WotC didn't necessarily save D&D

[Dice4Hire]

Games evolve, and I think even in GG had kept the game (which he did not), he would have kept changing it. SO it would have evolved in any case.

WOTC helped a lot by rejuvenating the game and pouring money into it. Say what you like about MTG, but the cash infusion from it was needed by the tabletop RPG industry.

 

[jonesy]

I'm looking at my character sheet and it says under Personality Quirks that I am Easily Confused, but even so the poll options make no sense. Something can be financially sound without being good or bad. WotC as a company has to consider whether something is financially sound before anything else. Otherwise there wouldn't be a WotC. And whether D&D or AD&D or whatever was saved or killed is entirely speculative. I mean, what if they actually saved AD&D? What if the alternative would have produced something worse, and killed it entirely? What if that was why whatever? Who knows? Nobody. What if bunnies?

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

D&D's a bit like Pink Floyd.

There was a first incarnation, with TSR D&D cast as Syd Barrett-era Floyd. Then just before the second album (edition), suddenly they decide they can no longer work with their main songwriter and change direction. You get Waters-era Floyd, which remains popular but fragments the original fanbase.

Then, later, Roger Waters disappears and you get Gilmour-era Floyd, which is still popular but it has a different sound again.

Opinions vary about which is the best era of the band (game), and there's genuinely different schools of thought, each with valid points to make.

Now, imagine a record label who've decided to stop selling Piper at the Gates of Dawn, and indeed The Wall, because they've "moved on" from that period. The only Pink Floyd album they'll sell is The Division Bell.

Would you say that record label has made a smart decision?

I don't really mind, myself, because I'm personally running a Syd Barrett Tribute Band.

 

[Mark CMG]

D&D is alive and doing well, even AD&D. I started playing in a campaign of it just Friday evening. It doesn't matter that the game is out of print somehow everyone still managed to get a hold of a book.

Wizards provided the single greatest boon to keeping D&D alive: the Open Game License. All the old editions are still in print, they're just called OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, et al. I find it disheartening that AD&D to you is in the name, not the spirit of the game. The rules are transferable: the art and license is superfluous.

Yup, these things and such. WotC saved D&D (though it is arguable that someone else could have as well if they hadn't) and by doing it alongside the OGL they revitalized and kept all previous editions potentially alive too (as long as others are doing the legwork through retro-cloning and adventure/supplement production). They may have killed the latest and future editions (for the time at which they are done with it themselves), though, if they continue not to use the OGL. They might consider this the financially sound situation but from the outside looking in that does seem to be debatable, which is not likely the position they'd want to be in (they'd rather it be a foregone conclusion that it is financially sound, I am sure).

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, do what do you think WotC did to D&D?

The OP seems kind of caught up in...technicalities.

WotC added a "core system" to D&D (d20 + mods vs. a DC) that was easy to understand and intuitive. Then they flipped the D&D rules as they existed to revolve around this core system. This was their big Game Design change, and it drove many (though not all) of 3e's changes.

This happened to be financially successful as well. This could be for any one of a number of reasons, somewhat related to the core system innovation, or not. Consumers are not entities driven by a cold dispassionate logic, so logic won't tell you what's going to succeed and what won't and why.

The success of 3e's fairly extensive revolutions set the stage for more big changes in 4e, and arguably 4e has been relatively less successful (not that it hasn't been a success, just that the 3e -> 4e transition is probably less successful financially than the 2e -> 3e transition). Again, this could be for hundreds of petty and half-mad reasons.

If WotC had never acquired the game, I don't think we'd have more editions. I think we'd still have the retroclones, but I don't think anybody would've picked up the d20 system and the OGL and ran with them, and the retroclones would necessarily be niche fan projects (probably smaller than the audience for OSRIC or whatever today). It's possible that someone at some point would dredge up the old title and try to re-purpose it for a "new generation," but it would probably bear even less resemblance to 2e than 3e did.

I think that WotC acquiring the licence was overall a good thing. They threw Pokemon Money at the game, gave it room to grow, and gave it the OGL, which enabled, and still enables, a flowering of awesomeness. The alternative to me seems to be small fan projects that remain closer to 2e, different RPGs, and possibly a re-launch that bears little resemblance to the original. I think we're living in a better world than that, at the moment.

 

[Madeiner]

IF WotC hadn't made 3e I would wager AD&D WOULD be in print today.

That's like saying, "if microsoft didn't create windows, we would all be using DOS".

That may be true, but if it was, then we would be using an ancient system with a lot of bugs and very little potential.
DOS is AD&D like 3.5/PF is Windows XP. (i would regard 4e as Vista... but anyway)
It is different because it has evolved, it changed into something that is mechanically better (come on, THAC0...). One may or may not like it. Still, thanks to WOTC, we have windows now. And that's a good thing, because we are going further and further and D&D is becoming better and full of new ideas.
Nothing prevent anyway to use the good old DOS though. You may need to adapt adventures and probably have to look harder for players, but you can do it.

In the end, no one killed anything. Things evolved, and i think that objectively, PF is a "service pack" for 3.5, and each edition added something and created better rules. 4E is a bit of black sheep, as many people really don't like it (as it actually has removed some features from 3.5). I have no idea if this happened when 3e came out, as i wasn't really in the roleplaying scene just yet. I'd like to know, though.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Here's what I think:

• TSR was killing AD&D: running it right into the ground. Bad thing.
• WotC "killed AD&D" as an in-print game. Bad that AD&D is no longer in print, but also neutral because the AD&D trademark is no longer tied to an in-print and ever-changing game. "AD&D" has a stronger and more meaningful identity than just "D&D," which could mean any number of disparate games, at this point.
• WotC saved the "D&D" brand in the sense that they made a successful "D&D" game. Good for the brand and for WotC. Neutral for TSR D&D fans because the changes were fairly significant, and have become even more significant as time has gone on. The latest D&D is no more similar to TSR D&D than a game like Runequest or Rolemaster is. Could be good or bad, depending on your tastes.
• WotC indirectly saved TSR D&D via the OGL. Even though we can't use the D&D trademark, TSR D&D lives on through the OGL and retro-clones. Currently published. Currently supported. Good thing.

Frankly, I have no complaints with the way things turned out. The only thing that would put a cherry on top is if WotC decided to re-print the TSR D&D and AD&D material. I don't expect that to happen, but heck, I'd even like to see the PDFs made available again. WotC might get some of my money, were that to happen.

But if they don't, I'm not weeping. My gaming doesn't revolve around WotC, and hasn't for a long time.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I agree with PJ's post. (I'd give XP, but evidently I need to spread it around before giving it to PJ again) I voted that WotC didn't kill it, but they didn't save it either.

The "Dungeons & Dragons" name is such a well-known brand that even people who don't know what an RPG is have heard the name "Dungeons & Dragons". I don't think the game was really in any danger because someone would have bought the rights to the D&D brand and kept the game around in some incarnation. If it wasn't WotC, it would have been someone else.

WotC didn't really "save" D&D because there was never any real chance of D&D going away as long as table-top RPGs are financially viable. D&D was never in any real danger... except for the possibility that someone would buy the name and use it for a game that wasn't really D&D. (and some people feel this is what WotC did, but that's a whole different discussion...)

 

[the Jester]

WotC saved D&D; good thing; financially sound.

AD&D is alive and well.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

If WotC had not bought out TSR then bankruptcy, receivership, and liquidation would have followed.

Do we really want to know what would have happened under that scenario?

There would have been a new edition, and likely at lower standards than those that WotC employed.

AD&D, as such, would still be dead or would stagnate at the point where TSR left it at the tail end of 2e. It is likely that stagnation would have killed AD&D much more thoroughly than 3e did.

It is almost certain that nothing similar to the OGL/D20 License would have occurred. Thus no OSRIC, no DCC RPG, no Pathfinder, no C&C.

So, in the long run, yes, I do think that WotC saved D&D. Not merely from the fall of TSR but, via the OGL, from themselves as well.

The Auld Grump