WotC didn't necessarily save D&D

[Viking Bastard]

This may vary from place to place, but was absolutely not my experience (I started gaming in the late 80s and was heavily into gaming during the 90s).

I'm sure this varied a lot. This is Iceland, so make of it as you will. Also, RPGing (in any quantity) arrived later here (I'm not sure when exactly; I'd guess mid-to-late 80s), so TSR never garnered the same level of mind share.

There were die hard AD&D people, of course, but mostly among the older crowd.

It *is* pretty dominant now, though.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm sure this varied a lot. This is Iceland, so make of it as you will. Also, RPGing (in any quantity) arrived later here (I'm not sure when exactly; I'd guess mid-to-late 80s), so TSR never garnered the same level of mind share.

There were die hard AD&D people, of course, but mostly among the older crowd.

It *is* pretty dominant now, though.

Interesting (I didn't notice your location). Out of curiosity, how have 3E and 4E faired in Iceland? What about alternate systems (Savage Worlds, Basic Roleplay, GURPS)?

 

[DEFCON 1]

WotC is like a lifeguard who saved the kid and then tells everyone "He'd be dead if it wasn't for me", while ignoring the other lifeguards on duty who could have saved the kid if WotC didn't save him first.

We'll just ignore the fact that WotC has never claimed that they were the only ones capable of "saving" D&D.

 

[Umbran]

WotC is like a lifeguard who saved the kid and then tells everyone "He'd be dead if it wasn't for me", while ignoring the other lifeguards on duty who could have saved the kid if WotC didn't save him first.

Backing up DEFCON1 here - WotC doesn't claim it that at all. Go, try to find a quote where they do. I'm guessing you'll find none. It is we who say it.

And, how many others *might* have done the deed is not important. That there's 17 other firefighters on the scene doesn't reduce the heroism of the one who goes back in to get the kitten, does it?

Not that picking up D&D was heroism, of course. It is merely an analogy to illustrate the basic reasoning - WotC was in the right place, at the right time, with the right vision. Maybe others were, maybe they weren't, we will never know. That others might have should not reduce our appreciation of the ones who did. The one who actually takes the risk gets the kudos if it pays off, or the boos if it doesn't.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Interesting (I didn't notice your location). Out of curiosity, how have 3E and 4E faired in Iceland? What about alternate systems (Savage Worlds, Basic Roleplay, GURPS)?

I'm not sure about the current state of things. I got out of RPGing in the latter '00s and have only recently returned to the hobby. I've noted that both 4e and Pathfinder have a large presence, as does Spycraft and MnM, but I've yet to see anyone even mention Savage Worlds. GURPS also seems pretty dead, and the new WHFRPG is gaining traction. Exalted is fairly popular, but nWoD doesn't seem to hold up to people.

In the 90s GURPS was pretty popular, second only to WoD. Cyberpunk 2020, Shadowrun, Star Wars d6, Rolemaster and Call of Cthulhu also had a noticeable presence. But when 3e arrived, it was HUGE (huge in the context of Iceland's RPG community) and at the time I was fading out of the active RPG community, d20 pretty much dwarfed everything else.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Backing up DEFCON1 here - WotC doesn't claim it that at all. Go, try to find a quote where they do. I'm guessing you'll find none. It is we who say it.

Fair enough. WotC, to my knowledge, has never said directly that no one else could have "saved" D&D. They haven't, as far as I know, done anything to dispel the impression that they heroically stepped in and prevented D&D from going the way of the dodo. (nor would I really expect them to, since any business would want to portray themselves in the best possible light)

And, how many others *might* have done the deed is not important. That there's 17 other firefighters on the scene doesn't reduce the heroism of the one who goes back in to get the kitten, does it?

Not that picking up D&D was heroism, of course. It is merely an analogy to illustrate the basic reasoning - WotC was in the right place, at the right time, with the right vision. Maybe others were, maybe they weren't, we will never know. That others might have should not reduce our appreciation of the ones who did. The one who actually takes the risk gets the kudos if it pays off, or the boos if it doesn't.

I think we agree on the point that it wasn't really "heroism". That's the point I've been trying to make. One could just as easily say the WotC was opportunistic enough to scoop up the remnants of a dying competitor, which happened to include the #1 brand name in the RPG genre. The heroism angle, whether directly stated or implied, is just good marketing. (which one can't really fault a business for doing)

 

[Ulrick]

If you asked me this question in the early 2000s, I would have agreed that WotC saved D&D. But since then I've changed my mind.

The only great thing WotC has done for the hobby is the OGL. That's it.

Certainly, what they've done with D&D has made them money. But I'm no longer a fan of WotC, and I try to avoid buying their products. I don't like where they've taken the gaming hobby as a whole. They criticized TSR for churning out a lot of books, but then they do it themselves--especially with 4e. Its become more about churning out and much stuff as possible, rather than focusing on quality (or at least dump in a bunch of artwork and call it good despite like of content). Granted, in the last year WotC has changed their tactics and cut back.

But they've fed the beast, the insatiable gamers out there who burn through products in a "been there, done that attitude" rather than focusing on creativity. The D&D hobby is now more about character building, rather than creativty. This has been happening since 3.0. But 4e really caters to this attitude.

Fortunately, using the OGL some gamers have resisted. The Old School Renaissance is alive and well. Pathfinder, even though its mostly about character building too, is driven by earlier traditions.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Not really. TSR was bankrupt, so the kid (D&D) clearly wasn't going to make it on his own. WotC is like a lifeguard who saved the kid and then tells everyone "He'd be dead if it wasn't for me", while ignoring the other lifeguards on duty who could have saved the kid if WotC didn't save him first.

This is a bit of a misconstruction of the events that led up to the purchase of TSR. No one outside of TSR really knew at the time how bad off TSR really was. The original reason that someone from WotC went to the TSR offices was to talk to them about the possibility of TSR buying WotC out. It was only after the WotC rep found out about the real situation that WotC proposed to buyout TSR.

Oh, and by "clearly wasn't going to make it on his own", I'm talking about D&D existing as a commercial product. Even if it were discontinued, D&D wouldn't really be "dead" since people would still be playing it using their old books and resources on the web. Even without an OGL, there would have been fan-made material cropping up on the web unless whoever held the rights decided to make an effort to crack down on it (like TSR did in the late 90s).

This was 15 years ago. The internet was not nearly as ubiquitous as it is today, and not even 1% of the modern resources existed back then. The influx of new and returning players from 3e had not happened yet, which you will find is the source of the majority of modern AD&D players.

Product lines die when no further products of that line are produced. For example, while DeLorean DMC-12s can occasionally be seen, replacement parts purchased and "new" ones built from existing parts, the product line has been effectively dead since the DeLorean Motor Company went bankrupt in 1982.

Fair enough. WotC, to my knowledge, has never said directly that no one else could have "saved" D&D. They haven't, as far as I know, done anything to dispel the impression that they heroically stepped in and prevented D&D from going the way of the dodo. (nor would I really expect them to, since any business would want to portray themselves in the best possible light)

While the D&D RPG may or may not have gone extinct if WotC had not purchased TSR, one of the reasons it did not go extinct is because WotC purchased TSR. While many could have prevented D&D from going extinct, that does not change that WotC did prevent D&D from going extinct.

I think we agree on the point that it wasn't really "heroism". That's the point I've been trying to make. One could just as easily say the WotC was opportunistic enough to scoop up the remnants of a dying competitor, which happened to include the #1 brand name in the RPG genre. The heroism angle, whether directly stated or implied, is just good marketing. (which one can't really fault a business for doing)

The question you have to ask here is "Did WotC buy TSR because it was a dying competitor or because it had one of the top brand names in RPGs?"

 

[Filcher]

If only by virtue of the OGL, yes, WotC broke into the dungeon, smashed the chains, freed the princess and saved D&D. We can't forget the old TSR cease and desist letters.

We take it for granted now, but the OGL was revolutionary for the time.

And, though perhaps I'm splitting hairs, I feel a need for the distinction between WotC and "WotC-owned-by-Hasbro." (WotCobH?)

 

[Umbran]

One could just as easily say the WotC was opportunistic enough to scoop up the remnants of a dying competitor, which happened to include the #1 brand name in the RPG genre.

You see, it is all in the connotation. You could just as easily say "opportunistic" or "clever" or "foresightful" - the first has a bit of a negative connotation, the others positive.

Let us remember that, at the time, when we talk about WotC, we are in large part talking about one dude - Peter Adkison. While he has notable qualifications as a businessman, he also personally loves games in general. You want to cast a guy who loves games and has the oomph to buy D&D and do something with it when D&D was flagging as "opportunistic"? Okay,m I guess...

What it comes down to is this: was it good that they did so, or not? They produced an awesome couple of games, that loads of people love, and many fine products. What's to be negative about?

The heroism angle, whether directly stated or implied, is just good marketing. (which one can't really fault a business for doing)

Except that, as stated above, WotC isn't doing it! That puts a major dent in the spin, there. Find us a quote where some WotC person, speaking officially, says that WotC "saved D&D", and maybe you'll have something.

My saying that I'm happy that WotC saved D&D does not count as "marketing" on WotC's part. Failure to actively deny such statements (as if they'd hunt around the messageboards of the world and pounce on people who like them) also does not count as "marketing". It counts as, "free good press for which they bear no responsibility whatsoever."