Johnny Wilson on Dragon 300 at www.gamingreport.com

[rounser]

Part of the ageless appeal of The Lord of the Rings trilogy is that the evil is so palpable that the overall triumph offers hope whether against the backdrops of the rise of Nazi Germany when many first encountered the books, the televised horrors of the Vietnam Conflict when I encountered them, or the slaughter of innocents we remember from 9/11/01. Even in the midst of horrific evil, it is the HOPE that counts.

LotR is admirable for many, many reasons. Palpability of it's evil, of all things, is not one of the strong points I ascribe to it, though.

I'll have to side with Michael Moorcock that the evil in LotR is almost anything but palpable. A quote from him:

The Lord of the Rings ... is Winnie the Pooh posing as an epic.

Tolkien definitely gets the "epic" bit right, and then some. Moorcock does have a point that you could easily replace Sam and Frodo with Winnie the Pooh and Piglet, and reach much the same outcome. Orcs and Nazgul blunder around like the keystone cops, never being truly effective, and then the vaguely menacing evil that never even truly presents itself gets blown away on the wind at the end. Most fantasy authors seem to have a better stab at palpable evil than Tolkien. Foreshadowing, and suggestions of epic menace that seem more theoretical than actual, on the other hand, Tolkien excelled at.

The movie cheated, and actually showed us Sauron, providing an anchor for the suggestions of danger that the father figure characters finger-wavingly warn of...and it also turned the One Ring - an inanimate object - into a sinister character, another anchor for palpable evil, in a way the book the didn't quite match. Perhaps that's influenced some perceptions to the contrary.

 

[SemperJase]

Indeed, that era was so banal that other role-playing systems stole gamers away from Dungeons & Dragons with systems and backgrounds that were significantly grittier than the self-censored D&D world.

What he missed is that a "tame" non-vile 3rd edition became the best selling rpg of all time. Apparently you just need a good system, not vile or 'mature' content to sell a million copies of the PHB.

 

[Default Name Player]

What he missed is that a "tame" non-vile 3rd edition became the best selling rpg of all time. Apparently you just need a good system, not vile or 'mature' content to sell a million copies of the PHB.

I think you're missing the point: first, you need to avoid the mentality that if someone has a disagreeing POV, they are at advocating an extreme position. The comparison Mr. Wilson made is (of course) D&D 2e to the World of Darkness - not that D&D would somehow become "vile"...and to be fair, let's say that just because a person doesn't run a "vile" campaign, doesn't mean they aren't running a mature or adult campaign either. There's way too many degrees of play style to fit with one or two monikers, okay?

This is just IMO, but when D&D 1e "evolved" into D&D 2e, it didn't age along with it's players. Speaking from my own experience, D&D ended for me towards the beginning of 2e because it wasn't really much different from 1e. I won't speak for others, but there are many (based on various posts) who left during the 2e days, but came back for 3e. I won't guesstimate the extent, however.

Again, IMHO D&D 2e was not a good evolution of the system. (and before anyone says it, I said the "evolution" was not a good one - I didn't say the system sucked)

 

[jester47]

Second edition seems to have three phases. The first was the no demons or devils sanitised version. At this point the materials were horrible. Every 2e item I have read from this era pales in comparison to 1e and 3e materials. There was a general lack of creativity at TSR after the release of 2e. I do not think this was because the witers were not creative, I just think a lot of what they wanted to do was getting vetoed. We do not see the really cool stuff of second edition appear until about 1993. This is where TSR realised thier mistake and created several campaign settings to cover thier asses. Planescape brought back the demons and devils, Darksun was aimed at the post apocalyptic crowd, and Ravenloft was brought out to bring the lost spider farmers back into the fold. (I fit into all three demographics at the time). I remember Origins 93 and that Gurps had released a version of Vampire, GDW was going well, cards had not hit yet and everyone was either a netrunner or a vampire. Looking at the selection of products from 89 to 92 we some gems but over all it is a collection of really boring things. Before these, there was a watered down Greyhawk, A sterelised forgotten realms (including all the Karatur and Alquadim stuff), and what else? Nothing (ok I forgot dragonlance, but even that got boreing). 1e compared to pre 92 2e (I say 92 just to give the benefit of the doubt as I do not have access to ravenloft stuff) is far more gritty and mature. Just page through the Monster Manuals and the Monsterous Compendium. The art is pretty weak. It does not get good agian until the Monsterous Manual which was published in (ta da!) 1993.

But my 1993 it was too late.

Aaron.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

It's possible the industry has changed in the last couple of years. I know putting a major movie out that wasn't "R" (especially action movies) was considered suicide a few years ago. For example, most in the industry expected "The Last Action" hero would be a bomb because they deliberately didn't release an "R" rated movie, before it was finished.

Actually, summer movies, like Last Action Hero, try to shoot for PG and PG-13 ratings; R ratings cut a huge swath out of the potential audiences for films, since teens are one of the biggest, if not biggest, movie-going groups, especially for summer. That's pretty much been true since since the advent of the summer blockbuster season back in the 70s.

It really depends on the type of film, and when the studio plans to release it.

 

[ruleslawyer]

LotR is admirable for many, many reasons. Palpability of it's evil, of all things, is not one of the strong points I ascribe to it, though.

I'll have to side with Michael Moorcock that the evil in LotR is almost anything but palpable. A quote from him:

Tolkien definitely gets the "epic" bit right, and then some. Moorcock does have a point that you could easily replace Sam and Frodo with Winnie the Pooh and Piglet, and reach much the same outcome. Orcs and Nazgul blunder around like the keystone cops, never being truly effective, and then the vaguely menacing evil that never even truly presents itself gets blown away on the wind at the end. Most fantasy authors seem to have a better stab at palpable evil than Tolkien. Foreshadowing, and suggestions of epic menace that seem more theoretical than actual, on the other hand, Tolkien excelled at.

The movie cheated, and actually showed us Sauron, providing an anchor for the suggestions of danger that the father figure characters finger-wavingly warn of...and it also turned the One Ring - an inanimate object - into a sinister character, another anchor for palpable evil, in a way the book the didn't quite match. Perhaps that's influenced some perceptions to the contrary.

Wow; I can't even BEGIN to start on how much I disagree with this.

It doesn't really sound like Moorcock read the books, let alone hearkened to the feeling of gloom and darkness that pervades a good chunk of them. Of course, ol' Mike isn't exactly a subtle writer, much as he may be a grand painter of words...

Actually, showing Sauron was one of those creative decisions that I think could have gone either way; I certainly don't think it was necessary to do so, beyond the "cool factor" of seeing him tossing Elves and Men in all directions.

 

[CrazyMage]

What the heck is that? Is there some story to this, cause it's brilliant.

Thanks, but really thanks should go to the writers of the Simpsons. Nelson says it once while catching fish to huck at cars.

 

[Ayrk]

Forgive my ignorance, but what was Johnny Wilson doing on Good Morning America discussing Mortal Kombat and debating school shootings on CNN? Who was he before he came to Dragon?

He was the editor for Computer Gaming World for many years before it was purchased by Ziff-Davis (which led to the downfall of an otherwise great magazine, IMHO. I finally let my subscription lapse when the magazine was so thin it felt like a sales pamphlet).

 

[Marius Delphus]

Well, I can't say for sure, but I can say that D&D in the 90s came across as pandering to it's audience, in the same way that Avalanche currently does, with an emphasis on boobage and blood, and not necessarily on content. I don't think he means innocent, so much as infantile. Not having been an active player of D&D at that time, I can't comment on how accurate it is...but I can comment on the one or two D&D products I bought that SUCKED. Essentially, he claims that D&D was being designed for a market from ten to fifteen years prior, or so I read it.

I was a frequent TSR customer and active AD&D player during the 90s, and I can think of a number of reasons for AD&D's decline in market share that have nothing to do with the "maturity" with which the material was presented, some of which have already been mentioned in this or other threads. Off the top of my head, I point to rules bloat, internal inconsistencies, power creep (kits!), market segmentation, recycled art (leads to a "seen it already" attitude), product/brand mismanagement, the subordination of creative direction to uninformed business processes, market-blind design, increasingly outdated "look and feel" (including graphic design), and the feeling (rational or no) that "sucky" products (like the ones you bought) were being marketed to us as must-buys.

Among my tiny little circle of gamers (which I know is not a representative sampling), none of us knew TSR was in dire financial peril. Also, none of us had the feeling we were being talked down to. We only knew that reams of iffy product were pouring from the mill, with only the occasional gem among the chat. Personally, I feel as though AD&D would have done better if TSR had decided to cease releasing 5-6 *blah* products a month and start releasing 2-3 *good* ones. We'll never know for sure, but at least an argument could be composed in that vein which is as unsubstantiated (as yet) as the argument that AD&D 2E was skewing too young.

I'm not claiming the TSR designers weren't hemmed in by a restrictive "ethical" code (and in fact I believe they were). I'm not claiming that "edgier" content wouldn't have sold (it very well might have). I'm even led to understand that AD&D 2E was consciously aimed at 12-14 year olds (I think we were told this during the marketing blitz for 3E). But I still claim that, without proof, the contention that "AD&D's drop in market share during the 90s was due to its complete lack of edginess" is logically unsupportable.

I might be wrong. I'm certainly neither an insider nor even close to being one. Given proof, of course, I'll be happy to change my outlook on the matter. And if I've misread the argument, I certainly apologize.

As for the jab at a particular writer...well, that writer took the first punch, and his reply at gaming report doesn't seem to take much umbrage with it, so I won't.

Fair enough. I suppose it was the "crocodile tears" thing that left me with the feeling there was more to the passage than a set of premises and a conclusion. I'm willing to let this one alone too.

 

[WizarDru]

I'm not claiming the TSR designers weren't hemmed in by a restrictive "ethical" code (and in fact I believe they were). I'm not claiming that "edgier" content wouldn't have sold (it very well might have). I'm even led to understand that AD&D 2E was consciously aimed at 12-14 year olds (I think we were told this during the marketing blitz for 3E). But I still claim that, without proof, the contention that "AD&D's drop in market share during the 90s was due to its complete lack of edginess" is logically unsupportable.

I might be wrong. I'm certainly neither an insider nor even close to being one. Given proof, of course, I'll be happy to change my outlook on the matter. And if I've misread the argument, I certainly apologize.

Heh, well, as I say, I wasn't even actively playing the game at the time, so I have less direct experience than you do. I agree that any attempt to make a direct correllation between 'edginess' and TSR's finances is spurious, at best; given that we've seen an awful lot of evidence that the company and products were dreadfully mismanaged in a host of ways, I think that's nothing more than wishful thinking. All the reasons you cite are certainly contributing factors, IMHO.