One of the reasons Wizard of the Coast created d20 was to make many publishers create under their rules umbrella so players had to buy the core D&D books in order to play anything that comes with de d20 logo.
But perhaps this had an unexpected end since many publishers gave up creating games with obscure or unpopular rules and the number of d20 works increased to the point that d20 took almost the whole market and now people has invested too much time (learning the mechanics), too much money (buying not only D&D books but d20 books also) and too much space (to keep a large quantity of books) to think in a change.
The offer for D&D/d20 products has been excesively huge (and I don't complaint for that) so the d20 took over the industry in a way that know ties WotC hands to make a change without the complaint of a market that maybe left what they have to follow d20 since that was "what everybody plays".
And now the "monster" grow up too much to control it so it took life for his own and refuses to die.
I am not making an statement but a hypothesis, did d20 kill D&D? What if the d20 license had never been released? Would that have made transition less painful? Post your thoughts please I really am interested to know what comunity thinks.
I don't think so at all.
Dungeons and Dragons has always controlled the vast majority of the role playing market. When TSR was dying in the waning days of the 1990s the hobby as a whole was in steep decline. People were talking seriously about role playing becoming a minor niche hobby in the same way board wargames had quietly but steadily gone into near terminal decline from a high point in the mid to late 70's.
WOTC was able to throw a life line to Dungeons and Dragons in particular and the creation of the OGL meant that a huge number of companies came into existance to try and ride WOTCs coattails. The whole role playing industry essentially made a huge turn around and came back stronger then it had ever been by around 2004 or 2005.
I don't think so at all.
Dungeons and Dragons has always controlled the vast majority of the role playing market. When TSR was dying in the waning days of the 1990s the hobby as a whole was in steep decline. People were talking seriously about role playing becoming a minor niche hobby in the same way board wargames had quietly but steadily gone into near terminal decline from a high point in the mid to late 70's.
WOTC was able to throw a life line to Dungeons and Dragons in particular and the creation of the OGL meant that a huge number of companies came into existance to try and ride WOTCs coattails. The whole role playing industry essentially made a huge turn around and came back stronger then it had ever been by around 2004 or 2005.
All I can say to this is 4e doesn't seem that appealing unless they have rules for a more gritty "crit-based" skill-based system that accounts for less money for each PC and less magic items needed (ala Rolemaster).
If it has optionals for something like this I'll look into it otherwise I'll be a Grognard and stick with 3.5 modified to my taste.
|
I like a lot of what d20 brought to the game. It seemed to round out a lot of classes from 1e-2e and make them more viable (rogues were no longer single-shot backstabbers and lock pickers, bards have more utility, clerics don't have to pick the Healing domain to be useful, Empower Spell allows the 2e max-die fireball to be more useful).
I don't like how it seems to break down past level 14 (lead off wrong in a fight and just die) along with a lot of the other usual rules that lack clarity (grappling under special circumstances, etc.)
You didn't really need to buy the core books to play d20, though, since it's all available online. It's the same with the 4e books - maybe I'll playtest with everything online before buying the new core books, who knows.
EDIT: Oh, you're talking about the license itself, not the rules. Well, most of the stuff I have purchased for d20 has been from WotC and Paizo. I can't see how extending the ability of publishing for the ruleset to other companies would kill it. I'm all for more talent bringing their own spin to the mix.
I dont think d20 will be the death of D&D...I think Hasbro will be.
Its true that a large number of gamers do not wish to make the switch to 4th edition because of the HUGE collection fo 3rd edition books they have.
This cannot be denied.
But the d20 OGL I do not believe is to blame.
Even those who only buy official WotC D&D books and nothing third party can still feel they have to many 3.X books to switch.
WotC flooded the market with books all by themselves without third party help IMHO.
They released an average of 2 hardcover books a month. They were releasing HARDCOVER $30 books faster than the average magazine releases issues.
For years I would say WotC needs to slow down or the only book ideas left will be really weak. Once that happens they will probably turn to 4th edition and that will be the death of D&D.
So far my prediction is comming true.
Nope. I think that d20 kept D&D much more alive and vibrant than it would have been otherwise. I think that every time someone put out a good d20 product, it put WOTC in a position of having to compete with its own game system, and in all honesty, that is a good thing, because it forces them to keep on the top of their game. Not to mention it allowed third party publisher to take on niche products or subjects that WOTC didn't want to touch with a 10' pole.
D&D isn't dead, but if anything is killing it, its that its reached a certain "in between" stage, where its too mainstream and well known for its own good. Hasbro expects more from it due to its name recognition, and thus there is a push to get it to perform like other products in its same name recognition "bracket" so to speak.
Being owned by a large corporation can be a plus or a minus, and often times both. This isn't a rank against Hasbro so much as a statement of fact. Once you are owned by a large corporation, you can't get by on making very little money, or breaking even. You have to perform up to the standards set by other aspects of the parent company's business, and that is a radical departure for D&D, which really started out as an niche hobby for geeks that like to tell stories about fantasy.
No Hasbro did.
I've started to think that it is partially Hasbro and mostly WotC. Hasbro is taking the flak but from what I have heard it is the designers that have pimped this to Hasbro. Hasbro put on the stamp of approval but it is the designers that want people to play their version of the game should be and to h&%$ with what we want.
|
I don't think d20 killed D&D at all. I think it saved it. What's happening now isn't about d20. WotC's mistake was 3.5...a revision edition is always problematic. Honestly ask yourself, if you ignore 3.5, isn't it time for a new 4th edition? I think the problem with 4E is the same as its benefit: The plethora of d20 products out there has opened up some great ideas for the system. This is a good thing. However, whats good for you or me, is not good for someone else. 4E is going in a direction that I and a few others do not like. Its not bad, per se, just different. We all can see what can result from d20, and we all want something a little different.
There was a "slackening" of the gritty fantasy with the introduction of 3E and while many of us disliked that aspect, the resurrection of D&D was more important. For people like us, we simply pushed the rules into a grittier realm, and some entrepreneurial people made things like Iron Heroes to cater to us. A good thing. However, there are many people who like the high fantasy, its always been there even back in OD&D. 4E is a deliberate move in that direction. Whereas 3E tried to preserve the appearance and the flexibility of being robust enough to go "both ways", 4E seems to be largely abandoning that idea in favor of more streamlined rules.
I agree with this last in so far as Crunch serves fluff: That is to say if you want a gritty fantasy game (fluff) you develop rules (crunch) to support it. Likewise, if its high fantasy you're after (fluff) you develop rules (crunch) to support it. 3E's problems largely in those areas where the crunch for one style corrupts the other. Polymorph, in the 3E version, is very high fantasy. It really breaks the gritty game. Grapple is very gritty, but it bogs down and makes the high fantasy game seem like a brutal brawl instead of a cinematic set-piece.
D&D needed to divorce itself of both high-fantasy and gritty in the same system. Its unfortunate WotC chose high fantasy over gritty. Ideally that would offer both in some fashion (two discrete games as an example).
As far as D&D goes, it will survive as long as people play it, whatever its current incarnation.