I didn’t have shelves stocked with hex maps or spend my weekends calculating armor penetration on the Eastern Front. I wasn’t part of that sacred brotherhood that spoke in acronyms and argued over the effective range of a Panther’s 75mm gun. Yet somehow, whether by accident or by fate, I fell in love with a company born from that world: Game Designers’ Workshop, better known as GDW.
GDW got its start in 1973 as a publisher of serious, detail-oriented, historical wargames. While I didn’t know almost any of this when I first encountered their roleplaying games, I nevertheless felt it. Even as a teenager, I could tell there was something different about the games GDW made. Where TSR gave us magic missiles and gelatinous cubes, GDW gave us vector movement, speculative trade tables, and the quiet horror of running out of fuel in central Poland.
Like a lot of roleplayers, Traveller was the game that first introduced me to GDW. I came across it several years after playing Dungeons & Dragons, and the contrast was immediate. Traveller didn’t just offer you a character; it offered you a life. Character generation gave you a person with a backstory in the form of a career and an odd collection of skills and equipment. Of course, if your rolls were unlucky, all you got was an early grave before the campaign even began. This was the kind of game where you might end up as a grizzled ex-Merchant with a gambling habit and no pension instead of a mighty-thewed barbarian.
Traveller’s vision of the far future wasn’t shiny or triumphant. It was bureaucratic, complicated, and often rather gray. There was something fascinating about how it treated space travel not as an exciting novelty but as a job, equal parts dangerous, expensive, and frequently boring. It was, I later realized, a very wargamer approach to science fiction: not about wish fulfillment, but about systems, trade-offs, and consequences. Even though I’d never played Drang Nach Osten! or Pearl Harbor, I could still intuit that GDW’s RPGs were built by people who thought about conflict, logistics, and uncertainty in a fundamentally different way.
That sensibility was especially evident in Twilight: 2000. T2K was a game that asked, “What if the Cold War ended in fire and now you’re out of gas in a broken-down Humvee, trying to negotiate with a Polish farmer for potatoes?” It was bleak, but it was real. Every decision mattered. Ammo wasn’t just an abstraction; it was the difference between life and death. Characters had to eat, find shelter, manage morale. There were no magical solutions, just the grim satisfaction of surviving one more day.I didn’t realize it at the time, but I think Twilight: 2000 taught me something about roleplaying that's stuck with me to this day: adventure doesn’t have to come from epic quests. Sometimes, it comes from the struggle to get by in the face of all sorts of obstacles, both big and small. Fixing a broken axle under sniper fire, bartering for antibiotics with a suspicious local, or just figuring out where the next meal is coming from. That was the adventure.
Later, I picked up Traveller: 2300 (later rebranded 2300 AD), which built on the ashes of Twilight: 2000's world to envision a future shaped not by utopian ideals, but by historical inertia. Nations rebuilt and space was colonized by corporations and governments with agendas rather than by high-minded dreamers. It wasn’t heroic, but it was plausible. It had an internal consistency that made it feel like a real place, even if that place was cold, indifferent, and occasionally French.
Then there was Space: 1889, GDW’s pioneering foray into what we'd now call "steampunk," complete with ether flyers, Martians, and an entire solar system shaped by European colonialism. Space: 1889 had a slightly lighter tone than its siblings, but it nevertheless bore the hallmark GDW seriousness. There was surprisingly detailed setting material, a respect for history, and a commitment to internal consistency that made its outlandish premise feel oddly plausible. Even in a world where Queen Victoria reigns over Venusian swamps, GDW still asked you to think like a colonial officer, an inventor, or an explorer navigating the realpolitik of empire.Finally, there was Dark Conspiracy, a game that asked what would happen if you took the economic anxiety of the late '80s, mixed in extra-dimensional horror, and then handed the whole mess to a security contractor. As I mentioned in my recent Retrospective, Dark Conspiracy failed to live up to its full potential, but even so, it was strangely compelling. Beneath the neon-soaked dystopia and monstrous invaders, you could still feel GDW’s trademark seriousness at work: the emphasis on gear, tactics, and systems that made survival feel earned rather than assumed.
What bound all these games together wasn’t genre; it was approach. GDW brought a wargamer’s eye to RPGs. They cared about detail, about systems that worked even when they weren’t elegant (though I continue to maintain that Traveller is one of the most mechanically elegant roleplaying games ever designed). GDW wasn't afraid to make things difficult or even bleak, because they believed that challenge and immersion went hand in hand. As a player and a referee, I must confess that I didn’t always understand every rule. I sometimes made do with what I thought they meant, but I nevertheless respected the intent. GDW’s RPGs weren’t about wish fulfillment. They assumed you were already smart enough to navigate their worlds and tough enough to handle the consequences.
As someone who entered the hobby on the more fantastical side represented by D&D and Gamma World, that was both refreshing and bracing. GDW showed me that roleplaying could be serious, by which I don't mean dour, but serious in the best possible way. Roleplaying games could provoke you to think, to plan, and to inhabit a world that didn’t care about your character sheet unless you used it wisely.
I never played a GDW game, but I was oriented in completely the opposite direction: I began with D&D, and everything I branched out to was *more* gonzo. D&D was grounded enough for me; I wanted things to get weirder. Shadowrun, Car Wars, RIFTS. Maybe that explains my fondness for Spelljammer -- it was D&D made maximally weird. :-)
ReplyDeleteI agree: I'm not a wargamer, but I think the 'wargamer mentality' made GDW the greatest ever roleplaying games company.
ReplyDeleteI'm really glad their games have a good steward in Mongoose, though I don't think Mongoose has the creative genius of GDW. That is a high bar though!
I would add that the other thing GDW's background seemed to give them was awareness of the horrors of war, and a willingness to make war a tragedy, not a romantic adventure. I'm thinking here of MegaTraveller as well as T2000.
...while it's fairly common practice today for various roleplaying games from the same publisher to share the same underlying mechanical system, or at least closely-related mechanical variants, that wasn't at all typical of games published through the early eighties, which commonly promulgated vastly different mechanical paradigms, each cut from whole cloth...
ReplyDelete...i've not played any of the big GDW systems, but did any of them share a common mechanical heritage?..that itself could go a long way toward establishing a house tone...
GDW's game eventually shared a system, based on that of Twilight: 2000's second edition, but that didn't happen until 1990.
DeleteWhile T2kv2 became the "house system", I and others have mused about using Traveller for a base ruleset for 1889 or even T2k.
DeleteI very much appreciated GDW's tone and approach.
ReplyDeleteIn my case Traveller was my second rpg by a matter of weeks, and I too was not a wargamer at the time, though most of my gaming associates were.
I did become something of a wargamer later on, though, but never much of a military trivia/history buff.
As it happens, I ended up playing quite a lot of Blue Max and Air Superiority by GDW itself.
As much as I wanted to, I curiously never managed to play Imperium, Fifth Frontier War or Sky Galleons.
Again very well written. Your writing has always been engaging, but I think you've really hit a couple of home runs in recent months, and I thank you for them!
ReplyDeleteThanks. It's good to know I still occasionally have thoughts worth reading :)
DeleteAgree with Mordar that this post and 'Modules as Touchstones' offer ideas that I don't see anywhere else.
DeleteBut such thoughtful insight has always been here, as seen in 'Gygaxian Naturalism,' 'Locale and Plot,' 'How Dragonlance Ruined Everything,' 'The Ages of D&D' and many others.
Keep up the great work!
That's very kind of you to say. Thank you.
DeleteArticles like that are why we readers are here. (Plus Tékumel, of course.)
DeleteI started as a wargamer, but began D&D and Top Secret almost simultaneously. Unlike a lot of hex & counter wargamers in the early 80s, my brother and I skipped over most of Avalon Hill and SPI, going straight to GDW's games.
ReplyDeleteWhile Traveller never took hold with my RPG group, I did lead them into Twilight:2000 and Space:1889. Frank Chadwick has become one of my favorite game designers in either field.
"Serious" is a good word to use for the feel of the games.
Well written piece, and it resonated with me as well. I was always very fond of the games from GDW. They had something.
ReplyDelete/andreas
Ahh, unlike James I loved wargames. Because of a lucky church bazaar find of Tactics II and Waterloo for fifty cents, i discovered wargames at 8, two years before RPGs. I loved both genres very much, and spent many hours playing Squad Leader by myself.
ReplyDeleteBut I also loved sports games, like APBA baseball and Strat-o-Matic hockey. AD&D was my great love, but I dallied with everything. Games are amazing.
I was very entertained by this article, and remember Traveller fondly. Some lines hit it out of the park, especially "It had an internal consistency that made it feel like a real place, even if that place was cold, indifferent, and occasionally French." It makes me want to check out the system
ReplyDeleteI was a wargamer, then discovered Twilight: 2000. I played more Merc: 2000 (alternate timeline, no nukes but lots of small wars, the PCs were mercenaries) than Twilight.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how the character generation system created the outline of the character's background.
Excellent post! Twilight 2000 1e was my introduction to GDW and many of the aspects and approach you discuss so well above.I never did buy Space:1889, but I did buy Dark Conspiracy. Personally, I found it too dark and bleak for my personal taste. While I bought both Mega Traveller and Traveller 2300, I never played either game and never actually knew anyone back in the 1980s personally who wanted to play Traveller. My second favorite GDW rpg was Cadillacs & Dinosaurs, as I had really loved the Xenozoic Tales comic book. But that game came out just as the comic was ceasing to continue to be produced and the game seemed to die immediately after publication of the rulebook.
ReplyDeleteSo why did GDW fail?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Designers & Dungeons, it was several things:
(1) the collapse of the wargaming market
(2) GDW had been saved by publishing the "Desert Shield Fact Book" which was timely and very popular. Unfortunately, the "Gulf War Fact Book" was neither and was a financial boondoggle.
(3) The Dangerous Journeys lawsuit
(4) Traveler:TNE was not successful
All this happened during the rise of the CCG era. If GDW had been stronger they might have powered through but they didn't make it.
Accurate?
I would say so. Certainly the decline of the wargaming market (in part due to competition with RPGs for both new players and spending money) hurt them badly, although they saw a small resurgence around the Gulf War when they published some fairly popular modern (at the time) wargames. That was a meaningful income stream that slowly dried up despite continuing investments in new games - even toward the end there was Battle riders and Brilliant Lances, which flopped pretty hard AFAIK.
DeleteDJ was also a financial debacle, and TSR was as interested in harming GDW as they were in punishing Gygax. I strongly suspect there was an expectation that they could maneuver things so that TSR would gobble up GDW sometime in the 90s in much the same way they'd devoured SPI and Avalon Hill, who had been the Big Two of wargaming for years. Just typical of the aggressive, predatory role They Sue Regularly pursued in the industry.
With TNE it's harder to say. Yes, it didn't sell well, but Traveller sales of all kinds had been trending steadily downward for years and TNE's numbers just seem to follow that pattern rather than representing some surprising flop. Probably more accurate to say that diminishing Traveller sales overall were one of the major factors in GDW's demise rather than singling out TNE, which partly just had the misfortune of being the last edition. And I say that as someone who didn't like TNE much, and still don't.
On the CCG front, GDW's relative financial weakness sure did one thing - it prevented them from jumping onto that train and doing their own CCG, most likely for Traveller. Whether that's for good or ill we'll never know, but there was a relative dearth of scifi CCGs even during the boom's peak, especially ones that dealt with starships. A hypothetical High Guard or Mayday CCG might have actually gotten some traction when its best competition was stuff like Galactic Empires or Star of the Guardians.
Of course, the Traveller card game that did eventually come out was much later and hardly made a blip on anyone's radar, so maybe a CCG during the boom wouldn't have helped.
One other thing that bears mentioning - traditional "simulationist" wargaming declined for several reasons, one of which was losing fans to RPGs. But another, even larger factor was the growth of computer gaming during the 80s. Even fairly limited PCs could run adequate versions of tabletop wargames, and as the prices edged downward and more houses came to own computers the amount of software available exploded. RPGs felt that a little bit as well, but old technology was much better at emulating and improving upon hex-and-chit wargames than even crude roleplaying.
DeleteSo that's a factor of a factor, as it were.
I did love how GDW's games paid attention to the logistics side of adventure gaming. The earliest games did as well, but it's an aspect of adventure gaming that has seen the least understanding and so tends to be de-emphasized in recent years.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I miss GDW quite as much as Metagaming, but it's close. Despite being very much a wargamer, I didn't feel as much sense of loss when SPI and Avalon Hill and Yaquinto went under, possibly because I missed the slightly earlier pre-D&D glory days for all if them. I pretty much grew up with smaller wargame companies (eg Task Force Games, Dwarfstar) as that part of the hobby was slowly being edged out by a rising tide of RPGs. GDW is the only one of the old wargaming publishers that really made a successful transition to being a major player in the RPG field, although many of the others tried it.
ReplyDeleteInteresting time period to live through, if nothing else. All the more so because of my eclectic gaming tastes.
Regarding the slow decline of the Traveller rpg line referenced above, as someone who bought Mega Traveller and Traveller 2300 but never played either, I personally wonder about the impact of FASA's Star Trek RPG and WEG's Star Wars rpg (which I did play) on Traveller's sales....
ReplyDeleteI'm sure it had impact. when you have Star Wars & Star Trek on the market, along with TSR making an entry for a while with Star Frontiers it's going to have an effect. the confusion over Traveller & Traveller 2300 might have harmed both product lines. you also had GURPS: Space out there, so there was plenty of competition in the mid-to-late 80's for space rpgs (and I played most of them!). And Spelljammer probably had some influence too.
DeleteNot really triggered by the actual article, but rather by the comments to it: Just wondering, but does one count current-day 'Warhammer' (either '40k' or 'Age of Sigmar') as 'wargaming' ?
ReplyDeleteWarhammer absolutely does count as wargaming, but miniatures wargames are a different animal from the hex-and-chit games that formed the brunt of GDW's library. Also fantasy games about eight-foot-tall space supermen fighting sentint fungus creatures with chainsaw axes are pretty different from historical reenactment games about World War 2. So while they're certainly relatives, they're more like cousins than brothers.
Delete@Darien @Sir Harrok :
DeleteThanks for the response. But while I get that 'space marines' vs 'ratfaced folks' is a different feel than 'World War 2 re-enactment', I can't seem to grasp the difference in game mechanics. While I 'think' I know how 'Warhammer' plays, I don't get how this differs from 'hex-and-chit games'. If you could point me to a (short) article/blog post/video that explains the basics/summary of hex-and-chit game mechanics in general (or for a specific game of that type), that would be appreciated.
Anyway, thanks again for the responses.
@Anonymous: One difference is in the w=quantized nature of space in the hex and counter games compared to the free movement of miniatures wargaming. With a hex map, a playing piece is in a particular, defined space on the board and can only move to other defined places ("hexes"), generally by way of adjacent hex faces. A miniature figure is located wherever it physically rests on the playing surface, and can move to any point within its movement range from there. Thus, the counters on the hex map are always located an integer number of spaces from one another, while the miniatures are each located a varying, measurable distance from each other. There are variations of these (like area movement, which uses arbitrarily-shaped spaces instead of regular ones like hexagons or squares, or point movement), but those are the basic differences - predefined spatial locations or natural spatial positioning.
DeleteThis isn't bad as a sort of high-level overview of the field: https://www.meeplemountain.com/articles/board-gamers-guide-wargaming/
DeletePeople, thanks again for the responses, and the link to the article of course. Thanks for all the help.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete