9 ms·

Dungeons and Dragons Saved My Life

88 points by sizzle 12y ago

joe_the_user 12y ago
A forthcoming documentary about the game characterizes D. & D.’s origins as akin to Facebook’s: “A cautionary tale of an empire built by friends and lost through betrayal, enmity, poor management, hubris and litigation I have to object to a statement like this. While it seems about everything that America invents winds-up in the legal system, the idea that D&D could have been an "empire" is just wrong-headed. D&D expanded regardless of TSR's smooth moves or missteps because it has always been a very player-driven game, the ultimate user-generated-content-game really. Just as much and for the same reasons, D&D never had that much potential to become that much larger than it did become. Only a certain type of person would play the game and not very much would stop them from playing. Some company might make more or less money from this culture but the size of the culture pretty strictly limits the profits involved. It's worth noting that D&D 3.5 was released with an "open gaming license" and thus the game was forked by the Paizo company who maintain their Pathfinder system closer the original game than the present D&D 4.0 released by now-Hasbro-owned Wizards Of The Coast, which just reinforces that no single company is likely to create or destroy D&D-like role-playing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_Roleplaying_Game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_Roleplaying_Game
- hayksaakian 12y ago
  as an aside, the new edition of D&D is more role-play focused and designed less like a MMORPG
  - alcari 12y ago
    The basic rules they recently published for D&D 5 read a lot like the 3.x rules, to the point that I was referring back to the 3.5 Player's Handbook to see the differences in some areas.
  - djur 12y ago
    "more role-play focused" is an odd way to describe it. 4e had well-designed, precise, and rich tactical combat rules. It was also as role-playing friendly as any previous edition of D&D (which unfortunately isn't saying much). I had much better role-playing experiences with 4e than I ever did with 3.5 or earlier.
- joshlegs 12y ago
  To further on your observations: it really didn't take all that much to play anyway. An imaginative and descriptive DM, a few enthusiastic players, some dice, general character info sheets, and some basic play rules. Granted the rulebooks are what the publishers made money on. But me and my group of friends really had our own rules anyway.
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    I participated in a multi-year campaign, sometimes for dozens of hours a week, almost always by phone. The DM would just render everything via speech, occasionally pausing to roll some dice. I still vividly remember some of the adventures. We'd read the AD&D texts, but mainly for ideas and the monstrous illustrations.
    - ido 12y ago
      Wow. Wouldn't talking on the phone for hours in the pre-skype days become extremely expensive?
      - Semaphor 12y ago
        At least here in Germany we had affordable phone flatrates over ISDN way before Skype.
      - MichaelGG 12y ago
        It was a local call, or cheap enough my parents never made a fuss about it. Outside of major cities, the US is so terribly spread-out that transit for kids is not very accessible.
- djur 12y ago
  D&D 4e was suffocated inside the company by a cultural backlash against the Open Game License. Certain factions within Hasbro were apparently convinced that third parties like Paizo were raking in the fat buxx from supplementary D&D content that they rightfully deserved. So 4e was released initially without any third-party licensing at all; when it eventually came about, it was unacceptably restrictive. By that point most of Hasbro's third parties had done what they were asked and gotten the fuck out of the business of D&D licensed content anyway. Hasbro ended up doing a pretty shitty job providing content for 4e in the long term. They released two semi-compatible reboots of the system within a couple of years, neither of which actually fixed any meaningful issues (they tried to make character creation simpler, while 4e's biggest issue was the lack of rules for quickly resolving minor combats). Very little supplemental content was released in 4e's lifetime, including for most of the first-party settings (Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, etc.) that D&D fans were looking forward to. ... They even managed to fuck up Forgotten Realms! (signed, a genuine and disappointed fan of 4th edition)
- DanBC 12y ago
  > D&D never had that much potential to become that much larger than it did become. See, for contrast, Games Workshop which is a pretty big deal in the UK with shops on many highstreets.
  - leoc 12y ago
    It's still roughly the same social niche though. And the Warhammer miniatures wargame may be semi-mainstream, but its RPG manifestation is much less popular and so only fitfully supported by GW.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      That's kind of the point: the same social niche had the power to create a company with shops on many high streets playing tabletop games with little figures and lots of dice. So for parent comment to suggest that it's obvious for D&D to have stayed so small is a bit odd. It had potential to be much bigger than it was. I'm not sure if the not-great animation series helped or hindered D&D uptake.
      - joe_the_user 12y ago
        My point isn't that D&D stayed small. The entire US roll playing milieu is fairly large. My point is that the size of this milieu wasn't very likely to effected by how well the owners of D&D managed a supposed budding empire (the original quote compared the Games' growth to Facebook's, remember). Just as much, you're exaggerating a bit the size of Games Workshop. It's just a game store that also publishes some games [1]. It's got the size of both things but that's about it - it's hard the ups and downs appropriate to those two uncertain businesses. Everyone in the table top game business faces the challenge that once they successful sell a package, their customers can play for years and never pay another penny. This makes game-selling a labor of love rather than empire building, as anyone in business should be able to sell you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_Workshop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_Workshop
        DanBC 12y ago
icosahedron 12y ago
Good article. My own experiences with the game are a near mirror to the author.
navait 12y ago
This wasn't really the focus of the article, but I'm annoyed by how so many articles feel the need to "defend" D&D. The 80's and the height of D&D hysteria was over 25 years ago. If there's anyone who seriously thinks D&D is harmful in some way, they are fringe elements. Even the designation of D&D players as losers is losing ground. A lot of people that I would never think of as the type to play a table-top game have joined my campaigns. I don't even hear very much about censoring violent video games anymore. It's time to let go of the persecution complex.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  My mom still believes that D&D is some kind of dangerous anti-religious thing. Not that it disproves your point. And the "nerd" stereotype definitely still exists.
  - thejdude 12y ago
    Definitely. I used to play RPGs as a teenager, but now when I see 20 or 30-somethings playing RPGs (or announcing it on FB), I think "OMG nerd". When I want to relax I read or play casual games, but other than that I'm just too busy with, y'know, life.
    - dasil003 12y ago
      You seem fairly busy with signaling to others how cool you are. That's sort of an ironic turn of events if you were willing to play RPGs in high school.
      - thejdude 12y ago
        Huh? If you think I'm a bragging idiot/hipster/wannabe cool guy, you obviously don't know me at all. And wow, did I hit a nerve there, with all the people downvoting me. Insecure much? I'm just saying, I prefer (or choose) not to play RPGs any more, because I have my priorities elsewhere. If you like RPGs, then good for you. It's just the kind of people I see announcing RPGs, well, they certainly seem very nerdish, and this is me, Mr Nerd, speaking, so go figure what other, "normal"/"average" people think. I was mostly seconding Houshalter's commend about "the "nerd" stereotype definitely still exists." Yes, it does. Very much so.
cpeterso 12y ago
If you are interested in the history of D&D, war gaming, and other role-playing games, I highly recommend Jon Peterson's encyclopedic Playing at the World: A History of Simulating Wars, People, and Fantastic Adventures: https://amzn.com/0615642047 https://amzn.com/0615642047
hmnottrue 12y ago
Please. The people who played D&D at my high school were really tortured outcasts, and I don't think they had a good time. I doubt D&D was that great for anyone.
gfunk911 12y ago
My first thought was "Was this article written by Fat Neil???" I'll get deservedly downvoted for an off topic joke, but this time I don't care :)
- 2Pacalypse- 12y ago
  Apparently even HN can't downvote a Community reference!
templeos2 12y ago
I used to be an atheist. The only thing that can convert Neil DeGrasse Tyson is God fucken talking to him. You guys are fucken clowns.

88 points by sizzle 12y ago

A forthcoming documentary about the game characterizes D. & D.’s origins as akin to Facebook’s: “A cautionary tale of an empire built by friends and lost through betrayal, enmity, poor management, hubris and litigation I have to object to a statement like this. While it seems about everything that America invents winds-up in the legal system, the idea that D&D could have been an "empire" is just wrong-headed. D&D expanded regardless of TSR's smooth moves or missteps because it has always been a very player-driven game, the ultimate user-generated-content-game really. Just as much and for the same reasons, D&D never had that much potential to become that much larger than it did become. Only a certain type of person would play the game and not very much would stop them from playing. Some company might make more or less money from this culture but the size of the culture pretty strictly limits the profits involved. It's worth noting that D&D 3.5 was released with an "open gaming license" and thus the game was forked by the Paizo company who maintain their Pathfinder system closer the original game than the present D&D 4.0 released by now-Hasbro-owned Wizards Of The Coast, which just reinforces that no single company is likely to create or destroy D&D-like role-playing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_Roleplaying_Game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_Roleplaying_Game

hayksaakian 12y ago
as an aside, the new edition of D&D is more role-play focused and designed less like a MMORPG
- alcari 12y ago
  The basic rules they recently published for D&D 5 read a lot like the 3.x rules, to the point that I was referring back to the 3.5 Player's Handbook to see the differences in some areas.
- djur 12y ago
  "more role-play focused" is an odd way to describe it. 4e had well-designed, precise, and rich tactical combat rules. It was also as role-playing friendly as any previous edition of D&D (which unfortunately isn't saying much). I had much better role-playing experiences with 4e than I ever did with 3.5 or earlier.
joshlegs 12y ago
To further on your observations: it really didn't take all that much to play anyway. An imaginative and descriptive DM, a few enthusiastic players, some dice, general character info sheets, and some basic play rules. Granted the rulebooks are what the publishers made money on. But me and my group of friends really had our own rules anyway.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  I participated in a multi-year campaign, sometimes for dozens of hours a week, almost always by phone. The DM would just render everything via speech, occasionally pausing to roll some dice. I still vividly remember some of the adventures. We'd read the AD&D texts, but mainly for ideas and the monstrous illustrations.
  - ido 12y ago
    Wow. Wouldn't talking on the phone for hours in the pre-skype days become extremely expensive?
    - Semaphor 12y ago
      At least here in Germany we had affordable phone flatrates over ISDN way before Skype.
    - MichaelGG 12y ago
      It was a local call, or cheap enough my parents never made a fuss about it. Outside of major cities, the US is so terribly spread-out that transit for kids is not very accessible.
djur 12y ago
D&D 4e was suffocated inside the company by a cultural backlash against the Open Game License. Certain factions within Hasbro were apparently convinced that third parties like Paizo were raking in the fat buxx from supplementary D&D content that they rightfully deserved. So 4e was released initially without any third-party licensing at all; when it eventually came about, it was unacceptably restrictive. By that point most of Hasbro's third parties had done what they were asked and gotten the fuck out of the business of D&D licensed content anyway. Hasbro ended up doing a pretty shitty job providing content for 4e in the long term. They released two semi-compatible reboots of the system within a couple of years, neither of which actually fixed any meaningful issues (they tried to make character creation simpler, while 4e's biggest issue was the lack of rules for quickly resolving minor combats). Very little supplemental content was released in 4e's lifetime, including for most of the first-party settings (Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, etc.) that D&D fans were looking forward to. ... They even managed to fuck up Forgotten Realms! (signed, a genuine and disappointed fan of 4th edition)
DanBC 12y ago
> D&D never had that much potential to become that much larger than it did become. See, for contrast, Games Workshop which is a pretty big deal in the UK with shops on many highstreets.
- leoc 12y ago
  It's still roughly the same social niche though. And the Warhammer miniatures wargame may be semi-mainstream, but its RPG manifestation is much less popular and so only fitfully supported by GW.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    That's kind of the point: the same social niche had the power to create a company with shops on many high streets playing tabletop games with little figures and lots of dice. So for parent comment to suggest that it's obvious for D&D to have stayed so small is a bit odd. It had potential to be much bigger than it was. I'm not sure if the not-great animation series helped or hindered D&D uptake.
    - joe_the_user 12y ago
      My point isn't that D&D stayed small. The entire US roll playing milieu is fairly large. My point is that the size of this milieu wasn't very likely to effected by how well the owners of D&D managed a supposed budding empire (the original quote compared the Games' growth to Facebook's, remember). Just as much, you're exaggerating a bit the size of Games Workshop. It's just a game store that also publishes some games [1]. It's got the size of both things but that's about it - it's hard the ups and downs appropriate to those two uncertain businesses. Everyone in the table top game business faces the challenge that once they successful sell a package, their customers can play for years and never pay another penny. This makes game-selling a labor of love rather than empire building, as anyone in business should be able to sell you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_Workshop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_Workshop
      - DanBC 12y ago

icosahedron 12y ago

Good article. My own experiences with the game are a near mirror to the author.

navait 12y ago

This wasn't really the focus of the article, but I'm annoyed by how so many articles feel the need to "defend" D&D. The 80's and the height of D&D hysteria was over 25 years ago. If there's anyone who seriously thinks D&D is harmful in some way, they are fringe elements. Even the designation of D&D players as losers is losing ground. A lot of people that I would never think of as the type to play a table-top game have joined my campaigns. I don't even hear very much about censoring violent video games anymore. It's time to let go of the persecution complex.

Houshalter 12y ago
My mom still believes that D&D is some kind of dangerous anti-religious thing. Not that it disproves your point. And the "nerd" stereotype definitely still exists.
- thejdude 12y ago
  Definitely. I used to play RPGs as a teenager, but now when I see 20 or 30-somethings playing RPGs (or announcing it on FB), I think "OMG nerd". When I want to relax I read or play casual games, but other than that I'm just too busy with, y'know, life.
  - dasil003 12y ago
    You seem fairly busy with signaling to others how cool you are. That's sort of an ironic turn of events if you were willing to play RPGs in high school.
    - thejdude 12y ago
      Huh? If you think I'm a bragging idiot/hipster/wannabe cool guy, you obviously don't know me at all. And wow, did I hit a nerve there, with all the people downvoting me. Insecure much? I'm just saying, I prefer (or choose) not to play RPGs any more, because I have my priorities elsewhere. If you like RPGs, then good for you. It's just the kind of people I see announcing RPGs, well, they certainly seem very nerdish, and this is me, Mr Nerd, speaking, so go figure what other, "normal"/"average" people think. I was mostly seconding Houshalter's commend about "the "nerd" stereotype definitely still exists." Yes, it does. Very much so.

cpeterso 12y ago

If you are interested in the history of D&D, war gaming, and other role-playing games, I highly recommend Jon Peterson's encyclopedic Playing at the World: A History of Simulating Wars, People, and Fantastic Adventures: https://amzn.com/0615642047 https://amzn.com/0615642047

hmnottrue 12y ago

Please. The people who played D&D at my high school were really tortured outcasts, and I don't think they had a good time. I doubt D&D was that great for anyone.

gfunk911 12y ago

My first thought was "Was this article written by Fat Neil???" I'll get deservedly downvoted for an off topic joke, but this time I don't care :)

2Pacalypse- 12y ago
Apparently even HN can't downvote a Community reference!

templeos2 12y ago

I used to be an atheist. The only thing that can convert Neil DeGrasse Tyson is God fucken talking to him. You guys are fucken clowns.