Some of you guys are going to kill me, but my theory of dungeons has always been because they are an easy and consistent ways to place encounters. And encounters are the basic unit of D&D.

The word that used to be used interchangeably with module was the wargamer term "Scenario", which was taken to mean an actual situation already in place., with battlefield and conditions already set. So a scenario might be like "The Battle of Bunker Hill" or "Battle of the Coral Sea".  You already knew the forces that were present, the equipment, the battlefield conditions and terrain.

Well, it's hard to link up scenario after scenario after scenario if your'e going to do repeat play. The Wargame term "campaign" was usually a series of scenarios. This worked out to be a recreation of several key historical or ahistorical battles in a conflict.

Boil that down and change squads and units into individuals and you get "encounters" which are small scale and take place over a limited amount of terrain.

Mix in the very obvious influence of Lord of the Rings and Sinbad movies and soon you have the encounters taking place underground and involving monsters.

Mix in the idea of moving from one battle to the next and so on, and soon you have dungeons.

So in many ways, the "encount4rdization of D&D" is kind of a natural progression, at least as I see it.

AM,

:flameon:

I've said in the past, I really, really disagree. You're following the Mike Holmes line of reasoning, which I believe is utterly faulty when applied universally, however much it may have been true for many groups over the years, particularly IMO those composed mostly of younger players. Even if D&D was originally a game without much "roleplaying" in the sense of distinguishing the character's personality from the player--it operated as much or more in the spectacle, the exploration of the dungeon, the mapping, the puzzles and traps, than in the set-piece combats.

I think a lot of people didn't fully understand/appreciate this which is why Steve Jackson/Metagaming came out with The Fantasy Trip and ICE developed Arms Law. One made combat into form of endogenous fun through tactics and positioning, while the other did the same, I think, through vivid outputs from the stochastic model. (You didn't just inflict 10 points of abstract damage, you disemboweled the poor wretch.) Not that either of these is a bad game; I for one love TFT, and it's not like the combat system completely overshadowed other elements of the game, it just adjusted the balance somewhat.

You may wonder at the "younger players" comment above, but consider how much fun kids get out of purely random games like Candyland or Mouse Trap--for them, it's enough to have a stake in the gamble, and the hack & slash mode of original D&D offered that. As they grew older, or if they were already older when they found the game, I think they were more likely either to go the same route as Steve Jackson or to see the WHOLE game as extending outside of just combat, so that the self-contained skirmish was only a component within the larger balance.

Quote from: Abyssal MawSo in many ways, the "encount4rdization of D&D" is kind of a natural progression, at least as I see it.

Mmm, but that´s not how Wargmaning works/worked. They had clubs. The club was the thing. You weren´t a "Chainmail" or "Diplomacy" or "Tactics" player. You went to the club.

Some movie was  on, Gygax read something about the Burgundian wars, and off tehy go, looking for rules for that. Or making them themselves. Or getting hold of APAs or fanzines with rules and inspiration. Some games took off, some games didn´t, different in every club.

So before play starts, all participants were already sort of GMing, (as they still are, at least in the historical minis hobby): making up countries for their faction, painting, talking about which battle, which rules, modelling, terrain etc.
A common understanding about the simulated world, and the important parts of that simulated world was reached or strived for on a continuous basis.
Some games, like the Napoleonics, also have a rather long history of alt-history fluff, campaigns. And some had stuff like Braunstein, which is an outcrop of that, yadayadayada.

So, continuous play is in fact, as AM alluded to, important.But the continous play was done via the club, not via single person´s campaigns. That naturally shifted toward the more active members, who wrote rules or hosted special events like Braunstein, but there still was the clubs.

But the nature of the historical minis stuff, is as you say: continous play within the campaign is difficult. Ultimately, alt-hist-continous Braunstein lead to RPG-campaigns, and together with Fantasy+Burgundian Wars to D&D.

But what was the appeal? I tell you, as you say: continous play! TO GET AWAY FROM SET PIECE BATTLES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES! TO BETTER EMBED THE COMBAT EXPERIENCES INTO A WIDER FRAMEWORK!

And now they are going back, destroying the main fun source of D&D.

To get back to your quote: It´s not a natural evolution, it´s retardation or devolution; specifically talking about the "continous play" factor here.

Stuart:

http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/chainmail.html

Quote from: WarthurI'm sorry, but I don't have much sympathy for Williams. If TSR had gone bankrupt in 1985, D&D would have found a buyer - because, just like when TSR did go bankrupt, it was the hottest game on the market. Heck, in 1985 there were probably more game companies around who could afford to buy it up.

As it is, Williams has said herself that she was not interested in the gaming angle, and only cared about developing intellectual properties (like the novel line). Did you know that she was so irritated by gaming she refused to allow playtesting on company time?

I'm sure there are a few people who could potentially have done a worse job than Williams of managing D&D, but by the same token I can think of companies who could have done much better.

You know, this might sound like "folksy wisdom"; but us pipe smokers have an old adage: "You don't get a nonsmoker to run a tobacconist".
You can always tell in a smoke shop if the guy running the place is actually a pipe or cigar smoker, or not.  If not, the quality is going to suck ass, and there's going to be all kinds of stuff missed because the owner doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Its the same with RPGs: Even if you have a really competent businessperson running the company, if they're not a gamer, they're going to fuck up.  And Lorraine Williams was NOT a competent businessperson, she was a dilettante with delusions of grandeur.

Her cardinal crime was that she didn't even follow the advice of people who did know what they were doing, and her attitude can be summed up by her oft-quoted phrase "Gamers will like what I tell them to".  She showed nothing but contempt for the hobby and never thought of it as anything but a personal teat she could suckle at like a parasite, till it bled dry.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHer cardinal crime was that she didn't even follow the advice of people who did know what they were doing, and her attitude can be summed up by her oft-quoted phrase "Gamers will like what I tell them to".  She showed nothing but contempt for the hobby and never thought of it as anything but a personal teat she could suckle at like a parasite, till it bled dry.

Witness, in fact, the debacle of the dire Buck Rogers RPGs she had TSR churn out solely so that she could claim royalties from them.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou can always tell in a smoke shop if the guy running the place is actually a pipe or cigar smoker, or not. If not, the quality is going to suck ass, and there's going to be all kinds of stuff missed because the owner doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Its the same with RPGs:

Palladium suffers for the exact opposite reason.  I don't think anybody could deny that Siembeda is a gamer and has great intentions but his business sense is horrible.  Even though I'm not a big fan of 3.x, I'll give it credit as probably the most successful example of a marriage between business and the hobby.  It's sad when you come to a realization that even a company carrying D&D can die (TSR).  I can't believe no one has tried to buy the rights to that name unless it was dissolved with the purchase of D&D by WotC.

Quote from: GunslingerI can't believe no one has tried to buy the rights to that name unless it was dissolved with the purchase of D&D by WotC.

WotC would own that and it is hard to imagine them selling it for a price that sane people would pay. Or really at any price. Imagine marketing hitting the roof when told they are about to be selling into the face of "TSR Inc. is back!"

Quote from: blakkieWotC would own that and it is hard to imagine them selling it for a price that sane people would pay. Or really at any price. Imagine marketing hitting the roof when told they are about to be selling into the face of "TSR Inc. is back!"

I thought that was the case but didn't really believe it was worth the time or effort to research.  Even people that aren't fans of D&D might be able to be drawn in to a TSR product.  Those three letters meant RPGs to me for a very long time.

Quote from: GunslingerPalladium suffers for the exact opposite reason.  I don't think anybody could deny that Siembeda is a gamer and has great intentions but his business sense is horrible.  Even though I'm not a big fan of 3.x, I'll give it credit as probably the most successful example of a marriage between business and the hobby.  It's sad when you come to a realization that even a company carrying D&D can die (TSR).  I can't believe no one has tried to buy the rights to that name unless it was dissolved with the purchase of D&D by WotC.

Yes, I should have added that the other side of the coin is that if all you get is an aficionado with no business sense, you're going to get a financial failure on your hands too.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, I should have added that the other side of the coin is that if all you get is an aficionado with no business sense, you're going to get a financial failure on your hands too.

To be fair, I think Williams' tenure at TSR saw both problems rear their ugly head. Williams, from her end, simply wanted to farm IP and didn't care about the gaming side of things. Because she didn't care about the gaming side of things, occasionally financially-unviable pet projects happened which ended up eating money. Planescape is the example I've seen cited most often - most of those incredibly lavish boxed sets ended up losing TSR a fat wad, especially since while many gamers were happy to buy 1 box to run a campaign setting, they weren't so keen on buying 4-5 - remember, if you wanted more details on the Outer Planes, you had to buy the Planes of Law/Chaos/Balance boxes, and there was also a box that went into detail on the Blood War.

Planescape is undeniably a labour of love, a product of people willing to go and make a product which is really "out there" through sheer love of gaming. It was also a financial disaster.

So in the end, how much money did Gygax walk away with?

The guy was one of the founders of a movement. Most people agree without D&D many of the industries in the gaming world wouldnt exist or they would exist in a different form.

So as one of the founders- what was his net worrth?

I'm not talking about admiration of the masses and noteriety as pop culture icon- I'm talking dollars and security.

Did he own his house?
Did D&D put the kids through college?
Is his survivng spouse and family taken care of?
Did he have trouble making ends meet in the later years?

I've seen pictures of his porch parties- I'm seeing a nice house in a decent neighboorhood, comfortable lived in furniture. But no butlers, BMW's or speedboats.

Well, if the story is to be believed, he was living QUITE the Hollywood lifestyle while out there in California promoting the D&D cartoon and trying to get a movie deal.

But it seems that after falling out from TSR he had some serious problems that came out of the various lawsuits etc. that Williams subjected him to.

I'd imagine that in the end he was making a comfortable living off of RPGs (and being a celebrity in general), but wasn't exactly wealthy.  Still, he was one of very few people that at one point could be said to have become a millionaire from RPGs (even if he lost those millions in the end).

RPGPundit

Quote from: GunslingerEven people that aren't fans of D&D might be able to be drawn in to a TSR product.  Those three letters meant RPGs to me for a very long time.

Same for me. I was surprised at the time that the TSR name vanished. Sure it had become  tarnished & WotC likely wanted to ensure there name got stronger but most people (esp. non-gamers) still likely id'd TSR -> D&D & Wizards' name would still be on the D&D books & Magic was still extremely strong then.

Currently Wizards' boardgames are mostly (all?) under the Avalon Hill name, the RPGs could similarly be released under the TSR name.

Offhand there could be some legal reason why, perhaps from one of the many lawsuits and/or not wanting to have to assume debts.

selected quoting:

Quote from: SettembriniMmm, but that´s not how Wargmaning works/worked. They had clubs. The club was the thing. You weren´t a "Chainmail" or "Diplomacy" or "Tactics" player. You went to the club.

So before play starts, all participants were already sort of GMing, (as they still are, at least in the historical minis hobby): making up countries for their faction, painting, talking about which battle, which rules, modelling, terrain etc.

So, continuous play is in fact, as AM alluded to, important. But the continous play was done via the club, not via single person´s campaigns. That naturally shifted toward the more active members, who wrote rules or hosted special events like Braunstein, but there still was the clubs.

But the nature of the historical minis stuff, is as you say: continous play within the campaign is difficult. Ultimately, alt-hist-continous Braunstein lead to RPG-campaigns, and together with Fantasy+Burgundian Wars to D&D.

Locally the groups I'm involved with don't stick to just RPGs or any particular type of game (board, war, card etc.). Usually stick with a game for about a month or two then switch. Most of those games don't have a GM or really even a referee, though usually the most enthusiastic person (who is often the only person with the rules or the first to have bought them) handles the bulk of pitching a game & looking up rules. That role and/or GM usually changes with each game though of course we each have our favorite genres & games but usually we play something everyone that's there that night plays or run 2+ games at once.

I guess you could call these groups clubs though none are formally organized. Most of us are also involved in one or more actual gaming clubs but those are usually themed, a particular game or company's games or type of games (Magic the Gathering, Games Workshop games, or historical miniature wargames for example). Those are also not local, up to an entire region of the US.

And yes wargame campaigns almost always end long before any sort of resolution is reached. There are few good campaign rules & campaigns either  break down fast and/or players lose interest esp. if there's a lot of upkeep involved. We game to get away from such a level of paperwork. :haw: