As long as we are talking hypothetically...

[M.L. Martin]

Wasn't there also a "satanic panic" going on over D&D at around the same time period, or slightly later?

Same thing, actually. I've just done some date-checking:
Egbert disappeared in 1979.
Rona Jaffe published "Mazes and Monsters" in 1981.
The TV movie of M&M came out in 1982.
Bink Pulling committed suicide in 1982.
"The Dungeon Master," the book of the James Dallas Egbert investigation, came out in 1984.

I think one could make a solid case that the 'peak year' of 1982 may very well have involved external circumstances that can not and should not be reproduced.

 

[ggroy]

Same thing, actually. I've just done some date-checking:
Egbert disappeared in 1979.
Rona Jaffe published "Mazes and Monsters" in 1981.
The TV movie of M&M came out in 1982.
Bink Pulling committed suicide in 1982.
"The Dungeon Master," the book of the James Dallas Egbert investigation, came out in 1984.

I think one could make a solid case that the 'peak year' of 1982 may very well have involved external circumstances that can not and should not be reproduced.

In an alternate world where there was no Egbert/"satanic panic" during that time period, wonder if TSR would have faded away into obscurity much sooner. The early 1980's recession was really nasty, with double digit unemployment rates in some places.

 

[AllisterH]

To be fair, pre 3e that same fighter would have been rather more vulnerable to pure damage from Mister Mage, as your hit dice (and hence Con bonus) stopped increasing at 9th (or was it 10th for fighters?) level. Although since nearly everything had lower hit points, this wasn't anything that made fighters any weaker. And you weren't anywhere near as vulnerable to most other magic, and kept up pretty will with other classes in NWPs which gave some useable non-combat abilities.

Exactly.

But where did this notion come from that a mid to high level fighter would be scared of the mage casting charm person on him? It certainly wasn't backed up by the pre 3.x rules - which according to some- are simulating the world.


re: 1982
Yeah, looking at it now, D&D's peak year corresponded to the year that it was "rebellious" to play D&D among the younger crowd. Without that, it might not have gotten as popular...

 

[avin]

I had a lot of fun with AD&D computer games (Planescape, BG, IWD), but almost zero fun with tabletop 2E.

I had less fun with 3.5 computer games, granted that Troika rules and Toee is excellent. Lots of fun on tabletop.

I'm having lots of fun with 4E tabletop, waiting for a PC game version and have hope that 5E fix the part I don't like: 4E fluff.

What this has to do with the topic? The fact of how D&D players are different. Some are eager to see new editions and some don't want to see nothing new produced by Wotc.

To OP:

1. Very likely, 5 - 6 years, I think.
2. As a company I like Paizo a lot. Love their game mats and their fluff, but I hope they get rid of Pathfinder in future and start a new own system. My 3.5/Pathfinder time has passed.
3. 3.5 is alredy shrinking and slowly taking the way of 2E and 3E.
4. Very likely... but I like OGL a lot and would like to see OGL games in the future.

 

[M.L. Martin]

In an alternate world where there was no Egbert/"satanic panic" during that time period, wonder if TSR would have faded away into obscurity much sooner. The early 1980's recession was really nasty, with double digit unemployment rates in some places.

I'd call it probable--I've heard rumors that TSR nearly did go under shortly after 1982, with DRAGONLANCE essentially saving the company.

 

[ggroy]

I'd call it probable--I've heard rumors that TSR nearly did go under shortly after 1982, with DRAGONLANCE essentially saving the company.

I remember during that time period, arcade video games were very popular too. If I had never came across D&D at the time, I probably would have spent ALL my cash on arcade games in those days.

 

[Dausuul]

...comment on your response to the following scenario:

1. 4E is successful, maintains itself as the top selling and most played RPG, and runs 8-10 years in its current direction before being replaced by a 5E even less like previous editions
2. Pathfinder tapers off after a successful launch by 3PP standards, and achieves a stable presence on par with True20 or Mutants and Masterminds.
3. The 3.5E playing community shrinks over time until its on par with people playing previous editions.
4. OGL based gaming begins a slow decline, with the big names soldiering on and fewer and fewer new products being released.

Insufficient data. 5E being "even less like previous editions" could make me ecstatic or angry depending on how it is "less like previous editions."

For the rest, a resounding shrug. It's all pretty much what I expect to happen. My belief is that tabletop gaming as we know it is on a long slow slide; the next breakout RPG hit is going to be a tabletop/computer hybrid, combining a "virtual tabletop" with automation of the bookkeeping elements of the game. Wizards is clearly angling to make DDI into this, but I'm dubious about whether their tech department is up to the challenge.

(Or, more accurately, whether they're willing to commit the resources. They made a success of Magic Online, so clearly they have the wherewithal to make such things happen, even if it means bringing in contractors; but the way the DDI has been languishing suggests to me that it's not a high priority at WotC. I'm just as glad. Better to have a new player come in to shake things up; let WotC play catch-up, if they can.)

 

[BryonD]

Allister,
I don't feel picked on in the least.
I agree with your assessment of pre-3E D&D.
I thought D&D was awesome when I first found it as a kid, but I quickly left it when better games came along. I have no loyalty to the name.
Make no mistake, the pure concept of D&D was ground-breaking and the genius of that alone may be greater than any other advance since then.
But other advances have been built on that since then.
I think requiring validation of old D&D as a standard now is pointless.

The vacuum tube was a great invention. I don't use those any longer either.

I came back to 3E not because it was the new edition of "D&D" but because I honestly found it to be a huge advance in pulling together great ideas that had already been developed in other games.

I was responding to the assertion that the math of 3E not working as it does in 4E somehow being a bad thing. I think it is very important to keep that context in mind. As I see it, 4E is built to be a perpetually fine-tuned balanced conflict resolution system and 3E was built to be character modeling system. Are those things mutually exclusive? Hell no. But the difference in emphasis is striking.

Why do you think I don't expect character to become more "metal"? High level 3E characters are vastly more resilient in all ways than low level 3E characters. The difference is there is a much richer range of strengths and weaknesses. Even if "weakness" is a relative term.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not about to hold my tongue and not disagree with somebody just because I'm supposed to "play nice".

When you signed up for an account on EN World, you agreed to the rules. Rule #1 is "Keep it civil". So, you gave your word.

I am sorry if you find that too restrictive, but it is how things are done here. There are other sites that allow for other forms of discourse. I suggest that you turn to them for your less-than-civil desires.

 

[AllisterH]

Why do you think I don't expect character to become more "metal"? High level 3E characters are vastly more resilient in all ways than low level 3E characters. The difference is there is a much richer range of strengths and weaknesses. Even if "weakness" is a relative term.

I consider them idiot savants.

I despise the notion that a high level character is as good as he was at 1st level in skills and that he actually becomes WORSE as he levels.

Pre 3e, characters as they level at the least, stay constant or improved their skills, whereas in 4e, we have fighters being SIGNIFCANTLY WORSE at level appropriate encounters and paladins actually being less knowledgeable in interacting with the world as they make their way into the world.