# D&D 5E The Overwhelming Dominance of D&D is Bad for Everyone...



## MGibster

Okay, maybe it's not bad for WotC or Hasbro.  I think we're all in agreement here the role playing game industry, insofar as we can call it an industry, is overwhelmingly dominated by Dungeons & Dragons.  It's the oldest, most recognizable property whose very name is synonomous with RPGs for much of the public.  Telling a coworker I'm playing Pathfinder this weekend will elicit questions about what that is, whereas telling them I'm playing D&D will only elicit questions like, "Aren't you a little old for that?"  I've been gaming for about 35 years now, and D&D is the only game I can think of where I could easily find players for no matter my location.  And why is that?  Because D&D, pretty much all versions, have been good games.  

The recent leak of the alleged new OGL from WotC prompted me to question whether it was harmful for D&D to so utterly dominate the market.  Yeah, I think it is.  It's just not healthy for such a significant chunk of an industry to be so strongly affected by the actions of one company.  It's not just a problem that WotC seems to want to change the OGL, it's a problem that it affects so many other publishers, some very seriously.  I'm not really sure what, if anything can be done about this, but surly other people see D&D's overwhelming dominance as a bad thing, right?  Or am I way off base here?


----------



## Cadence

If you'd asked me a few weeks ago, my thoughts would have been very different.   It feels like what "D&D"is just got a lot smaller (as in a smaller tent) and the name means something different to me now.


----------



## Zardnaar

It's kinda dominant for a reason though. 

 We've had 4 decades for something to displace it.


----------



## Ancalagon

There is a lot of value in a "standard".  Like the USB stick, or Facebook.  They are sticking around due to inertia, because it's what people are used to. 

But most gamers eventually try other systems.  A lot of the 5e crowd are new, or new-ish.  This could give them the incentive to try other systems.  And there are many good choices.


----------



## jmhimara

Ancalagon said:


> But most gamers eventually try other systems.



It's definitely not _most_. Nevertheless, it'd be interesting if anyone could compile accurate statistics regarding what percentage of people who started on D&D have switched to other games, for how long, etc.


----------



## Zardnaar

jmhimara said:


> It's definitely not _most_. Nevertheless, it'd be interesting if anyone could compile accurate statistics regarding what percentage of people who started on D&D have switched to other games, for how long, etc.




 Well I've been lectured by try hard hipsters since about 1996 about why D&D sucks. 

 Their pet system is dead and buried for the most part while D&D endures.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Indeed, the dominance of D&D in the RPG market has been a known problem since the 80s at least. But it's a "what can we do about it?" thing. People are sheep, they always go where they see the other sheep going. I've played a good number of great RPGs since I started playing in the 80s.

And it is a problem for WotC too. Competition is needed to keep you sharp. And get too big and the sharks start to gather.


Personally, I'm planning on running Traveller when I finish Call of the Netherdeep. All my players are up for it, and I'm bored with fantasy.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I sell orders of magnitude more 5e D&D books than all other RPGs put together. Even including Pathfinder.

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for other RPGs to sell. It would absolutely be healthier for everyone (including my business) for other RPGs to sell well.

Even a DC to D&D's Marvel would be welcome (this only happened with 4e D&D and Pathfinder - though to be fair, the industry was NOT healthy then, so... hmm.)


----------



## Zardnaar

FitzTheRuke said:


> I sell orders of magnitude more 5e D&D books than all other RPGs put together. Even including Pathfinder.
> 
> I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for other RPGs to sell. It would absolutely be healthier for everyone (including my business) for other RPGs to sell well.
> 
> Even a DC to D&D's Marvel would be welcome (this only happened with 4e D&D and Pathfinder - though to be fair, the industry was NOT healthy then, so... hmm.)




 Yup. Here other RPGs may as well not exist. You'll have to run it yourself and find the players for the most part.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ancalagon said:


> There is a lot of value in a "standard".  Like the USB stick, or Facebook.  They are sticking around due to inertia, because it's what people are used to.
> 
> But most gamers eventually try other systems.  A lot of the 5e crowd are new, or new-ish.  This could give them the incentive to try other systems.  And there are many good choices.



If 5e disappeared off the planet, I have no doubt many people, especially people on this board, would move on to other games.  But that mass of new 5e fans would, IMO, be far more likely to move on to another hobby altogether.  Those other games simply don't have any strong visibility to a casual gamer who's new to TTRPGs and has only played 5e.  You need real motivation to learn a new system, to find enough players, etc.


----------



## Deset Gled

Now that RPGs are a large market, having a dominant monopoly can be a problem.  But when the RPG market was a niche hobby, having a centralized dominant presence was a benefit to to fandom.  When players are fewer and farther between, a player base fractured over a number of small games makes it that much harder to find a table.

It's only in the past decade (less, really) that the RPG market has grown enough for this to be an issue.  I don't have the numbers available easily, but I'm pretty sure the time between TSR falling apart in the 90s and WotC publishing 3e was the lowest point of the RPG market since D&D's inception.  During that time we had a large number of third part games fighting for market space.  But without D&D to unite the fandom, it really was the darkest time in RPG history.

So, sure, I'll agree that what WotC is doing with D&D now is a problem for the industry.  But over the decades that I've been playing, I can't honestly claim that D&D's overwhelming dominance has been a universally bad thing.  For a long time, it was the glue that that held the hobby together.


----------



## Shiroiken

Despite the current idiocy of WotC/Hasbro, I disagree. If not for the dominance of D&D, TTRPGs would most likely remain a niche hobby for geeks and nerds. While there are numerous other game systems out there, many better at what they do than D&D, nobody really starts on a non-D&D system (Pathfinder being a D&D system derivative). Most of those other games wouldn't ever exist if it wasn't for D&D's dominance and popularity getting people into TTRPGs in the first place.


----------



## Zardnaar

Shiroiken said:


> Despite the current idiocy of WotC/Hasbro, I disagree. If not for the dominance of D&D, TTRPGs would most likely remain a niche hobby for geeks and nerds. While there are numerous other game systems out there, many better at what they do than D&D, nobody really starts on a non-D&D system (Pathfinder being a D&D system derivative). Most of those other games wouldn't ever exist if it wasn't for D&D's dominance and popularity getting people into TTRPGs in the first place.




 Yeah we have had almost 59 years for that well of potential RPG players to come forth and play a better game. 

 Hasn't happened yet. 

 Non D&D  RPGs are very niche. Wasn't that long ago the entire hoppy was worth less than $15 million. 

  Some rpgs only have a few hundred players. I suspect a few don't even have that.


----------



## Shardstone

Zardnaar said:


> It's kinda dominant for a reason though.
> 
> We've had 4 decades for something to displace it.



Shallow analysis. There are many reasons why it hasn't been displaced.


----------



## Shardstone

Zardnaar said:


> Yeah we have had almost 59 years for that well of potential RPG players to come forth and play a better game.
> 
> Hasn't happened yet.
> 
> Non D&D  RPGs are very niche. Wasn't that long ago the entire hoppy was worth less than $15 million.
> 
> Some rpgs only have a few hundred players. I suspect a few don't even have that.



Is your stance that other RPGs shouldn't exist since DND is so successful?


----------



## Minigiant

TTRPGs are still too niche for another big player to buy/invest in a RPG company or for one to get huge on its own.

It's the curse of most niche hobbies whose fans weren't seen in a favorable light for long. You get 1 maybe 2 big companies and that it.


----------



## dave2008

For me, or maybe more for @FitzTheRuke, I would just call PF (1 & 2) D&D. 

When I visited my flags back in the PF1/4e days they had PF stuff right next to D&D (almost co-mingled). I was there when a father asked the clerk to show him a D&D starter set as he wanted to get it for his son. The clerk took him to the Pathfinder starter set (the shop was not 4e fans) and sold that to him as D&D. The father was non-the-wiser.

So just put PF under the D&D banner and people could flock to it!


----------



## Bagpuss

jmhimara said:


> It's definitely not _most_.




While I believe this is true it always surprises me.

I've never met a gamer *in person* that just plays D&D, or a DM that just runs D&D, yet it seems a common thing on the internet. I guess because when I meet gamers outside my own groups (which play all sorts of RPGs), it tends to be at conventions and conventions (at least in the UK) tend not to be D&D focused, they are a multitude of different systems often with people demonstrating the latest releases or indie game they have discovered.


----------



## Maggan

Shardstone said:


> Shallow analysis. There are many reasons why it hasn't been displaced.



Add to that the fact that is has been displaced in some different markets than the US.

Drakar och Demoner in Sweden.
Das Schwarze Auge in Germany.

First mover advantage is a big reason for any RPG to be the dominant in a country. Or rather, first mover when it comes to distribution.


----------



## Sword of Spirit

As a pretty eclectic player interested in trying and playing all sorts of systems, I do think D&D (especially 5.0e--RIP) has a certain magic to it. 

The rules have some rough edges, but the relative efficiency provided by the interaction of complexity with design goal is pretty high. In other words, if you like the level of complexity, the 5.0e D&D provides its intended experience efficiently. If you prefer more (or less) complexity, or you don't like the intended experience (like my friend who hates how much he feels they nerfed casters), or you just don't like class/level systems (like me, despite my liking 5e), you may not care for it, but other than some rough edges I think that is more about preference than quality.

D&D IP is also distinctive, expansive, and to me--wondrous. The reason I had a hard time staying away from D&D permanently when I gave up over the (actually) clumsy system back in 2e, is because of the Quasi-elemental Plane of Lightning, the City of Brass, the triad of Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and Dragonlance, the Phlogiston, 3rd level spells, beholders and displacer beasts. No one has/had all of that, because it's real IP, and I love it as much as any Star Wars expanded universe or Marvel fan.

I agree with the original premise that it's not good for the market (or for D&D!) for it to have such a stranglehold on the industry. I agree that some of major reasons for its popularity are unrelated to its quality. I do not agree that its popularity is in spite of low quality.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Bagpuss said:


> While I believe this is true it always surprises me.
> 
> I've never met a gamer *in person* that just plays D&D, or a DM that just runs D&D, yet it seems a common thing on the internet. I guess because when I meet gamers outside my own groups (which play all sorts of RPGs), it tends to be at conventions and conventions (at least in the UK) tend not to be D&D focused, they are a multitude of different systems often with people demonstrating the latest releases or indie game they have discovered.



Maybe D&D is more dominant in the US? I'm in the UK too, and most of my players play other RPGs too (WH 40K, Paranoia, Pathfinder, Blades in the Dark get mentioned).


----------



## dave2008

Bagpuss said:


> While I believe this is true it always surprises me.
> 
> I've never met a gamer *in person* that just plays D&D, or a DM that just runs D&D, yet it seems a common thing on the internet. I guess because when I meet gamers outside my own groups (which play all sorts of RPGs), it tends to be at conventions and conventions (at least in the UK) tend not to be D&D focused, they are a multitude of different systems often with people demonstrating the latest releases or indie game they have discovered.



Yep. I only play and DM D&D now (tried other games 20 years ago or so), but I never go to conventions.

EDIT: Just wanted to add that I am thinking of switching to PF, but that is still D&D IMO.


----------



## DEFCON 1

I mean a large of the reason why D&D is so dominant is because so many of our game designers knew it was dominant and they deliberately hitched their design wagon to it since that would be the most effective way to get eyeballs and wallets on their products.  And they helped grow the D&D bubble just as much as anyone.

But is having D&D be such a huge slice of the pie a bad thing?  Well, it certainly hasn't been for 3rd Party companies and designers, as they've made more money this way then they otherwise would have by just designing and publishing generic RPG products.  And we know this is true based on everyone's reactions to 1.1-- if D&D wasn't so important to everyone's livelihood we wouldn't have nearly the same amount of reaction for WotC trying to change the landscape.

Everyone took a risk/reward assessment when they decided to follow along in D&D's wake... make a lot more money in D&D adjacent design than they otherwise would have made... but being beholden to the ways and means of Wizards of the Coast.

Is/was it worth it?  I imagine every person and company will need to determine that for themselves.


----------



## Oofta

Bagpuss said:


> While I believe this is true it always surprises me.
> 
> I've never met a gamer *in person* that just plays D&D, or a DM that just runs D&D, yet it seems a common thing on the internet. I guess because when I meet gamers outside my own groups (which play all sorts of RPGs), it tends to be at conventions and conventions (at least in the UK) tend not to be D&D focused, they are a multitude of different systems often with people demonstrating the latest releases or indie game they have discovered.




While I play other styles of games when it comes to RPGs I only play D&D. Nobody in my current circle of gamers (roughly a dozen people) play anything but D&D when they play an RPG. I'd say that has been pretty typical for decades.  A fair number of people I had gamed with in the past jumped to PF during 4E but that doesn't really count.

But it could well be how we meet other gamers.  In some cases for me it's through AL or other D&D sponsored venues, in others it was because I specifically asked for people interested in playing D&D.  But most people in my experience?  People are busy and there's only so much time they can dedicate to playing games so they tend to focus on one.


----------



## Umbran

Paul Farquhar said:


> People are sheep...




*Mod note:*
You could have made your point without directly insulting a swath of people.
You chose not to.
That's a problem.

We recommend you not make that problem worse with repeat performances.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

dave2008 said:


> For me, or maybe more for @FitzTheRuke, I would just call PF (1 & 2) D&D.
> 
> When I visited my flags back in the PF1/4e days they had PF stuff right next to D&D (almost co-mingled). I was there when a father asked the clerk to show him a D&D starter set as he wanted to get it for his son. The clerk took him to the Pathfinder starter set (the shop was not 4e fans) and sold that to him as D&D. The father was non-the-wiser.
> 
> So just put PF under the D&D banner and people could flock to it!




Maybe, but I don't like to lie to my customers (even a little "white lie" - is that a racist term now? it sounds like it is...) I'd tell them that PF is a game "like" D&D (and I've certainly insisted to them that the miniature branding does not matter one iota) but I'm not about to insist that it IS D&D. Imagine them taking their PF books to a D&D friend's place and being told "wrong books"? They'd probably be upset with my store, and I'd much rather always grow in reputation than make a one-time sale.

I get your kindly meant point, though!


----------



## Xamnam

Bagpuss said:


> While I believe this is true it always surprises me.
> 
> I've never met a gamer *in person* that just plays D&D, or a DM that just runs D&D, yet it seems a common thing on the internet. I guess because when I meet gamers outside my own groups (which play all sorts of RPGs), it tends to be at conventions and conventions (at least in the UK) tend not to be D&D focused, they are a multitude of different systems often with people demonstrating the latest releases or indie game they have discovered.



Just as anecdote, my consistent tables have totaled 19 different people. I tend to make/find tables out of friends, rather than strangers. Of them, 12, to my knowledge, have never played or expressed an interest in another system. Two of the remainder are excited about the Avatar game and helped kickstart it, but that's due to their love of the show, and I don't think they would have branched out otherwise.


----------



## Zardnaar

Shardstone said:


> Is your stance that other RPGs shouldn't exist since DND is so successful?




 Nope the market decides. If something displaces D&D so be it. 

 Nothing really has in almost 50 years so not gonna hold my breath.


----------



## CapnZapp

MGibster said:


> The Overwhelming Dominance of D&D is Bad for Everyone...​



Luckily for you, WotC recently took the one decision that is sure to break this dominance - burning down the OGL.


----------



## Shardstone

Zardnaar said:


> Nope the market decides. If something displaces D&D so be it.
> 
> Nothing really has in almost 50 years so not gonna hold my breath.



free market is an illusion lmfao you want me to compete with hasbros advertising pockets???? hey paizo, have you tried having literal hasbro levels of money hahahhaha


----------



## Stormonu

I don’t think D&D being so big as the problem.  I think the problem is when its in the hand of one company.  Even on its best days, a unified D&D can’t handle everyone’s desires in the game.  It’s good when there’s so many choices for different flavors of D&D (various flavors of OSR, Pathfinder, 5E, LevelUp, etc.) and role playing overall.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Shardstone said:


> free market is an illusion lmfao you want me to compete with hasbros advertising pockets???? hey paizo, have you tried having literal hasbro levels of money hahahhaha




That's an odd argument to make. It's certainly true that markets are not completely free (as in the classical economics sense, wherein the participants have perfect information and we don't worry about transaction costs), but .... the market for TTRPGs is surprisingly open and competitive; it's not like trying to set up a competitive long-haul airline. 

There is a low barrier to entry for new market participants. There are already a large number of market participants. The "cost" to switching to a competing product is low. There aren't much in the terms of regulations or other barriers keeping people from competing in the market. In fact, there is a long history of competing games and systems. Finally, the primary product (in terms of books) is something that is differentiated by the content, not the form; there are numerous ways to deliver that content (both electronically and through various publishers). 

Understanding the dominant position of D&D in the market (especially the American one) is an interesting exercise- and, at times, a frustrating one, especially for those who don't prefer D&D. But it's not because free markets are an illusion, or because D&D has traditionally ran giant Super Bowl advertisements with all of that sweet, sweet Hasbro money.


----------



## Zardnaar

Snarf Zagyg said:


> That's an odd argument to make. It's certainly true that markets are not completely free (as in the classical economics sense, wherein the participants have perfect information and we don't worry about transaction costs), but .... the market for TTRPGs is surprisingly open and competitive; it's not like trying to set up a competitive long-haul airline.
> 
> There is a low barrier to entry for new market participants. There are already a large number of market participants. The "cost" to switching to a competing product is low. There aren't much in the terms of regulations or other barriers keeping people from competing in the market. In fact, there is a long history of competing games and systems. Finally, the primary product (in terms of books) is something that is differentiated by the content, not the form; there are numerous ways to deliver that content (both electronically and through various publishers).
> 
> Understanding the dominant position of D&D in the market (especially the American one) is an interesting exercise- and, at times, a frustrating one, especially for those who don't prefer D&D. But it's not because free markets are an illusion, or because D&D has traditionally ran giant Super Bowl advertisements with all of that sweet, sweet Hasbro money.




 This. I've had hipster dumping on D&D since 1996. 

  I'll see what the kobolds cone up with buy the PDF methinks.


----------



## Mirtek

Well, Germany has DSA as the big fish in the small pond


----------



## Ancalagon

Bagpuss said:


> While I believe this is true it always surprises me.
> 
> I've never met a gamer *in person* that just plays D&D, or a DM that just runs D&D, yet it seems a common thing on the internet. I guess because when I meet gamers outside my own groups (which play all sorts of RPGs), it tends to be at conventions and conventions (at least in the UK) tend not to be D&D focused, they are a multitude of different systems often with people demonstrating the latest releases or indie game they have discovered.



Same

Most people _begin_ with D&D, and they _return_ to D&D.  But it hasn't been my experience of playing nothing but D&D exclusively for decades.


----------



## Umbran

DEFCON 1 said:


> I mean a large of the reason why D&D is so dominant is because so many of our game designers knew it was dominant and they deliberately hitched their design wagon to it since that would be the most effective way to get eyeballs and wallets on their products.  And they helped grow the D&D bubble just as much as anyone.




The argument against your point here is that D&D was dominant before the OGL, too.  It was dominant before designers could hitch their wagons to it.  I was dominant before what we think of as "game design" existed in TTRPG

It is very easy to oversimplify, or be reductionist with, the reasons for D&D's dominance.  Some are historical, or based in long-term network externalities.  Some come from the size of financial backing.  Some even come from the fact that it is, in fact, a pretty darn good game that delivers experiences that are pleasing and satisfying to a wide swath of people. 



DEFCON 1 said:


> But is having D&D be such a huge slice of the pie a bad thing?




I don't think so.  I have mentioned before, most arenas wind up with dynamics that can be thought of as a sort of ecology, with different sized entities at various levels - there is an interplay among them that winds up keeping the whole ecology more vibrant and healthy.


----------



## Reynard

CapnZapp said:


> Luckily for you, WotC recently took the one decision that is *sure* to break this dominance - burning down the OGL.



Probably too strong a word. We will have to wait and see. There are A LOT of D&D players, and most of them probably do not care one way or the other about this issue, and even if they do they probably don't care enough to end their Beyond subs and switch games.


----------

