Friday, October 4, 2024

Pretenders to the Throne

Like most people involved in the hobby of roleplaying, Dungeons & Dragons was the first RPG I ever played. Furthermore, it's probably the RPG I've played the most over the decades, even though it's not my favorite. I do like it and would even go so far as to say that most versions of it are fun to play. This isn't a controversial opinion. Indeed, if history is any guide, most roleplayers feel similarly, because some version of Dungeons & Dragons has been the most popular, most played, and most profitable roleplaying game pretty much continuously since 1974. 

I say "pretty much," because there have been times and places when this was not case, but most of these instances have been unusual in one way or another. I was thinking about this topic for reasons I'll explain in an upcoming post, but my present point is that, with only a handful of exceptions, D&D has always been the King of Roleplaying Games. That was true in 1974 and it's still true in 2024. That's a truth that a lot of partisans of other RPGs don't like to hear. While I'm sympathetic to their feelings, I'm not going to pretend as if it's not the case that D&D's reign has not been a largely secure one.

There I go again with my quibbling adverbs – largely. I'm old enough to remember several moments in time when it seemed as if the fortunes of Dungeons & Dragons were on the downswing and another roleplaying game was on the ascent. Whether that was actually the case is another matter. For now, though, I'd simply like to focus on three occasions when it seemed to me – perhaps mistakenly – as if D&D was in danger of being pushed aside by a competitor. 

The first time was in the mid-80s, once I had become a subscriber to White Dwarf. One of the things I very quickly noticed was that the magazine frequently carried content for Chaosium's RuneQuest, then in its second edition. This was in stark contrast to Dragon magazine, the gaming periodical with which I was most familiar, which scarcely ever included articles, let alone adventures, for RQ. At that time, AD&D was in its late 1e doldrums, so I took the appearance of so much RuneQuest material in White Dwarf as evidence that its star was on the rise. I would eventually learn that this was mostly a British phenomenon, where RQ's popularity met or even exceeded that of D&D. So far as I know, this never extended to North America, but I still started contemplating the possibility that Dungeons & Dragons might one day be toppled from its position as King of the Hill. 

The next time I saw what I thought was a serious challenger to D&D was about a decade later, in the mid-1990s. That's when White Wolf's "World of Darkness" games were all the rage, particularly the first game in that line, Vampire: the Masquerade. While I didn't get into any of "World of Darkness" games until a few years later – I'd eventually even write for a few of them – I was nevertheless quite familiar with them, thanks in large part to friends who were regular players. What I learned from them was that Vampire and its companion games had proven popular with many people who'd otherwise not played RPGs. The "World of Darkness" was bringing in new players and those players were very devoted to it. It probably helped, too, that Dungeons & Dragons (and indeed TSR itself) was in the midst of another period of doldrums, which made White Wolf's offerings seem even more vital by comparison.

Finally, there was Paizo's Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Pathfinder came out shortly after Wizards of the Coast announced that the next edition of Dungeons & Dragons – Fourth Edition – would not, unlike its immediate predecessor, being an "open" game. Instead, it would use a much more restrictive licensing scheme. Likewise, the new edition's rules would be rather different from those in 3e, making backward compatibility an issue. For a lot of fans of the Third Edition, this was dreadful news and Paizo saw an opportunity to serve them by producing its own version of 3e, which it called Pathfinder. Pathfinder proved quite successful and, for a brief time, appeared to have snatched the RPG crown from Dungeons & Dragons. Ultimately, that proved to have been an illusion, but that doesn't change the fact that, for a brief moment, I felt otherwise.

In the end, none of the aforementioned roleplaying games were truly successful in knocking D&D off its pedestal, at least not for long. In each case, the plausibility of this belief rested on the same thing: the perceived weakness of D&D. Whenever the current edition of Dungeons & Dragons was in its late, decadent phase, disenchantment with the direction of the game or the perception that it was on the wrong track made me feel that some other RPG might have a shot at the Throne of Gygax. That's not to say that none of these games enjoyed a genuine popularity boost when D&D was "weak." In the case of Vampire the Masquerade, I'm pretty sure it did enjoy a period of wild popularity and good sales and that might well have been true of Pathfinder, too (RuneQuest in the UK is more of an edge case). Yet, for all that, D&D always came roaring back, its place as the hobby's top dog secure for another decade or so. 

I can't predict the future, so if another roleplaying game will ever succeed in displacing Dungeons & Dragons, I have no idea. Judging by the past, however, it seems quite unlikely, which is why, for good or ill, in most people's minds, tabletop RPGs will always be synonymous with D&D.

27 comments:

  1. Unfortunately, I think the purchase of Wizards of the Coast by Hasbro has probably future-proofed D&D from ever being truly “overtaken” by another system. Despite whatever inroads independent developers might make, the corporate machine is still going to be behind D&D and continue to enforce that “world’s most popular role-playing game” title through advertising, brand loyalty, and whatever other marketing buzzwords. I will say that, having been active in gaming during two of the events you mentioned - the rise of VtM and Pathfinder - I can say that I think both caused their own downfall due to mostly to hubris. White Wolf rebooting the World of Darkness line at the turn of the century seemed to be the death knell for their widespread popularity, and Pathfinder never really “fixed” the issues that made 3.5e bulky and awkward, ultimately rebooting to a 2nd Edition that (according to some who have played it) seems to take some inspiration from 4e D&D - the very game Pathfinder was created as a response to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably more accurate to say that PF2 is cribbing from 13th Age, which is effectively descended from 4E itself but makes a large number of improvements. That said, 5e borrowed heavily from 4E itself, so PF2 is following in its footsteps, albeit with a rather reeling, drunken gait.

      Delete
  2. I always find overviews like this fascinating, as I have very little overview of other countries than my own, and the US as I am stuck in the English speaking world.

    In Sweden D&D didn't rise to prominence until 3rd ed. and I am quite ready to believe Vampire was the biggest game in the 1990-ies.

    The biggest presence except the Swedish games was probably always Call of Cthulhu, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect D&D's performance is much more lackluster outside English-speaking markets in general. Anecdotally, Japan has always favored Call of Cthulhu and Tunnels & Trolls over D&D, and Germany had The Dark Eye. OTOH, the English-speaking RPG market is disproportionately huge, so that may not matter much.

      Delete
    2. I seem to remember hearing that WFRP was pretty big in Germany too. I knew Japan was big on CoC, but I was unaware that T&T had a decent presence too. Honestly, I'd like to learn more about what RPGs are popular in other countries.

      Delete
  3. Keep in mind that even though D&D is still the biggest name out there in the RPG industry, doesn't necessarily mean it's the best. McDonald's is the biggest fast food joint, but are they the best? Not by a long shot. I don't make the comparison lightly either. IMO, they're similar in their approach: shove out as much "product" as possible, regardless of quality. Doesn't matter if it's over-priced for what it is. Cut corners whenever to get a big return for profit. If you don't like, it's not their fault, it's yours...and they'll let you know it. Or worse, your complaints will fall upon deaf ears. So yeah, D&D is the McDonald's of the RPG industry. I said it and I'll stand by that statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. McDonald's is certainly the most popular restaurant on earth. So we have to believe it's giving people what they want on some level, otherwise they wouldn't have the largest customer base. Maybe value and convenience have attracted people to McDonald's? Consistency too? Their french fries taste the same in Iowa or Hong Kong.

      D&D is certainly convenient and consistent (within any given edition). It's the easiest game to put together a group for as it's so ubiquitous. What other game does every gamer know the rules to? Maybe that helps continue its overwhelmingly dominant popularity.

      Delete
  4. One not-insignificant reason for White Dwarf's pushing of RuneQuest is that Games Workshop produced its own versions of the second and third editions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same for Call of Cthulhu, really. Another regular in the glory days of White Dwarf before it became a pure house organ/monthly catalog supplement.

      Delete
    2. Well, it was always a monthly catalogue, it's just that it had a broader product range back then.

      Delete
  5. In our gaming circle, way back in the day, the pretenders to the throne were:

    Car Wars by a mile! (pardon the pun) Fueled by (sorry again) Road Warrior and Thunderdome, and maybe a little American Flagg, Max Headroom and Blade Runner.

    Also, Diplomacy, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, Paranoia, Aftermath, Daredevils, Gurps Horror, Star Trek, Villains and Vigilantes (which had stats, levels and combat charts very similar to D&D so the transition was easy). It was a wild and wooly time.

    Today, I default to early D&D because I already know the rules. Probably nostalgia too. I have less free time than when I was a kid, so I can't waste all that time constantly learning new rule sets like I used to. D&D lets me get right into the game, and like I said above, it's easy to find players who also already know the rules. We can jump right in, with a few house rules if needed.

    I want to spend my free time playing games, not learning new game rules.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was a big RQ head in the earliest 80's, and our gaming group played it heavily (some years exclusively) through about 94. But I don't think it really ever had as shot at displacing D&D, even in the late 1E period. It was just too tied to its setting, and not suitable for describing a lot of what people like to do with fantasy rpg games. And then it had faded in popularity and visibility by the time 2E was cratering into a morass of splat books. I don't really have a strong opinion about Vampire or its apogee, but for my money Pathfinder came closest to grabbing the ring, if only because it effectively is D&D. I never played it, but from a step removed it looks like an attempt to basically just be D&D at a time when the publishers of D&D were crapping the bed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. part of it is branding, Dungeons and dragons just rolls off the tongue, in a way that pathfinder, call of cthulhu etc never will. and it is unique, there is no other D&D, whereas there is a nissan pathfinder. (searching craigslist shows this).

    and the name is evocative. runequest, pathfinder, CoC. all of those are good games, but dungeons, dragons, those are BIG ideas. they sell well, to people who do not yet play RPGs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't have the academic background of most in here, so I had to pick a spot to throw my can of Lysol in the fire. I agree with nearly everything I have read so far. In the case of McDonald's (or Coca-Cola) they are the standard, period. Are they the best? Subjective. Alas, every french fry in the world is compared to McDonald's. The only example that springs to mind where the Biggest and the Best were the same is/was Led Zeppelin. And the concept of Dungeons & Dragons being big ideas resonates deeply with me as well. You know exactly what they are. They stir something. It may be crude to say, but it is largely true: Everyone knows who has the biggest boobs in the room. Judgment about what is best comes later.

      Delete
  8. And for people who love buckets of dice.. Tunnels & Trolls :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HERO System sneers at the trivial number of dice needed to roll a 250 MR balrog's attacks. :)

      Although to be fair, Fantasy HERO (the closest equivalent to T&T) uses far fewer dice than Champions with its 30-die haymakers, so you've got the edge there.

      Delete
  9. In the UK especially, looking at say, sales alone, surely mass-produced kids paperback RPGs in the 80s like the Fighting Fantasy RPG, the Maelstrom RPG, the Dragon Warriors RPG, the Corgi RPG versions of Tunnels and Trolls, plus Advanced Fighting Fantasy 1E would have outsold any core RPG product material?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But is selling the best mean it’s the most popular? Most of the time while playing AD&D in the 1980s I didn’t even own books, and I wasn’t alone in that.

      Delete
  10. Pathfinder 1E certainly outsold D&D 4E for some periods.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, and then Essentials came out and the leader flipped. 4E did its best number at the start and end of its run, and overdid the number of splatbooks so badly that even the biggest fans (including myself) struggled to justify buying them. 5e has been careful - probably too careful - to avoid putting out too much too fast, and took some of the better features of 4E for its own regardless of how they meshed with the rest of 3e-derived rules. It really was a compromise edition with an explicit design goal of appealing to players from as many different eras as it could. How well it succeeded - well, it's the only edition I never bought anything for at all, and neither Pathfinder nor the OSR have collapsed from players moving to 5e. Sure has drawn a lot of newer blood, though. Done better at that than any edition, undeniably.

      Delete
  11. I will point out that in Japan it is actually Call of Cthulhu that is synonymous with Table Talk RPG.

    ReplyDelete
  12. When I saw the title of this post, I initially thought we were getting an update on the House of Worms…. I for one am still interested in where that goes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly, it hasn't been going anywhere lately. We're definitely in a period of serious doldrums, with real life commitments and distractions taking their toll. Entropy has begun to set in and I fear the End is more Nigh than I'd originally imagined ...

      Delete
    2. Me too, but such is life. We'll see how the next few weeks fare.

      Delete
  13. Personally, I would agree with this three game list and the rationales. My only caveat would be that, with regard to Runequest, I personally thought it might at least catch D&D circa 1984, when I saw that gaming 'giant' Avalon Hill had published a new edition of RQ, which would benefit from AH's (presumably) much better distribution, and, I assumed, AH's much greater financial ability to to finance the publication of many more RQ supplements more regularly. For context, this was also around the time that Victory Games' James Bond 007 RPG was widely available and very popular. While not the same genre as D&D, I thought its popularity sort of 'proved the concept.' But of course, on hindsight, I was entirely wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Something that occurred to me later is the analogy with computer programming languages. Fortran was the first high-level language, i.e., one not tied to a particular machine, and so like OD&D had no prior art to inform its design. It similarly has gone through a number of new “editions”, Fortran 77, Fortran 90, Fortran 2008, etc., but unlike D&D few people would default to using it now unless they have to support some of the billions of lines of Fortran code that have been written over the decades.

    ReplyDelete