Do we live in the d20 Dark Ages?

[Ulrick]

Here's three more pieces of evidence that point to gamers being more unified back then.

1. Although there many games listed on the wikipedia article it is generally agreed that D&D was the first and most played. More people were brought into the gamer subculture because of D&D. That's a unifying experience. They diversified, yes. However, TSR wouldn't have experienced such growth during the "Golden Age" if they stayed away from D&D.


2. In 2004, Dungeon ranked the Queen of Spiders as number 1 of the 30 Greatest Adventures of all time. The Queen of Spiders was the compilation of the giant and drows series. All of which were written during the "Golden Age," (just like the majority of the modules on that list). In that article, Monte Cook said: "if could find someone who wasn't familiar with this module (and those that precede it in the series), I run it today in a heartbeat."

3.Another unifying experience, as I mentioned, was the Keep on the Borderlands. In Return to the Keep on the Borderlands, John D. Rateliff wrote back in 1999:

"Of the hundreds of adventures TSR published over the last twenty-five years B2, The Keep on the Borderlands holds a special place in the hearts and memories of a whole generation of gamers.... While we will never know the exact number, there's every reason to think that more people have played this adventure than any other in the history of roleplaying games."

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Yet, what do they bring back as part of their playtest: The Keep on the Borderlands, a module from the "Golden Age." What does that tell us about the gamer sub-culture? Why not say, The Sunless Citadel, or a module from 2e?

It tells us that the sub-culture is fragmented, edition-warring.

Does this meant that d20 gamers are in a cultural dark age? I'm leaning toward 'yes,' but I'm not entirely convinced, which is why I posed the question.

Umm, you realize that there is a reason why Keep on the Borderlands is so broadly played right? At the time when D&D was a huge fan, KotB was parceled with the Basic boxed set. That boxed set was one of the most (if not the most) successful RPG products ever. So, you have a bajillion copies of KotB floating around and if anyone took a stab at playing D&D, they likely played that one.

Sunless Citadel, in comparison, is a tiny drop in the bucket as far as shared experience goes.

And, let's be honest, the GDQ series of modules had the advantage of a lot less competition. There just weren't that many modules of the time at that level. At least not compared to now. Heck, there's more modules in Dungeon for 3e than there were published for 1e. Never mind that bag full of modules both WOTC and 3pp for 3e.

But, as far as fragmentation goes, heck, all you have to do is look at the time when Dragonlance came out. That's a huge shift in gamer culture. We go from these sort of sandboxy, very antagonistic modules like the S series, or GDQ, or Isle of the Ape, to much more plotsy, story based modules. And right there you saw split.

 

[Ulrick]

Umm, you realize that there is a reason why Keep on the Borderlands is so broadly played right? At the time when D&D was a huge fan, KotB was parceled with the Basic boxed set. That boxed set was one of the most (if not the most) successful RPG products ever. So, you have a bajillion copies of KotB floating around and if anyone took a stab at playing D&D, they likely played that one.

Sunless Citadel, in comparison, is a tiny drop in the bucket as far as shared experience goes.

And, let's be honest, the GDQ series of modules had the advantage of a lot less competition. There just weren't that many modules of the time at that level. At least not compared to now. Heck, there's more modules in Dungeon for 3e than there were published for 1e. Never mind that bag full of modules both WOTC and 3pp for 3e.

But, as far as fragmentation goes, heck, all you have to do is look at the time when Dragonlance came out. That's a huge shift in gamer culture. We go from these sort of sandboxy, very antagonistic modules like the S series, or GDQ, or Isle of the Ape, to much more plotsy, story based modules. And right there you saw split.

I think you just supported what I'm arguing, in part.

Some people do put the decline as far back as Dragonlance. Indeed Grognardia states that Golden Age ended in 1983. The next year Dragonlance, of course, was published ushering in plot-driven modules and campaign settings. Along with other things like Unearthed Arcana, the Dungeoneer' Survival Guide,, and the Wilderness Survival Guide. Gygax, of course, left TSR.

All of this led into 2e, when TSR said, "Here's our new official edition!" and a resounding portion of the gamer sub-culture said, "No!" They'd had enough.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Here's three more pieces of evidence that point to gamers being more unified back then.

Indeed. Gamers were more unified when there were fewer games out there. Why do you think gamers being unified is a good thing? Are we not meant to take on different roles?

Because I think it points to quite how impoverished the gaming market was. That people were having to fit themselves onto beds of procrustes to play the games they wanted to rather than being supported. I have on my shelves a good half dozen games which give very different experiences to play - Dread is not Dogs in the Vineyard is not Marvel Heroic Roleplaying for example. I believe that we are far, far richer for this diversity.

I also believe that most lasting games of AD&D were not played by the book - they were played using the local game's often very significant houserules. In many cases these groped towards the richness indicated by my earlier point without getting there terribly effectively. But that they needed to houserule the game means that the unity was spurious - they were all playing separate unfocussed games.

As for the rise of TSR, it was first on the scene and D&D was a revelation. It lacked competitors in the same weight class - and did what it did pretty well (including the red box being simple enough for novices).

3.Another unifying experience, as I mentioned, was the Keep on the Borderlands. In Return to the Keep on the Borderlands, John D. Rateliff wrote back in 1999:

"Of the hundreds of adventures TSR published over the last twenty-five years B2, The Keep on the Borderlands holds a special place in the hearts and memories of a whole generation of gamers.... While we will never know the exact number, there's every reason to think that more people have played this adventure than any other in the history of roleplaying games."

And he's now wrong. The most played adventure now must be one of the introductory adventures for World of Warcraft. If you want unity, go and play World of Warcraft where even the solutions are pretty unified. Me, I play tabletop roleplaying games precisely because they aren't unified. Because they have completely different angles and allow for different stories, narratives, and events. This means that disunity and diversity among the hobby aer a positive strength - and a quest for unity merely serves to undermine the points of tabletop roleplaying that do not happen in World of Warcraft or a boardgame.

Shorter me: If the hobby is less unified than before, this does not point to the end of a golden age. If anything it points to a richer and more diverse hobby - and unity only removes the strengths of tabletop roleplaying.

 

[conclave27]

I started outwith 2E back in 1989 as well. It was my first entry in the worlds of D&D, and my first campaign setting was Dragonlance's Taladas "Time of The Dragon". I soon made my subscription to Dragon and Dungeon Magazines, and what ever accessories came out bought them. I even backtracked and tried to find the 1E and original D&D books. It was an age of discovery.....

2E as a rules systems was ok...it was simple and easy to grasp. It clearly stated limitations. Yet at that time 2E edition saw the growth of many worlds. I waited with anticipation for explanation of the areas of the world being developed, seeing new monsters, and spells.... things were fresh from the imagination of the staff of TSR as well as contributors to Dragon. It was a great time, and I have a good solid 4 years of memories of campaigning with my friends through Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and Planescape. At the end of 2E, there were so many great things I liked....as non-humans were not as restricted. You were encourage to play something new and cool. There were some great products like the Wizard and Magical Item compendiums that detailed every single spell with loving care. Toward the end of this area of exploration there were a great many books. I still have all my books, as a plethora of history and ideas are still frozen in 2E format....

D20 was a god send and breathed life back again.... not because of the rule system itself.... but becuase now you could truly play anything, anywhere, and anytime you wanted. It opened the doors of a new age of discovery as it invited others with their fresh ideas and concepts of RPGs. On the D&D side, not only did more exploration take place but most of the work was of conversion was taken on by lovig fans. Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Mystara, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, and Birthright......a few of the campaign settings that blossomed by the people that truly loved them.

I think what happened is things twofold in the real world as well as with the community. Our real world has affected the why the industry runs......economy, business, and money. Currently we have a lower economy with job loss meaning that leisurely pursuits and disposal income are nearly bone dry. A certain company's response on making a buck on its claimed intellectual property soured many.... as their draconian proclamations were sent to squash certain worlds. Even those that creative juices that added on to our collective hobby were taken in by corporate greed, as once the sharing of rules and ideas became possible income.....greed had taken hold. Then within the game itself...stagnation took hold.....no more exploration... concentration only on what's profitable.... a genre of limitless possibilities and infinite worlds.... coalesced into a dying ember of constraints... and every attempt to breath life into it met with failure. Luckily that was not the only ember to fall... for other embers thrived back to life. Even other company learned the error of there ways.... a World of Darkness now returns to its core, as it bad nightmare of reinvention slowly fades away.

I guess in summation, 2E was great as it was a time of exploration and expansion. A time when people were not trying to make a buck off the system. They just wanted to share the love.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I guess in summation, 2E was great as it was a time of exploration and expansion. A time when people were not trying to make a buck off the system. They just wanted to share the love.

This would be the period where TSR was run by Lorraine Williams who openly disdained gamers? The period when they bought Gygax's Dangerous Journeys and shelved it permanently to take out the competition? The period in which it was commonly known as T$R with buisness practices that would make WotC blush? The period when TSR was working on a Buck Rogers RPG specifically because she owned the license? A period in which TSR released over 600 books in 9 years extruding products like the Complete Book of Elves and attempting to monetise that ... failed because TSR neither knew nor cared what the players wanted to play. There was some very good stuff buried amongst all the crap but that's because there were many minds at work - and everyone has a few good ideas. If you want a time of creativity that puts that period of D&D to shame, look at the early days of 3E - when the OGL was allowing literally everyone to publish their own take on D&D.

 

[Infernal Teddy]

I started with 2nd Edition AD&D, and I'm quite happy to have left it behind me.

I enjoyed AD&D2nd at the time. But that is now 22 years ago. I don't like all the music I listend to back then, I don't like all the books I read at the time, and certainly not all the games I played back then. I have no great nostalgia for the Frankensteins Mess that AD&D was - the GAMES I want to play and run are a LOT newer than that. While I respect Gary for what he created, and while he seems to have been a nice guy, I don't give a whiff of hydrogen in a supernova about what he would have thought about Pathfinder, or if he cared about White Wolf. It's just not relevant to MY gaming. I have no interest in what some talking heads on the net were playing before I was born.

I like where we are now, if you don't, not my problem. But you're not doing anthing wrong either.

 

[Ulrick]

I started with 2nd Edition AD&D, and I'm quite happy to have left it behind me.

I enjoyed AD&D2nd at the time. But that is now 22 years ago. I don't like all the music I listend to back then, I don't like all the books I read at the time, and certainly not all the games I played back then. I have no great nostalgia for the Frankensteins Mess that AD&D was - the GAMES I want to play and run are a LOT newer than that. While I respect Gary for what he created, and while he seems to have been a nice guy, I don't give a whiff of hydrogen in a supernova about what he would have thought about Pathfinder, or if he cared about White Wolf. It's just not relevant to MY gaming. I have no interest in what some talking heads on the net were playing before I was born.

I like where we are now, if you don't, not my problem. But you're not doing anthing wrong either.

If only more people shared your attitude.

I have similiar feelings about 2e. I played it growing it. It worked for what it was, but would I try to run a campaign with it? Probably not. Maybe a one-shot. The main trouble would be finding people in my area who'd want to play 2e. Actually, I've tried. It usually goes something like this:

Me: "Hey guys, I've got a great idea for a campaign. But I'd like use something more rules light than 3.5, Pathfinder, or 4e. How does 2e sound?"

Their response: "Thac0 is screwball!"

Me: "We'll use ascending AC. You won't have to worry about Thac0."

Their response: "But I don't want to buy more books."

Me: "I have three copies of the 2e PHB. You can use them!"

Their response: "But its not d20!"

Me: slams head on table.

Yes, there's a lot variety out there. I guess what I'm saying in part, with the analogy of the Dark Ages, is that its getting harder and harder to get players to sample the different choices of that variety.

 

[Janx]

I would think the d20 Dark Ages would involve lots of copying game books by hand because there wasn't any electricity to photocopy or download the PDFs.

Anything less is just hyperbole.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If only more people shared your attitude. I have similiar feelings about 2e. I played it growing it. It worked for what it was, but would I try to run a campaign with it? Probably not. Maybe a one-shot. The main trouble would be finding people in my area who'd want to play 2e. Actually, I've tried. It usually goes something like this: Me: "Hey guys, I've got a great idea for a campaign. But I'd like use something more rules light than 3.5, Pathfinder, or 4e. How does 2e sound?"

My response: Like something significantly rules heavier than 4e - and probably heavier than core 3.5 or Pathfinder. NWPs plus thief skills have at least the overhead of the 4e skill and feat system and without the elegance and probably reach the overhead of the PF skill and feat system. The Vancian magic system has a higher overhead than AEDU. Five saves plus THAC0 and I don't have full spectrum coverage? Weapon Proficiencies? An arcane XP and level system? 9 point hard coded alignment? Falling paladins?

How about Swords and Wizardry, Dungeon World, or even OSRIC? (The latter being only slightly lighter than 2e but a lot better presented).

Their response: "Thac0 is screwball!" Me: "We'll use ascending AC. You won't have to worry about Thac0."

So you're not just using 2e, you're using houeruled 2e. A complex and rules heavy system (the "Advanced" is one clue) which you have to houserule to make workable (making it more rules heavy)

Their response: "But I don't want to buy more books." Me: "I have three copies of the 2e PHB. You can use them!"

A point - but not definitive.

Their response: "But its not d20!"Me: slams head on table. Yes, there's a lot variety out there. I guess what I'm saying in part, with the analogy of the Dark Ages, is that its getting harder and harder to get players to sample the different choices of that variety.

But that is not what you are trying to do. I've never seriously had problems pitching a fresh system to a group - but 2e is not a fresh system. If there is a reason you can run your campaign in 2e and no other version of D&D you can probably pitch it effectively. If you pitched it under a banner that was accurate like "I want to run it in 2e because that's what I have the most experience running and it feels different because ..." you'd probably do better. But any attempt to pitch a game of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as rules light is going to go down about as well as an attempt to pitch a Skoda as an expensive car. This in no way means you couldn't pitch Traveller or Paranoia to the same group. Or a one shot of a game with simple mechanics that works well as a one shot like Dread, Fiasco, or Dogs in the Vineyard

Also we have games like Vampire the Masquerade, Paranoia, WFRP, Traveller, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, Spirit of the Century, Dogs in the Vineyard, Dread, and Fiasco out there. 2e and 3.5 are meant to do approximately the same thing most of the time. Yes, 2e is a little different to 3.5. But pitching 2e as a change from 3.5 is like pitching "I'll have a clemantine as a change from satsumas" when the fruit bowl is full of apples, mangos, passion fruit, and bananas.

Shorter me: Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is going to be hard to pitch as rules light especially as the 3.X core rules are genuinely cleaner and easier to learn (which admittedly allowed them to balance more stuff on the top). And 2e isn't incredibly different from 3.X so it's hard to pitch on novelty.