The Second Most Popular RPG of all Time

Okay, that's a bit of a stretch, The RPG market share is of dubious value at best, and it tends to shift from year to year. But according to the best info I can gather in the past two days, RPG Market Share looks something like this:

1. Wizards of the Coast
2. Paizo
3. White Wolf / Steve Jackson Games / Mongoose and occasionally others

And like I said this is dubious at best. But let's talk about the past few years. For the past few years, WoTC has been the massive top dog without apparent rival. And for a long time White Wolrf's World's of Darkness was a fairly clear second. However, with the advent of 4e Paizo has actually made huge gains on WoTC. Third place has always been a dog fight of at times epic proportions. But one thing is without question--since the early 1980's Steve Jackson Games has been battling for that 3rd place position. And has never really dropped below the top five companies.

But speaking as a tried and true Texas boy from the home of Steve Jackson HQ itself, Austin--I can say that growing up GURPS was always second place to the obvious ruler Dungeons & Dragons. So for myself when I talk about teh second most popular RPG of all time GURPS still holds it for me. And over time there are not many games or comapnies that ahve held their steam like the world's best generic gaming system--not even D&D.

Alot of this has to do with Steve Jackson himself and how he ran his company. Would that Gary had made similar choices back in the day. Oh well. Suffice it to say that I want to spend a bit of quality time talking about this decidedly crunchy, but very old school game GURPS.

The reason for this is that we have turned our attention to skills as a means to accomplish PC customization and though it wasn't the first GURPS is definitely the most experienced in engineering skill based systems and endless PC customization. Now, granted GURPS doesn't do everything well. High fantasy is difficult to achieve in GURPS and some have complained that HERO does supers gaming for accurately. This makes sense to me. While GURPS can do anything, it does best with realistic milieus. And Supers and High Fantasy tend not to be too concerned about realism--generally speaking of course.

So we look at GURPS for it's ability to capture something I think the original game inspired: endless creativity. literally anything goes, based on the collective vision of the GM and his players. You can build just about anything with the GURPS system. This open ended approach allows for a mechanically driven system that caters to just about anythig you can come up with. Like the original game, which fostered this GURPS captures some of thsi same vision.

However, GURPS doesn't need house rules--at least not many. It is a rules heavy system in that regard, and unlike the original D&D system which encouraged and really required house ruling. GURPS demands that you work your imagination into the system. The system is the vehicle through which you imagine your wildest dreams. That allows the rest of the game world, not to mention the PCs in the game, to interact with those dreams in a consistent and believable way.

Which brings me to the mechanism by which players are imbued with ultimate power gauged at a level predetermined by the GM. In other words the GM sets the power level (and in GURPS this is with build points) and the PCs have free reign within that power level to determine who there PC is and what they can do. Ultimate PC freedom within a system designed to allow just about anything you can imagine.

But the system is certainly not D&D. Don't get me wrong--it's a good system. One I think rival's d20 for its' intuitive nature. There are however, lots of sniggledy exceptions and additional rules to take into consideration in certain situations. But if we want a system that is lite and flexible, yet has ultimate freedom of PC development we are going to have to look elsewhere.

The problem is in choosing to go with say original D&D we have ultimate freedom but little player options. So what are possible solutions?

1. Allow PCs freedom in inventing new abilities, skills and the like when they create their character. Maybe with a simple tit for tat mechanic that for everything you can do above and beyond your base class, you have to give something else up or do it worse. This will keep power creep to a minimum, but still requires lots of GM and Player judgment calls. ie is a d12 hit die tit worth a dietary restriction tat? And the like. Such judgement calls are likely to be enshrined as house rules over time.
2. Add a skill bundle system, like LA, into the rules lite structure of 0e and allow players to define how their skill bundle is used of manifests within their PC. As mentioned in my last post this is a weak solution mainly because a loosely defined bundle allows too much leeway for PCs to abuse or even underuse their bundle. It will also require some, but admittedly less, judgment calls in order to decide what is too little or too much.
3. Add in a more exhaustive skill system by which PCs can customize their PC. Perhaps under a single mechanic to keep the game lite. However each skill may require special circumstance rulings that will either engender house rules, or a more complex rule mechanic governing skills.
4. As an extension on most ability systems we will need to determine how these abilities advance or get better the more a player adventures. Bonuses are favored in the d20 system. Skill ranks in GURPS, or % skill ability in games like LA. Either one needs mechanics or tables to handle how such skills would advance.

While not an exhaustive list of possibilities, each one of the above points towards a more rule heavy, crunchy system being the end result--even if it is a houseruled 0e game. I don't see a way that this can be avoided, except perhaps in one scenario:

Make it up as you go: Rarely satisfying in the long term, and incredibly difficult to manage is the type of game where rules simply aren't referred to--hardly ever. These types of games take he spirit of 0e and never let it go. PCs can literally do just about anything--be just about anything. This type of game requires a supportive DM that can go with player wishes and dreams for their PC. That says yes more often than no. The higher level the PC the more the GM lets them do, and become. these games can be wacky, wild and completely over the top at times. Everyone seems to have fun, realism isn't a concern--and a lot of us played this way when we first started the game.

However, after a time such games can wear a bit thin. Just like literature of this type usually stocks children's bookshelves, we grow out of such games as well. The "anything goes" philosophy gives way to a world that has to make some sense, at least internally. That plays more like a LoTR novel or maybe even a Conan novel. And we realize their has to be some consistency, and some expectations. Which engenders rules.

And that is fine--the game wouldn't be a game without rules. Even make-believe back when we were kids had rules. The point here is that to give players what they most often want we have to find a way to offer options for PC development. And when we do that it means more rules, more crunch and less of a rules lite flexible game. I really see no way beyond or around this problem. Unless maybe you go diceless or narrative resolution in design--and to me those get away from the concept of a TT RPG altogether.

And unless someone can show me otherwise, that leaves me with the question of which game does it most to my liking.

If D&D Aint d20 Then What Is It?

Not sure that title looks right all capitalized, but the normal convention didn't look right either--so what the hey.

In my last post I was pretty vocal about why d20 is NOT the actual D&D system initially created. Not that d20 is bad--it has lots to reccomend it. But it isn't the system as initially designed. So exactly what mechanics do I see as the original D&D system?

To answer this question I refer again to the actual incarnations of the game up to an including 2e. What we look for are things that change within the system and things that don't. I'm going to list the things that don't change under the column "definitely D&D" and those that have as flexible within the system.

Definitely D&D

• Classes--Centered around the archetypal four of Fighter, Magic User, Cleric and Thief
• Races--Centered around Human, Elf, Dwarf & Halfling
• Non-Human Racial limits
• Hit Points--determined randomly by die roll
• AC--descending from 10 to -10
• Attributes--Core of 6 determined randomly from a 3d6 base and a range of 3-25
• Abstract Combat--based on class specific tables and a d20 roll
• Saving Throws--divided by type of danger presented and based on class specific tables and a d20 roll
• Alignment--Based on Law / Neutrality / Chaos & possibly Good / Evil axes
• Vancian magic--fire and forget

Concepts Open To Change

• Addition to numbers and types of classes
• Addition to numbers and types of races
• Extent of non-human racial limits
• Die used for determining hit points
• The way to randomly generate attributes, as long as no more than 3d6 is counted for the final score
• The point buy system was introduced in 2e Player's Options book and never really caught on either
• The addition of Comeliness never caught on permanently, so extension to number or types of abilities is out
• Addition of combat complexity ie--different initiative die, criticals, fumbles, hit location, maneuvers, weapon speed, armor modifiers, specialization, and other bonuses and modifiers to combat
• Addition of background development tables
• Addition of weapon and nonweapon profficiencies
• Addition of cantrip type spells, magic schools and the like

But you know what, as I try and compile this list something very important comes to me. The initial D&D is something more than just a set of mechanics. 0e, or  the original Dungeons & Dragons is much more about creating your own game. About changing the rules to play the way you want them to. Should we really say that a game that uses Minotaurs as the predominant race is "not D&D"? Back in the day I don't think the designers would have agreed that it was "not D&D". But maybe that's just me.

Then Gary built onto the original system with AD&D, and though he kept many of the core concepts mentioned above as "Definitely D&D", he also defined the game so strictly that he curtailed some of that creativity that had inspired 0e players. After that poibnt it became easier to say this was or was not D&D, largely as defined by what Gary had laid out for us. But wasn't AD&D but one manifestation of an earlier game.

But if you took that initial creative vision and developed it into something new, you probably weren't "playing D&D"; you were playing your own game. To still call the system D&D I would say the above pretty much have to be in place. And the fact is we are sort of stuck with the fact that the initial fantasy RPG was called Dungeons & Dragons, but it's system was ported into a number of different genres. Gamma World, Boot Hill Top Secret and others used many of the same concepts used in the system development for D&D. So really the "sysytem" used in TSR games in the early days was really separated from the fantasy genre itself. If you used the system to play fantasy you were playing D&D. And in that case you could really take out the qualifier of Races and Classes fitting fantasy archetypes and instead simply require classes and races as part of the actual system.

So really we have several visions of what D&D is and is not.

1. Dungeons & Dragons really represents what some call an old school way of doing things, in the sense of creating and designing your own mileu, creating and adapting rules to fit your needs and using creativity, reason and imagination to determine the nature of your game.
2. Dungeons & Dragons is a fantasy game with common fantasy tropes, played in rules lite fashion, with a gritty, deadly, swords and sorcery tone and according to a system that utlizies tables and die rolls (see above rules descriptions) to determine outcomes.
3.  Dungeons & Dragons is the finalized system codified by Gygax and Arneson in the original game, Holmes, Moldvay, Cook and/or Mentzer in the BX-BECMI system, Gary Gygax in AD&D, and, to at least an extent, by TSR in the 2e system.

To tell you the truth I'm not sure which one I agree with.

I'm certain that #1 can lead to a game that is just more generally called a tabletop RPG--though it might be called a simulacra of some version of D&D.

#2 is really just a fantasy tabletop RPG and is more likely a clone or simulacra of D&D. I would be comfortable assigning a D&D moniker to such a game, and some of our present clones fit this description such as Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Adventures Dark & Deep and the like.

The last, #3, is clearly D&D by just about anyone's definition. Some clones come under this definition; as the critical thing here is the rules, not the actual out of print copy under that title. Such games as Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, Dark Dungeons and Swords & Wizardry to an extent are for all practical purposes D&D.

But coming away from this discussion has left me still with the same question that I had previously. Where is the system that allows for the detailed development of player characters and still maintains itself as D&D?Because the fact is 3.5, Pathfinder and to a large extent 4th edition is satisfying many players in their search for a fantasy game of choice. I think this has to do with a several things but most definitely includes expanded player options and customizability. The path D&D has taken in the past (including the d20 system) is periodic exponential expansion in available classes, races and the lik; but has also suffered from an inevitable power creep.

Actually the addition of proficiencies, though weakly done, and the concept of kits in 2e started to break ground in allowing a skill based PC development path. The argument against such a path is that skills waters down the class based system. This is the bugaboo Gary Gygax tackled in Lejendary Adventures via skill bundles. While this allowed for a "lite" approach to a skill based system, it really lacked the sort of specificity most PC developers yearn for. A skill bundle like "Weapons" covers so much ground as to almost be too powerful in its ambiguity. It did however, allow lots of latitude for PC description and customization. And LA's "Orders" concept does preserve a form of archetypal characters for the avatars in the game. Overall however, LA suffers from lack of definition that, though it might have been corrected with time, for obvious reasons never quite got there.

Next time a look at the "OTHER" most popular RPG of all time.

Spreadsheet Comparison of D&D systems

So this long weekend granted me by the school board gods has allowed me to put together a somewhat rough and dirty spreadsheet comparing many of the predominant D&D inspired systems. First and foremost I make no claims as the greatness, completeness, or even perfect accuracy of the information contained in this file. It needs lots of clean-up and still lacks comparison of several factors present in all systems. I have just decided that enough is enough for right now. I think my basic answer was attained in this preliminary look via the information included here. (This file is an Excel file hosted by Mediafire--it's the first one I've done this way. Let me know if it works or not.)

System Compare Excel File

Most notable for it's absence is the expansion or change of combat rules. I simply didn't have the time to go in depth there yet. And I wanted to get this posted before the weekend was up and I had to get back to work. And I also managed to get a couple Labyrinth Lord sessions in with my kids and their cousin too.

My motivation here is simply to get a handle for myself on the development of systems over time and what clones and simulacra have tried to hearken back to. For me this is now fairly clear--and not only that another thing became clear that wasn't as to me clear beforehand. And forgive me for this if it seems to start up an edition war or something--it's just what the data says. Presented as it is, in chart form, here--even in this preliminarily rough form--the conclusion is inescapable. So here I present the most surprising thing, to me, in bold and hi definition color:

The d20 systems are NOT the same game we grew up playing.

Dungeons & Dragons was built upon an identifiable and distinct system designed by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.

All that changed with the development of the d20 system by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Richard Baker and Peter Adkinson.

There it is, with the culprits clearly named. A spade called a spade. 

Now, the d20 system is elegant, smooth and efficient.  About the only way it could be made more simple is to make saving throws just a one mechanic role. I for one might import C&C's Siege engine into d20 and you would have a system so snot-slick-smooth that it would freakin' reflect four pointed ninja stars. Yeah, don't get me wrong--d20 is a shit-slick system, well designed. But it is NOT the system we grew up playing. You can shout all day that it's better, it's quicker, it's more intuitive, it's faster and I couldn't really argue with you much at all--except maybe of the definition of "better". But one argument you can't win is that it is the same game we were playing back in the day. It simply is not.

Now I suppose you might say it's a lot like playing cops and robbers with different kids. But the kids in your new neighborhood play by different rules, but that in the end it's still cops and robbers. But by that definition every fantasy game with elves and dwarves and classes is Dungeons & Dragons. Sorry bucko--it just don't quite wash that way. The D&D name doesn't lay claim to all fantasy RPGs. even tho' it might have inspired them. Cops and Robbers under your rules is another thing entirely compared to cops and robbers under my rules.

The d20 system changed the game. That is clear to me now. Notice I'm not saying anything about this being good or bad--it is just a fact.

Also, something else that became clear to me is that the main change in the game (what I am going to call the actual D&D system) was in player options. Now to a degree this also includes combat maneuvers and mechanics, but principally involves addition of classes, races, proficiencies and the like. The actual expansion of the game centers around PC development. And unfortunately in some cases this led to a rule heavy system designed to incorporate all of these changes.

The most noteworthy, and honestly the last development of the actual D&D system was with 2e. The basic system was still in place, but options went through the roof. I feel like they had made an effort at curtailing this by consolidating classes under a four archetype system, and developing PCS via kits. They tried to make the combat system more intuitive via THAC0, and then developed an entirely new approach to the game via their options line. And although there were adherents to certain of these changes they could actually all be counted as dismal failures. Some might blame the splatbook phenom which 2e initiated as reason for their demise, and they wouldn't be totally wrong. But 2e was the first to begin to take the system in new directions, and in so doing they began to lose, what Gary himself had said was so solid that little should be changed going forward. And then the 2e TSR team did just that.

Which in my opinion leaves AD&D as the last incarnation of true D&D commercially published. And truthfully, AD&D was actually a very specific and personal sub-manifestation of D&D engineered by Gary. The game as presented in Original D&D, and later cleaned up some for the Classic D&D line (B/X) was the heart of the system. A system that could be expanded upon endlessly by those playing the game. AD&D was claimed to be by Gary the ultimate expression of the game, but obviously this was only one possible manifestation of what D&D could be in the hands of the creatively imaginative player and DM.

The crux of expansion in the game really seems to center around offering the player increased options. Which is open ended in the actual system itself. Even AD&D continued this trend in its supplements and magazines. None of which bogs down the system much.  What tends to bog down the game is increased combat options--which didn't really occur much until 2e. But what increased player options does do is introduce power creep. We can see this across the development of the actual D&D game and its d20 variants. Each one more powerful than the ones before.

All of which brings me to how one can  meet the expectations of increased player options while avoiding power creep and keeping the game lite and flexible. And I think Gary answered this question quite nicely in his last game--Lejendary Adventures, which we'll explore some next time.