Since in my previous post I raised the question, it is only fair that I deliver my own thoughts on the important matter of what I would do if I owned D&D.
I find myself genuinely split. On the one hand, I think D&D occupies an important role as a sort of universal language, and that its middle-of-the-roadness and basic banality, as a Tolkienesque fantasy RPG denuded of all the things that made Tolkien interesting and worthwhile, is in its own way useful. There is a reason why McDonald's, M&S, Next, Disney princesses, Bond films, etc., exist - it is to provide an easy solution to the question of 'What shall we eat/wear/watch tonight?' The more eccentric and distinctive something is, the harder it will be to get buy-in from those who do not share the eccentricity in question.
Hence, 'blandified, bowdlerized Tolkien with some bits and pieces stolen from pulp fantasy' is much more likely to appeal to a group of five random gamers who want to put a campaign together than is 'Egyptian/meosamerican style megadungeon inside a crocodile's brain' - while one or even two of the group will love the latter idea, the rest will be put off by it, whereas there is a good chance that all five will at least tolerate the former.
There is therefore a space for doing blandified, bowdlerized Tolkien well, and in this respect I suppose it's actually quite difficult to improve on what WotC are already doing. They serve up RPG Big Macs and they do it in such a way as to satisfy the widest range of potential gamers they possibly can. It is not to my taste, but even I eat Big Macs sometimes when it's the easiest and most readily available thing on offer. So the very shot answer to what I would do if I owned D&D could be very straightforward: do what WotC currently do but a bit better. (Chiefly, I would change the art direction so as to be much more John Howe-style understated grandeur, and much less modern-video-game-illustration blandness.)
That's a boring answer, though, and also doesn't really reflect the basic setup of the thought experiment, which is that I am supposed to be imaginging myself as possessing vast wealth and not particularly having any interest in turning a profit. Once you put things that way, all the bets are off and you can start entirely from scratch.
So I am strongly tempted, then, to say that if I owned D&D I would go in the opposite direction - I would be a fantasy maximalist. I would have a set of relatively simple core mechanics and I would commission a range of writers and artists to produce a properly compelling mixture of genuinely novel and fresh settings, and I would foreground procedural generation through random tables throughout. I would put the emphasis entirely on dungeoneering and sandbox exploration, and would eschew 'character' as a central element of play. And while I would not by any means cut down on things like bestiaries and spell lists, I would emphasise the toolkit element of the rules - I would make it very plain that the rules are there to facilitate DMs doing their own imaginative things (inventing monsters, spells, etc.) easily and quickly.
But now that I re-read that paragraph I increasingly wonder whether I am not simply saying in the end that I would cannibalise existing D&D with an OSR mentality (since the OSR basically did all of the things I suggest) and, indeed, perhaps just in the end institutionalise and mainstream what the OSR was all about. This might not be as popular as D&D is now, but it would I think be better, and that's what counts.
If I owned D&D, I'd do away with the WOTC-acquisition notion that there needs to be ONE current game/edition. 5E is weak in large part because it is trying too hard to appeal to everyone to have a coherent identity. Split it into a couple games: for those who want a tactical combat-heavy game a la PF2E or Draw Steel, make one. For those who want a retro dungeon crawler, make one. Expand D&D with a higher-level wargame, maybe do something a bit avant-garde with a collaborative build-a-dungeon-and-play-monsters-against-heroes game. Do something new and give each product a strong hook/identity other than 'it's what you already know.'
ReplyDeleteI suppose this is the GW model.
DeleteAssuming that I am indeed an eccentric billionaire satisfying myself with my new toy, I would push as much of D&D as possible into the realm of the system-ag nostic. There is so very little D&D material that actually needs to be inextricably linked to mechanics, and the hobby as a whole would flourish I think if more care was taken for producing things that easily substitute to a broader variety of rules and house rules
ReplyDeleteNo doubt this is true. I've often wondered why generic, system agnostic adventures have never really taken off, although I suppose half the point of buying an adventure is you don't have to do the stats yourself.
DeleteI think the point about art direction is actually a pretty good one. Art direction plays a huge role in who is attracted to the game and what they think of it. Stuff like Mork Borg seems to run entirely on art style, and it seems to be the most important thing to fans. And I agree entirely that modern fantasy art is often awful - roleplaying art from the 80s and 90s reinterpreted through the videogames of the 2000s and 2010s in turn digested and crapped out into the RPGs of the 2020s. Fantasy has become a degenerate ecosystem feeding on it's own waste, at least mainstream fantasy has. There's no connection to real world cultures or history any more, but also not much real imagination - everything is a third order concentration of something that was once original and vital.
ReplyDeleteFixing that in a mainstream pillar of fantasy might do something worthwhile, all on it's own.
I find nothing to disagree with here. A big part of what turns me off 5e is the bland art.
DeleteInteresting. Something is vaguely disquieting in the exactitude that the big mac analogy has at zeroing in at the current space D&D occupies in print. I may be acting naive, but somewhere in between the spectrum of "lets imagine what would I do if I was the world's greatest gazillionare and D&D was my newest trophy purchase" and "to please more than 5 people at random in the street, the product must be big mac-fied more and more" there is something of a defeat, specially for a "product" that supposedly employs, or perhaps even requires, imagination instead of passive munching. Im failing to articulate this further, but the image that keeps returning to my head after reading this comes from an rejected comicbook cover proposal for one of the numbers of Harlan Ellison's Dream Corridor. It decipts an extenuated alpinist climbing the Himalayas: the guy, panting and half-frozen, still trembling at the culmination of his life-long quest, watches as the fog parts and reveals the crumbling remains of forever sought for Shangri-la. Smack in the middle of them, two tacky yellow bright lit arches rise from a fully functional and ready for service MacDonalds franchise, the only building standing. The alpinist has a look of horror: "God, no, they arrived here first!". Most of the admittedly well tought and well fundamented ideas proposed in the comments of this post and the one before as improvements to D&D's publishing still make me feel very much like that alpinist...
ReplyDeleteYes, great comment.
DeleteI enjoyed the last thread, and I wanted to expand on my answer.
ReplyDeleteFirst though the Dolmenwood versions of the 4 core D&D classes (fighter, thief, cleric, magic-user) are here - https://www.dolmenwood.necroticgnome.com/rules/doku.php?id=fighter - If you compare those against what's in B/X (or the more reference-able OSE, it's mostly a cleanup and smoothing out of the rules there. I like the smoothed out version of the character class and the clear core mechanics that makes most of the rolls a player would do follow higher dice rolls being better rule.
So for the answer:
I'm going to logically split D&D into world spanning adventures and deadly dungeon crawls.
I'd keep publishing 5e for world spanning adventures. Mostly set in Forgotten Realms. Other settings would be handled Curse of Strahd where it was an adventure that happened to include a bunch of setting information. I would shy away from books that are just settings. I think this has worked well for WotC.
For deadly dungeon crawls, I'd publish something called "D&D Classic". I'd probably find a way to give the Gavin Normans, Daniel Proctors, Kelsey Dionnes and Matt Finches of the world a salary out of this. The book would be a new refresh of B/X rules with an eye towards compatibility with early D&D along with an Advanced version with an eye towards compatibility with all of it, but with the more varied classes and separation of Race and Class of AD&D.
I would put out the core rules of both in an SRD type format in the public domain unambiguously.
I would have a logo program very similar to what goodman games has for DCC. https://goodman-games.com/blog/2020/01/27/what-is-the-dcc-third-party-publishing-license/ .
For support for D&D Classic and AD&D Classic (there would be work done to make the two very mathematically compatible and comparable), I would be reworking older adventures much in the same vein as was done with Quests of the Infinite Staircase. It's very interesting doing a stare and compare of the format and language between the Tsojcanth in that book and the original. There would also be a hardcover for each each year of new adventures that would be competition sourced. A yearly competitions for new modules for the book. A way again for the Gabor Luxs and Sersei Victorys of the world to get paid, get noticed, and there would be an Ethics Wall (I really dislike the term Chinese Wall) between the people doing the judging of the competition and the people developing new adventures internally.
Since this would theoretically be a privately held company with the responsibility to make me happy instead of shareholders, it would hopefully not have the same sorts of OGL shenanigans and other consumer unfriendliness that WotC has had over the last few years.
Lastly, I don't know why we wouldn't want to have good relations with the products that have done really well in the D&D derived fantasy RPG space. Should I also be looking at Paizo and Goodman?
Maybe somebody should create an RPG in which the players get to be owners of a publisher of RPGs....
DeleteIsn't that the next splatbook we're expecting for Papers & Paychecks (1E DMG pg 111)?
DeleteIf I were a billionaire on the scale of Elon Musk and bought D&D...
ReplyDeleteI'd have everything ever published turned into a high quality digital file and a build website where you could download it. I'd create a non-profit with an generous endowment. The non-profit would be required to build a library, museum, and repository for all the physical material that could be collected. The collection would include the business documents from TSR and WotC for scholars to study. Then I would shut down the business and declare all the D&D IP I owned in the public domain.
Hasbro (not just D&D, the whole thing) is about 8 billion in market cap right now. Elon Musk's personal net worth has increased $120 billion in the last month. Whatever money D&D might make, even on a long time horizon, would be a rounding error compared to any of his other enterprises.
Nice!
DeleteOSR is too institutionalised and mainstreamed already, much more of that, and what it's all about would wither away entirely.
ReplyDeleteMainstreamed I might grant you. But institutionalised?
DeleteWhen I read your mention about streamlining the rules to allow for deeper engagement with the setting/fiction, I thought about your recent reconsideration of "rules light" games, such as Into the Odd. I know you mentioned their suitability for prolonged games as a barrier, so I'm wondering about Cairn 2e. It adds many procedural tools while maintaining the emphasis on characters growing through their interactions with the world. I know it's creator has talked about/shares examples from is long-running campaigns with it, but using these ItO-like systems for longer periods still seems underdiscussed to me. You've been imagining different aspects of play lately from many perspectives, so I'm curious if you were to take something like ItO or Cairn 2e to consider what you running a long campaign in it might look like? A skeptic's take on doing rules light in deep, rich ways - how to work with, within, and against the more ephemeral nature you've described about it.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like this comment has become somewhat of a letter to Santa! Anyway, I hope you and your family have a happy and healthy Christmas.
Hmm. I like the idea but I think I would need to really put a concerted effort into running such a campaign first!
DeleteItO-type systems can thrive with creative thinking, problem solving, and in-world character growth. I wonder what a maximalist setting can do for that: To turn the rich fiction towards opportunities for experiences to change PCs and help them progress towards goals beyond class/level advancement. To me, that's where your sensibilities would be fascinating to watch because the fiction becomes the system for advancement.
DeleteI like this idea - my latest post addresses it.
DeleteIn my experience, some half of players will 'bowdlerize' the setting in their own minds after I describe everything, acting as if everything is NW european tolkien+pulp anyway no matter what I do. So you might as well go whole hog with the weird stuff.
ReplyDeleteYeah, tell me about it.
DeleteYou’ll own nothing and like it
ReplyDeleteIs that you, Klaus?
Delete