Promises made, promises kept. I said I would return a third, and final, essay springing from Jon Peterson's book (The Elusive Shift) and here it is! As a reminder and some links-
1. Review of the Book.
2. First Post about RPG Theory.
3. Second Post about Commercialization of 1e.
I wanted to end my series of thoughts and ruminations with a general thought that I had while reading the book, and that builds on the ideas within my post about the commercialization of AD&D (1e) as compared to OD&D. Specifically, that OD&D (D&D) was not a system, so much as a toolkit. And the way that the RPG (I'm going to use that abbreviation to stand in for "TTRPGs") market grew from those historical roots created the conditions that continue to persist today- specifically, that D&D is always in a dialogue with the entire remainder of the RPG market, and that dialogue, between "D&D" and "not-D&D," effectively defines the entirety of the market and the conversations that we continue to have today.
A. How OD&D and the Early RPGs defined the Conversation.
OH HEAR ME! The lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen... (drops stone tablet) Oy. Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey!
It is difficult to explain just how thoroughly D&D defined and dominated the early conversation regarding RPGs. While people today joke about the ways that D&D dominates the market, or how "laypeople" use D&D as a generic term for RPGs, D&D really was the RPG. As in ... the only game in town. Many of the seminal early RPGs that we think of today were simply outgrowths of D&D. For example, Empire of the Petal Throne was, for all practical purposes, a translation of M.A.R. Barker's world (Tekumel) into "D&D" after Barker was shown D&D. Superhero 2044, the groundbreaking superhero game, was simply the campaign notes of a D&D campaign where the characters entered a portal and hobnobbed with superheroes. Chivalry & Sorcery, likewise, was a game that grew from the D&D campaign notes. Tunnels & Trolls was based off of D&D, but simplified, cheaper, and not using the "exotic" dice of D&D, instead requiring only the standard d6.
This was so common that people such as Edward Simbalist (creator of C&S) referenced this- that once your campaign notes got to a certain point, why not just publish them? The reason for this was fairly obvious- D&D wasn't a game, so much as it was a toolkit. It was more of an idea, a concept, than a full system. To crib the quote regarding the Velvet Underground- very few people were playing D&D in the first three years, but it seems like a good portion of them ended up trying to design their own games!
And this made perfect sense. After all, this whole "RPG" idea was completely new. People were trying to wrap their heads around what to do with it! Some were taking D&D into completely rules-lite directions, sometimes playing out political conferences without rules at all. Others were getting more and more crunchy and simulationist, looking for rules for everything. There were people who designed rules for strange (and relatively progressive) fantastical sexual and romantic affiliations to layer on top of the D&D rules. Others used D&D as a hub from which their adventurers could travel to any fantastical genres of their In short, D&D wasn't so much a single thing, as it was a base to build upon.
But this also caused a relatively strange problem. Because D&D was so dominant, and because D&D was so "open" as a toolkit, people didn't necessarily view different systems as ... different. A person could easily say, "Oh, I'm playing D&D using Chivalry & Sorcery rules and my own new saving tables!" D&D was both a system, and a toolkit. As much as Gygax fumed and obsessed about competition, the competition only ended up getting folded into D&D. D&D wasn't a single thing- it was a mélange of playstyles, and homebrews, and third-party product, and rules imported from other games, and the detritus that likely flowed in from the cosmic unconsciousness.
B. There is D&D, and the Other.
We are so poor, we don't even have a language! Just a stupid accent!
I would say that this dichotomy- that in RPGs there is D&D, and everything else, has been the sole constant. The dichotomy that defined the beginning of the market is the same one that defines it today. And the reason is fairly simple- because the conversation in the RPG market is not, and has never been, about numerous competing viewpoints; instead, it has always been about how different products and approaches define themselves in relation to D&D.
What is remarkable about this is that you can see this conversation reflected even when the ostensible subject doesn't appear. To give a few examples I have seen recently-
1. "Why don't branded RPGs do well?" This came up in a conversation about Star Trek, but it could be regarding any branded RPG- whether it's some derivation of Tolkien, or Marvel, or Dr. Who, or even Star Wars. And the answer is ... well, they aren't D&D. So they will never do "well." They might do better, or worse, compared to other RPGs (Star Wars is better, Star Trek is worse, usually), you might change the definitions to make them look better (if you consider CoC "branded" then they do really well ... for "not D&D"), but in the end, the reason they don't do well is because they aren't D&D.
2. "Why does fantasy dominate RPGs?" Again, it doesn't! Instead, D&D (and prior versions of D&D, and D&D clones like PF) dominates the market, and the remainder has a decent mix of genres (horror, fantasy, science fiction, etc).
I could keep going, but you get the gist. And this conversation has remained constant, even while D&D itself has changed. That's where we get into the most fascinating thing (to me) about D&D presence in the market- it both informs the RPG market, defines the RPG market, and reacts to the RPG market. Normally, hegemony like D&D's would be displaced ... instead, because of the somewhat unique nature of this conversation, it continues to be reinforced.
It's the same cycle, edition to edition. People play D&D. People talk about RPGs. People eventually play other RPGs (or even design their own). People bring their experience playing other RPGs back to D&D. The cycle begins anew.
I should point out that this is not an argument for the superiority of D&D- far from it! Instead, this is a final reflection on how the early history of D&D shaped the game and the discourse that we still see today. Specifically, I've been thinking about this every since reading, in The Elusive Shift, a few bits about how early designers complaining about how their superior systems kept losing out to D&D. A lot of them couldn't understand why people kept playing D&D! Those conversations felt so eerily familiar- more importantly, they reminded me that the same ideas- the concepts of defining RPGs in relation to D&D, haven't change for nearly 50 years.
Pictured- The Superior, Non-D&D, RPG:
Anyway, those are my final thoughts on a really good book. With the holidays upon us, I will give one final recommendation for The Elusive Shift as the perfect gift for the cerebral RPG fan in your life!
Now, have at it ....
1. Review of the Book.
2. First Post about RPG Theory.
3. Second Post about Commercialization of 1e.
I wanted to end my series of thoughts and ruminations with a general thought that I had while reading the book, and that builds on the ideas within my post about the commercialization of AD&D (1e) as compared to OD&D. Specifically, that OD&D (D&D) was not a system, so much as a toolkit. And the way that the RPG (I'm going to use that abbreviation to stand in for "TTRPGs") market grew from those historical roots created the conditions that continue to persist today- specifically, that D&D is always in a dialogue with the entire remainder of the RPG market, and that dialogue, between "D&D" and "not-D&D," effectively defines the entirety of the market and the conversations that we continue to have today.
A. How OD&D and the Early RPGs defined the Conversation.
OH HEAR ME! The lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen... (drops stone tablet) Oy. Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey!
It is difficult to explain just how thoroughly D&D defined and dominated the early conversation regarding RPGs. While people today joke about the ways that D&D dominates the market, or how "laypeople" use D&D as a generic term for RPGs, D&D really was the RPG. As in ... the only game in town. Many of the seminal early RPGs that we think of today were simply outgrowths of D&D. For example, Empire of the Petal Throne was, for all practical purposes, a translation of M.A.R. Barker's world (Tekumel) into "D&D" after Barker was shown D&D. Superhero 2044, the groundbreaking superhero game, was simply the campaign notes of a D&D campaign where the characters entered a portal and hobnobbed with superheroes. Chivalry & Sorcery, likewise, was a game that grew from the D&D campaign notes. Tunnels & Trolls was based off of D&D, but simplified, cheaper, and not using the "exotic" dice of D&D, instead requiring only the standard d6.
This was so common that people such as Edward Simbalist (creator of C&S) referenced this- that once your campaign notes got to a certain point, why not just publish them? The reason for this was fairly obvious- D&D wasn't a game, so much as it was a toolkit. It was more of an idea, a concept, than a full system. To crib the quote regarding the Velvet Underground- very few people were playing D&D in the first three years, but it seems like a good portion of them ended up trying to design their own games!
And this made perfect sense. After all, this whole "RPG" idea was completely new. People were trying to wrap their heads around what to do with it! Some were taking D&D into completely rules-lite directions, sometimes playing out political conferences without rules at all. Others were getting more and more crunchy and simulationist, looking for rules for everything. There were people who designed rules for strange (and relatively progressive) fantastical sexual and romantic affiliations to layer on top of the D&D rules. Others used D&D as a hub from which their adventurers could travel to any fantastical genres of their In short, D&D wasn't so much a single thing, as it was a base to build upon.
But this also caused a relatively strange problem. Because D&D was so dominant, and because D&D was so "open" as a toolkit, people didn't necessarily view different systems as ... different. A person could easily say, "Oh, I'm playing D&D using Chivalry & Sorcery rules and my own new saving tables!" D&D was both a system, and a toolkit. As much as Gygax fumed and obsessed about competition, the competition only ended up getting folded into D&D. D&D wasn't a single thing- it was a mélange of playstyles, and homebrews, and third-party product, and rules imported from other games, and the detritus that likely flowed in from the cosmic unconsciousness.
B. There is D&D, and the Other.
We are so poor, we don't even have a language! Just a stupid accent!
I would say that this dichotomy- that in RPGs there is D&D, and everything else, has been the sole constant. The dichotomy that defined the beginning of the market is the same one that defines it today. And the reason is fairly simple- because the conversation in the RPG market is not, and has never been, about numerous competing viewpoints; instead, it has always been about how different products and approaches define themselves in relation to D&D.
What is remarkable about this is that you can see this conversation reflected even when the ostensible subject doesn't appear. To give a few examples I have seen recently-
1. "Why don't branded RPGs do well?" This came up in a conversation about Star Trek, but it could be regarding any branded RPG- whether it's some derivation of Tolkien, or Marvel, or Dr. Who, or even Star Wars. And the answer is ... well, they aren't D&D. So they will never do "well." They might do better, or worse, compared to other RPGs (Star Wars is better, Star Trek is worse, usually), you might change the definitions to make them look better (if you consider CoC "branded" then they do really well ... for "not D&D"), but in the end, the reason they don't do well is because they aren't D&D.
2. "Why does fantasy dominate RPGs?" Again, it doesn't! Instead, D&D (and prior versions of D&D, and D&D clones like PF) dominates the market, and the remainder has a decent mix of genres (horror, fantasy, science fiction, etc).
I could keep going, but you get the gist. And this conversation has remained constant, even while D&D itself has changed. That's where we get into the most fascinating thing (to me) about D&D presence in the market- it both informs the RPG market, defines the RPG market, and reacts to the RPG market. Normally, hegemony like D&D's would be displaced ... instead, because of the somewhat unique nature of this conversation, it continues to be reinforced.
It's the same cycle, edition to edition. People play D&D. People talk about RPGs. People eventually play other RPGs (or even design their own). People bring their experience playing other RPGs back to D&D. The cycle begins anew.
I should point out that this is not an argument for the superiority of D&D- far from it! Instead, this is a final reflection on how the early history of D&D shaped the game and the discourse that we still see today. Specifically, I've been thinking about this every since reading, in The Elusive Shift, a few bits about how early designers complaining about how their superior systems kept losing out to D&D. A lot of them couldn't understand why people kept playing D&D! Those conversations felt so eerily familiar- more importantly, they reminded me that the same ideas- the concepts of defining RPGs in relation to D&D, haven't change for nearly 50 years.
Pictured- The Superior, Non-D&D, RPG:
Anyway, those are my final thoughts on a really good book. With the holidays upon us, I will give one final recommendation for The Elusive Shift as the perfect gift for the cerebral RPG fan in your life!
Now, have at it ....
