Some general comments here on TSR systems and their history...
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Brad Thompson wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I am curious whether you think that the other genres TSR offered early
>> on (but were based on D&D system derivatives) failed primarily because
>> of the system deviations or because of the quality of the settings and
>> offerings.
>
> If you are referring to games like Star Frontiers, Gamma World, Boot Hill,
> and Top Secret, then I'll throw in my 2 cents worth. Three of these have
> very similar (D&D-like) mechanics, while the last was a rogue system based
> on stats & skills.
[...]
> Other than Top Secret, I don't recall anything memorable about the
> systems of these early divergent games. They were barely more than
> D&D wearing a new skin.
I don't know as much about Gamma World or Boot Hill, but IMO
neither Star Frontiers nor Top Secret had much resemblance to D&D in
terms of mechanics. SF was purely a percentile skill-based system
with four sets of paired attributes.
In general, I would say that D&D-based mechanics were a rare
thing with TSR games. Their other games usually had very different
mechanics. The main attempt at a truly D&D based system was
_Buck Rogers_, which almost no one seems to remember despite a
significant amount of support. The other TSR systems were
quite numerous. A full list goes:
1975 Boot Hill
1978 Gamma World
1980 Top Secret
1982 Gangbusters
1983 Star Frontiers
1984 The Adventures of Indiana Jones
1984 Marvel Superheroes
1985 Conan: The Role-Playing Game
1988 Rocky & Bullwinkle
1990 Buck Rogers: XXVc
1993 Amazing Engine
1998 Alternity
1998 SAGA (Dragonlance and Marvel)
On the one hand, one can say that the non-D&D based systems
didn't do so well. On the other hand, the most D&D-like ones were
I think Gamma World and Buck Rogers, which certainly don't seem to
lead the pack. Gamma World moved away from D&D in its later editions.
-*-*-*-
>
> The first three suffered from (IMO) terrible support in the way of
> settings [...] It was sort of a chicken-or-egg problem for TSR,
> in that they couldn't make the line profitable without spending a
> ton of time/money on the setting, and once they spent enough on the
> setting you would have a hard time making the core product pay for
> your capital outlay.
Hm. I don't really buy this. Lots of other game companies
have somehow dealt with creating settings -- most notably White
Wolf. I think the real problem is this: that TSR saw setting as
something to be tacked on later after cranking out the system.
The most recent case of this was _Alternity_, but it holds
true for many earlier systems. The problem with _Star Frontiers_
was IMO that they had no idea about how to do sci-fi adventures.
The modules tended to do a D&D-in-space where the PC's get trapped
fighting various monsters or exploring a ruined station. Stuck for
ideas, apparently, they later dropped the background and did things
like adaptation modules of the movies 2001 and 2010.
In the 80's, new systems were a selling point. GURPS
and HERO were born then and have devoted fans even now. But in
the 90's it is settings which sell. Of course, other companies
tend to sell new core rulebooks for each new setting -- unlike
TSR's D&D settings like Planescape. Of course, WotC has done
just that with _Star Wars_. It will be interesting to see how
other lines are done.
- John
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
