Legal Musings

Back when (the American version of) The Office was running, I made every effort to catch every episode (which was back before I had cable and access to DVR technology). I found a YouTube link to what is one of my absolute favorite scenes in the entire series:

Check it out.

For context, if I'm remembering correctly, Michael had left the Dunder-Mifflin company over being reigned in by on-site corporate stooge (Charles) and then formed his own paper company (with Pam and Ryan) in Jerry Macquire-esque manner. The D-M corporates confronting Michael in this scene have decided it is easier and more convenient to buy out Michael, ending his enterprise, rather than compete with his tiny company in an already-shrinking market.

The analogy of this scene doesn't map 100% to the RPG market, but there are lessons to be learned. 

Copyright law, in its current form, is pretty much an American invention...despite its origins in England/Europe...and was structured to serve an American objective: encourage industry. If anyone were allowed to copy, distribute, and profit from a creative individual's work (without paying the initial creative) than what incentive would there be for the creative in question to, well, create? Why would ANYONE be bothered to put in the effort and sweat of creation just to see someone else, with an eye for profit and a better marketing team, steal your work and reap the benefits?

The ability to copyright one’s work exists to incentivize creators to create.

But while holding a copyright provides some protections versus would-be thieves and liars (i.e. “plagiarist profiteers”), it is not an all-encompassing carte blanche. The term “fair use” in copyright law is (yet again) a concept originating in America designed to encourage and incentivize industry, rather than stifle such possibilities because of the fear of litigation. Fair use is the reason the Margaret Mitchell estate (Gone with the Wind) was unable to stop the publication of The Wind Done Gone; fair use is the reason Oracle was unable to stop Google from using Oracle's Java API code in Android phones.

Two things to always consider: 

1. copyright law protects the expression of an idea, not an idea itself
2. copyright law is designed to promote creative industry

Copyright law is different from trademark law. You can't write a game and call it Dungeons & Dragons; "Dungeons & Dragons" is a trademarked property. But trademarks mainly apply to brands and logos: "Dungeons & Dragons" (and "D&D") are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro. "Wizards of the Coast" and "Hasbro" are ALSO trademarks of Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro.

"Mind flayer," on the other hand, is not trademarked property.

If I write an adventure that includes an encounter with a mind flayer, am I infringing on WotC's copyright? So long as I don't include the creature's stat block (i.e. the expression of the idea of "mind flayer"), then probably not. Could WotC sue me over the use of their intellectual property ("mind flayer") without permission? They could, but they wouldn't have much of a case: the main argument they could make is that I am siphoning off their business, which is a bogus claim for a number of reasons, the main one of which is this:  WotC/Hasbro does not hold a monopoly on adventure writing.

Again, copyright law exists to encourage creative industry. Fair use exists to encourage creative industry. My use of a mind flayer in an adventure does not prevent WotC/Hasbro from selling books; on the contrary, if it is a popular/successful publication it probably encourages consumers to purchase more books in order to make use of it. And it does not prevent WotC/Hasbro from publishing their own adventures which might include mind flayers...it does not replace/supplant their ability to do business in this vein, for a number of reasons that should be rather obvious.

[okay, just in case it's NOT obvious: WotC/Hasbro would have to somehow prove that they have sole rights and privilege to publish D&D adventures, which would go against decades of examples to the contrary and would also be the same as proving they have the right to a monopoly...which courts in the USA tend to look down on]

But what if I wanted to write a supplement called "All About The Mind Flayer" describing the creatures' culture, society, and statistics; creating an entire variant background and description of how to use the monster in one's game? A definitive collection of gameable content; an "alternate history" of mind flayers, if you will...would THAT seek to subvert and replace a key intellectual property of WotC/Hasbro? Would it be perceived as undermining their business? Could the Hasbro corporation file a lawsuit against me?

Let's be clear: persons and corporate entities can ALWAYS sue you. 

Doesn't mean their lawsuit will be successful. And D&D has been explicit in every iteration that they fully expect owners of the property (Dungeon Masters) to feel free to create their own worlds, modify the game to suit their needs, change it as they see fit.

Yes, JB, sure...but monetize those changes? Isn't that infringing on the company's copyright?

Remember: fair use. A doctrine established to prevent the stifling of innovation and the discouragement of creation for purposes of industry (our delightful capitalist society). In this particular situation, it's instructive to check out the landmark case of Sega v. Accolade. Despite it being with regard to video games, many parallels could be drawn in a hypothetical legal battle with the publishers of Dungeons & Dragons. In brief:

• Accolade (video game maker) reverse-engineered Sega technology to create video game cartridges that were compatible with Sega's new Genesis console, circumventing Sega licensing.
• Sega sued receiving an injunction against Accolade, citing in part Accolade's unlicensed use of Sega's (copyrighted) computer code in their game design.
• Accolade appealed and won based on fair use doctrine; the injunction was lifted, Sega was forced to pay the cost of the appeal, and precedent was set for decades to come including that functional principals of computer software cannot be protected by copyright law.

The case is worth reading (and studying), not the least of which for its later ramification on trademark law. Are "functional principals" of computer software much different from the "functional principals" of a roleplaying game? That's something that would need to be decided in court, but given the plethora of RPGs that have made it to market using similar language and terms as D&D (and which haven't been sued to death), my guess is: not bloody likely.

[and Hasbro could hardly argue an independently published book "Compatible with the World's Most Popular RPG!" tarnishes their trademark brand. Even a low quality product is just more evidence of the ubiquitousness of their product. Apologies for the digression]

However, in the end, the real question is always one about MONEY. How much money gets made by independent publishers? How much money does the corporation lose because of third-party publishers? How much money would it cost them to litigate every perceived infringement (not just issue a "cease & desist" notice) given the doctrine of fair use and the potential impact to the company's bottom line?

Now...

It's difficult to imagine that Little Ol' Me might ever fall into the crosshairs of Hasbro's corporate attorneys given how little money I represent, especially when I've gone out of my way to NOT use their registered trademarks (or "mind flayers") in my published books. I mean...really? To paraphrase Michael Scott, I can just start a new game company tomorrow...I have LOTS of names for game companies.

But that's ME...a hobbyist game publisher. I don't need to sell books to live...to eat or to pay rent. I do it because it's enjoyable and it's a creative outlet and because it's put a little extra money in my pocket, somewhat validating my participation in the hobby. Other people...people more financially invested or leveraged in the hobby...might be a LOT more "risk averse" than I am.

Thing is: I AM risk averse. I've been sued before (an old medical bill that wasn't covered by my insurance went too long overpaid when I was living in Paraguay for three years...eventually got straightened out); not a pleasant experience. I spent 15 years working in a field that involved interpreting, establishing, modifying, and enforcing superior court and administrative orders. My advice to folks has always been to stay on the right side of the law and work within a system, rather than trying to circumvent it...keep your nose clean, in other words.

And, in my estimation, that's exactly what I'm doing. 

I don't use the OGL in my books. I've entered no licensing agreement with WotC/Hasbro, free or otherwise. My books use my own text, copyright me. Many concepts and ideas are inspired by and/or borrowed from other games and RPGs (as well as works of fiction). I don't plagiarize. I try to give credit for inspiration and ideas when and if it is due, but it's impossible to cite ALL the creative influences on one's work. When my work is compatible with an existing work or game, my hope is that it will encourage people to play that particular game...raising all tides, so to speak. 

That's the biz, as I see it. And while 'good intentions' really don't matter (certainly not compared to money, sadly) I am still participating in creative industry...exactly the kind of creative industry that copyright law is designed to encourage and incentivize. 

Okay...that's enough for the moment.

Fair Use Friday

Anyone looking to stream a terrific interview should check out the Roll For Combat guys' YouTube video with Ryan Dancey. Yes, it's two hours and twenty minutes long...time you could spend watching a film or something. I listened to the thing while doing household chores and waiting in my car at (a very rainy) soccer practice. It's fascinating, not only discussing the legal ramifications of the original OGL, but also the history, purpose, and intention of it, why it came about, how it affected the gaming industry, possible consequences of WotC/Hasbro's attempt to "revoke it," and reasons why they would torpedo themselves (and upset their fan base) taking the actions they are.

If you're a person interested in the nuts-and-bolts of the industry behind the hobby, it's very good stuff.  Certainly more informative and interesting than anything I could write about the subject myself.

Classic Priming

It's been nearly a week since my last three posts, and I've been using my (little) free time since then to think about my "theme" and just exactly what I want to write. It's tough, because there's a lot going on in there "world" of D&D gaming.

Hold that thought.

First, let's start with someone else's blog. If you haven't read The Retired Adventurer's essay Six Cultures of Play, you really should. I've read it multiple times over the last couple months, trying to absorb it; yesterday, I listened to a podcast reading of the essay (while doing household chores), and feel like I've got an even better grasp of these concepts...trying to see how they fit with my own experiences AND those reports from others that I've read about. With regard to Dungeons & Dragons, two thoughts keep drumming in my brain when I consider the development/evolution of role-playing:

1. Is it too late to close the barn door?
2. Should I even be worried about the escaped horse?

I know several, very respectable minds who would say the answer to #2 is a definitive NO, and thus #1 isn't even worth bothering about. This is the mindset of, "hey, I have my game, I'll run it how I want, and everyone else can go to hell." Other, less respectable, minds feel the same way...or at least reach the same conclusion: "it is what it is," they say.

And, yes, there are folks who just want to find a way to make money off whichever way the wind happens to be blowing. A war profiteer can sell guns to both sides of a conflict, after all.

But I am a jackass. And I have made a bit of a rep for myself railing against (and failing to accept) just "what is." Shouting in the darkness is pretty much what I do...so let's fucking go!

In recent days, I have come to the conclusion that there is only ONE TRUE edition of Dungeons & Dragons. This is, of course, patently and provably false, as any gamer with half a brain can tell you: people of all stripes continue to play every edition (and variant) ever published (by my count: about 13) IN ADDITION TO two dozen or more various hacks, heartbreakers, retro-clones, and homages. Yes, I agree...I am an f'ing idiot to make such a statement.

There is only ONE TRUE (published) edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Yes, I suck and I'm wrong, and I can feel the rotten fruit and garbage folks are pelting me with, even as I write this. And the HATE...the venomous hatred that folks will have for hearing me say such a dastardly thing. Because I'm guessing a lot of folks (well, my readers anyway) know in their heart of hearts the truth (or suspect the truth) of my statement, and it won't necessarily sit well with them for a VARIETY of reasons. And the harder that sits with you, the more pushback and resentment and hatred I expect to receive. 

[maybe some puzzlement, too...but those folks have been puzzled throughout this series. I have an inkling of WHY that is, but I don't want to address it...not in this post, anyway]

So, go ahead, say it with me. You all know what the "one true edition" of D&D is, don't you? I don't even need to write it (though I will), because for anyone who's reading this blog post, there's probably a particular image of a particular edition that comes to mind when one hears the term "Dungeons & Dragons," a color illustration that (for whatever reason) is thoroughly branded in your brain in association with the game. Probably. I'd guess at least 90%. Even if the image has NOTHING to do with the edition (or game) that you currently play/run.

AD&D. The "first" edition. Gygax's opus. That's the one: the one true game. 

Not OD&D (all respect to Arneson's legacy and Rob Kuntz's opinion...yes, I've read your book). The original books were a proto-game, something in it's formative stages, an add-on to Chainmail, a rules-ifying of Braunstein. Not B/X (although that's still the best introduction to learning/teaching the game) nor any of the other "basic" versions. And definitely not Cook's cleaned-up 2E or any of the later, innovated versions. Certainly not the currently published 5E which (in my opinion) makes a mockery of earlier systems with its attempt to compromise on all fronts. 

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, that hoary, draconian, curmudgeonly trilogy of tomes (DMG, PHB, MM) crystalized the "system" first begun with three Little Brown Books...three books that were so woefully incomplete that they led to half a dozen supplementary volumes and countless variations of The Game across college campuses in the U.S. and military bases throughout the world. AD&D by itself...with no additional volumes necessary...was whole and complete. Everything else added later...the Fiend Folio, Deities & Demigods, Unearthed Arcana, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, etc....were at best ICING and, at worse, blatant ca$h grabs. Whether you like them or not (I like several), ALL are superfluous to the game. Many do more to BREAK the game's function than actually aiding it.

*exhale*

It is not a perfect game...there are few (if any) games that ARE perfect. It has inconsistencies and missteps. Polymorphing undead. Alignment language. Sex-based limitations on ability scores. Color spray. Many examples abound...nearly all are eminently correctable without destroying functionality (i.e. without breaking the game). And while not perfect...and definitely a tad on the "complex" side...it is a wonderful game. Extremely playable. Incredibly enjoyable. My favorite game of all time, and one of the greatest games ever created.

And one of the most misunderstood.

And I'm not talking "misunderstood" because of inherent misogyny or colonialist attitudes or whatever. The misunderstanding I'm talking about is How To Play The Game and What The Game Is About...basic foundational pieces of game play, in other words. Part of this is due to ineptitude on the part of the author (Gygax). Part of this is due to a grandfathered community of OD&D gamers already playing with wide variation prior to AD&D's publication. Part of this is due to new entrants to the hobby, coming in with incoherent ideas of what D&D play IS and not being disabused of their notions by a publishing company (under ANY banner or ownership group) whose aim has been and continues to be turn a profit from this "thing" (Dungeons & Dragons) that we don't quite understand ourselves. 

John Bell's essay (cited at the beginning of this post) fails to address it within any single one of his "six cultures of play," but of the six it is the Classic model that comes closest, specifically with this line:

The point of playing the game in classic play is not to tell a story (tho' it's fine if you do), but rather the focus of play is coping with challenges and threats that smoothly escalate in scope and power as the PCs rise in level.

[emphasis added by me, as usual]

Bell may have been more accurate in stating that "classic" play is not meant to "tell a story" in the same way as a trad, neo-trad, or "story gamer" tells a story, but the point of play is NOT limited to wandering around (and blundering into) challenges of proportionately increasing progression. D&D, as played in the proper style, is not a video game, and does not operate under the assumptions of video game play. Or rather, it has SOME similarity to...generally older...computer RPGs (here I'll cite The Bard's Tale and SSI's Phantasie III: The Wrath of Nikademus) which took their cues from Dungeons & Dragons, but which were limited by their particular medium...namely, the requirement of being finite and requiring an endpoint to their "story."

Correct play of D&D (and, yes, again, throw your tomatoes at me and insert your own air quotes every time I write "correct") involves the telling of not one but THREE stories, only two of which matter much, and NONE of which require any sort of "emotional satisfaction" from an unfolding narrative structure. These are:

1. The Setting Background
2. The PCs Actions
3. The Campaign's Development

The setting background is all the DM-facing stuff that goes into preparation before the game is played. It is the creation and outlining of lands and power structures, determining the whys and wherefores of any dungeons, "histories" of the world, thoughts on why monsters exist, and conceptualizing how magic functions. It's all the various bits and pieces of "fluff" that the DM must add to make a setting suitable for running a D&D game; it can be amorphous or specific or gradually built-up over many sessions of gaming. It can be based on real world stuff, fiction novels or film, or anything else. This particular story matters far less to the players than the Dungeon Master, as "sensibility" of a setting is only a secondary concern compared to the action at the table, assuming the DM is competent at their craft (i.e. if the players are more thrilled discussing the setting's background than "what's going on" in play, then there's a major issue with the DM's ability to generate engagement).

The second story being told, and the one of most immediate concern for everyone at the table, is the story of the player characters' actions. This is game play itself and (as I've written before) it should have all the narrative structure and theming of a really crazy camping trip...which is to say: not much. It is simply the story of what the PCs did during any particular game session. It is not concerned with PC backstories or drama, it is concerned with ACTIONS. Was there a fight? Was a dungeon explored? Did anyone die? Was there a really noteworthy victory won? Was a PC transformed into something "unnatural?" Was the shopkeeper a surly cuss? Did the goblins become unexpected allies? Etc. D&D, correctly played, provides player engagement in the moment because of the circumstances of the game, not because of any "meaningful constructed narrative." And it is that player engagement that leads to emotional investment of a much deeper sort than one pre-constructed prior to play.

The final story being told over the course of a true and proper D&D game is that of the campaign's development. This is the story...the legacy really...of a DM's setting/world after having been met by the players. As in real life, no one knows when the game begins just who will end up being the hero, who will be the goat, who is destined to die in tragic (or humorous) fashion or how the history of the campaign world will be written. Depending on the length of the campaign being played, the setting may be RADICALLY changed over time, with kingdoms rising and falling, regions getting "nuked" with magic or monsters, old dungeons being cleaned out, and new dungeons being discovered...not to mention all the failures and successes along a path littered with the corpses of dead (and raised and re-killed) adventurers. By the end of such a campaign...IF it ends...a common theme may be discovered, but just as likely one may find an interesting "world history" featuring the antics of many important (player character) individuals of a minor or major impact.

The problem with "classic" play as defined by Bell...and ONE of the reasons behind the shift to "trad" play...is when imagination and/or effort on the part of the Dungeon Master fails the players at the table. When there is NO engagement, because the world is too simplistic, boring, undefined, unrealized...when the game is nothing but a scaled up version of the Dungeon! board game, then yes, players will try to find their OWN methods of having fun, creating dramatic backgrounds to spice up a bland setting, inventing funny voices and quirky personalities for bland avatars that represent nothing more than a collection of numbers scribbled on paper. Gygax himself recognized this and wrote about in his section The Ongoing Campaign (DMG, p. 112):

"...there must be some purpose to it all. There must be some backdrop against which adventures are carried out, and no matter how tenuous the strands, some web which connects the evil and the good, the opposing powers, the rival states and various peoples. This need not be evident at first, but as play continues, hints should be given to players, and their characters should become involved in the interaction and struggle between these vaster entities. Thus, characters begin as less than pawns, but as they progress in expertise, each eventually realizes that he or she is a meaningful, if lowly, piece in the cosmic game being conducted. When this occurs, players then have a dual purpose to their play...their actions having meaning above and beyond personal aggrandizement."

"Classic" play is thus NOT limited to "challenge-based play," solely for the sake of progressing to fighting bigger monsters with larger treasure hoards. Good play on the part of players does lead to advancement, earning them the right and (hopefully) ability to take on such challenges, but this isn't the endgame of play itself...not by a long shot!

Likewise, please note that Gygax's text is NOT relating to the establishment of domains and strongholds. As he writes in the paragraph just preceding: "...even your most dedicated players will occasionally find that dungeon levels and wilderness castles grow stale, regardless of subtle differences and unusual challenges." He is talking about sustaining campaigns through something more, in order to stave off "participant attrition" and "enthusiast ennui." The complete game...as envisioned by Gygax and codified in his AD&D tomes...was supposed to be more than that.

What is was never supposed to be, though, was what it would become after his ouster from the company in 1986. Every iteration has of the game since Gygax closed his formulation of the DMG (circa 1979), every variant...even Gygax's own!...have taken the game farther and farther away from the fashion in which it was meant to be played. This drift in the game's design parameters cannot entirely be laid at the feet of the publisher, of course (more on that in a second), but it is the publishers (TSR, WotC, Hasbro, etc.) who ultimately bear responsibility for how the game is played. Only the publisher, as owner and caretaker, have real authority and influence over the customer base.

And the current publishers have, largely, abdicated their responsibility, instead focusing on marketing and selling their brand. "Have fun! Make the game what you want!" they say [so long as you continue to put money in our pocket...that's the unspoken bit]. Consider this: if they ACTUALLY came down and said "this is the way you're supposed to play D&D" would there be the confusion and arguments and misinformation about the game being spread far and wide on Ye Old Internets? Would there be blogs and talking heads decrying one edition or another? Would there be youngsters turning to Matt Mercer when trying to figure out HOW one is supposed to play this D&D game?

So, instead, you have people buy the game...and then abandon it on a shelf. You have people that "dabble" a bit...and then move on to other hobbies. You have enthusiasts who lose their enthusiasm...and drift into RPGs that better facilitate their priorities of game play. 

And you have a plethora of people screaming bloody murder at each other over something that should be the most amazing, innovative game ever invented!

NOW...when I write that there is only ONE TRUE edition of D&D, I'm not being facetious. Nor am I being judgmental of your particular preferred edition of play. Heck, I'm about to publish another supplement for the B/X game myself (before the end of the year, fingers crossed), so it would be great for me personally if you were open to other versions of the rules!

I'm not trying to denigrate your tastes, your style, or anything else. And I'm not saying that AD&D is a perfect game, nor that E. Gary Gygax was a perfect designer. I'm just saying it's the greatest game I've ever encountered, and Mr. Gygax was largely responsible for its best iteration. And I'd like more people to play it...and play it in the manner it was intended, which is neither "classic" nor "trad." Nor is it (generally) in the fashion of the OSR, nor of the OC/Neo-Trad school.

Right at this very moment, I have a post-it stuck to my DMG with 7 elements of "true D&D" jotted down. In a way, these elements are the things I'd like to institute as a replacement for the mythic Old School ethos I rebutted in a prior post. They are not meant to function as a new "primer"...I suspect none of my readers need such elementary instruction in D&D game play...but they are meant to "prime" the reader, as in to make ready (e.g. "prime the pump") for game play, both as a player and as a Dungeon Master.

That will be tomorrow's post, since this one has already gone long. Please feel free to post your scathing denouncements in the comments section.

The "Drift"

[a necessary interlude]

From the comments on Tuesday's post:

GusL wrote:

In general I agree that 5E, Critical Roll and all the other contemporary forms of design and play feel new. I've tried to understand them, and frankly I don't get it. I'd like someone who does to tell me what it's about, but I haven't seen anyway really explain the joys of that playstyle...

and Jojodogboy wrote:

...modern players has moved away from rpgs as game to rpg as event. 

Resource management was part of the original design, as logistical planning was taken from other games at the time. That means encumbrance and bookkeeping. Same thing with xp. It is a way to keep "score". This is also a game element requiring bookkeeping. A third game element was the concept of player selected difficulty, meaning that players set levels of risk by going "deeper". Higher risk, but more reward. Finally, as an example, wandering monsters were a game element added to create a time and resource pressure on the party. 

Each example small piece above were hand waived or ignored over the years, for a variety of reasons.As each of these pieces (and others, such as asymmetrical class progression and sandbox play) were removed, D&D moved away from being a game and more towards becoming an experience.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, none of this is really "new." 

From The Forge: Provisional Glossary (Ron Edwards, 2004):

Drift

Changing from one Creative Agenda to another, or from the lack of shared Creative Agenda to a specific one, during play, typically through changing the System. In observational terms, often marked by openly deciding to ignore or alter the use of a given rule. 

Creative Agenda

The aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest regarding role-playing.

Emphasis added by yours truly. Please note, that I'm not using the old (since deemed obsolete) terms described as GNS (Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist). Instead, think of "creative agenda" as an individual or group's "priority of play."

Edwards's 2003 essay A Hard Look at Dungeons & Dragons is also a helpful starting point. However, the most important thing to take away from that article (for purposes of this blog post) is:

Prior to AD&D2, the available texts were reflective, not prescriptive, of actual play. Their content was filtered through authors' priorities which were very diverse.

[evidence to support this statement, especially the first sentence, can be found in a multitude of interviews with the original developers of the game that are available on the internet (especially from Ernie Gygax and Mike Carr, DMG editior). A common theme is "we were writing up the rules as they were played." Evidence of the different priorities can be seen in the recounting of different styles of play between such individuals as Gygax, Arneson, Ed Greenwood, Bill Willingham, etc.]

Edwards (along with others) was attempting to formulate some grand theories of RPG design; something that (at the moment) I have exceedingly little interest in doing. But to do so, he had to take a look at Dungeons & Dragons, how it developed over time (if only in passing), and how later RPGs were derived from it and the early hobbyists. This he did all the way up to the D20 (3rd/3.5 edition) days. For my purposes, digging out the pertinent D&D stuff is a damn chore, made harder by the lack of importance he attached to the game other than as an interesting point in the evolution of role-playing...but the digging can yield some results.

And here's the thing one finds: the development (whether for the good or the bad) of the D&D game is a damn repeating cycle. Wargames provided a systemization of war; Braunstein injected story-centered elements into the system. D&D provided a systemization of those individual stories; mid-80s D&D added "meaning" (story again) to the campaigns that D&D developed. 3E and 4E tried to add back (or re-emphasize) system/mechanics for D&D; 5E added backgrounds and story-oriented mechanics (like insight, advantage/disadvantage, etc.) back to those mechanics. 

Every time D&D gets around to nailing down how it wants to be a game, someone's imagination gets fired up and says, "gosh, it's too bad the rules get in the way of us doing this..."

Reading that quote from Jojodogboy, I was struck by how much this was directly reflected my own experience in the 1980s. We did play with all the rules, but we gradually found ways to sidestep (or ignore) rules that "detracted" from the (non-bookkeeping) play at the table. Encumbrance getting you down? Make sure you have enchanted armor and portable holes. Don't want to count rations? The party finds a new magic item: a bag of food, that makes sure you're always provisioned. Need to stop worrying about training costs and general leveling? Just introduce new characters already leveled to an appropriate number for the current scenario (like pre-gens, except they then become permanent PCs or NPCs)...especially ones with (*shudder*) backstories that linked them into the ongoing campaign.

All of which is to say: we (my group) started drifting play to something other than resource management, challenge driven Dungeons & Dragons. Something far more interested in character interaction, and far less concerned with dungeon exploration...even though we weren't playing Dragonlance or 2E or anything (this was circa '86 and '87). What do high level characters do? They plot...often against each other, when other actors (patrons, nemeses) aren't present in the campaign.

But this type of play isn't expressly present in the AD&D (yes, Jeffro, it can be inferred from hints found in the DMG, but it's far from explicit). And it's not even close to being supported by the rules (Quick! What's the dowry for a French baroness? How much arable land do you need to grow enough grain for your standing army without starving the peasantry? What's the cost to build a working mill and how many assistants does the miller need? Can they be goblins? At what point does a patriarch achieve "saint" status? Etc.). Played over a long enough period of time, events arise that are far outside the scope of the instructional text...and often these things take hold of our imaginations with far more "grip" than the study of pole arm differences.

And when the "bean counting" of the actual rules get in the way of these "more interesting things," well, what do you suppose happens to them? They drop away, of course...shunted to the side. So it goes. And folks start asking "why can't my wizard use a sword?" And perhaps you invent a mechanic for it (martial weapon proficiency feat, anyone?). Or perhaps you don't. Perhaps you don't care that a beer run may be beneath the dignity of 8th level characters. Maybe you just think a beer run (with necromancers) sounds like a fun side trek. D&D is the "anything game," right? And you can certainly drift it however you like. Folks have been doing so decades before the current edition of D&D was published.

So what's the difference? Here's the difference: while "drifting" of play has existed since the primordial days of D&D (in part because of the way the original, incomplete rules spread in incomplete fashion), the decision whether or not to drift play (and how play drifted) was confined to individual playgroups. A new group, going to the store and picking up a rule set would start with an instructional text (mentored by veteran players...or not) and then go their merry way. In isolation.

Now we have the internet. 

NOW we have "social media platforms." Now we have streaming videos. Now we have talking heads discussing their drifted play theories developed (perhaps) as a personal style/preference and promoting it as the true or correct method of play. And we have players learning how to play from these sources because:

A) a laissez-faire attitude from the flagship publishers (hey, play what you like...just pay us), 

B) an instructional text that is not written for accessibility (too large, too padded, for a fan base that...let's face the reality of our times...aren't super into reading instructions).

C) a system of rules that...since at least 1989...has been largely facing issues of incoherence. That's another "Forge-y" term (apologies) which, in this context, I'll define as "outlining a priority of play without providing a system of rules that support that priority."

FOR EXAMPLE: stating D&D is about creating and telling stories without providing you with tools (rules, game mechanics) that allow players to address premise, create and control plot arcs, or that are overburdened with simulation minutia (how many coins does a backpack hold? how much damage does a long sword do?...as opposed to deciding whether a fight - and the outcome of the fight - furthers the story being told at this particular moment). 

Incoherence in design ends up leading to drifting a system into "something else" (see the definition of "Drift" above: not just disregarding rules that are "inconvenient" but also ignoring or "fudging" dice results that don't support the preferred outcome...whether that be "fun" or "telling a good story" or both!). And while an individual table wishing to drift their game (as mine did, BITD) is FINE (if a bit silly...there are other games DESIGNED to do these things), holding up drifted play as "proper play" (and promoting it as such) is problematic, in a number of ways:

• It confounds as confuses newbies (not a way to grow the hobby)
• It fractures and polarizes the gaming community.
• It stymies actual innovation (there ARE other games to play).
• It promotes an attitude of rule-breaking (this has carry over to other arenas).
• It disregards what the system does well.

And, for me, that last point is what I hope to address in my next post: getting back to what actual D&D is, and some of the elements of the game that we should be championing.

[one last point: the rise of the internet and the ease with which individuals can now publish their own gaming material...specifically adventures and supplements...is also a major issue, when the publications are based on poor understanding and/or drifted play. These modules and supplements provide part of the text by which players and DMs learn the game...following the examples of others!...and if these are written in incoherent fashion, it can lead to even more frustration and misunderstanding]

More later. 

Fundamental D&D

Oh, boy. Where to start?

Recently there have been a lot of "self-assessment" posts popping up around the blog-o-sphere: folks celebrating their 5th or 10th or 20th year blogging (and where they've been and how things have changed) and often including assessments of the "OSR," specifically where the "movement" is, how it's evolved, and reflections/opinions on its development.

I don't write much about the OSR...since 2013 I've got less than a dozen posts with that label (and before that, most of my OSR posts were reviews of "stuff" being produced by folks identifying as part of the OSR community), so it's been interesting to observe what folks are talking about. Especially as there's been more than a little discussion about how the OSR has fractured into multiple groups or "factions."

For me, I see it less as any kind of schism(s) and more just bog standard Balkanization...we (that is, the "D&D gaming community") never really were a "unity" of any sort. The only thing we really shared was a particular piece of geography of the tabletop gaming world...the piece that is most interested in Dungeons & Dragons and its specific pseudo-genre of fantasy adventure gaming.  But we've always had different politics, design aesthetics, play styles, and objectives of play. We've always had  different comfort levels with regard to both game complexity and subject matter (and individuals have seen these comfort levels fluctuate over time!) and some are simply incompatible with each other. Before there was a Black Hack RPG there were people cutting swaths of rules out of their game, and that style of play has always been antithetical and unsatisfying to some of the others. The same "always" line can be drawn between those of a more artistic bent versus the more staid designers.

We're just (re-)asserting our independence as individuals. No one likes to be pigeon-holed.

Recently, deadtreenoshelter coined the term "D&D fundamentalists" for the camp opposite the so-called "art-punks," a term I find exceptionally amusing, especially as I've been lumped into it. With regard to religion, fundamentalism is the strict adherence to the literal interpretation of scripture...a concept which could certainly be applied to any advocate of "By The Book" or "Rules As Written" D&D.  But I've generally been one to question rules...or, at least, experiment with them...in order to gain insight and understanding into the game. If I have fundamental tendencies (I'm definitely not a fundamentalist), it's only because I've already tried the road of the heretic...and found it lacking in one regard or another.

What's a far stranger thing to me, though, is this strange way that the D&D game seems to be developing, as evidenced by the product being produced, both within the DIY crowd (the group that commonly refers to themselves as "OSR") and those followers of the flagship brand, AKA "5E." I'll be honest: until recently, I wasn't paying much attention to either of these groups...probably due to my being a rather busy adult human being as well as a narcissistic naval-gazer. But there seems to be something very different going on right now, and I've seen more than a couple people commenting on it, most recently in the comments of this adventure review over at tenfootpole:

Bryce wrote:

Yeah, I understand this is a different play style. I don't understand the appeal but I acknowledge that it is the dominant play style today, and has been for quite some time.

While GusL wrote:

It seems to me that the 5E zeitgeist goes a bit beyond plot or location based. Ravenloft is clearly better than Curse of Strahd but 5E has changed even since that came out. When I look at contemporary 5E stuff it reads like something entirely new.

GusL has done a lot of respectable adventure analysis and (in my opinion) is a bit of a "5E apologist" (that is to say he really tries to give 5E a fair shake as much as he can, despite having the crustier sensibilities of a true grognard). As such, I am inclined to trust his impressions in this matter...he does, after all, read far more 5E material than myself.

However, it's NOT just the 5E stuff...there's been some paradigm shifts for the indie/DIY stuff as well (while I pay little attention to Ennies, it's impossible to disregard them as a measuring stick of what is popular and "trendy" at any particular moment; the last couple years "OSR" offerings are illustrative). While it's easy to be dismissive of "artpunk" offerings as more style than substance, I think there's plenty to be gleaned from the effect and impact such works have on indie publishing industry...such as it is...AND the possible reasons for its rise to popularity.

Have people forgotten how to play Dungeons & Dragons? 

That's not meant to be rhetorical! However, the better question might be: Is the D&D community still playing D&D, i.e. something recognizable as the D&D game? 

I feel like I've asked similar questions in the past (though I was probably being facetious). Look, regardless of what version of D&D happens to be a person's favorite, there have been some "givens" to what goes on at the table (virtual or otherwise). Off the top of my head, I might say the usual elements include:

• A group of players working together (a party of adventurers)...
• To overcome perilous challenges...
• Created and controlled by a referee (the Dungeon Master)...
• Using a specific set of game rules (mechanics, system).

There are, of course, other "usual elements:" inhuman monsters, magical items, dungeons, treasure, etc. But the presence of these tropes vary from table to table (some DMs prefer human antagonists, some prefer less magic, some make little use of dungeons, and some care little for treasure). But those four bullet points are pretty specific to "fantasy adventure games" of D&D's persuasion.

And yet these main elements seem to be shifting. There is little peril or challenge. Players are charged with creating their own drama and conflict. Rules are habitually ignored, thrown out, or subjugated to the whims of individuals at the table. 

It feels a bit like D&D is less a game to be played and more a...a...hmm. Well, I don't really know what you'd call it. 'Something to do,' I suppose. Instead of reading a book or watching TV. It's still a form of play...but it's less and less of a game. Certainly not the same game it once was.

And the funny thing is that for many (most?) folks, I don't think this is a purposeful shift in paradigm. It's a plethora of things adding up, along with a lack of understanding about the game, and how the game functions. Or, at least, how the game functioned once upon a time.

And I think that some of the "knowledge" being put out there these days...especially some of the knowledge being put out as to "what Old School play is"...is misdirected or grossly wrong or non-helpful. God bless these people with their new "Old School Primer" but I read through the document and it's just a huge steaming pile of nonsense. 

I suppose (*sigh* cranky) that I am more than a little fatigued by individuals who started playing D&D in the last 20 years telling me how and what "old school" D&D is...or even just what ANY kind of D&D is. But you try to correct someone's ignorance and they just tell you to fuck off because, you know, it's just an opinion and you're telling them how their particular brand of fun is bad-wrong-dumb. Please let us NOT be preached to.

Or taught. Or educated. Or enlightened.

Two days ago was my (insane) brother's birthday. It seems only fitting that the same day I stumbled across this (insane) post claiming that 5E is this wonderful version of D&D that has only recently been villainized after originally being lauded as a return to "old school" gaming, and that we all have such short memories. 

Obviously, he hasn't read my posts on the subject of 5E from 2013-2015. 

But much of what "Dwiz" is listing in his post regarding trends in Old School design aren't inaccurate...they are EXCEPTIONALLY accurate. They're just, mostly, bad or misunderstood trends that have been as detrimental to the development of the DIY ("OSR") scene as they have been to 5E ("New D&D").  

This is something I want to write about in the next few days...as my time permits. Hope that's okay with folks.

; )

Coaching

The Seahawks' season ended on a disappointing note last Saturday with the team's 24-22 playoff loss to Dallas. Still, it was a far better ending than most analysts predicted at the beginning of the season, when Seattle was projected to win four to six games and miss the playoffs completely.

I say "most analysts;" not everyone was so pessimistic at the beginning of the season, and that includes Yours Truly. I was very curious to see how the 'Hawks season would go this year, but I didn't see the loss of key players as the same grounds for disaster as even the local reporters. After all, the team was still returning proven blue chip commodities in the two areas most important for American football: quarterback and head coach.

True, having those two pieces doesn't automatically guarantee success (see Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and Green Bay this year) but, in general, a proven, veteran quarterback always gives you a chance to win games, and a solid coach can turn the most motley crew of rag-tag yokels into a team. That's what happened this year with the Seahawks, as Pete Carroll coached up a defense consisting of cast-offs and young players (and, yes, two pro-bowl linebackers...one of whom was injured most of the year), to the point they could grind out a ten win season and make the postseason as the #5 seed in the NFC. In the end, it wasn't quite enough to win a close game against a good team on the road, but for me it demonstrates the importance and value of good coaching.

Pretty good coach.

I think it's easy for folks, especially non-athletes, to underestimate the benefits of coaching. Coaching is more than simple instruction or teaching, and it is different from "mentoring," a term I've grown to dislike as it's proliferated through our language in recent years. In a coaching relationship, a person with a certain amount of expertise (the coach), provides training and instruction to another person (the person being coached), with the focus of accomplishing a specific task or objective.

Per Ye Old Wikipedia, the term "coach" comes from Oxford, circa 1830, when it was applied to tutors whose aim it was to carry a struggling student to success in a class or exam...the same way a horse drawn carriage would carry a traveler to a difficult-to-reach destination. The term was quickly adapted to  sport, where a coach's aim is (presumably) to transport a team to victory...and from there the word has evolved into a part of our ever evolving lexicon.

These days, we have coaches for all sorts of things: "life coaches," "relationship coaches," "personal finance coaches," etc. Some of us (i.e. "me") may turn up our noses at these (can a person really be more expert at living my life than I am?), but that doesn't mean we should denigrate the concept of coaching, nor of how it works and how it can be useful.

A person with expertise in a field...even minor expertise...can hold up a mirror to what we are doing wrong (or what we could be doing better), helping us sharpen our skills to an end result of being better than when we started. My 71-year old mother doesn't get out to the golf course anymore, but when she did (15 years ago or so) she'd take the occasional lesson from the resident golf coach at the course she belonged to. Not because she didn't know how to play, or how to hold her club, and not because she had any plans to turn pro; my mother will tell you she was a mediocre golfer at best (though she enjoyed the game). But having a coach can still help you improve and develop your potential. A coach can help you become the best whatever it is that you want to be. And if your hobby of choice is something you love, this is probably important to you.

[back when I still fenced, I paid for weekly lessons from my coach for the same reason, even though my opportunity to become an Olympian...or even be competitive in local tournaments and such...had long since past]

The last two years I've had the great joy of coaching my son's (school) soccer team. Because it is youth sports and we're talking 6- to 8-year olds, my objectives of coaching are a little different: helping kids improve at basic skills (passing, dribbling, shooting), getting the kids to work together as a cohesive team, and instilling in them an enjoyment and love of the sport such that they'll want to keep coming back in future seasons. The latter isn't just important because we'd like healthy, active children, but because if players start dropping out we won't be able to field enough players for a full team...and then even the kids who want to participate will have to look elsewhere for their fun.

Fortunately, it appears I'm a fairly good coach (at this level). The parents like me, the kids like me, and everyone is having a good time...probably me most of all. It helps that I give all the kids equal playing time (spreadsheets work great for this), and that we tend to dominate our games (we don't officially keep score or track wins/losses...but the kids know). And that's helped grow our program. My first year we had eight kids on the team. Last year we had ten from my son's school (out of sixteen kids in his class), plus four kids from another, smaller school who didn't have enough players to field a full team. I'm hoping to add at least two or three more next year, as we will be required to split into two teams ("boys" and "girls") and we'll need at least 6-8 kids for each squad. But I'm pretty confident we'll get there...there was a lot of enthusiastic support at both schools.

Still, my expertise as a soccer coach is fairly limited. My son...who spent nearly three years in a South American country where the boys eat, drink, and breathe futbol...happens to be a talented athlete with a passion for the sport. Last April he tried out for (and was accepted to) a local "premier" team that plays high quality, competitive soccer 10-11 months out of the year. It's been a bit of a transition for our family to become "soccer people," but it's been very good for my son: the training and coaching he receives from dudes with British accents and extensive resumes (not to mention deep connections to the local MLS team) is far and away greater than anything I can teach him. He loves it, and his skill long ago outstripped anything I've learned about the sport after decades of play.

Even so, he enjoys playing for his school team, and wants to continue playing for it (seven weeks, every Fall). He understands that I, as a coach, have a much different objective from his premier team coaches: building a foundation for a consistent, coherent team and trying to bring everyone up to a similar level of skill. Diego's coaches at Seattle United, on the other hand, have the objective of developing each individual's talent and skill to their greatest potential. They are not overly concerned with team building, or even winning matches against other premier squads; instead they are seeking to train and groom players for long-term success at a high level.

Here's the reason I write all this (and the reason I've been wanting to write about this subject for over a year): I am of the opinion that our hobby...specifically the Dungeons & Dragons game and particularly individuals who wish to take up the mantle of "Dungeon Master"...could benefit from some coaching.

Ah, hell...that's not a strong enough declarative. I think DMs need coaching...not simple one-time instruction, and certainly not just examples of play from some YouTube video, but on-going training with a pointed objective of creating quality, competent game masters. Waaay back in September of 2017, I hinted at "strategies for enhancing and retaining player enjoyment" (though I never wrote the follow-up post)...this is one of the main ideas I wanted to propose.

And it's not a matter of me thinking there's not enough coaching available; over the last couple years I've come to the conclusion that there really isn't ANY coaching available. Not in the way I think there needs to be.

"And why should there be?" some folks are certainly asking. "It's a game, not a sport. A fun hobby, not a way of life. Read the instructions found in the book and then try running a few games...you'll get how to do it."

Really?

Most of would admit that Dungeons & Dragons (and role-playing in general) is a bit more complicated than your average game. I think people can easily see that the instruction manual, even for "basic" editions, is a bit more cumbersome than that found in your average board game...even those of the "Euro" variety. And, um, we do coach other games, just by the way...my soon-to-be eight year old has a chess coach with whom he's trained (along with several classmates) for an hour after school every Monday the last three months. And didn't I just read something about a new, competitive video game league being formed???

[Jesus...there's your "decline of Western Civilization" right there, folks]

I've bitched before, long and loud, about the lack of teaching available for D&D, how the game is marketed (and written) almost entirely for individuals who are already experienced players, and how the corporation's general strategy for acquiring new players is: 1) get people interested (with "buzz," strategic marketing, and pretty books), 2) have them join a game and learn from 'experienced' players who are probably half-assing the game themselves, then 3) get them to shell out money for adventure campaigns till they stop being willing to do so...probably because they throw up their hands in confusion or boredom or despair of ever being able to do it like those video-stars that first got them interested in the game.

Rinse and motherfucking repeat.

[mmm...do you coach the 7-year olds with that mouth, sailor? Let's tone it down a smidge]

Not really a coach.

That's a vast simplification, of course, but the real fact of the matter isn't (I don't think) one of vast "corporate conspiracy" so much as a lack of plan for growing and cultivating the hobby (which I've also talked about before). Because the job of the corporate suits is to make money and the job of the game designers is to write games for publication (to make money). As long as the money continues to flow into the coffers (and the paychecks into designers' bank accounts) no one's worried too much about where the hobby is or isn't going. When there's a downturn, they'll just layoff a bunch of staff, until they're ready to put out the next product that's going to give them a cash infusion.

[something tugging on the edge of my mind here about history repeating itself...]

ANYway, I think (yes, little old me, who is a very small fish, even in terms of this particular niche of a niche)...I really do think that even a little coaching (i.e. a little more than none) could go a loooong way toward improving, not only the quality of play around gaming tables, but also our perception of the hobby itself. And by "our" I mean "everyone who's aware the hobby exists" (whether or not they play D&D).

Because a game that has coaching is a game that has a perceived desire for improvement...and that usually means it's something respectable (i.e. worthy of respect) rather than just a "silly pastime." Silly pastimes are things that are just fine when played by children, but held as contemptible when pursued by adults. Because adults should be "doing something better" with their time...as if playing golf or tennis or piano was so much more world-shaking in its impact on our communities and the world at large.

All right, that's enough to chew on for now. Probably more than enough.

The Bubble

The other day I was re-reading this old (2009) blog post from James Mishler entitled The Doom of RPGs: The Rambling. It was a good post (and still is) about the general economics of publishing in the RPG industry (spoiler alert: don't expect to make much money), but the more interesting part, in my opinion, is the second half of the post and some of his predictions for the future of the industry (spoiler alert: not great). Here's what James was saying (in part) almost ten years ago:

Of course, there is another way to improve publisher and thus editor/author income… increase the number of gamers, and thus the gross number of sales; this lowers the per unit cost and increases the gross margin. But I do not mention this, because this is the Holy Grail of gaming. More companies have fallen tilting at this windmill than any other. The mythical “introductory boxed set” that will ignite consumer imagination and sales has broken more game companies than I can recall.  

The problem is, everyone (well, all the oldsters) remembers the great success of the Moldvay Basic Set for Dungeons & Dragons, and seek to recreate that feel and success; the latest in this long line is of course HackMaster Basic from Kenzer & Company, who have gone so far as to hire the original cover artist, Erol Otus, to create a cover in homage to that legendary king of starter sets. Some of this is out of a desire to evoke the feel of the original for the OSR crowd, but I’m sure there is an element of hope with HMB that it can somehow catch fire, just like its hoary predecessor. 

The problem is that when Moldvay Basic Dungeons & Dragons released back in 1981, the market was very, very different. There was no Internet, and there were no computer games; heck, D&D is the granddaddy of World of Warcraft, after all. There was then in the United States a larger group of moderately well-educated semi-curious young men with more leisure time and more discretionary income and an interest in reading and in fantasy than at any other time in world history, who had nothing better to do than to sit around and play a table-top role-playing game with their friends. I would argue that the vast majority of today’s youth are not remotely as well read (hours spend on the Internet notwithstanding), utterly incurious, have less leisure time, less discretionary income, no interest in reading other than what’s up with Britney Spears and Megan Fox, no interest in fantasy save for watching LotR on DVD and checking out hot dark-elf-chick ass on WoW, and little or no interest with actually physically hanging out with friends (after all, that’s what Facebook is for, right?) And that’s not counting the amazing push D&D got with the whole “D&D is Evil” campaign, which proved the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity. The advertising and marketing required today to crack into this current market is simply cost prohibitive for the return gained, as Wizards of the Coast has discovered much to its chagrin.  

And I should note, a repeat of the Third Edition miracle is impossible. Third Edition did not succeed based on new acquisitions in the youth market; the bulk of their market was in gamers returning to the fold. Third Edition hit just as all those gamers who started playing back in the early ‘80s were once again looking around for something to do; they had started their families, were well into their careers, and wanted something to do with friends once a week that would not get them in trouble with their wives. Gaming was a perfect solution… and when they went around seeking new products for AD&D (some not having played since 1E or even OD&D), they discovered that there was a whole new edition! And so D&D struck gold a second time, as the same generation that had such extensive leisure time and discretionary income in their youth now had more of the same in their 30-something stage… and often vastly greater discretionary income than in their youth, even if they may have had slightly less leisure time. And so they fueled the Third Edition miracle and the d20 OGL boom and eventual bust. There is no “third time’s the charm” for D&D; it has run its course. Even with Wizards pulling out all the stops with transforming the D&D experience into a table-top replica of the World of Warcraft experience did not draw in remotely as many new consumers as had been hoped; and D&D is the primary mode of acquisition of new role-playing game consumers, likely by an order of magnitude over all other role-playing games combined.

Pretty sharp, as might be expected from a person with 15 or so years of perspective from inside the industry. Mishler doesn't mention the multiple game companies that ended up folding after hitching their wagons to the D20 boom (converting their systems and going "all in"), but I think he had a solid take on the industry's potential, or lack thereof. So how is it that the Dungeons & Dragons brand is now doing better than ever before? What did James miss in his 2009 analysis?

Celebrity.

It's not enough to just blame a proliferation of gaming on the popularity of fantasy fiction (like Game of Thrones or whatever the latest Tolkien-based blockbuster is). Interest in fantasy can be met in ways besides tabletop gaming (licensed video game tie-ins, novels, and comics, for example). The only thing that has changed in the last decade or so is the willingness of name brand celebrities to talk about their own play and enjoyment of the game. Folks like Stephen Colbert, Vin Diesel, Sherman Alexie, and Jon Favreau have all lauded the game, and have credited the game with helping to build their imaginations (thus leading to their success in their current professions). Web shows that display celebrities playing and enjoying the game have encouraged curious-but-reluctant folks to give the game a try, even as fictional portrayals of the game (from Community to Stranger Things) may have piqued initial interest.

It doesn't hurt that Hasbro seems to have gone into "marketing overdrive" to get the word out about just how cool Dungeons & Dragons is, capitalizing on the moment's buzz to generate more buzz...as well they should (they are a business, right?). Still, I was surprised by just how much D&D was on display at the local Barnes & Noble when I stopped by last Saturday. No, it wasn't quite as prominent as the Harry Potter stuff, but it still featured on aisle caps, included children's books (and A, B, C's and 1, 2, 3's plus several new "Endless Quest" titles), rather than just being filed away with the (comic) graphic novels. Box sets, starter sets, giant coffee-table-art books, novels...hell, even an erotic short story collection "inspired by Dungeons & Dragons." Clearly, the Corporate Overlords are doing their best to strike while the iron's hot.

Something for the 4-year old's stocking.

This is in stark contrast to the way the game was displayed back in 2015. Remember this grumpy post? Same edition of D&D, same time of year, same store. Books weren't even displaying their front cover on the shelves.

Something's changed since then. Did Hasbro hire a new marketing department? Is it the advent of Critical Role (which first debuted on Geek & Sundry in 2015)?  I think that's more likely than the attempted proliferation of WotC's "Adventurer's League" (of the half dozen local shops, I contacted...several of which were listed in WotC's "game finder"...only ONE runs AL. And I live in Seattle!). But whatever it is that's growing the game to the point that "8.6 million Americans played" D&D in 2017, I'm inclined to worry it's less a stable, growing industry and more of a false front...a bubble, ready to pop.

But that's probably just more Negative Nelly-isms from JB, right? Just me pissing in everyone's cornflakes. Sure, fine...I can see how my years of disappointment in and (somewhat justified) skepticism of certain game companies may have colored my perception of their otherwise profoundly encouraging numbers. I mean, am I not the guy who has long complained that the industry leaders haven't been doing enough to grow the hobby? And here they are: growing it huger than ever before, yeah? That's awesome...if it's accurate.

Here's the worrying thought that keeps creeping into my head: back when the RPG hobby was in its first "boom days" (circa 1981) people talked a lot about "D&D," but any and all tabletop RPGs were labeled as "D&D" by folks. The boom was in role-playing in general, not Dungeons & Dragons specifically. Just checking Ye Old Wikipedia's list of RPGs by release date, I see there were 15 new RPGs published in 1980, 13 in 1981, 20 in 1982, and 21 in 1983. The list is somewhat incomplete as new editions aren't included...for instance, the Moldvay/Cook B/X (1981) is not listed, nor Frank Mentzer's BECMI (1983).

What about the "second boom" that coincided with 3rd edition D&D? Well, we have 17 in the year 2000 (3E's release), another 17 in 2001, and 32 (!!) in 2002...many of these games being OGL-approved D20 derivations (like Spycraft and Mutants & Masterminds).

[there were also quite a few indie RPGs published in that period, the heyday of The Forge]

Contrast these booms with the drop-off that occurred around the same time as TSR nose-dived (and before White Wolf struck gold with Vampire): 1988 saw only nine new RPGs. 1989 has eleven listed (one of them a German RPG I've never heard of). 1990 had 13, of which four are definitely non-American, and one was the Lorraine Williams "special order," Buck Rogers XXVC. These were dry years for RPG publishing, unless you're talking supplements for games established in the early/mid-80s that were still getting plenty of play.

[yes, I see that Cyberpunk 2013, Shadowrun, and Rifts...all games that became huge lines...came out during these years. They were exceptions with regard to both their success and popularity]

So what about now? Is the new "boom" in D&D sales (and millions of people playing) indicative of a growing RPG industry? Well...I see 2015 had ten new RPGs. 2016 had another ten. 2017 had eight including Zweihander (a retroclone of the old Warhammer Fantasy RPG). 2018 lists only four, though I'm sure that will be updated (didn't Mutant Crawl Classics come out this year? I know I picked up my copy just a couple months back...). It would appear that Hasbro's claim of heightened interest in D&D is simply that: an interest in Dungeons & Dragons alone. But then again, maybe I simply missed the glowing press releases from Paizo announcing their record sales of Pathfinder last year (I know there was a lot of excitement and anticipation for the new Starfinder RPG).

Anyway...I know a rising tide lifts all boats (or whatever that phrase is), and maybe that's what this is and that's what it will do. Maybe this isn't the boom of the early 1980s, but the blossoming of a new phenomenon (like the mid-70s) and the start of a true "second wave" of the role-playing hobby. Maybe this newfound interest (respectability?) in Dungeons & Dragons will usher in a new era of role-playing and an entirely new community of enthusiasts. Heck, you can find Ted Talks (now) on the virtues of tabletop gaming...maybe this IS the real deal, and not simply a lot of splash and noise being used to drum up sales for the Christmas season. I suppose I could choose to optimistic for a change.

Yeah, right.
; )

The Color of Money

Let's hit pause for a moment.

Consider (if you'll indulge me) a hypothetical universe, very similar to our own, in which the best way to play the Dungeons & Dragons game is something like the way its originators stated waaaay back in the days of yore, before it became the cornerstone of an industry and gaming empire. Back before there were published game settings and adventure paths but (instead) an idea that each individual Dungeon Master would create his or her own world ("campaign setting") and develop his or her own additional rules (to cover things that were not already covered in the limited instructions provided).

Imagine, as best you can, a reality in which the popularity of the game was driven by two, major components: firstly, it's ability to be customized to the imaginations and whims of the players (especially the referee, or "dungeon master") and, secondly, by the experience that was provided to the participants in actual play (especially those we commonly refer to as "players").

NOW...still holding this idea in your head...consider if the founding D&D's creators had stopped developing the game, only updating it by issuing a cleaned up, well edited, technically written set of instructions/rules that...in essence...simply polished the original, amateurish product found in those saddle-stitched pamphlets, those Little Brown Books cobbled together by hand using artwork cribbed from the pages of Marvel comics. Something perhaps available in both hard and soft cover, perhaps in a box (as most table games are sold)...maybe including dice and other play aids, though probably NOT any sort of multi-volume set adding hundreds of additional pages.

Allowing that the popularity of the game might (in this imaginary world I propose) send up a hue and cry for more material, perhaps the publishers might create some type of periodical...a newsletter or magazine...that provides additional (non-official) options for use in one's home game, or that contributes advice and instruction on the two things driving the interest in playing the game, i.e. methods on how to create one's own campaign settings and on how to provide a more powerful game experience. And, sure, perhaps also the odd example "adventure."

Hell, the company might even publish the occasional "modular" adventure to be dropped into one's home campaign setting.

Ccertainly one might expect other fan-related communities, periodicals, and (later, with the internet) blogs and forums to pop up over time discussing the game and sharing tips, ideas, and material, but these would be tolerated by the publishers as helping to promote the game and keep it living and breathing.

Because the main point and industry of the designers and publishers of the Dungeons & Dragons game would be (in this imaginary universe I posit) to simply be the keepers and publishers of the game. To make it available to the public, perhaps in different languages, just as (for example) Parker Brothers was responsible for publishing and selling the game of Monopoly from the 1930s until the company was acquired by Hasbro in '91 (thus conferring actual responsibility to the latter company).

Just consider this possible, parallel universe. Roll it around in your brain a bit.

Do you think (in this imaginary universe I describe) that the Dungeons & Dragons game would have faded into obscurity after ten or twenty years? Do you think it would continue to sell, forty years today (2018), forty years after its initial publication? Do you think it could continue to hold the attention of people for decades the way other tabletop games...like Monopoly or Scrabble or Sorry...have managed to do? Enough that parents would introduce it to their children, teach them the rules, buy new copies when old copies need replacement?

More than half a century in the same format.

Consider that until Hasbro acquired Monopoly in 1991 the board game was only published in two formats (standard and "deluxe"). While I couldn't find sales totals for Monopoly prior to its Hasbro acquisition, it was selling at least a million copies per year following World War II (according to Wikipedia anyway). Would a simple business model (like the imaginary one I propose) have allowed Dungeons & Dragons to sell even a tenth as many copies as "the world's most popular board game?"

Would that have been enough money to comfortably sustain the game's publishers?

Perhaps not. Perhaps the profit margin necessary to maintain and publish the game would have, over time, necessitated a diversification of product, the need to publish different editions, similar to the way Hasbro continues to create different varieties of the Monopoly game. Perhaps. But then, Monopoly (to my mind) is a much more static game than Dungeons & Dragons. While I prefer its classic version (duh...I'm old), I can see how folks might like to "tart it up."

Of course, some might say that Dungeons & Dragons lacks the universal appeal of a game like Monopoly. I'm not sure I agree. Thematically? Are more people really interested in playing ruthless real estate tycoons than heroic fantasy adventurers? The former smacks too much of our harsh reality, while the latter provides a pleasant diversion and escape.

No, it is the experiential gameplay of Monopoly (handling money...wisely or unwisely, wheeling and dealing, and cursing the whims of fate in the forms of dice rolls and card draws) that makes it appealing to people, and it is readily accessible: easy to learn, easy to set-up, easy to play. Dungeons & Dragons over the decades has rarely ever approached the type of accessibility found in Monopoly, being either too obscure in its presentation (the earliest editions) or two large in scope and page count (most of the later editions). For the most part, D&D over the years has relied on mentorship for the teaching of its rules rather than "out-of-the-box" instruction. And the support for such mentorship has been weak to nonexistent.

Which is too bad, for a number of reasons.

BUT (stopping our hypothetic imagining for now) that is, unfortunately, the actual reality. My little dreamscape isn't true history...and even considering such "alternative history" may seem a wasted effort. Unless, you're feeling hopeless and looking for some way out of our current state of affairs.

[I know Alexis is actually made of pretty strong stuff, but it was his post that prompted my train of thought here, even if he has since backed up from the ledge]

I don't think that the actual game, nor its potential, has been lost quite yet. In fact, if there's any good that's come out of the amorphous OSR and it's backward-looking nostalgia (and, yes, I think there's a LOT of good that has come out of it), the greatest of its offerings may have been the re-kindled interest in the "home game" that has come about because of it.

And there's more I want to say on this subject, really. I want to talk about the present reality (so much as I can) and talk about possible roads to the future. And about finding a way back to something ...some track that we wandered off a long time ago.

But that's will have to wait for the future. Right now, I've got a hot game of Axis and Allies with my boy that I simply must get back to. More later.
; )

All Too Human

[and here I was going to blog about the new Wonder Woman film. Ah, well...perhaps tomorrow. Here's the TL;DR version: it's good and you should spend money to see it. More later]

One of the...what? Nice? Interesting? things about Seattle is that it is (or was) the erstwhile home of Wizards of the Coast (now located in Renton, Washington) as well as plenty of geeky RPG enthusiasts and game designers who have actual experience with and insight into the industry. Unlike folks like Yours Truly...people who have theory-bashed and compiled info from research, publications, and the internet...there are folks who have actually been a part of companies like White Wolf and Wizards and Paizo and other, smaller, outfits, who can offer real information on The Biz as it relates to the last couple decades.

[unlike the prior decades...the 70s and the 80s...where you'd have to go to the midwest to meet the right people]

So it was, today, that I spent a good couple hours bending the ear of one such (former) insider about Wizards and the RPG industry of the early WotC years. A dude who has done freelance writing for a number of big name game companies and worked in marketing department for the biggest. The conversation was...well, fascinating, to say the least. If I hadn't had to get my three year old her lunch and a nap (she was in tow at the time) I probably would have hung out a couple hours more.

Fascinating. But sad...and sad in the ways you might expect but hope wouldn't be the case. Tales of how shit isn't ideal. How people are human and (thus) prone to flaws of human frailty. How folks can do good while still being jerks...in various ways.

Just fucking sad.

I write this (quickly) while filling the bathtub for my kids, and after quaffing half a bottle of pinot gris (really need to do something about my drinking). I know Seattle-ites like myself live life in a bubble beauty and light and liberal values that aren't really reflective of our American society as a whole. I know that I often think of fellow gamers in a similar light: that because we tend to be well read and above average intellectually that we are more often on the side of angels. I know that's a false assumption...I know it. I've read about it. I've heard about it from folks with first hand knowledge. But  to hear that the industry people at the highest levels fall prey to the same problems of us "lesser mortals," well...it's just sad.

Power and money tend to corrupt humans. Whether you're talking about high ranking politicians or poor little ol' gamers. And even when it doesn't, nepotism and bitterness and jealousy often fuel and influence business practices...even when smart people should know better. All people have good inside them...but they can get lost along the way, and really end up doing a lot of fucking damage. To themselves and others. Much as I'd like to write it off in a jokey fashion, it's not really a joke. Not when people lose their livelihoods. Not when people wreck their relationships. Not when...

Ah, F it.

It's 2017. As always, hindsight is 20x20 and folks will continue to make the same mistakes and fail to learn from the mistakes of the past. It's the way of our human species, and I know that, too (man, I saw enough of that in Paraguay). I will probably never be in a position to make a ton of money (few of us are ever so lucky), but I hope...I really, really hope...that if such happens, I'll remember not to be stupid. I'll try not to get to big for my britches.

*sigh*

All right, got to go wash the filth off my children. Yak at y'all later.

What's Up

Normally, I wouldn't be blogging on a Tuesday, but I've got a few minutes and I'm putting off "real" writing for the moment. Plus, I didn't put out anything yesterday (I've got something half-written but it's pretty half-hearted and I'm not inclined to finish it), so I feel like I owe Ye Old Readers.

Here's the thing: I've got a LOT on my mind lately, and I'm not just talking about my daily life stuff (that's all crazy-nutty, too). No, I mean a lot when it comes to game design and game publishing. This happens when I've had too much time to stew/think about "stuff." Each of these is probably worthy of its own post, but I'm going to do a few bullet-points right now, just so I can empty my brain a bit:

• Numero Uno: I'm probably not doing as much as I could to make an actual damn business out of this self-publishing thing. Yeah, yeah, I'm not talking about getting rich and famous; I'm talking about making more than beer money. Part of this is a lack of business acumen, part of it is a lack of organization, part of it is a fear of really putting myself out there, and part of it is sheer laziness/inertia. I really need to do something about ALL this.
• Numero Dos (related to Numero Uno): If I really want to do anything with this, I'm about 85% certain I need to step-up and start collaborating with folks, something I'm loathe to do. For a variety of reasons (most of which boil down to 1) being disappointed in the past, and 2) personal insecurity), I've historically preferred to "go it alone" rather than work in a team. But that attitude is extremely limiting; you can always accomplish more working with others. I know that, I just don't like it. At least if I rely on myself for EVERYTHING I feel I have 100% control...and I'm pretty control freakish. Problem is, I can't do everything (decent artwork for example). It's shooting myself in the foot (or the head) to operate the way I do.
• Number Three (related to Numero Dos): I don't think I'm ever going to "not pay" for art again. Clip art is mostly shitty. Finding public domain print art that is good worked one time (with Five Ancient Kingdoms) but that's it. And I think my writing is good enough that it deserves some better illustration. And I just can't accept any more "freebies" from volunteer illustrators...being a for-profit biz means paying one's contractors. So there.
• Knock-Off, Innovative, or Subversive: For me, these are the three levels of game design. "Knock-Off" doesn't just mean retroclones. There's nothing very original about systems based on the D6, or D20, or D%, or dice pools, and there have been plenty of RPGs with both class/level chargen and "defined-by-selection" or some combo of the two. Even so, just getting a game written (knock-off or not) is hard enough for the average person. Being "innovative" means injecting something new into the existing RPG paradigm, but it's hard (if not impossible) to do this wholesale. Do you want characters? Do you want systems that resolve processes? We are talking about a game here, not freeform play. Finally, there's level three ("subversive") design, aimed at having real world impact (educating or changing persons thinking or perception)...hopefully for the good...based on the play at the table. Level 1 design is a grind. Level 2 design is a challenge. Level 3 design is...well, it's something else entirely.
• Numero Cinco: I'd like to do more subversive designs. I've got a couple-three on the shelf, but they're so tough to do...and do well (I'd say "do right," but I'm not sure that can be 100% accurate. Subversion is in the mind of the beholder, you know?). And by "well" I mean accomplishing one's (design) objective while not upsetting the participants, except as is required to meet the needs of the objective. It's so daunting at times that...well, the proof is in the fact that those games haven't been completed, nor even play-tested at this point. When you try to do something that's "socially interesting" or "relevant," you're really super-conscious of the possibility of totally flubbing things. Well, I am, at least. But then, see point Numero Dos...if I was a little more willing to collaborate (i.e. "work with others") I might be able to assuage some of those self-doubts.

One big circle of thoughts, spinning back into each other.

And perhaps none of these thoughts are especially constructive to what I actually need to do (i.e. "write," "finish writing," etc.). But the more I put words on paper, the more I can't help but think of the Bigger Picture...the What Exactly Are You Up To question. What AM I up to? Not just from a writing sense but an overall How Do I Fit In This Niche Market Industry sense.

More on all this later (maybe). Oh, and I really, really plan on giving people the whole run-down on my new B/X project (I know there's some curiosity)...maybe tomorrow. Right now, I've got to go buy groceries.