D&D is the most known rpg there is.  Is there any reason why TSR never cloned its gameplay for other genres?

Buck Rogers XXVc does, but it was tightly connected to its setting.  It was not a game for a DM to sketch out a few parsecs and go.

Seems to me TSR should have made a version of D&D in each main rpg genre, space, supers, western, cyberpunk, urban horror, etc.  Include races, classes, and equipment from said genre with the same bent toward including everything under the sun as D&D.  

I think they would have sold well.

I wonder if they secretly agreed with all the D&D haters or if the idea of unified systems just came later.

I don't think the idea of using the same system for different games was really a thing until the mid 80s. Up until that point, games were designed with genre, setting and mechanics all wrapped into one. Instead, TSR releases separate RPGs covering genres in the way that D&D did fantasy, such as Star Frontiers, Boot Hill etc.

At the time, early 80's, I too wondered why TSR never put out "D&D in space" or "D&D modern spies". Instead they went with completely different rules and mechanics for Star Frontiers and Top Secret. I imagine the heads of the company must have discussed the idea and just decided that each genre required different stats and systems. In one of the early Dragon Magazines, and later reprinted in Best of Dragon, there was an article about having D&D characters fight Nazis don't recall how it worked though. This gave me an idea though and I tried to unify AD&D, Star Frontiers and Gamma World under one set of rules so the characters could fight each other tournament style. Didn't get off the ground however.

Then Hero and GURPS were published which seemed like a breath of fresh air. Finally, one system, any genre of character imaginable. You could have anything interact with and fight anything. It was, or seemed, revolutionary at the time.

They did a lot of mechanical experimenting - maybe with the idea that anything that worked would eventually go back into D&D? e.g. Nesmith GW had ascending AC, and there were skill-based universal systems in Alternity and Amazing Engine.

Coloured tables were so popular for awhile after MSH we can maybe be thankful there was never a table-based D&D, well unless you count Conan.

The first "generic" universal game to come out was Basic Roleplaying by Chaosium. However aside from the short basic roleplaying booklet, Chaosium tweaked it for the different product lines and presented each as their own distinct game.

It was Hero Games and Champions that popularized the concept. Hero System showed how a few core design principles could be extended to cover just about anything a RPGs could handle.

From there we got GURPS and the rest. While going generic, either GURPS style or Chaosium style has its advantage they are not overwhelming. Sometimes the better way is to have a set of rules heavily customized to the setting or genre that the game targets.

As for TSR, this came about in the mid 80s just after their first peak. By then they had a vested interest in a bunch of established games like Gamma World, Star Frontiers, etc. TSR just wasn't in a position to revamp their non-fantasy lines.

... and being somewhat anti-TSR back in the day I mistakenly assumed that all those other games WERE variants of D&D and so never gave them a look until much later on when I played in a game of Star Frontiers.

Empire of the Petal Throne, Metamorphosis Alpha and Gamma World were all quite a lot like D&D; and Gangbusters bore a lesser resemblance.

I think the main thing is that the folks at TSR felt that variety in game systems was part of the fun of the hobby, and a reason to buy the latest book rather than making up one's own D&D-in-space or D&D-gangsters rules.

Remember that rules sets back then were the main thing we were buying; we mostly made up our own worlds and adventures. When Judges Guild asked for a license to publish the latter, Gygax & Co. didn't see in it a market worth pursuing, but JG ended up proving that there was significant demand.

Some notably D&D-ish games from other publishers included:

The whole Palladium Books line, starting with the Mechanoid Invasion trilogy
Villains & Vigilantes
Starships & Spacemen

Now,  these were not exactly D&D, but they were in the same neighborhood as Gamma World.

The Arduin Grimoire books were essentially supplements to OD&D, and treated various subjects - but not in a genre-segregated way, or comprehensively and systematically a la Hero System or GURPS.

This is what Gary told me and hes also stated in some interviews too.

He liked to create new systems and he encouraged that in others too. Also he believed strongly that the system should be created to match the setting or needs.

Early on TSR tried the unified route. Metamorphosis alpha, Gamma World, and Boot Hill were all more or less compatible with some tweaks. But after that each game had more or less its own system. Star Frontiers and Conan share a base. But thats about it. Everything else was its own beast.

Later though in the Loraine era that changed and TSR tried a few approaches to a unified system.

Buck Rogers and 4th ed GW and I think 3e Boot Hill all shared the same system overall. Then there was Amazing Engine. Not sure if Alternity counts or not as that was more the WOTC era?

Quote from: Omega;805525Buck Rogers and 4th ed GW and I think 3e Boot Hill all shared the same system overall. Then there was Amazing Engine. Not sure if Alternity counts or not as that was more the WOTC era?

I cheated and just used Wikipedia but Amazing Engine was 1993-4,
TSR purchase was April 1997, Alternity release  1998.
So Alternity was after the 'heyday' and in the WOTC era, although I don't know if it might have been planned from before then. (Bill Slavicsek was probably the main driving force, being Star Wars obsessed and listed as an Alternity author; I believe he had a high-up position both before and after the WOTC takeover though).

Quote from: Phillip;805520I think the main thing is that the folks at TSR felt that variety in game systems was part of the fun of the hobby, and a reason to buy the latest book rather than making up one's own D&D-in-space or D&D-gangsters rules.

I think that this is it, exactly! While TSR certainly wanted to make money, the early games were a product of love and as such each was designed by itself to be its own thing.

Looking at the games of the day:
Chainmail -- middle ages and fantasy miniatures
D&D -- fantasy role playing
Don't Give Up the Ship -- sailing ship era miniatures
TRACTICS -- WW2 miniatures
Fight in the Skies -- WW1 air combat miniatures
Tricolor -- Napolionic miniatures
Warriors of Mars -- miniatures (and some role play) on Barsoom
Empire of the Petal Throne -- science fantasy role play on Tekumel
Boot Hill -- miniatures (and some role play) in the wild west
Metamorphosis Alpha -- science fiction (science fantasy?) role play
Valley Forge -- American Revolution miniatures
Gangbusters -- 20's and 30's gangster role play
Top Secret -- spy/modern role play
Star Frontiers -- science fiction role play
Indiana Jones -- 30's and 40's pulp role play

I'm sure I missed a couple off the top of my head. While some were designed as "miniatures only" it looks to me like they covered most of the obvious genres and each was its own rules set.

Quote from: Omega;805525This is what Gary told me and hes also stated in some interviews too.

He liked to create new systems and he encouraged that in others too. Also he believed strongly that the system should be created to match the setting or needs.

I find this highly likely.  Even as a teenager in the 80s designing games, I quickly realized that the mechanics should compliment the setting, and not all mechanics work that well when used in a different genre.

An interesting subject and thread! I love, love, love the small boxed set games put out by TSR and FGU in the late 70's and early 80's — D&D (various permutations, all equal in my eyes), Boothill, Gamma World, Bushido, Flashing Blades. You could add to the list but these were my favorites. The philosophy behind this whole genre was definitely that you whipped up a system from scratch every time you sat down to write a game. There are things to be said against this (why does this hobby demand that you remember more than 100 different ways of rolling to-hit?). But you can't argue with the results, at least in that first few year period, when it was all fresh and a lot of ideas were being explored for the first time.

Quote from: Omega;805525This is what Gary told me and hes also stated in some interviews too.

He liked to create new systems and he encouraged that in others too. Also he believed strongly that the system should be created to match the setting or needs.

This. I've tried playing games in multiple genres with unified systems, and it just doesn't work for me. I play a game where I'm using a crossbow, and I resolve by rolling a d20 and doing d6 damage in a hit, sure. Then I play a game where I'm using a handgun, which I resolve by rolling a d20, and doing d6 damage in a hit. Then I play another game where I'm using a lazer pistol...roll a d20, do d6 damage.

The end result, it's harder for me to "get into" game if it plays exactly like a completely different game in a different setting.

I *want* my laser pistol to be noticeably different than a crossbow, even if I acknowledge there are plenty of similarities.

Now that said, Columbia's block-style games cover everything from fantasy battles to roman warfare to civil war and WW2 battles using the same basic system...there are plenty of curlicues, map quirks, and general rules, however, that make the games play very differently, even if ultimately I'm rolling a  bunch of d6s and rotating blocks when I hit. And it works, for the most part.

But for tactical games, I want tactical rules different from one game to the next.