TheRPGSite

I was 3 at the time, but...
 
 D&D is the 800lb Gorilla - but what if something got in there before it really hit?

What game System+Setting do you think would have given AD&D a run for its money back in the day?

 Given an equal level of promotion could another system have claimed the crown?

  Or did the D&D brand have enough traction back then to take on all customers?

 To clarify: What System + a Fantasy setting could have done the deed.

Please, no mentions of d20 or any such derived games.


.

This isn't going to go well at all.

I'd like to think TFT (http://rdushay.home.mindspring.com/Museum/Fantasy/TFTrevw.html) would have had a chance. A little more polish to the system, setting and presentation, plus a lot more promotion, and had been out earlier, it might have fared better, at least. Maybe if it came out as an RPG first and the skirmish game was supplemental.

Oh, and I think that 1979 was probably already to late.

I dunno, Tunnels & Trolls?  

More straight-forward mechanics, no funky dice, and its tongue partially in its cheek.  I think it might'a had a shot.

FATAL? :haw:

Given that 1977 was the original release of Star Wars and it immediately had a big following, I suspect that the West End Star Wars game could have given it a run for its money.  

In reality, the West End Star Wars RPG came out in 1987 -- four years after the release of Return of the Jedi, and thus was on the tail of the franchise.  Despite this, it was extremely strong.  In the Wizards of the Coast 1998 survey, they found that the West End Games Star Wars RPG was still the #3 game after D&D and Vampire -- with over 21% of gamers playing it at least monthly.  Note that this was after West End Games lost the license and declared bankruptcy; and before the release of The Phantom Menace in 1999.  

In 1979, the production values and streamlined mechanics of the Star Wars RPG would have made a big splash, whereas they were non-revolutionary in 1987.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I dunno, Tunnels & Trolls?  

More straight-forward mechanics, no funky dice, and its tongue partially in its cheek.  I think it might'a had a shot.

Um?  T&T was already out for four years and into its third edition in 1979.

I know it's a hypothetical question...but I don't think it's that simple.  D&D was the right kind of game (an offshoot of Wargames, the prime geek hobby) for the right kind of people (a new generation of young wargamers getting into the Lord of the Rings) at just the right time (when the idea of reenacting military battles was becoming old and the younger generation desired more fantasy and science fiction).

So yeah, it's nice to think that a more polished system would have changed the course of the hobby...but in reality, it probably would have done so for the worse.

Personally, I think history played out about as good as it could.  The early days weren't so much about having a great game system...it was about expanding on those core ideas and concepts in OD&D.  If there would have been a game system that was more complete and polished, much of the early creativity, that lead to all the cool things our hobby became, would never have happened.

IMHO, everything went well.  The more refined Basic D&D might have been a little better from the start...but I stick with my assessment that OD&D was the best possible game to kick off the hobby we know and love.

Quote from: jhkimUm?  T&T was already out for four years and into its third edition in 1979.

I think the OP meant 74

Quote from: jhkimGiven that 1977 was the original release of Star Wars and it immediately had a big following, I suspect that the West End Star Wars game could have given it a run for its money.

Definitely.  

If I.C.E.'s Middle Earth Role Playing System (1984) had been published in 1978, and been competing on the shelves with AD&D, I think it could have beaten it out given similar advertising budgets.  The D&D audience was still Tolkien-biased enough for the license to steal away massive numbers of D&D players.

Quote from: grubmanI think the OP meant 74

Why do people waste time with these gedanken excercises?*

* Says the guy who built his rep on alternate history and SF... :D

I'm sure if Your Favorite Game was released first, it would earn just as much venom as D&D, and there would be just as many folks wondering "What if D&D Came out first instead of Your Favorite Game?"

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceWhy do people waste time with these gedanken excercises?*

Cause it's fun!  The same reason people correct someone when they use a word wrong :p

gedanken: A hypothetical (“thought”) experiment which is possible in principle and is analyzed (but not performed) to test some hypothesis. Also known as thought experiment.

Since this hypothetical question is impossible to actually test...it's not gedanken...I think!  

:killingme:   That was fun!...just so you know, I had to look up gedanken...so your smarter than me anyway...but, it was still fun.

Or maybe I don't know what I'm saying...:P

Here's a reverse idea...

If Dungeons and Dragons had come out with 'D&D Space', 'D&D Detectives' etc (instead of seperate, incompatible games), could it have had a monopoly of all genres?

Actually, I just realised your hypothetical situation isn't hypothetical, it did happen in some non-English speaking countries: in Germany, das Schwarze Auge (a bit like a combination of Basic D&D and Tunnels and Trolls), and in Sweden Draker och Demoner (RuneQuest with a fair bit of D&D).

RaHoWa!!!!!

(no, not really..)

Quote from: JaegerI was 3 at the time, but...
 D&D is the 800lb Gorilla - but what if something got in there before it really hit?

What game System+Setting do you think would have given AD&D a run for its money back in the day?

If it came out at the same time : Warhammer FRPG

Regards,
David R

I think that if Avalon Hill or SPI would have produced an rpg quickly after D&D came out, they would have been able to take the market away from TSR.  I know I resisted trying D&D simply due to my loyalty to AH games.  Because of that I bought AH's Magic Realm before I thought to buy D&D.  If that would have been a real rpg, AH would not have lost so many of their customers to TSR.

Ralph Bakshi insists that Star Wars coming out just a couple weeks after Wizards, elbowing it out of theaters is the reason he's not bigger than Disney now.

Just sayin'.

Ha. That's just sad.

Quote from: grubmanI think the OP meant 74

Yeah, I guess I was thinking, "If X came first, what would X have to be to challenge (A)D&D?"

D&D? Is that that northern-euro fantasy variant of Mazes & Minotaurs?

Quote from: stu2000Ralph Bakshi insists that Star Wars coming out just a couple weeks after Wizards, elbowing it out of theaters is the reason he's not bigger than Disney now.

Just sayin'.

Yeah, well Bakshi is a whiner - okay?

Wizards is good - but not that good.


- Ed C.


(Note to Ralph: Stop being so damn obvious with the rotoscoping!!!!
 Also , that over-use of stock footage that gets drawn or painted over?? It doesn't make you look artsy - it just looks like you got lazy or your drawing hand is hurting)

Quote from: KoltarYeah, well Bakshi is a whiner - okay?

Wizards is good - but not that good.


- Ed C.


(Note to Ralph: Stop being so damn obvious with the rotoscoping!!!!
 Also , that over-use of stock footage that gets drawn or painted over?? It doesn't make you look artsy - it just looks like you got lazy or your drawing hand is hurting)

That was actually Stu's Point, Ed. Your irony detector seems stuck lately. :D

-clash

That and Wizards is made out of suck. suck and stock footage, anyway.

Quote from: Age of FableActually, I just realised your hypothetical situation isn't hypothetical, it did happen in some non-English speaking countries: in Germany, das Schwarze Auge (a bit like a combination of Basic D&D and Tunnels and Trolls), and in Sweden Draker och Demoner (RuneQuest with a fair bit of D&D).

That's the type of thing I'm talking about.

Oh, and I do mean 79', the beginning of AD&D. I don't think I've ever personally seen brown or white box D&D.

Even today everyone agrees AD&D didn't have the most coherent rules-set.

 I think a fantasy game that was "Tolkienesque" With a modern designed rules that worked under a unified mechanic could have pulled an upset.

 The suggestion of the StarWars RPG was a good one - if a fantasy version of the system was put out at the same time, with a Middle Earth license, it might have done big things.

Or at least I think so. But I could be wrong.

Do any of you "old timers" think that D&D just had too big of a presence at that point to be toppled even back then?


.

(My cred: started with White Box no later than '77, eagerly bought AD&D as it came out over '78-'79.)

Yes, it had too big of a presence. It was a phenomenon in the wider culture. People knew what D&D was; they'd never heard of anything else. A while back I was searching a periodical database and came across a 1982 ad in the NYT for Twining's Tea. Samuel Twining writes in the ad,

QuoteThrough your lively response to Twinings advertising, you have taught me a good deal about how Americans like their tea.

How, for example, you frequently choose tea for your traditional American 'coffee break.' How people prefer it for gracious entertaining--and quiet moments. How you find that Twinings teas lend a certain elegance whenever they are served.

Why, I've even learned that a pot of Prince of Wales is the very thing for a game of Dungeons and Dragons™. Here I had thought it was my own private potion to dispel the doldrums of a dreary day!

(Aug. 8, 1982, p. SM49)

I also found articles about the D&D phenomenon in articles in the NYT as early as 1979.

I don't really think the game owed its success to the details of its rules. Personally I thought there were other games with better rules such as TFT, RQ (although RQ was too far from generic or Tolkienesque fantasy), and a little later, Dragonquest. D&D had good and bad points, but most important was that it popularized the concept of using some rules for what was, essentially, playing pretend, along with the idea of using a GM to allow flexible action ("you can do anything"). As a crusty old grognard, I can't help but note that the vast majority of people who flocked to RPGs in the late 70's were very different from us anal-retentive wargamers. They didn't care about rules, they cared about inspiration. AD&D had that; it was fundamentally simple in its core operation; much of the complication was in the form of special rules for specific spells, items, and monsters that would only be introduced on an as-needed basis. The incoherent bits didn't matter because the game was playable as a set of optional expansion rules for D&D, to be used or ignored as desired by the GM.

I started at around the same time Elliot, maybe 78. I dunno, blue box, red dragon. PHB came out not long after... I think.
And I completely agree.
I'd heard of D&D long before I played it. I didn't know wtf an RPG was but I did know that there was something called D&D and I wanted very badly to play it.  As much as I dug Star Wars back then, I was really all about wanting to be Bilbo*, and within seconds of seeing my friend's D&D box I knew it could happen.





*I know, I know. How fucking sad is that? I was like 11. Now, think about the geekiest thing you've ever wanted. Yeah, whose the dork now?

I actually have Prince of Wales (TM) in the kitchen.

Nobody will care to believe me, but that Deluxe Traveller box wowed me even more than D&D. Still does. So the real mystery to me is why Traveller didn't blow the Elves and Owlbears out of the water back then, and why to the present day I've been surrounded by ignoramuses who fail to see its resplendently ascetic beauty.

One can speculate. Why not jump in with both feet? Okay...

Let's not worry about Trav being a few years after D&D.

Why not Traveller?

1. Traveller isn't Star Wars. It isn't spiritual. It's capitalistic.
2. Traveller doesn't have nearly the unique snowflake potential of D&D. You are some dude. Your best years are behind you. You will not improve via increase in your personal ability, but by making money and buying stuff.
3. Ultimately Traveller is for grinds who enjoy procedural flowcharts and operations research.

My vote goes to The Shadow of Yesterday.
It is simple, you can do anything with it and it has an excellent setting.

Another thing is that, from memory (of the 80s rather than the 70s), having simple rules wasn't universally considered a good thing. I've only read Hackmaster, never played it, but it seemed to me like it was meant to be "someone from the 80s' idea of what would make D&D better" - more detailed combat results, extra stats etc.

Quote from: Age of FableAnother thing is that, from memory (of the 80s rather than the 70s), having simple rules wasn't universally considered a good thing. I've only read Hackmaster, never played it, but it seemed to me like it was meant to be "someone from the 80s' idea of what would make D&D better" - more detailed combat results, extra stats etc.

Detailed rules are fine if you want to create a niche hobby which is dying 30 years later - well at least the industry of it.
For mass appeal the rules have to stay simple. D&D might be the king of the RPG market, but that is like being the king over a single backyard.

I think it's possible that some other game might have beaten out D&D for the top spot in the rpg market.  However, I don't think a "unified mechanic" is what would have allowed a game to do so.  Think back to the first rpgs you bought.  Did you buy them because of the mechanics?  I didn't.  I bought them because they looked freaking cool (TMNT) or I already had played a friends copy and knew they were freaking cool (D&D).  In both cases, it took us quite awhile to actually play by the rules in the book.  Through our misreading, skipping over stuff, adding in rules from different editions, and just making stuff up, even if the game had a perfectly unified mechanic to start with we would have screwed it all up.  

In my opinion the search for a game with mechanics that perfectly suit your desires, is something that an rpg player comes to later in his gaming "career".  For the hypothetical proposed, that wouldn't really apply.  The longest anyone had been playing rpgs for in '79 was a few years, and to take over the market you'd primarily be targeting new players.  Something with a big licence- Star Wars, LOTR might have given D&D a run for it's money.  If I'm not mistaken, TMNT was the 2nd most sold game for awhile when it came out in the 80's.  

Which is more likely to get a 14 year old kid to buy some new game:

A) A game where you only have to use 1 type of dice that has "elegant" mechanics.

B) A game where you can be a jedi!

hmmmm...now that I think about it- one game that would have had a shot...

ENCOUNTER CRITICAL!

Quote from: Elliot WilenI can't help but note that the vast majority of people who flocked to RPGs in the late 70's were very different from us anal-retentive wargamers. They didn't care about rules, they cared about inspiration. AD&D had that; it was fundamentally simple in its core operation; much of the complication was in the form of special rules for specific spells, items, and monsters that would only be introduced on an as-needed basis. The incoherent bits didn't matter because the game was playable as a set of optional expansion rules for D&D, to be used or ignored as desired by the GM.

Pretty much sums it up. D&D was a pop culture phenomenon. It had lots of things going for it that you couldn't really capture in another game. Mainly, it was the pseudo-generic fantasy stylings, the progression of your character from zero to hero, and the dungeon/labyrinth setting itself.

Don't underestimate the importance of the latter. D&D's growth from '77 onwards came mainly from 12 to 17 year olds. Those kids weren't looking to tell epic stories involving intrigue, twisting plotlines, and cosmic struggles; most 15-year-old DMs aren't even capable of running that sort of game.  But the dungeon labyrinth is the perfect setting for the broad market D&D attracted; a magical, scary, channeled locale where the players explore, fight, and loot.

D&D's popularity wasn't about escalating hit points, descending armour class, or quirky saving throw tables. It was about dungeons. And the notion that as your character got more powerful, you could go into deeper dungeons and eventually fight a dragon.

and be Bilbo.

Quote from: wulfgarIn my opinion the search for a game with mechanics that perfectly suit your desires, is something that an rpg player comes to later in his gaming "career".  

Yep. Most of my group are lifelong casual D&D players who have no interest in finding the optimal system to suit their game. In fact, when I even bring up the matter of using a different system or seriously house-ruling our game, they just look at me as though I'm maybe getting a little too serious about these games. It's not that they have mastered and love the rules to D&D - they just figure that good enough is good enough. This is supposed to just be a casual passtime, right?

And these are the same guys I played with when we were 13 years old - at the peak of D&Ds popularity. Back in those days, there was no interest in turning the game into the kind of mechanical exercise we hated in school. We weren't geeks (not in the loving numbers and analysis sense). So coherent or incoherent rules, didn't matter to us. We just played our bastardized, streamlined version of the game. As did the dozens of other kids in our school who played D&D.

I think if Traveller had come out a little bit later and been more obviously Star Warsy nobody would even remember D&D nowadays.

Quote from: AosI started at around the same time Elliot, maybe 78. I dunno, blue box, red dragon. PHB came out not long after... I think.
And I completely agree.
I'd heard of D&D long before I played it. I didn't know wtf an RPG was but I did know that there was something called D&D and I wanted very badly to play it.  As much as I dug Star Wars back then, I was really all about wanting to be Bilbo*, and within seconds of seeing my friend's D&D box I knew it could happen.





*I know, I know. How fucking sad is that? I was like 11. Now, think about the geekiest thing you've ever wanted. Yeah, whose the dork now?

It's not sad, Aos.  OK, maybe it's sad, but you were not alone. OK, maybe you were alone in a strictly physical proximity sense, but not spiritually. OK, maybe...oh nevermind.

Point is, I could have written this (except I didn't want to be Bilbo) about my introduction...

The point everyone is missing who is desperately trying to show off their D&D-hate by participating in this thread, is that any of those other games (Star Wars, LotR, etc) only came to exist because of the popularity of D&D.

There could have been no other "game that started it all" besides D&D, no matter how much some people might wish it so.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jrientsI think if Traveller had come out a little bit later and been more obviously Star Warsy nobody would even remember D&D nowadays.

See, now this always cracks me up. No offense, j, but you're essentially saying "If this game came out at a different time and wasn't the actual game that came out..."

Seems at best it belongs in your category of Ridiculous Hypothetical Theatre.

Quote from: Age of FableHere's a reverse idea...

If Dungeons and Dragons had come out with 'D&D Space', 'D&D Detectives' etc (instead of seperate, incompatible games), could it have had a monopoly of all genres?

Now see, here's a far more interesting question, one that isn't based on D&D-hate, and that would be worthy of its own thread.

RPGPundit

Quote from: stu2000Ralph Bakshi insists that Star Wars coming out just a couple weeks after Wizards, elbowing it out of theaters is the reason he's not bigger than Disney now.

Just sayin'.

Yeah, but what this bozo thread is trying to argue isn't even that!  Its not "could something that came out earlier have been as successful" (which is easily deniable, because as it did come out earlier, you can show that it was obviously unable to compete), but "could some product that came out LATER have been as successful"?

They're not asking "could Wizards have been more popular than Star Wars".
They're asking: "could Battlestar Galactica have been more popular than Star Wars if it had come out first?"; which is an utterly bullshit question because the ONLY reason BSG even existed was because it was an utterly derivative imitation of Star Wars.
Its a nonsense argument that serves only to highlite one's whiny hatred for D&D.

RPGPundit

In 1979, it's concievable for other "derivative" games to be competing with D&D.  It's not only concievable, it happened.  As was mentioned T&T was already around.  Personally, I've played D&D more than any other rpg and I really like it a lot, yet I found this an interesting question.  No D&D hate here.  Can't speak for anybody else.

speaking of pointless whining, has anyone read post 42?

Quote from: wulfgarIn 1979, it's concievable for other "derivative" games to be competing with D&D.  It's not only concievable, it happened.  As was mentioned T&T was already around.  Personally, I've played D&D more than any other rpg and I really like it a lot, yet I found this an interesting question.  No D&D hate here.  Can't speak for anybody else.

Competing, yes. But the very nature of their derivative style meant that none of them were going to outclass D&D.

I mean really, when you think about the games that were out there in 78 (before AD&D 1e), you had nothing at all that stood any reasonable chance of usurping the D&D throne. Most of them were made as blatant copies or even as directly supplemental material for D&D.
And the ones that weren't, like T&T or Traveller were, despite its fans wishes to the contrary, of much more limited appeal. On the one hand you had a game that was basically a joke, and on the other you had a game that was only for hardcore hard-sci-fi obsessives.

What most people have been doing in this thread is talking about games that came out YEARS LATER as if they would ever have been able to come out before AD&D 1e.  Only there is no way that there would have been a LoTR or Star Wars RPG before the runaway success of AD&D.

Sorry, but no matter how you cut it, no matter how much some of you wish it weren't so, the truth remains: Every other RPG in existence was a derivation of D&D and could not have existed without it.

I know some people desperately wish that Dogs in the Vinyard were more popular than D&D today, and want to imagine that if it had somehow come out in 77 or something like that it would have been obviously more successful, because they want to excuse its utter lack of popularity today on the shoulder of some pathetic and petty notion that somehow D&D's only virtue was being first. But the truth is that D&D WAS first, but it was also more than that, for a long time it was best, and even those other games that are great in their own right could not be what they are today were it not for the basic framework that Gygax invented.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe point everyone is missing who is desperately trying to show off their D&D-hate by participating in this thread, is that any of those other games (Star Wars, LotR, etc) only came to exist because of the popularity of D&D.

There could have been no other "game that started it all" besides D&D, no matter how much some people might wish it so.

RPGPundit

Damn dude, not everthing is an attack on D&D.

I think you are taking this silly hypothetical thread way too seriously.

Relax, your enjoyment of playing D&D will not be diminished by the existence of this thread.

And please read my origional post - I was talking about what type of RPG could have been put out in 79' that could have given AD&D a run for it's money. (given a comparable level of promotion)


.

Quote from: Age of FableActually, I just realised your hypothetical situation isn't hypothetical, it did happen in some non-English speaking countries: in Germany, das Schwarze Auge (a bit like a combination of Basic D&D and Tunnels and Trolls), and in Sweden Draker och Demoner (RuneQuest with a fair bit of D&D).

Yeah, examples of D&D getting kicked to the curb. But I wonder if that wasn't language barriers that actually gave them the chance over D&D?

As to the OP, I bet if 3e D&D came out from a different company it would have beat up AD&D/BD&D and stole their lunch money.  ((EDIT: Assuming that TSR couldn't get their crap together and answer, to keep the edge their early entry gave.)) But that's the thing. Part of it is learning through widespread use parts of what was royally f*cked in the original that helped (although still not reaching perfection of course). The list is probably really long, and quite possibly games that have a very different focus could have floated to the top (like WoD nearly did). :shrug:

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat most people have been doing in this thread is talking about games that came out YEARS LATER as if they would ever have been able to come out before AD&D 1e.  Only there is no way that there would have been a LoTR or Star Wars RPG before the runaway success of AD&D.

Sorry, but no matter how you cut it, no matter how much some of you wish it weren't so, the truth remains: Every other RPG in existence was a derivation of D&D and could not have existed without it.

You do realize my origional question is purely hypothetical, right??

Quote from: JaegerDamn dude, not everthing is an attack on D&D.

I think you are taking this silly hypothetical thread way too seriously.

Relax, your enjoyment of playing D&D will not be diminished by the existence of this thread.

And please read my origional post - I was talking about what type of RPG could have been put out in 79' that could have given AD&D a run for it's money. (given a comparable level of promotion)


.

Right. And the answer to your original question is "none".

But the thread quickly turned into a game of "let's pretend that RPGs didn't depend on D&D".

RPGPundit

not for those of us that were actually reading the posts.

Quote from: James J SkachSee, now this always cracks me up. No offense, j, but you're essentially saying "If this game came out at a different time and wasn't the actual game that came out..."

Seems at best it belongs in your category of Ridiculous Hypothetical Theatre.

I thought that was the game we were playing here, dude!  Seriously, I'm trying to answer the question in the OP and that's the best answer I can come up with.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOne can speculate. Why not jump in with both feet? Okay...

Let's not worry about Trav being a few years after D&D.

Why not Traveller?

1. Traveller isn't Star Wars. It isn't spiritual. It's capitalistic.
2. Traveller doesn't have nearly the unique snowflake potential of D&D. You are some dude. Your best years are behind you. You will not improve via increase in your personal ability, but by making money and buying stuff.
3. Ultimately Traveller is for grinds who enjoy procedural flowcharts and operations research.

El: sure, sure. It was a rhetorical question: How can one not see the utter superiority of 1 through 3 over Star Wars and D&D? :haw:

That said, re. 1 the dualism doesn't cut to the heart of Traveller, which is that it's the ultimate exploratory game. That sidelines the capital/spiritual thing. The flowcharts etc. can be embraced aesthetically. I have never once designed a Traveller vehicle. I understand they have lots of cathodes inside. But I love those DGP manuals, and I (or anybody) could do a passable techbabble imitation.

Quote from: JaegerI was 3 at the time, but...
 
 D&D is the 800lb Gorilla - but what if something got in there before it really hit?

What game System+Setting do you think would have given AD&D a run for its money back in the day?

 Given an equal level of promotion could another system have claimed the crown?

  Or did the D&D brand have enough traction back then to take on all customers?

 To clarify: What System + a Fantasy setting could have done the deed.

Please, no mentions of d20 or any such derived games.


.

NONE


There really wasn't a lot of "promotion".
The game had only been around for close to 5 years.

You were 3 yrs old then?  I was 14(15) around the year you suggest. I remember what teenagers were playing and talking about.


- Ed C.

Marvel Super Heroes or DC Heroes could have been a contender. Gamers like comics, right?

Regards,
David R

If your PoD (there goes one of those wacky alt-history abbreviations) .. Point of Departure is post 1974 I feel there are no plausible alternative to D&D being the market leader. This is because D&D was the first to market and the first to develop a network. So in terms of Pop Culture the RPG game will be D&D.

Now what could have been plausible is that TSR did not survive the initial dustup between Gygax and the Blumes. That AD&D doesn't get developed or subsequent products do get developed. If D&D had gotten tied up in a early split between the Blumes and Gygax then bad things could have resulted when the Pop Culture phase faded out.

However my impression the whole D&D craze was just money laying on the table. Even in the event of a protracted fight between Gygax and the Blume the whole thing of an outsider coming in like Williams would just happened earlier and D&D would have resumed it's marketing and development while the fight over the money continued.

A interesting whatif would be if Don Kaye didn't die or died later. Without the Blumes being in control what direction TSR would have gone.

Again any post 1974 PoD would have resulted in changes in TSR not D&D as a market leader.

Quote from: estarA interesting whatif would be if Don Kaye didn't die or died later.

Yeah, would the money or something else driven a wedge between him and Gary too? Or would they have avoided internal top-end squabbles and mismanagement that so plagued TSR. That would indeed be an interesting thing.

Although ultimately I suspect it was probably a good thing for D&D itself for the batton of handling the flagship rules to pass on from Gary.

I apologize there is a semi-plausible PoD that could have setup a rival to D&D.

In the early 80's Gygax traveled west to try to get a D&D movie. The PoD is that the arguments that lead to Gygax heading west were much worse and resulted in acrimonious split between him and the Blumes. He still heads west but hooks up with Lucas and is able to get a license for a Star Wars RPG in 82 or 83. The combination of his name and the Star War brand allows him to form a serious rival to TSR by the late 80's. TSR, under the mismanagement of the Blumes, is driven to bankruptcy and is bought out by Gygax who now controls the two most popular RPGs. In 1989, Gygax releases AD&D, 2nd Edition to critical exclaim.

Seriously now: I think the "Star Wars / Middle Earth RPG could have beat D&D argument" underestimates that part of D&D's strength consisted in being original rather than derivative.

Derivativeness (aka licensed RPGs) only set in with the second wave. Gygax, Miller, Stafford: they all dared to be hodgepodge. Rather than copying Lucas, they emulated him.

Because intuitively they knew that not only is being somebody else's imaginative beetch slightly lame, but also that a game is a game, a book is a book, and a movie is a movie.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityBecause intuitively they knew that not only is being somebody else's imaginative beetch slightly lame, but also that a game is a game, a book is a book, and a movie is a movie.

Yep. D&D was amphetamines for the imagination because it was D&D, and it wasn't Star Wars/ Lord of the Rings/ Conan, etc. It was both its own setting, and one that we owned ourselves. And even by the time we were 13, we would have been somewhat embarassed playing Star Wars. Not that D&D wasn't embarassing, but it felt a lot cooler when we played sword-armed marauders looting dungeons that we created (or were at least new to us), than playing out Han and Luke rescuring Princess Leia. Even when we played with Star Wars figures in elementary school, we quickly ditched the Star Wars characters and universe to make our own stuff.

Quote from: mhensleyI think that if Avalon Hill or SPI would have produced an rpg quickly after D&D came out, they would have been able to take the market away from TSR.  I know I resisted trying D&D simply due to my loyalty to AH games.  Because of that I bought AH's Magic Realm before I thought to buy D&D.  If that would have been a real rpg, AH would not have lost so many of their customers to TSR.

Personally I think this is the most interesting "what if...?"

It took AH until when, 1983 before they got an RPG out?  SPI was a bit faster (1980?), but even then they were slow off the mark -- the big names (and TSR, the biggest of them all) were already firmly entrenched by that point.

Right, it's not so much that D&D *wasn't* Conan, LotR, etc., but that it *potentially was* any or all of these (and that, by being all of these, was something new), and that the exact mix was the decision of the gaming group.

I played D&D for over a decade before I read my first fantasy novel. One or two members of my group had read LotR, but none of us made the connection. D&D and LotR were simply two completely separate things.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityRight, it's not so much that D&D *wasn't* Conan, LotR, etc., but that it *potentially was* any or all of these (and that, by being all of these, was something new), and that the exact mix was the decision of the gaming group.

I played D&D for over a decade before I read my first fantasy novel. One or two members of my group had read LotR, but none of us made the connection. D&D and LotR were simply two completely separate things.

I read LOTR ect.. about six months before first contact, so I did make the connection- but i was the only one of my firends who read for pleasure, and I never even met anyone (aside from best friend's dad) who had read them until college (the first time I went, in the middle eighties).

So essentially, I think you are completely fucking correct.

I think there are two kinds of rpgs based on licenced properties:

Type 1: A game that either has the players running the main characters of the source material (Luke, Han, etc in SW for example) or being relegated to sideshow status and overshadowed by those real heroes of the universe.

Type 2: A game that uses the license to help sell itself and establish some context of what type of universe the campaign world is, but that centers the game around the players own original characters.  

In my opinion type 1 games set themselves up for failure- players don't like having to run someone else character or being overshadowd by NPCs and GM's don't like being held hostage to "canon".

Type 2 games are where a licence can really shine.  TMNT&Other Strangeness is a great example. Sure, there were stats for the turtles in the book, but no one I ever knew used them.  They made up their own characters and did their own thing.

Quote from: wulfgarType 2 games are where a licence can really shine.  TMNT&Other Strangeness is a great example. Sure, there were stats for the turtles in the book, but no one I ever knew used them.  They made up their own characters and did their own thing.

TMNT&OS was, without a doubt, the shining example of how to do a license right.

-clash

Quote from: David RMarvel Super Heroes or DC Heroes could have been a contender. Gamers like comics, right?

I'm not sure what the market was like in 1979.  The Marvel Super Heroes RPG was also somewhat ill-timed in that Marvel Comics was having financial problems in the late 80s and early 90s, until it went into bankruptcy in the mid-90s.  However, they were still publishing comics all through the period, and I don't think there was a sharp problem period per se.  

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySeriously now: I think the "Star Wars / Middle Earth RPG could have beat D&D argument" underestimates that part of D&D's strength consisted in being original rather than derivative.

Derivativeness (aka licensed RPGs) only set in with the second wave. Gygax, Miller, Stafford: they all dared to be hodgepodge. Rather than copying Lucas, they emulated him.

Because intuitively they knew that not only is being somebody else's imaginative beetch slightly lame, but also that a game is a game, a book is a book, and a movie is a movie.

While I don't knock their originality, I don't think that this was particularly daring on their part.  Until there was a proven market for RPGs, no one had any thought about getting a licensing deal.  There were plenty of fiction authors writing Tolkien-esque fantasy with varying degrees of originality -- and most of those didn't try to use the term "hobbit" in their books.  

I don't play the West End Star Wars game -- I tried it at most once.  However, if it is a question of the market, I think it is clear it had one.  Like Call of Cthulhu, the West End Star Wars game proved itself in the market -- still being the #3 RPG played in 1998 according to the WotC survey.  This was despite a blindingly obvious external problem with its market, in that it came out four years after Return of the Jedi, and lost its license a year before The Phantom Menace came out.  It seems obvious to me that it would have done much better if it had come out while the original trilogy were still being released.  

Vampire, the #2 RPG, would not have done better in 1979 I think, since the goth trend was still in its infancy at that time.

Quote from: wulfgarI think there are two kinds of rpgs based on licenced properties:

Type 1: A game that either has the players running the main characters of the source material (Luke, Han, etc in SW for example) or being relegated to sideshow status and overshadowed by those real heroes of the universe.

Type 2: A game that uses the license to help sell itself and establish some context of what type of universe the campaign world is, but that centers the game around the players own original characters.  

In my opinion type 1 games set themselves up for failure- players don't like having to run someone else character or being overshadowd by NPCs and GM's don't like being held hostage to "canon".

Type 2 games are where a licence can really shine.  TMNT&Other Strangeness is a great example. Sure, there were stats for the turtles in the book, but no one I ever knew used them.  They made up their own characters and did their own thing.

Hm.  Amber seems to have a strong following despite frequent use and/or appearance of canonical characters.  Conversely, I've never heard of Han, Luke, etc. appearing in a Star Wars game (either D6 or D20).  

From my impression, licensed games where canonical characters regularly appear include Amber, Timelord, Marvel Superheroes, and DC Heroes.  

Licensed games where canonical characters seem more of a token include TMNT, Star Trek (in various incarnations), Star Wars, James Bond 007, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  

Licensed games where canonical characters are absent include Call of Cthulhu and Middle Earth Role-playing.  

I think the real problem is with how GMs and players regard canon, rather than with the game design per se.

I like the argument that Star Wars could have been a contender.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI like the argument that Star Wars could have been a contender.

Seanchai

Well, if you figure that the original D&D crowd (the crowd responsible for making it a success) were all wargamers, and D&D was simply an extension of wargames...Star Wars probably wouldn't have been a contender UNLESS something like the Star Wars Miniatures Battles game came out first (which incorporated a lot of role playing elements into the heroes) and then later, the actual role playing game came out as a extension of that game (instead of the other way around).

But, that's just my opinion.

Quote from: grubmanWell, if you figure that the original D&D crowd (the crowd responsible for making it a success) were all wargamers, and D&D was simply an extension of wargames...Star Wars probably wouldn't have been a contender UNLESS something like the Star Wars Miniatures Battles game came out first (which incorporated a lot of role playing elements into the heroes) and then later, the actual role playing game came out as a extension of that game (instead of the other way around).

But, that's just my opinion.

Your game sucks.

Quote from: grubmanWell, if you figure that the original D&D crowd (the crowd responsible for making it a success) were all wargamers, and D&D was simply an extension of wargames...Star Wars probably wouldn't have been a contender UNLESS something like the Star Wars Miniatures Battles game came out first (which incorporated a lot of role playing elements into the heroes) and then later, the actual role playing game came out as a extension of that game (instead of the other way around).

But, that's just my opinion.

I was thinking more along the lines of an existing fanbase. It seems to me - and this is just supposition on my part - that there were more Star Wars fans than wargamers.

If some game were going to supplant D&D, well, it couldn't compete on D&D's level. I mean, if we suppose that it was a combination on mechanics, genre, and concept that made D&D so popular, what game would be different enough to pull folks away from D&D? RPG mechanics are largely just RPG mechanics (particularly at the dawn of the industry), fantasy is the most popular genre, and games generally approach roleplaying the same way.

It seems to me that even if a Star Wars RPG were just like D&D in terms of mechanics, genre (yes, genre), and concept, it might be able to overwhelm it with sheer numbers of fans and players.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiIt seems to me that even if a Star Wars RPG were just like D&D in terms of mechanics, genre (yes, genre), and concept, it might be able to overwhelm it with sheer numbers of fans and players.

In that case, I'm glad it didn't come around till later.  I think the "Generic" games that started the hobby inspired a lot more creativity than those based on existing properties would have...but who knows.

Okay, so maybe not!

Playing Star Wars would have been seriously uncool for a 14-year-old in 1980. Star Wars was already a kids' franchise by then. D&D wasn't exactly cool, but it was peculiar enough that you would only be considered kinda odd for playing it, not the kinda immature dweeb who played the same games as the elementary school kids down the street.

Things were different back then. Just because people lined up to watch Empire Strikes back doesn't mean they would be caught dead playing a Star Wars game.

As luck would have it- I was 14 in 1980. My friends and I were still really into SW. Beyond that, the first campaign I GMed was a Star Wars hack of Space Opera and that was in 82 or 83 at the earliest. We were nerds, man. We did nerdy shit just like other nerds.

Well look here kids, I was 16, which you will agree is worlds apart from 14, and I considered SW unwatchable. Then again, chasing owlbears through dark hallways doesn't strike me as a more mature pursuit, and yet I was totally into it. It's a strange and fascinating world.

wow, you're totally old.

Like you aren't.

Quote from: Aoswow, you're totally old.

I was 25...

-clash

What do you miss most Clash, pong or mastadons?

What we think of as "geek subculture" was quite different in the 80s, and completely different in the 70s. There were no self-conscious geeks/gamers who had the complete assemblage of tastes which we think of now, e.g. Star Wars/Star Trek/comics/anime/D&D/cosplay/decorating your house with swords and pewter dragons. These interests existed, but it was all a lot less defined. (You might say it's ossified these days...)

And Star Wars was pretty uncool in the 80s - teenagers and young adults didn't really want to admit an interest in it. Those toys didn't become collectible until the 90s, in the mid-late 80s they were junk. So I don't think a Star Wars game would have swept the world in '78, and it didn't sweep the world in '87 either - it gained a lot of popularity with the Star Wars revival which I don't think really happened until the release of the retouched movies.

Quote from: HaffrungThings were different back then.

Yeah, you had no crack to smoke. How'd you come up with your crazy shit back then?

Quote from: HaffrungJust because people lined up to watch Empire Strikes back doesn't mean they would be caught dead playing a Star Wars game.

I can see how choosing to play an elf would be much, much cooler than choosing to play a Jedi.

Seanchai

Quote from: AosWhat do you miss most Clash, pong or mastadons?

If you've ever had mastodon steak, you'd know which... :D

-clash

Huh, I was 14 in '80, and like Aos, I thought SW was cool. Even my English teacher, who in retrospect was a bit of a nerd babe but probably too old for D&D, went to see Empire (but she didn't like the "twist").

I don't know how many of us would have--but in the late 70s or early 80s, I don't think my friends or I were roleplaying to emulate movies. Using a movie as scenario fodder was ok. But we didn't have any expectation that roleplaying was supposed to feel like a movie. That didn't prevent us from mashing up Arduin and Car Wars to get Mad Max, but I'm extremely dubious that a game based on a movie would have had any more fascination for us than D&D or Traveller.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHuh, I was 14 in '80, and like Aos, I thought SW was cool. Even my English teacher, who in retrospect was a bit of a nerd babe but probably too old for D&D, went to see Empire (but she didn't like the "twist").

I was *counts fingers and toes* 12.  I didn't get to see it. I didn't get to see Return of the Jedi in theatres either. Welcome to growing up somewhat economically challenged on a farm 8 miles from the middle of nowhere with a fairly puritan mother.  I did read The Empire Strikes Back in book though.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHuh, I was 14 in '80, and like Aos, I thought SW was cool. Even my English teacher, who in retrospect was a bit of a nerd babe but probably too old for D&D, went to see Empire (but she didn't like the "twist").

I never saw the original trilogy until I saw them on video tape - and I'd been reading SF since I was 6. My dad was a huge SF fan, and he saw StarWars in the theatres. I was too busy playing guitar and playing with groupies.

-clash

Quote from: DwightI was *counts fingers and toes* 12.  I didn't get to see it. I didn't get to see Return of the Jedi in theatres either. Welcome to growing up somewhat economically challenged on a farm 8 miles from the middle of nowhere with a fairly puritan mother.  I did read The Empire Strikes Back in book though.

My parents were asleep at the switch. I even saw Jaws while it was in the theater, and at least one Dirty Harry movie, too.

Nerds were readers back then. Everyone went to the movies. But nerds read books. Which was important for picking up D&D. Because it was . . . in books.

I had a point there somewhere. Something about how "geek culture" if there is such a thing, looked really different at the time than it does now looking back on it.

Quote from: AosMy parents were asleep at the switch. I even saw Jaws while it was in the theater, and at least one Dirty Harry movie, too.

I saw Jaws with my mom. And, somehow, Revenge of the Nerds. Can you believe it?

But to get back to the main point in a feeble sort of way, I don't remember if I had any interest, at the time, in playing SW in RPG form or not. Mainly I remember initially wanting to edit D&D into a simulation of Middle Earth, then realizing that it wasn't really configured for the sweeping epic--or at least I didn't care for the quest style of game, with a single enemy and world-in-the-balance.

Quote from: stu2000Nerds were readers back then. Everyone went to the movies. But nerds read books. Which was important for picking up D&D. Because it was . . . in books.

I had a point there somewhere. Something about how "geek culture" if there is such a thing, looked really different at the time than it does now looking back on it.

No, I think I understand. My idea of Space Opera used to be The Mote in God's Eye, but virtually everyone on the internet seems to think Star Wars or Babylon 5 when they hear the term. And all those "story games"--they're really movie games or TV series games.

On an unrelated note, the first R-rated movie I saw in the theater was Dawn of the Dead.

I didn't feel like seeing another R-rated movie for quite a while.

I saw that on my friend's mom's swanky top loadin' VCR! I really enjoyed it until they pulled the dude apart on the escalator and started eating his entrails.

When I think of space opera- I think of AE Van Vogt, Jack Vance,  Andre fucking Norton and Poul Anderson.

Well look, before Star Wars there were very few "A" science fiction movies. Very, very few of the "A" movies involved space travel in any significant way. 2001 is the only one I can come up with. The rest of the "A" SF movies are more dystopian/post-apocalyptic than star-spanning.

Star Wars almost certainly made the Star Trek: The Motion Picture possible.

Even now I'm not sure there has been a proper space opera in mainstream English-speaking film outside of Dune.

Forbidden planet (1956) is a fine  A SF/space movie, with a good cast, a good budget and some really good FX. I was going to say it isn't space opera, but it is, I guess. the presence of the vast undergound alien complex nudges it that way for me, anyway.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNo, I think I understand. My idea of Space Opera used to be The Mote in God's Eye, but virtually everyone on the internet seems to think Star Wars or Babylon 5 when they hear the term. And all those "story games"--they're really movie games or TV series games.

Lord! I hear you! SF is from books, not movies! Not TV! :D

-clash

I just finished reading "The War with The Rull" by Van Vogt last night.

Quote from: flyingmiceLord! I hear you! SF is from books, not movies! Not TV! :D

-clash

Now here's a challenge: Define the difference.

It's palpable, and it's vital. But explaining it would require exceeding the brain cell quota I have allotted to RPG-related thinking.

IOW, I got nothing.

All I know is that I'm reading the Demon Princes right now, and there is no RPG that remotely matches that. OK, Vance is Vance, you say. But even Asimov's Foundation--to get that right in an RPG takes much more than a couple setting tropes and a skill system. Or Nightfall. Holy cow, what a story.

There's one Traveller adventure by the Keiths, which somebody linked to a while ago--it's a free download on e23--that gets a first contact SO scenario right.

Re. van Vogt: I read that Null-A novel by him two weeks ago. Utter awesomesauce, I believe is the term.

Pierce,

 It definitely helps to have read Asimov, Van Vogt, early Robert Heinlein, Poul Anderson, Harry Harrison, Frederick Pohl...etc to "get" TRAVELLER.

I gew up reading that stuff , NOT Conan, Grey mouser, Narnia and the like. as a result TRAVELLER made sense to me pretty quickly.

- Ed C.

Vance can't be done, because people just aren't that witty, sadly.
Asimov's Foundation covers too much ground. You'd probably have better luck with a board game. As soon as you tighten it down to a particluar place and time and group of people it loses it's foundationess (for the best, imo).
Traveller could probably do Andre Norton, but you'd have to add in some energy weapons. The Last Planet, frex would make a great game.

It's funny that you mention this, because it's something my best friend (not much of reader until recently) talk about a lot. We've both run space games in the past, but his are always really, really star trek influenced whereas mine are more impacted by Vance, Van Vogt and Norton.
When people talk about Firefly (which I dig)= Traveller, Isee there point, but for me Postmarked the Stars= Traveller.

Quote from: KoltarPiuerce,

 Heinlein


- Ed C.

Traveller, the game of funky fetishistic and incestuous party sex in the far, far future. In the space everybody has red hair and is a lightning calculatin' free loving libratarian. in fact, if your hair isn't red- you probably are.

Quote from: AosTraveller, the game of funky fetishistic and incestuous party sex in the far, far future. In the space everybody has red hair and is a lightning calculatin' free loving libratarian. in fact, if your hair isn't red- you probably are.

I corrected my Heinlein reference. His earlier stuff is closer to TRAVELLER. Especially the Sci-Fi that he wrote for kids and about 50% of Starship Troopers is what inspired the merc stuff in TRAVELLER.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarI corrected my Heinlein reference. His earlier stuff is closer to TRAVELLER. Especially the Sci-Fi that he wrote for kids and about 50% of Starship Troopers is what inspired the merc stuff in TRAVELLER.


- Ed C.

No sweat, Ed, but I never ever pass up an opportunity to mock Heinlein. Ever. I like Red Planet, though. Willis is groovy.

Space Opera is E. E. Doc Smith doing Lensman and Issac Asimov writing as Paul French on Lucky Starr stories, its closer to its Pulp roots. Compared to that, Pournelle's CoDominion stories and Niven's Known Space are Hard SF.

And let's face it, Traveller borrows heavily from Niven & Pournelle - especially The Mote in God's Eye.

Quote from: AosForbidden planet (1956) is a fine  A SF/space movie, with a good cast, a good budget and some really good FX. I was going to say it isn't space opera, but it is, I guess. the presence of the vast undergound alien complex nudges it that way for me, anyway.

You know, I think I still haven't seen that one, or if I did it was on Creature Feature when I had trouble keeping my eyes open after midnight.

See it! It makes you realise how old Leslie Neilsen is. And what he looked like as a... um... "serious" actor.

I will. This thread made me go to Wikipedia and review the list of science fiction films by decade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science_fiction_films). A good number there that I'd like to see.

Forbidden Planet is one of the ten best Sci-Fi films ever, and it the top 50 best films of all time.  Absolutely brilliant.  Star Trek would not exist if not for this movie.  The final battle with the invisible creature being illuminated only by the shock fields is a special effect that stands up against the best of what's being offered today, and the plot -- liberally borrowing from Shakespeare's The Tempest -- is so much smarter and high concept that most of the drek that passes for sci-fi these days.

I wouldn't call it Space Opera at all though.  It's very much true Science Fiction -- with a plot driven mostly by the exploration of fantastic notion rooted in science -- in the same vein that Star Trek would later mine.

I wasn't using Space Opera as a pejoritive. And it does have some fuzzy super science- the Krell machines and what not. Otherwise, i agree with you completely. It is one of my personal top 10 and has been since the first time I saw it. It, imo, does Star Trek better than star trek of any incarnation ever did. I love the color. I love the space ship. I love the girl and the robot. I just dig the whole thing.

Space Opera means different things to different people. In addition, like "Hard" SF, the definition has changed over time, but people tend to carry their own definition without change, sort of like one's self image, crystalized in amber forever. People call games like Traveller or StarCluster "Hard," but they aren't at all anymore. By modern definitions, both are Space Operas.  

-clash

I don't really have a hard and fast definition- as is probably clear from my first post on Forbidden Planet. I'm not even certain that the term has anything more than minimal useflness, really.

Quote from: flyingmiceSpace Opera means different things to different people. In addition, like "Hard" SF, the definition has changed over time, but people tend to carry their own definition without change, sort of like one's self image, crystalized in amber forever. People call games like Traveller or StarCluster "Hard," but they aren't at all anymore. By modern definitions, both are Space Operas.  

-clash

I've read the modern definitions of subgenres in science fiction and I find them flawed, based on the current definition of Space Opera, everything written over five years ago can be classified as Space Opera because it isn't based on the latest science which also changes with time. Its a constantly moving goalpost.

Quote from: jeff37923I've read the modern definitions of subgenres in science fiction and I find them flawed, based on the current definition of Space Opera, everything written over five years ago can be classified as Space Opera because it isn't based on the latest science which also changes with time. Its a constantly moving goalpost.

And I wouldn't disagree, Jeff. I'm merely pointing out the current definition is not the one most folks know and use.

-clash

I was 6 in 1980.  So...distended reality, I guess.  That said, I'd've loved a Star Wars RPG in '80 as much I did in '87.

'Cause I'm a dork.

Jeff, that sounds like Space Opera defined by sniffy hard SF fans.

I basically go by the definition and pattern established (for the most part) in the anthology edited by Brian Aldiss, Space Opera.

But based on this article (http://www.sfrevu.com/ISSUES/2003/0308/Space%20Opera%20Redefined/Review.htm), I see that both are revisionist history and part of an ongoing struggle among the SF community to define itself.

The further off topic this thread drifts, the more interesting it becomes.

Quote from: flyingmiceAnd I wouldn't disagree, Jeff. I'm merely pointing out the current definition is not the one most folks know and use.

-clash

Please don't think I'm jumping on you about this, its one of my pet peeves and I may be sounding inordinately passionate because of that.

Quote from: Elliot WilenJeff, that sounds like Space Opera defined by sniffy hard SF fans.

I basically go by the definition and pattern established (for the most part) in the anthology edited by Brian Aldiss, Space Opera.

But based on this article (http://www.sfrevu.com/ISSUES/2003/0308/Space%20Opera%20Redefined/Review.htm), I see that both are revisionist history and part of an ongoing struggle among the SF community to define itself.

Bingo. I was remembering this article specifically when I posted, Elliot. Thanks!

-clash

Quote from: jeff37923Please don't think I'm jumping on you about this, its one of my pet peeves and I may be sounding inordinately passionate because of that.

No problem! I don't take internet ranting personally. I'm a writer/illustrator/publisher, and if I took even directed criticism personally, I'd be in sad shape, let alone non-directed criticism. :D

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenJeff, that sounds like Space Opera defined by sniffy hard SF fans.

I basically go by the definition and pattern established (for the most part) in the anthology edited by Brian Aldiss, Space Opera.

But based on this article (http://www.sfrevu.com/ISSUES/2003/0308/Space%20Opera%20Redefined/Review.htm), I see that both are revisionist history and part of an ongoing struggle among the SF community to define itself.

Hmm, good article. Gives me stuff to think about before bed.

See, in the anthologies There Will Be War and A Step Farther Out, Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven both discuss what thought processes went into The Mote in God's Eye (I think the article is entitled Building the Mote In God's Eye, I'll have to check). Its solid thinking based more upon sociology and physics than on a formulaic story designed to sell books.

Come to think about it, if I were to stretch the Space Opera theme to encompass Hard SF then the stories set in John Scalzi's Old Man's War universe fall under that category as well.

I'm going to bed and think about this some more.

Quote from: stu2000But we didn't have any expectation that roleplaying was supposed to feel like a movie.

That's okay - they still don't.

Quote from: stu2000...I'm extremely dubious that a game based on a movie would have had any more fascination for us than D&D or Traveller.

I can't speak to the thoughts of others, but I wasn't expecting Star Wars to poach D&D players. I was thinking it would turn more of the mainstream into customers or gamers than D&D did...

Seanchai

Quote from: Elliot Wilen3. Ultimately Traveller is for grinds who enjoy procedural flowcharts and operations research.

The operations research is really a very small part of Trav, otherwise the creator of Cyc, Doug Lenat, would have had more competition for his mighty wargame victory.

No, Traveller is for people who really, really enjoy counting in hexadecimal.

Gee, I just like rolling up shit at random and reverse-engineering explanations for it later (http://xbowvsbuddha.blogspot.com/2006/10/103400-f-ni.html).

Quote from: Dwight

Quote from: Age of FableActually, I just realised your hypothetical situation isn't hypothetical, it did happen in some non-English speaking countries: in Germany, das Schwarze Auge (a bit like a combination of Basic D&D and Tunnels and Trolls), and in Sweden Draker och Demoner (RuneQuest with a fair bit of D&D).

Yeah, examples of D&D getting kicked to the curb. But I wonder if that wasn't language barriers that actually gave them the chance over D&D?

No. The German situation had almost control group-like qualities.

• Both D&D (Mentzer Red Box) and Das Schwarze Auge appeared simultaneously in very similar packages, with basic boxed sets, at roughly the same MSRP.
• Both were published by respected game publishers: D&D by a subsidiary of ASS, the (then) leading card game manufacturer; DSA by Schmidt Spiele, a second tier board game manufacturer (with "first tier" being Ravensburger, Milton Bradley, Parker).
• Both had a professional distribution network that got them into toy stores and department chains. (FSV even distributed the US hardcover books of AD&D to Karstadt, a chain comparable to Sears.)
• Both immediately followed with modules that became common "must-play" experiences in their respective communities (Keep on the Borderland vs. Das Wirtshaus zum Schwarzen Keiler).
• During their first year both games published an almost equal number of supplements; an expert set and modules.
• Both games were supported by their own magazines. D&D received his translation of Dragon ("Drache"), a magazine with a color cover, hosting rules variants, new monsters, classes, a module, and prizes to win. DSA got a shorter, black/white, newspaper-style publication called "Der Aventurische Bote".
• (And both were written by the same guy. D&D was translated by Uli Kiesow before he wrote and sold his own game to Schmidt. Before that he had translated and published T&T as Schwerter & Dämonen under his own imprint, FanPro...)

I'd say that D&D still had the better launch point because
a) there already was a community of (student) gamers that used the English version of (A)D&D
b) the graphic presentation of D&D was more shiny
c) first D&D products had a better "bang for the Deutschmark", word count-wise
d) German D&D appeared three months before DSA
But in the end, DSA had the better (if somewhat accidental) marketing. While D&D didn't prohibit fan-authored work (and there were a lot of fanzines devoted to D&D, like Fantasywelt and Pläi Beck) DSA somehow managed to encourage its fans to be more active, and drew them into the fold of the editorial team. Anyone dedicated enough had a real chance of contributing to the setting, Aventuria, and getting published.

The situation got worse for D&D when TSR US took the localization into their own hands, with disatrous consequences (around the same time the magazine Imagine got cancelled in England, leading to an exodus of writers to White Dwarf and GW). Their comedic translation of the D&D PHB and DMG was a reason for much amusement and outright hilarity, but also the final nail to the coffin of D&D in Germany.

D&D stumbled from publisher to publisher. After the end of the FSV phase AD&D ended up at Welt der Spiele (the biggest RPG distributor), with TSR UK still holding the reins of the translation and editorial work.

Many years later, in the latter half of the nineties DSA was struck by two catastrophes: the death of Uli Kiesow and the bancruptcy of Schmidt Spiele. Both happened in the midst of a Dragonlance-like plotted campaign arc that was meant to rewrite much of the setting, Aventuria. For about six months it was not known where the license would end up - and when. The liquidator finally sold the license to FanPro but DSA had lost its wide spread distribution.

Two years later WotC bought TSR and the cards got shuffled anew. WotC has had good business relations with their MTG distributor, Amigo Spiele. Amigo published AD&D 2nd Edition.
But 25 years of DSA had put their mark on the way RPGs had to look in Germany: boxed sets. Amigo mirrored that aproach and split the content of the hardbacks into stapled booklets and put a box around them. Thanks to Amigo's distribution network and recognition (MTG and Pokemon) D&D was able to attack DSA. Amigo also published D&D3. Around 3.5 they gave the license to Feder & Schwert. After FanPro's almost-bankruptcy last year Das Schwarze Auge is also with a new publisher. (The editorial crew is still the same.)

Today, D&D and DSA are back where they began - at eye level, sales and market penetration-wise. Both are at established mid-to-top tier RPG publishers. By the end of this year both will be into their fourth edition. And the coming of D&D4 could be the event that might tip the scales for the first time in German RPG history in D&D's favour.

[Edit] December 2008: The performance of D&D4 is very weak in Germany, so it doesn't look as if my prediction will come true. Feder & Schwert just lost the license and the future of D&D in Germany is once again in the air. [/Edit]

So, to summarize, D&D and DSA started out on even grounds (with D&D being slightly better positioned).
Despite the fact that, in the first year, DSA had the weaker rules and presentation, DSA won the struggle through a combination of luck (on the side of Schmidt) and bad business decisions (on the part of TSR).
And D&D is only back in the saddle thanks to several events that crippled DSA.

Something like this could have happened to AD&D in the States as well, at several Points of Departures. It is not some quality inherent in D&D's design that makes the game the market's leader.
If it were, D&D would have taken the German market back in 1984 in a fell swoop.

 * * *

And while I am at it, one interesting potential Point of Departure in German RPG history:
D&D and DSA were so successful in their first year that the German branch of Parker was interested in entering the market as well. There was a small, convention-like, gathering of the leading RPG publishers, designers, and dedicated fans in 1985 or 1986. During that event the chief editor of the first semi-professional RPG magazine in Germany disclosed that Parker had approached him to design a "role playing game for the whole family", and he looked for playtesters of a system that used "colour dice instead of pipped ones (or polyhedrons)".

I still :banghead: for not raising my hand back then!

Obviously, the game was never published, but I wonder what could have been...

QuoteYou were 3 yrs old then? I was 14(15) around the year you suggest. I remember what teenagers were playing and talking about.

 I was 6, and I didn't play D&D yet. :( I remember kindergartners playing Dukes of Hazzard in the playground. It's just not the same. :(