• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Do we live in the d20 Dark Ages?

Orius

Legend
Rarely anybody champions AD&D 2e in the Edition Wars (as ugly as the Edition Wars are). But somebody must have played AD&D 2e, because WotC feels its worthwhile to reprint the core books.

I've been exploring these ideas on my blog d20 Dark Ages.* I don't consider myself part of D&D's "Lost Generation" but I think D&D lost "something" in 1989, and since then, after TSR tanked, WotC has been trying to get it back.

Like I said before, 2e isn't really terribly different enough from 1e that it gets a lot of people worked up about it. There's pretty much 5 flavors of D&D: Original, Basic, AD&D, 3e, and 4e. Original, Basic, and AD&D are all similar enough that they tend to blend together, and back in the Golden Age, lots of people were mixing Basic and 1e AD&D anyway. It's like if these variations of D&D were all ice cream, Original, Basic, and AD&D would all be variants on chocolate, there might be sutble differences but underneath, there's still that same chocolate flavor.

As for D&D losing something in during 2e, well it's pretty much the slow death of TSR from the time of Gary's departure to TSR's bankrupcy. Instead of everything happening all at once in 89, it was stretched out over a period of 10 years. I wasn't playing the game when most of it happened, and learned about much of it later on but here's what seems to me to be the key developments:

-Gary's departure did not occur on the best of terms. Some of his fans I think were aware of what happened, and that was the first blow against TSR.
-Late 1e products were not as well received as earlier products in the line, particularly stuff in the Greyhawk line. Just look at the reception of Castle Greyhawk, or some of the other modules that were produced around '87 or '88.
-The release of 2e wasn't universally embraced. Some people were disappointed that it didn't break enough with 1e, while others saw no reason to update. It didn't help that TSR continued to print some 1e stuff for a while. And there was the growing Basic/AD&D split. Basic and 1e had from what I understand a lot of similarities at first. But during the 80's the two lines diverged, and by 2e, there were some noticable differences that a little work had to be done to convert between the two. There's also the deletions of stuff like demons and devils, assassins, and so on, some of which was seen as an attept to pander to moral guardians.
-The Forgotten Realms setting eventually supplanted the Greyhawk setting as the vanilla AD&D world. This happened because of several reasons, I think. Greyhawk fans seemed to have largely run their own homebrews in the setting and did not like some of the stuff that was published in 2e (Greyhawk Wars for example). FR was seen as being really big on the changes to 2e that made the game more family-friendly etc, look at the events of the Time of Troubles and such. Though I think some of the people writing stuff at TSR at the time maybe felt more comfortable using FR rather than Greyhawk, because Greyhawk was Gary's personal world, IDK.
-The glut of settings which are fondly remembered by 2e enthusiasts. At the time, TSR wanted to capture the same success they'd had with Dragonlance and FR, so they cranked out a bunch of different campaign worlds. This though divided the base which was already at the time divided into Basic, 1e, and 2e players. Now you had FR players, Dragonlance players, Dark Sun players, Ravenloft players, Planescape players, all dividing up the player base (which was already shrinking) and fracturing TSR's revenue. There was some overlap, but enough gaps to cause lasting breaks.
-TSR's overzealous protection of its IP in the days of electronic bulletin boards and the early days of the Web. I don't see many people talking about this these days, since it's now about 15 years and more in the past, but it seems to have done some serious harm to what was left of the playerbase. When I first starting discussing D&D online back in 1999 or 2000, it was still very much in memory and people were still referring to T$R (They $ue Regularly). It certainly seemed to hae driven even more people away from 2e.
-By the end, the underlying system underneath 2e was really starting to show its age, and newer games were chipping away at the fan base.

So by the time TSR tanked, things were not well, even though at the time I really wasn't ware of what was going on. After WotC bought TSR, there were definitely efforts to patch things up again. The bridges that had been burned with Gary and Dave had been rebuilt, and classic modules were revisited. There was also an attempt to revive the Greyhawk line but it seems to me the damage that had been done in early 2e was pretty deep, and FR's dominance was at that point complete. Early 3e I think was doing a fair job of rebuilding the playerbase, but I also think some of TSR's actions made people suspicious of anything WotC did, particularly after being bought by Hasbro. Some of the things that happened around the start of 4e (the hype leading up to it with the negativity towards 3e, the big mess over .pdfs and piracy that ended up in the removal of older edition material, the whole licensing deal with 4e) did some more damage of it own to fracture the fan base too, unfortunately.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Stormonu

Legend
I started way back in '79, but I was definitely a fan of 2E while it lasted (but not Player's Option). Well, up until I put it on the back burner to play Vampire for a couple years.

Anyways, I'd say it's more like the French Revolution right now. Think of 4E as being ol' poor king Louis. Everyone's clamoring for his head and looking to push their own system with 5E. Perhaps things will settle down without us having to have a Waterloo in our future in the RPG industry.
 

Achan hiArusa

Explorer
I started way back in '79, but I was definitely a fan of 2E while it lasted (but not Player's Option). Well, up until I put it on the back burner to play Vampire for a couple years.

Anyways, I'd say it's more like the French Revolution right now. Think of 4E as being ol' poor king Louis. Everyone's clamoring for his head and looking to push their own system with 5E. Perhaps things will settle down without us having to have a Waterloo in our future in the RPG industry.

Now that is talking like a true Gronard. Xp (Sorry pun to be had, couldn't resist).
 

Ulrick

First Post
Lol at that State of the Mongoose address. Last year the RPG market "had a pulse". This year...it doesn't.

I think we're beyond the Dark Ages at this point. More like the UN has just announced that a giant asteroid appears to be on course to impact Earth.

5e is the team of astronauts sent to nuke the asteroid.

Google+ circles are the secret underground vaults where the elites are starting to hide out in.

I get this feeling tabletop roleplaying is all but coming to an end if this trend continues. Why bother going to somebody's house, or even your FLGS (which all seem to push the latest CCG or Warhammer these days), when you just sit at home with your computer and all the pdfs you can buy or pirate?

I'm disturbed as whole with using computers to supplement what was once a strictly pen & paper hobby. And yes, I understand the possible hypocrisy of me saying that from my computer... :hmm:
 

Ulrick

First Post
I started way back in '79, but I was definitely a fan of 2E while it lasted (but not Player's Option). Well, up until I put it on the back burner to play Vampire for a couple years.

Anyways, I'd say it's more like the French Revolution right now. Think of 4E as being ol' poor king Louis. Everyone's clamoring for his head and looking to push their own system with 5E. Perhaps things will settle down without us having to have a Waterloo in our future in the RPG industry.

I think 5e will be the last chance the WotC has to make D&D viable as a tabletop pen & paper game. So far their playtest seems to be going well. It depends if they can get enough people to stop playing other D&D clones like Pathfinder or previous editions. Everybody seems to be peddling their own game and their can only be so much of the market to share.
 

Lord Zack

Explorer
D&D will be a viable tabletop RPG regardless of the involvement of WotC. D&D is about the players not the company that makes it. For that matter it doesn't matter to me if it says D&D on the books. Pathfinder, Labyrinth Lord, etc. It's all D&D to me.
 

Hussar

Legend
I never understand these doom and gloom comments.

All the estimates we have any access to point to the fact that there are more gamers today than ever before. Where is any evidence that the number of gamers are in decline? Record attendance numbers at Gen Con? Oh, wait, that doesn't really mean that there are less gamers... umm, oh, I know, it's the declining membership numbers at En World... Oh, wait... There's about twice the number of registered users here today than there was even five years ago. Oh, I know, it's the tanking sales of RPG's.... oh, wait, 4e was the best selling RPG in a very long time until Pathfinder knocked it off that particular pedestal. Oh, I know, it's the declining numbers of organized play players... oh wait, you've got Living Pathfinder going gangbusters and WOTC's into its fifth or sixth season with its organized play...

Umm, oh, erm... where is the evidence that the hobby is dying? It's dying? Says who? You've got two major companies now vying for top spot in the RPG market, and both seem to be doing pretty darn well.

Golden age? Good grief, this is the golden age to be a gamer. You can play any game you want, tailored pretty much exactly to what you want, play when and whereever you want, thanks to technology changes, you have access to more gaming material than you could possibly use in your entire lifetime. What more do you want?
 

Ulrick

First Post
What more do I want?

Well, my answer is based on my experiences...

--For people to stop judging me based on whatever edition or version of D&D I decide to run as a DM, with out regard to the fact that I do run great sessions and tell great stories.

--Less emphasis on the rules, more emphasis on game play. Yes, RPG companies thrive on selling rules and supplements to players. Yet I've noticed over the years players spending more time looking at their characters sheets or consulting rulebooks rather than paying attention to what's going in the game.

--More emphasis on the history and literature that inspired the hobby.

--To run my Expeditions in the Northlands Campaign and play in a Dungeon Crawl Classics campaign.

--To introduce more people to the hobby using the above paradigms.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
What more do I want?

Well, my answer is based on my experiences...

--For people to stop judging me based on whatever edition or version of D&D I decide to run as a DM, with out regard to the fact that I do run great sessions and tell great stories.

Honest question. Who's judging you? Is it your players? People in the FLGS where you run games? Online people? Because, AFAIC, unless it's the people you game with, who cares? This has gone on since pretty much Day 1. Do you play AD&D? Then everyone else looks down their noses at you because you aren't playing a real "roleplaying" game. Edition wars? Again, unless it's your players, who cares?

--Less emphasis on the rules, more emphasis on game play. Yes, RPG companies thrive on selling rules and supplements to players. Yet I've noticed over the years players spending more time looking at their characters sheets or consulting rulebooks rather than paying attention to what's going in the game.

I think this is partly due to a couple of things. One, transparency of rules. Starting in 3e, the rules for D&D became a whole lot less obscure. Almost all the resolution mechanics are now in the PHB instead of the DMG. So, you get players who actually KNOW the rules, rather than everyone just assuming that the DM knows what the heck he's talking about. The second thing is that characters have become a heck of a lot more complex over the years. Compare a Basic D&D 1st level fighter to an Expert D&D 8th level fighter. Other than HP and THAC0, nothing has changed on that character sheet. Well, equipment of course, but, as far as mechanics go, there's no difference between those characters. Move up to 3e and 4e and there are very, very significant differences between those two characters. Mechanically, a 1st level 3e fighter and an 8th level 3e fighter are very different and quite possibly play entirely differently. Same goes for 4e. So, yeah, it makes sense that players are going to pay more attention to their character sheet.

Not sure if this is a bad thing or not to be honest.

--More emphasis on the history and literature that inspired the hobby.

No thanks. If I wanted to read more racist, misogynistic and offensive literature, I'd head out to the local neo-Nazi bookstore. Most of the literature that inspired the hobby makes me want to wash my eyeballs with bleach after reading it. Howard? Lovecraft? Burroughs? No thanks. It's hard enough to get non-white middle class young men into the hobby. Emphasizing literature that is derogatory towards pretty much everyone is not how I want the hobby to grow.

--To run my Expeditions in the Northlands Campaign and play in a Dungeon Crawl Classics campaign.

--To introduce more people to the hobby using the above paradigms.

What's stopping you? Given the proliferation of online gaming options, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from playing any game you want right now.
 

Ulrick

First Post
Hussar, you are right. There is nothing stopping me from going online and finding a game right now on Google+ or whatever.

Yet I'd prefer not too. I spend a lot time during the day writing at my computer. I want to unplug at the end of the day and not have my social interactions with RPGs via a computer. I've done it before twice, it's not my cup of tea. Too impersonal for my taste.

As for your comments on the history and literature, there's more to what inspired D&D than Appendix N.

My argument ties back into over emphasis on the rules. I view the rules as a convience, but it seems that over the years that more players are viewing rules as the primary construct, without regard to the rich background beneath the service. RPGs are the means and the end in itself to many players. At the shallow end are power gamers and rules lawyers. At the deep end are groups that invest in an RPG system to build characters exactly the way they want, play a few sessions, then quit to start over because the the game didn't do exactly what they wanted it to do. I've seen this happen. It's not pretty.

And you're right, the judgement has been going on since Day 1. Yet I think it's gotten worse. Maybe 5e will bring the community closer together, maybe not. I'm not counting on it.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top