Page 1 of 8

Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:27 pm
by AxeMental
In another thread, I was thinking about how TSR should have simply used the exact rules of 1E (down to the d20 based descending tables, the equiv. in classes, the damage done by weapons (but laser pistol instead of short sword say), spell caster equivs who used technology rather then "magic") with just minor modifications such a game could have been presented with three books very similar in layout and design to MM, PH and DMG. Imagine how well that would have been received (all millionZillion 1E players would have already known the rules basically). Talk about dropping the ball. WTF happened???

Re: Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:58 pm
by TRP
Hollywood.

Re: Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:46 pm
by blackprinceofmuncie
WotC tried to do the unified system for every genre thing and it didn't work out so well (d20 Call of Cthulhu anyone?). I like it that AD&D, Star Frontiers, Boot Hill and Top Secret all have different rules. I don't think I would have been a big fan of having a dozen systems that were all essentially "AD&D: Genre X", like AD&D: Post Apocalyptic and AD&D: Modern Thriller and AD&D: In Space. Boring! :?

Re: Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:11 pm
by T. Foster
AxeMental wrote:In another thread, I was thinking about how TSR should have simply used the exact rules of 1E (down to the d20 based descending tables, the equiv. in classes, the damage done by weapons (but laser pistol instead of short sword say), spell caster equivs who used technology rather then "magic") with just minor modifications such a game could have been presented with three books very similar in layout and design to MM, PH and DMG. Imagine how well that would have been received (all millionZillion 1E players would have already known the rules basically). Talk about dropping the ball. WTF happened???
What you're describing, except for the 3 books, is pretty much exactly what TSR did with Gamma World and it flopped. I think later on they did the same thing with one of their many Buck Rogers rpgs and it flopped too.

Re: Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:11 pm
by JRT
Well, you're ignoring how similar both 1st and 2nd edition Gamma World was in core concept. So they already had that.

An approach more like the one you suggested was done with the XXVc system (used for Buck Rogers but the system owned by TSR/now Hasbro), which pretty much was D&D in space, including levels and saving throws.

Plus, core D&D is very tied to the spellcaster and the dungeon setting. I can't see that working for outer space--people expect their technology to come with them or be purchased, not looting corpses. Add things like the desire to use vehicles, and I think 1e D&D as written would not be a suitable game for space opera without a lot of house ruling. And Gygax had gone on record saying S-F had less "flexibility" as Fantasy--the reason Fantasy is a more popular genre is the fact that anything can happen, while S-F fans expect more rules.

Re: Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:25 pm
by TRP
blackprinceofmuncie wrote:WotC tried to do the unified system for every genre thing and it didn't work out so well (d20 Call of Cthulhu anyone?). I like it that AD&D, Star Frontiers, Boot Hill and Top Secret all have different rules. I don't think I would have been a big fan of having a dozen systems that were all essentially "AD&D: Genre X", like AD&D: Post Apocalyptic and AD&D: Modern Thriller and AD&D: In Space. Boring! :?
I dunno, it works pretty darn well for BRP.

Re: Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:06 pm
by thedungeondelver
d20 grates on me. The...sheer annoyingness of it grates on me. The fans of it grate on me. The "WELL, DUUUH!" of the fans grates on me. "Armor classes go up now, because it makes sense!" (how does it make sense, it only makes sense to math cripples) "Three saving throw classes, because it makes sense!" (it only makes sense to illiterate and unimaginative people) "A unified XP chart, because it makes sense!" (it only makes sense to sensitive snowflakes who throw around concepts like "fair" and "game balance" as rule edicts because everyone has to have "fun" as dictated by the rules).

Nothing about d20 is particularly "sensible". What it is is practical, but practicality is not what I seek when I want to pretend to be Carlos the Dwarf. No, when that goes down I want to have some hoary, funky rules that creak like a Led Zeppelin gatefold album cover when I open them, fantastical rules that feel like they're designed to be dice and paper simulations of fantastical things, not slick and refined and "sensible". "Sensible" removed disintegrating drow (IT'S DROW LIKE COW, GENE, NOT DROW LIKE DROH!!!) armor, "sensible" forced magic item christmas lists on DMs and told them they were bad if they didn't follow those lists, "sensible" stripped half-orcs (oh my god, orcs have sex!) and assassins out, and put furry PCs in, "sensible" raped TSR from Gary and tried to make him never use his name on an RPG product ever again. "Sensible" put Ars Magica's rule system in the driver's seat for D&D and that's how it will be forevermore...despite the fact that Ars Magica isn't worth a god damn because if it was then Johnathan Tweet wouldn't have superglued the D&D name to it and foisted it off on the gaming world.

(as my signature says, bitter old crank)

Re: Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:14 pm
by geneweigel
I refuse to pronounce "cow" like "drow"! ;)

Re: Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:51 pm
by geneweigel
GAMMA WORLD went into the shitter when skills came into play. It was the lack of themed support that made it go nuts originally with all the furry mid-80's adventures but the skills put it in the same grave as STAR FRONTIERS for everybody I played with...

"I use the computer skills to reprogram the robots to reprogram the robots to reprogram the robots to reprogram the robots..." (infinity ad nauseum every session.)

"It doesn't work."

I'm not saying that was the problem but its a good example of sci-fi gaming player with unlimited tech potential and referee frustration as how to manage fast and furious combinations. Where fantasy spells had all these stop gaps and GAMMA WORLD was "Me am bear-man! Me have stick of fire!"

Re: Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:21 pm
by JCBoney
Speaking of drow cows... a conversation I had in college with a math cripple when I briefly ran a 3e game:

Him: "I'm going to be a droh."
Me: "A what?"
Him: "A droh."
Me: "What's that?"
Him: "A dark elf... like Drizzt."
facepalm
Me: "It's drow... rhymes with now."
Him (indignantly): "Well, I pronounce it droh."
Me: "Well, no shit you pronounce it droh. I caught that, genius. But you're not pronouncing it that way in my game unless you want to be openly mocked in front of your friends... and there are no drow or droh in my game anyway, so pick another race. Not a gnome though."
Him (shocked): "Why can't I be a droh?"
Me: "They were all killed in a plague."
Him: "A what?"
Me: "A plague. No drow left except ones animated as undead."
Him (excited): "Can I be one of those?"
Me: "Get the fuck away from my table before I murder you."

Re: Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:38 pm
by Thorkhammer
OMG!
:shock: :shock: :shock:


The language around here is making ol Thorkie blush.

:lol:

Re: Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:41 am
by AxeMental
T. Foster wrote:
AxeMental wrote:In another thread, I was thinking about how TSR should have simply used the exact rules of 1E (down to the d20 based descending tables, the equiv. in classes, the damage done by weapons (but laser pistol instead of short sword say), spell caster equivs who used technology rather then "magic") with just minor modifications such a game could have been presented with three books very similar in layout and design to MM, PH and DMG. Imagine how well that would have been received (all millionZillion 1E players would have already known the rules basically). Talk about dropping the ball. WTF happened???
What you're describing, except for the 3 books, is pretty much exactly what TSR did with Gamma World and it flopped. I think later on they did the same thing with one of their many Buck Rogers rpgs and it flopped too.
In a purely marketing sense, I dont think the connection to the AD&D game was made clearly enough, in name, presentation, rules, venue of sale, you name it (for instance no one in my highschools 1E club which numbered over 100 in a school of 500 knew about any TSR products). It was a matter of utilizing an already gigantic base of players rather then trying to build from scratch...a much more difficult task (retarded really, what the hell were they thinking?). Imagine the PH cover with guys carrying laser rifles instead of swords around and an idol of some alien God, or maybe some crashed ship on a cool planet with weird purple and blue plants (hard cover by Tramp). And the same cover dress (in other words, it would have been three new books that had the same cover style and paper and black and white artwork as the 3 core books -nothing slick or soft). Yeah, maybe not "new" enough for some of us, but guess what, still very cool and more importantly, instantly recognizable as AD&D by AD&Ds huge customer base, just in space (instead we got that piece of shit UA with the Cavilier and thief acrobat). It seems that what happened was that to make the "best" product (in the view of Gygax the gamer) the extremely valuable weekend ET player base was dropped, or given little concern. Remember, most people hate learning new rules, hate cheap looking booklets, they just want to play (so they can do other stuff too like date girls, play sports etc.). It was the hard cores gamers vs. the mass market, and the hard cores won out.

Players of 1E should have been taken by the hand by Master G and told "this is AD&D in outerspace and on alien planets, don't be scared, its very exciting". "look it looks the same, there is nothing new to have to learn rules wise, just a few new things about ships and how they travel, landing craft and such; oh and these alien races are like elves and dwarves, and these evil aliens are like monsters in AD&D". If you've ever played a computer game called Star Flight from the mid 80s you'll have a perfect example of how the game could have gone (building a ship and slowly exploring collecting "magic relics" from former alien races with higher technology, capturing alien species and selling them etc. The language thing would be easy enough to deal with (a fungus in your brain that gives you the ability to understand other languages wahla you done).

In any event, I'm not saying it would have been a superior rules system (and who knows, maybe it would have), but I think it would be a superior way of marketing it ("the DM simply grabs new books and keeps playing"). You have to remember, alot of you guys that post here were more hard core back then the average toy store buyer. Most liked 1E because they got used to it and it was easy (only one had to know the rules), and it gave something for the "super nerd" in the group to do (ie. DM his buddies and thus have value and status). "Hey lets play AD&D in space with lasers and ships and landing on planets" came up eventually at most tables (usually within the first year or two when novelty started to ware out). So yeah, TSR should have given them just that.

Oh, and what was with their naming? Something like: "Aliens and Empires" TM or whatever would have mimicked the Dungeons and Dragons two word sound -IMO Gamma world n Buck Rodgers sucked as names, they say nothing, and who in the early 80s read Buck Rodgers...give us Gil Garard, Twiggi n Dr. Theopolis - thats what everyone new in 80'). And don't forget, it was the inability to move outside the fantasy genre (flop after flop) that forced the company to start changing the core books (rather then just adding new games) which eventually took millions of 1E players down to what, 200 of us online? An utter disaster from the perspective of someone who thinks 1E was the greatest tabletop game ever created in the history of mankind (beating out Chess and cards etc.).

And BPoM I dont think what WOTC did is at all comparable to what could have been done in the early 80s. Plus WOTC sucks, and everything they produce sucks. Early TSR had a archetype template, certain writers, artists, certain ideas that were cool. You can't compare the two, never mind that TSR was capable of defining the market. Perhaps by that point the blooms had already poisoned the well?

Re: Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:53 am
by Wheggi
Me: "They were all killed in a plague."
Him: "A what?"
Jim, at that point you should have yelled "A PLA-GOOEY, asshole! Don't you speak English?" :P

- Wheggi

Re: Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:46 am
by thedungeondelver
Semaj Khan wrote:Speaking of drow cows... a conversation I had in college with a math cripple when I briefly ran a 3e game:

Him: "I'm going to be a droh."
Me: "A what?"
Him: "A droh."
Me: "What's that?"
Him: "A dark elf... like Drizzt."
facepalm
Me: "It's drow... rhymes with now."
Him (indignantly): "Well, I pronounce it droh."
Me: "Well, no shit you pronounce it droh. I caught that, genius. But you're not pronouncing it that way in my game unless you want to be openly mocked in front of your friends... and there are no drow or droh in my game anyway, so pick another race. Not a gnome though."
Him (shocked): "Why can't I be a droh?"
Me: "They were all killed in a plague."
Him: "A what?"
Me: "A plague. No drow left except ones animated as undead."
Him (excited): "Can I be one of those?"
Me: "Get the fuck away from my table before I murder you."
This guy, was he wearing armor made out of a plastic trashcan?

:D

Re: Why did TSR drop the ball so badly?

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:08 am
by JCBoney
No, that was another guy. I've had some bellringers show up at my table over the years.