# Are RPGs Board Games? WotC Thinks D&D Might Be tags: #thoughts #game/rpg/dnd #game/boardgame ![[Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition - Players Handbook (cover).jpg]]  For the record, I'm not sure this is actually a true statement. I know it is something that old-school RPG fans will go to the mat and argue vociferously, and a good chunk of the board gaming community will go to the mat and argue the same thing. They are very different. They have nothing to do with one another. They— Hold up. Old-school **[[Dungeons and Dragons|D&D]]** evolved directly from tabletop wargaming in **[[Chainmail]]**. **Chainmail** is extremely tabletop-focused. It's a board game without a board, just as a lot of strongly miniatures-focused wargames were and are. There are a lot of RPGs over the last 50 years which have had an extremely strong tabletop situation focus, whether it be tracking various elements, figuring out ranges between characters, movement by zones, or active card-based play—you know, exactly like a lot of board games. In fact, the *Adventure Wargame* is just a tabletop RPG with strong wargame elements which reflect the hybrid space between.[^1] What is **[Four Against Darkness](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/180588/four-against-darkness)** or **[d100 Dungeon](https://www.mk-games.co.uk/d100dungeon)**? Are they RPGs or are they board games? What's a *[hexcrawl](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17308/roleplaying-games/hexcrawl)* if not a board game? I am no **D&D** apologist. In fact, I don't particularly care for it at all, but this assertion that tabletop RPGs and board games are not the same is not just wrong—you have to actively blind yourself to knowing anything about both of those to say it with a straight face. It's a lie. It's not in contact with reality. In this case, it's probably best described as a knee-jerk reaction against anything that WotC/Hasbro does with the **D&D** property. There is nothing they could do that would dig them out of the hole that they've dug with quite a lot of their fanbase. This is entirely on their heads, entirely avoidable. And it leads to very visibly bad takes like this, as even a neutral move gets criticized for reasons which are unattached to the facts. You can certainly say that certain elements are found *more often* in games which are marketed as RPGs or board games, but there is no element which is unique to either. It becomes a preponderance of the evidence argument, and more importantly, a marketing argument. So, what it looks like is that Hasbro wants to move the **D&D** starter experience over from the more mushy sort of theater-of-the-mind experience to a more hard-edged adventure wargame experience. I don't necessarily think that's a great idea.[^2] I think splitting your game line into two separate approaches, which are compatible with one another but published separately, would be a far better idea. But we don't need to lie about it to see that as the truth or say that to be the truth. Tabletop RPGs are board games. And, perhaps more shockingly, *board games are tabletop RPGs*. Explaining the latter probably deserves its own longer form post.[^3] --- ## Post Scriptum It occurred to me, after I wrote the original reply—which this thought was originally composed entirely of—that I can see a perfectly good reason why WotC would do this. It's rooted in one of the major failings in the current hobby community that irks me immensely and which I have complained about at great length. That complaint is that a disturbing amount of the people who are currently involved in the hobby are incapable of imagination. Actually, let me soften that statement a little bit. It's not that they are completely *incapable* of imagination; it's that they are *afraid* to actually bring it to bear. They need to be told that it's okay to mix in some science fiction with their **D&D** fantasy. They're afraid of being called out for *"playing it wrong"*.[^4] I don't think much of these people. I think what they are feeling and avoiding is bad for them as people and reflecting a serious failure in culture at large. But they exist, and they are *everywhere*. Now, the widespread response from a lot of the RPG grognards is to gatekeep them out. Believe me, I understand that. I don't want to play with them myself. I don't want them at my table. They tend to be entirely too hesitant to be interesting to play with, and their improv skills always suck. But—this is where I go off the reservation in multiple directions—I’d love to *teach* them to play better. I would enjoy knowing that they are out there doing things at their own table, or even at my table, which push their boundaries, make them slightly uncomfortable, open them to public criticism, and still are having the time of their lives. I want them to be better people, and I don't *get* better people unless I help them out. Fine. I am happy to play a plethora of different games. I don't labor under the delusion that there is only one game that's worth playing and one true way to play. I've got rules for all ages, games for all times. I can find something that they can learn to be quick-thinking, fast-talking, boundary-pushing scoundrels. We'll start safe and roll them up into something broader. I am dead certain that *this* is what WotC actually wants to do with this change in the starter kit. They are capable of recognizing that their audience has been infested by, not to put too fine a point on it, *weak-willed collectivist theater kids*.[^5] They need a firmer, more solid hand to provide them a framework to learn to be good parts of an RPG community and good players. They are trying to teach this new crop of players that they cultivated, and which led through **D&D 5th** to **D&D 2024** to be better players within the context they understand. Also, they want to sell more stuff to them. Unfortunately, they're doing it by first *alienating* the fanbase that they had for the game that they have had in production and selling off the shelves and now trying to get the new crop that they brought on board, which have neither social skills or understanding of how to play, up to speed so that they can play with the people who have already given them lots of money. This is probably doomed to fail, and it's largely doomed to fail because WotC/Hasbro has screwed themselves over the last five years in particular. They decided that they had a different corporate identity and a different product identity than the people who had been playing the game wanted. So many of them stopped. The new product identity attracted people who weren't really ready for or capable of enjoying the game that was synonymous with the IP, not even in the new watered-down form because it was too open and too flexible. So now, they're trying to cultivate more of the kind of player that will be more compatible with some of the old school sensibilities, and it's going to be a horrible failure—not because it can't mechanically work, but because **D&D** is schizophrenic as an IP and doesn't know who it is anymore. Who wants to play it? Who does it want to play it? The best thing that could happen would be for Hasbro to spin WotC back out into an independent company, wash their hands of it, and let it burn in the desert for a few years. But that's not the plan. I would guess that this is WotC trying to patch up the holes in the sinking ship. And it's an action which I might otherwise applaud. At least they see that the ship is sinking. Unfortunately, it's the same old ship. [^1]: I would even argue that the latest fantasy adventure wargames are leaps and bounds beyond 5th edition **D&D** and definitely **[D&D 2024](https://marketplace.dndbeyond.com/category/core-rulebook-bundle)** in quality, style, playability, enjoyment, pretty much every metric that makes for a good game. Yes, I know that makes me an outlier. I'll still play **[[Five Leagues from the Borderlands]]** over **D&D** anytime and with anybody. [^2]: I also think that that's been done and didn't turn out as well as the precursor group wanted it to. In particular, I'm thinking of **[Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/161671/player-s-handbook-4e)**. It took the system into a more game-architected direction, and while I actually think it was a better game for it, the crowd cried out for the head of Jesus and demanded Barabbas be set free, which led directly to *5th* edition. You get what you fucking deserve. [^3]: I'm sure this is going to end up just kicking around in the back of my brain for the next week while I put together at least a thought, and maybe even a full article talking about it. No, more rational for it to be a Thought. [^4]: Yes, *BrOSR*, I'm looking at you and all of your jackass performative bullshit on social media. You are actively killing the game you say that you love. Please fuck off with all speed. [^5]: The irony is that the hobby was built on strong-willed, rebellious, over-the-top theater kids who had no hesitation to go out and do something different. Whether it be looking at their chainmail armies and going, "I want to tell the story of this guy in particular, and I want him to fight a dragon." Or whether it's "I want to play a vampire and talk to my friends about how bad my emotional trauma is as I manipulate the politics of Seattle." Both of those are very theater kid things to do. Both of them are intimately related to the core of roleplaying and roleplaying games as we know them. You can't just have half of that.