D&D General Extra Credits: The History of D&D Hasbro Refused to Learn

[Ralif Redhammer]

Listening to that podcast now, thanks for the rec.

Totally badass.

It came out of the Great Kingdom documentary Kickstarter that I backed...eons ago. Still no sign of that, alas. But the podcast is pretty informative and well done.

I'm not sure the premise really holds. I didn't play 2E, so I'm not the best judge of that edition, but having read it and played the hell out of AD&D, if I had to compare them, I'd say AD&D is the more explicitly "locked down" of the two editions. Gygax goes on at length about how only RAW AD&D is real D&D in the books whereas in the 2E books there's mounds of optional rules all over the place.

I would concur that that was the intention. Of course, I think most of us still modded the heck out of 1e, if nothing else but by ignoring whole swathes of rules like parasitic infections and that specific weapons vs. armor table.

So I'm not sure the premise that "the corporation dictates how the game is played" really holds. From what I've heard about 3E, it's much the same in reverse. Lots of "things must be done this way and no other" in the feat chains, building monsters in specific ways, and rules for everything.

I would likewise agree with that assessment of 3e. When I looked at the things I didn't like about it, I found that removing or modifying certain elements was like pulling a thread and having the whole garment unravel.

 

[Clint_L]

AD&D was by design far more "locked down" than OD&D - as TSR rapidly expanded they realized the value of their IP and the risk of not defining/defending it. On top of that, Gygax was eager to make it his game, with the specific purpose of removing Dave Arneson from the royalties. TSR went to court over it, expressly arguing that AD&D was an entirely different game than OD&D.

So the video's underlying premise - that the game does best when it is most open - doesn't really track with D&D's history, because it enjoyed its most explosive growth (yes, even compared to 5e) in the early years of AD&D, when TSR was aggressively trying to tighten the screws.

2e had a lot of optional rules for the same reason that 2e had a lot of books, period: TSR was trying to dig out of a financial hole after teetering on bankruptcy in 1984-85, and their method was to ramp up publication while taking advantage of a pre-existing deal with Random House that paid them in advance on the assumption that all the books would eventually sell (they didn't, and couldn't). This bought TSR about a decade, all while digging themselves deeper and deeper.

That's what ultimately bugged me about the video - it is all about reducing a lot of complex history to a fairly facile thesis. While it is good that they recommend source materials, if you are interested in this subject then books like Game Wizards (in particular) and Slaying the Dragon (more anecdotal, but still useful) do a much more comprehensive job of detailing the rise and fall and rise and fall of TSR.

All that said, I do think the OGL was probably a net benefit to the success of 5e, in particular, though I think the ascendancy of Gen Xers and geek culture in general has been far, far more impactful. I'm not as certain that it has been good for TTRPGs in general. Over the past decade we've seen the D&D ecosystem spread far and wide because there's gold in them thar hills, but this makes me wonder how much it has contributed to the homogenization of the hobby.

 

[Nikosandros]

I'm not sure the premise really holds. I didn't play 2E, so I'm not the best judge of that edition, but having read it and played the hell out of AD&D, if I had to compare them, I'd say AD&D is the more explicitly "locked down" of the two editions. Gygax goes on at length about how only RAW AD&D is real D&D in the books

Well, Gygax said and wrote many things, but I've never met two groups playing AD&D 1e in the same way. There are several reasons for this, but one of them is that the rules are, in several parts (such as initiative) unclear and contradictory. 2e rules are much clearer, IMO; so it is easier(or at least possible) to play 2e, more or less, by-the-book.

 

[overgeeked]

I would concur that that was the intention. Of course, I think most of us still modded the heck out of 1e, if nothing else but by ignoring whole swathes of rules like parasitic infections and that specific weapons vs. armor table.

Absolutely. Once the game is published all bets are off. But the corporation behind the game and the author’s intent and all that. A game designed to be modded is written differently than a game designed to be played RAW. Toolkits are written differently than “complete” games. Etc. Compare OD&D with AD&D, for example. Or Traveller 1977 to just about any later iteration of the game.

I would likewise agree with that assessment of 3e. When I looked at the things I didn't like about it, I found that removing or modifying certain elements was like pulling a thread and having the whole garment unravel.

Exactly. The game is so tightly wound and expects you to play it as written that even trying to mod the thing unravels the lot. Unified mechanics make some things easier, but they can also make the game harder to mod.

Well, Gygax said and wrote many things, but I've never met two groups playing AD&D 1e in the same way.

Yep. But it’s not for lack of trying on Gygax’s part. He very clearly and explicitly commended from on high that the RAW of the AD&D book was to be respected and followed.

There are several reasons for this, but one of them is that the rules are, in several parts (such as initiative) unclear and contradictory. 2e rules are much clearer, IMO; so it is easier(or at least possible) to play 2e, more or less, by-the-book.

Initiative is only “in parts” if you look at it from a modern perspective and inssit on referencing the entire AD&D line for the “complete” rules. It was whole and complete in the PHB. That they layered extra stuff on top of that later doesn’t change that.

 

[Nikosandros]

Initiative is only “in parts” if you look at it from a modern perspective and inssit on referencing the entire AD&D line for the “complete” rules. It was whole and complete in the PHB. That they layered extra stuff on top of that later doesn’t change that.

I agree that the PHB initiative is a working system. The DMG added all sort of stuff...

 

[jmartkdr2]

Absolutely. Once the game is published all bets are off. But the corporation behind the game and the author’s intent and all that. A game designed to be modded is written differently than a game designed to be played RAW. Toolkits are written differently than “complete” games. Etc. Compare OD&D with AD&D, for example. Or Traveller 1977 to just about any later iteration of the game.

Exactly. The game is so tightly wound and expects you to play it as written that even trying to mod the thing unravels the lot. Unified mechanics make some things easier, but they can also make the game harder to mod.

Yep. But it’s not for lack of trying on Gygax’s part. He very clearly and explicitly commended from on high that the RAW of the AD&D book was to be respected and followed.

Initiative is only “in parts” if you look at it from a modern perspective and inssit on referencing the entire AD&D line for the “complete” rules. It was whole and complete in the PHB. That they layered extra stuff on top of that later doesn’t change that.

I think you might be arguing a point tangent to the original video: it's less how controlled the rules are as how controlled the community - especially 3pp publisher - are. They've never really tried to stop you from modifying your home game, but they have had varying attitudes toward publishing your houserules to other players broadly.

After some more reflection and presented counter-evidence, I'm no longer convinced this is actually a main factor. 2e did well enough if you just look at it as a product and 4e wasn't held back mostly or even primarily by lack of 3pp support (although it was a factor and a symptom of other, more fundamental factors).

 

[Parmandur]

I think you might be arguing a point tangent to the original video: it's less how controlled the rules are as how controlled the community - especially 3pp publisher - are. They've never really tried to stop you from modifying your home game, but they have had varying attitudes toward publishing your houserules to other players broadly.

After some more reflection and presented counter-evidence, I'm no longer convinced this is actually a main factor. 2e did well enough if you just look at it as a product and 4e wasn't held back mostly or even primarily by lack of 3pp support (although it was a factor and a symptom of other, more fundamental factors).

Honestly seems rather disconnected.

 

[Autumnal]

I've never seen any numbers that indicate White Wolf ever got even close to the size of DND during the 90's. It was a ompetitor and a successful system. I don't want to say anything bad about it. I liked the system even if I didn't like the doom and gloom of the setting. If I'm wrong I'd love to see some hard numbers showing that.

Vampire outsold D&D for one (1) month in…drat, I’m not sure now if it was 1999 or 2000. Vampire: The Masquerade’s Revised edition was doing very well, and this was shortly before 3e came out. It was known to be on the way, and late 2e books weren’t thick on the ground nor selling in anything like their usual numbers. So it was genuinely unique circumstances. Certainly, nobody I worked with at WWGS had any expectation of it ever happening again, and they spent time hiding down over-eager fans.

It was reported in what passes for our field’s trade journals at the time and discussed on Usenet with participation of folks from various companies. I don’t have links handy at the moment, I’m afraid.

The Extra Credits video bugged me a lot. Specifically, their assertion that 1983-era legal actions against third-party publishers led directly to the appearance and spread of non-D&D games.

No. No no no.

Nothing that happened circa 1983 affected the creation of Tunnels & Trolls in 1975, Bunnies & Burrows in 1976, Chivalry & Sorcery or Superhero 2044 or Traveller in 1977, RuneQuest in 1978, Bushido or Villains & Vigilantes in 1979, Space Opera in 1980, Aftermath or Call of Cthulhu or Champions or Universe in 1981…

Nor do very many RPGs come from publishers who used to make 3pp D&D supplements until they found the legal environment too fraught. Some, sure, like DC Heroes, but it’s never been typical or even very common.

So I found it bad history and a bad thesis built in bad history.

 

[Hussar]

I believe white wolf outselling DnD was in the early 90’s. Certainly in the 2e days. So not 1999. Iirc it was like 1991-2.

 

[Parmandur]

I believe white wolf outselling DnD was in the early 90’s. Certainly in the 2e days. So not 1999. Iirc it was like 1991-2.

That's when Vampire was selling well, but I'll take Bruce's word as an insider at the time that it wasn't outselling AD&D until the eve of 3E.