its core rules don't fit well, rather than people choosing to play systems optimal for those scenarios.

The issue is, there seems to be an underlying assumption that, without D&D, we'd have a TTRPG community equivalent in size to the present distributed more evenly among all systems. I disagree with that assumption. A lot of the marketing and cultural saturation that disproportionately guides people towards playing D&D is the same marketing and cultural saturation that guides people towards playing TTRPGs at all. Given that, even including D&D, the TTRPG community is relatively small and niche, I think it would be just as probable a D&D-less world would have many fewer TTRPG players. Even discounting the possibility of an alternative overcentralizing system, this lower population would lead to it being equally difficult to find and recruit for games, despite a more equal distribution of players.

People having difficulty branching into different games can partly be blamed on a domineering frontrunner, but it's also down to how much people are willing to invest. Gaining access to new systems requires investment of time and money. Some people claimed in this thread that the time investment isn't that much (I didn't think it was fair to negate the testimony of those who claim otherwise), but it is something. Some TTRPGs are free (e.g. Wushu, Eclipse Phase 1e, 3e D&D and PF1e mechanically), but many aren't. Time and money investiture can be eased on the player side, they just need to have an idea of the actions they can take, how to resolve them, and how to build a PC (even that can be negated with pre-gens). However, that puts the burden on the GM - and a lot of people don't want that responsibility. Thus, it's not surprising that the easiest way to get a system run is to be the GM, taking the bulk of the effort onto oneself.

In that light, I'd shift the issue with D&D from "it's too successful" to "it pretends to be a one-shop-stop generic system when it isn't." If D&D didn't officially try to kitbash and portray itself in scenarios it doesn't handle well, maybe people would be more willing to swap to other systems for those scenarios.

[Belac93]

Dunno if I can really narrow down the worst, but (and this will definitely be controversial) probably either Chronicles of Darkness, 5e D&D, CoC 7e, or Pathfinder 1e.

I really dislike crunchy games, games that simulate worlds rather than narratives, and games that have a lot of disconnected mini-systems, and those four are horrible for that. Out of them though, I'd probably be most likely to play CoD again because at least a decent amount of the crunch is *interesting,* and I would like to try a Changeling 2e game sometime.

[noob]

Dunno if I can really narrow down the worst, but (and this will definitely be controversial) probably either Chronicles of Darkness, 5e D&D, CoC 7e, or Pathfinder 1e.

I really dislike crunchy games, games that simulate worlds rather than narratives, and games that have a lot of disconnected mini-systems, and those four are horrible for that. Out of them though, I'd probably be most likely to play CoD again because at least a decent amount of the crunch is *interesting,* and I would like to try a Changeling 2e game sometime.

They are very rule heavy and that makes starting games with those significantly harder.

[Morty]

As I understand it, the core criticism of D&D that qualifies it for "worst game" is that is suppresses interest in other systems. D&D winds up being kitbashed into scenarios that its core rules don't fit well, rather than people choosing to play systems optimal for those scenarios.

Speaking personally, my criticism of 3E D&D and its descendant Pathfinder is that they are simply bad games in all or most respects (Pathfinder being somewhat better). That they're popular despite that is a separate issue. 5E is the edition that's not so much bad as pretty mediocre, and my criticism of it does boil down to its near-monopoly on the market more so than quality.

[Anonymouswizard]

Dunno if I can really narrow down the worst, but (and this will definitely be controversial) probably either Chronicles of Darkness, 5e D&D, CoC 7e, or Pathfinder 1e.

I really dislike crunchy games, games that simulate worlds rather than narratives, and games that have a lot of disconnected mini-systems, and those four are horrible for that. Out of them though, I'd probably be most likely to play CoD again because at least a decent amount of the crunch is *interesting,* and I would like to try a Changeling 2e game sometime.

Sadly crunch heavy games are common because it's easy to sell books of crunch. It can also take a lot of effort not to add loads of needless detail and subsystems, as I've found in my attempts to write games.


I'm currently writing a system to do retro-style space opera (from around the Lensman to Star Trek eras), and I followed the idea that I want all the rules in one book, so I've tried to link everything back to the core dice pill mechanic. I've written all the rules except for some spaceship stuff and unusual powers (to deal with espers and weird aliens), and ended up with less than nine pages of A4. Now if I was a company that doesn't leave me a lot to sell system-wise, I'd have to hope I had a decent enough setting to sell books on Sectors and Factions or adventures in order to make a profit.

That said I might be adding in Panache Points as a metagame currency, which will add another page or so. But even then you can see why professional have designers might want something where they can sell books of crunch.

On the other hand there's nothing won't with crunch, one of my favourite games is GURPS. But the more crunch there is the harder it is to just pick up, create characters, and start playing. Which is why Fate Accelerated is so popular, while I do love Fate Core for it's more in depth mechanical discussion if I want to make characters in twenty minutes and play the first session I'll pull out Accelerated.

(Heck, I'm half considering just dumping the system I've written and basing the game on Fate. It would make a lot of things easier.)

[RifleAvenger]

Speaking personally, my criticism of 3E D&D and its descendant Pathfinder is that they are simply bad games in all or most respects (Pathfinder being somewhat better). That they're popular despite that is a separate issue. 5E is the edition that's not so much bad as pretty mediocre, and my criticism of it does boil down to its near-monopoly on the market more so than quality.

I'm sorry that I don't have time to fully review the thread to actually acknowledge the specific critiques. All I'll say is...

Dunno if I can really narrow down the worst, but (and this will definitely be controversial) probably either Chronicles of Darkness...., CoC 7e, or Pathfinder 1e.

I really dislike crunchy games, games that simulate worlds rather than narratives...

... that's 3/4 of my top 4. The other, Lancer, is pretty crunchy when it's time to smash the gunpla together. I prefer rulesets that are built out more, because in my experience it leads to greater variation in play at the interface level. Pathfinder 1e still provides that for me despite nearly two decades spent between it and its 'parent.' That's with having been exposed to some twenty odd other systems over the years, so it's not being "stuck in the Platonic Cave of D&D." PF1e is not my favorite, CoD beats it out pretty clean on multiple lines, but I'd comfortably place it in my 2nd place if I can lump Mage the Awakening and Hunter the Vigil together.

Every time I've tried something along the lines of FATE, Numenera, or Wushu it feels like I've seen it all after a few sessions. It's not that I don't value narrative either, it's pretty important to me that I care about (or the players do) what's going on beyond 'shooty-shooty bang-bang.' But I want to be engaged on the mechanical level in novel ways at the same time.

I will admit that the single worst individual game (as in campaign/chronicle etc.) I ever played in was a D&D 3.5e module. Pretty much a living showcase of everything wrong about the system. So I can understand why someone would think it and its children are the 'worst RPG,' even if I don't agree.

They are very rule heavy and that makes starting games with those significantly harder.

For many people, I'm sure this is true. I've even talked in this thread about the obstacle having to learn new rules poses to getting buy-in to systems. New games have trended towards slimmed down rulesets for some time, for good reason.

However, I think it's incorrect to assume rules-heavy is harder to grasp for all people. I can imagine a player new to TTRPGs who would be better served by a simulationist, rules-heavy game, because it provides a common structure for understanding. It can be easier to get a grasp on 'what am I supposed to do?' in general terms. I know from experience that some people find it really difficult to comprehend how things closer to the collaborative storytelling end of the pool are supposed to work.

[Max_Killjoy]

I find that many new systems fall into one or more of the following disqualifying categories:

* Trying so hard to be simple that they end up bland or inflexible.
* Trying to simulate narrative, usually to the detriment of setting/rules coherence, and/or burying the gameplay under added mechanics.
* Just derived from one of a handful of systems I don't like (OSR or d20 clones, FATE, PbtA, etc).
* Buried in needless complexity and what amounts to lots of disconnected mini-games for different situations (roll d20 for this, roll 2d6 for that, roll d100 for another thing, etc, etc, etc).
* Getting cute with strange custom dice, adding in playing cards and poker chips, etc.
* Turning the game into a constant exercise in generating and spending meta-currency, or trying to fast-talk the GM.

[gijoemike]

For many people, I'm sure this is true. I've even talked in this thread about the obstacle having to learn new rules poses to getting buy-in to systems. New games have trended towards slimmed down rulesets for some time, for good reason.

However, I think it's incorrect to assume rules-heavy is harder to grasp for all people. I can imagine a player new to TTRPGs who would be better served by a simulationist, rules-heavy game, because it provides a common structure for understanding. It can be easier to get a grasp on 'what am I supposed to do?' in general terms. I know from experience that some people find it really difficult to comprehend how things closer to the collaborative storytelling end of the pool are supposed to work.

It isnt about grasping or understanding. It is decision paralysis. There are over 100 different ways to make a one handed swordsman in pathfinder 1 now between classes, archetypes, and feats. Leta not even discuss the dozens of races. As a brand new player, it is a monumental task to build a character.

The crunch of the system stands as a gatekeeper to actually playing the system. It is nearly required to have an expert at the table to help everyone. I am now of the opinion that the first character should be made by someone else who does have a form of system mastery and the new player just explain the concept. Works far better that way.

I actually agree with you that a crunch heavy game that offers options during a given scenario is far more helpful than a rules light system that doesnt cover a scenario at all. Having to play Mother may I with the GM because the rules aren't clear is terrible.

[Max_Killjoy]

It isnt about grasping or understanding. It is decision paralysis. There are over 100 different ways to make a one handed swordsman in pathfinder 1 now between classes, archetypes, and feats. Leta not even discuss the dozens of races. As a brand new player, it is a monumental task to build a character.

The crunch of the system stands as a gatekeeper to actually playing the system. It is nearly required to have an expert at the table to help everyone. I am now of the opinion that the first character should be made by someone else who does have a form of system mastery and the new player just explain the concept. Works far better that way.

That's a problem with any system that locks options behind classes, "races", etc, and then keeps selling books based on adding more and more of those things.

[Ignimortis]

I find that many new systems fall into one or more of the following disqualifying categories:

* Trying so hard to be simple that they end up bland or inflexible.
* Trying to simulate narrative, usually to the detriment of setting/rules coherence, and/or burying the gameplay under added mechanics.
* Just derived from one of a handful of systems I don't like (OSR or d20 clones, FATE, PbtA, etc).
* Buried in needless complexity and what amounts to lots of disconnected mini-games for different situations (roll d20 for this, roll 2d6 for that, roll d100 for another thing, etc, etc, etc).
* Getting cute with strange custom dice, adding in playing cards and poker chips, etc.
* Turning the game into a constant exercise in generating and spending meta-currency, or trying to fast-talk the GM.

Ooh, I like that. I pretty much agree with all those points.

In that light, I'd shift the issue with D&D from "it's too successful" to "it pretends to be a one-shop-stop generic system when it isn't." If D&D didn't officially try to kitbash and portray itself in scenarios it doesn't handle well, maybe people would be more willing to swap to other systems for those scenarios.

Also this. And people trying to use D&D for things it's not meant for, of course, instead of just finding a proper system for those things.

For many people, I'm sure this is true. I've even talked in this thread about the obstacle having to learn new rules poses to getting buy-in to systems. New games have trended towards slimmed down rulesets for some time, for good reason.

However, I think it's incorrect to assume rules-heavy is harder to grasp for all people. I can imagine a player new to TTRPGs who would be better served by a simulationist, rules-heavy game, because it provides a common structure for understanding. It can be easier to get a grasp on 'what am I supposed to do?' in general terms. I know from experience that some people find it really difficult to comprehend how things closer to the collaborative storytelling end of the pool are supposed to work.

I am certainly of that category. D&D 5e or oWoD are basically the smallest amount of crunch a game can have and still hold my interest for more than a few sessions. Frankly, even 5e already wore itself out after five years of play, because there are very few concepts I'd like to play in heroic fantasy, that can also be done mechanically in 5e. The only system I ever had problems grasping was Shadowrun 5e, and it's a generally known fact that it's hard to grasp because the editing is so poor.

But systems like FATE or PbtA seem too simple and devoid of player expression through builds. If I can roleplay and also build a distinct character who does things in distinct mechanical ways, why would I trade that for just roleplaying?

[King of Nowhere]

We’re at 19 pages now, so I can see how latecomers to the party may have missed some of the intermediary discussion. To just speed right through another one starting from scratch:

-The initial supposition isn’t that D&D is the worst mechanically or the most cringeworthy. It is the worst for the hobby as a whole because it mires it in mediocrity and prevents good games from getting through.
-At that point someone says “but it’s so popular”
-The rebuttal is “yes, but it is popular due to external factors, including its own critical mass in a hobby where you need five people from within a small group of hobbyists to play. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s not very good”
-“But I can play it! Better the game I can play, even if it’s not that good!”
-“That’s kind of the point we’re making about it being bad, the one where you can only play the bleh game and struggle to play the good ones”
-At this point someone mention there’s no way D&D is the worst of all time...

So, what do you think would happen if there was no D&D? Do you think people would be proficient in a dozen systems to deal with a variety of different genres.... or perhaps they would keep learning one system, and the rpg community would be a disjoined mess?
Don't you think perhaps a new system would emerge as dominant, simply because we are few enough that it would be impossible to find any game if everyone has a system of choice?
And what are those "good games" that would be better than D&D? I've seen a lot of names pop up, only to be randomly shot down by someone else. There's no system that's objectively better than D&D. there are different systems that appease to different tastes, and that's all.

Basically, we need a common denominator of some sort, something that everyone in the community knows and can recognize and can play. And D&D is no worse for this task than anything else could be.
I can understand how frustrating it can be for some of you, those who like rpg but don't like d&d, and are often stuck in games of it as an alternative to no rpg at all. I've been through it myself, all my life surrounded by people who get excited for things i don't care, who don't care about what I care. That's the story of everyone who has niche interests. That's probably the story of everyone in this forum. And i was born before internet forums, so i had it worse: if you didn't fit with the people around you, you were stuck alone forever, period.
But blaming the popular game is not fair. In fact, the popular game is generally so popular for good reasons. And the people who don't care about your niche hobby won't care about your niche hobby anyway, even if you took away their mainstream one. At best, they'd disperse along the whole spectrum.

furthermore, on a personal level, i prefer to specialize. to go deep instead of going wide. A world with dozens of competing rpg, where every group uses a different one for every game because it fits better? that may be heaven for you, but it's certainly hell for me. I'd never have a chance to really learn a system this way. I prefer to keep playing D&D, and increase my understanding of it at every game.

tl:dr
having a single massively popular game an a small number of mildly popular ones is the only possible outcome of a starting situation with many games competing for attentions. D&D is that massively popular game. If it didn't exhist, some other game would take its place. and it wouldn't be any better

[PhoenixPhyre]

You know, I think that one reason I haven't burned out on 5e mechanically is that I really haven't played much. Oh, I've had lots of system/session time. But 99.99% as a DM (I'm not even really exaggerating. Over 5+ years of running generally 2+ games a week, I may have played in a dozen or maybe 20 sessions as a player.) So I'm not building and playing individual characters, I'm running the other side of the show. Which has tons of diversity, and if I need more, I can make more pretty easily, as the DM side of the rules is much looser and literally trivial to modify.

Adding to that, I'm in kind of an awkward spot as far as preferences. Too few mechanics and meh, too many and it's a slog. So while I primarily love the narrative and exploration (as in "finding new things in the universes we play in") portions, I can't find interest in a purely narrative game or a too-highly-abstract one like FATE. I read through the rules and it just didn't grab me at all. Not enough of a framework to build from; too bare bones. On the other hand, a game like Shadowrun or PF doesn't grab me at all, let alone the even heavier ones. Because I have no desire to spend minutes looking things up to figure out what happened with that action.

So for me, 5e's right about in the right spot. I do enjoy heroic fantasy[1], so the genre is a good match. The system is light enough to be easily run from a narrative perspective, but heavy enough to not make me do all the lifting on the parts I am not as good at (ie combat and structured uncertainty resolution). And it's super open to making your own setting, which is important to me. So it does what I need from a system, in a genre I enjoy, and then gets the heck out of my way.

But that's just me. Y'all can be at all places in this enjoyment space. I'm just glad that there are plenty of games out there to suit all kinds of styles.

[1] I'm a sucker for a happy ending. I like conflicts of "good" and "evil", even if those aren't totally clear. I dislike grimdark, and cyber-* never grabbed me. And I have enough of the real world, so "realistic" or "real world" setting bore me.

[Satinavian]

So, what do you think would happen if there was no D&D? Do you think people would be proficient in a dozen systems to deal with a variety of different genres.... or perhaps they would keep learning one system, and the rpg community would be a disjoined mess?
Don't you think perhaps a new system would emerge as dominant, simply because we are few enough that it would be impossible to find any game if everyone has a system of choice?
And what are those "good games" that would be better than D&D? I've seen a lot of names pop up, only to be randomly shot down by someone else. There's no system that's objectively better than D&D. there are different systems that appease to different tastes, and that's all.

There are a lot of markets out there where D&D never got such a dominant position. Mostly because it was translated too late. Som have another dominent systems, some have several popular ones without one relly in the lead.

Those markets still have thriving RPG communities that work well. Turns out you really don't need D&D as common language or to get people started.


Is it better or worse ? That mostly depends on how much you like D&D. Whatever the dominent system(s) are, those are easiest for group finding and they are also the main influence for homebrew stuff.

[Belac93]

So, what do you think would happen if there was no D&D? Do you think people would be proficient in a dozen systems to deal with a variety of different genres.... or perhaps they would keep learning one system, and the rpg community would be a disjoined mess?

The Indie community *is* like this. People play a bunch of different games, sometimes even with the designers of those games, and it *rocks.*

If you're used to D&D you're used to games that are 600+ enormous pages long just to be able to get a sense of the system. But that's because D&D is a bloated mess made by awful people trying to compromise with new and old players. Most RPGs need like, 2 sheets of paper to understand the system. Monsterhearts 2e is one of my most played games and is 170 or so novel-sized pages. All the player rules fit on 1 page of paper and your 1-page playbook sheet. *Most* rpgs are like this, it's only the big-budget trad rpgs that feel the need to make these enormous books trying to fool people into thinking more rules=more fun.

[EggKookoo]

If you're used to D&D you're used to games that are 600+ enormous pages long just to be able to get a sense of the system. But that's because D&D is a bloated mess made by awful people trying to compromise with new and old players. Most RPGs need like, 2 sheets of paper to understand the system. Monsterhearts 2e is one of my most played games and is 170 or so novel-sized pages. All the player rules fit on 1 page of paper and your 1-page playbook sheet. *Most* rpgs are like this, it's only the big-budget trad rpgs that feel the need to make these enormous books trying to fool people into thinking more rules=more fun.

A lot of the three core D&D books are about content, though. That's pretty much all the MM is, and good chunks of the PHB and DMG are lists of spells and magic items.

How does a 1-page RPG handle character progression and gameplay content? How many 1-page RPGs assume you already know what a TTRPG is and can bypass the hand-holding that a game like D&D puts in to make sure entry-level players aren't lost?

[Belac93]

A lot of the three core D&D books are about content, though. That's pretty much all the MM is, and good chunks of the PHB and DMG are lists of spells and magic items.

How does a 1-page RPG handle character progression and gameplay content? How many 1-page RPGs assume you already know what a TTRPG is and can bypass the hand-holding that a game like D&D puts in to make sure entry-level players aren't lost?

I didn't say 1-page rpg, I said 170 page rpg where the *basic rules* fit on 1 page. Everything you need to run a one-shot. Playing a campaign might add a page, and you'll need a second page for the MC.

Also D&D is a crap game to introduce people to the hobby with, it's way too complicated. Storygames are way better for that kind of stuff and are generally more focused on actually helping new players play alongside experienced ones or start a game on their own.

[Anonymouswizard]

I've rarely found new players to need handholding. In many ways they seem to need it less than old players, especially if character creation is easy enough to grasp.

I have good experiences with Fate Accelerated. Come up with a High Concept, a Trouble, and at least one other Aspect. If you can't think of five Aspects don't worry, we can fill them in later. From the six approaches pick one to be +3, two to be +2, two to be +1, and one to be +0. Oh, and by the way, throwing blasts of fire is Flashy, I've seen that mistake made before. Pick a situation where you'll get +2 to an approach, and give it a cool name like 'Desert Sun Judo'. Okay, we've got enough to start playing, if you think of another Aspect you want to have let me know and you can add it to your sheet.

I've never had a player to come up with three aspects and one stunt. Literally the hardest thing to get people to understand, and it's universally players used to D&D, is that attacking with blasts of lightning is Flashy and not Clever.

[King of Nowhere]

There are a lot of markets out there where D&D never got such a dominant position. Mostly because it was translated too late. Som have another dominent systems, some have several popular ones without one relly in the lead.

Those markets still have thriving RPG communities that work well. Turns out you really don't need D&D as common language or to get people started.

No, but you do need *a* common language.
You yourself said it: when there is no D&D, there is some other dominant game, or at most a limited number of dominant games. I do not argue for D&D specifically, i'm saying that the rise of a dominant game, or few dominant games, is unavoidable.

The Indie community *is* like this. People play a bunch of different games, sometimes even with the designers of those games, and it *rocks.*

and yet, the indie community lacks players for anything specific. the community for a game is made of 30 people worldwide. I speak from experience, having been part of some such community. And yes, some of it is nice, but at the same time it's missing several advantages of a larger community

If you're used to D&D you're used to games that are 600+ enormous pages long just to be able to get a sense of the system.

what? are we even playing the same game?
I can introduce new players with 30 minutes of exxplanations if they never played rpg. this cuts to 5-10 minutes if they have rpg experience. you don't need to memorize the spell list to be able to play.

And I m sure those games that have 1 page of rules are much more freeform. some people like them, some people don't. I, personally, don't like stuff to be too much of a game of "DM may I?". Technically, everything you do in rpg is DM may I, but you can have at least some framework. I do like that, if I want to go deep, I do have access to thousands of pages of content. it's what kept me from getting bored of the system.

[EggKookoo]

I didn't say 1-page rpg, I said 170 page rpg where the *basic rules* fit on 1 page. Everything you need to run a one-shot. Playing a campaign might add a page, and you'll need a second page for the MC.

Ok, got it. Kind of like the D&D basic rules, which comes in at 110 pages (1/3 which are spells, and a good chunk of which are race and class features). Plus then some pages for a starting adventure. D&D is a moderately complex game, but you could fit the basic gameplay rules -- all the d20 task-resolution stuff -- on one page if you wanted to. It's the class features and spells and whatnot that eats up most of the rest of the stuff. And for the "big three" core books, the MM is all content, and a lot of the DMG is treasure lists and rules on creating different settings or creating more content.

Also D&D is a crap game to introduce people to the hobby with, it's way too complicated. Storygames are way better for that kind of stuff and are generally more focused on actually helping new players play alongside experienced ones or start a game on their own.

I've found 5e to be trivially easy to explain to newbie players, but I'm also a GM experienced with a few different systems, so maybe I explain it well? Or I play with unusually smart people.

I have a 9yo player. She knows exactly what her warlock can do, what dice to use, how the action economy works, etc.

I've rarely found new players to need handholding.

My point is, a lot of the groundwork for what a TTRPG actually is has been laid by mainstream games similar to D&D. You can make your niche game with minimalist rules because it's likely at least one of the people at the table has that broader mainstream experience and can provide context. Even just being able to point to what the kids in Stranger Things are playing as D&D helps.

[Cluedrew]

Some people claimed in this thread that the time investment isn't that much (I didn't think it was fair to negate the testimony of those who claim otherwise), but it is something.

There is one nuisance of this argument you missed: The front-runner games all being comparatively rules heavy means some (hard to say exactly how many, more than zero but not all) players assume that all games are roughly as hard to learn. Which they are not, I'd say that that even 5e which is the most rules-light edition in a while and it is way more complex than many of the other systems I have tried.

In that light, I'd shift the issue with D&D from "it's too successful" to "it pretends to be a one-shop-stop generic system when it isn't." If D&D didn't officially try to kitbash and portray itself in scenarios it doesn't handle well, maybe people would be more willing to swap to other systems for those scenarios.

Yeah, that seems right. I mean there are times D&D feels like it is a war game intermixed with freeform role-playing that is choking the life out of true role-playing games. But I have had fun with several editions of D&D (including the relatively unpopular 4th edition) and I see how it is the right choice for other people. Yet I have a Blades in the Dark character I'm probably never going to get to play because if I ever play that system I'm probably going to be running it and not have my own character. And that kind of makes me sad.

To Anonymouswizard: I blame intelligence based spell casting for that. Not that raw intelligence and clever thinking are exactly the same thing but it sets up the association.

On Less Rules: I forgot to quote it but someone said something about why have less rules, or less mechanics to engage with, when you can still role-play with or without them. My reply is: because engaging with the rules is still a process that takes time and energy and if you can role-play with or without it why waste that energy? Well because its fun, but it comes down to taste about what is worth it.

[Morty]

The claim that if there was no D&D, some other game would be dominant, is conveniently unfalsifiable. We don't know what would have happened if D&D hadn't achieved the position it has, because it didn't happen. And there's a number of other ways the hobby could have grown instead.

[King of Nowhere]

There is one nuisance of this argument you missed: The front-runner games all being comparatively rules heavy means some (hard to say exactly how many, more than zero but not all) players assume that all games are roughly as hard to learn. Which they are not, I'd say that that even 5e which is the most rules-light edition in a while and it is way more complex than many of the other systems I have tried.

Don't confuse the effort needed to play and that needed to master. I can get some new player at the table playing D&D in minutes. But I've played D&D for years and i still miss a lot of fine nuances.
Yes, I could pick up a system quickly, but i would not be good at it. it would take me a lot of effort to become good at it.
I feel this powergaming perspective is completely missing from your side of the argument. You can learn dozens of systems, but you cannot master them. you'll only be scratching the surface. which is why they seem so good, you never realize the absurdities in the rules. in d&d, someone already discover them and pointed them out.

The claim that if there was no D&D, some other game would be dominant, is conveniently unfalsifiable. We don't know what would have happened if D&D hadn't achieved the position it has, because it didn't happen. And there's a number of other ways the hobby could have grown instead.

Actually, it is conveniently verifiable, stated by some posters above me.

There are a lot of markets out there where D&D never got such a dominant position. Mostly because it was translated too late. Som have another dominent systems, some have several popular ones without one relly in the lead.

the only thing conveniently unverifiable is the claim that without d&d other systems would bloom. and that they would be better.

besides that, it happens with everything! look at sports. there are a few big ones, and the others are niche and unknown to most.
look at movies. there are some that get most viewers, most movies are small and nobody ever heard of them.
look at restaurants. there are hundreds of styles of making food, but most of those you see will have the same things. because most people will want to eath those things.
Look political parties. in most country there are dozens if you look for them, but most people will vote for the main 2 to 4.
People congregate. Something gets to a certain stage of popularity, people will talk about it. others who never heard of it will want to know what the fuss is about. the popular thing isn't necessarily better, though it should still be at least good enough to be liked by the majority. but the state where there are dozens of different things is unstable. something will randomly pick up momentum, and then it will get the spotlight.

[RifleAvenger]

The claim that if there was no D&D, some other game would be dominant, is conveniently unfalsifiable. We don't know what would have happened if D&D hadn't achieved the position it has, because it didn't happen. And there's a number of other ways the hobby could have grown instead.

So is the notion that the hobby would be better off without it. "A number of other ways the hobby could have grown instead" didn't happen. Either we're both allowed to try modeling a D&D-less world based on related observable factors, or neither of us are.

There's been periods where D&D has been globally weak: 90s 2e into early 3e, and 4e (I got into TTRPGs in the former period, coincidentally). Neither shook off "one game to rule them all," with World of Darkness being the new hotness in the 90s and Pathfinder 1e competing with D&D 4e.

Actually, it is conveniently verifiable, stated by some posters above me.

QUOTE

the only thing conveniently unverifiable is the claim that without d&d other systems would bloom. and that they would be better.

There are a lot of markets out there where D&D never got such a dominant position. Mostly because it was translated too late. Som have another dominent systems, some have several popular ones without one relly in the lead.

Those markets still have thriving RPG communities that work well. Turns out you really don't need D&D as common language or to get people started.


Is it better or worse ? That mostly depends on how much you like D&D. Whatever the dominant system(s) are, those are easiest for group finding and they are also the main influence for homebrew stuff.

Emphasis mine. People shouldn't be cutting out parts of quotes inconvenient to their argument.

However, this does seem like evidence for what a world that developed along different lines would be like. D&D, obviously, didn't have to be the first TTRPG. It still seems that areas where it isn't popular still have a limited number of frontrunner systems, if not a single one.

The regions with several frontrunners seem like they could be better, but I suppose the next question would be "do people play all the frontrunners, or is the community sectarian about their preferences?" It's an important distinction, since being divided into multiple small communities that are devoted to their small piece of the pie is an issue endemic to other hobbies (e.g., the Fighting Game Community).

I'd also be interested in population data for these regions versus ones in which D&D dominates. With some way of converting it to relative percentages, since absolute numbers will just tell us which games are more popular in highly populated countries.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So is the notion that the hobby would be better off without it. "A number of other ways the hobby could have grown instead" didn't happen. Either we're both allowed to try modeling a D&D-less world based on related observable factors, or neither of us are.

There's been periods where D&D has been globally weak: 90s 2e into early 3e, and 4e (I got into TTRPGs in the former period, coincidentally). Neither shook off "one game to rule them all," with World of Darkness being the new hotness in the 90s and Pathfinder 1e competing with D&D 4e.

Emphasis mine. People shouldn't be cutting out parts of quotes because they're inconvenient.

This also seems like evidence for what a world that developed along different lines would be like. D&D, obviously, didn't have to be the first TTRPG. It still seems that areas where it isn't popular still have a limited number of frontrunner systems, if not a single one.

I'd be interested in population data for these regions versus ones in which D&D dominates. With some way of converting it to relative percentages, since absolute numbers will just tell us which games are more popular in highly populated countries.

From what I know of the overall market, those times when D&D was globally weak were also relative low spots in the market overall. There's two factors to consider--in-market share (ie PF vs 4e, WoD vs 2e vs etc) and total market size. From what I understand about the 4e period, at least, the total market shrunk. So PF was competing for a larger share of a smaller pie. None of those other games made a significant inroad into the "non TTRPG-playing community"--they didn't draw many new people in (to be more precise, the rate at which they drew new people in was smaller than the rate at which existing players stopped playing entirely). They mostly cannibalized existing players.

That's actually as predicted--demand for TTRPGs is highly elastic. There are lots of other, non-TTRPG competitors out there in the same broader entertainment market. So "slaying the king" won't inherently draw more people to <system X>. Instead, you might see even fewer people and only the diehards, while those who weren't heavily invested just find other entertainments. And the reverse. Having a visible, well-known system in the public eye may (hypotheticals here!) draw more people in who end up playing <system X>, in part by increasing the mind share of TTRPGs as a whole vs those other entertainments or breaking down the "only unwashed geeks and freaks play TTRPGs" stigma.

The long and the short is that predictions are hard. Markets are complex.

[Theoboldi]

So, as far as different markets go, in my experience the German one does not focus as heavily as the American one on D&D, yet this does not mean that people are more happy to try out other, niche systems.

Rather, people mostly play The Dark Eye, which is the local big fish, followed in numbers by the most well-established old systems like Deadlands or Shadowrun. Lesser known or new systems typically do not get a second glance.

[Anonymouswizard]

My point is, a lot of the groundwork for what a TTRPG actually is has been laid by mainstream games similar to D&D. You can make your niche game with minimalist rules because it's likely at least one of the people at the table has that broader mainstream experience and can provide context. Even just being able to point to what the kids in Stranger Things are playing as D&D helps.

Most kids play make believe, so the groundwork is already there.

Honestly, I find narrativist systems to be easier to explain, because they boil down to 'let's i,prov a story with some intentional randomness'. Unless you've played D&D (or one of it's computer games) than most of the context people have is equally applicable to any system.

To Anonymouswizard: I blame intelligence based spell casting for that. Not that raw intelligence and clever thinking are exactly the same thing but it sets up the association.

Yep, I blame it too. But it's an assumption I don't find with people not used to D&D.

Interestingly I've never seen anybody try to argue that such magic is Forceful, which I'd completely cave on. The logic always seems to be 'it's magic therefore it must be Clever', whereas Clever attacks to me are more along the lines of witty taunts and attempts to emotionally manipulate your opponent. It seems to be 'I'm used to the D&D stats, therefore I must contort these six things to fit them' in many cases.

[EggKookoo]

Most kids play make believe, so the groundwork is already there.

It's definitely true that for certain people, grokking the essence of a TTRPG is intuitive. It's also true that there are plenty of people out there who don't get what's going on right out of the gate. I've played with both types. My experience is that the former type are also ones most likely to explore different systems and invest time figuring out niche games. The latter type (which I think is also the majority in the general human population) like the game to be like "that hobbit movie" or something else they can hook their imaginations on.

Part of D&D's success is that it's managed to appeal, at least to some significant degree, to that second type of player.