RPGs without Dungeons and Dragons (D&D)

[neopeius]

I can't necro this thread, so..

I came in on the 2nd generation of D&D, around 1978, so pretty close to the source, but not completely. The people I learned from were in the wargaming tradition.

I am also reading The Elusive Shift, and with Galactic Journey, I've gotten to 1968. so proto-RPGs exist

I know my uncle-in-law's brother, Bruce (the designer of House on the Hill) had already done some complicated LARPs a la Braunstein in the late 60s.

So even if Chainmail and Gygax and Arneson never get off the ground, it's likely SOMETHING will develop. After all, you've already got:

1) wargamers (including ones who personalize their units)
2) LARPers
3) Medieval/Renaissance roleplayers
4) A lot of fun universes to play in--the Lancer Conan revival, the LotR revival, Leiber writing new Lankhmar stories; not to mention Star Trek (in the late 60s, people were already writing letters to each other in fanzines in character as Enterprise personnel).

I have to wonder if the games will emphasize roleplaying from the beginning. The problem with D&D is that it's a wargame that people latched onto as a tool for roleplaying. What if wargaming was always secondary?

So you get a game ~1975 called "The Fantasy Game" or something, and it's a codified Let's Pretend, and that is the seed for everything else, perhaps

What do you think?

 

[NHBL]

I think that, whatever happens, combat will be a big part of things--the primary demographic won't be happy without assoted Kaboomite and Ecplodium, aling with shart pointy things.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

By the mid 70s people had been doing non-historical campaigns for some time as rulers or generals o(and occcasionally as wizards), so it's not such a big step to wonder how to give your character a bit more character and to think about how to manage missions, quests and the like.

There were plenty of examples of literature that could inspire quest and adventure games around at the time, so it's really an opportunity waiting to be taken.

Gygax had a reasonably well known rule set in Chainmail that provided a start, developed a cool name for his system and it was simple enough to play and affordable so it worked [1].
It's hard to believe that he was the only one thinking along those lines however.

For example Owl and Weasel was launched in 1975 before D&D was widely known about in the UK, so there was a pool of people playing games that could have taken the next step into role playing.

As for influence on RPGs, most of the fantasy genre and medieval romances involve quests, battles and fighting (and occasionally outwitting) villains and monsters so combat, magic and treasure with a bit of thievery would likely feature strongly whoever got there first.

[1] he also had a strange obsession with subtly different varieties of polearms, but we all have our quirks.

 

[neopeius]

[1] he also had a strange obsession with subtly different varieties of polearms, but we all have our quirks.

He sure did!

And yes, virtually every form of roleplaying had some kind of combat in it. SCA had stick-jocks from the get-go. I just wonder if the rules for such would be less formalized, less wargamey.

 

[RanulfC]

And yes, virtually every form of roleplaying had some kind of combat in it. SCA had stick-jocks from the get-go. I just wonder if the rules for such would be less formalized, less wargamey.

Ever see the SPI "role-playing" games? D&D was NOT that "wargamey" in context

As to the OP you would always need some sort of 'resolution' mechanism which would likely default to some type of "CRT" at first because those were well known and understood. I'd argue that most games has some sort of 'role-play' aspect baked in even if it was really obscure but as far as standard "wargames" went you were mostly aimed at "command level" operations but at the time it was coming down towards lower level operations and towards a more individual level (Squad-Leader for example) and at some point you were going to have someone come up with the "player" actually being the "main" character so you'd get something like D&D and Traveller somewhere in there.

Randy

 

[Cryptic]

So even if Chainmail and Gygax and Arneson never get off the ground, it's likely SOMETHING will develop. After all, you've already got:

1) wargamers (including ones who personalize their units)

What do you think.

I am thinking that war gamers would be the genesis of RPGs if Gygax et al stumbled.

One war game in particular was based on the movie Cross of Iron and was played at the squad level. If I remember correctly, some, or all of the squad members were named and brief descriptions of their weapons, biographical histories and points for experience and other attributes were given. The game also later editions with more scenarios ( modules).

Anyways....

This game would be a very good jump to RPGs when players decide to add more detail to the squad members. Once this occurs, either the owner (Avalon Hill?) could expand the RPG characteristics of the game. Or..... "imitation is the best form of flattery" and a rival company notes the trend and produces an RPG centered war game. Or..... they sell expansion rules and modules that plug into the game, but are not from the original producers.

 

[Sam R.]

Choose Your Own Adventure seems to indicate a continuous return of active readership. The combination of geeks and themes means it’s latent. Culturally active readership as a phenomena in novels and culture means it’s over determined. Sci fi, noir, or children’s offers alternatives to sword and sorcery or militaria.

 

[Evil Crusader]

While RPGs would eventually coalesce on their own genre, in all likelihood, I believe the genre would be much more niche without D&D, seeing how not even in its worse days could it be dethroned by other products, coming from a much more established market; unless of course something else becomes the D&D equivalent, a generic and solid enough gateway product. Other considerations aside, I believe the focus on "crunch" over sheer roleplay to have been a major advantage; easy dopamine from when the roll lands just precisely the value needed to attain your goals, an immediate connection to most fantasy conflicts (that incorporate a level of conflict) and the fact mechanical boundaries tend to be more easily understood and applied.

 

[nbcman]

If there was no D&D which may also mean that there is no TSR, it could lead to a non-medieval RPG as the first significant game like Traveller or a non-TSR sword & sorcery game like RuneQuest.

Traveller (role-playing game) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

RuneQuest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the 1970s & 1980s I played Traveller a few times but no one played RuneQuest. Most of the people that I RPGed with played TSR games like AD&D, Gamma World, and Top Secret.

 

[neopeius]

If there was no D&D which may also mean that there is no TSR, it could lead to a non-medieval RPG as the first significant game like Traveller or a non-TSR sword & sorcery game like RuneQuest.

Traveller (role-playing game) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

RuneQuest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the 1970s & 1980s I played Traveller a few times but no one played RuneQuest. Most of the people that I RPGed with played TSR games like AD&D, Gamma World, and Top Secret.

How much did Traveller depend on the existence of D&D?

The non-D&D that was big in my crowd in the early 80s was ICE MERP. Also Stormbringer.

While RPGs would eventually coalesce on their own genre, in all likelihood, I believe the genre would be much more niche without D&D, seeing how not even in its worse days could it be dethroned by other products, coming from a much more established market; unless of course something else becomes the D&D equivalent, a generic and solid enough gateway product. Other considerations aside, I believe the focus on "crunch" over sheer roleplay to have been a major advantage; easy dopamine from when the roll lands just precisely the value needed to attain your goals, an immediate connection to most fantasy conflicts (that incorporate a level of conflict) and the fact mechanical boundaries tend to be more easily understood and applied.

That's an interesting supposition, that D&D is the killer app. On the other hand, that may be tautological. We live in the post-D&D world.

But it is true that you can satisfy both types of gamers with D&D in a way you can't with other systems. But that doesn't mean you couldn't have parallel tracks with a role-playing based game developed first and a wargamer crowd game coming second.

 

[RanulfC]

If there was no D&D which may also mean that there is no TSR, it could lead to a non-medieval RPG as the first significant game like Traveller or a non-TSR sword & sorcery game like RuneQuest.

Traveller (role-playing game) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

RuneQuest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the 1970s & 1980s I played Traveller a few times but no one played RuneQuest. Most of the people that I RPGed with played TSR games like AD&D, Gamma World, and Top Secret.

I played RuneQuest a few times in the early 80s, it was popular with some folks.

How much did Traveller depend on the existence of D&D?

Traveller was partly a response to D&D and RuneQuest as there were no Sci-Fi RPG's on the market at the time. As I understand it the originator had been working on it prior to D&D's release but mostly as a way to build background for the wargames he was producing with the "Third Imperium" background. (Much like the way BattleTech was 'gamed' out by the development team)

The non-D&D that was big in my crowd in the early 80s was ICE MERP. Also Stormbringer.

The early 80s had an explosion of RPG's due to people wanting improved 'experiences' over the basic D&D system but as noted none really took off as "big" as D&D because of the legacy it had.

That's an interesting supposition, that D&D is the killer app. On the other hand, that may be tautological. We live in the post-D&D world.

I suspect 'something' would have filled the niche and with the time-and-place probably been about as big as long as it met the "easy-to-learn-and-use" criteria
(That last part is sometimes a more "personal" choice but again people like ICE MERP and something called "Other Suns". It's a beautiful game with a lot of thought and love put into it but anyone who calls something where stats are figured to FOUR decimal places "medium complexity" need to have their standards adjusted )

But it is true that you can satisfy both types of gamers with D&D in a way you can't with other systems. But that doesn't mean you couldn't have parallel tracks with a role-playing based game developed first and a wargamer crowd game coming second.

Actually that happened with Mekton/Cyberpunk which started out as an RPG but developed into both a simplified version, a more complex version and then a "light" wargame version which then fed-back into the RPG again. (And one can credibly argue that Cyberpunk itself managed another paradigm shift in gaming)

Randy

 

[Evil Crusader]

That's an interesting supposition, that D&D is the killer app. On the other hand, that may be tautological. We live in the post-D&D world.

But it is true that you can satisfy both types of gamers with D&D in a way you can't with other systems. But that doesn't mean you couldn't have parallel tracks with a role-playing based game developed first and a wargamer crowd game coming second.

To me it's not quite that we live in the post-D&D world, but that D&D has survived the rise of Vampire, the death of TSR, the acquistion of Wizards by Hasbro, the long stagnation of 3.5, the failure of 4th Ed., and still managed to remain prevalent into the present despite a lot more competition and large cultural shfits. Part of this is due to Hasbro's money power, but still, I believe it really speaks to D&D's successful filling of a niche.

 

[Canuck Wingnut]

I wonder if roleplaying as a hobby could have stared with Live-action Role Playing (like Mind's Eye Theatre), rather than LARP growing out of tabletop?

LARP requires a lot more resources in terms of space, costumes, number of people, and so on- so it presumably would be more expensive and therefore more of a niche thing. However, LARP's appeal seems easier to explain to a new audience, with obvious connections to hobbies like improv theater and re-enactments providing obvious points of comparison,

LARP seems like it would require a 'lighter' ruleset for conflict resolution; so if tabletop roleplaying developed out of live-action rather than the other way around I'd expect a slow evolution from rules-light systems to some more rules-heavy variants, somewhat the opposite of some tendencies of roleplaying evolution OTL.

On a completely unrelated note, Braunstein seems fascinating as an early unpublished precursor to role-playing games and D&D in particular; I wonder if a vision of role-playing games designed for larger groups (Brauenstein had 20 participants in its initial experiment) could have been economically successful? Probably would be more difficult to spread (since organizing and playing games would be harder) and would be less profitable or more expensive (since fewer people would be DM-equivalents and need all the books). So probably it would simply be overtaken by smaller games anyways.

 

[neopeius]

To me it's not quite that we live in the post-D&D world, but that D&D has survived the rise of Vampire, the death of TSR, the acquistion of Wizards by Hasbro, the long stagnation of 3.5, the failure of 4th Ed., and still managed to remain prevalent into the present despite a lot more competition and large cultural shfits. Part of this is due to Hasbro's money power, but still, I believe it really speaks to D&D's successful filling of a niche.

I don't know--that White Wolf did so well actually feels like the anomaly. It's freaking Vampires.

Fantasy is a much bigger genre. It includes vampires. And D&D got there first so people were used to it.

It's sort of like the Cambrian explosion--dozens of phyla originally, most died out, and what's left is variations in theme on a few phyla. D&D survives because it was the first, not necessarily the best. (And it is important to note that, while D&D has generally been #1 forever, it has not always been played more than ALL the other RPGs added up. D&D is probably smaller than not-D&D)

I wonder if roleplaying as a hobby could have stared with Live-action Role Playing (like Mind's Eye Theatre), rather than LARP growing out of tabletop?

LARP requires a lot more resources in terms of space, costumes, number of people, and so on- so it presumably would be more expensive and therefore more of a niche thing. However, LARP's appeal seems easier to explain to a new audience, with obvious connections to hobbies like improv theater and re-enactments providing obvious points of comparison,

LARP seems like it would require a 'lighter' ruleset for conflict resolution; so if tabletop roleplaying developed out of live-action rather than the other way around I'd expect a slow evolution from rules-light systems to some more rules-heavy variants, somewhat the opposite of some tendencies of roleplaying evolution OTL.

On a completely unrelated note, Braunstein seems fascinating as an early unpublished precursor to role-playing games and D&D in particular; I wonder if a vision of role-playing games designed for larger groups (Brauenstein had 20 participants in its initial experiment) could have been economically successful? Probably would be more difficult to spread (since organizing and playing games would be harder) and would be less profitable or more expensive (since fewer people would be DM-equivalents and need all the books). So probably it would simply be overtaken by smaller games anyways.

Remember that D&D was originally conceived as a game for a dozen or more people. That's why the Caller role existed.

The hardest part to making a commercialized LARP would be setting consistent victory conditions. Maybe it'd be like the How to Host a Murder franchise?

 

[Sam R.]

LARP came first with civil agents in “three map” war gaming type situations. Or to get Deleuzian with “no map” war gaming in social space. Third time as LARP as Marx was corrected.[*1]

White wolf worked because they ritualized mythic tropes. Think of them as a Robert Graves presenting teen optimised fantasies. Werewolf: puissance. Vampire: angst. Mage: will. Fae: libido (Eros Thanatos). Wraith: grief / parenthood. It’s no surprise that the early teen structures succeeded in the market.

*1]: Ie: actual war on civil populations. Just because you're pretending to be something doesn't mean that you're not also that thing.

 

[Evil Crusader]

I don't know--that White Wolf did so well actually feels like the anomaly. It's freaking Vampires.

Fantasy is a much bigger genre. It includes vampires. And D&D got there first so people were used to it.

It's sort of like the Cambrian explosion--dozens of phyla originally, most died out, and what's left is variations in theme on a few phyla. D&D survives because it was the first, not necessarily the best. (And it is important to note that, while D&D has generally been #1 forever, it has not always been played more than ALL the other RPGs added up. D&D is probably smaller than not-D&D)

I shall admit, I see it more through the lens of market share. Kitchen table popularity is very hard to track down and can argued almost endlessly.
The WoD line was pretty much number two, despite doing a lot of things right and generally enjoying to hit the market right during the TSR slump.
Yet by late oughs, the situation looked like this in a lot of stores, with D&D still being pretty dominating. And now, it seems it's been worse.
But still, there's been multiple possible turnover moments at this point, with two very big ones at the very least, the whole industry having radically changed, and yet D&D still stays strong.
You may be interested in the Designers & Dragons series of books, incidentally.

 

[neopeius]

I shall admit, I see it more through the lens of market share. Kitchen table popularity is very hard to track down and can argued almost endlessly.
The WoD line was pretty much number two, despite doing a lot of things right and generally enjoying to hit the market right during the TSR slump.
Yet by late oughs, the situation looked like this in a lot of stores, with D&D still being pretty dominating. And now, it seems it's been worse.
But still, there's been multiple possible turnover moments at this point, with two very big ones at the very least, the whole industry having radically changed, and yet D&D still stays strong.
You may be interested in the Designers & Dragons series of books, incidentally.

Neat! Thank you.

And thank you for the stats, wow.

That said, and I know this is a bit off the point, but I wonder how much that reflects gaming reality on the ground. For instance, I have not bought a roleplaying book in decades, but I am an active DM. A long time ago, I just started running my own stuff. How much non-D&D falls through the cracks because it can't be tracked at your FLGS? Do the stats include all the cool DriveThruRPG stuff? Does Petal Throne get lumped in with D&D or its own stuff? Etc.

 

[Canuck Wingnut]

Thinking about the economy of TTRPGs brings me back to the AH side of this discussion: what other options for economic success (than book sales) does an RPG company really have? What would RPGs look like if the dominant monetization model were different?

One thought- early D&D included tournament games where groups competed to run a dungeon in the fastest time in a tournament format. Given the success of fan conventions, and the existence of small businesses built around providing services and attractions for the convention circuit, I wonder if the first successful RPG company could have been organizing live events rather than selling rulebooks and box sets, and how that would have affected future game design?

 

[RanulfC]

Thinking about the economy of TTRPGs brings me back to the AH side of this discussion: what other options for economic success (than book sales) does an RPG company really have? What would RPGs look like if the dominant monetization model were different?

One thought- early D&D included tournament games where groups competed to run a dungeon in the fastest time in a tournament format. Given the success of fan conventions, and the existence of small businesses built around providing services and attractions for the convention circuit, I wonder if the first successful RPG company could have been organizing live events rather than selling rulebooks and box sets, and how that would have affected future game design?

Probably not as the "selling stuff" is the bread-and-butter and where the money is. Organizing tournaments and competitions takes money and you'd expect to make some (if not all) your money back by charging attendees and others for the privilege of attending. (Not to mention being able to sell more stuff at said event )
If you're lucky you can cut corners with volunteers but even so you usually have to cut them a 'deal' to encourage attendance and reliability.

The actual "monetization" is essentially selling 'franchises' by selling "Official" rules and supplements with everything from tournaments to conventions being more opportunities to advertise and sell more products. Live events are great but you have to have a 'fan' base to work with in the first place and expanding that pretty much requires you eventually monetize selling rules and supplements and allowing others to run events on their own. (With bigger events offering "kick-backs" in the form of licensing fees and more exposure for the main product for example)

Paintball and Airfsoft are two examples of "live" events where you essentially make money by 'running' the event but even there you still often make more by selling "products" or "services" at the event than you do from the event itself.

Randy

 

[Canuck Wingnut]

Organizing tournaments and competitions takes money and you'd expect to make some (if not all) your money back by charging attendees and others for the privilege of attending.

Making a profit running live events is indeed a challenge, but not an insoluble one. Since the key is to attract enough paying attendees to more than cover your costs, one approach has been to attach a ticketed event to a larger convention or other gathering of potentially interested people. For example, the cooperative video game Artemis: Bridge Simulator started out as a travelling convention-exclusive event, was released as a home video game, and now has its own convention. This has a catch though; to make a viable business, there need to be a large number of suitable larger events you can travel to, so that you can keep making money a reasonable fraction of the year. So this approach would require a significant expansion of the Sci-Fi and Comic convention circuit to happen earlier than OTL, or the company making the RPG to find some other kind of event (theater festivals?) to attract a customer base from.

Another option is to be the initial draw. For example, in China there's a recent development called jubensha, which are essentially escape rooms, but each participant is given a predeveloped character to play as while solving the puzzles, typically in turn themed around a murder mystery 'dinner theater'-type plotline. This industry has evolved from originally making money solely through ticket sales, to also selling materials for enthusiasts to play the games at their own homes. (It's also fallen afoul of China's censorship regulations, but that's a different issue entirely...) The challenge here is to attract enough marketing to encourage enough people to try your event that you can hold on to a reasonable audience after most people who've tried your game tire of it, without just abandoning the role-playing elements as having insufficient mass-appeal.

Thinking about this a little more, another way to approach the question is to ask how minimal an RPG could be while still be fun and full-featured enough to be "the first RPG" in D&D's place. Could it be something you learned the rules to (as a player) in a quick briefing before participating in a hour-or-so-long event? If so, I expect elements now fully part of the experience, such as character creation, would have to be eliminated, and possibly "grow" as the format begins to spread into rulebooks that can be run as more extended campaigns. Could the whole rules fit into a very small article, only a few pages longer than modern "one-page RPGs"?

Consider the important role that magazines like Dragon and White Dwarf had on early RPG history. All of these, of course, were magazines owned by companies that produced RPGs. Could that have been reversed? Could a simple RPG be condensed down enough to fit into the article format of a pulp magazine? How would RPGs have grown, if the company that first produced them was a pulp sci fi or fantasy magazine publisher looking to expand their magazine's offerings?