D&D General WotC Has Owned D&D Longer Than TSR Did

As Matt Forbeck pointed out on Twitter, WotC has owned D&D for 24 years since it purchased TSR in 1997. TSR created D&D in 1974, 23 years before WotC bought it.

 

[GreyLord]

So there are four "official" D&D systems: The TSR system, the 3e/PF1/d20 System, the 4e system, and the 5e system.

That's actually a good term...the TSR system of D&D. I think I might start using that one as it shows just how compatible TSR's D&D systems actually were.

I think that for many who never really experienced more than 1 version of TSR D&D, or never experienced it at all do not realize just how compatible all of it actually was with each version of D&D back then.

Or that AD&D and 2e both when they came out had grandfather clauses/rules that explicitly (and in some cases, such as when AD&D was coming out, basically FORCED you to do so if you wanted to use the new books) said that you could include ANYTHING from the older editions (and that included rules, as well, many times specifically, as in the case when AD&D was introduced again over the time period of release of the MM, PHB, and DMG) into the new version that you wanted to.

What's more interesting than the simple elapsing of time is the fact that in almost 50 years, nothing has come close to toppling "D&D - The Brand" as the #1 market leader in its space---even though IMHO there's objectively better game systems out there.

If anything it's an absolute testament to the power of market networking / mindshare / lifestyle interconnection / brand identification. D&D is a fascinating case study of the power of brand loyalty.

This is something that came to mind when I was reading through this thread and almost made me consider starting a new thread.

What is it, though all the different editions and variations that have kept D&D on top?

Is it the name/brand recognition or something different?

I could say that the brand recognition works for 5e, but with it's growing popularity and vast number of gamers today, it seems that it is due to something more. It's is very simple (which I think is a key to introducing and keeping players enjoying the game, and the more complex it is the less I think it appeals to mass audiences), but there are simpler systems that are easier to learn so there has to be something more to it.

However, what that magic is...I'm pondering...

 

[Ogre Mage]

When Magic the Gathering and other CCGs started filling up the space in gaming stores, I just didn't understand it. I do remember a friend coming up with a "get rich quick" scheming involving importing a bunch of Magic cards from overseas at a lower cost and selling them, but that fell apart because he didn't reckon on things like taxes, shipping fees, and tariffs. The irony being that if he had just bought a bunch of regular old boxes and waited 20-30 years or so, he'd have likely been sitting on a goldmine.

Lol, that reminds me of a story. My father called my younger brother "the flim-flam man" because he would find some Magic The Gathering sucker (usually an elementary school age player) and trade his common or uncommon cards for hard-to-find rares. This was in the early days of Magic when pricing and card rarity information was not always easy to find. I remember him coming home excited one day because he traded his Scryb Sprites to some ignorant child and got a Northern Paladin in return. My mother told him to stop taking advantage of vulnerable children. He paid her words no attention.

As MtG became more established even younger players became well aware of the relative value of cards. So my brother eventually ran out of fools. But he still plays Magic today and has a good sense of what is going on the Magic marketplace.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I think that for many who never really experienced more than 1 version of TSR D&D, or never experienced it at all do not realize just how compatible all of it actually was with each version of D&D back then.

The idea that "new edition = new system" isn't totally unique to WotC D&D, but it is, I think, fairly rare outside of the d20 ecosystem. And D&D players are, I think, uniquely used to the idea. (Which works out conveniently well for a company that, I'm sure, would like very much to sell you a new set of core rulebooks at least every decade or so.)

It'll be fascinating to see how things develop in the future. WotC began its stewardship of the D&D brand by overhauling the system and deliberately rendering the previous one "obsolete." This strategy worked amazingly well for the 3e boom, but then it bit them in the backside with 4e, only to have the 5e fad work out in their favor again. So I can't help but wonder: will the inevitable 6e remain backwards compatible with 5e (sort of a "third time's a charm" type deal, where after two problematic attempts at creating their own house version of D&D, WotC finally feels that they've "gotten it right" with 5e's system), or will previous patterns hold, with 6e being a new and entirely different game, something the hordes of new players brought into the hobby by streaming shows haven't experienced yet (in which case, lawn chair and popcorn time)?

 

[jasper]

Lol, that reminds me of a story. My father called my younger brother "the flim-flam man" because he would find some Magic The Gathering ..... My mother told him to stop taking advantage of vulnerable children. He paid her words no attention.
...

And this is one of the reasons I didn't get into Magic, or Heroclix, and one or two other games. I was thinking of getting into Heroclix when I heard a flim flam man crowing about stealing from child. Put the heroclix stuff back on the game shelf.

 

[Jaeger]

Of their own accord, the elves aren't making the stuff that doesn't sell. Hmm.

The beatings continued, and then morale improved...

What's more interesting than the simple elapsing of time is the fact that in almost 50 years, nothing has come close to toppling "D&D - The Brand" as the #1 market leader in its space---even though IMHO there's objectively better game systems out there.

If anything it's an absolute testament to the power of market networking / mindshare / lifestyle interconnection / brand identification. D&D is a fascinating case study of the power of brand loyalty.

D&D had two VERY powerful qualities going for it early on:

1: It was First
2: It was Good Enough

We see this effect muted in countries that D&D was slower to get a translation to like Germany and Japan where they had to compete with native versions from the get go. The Dark Eye in Germany, and in Japan Roads to Lord, and now Sword World have always been the #1 fantasy rpg's in their respective countries over D&D.

Largely because they were able to appeal to their native audience with a comparable product that copied a lot of the things that D&D did right.

D&D, especially in its B/X incarnations (which really made D&D IMHO) - Gets a lot of things right for a mass market RPG...

What is it, though all the different editions and variations that have kept D&D on top?

Is it the name/brand recognition or something different?

I could say that the brand recognition works for 5e, but with it's growing popularity and vast number of gamers today, it seems that it is due to something more. It's is very simple (which I think is a key to introducing and keeping players enjoying the game, and the more complex it is the less I think it appeals to mass audiences), but there are simpler systems that are easier to learn so there has to be something more to it.

However, what that magic is...I'm pondering...

So this is my take...

While discussing with some friends why D&D never had a real challenger until a series of WOTC own goals led to pathfinder...

It became clear, that whether by accident or design, D&D just got certain things right pretty much straight out of the gate. That led to them being virtually unchallenged for over 30 years.

D&D had two VERY powerful qualities going for it early on:

1: It was First
2: It was Good Enough

The 5 points that Secured D&D's dominance:

1: Easy PC creation: You could make a character and begin play in a matter of minutes. A selling point for new players.

2: Graspable Rules complexity: The first levels are not rules heavy. The mechanics were understandable. New players gradually got introduced to any additional complexity, easing the gateway for new players.

3: Easily grasped Default play mode: The Dungeon, an easy to understand and grasp mode of play. New players knew what they were gonna do right away. Explore a forgotten crypt, kill things and take their stuff.

4: Easily understood and relatable implied setting: Common fantasy tropes of 'Tolkienesque" Elves Dwarves, Halflings/Hobbits, Fighting evil Orcs, Trolls, monsters, etc... And Dragons! New players could easily imagine the kind of medieval fantasy land their PC's were adventuring in.

5: Straight-forward reward mechanism: The leveling mechanic is a great 'gratification' reward for killing things and taking their stuff. New players unambiguously knew how many XP they needed for the next level, and what to do to get it.


Yes you can point to the rules bloat of AD&D 2e and 3e, and legitimately argue that some of those points got stretched more than a bit. But at the time it just didn't matter as D&D had already cemented its market position.

And during the 1eAD&D era B/X was acting as the ultimate gateway drug.

What is particularly interesting is that when you really think about things, virtually all of D&D's early US competitors failed miserably on more than one of these points.

In almost every case, D&D was delivering a more newbie accessible, better overall Game than any of its potential early competitors.

.

 

[Zardnaar]

The beatings continued, and then morale improved...




D&D had two VERY powerful qualities going for it early on:

1: It was First
2: It was Good Enough

We see this effect muted in countries that D&D was slower to get a translation to like Germany and Japan where they had to compete with native versions from the get go. The Dark Eye in Germany, and in Japan Roads to Lord, and now Sword World have always been the #1 fantasy rpg's in their respective countries over D&D.

Largely because they were able to appeal to their native audience with a comparable product that copied a lot of the things that D&D did right.

D&D, especially in its B/X incarnations (which really made D&D IMHO) - Gets a lot of things right for a mass market RPG...




So this is my take...

While discussing with some friends why D&D never had a real challenger until a series of WOTC own goals led to pathfinder...

It became clear, that whether by accident or design, D&D just got certain things right pretty much straight out of the gate. That led to them being virtually unchallenged for over 30 years.

D&D had two VERY powerful qualities going for it early on:

1: It was First
2: It was Good Enough

The 5 points that Secured D&D's dominance:

1: Easy PC creation: You could make a character and begin play in a matter of minutes. A selling point for new players.

2: Graspable Rules complexity: The first levels are not rules heavy. The mechanics were understandable. New players gradually got introduced to any additional complexity, easing the gateway for new players.

3: Easily grasped Default play mode: The Dungeon, an easy to understand and grasp mode of play. New players knew what they were gonna do right away. Explore a forgotten crypt, kill things and take their stuff.

4: Easily understood and relatable implied setting: Common fantasy tropes of 'Tolkienesque" Elves Dwarves, Halflings/Hobbits, Fighting evil Orcs, Trolls, monsters, etc... And Dragons! New players could easily imagine the kind of medieval fantasy land their PC's were adventuring in.

5: Straight-forward reward mechanism: The leveling mechanic is a great 'gratification' reward for killing things and taking their stuff. New players unambiguously knew how many XP they needed for the next level, and what to do to get it.


Yes you can point to the rules bloat of AD&D 2e and 3e, and legitimately argue that some of those points got stretched more than a bit. But at the time it just didn't matter as D&D had already cemented its market position.

And during the 1eAD&D era B/X was acting as the ultimate gateway drug.

What is particularly interesting is that when you really think about things, virtually all of D&D's early US competitors failed miserably on more than one of these points.

In almost every case, D&D was delivering a more newbie accessible, better overall Game than any of its potential early competitors.

.

Every couple of years or three some new hotness turns up, lasts 5 minutes and is effectively dead in a year or two.

The markets probably to small overall and bug bane licences probably cost to much or don't appeal to enough people at least as an RPG.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Save for that I know my friend didn't have an older brother, that sounds completely in character, as does the nickname. Dude was always looking for some easy way to get ahead rather than actually put in the work at things.

Lol, that reminds me of a story. My father called my younger brother "the flim-flam man" because he would find some Magic The Gathering sucker (usually an elementary school age player) and trade his common or uncommon cards for hard-to-find rares.

Brand matters a whole lot, definitely. A lot of the time, to outsiders, any RPG is D&D, like any adhesive bandage is a Band-Aid.

Also, people have a loyalty to the brand. Back when I got back into gaming with 4e, I tried to get people to play Castles & Crusades instead. Despite it being essentially just another version of D&D (and one that would've felt more in line with our past experiences with the game), people wanted to play Dungeons & Dragons specifically.

If anything it's an absolute testament to the power of market networking / mindshare / lifestyle interconnection / brand identification. D&D is a fascinating case study of the power of brand loyalty.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

And during the 1eAD&D era B/X was acting as the ultimate gateway drug.

Really? I first played in 1981, I was 15. In those days, TSR still did those big one-day tournament gaming events back then, and one was happening in my home town. I did not own any of the rules yet, so I ended up with the Basic box set of that time. Tournament uses pregens, so I don't have to make a character, but I read through the rules. Get to the event and dozens of tables going and everything is AD&D. Look for gaming groups through my local comic shop and find people only playing AD&D. Bought the PHB, eventually got rid of the useless box set, and never looked back. Plus, to a teenage boy at the time, why wouldn't everyone want to use the rules for advanced people? Why play something for basic people? It is funny that I still regret wasting that paper route money on the box set, when if I had waited to buy anything until after my first game, I could have just bought the PHB and started right. lol

edit: and writing all that out made me realize it is my 40th anniversary of starting to play any kind of tabletop RPG.

 

[GreyLord]

The beatings continued, and then morale improved...




D&D had two VERY powerful qualities going for it early on:

1: It was First
2: It was Good Enough

We see this effect muted in countries that D&D was slower to get a translation to like Germany and Japan where they had to compete with native versions from the get go. The Dark Eye in Germany, and in Japan Roads to Lord, and now Sword World have always been the #1 fantasy rpg's in their respective countries over D&D.

Largely because they were able to appeal to their native audience with a comparable product that copied a lot of the things that D&D did right.

D&D, especially in its B/X incarnations (which really made D&D IMHO) - Gets a lot of things right for a mass market RPG...

1: It was First
2: It was Good Enough

The 5 points that Secured D&D's dominance:

1: Easy PC creation: You could make a character and begin play in a matter of minutes. A selling point for new players.

2: Graspable Rules complexity: The first levels are not rules heavy. The mechanics were understandable. New players gradually got introduced to any additional complexity, easing the gateway for new players.

3: Easily grasped Default play mode: The Dungeon, an easy to understand and grasp mode of play. New players knew what they were gonna do right away. Explore a forgotten crypt, kill things and take their stuff.

4: Easily understood and relatable implied setting: Common fantasy tropes of 'Tolkienesque" Elves Dwarves, Halflings/Hobbits, Fighting evil Orcs, Trolls, monsters, etc... And Dragons! New players could easily imagine the kind of medieval fantasy land their PC's were adventuring in.

5: Straight-forward reward mechanism: The leveling mechanic is a great 'gratification' reward for killing things and taking their stuff. New players unambiguously knew how many XP they needed for the next level, and what to do to get it.

#1, 2, and 3 are probably going to be in the game going forward if we get Edition #6...

But what happens when #4 is gone (it is slowly transforming now, doing away with evil Orcs, Trolls, etc) and the races are changing to things uncommon in fantasy, though they can be found in some places (Dragonborn, Drow, Tieflings...etc).

Do you think your idea on this will remain?

#5 probably may stay, though if a shift to a stronger emphasis on levelling at endpoints by the DM decision rather than by XP could change that up.

 

[Jaeger]

Every couple of years or three some new hotness turns up, lasts 5 minutes and is effectively dead in a year or two.

The markets probably to small overall and bug bane licences probably cost to much or don't appeal to enough people at least as an RPG.

The top 2 RPGs are D&D and D&D's clone.

There is enough room. But 4e aside, D&D's market dominance trumps all.

Good enough and first can be overcome, but none of D&D's early challengers really even tried. And now it is too late.

It's not enough to merely mimic the design of the market leader, people have to perceive that you are offering an objectively better product to make a switch worth the trouble.

D&D's system from its beginning to early 80's to the 3e era +5e was certainly "good enough".

Any potential competitor would have not only had to have a great system that matched or exceeded D&D on all 5 points. But they would have had to put out enough support, and been successful enough that they could then be around for when TSR/WOTC made a misstep. (Assuming they didn't screw the pooch themselves business wise.)

In 20/20 hindsight, that is one tall naughty word order. Good Enough + Market Leader = No can defend.

Until 4e vs Pathfinder.

And even then, Pathfinders ascent was more due to a series of WOTC own goals rather than anything resembling great game design from Paizo.

Really? I first played in 1981, I was 15. In those days, TSR still did those big one-day tournament gaming events back then, and one was happening in my home town. I did not own any of the rules yet, so I ended up with the Basic box set of that time. Tournament uses pregens, so I don't have to make a character, but I read through the rules. Get to the event and dozens of tables going and everything is AD&D. Look for gaming groups through my local comic shop and find people only playing AD&D. Bought the PHB, eventually got rid of the useless box set, and never looked back. Plus, to a teenage boy at the time, why wouldn't everyone want to use the rules for advanced people?

Yes, Really.

AD&D1e was a hot mess. Brilliant. But a mess.

The D&D rules as expressed in B/X or the BE portion of BECMI are not arcane or counter intuitive to the average novice or even the average hobbyist.

You immediately jumped into a group of people who 'knew' how to play the game, and benefitted for a big network effect. A lot of early players did. (And this still is a big part of D&D's success!)

But a whole ton of people also got their first exposure to the game from the B/X set they bought in their local walgreens and decided to try it out with some friends.

B/X was huge. There is a reason most OSR clones resemble B/X rather than AD&D.