WotC didn't necessarily save D&D

[GreyLord]

I agree with PJ's post. (I'd give XP, but evidently I need to spread it around before giving it to PJ again) I voted that WotC didn't kill it, but they didn't save it either.

The "Dungeons & Dragons" name is such a well-known brand that even people who don't know what an RPG is have heard the name "Dungeons & Dragons". I don't think the game was really in any danger because someone would have bought the rights to the D&D brand and kept the game around in some incarnation. If it wasn't WotC, it would have been someone else.

WotC didn't really "save" D&D because there was never any real chance of D&D going away as long as table-top RPGs are financially viable. D&D was never in any real danger... except for the possibility that someone would buy the name and use it for a game that wasn't really D&D. (and some people feel this is what WotC did, but that's a whole different discussion...)

That actually brings something interesting up, which most people DO NOT KNOW.

I don't know if even WotC realized at the time there were more players in the game vying to get D&D at it's downward spiral.

You're right, if not WotC, someone would have gotten the D&D license eventually.

The wondering is what would have happened if that occurred, it's something I've been pondering a little bit recently.

Some players are still in the game, and would reprint D&D. They don't have enough money for Hasbro...yet. Either that or Hasbro/WotC will do a reprint...or simply not allow for it.

Point blank though, almost positive it would have been reprinted as either 1e or 2e by someone, if any doubts, just look at what people attempted to do with OSRIC, and that's not even official.

So, thus far the thread hasn't cast any illumination on that entire scenario.

Financially what occurred was good for WotC. If WotC hadn't gotten the game though, I wonder what would have occurred.

Someone would have gotten the license, though they may have sat on it for a while. Or it could have gone to Knights of the Dinner table for a penny at auction (or any number of others). That probably would have brought a MORE SERIOUS version of Hackmaster than what came out (license issues forced them to basically do a parody instead of straight up hardcore game). Others were in the fold though, more wolflike and ready to devour the corpse, more probable they would have gotten the eventual AD&D license instead. They would be the more serious contendors who would be after D&D and not have it as more of an after thought. Some probably already had their own RPGs...

And in that case very well may have simply sat on it without releasing it until the past five years showed it could be profitable again, or at least not impact other game sales.

No OGL would exist however. No D20. Game Evolution as it's occurred would not have happened.

Is that bad? Is that Good?

So far most have ignored these items and concentrated more on what already occurred rather than the what if.

Currently, AD&D had the same fate as it would have immediately after a TSR buyout/auction which means, AD&D as a system is no longer in print.

It may be sometime soon though I imagine, depending on what plans unfold over the next few years. Could even be in Ebook format.

Will it sell though, and would it be worth it to WotC?

Oh well, off topic of this specific thread.

 

[MerricB]

IIRC, Hasbro was one of the big players looking at TSR when it was going down.

Funny how things turned out, but having Wizards in there beforehand was significant to how it was handled.

Can anyone confirm this? I think it was in some post of Ryan Dancey's...

Cheers!

 

[doctorhook]

Gotta say I'm not sure what the heck this poll is trying to discover. Were you expecting more WotC-hate? AD&D is out of print, but still active. Meanwhile, new versions of D&D are pulling in new players. TSR was destroying D&D in pretty much every way by the mid-90s--that much is a matter of public record.

 

[doctorhook]

Also, FWIW, I'm not at all convinced that an official AD&D reprint is at all necessary, nor even desirable for the community. There are some solid 3PP retro-clones, some very, very similar to the original, that serve AD&D players now in a way that WotC can't and won't; republishing AD&D could confuse consumers and split the market for D&D products from the "official" publisher. By having 3PPs publish AD&D retro-clones, AD&D is on the market for players who want it, and yet doesn't conflict with the main brand of D&D. It might sound like a crappy deal to an AD&D fan, but this way consumers get the best of both, and the hobby continues to grow.

 

[I'm A Banana]

4E is a bit of black sheep, as many people really don't like it (as it actually has removed some features from 3.5). I have no idea if this happened when 3e came out, as i wasn't really in the roleplaying scene just yet. I'd like to know, though.

The answer, at least from my view back in 97-2000, was sort of.

[sblock=Aside]
AD&D had been an mostly-dead horse for a while by the time 3e came out. The people who were still buying books were not buying very many. TSR had big fat ugly political and financial problems eating it alive, aside from middling sales. The existing fanbase was on the slim side.

3e was a pretty big change from AD&D, but by that point, there hadn't been a new "edition" for quite some time, and the age of the game was clear to most anyone who was playing. Very few people were playing the RAW, and while that was something of an advantage, WotC saw a game that would fix the problems of D&D's mechanics, and keep the important game elements of D&D.

So there was fury at the changes, but the fury wasn't quite as vehement or long lived. A lot of folks had problems with AD&D 2e -- it's hard to find many folks who prefer that edition. Most are 1e fans who were still playing 1e. A revision, bringing back some 1e elements, and keeping the same core game, was pretty broadly welcomed.

Not everyone liked 3e, because there were some radical changes, but more people liked it than liked 2e in 2000 at any rate, and the game grew.

4e exists in a different time -- the internet hate machine is more efficient now than it was in 2000. 3e had more fans than late 2e did. WotC had made such a good system that it was hard to see 4e as an improvement for some. It is likely that those people who had serious problems with 3e were a smaller crowd than those who didn't. The OGL allowed 3e (and other e's) to compete directly with 4e, rather than being forced to change. Given the PATHFINDER book sales, I think we can say that 3e is at least AS popular as 4e is right about now. 4e was in many ways a much bigger gamble than 3e was. Depending on the ultimate success of 4e, 5e may be an equally big gamble. Or it may be more like 3e was: coming into a less popular edition, restoring lost things, and picking up steam.

But 4e is (and 5e will be) dealing with different problems. The 2e -> 3e transition was shaky, but not quite as toxic. It could be any one of a thousand reasons, though. It could just be that 4e's improvements are harder to see. It could just be that a worldwide economic clusterflub puts everyone in the mood to be angry at something (in which case, WotC should go on a hiring spree so that people can afford its books ). It's not really a fair comparison.
[/sblock]

 

[Dire Bare]

Nevermind . . .

I find the OP's message confusing and kind of pointless . . . but can't construct a longer post that doesn't make it worse.

 

[delericho]

Thanks to Wizards and the OGL, we now have retro-clones of all the old editions. These are legally (and freely!) available, and probably always will be - long after Pathfinder 1e and D&D 4e cease to be published.

So, yeah, WotC not only saved D&D as a brand, but they saved the game for all time.

 

[Jhaelen]

D&D's a bit like Pink Floyd.

There was a first incarnation, with TSR D&D cast as Syd Barrett-era Floyd. Then just before the second album (edition), suddenly they decide they can no longer work with their main songwriter and change direction. You get Waters-era Floyd, which remains popular but fragments the original fanbase.

Interesting comparison. It fits the D&D situation even better if you consider that (according to pretty much every account I've read) they didn't 'suddenly' decide they couldn't work with Syd anymore. This wasn't a decision, it was the only choice they had to accomplish releasing a new album.

WotC _did_ save D&D. About the only argument you could make is that if WotC hadn't saved D&D someone else would probably have done it. Personally, I feel WotC actually did a good job in saving D&D.

 

[havard]

Things could certainly have turned out worse than they did.

-Havard

 

[Mallus]

Nevermind . . .

I find the OP's message confusing and kind of pointless . . . but can't construct a longer post that doesn't make it worse.

It wasn't pointless. The point was to be uncharitable towards WotC and deny them the credit they're do.

Full disclosure: I'm currently not playing/running a WotC game (on to Paizo and TSR).