What does “Old-School Gaming” really mean, anyway?
I’ve been hearing a lot of comments lately about how WOTC are pandering to the grognards who pine for a return to the days of old-school gaming. One person with whom I have corresponded on the subject through Twitter suggested that the divide was too great for it to possibly be bridged, and that WOTC were damned if the did and damned if they didn’t – that it would in fact be utterly impossible to satisfy everyone.
Another correspondent suggested that they should simply repackage and reprint AD&D to satisfy those longing for the days gone by and keep faith with those who have bought into the 4e community.
In short, the nay-sayers appear to be in the ascendancy, at least in terms of those making a lot of noise on the subject.
Those hostile to the entire concept of the philosophic approach to DnDNext announced by WOTC decry the return of infinite tables and unbalanced character classes and the Imperial Gamemaster. Those in favor rant with equal vehemence about reuniting players of the game under one banner, and complain that their debating opponents are speaking of hypothetical situations from a position of prejudice without judging the material being tested on its own merits, and – furthermore – that they are judging those materials against the standard of polished and playtested games.
I often think both sides are missing the point.
Old doesn’t mean it’s bad
When D&D, and AD&D, first came out, there was a wonderful sense of freedom in the air in gaming communities. If there wasn’t a rule to cover it, GMs were encouraged to create one. Rules lawyers were automatically ruled out of order, because the GM had created the game world and knew what worked and what didn’t, within it. There wasn’t a lot of money in gaming and game products, so publishers were less inclined to reach for the lawyers – and speed-dial wasn’t around yet, anyway. The games were, as a result, very open, and very varied. There were masses of 3rd party supplements out there for those who knew where to look. Often amateurish or flawed, but available, nevertheless. Every game had its house rules.
But there were always those who resented the power of the GM over the rules, who demanded to be able to know where they stood, who wanted everything in black and white.
New doesn’t mean it’s better
As time passed, the latter group won ground off the former, inch by inch, game iteration by game iteration. They achieved this by having a valid point or two – it’s all well and good for the GM to always be right because of his status at the game table, but without players, his game is an empty shell. At some point, an invisible line was crossed, and the game design priority became about putting the published rules ahead of the unrestrained creativity of the GM.
Then TSR went up in smoke, or got bought out (depending on who you ask), and WOTC set out to reinvent the game, with high-quality publishing. D&D suddenly represented quite a lot of invested money, and to have the maximum potential to capitalize on that investment, they wanted to encourage professional-standard game supplements – because each one required the purchase of (at the very least) the core rules set. It was “one for you, and three for me” – and then ‘four for me’, ‘five for me’, and so on, as additional ‘official’ expansions began to appear.
WOTC have openly admitted that the OGL was not what they intended, it was too open and unrestrained. The far more restrictive policies of 4e were what they were aiming for. But the serendipitous result was a huge mass of third party material that contributed to making D&D 3.0 the biggest game in town, and a huge success for them. So much so that WOTC was bought up for even larger sums of money by Hasbro – and they DID have the lawyers on speed-dial. They started by releasing version 3.5, correcting many of the errors, typos and other errata that had survived the initial publication – and at the same time, clamped down on the OGL just that little bit tighter.
The result was far fewer third party supplements and expansions aimed at 3.5 specifically – and the continuing publication of supplements aimed at 3.0, which were mostly compatible with the newer game anyway. The genie was out of the bottle, and not inclined to go quietly back into confinement.
Fourth edition followed in due course, with FAR more restrictive terms and conditions – and strict enforcement, backed up by the lawyers. This completely ignored the scale of the investment that most people now had in their 3.x collections – hundreds or even thousands of dollars worth – and declared them all ‘out of date’.
Unsurprisingly, the fan-base that had built up for D&D fractured – there were those who remained loyal to 3.x, there were those who sought to update and further clarify the 3.x into a new generation of d20 game system while preserving the openness of 3.x and eventually produced Pathfinder and Savage Lands and all the other variations out there. And few of these were minded to buy 4e products, and even fewer after purchasing the new game’s core rules and discovering that the spirit of openness that had characterized the game had been resoundingly ignored.
So far as these people were concerned, New certainly did not necessarily mean better. They went looking for the familiar, creating a demand – and some people were smart enough to fill that demand.
At the same time, 4e represented the ultimate achievement for those who wanted written rules and game balance and everything in black-and-white. Most of the criticism at the time seemed to focus on trivial manifestations such as the absence of gnomes or some such, while ignoring the deeper issue, and because that issue went unaddressed, even attempts to placate the complainers had little-to-no effect. Hasbro had what they wished for in the first place – but the result was hardly a resounding success on the scale of the heady 3.x days.
In part, this was because the licensing was so restrictive that it virtually penalized anyone wishing to publish an authorized 4e supplement, while Hasbro made darned sure that no-one went around publishing unofficial ones. In fact, to be honest, I don’t think I’ve seen more than half-a-dozen 3rd party supplements for 4e in total. Many of the companies that signed up to the restrictive programme tied their fortunes to it being a success – and went down with the ship, as a very large market segment stayed away in droves.
DnDNext: The Second Coming?
So now, WOTC are back to try again. Full of Mea Culpa’s for past sins (and rightfully so), they are looking to try and recapture at least some of the market that deserted them with the ill-judged release of 4e and one flawed plan after another that followed. Who can blame them?
But it does them no good to try and recapture the core 3.x/d20 crowd, there are other games out there now to cater to their wants and needs. Their only hope is to find something that might hold an even greater appeal, and that’s to recapture the spirit of independence, fun, and freedom that preceded the 3.x edition. That means harkening back to 2nd Ed, and to AD&D before that.
Not to emulate the past, or simply reprint it, or to ignore the mistakes that were made back then and all the lessons learned about game design since – but to recapture that spirit and embed it into a new generation of rules that would contain something that would appeal to everyone. If they are at all realistic, they would know that this will be impossible to achieve completely; the goal is to see how close to this ideal they can come.
Modern mechanics with the old-style sensibilities and freedom – that’s the primary goal.
So, what if they succeed?
Let’s be honest, here: Each of the disparate niche markets – 4e, Pathfinder, etc – has its die-hards who will not switch loyalties, no matter what. Some of these felt betrayed by WOTC when 4e was released, others feel burned by the fact that DnDNext will not be 100% 4e compatible. Heck, there are still a few die-hard AD&D and 2nd Ed players out there.
This market share is lost, and will not be recaptured. The rest are swinging voters, who could be swayed by a good product, with varying degrees of resistance. Some will be exceedingly reluctant, either due to past disputes with the approach of WOTC/Hasbro, while others will automatically sign up simply because it’s the latest, and (theoretically, in their minds), the greatest.
The real area for disagreement is over the relative sizes of these fractional markets. No-one has any data on which to base reasonable estimates, so we are equally ignorant, and anyone’s guess is as good as anyone else. What can be said definitively is that the new game cannot be perfect (nothing made by humans ever is) and therefore it will not succeed in capturing the entirety of the possible market share, even excluding those who will stand by their current systems of choice.
What, then, are the standards by which success can be guaged? The minimum standard of success has to be sales in excess of those for the all-too-divisive 4e. No matter by how little, ANY increase on that measure has to represent not only forgiveness of past sins but redemption and absolution. It will mean that WOTC will have more than replaced the sales lost to the 4e die-hards, and those will have to have come from elsewhere – in other words, be fans recaptured from other market segments. Anything better than a break even represents a success.
With Pathfinder supplements now out-selling 4e, the next benchmark has to be reclaiming the lost number one slot – not for the core rules, or even the first extra-game supplement or two, but with the third or the fourth. Sustained good sales will indicate that they have not only recaptured lost market share, they have recaptured the loyalties of those gamers. Achieving this will state that the new game is on a solid foundation.
Beyond these minimum standards, any improvement has to be considered a noteworthy success, and the sky is the limit.
And, if they are less than completely successful?
An awful lot will depend on WOTC’s unreliable – to say the least – love/hate relationship with third party publishers. Driving them off was literally the killing the goose that layed the golden eggs, causing a dramatic decline in public acceptance of 4e. Consider that every 3rd party product not only mandated the sale of copies of the core rules from WOTC, but provided free advertising for the official product; and, by refreshing and invigorating the market, kept demand for WOTC’s own products high. If DnDNext is to have any serious hope of exceeding those bare minimum standards of success, they must recapture the attention and affiliation of third party publishers. This is one promise that they have made to the market in general, but we are – quite obviously – a long way short of seeing any details as yet.
The first indicator of how well WOTC think they have done will be those detailed licenses. If they have backslid into the arrogance of old, these will be deeply restrictive and DnDNext will be dead in the water, awaiting only the last rites. If these are less than generous, but still workable, then the question of ultimate success will linger, unanswered, until the game actually goes on sale; but it will show some hesitation and uncertainty about their success. But if they are as generous and open as the original OGL, then it will show two things: that WOTC have, indeed, learned from the mistakes of the past, and that they are genuinely confident in the success of their product.
The Message For Now
The point that I am hoping to get across right now is that it is far too early to be passing judgment. DnDNext is still a work in development; it cannot be measured against finished products, for this is holding it to an unfair standard. And, if we don’t know what it is that we are judging, it is impossible to predict how successful it will be in the open marketplace. It is fair to predict that WOTC’s rivals will not let go of their market share without a fight – but a single misstep in that defense will have massive repercussions. All we can say for certain is that exciting times for the gaming industry lie ahead…
So, getting back to the question at hand
“Old-school” gaming can mean many things to many different people. To those viewing it with a negative perspective, it’s easy to accentuate the negative connotations of the term. To those viewing it with a positive disposition, it is all too easy to see only the beneficial aspects that have become muted or lost in recent generations of game. The term itself is so general that it can be twisted to whatever meaning the speaker desires. It is therefore neither good nor evil, neither positive or negative, but is the compound of many different concepts, each of which beings its own benefits and has its own price to exact. If the benefits outweigh the cost, then it is a positive contribution; if not, then the concept should be abandoned.
This is where the lessons learned in more modern gaming times have their part to play. It may be that the price that in the past was associated with a given benefit is no longer mandated, that we have found a better way to achieve an end. It may, in short, be possible to salvage that which would otherwise be abandoned. The second question that must be asked in the design process is whether or not something should be salvaged just because it can be. For those expecting any one game system to be all things to all gamers, they are doomed to be disappointed.
The ambition of uniting the best of the past with the lessons of recent times is a laudable one. But those who focus on the negatives are actively undermining the prospects of success, poisoning the atmosphere with small-minded criticisms that are unworthy of them, and of the ambition itself, whether out of pettiness, or bitterness, or resentment; mistrust, or ill-will, or vanity; genuine concern, or sincere doubt, or peer pressure. It is good to be ambitious, and to attempt to create something that is better than what has gone before. They may fail, but if they do, at least I will be able to say that it was not because I undermined their attempts at doing so. The next time you sound off about the difficulties faced by the designers at WOTC, whatever you may think of them personally, pause for a moment and ask yourself whether you are really saving “roleplaying as we know it” by doing so. In years to come, will you really be proud of your behavior? Will you remember with pride the support you gave to the ambition, regardless of the outcome? Or will you remember being a naysayer, a critic, a cynic, a prophet of doom – an enemy of the goal of bettering the roleplaying game?
Regardless of the success or failure of the endeavor, I can be proud of the part I’ve played in the attempt. Can others say the same?
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
August 13th, 2012 at 10:01 am
Got to say that I agree. DNDNext will live or die depending on how WOTC treats third party publishers.
Chuck recently posted..Dresden Files: The Sad Tale of Chickenfoot
August 13th, 2012 at 11:09 am
Re: “produced Pathfinder and Savage Lands and all the other variations”
What is Savage Lands? That’s not an RPG title I ever recall hearing of before.
August 13th, 2012 at 11:57 am
@Kerry Harrison: I’ve probably misremembered the name in my haste to get the article finished – I was running late today :(
August 13th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
“But there were always those who resented the power of the GM over the rules, who demanded to be able to know where they stood, who wanted everything in black and white.”
Two out of three aint bad. I didn’t resent the GM for their power, I just wanted a solid basis to play from. I’ve been burned by some DM’s who had a big problem with ruling consistently off the cuff. Many of them were great DM’s in other ways – making great stories and characters, they just weren’t good at coming up with rules on the fly, and thus the laws of physics kept changing in their worlds. It wasn’t all of the DM’s, but enough that I developed a reaction against it.
As a DM, I know this is one of my flaws. With a lighter set of rules I don’t have the context to make a quick ruling that I’m confortable fits well with the other rules.
Still, I realize that this is my personal bugbear. I may not like certain styles of games, but that doesn’t make them evil. If you and your group are happy, more power to you.
As for 5e, My reaction so far is “meh”, but I know this is just a fraction of an early iteration. I’m definitely looking forward to seeing more information as they go through playtest rounds.
August 14th, 2012 at 3:21 am
Your attitude seems to be exactly what I think is correct for this point in the development process, Philo. And, while you didn’t resent the GM’s absolute control over the game, others did have a problem with that.
August 13th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
Nice article. I think you did a great job outlining some of the history of the game and viewpoints held by the fans.
“But the serendipitous result was a huge mass of third party material that contributed to making D&D 3.0 the biggest game in town, and a huge success for them. So much so that WOTC was bought up for even larger sums of money by Hasbro”
I’m pretty sure that D&D has never been more than a drop in the bucket compared to the license to print cash that Magic the Gathering represents. I suspect that and the success of the Pokemon card game was what interested Hasbro more than the D&D franchise.
August 14th, 2012 at 3:17 am
Entirely possible, Eden. But the Pokemon was also a mere drop in the bucket compared to the success of Magic, coming as it did at a time when everyone seemed to be jumping on the CCG market, which was rapidly oversaturated. But I’m sure that having what was undoubtedly the most popular product in a hugely resurgent market (the tabletop rpg market) did not hurt, either – especially since 3.0 had raised the production values and hence production costs out of the ballmark compared to other game products. But sales of 3.0 were spread out over time; the anticipation was that 3.5 would sell at a huge rate from word one. I’m not sure that WOTC would have had enough funds on hand to cover the up-front expense of production, had they not been bought out; I expect that would have played a part in the decision, as well. In the end, like it or not, Hasbro bought WOTC, that’s the bottom line – and moved the ownership of the game one step further removed from the fanbase and one step closer to a corporate mindset.
August 14th, 2012 at 4:07 am
Great summary. I was never a die-hard D&D follower, but I do like it just fine. I found the early editions of D&D to be clunky and amateurish–no nostalgia for me there at all. I started running a Pathfinder game right and have come to understand the dislike people have for how rules-heavy (rules-bound) it is. What I’m looking for in 5E is not so much a return to the past but a break to a new future. I want a version which combines the best of all the past editions in a cleaner, more streamlined package. An example might be the Old School Hack rules. Those are simple and fun, like the old editions, but incorporate ideas from the d20 and 4E eras.
August 14th, 2012 at 4:50 am
@E. Wilson – I think it’s entirely fair to describe older versions of D&D as ‘amateurish’; AD&D in particular was state-of-the-art when it was released. Looking at any era of game design with rose-coloured glasses produces misjudgements. To render a fair assessment you have to acknowledge what it was that was worthwhile in those older systems, without the prejudice of nostalgia or the bias of “its newer so it must be better”. That said, what you say you are looking for is exactly what they say they are trying to achieve.
August 14th, 2012 at 6:06 am
What a shame – I started reading thinking this was going to be a really interesting exploration of the term ‘old school’ as it applied to D&D. Turns out it’s just another anti-4E screed. To give it its due, when it does eventually return to its topic, it’s pretty interesting.
August 14th, 2012 at 10:10 am
I’m sorry you were dissappointed, Eric W. I tried my best to give a balanced view and not to be mindlessly negative. I’m the first to admit that what 4e seeks to do, it does fairly well – it’s certainly the most mechanically balanced and sound version of D&D, from everything I’ve heard. The problems with 4e are two-fold; the first is that WOTC blundered with its marketing and turned a lot of people away that weren’t interested in throwing away hundreds or thousands of invested dollars. Released simultaniously with the 4e core books, and with a less shortsighted (ie less draconian) policy toward 3rd party manufacturers, a lot of the resulting negativity could have been avoided. That’s not 4e’s fault, that’s management and editorial policy gone awry. The second problem is that of necessity, some of the flavor of the earlier generations was lost in achieving that mechanical soundness, some of the scope for independant creativity; it felt and sounded too much like a boardgame to me and to many of those I know. In short, the price was too high. The big mistake here was ignoring the playtesting that would have revealed the way some people felt about this, and once again, the negativity could have been avoided, and the system tweaked that little bit more to keep most potential players happy; but, once again, a mistaken editorial and management policy (and WOTC have admitted it was a mistake, and a divisive one) brought about a hostile reaction. In other words, I think that 4e’s problems have very little to do with the actual system, and an awful lot to do with business mistakes. That doesn’t sound very anti-4e to me. Anti-stupidity, maybe.
August 14th, 2012 at 6:29 am
This is a great article. I have to say that so far I love the new Next. My biggest problem with the latter DnD’s is that each one has somehow gotten away from the gritty feel I could get from Advanced. I hated 4th edition. I played it once and thought that it made it a good combat simulator for maybe an anime game,but it didn’t feel like Dnd. They really did let the rules take over the game in the 3rd edition too. Of course it may be nothing has changed. The problems with 3rd never really manifested until somewhere between 9th and 12th level. So I am holding my final thought until the play test for those levels. In short old school gaming would be a more gritty human factor for me. I know we are talking about a system, but the system should facilitate the environment not act separately. So far I think Next is doing it and that to me feels like Old school.
August 14th, 2012 at 10:21 am
Funny you should say that, Jim, because while I like and play a lot of 3rd Ed, and had liked and played a lot of AD&D, that was exactly my feeling about 2nd Ed – it just felt mechanical and lifeless to me.
My Fumanor campaigns were originally designed and intended to be AD&D campaigns; my players persuaded me to go to 2nd Ed before play started. Dissatisfaction with the ‘grittyness’ led us to translate the campaigns (very briefly) to Rolemaster; then, about when 3.5 first came out, I finally got a set of 3.0 core rules and took the plunge to update the campaign to that system. For reasons of clarification of spell descriptions, I then made the decision to upgrade that aspect of the campaign (but ONLY that aspect) to 3.5, and we played in that configuration for 5 years. Only when the current sequel campaigns got started did we move to full-blown 3.x – about the time that 4e first came out.
Of course, my campaigns tend to run to epic levels, and high epic levels at that – I’ve seen a 75th level PC in one of them – which brings a whole lot of pressures to bear that standard 1-20th don’t face. But I havn’t really experienced any particularly unique problems between 9th and 12th level.
For those with open minds, there is a lot of hope for what DnDNext might eventually become. At least Wizards have admitted past mistakes and are trying to do better this time – and for that they deserve kudos, no matter how successful they are at meeting those expectations and fulfilling that promise.
August 14th, 2012 at 11:20 am
I don’t think you meant to bash 4e, but it could come across that way. There has been so many volleys in the edition war that some people are very sensitive.
The perception of negativiy comes from a lot of little things. Like assuming that most people who like more structured rules resent GM’s that like more control. I know a lot of people who prefer more structured rules and I can say that it’s more based on playstyle and consistency. Heck, I prefer more structured rules as a GM. That preference can’t come about out of resentment. I’ll admit that there are some people that do have resentment, but implying that everybody feels that way is an poke that detracts from your message.
Other phrases can tend to make it look more negative than you intended. Each one isn’t too bad on it’s own, but when you accumulate everything, it adds up.
“Full of Mea Culpa’s for past sins (and rightfully so)”
“Old doesn’t mean it’s bad”
“New doesn’t mean it’s better”
“At some point, an invisible line was crossed, and the game design priority became about putting the published rules ahead of the unrestrained creativity of the GM.”
You metion only one benefit to 4e and express it in a very qualified manner. On the other side you talk about the “wonderful sense of freedom” around D&D and AD&D.
August 14th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
@Philo: Good points. The column was written as a reaction to a lot of comments I’ve seen lately that diss the entire concept of DnDNext and the older generations of game, and in particular the levels of control that they gave the GM. My objective was to show that there is more to “old school gaming” than those narrowly-cast negatives.
I certainly did not intend to imply that everyone with a preferance for a more structured rules set was uniformly negative – and I would think that my earlier response to your comments on the column demonstrated that. But those who do so and demonstrate that preferance as a negative attitude towards anything else are missing the point, and raising empty objections that are ultimately poisonous.
“Full Of Mea Culpa’s for past sins (and rightfully so)” – I stand by this. It’s not a reflection on the game system, but WOTC made serious misjudgements that alienated people. Now they have realized the error of their ways, or so they claim, and are trying hard to do better this time around – genuinely, so far as I can tell. Anyone nursing a grudge over such misdeeds has to be careful not to let their opinion of the game system be biased.
“New doesn’t mean it’s better” – this section was originally titled “Old doesn’t mean it’s better” and was intended to be a counterpoint to the previous section. But funny things happen when you structure your comments to provide some sort of narrative and conceptual flow, and it was easier (and quicker) to retitle the section.
As for the final point – I make no bones about the fact that I don’t play or GM 4e, and am hence not qualified to leap to its defense. I mentioned the primary benefit that I’m aware of, qaulified because I am not speaking from first-hand experience. Everything I have seen and heard concerning the system tells me it’s the wrong game system for my campaigns – but I certainly make allowance for the likelyhood that it does suit other people’s campaigns. Good luck to them, I’m glad they have a system to use that suits the play style and GMing style they want in their game.
The point is that both have something to offer, and those judging DnDNext against the same standards as a finished product – whether they are complaining about the old-school bent or the mistakes of 4e – are substituting bias for fair judgement. WOTC are copping it from both sides, and don’t deserve the vehemence directed their way from either camp, especially when one side is wilfully mistating the objectives of the current project in order to support and justify their case. It’s like saying “Farmer Brown will never grow a nice orange because I don’t like the grapefruit he used to grow.”
It’s the doomsayers and nay-sayers of both sides that the article is intended to rebut. Those who are willing to wait and see – no matter how they think it will work out in the end – have nothing to apologize for, regardless of which side of the street they are camped on.
Mike recently posted..What does “Old-School Gaming” really mean, anyway?
August 14th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
As one of those involved in the old school gaming movement I am not sure that grognards are ‘pining’ for anything. We have enough retro-clones and original material for decades of gaming.
I am not concerned about WotC ‘pandering’ to me because I am already covered (plus I have written a blog for over three years with new gaming material – so I have, and provide to, the community all the time).
I do appreciate games like Pathfinder (not all of us old guys are edition war fans – I am not – any edition that your group enjoys is the right one for you) and I hope that DnDNext does cover 0E to4E and everyone can join, but really, if not I am fine with that as well.
My take on ‘What is old School gaming?’ is this: http://ancientvaults.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/one-page-oldschool-primer/
bät recently posted..[New Magic Item] Birdhouse Staff
August 14th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
@Bat: Exactly the attitude that I hold, and hope to encourage – but, sadly, see all too rarely. We don’t need edition wars that achieve nothing but a demonstration of immaturity. And the “What is old-school gaming” post is excellent!
August 15th, 2012 at 4:24 am
I think it’s probably true to observe that “old-school” gaming has a very freewheeling sensibility to it, and as Philo Pharynx observes that certainly isn’t for everybody. I’ve heard some old-school pundits describe later editions of D&D (and most other RPGs) as being designed “to protect players from bad GMs” which I think is an unfair characterization. As Philo points out, there are some perfectly good GMs who just prefer a more structured system.
I don’t really think WotC have anything to gain by “pandering” to the old-school movement, for most of the reasons Bat outlines: the old-school movement is well served and I sincerely doubt any oldschoolers will abandon OSCRIC, Labyrinth Lord or for that matter actual OD&D for D&DNext unless it does something very, very special (and since a major feature of the oldschool movement, as I understand it, is making stuff up yourself, I’m not sure how it would be possible for a published product to support making stuff up yourself better than stuff you have, well, made up yourself).
Dan H recently posted..Hordes of the Things! Further thoughts on Deathwatch
August 15th, 2012 at 7:38 am
@Dan H: I would actually accept that one of the design objectives was “to protect players from bad GMs”, having seen some apalling ones in my time, but – as you say – that wasn’t the only source of motivation, and certainly isn’t the reason most GMs who like modern systems do so.
I actually don’t think WOTC are “pandering” to the old-school movement at all, though that is the accusation that is often being levelled at them at the moment.
I can offer one potential enhancement, though, that might entice some of the acute old-schoolers into DnDNext’s corner: modularity. If it is easier and more successful to integrate home-brew rules into the game system, it might be a success on old-school terms on it’s own merits.
August 15th, 2012 at 4:27 am
Good article with a lot of strong points, although I have to say the first portion did come across as being a bit anti-WotC at first. I’m not an experienced 4e DM by any stretch of the imagination, but I think a couple of the key strengths of 4e was how quick it was for new players to pick up (the core rules felt more consistent and easier to extrapolate), and how easy it was to DM. It had its problems, too – but it’s clear from my group’s experiences that all systems do.
Having initially been excited about D&Dnext, then sceptical, I’m gaining a renewed interest – Mike Mearls seems to be making the right noises at the moment. Obviously we’ll only really be able to tell when we’ve used it in a real game for three months or so.
However, what really lifts my spirits is the fact that we have other story-focused games springing up: 13th Age (http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=8354) gave our group some new-found freedom in players & DM collaborating together to create a world, and Monte Cook’s Numenera is doing exceptionally well on Kickstarter at the moment (http://kck.st/O61qCH).
I don’t see these as competitors as such – I see them as a sign that the market is still healthy, that there’s a renewed interest in story alongside good mechanics and a streamlined DM experience, and that people still want to play pen-and-paper RPGs. I’m looking forward to seeing what’s to come in the next year or so.
August 15th, 2012 at 8:10 am
@SteveM: I’m not someone who believes WOTC can claim to have done no wrong! I like to think I have a more realistic perspective than that.
I remain excited and enthusiastic about what they are trying to achieve. They may not succeed, but if they do, we all win by gaining a stonking new game system. What I don’t want to see are the chances of success made any worse by the distractions of unfair criticism. People should judge it when it’s finished, not when it’s still in the preliminary design stages!
One of the beliefs that I hold is that when D&D does well in the marketplace, it benefits the hobby generally. Part of the reason is that it attracts new players, some of whom go on to purchase product from other manufacturers and try other game systems, and part of it is because sucessful D&D’s happen, generally, at a time when the industry is healthy anyway. But every time I mention that, I get a heap of people jumping on me saying ‘no, no, no!’. Nevertheless, the examples you cite are encouraging if only by virtue of the second factor.
August 15th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
I enjoyed reading this article.
Does anyone have a link to an official current summary of their design goals? I’d like to find out their visions for the player and DM experiences with Next.
Johnn recently posted..Issue 520 – Killer Campaign Management
August 15th, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Thanks Johnn. I’m not aware of such a summary, but the EnWorld article by Morris http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/316036-off-see-wizards-day-wizards-coast-showed-me-d-d-5th-edition.html spells them out more clearly than anything else I’ve read – and I’ve read a lot on the subject!
Mike recently posted..What does “Old-School Gaming” really mean, anyway?
August 17th, 2012 at 5:00 am
[…] exactly is “Old School Gaming”? I always suspected I knew, but Mike Bourke @ Campaign Mastery has done a great job of summarizing the high points to clarify things a bit. Ultimately, “old school” is […]
August 21st, 2012 at 6:11 am
The same problem happened at my old church. The older people wanted things to return to the ways of old. The younger people wanted to press onward in their tastes. End result, old people won, and the young people went elsewhere.
So the question for edition wars is, is it generational? I have found with my gaming friends (of diverse starting points), that for most gamers, their first edition is their favorite. There is something about one’s first rule set that just clicks. If there is validity to it, is it really best to shoot for one game to rule them all, or perhaps in a culture where everyone has their own playlist, we must come to grips with an iPod style of game distribution. Certainly WoTC is already realizing this by re-releasing 1st edition D&D. Effectively, there is a market for it. Yet, the same product appeal may not appeal to a younger generation that consumes vastly different media content, different storytelling styles, etc.
We all want something to call our own, the question as Mike stated so eloquently is whether WoTC will be a company to embrace licensing to support it.
What if WoTC opens licensing for 1st Ed, AND Next?
August 21st, 2012 at 9:07 am
I don’t think it can be generational as we normally define the term. Perhaps if a generation was defined as an edition of a game, it might be, but I think it is overgeneralizing the situation, viewing the phenomenon from the standpoint of a single game system. Many gamers play multiple different games with different game systems, quite often abandoning the first game system that they played entirely – switching from D&D to GURPS or Hero or any of a number of game systems. One of my friends started with D&D but found his true love in terms of game system with Ars Magica.
I think that each player finds certain aspects of each game system that appeal to them more than others, and eventually they find a single system that has more things they like than they dislike; that system becomes their favorite.
Consequently, when exposed to any new edition, the natural tendancy is to compare the new edition with the previous one, and if there are more aspects that appeal, it is considered a step forward by that player – but if there are fewer, the new edition is not welcomed by that player. And whenever you have the capacity for a difference of opinion about something people care about, you have the basis for an edition war. Most are quickly and decisively settled because one group will outnumber the others; but in the case of the 3.x vs 4e edition wars, the new game was a sufficiently radical departure from the old that adherants were split; and WOTC made some PR mistakes of disastrous proportions that drove further wedges between the two subcommunities.
Yes, there is still a small market for 1st edition. And there is even an outside chance that WOTC will open licencing, or partially open licencing, for 1st ed. But I don’t think it will make that big a difference if they do. The critical question is will happen with regard to what WOTC (for business reasons) hope will be the future of roleplaying games, and what will probably be (by virtue of market share) be a significant player in the history of RPGs and those third-party licences.
Mike recently posted..By the seat of your pants: the 3 minute (or less) NPC
August 21st, 2012 at 9:50 am
@Matt, some people are the kind to play their original game for decades, but it’s far from universal. My first game was Red Box basic D&D, but I currently play Pathfinder, 4e, Fortune’s Fool, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, Scion, And a game that is rotating through different systems (d6, Cortex, NWoD, d20 modern, True20). (some of these are online) In the past, I’ve played and enjoyed many other games as well, 7th Sea, Feng Shui, Shadowrun (2/3/4), OWoD (Changeling, Werewolf, Vampire), Gamma World, V&V, Aeon, Aberrant, M&M (2/3), BESM (2/3), WEG Star Wars, WotC Star Wars, GURPS, HERO, and a couple of homebrew systems. Heck, I’ve even run H?l.
If I play too much of one system, I start to get really annoyed at the flaws that are too big to easily house rule. I need to get away from those rules and see something new.
August 21st, 2012 at 9:52 am
Hmmm… I guess it doesn’t like the extended character set. That was HoL. And even now I’m remembering other game systems. I need to stop or I’ll be commenting forever.
January 28th, 2014 at 12:56 am
[…] It’s my contention that RPGs have emulated the drive toward Relevance, and Realism. I’ve argued in the past that the early games were more frivolous, and more freewheeling – more about fun – refer, for example, to What does “Old-School Gaming” really mean, anyway?. […]