TSR Did TSR Sue Regularly?

Shannon Appelcline (Designers & Dragons) talks about it here! With infographics!

"Every company interacts with the rest of the industry in a different way. For Chaosium it's been more than 40 years of licensing, while Target Games created and defined roleplaying in its home country of Sweden. Dave Nalle's Ragnarok Enterprises instead influenced designers and publishers through interactions in A&Eand Abyss. As for TSR, the founder of our industry: as wags have put it: they sue regularly."

Advanced Designers & Dragons #47: TSR Connections: Licenses & Lawsuits - RPGnet

They also sued WotC once!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I still think people thought Aftermath was more complicated than in practice, it was. My guess is it was presentation problems.

My feeling, from playing it a few times was that it was basically a "Gun Nut Game." Everything was about the minutia of guns and other equipment. I really don't recall any specific mechanical details, but there was some unique shade of difference between every little variation of pistols, for example. Twilight 2000 has the same vibe, though I think the rules are definitely a bit clearer and more playable. Both games seem to want you to focus on how you use your cool equipment and rad military skills operationally. Its a thing, just apparently not MY thing (and I actually like guns well enough, have owned a few and really I suspect their rules are fairly realistic as far as they go).

 

[Thomas Shey]

My feeling, from playing it a few times was that it was basically a "Gun Nut Game." Everything was about the minutia of guns and other equipment. I really don't recall any specific mechanical details, but there was some unique shade of difference between every little variation of pistols, for example. Twilight 2000 has the same vibe, though I think the rules are definitely a bit clearer and more playable. Both games seem to want you to focus on how you use your cool equipment and rad military skills operationally. Its a thing, just apparently not MY thing (and I actually like guns well enough, have owned a few and really I suspect their rules are fairly realistic as far as they go).

It was a detailed game in general. It did the same thing with bows and melee weapons, and went into quite a few bits of detail on vehicles (and armor was managed per location). I wouldn't say it was more "gun nut" than most games of similar overall detail, though it did have an extensive list. It might have been more noticeable with weapons because every character was going to engage with that, but it was just a simulationist design for its genre.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It was a detailed game in general. It did the same thing with bows and melee weapons, and went into quite a few bits of detail on vehicles (and armor was managed per location). I wouldn't say it was more "gun nut" than most games of similar overall detail, though it did have an extensive list. It might have been more noticeable with weapons because every character was going to engage with that, but it was just a simulationist design for its genre.

Yeah, I just think that sort of design, especially when focused on that milieu and genre, is pretty much catering to a specific sort of interest. You could say a bit more broadly 'survivalism' and 'gearheads'. I think of the type of people who watch endless survival/weapon gear videos on Youtube, lol. I mean, I've watched a few myself, they can be interesting, but if I were to RP in that sort of genre I'd pick Apocalypse World vs a system with a lot of gear details and explicit mechanical simulationism.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I just think that sort of design, especially when focused on that milieu and genre, is pretty much catering to a specific sort of interest. You could say a bit more broadly 'survivalism' and 'gearheads'. I think of the type of people who watch endless survival/weapon gear videos on Youtube, lol. I mean, I've watched a few myself, they can be interesting, but if I were to RP in that sort of genre I'd pick Apocalypse World vs a system with a lot of gear details and explicit mechanical simulationism.

There might be some elements of that, but when I ran it years ago we had plenty of people who didn't fit in really either category who enjoyed ti because of the detail in character creation and the engagement in the mechanics with doing things you wouldn't necessarily see in a lot of games (doing a research project while learning how to treat a disease outrbreak for example). I suppose you could broaden "survivalism" to include that, but, well, if you weren't at least a little interested in that sort of thing you wouldn't be playing in a post apocalypse game in the first place unless it was just a Mad Max knock-off.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There might be some elements of that, but when I ran it years ago we had plenty of people who didn't fit in really either category who enjoyed ti because of the detail in character creation and the engagement in the mechanics with doing things you wouldn't necessarily see in a lot of games (doing a research project while learning how to treat a disease outrbreak for example). I suppose you could broaden "survivalism" to include that, but, well, if you weren't at least a little interested in that sort of thing you wouldn't be playing in a post apocalypse game in the first place unless it was just a Mad Max knock-off.

Yeah, that is the difference in our RPG style preferences. The character interactions in the AW game are the fascinating part, and that is what the game focuses on. Which type of gun or gear does what is a fairly peripheral concern and not a ton of detail is spent on that element. So, you are fascinated by "how do I use this gear to survive" and I'm fascinated by "how do we organize our society and how do the people interact to survive." Both are perfectly good post-apocalypse genre questions. It is kind of like the difference between Farnam's Freehold and A Canticle for Liebowitz.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, that is the difference in our RPG style preferences. The character interactions in the AW game are the fascinating part, and that is what the game focuses on. Which type of gun or gear does what is a fairly peripheral concern and not a ton of detail is spent on that element. So, you are fascinated by "how do I use this gear to survive" and I'm fascinated by "how do we organize our society and how do the people interact to survive." Both are perfectly good post-apocalypse genre questions. It is kind of like the difference between Farnam's Freehold and A Canticle for Liebowitz.

But I still think you're missing it. Look again at the example I gave. How does "I've got the tools to actually pursue finding a cure for this disease" (and note by "tools" I'm refering to mechanics, not hardware) have to do with gear? It has to do with the system engaging on a deep enough level that such a thing is not just a single die roll to allow you to get on to the next thing.

I think considering this focusing on "gear" is missing the point; its focusing on actual process, certainly, and if that doesn't interest you it doesn't, but its still a different issue than "I'm really fascinated by playing with these guns or vehicles"; its just the same design choices that make the latter very detailed make other elements of the game also detailed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But I still think you're missing it. Look again at the example I gave. How does "I've got the tools to actually pursue finding a cure for this disease" (and note by "tools" I'm refering to mechanics, not hardware) have to do with gear? It has to do with the system engaging on a deep enough level that such a thing is not just a single die roll to allow you to get on to the next thing.

I think considering this focusing on "gear" is missing the point; its focusing on actual process, certainly, and if that doesn't interest you it doesn't, but its still a different issue than "I'm really fascinated by playing with these guns or vehicles"; its just the same design choices that make the latter very detailed make other elements of the game also detailed.

I guess what I'm saying is that a game like AW has a process for doing that sort of activity. It just focuses on the politics and social aspects, and maybe some general "how do I get resources" problem-solving. It won't contain any mechanics for 'medical knowledge', for example, as a specific thing. Whereas a game like T2000 probably has almost nothing BUT those sorts of rules, that is the rules address specific technical and knowledge skills, plus how to employ equipment and resources to solving that problem.

In neither system would something like that necessarily be a 'single die roll'. They just emphasize very different things. I mean, this off-topic of the thread, so I don't want to get into a long discussion of RPG design or history of design particularly. Suffice it to say that the structure of "what will be the focus of play" and "how will the focus of action be decided" are likely to be very different. Early 80's RPG design had not yet really invented 'story focused play' techniques comparable to the kinds of things that PbtA games use, for instance. They were focused on 'procedure' in terms of applying rules to situations such that game rules and structures could be applied to the process to, for example, decide that you need 'medic' to cure an infected wound, and that an anti-biotic adds a given modifier to the chance of it working. Each of those elements would probably be specified by a GM or a write-up of an adventure, or inventory sheets of PCs. In a PbtA game it would most likely be an element of play that would come into the fiction as an explanation for the use of a 'move' in the game, although the challenge (IE a wound and an infection) would probably be imposed by the GM as part of the consequences of past actions, but not by any rules more specific than "things have consequences and you now deserve one."

 

[Thomas Shey]

I guess what I'm saying is that a game like AW has a process for doing that sort of activity. It just focuses on the politics and social aspects, and maybe some general "how do I get resources" problem-solving. It won't contain any mechanics for 'medical knowledge', for example, as a specific thing. Whereas a game like T2000 probably has almost nothing BUT those sorts of rules, that is the rules address specific technical and knowledge skills, plus how to employ equipment and resources to solving that problem.

In neither system would something like that necessarily be a 'single die roll'. They just emphasize very different things. I mean, this off-topic of the thread, so I don't want to get into a long discussion of RPG design or history of design particularly. Suffice it to say that the structure of "what will be the focus of play" and "how will the focus of action be decided" are likely to be very different. Early 80's RPG design had not yet really invented 'story focused play' techniques comparable to the kinds of things that PbtA games use, for instance. They were focused on 'procedure' in terms of applying rules to situations such that game rules and structures could be applied to the process to, for example, decide that you need 'medic' to cure an infected wound, and that an anti-biotic adds a given modifier to the chance of it working. Each of those elements would probably be specified by a GM or a write-up of an adventure, or inventory sheets of PCs. In a PbtA game it would most likely be an element of play that would come into the fiction as an explanation for the use of a 'move' in the game, although the challenge (IE a wound and an infection) would probably be imposed by the GM as part of the consequences of past actions, but not by any rules more specific than "things have consequences and you now deserve one."

That's entirely fair. I was just bothered by the fact it seemed you were characterizing it as a game for people who were focused on gear, and there was a lot more to it than that. Its absolutely not a game that's focused on the fiction; as I said early on its a simulationist game to its core, but simulationist games can be considerably more than just gear porn, and Aftermath absolutely was, being one of the first games I ever saw that had a pretty detailed approach to ongoing task resolution and engaging with a number of non-combat (but genre-relevant) tasks in some degree of detail albeit not enough to tie up excessive amounts of space with any single one.

Its not a game I'd pick by choice myself these days, but I tend to think it gets a rap for being more convoluted than it absolutely deserves; I'd argue strongly that its not any worse in that regard than any number of other games of the time or even now, and benefited from the fact it had relatively consistent mechanics rather than a huge number of exceptions. It did get into a fair bit of gear detail, but we're on a board where the game of focus is one that has pages of spell lists with specific traits, so I think one at least needs to ask whether that sort of thing is really considered excessive by most people (to make it clear, if you're a PbtA person primarily, you're in a different place there, and that's legit.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's entirely fair. I was just bothered by the fact it seemed you were characterizing it as a game for people who were focused on gear, and there was a lot more to it than that. Its absolutely not a game that's focused on the fiction; as I said early on its a simulationist game to its core, but simulationist games can be considerably more than just gear porn, and Aftermath absolutely was, being one of the first games I ever saw that had a pretty detailed approach to ongoing task resolution and engaging with a number of non-combat (but genre-relevant) tasks in some degree of detail albeit not enough to tie up excessive amounts of space with any single one.

Its not a game I'd pick by choice myself these days, but I tend to think it gets a rap for being more convoluted than it absolutely deserves; I'd argue strongly that its not any worse in that regard than any number of other games of the time or even now, and benefited from the fact it had relatively consistent mechanics rather than a huge number of exceptions. It did get into a fair bit of gear detail, but we're on a board where the game of focus is one that has pages of spell lists with specific traits, so I think one at least needs to ask whether that sort of thing is really considered excessive by most people (to make it clear, if you're a PbtA person primarily, you're in a different place there, and that's legit.)

Yeah, and I think you can do any sort of RP to a degree regardless of game system, though some help you in various ways more or less. I think even more mainstream RPGs of today though have generalized task resolution a lot more than even Aftermath did though. That is, take the 4e SCs, or the BitD resolution framework, they apply a very consistent process to every situation, allowing for a lot of different possible actions and outcomes. Earlier games tended to be more specific, but then they ended up not covering a lot of situations very well.

And, yes, I think D&D gets a bit of a pass on complexity simply because everyone kind of grew into it, or joined a group that was already deeply versed, or has at least played it a lot. I think D&D also benefited in the beginning from a HUGE amount of playtest. I mean, Gary and crew and people around them, and Dave and his crowd, both ran THOUSANDS of hours of games, themselves. So, though the rules were fairly intricate in some specifics they also got worn down to a pretty playable level before being committed to the page. Often you can see the parts that were NOT really tested much, and they remind me of a lot of other RPGs, especially early ones, that were mostly just written and barely played before publication.

 

[Eltab]

I did pick up a copy of 2300. Wasn't that impressed ...

- snip -

Space 1889, OTOH, while a total market flop, was IMHO a brilliant piece of thematic niche RPG design.

The glory of 2300 was not character creation nor the gear but the Near Star Map - and the associated Near Star List, complete with IRL astronomical data and 3-D coordinates. An irresistible lure to any amateur stargazer!
It inspired me to buy Star Cruiser, the starship combat game set in 2300's future history.

I bought a couple of Space:1889 sourcebooks, because I liked the milieu and the use of IRL semi-science. Never played the game (or even tried), just let my historian's imagination run wild.