Frankly, I think Edwards and GNS theory has had little to do with the ongoing development of D&D. "Little" might not be a strong enough way of putting it...I really mean "next to nothing" or "almost zero." Instead, D&D's development since 2000 has all been about "chasing the money."
4th edition appears mostly obviously inspired by the MMORPG ('Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game') World of Warcraft. First published in 2004, it was immediately and immensely popular, winning a ton of gaming awards and becoming the best selling PC game of both 2005 and 2006. By January 2008 it had more than 10 million subscribers...levels it would maintain up through 2015.
I have been told that there was always a plan to do a new edition of D&D after 3rd edition...that because the bulk of RPG sales comes from the sale of "core books" it is necessary to come out with a new 'core' that customer/fans must purchase every 6-8 years. If this is accurate, then the company always intended to release a new edition circa 2007/8. And when they went looking for inspiration for their new edition, they took a good long look at the game play of the largest, most popular "D&D adjacent" video game on the market.
I have played WoW. The similarities between 4E and WoW are quite apparent, even in terminology used by WoW's online fan communities. It might be interesting to try connecting Slavicsek, Heinsoo, Wyatt, and Mearls to the computer gaming community, and Blizzard Entertainment in particular, but I'm sure they were (at least) exposed to its game play by the time they sat down at the drawing board for their own design.
Money-wise, 3rd edition D&D had a MASSIVE effect on the overall RPG hobby. Because of its "Open Gaming License" and in conjunction with its massive popularity (this due to several factors, best discussed elsewhere), many RPG companies converted their systems wholesale to the D20 brand in order to make their games compatible with D&D...and thus ACCESSIBLE to the huge influx of players ("customers") now indoctrinated to 3rd edition D&D. New publishing companies were formed with the sole purpose of creating product for 3E. Everyone, it seemed, wanted to ride D&D's coattails and partake in the massive gravy train.
Then 4th edition pulled the rug out...even rewriting the OGL.
However, the 3E OGL was explicitly perpetual. And Paizo created Pathfinder (a 3E clone using the OGL) which not only allowed people to continue playing their more familiar flavor of D&D, but also threw a life ring to the numerous small companies that went under due to the 4E conversion. Unfortunately, for many of those companies, it was too late.
But for WorC, Paizo's impact was HUGE. For the first time IN ITS HISTORY, it lost so much market share that D&D was outsold and outperformed by a different RPG (Pathfinder). Even in the 90s (when games like Vampire and Rifts were riding high and 2E was at low ebb) this had never happened. And so WotC pivoted, following the money. They junked 4E and went straight to the public, begging for its customers to take them back. "What do we have to do to win your love and loyalty?"
Enter 5E, the Great Compromise.
Everything since then has been reactions to the market, trying to leverage opportunities (like the surprising popularity of Critical Role, etc.), in order to build brand, maintain 'core demographics' (as they see their core), and rake in dollars. Everything.
Old style D&D is for old people. Old people are not the future of the hobby. Old people die. Hasbro/WotC are a business. They need living, breathing customers. Younger customers. Dumber customers. Customers who don't ask too many questions, and who are more interested in the flash and glitz and veneer of fun than in the deeper, long term impact of play. Customers interested in D&D as a "lifestyle brand" (more revenue streams!) not as a game.
Did you know: Ron Edwards is playing/running a D&D campaign these days? Not just D&D, but 1st edition AD&D? He has a new blog where he writes about it. It's pretty amusing. He's doing all the tinkering stuff with the game that we all do (well, that *I* did...back through the first 10+ years of my blogging about B/X). But he's getting there...getting closer to that epiphany moment when he'll stop worrying about the system and just start paying attention to the game. It's just a matter of time.
Answer: Dismissing the Forge and Ron Edwards' GNS Theory as a "niche" overlooks the significant discussions it sparked regarding game design and player preferences. The Forge played a pivotal role in articulating and categorizing the diverse play styles and expectations of RPG players. Although the influence of GNS Theory might not have been direct or explicitly acknowledged by mainstream designers, its conceptual framework undeniably permeated the broader discourse on game design, which includes the designers of D&D.
I'll accept that 4th edition was heavily inspired by MMORPGs, specifically World of Warcraft. But that doesn't negate the influence of broader theoretical discussions, such as those originating from GNS Theory, on how games could be structured to cater to different types of players. The similarities between 4th edition and MMORPGs underscore a particular approach to game design, focusing on structured combat and tactical gameplay, which aligns with the gamist aspect of GNS Theory. Thus, even if indirectly, the principles discussed in the Forge might have informed some of the design decisions, consciously or unconsciously.
Regarding the financial motivations behind the new editions, yes, of course, the RPG industry wants to make money. It's in the business of entertainment, and obviously the requent releases of new editions to boost sales through new core books plainly serves that end. However, these decisions do not exist in a vacuum and are influenced by ongoing conversations in the gaming community about what players want from their games. The decisions made by the company were and are influenced by market demands, player feedback and broader trends within the gaming community. As such, they're shaped by the ongoing conversations and evolving preferences of the player base.
When the company designs a new edition, it does so with a keen awareness of the prevailing sentiments within the gaming community. Player feedback, collected through various channels such as forums, surveys, playtests and social media, plays a crucial role in shaping the direction of game development. This reflects a wide range of preferences and criticisms, providing invaluable insights into what players enjoy and what they find frustrating. The company must navigate these diverse opinions to create a product that appeals to as many players as possible while maintaining the core identity of the game. And let's not forget that the influence of industry trends cannot be understated. As the popularity of MMORPGs like World of Warcraft surged, WotC likely observed the elements that made these games successful and sought to incorporate similar features into 4th edition. The structured combat mechanics and tactical gameplay, reminiscent of MMORPGs, were intended to attract players who enjoyed these aspects. However, this approach also highlights how game design decisions are influenced by broader trends and the desire to tap into emerging markets.
Those theoretical frameworks and discussions, AT THAT TIME, included a front-and-centre discussion of GNS Theory. It might not have been explicitly cited by the 4th edition designers, but the ongoing discourse about different player archetypes and their preferences probably informed the design process, and GIVEN THE EVIDENCE OF WHAT CAME FORWARD, I'd argue that it DID influence that process. Understanding the distinctions between gamists, narrativists and simulationists would have been part of what helped designers anticipate the needs and desires of various player groups. This theoretical understanding, whether directly acknowledged or not, influenced the choices made in game design to create a more engaging and satisfying experience for a broad audience.
Further, the commercial realities of the RPG industry meant they were forced to justify the release they were making, not just to the customer but to the shareholders also, as they had to attract purchases while retaining enough familiarity to keep long-time players invested. This balancing act was and is informed by continuous engagement with the community, as well as an understanding of market dynamics and player demographics. The success of Pathfinder, for example, catered to players' preferences after the release of 4e in a way that prompted the WotC to adjust its approach with 5th edition.
The impact of Pathfinder and the competition it posed to D&D is part of this mess ... the endless significance of understanding and catering to diverse player needs, something GNS Theory aims to categorise and address. The "Great Compromise" was what 5th edition marketed itself to be, but in reality it stumbled and fell on its face.
5th edition's design heavily prioritised narrative flexibility and character-driven storytelling, appealing primarily to narrativists. While it included elements aimed at gamists and simulationists, such as streamlined combat mechanics and an emphasis on the game's lore, these features feel secondary and insufficient. The core mechanics were simplified to lower the barrier to entry for new players, making the game more accessible but also less intricate in terms of strategic depth and mechanical complexity. This simplification has alienated many gamists who valued the tactical and strategic elements of previous editions, particularly 3rd edition and its variant, Pathfinder.
Additionally, the modular approach, touted as a key feature to cater to different play styles, is more of a theoretical framework than a practical solution. While the idea wants to allow Dungeon Masters to tailor the game to their group's preferences, in practice, the core rules remained heavily slanted towards a narrative focus. The optional modules lack depth and the support needed to fully satisfy simulationist and gamist players, leading to dissatisfaction among those groups.
Moreover, the company's strategic decision to market 5th edition as a lifestyle brand aimed at younger, newer players further entrenched this focus. The emphasis on inclusivity and accessibility was undoubtedly beneficial in expanding the player base but often came at the cost of depth and complexity that long-time players valued. This strategic pivot was driven by a desire to capture a broader market and ensure the game's commercial viability, reflecting a prioritisation of narrative-driven experiences over mechanically intensive gameplay.
The marketing and community engagement strategies also played a role in this PERCEIVED compromise. The open playtesting and feedback process, while inclusive, highlighted the deep-seated divisions within the player base. The company's attempt to reconcile these differences through a unified system was ambitious but ultimately fell short, as it was impossible to fully satisfy all factions without compromising the core experience for others. Which was my original argument.
Your children are not "old," JB. The children of other people who support my Patreon are also not "old." My daughter and her friends are not old either. Yes, we die. SO DO COMPANIES. Hasbro's utter failure to consistly obtain "living, breathing customers" killed TOYS 'R' US. I'm watching a landscape of brick and mortar companies collapse all over. The point is irrelevant to what GNS wrought in the RPG community, which I'm not ready to dismiss.
The fact that Ron Edwards is playing 1st edition AD&D and his evolving perspective on game design is an interesting anecdote but does not diminish the impact of his earlier work. Theoretical contributions have a life of their own, influencing discussions and developments long after their inception, even as their originators continue to evolve in their thinking.
It's a misconception to suggest that older, more experienced individuals are not the future of role-playing games (RPGs) or other industries. This notion overlooks several critical factors that highlight the continued relevance and influence of us old farts.
First, we bring a wealth of experience and historical knowledge to the RPG community. We've witnessed the evolution of game design, mechanics and player preferences over decades. This allows us to appreciate and advocate for the depth and complexity that newer editions might lack. Our understanding of what has worked in the past and what hasn't can provide valuable insights for future game development. Every time I write a post, I influence the thoughts and beliefs of plenty of young people, who want me to keep writing. I'm guiding them, preserving my ideas and encouraging them to make more of their own, in a climate where they can't get that sort of encouragement from a corporate clone.
Not me personally, but old players typically have money to purchase high-quality game materials, support crowdfunding projects and attend conventions ... like you. You don't think you influence people when you play a game that wins you a cup? You think young people can fly off to Europe every couple of years, long enough to go to a game convention? You underestimate the privilege that your being older, attached to a surrounding culture of likewise older and more wealthy people, provides for the world in the long run. Politicians may get money from young people, but they get a lot MORE from old people.
Additionally, we are frequently involved in the creative and professional aspects of the RPG industry. Many game designers, writers, and artists who have shaped the field over the years continue to contribute their talents. There is a trend of life-long learning that encourages us, more than young people who express doubt about their abilities all the time, to keep exploring new interests and deepening our existing passions well into later life.
You, perhaps, have decided that the next forty years of your life are going to be spent watching plants grow in pots, but I'm not. I'm a long way from done, and I haven't yet had my best idea. So you go ahead and count yourself old. You go ahead and get ready to die. Not me. I'm too busy to die right now.
_____
Thank you JB for your contribution. If readers would like to reply to the above, or wish to ask a question or submit observations like those above, please submit to my email, [email protected]. Those giving a $3 donation to my Patreon, https://www.patreon.com/user?u=3015466, can submit questions directly to me in the chat room there.
If you could, please give the region where you're located (state, province, department, county, whatever) as it humanises your comment.
Feel free to address material on the authentic wiki, my books or any subject related to dungeons & dragons. I encourage you to initiate subject material of your own, and to address your comment to others writing in this space.
