4. D&D Gold Box series
Designed
by: Jim Ward, David Cook, Steve Winter, Mike Breault (Pool of Radiance), others
Influenced
by: D&D, obviously. Also Wizardry,
especially in its use of specials.
Series:
SSI made many of these, at least seven. SSI also made a couple of Buck Rogers
games using the Gold Box engine, and the original Neverwinter Nights (an early AOL offering) was
essentially an MMORPG Gold Box game. There was even a publicly-released Gold
Box AD&D construction kit in the form of the Unlimited
Adventures tool.
Legacy:
Probably every D&D-licensed RPG to come after owes a tremendous debt to the
Gold Box line.
And
so we return to Dungeons & Dragons for a moment. Let's first review the
progress of the pen-and-paper game between OD&D and AD&D 2nd edition,
which is the version that the Gold Box games utilize.
OD&D
gave rise to two different, popular branches of the game, a version called just
"Dungeons & Dragons" and was handed to TSR staffers to design,
and "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons," which was Gary Gygax's baby,
and substantively looked like a version of OD&D with all the supplements
rolled in, as well as some additions.
OD&D
contained a good number of "rule hacks," weird little special cases
introduced for one reason or another. For example, in the original books, elves
were the only race with special status, able to play as either Fighting Men or
Magic-Users, but only one at a time, per adventure. A supplement turned this
into D&D's strange "multi-class" rules, giving them the ability
to do both, splitting experience between their classes.
It also opened up the
ability to pick different classes, and allow other races to multi-class. But
since the purpose was to allow races to seem special compared to ordinary
people, humans didn't get access to these rules. But then humans began to look
like a fool's choice for race, so they introduced the "dual class"
rules.
The
result was that the rules became ever more complex, and only really
understandable to people who had played from the start. Then 2nd edition came
out (after Gygax had been forced out of the company), and the rules became
simple in some ways, but combat became even more complicated. These are the
rules upon which the AD&D Gold Box games are based.
Up
until that point, TSR had viewed the burgeoning field of computer RPGs with
suspicion. They had released a couple of tools for 1st edition DMs (shamefully,
still the best such official tools ever produced), but nothing much in the way
of games. This changed with the introduction of Pool
of Radiance.
AD&D
was not designed to become a computer game, and thus there are some unusual
interface challenges at work here. A big advantage coming from its trying to
replicate a official pen-and-paper RPG is that some aspects of the game world
which almost invariably get simplified out of a concession to workability on a
computer did not with the Gold Box games.
Take,
for example, Vancian magic, the (in)famous aspect of D&D versions 0-3 that
had wizard and cleric characters memorize spells at the beginning of an
adventuring day. At "the beginning of a day," even in table sessions
of Dungeons & Dragons, is a simplification; 2nd Edition established complex
rules determining how many hours of preparation magic users had to undergo
before beginning to memorize spells, then the actual amounts of time needed to
commit them to retain them. In play sessions DMs usually, and rightly, glossed
over this needless complication.
In
most computer RPGs, something as weird and flavorful as Vancian magic
(something that is only really effective for people who have read Jack Vance's
fantasy work) would be considered too much of an interface hassle to make up
for the fairly-minimal atmospheric effect from using it. The Gold Box games do
include Vancian magic, even though it required a great deal of interface
programming at the time to accommodate it -- the games even accurately tally up
the hours spent in memorizing spells. They also track encumbrance, and even the
funky multiple coin types D&D used at the time, with at least one inn even
refusing payment in anything but platinum.
The
games themselves are remembered fondly by many players, probably because of
their strong non-linear nature and challenging play. Like a semi-directed
tabletop campaign, players are given many different possible tasks to accomplish
and can do them in the order the wish, or switch between them. Many of the
obstacles have multiple ways of overcoming them.

Pool of Radiance (Screenshot courtesy http://www.joystickdivision.com/)
For
example, to enter the dragon's lair at the end of Pool of Radiance, the player's group can
either fight its way directly in, or find the laundry and dress up in disguise
to avoid some trouble, or rescue a prisoner to get a password to infiltrate the
castle, or find a teleporter to take the party directly to the dragon. Pool of Radiance, in
particular, was designed so much like an actual D&D adventure that TSR
later released a module based upon it.
Second
Edition D&D was still a fairly difficult game, and the Gold Box series
didn't skimp on that difficulty, but they are leavened tremendously by the save
game feature. Second Edition had the most complicated character generation of
all the books, so abuse of the save game feature was pretty much required to
make headway.
Technically players could switch out permanently dead or ruined
characters with new ones, Wizardry-style,
but the newcomers would join at the lowest level allowed by the scenario, but
without the benefit of all the early experience opportunities his predecessor
was able to claim.
I
should say a few more words about ruining characters. D&D had resurrection
spells, but they were risky. If the character failed his roll he'd be left dead
permanently, and even if he survived he'd lose a point of Constitution, which
meant lost maximum hit points for some characters.
Additionally,
there was the Haste spell, which doubled a character's actions and movement for
a short time, but at the cost of a
year of permanent aging. Aging is one of those things that gets thrown
around as a different kind of drawback in other games, but D&D aging is
fairly difficult to overcome. And the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance Gold Box
games are arranged in a sequence, allowing for characters to move from scenario
to scenario. Aging a few Haste-caused years per game, characters could easily
be too old to function effectively by the end of one of the later games.
Pool of Radiance gets most
of its exploration interface from Wizardry.
Those games with an overworld present it as single screens of wilderness, with
encounters sprinkled around. One of the things that 2E brought to D&D, and
works fairly well for the computer games, is its "non-weapon
proficiencies," which we might know better as, simply, "skills".
The
crowning achievement of the Gold Box games was their fidelity to the 2E rules,
which were generally unsuitable to computer play. They are not a direct port;
there are plenty of spells, even the basic ones in the core rule books, that
aren't present. (Some of them, like Reincarnation, would by mere implication
have made the game much harder to develop.)
Many
previous CRPGs unofficially used some version of the D&D rules as their
base. (One of the telltale signs,
visible in Wizardry
and Bard's Tale, is
the use of "armor class," and whether it counts down as it's
improved.) AD&D 2E was the zenith of
the game in terms of independence from computer simulations. It has been
observed that a likely inspiration for 3E was its suitability to adaption as
computer games, and that 4E seems downright MMORPG-like.
Further
reading: GameFAQs hosts an
excellent guide to the 2nd Edition AD&D rules.
|
I do feel that Western rpgs carried a bit more weight in the early days. Only going by my personal memories, Steve Jackson's Car Wars was HUGE amongst my peers (maybe it's because I'm from Detroit), and the other TSR boxed rpgs like Star Frontiers and Marvel Super Heros were pretty popular as well in the early 1980's, even though their influence is not as obvious as D&D.
Sorry about that, but your research doesn't hold up to reality.
"I make no secret the fact that I consider this one of the most pernicious aspects of CRPG gaming, that permanent disadvantages acquired during the course of play cannot be used by a designer because the player will simply load back to the time before the disadvantage occurred. "
I doubt many players indeed keep their own characters dead, and the fact that you can save and restore easily in Wizard-like games makes that pretty improbable. Games like Etrian Odyssey let you retire a character in exchange of another with a bigger level cap, which could be counted as "permanent death". Even in games where characters aged and died (Rise of the Phoenix, a strategy game for SNES, for example) I would usually reset and try again until none died at year's end.
A pity MUDs are not mentioned (not even as World of Warcraft predecessor).
"The leeching-off of RPG elements into the greater field of video games has helped to encourage a strange definition of terms: because so many games could be considered role-playing games now, the CRPG genre is now being defined by those elements that other genres are least likely to steal."
I'm afraid I have to disagree with this statement. The reason for this, is that what defines an CRPG NOW, is actually something rather specific, even if the industry as a whole hasn't fully realised it:
I as a consumer and a player, along with many others I know, and some of the websites which are involved as much with the players as-well as the industry, have reached a consensus about what an CRPG actually is, today. The only real problem I've found, is that a lot of people have trouble truly understanding what that consensus is, what it represents, and it's ramifications for computer games in general. In fact, such has been some of the discussions and arguments I've been part of, that essentially the whole of the introduction I'm currently writing for my paper, is taken up precisely with just this one issue, because I think it's that important for people to understand. After all, you can't have a paper discussing CRPG's without people fully understanding what an CRPG actually is, right now.
The fact is, is that most of what made CRPG's what they were, isn't really all that important in the overall field of computer games. What's happened is that we've since focused on what IS important, and started to distil it down to the fundamentals. Or at least tried to. Like I said, I've had quite a few arguments and disagreements along the way. However, at the end of all that, I feel I now fully understand what it is we're dealing with, which is where my paper comes in.
I'm still currently writing, (and re-writing!) the introduction, precisely for this reason, but am unsure of what I should do with is when I've finished, (since I feel the introduction should stand on it's own quite well, even if it is just the first part of a much longer paper). I'd like to submit it to Gamasutra (when done), but am unsure as to how?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darklands_(video_game)
Phantasy Star series - one of the first RPGs with parties made of defined story characters, one of the first games with a female protagonist, sci-fi/fantasy hybrid back when most games were high fantasy, generation system with branching story paths based on marriage, death of the female lead way before FF7 did it, comic book style cutscene predating CD cutscenes.
Shin Megami Tensei series - recruit monsters on your team long before Pokemon did it, modern/occult/cyberpunk/post-apoc settings, stories & characters based on world mythologies, multiple storyline paths, mix of life sim elements in later games (Persona 3/4).
Shin Megami Tensei: Honestly? It's a series I don't yet feel qualified to write about. There's so MUCH there, much of it in languages other than Japanese, and I try not to write on something unless I've had at least some personal experience playing it.
I've said in the past that these lists are not consider to be the 20 "most" anything, they're here to provide background for modern game designers, and to illustrate particularly useful design examples. I stand by that, although I'll admit a couple of the games this time kind of got away from that. If you want more info on these games, the best source on them (and indeed, many other games) that I've found is Hardcore Gaming 101. Go there. Read. I sincerely doubt you'll be disappointed.
But yes, it is true, it predates Pokemon, which I pieced together after I turned in the article. I'll see about correcting that soon.
Phantasy Star: Oh, I dearly wanted to write about the classic Phantasy Star games this time. Maybe later.
Mother: The thing about Mother is that it's simultaneously utterly by-the-numbers Dragon Quest in a modern setting, and at the same times something unique and wonderful, especially starting with Mother 2/Earthbound.
Darklands: It's another case of not having gotten around to playing it yet, which is a form of research that cannot always be completed in a timely manner, and not just because of matters of play time. I'm sure I'll be writing about it eventually in some form. (And I've just started looking into Traveller on my own....)
To Darren Tomlyn: It sounds like it could be an interesting paper! Whether Gamasutra picks it up or not, I'd like to read it when it's done, if it's okay with you.
To Roberto Alfonso: Actually, it's a funny thing. Wizardry (and Bard's Tale too, I seem to remember) are special in that they DON'T allow you to return to old saves. If a character is lost forever ("buried"), it's impossible to restore using in-game means. And if you turn off your computer to avoid a battle, when you return to the game you'll find your party is still in the dungeon, and you'll have to "restart an out party".
On players not being willing to suffer with permanent character death, this is one of those things where, ultimately, it is up to the designer. I myself respect a game with permanent death if the game is designed taking it into account (and that *doesn't* mean the game has to be any easier), but I understand that there are players who don't think about it that way. But that is the thing: designing a game around the idea of permanent death and endless reloading produces entirely different kinds of games, and since the latter is 99% of RPGs it means a great swath of RPG design space is being left farrow. To extend the metaphor, it is time, I believe, that the plow is taken up once more.
MUDs: I agree it's an absence, but with only 10 games to cover in each category there were unavoidable exclusions.
Tom Newman: It sounds like I would have liked your gaming circle.
Truly and always one of the MOST innovative made JRPG
titles in Japan.
However, you didn't cover either Ys or Phantasy Star. These two franchises were far more influential to Japanese RPGs than Final Fantasy was when all of them first began 20+ years ago. That's why they continue to be rereleased, followed, and mimiced to this day. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Final Fantasy was not that popular compared to Ys or Phantasy Star. Frankly, I'd prefer that it had stayed that way because I think that both Ys and Phantasy Star (especially Ys I&II and the original Phantasy Star I&II) are far superior RPGs, including offering strong heroines as both PCs and NPCs, as well as (for Phantasy Star) offering a hybrid fantasy/sci-fi setting, a theme I used for my own campaign worlds (I combined AD&D and TSR's Gamma World rule set, and got the idea from Terry Brooks' "Sword of Shannara").
One other point that's probably worth repeating (and that I've said several times elsewhere) is that WoW is not that huge when you consider the actual global market. 11 million accounts is nothing compared with the 70 million accounts that Nexon announced for Maple Story or the 17 million that NCSoft states for Lineage II, for example, and it isn't that much more successful than Guild Wars' 6 million accounts (especially since GW doesn't charge a monthly subscription). Blizzard has succeeded in making people think that their game is the standard, but in fact it is just one fish in a very large pond, and there are other offerings that have far larger user bases.
Bard's Tale II lets you return to old saves. That's the only one I've played extensively or recently, though, so I can't comment on any others.
"11 million accounts is nothing compared with the 70 million accounts that Nexon announced for Maple Story or the 17 million that NCSoft states for Lineage II"
All of these need to be considered in the appropriate context, though. 11 million is "Current paying subscribers" for WoW. How many of Maple Story's players still play, ever played for a significant period of time, or ever paid any money? Their 70 million would have to be compared to the total number of accounts ever created on WoW (including trial accounts) which may compete with or even surpass it.
Likewise, from all of my research, Lineage II's 17 million is the total number of accounts ever created (I don't think it ever exceeded 3-4 million concurrent users). My main source was mmocharts.com, which appears to be defunct, so I'd like a current source on this. I think that the lineage series overall has made more money that WoW, but I don't think it ever matched its subscriber numbers except during WoW's first year, which means that WoW will shortly overtake it in total profit if it hasn't already..
Likewise, Guild Wars 6 million is total number of box sales (including their 2 expansions). WoW's total sales of original game and expansions are WAY more than that.
In any regard, this was a good read, as were your previous articles which I reviewed prior to reading this article. Thank you for publishing them!
There are two points that I was making that seemed to be missing in your reply. The first point is that these companies state their own numbers rather than being tracked by any sort of independent organization; therefore, we must go with what they report regardless of who the company is. Blizzard's statements are no more valid than NCSoft or any other company. We certainly cannot take the reports of one of many miscellaneous sites as having higher validity as a reference than the actual companies who offer the numbers in the first place. The second point is that gaming is a global medium, not national or local. WoW is big in the English market largely due to Blizzard's hype and promotion, but that's about all that can be said for it. Ten years ago, Everquest was the biggest in the English market, but the same observations still applied (many people did not play even amongst hardcore RPG gamers, etc). Many people do not play WoW, particularly in other countries where other tastes in styles and mechanics are preferred. In a reply in another article, one person here (I think it was Tommy) stated something to the effect that, "anyone who wants to play an MMORPG has chosen WoW." Obviously, this is an inaccurate statement and rather misleading about the nature of the overall global market for MMORPGs. The same thing happens with other types of games and genres, so it's not too surprising, but we should be more critical (and inclusive) when we report about the industry as a whole.
As I said, WoW is merely one fish in a very big sea, and it is not the largest fish as far as users if the entire global market is considered. People tend to think of their own standards as being universal, but that's usually not the case when the bigger picture is considered. In fact, much of research is inherently ethnocentric due to language barriers and basic business competition (companies not allowing independent tracking, for example).
Where did I say that the numbers coming from the companies weren't accurate? I said that the numbers from the companies refer to different things. The number of people who have ever created a free Maple Story account compared directly to the number of CURRENTLY PAYING WoW subscribers does not tell you which game is bigger, more popular, more profitable, etc.
Until a company other than WoW gives a number that can be reasonably compared, I'm going to assume that WoW is, in fact, the biggest fish in the ocean, if for no other reason because no other company will actually tell us useful numbers. They inflate them by keeping the terms vague (which means that they probably refer to every account ever created, since that's a valid interpretation of their words).
That being said, I do think that you have a valid point that people in U.S. focus too much on WoW and fail to realize the size and popularity of other MMO's. I just think that you need to consider exactly what the numbers that you read refer to instead of linearly comparing the largest number you hear from each company.
I'm repeating things here, but Megaten and Phantasy Star are the most obvious omissions (Nowadays there are LOTS of Megaten games over here too). There's also Crystalis (serving as a connection between Zelda and other action RPGs such as Seiken Densetsu and the Soul Blazer series), Star Ocean (as part of the Tales legacy) and Castlevania (which dovetails with Tales series, especially the recent ones). In addition to Shining Force, Fire Emblem also inspired the Super Robot Wars series. And I'm not a JRPG expert; I'm sure I'm missing a lot more.
Given your desire to emphasize the "RP" portion of "RPG", I'm also surprised you didn't even give a nod to RPG "morality systems," the duality of which mostly derives from the early DnD "Law/Chaos" system, either directly (Ogre Battle, Megaten, and Baldur's Gate), or indirectly (KotoR)
What I miss is aggregation of decade long leaders and leaders thought for what they defined as RPG game.
That could be nice to build conclusion to where are we going.
Especially in times where lider of the Millenian period - Bioware - now is as gigantic and strong as SSI was a decade earlier, simiar thing is with a monolith long-living Bethesda which evolved even from the past times many companies and product lines didn't survive. From the other hand RPG still bring new players with innovative ideas not afraid that rpg is one of the hardest video game to produce.
This way of thinking can be helpful to make "RPG 101 - how not to fail for the future".
Anyway, Albion was a PC game made by ex-Thelion programmers who made game of the era for Amiga called "Ambermoon". I presume you thought on about that title when thinking Amiga. Nevertheless both Albion and Ambermoon are games which sentimental rpg-gamer can come back playing even now (if possible).
Another really cool example of Wizardrish/M&M mixed gameplay is Ishar serie. Many players also remember that one very well
@Dave: I think you have things back-to-front, as regards WoW and Guild Wars. Guild Wars, with 6 million accounts, but no subscription, is nowhere near as successful, financially, as WoW with 11 million accounts all paying a subscription fee / pay to play plan. I do agree that WoW is just one fish in the pond, but to run with the analogy, it's actually a Kraken with a thousand tentacles, right now.
Nice to see at least one nod to Azure Dreams though, that was fantastic.
Excellent article among your many. Like many posters, I would have loved to see some mention of my pet game. In this case, the fantastic, yet incomplete Alternate Reality series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Reality_(video_game_series)
Surely you would have seen this in the C64/128 release lineup?
The issue I see in my dealings with games producers is the lack of respect and value producers see in forms of gaming such as pen and paper roleplay, and often disregard it.
Its a shame, but in many causes appears to be the reality and achilles heell of some development studios today.
Fantastic article! It introduced me to a world of RPGs (from both sides) that I had not even heard of. Time to start exploring :-)
E.A.W.