Dungeons & Dragons at 50: You Can't Copyright Fun
How lax intellectual property rules created a nerd culture phenomenon

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the original edition of Dungeons & Dragons (D&D), the granddaddy of tabletop role-playing games and one of the urtexts of nerd culture.
The golden anniversary could hardly have come at a better time; over the past decade, the game has undergone an unexpected renaissance, reaching levels of cultural saturation and sales that exceed even its 1980s heyday. Critical Role, a live-play D&D podcast, sold out London's 12,000-seat Wembley Arena last October. Even a passingly good Dungeons & Dragons movie helped mark the game's half-centennial.
If it seems strange that something as anachronistic and exquisitely dorky as D&D is popular again, consider that those qualities may be exactly why people are drawn to it. The Atlantic recently reported that Americans are suffering a "kind of ritual recession, with fewer community-based routines" and face-to-face meetups. It's perhaps not surprising that D&D has become a redoubt for old-fashioned, goofy fun in our digital age.
But there's another reason D&D has weathered 50 years of critical successes and failures: It radically empowered its fans to create their own adventures and games, keeping the tabletop gaming hobby alive even when its flagship was floundering. The 50-year history of D&D is an entrepreneurial success story, yes, but it's also a story of the advantages of an open-source, loose approach to intellectual property, and the disadvantages of being miserly with it.
When Gary Gygax, a Wisconsin war-gaming enthusiast, published the first edition of D&D in 1974, he was unemployed and cobbling shoes in his basement for spare cash. He had to recruit business partners and form their own company, TSR, to publish the game, because every major board game company passed on it.
In fairness to the suits who turned down a golden goose, D&D would have sounded incomprehensible on paper in 1974. You played fantasy characters, who worked together? Where is the game board you play on? No one wins? Wait, what's this about a "dungeon master"?
But the genius of D&D is better demonstrated than explained, and that's how the game spread—from friend group to friend group, slowly at first and then faster as the number of Johnny Appleseeds lugging their Dungeon Master's Guides around grew exponentially. It turned out that when you sat people down, told them they were wizards and knights and what-have-you, and got them rolling dice, they loved it. And they loved it across age groups: children, teens, and adults.
The revolutionary idea of D&D was its "expansive and generous belief in its players' creative potential," as I wrote in a 2018 Reason feature on the history of the game. It used the combat mechanics of tabletop war games, but as a framework for what was in essence a collaborative fantasy story generated by the players' choices. Dice were used to simulate randomness and risk, so a player had the freedom to, say, pickpocket a nobleman, but they might have to roll well to avoid being caught. Dungeon masters, the neutral referees who lead D&D sessions, had even more freedom. They could create their own campaigns and even whole fantasy worlds.
This encouragement of creativity extended to D&D's business model. In its early days, TSR gave its blessing to unofficial fan magazines and helped distribute unlicensed third-party content from small-press publishers.
Besides mutual advantage, TSR had good reason to not be too stingy with its copyright. The content of D&D was a mishmash of fantasy tropes and races that Gygax himself lifted from classic works in the genre. For example, the earliest versions of D&D used the term "hobbits," until TSR received a strongly worded letter from the company that owned the rights to J.R.R. Tolkien's works. Ever since then, the fantasy worlds of D&D have been populated by "halflings" instead.
Things changed when tabletop role playing became a multimillion-dollar industry in the 1980s. TSR's position toward its intellectual property became increasingly litigious, roughly at the same time as its popularity plateaued and its product quality began declining. Relations between the company and tabletop gamers hit a low point in 1994, when TSR sent cease-and-desist letters to numerous websites hosting harmless D&D fan content, accusing them of infringing on the company's copyright.
When the third edition of D&D was released in 2000, under new ownership by the company Wizards of the Coast, it included a significant olive branch to the hobbyists that TSR had alienated: a "perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive license" allowing other publishers to use a chunk of the core D&D rules to create new games and material, royalty-free.
The Open Gaming License (OGL), as it became known, was a huge success, spawning classic computer games, reams of D&D material, and new role-playing games like Pathfinder. Today there are Kickstarters raising millions of dollars for third-party supplements to the current Fifth Edition D&D. (I have even self-published a D&D adventure online using the OGL. It sells enough units every year to support my gaming habit.)
So the entire tabletop gaming industry understandably flew into a barbarian rage last year when news leaked that Wizards of the Coast was going to "update" the OGL. The update included voiding the two-decade-old agreement and its guarantee of perpetuity.
Wizards of the Coast is scheduled to release a new edition of D&D later this year, and it was tired of seeing competitors use its secret sauce for free. But this felt like a betrayal to the independent artists, writers, and designers in the industry, who in an open letter compared Wizards of the Coast to a "dragon on top of the hoard, willing to burn the thriving village if only to get a few more gold pieces."
Wizards of the Coast backed down, but the controversy led several of the biggest third-party publishers to announce they were creating their own role-playing games unconnected to D&D. Paizo, publisher of Pathfinder, also created a new system-agnostic license for independent game creators, the Open RPG Creative License (ORC). When the new edition of D&D is released this year, it will have more competition, and game masters will have more freedom to choose which adventures they take their friends on outside the copyright owner's fantasy reservation.
One suspects the late Gygax, who was ousted from TSR in the 1980s and then sued for trying to publish his own games, would only approve.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Never got invited to play. I am ok with that, not a fantasy guy.
There are plenty of non fantasy options for RPGs. GURPS by Steve Jackson games can cover any type of fiction you enjoy. Hell, there was a fan made supliment named GURPS High Heels covering the types of women's, and men's, high heel shoes and the skills required for using them and what they did for a charachter.
GURPS can cover any kind of fiction you enjoy as long as that fiction is an intricately detailed simulation of how a thing is supposed to work as modeled by dice rolls, consulting charts, and maybe the odd algebraic equation.
This requires officially printed rules.
I don't disagree, GURPS is for number crunching detail oriented anal retentives, like me. But not for a lot of gamers. However I do read through a lot of Homebrew for D&D that makes me think, "If you want to play GURPS, then just play GURPS."
GURPS was great. A long time ago in high school and college my group of friends used it to create campaigns in a lot of weird settings. One of my friends worked at Wal-Mart, so we had a one-shot inside a demon infested Wal-Mart.
I did a GURPS Illuminati game once. I allowed everyone to make charachters useing whatever books they wanted, limited only by my library. Which was extensive for 3rd edition. Charachters included a telpathic/telkenetic cat, an alien with advanced tech, a ninja, a guy who had three personalities a normal guy an ancient mystic and J. Edger Hoover and a few others that don't stick in my head. They battled against an evil conspiracy between Wal Mart, Grey Aliens and a Necromancer. The Necromancer was supplying Wal Mart with Zombies to work the floor, Walmart was giving the Aliens support and the Aliens were trying to mind control people... I think. It went about as well as you can expect.
The third major RPG ever made was... wait for it... Traveller! A sci-fi roleplaying game in outer space. It was quite good. Released in 1977, you can still get it from Mongoose Publishing.
That was pretty good!
I know Traveler is old, I found a game called Space Opera that was even MORE number crunchy and detail oriented than I was willing to run. I think it may be close to when Traveler came out.
D&D would have sounded incomprehensible on paper in 1974.
It's still incomprehensible to me, even after attempting to play.
I know a girl who is developmentally disabled who plays D&D with friends of mine and understands not only the rules but the spirit of the game. If you didn't figure out the game then it speaks poorly of you.
If you judge everyone by your standards, it speaks poorly of you.
What other standards are there for such a thing? It's not like it can be expressed in numbers so it's just opinion.
Once again, Reason only tells half the story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Arneson
That's fascinating! The history he wrote and links to mentions him, yet here not a word.
They also left out how Christains burned the rule books and tried to get it banned because they thought it promoted the worship of Satan. It was a pleasant little piece that didn't get into most of the disputes over the decades. Do you need every article to be a million word in depth analysis?
This is why we can't have nice things.
This is why we can't have nice things.
I discovered Dungeons and Dragons in the early 80s and have been playing various RPGs ever since. I raised my son playing those games and we've both made good friends through playing those games at game stores over the years. While WotC has been trying to inject some woke shit into the game those efforts by and large have been ignored by players as its hard to play any role playing game with woke rules and a woke agenda.
RPGs are at their core best played with Libertarian ideals. A party of individuals with different backgrounds, gods and racial types with a mix of skills and abilities join together willingly, arm themselves with the best weapons they can get and go out into the world to fight the bad guys alone and without the support of any government or guild.
They don't always share the same values or even core beliefs. They do want they do for a variety of reasons; seeking wealth, seeking excitement, avenging loved ones, following a code of conduct, because their gods sent them or just because they didn't like their prospects at home.
People from far left and far right have tried to impose modern values and ideas on D&D but they always fail in the end. I've had at one table a die hard Trump voter, a couple of Libertarians and a dedicated Democrat along with a couple I've no idea what they thought. I've had ages from early teens to adults who are close to retirement sit at the same table. I've had those who were Born Again Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Jews, Satanists, Witches, Pagans and Atheists all play together without fighting each other.
I will bet there are places where Zionist Jews and Islamic Extremists play D&D once a week, perhaps online, but still working together to stop the Cult of the Dead Three from driving Baldurs Gate into the first level of Hell. D&D has likely done more to promote peace than the UN. But that's not a high goal post I suppose.
I think you overestimate the importance of this game.
Dungeons and Dragons has gone through 4 revisions over its 50 years, each time in an effort to expand the number of people who played. It has spawned an entire publishing industry and that industry has raised a lot of people to comfortable lifestyles just by being imaginative and able to make a product that people want to buy.
People of all kinds come together either in person or online to play together peacefully. The players learn important life lessons on teamwork, cooperation, politeness, decision making and even leadership. People stretch their imaginations in ways Television and Movies never can. While playing they are actually socializing with actual people and learning how to get along with people they don't agree with. They can explore all aspects of their personalities and exotic ideas without any real world consequences. Best of all it gets kids off their fucking phones for a few hours of real people time.
Yeah… I’m glad d&d is your favorite thing; but you’re still overstating it’s importance.
My favorite thing is redneck engineering.
I am not overstating the importance because in short it does for a kid everything a parent would want. The kid puts down the phone, gets away from the video games, hangs out with real people, learns how to socialize outside of their age group, learns to negotiate without threats of force, learns to be tolerant of others, learns how to listen and make oneself understood, learns conflict resolution. learns math, expands their imagination, gets them reading books, keeps them off drugs and out of gangs, exposes them to a larger world and creates friendships. In some cases they even get to meet girls in a safe, non sexualized situation. Probably a dozen more things I can't think of right now. D&D is everything parents should want their kids to be doing.
> I’ve had at one table a die hard Trump voter, a couple of Libertarians and a dedicated Democrat along with a couple I’ve no idea what they thought.
My first actual campaign had a giant burly biker dude who played a poncy elf. He was twice my size with a beard to make ZZTop proud.
I’m six foot and coming near onto 300 lbs. My favorite charachter to date is the 3 ft 3 in 43 pound gnome who makes shit blow up. Sure he can’t even look at a Great Axe without throwing his back out. He can build a mechanical badger named Clancy on who he rides into battle shooting an autoloading crossbow.
It is worth noting that Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro’s shenanigans with the open licensing agreement has, for instance, prompted Critical Role into developing its own RPG system rather than relying on D&D. There are also controversies with WotC changing the lore of D&D to better pander to progressive sensibilities which has annoyed large sections of the player base.
Well, WotC has been doing nefarious things with all the IPs they have acquired. Go figure. They hired a lot of woke kids and the product lines have suffered.
Which progressive sensibilities?
The whole racism thing, for instance. can't be calling characters "half-elves" for example. Really.
Yeah, no one I know of takes that shit seriously. Half Orks are tough and Elves are poncy. Get over it snowflakes.
I was a founder member of Oxford’s D&D society in 1976 (years later it morphed into OURPG soc). It was an opportunity for nerds to be social…
We followed the books for characters, monsters – though I did install a jabberwock in my dungeon – and general idea, but I developed a better combat system, and meanwhile Cambridge’s D&D society developed a better magic system.
I think it was that flexibility that appealed. Nobody complained, "but the rules say that I throw 1d20 not 2D12!""
3d6 makes a better bell curve. I'd implement that in my next campaign but I think I'd get shot.
LOL yes, But at the time, 2dN was revolutionary. One or two people tried using percentage dice with a mapping table but the results were not good and it took too long to work the tables out.
They must have gone on to write the Rolemaster game. Their combat system is d100 based with individual combat charts based on the charachter class, and they have hundreds of "classes".
Immediately after D&D appeared on the scene, OTHER roleplaying games appeared on the market. Two of the earliest, RuneQuest and Traveller, were so much better than D&D it's silly. They actually had skills, where as D&D didn't get actual skills for three more versions. So many spinoffs, so many DIFFERENT worlds to play it, not all cheap swords and sorcery.
This was a good thing.
Acting like D&D is the only RPG, or the only worthwhile RPG, is as buttfucking stupid as acting like Budweiser is the best beer and pretending the craft beer aisle at your grocery store doesn't exist.
D&D is literally the Budweiser of RPGs.
p.s. Not ragging on Gygax and Arneson here. (Why you no mention Arneson?!?!) They basically invented the industry. But it was TSR/WoTC that gave us the stupid idea that you needed to buy a new supplement every week. It was TSR/WoTC that convinced players that they needed to buy a supplement in order to play their class. WTF? The original rules, complete, came in a 6x9 boxed set with only three booklets. It was TSR/WoTC that gave us GAMA that went around conventions policing how people played the game, and even strongarmed some cons from allowing other games. So kudos to Gary and Dave, but shame on TSR?WoTC.
D&D proved that role playing games could make money. Probably the most important thing that needed to happen.
Sure the original didn't use skills, there were professions though. I really liked miner as a profession because I could bullshit the DM into letting me do all sorts of crazy shit in a dungeon.
Face it the first 5 levels of Magic User were useless until 3rd edition with the introduction of damaging Cantrips.
D&D introduced the concept of non-weapon proficiencies in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, towards the end of 1e. They were a core part of the game in 2e.
You can argue about the merits of a class based character system vs. a skills based character system, but D&D did have 'skills' fairly early on.
I did enjoy Traveller, though. The only game I ever played where you could die during character creation.
I forgot about that. I sat down once to generate a charachter with a buddy who played it. Two hours later we had a charachter and his history based on about a thousand dice rolls and infinate charts.
Ever see a Steve Jackson Games product called "Murphy's Rules"? It lists all the weird shit from the extremes of various charachter generation systems and very odd rules from old games. It has a random polearm chart that mimics the "SPAM" routine from Monty Python but replaces SPAM with Glaive. This means most of the polarms had Glave in them. Like Glaive Gusarme, Glaive Halberd, Glaive Halberd Glaive, Glaive Glaive Glaive Glaive Glaive Partisan Glaive. I think it used a D 23 or something.
Just think of all that grass outside, that nobody is touching right now.
My hubby has monthly yelling matches over Space Marines, so I guess I can't throw stones.
The grass is still quite muddy around here in April.
WAAAUUUGHHHH!
Nancy boy blueberries is tasty wit motor oil on 'em!
You can't have everything with just one thing. Yeah, no grass touching but at least they are off their damn phones.