I would agree that D&D dominates the market.  But D&D really isn't Tolkien.  

D&D is a western with elfs.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;918801The fantasy market seems to be dominated by a very specific trend. All the most popular settings follow the same pattern: a clone of Middle Earth with a garnish of Cthulhu, Conan and Elric. Uniquely, the magic system allows wizards and clerics to trivially solve the problems of daily living and redefine warfare, eventually becoming reality warping gods among men, yet the world around them remains stuck in a medieval rut.

Settings that don't follow this trend generally don't prosper. Original settings like Spelljammer, Planescape and Eberron are limited to cult followings.

Why is the fantasy market so stagnant?

There are many reasons; and this is one of those questions that one answer won't really cut it.  Though I am on the side of those that say D&D isn't that much Tolkien.  

But as to the specific second part of the question...I am a huge believer in setting/system match.  And Whilst I don't play D&D right now, I believe the reason that that version of the game has done so well is that the system was written to support that setting and game specifically, and the implicit game has changed to match the rules as the various versions have come out.  Spelljammer, Planescape and Eberron are not what the system was built to do, and the disconnect shows in the popularity.

Really, Tolkien's values and themes aren't well represented in rpgs.  Show me a game where the broken class is Gardener.

Quote from: David Johansen;918914Show me a game where the broken class is Gardener.

I find your ideas interesting and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

You win the thread, you magnificent bastard.

Quote from: David Johansen;918914Really, Tolkien's values and themes aren't well represented in rpgs.  Show me a game where the broken class is Gardener.

Well... that character doesn't do much gardening once the story starts does he? DCC pretty much has that with it's funnel-level backgrounds... but then the PC is thrust into adventure and if he survives... no more butcher/baker/candlestick maker.

Quote from: Headless;918882I would agree that D&D dominates the market.  But D&D really isn't Tolkien.  

D&D is a western with elfs.

Love that line...


Narrow fields can gain momentum, but they have to continually cycle source material to do so:

Vampire had to modify because of a stagnant world, and had to change the power structure over time to attract players.  I tried the Masquerade setting but distasted the Story Game.  We modified it to be more RPG and it worked, but the world was so narrow it felt broken.  Dark Age didn't help matters, just looked like D&D was embraced (pardon the pun).  

Other Games like Star Trek, Star Wars, and Dr. Who play to their respective followers, not the masses.

Tolkien style is universal in its Romantic nature, and plays to our darkest fears / greatest wishes.  It is limitless in material, flexible for its audience, and is more comforting (like the books read to us as children) in our memories.  I don't feel the genre hold is a statement against change, but more like good comfort food anyone can enjoy.  (except my wife, but no one is perfect)

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;918870None of that explains why settings which expanded generic fantasy were not successful.

Eberron is D&D with steampunk and pulp added.
Planescape is D&D with infinite planes of wonder and horror added.
Spelljammer is D&D in space.

Within the straightjacket, how popular are activities other than playing a band of murder hobos? Does anyone bother with politics, sailing, or anything else?

Actually, a LOT of that explains why settings which expanded generic fantasy were not successful. What other people said, and what I said. But especially this part:

Quote from: talysman;918816Finally, there's the distinction between broad vs. narrow. The basic D&D setting is broad. Each specific setting, RPG or literary, is built on that, then narrowed down to focus on something of specific interest to the designer or author.

Or how about this from someone else:

Quote from: rway218;918918Other Games like Star Trek, Star Wars, and Dr. Who play to their respective followers, not the masses.

Settings like Eberron, Planescape, and Spelljammer didn't expand generic fantasy. They are non-generic examples of fantasy settings. They are specific settings that appeal to specific groups. And really, why do you think they weren't successful? Because not everyone likes them? They still have their dedicated fans. So what if other people aren't fans?

Think of it this way: if you said "Why do people like food, but jalapeno burgers and deep-fried Twinkies aren't successful?" My answer, and probably the answer anyone else would give, is "But those foods are successful. They just aren't universally loved." Some people don't like spicy foods, or don't eat meat, so they won't eat jalapeno burgers. Some people don't like fatty or greasy foods, so they won't eat deep-fried Twinkies. The fact that way more people eat generic bread than either of those foods doesn't mean that those foods aren't successful. They just aren't generic.

Quote from: talysman;918927The fact that way more people eat generic bread than either of those foods doesn't mean that those foods aren't successful. They just aren't generic.

respect...

... but gluten.

Quote from: Headless;918882I would agree that D&D dominates the market.  But D&D really isn't Tolkien.  

D&D is a western with elfs.

Came here to post this. Or something a lot like it, only less concise.

Lord of the Rings, with over 150 million copies sold, is one of the two bestselling books of the 20th century.

And this "D&D is not Tolkien" nonsense is minutia wankery of the "inner circle." To the vast majority of people, "Lord of the Rings has elves, Dungeons and Dragons has elves, World of Warcraft has elves, therefore LotR = D&D = WoW." People who differentiate D&D from Tolkien are statistically insignificant.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;918870None of that explains why settings which expanded generic fantasy were not successful.

Eberron is D&D with steampunk and pulp added.
Planescape is D&D with infinite planes of wonder and horror added.
Spelljammer is D&D in space.

Within the straightjacket, how popular are activities other than playing a band of murder hobos? Does anyone bother with politics, sailing, or anything else?

No, because the vast majority of people are fucking lazy and pants-shittingly stupid, hence "reality television." This and other forums like it are a tiny fraction of a percentage of the consuming public.  We are not typical.  See "confirmation bias."

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;918801Why is the fantasy market so stagnant?

It's not. Tolkienesque is only "stagnant" if a gamer lacks the imagination to explore it creatively.

But to answer the thread title, the reason why "Tolkienesque" fantasy (by which I'm going to assume you mean pseudo-medieval) is more popular than other more obscure sub-genres is that 1) its easily accessible for new players dealing with archetypes everyone in Western culture is familiar with from media, fairy tales, and videogames, 2) its the default implied setting of D&D, which remains synonymous with roleplaying in the public mind, and 3) it taps into our cultural heritage in the same manner as everything from Disney princess films to tales of King Arthur.

Quote from: rway218;918918Other Games like Star Trek, Star Wars, and Dr. Who play to their respective followers, not the masses.

Tolkien style is universal in its Romantic nature, and plays to our darkest fears / greatest wishes.  It is limitless in material, flexible for its audience, and is more comforting (like the books read to us as children) in our memories.  I don't feel the genre hold is a statement against change, but more like good comfort food anyone can enjoy.  (except my wife, but no one is perfect)

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with this one. I'm sure it feels that way to a D&D player because you've heavily invested in the world.

In my view, D&D has it's following and is the predominant RPG not because you can do a lot with it. It's dominant because you can do so very little with it and it still is D&D.

I'm not saying you can't have a deep and immersive world in D&D. I'm saying you don't have to have a deep and immersive world and it can still feel like D&D. A tiny and restrictive world of a dungeon is enough for you to start with and still feel you're getting the full D&D experience.

Now now, I know that everyone here has done fantastic and wonderful things with the D&D universe. But when you're ten years old, the universe of Star Trek is a little outside your reach to recreate. Not that you can't like it, just that if I ask a ten year old to write Star Trek fanfic, it's not going to sound at all like Star Trek. If I ask a ten year old to make a maze with monsters in it, he'll do that in no time flat.

If I ask a 10 year old player to be a character in Star Trek, he'll fail to capture the feel of a Trek story. He'll probably go around shooting people with phasers.

If I ask a 10 year old player to be a barbarian in a maze and to kill the evil monsters and take the treasure, he'll do that perfectly, as long as his buddies don't kill him for his stuff.

I'm strongly convinced that it's the dirt simple nature of the starting game of D&D that makes it possible for 10 year olds and adults to pick up the game. We as expert gamers expand the world into greater and greater circles of complexity.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;918941Lord of the Rings, with over 150 million copies sold, is one of the two bestselling books of the 20th century.

And this "D&D is not Tolkien" nonsense is minutia wankery of the "inner circle." To the vast majority of people, "Lord of the Rings has elves, Dungeons and Dragons has elves, World of Warcraft has elves, therefore LotR = D&D = WoW." People who differentiate D&D from Tolkien are statistically insignificant.

Was there someone who said that D&D isn't Tolkien? I know I said that what the OP defines as "Tolkienesque" has very little Tolkien in it. It has the fantasy races. It has the evil races, often being lead by supernatural big bads. So sure, from the perception of the general public, Tolkien = D&D. But that's not the question being asked, is it? It's "why hasn't anything else become as popular?"

I'd say the fact that D&D only borrowed superficial details like races is part of the reason why it succeeds. It's got something eminently recognizable, and can be used to do "Middle Earth", but it's not Middle Earth by default. It's lacking some of the specific details necessary for Tolkien's literary goals, but which would be detrimental if someone didn't want to play in Middle Earth. It's a kitchen sink setting, a hodge-podge of everything imaginable, without committing to one author's ideals. It can be molded to fit many different preferences, as opposed to a specific fantasy setting that has already made some decisions for you.