I don't think TTRPGs are actually games. They're platforms. Consider this:
In 30 years since its release, Settlers of Catan has undergone no significant rules changes. Its rules have been clarified, or tweaked to match later expansions, but the game is the same.
In comparison, D&D has been through five major rules updates. Most, if not all, TTRPGs regularly go through this process. That makes them distinct from most other tabletop games. The rate at which TTRPGs change their rules leaves other tabletop games in the dust.
That's because most tabletop games rely on skill to determine a winner. If I master Settlers, I don't want the rules to change. That invalidates my earned skill. I sit down to play Settlers because this is the game I want to play, and the skill set I want to use.
If I don't want to play Settlers, I don't try to turn it into a deck builder. I simply play Dominion, or Wingspan, or whatever. Each game gives me the chance to reset my skill level and master a new challenge. That's part of the fun of learning new games.
Where's the mastery in D&D?
It's in being a DM. Someone who brags about being a good D&D player is maybe a little dorky. Someone who is a great DM can earn hundreds of dollars an hour and draw thousands of viewers. We don't watch great D&D players. We watch great DMs.
(Being a great player is a skill, but to most TTRPG enjoyers that skill rests in interacting with the players and DMs, not beating the DM in a game of skill.)
So how does that make D&D a platform rather than a game?
The purpose of a TTRPG is to enable a DM's creativity, to give them the framework they need to build a world, campaign, adventure, or encounter. The rules are a language used to create a shared, conceptual space in play.
This is why DMs tweak and twist D&D to suit their needs. Most DMs using D&D in radically different ways do so because the language and framework of D&D is what they know. They can use that as a vessel for whatever type of game they want to run.
As a platform, D&D has to change to keep up with its audience. When the audience advances beyond what the rules can support, the rules need to change. That pressure can come from other games, from a shift in what people expect D&D to do, and so on.
The platform must snap to the user's grid. It enables the user's vision and fills their need. A traditional game, OTOH, presents a barrier. You become good at Settlers by working within its limits. In D&D it's clever to work around the rules. In Catan it's cheating.
A game challenges you to overcome an artificial limit.
A platform enables an activity.
For that reason, I see D&D and other TTRPGs as platforms, not games.
You play a game with D&D, but D&D itself is not a game.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Looking at Hasbro's 2024 results, I think this might be the first time that D&D tabletop RPG revenue has decreased with the release of a new edition. How'd that happen? It lines up with a lot of what I've seen in the marketplace: (1/5)
Fans just aren't excited. The OGL took the air out of the community around the game, and other than shaky claims of backwards compatibility the game has almost gone out of its way to avoid answering a simple question: Why buy this new edition? (2/5)
The audience is treating it like a new edition. Every TTRPG publisher relies on their backlist as a big part of their sales. Backlist sales have crashed down. Meanwhile, the lack of energy in the community has dragged down new player acquisition. (3/5)
OK, so let me breakdown the root problem of CR. It was terrible in 2014 and it remains terrible in 2025. It ignores how we actually play the game and is a millstone around the 5e system. It also explains why low level 5e works.
But why is that? Check the image below.
That table shows the CR of a single monster that is a high difficulty encounter for a party of four characters of the listed level. So, a 7th level party can face one CR 10 creature. That creature has, on average, 165 hit points and AC 18.
So what's that final column?
That's the HP a creature needs to survive three rounds against a 7th level party, using the damage that an actual party kicks out. Why the disparity?
CR relies on an averaged output for a party of a given level. It assumes the characters use a set % of their resources.
I was literally dragged into a call with one of the directors way back in 2019. They asked if a druid wildshaping into an owlbear was OK, and I said yes. The rules were supposed to go into Tasha's along with original concept for variant class features, but that didn't happen.
Tasha's alternate classes features were supposed to be new ways to play each class. For instance, the barbarian might get an alternate rage that augmented speed, allowed the use of Dex weapons, and had some other benefits. It was supposed to support the next 5 years of the game.
Obviously, that didn't happen.
Also, the 3 year cadence of supplements was driven by Xanathar's. It was code named Midway after the battle of Midway. I projected that, to claw back market share, Paizo would need to launch Pathfinder 2 in 2017. Xanathar's was our counter play.
I had a few people ask if I actually fit satisfying sessions of D&D into an hour. I 100% and have been doing so for almost five years now. The key is rebalancing monsters for faster but still dangerous combat, and streamlining the core rules for everything else.
A thread:
Working from home, I found that I cannot spend more than an hour in a single Zoom call. My brain just fries. So I started running RPGs at lunch. We started with Boot Hill, a game ran to celebrate the life of Brian Blume. He passed away early on in the pandemic.
Boot Hill has a *lethal* combat system. I ran an initial gunfight, and things zipped by because that game has two states combat:
* Take cover and play defensively, maybe survive
* Get caught in the open, die
Used the troglodyte in my Wednesday game. This session nicely wraps up what I want from one hour of D&D: two significant battles, exploration/puzzle, roleplay scene, and a chase. We also spent about 10 minutes catching up, and ended 5 minutes early.
First bit of action was a quick chase using rules inspired by the classic James Bond 007 RPG. Party ran down a bullywug scout. Captured him, interrogated him, learned a bit about this dungeon level. RP all ran in-character, including me blubbering like a frogman.
The rogue scouted ahead, spotted trogolodytes who had overrun a bullywug guard area and were hiding in there. Party moved up to attack, unloading a LOT of spells to take out the trogs before they could make a counter attack.
There's a weird bit of technical debt embedded in D&D - the time and distance scales don't quite sync up. It's been in the game since the beginning and shows the game's roots in Chainmail.
This also ties to why 5e characters feel like superheroes.
TL;DR - The modern idea of the "encounter" as one keyed room in a 10 or 5 foot per square map is wrong. The encounter is that entire map. Exploration takes place between those maps. Dungeons should be built as keyed nodes connected by passages/stairs/etc.
5e characters feel like superheroes because unless the entire dungeon has the chance to engage them, it's hard to build single shot fights that can threaten them. The sweet spot between easy fight and TPK is perilously small. Instead, you want threats that ramp up as the fight continues. You beat 5e parties through attrition. They can always out alpha strike you.
BITD, we had 1 minute combat rounds and 10 minute exploration turns. That seems reasonable, if the playing area is a large miniatures wargame. We, the players, stand above a sand table like Greek gods on high, watching each minute elapse as we push blocks of miniatures around.