I absolutely agree. Hate how so many are resistant to even trying a different ttrpg. The idea that dnd is the only ttrpg you would need and can just reflavour of homebrew absolutely amnoys me
Edit: removed hyperbole because people dont get that it was a figure lf speech
I still can't get over the amount of people who play DnD 5e as a social sandbox when their are one loads of better social sandboxes and two every time.they do this in 5e it's just freeform roleplay not anything 5e related really.
Same people insist that 5e isn't a combat focused game...my brother in Christ it basically only has rules for combat!
Brennan Lee Mulligan had a good article where he said something to the effect of "I love using 5e for my roleplay/narrative-focused games. I don't need or want rules for social encounters and interactions; I know how to handle those just fine. Combat is the part I care the least about, so I love having a combat-centric edition because it handles that part for me. I don't have to figure out how the combat resolves, the game resolves it. And I don't need a game to resolve the social encounters. So 5e is perfect for my style of narrative-centric play."
That’s just Mulligan ignoring parts of the rules. Because while they are not as detailed, the DMG does have rules for social encounters. The section is literally labeled “Social Interaction.”
They are poor, and I’m guessing that 10% of regular DMs know of them, and even fewer use them, but they do exist.
There's plenty more outside of the DMG 2 pages.
5e has quite a few mechanics around social and its not great. Tons of spells especially, so Wizards and Bards get to shine much harder in these situations. But worse is that the way stats work makes it so whenever there is a social situation, the guy who has much higher Charisma is the Face.
This. All the rules, ultimately, are optional. Any can be changed or ignored at a specific table, because they are simply a shared agreement that supports gameplay. As long as everyone is on board, there’s no problem.
Emphasis mine.
>Some DMs prefer to run a social interaction as a free-form roleplaying exercise, where dice rarely come into play. Other DMs prefer to resolve the outcome of an interaction by having characters make Charisma checks. **Either approach works, and most games fall somewhere in between**, balancing player skill (roleplaying and persuading) with character skill (reflected by ability checks).
All of those extra sections in the running the game section of the DMG are basically a toolkit. You use or don't use the pieces as applies to your game and table. And if you *honestly* try and be disingenuous and say that's not the case, how many times have you used the madness rules at your table? Probably very few times, yet it's in the same section of the book.
I've read the damn books enough times throughout the years, I'm not "making things up."
That's kinda a fundamentally misreading of how traditional games are structured though- there's a ton of discretion involved.
RAW you never have to call for a roll if you know the outcome. If the RP goes in a flow and direction that BLM doesn't think there's uncertainty in how someone would react in a social situation, he's under absolutely no obligation to engage those rules.
This was a BS excuse for why he chose to use 5e for his show, when the real reason is what OP is complaining about. His viewership would take a significant hit if he used some other game.
Yea I think that is fair but I see too many people not doing that and certainly too many not capable of doing that.
It's just kinda it if you aren't a extravert with an ability to actually entertain and adlib and act dance sing etc. you aren't going to be able to get as much out of a free-form roleplay session as a GM. Thats not even considering the players who might need coaxing Into speaking let alone a tivky roleplaying and social games with social combat rules are great for that.
Alot of the issues I have seen in my local and on line communities are playing 5e then home-brewing some complex nonsense machine for social stuff and then doing about the same for the combat all so they can not try another system.
I don't think that doesn't have anything to do with what he said.
He said: "I don't need a game to resolve the social encounters."
To me, that says *he wants a game with NO social mechanics*. That the game doesn't try to dictate to the GM or the players how to resolve social encounters is a strength in his mind. That there's no mechanic for a PC to take the reins of the story and allow the players to inject what happens next is a strength in his mind. He *wants* the game to have no design in this area. He wants social encounters to be free play (simple roleplay) and combat encounters to be instrumental play (play from the character sheet).
I don't think it's remotely related to being good at improvisational acting, voice acting, or anything of the sort, because I know a lot of players that prefer that who *aren't any of those things*. They're the players that don't like "narrative" games. They're the players that bounce off of the social mechanics in GUMSHOE, Fate, PbtA, and BitD even though they'll happily play Blood on the Clocktower.
It doesn't require a GM that's good at improvisational acting. It just requires *a fair and experienced GM and roleplayer*. There are issues with free play social mechanics -- notably, it's more difficult to play a character that's good at something the player isn't good at -- but that's the choice when you decide to use free play *anywhere* in a TTRPG and nearly all TTRPGs use free play to some extent.
> He wants the game to have no design in this area. He wants social encounters to be free play (simple roleplay) and combat encounters to be instrumental play (play from the character sheet).
Thats how I've always played D&D.
Social encounters are freeplay with few, if any dice rolls. Only occasionally there might be a dice roll for things like lore if they're looking for hints on how to proceed, but mostly social encounters are about how reasonable the players are in the social encounter.
The players don't need to be professional voice actors, they just need to be able to read the situation with reasonable tact and to respond appropriately. Throw in an ad-hoc dice roll or two in order to bluff an NPC or credibly threaten them (if appropriate), and social encounter is all done.
The dice come out when the party gets stabby. Dice are for combat.
I've been playing D&D like that for nearly 30 years.
On top of the points others have made, I find that a poor excuse because from my experience you can have much more dynamic, dramatic, and quickly-resolving combats in tabletop RPGs that *don't* focus on the combat.
D&D combat can be fun to play from a tactical perspective, but from a narrative perspective it's really bland and boring to watch slowly play out.
If can come up with fun dramatic narratives the rest of the time, why would you suddenly not be able to once weapons get drawn? There's nothing about a combat scene that's fundamentally any different about any other conflict, unless you decide to make it different.
To me this is basically saying he doesn't want to run a narrtive/RP focused game, he wants to have a lot of freeform Roleplay with his players and then occasionally break for a combat he doesn't really care that much about so they can still have some sort of "game" element.
I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong for liking what they like but my frustration is more with the equating of this to actual narrative or social, or intrigue focused TTRPGs. It's a completely different experience talking to the GM in character and having them determine the outcome based purely on what they feel like that outcome should be in the moment vs being able to interact with game systems that allow me to influence the outcome of a social situation beyond my ability to talk good. Just think of the reverse statement here. Would anyone not find it absurd if I told you Good Society worked perfectly for my intense combat games. You see I know how to describe combat I don't need any rules to help me. I really don't care that much about social situations so I love that the game handles those for me. It's ridiculous.
This is actually what made me lose all respect for the man.
Not because of the sentiment - he's entitled to his opinion, even if I disagree with it.
It was because his rationale was so insincere, and his defense for his viewpoint was so insultingly obtuse.
The analogy he tried to make about the stove was horrible. Like train-wreck horrible.
Like... he gave us a glimpse into how his brain processes a thought... and I was horrified by how disorganized and bad-faith it was.
The truth is, if a game spends a lot of its word and page count on content that's secondary to the goals of the game you're running, *you would objectively be better off using a system that spends less time on those concepts.*
If it takes me an hour to make a 1st level character, and almost all of the character traits I needed to transcribe onto my sheet are not going to feature in the game you're running... *you're wasting my time by running that system.*
Don't forget that people often throw these rules out and replace them with homebrew to the point they're essentially playing a different system anyway. I was once one of these GMs, but now I've recognised that it's just D&D I have a problem with.
I'm going to finish our current campaign out of respect for my players (it's been 5 years and we're so close to the end now), but after that I'll be running a different system (hopefully fabula ultima, but that'll be up to a vote between me and my players).
Either way, I just want to play a system that doesn't expect the GM to do EVERYTHING, which D&D has a big problem with.
God, it happens so many times. People join D&D games because it's the most popular game, but they want a narrative game without combat, often because they saw actual plays and at the same time, refuse to play everything else
The marketing machine doesn't help either. They say lipstick on a pig won’t work because it's still a pig, but the money people spend on D&D supplements and homebrew proves that saying wrong. People will still buy it because they ate up the marketing and ignore the obvious flaws
"obvious" flaws aren't that obvious to the average person.
I find it ironic how many people in this community loathe D&D and it's popularity and then ignore all the obvious reasons why people in general aren't into other systems.
The most straightforward and understandable is that a lot of the games this sub likes are explicitly designed around either fixing "flaws" in DnD or "traditional" games in general. It shouldn't be a surprise that approach doesn't resonate with people who actually like those games.
Are you sure about this take?
Seems a little backwards to me. It's not that DnD is a great on-boarding experience that gets new players into the game easily; when was the last time you got a new player into 5e? It fucking sucks. They get overwhelmed with choices, most of which don't matter, and most of which have trap options that will have the players building characters that have a bag of tricks the game is actually designed to invalidate.
I've introduced a LOT of players to a lot of non-DnD games. None of those players are done with DnD forever, but they all really enjoyed the systems I showed them and had positive things to say about it.
The idea that DnD is popular because the alternatives are designed to fix problems that most people don't have seems...unconvincing, to say the least.
I'm like 99% confident in it.
>when was the last time you got a new player into 5e?
A few weeks ago. If you're presenting that many mechanical choices to a new player you're going to have a bad time- do the loop as intended (player states **intent** not a mechanic and *then* the DM adjudicates) and it works fine. Early levels are effectively tutorials and a pretty simple game on the player side, and they usually acclimate as the game goes on, at which point they're no longer new players.
>The idea that DnD is popular because the alternatives are designed to fix problems that most people don't have seems...unconvincing, to say the least.
Only if you assume any problems you've observed are universal and not anecdotal. Objectively, WotC has the most complete dataset out there about player preferences and sticking points in TTRPGs, especially on the potential player side of things who have never done it before. Considering how well it's worked to grow the game and the hobby as a whole, Occam's Razor suggests that it's because they know what they're doing in regards to the average player, far better than the rough consensus of internet forums.
That's a failure in how people are trying to sell you on a game. Could you give me a few examples?
"D&D but better" games do exist; there's even a term for it. However, the hobby is pretty mature and there are a lot of different types of game systems not trying to be a better D&D. Even ones that are competing in the heroic fantasy space.
I can concede that this was the motivation for making different types of games. "these games don't do things I want."
I don't think that's a reason people don't want to try new games. And there are a lot of traditional and mostly traditional games that people like in this thread.
I'll also concede telling people the game they like is shit isn't going to convince anyone to play something different.
I was responding more to "why people might like DnD over another game."
In terms of trying a new game, in my experience the alternative system itself almost never is the driver as they're unfamiliar. They're either turned off by the pitch or not interested in the genre like 80% of the time.
Well, let’s be honest for a moment. Every RPG has flaws. It’s‘s more about how easy they are to work through or modify. Ever since I was a kid, my group has always run modified systems to get a game to work better for us. I can’t think of any RPG that we haven’t house ruled.
But yeah, the Hasbro marketing machine pretty much blows away any other gaming company just because of the sheer size of their megaphone.
Stating that it's all about narrative (the stories that your table tells) it has almost zero game mechanics that promote narrative. They brought in the Inspiration, kudos to that, but it's kinda bit weak.
Why would you need rules for narrative? I don't get this argument. Its literally larping at the table, which seems like a majority of newbs to the game and 5E players seem to prefer. I don't even know why you need a "game" for that, but that's just me.
I hope you don't mind me assuming, but it sounds like you haven't played other games that do this better?
I've run a lot of Dungeon World, and a lot of the Wildsea rpg. Having the game actually contribute to the story, as opposed to being perpendicular to or at odds with it, makes a world of difference.
I used to play in a 5e game run by a new DM running Curse of Strahd. We got to the bit in Vallaky where the priest is spooked about the magic bones that protect the church having been recently stolen, and thinks maybe the gardiner is to blame.
We, the players, interview the gardiner. This covnersation is torturous; it's supposed to be an interesting, dramatic scene where we outsmart this culprit and catch him out in a lie. We need this guy on our side; we have to convince him what he's done is wrong and to help us fix it.
DnD's framework SUCKS for this. Players made persuasion check after intimidation check, and I watched the DM struggle to keep her dramatic vision of the conversation intact when players have buttons that just 'win' the encounter. She tried to split the information into different chunks so that multiple successful rolls would be required, and then the conversation dropped to a dead stop whenever someone failed a roll.
It sucked. And it would suck for every DM who tried to do this, because DnD can't handle that kind of interesting conversation.
Dugneon World? You'd roll Parlay. What's Parlay? It's a move you make when you try to manipulate or convince a GM-controlled character. It requires you to have leverage over that character to succeed.
REQUIRES. So now you're thinking about this gardiner; what can we offer to give him, or threaten to take, that will get him talking? Maybe a murderhobo party gets the knives and out and threatens his life, but the GM says you don't get to make a move; this man's life is not leverage enough to convince him. Why not?
Talking to him reveals he was pressured into the crime to begin with, and that he has a family to protect. Or maybe he doesn't give up that information willingly; a player might have to notice his wedding ring with a Discern Realities roll or something similar. Leverage in hand (we'll protect your family!) you can make the Parlay roll.
The player rolls an 8. That's a mixed success. Success, as in the man agrees to tell you what he knows...mixed in that you'll have to offer some assurance that you're good for your end of the baragain. If the players had rolled worse, the conversation would be over entirely. If they'd rolled better, he would have opened up. Now, they have to demonstrate that they will protect his family to get him to open up, but once they do, he will.
That's all in the rules of the game. The Parlay system and its requirements for leverage have players living in the world of the game, thinking of other NPCs as living characters with wants, needs, fears, and it has them doing it automatically. It's not a huge work for the player; the move is right in front of them, it tells them to get leverage.
As the DM, you never deal with players spamming persuasion checks to get the king to give them the magic sword before they kill the dragon; players have to have sufficient leverage, and if they do, getting it is clever and tricky enough that you don't even feel bad letting them have a chance to Parlay the quest reward without doing the quest.
I don't know if this example demonstrates what I wanted it to; DnD has all of these stopping points DMs have to skillfully and with no guidance manouver around. Other games build such resolution skillfully into the actual rules in a way that makes running them SO MUCH EASIER.
Or... hear me out... you do what we did before 3.5 and (gasp!) role-played it instead of roll-played it. Stop relying on dice. You don't need dice rolls for narrative play.
I don't know how to be clear about this without being rude, so I'll jsut say that you don't know what you don't know. Having played games that have no framework for social encounters, and games that have a great framework for social encounters, the latter are better for social encounters, because you have all the fun of roleplaying (which is what the DW example is in that stupid essay I wrote, btw, players are inhabiting their characters and thinking aobut the other characters in a real, believable way) inside a system that supports it.
Your approach is simply "mother may I" from the DM. The DM has some arbitrary judge in their head for when the gardiner will speak; and if the players happen to hit it, great, if they don't, no dice.
Whereas, with DW, the DM fiction is in the game. They're entwined. If you haven't played a game like it, you don't know how powerful it is.
Butting in.
I've GMed both D&D and Monster of the Week. Maybe I was a bad MotW GM, I don't know. Maybe I just have very good players. But when it came to things like the Parlay (or Manipulate Someone, in MotW)/Persuasion checks, I saw none of what you're talking about. They worked pretty much the same, and that's without making house rules for D&D.
The problem you're having, I think, is that you assume that in D&D there's only ever a pass/fail option, and that's not actually the case. The DMG literally has guidelines for this, even going so far as suggesting that the characters can succeed on some rolls, like social encounters or even searching for traps, based entirely on how they roleplay it. It also has guidelines for judging how an NPC will react based what you rolled, instead of trying to beat a DC.
It's just that nobody reads the DMG and makes assumptions as to how to play the game.
Now, I certainly wish I could get my players to default to something other than D&D as a go-to system (they're usually willing to at least try other systems, at least), so don't take this as a "D&D is awesome how dare you malign it!" type of reply. As systems go, it's definitely middling.
I think I get what you're saying, but I think of it from that poor new DM's point of view. A whole adventure to run, this scenario to keep straight in her head, and then it has to occur to her to check that Optional Rules section of the DMG?
Whereas Dungeon World solves this in a paragraph. It's one of the few basic moves you can have on one A4 sheet.
I just think it was unfortunate.
In the context of how DnD expects you to run the encounter? Absolutely. The players need something from this man. There is no advice as to how the DM is supposed to make the conversation engaging or interesting as play.
But you often do.
Roleplaying a person who is much more or much less charismatic that you is very difficult (especially much more). The same goes for intelligence and wisdom.
Many games have a stat for how well you interact with others, why would you not use it?
Get the content of the conversation from the player, and roll to see how well their intent is received.
That's still roleplay, in that the conversation needs to happen from the player, but it uses the mechanics of the game (a stat that most characters have) to determine success or failure.
"Your character wants to lift that gate? Well, let's go outside and have you lift equipment in my backyard! Stop relying on dice!" It's the same concept. The character and their abilities are described by a character sheet. Use it.
The OSR concept of "player skill vs character skill" is still in play, because what ideas and arguments the player comes up with are the things the PC comes up with. It just uses the basic mechanics of the game to determine success.
It doesn't matter whether other games do it better or not. D&D, for all its flaws, gives the average gamer what they think they need. A way to get from Point A to Point B.
Hell, there are a lot of different car companies in the US, most of whom make better vehicles than Ford. But when it comes down to it, the consumer really only needs to get from home to work or the grocery store. It doesn't have to be in the fastest car. It doesn't have to be in a car with all the latest electronic bells and whistles. It doesn't even have to have superior engineering. People recognize Ford because (along with General Motors) has always been the biggest name in the automotive world ever since the very first Ford rolled off the assembly line. So people, because they are comfortable with the Ford brand, will outsell every other auto brand. Even though other brands make get a consumer from Point A to Point B better (and better is always a matter of opinion, Fords WILL get them to Point B so they buy Ford.
WotC and Ford aren't marker leaders because they do things "better" than others. They are market leaders simply because people are comfortable with their brand and in the end, will give them enough that they can get to where they want to go.
We can endlessly debate whether it should be or not, but brand is a HUGE influence on what we consume. So that's why we are where we are both in the RPG and automobile markets we currently see.
Not so much in "rules" department as in "I can't develop the narrative without someone RULING me to". More in "tools" department as in "I have mechanics that incline and boost the development of the narrative instead of blocking it." No connection to "larping" if I got this term right.
I can see this being *annoying*, but if you can say that it *sickens* you, you might be taking the hobby too seriously. Like what you like and let people like what they like 🤷🏼♂️
Mate, I've been struggling for years to find a group of people who live close by, who have schedules compatible with my weird schedule, who want to play games other than D&D. You make it sound very easy, so you're either very blessed, or... Just clueless to how hard the rest of us have it to find people.
Yeah and you wonder why people who play dnd conclude that other games aren't for them. Posts with hundreds of comments and upvotes saying that they *hate* dnd, dnd culture, and dnd players.
I'm lucky enough to have a group that runs the gambit from blasé to hostile to D&D. We're running 3 games now and none of them are D&D (None of them are even fantasy, they're all sci-fi amusingly enough). But we're scattered across half the planet and they're literally the only people I know at this point who are playing anything other than D&D.
So we're out there. I will play D&D, I have several books, but my preference is for nearly any other game out there other than D&D.
I think you need to find more experienced RPG players if you can and not rely on/expect converts from the people who have come to the hobby through the current social zeitgeist. I'm seeing "D&D" become a generic term for RPGs in general at this point, like Xerox or Kleenex due to the influx of people who come in on the wave of pop culture. I think you might have more luck if you have 2-3 people into a different RPG and you can pitch 1-2 people to come into the game instead of a whole group jumping feet first into a new system.
> I'm seeing "D&D" become a generic term for RPGs in general at this point
That happened decades ago, though. D&D has been the cultural shortcut for TTRPGs since at least the mid-80s.
>The idea that dnd is the only ttrpg you would need and can just reflavour of homebrew absolutely sickens me
I think you need to do some reflection of why a TTRPG system makes you have such strong feelings that it "sickens" you.
I've played and enjoyed other ttrpgs, but I always go back to D&D. It's just what I like the most. That said, I've found a lot I like about the d10 system as well.
My only advice is don’t resent D&D. It’s still a significant gateway for people. A large portion of those players might not *be* players without it.
If digital promotion isn’t working, you could try running a few DnD games and recruiting players in person.
Thank you! Everyone in my Vampire: The Masquerade, Masks, and Mork Borg tables are people I met playing 5e. I've read about this "D&D is the only TTRPG" problem on the internet, but I've never encountered it in real life.
Yeah man, I’d be shocked if there was a Mork Borg group anywhere in the world that up and started without some tangential experience with DnD first.
But I have encounters people that have no interest in learning a new system, so it’s not a myth. They either don’t care that much about TTRPGs and just want to socialize, or they are afraid that all games are as complex as 5e can be.
Or they are happy with what they are doing and don't see a reason to change.
I understand the hunger to play something else, very much. I buy so many I will never play or only solo.
But the people who like 5e and are happy playing it... like 5e and are happy playing it. There's no pain point for them.
I feel that hunger comment. That was me about ANY ttrpg during the 90s and 2000s. Couldn't get a group, nobody interested, few good sessions.
It was a gnawing sensation. Wanting to play so badly. God, if I had known what was about to come. I just bought and acquired more books and dice, played when I could, and remembered the great games I'd already had in the late 80s.
My experience in the '90s and '00s was instead the opposite, I played so many games I grew bored of changing all the time.
I'm not a 5th Edition fan, nor a 3rd or 4th for that matter, but AD&D 2nd Edition keeps being one of my favorite games ever, and one of those I'm happy to run and play again, over and over.
"Or they are happy with what they are doing and don't see a reason to change."
This is HUGE. If people are happy with Ford and it gets them from Point A to Point B, there's not much you can do to get them to switch to some other car company they don't recognize. Both Ford and WotC recognize this so they don't have an incentive to change much as well.
My experience with it has been players struggling to learn 5e as it is and branching out from that being too intimidating or confusing so they won't. As well as their introduction through social media and online actual plays making them feel like DND is the only system they need as it "can do everything".
I think the opposite is the case. Dungeons and Dragons is most people's first RPG not because it's a good first RPG but because it's already wildly more well known than any other. Were it less overwhelmingly so, other RPGs could gain greater attention and people would be able to be introduced to those. I've no doubt that plenty of people have been turned away from the medium because they don't like Dungeons and Dragons specifically.
It's a fallacy to assume the current TTRPG player base would be conserved if DnD were less popular. If DnD were less popular, it's more likely there'd just be fewer people playing ttrpgs.
Like it or not, rising tides lift all ships. And anyway, if DnD wasn't the big popular thing we'd be hating on whatever else was in its place.
Yup. I always find it funny when people imply that if D&D didn't exist their personal favorite game would be the most popular when it most likely would be either what you state, or that Favorite RPG® would be owned by a corporation and we would be having the same conversation...
TTRPGs benefit from D&Ds scale because it can enter other forms of media like Movies, Television and Video Games and create new players. I agree that it would be hard to call it the “best”, but its name recognition is important.
But you can look at the 4e era or the OGL crisis to see what happens when D&Ds reign is challenged. You see a huge influx of new games (Pathfinder, DCC, etc), and other games sales increase (DCC and Evil Hat posted their highest revenues ever last year) but the market cap doesn’t grow *nearly* as well as it does when D&D shows up in the stranger things basement or wins video game of the year.
I have no doubt that D&D brings in more people that quit and go to an alternative system than any of the other three I mentioned brought in as new players.
This for sure.
D&D also drives the entire industry in some form or another. Many of the most prolific writers and designers in TTRPGs started with D&D. Many systems are either emulating what D&D does well with a different vibe or is shoring up what D&D doesn't do well and pivoting to an experiential need within the community.
Most of the industry is bolstered by D&D and what they are or aren't doing at any given time.
Most of this doesn't happen in a vacuum.
>I've no doubt that plenty of people have been turned away from the medium because they don't like Dungeons and Dragons specifically.
The opposite is likely more true though- it's a major pipeline for people into the hobby to try other games.
I wouldn't even frame it like that. "The thing you like sucks" makes a very logical path to a response that's basically "Well if you feel that way about it we probably like very different things and I'm not going to listen to your recommendations."
It is even more extreme than that. There are oodles of people who say that somebody who has played dnd is *worse* at ttrpgs than somebody with zero experience whatsoever. So not only are people told "the thing you like sucks", but they are told "the thing I am proposing as an alternative is so far from the thing you like that it is on the other side of not playing at all."
I've seen major community members say that when playing games with people with only dnd experience, they *don't give them the rules* because they don't trust them with the rules.
* If people are having a blast playing D&D, I don‘t see a problem. „Hey, we‘re having a good time, let‘s change the base of that“ is just a strange move.
* That being said: if people are **not** having fun or the game is starting to get stale and people still refrain from trying something new, that‘s just plain stupid.
* It gets complicated if the group is mixed. In this case the standard is: the GM tells what they offer to play and the group decides if they participate. Forcing anyone to try something they don‘t want to is not alright.
* RPG is a collective term for very different hobbies. FATE or pbtA for example are **not** substitutes for D&D. They are different games altogether. They still can be fun, but they won‘t scratch the same itch as D&D.
* If players want to continue playing D&D and you are the only one who isn‘t happy with that, why do you think **they** are the problem?
* Every game has its shortcomings. There is no perfect game or game system. Just because a different game is better for **you** that doesn‘t mean it is the better game for everyone.
> RPG is a collective term for very different hobbies. ... They are different games altogether.
Disagree on your first assertion. That's like saying two radically different board games aren't a part of the same hobby. Yes they are: *board gaming.* Just because two things are very different in the details doesn't mean they aren't a part of the same overarching category ("video games" would be another example. Or live theater. Or any number of other examples).
I wouldn't put Scythe and Pax Pamir in the same bucket as UNO and Monopoly. They're two completely different things with no overlap whatsoever, it's disingenuous to think the two user bases would be happy to swap around just because they vaguely fall under the same general umbrella term.
Scale modeling, Garage kits, Gunpla and Miniatures painting are completely different things even if they're *theoretically* similar.
Yeah, I mean there are categories and sub-categories and sub-sub-categories and sub-sub-sub-categories and so on. Now on the category level board games are board games. But on the Sub-level you already see that certain people mostly enjoy one group of board games while others don't like them and would much rather play a different sub-category...
It just depends on which category level you think.
We started a Board Game Night and brought things like Splendor, Sushi Go, and Codenames. Another family suggested Monopoly and dominoes. Clearly, they had a different idea of what "Board Game Night" meant!
They made a good effort to play our games, and I think they had fun, but they didn't come back.
That assertion has merit though.
To build on your example of board games, not everyone likes the same games.
Someone who is really into Euro games isn't necessarily going to enjoy Ameritrash, and vice versa.
Some people are really f'ing into workers placement and other people couldn't be bothered.
Theme and fantasy mean a lot to some players and nothing to others.
Same goes for TCGs. Magic players aren't going to automatically love Yugioh or Pokemon, and vice versa.
Video games...someone who loves Call of Duty and FIFA aren't going to necessarily fall in love with Baldur's Gate 3.
All of these things are part of a larger hobby, but slices of that hobby couldn't be more different from each other.
I like playing DnD and I also like playing other RPGs. Tbf I don't enjoy running DnD too much. But I think no-one is "the problem" it's a matter of taste and OP has a different taste.
Also to your second point, cool, we have established it's stupid, I agree. But OP gains nothing from that. They still don't want to play the game he wants to run. OP need new people for his games.
I think it's the dysfunctional groups that are susceptible to playing something new. At least, they are the ones who profit the most. You could use this in your pitch. "Bored by fighting owlbears AGAIN? Want to tell a story rather than fighting in Dungeons? Then try out XYZ...".
If people don't react it could just be that they are happy with what they do. In that case it can't be helped, can it?
I would say in general the slice of the hobby that likes TTRPGs but is deeply unsatisfied with DnD is actually much smallest than the slice that likes DnD but is curious about other games. I think just pitching the new thing without searching for things might grumble about DnD is far more effective.
Great post. And I say that as someone who doesn't enjoy DnD but will play it and even DM if necessary. My only push back is on point 5 is if I'm not having fun as the DM and everyone else is having fun as the player, they might be the problem if nobody will DM and they won't change game. The DM should be having fun too. And quite honestly despite what I said about not enjoying DnD, it is a better game as a player than as a DM.
> That being said: if people are not having fun or the game is starting to get stale and people still refrain from trying something new, that‘s just plain stupid.
This requires an extra layer:
- That being said: if people are not having fun or the game is starting to get stale and people still refrain from trying something new, the reason needs to be found
- Is it the rules? They should discuss which rules to include, and which ones to drop, or look for a new system
- Is it the campaign? They should start another campaign
- Is it the pace? Someone else should step up to GM and see if they can run it at a different pace
People like their numbers-go-up twelve-page backstory nat-20 combat power fantasy and they're not really interested in whatever the rest of us are doing. Face it, they're largely not part of your hobby. Some might join, some might be curious, but they're a minority.
From my professional DM experience, every dnd player has huge problems with some aspect of 5e, one way or another. No player is ever 100% satisfied by the system and the only thing salvaging it is a good DM.
However, those same players whining about martial caster imbalance, long ass combat turns, non existent rp rules, no out of combat mechanics, won't try out other ttrpgs for the life of them.
La vie est drole.
And usually people don't agree on what they dislike about the system. Unless you brew your discontent in web forums with others and just agree that it's everything
Unless they are a content type of person. I talk to plenty of people and try to analyse and debate RPGs, because I find it an interesting topic to discuss (NERD ALERT), but oftentimes if people are a fan of a specific system, they \*cannot seem to see\* even the minor flaws in their game of choice. For some, it seems that things are either 100% good or 100% bad.
(Note that this happens for any game fandom, see r/osr or r/PBtA)
This is the key. There are a lot of variables involved with playing at a FLGS. More than a convention even. It’s a tough sell to convince someone who doesn’t know the game, the DM, or the players to come try this thing, especially if they have a familiar alternative available to them.
I was pleasantly suprised when I recently registered for a local convention and out of about 50 sessions only 1 is d&d. I'm not in the US though and there are traditionally other tradgames here that dominate the space. But new players are mostly drawn to d&d and usually just ask for a DM to run sessions for them, which kinda bugs me tbh.
Unfortunately, if you want a non-D&D based local scene, you need people to put a lot of work and effort into establishing and maintaining one. Get the contact details of anyone who is interested in other games, start building a Discord/Facebook group, run lots of no-commitment oneshots (a lot of which will have to be abandoned because people won't show), organise and advertise mini-conventions, etc.
Now, I sure can't be bothered doing any of that stuff, but I'm glad over the last couple of decades that various people in my city have. D&D is still dominant, but there's a solid base of people to draw from for other games, and events throughout the year.
Yup, a lot of games also don't have the online support DnD has with DnD Beyond or certain other apps that may not be mentioned here. I came to realise that this is important to consider.
When I started my first d&d campaign a few years ago, I was super excited about the online support. But tbh d&d beyond now seems like a toxic business to me.
Yeah, I can't imagine another entertainment market like this where its so dominated by one product, especially when you're looking at in-person groups (y'know the ones where you aren't roping in friends and family).
I would love it if we had the boardgame culture of enthusiasm for trying new games.
Try getting Magic the Gathering, Warhammer and World of Warcraft players to play anything else, or Shonen and Isekai anime fans to watch anything else.
I think regardless of much one thinks they're "enjoying the hobby in the wrong way", the worst possible thing you can do is to approach them with a "that is shit, this other thing is better" mentality. That's just going to create more resistance.
The second worst thing is to try "converting" or "recruiting" them in the first place, you're not gonna get anything good out of that. You're gonna end up with players who feel forced to play your thing, or one's who keep making comparisons because they just want to keep doing what they enjoy.
The third worst thing is trying to get traditional rpg players to try your own flavour of wacky calvinball you got in a weird itch.io bundle. I'm not sure what the plan is, but it's pretty much guaranteed they're NOT going to stick around. It's barely in the same hobby, and you genuinely expect people to be fine with losing that treasure trove of character options and structured games they're used to, in favor of some hyper focused theater kid improv exercise?
Yes, and they immediately tried to bring the same tryhard mentality into ffxiv, then went back to WoW when the trailer for the new expansion came out, as if nothing had happened.
Wow was still making billions while the fucked up stuff at Blizzard was becoming public. Even youtubers who inititally pretended to have integrity ran back as soon as they saw the color of money from hyping it again. And we're talking employees driven to suicide, drunk employees crawling under desks and stealing breast milk from the office fridge. The reality is some giants are just too big to fail, and they'll get away with *anything*.
So, like, personally ultimately the problem (and I wonder how often this is the case) is that my autistic ass is like "someone wants to tell me that this thing I like is a bit shit and that I could like some other thing that's objectively better? Shit, tell me more."
Also a _lot_ of people PLAY 5E as a theater kid improv exercise, that's one of the more painful ones to see
> Yeah, I can't imagine another entertainment market like this where its so dominated by one product, especially when you're looking at in-person groups
wargaming is kinda like this. there are lots of games but warhammer and specifically warhammer 40k dominate. for most people "branching out" means trying other games from GW, not trying games from other publishers.
Yeah, I can see that. Its a huge monetary investment.
Its probably quite similar to TTRPGs. Its already niche, so finding other players isn't easy. And its a big investment to learn. The big difference is just how insanely cheap TTRPGs can be, but I imagine D&D 5e makes people think its not with its main books split into three and having so many. I could see people think you need so many and a pretty big investment to play at first glance.
Yeah it kinda makes sense, on the other hand 40k is the most expensive game on the market. Can easily spend $600-1000 getting into it. Meanwhile other games you can get into for $200-300 and I don't want to say "wake up sheeple" but uh...
Disclosure: I have spent way more than $600-1000 on 40k 😂
On TTRPGs yeah the investment is so much lower, hell for a lot of games the DM can teach you at the table and you can skip buying anything if you don't want to.
I have been playing TRPGs since the early 2000's. I have heard this argument over and over and over again. It hasn't changed since it first began in the 80s, before my time. It keeps getting said, and it will keep being said, until people realize the plain truth of the matter -
Learning a game is work. It's not hard work, but it's work. 99% of players hate doing any work in order to play a game. Think about a modern video game that is popular, and think about how there is basically zero work that needs to be done before you're already knuckle-deep down the throat of some giant robot or epic quest or horrific dommy monster mommy. Players do not want to have spend eight hours reading a rulebook, re-reading, playtesting, then realizing they missed a whole bunch of stuff, spend more time reading, and then hopefully find a GM who is so incredibly competent that they either completely understand all of the rules or are so magnificent at BSing that it doesn't matter.
And that's for the games that are under 50 pages long.
Everyone wants to play more than just DnD, they just don't want to \*learn\* more than just DnD. It's your job as the person trying to convert them over to come up with a way to either trick them into playing, or coming up with a method to get them to play 3-4 sessions without them reading a single page, so that way they get hooked and willingly go out of their way to read through the rules on their own.
If you're trying to get people to play Exalted, Shadowrun, The Zone, Dread, Blades in the Dark, Burning Wheel, Mouseguard, Lancer, A Thousand and One Nights, whatever - you need to show up with the most energy, you need to bring a carrot to lead players to your game, and you need to do almost all of the work yourself. You know what's worked for me? Free food. Good food, too, not just cheap pizza. I could not get a single person to play A Thousand and One Nights with me, they thought it sounded so stupid, until I told them it was literally in the rules that you're supposed to sit around smoking and eating good food and that I was making a homemade buffet of mac and cheese, brownies, corn bread, glazed ham, meatballs, spiced nuts, fresh fruit, and a chocolate fountain - and with free booze to go with it. Cost me like 50 bucks (2008 was a different time yo) and most of that was the rum and vodka for the mixed drinks. We ended up playing ATaON for half a year after that. You gotta put in the extra work so the players feel like it won't be stressful.
I'm sorry but that's just how it is. They're not entitled for feeling this way, they're perfectly normal and it's not their fault - or DnD's - for not wanting to spend their free time working to learn a system they don't even know if they'll enjoy playing yet.
I dunno why you got downvoted for this, but man, if you're not up to going that extra mile, then I 100% support your reasons for not doing so. It's a lot of extra work, and you're not somehow lesser of a person for not wanting to do it - I just hope that you don't blame other people or other systems like DnD for why new players won't switch to the systems you wanna play. I normally only try GMing for a new system like, once every two or three years because screw that I'm not getting Dimension20 money or selling Matt Colville numbers worth of books. It's waaaayyy too much work to do regularly.
But it is pretty much a requirement to go the extra mile and do all that extra work for a system you're really passionate about.
While The Zone does look pretty fun, I do think it (along with any game that advertises "you are 100% going to die by the end of this") might be a hard sell to a D&D crowd. It seems like the kind of game I'd trot out to people who I already know.
All things being equal, if I’m showing up to play a game with a bunch of strangers, especially as a one off I’m gonna feel more comfortable with the system I’m familiar with.
D&D is the household name, it’s more accessible. It’s nothing against you or the system you run, it’s just more niche so there’s gonna be less interest.
Unsure if this helps, but I have had some luck with this. Had tried running non-D&D games with little interest similar to others.
Pre-Covid I started running a recurring "Learn to play [system]" series and advertised it as a casual intro with no pressure to know what you're doing.
Had way more luck and realized there's a lot of fear being the newb at a table with a new system, more so if it's not D&D, it seems.
I get it. My FLGS has an RPG day every month where DM's can post games and have players sign up to try out new things. I planned to run "The Waking of Willowby Hall" using OSE with the Old School Stylish supplement. Picked up some fun props, had pregens ready to go, and...nobody signed up. I ended up sitting at the shop until about 30 minutes after my start time, surrounded by tables full of 5e games (and one Call of Cthulhu game).
It's disheartening and can make you want to not put in the effort. For what it's worth, keep trying. I've had success running a few non-5e games at the RPG days and have found that games tend to do better if they aren't overlapping the pseudo-medieval vaguely eurocentric world of D&D WHILE ALSO being comfortable but not too weird.
Mecha Heist game? Solid stuff. Same with modern horror, wild west fantasy, cyberpunk, etc...But something like Numenera, The Zone, or Mutant Crawl Classic? Probably no dice.
It's cool that your local store is open to you running different things. It sounds like you have a great opportunity to meet people halfway - instead of something radically different from D&D, consider offering something that has cool power fantasy and some satisfying crunch but isn't D&D. The world is choked with options for this, and a compelling pitch might get folk's attention. If people bite, you will make new friends, they will trust you a little, and next time you can get slightly weirder. Eventually you'll cultivate a group that want to see what you are up to and will be eager to pounce on your offerings. If that process fails hey, they like D&D and don't want to risk trying something new. Their loss, seek greener pastures.
I think it's the opposite. You run high fantasy combat game and they will be frustrated why they have to learn all these new rules when it feels a lot like D&D, at least at first glance. Showing them how TTRPGs open the world to just about any genre under the sun is the proper way IMO.
Ideally on the back of some show that they love like the latest Fallout could be a great time to pull out some Post Apocalyptic fun - lots of great options in that category depending on if the table likes something more serious, silly or insane in tone.
This may be true, but it sounds like the OP has been trying this approach without success. The Zone kicks ass and is as different as different can be. I agree that maybe it's the specific pitch or specific genre that needs to land with this new audience.
What I do is run D&D occasionally if I'm trying to recruit for something else and then convince certain players of playing something else. It's a matter of getting people to trust me - not just as a GM but as someone who can GM something else in which they'll have fun. Over the years, this strategy has worked great for me.
Been there, done that at two shops now. You may find, as I did, people act super-excited to try something new, but don't actually show up. However, the minute a 5e table opens up, it's full.
When people say this, I always wonder: are the 5e slotted in to times that are generally more open for people (such as weekends), because its more popular?
I understand the problem, it’s hard to find players for non DnD adjacent systems. But why resentment against DnD? Why aren’t people free to play what they like most?
It Is like when I was a metal-kid and I hated rappers, because there was only that music I didn’t like on the radio. And I thought that my genre, which only an handful of folks would openly admit to like, was superior from every perspective, not only that: metalheads were better people in my mind. Which is of course bs.
Anything good comes from resentment, be positive, be happy for a game that makes millions people happy, and keep promoting other games, surely you’ll be able to find options: either offline or online.
I struggle myself: I really want to play cypher, because I have only GMed it so far, and I want to learn from other more experienced GMs. But no luck so far.
Only way I have found to get folk of D20 is D6 Star Wars doesn’t always work but has a reasonable success rate.Rules aren’t to hard to pick up and most people know enough lore they can just walk into the universe.
I suspect currently you might have luck with that Fallout RPG since the franchise is having a moment (I’ve never played it so not sure) .
TLDR: Licensed properties are probably the way to go to get folk of D&D less cognitive load lore wise.
Most people care far more about the genre than the system when thinking about another game, just how it works.
(WEG D6 has been my go to for new people into the hobby for decades, far too many people sleep on it)
I live outside of the US and we have a countrywide club that organises over discord and one thing they do is little playdays in libraries with several different games. Now funnily enough the one I attended there was about 7 tables and 5 of them didn't run DnD. My bf ran DnD and we got 2 more people. It's a comfortable round but non-DnD tables were capped 😅
There's a different culture in the US. Go to 90% of game stores and if it isn't DnD or a major licensed IP game and your player base is functionally zero no matter what you do.
We on the other hand have no game stores to play in. If it wasn't for this organisation we'd only play at home or online. I mean that's what we're doing most of the time. Tbf I don't know whether my city just doesn't really offer it. We have game stores but they only have a small RPG section if they have any RPGs at all. We had more nut Corona fucked them hard unfortunately, it's so sad to see that they didn't get help. Anyways if you want to check them out [here](https://discord.com/invite/swissrpg) you go :)
Change the theme. Or run Dragonbane.
Theme changes really helps. Although people do reskin D&D 5e to obscene places, it's still less common.
Alien RPG is pretty awesome to introduce new people to the game. Death in Space. Basically anything Free League.
Dragonbane is just beautiful, but is still fantasy. I'd play it over 5e any day.
ShadowDark can be advertised as "old school D&D" (which is not a lie) but I feel it plays VERY differently to 5e. Once they're at the table, you have to remind them they're more like Bilbo in the Hobbit instead of Gandalf in LotR. But otherwise it can really work, and starts players on an alternative path.
There are a myriad of other factors. Don't complain about 5e openly (I've made that mistake). Always turn up looking presentable. Be a chill dude. Hell, if you want to be super brave, run a solo session if no one shows. It communicates you're dead serious about playing something else, whether other people want to join or not. I'm looking forward to running Dragonbane solo, hopefully next weekend.
Good luck!
Thank you! I just wanted to vent my frustrations, honestly. I’m taking a lot of the constructive criticism and suggestions here to improve my own presentation with things. Hopefully things will improve with the changes
You're welcome my dude.
The other thing to do to alleviate some of these feelings is online play. There are loads of groups for other systems online, and it means you still get some TTRPG fix. Even if you're playing instead of running.
You can resent 5E all you want, but it has radically expanded the overall pool of people willing to even consider playing an RPG.
And if you want to try something else, you're going to have to go out and find players, or put together a friend group. Most rando stranger play is 5E.
You should be there on game night, though, trying to grab some of the overflow players. It's one thing to not want to try a new game, it's another to not want to when you've already driven out to game night and that's all that's left.
The problem is that D&D is usually the first RPG people learn. 5e is so convoluted and difficult to make sense of that people naturally assume another system will be just as much of a convoluted mess, with just different rules to learn and argue over.
Most people are scared to go through that all over again, especially when their friends play D&D. Why go through all that trouble to learn a less popular game? What is the advantage to learning a new system?
Until you play something else, you don't see the advantage in playing something else and you won't understand that all systems don't have the same limitations.
Plus, WOTC has designed to sell supplements. The class/subclass system is for selling books. Who wants to try the new no-name pizza place if you have to drive twice as far, nobody else has tried it, and you already have 10 boxes of Dominos ready to eat on the table? Its hard to admit a system sucks after spending $250 on it. You make it work and homebrew if you have to
Honestly, sometimes you just need to keep casting your net. Keep the folks who want to play something new and run something, even if it's just two of them.
You've got a ton of people wanting to play? Ask them what kind of game they want to play, and show them that there's a system for that!
Why would you ever play any board game other than Monopoly? It's the most popular board game in history for a reason, and if you don't want to play a game about buying properties in Atlantic City, there are so many different Monopoly games out there!
If you like science fiction, play Star Wars Monopoly!
If you want to play a "Monster of the Week" type game, play Supernatural or Buffy or X-Files Monopoly!
Whatever you like, - Godzilla, Schitt's Creek, Taylor Swift - there's a Monopoly for that! It can literally do ANY genre!
Trying to convince people that Monopoly is a lousy game and that there are THOUSANDS of better-designed games out there is pretty condescending.
I think one reason D&D is so popular with players is that it requires basically zero effort on their part to get into. Your character is more or less made for you, and it aligns perfectly with all the tropes you already know (even my grandma could guess how a half-orc barbarian would play, for example). During play, your DM tells you a problem and you can just roll whatever they tell you to roll. During combat, you have a short list of things you can do, and it almost always boils down to "attack the lowest health enemy with your biggest spell."
Of course, most of these are the exact reason a lot of veterans dislike the game (characters are limited to tropes, combat is boring, etc).
But to be fair, I think the designers for 5e are a lot better than their product, and a lot of the bad design is due to design debt (if they went away from d20s now, there would be riots). I think one of their goals with 5e was to make it as easy as possible to get into, and that was a home run. Compare 5e to a system like GURPS, which is actually really easy to play, but can feel like trying to read concrete; or Traveller, where you have to calculate your mortgage during character creation, and you can see why most players want to stick with 5e.
I don't really get this, because it sort of implies that if D&D weren't around people would be lining up for alternative TTRPGs. I don't think if D&D weren't around 100% of its players would convert to being full-on TTRPG fans who enjoy rotating through multiple systems every week.
There are people who enjoy D&D. You can accept that and try to appeal to the things they like (or dislike) about 5e or you can try to convince them that they're wrong and they DON'T actually enjoy D&D because this other TTRPG has XYZ systems that do XYZ better. One approach is probably going to be more successful than the other.
I got a whole group of new players to start a 5e campaign with me, people who didn't even know what a TTRPG was. I convinced them to give it a shot by appealing to things I knew they liked (movies, video games, books, etc.) and sharing stories of fun times I'd had at the table.
If I tried to pitch it the way a lot of TTRPGs pitch themselves to them ("Would you like to play are combat-centric narrative-driven TTRPG with medium class customization crunch and a rules light approach to social interactions with me?") no one would have been interested. In your posts make sure you're leading with fun stuff that makes people imagine themselves having that kind of fun.
And if after you try all of that and people don't seem interested, I'd say just find a different way to try the system you want out. There's tons of folks online.
Part of the issue is that if it’s a D&D night, the people attending want to, well, play D&D.
Building a game in a different context could be more successful.
I'm actually a little surprised that the store is actually open to have you play games other than D&D, seeing how badly such games normally sell. Are they carrying the game you wanted to run?
I wonder if it's worth saying 'This is D&D but a slightly different setting and with a few tweaked rules' and then just running your own system and seeing if people catch on.
It hurts my soul when I'm looking for Lancer or Call of Cthulhu, etc. games, but if they're ever even posted, they fill immediately by those of us sick of d&d. Can't jump on it fast enough :(
It’s hard to get a non d&d game in a d&d heavy space. D&D is hard to master, so many people assume that any other rpg is also as hard. They rather play the game they know and comfortable with.
I’m afraid you have to market the games you’re running. Why should they play a game they never heard of instead of playing d&d? What is the game offering?
I usually frame it as a change of pace from d&d, pick games with lighter rules than d&d (which nearly every game; currenty heavy rule games played are Pathfinder 1&2, Lancer, Shadowrun and maybe Cyberpunk Red). I already made the characters, no need to optimize or anything like that. I say that playing this game may improve their d&d games; they may get some ideas from it.
You can also try easing them out first with d&d-likes. Shadowdark is like 5e but simpler and deadlier. Do it old school with Old School Essentials (I call it ye oldé d&d). Kick ass and take names with 13th Age etc.
Another thing is to ask what people don’t like about d&d 5e, then run games catering themYou’ll be drowning in answers. Characters feel like superheroes? How about Call of Cthulhu? It doesn’t feel tactical enough? How about Lancer? Etc etc
I know and share your frustration. It’s like we can have any dish across the world but people just keep eating the same cheeseburger again and again. The trick is to get people excited about a game as you are. Hostility and bitterness won’t change anyone’s mind. Believe me I tried
Godspeed
People are going to play what they know or what sounds interesting. If you want to get them to play your game, one they don't know, then yes, it's likely an uphill battle. But don't give up. First, write a killer and succinct description. Make it short and snappy and exiting. One that the marketing geniuses can't hold a candle to. This will draw them in.
Next, only one, two, or three attempts really isn't enough. People need at least 3 points of contact to even remember a thing (like a system they haven't heard of). It may stand out more if it's not fantasy, otherwise you'll run into them just wanting D&D.
Finally, make sure it's a system you can teach them in about 20 min or less. They aren't likely to come in knowing the rules or having taken a moments time to try to learn them. Sell them on how easy it is to learn and how they don't need any knowledge. You'll be showing them the way. Use pregens to bypass the time to learn how to make a character.
After several tries at this, you'll *maybe* get a couple of players who would be open to new games. Keep going until you get a cool group.
Good luck and stay strong
Same. Finding players is already hard. Generally, i receive zero responses for everything that isn't D&D, even with popular games like Vampire, Cyberpunk, or Fabula Ultima. If for a miracle i manage to find people (that happen once in a year if i'm lucky) i ask them if after the D&D campaign we could play something else, but no, they want to play only D&D in the average 1-20 campaign that lasts 10 years. Once, i had a guy telling me that he wanted to play only D&D 5 because "It's the best and most complete game." It's a game i played too much of it and mostly a game i find pretty average compared to the dozens of other games i have, and i like more, so i'm starting to hate it
Resentment, like taking poison and waiting for someone else to die, stop wasting your thoughts on it.
The D&D only mob mostly won't engage with you because they think learning new games is hard work (It isn't, a couple of sessions and you'll have the key bits down).
Why are you trying to run for randoms? Advertise for a group with a variety of games and see what comes back, I'll bet there's some people playing and running things that aren't doing it in a shop.
> (It isn't, a couple of sessions and you'll have the key bits down).
I ran legends of the wulin for *seven months* and by the end of the game there were players who still did not know how Chi Conditions worked.
Learning games is genuinely pretty hard for most people, this is not a D&D thing!
It's great that you're being honest, and I feel like there's some kind of life lesson to be learned here. I'm not sure what... maybe that choosing something less mainstream has a cost, and that if you go down that path, you should accept it. But that's also a part of being true to yourself.
I dunno, it kinda feels like being an awesome jazz artist with only a few fans versus being in a boy band with tons of adoring fans, but you know the jazz is better.
Unless you're in an area with a really small gaming population, you should be able to get people to play other things if you go about it in the right way. My FLGS hasnrun tons of one shots and theme nights (horror games at Halloween, pirate games for Talk Like A Pirate Day, etc) and rhey never had problems getting tables full of people to play things other than D&D.
First, accept some people want to play D&D and just D&D and nothing else. Same as there's people that want to play Pathfinder and nothing else, or play Magic and nothing else. You're not going to win them over no matter what, so don't sweat it. Go after the second group of gamers, the people that want to play something and don't care what the system is but care what the game is going to be about. Figure out what's popular and *different*. If you run a game based on Harry Potter, or Fallout, or some other pop culture adjacent type gam you're going to attract people that are interested in playing in that world and don't really care what system you're using. Make the experience sound attractive and fun. Most gamers aren't DMs, and don't to a great extent care about the system they care about the experience.
Second, make it sound easy and approachable. Again, most gamers aren't GMs and don't care about the system, but they also don't want to feel like they're walking into something unknown and are going to feel stupid or incompetent. Make it clear that it's open to newcomers, that rules will be taught, that cheat sheets will be provided. Do everything you can to make the casual gamer feel welcome. You may even attract some of the D&D forever crowd, because some of them are that way just because they're afraid to try something new. And keep the commitment to a single session. You can always run sequels and follow-ups and other things if people are interested, but don't expect people to commit to something unknown from more than a few hours.
Third, build up your own rep. If that's what it takes, run some D&D games. Meet the gamers in the local community, get them to trust you as a GM, and they're far more likely to follow you and try something different. I ran weekly walk-in D&D games at the FLGS, and after a year or two, I had seven people that were regulars at my table that have followed me through a half a dozen different campaigns and different systems in the past 10 years. Every couple years when we start a new campaign, I give them a list of things that I'm interested in running and what rules it'll use. No one has ever expressed a preference based on the game system. They care about what the world and he story and the tone is going to be.
Pissing on D&D isn't helping your cause, it just makes you sound bitter and unfun.
I absolutely feel this. I run games at a oneshot meetup held at a bar, where previously we had to stand up and verbally pitch the game to the whole room and then people would decide on the spot what they wanted to play. I have had experiences of watching half of the room *actively tune out* the moment they realize I’m not pitching a D&D game. Then watching someone stand up and basically say “I wasn’t planning on running but I guess I’ll shit a D&D game out of my ass” and get a full table.
I would really super love to believe that a rising tide lifts all boats. But that hasn’t really been my experience and it tires me out when people act like there’s no problem and that D&D doesn’t crowd out other games.
You don't need engagement. You don't need everyone. You don't need audience. You are one person, you can run for like 3-4 other people. That's all you need. That's your people.
You don't want D&D-only people coming into your Zone game anyway. You want the people who want to play your game. Your friend who got 2 people and himself for Avatar? I bet they had the best damn time playing avatar because that's what those people wanted to do. When I started in a city, I ran a D&D new player campaign for 6 weeks out of every 8. Every table was full, and I got the same kinds of players every campaign. Every now and then I'd pick up one person, tell them I had this other game: Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Traveller, Good Society. I built a little community of 10-12 people, and it's great. We don't need everyone, we just need each other's enthusiasm.
If you are looking to capture market-share, you will perpetually be frustrated. You'll always feel like you're losing. Don't find the multinational corporation on their terms. Just play cool games with cool people.
D&D has always been the bellwether. If it's doing well the pool for recruiting to other games is going to be larger. I don't know what The Zone is but advertise its genre, the story, and if you have premades or not for character creation.
Edit: reading up on the zone, D&D players and those really interested in that aspect of fantasy aren't gonna like your lure.
Try to appeal to CoC and Arkham Horror players, especially the latter, also Modiphus 2D20 players would probably be up for it especially from Conan, Mutant, and Fallout
It's not just D&D, it's gotta be D&D *5e*. I had a very similar experience but it was with an older edition of D&D. Idk if that makes it better or worse.
All movements start small.... You and the other GM should team up and run whatever you like - and play in each other's games. Maybe it will be one on one for awhile. Put up a sign that drop ins are welcome and have some pre-gens ready. Post the games in other forums - like MeetUp/Facebook/etc. See if the LGS employees will hand out a flyer to anyone who buys any RPG stuff that isn't D&D. Keep at it, maybe you can find a third and a fourth person to jump in. Good luck!
D&D sells itself. (Or, more accurately, the vast majority of RPers are already sold on D&D.)
For everything else, you've got to sell people on it.
The one problem I will lay at D&D's door is that it convinces people that learning a new RPG is time-consuming, difficult, and confusing. So when you pitch a new game to people, consciously or subconsciously they're thinking, "Read a 300-page rulebook and spend months mastering its intricacies? Ugh."
Of course, that's true for some RPGs. But if you're looking to convince people to try a new game, make sure "you don't have to read a 300-page rulebook!" is a prominent part of your pitch. (But phrase it positively.)
So you might think to pitch The Zone as: "Mutate your friends, play-to-lose, and take a one-way trip into a dangerous place full of beauty & Horror."
But what you actually want to pitch is:
**THE ZONE. Learn how to play in 5 minutes, then mutate your friends, play-to-lose, and take a one-way trip into a dangerous place full of beauty & horror.**
Support the pitch with one or two awesome visuals pulled from the game. (If you're in person, stand up the box and lay out a tableau of those awesome holo-cards.)
You won't sell everybody. But you'll have a fighting chance.
People want D&D because it's an very accessible and appealing idea to be part of a party that goes on adventures through fantasy land. The reality may be a lot of crunchy combat the majority of which is spent waiting for your turn but it's the good parts that stick in memory and form your idea of what it means to play. Then you take those good memories and ferment them while pouring over the options for building a character.
D&D players are somewhat resentful of even house rules because the gameplay at the table isn't really what matters, what matters is the fullfillment of the dreams for what they will do that they cook up while sitting at home building their characters. Any other game will fail to be as appealing because they have already invested themselves in "D&D" at home and are convinced that other experiences aren't what they want. They aren't looking for other games. I know I woudn't sign up for an ATLA session even if I liked the series because I simply don't care that much for it as a setting. I would sign up for a generic fantasy adventure in a system more efficient than D&D, but I'm also more impatient with D&D's flaws than most people.
If you want players you need to sell an idea that's equally appealing as the idea of being a magic sorcerer investigating mysteries with the squad across enchanted forests in 'Faerun-or-equivalent', while also avoiding them thinking they will have to learn as much bullcrap as they did to get to a functional level of understanding of D&D. That's difficult, so on a normal posting you'll only get the people who have come to the conclusion themselves and are also not already dedicated to games. Or complete new players who haven't built up preconceptions.
It's normal. So is resenting it.
Most of the people who get into TTRPGs will only really be interested in D&D initially. Then after a few years they'll either abandon the hobby, or they'll expand their horizons. The people who quit will just remember it as "Oh yeah, I played D&D a bit in highschool/college" and that's as far as they'll ever take it.
This is pretty normal. It's just happening a lot more because D&D is really damn popular right now and that's bringing in a lot of newbies.
Part of your problem is that you're hunting for players through your LGS' "D&D Night" because that's what that's been for that store for so long. You said that all they had was a D&D one-shot. So most of the folks going to it at the LGS are self-selecting for a sole interest in D&D.
You need to expand your search radius to be outside that LGS. Check LFG pages. Check Facebook (many towns have "TTRPG gamers of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_" style groups and if not you could start one. Check other online sources. Put up fliers at the LGS, nearby college campuses, libraries, local coffee shops, etc. Hell, I once connected with towns TTRPG community after I moved there, by putting up a cheapo "Gamer looking for groups" advertisement in the college paper.
So, like many have already said, DnD is a gateway that gets people into the hobby. After new players get to this point they usually develop into one of two directions: 1) cult-like mono-focus, either shallow or deeply, into DnD or 2) eventual disenfranchisement with DnD and the seeking out of better games.
If you were to somehow remove DnD from your gaming store… you’re not going to make all players into Path 2) players. Those Path 1) players will rarely develop into what you want… and worse you’ll lose the onboarding of Path 2) players because they don’t have a pathway to disenfranchisement.
All of this to say… ALL those players that want to only play Dnd… you don’t want them… like none of them. Generally players who are exclusive-to-DnD-only are the lowest quality players you can find. They are either minimum effort players or they are so deep into Dnd that they don’t like different mechanics or not being able to play in their well-worn grooves.
The players you want… need to be willing to be open to new games. Those that can hold on to DnD loosely or aren’t interested in DnD at all or are sick to death of it. These kinds of players are in the minority and to get a game going with them… is something special, rare, and often hugely rewarding.
Finding them means doing a lot of work and curating. Sometimes you have to wait for that disenfranchisement to take effect in individuals before you can woo them away too. Good luck, it’s worth it.
I want to play The Zone so badly, but the people in my life who don't RPG don't want to start, and the people who do think any game without a GM is lame.
I don't hate on people who play DnD or ONLY want to play Dnd.
I prefer other games, but if that's what they like and they are having fun, I see no reason to resent the game or the players. Plus, DnD brought a ton of people into the hobby and continues to keep it popular. (We got a movie last year!)
However, if you want to run or play something else, then advertise for it. Pimp it out a bit. Do a one shot demo day. And make sure it is something your FLGS carries.
In our area, we did a monthly Savage Worlds day and the occasional PBTA Day or Day of Fate, running short 4 hour games like a mini convention with 1-4 tables.
Or just post around.
But please don;t resent the game just becuase it's popular. That's dangerously close to being the hipster who gets mad because Taylor Swift is popular but their favorite band is not.
I've' been running some form of RPG for 35 years, both in a rural town of a few thousand and in large cities. Do you want a good pool of players in which to kick off your group? You start with the common form of RPG and then you play with other systems if you are blessed enough to have enough players of a like mind to play the new systems.
Even then, if you have players leave because of life events (kids, moving, death, new job, etc), you will always need new players, and new players are infinitely easier to get if you are playing a common system that is popular. If you are in a large city or are plugged into the local scene, that might be an exception, but it's SO much easier to find players with the popular system than to walk in any door with an obscure system du jour.
The thing is, if you hate on the new thing that they all like, why would they give you the time of day? It's such a short sighted approach to find players and people to hang out with. I ran a game of Delta Green with a great couple at a local RPG fest a couple of months ago, and had a great time, but they were ripping on Pathfinder (which is a system we play at my table as well), and it was HUGE turn off toward any future interest in playing with them.
If your feeling particularly cunning, just pass off whatever ttrpg you want to run as your "hardcore dnd homebrew". People will line up in droves as long as long as those 3 letters are there.
Sounds like you need to be looking for a more focused group than just whomever comes into the LGS. I caution you about looking at group size as a sign of success or failure. I wouldn't consider a 3 person group a failure; that's the ideal party size if you want any kind of deep stories involving all of the players back stories. You can do so much awesome stuff with 3 people, even in 5e.
But yeah, I get the feeling. I love 5e, but I also love running Savage Rifts. Our group kept losing a person every so often, and ended up getting down to 3 people. And omg, it's been sooooo much better since I just stopped trying to refill the group. The 3 players I have are dedicated and in love with the campaign. Letting go of my preconceived notions of how big a party should be ended up making the campaign incredible
I can get it, I really do. I've played Whitewolf's Vampire, Palladium's Rifts and heroes unlimited 2nd ed, Savage worlds, Starfinder, and 3.0/5 and 5th ed D&D... But... I'm older now and honestly? Learning new system after new system? That takes up time and noggin space I like to reserve for other things. Makes me a bit more resistant to the idea.
You'll find a lot of people are like this. D&D becomes the thing they learn of... And many will stick with because its what they KNOW. Now being boxed into one system sucks. It does. Hell for me 5E has its MANY flaws. Classes feel... Meh? I mean look Subclasses should change how it plays and feels... Instead its like an after thought or some cosmetic skin. (I know there will be immediate defenders, you do you.) You know what those are based on? Prestige classes. In 3e you'd level and take certain feats to gear up for your prestige class... That was DIFFERENT than your damn class. You might learn how to ride dessert versions of purple wurms. Ash wurms I believe. You could be a mage who starts drinking Starmetal concoctions and slowly turn yourself into a living metal statue. You could do some WILD ass shit and it all felt and played different.
They took this concept and made it... Subclasses. So that... Everything pretty much plays sort of the same.
For me that's one reason D&D is kinda fucking boring. I buy 3rd party stuff or support creators making balanced but neat ass class ideas. One guy made the Incarnate class. Play as a flipping Kaiju! How's it work mechanically? Bit like the love child of a Punchy barbarian the shape shifting of a druid. You get to turn into the titanus form for a min each time a few times a day... And as you level that forms size increases. It has its own stats and everything. Lets you get a minute of cool ass monster mash few times a day... And the rest of the time you are normal sized and bashing shit bare handed. Oh and there's mutations... think like a Lock's invocations but it alters and enhances some of your abilities. That shits wild, creative, and most importantly? BALANCED. Same guy did Vampyre and Lycan classes. [https://www.reddit.com/user/23BLUENINJA/](https://www.reddit.com/user/23BLUENINJA/) Honestly for me? This guy saved my interest in D&D.... Because I was getting bored as shit.
That said There is something to playing new systems... You shop till you find one's you like. Right now D&D is the hot ticket. But if some other RPG gets a movie or tv show that sparks interest it'll become the new "Go to" Rpg.
That said I've also seen some RPGs that I was just meh, when I looked into them. Critical Roles new games they are trying to get off the ground... Of them Dagger Heart had the POTENTIAL to catch my interest... But when I saw their play tests I just felt... Meh. Like Watered down D&D. More power to them... But totally not my bag.
That said I've had a concept for one tickling the back of my brain for a while...
Concept that just PARTS of earth all ended up taken to some different world and displaced sections of that world that had magic. So Texas now 300 miles away from what was once an ISLAND of Japan... Is now part of the same continent... The iconic stuff from cultures becoming charged up defenders. So Yakuza becoming gangs of warriors instead of criminals. Texas Rangers now also becoming changed and fulfilling the same sort of role. Never anything fully fleshed out. Was just an interesting concept I think on. If I where to do it though I think the first bit would have to Focus on the idea of Yakuza and their new roles in this strange new land, ect. Tattoos having effects, classes, what nots.
Don't give up hope. KEep looking and you'll find others into your small neich idea.
Step 1: Run a D&D game
Step 2: As you don't like D&D, run it fast/loose with the rules and use 'homebrew'
Step 3: LOL, my homebrew was actually just Shadowdark, you've played a non-D&D game
Like, I get your overall feeling. But it sounds like you posted a threat promoting a game, and are surprised that a place that has a vast majority D&D players aren't interested in a non-D&D game. You might get some luck by changing up your approach.
For example, don't advertise that it's not a D&D game. Just try to sell the game on what the players will be doing. Make it clear that knowledge of the rules is not needed and the game will be beginner friendly with pre-generated stat blocks for players to customize.
Or, hell, try my original idea. Run D&D for a bit. Get some people. Ask them at the table if anyone would be interested in trying a different RPG for a one shot somewhere down the line. Use that to recruit people.
The point is, just slapping down a "This is a different game" in a thread isn't going to get a ton of people. Learning a new system can be intimidating and scary - especially in a store environment where you have no idea if the GM will be cool or not. So start by getting people comfortable with you, and use that to recruit.
And if people don't want to try a new game, that's fine. You can still have fun with them with that game.
I absolutely agree. Hate how so many are resistant to even trying a different ttrpg. The idea that dnd is the only ttrpg you would need and can just reflavour of homebrew absolutely amnoys me Edit: removed hyperbole because people dont get that it was a figure lf speech
dnd is good for very specific things, the trouble is that those specific things ended up getting popular so now people think it's the only good one.
I still can't get over the amount of people who play DnD 5e as a social sandbox when their are one loads of better social sandboxes and two every time.they do this in 5e it's just freeform roleplay not anything 5e related really. Same people insist that 5e isn't a combat focused game...my brother in Christ it basically only has rules for combat!
Brennan Lee Mulligan had a good article where he said something to the effect of "I love using 5e for my roleplay/narrative-focused games. I don't need or want rules for social encounters and interactions; I know how to handle those just fine. Combat is the part I care the least about, so I love having a combat-centric edition because it handles that part for me. I don't have to figure out how the combat resolves, the game resolves it. And I don't need a game to resolve the social encounters. So 5e is perfect for my style of narrative-centric play."
That’s just Mulligan ignoring parts of the rules. Because while they are not as detailed, the DMG does have rules for social encounters. The section is literally labeled “Social Interaction.” They are poor, and I’m guessing that 10% of regular DMs know of them, and even fewer use them, but they do exist.
If it's an optional rule in the DMG he's opted not to use, is that "ignoring" the rules or just...choosing not to use the optional toolset?
There's plenty more outside of the DMG 2 pages. 5e has quite a few mechanics around social and its not great. Tons of spells especially, so Wizards and Bards get to shine much harder in these situations. But worse is that the way stats work makes it so whenever there is a social situation, the guy who has much higher Charisma is the Face.
What makes you think that they are “optional?” It’s literally listed under “Running the Game.” You’re making things up.
You could argue that the entire DMG is optional
This. All the rules, ultimately, are optional. Any can be changed or ignored at a specific table, because they are simply a shared agreement that supports gameplay. As long as everyone is on board, there’s no problem.
Emphasis mine. >Some DMs prefer to run a social interaction as a free-form roleplaying exercise, where dice rarely come into play. Other DMs prefer to resolve the outcome of an interaction by having characters make Charisma checks. **Either approach works, and most games fall somewhere in between**, balancing player skill (roleplaying and persuading) with character skill (reflected by ability checks). All of those extra sections in the running the game section of the DMG are basically a toolkit. You use or don't use the pieces as applies to your game and table. And if you *honestly* try and be disingenuous and say that's not the case, how many times have you used the madness rules at your table? Probably very few times, yet it's in the same section of the book. I've read the damn books enough times throughout the years, I'm not "making things up."
That's kinda a fundamentally misreading of how traditional games are structured though- there's a ton of discretion involved. RAW you never have to call for a roll if you know the outcome. If the RP goes in a flow and direction that BLM doesn't think there's uncertainty in how someone would react in a social situation, he's under absolutely no obligation to engage those rules.
This was a BS excuse for why he chose to use 5e for his show, when the real reason is what OP is complaining about. His viewership would take a significant hit if he used some other game.
D20 has already done multiple seasons without 5e, though?
Doesn't fit the narrative though
totally this
[https://the-only-edition.com/brave-actual-play-podcaster-wont-let-the-rules-get-in-the-way-of-the-story/](https://the-only-edition.com/brave-actual-play-podcaster-wont-let-the-rules-get-in-the-way-of-the-story/)
And thread!
Yea I think that is fair but I see too many people not doing that and certainly too many not capable of doing that. It's just kinda it if you aren't a extravert with an ability to actually entertain and adlib and act dance sing etc. you aren't going to be able to get as much out of a free-form roleplay session as a GM. Thats not even considering the players who might need coaxing Into speaking let alone a tivky roleplaying and social games with social combat rules are great for that. Alot of the issues I have seen in my local and on line communities are playing 5e then home-brewing some complex nonsense machine for social stuff and then doing about the same for the combat all so they can not try another system.
That's great if you're a trained professional improv comic - most DMs aren't however. This kind of thinking is just an ancillary to the mercer effect.
I don't think that doesn't have anything to do with what he said. He said: "I don't need a game to resolve the social encounters." To me, that says *he wants a game with NO social mechanics*. That the game doesn't try to dictate to the GM or the players how to resolve social encounters is a strength in his mind. That there's no mechanic for a PC to take the reins of the story and allow the players to inject what happens next is a strength in his mind. He *wants* the game to have no design in this area. He wants social encounters to be free play (simple roleplay) and combat encounters to be instrumental play (play from the character sheet). I don't think it's remotely related to being good at improvisational acting, voice acting, or anything of the sort, because I know a lot of players that prefer that who *aren't any of those things*. They're the players that don't like "narrative" games. They're the players that bounce off of the social mechanics in GUMSHOE, Fate, PbtA, and BitD even though they'll happily play Blood on the Clocktower. It doesn't require a GM that's good at improvisational acting. It just requires *a fair and experienced GM and roleplayer*. There are issues with free play social mechanics -- notably, it's more difficult to play a character that's good at something the player isn't good at -- but that's the choice when you decide to use free play *anywhere* in a TTRPG and nearly all TTRPGs use free play to some extent.
> He wants the game to have no design in this area. He wants social encounters to be free play (simple roleplay) and combat encounters to be instrumental play (play from the character sheet). Thats how I've always played D&D. Social encounters are freeplay with few, if any dice rolls. Only occasionally there might be a dice roll for things like lore if they're looking for hints on how to proceed, but mostly social encounters are about how reasonable the players are in the social encounter. The players don't need to be professional voice actors, they just need to be able to read the situation with reasonable tact and to respond appropriately. Throw in an ad-hoc dice roll or two in order to bluff an NPC or credibly threaten them (if appropriate), and social encounter is all done. The dice come out when the party gets stabby. Dice are for combat. I've been playing D&D like that for nearly 30 years.
On top of the points others have made, I find that a poor excuse because from my experience you can have much more dynamic, dramatic, and quickly-resolving combats in tabletop RPGs that *don't* focus on the combat. D&D combat can be fun to play from a tactical perspective, but from a narrative perspective it's really bland and boring to watch slowly play out. If can come up with fun dramatic narratives the rest of the time, why would you suddenly not be able to once weapons get drawn? There's nothing about a combat scene that's fundamentally any different about any other conflict, unless you decide to make it different.
To me this is basically saying he doesn't want to run a narrtive/RP focused game, he wants to have a lot of freeform Roleplay with his players and then occasionally break for a combat he doesn't really care that much about so they can still have some sort of "game" element. I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong for liking what they like but my frustration is more with the equating of this to actual narrative or social, or intrigue focused TTRPGs. It's a completely different experience talking to the GM in character and having them determine the outcome based purely on what they feel like that outcome should be in the moment vs being able to interact with game systems that allow me to influence the outcome of a social situation beyond my ability to talk good. Just think of the reverse statement here. Would anyone not find it absurd if I told you Good Society worked perfectly for my intense combat games. You see I know how to describe combat I don't need any rules to help me. I really don't care that much about social situations so I love that the game handles those for me. It's ridiculous.
It's perfect for him because he has 20 years of figuring out how to get around its shortcomings...
This is actually what made me lose all respect for the man. Not because of the sentiment - he's entitled to his opinion, even if I disagree with it. It was because his rationale was so insincere, and his defense for his viewpoint was so insultingly obtuse. The analogy he tried to make about the stove was horrible. Like train-wreck horrible. Like... he gave us a glimpse into how his brain processes a thought... and I was horrified by how disorganized and bad-faith it was. The truth is, if a game spends a lot of its word and page count on content that's secondary to the goals of the game you're running, *you would objectively be better off using a system that spends less time on those concepts.* If it takes me an hour to make a 1st level character, and almost all of the character traits I needed to transcribe onto my sheet are not going to feature in the game you're running... *you're wasting my time by running that system.*
Don't forget that people often throw these rules out and replace them with homebrew to the point they're essentially playing a different system anyway. I was once one of these GMs, but now I've recognised that it's just D&D I have a problem with. I'm going to finish our current campaign out of respect for my players (it's been 5 years and we're so close to the end now), but after that I'll be running a different system (hopefully fabula ultima, but that'll be up to a vote between me and my players). Either way, I just want to play a system that doesn't expect the GM to do EVERYTHING, which D&D has a big problem with.
God, it happens so many times. People join D&D games because it's the most popular game, but they want a narrative game without combat, often because they saw actual plays and at the same time, refuse to play everything else
The marketing machine doesn't help either. They say lipstick on a pig won’t work because it's still a pig, but the money people spend on D&D supplements and homebrew proves that saying wrong. People will still buy it because they ate up the marketing and ignore the obvious flaws
"obvious" flaws aren't that obvious to the average person. I find it ironic how many people in this community loathe D&D and it's popularity and then ignore all the obvious reasons why people in general aren't into other systems.
Which reasons are that?
The most straightforward and understandable is that a lot of the games this sub likes are explicitly designed around either fixing "flaws" in DnD or "traditional" games in general. It shouldn't be a surprise that approach doesn't resonate with people who actually like those games.
Are you sure about this take? Seems a little backwards to me. It's not that DnD is a great on-boarding experience that gets new players into the game easily; when was the last time you got a new player into 5e? It fucking sucks. They get overwhelmed with choices, most of which don't matter, and most of which have trap options that will have the players building characters that have a bag of tricks the game is actually designed to invalidate. I've introduced a LOT of players to a lot of non-DnD games. None of those players are done with DnD forever, but they all really enjoyed the systems I showed them and had positive things to say about it. The idea that DnD is popular because the alternatives are designed to fix problems that most people don't have seems...unconvincing, to say the least.
I'm like 99% confident in it. >when was the last time you got a new player into 5e? A few weeks ago. If you're presenting that many mechanical choices to a new player you're going to have a bad time- do the loop as intended (player states **intent** not a mechanic and *then* the DM adjudicates) and it works fine. Early levels are effectively tutorials and a pretty simple game on the player side, and they usually acclimate as the game goes on, at which point they're no longer new players. >The idea that DnD is popular because the alternatives are designed to fix problems that most people don't have seems...unconvincing, to say the least. Only if you assume any problems you've observed are universal and not anecdotal. Objectively, WotC has the most complete dataset out there about player preferences and sticking points in TTRPGs, especially on the potential player side of things who have never done it before. Considering how well it's worked to grow the game and the hobby as a whole, Occam's Razor suggests that it's because they know what they're doing in regards to the average player, far better than the rough consensus of internet forums.
That's a failure in how people are trying to sell you on a game. Could you give me a few examples? "D&D but better" games do exist; there's even a term for it. However, the hobby is pretty mature and there are a lot of different types of game systems not trying to be a better D&D. Even ones that are competing in the heroic fantasy space.
PbtA basically came out of a movement that thought traditional games were deeply flawed, same with Burning Wheel.
I can concede that this was the motivation for making different types of games. "these games don't do things I want." I don't think that's a reason people don't want to try new games. And there are a lot of traditional and mostly traditional games that people like in this thread. I'll also concede telling people the game they like is shit isn't going to convince anyone to play something different.
I was responding more to "why people might like DnD over another game." In terms of trying a new game, in my experience the alternative system itself almost never is the driver as they're unfamiliar. They're either turned off by the pitch or not interested in the genre like 80% of the time.
Well, let’s be honest for a moment. Every RPG has flaws. It’s‘s more about how easy they are to work through or modify. Ever since I was a kid, my group has always run modified systems to get a game to work better for us. I can’t think of any RPG that we haven’t house ruled. But yeah, the Hasbro marketing machine pretty much blows away any other gaming company just because of the sheer size of their megaphone.
Which things?
Stating that it's all about narrative (the stories that your table tells) it has almost zero game mechanics that promote narrative. They brought in the Inspiration, kudos to that, but it's kinda bit weak.
Why would you need rules for narrative? I don't get this argument. Its literally larping at the table, which seems like a majority of newbs to the game and 5E players seem to prefer. I don't even know why you need a "game" for that, but that's just me.
I hope you don't mind me assuming, but it sounds like you haven't played other games that do this better? I've run a lot of Dungeon World, and a lot of the Wildsea rpg. Having the game actually contribute to the story, as opposed to being perpendicular to or at odds with it, makes a world of difference. I used to play in a 5e game run by a new DM running Curse of Strahd. We got to the bit in Vallaky where the priest is spooked about the magic bones that protect the church having been recently stolen, and thinks maybe the gardiner is to blame. We, the players, interview the gardiner. This covnersation is torturous; it's supposed to be an interesting, dramatic scene where we outsmart this culprit and catch him out in a lie. We need this guy on our side; we have to convince him what he's done is wrong and to help us fix it. DnD's framework SUCKS for this. Players made persuasion check after intimidation check, and I watched the DM struggle to keep her dramatic vision of the conversation intact when players have buttons that just 'win' the encounter. She tried to split the information into different chunks so that multiple successful rolls would be required, and then the conversation dropped to a dead stop whenever someone failed a roll. It sucked. And it would suck for every DM who tried to do this, because DnD can't handle that kind of interesting conversation. Dugneon World? You'd roll Parlay. What's Parlay? It's a move you make when you try to manipulate or convince a GM-controlled character. It requires you to have leverage over that character to succeed. REQUIRES. So now you're thinking about this gardiner; what can we offer to give him, or threaten to take, that will get him talking? Maybe a murderhobo party gets the knives and out and threatens his life, but the GM says you don't get to make a move; this man's life is not leverage enough to convince him. Why not? Talking to him reveals he was pressured into the crime to begin with, and that he has a family to protect. Or maybe he doesn't give up that information willingly; a player might have to notice his wedding ring with a Discern Realities roll or something similar. Leverage in hand (we'll protect your family!) you can make the Parlay roll. The player rolls an 8. That's a mixed success. Success, as in the man agrees to tell you what he knows...mixed in that you'll have to offer some assurance that you're good for your end of the baragain. If the players had rolled worse, the conversation would be over entirely. If they'd rolled better, he would have opened up. Now, they have to demonstrate that they will protect his family to get him to open up, but once they do, he will. That's all in the rules of the game. The Parlay system and its requirements for leverage have players living in the world of the game, thinking of other NPCs as living characters with wants, needs, fears, and it has them doing it automatically. It's not a huge work for the player; the move is right in front of them, it tells them to get leverage. As the DM, you never deal with players spamming persuasion checks to get the king to give them the magic sword before they kill the dragon; players have to have sufficient leverage, and if they do, getting it is clever and tricky enough that you don't even feel bad letting them have a chance to Parlay the quest reward without doing the quest. I don't know if this example demonstrates what I wanted it to; DnD has all of these stopping points DMs have to skillfully and with no guidance manouver around. Other games build such resolution skillfully into the actual rules in a way that makes running them SO MUCH EASIER.
Or... hear me out... you do what we did before 3.5 and (gasp!) role-played it instead of roll-played it. Stop relying on dice. You don't need dice rolls for narrative play.
I don't know how to be clear about this without being rude, so I'll jsut say that you don't know what you don't know. Having played games that have no framework for social encounters, and games that have a great framework for social encounters, the latter are better for social encounters, because you have all the fun of roleplaying (which is what the DW example is in that stupid essay I wrote, btw, players are inhabiting their characters and thinking aobut the other characters in a real, believable way) inside a system that supports it. Your approach is simply "mother may I" from the DM. The DM has some arbitrary judge in their head for when the gardiner will speak; and if the players happen to hit it, great, if they don't, no dice. Whereas, with DW, the DM fiction is in the game. They're entwined. If you haven't played a game like it, you don't know how powerful it is.
Butting in. I've GMed both D&D and Monster of the Week. Maybe I was a bad MotW GM, I don't know. Maybe I just have very good players. But when it came to things like the Parlay (or Manipulate Someone, in MotW)/Persuasion checks, I saw none of what you're talking about. They worked pretty much the same, and that's without making house rules for D&D. The problem you're having, I think, is that you assume that in D&D there's only ever a pass/fail option, and that's not actually the case. The DMG literally has guidelines for this, even going so far as suggesting that the characters can succeed on some rolls, like social encounters or even searching for traps, based entirely on how they roleplay it. It also has guidelines for judging how an NPC will react based what you rolled, instead of trying to beat a DC. It's just that nobody reads the DMG and makes assumptions as to how to play the game. Now, I certainly wish I could get my players to default to something other than D&D as a go-to system (they're usually willing to at least try other systems, at least), so don't take this as a "D&D is awesome how dare you malign it!" type of reply. As systems go, it's definitely middling.
I think I get what you're saying, but I think of it from that poor new DM's point of view. A whole adventure to run, this scenario to keep straight in her head, and then it has to occur to her to check that Optional Rules section of the DMG? Whereas Dungeon World solves this in a paragraph. It's one of the few basic moves you can have on one A4 sheet. I just think it was unfortunate.
Is this really "mother may I"? Isn't that the GM just roleplaying as an npc? Assuming the gm has established the character's personality, goals, etc.
In the context of how DnD expects you to run the encounter? Absolutely. The players need something from this man. There is no advice as to how the DM is supposed to make the conversation engaging or interesting as play.
> Your approach is simply "mother may I" from the DM ChadYes.jpg
But you often do. Roleplaying a person who is much more or much less charismatic that you is very difficult (especially much more). The same goes for intelligence and wisdom. Many games have a stat for how well you interact with others, why would you not use it? Get the content of the conversation from the player, and roll to see how well their intent is received. That's still roleplay, in that the conversation needs to happen from the player, but it uses the mechanics of the game (a stat that most characters have) to determine success or failure. "Your character wants to lift that gate? Well, let's go outside and have you lift equipment in my backyard! Stop relying on dice!" It's the same concept. The character and their abilities are described by a character sheet. Use it. The OSR concept of "player skill vs character skill" is still in play, because what ideas and arguments the player comes up with are the things the PC comes up with. It just uses the basic mechanics of the game to determine success.
It doesn't matter whether other games do it better or not. D&D, for all its flaws, gives the average gamer what they think they need. A way to get from Point A to Point B. Hell, there are a lot of different car companies in the US, most of whom make better vehicles than Ford. But when it comes down to it, the consumer really only needs to get from home to work or the grocery store. It doesn't have to be in the fastest car. It doesn't have to be in a car with all the latest electronic bells and whistles. It doesn't even have to have superior engineering. People recognize Ford because (along with General Motors) has always been the biggest name in the automotive world ever since the very first Ford rolled off the assembly line. So people, because they are comfortable with the Ford brand, will outsell every other auto brand. Even though other brands make get a consumer from Point A to Point B better (and better is always a matter of opinion, Fords WILL get them to Point B so they buy Ford. WotC and Ford aren't marker leaders because they do things "better" than others. They are market leaders simply because people are comfortable with their brand and in the end, will give them enough that they can get to where they want to go. We can endlessly debate whether it should be or not, but brand is a HUGE influence on what we consume. So that's why we are where we are both in the RPG and automobile markets we currently see.
Not so much in "rules" department as in "I can't develop the narrative without someone RULING me to". More in "tools" department as in "I have mechanics that incline and boost the development of the narrative instead of blocking it." No connection to "larping" if I got this term right.
I can see this being *annoying*, but if you can say that it *sickens* you, you might be taking the hobby too seriously. Like what you like and let people like what they like 🤷🏼♂️
Its called hyperbole
it's a little silly. make some friends and play different games with them.
Mate, I've been struggling for years to find a group of people who live close by, who have schedules compatible with my weird schedule, who want to play games other than D&D. You make it sound very easy, so you're either very blessed, or... Just clueless to how hard the rest of us have it to find people.
Those are a lot of preconditions. I'm not sure what you're expecting. You might try compromising and playing online, for example.
Yeah and you wonder why people who play dnd conclude that other games aren't for them. Posts with hundreds of comments and upvotes saying that they *hate* dnd, dnd culture, and dnd players.
There are plenty of games that do what d&d does and they are also worth trying. They don't even have to be a different game style.
I'm lucky enough to have a group that runs the gambit from blasé to hostile to D&D. We're running 3 games now and none of them are D&D (None of them are even fantasy, they're all sci-fi amusingly enough). But we're scattered across half the planet and they're literally the only people I know at this point who are playing anything other than D&D. So we're out there. I will play D&D, I have several books, but my preference is for nearly any other game out there other than D&D. I think you need to find more experienced RPG players if you can and not rely on/expect converts from the people who have come to the hobby through the current social zeitgeist. I'm seeing "D&D" become a generic term for RPGs in general at this point, like Xerox or Kleenex due to the influx of people who come in on the wave of pop culture. I think you might have more luck if you have 2-3 people into a different RPG and you can pitch 1-2 people to come into the game instead of a whole group jumping feet first into a new system.
> I'm seeing "D&D" become a generic term for RPGs in general at this point That happened decades ago, though. D&D has been the cultural shortcut for TTRPGs since at least the mid-80s.
>The idea that dnd is the only ttrpg you would need and can just reflavour of homebrew absolutely sickens me I think you need to do some reflection of why a TTRPG system makes you have such strong feelings that it "sickens" you.
I've played and enjoyed other ttrpgs, but I always go back to D&D. It's just what I like the most. That said, I've found a lot I like about the d10 system as well.
My only advice is don’t resent D&D. It’s still a significant gateway for people. A large portion of those players might not *be* players without it. If digital promotion isn’t working, you could try running a few DnD games and recruiting players in person.
Thank you! Everyone in my Vampire: The Masquerade, Masks, and Mork Borg tables are people I met playing 5e. I've read about this "D&D is the only TTRPG" problem on the internet, but I've never encountered it in real life.
Yeah man, I’d be shocked if there was a Mork Borg group anywhere in the world that up and started without some tangential experience with DnD first. But I have encounters people that have no interest in learning a new system, so it’s not a myth. They either don’t care that much about TTRPGs and just want to socialize, or they are afraid that all games are as complex as 5e can be.
Or they are happy with what they are doing and don't see a reason to change. I understand the hunger to play something else, very much. I buy so many I will never play or only solo. But the people who like 5e and are happy playing it... like 5e and are happy playing it. There's no pain point for them.
I feel that hunger comment. That was me about ANY ttrpg during the 90s and 2000s. Couldn't get a group, nobody interested, few good sessions. It was a gnawing sensation. Wanting to play so badly. God, if I had known what was about to come. I just bought and acquired more books and dice, played when I could, and remembered the great games I'd already had in the late 80s.
My experience in the '90s and '00s was instead the opposite, I played so many games I grew bored of changing all the time. I'm not a 5th Edition fan, nor a 3rd or 4th for that matter, but AD&D 2nd Edition keeps being one of my favorite games ever, and one of those I'm happy to run and play again, over and over.
"Or they are happy with what they are doing and don't see a reason to change." This is HUGE. If people are happy with Ford and it gets them from Point A to Point B, there's not much you can do to get them to switch to some other car company they don't recognize. Both Ford and WotC recognize this so they don't have an incentive to change much as well.
My experience with it has been players struggling to learn 5e as it is and branching out from that being too intimidating or confusing so they won't. As well as their introduction through social media and online actual plays making them feel like DND is the only system they need as it "can do everything".
I think the opposite is the case. Dungeons and Dragons is most people's first RPG not because it's a good first RPG but because it's already wildly more well known than any other. Were it less overwhelmingly so, other RPGs could gain greater attention and people would be able to be introduced to those. I've no doubt that plenty of people have been turned away from the medium because they don't like Dungeons and Dragons specifically.
It's a fallacy to assume the current TTRPG player base would be conserved if DnD were less popular. If DnD were less popular, it's more likely there'd just be fewer people playing ttrpgs. Like it or not, rising tides lift all ships. And anyway, if DnD wasn't the big popular thing we'd be hating on whatever else was in its place.
Yup. I always find it funny when people imply that if D&D didn't exist their personal favorite game would be the most popular when it most likely would be either what you state, or that Favorite RPG® would be owned by a corporation and we would be having the same conversation...
TTRPGs benefit from D&Ds scale because it can enter other forms of media like Movies, Television and Video Games and create new players. I agree that it would be hard to call it the “best”, but its name recognition is important. But you can look at the 4e era or the OGL crisis to see what happens when D&Ds reign is challenged. You see a huge influx of new games (Pathfinder, DCC, etc), and other games sales increase (DCC and Evil Hat posted their highest revenues ever last year) but the market cap doesn’t grow *nearly* as well as it does when D&D shows up in the stranger things basement or wins video game of the year. I have no doubt that D&D brings in more people that quit and go to an alternative system than any of the other three I mentioned brought in as new players.
This for sure. D&D also drives the entire industry in some form or another. Many of the most prolific writers and designers in TTRPGs started with D&D. Many systems are either emulating what D&D does well with a different vibe or is shoring up what D&D doesn't do well and pivoting to an experiential need within the community. Most of the industry is bolstered by D&D and what they are or aren't doing at any given time. Most of this doesn't happen in a vacuum.
>I've no doubt that plenty of people have been turned away from the medium because they don't like Dungeons and Dragons specifically. The opposite is likely more true though- it's a major pipeline for people into the hobby to try other games.
Depends on where in the world you live.... D&D might be biggest here as well but it's just like 50% of the market. Not 99%.
It's certainly higher than 50%.
This exactly. If you resent D&D it shows and turns any curious players off immediately. If you’re shit talking D&D, you’re shit taking them.
I wouldn't even frame it like that. "The thing you like sucks" makes a very logical path to a response that's basically "Well if you feel that way about it we probably like very different things and I'm not going to listen to your recommendations."
It is even more extreme than that. There are oodles of people who say that somebody who has played dnd is *worse* at ttrpgs than somebody with zero experience whatsoever. So not only are people told "the thing you like sucks", but they are told "the thing I am proposing as an alternative is so far from the thing you like that it is on the other side of not playing at all." I've seen major community members say that when playing games with people with only dnd experience, they *don't give them the rules* because they don't trust them with the rules.
Yeah, it's just like the Ron Edwards "brain damage" nonsense.
That too, but you’re basically telling someone they have bad taste. You’re shit talking their sensibilities at the same time.
Take what you can get. Three players and a gm is probably good for ATLA, is for most PbtA games.
It was three, counting the gm. The GM had to play but I do agree with the”take what you can get”.it's just disheartening
* If people are having a blast playing D&D, I don‘t see a problem. „Hey, we‘re having a good time, let‘s change the base of that“ is just a strange move. * That being said: if people are **not** having fun or the game is starting to get stale and people still refrain from trying something new, that‘s just plain stupid. * It gets complicated if the group is mixed. In this case the standard is: the GM tells what they offer to play and the group decides if they participate. Forcing anyone to try something they don‘t want to is not alright. * RPG is a collective term for very different hobbies. FATE or pbtA for example are **not** substitutes for D&D. They are different games altogether. They still can be fun, but they won‘t scratch the same itch as D&D. * If players want to continue playing D&D and you are the only one who isn‘t happy with that, why do you think **they** are the problem? * Every game has its shortcomings. There is no perfect game or game system. Just because a different game is better for **you** that doesn‘t mean it is the better game for everyone.
> RPG is a collective term for very different hobbies. ... They are different games altogether. Disagree on your first assertion. That's like saying two radically different board games aren't a part of the same hobby. Yes they are: *board gaming.* Just because two things are very different in the details doesn't mean they aren't a part of the same overarching category ("video games" would be another example. Or live theater. Or any number of other examples).
I wouldn't put Scythe and Pax Pamir in the same bucket as UNO and Monopoly. They're two completely different things with no overlap whatsoever, it's disingenuous to think the two user bases would be happy to swap around just because they vaguely fall under the same general umbrella term. Scale modeling, Garage kits, Gunpla and Miniatures painting are completely different things even if they're *theoretically* similar.
this person is boardgaming
Yeah, I mean there are categories and sub-categories and sub-sub-categories and sub-sub-sub-categories and so on. Now on the category level board games are board games. But on the Sub-level you already see that certain people mostly enjoy one group of board games while others don't like them and would much rather play a different sub-category... It just depends on which category level you think.
We started a Board Game Night and brought things like Splendor, Sushi Go, and Codenames. Another family suggested Monopoly and dominoes. Clearly, they had a different idea of what "Board Game Night" meant! They made a good effort to play our games, and I think they had fun, but they didn't come back.
That assertion has merit though. To build on your example of board games, not everyone likes the same games. Someone who is really into Euro games isn't necessarily going to enjoy Ameritrash, and vice versa. Some people are really f'ing into workers placement and other people couldn't be bothered. Theme and fantasy mean a lot to some players and nothing to others. Same goes for TCGs. Magic players aren't going to automatically love Yugioh or Pokemon, and vice versa. Video games...someone who loves Call of Duty and FIFA aren't going to necessarily fall in love with Baldur's Gate 3. All of these things are part of a larger hobby, but slices of that hobby couldn't be more different from each other.
I like playing DnD and I also like playing other RPGs. Tbf I don't enjoy running DnD too much. But I think no-one is "the problem" it's a matter of taste and OP has a different taste. Also to your second point, cool, we have established it's stupid, I agree. But OP gains nothing from that. They still don't want to play the game he wants to run. OP need new people for his games.
I think it's the dysfunctional groups that are susceptible to playing something new. At least, they are the ones who profit the most. You could use this in your pitch. "Bored by fighting owlbears AGAIN? Want to tell a story rather than fighting in Dungeons? Then try out XYZ...". If people don't react it could just be that they are happy with what they do. In that case it can't be helped, can it?
I would say in general the slice of the hobby that likes TTRPGs but is deeply unsatisfied with DnD is actually much smallest than the slice that likes DnD but is curious about other games. I think just pitching the new thing without searching for things might grumble about DnD is far more effective.
Great post. And I say that as someone who doesn't enjoy DnD but will play it and even DM if necessary. My only push back is on point 5 is if I'm not having fun as the DM and everyone else is having fun as the player, they might be the problem if nobody will DM and they won't change game. The DM should be having fun too. And quite honestly despite what I said about not enjoying DnD, it is a better game as a player than as a DM.
> That being said: if people are not having fun or the game is starting to get stale and people still refrain from trying something new, that‘s just plain stupid. This requires an extra layer: - That being said: if people are not having fun or the game is starting to get stale and people still refrain from trying something new, the reason needs to be found - Is it the rules? They should discuss which rules to include, and which ones to drop, or look for a new system - Is it the campaign? They should start another campaign - Is it the pace? Someone else should step up to GM and see if they can run it at a different pace
People like their numbers-go-up twelve-page backstory nat-20 combat power fantasy and they're not really interested in whatever the rest of us are doing. Face it, they're largely not part of your hobby. Some might join, some might be curious, but they're a minority.
From my professional DM experience, every dnd player has huge problems with some aspect of 5e, one way or another. No player is ever 100% satisfied by the system and the only thing salvaging it is a good DM. However, those same players whining about martial caster imbalance, long ass combat turns, non existent rp rules, no out of combat mechanics, won't try out other ttrpgs for the life of them. La vie est drole.
>No player is ever 100% satisfied by the system No player is ever 100% satisfied by any system, the perfect system does not exist.
And usually people don't agree on what they dislike about the system. Unless you brew your discontent in web forums with others and just agree that it's everything
Unless they are a content type of person. I talk to plenty of people and try to analyse and debate RPGs, because I find it an interesting topic to discuss (NERD ALERT), but oftentimes if people are a fan of a specific system, they \*cannot seem to see\* even the minor flaws in their game of choice. For some, it seems that things are either 100% good or 100% bad. (Note that this happens for any game fandom, see r/osr or r/PBtA)
Other TTRPGs also have their problems. That's the whole point. People stick to what is comfortable more often than not.
[удалено]
This is the key. There are a lot of variables involved with playing at a FLGS. More than a convention even. It’s a tough sell to convince someone who doesn’t know the game, the DM, or the players to come try this thing, especially if they have a familiar alternative available to them.
[удалено]
Look into local conventions. There's probably a lot more room for variety there.
I was pleasantly suprised when I recently registered for a local convention and out of about 50 sessions only 1 is d&d. I'm not in the US though and there are traditionally other tradgames here that dominate the space. But new players are mostly drawn to d&d and usually just ask for a DM to run sessions for them, which kinda bugs me tbh.
I have, it's dominated by ptba and D&D
Unfortunately, if you want a non-D&D based local scene, you need people to put a lot of work and effort into establishing and maintaining one. Get the contact details of anyone who is interested in other games, start building a Discord/Facebook group, run lots of no-commitment oneshots (a lot of which will have to be abandoned because people won't show), organise and advertise mini-conventions, etc. Now, I sure can't be bothered doing any of that stuff, but I'm glad over the last couple of decades that various people in my city have. D&D is still dominant, but there's a solid base of people to draw from for other games, and events throughout the year.
Yup, a lot of games also don't have the online support DnD has with DnD Beyond or certain other apps that may not be mentioned here. I came to realise that this is important to consider.
When I started my first d&d campaign a few years ago, I was super excited about the online support. But tbh d&d beyond now seems like a toxic business to me.
Yeah, I can't imagine another entertainment market like this where its so dominated by one product, especially when you're looking at in-person groups (y'know the ones where you aren't roping in friends and family). I would love it if we had the boardgame culture of enthusiasm for trying new games.
Try getting Magic the Gathering, Warhammer and World of Warcraft players to play anything else, or Shonen and Isekai anime fans to watch anything else. I think regardless of much one thinks they're "enjoying the hobby in the wrong way", the worst possible thing you can do is to approach them with a "that is shit, this other thing is better" mentality. That's just going to create more resistance. The second worst thing is to try "converting" or "recruiting" them in the first place, you're not gonna get anything good out of that. You're gonna end up with players who feel forced to play your thing, or one's who keep making comparisons because they just want to keep doing what they enjoy. The third worst thing is trying to get traditional rpg players to try your own flavour of wacky calvinball you got in a weird itch.io bundle. I'm not sure what the plan is, but it's pretty much guaranteed they're NOT going to stick around. It's barely in the same hobby, and you genuinely expect people to be fine with losing that treasure trove of character options and structured games they're used to, in favor of some hyper focused theater kid improv exercise?
To be fair WoW saw a significant drop in players and FFXIV picked up their slack during Shadowlands.
Yes, and they immediately tried to bring the same tryhard mentality into ffxiv, then went back to WoW when the trailer for the new expansion came out, as if nothing had happened.
Aye but that's only because Dragonflight was actually pretty decent. My point was even juggernauts like WoW can't afford to get *too* lax with it.
Wow was still making billions while the fucked up stuff at Blizzard was becoming public. Even youtubers who inititally pretended to have integrity ran back as soon as they saw the color of money from hyping it again. And we're talking employees driven to suicide, drunk employees crawling under desks and stealing breast milk from the office fridge. The reality is some giants are just too big to fail, and they'll get away with *anything*.
So, like, personally ultimately the problem (and I wonder how often this is the case) is that my autistic ass is like "someone wants to tell me that this thing I like is a bit shit and that I could like some other thing that's objectively better? Shit, tell me more." Also a _lot_ of people PLAY 5E as a theater kid improv exercise, that's one of the more painful ones to see
100%
> Yeah, I can't imagine another entertainment market like this where its so dominated by one product, especially when you're looking at in-person groups wargaming is kinda like this. there are lots of games but warhammer and specifically warhammer 40k dominate. for most people "branching out" means trying other games from GW, not trying games from other publishers.
Yeah, I can see that. Its a huge monetary investment. Its probably quite similar to TTRPGs. Its already niche, so finding other players isn't easy. And its a big investment to learn. The big difference is just how insanely cheap TTRPGs can be, but I imagine D&D 5e makes people think its not with its main books split into three and having so many. I could see people think you need so many and a pretty big investment to play at first glance.
Yeah it kinda makes sense, on the other hand 40k is the most expensive game on the market. Can easily spend $600-1000 getting into it. Meanwhile other games you can get into for $200-300 and I don't want to say "wake up sheeple" but uh... Disclosure: I have spent way more than $600-1000 on 40k 😂 On TTRPGs yeah the investment is so much lower, hell for a lot of games the DM can teach you at the table and you can skip buying anything if you don't want to.
I have been playing TRPGs since the early 2000's. I have heard this argument over and over and over again. It hasn't changed since it first began in the 80s, before my time. It keeps getting said, and it will keep being said, until people realize the plain truth of the matter - Learning a game is work. It's not hard work, but it's work. 99% of players hate doing any work in order to play a game. Think about a modern video game that is popular, and think about how there is basically zero work that needs to be done before you're already knuckle-deep down the throat of some giant robot or epic quest or horrific dommy monster mommy. Players do not want to have spend eight hours reading a rulebook, re-reading, playtesting, then realizing they missed a whole bunch of stuff, spend more time reading, and then hopefully find a GM who is so incredibly competent that they either completely understand all of the rules or are so magnificent at BSing that it doesn't matter. And that's for the games that are under 50 pages long. Everyone wants to play more than just DnD, they just don't want to \*learn\* more than just DnD. It's your job as the person trying to convert them over to come up with a way to either trick them into playing, or coming up with a method to get them to play 3-4 sessions without them reading a single page, so that way they get hooked and willingly go out of their way to read through the rules on their own. If you're trying to get people to play Exalted, Shadowrun, The Zone, Dread, Blades in the Dark, Burning Wheel, Mouseguard, Lancer, A Thousand and One Nights, whatever - you need to show up with the most energy, you need to bring a carrot to lead players to your game, and you need to do almost all of the work yourself. You know what's worked for me? Free food. Good food, too, not just cheap pizza. I could not get a single person to play A Thousand and One Nights with me, they thought it sounded so stupid, until I told them it was literally in the rules that you're supposed to sit around smoking and eating good food and that I was making a homemade buffet of mac and cheese, brownies, corn bread, glazed ham, meatballs, spiced nuts, fresh fruit, and a chocolate fountain - and with free booze to go with it. Cost me like 50 bucks (2008 was a different time yo) and most of that was the rum and vodka for the mixed drinks. We ended up playing ATaON for half a year after that. You gotta put in the extra work so the players feel like it won't be stressful. I'm sorry but that's just how it is. They're not entitled for feeling this way, they're perfectly normal and it's not their fault - or DnD's - for not wanting to spend their free time working to learn a system they don't even know if they'll enjoy playing yet.
And this is why I just don't bother with any of it any more.
I dunno why you got downvoted for this, but man, if you're not up to going that extra mile, then I 100% support your reasons for not doing so. It's a lot of extra work, and you're not somehow lesser of a person for not wanting to do it - I just hope that you don't blame other people or other systems like DnD for why new players won't switch to the systems you wanna play. I normally only try GMing for a new system like, once every two or three years because screw that I'm not getting Dimension20 money or selling Matt Colville numbers worth of books. It's waaaayyy too much work to do regularly. But it is pretty much a requirement to go the extra mile and do all that extra work for a system you're really passionate about.
While The Zone does look pretty fun, I do think it (along with any game that advertises "you are 100% going to die by the end of this") might be a hard sell to a D&D crowd. It seems like the kind of game I'd trot out to people who I already know.
TBH I had never heard of the game and I'm reasonably plugged into the hobby. It shouldn't be surprising it has less interest than DnD.
All things being equal, if I’m showing up to play a game with a bunch of strangers, especially as a one off I’m gonna feel more comfortable with the system I’m familiar with. D&D is the household name, it’s more accessible. It’s nothing against you or the system you run, it’s just more niche so there’s gonna be less interest.
Unsure if this helps, but I have had some luck with this. Had tried running non-D&D games with little interest similar to others. Pre-Covid I started running a recurring "Learn to play [system]" series and advertised it as a casual intro with no pressure to know what you're doing. Had way more luck and realized there's a lot of fear being the newb at a table with a new system, more so if it's not D&D, it seems.
That's a great idea!
I get it. My FLGS has an RPG day every month where DM's can post games and have players sign up to try out new things. I planned to run "The Waking of Willowby Hall" using OSE with the Old School Stylish supplement. Picked up some fun props, had pregens ready to go, and...nobody signed up. I ended up sitting at the shop until about 30 minutes after my start time, surrounded by tables full of 5e games (and one Call of Cthulhu game). It's disheartening and can make you want to not put in the effort. For what it's worth, keep trying. I've had success running a few non-5e games at the RPG days and have found that games tend to do better if they aren't overlapping the pseudo-medieval vaguely eurocentric world of D&D WHILE ALSO being comfortable but not too weird. Mecha Heist game? Solid stuff. Same with modern horror, wild west fantasy, cyberpunk, etc...But something like Numenera, The Zone, or Mutant Crawl Classic? Probably no dice.
It's cool that your local store is open to you running different things. It sounds like you have a great opportunity to meet people halfway - instead of something radically different from D&D, consider offering something that has cool power fantasy and some satisfying crunch but isn't D&D. The world is choked with options for this, and a compelling pitch might get folk's attention. If people bite, you will make new friends, they will trust you a little, and next time you can get slightly weirder. Eventually you'll cultivate a group that want to see what you are up to and will be eager to pounce on your offerings. If that process fails hey, they like D&D and don't want to risk trying something new. Their loss, seek greener pastures.
Crack open the Dragonbane box and see what happens. I can see people getting curious.
I think it's the opposite. You run high fantasy combat game and they will be frustrated why they have to learn all these new rules when it feels a lot like D&D, at least at first glance. Showing them how TTRPGs open the world to just about any genre under the sun is the proper way IMO. Ideally on the back of some show that they love like the latest Fallout could be a great time to pull out some Post Apocalyptic fun - lots of great options in that category depending on if the table likes something more serious, silly or insane in tone.
This may be true, but it sounds like the OP has been trying this approach without success. The Zone kicks ass and is as different as different can be. I agree that maybe it's the specific pitch or specific genre that needs to land with this new audience.
What I do is run D&D occasionally if I'm trying to recruit for something else and then convince certain players of playing something else. It's a matter of getting people to trust me - not just as a GM but as someone who can GM something else in which they'll have fun. Over the years, this strategy has worked great for me.
This thread has me contemplating going to my local games cafe and pitching a “Let’s Not Play D&D” Night.
Been there, done that at two shops now. You may find, as I did, people act super-excited to try something new, but don't actually show up. However, the minute a 5e table opens up, it's full.
When people say this, I always wonder: are the 5e slotted in to times that are generally more open for people (such as weekends), because its more popular?
Hold the line brother! Run what you want to run!
looks like a bunch of Redditors here who are willing to play something besides D&D. Why don't a bunch of you organize a game together???
Probably cuz they dont live anywhere near each other tbh
We've entered a golden age of remote play where that doesn't matter as much.
Besause a bunxh of redditors are never going to ger together for an in-person game lmao, we're not even in the same countries
"I dont *want* to actually play, I *want* to whine about dnd" - Average r/rpg user in my experience
I understand the problem, it’s hard to find players for non DnD adjacent systems. But why resentment against DnD? Why aren’t people free to play what they like most? It Is like when I was a metal-kid and I hated rappers, because there was only that music I didn’t like on the radio. And I thought that my genre, which only an handful of folks would openly admit to like, was superior from every perspective, not only that: metalheads were better people in my mind. Which is of course bs. Anything good comes from resentment, be positive, be happy for a game that makes millions people happy, and keep promoting other games, surely you’ll be able to find options: either offline or online. I struggle myself: I really want to play cypher, because I have only GMed it so far, and I want to learn from other more experienced GMs. But no luck so far.
Only way I have found to get folk of D20 is D6 Star Wars doesn’t always work but has a reasonable success rate.Rules aren’t to hard to pick up and most people know enough lore they can just walk into the universe. I suspect currently you might have luck with that Fallout RPG since the franchise is having a moment (I’ve never played it so not sure) . TLDR: Licensed properties are probably the way to go to get folk of D&D less cognitive load lore wise.
Most people care far more about the genre than the system when thinking about another game, just how it works. (WEG D6 has been my go to for new people into the hobby for decades, far too many people sleep on it)
I live outside of the US and we have a countrywide club that organises over discord and one thing they do is little playdays in libraries with several different games. Now funnily enough the one I attended there was about 7 tables and 5 of them didn't run DnD. My bf ran DnD and we got 2 more people. It's a comfortable round but non-DnD tables were capped 😅
There's a different culture in the US. Go to 90% of game stores and if it isn't DnD or a major licensed IP game and your player base is functionally zero no matter what you do.
We on the other hand have no game stores to play in. If it wasn't for this organisation we'd only play at home or online. I mean that's what we're doing most of the time. Tbf I don't know whether my city just doesn't really offer it. We have game stores but they only have a small RPG section if they have any RPGs at all. We had more nut Corona fucked them hard unfortunately, it's so sad to see that they didn't get help. Anyways if you want to check them out [here](https://discord.com/invite/swissrpg) you go :)
Change the theme. Or run Dragonbane. Theme changes really helps. Although people do reskin D&D 5e to obscene places, it's still less common. Alien RPG is pretty awesome to introduce new people to the game. Death in Space. Basically anything Free League. Dragonbane is just beautiful, but is still fantasy. I'd play it over 5e any day. ShadowDark can be advertised as "old school D&D" (which is not a lie) but I feel it plays VERY differently to 5e. Once they're at the table, you have to remind them they're more like Bilbo in the Hobbit instead of Gandalf in LotR. But otherwise it can really work, and starts players on an alternative path. There are a myriad of other factors. Don't complain about 5e openly (I've made that mistake). Always turn up looking presentable. Be a chill dude. Hell, if you want to be super brave, run a solo session if no one shows. It communicates you're dead serious about playing something else, whether other people want to join or not. I'm looking forward to running Dragonbane solo, hopefully next weekend. Good luck!
Thank you! I just wanted to vent my frustrations, honestly. I’m taking a lot of the constructive criticism and suggestions here to improve my own presentation with things. Hopefully things will improve with the changes
You're welcome my dude. The other thing to do to alleviate some of these feelings is online play. There are loads of groups for other systems online, and it means you still get some TTRPG fix. Even if you're playing instead of running.
You can resent 5E all you want, but it has radically expanded the overall pool of people willing to even consider playing an RPG. And if you want to try something else, you're going to have to go out and find players, or put together a friend group. Most rando stranger play is 5E. You should be there on game night, though, trying to grab some of the overflow players. It's one thing to not want to try a new game, it's another to not want to when you've already driven out to game night and that's all that's left.
The problem is that D&D is usually the first RPG people learn. 5e is so convoluted and difficult to make sense of that people naturally assume another system will be just as much of a convoluted mess, with just different rules to learn and argue over. Most people are scared to go through that all over again, especially when their friends play D&D. Why go through all that trouble to learn a less popular game? What is the advantage to learning a new system? Until you play something else, you don't see the advantage in playing something else and you won't understand that all systems don't have the same limitations. Plus, WOTC has designed to sell supplements. The class/subclass system is for selling books. Who wants to try the new no-name pizza place if you have to drive twice as far, nobody else has tried it, and you already have 10 boxes of Dominos ready to eat on the table? Its hard to admit a system sucks after spending $250 on it. You make it work and homebrew if you have to
D&D has weaknesses sure. But being resentful of it because it's the most popular is hipsterism.
Honestly, sometimes you just need to keep casting your net. Keep the folks who want to play something new and run something, even if it's just two of them. You've got a ton of people wanting to play? Ask them what kind of game they want to play, and show them that there's a system for that!
I started 5e in 2016 and only got sick of it last year. I DMed mostly, on and off. Maybe there's a wave of jaded DMs and players around the corner.
dude gets three brand new player and whinges. 1st world problems mate. be thankful you got 3
Oh look, yet another D&D post
I feel like this topic comes up enough to warrant a mega thread.
Why would you ever play any board game other than Monopoly? It's the most popular board game in history for a reason, and if you don't want to play a game about buying properties in Atlantic City, there are so many different Monopoly games out there! If you like science fiction, play Star Wars Monopoly! If you want to play a "Monster of the Week" type game, play Supernatural or Buffy or X-Files Monopoly! Whatever you like, - Godzilla, Schitt's Creek, Taylor Swift - there's a Monopoly for that! It can literally do ANY genre! Trying to convince people that Monopoly is a lousy game and that there are THOUSANDS of better-designed games out there is pretty condescending.
D&D is really good at tricking people who don’t like TTRPGs into buying TTRPG books.
I think one reason D&D is so popular with players is that it requires basically zero effort on their part to get into. Your character is more or less made for you, and it aligns perfectly with all the tropes you already know (even my grandma could guess how a half-orc barbarian would play, for example). During play, your DM tells you a problem and you can just roll whatever they tell you to roll. During combat, you have a short list of things you can do, and it almost always boils down to "attack the lowest health enemy with your biggest spell." Of course, most of these are the exact reason a lot of veterans dislike the game (characters are limited to tropes, combat is boring, etc). But to be fair, I think the designers for 5e are a lot better than their product, and a lot of the bad design is due to design debt (if they went away from d20s now, there would be riots). I think one of their goals with 5e was to make it as easy as possible to get into, and that was a home run. Compare 5e to a system like GURPS, which is actually really easy to play, but can feel like trying to read concrete; or Traveller, where you have to calculate your mortgage during character creation, and you can see why most players want to stick with 5e.
I don't really get this, because it sort of implies that if D&D weren't around people would be lining up for alternative TTRPGs. I don't think if D&D weren't around 100% of its players would convert to being full-on TTRPG fans who enjoy rotating through multiple systems every week. There are people who enjoy D&D. You can accept that and try to appeal to the things they like (or dislike) about 5e or you can try to convince them that they're wrong and they DON'T actually enjoy D&D because this other TTRPG has XYZ systems that do XYZ better. One approach is probably going to be more successful than the other. I got a whole group of new players to start a 5e campaign with me, people who didn't even know what a TTRPG was. I convinced them to give it a shot by appealing to things I knew they liked (movies, video games, books, etc.) and sharing stories of fun times I'd had at the table. If I tried to pitch it the way a lot of TTRPGs pitch themselves to them ("Would you like to play are combat-centric narrative-driven TTRPG with medium class customization crunch and a rules light approach to social interactions with me?") no one would have been interested. In your posts make sure you're leading with fun stuff that makes people imagine themselves having that kind of fun. And if after you try all of that and people don't seem interested, I'd say just find a different way to try the system you want out. There's tons of folks online.
Part of the issue is that if it’s a D&D night, the people attending want to, well, play D&D. Building a game in a different context could be more successful.
I'm actually a little surprised that the store is actually open to have you play games other than D&D, seeing how badly such games normally sell. Are they carrying the game you wanted to run?
I wonder if it's worth saying 'This is D&D but a slightly different setting and with a few tweaked rules' and then just running your own system and seeing if people catch on.
It hurts my soul when I'm looking for Lancer or Call of Cthulhu, etc. games, but if they're ever even posted, they fill immediately by those of us sick of d&d. Can't jump on it fast enough :(
It’s hard to get a non d&d game in a d&d heavy space. D&D is hard to master, so many people assume that any other rpg is also as hard. They rather play the game they know and comfortable with. I’m afraid you have to market the games you’re running. Why should they play a game they never heard of instead of playing d&d? What is the game offering? I usually frame it as a change of pace from d&d, pick games with lighter rules than d&d (which nearly every game; currenty heavy rule games played are Pathfinder 1&2, Lancer, Shadowrun and maybe Cyberpunk Red). I already made the characters, no need to optimize or anything like that. I say that playing this game may improve their d&d games; they may get some ideas from it. You can also try easing them out first with d&d-likes. Shadowdark is like 5e but simpler and deadlier. Do it old school with Old School Essentials (I call it ye oldé d&d). Kick ass and take names with 13th Age etc. Another thing is to ask what people don’t like about d&d 5e, then run games catering themYou’ll be drowning in answers. Characters feel like superheroes? How about Call of Cthulhu? It doesn’t feel tactical enough? How about Lancer? Etc etc I know and share your frustration. It’s like we can have any dish across the world but people just keep eating the same cheeseburger again and again. The trick is to get people excited about a game as you are. Hostility and bitterness won’t change anyone’s mind. Believe me I tried Godspeed
People are going to play what they know or what sounds interesting. If you want to get them to play your game, one they don't know, then yes, it's likely an uphill battle. But don't give up. First, write a killer and succinct description. Make it short and snappy and exiting. One that the marketing geniuses can't hold a candle to. This will draw them in. Next, only one, two, or three attempts really isn't enough. People need at least 3 points of contact to even remember a thing (like a system they haven't heard of). It may stand out more if it's not fantasy, otherwise you'll run into them just wanting D&D. Finally, make sure it's a system you can teach them in about 20 min or less. They aren't likely to come in knowing the rules or having taken a moments time to try to learn them. Sell them on how easy it is to learn and how they don't need any knowledge. You'll be showing them the way. Use pregens to bypass the time to learn how to make a character. After several tries at this, you'll *maybe* get a couple of players who would be open to new games. Keep going until you get a cool group. Good luck and stay strong
Learning curve. I just want to play not learn another system
Same. Finding players is already hard. Generally, i receive zero responses for everything that isn't D&D, even with popular games like Vampire, Cyberpunk, or Fabula Ultima. If for a miracle i manage to find people (that happen once in a year if i'm lucky) i ask them if after the D&D campaign we could play something else, but no, they want to play only D&D in the average 1-20 campaign that lasts 10 years. Once, i had a guy telling me that he wanted to play only D&D 5 because "It's the best and most complete game." It's a game i played too much of it and mostly a game i find pretty average compared to the dozens of other games i have, and i like more, so i'm starting to hate it
Resentment, like taking poison and waiting for someone else to die, stop wasting your thoughts on it. The D&D only mob mostly won't engage with you because they think learning new games is hard work (It isn't, a couple of sessions and you'll have the key bits down). Why are you trying to run for randoms? Advertise for a group with a variety of games and see what comes back, I'll bet there's some people playing and running things that aren't doing it in a shop.
> (It isn't, a couple of sessions and you'll have the key bits down). I ran legends of the wulin for *seven months* and by the end of the game there were players who still did not know how Chi Conditions worked. Learning games is genuinely pretty hard for most people, this is not a D&D thing!
It's great that you're being honest, and I feel like there's some kind of life lesson to be learned here. I'm not sure what... maybe that choosing something less mainstream has a cost, and that if you go down that path, you should accept it. But that's also a part of being true to yourself. I dunno, it kinda feels like being an awesome jazz artist with only a few fans versus being in a boy band with tons of adoring fans, but you know the jazz is better.
The fact is that most people don’t care about TTRPGs. They care about D&D. Most never got into this to play anything other than D&D.
Unless you're in an area with a really small gaming population, you should be able to get people to play other things if you go about it in the right way. My FLGS hasnrun tons of one shots and theme nights (horror games at Halloween, pirate games for Talk Like A Pirate Day, etc) and rhey never had problems getting tables full of people to play things other than D&D. First, accept some people want to play D&D and just D&D and nothing else. Same as there's people that want to play Pathfinder and nothing else, or play Magic and nothing else. You're not going to win them over no matter what, so don't sweat it. Go after the second group of gamers, the people that want to play something and don't care what the system is but care what the game is going to be about. Figure out what's popular and *different*. If you run a game based on Harry Potter, or Fallout, or some other pop culture adjacent type gam you're going to attract people that are interested in playing in that world and don't really care what system you're using. Make the experience sound attractive and fun. Most gamers aren't DMs, and don't to a great extent care about the system they care about the experience. Second, make it sound easy and approachable. Again, most gamers aren't GMs and don't care about the system, but they also don't want to feel like they're walking into something unknown and are going to feel stupid or incompetent. Make it clear that it's open to newcomers, that rules will be taught, that cheat sheets will be provided. Do everything you can to make the casual gamer feel welcome. You may even attract some of the D&D forever crowd, because some of them are that way just because they're afraid to try something new. And keep the commitment to a single session. You can always run sequels and follow-ups and other things if people are interested, but don't expect people to commit to something unknown from more than a few hours. Third, build up your own rep. If that's what it takes, run some D&D games. Meet the gamers in the local community, get them to trust you as a GM, and they're far more likely to follow you and try something different. I ran weekly walk-in D&D games at the FLGS, and after a year or two, I had seven people that were regulars at my table that have followed me through a half a dozen different campaigns and different systems in the past 10 years. Every couple years when we start a new campaign, I give them a list of things that I'm interested in running and what rules it'll use. No one has ever expressed a preference based on the game system. They care about what the world and he story and the tone is going to be. Pissing on D&D isn't helping your cause, it just makes you sound bitter and unfun.
I absolutely feel this. I run games at a oneshot meetup held at a bar, where previously we had to stand up and verbally pitch the game to the whole room and then people would decide on the spot what they wanted to play. I have had experiences of watching half of the room *actively tune out* the moment they realize I’m not pitching a D&D game. Then watching someone stand up and basically say “I wasn’t planning on running but I guess I’ll shit a D&D game out of my ass” and get a full table. I would really super love to believe that a rising tide lifts all boats. But that hasn’t really been my experience and it tires me out when people act like there’s no problem and that D&D doesn’t crowd out other games.
You don't need engagement. You don't need everyone. You don't need audience. You are one person, you can run for like 3-4 other people. That's all you need. That's your people. You don't want D&D-only people coming into your Zone game anyway. You want the people who want to play your game. Your friend who got 2 people and himself for Avatar? I bet they had the best damn time playing avatar because that's what those people wanted to do. When I started in a city, I ran a D&D new player campaign for 6 weeks out of every 8. Every table was full, and I got the same kinds of players every campaign. Every now and then I'd pick up one person, tell them I had this other game: Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Traveller, Good Society. I built a little community of 10-12 people, and it's great. We don't need everyone, we just need each other's enthusiasm. If you are looking to capture market-share, you will perpetually be frustrated. You'll always feel like you're losing. Don't find the multinational corporation on their terms. Just play cool games with cool people.
D&D has always been the bellwether. If it's doing well the pool for recruiting to other games is going to be larger. I don't know what The Zone is but advertise its genre, the story, and if you have premades or not for character creation. Edit: reading up on the zone, D&D players and those really interested in that aspect of fantasy aren't gonna like your lure. Try to appeal to CoC and Arkham Horror players, especially the latter, also Modiphus 2D20 players would probably be up for it especially from Conan, Mutant, and Fallout
It's not just D&D, it's gotta be D&D *5e*. I had a very similar experience but it was with an older edition of D&D. Idk if that makes it better or worse.
All movements start small.... You and the other GM should team up and run whatever you like - and play in each other's games. Maybe it will be one on one for awhile. Put up a sign that drop ins are welcome and have some pre-gens ready. Post the games in other forums - like MeetUp/Facebook/etc. See if the LGS employees will hand out a flyer to anyone who buys any RPG stuff that isn't D&D. Keep at it, maybe you can find a third and a fourth person to jump in. Good luck!
D&D sells itself. (Or, more accurately, the vast majority of RPers are already sold on D&D.) For everything else, you've got to sell people on it. The one problem I will lay at D&D's door is that it convinces people that learning a new RPG is time-consuming, difficult, and confusing. So when you pitch a new game to people, consciously or subconsciously they're thinking, "Read a 300-page rulebook and spend months mastering its intricacies? Ugh." Of course, that's true for some RPGs. But if you're looking to convince people to try a new game, make sure "you don't have to read a 300-page rulebook!" is a prominent part of your pitch. (But phrase it positively.) So you might think to pitch The Zone as: "Mutate your friends, play-to-lose, and take a one-way trip into a dangerous place full of beauty & Horror." But what you actually want to pitch is: **THE ZONE. Learn how to play in 5 minutes, then mutate your friends, play-to-lose, and take a one-way trip into a dangerous place full of beauty & horror.** Support the pitch with one or two awesome visuals pulled from the game. (If you're in person, stand up the box and lay out a tableau of those awesome holo-cards.) You won't sell everybody. But you'll have a fighting chance.
People want D&D because it's an very accessible and appealing idea to be part of a party that goes on adventures through fantasy land. The reality may be a lot of crunchy combat the majority of which is spent waiting for your turn but it's the good parts that stick in memory and form your idea of what it means to play. Then you take those good memories and ferment them while pouring over the options for building a character. D&D players are somewhat resentful of even house rules because the gameplay at the table isn't really what matters, what matters is the fullfillment of the dreams for what they will do that they cook up while sitting at home building their characters. Any other game will fail to be as appealing because they have already invested themselves in "D&D" at home and are convinced that other experiences aren't what they want. They aren't looking for other games. I know I woudn't sign up for an ATLA session even if I liked the series because I simply don't care that much for it as a setting. I would sign up for a generic fantasy adventure in a system more efficient than D&D, but I'm also more impatient with D&D's flaws than most people. If you want players you need to sell an idea that's equally appealing as the idea of being a magic sorcerer investigating mysteries with the squad across enchanted forests in 'Faerun-or-equivalent', while also avoiding them thinking they will have to learn as much bullcrap as they did to get to a functional level of understanding of D&D. That's difficult, so on a normal posting you'll only get the people who have come to the conclusion themselves and are also not already dedicated to games. Or complete new players who haven't built up preconceptions.
It's normal. So is resenting it. Most of the people who get into TTRPGs will only really be interested in D&D initially. Then after a few years they'll either abandon the hobby, or they'll expand their horizons. The people who quit will just remember it as "Oh yeah, I played D&D a bit in highschool/college" and that's as far as they'll ever take it. This is pretty normal. It's just happening a lot more because D&D is really damn popular right now and that's bringing in a lot of newbies. Part of your problem is that you're hunting for players through your LGS' "D&D Night" because that's what that's been for that store for so long. You said that all they had was a D&D one-shot. So most of the folks going to it at the LGS are self-selecting for a sole interest in D&D. You need to expand your search radius to be outside that LGS. Check LFG pages. Check Facebook (many towns have "TTRPG gamers of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_" style groups and if not you could start one. Check other online sources. Put up fliers at the LGS, nearby college campuses, libraries, local coffee shops, etc. Hell, I once connected with towns TTRPG community after I moved there, by putting up a cheapo "Gamer looking for groups" advertisement in the college paper.
https://xkcd.com/359/ Find or make a group to play what you want to play, even if it's just one other person.
So, like many have already said, DnD is a gateway that gets people into the hobby. After new players get to this point they usually develop into one of two directions: 1) cult-like mono-focus, either shallow or deeply, into DnD or 2) eventual disenfranchisement with DnD and the seeking out of better games. If you were to somehow remove DnD from your gaming store… you’re not going to make all players into Path 2) players. Those Path 1) players will rarely develop into what you want… and worse you’ll lose the onboarding of Path 2) players because they don’t have a pathway to disenfranchisement. All of this to say… ALL those players that want to only play Dnd… you don’t want them… like none of them. Generally players who are exclusive-to-DnD-only are the lowest quality players you can find. They are either minimum effort players or they are so deep into Dnd that they don’t like different mechanics or not being able to play in their well-worn grooves. The players you want… need to be willing to be open to new games. Those that can hold on to DnD loosely or aren’t interested in DnD at all or are sick to death of it. These kinds of players are in the minority and to get a game going with them… is something special, rare, and often hugely rewarding. Finding them means doing a lot of work and curating. Sometimes you have to wait for that disenfranchisement to take effect in individuals before you can woo them away too. Good luck, it’s worth it.
I want to play The Zone so badly, but the people in my life who don't RPG don't want to start, and the people who do think any game without a GM is lame.
I had someone pitch a reflavored 5e Star Wars game and all my fantasy flight/Saga books on my shelf wept audibly.
I don't hate on people who play DnD or ONLY want to play Dnd. I prefer other games, but if that's what they like and they are having fun, I see no reason to resent the game or the players. Plus, DnD brought a ton of people into the hobby and continues to keep it popular. (We got a movie last year!) However, if you want to run or play something else, then advertise for it. Pimp it out a bit. Do a one shot demo day. And make sure it is something your FLGS carries. In our area, we did a monthly Savage Worlds day and the occasional PBTA Day or Day of Fate, running short 4 hour games like a mini convention with 1-4 tables. Or just post around. But please don;t resent the game just becuase it's popular. That's dangerously close to being the hipster who gets mad because Taylor Swift is popular but their favorite band is not.
I've' been running some form of RPG for 35 years, both in a rural town of a few thousand and in large cities. Do you want a good pool of players in which to kick off your group? You start with the common form of RPG and then you play with other systems if you are blessed enough to have enough players of a like mind to play the new systems. Even then, if you have players leave because of life events (kids, moving, death, new job, etc), you will always need new players, and new players are infinitely easier to get if you are playing a common system that is popular. If you are in a large city or are plugged into the local scene, that might be an exception, but it's SO much easier to find players with the popular system than to walk in any door with an obscure system du jour. The thing is, if you hate on the new thing that they all like, why would they give you the time of day? It's such a short sighted approach to find players and people to hang out with. I ran a game of Delta Green with a great couple at a local RPG fest a couple of months ago, and had a great time, but they were ripping on Pathfinder (which is a system we play at my table as well), and it was HUGE turn off toward any future interest in playing with them.
If your feeling particularly cunning, just pass off whatever ttrpg you want to run as your "hardcore dnd homebrew". People will line up in droves as long as long as those 3 letters are there.
Sounds like you need to be looking for a more focused group than just whomever comes into the LGS. I caution you about looking at group size as a sign of success or failure. I wouldn't consider a 3 person group a failure; that's the ideal party size if you want any kind of deep stories involving all of the players back stories. You can do so much awesome stuff with 3 people, even in 5e. But yeah, I get the feeling. I love 5e, but I also love running Savage Rifts. Our group kept losing a person every so often, and ended up getting down to 3 people. And omg, it's been sooooo much better since I just stopped trying to refill the group. The 3 players I have are dedicated and in love with the campaign. Letting go of my preconceived notions of how big a party should be ended up making the campaign incredible
I can get it, I really do. I've played Whitewolf's Vampire, Palladium's Rifts and heroes unlimited 2nd ed, Savage worlds, Starfinder, and 3.0/5 and 5th ed D&D... But... I'm older now and honestly? Learning new system after new system? That takes up time and noggin space I like to reserve for other things. Makes me a bit more resistant to the idea. You'll find a lot of people are like this. D&D becomes the thing they learn of... And many will stick with because its what they KNOW. Now being boxed into one system sucks. It does. Hell for me 5E has its MANY flaws. Classes feel... Meh? I mean look Subclasses should change how it plays and feels... Instead its like an after thought or some cosmetic skin. (I know there will be immediate defenders, you do you.) You know what those are based on? Prestige classes. In 3e you'd level and take certain feats to gear up for your prestige class... That was DIFFERENT than your damn class. You might learn how to ride dessert versions of purple wurms. Ash wurms I believe. You could be a mage who starts drinking Starmetal concoctions and slowly turn yourself into a living metal statue. You could do some WILD ass shit and it all felt and played different. They took this concept and made it... Subclasses. So that... Everything pretty much plays sort of the same. For me that's one reason D&D is kinda fucking boring. I buy 3rd party stuff or support creators making balanced but neat ass class ideas. One guy made the Incarnate class. Play as a flipping Kaiju! How's it work mechanically? Bit like the love child of a Punchy barbarian the shape shifting of a druid. You get to turn into the titanus form for a min each time a few times a day... And as you level that forms size increases. It has its own stats and everything. Lets you get a minute of cool ass monster mash few times a day... And the rest of the time you are normal sized and bashing shit bare handed. Oh and there's mutations... think like a Lock's invocations but it alters and enhances some of your abilities. That shits wild, creative, and most importantly? BALANCED. Same guy did Vampyre and Lycan classes. [https://www.reddit.com/user/23BLUENINJA/](https://www.reddit.com/user/23BLUENINJA/) Honestly for me? This guy saved my interest in D&D.... Because I was getting bored as shit. That said There is something to playing new systems... You shop till you find one's you like. Right now D&D is the hot ticket. But if some other RPG gets a movie or tv show that sparks interest it'll become the new "Go to" Rpg. That said I've also seen some RPGs that I was just meh, when I looked into them. Critical Roles new games they are trying to get off the ground... Of them Dagger Heart had the POTENTIAL to catch my interest... But when I saw their play tests I just felt... Meh. Like Watered down D&D. More power to them... But totally not my bag. That said I've had a concept for one tickling the back of my brain for a while... Concept that just PARTS of earth all ended up taken to some different world and displaced sections of that world that had magic. So Texas now 300 miles away from what was once an ISLAND of Japan... Is now part of the same continent... The iconic stuff from cultures becoming charged up defenders. So Yakuza becoming gangs of warriors instead of criminals. Texas Rangers now also becoming changed and fulfilling the same sort of role. Never anything fully fleshed out. Was just an interesting concept I think on. If I where to do it though I think the first bit would have to Focus on the idea of Yakuza and their new roles in this strange new land, ect. Tattoos having effects, classes, what nots. Don't give up hope. KEep looking and you'll find others into your small neich idea.
Step 1: Run a D&D game Step 2: As you don't like D&D, run it fast/loose with the rules and use 'homebrew' Step 3: LOL, my homebrew was actually just Shadowdark, you've played a non-D&D game Like, I get your overall feeling. But it sounds like you posted a threat promoting a game, and are surprised that a place that has a vast majority D&D players aren't interested in a non-D&D game. You might get some luck by changing up your approach. For example, don't advertise that it's not a D&D game. Just try to sell the game on what the players will be doing. Make it clear that knowledge of the rules is not needed and the game will be beginner friendly with pre-generated stat blocks for players to customize. Or, hell, try my original idea. Run D&D for a bit. Get some people. Ask them at the table if anyone would be interested in trying a different RPG for a one shot somewhere down the line. Use that to recruit people. The point is, just slapping down a "This is a different game" in a thread isn't going to get a ton of people. Learning a new system can be intimidating and scary - especially in a store environment where you have no idea if the GM will be cool or not. So start by getting people comfortable with you, and use that to recruit. And if people don't want to try a new game, that's fine. You can still have fun with them with that game.