“The more things change…”: An essay on the future of RPGs
The following essay has been written as my contribution to this month’s Blog Carnival, hosted by RoleplayingPro. It contains a great many personal opinions. These may be wrong; feel free to disagree with me. No offence is intended towards anyone involved, and I apologise for any offence inadvertantly caused. Comments and discussion are welcomed, but flame wars and attacks will not be tolerated.
Part 1: The Past Is Prologue
Back when I first got into Roleplaying, AD&D was just coming out. The core rulebooks had been released, Deities & Demigods was still a few months away, and you could count the number of game systems on one hand unless you thought VERY hard. Homebrew supplements were synonymous with the hobby because there was virtually nothing else (aside from the Judge’s Guild product line, which looked like homebrew supplements made available to the wider marketplace, with obviously hand-drawn maps and illustrations). TSR were the perveyers of the undisputed number one game, the aforementioned AD&D, and they published more game modules than they did game supplements.
In the years that followed, more publishers entered the fray, and the games industry seemed to explode. Champions, GURPS, and dozens more followed. TSR released “Basic D&D,” aimed at providing a younger audiance with a simplified game system, and kept right on publishing modules.
Part 2: Collapse
In the late 80s and early 90s, Roleplaying seemed to experience an implosion to match the explosion that had preceeded it. On the surface, the industry was going from strength to strength, but there had been a fundamental shift, starting with the release of 2nd Edition AD&D. For the first time, supplements seemed to outnumber module releases, and many of the older games like Top Secret quietly vanished, only to be resurrected (in some cases, such as Traveller) with much fanfare and limited success. There were dozens of game systems, publishers that I had never heard of before, and a smorgasbord of material – some of it brilliantly innovative, some of it fairly passe, and much of it both in parts!
But this health was only superficial; internally, game companies were struggling. The wealth of material was not a sign of a massively-growing marketplace, it was a shotgun, as companies threw anything and everything they could think of at the market in the desperate hope that something would be a success. Too many of them had tried to become “the next TSR” and failed, leaving the publishers unstable and close to insolvent.
For me, the writing on the wall became aparrant when a non-RPG game company, Avalon Hill, went out of business. They had been the unquestioned king of their particular niche market, now they were gone. At the same time, I started hearing stories of waning interest in Game conventions, and started noticing a gradual reduction in the amount of shelf space being set aside at the Military Bookstore that had been my FLGS throughout my interest in the hobby. I can remember forecasting that if Avalon Hill could fall, so would TSR, and being ridiculed by some of my fellow gamers for the suggestion.
Well, TSR DID fall, and so did a great many other game companies. And then a funny thing happened, called Wizards Of The Coast…
Part 3: The d20/Open Game Licence era
WOTC bought TSR, and created D&D 3.0. The publishing standards went through the roof, the books themselves were works of beauty. And they created a paradygm shift in the industry by recognising what fans of the old game system had been doing anyway, by creating the OGL – in effect saying, “use this content in any way that you see fit; only these bits are proprietary”. In the process, they gave a focus to all the young startup publishers that had arrived, and they all started publishing d20/OGL supplements. Hundreds of them. Occasionally, these suffered from mutual incompatability, but for the most part, they were “plug and play” supplements – buy it today and add it to your game tomorrow. Effectively, a large part of the game industry put their shoulders behind a single product line, and – unsurprisingly – it thrived.
D&D 3.0 was eventually supplanted by a revised and revisited version, 3.5; while there were a few differences, some of which were significant and some of which seemed superficial, for the most part the new edition remained compatable with all the third-party supplements already in print. More, the core game system was repackaged to give d20 Modern and other such variations, and for a while it seemed that d20 had consumed the entire market – you either published in line with the ‘Unified Game Licence Theory’ or you went home. D&D 3.x remains arguably the greatest success story of the roleplaying industry, and it engendered a new explosion of game publishing companies and a resurgant game industry.
Part 4: The Path To Now
In time, sales of D&D 3.5 slowed, probably because everyone who wanted one had a copy. Then Hasbro – who had bought WOTC in between the publication of D&D 3.0 and D&D 3.5 – decided to release D&D 4th Edition in an attempt to repeat their past success. Nothing wrong with that; first reactions to the announcement were excitement. But then details and troubling rumours began to emerge, indications that suggested that 4th Ed was going to bite the hands that had fed and nurtured 3.x, with massive licencing fees for the use of so-called OGL material that made third party publishers question the value of their participation. Rumours that some content would only be available to paid subscribers of a new online service to be created. Suggestions that some of the game’s traditional content was to be dropped – Gnomes seemed to suddenly be everyone’s favorite race.
It’s said that no publicity is bad publicity. Following those rumours, the fan community was divided, with firm positions (both pro and anti) firmly entrenched before the product had seen the light of day. The number of people adopting a wait-and-see attitude seemed to shrink daily, and even we (I number myself in this group) were wary and apprehensive – was the glass going to at least be half-full? Controversy raged. I have no doubt that the very success of the OGL/d20 paradygm fueled the debate, and that awareness of the product was greatly increased by the debate, which subsequently translated into sales.
My take on the whole affair iss that Hasbro got greedy, seeing the amount of money that 3rd-party publishers were making from the OGL and decided to try and keep more of it for themselves; they then made the fundamental error of believing their own hype about the scale of success that the product was going to achieve, and made questionable business decisions based on this compound of overconfidence, arrogance, and self-delusion. But that’s just my opinion.
And so D&D 4th ed was released. It’s not a bad system in terms of its game mechanics, as far as it goes – or at least, that’smy impression. However, it works too hard to stereotype characters (refer to this blog post) and forces campaigns into an official straightjacket – a problem that had previously caused problems for another system that I considered innovative and even brilliant in parts, TORG. It seemed to be D&D dumbed down – the difference between Merlin (which some reviewers have described as ‘Fantasy 90210’) and The Lord Of The Rings. Despite production values that are as high as previous releases, if not more so, the whole thing still felt cheap.
One of the great strengths of the 3.x regime had been the inherant variety and degree of customisation that was possible. 4th ed seemed to be doing all it could to undermine that strength. As a result, I doubt that sales of supplementary products for 4th ed are much better than were enjoyed by those of 3rd ed – and shrinking.
Part 5: And so here we are…
Many – even most – of the third party publishers that were so much a part of the ongoing drive of 3.x have opted to take the old OGL material and published their own game systems, hewing individual paths away from a common point. The unity that had been enjoyed has been shattered, and the entire situation is reminiscant of that prior to the last implosion. And then came the current global financial problems, effectively a global recession triggered by the greed and/or shortsightedness of a few American Banks. This has already had an impact on the gaming industry – most of the gaming magazines have folded (in fact, KODT is about the only one still being published!). A few newcomers have arisen, operating through an online/e-book publishing system; but the great flaw in that marketing strategy is that you can’t simply flip through the pages to decide whether or not it’s worth buying. WOTC/Hasbro has reportedly let 270 staff go. Other game companies, some with established names, have folded or dramatically restructured. The immediate outlook is gloomy.
Part 6: Looking to the future
Yet, the situation we now face is different in two major respects to that which has been witnessed in the past: the OGL genie is out of the bottle, and compatability between game systems remains easily achieved (by everyone except WOTC); and a new marketing strategy has arrived, the e-book. The first means that the lost unity can be restored if the game companies can come to an agreement to do so, the second that publishing costs can be dramatically slashed without cutting into production. On the basis of these points, and on the basis that Hasbro/WOTC aren’t complete idiots and will be looking to the future, I’m going to conclude this essary with some fearless predictions for what is to come in the next decade (in no particular order). Not all will come to pass; some may already have occurred without my knowledge; but I will be greatly surprised if at least half of them are not on the money…
- At least one third party publisher will close their doors, trapped by the financial and market circumstances and unwilling or unable to make the necessary changes to their business plans in time.
- At least one third party publisher will stop producing physical supplements and become an e-book / print-on-demand operation only.
- Two or more third party publishers will merge and unify their variant game systems, cutting overheads while expanding their business, in hopes of forming a nexus around which a new OGL coalition can form.
- A bunch of new publishers will emerge. Some will become the major players of the next phase of gaming history – the next-generation FGU and Mongoose.
- There will be a general drop in production values – less full colour, more black-and-white, less glossy paper, etc – to facilitate a drop in price and an increase in profitability of game materials.
- A major entertainment/media company (eg Warner Bros) will buy the rights to D&D from Hasbro.
- AD&D will be relaunched to move the official D&D line back away from the simplified/stereotyping game philosophy at the heart of 4th ed.
- An effort will commence to create the ultimate RPG through a fan-based public Wiki, in which rules can be endlessly tweaked and refined and evolved. From time to time, “snapshots” of the rules system will be released on CD-ROM, but to use the latest rules, you will have to visit the Wiki site.
- An effort will commence to create the ultimate game world through a fan-based public Wiki, the Game-setting equivalent of an author’s ‘Shared World’.
- A new generation of character generation/illustration tools will emerge from the MMORPG scene and be adapted to table-top gaming.
- Sales of ‘universal’ d20-oriented game supplements will improve. ‘Universal’ became a bit of a sales killer during the heady days of OGL/d20; with so many companies now going their own way, it will make a strong comeback.
- Despite predictions of doom and gloom, the RPG/Games industry will continue; it may retreat, but it won’t die. And games will still be fun.
Postscript:
After completing the preceeding essay and prediction set, I got to thinking about the impact that Apollo 11 had on society in general and science fiction in particular. Soft fiction that skipped over the technical details (or just plain got them wrong) declined tremendously and was panned, while at the same time there was a massive increase in general public interest in the months leading up to success; then the public seemed to lose interest. “2001” successfully depicted realistic space travel in a number of ways, and was hailed for it; but the resounding SF success was “Star Wars”, which didn’t go for technical accuracy, it went for a sense of adventure. Spaceships made sounds as they went past. Analogies can be drawn with both the proposed manned mission to Mars, with the public-access spaceplane flights of Virgin, and with the current panic over global warming – as they become hot topics, realistic games and fiction will abound. And within 5 years of the culmination, the trend will be for less realism, better gameplay.
Right now, were I owner of a computer-game company, I’d be looking at developing a civilization-style game in which the objective is to avoid (or minimise) all the possible calamities that could engender an apocalypse. A board game with a similar theme would also be on my agenda, as would an rpg tie-in. And as soon as it came out, I’d licence future development to a third party and start working on a ‘mad max meets indiana jones’ game to follow it up in three or four years…
Not really relevent, but interesting speculation!
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
May 5th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Good article, Mike! I have to agree with most of what you said, though not sure about your predictions. I definitely see the wiki aspects coming to fruition.
It’s funny: I was on the initial 4e bandwagon but fell off not too long after it had come out. I liked some of the ideas, but found myself, as you said, “straight-jacketed” into a system that once had worked so hard to expand class/race flexibility and options. Remember level limits for certain race/class combos in AD&D? It kinda feels WotC has gone that way again, though in different respects. In the words of the Ren & Stimpy horse: “No, sir. I don’t like it.”
Rafe’s last blog post..Survival of the Scrawniest
May 5th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I like this. Gives a much better sense of perspective than most of the rants/essays/predictions out there. I agree with you on the wiki thing – people are already trying that, with mixed results.
I have what I think is a relatively unique gaming experience, in that I’m a young gamer who started on 1st ed, never played much 3.x (except Iron Heroes, which is a whole ‘nother animal), and has now moved to 4e. To me, there is far more race/class variety – after all, now you have feats encouraging dwarf rogues, where before, it wasn’t even possible to play certain classes as certain races. Maybe it’s because I subscribe to the “throw out rules that seem stupid and don’t look back” philosophy, but I quite honestly have no idea what you mean about straightjacketed campaigns. My current 4e game is (relatively) low magic, post-apocalyptic, and heavy on the roleplaying.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
@Rafe: Funny indeed, I thought the Wiki ideas were amongst the most “out there” and almost didn’t include them. I do indeed remember the race limits, and all the attempts to justify them, few of which were ever all that plausible to me. I can see a new campaign working under 4th ed; but can’t ever see a campaign converting successfully from 3.x, it’s too much of a backwards step and requires too many compromises of established characters.
@Swordgleam: That is indeed an unusual gaming background, but I can see how you would find 4th ed providing greater flexibility. What I mean by “campaign straightjackets” is the way you are far more strongly forced into constructing a campaign around the roles established for each of the classes; under 3.x, there were many variants possible within a given class even before Prestige Classes were taken into account. A cleric could be primarily a healer, or a theologian, or a character with a more martial emphasis; the system permitted the core class to be tweaked and nuanced to emphasise those aspects of the character concept without detrimental effect on the game. With 4th ed, you either accept the role that the rules have defined, or your effectiveness suffers; thus, all clerics are virtually the same. As someone who constructs adventuring environments and then tailors the game mechanics to reflect the campaign concepts, it would require far more work (and be far less satisfactory in result) to utilise the 4th Ed rules for one of my games. For example, the reasons magic works are different in both my current D&D campaigns, and were different again in the campaign before that; while these still manifest in the same spell lists provided in the PHB, various other aspects of spellcasting are extremely different both conceptually and in game mechanics. So it feels like 4th ed is forcing me to play “Their” campaign, not “My” campaign.
May 6th, 2009 at 7:02 am
I’ve been a DM/Player of D&D since 1st edition, and it seems like there is a debate with every new edition. The debate probably seems louder this time because we have a larger online community and our voices reach more ears.
I agree with Swordgleam that I don’t quite follow why you feel ‘straight-jacketed’ into something. I read your follow-up, and I’m still a bit confused. I don’t see anywhere in 4E where they define how ‘arcane’ spells work. I think that you could easily use any type of spell source fluff you’d like. I also agree with Swordgleam that I have considered playing many more race/class combos in 4E than I ever did in 3.x. The dwarf rogue is an excellent example. A dwarf orb wizard would be another great build.
I absolutely love DMing 4E. The encounters are much easier to set up than 3E challenge levels (which always seemed arbitrary to me), the monsters are FAR more fun for the DM to play. ‘Goblins’ or ‘Kobolds’ aren’t just a one hit kills anymore, and PCs have to take the different monster roles into account. 1st level wizards can actually contribute to more than one fight. Combat is all around much more enjoyable for DMs and players alike.
I was moved to comment by your Postscript. In my group we have had this discussion, and we agree that 4th Edition IS a move toward better gameplay over hard rules. As a DM I hated 3.x grapple/sunder rules, and even the move rules. (i.e. first diagonal move cost 1 point, 2nd cost 2 points) 4E greatly simplifies some of those banalities of combat and flows very nicely.
As a side note, we have also experimented with a campaign wiki, with mixed results. I think that takes participation from everyone, and in my group it just didn’t work out. I do love the prediction of wiki-rules online someday. That would be a great improvement over the 4E ‘Compendium’ for which I have found very limited use. It seems much easier to open the books.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Thanks for your contribution, Randal. It certainly sounds like you and your group have found 4e to fit with your style of play and campaign. There are certainly things that work better in 4th ed than they did in 3.x, I don’t think that any rational reviewer would dispute that; the question arises, however, and must be answered individually by each DM, whether or not the those advantages are sufficient compensation for the elements that don’t fit their campaign style and structure. This question is further complicated by the requirements of converting an existing campaign, which was explicitly designed for a 3.x system, to the new rules. Finally, there is the question of the hundreds of dollars spent on 3.x supplements; these would all require substantial additional effort on the part of the DM to remain in use in a 4th ed campaign.
If I were to begin a new campaign, I might well choose to base it on 4th edition, but insetad I have 2 campaigns solidly founded on 3.x rules with an estimated 5 more years to completion, and another with an estimated 8 years to completion. Furthermore, and at my player’s insistance, I have a sequel campaign already on the drawing boards to the first two mentioned, which is actually a 3.0-based Epic Campaign. By the time I’m ready to move to a new generation of rules, I would expect D&D 6 to be on the shelves!
I might upgrade to a further refinement of the 3.x system that did not make all those supplements redundant, because the change could be easily accommodated, just as I upgraded (eventually) from 3.0 to 3.5 rules.
Finally, I think there is more to defining a unique character than personality (pure roleplay), race, and class. I don’t like the way that class choices in particular define the role that it is optimum for a member of that class to take within the party. If there are two clerics, say, in my group, I want to be able to tell them apart, I want them to have different strengths and weaknesses, and at the same time, I want them to be equally effective and viable both in general situations, and in direct comparison when the situation suits their particular niche. 4th ed doesn’t give me that, and Rafe found that it doesn’t give him that either, so I’m not alone.
That’s why I suggested that AD&D would be relaunched as the successor to the ‘more complex’ 3.x version, enabling both it and the 4th ed system to coexist on the shelves – seperate product lines targetting a seperate submarket, specifically aimed (in fact) at GMs/Groups like mine that are not going to upgrade to 4th ed, and hence, not going to buy any 4th ed products.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Great article. As a DM, I definitely enjoy 4e over 3.x, but can see why players would prefer 3.x over 4e. I have finally got to play a few 4e games and have had fun with that. I never got to play in any 3.x game, always DM’d. It is all personal taste to me, and as long as people are playing and having fun it is all good. If I could find a game, I’d play any edition with no issue.
I like your predictions and think I’ll paste them somewhere for future reference to see what did and did not come true.
I’ve always stated from the beginning, when 4e came out, that I felt like the books that came out in ’08 were akin to basic D&D. I could very well see a slow progression as supplements come out to and “expert” set, then right on to the “advanced” version. It’s how I originally learned the game system years ago, starting in ’81 with the Moldvay sets, so I see a lot of similarities here.
What I’m really interested in seeing is how Paizo’s Pathfinder game system will sell this fall when it comes out. I have read the free rules and extras from the beginning and really like what they have done, but have yet to find other people in my area, Western NY, who want to play test this game, let alone even know about it. At $50 US dollars for the Core Handbook and $40 for the Monster Manual, it’s a bit beyond what I am willing to spend on a game that may or may not live more than a couple of years. I didn’t spend nearly that much for the core 3 for 4e. I can’t really tell if there really is huge support for this game system or if it is just a small vocal group. Either way, I hope it does well.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Good article, but you completely skipped over the mini-collapse circa 2003-2004 caused by the glut of low-quality d20 products combined with 3.5’s compatibility issues (effectively making even high-quality 3.0-based d20 supplements unsellable). This essay seems to paint the OGL/d20 phenomenon in a purely positive light when in fact it was more complicated than that — the early success of thirdparty d20 was a bubble that eventually collapsed, hurting gaming stores more than anyone else.
Chris Pramas (of Green Ronin) has some insightful blog posts about it. Here’s one I found:
http://www.chrispramas.com/2008/02/open-gaming-licenses-past-present-and.html
May 6th, 2009 at 11:24 am
TSR was purchased by Wizards in ’97 after finding themselves in a great deal of financial difficulty. Avalon Hill didn’t throw in the towel until ’98 when Hasbro bought the name and rights to several of their games, and now they’re all part of the same big happy family as Hasbro also bought Wizards of the Coast in 2002. Not to be confrontational, just wanted to point out the facts.
I play and enjoy 4th edition. I don’t miss the OGL content produced by 3rd party companies. I seldom used it and it was mostly of poor quality. I have been very pleased with the production quality of all the 4th Edition products I have bought and believe it is a better system in my honest opinion. I have also played every edition of D&D and 4th Edition to me is the natural and superior evolution of the game.
I personally predict that eventually this rules set will be adapted to many different genre’s (a similar system is already used in the Star Wars Saga edition rules). 4th Edition is also very easy to mod and create new rules, classes, monsters, powers, etc. I predict with the approach to make the game more accessible in an online environment,there will be more community created material then ever before. There are already some EXCELLENT campaign backgrounds available on the Wizards forums with enitre home grown classes and paragon paths. It costs nothing to register on the WOTC forums.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Great addition to this month’s blog carnvial. Also a pretty good insight into the past, for those of us who haven’t been around roleplaying games as long as you :)
May 6th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
People need to understand that 4th edition has alot more bullets in thier gun. Sure people went crazy because there was no gnome in the players handbook, even tho they said there would be gnomes down the road (players handbook 2 now has gnomes in them) as we speak 4thedition has a playtest available to thier ddi subscribers of thier DUAL Class rules. YES soon you can basically take any 2 classes and create a dual class of your own!!! this STRAIGHT JACKET that alot of peopl refer to in thier blogs will be completely gone when players handbook 3 comes out. it has been noted MANY MANY times that classic DND fans wont jump on board until players handbook 3 comes out, because after that the freedom for players to customize thier characters will be infinite. the system is starting off basic and limited because its NEW, and just like anything you need to learn to crawl before you can walk. the games was fun at launch and with players handbook2 its even better, when phb3 comes out it will once again be theee greatest rpg of all time, even over other editions. the problem is everyone wants to judge it now instead of trying it out and understand what new things are coming. its a great game so pull up a chair and grab your dice, and give the dragonborn a try for a little.
May 6th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I like 4E a lot. There are a couple things either missing or that I don’t understand though, which I’d like to see addressed.
Namely, character abilities pertaining to puzzle, roleplaying, and investigation encounters. Currently, spells and powers pertain to combat. I miss the utility stuff that let characters explore, perceive, and roleplay.
Now, we roleplay just fine without rules, but some of the spells and feats we integrated quite nicely for character enhancements and game-based moments.
I also find we’re under-utlizing skills, but I think that’s the DM’s fault (me) and not the game.
Just as I’d play D&D 1E and D&D 3.5E as different games to get different gameplay experiences, I’d also play D&D 3.5 and D&D 4E as two seperate systems to get different gameplay experiences.
* * *
Mike, I’ve hijacked your post though – you were talking about the future of RPGs. Sorry. If I have time, I’ll weight in with my thoughts.
What do the commentators think about the future of RPGs? There’s so much to consider – technology, distribution, big publisher vs. small, MMOs and video games, a new generation growing up with technology like it was always there, storytelling in person vs. online….
May 6th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
@Johnn: I think it’s more the case that the 3.x-vs-4th-ed debate has to some extent hijacked the post. But everyone so far has had a reasonable point of view and things have been conducted in a civil tone, so I don’t have a problem with that; it’s a question that has been at the heart of the roleplaying industry for the last couple of years, hasn’t been resolved, and will probably never be resolved.
@Dave: The bottom lines at the moment are that 4th ed won’t let me do what I want to do as GM in my existing campaigns, which would require excessive work to change over – work that I don’t have the time to carry out; and that an investment of hundreds of dollars in supplementary materials that are in use within the campaign would be wasted if I did. In other words, my group have invested heavily in the current campaigns and the return on that investment is greater if we stick to what we’re using. Your comments about dual class rules were interesting, but still don’t reflect the variety that being able to select from over 1000 core and prestige classes can bring. It can also be viewed, from what you’ve written, as a concession from WOTC that there’s a key segment of the market that feels disenfranchised by 4th ed. I am judging 4th ed not by what it will be when further supplements are released, but by what it was when it was released, and the key word of my personal assessment of that was “insufficient”, or perhaps even “inadequate”. No game system is perfect, you need to choose the rules structure that best reflects the campaign that you want to run and wallpaper over the flaws as necessary. But it’s precisely because the D&D market has been divided that I’m expecting some attempt to recapture the market slice that’s been lost, before other varieties of the d20 system can make off with it.
@Drax40K: Thanks for the info; I wrote the post purely from memory, from what I recall was going on at a particular time in my particular gaming community; its good to have some hard facts. I agree that there are a lot of poor supplements out there, but there were some exceptionally good ones as well, that have become mainstays of my campaigns. These all seemed to come from a small handful of companies – take a bow, FGU, Mongoose, and Green Ronin, in particular. But I have never yet read a game supplement or manual that didn’t have me thinking to myself at some point, “that could be done better”. Official WOTC products number both amongst the best and the worst!
Last but not least: @Will: I skipped over the mini-collapse because it was so small it wasn’t even noticeable here in Australia. It had zero perceptible impact and I didn’t even know it happened. The intention was never to write an entire history of the RPG industry, it was to examine what had already taken place to provide context and foundation for what I think will happen over the next decade or so.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:06 am
@Mike – it would be interesting, Mike, to read what your Top 20 d20 books are, and what your Top 20 DMing books in general are sometime.
May 7th, 2009 at 8:21 am
@Johnn: I’ll add it to my list of blog posts! The big trick will probably be cutting the list down to a mere 20…
May 7th, 2009 at 8:07 am
[…] creation, one frequent complaint 3e players voice about 4e is a lack of character options. They feel pigeonholed or stereotyped into a small array of choices. Oddly enough, the comment in that article came in […]
May 7th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Nice retrospective, considering you’re so new to the hobby. I mean, anyone who didn’t have to wait in long-suffering anticipation for the arrival of the first DMG is positively green. :oD
Pretty good points anyway, but I’ll add my voice to the chorus of people saying, “Straight-jacketing?” Of course it is. Any RPG that relies on a “class” system is straight-jacketing by its nature. That’s why I’ll never play d20 Star Wars after having enjoyed the old West End version so much.
It’s true that the third editions were the least straightjacketing of the previous incarnations of D&D. 3E was better built with more options, but it also had tons and tons of optional material that players came to take for granted. Now 4E doesn’t have all that optional material yet, but it’s very well built, with at least two intended ways to play every class. Each supplement related to the class seems to be offering a couple more, and you’re perfectly free to mix and match many pieces from the intended builds. So maybe you can’t cherry pick your levels from dozens of different classes and multiclasses with 4E, but you can already play more than a dozen different types of many of the classes, and still customize them to bits with the feats beyond that.
Normally I play far less straightjacketing games than any edition of D&D, but I’m currently playing a 4E halfling pyromancer/illusionist who has mastered bardic rituals and masquerades as a ranger, and I can’t remember being so excited about a D&D character since back in the days when D&D characters was all we had. Just the fact that he could participate meaningfully in every round of combat from the moment he entered the game (“Awwww…. Did all the little minions go ‘boom’?”) makes him my favorite D&D wizard ever, but there’s way more to it than that.
Leonard Wilson’s last blog post..The MMORPIfication of Tabletop Expectations
May 9th, 2009 at 10:43 am
[…] “The more things change…”: An essay on the future of RPGs … […]
May 9th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I started with 2nd Ed D&D and 1st Ed AD&D, pretty much coterminal, back in 1981…
And the market had a dozen games I can think of from that era: D&D, AD&D, Traveller, Empire of the Petal Throne, Tunnels and Trolls, Monsters Monsters, Starfaring, Star Patrol, Chivalry & Sorcery, RuneQuest, Starships and Spacemen, Boot Hill, Gamma World, and the brand new Star Frontiers.
I only played D&D & AD&D in middle school… mostly due to lack of exposure. I knew of Boot Hill from the back of the AD&D1E PH. Star Frontiers was adverted in every comic book. I discovered Traveller in 1983… a week after playing in a very unsatisfying Star Frontiers game in front of the School Library…
I’ve watched the industry since… and I think WOTC/HasBro is way out of touch with the market. At a time when people want inexpensive, they are releasing some of the most expensive stuff around. In a time when the only money they make off of older editions is PDF sales, they quit. (The 4E stuff was leaked in PDF before it even hit the shelves… leaked as exquisite PDF’s… they need to check that chinese printer they use)
I’ve looked at 4E. I’m unimpressed, nonplussed. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a 4.5E in 3 more years. It’s a solid tactical game with light roleplaying.
The initial boom was 78-83… loads of 3rd party stuff starts then… Bard Games’ Atlantean line was a different system, but it could also be used as a D&D setting with little to no effort. Bushido was mechanically incompatible with D&D, but it was easy enough to simply use D&D classes instead, and play it anyway. EPT was a licensed redress of D&D. Everyone tweaked rules. Every ruleset played diferently, and it was then that I learned that System Matters.
The 1983 or so semi-collapse pulled a lot of small press stuff out… most of it was drekh anyway; FGU seems to have pretty much folded. But, by 1986, many new games were coming out, and the second tier of game companies was doing strong: GDW (Traveller, 1886, 2300), Palladium (Robotech, TMNT), WEG, SJG, FASA; all of them had a key product line or two subsidizing their other stuff. And an upstart that no one knew was going to explode: White Wolf.
There was a strong and interesting 3rd tier: Chaosium, Bard Games, FGU (Space Opera, Bushido, Other Suns), ICE (Rolemaster/Spacemaster/MERP), HeroGames (Hero System), BTRC (Timelords, CORPS), Columbia Games (Hârn), Victory Games (James Bond), RTalsorian (Mekton, Cyberpunk), Flying Buffalo (Tunnels and Trolls, MSPE)…
There was a steady flow of neat stuff, then in the early 1990’s, the D&D slump ended with AD&D 2E, and the revised D&D 2E Cyclopedia. And White Wolf’s World of Darkness created a whole new “class” of gamerdom… and joined the second tier.
The mid 1990’s had a crash… a lot of game companies folded; some bought by another upstart, WOTC, fueled by MTG profits. Some folded because the core designers were hitting retirement (GDW, FASA), or made fatal distribution errors (GDW, WEG, and several smaller companies). TSR fell to the second tier, leaving no company on top… SJG, WWG, and TSR all battling. Then WOTC bought up TSR amidst much consternation over their pattern of Buy & Close.
D&D 3.0 with the D20 STL and OGL1.0a refired a market that was flagging due to a variety of social and gaming issues… and fueled an explosion again of small press stuff. It created a market ready for the indy games.
The 2003-04 correction was retail’s shakedown of the dross from the gems… several companies came out of it stronger… and retailers came away with a lot of product they couldn’t move.
The future isn’t going to see “one game for everyone”… even as D20 was spilling over every store’s shelves, Greg Stafford and Robin Crosby launched Hero Wars. Mongoose was building up a fanbase using RuneQuest, a percentile system. Pendragon was being revised. Traveller was D20’d, and had a GURPS edition (now has 2), and a HeroSystem edition.
What we are likely to see is a lot fewer “Tier 2” companies (now essentially only WWG), and a lot more strong tier 3, and the rising tier 4 of indy games.
D&D 4 has a lot of corporate interia, but if it falters before being ready to drive 4.5, we probably won’t see a WOTC/HASBro 4.5… and the recent PDF fiasco is a PR problem from hell.
May 10th, 2009 at 1:20 am
Nice fleshing-out of the bare-bones history that I used as the foundation of my predictions, AK. I think that you would have to include Kenzer & Co as a fairly healthy 2nd-tier player in the industry, though – between their old-school rendition of AD&D (Hackmaster), their wild west game (Aces & Eights), various one-offs (Fairie Meat) and the ongoing accumulation of articles and gaming material in the pages of KODT, not to mention the ongoing success of the comic itself, they would seem to have established themselves rather nicely.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:13 pm
on your predictions:
– I seriously doubt AD&D will be relaunched. I think that’s wishful thinking on your part. New editions of D&D will certainly be different, but not necessarily the way some may wish; perhaps it will go FURTHER in the direction 4e has gone :-). Who knows.
– I really don’t think a large media company would have any desire to buy D&D. Hasbro is huge. If it continues to do well (it is, btw) Hasbro will keep it. If it starts to flounder, they’ll sell it to another hobby/game company or shelve it for a span of years.
-printing gets cheaper every year, why would production value drop?
June 1st, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I agree, Tom, that some of my predictions are less likely than others to come to fruition, but I seriously think that some attempt will be made to lure those who feel disenfranchised by 4th ed back to Hasbro’s doors (and profit margins), and without losing face, the best way that I can see of doing that is by rebranding the more complicated system with the established AD&D title.
The predicted sale is a consequence of other predictions; while 4th ed might be doing well, it is not the sweeping success of the 3.x / d20 era. The fact that 270-odd staff have been let go from WOTC in the last year is enough to tell me that they are feeling the pinch, and that profits are down. That suggests to me that if a sufficiently large carrot was dangled in front of them, they might be willing to part with the product line – and that someone with enough ready cash might dream of recapturing the glory days. It’s probably worth remembering that no-one expected the d20 system to become as big as it did – but now everyone knows that it’s possible, with the right product marketed the right way, at the right time.
I don’t agree that printing costs are getting cheaper. While there have been savings by bringing layout and prepress production in-house, using computer technology, there is not a lot more to be saved in that area; labour costs continue to rise, and I don’t see any brilliant new printing presses on the horizon that give more pages for a given printing cost. I think they are as cheap as they are going to get. The only way to really make things cheaper is to cut out the printing press altogether and sell as downloadable PDFs – letting the consumer pay the price of the actual printing; but a PDF is NOT the same thing as a proper hardcover or even soft-cover book. The fact remains that the D&D books are very expensive to buy, so much so that a lot of people I know were unwilling to take a flyer on a supplement that might or might not be useful. Furthermore, even though all the signs are there that we have reached the bottom of the trough in the current global economic downturn, disposable incomes will remain strained for several years to come; that impacts on how many copies of something will be sold, eroding profit margins. The only way to reduce the pricetag and make the volumes more accessable is to lower production standards.
Thanks for your contribution to the debate. You don’t have to agree with me, and I might very well be wrong about ALL my predictions – but predictions with a certainty of success (“there will be a 5th edition d&d”) are pretty boring, don’t you think?
July 16th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
[…] Rules & Mechanics, The End Of The Rainbow on Jul.16, 2009 In the comments to a recent blogpost (”The More Things Change: An essay on the future of RPGs”) that I wrote, Johnn suggested that he’d like to see a list of my top twenty D&D […]
August 27th, 2010 at 5:54 am
Wow thanks for the great read! I never read a personal recollection of D&D like this.
August 27th, 2010 at 6:24 am
You’re welcome Mike. It remains to be seen how many of the predictions will be realised as reality, though I can already see movement toward some of them.