# Gygax on Realism in Game Design



## GreyICE (Sep 5, 2012)

Since we're going back to the beginning, I decided to unearth the beginning, and actually read some stuff in high Gygaxese. I'm beginning to think I might have liked Gary, tendency for long-winded, slightly pompous rants aside.
Interestingly, most of the variant systems which purport to “improve” the game are presented under the banner of realism. I have personally come to suspect that this banner is the refuge of scoundrels; whether the last or first refuge is immaterial. “Realism” has become a bugaboo in the hobby, and all too many of the publishers — TSR included — make offerings to this god too frequently.

...

When fantasy games are criticized for being “unrealistic” — and by fantasy I certainly mean both imaginary “science fiction” games and heroic fantasy — the sheer magnitude of the misconception absolutely astounds me! How can the critic presume that his or her imagined projection of a non existent world or conjectured future history is any more “real” than another’s? While science fantasy does have some facts and good theories to logically proceed from, so that a semblance of truth can be claimed for those works which attempt to ground themselves on the basis of reality for their future projections, the world of “never-was” has no such shelter. Therefore, the absurdity of a cry for “realism” in a pure fantasy game seems so evident that I am overwhelmed when such confronts me. Yet, there are those persistent few who keep demanding it. The “camel” of working magic, countless pantheons of gods and devils, monsters that turn people to stone or breath fire, and characters that are daily faced with Herculean challenges which they overcome by dint of swordplay and spell casting is gulped down without a qualm. It is the “gnat” of "unrealistic” combat, or “unrealistic” magic systems, or the particular abilities of a class of characters in the game which makes them gag.

...

D&D is a make-believe game. It is designed, however, to facilitate close personal involvement in all aspects of play; this makes suspension of disbelief easier for those who can initially accept *a game form which **does not relate to any reality *except a few tenuous areas... It is a game for the imaginative and fanciful, and perhaps for those who dream of adventure and derring-do in a world all too mundane. *As a game must first and foremost be fun, it needs no claim to **“realism” to justify its existence.*​ 
(Bolding mine, a few italic tags missed due to age)


----------



## Dornam (Sep 5, 2012)

Many who critised missing realism did not do so about the rules system but about the adventures preented (hello huge hydra in a smallish room with only normal doors).


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Sep 5, 2012)

Most of my problems with rules systems aren't about realism, if they do not intend to be set in the real world, but about logic, elegance and internal consistency.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 5, 2012)

Don't bring Gary into this. He was less than fond of 3e, and we can probably be safe in saying he would have been less kind about 4E.  He would be laughing his ass off reading the threads in this forum. 

You need to quote Cook, Tweet,Heinsoo, Mearls, and others if you want to Edition War about how 5e is shaping up or should.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 5, 2012)

I wiuld just keep in mind that the discussion about reaism and gaminess were very different at the time he said that. People were making intricate and extraordinary attempts toward realism that you just dont really see today. I dont know that one can take a 30 year old quote from Gary and assume it sheds much light on what the man would have though about current discussions concerning things ike martial encounter powers or putting game play considerations ahead of setting considerations. I think he was really talking more against attempts to break combat into detailed and realistic mechanics.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 5, 2012)

We owe a lot to Gygax...

But, If I were to judge that writing as I do others here and now, well, he didn't seem to have a lot of confidence in his own position.  If you have to *start* the piece by calling people names (even highfalutin' names like "scoundrel") then perhaps your point isn't nearly as strong as you think it is...


----------



## The Shadow (Sep 5, 2012)

Umbran said:


> If you have to *start* the piece by calling people names (even highfalutin' names like "scoundrel") then perhaps your point isn't nearly as strong as you think it is...




This, very much.  And I would disagree about the 'mildly pompous', too.  He is VERY pompous, as a rule.

And considering the fact that he himself produced several rule-systems that got frequently house-ruled out because they were too cumbersome in attempting 'realism' (notably weapon speed factors), quite possibly he should be less ready to throw stones.


----------



## Animal (Sep 5, 2012)

I think he just playfully paraphrased an old quote.. Don't remember the author, but it went like this: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".
Made me chuckle actually.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 5, 2012)

_(...came to the thread because of the sound of a can opening...)_

I think the word "realism" is used by different people to mean different things:

- consistency/reliability of the rules, meaning that if I can do X in situation Y, more or less I expect to be able X again if Y repeats at a later date; I don't think "realism" is exactly the same as "consistency" but sometimes the word is used for this

- support of suspension of disbelief: yes, there can be hydras in a small room and it's up to you to figure out how it's possible... but if the DM exaggerates with the quantity (especially if then she repeatedly doesn't deliver an explanation at all) it may just be too absurd for many people to take

- correspondence with real-life expectations: if you crit someone in the eye with a sword and he doesn't die... the problem is if you start feeling unable to make predictions on even basic phenomena, because most of the times predictions are the starting point of a tactical choice

- differentiation of details: having 10 types of rapiers with slightly different rules can be a boon to someone's campaign and totally boring to someone else; you can't really criticise either way, it's just a matter of gaming style and preference

I suppose Gygax had in mind certain gamers who can be obsessed with any of the above, which of course can become detrimental to everybody's fun at the table if they don't share the same preference. But I hardly believe he was against any level of realism... to me his early editions of D&D even had more realism than I can personally take, with all those rules subsystems and tables for everything!


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 5, 2012)

> The Shadow said:
> 
> 
> > This, very much.  And I would disagree about the 'mildly pompous', too.  He is VERY pompous, as a rule.
> ...



Note that some of those systems were included only at the urging of others and he himself did not use them.  Not sure about WSF but initiative, morale and psionics leap to mind.  And I'd be fairly certain that this was a point of view he wrote as much as 30 years ago.  Pretty sure that if speaking on the same subjects again just before his death he'd have been a hell of a lot more temperate.


----------



## technoextreme (Sep 5, 2012)

> Don't bring Gary into this. He was less than fond of 3e, and we can probably be safe in saying he would have been less kind about 4E. He would be laughing his ass off reading the threads in this forum.



Why?  3E is an aberant game compared to previous editions.  4E in general was a heck of a lot more closer to the original game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 5, 2012)

I think Gary missed the point with this particular essay in the same way that a lot of people miss the point here every day on ENWorld:

Often, a cry for "realism!" isn't a cry for a better grounding in "reality." It usually falls into one of two camps.

The first camp is those who want "realism" because some element of the game breaks their suspension of disbelief. Like I pointed out elsewhere, 



> You see, I'm not inclined to believe that a world of elves and dragons is real. I'm not equipped to take your word for that. I need it reinforced, in mechanics, in consequences, in cause-and-effect results, in being able to interact with the thing.




In this case, it's not a cry for a realistic modeling, it is a cry for greater detail and more logical underpinning. This is key, because once you obliterate a willing suspension of disbelief, the game becomes a LOT less fun. The more you're reminded that you're a bunch of folks playing make-believe, the less fun the game is, the less you're able to imagine you're playing an awesome hero in a fantastic world. 

The second camp are those who want "realism" due to a certain genre expectations. Things like "grim-n-gritty combat rules" and the like go with this. Some folks from day 1 have wanted D&D to be less mythically heroic than it tends to be, and substitute "that's not realistic!" for "that doesn't meet my genre expectations!"

While it wasn't nearly as tired a stereotype in the Original's day as it is now, the argument still doesn't hold much water. "It's FANTASY, you can't expect REALISM!" doesn't address the ACTUAL design problems with your game: a weakness of support, or a failure of communication.


----------



## GreyICE (Sep 5, 2012)

Ah, you underestimate Gygax.  He did have many words to say about logic.

As its rules were specifically designed
to make it fun and enjoyable, and the consensus of opinion is that D&D
is so, does it need to have logical justification of any or all of its rules?
Because logic does not necessarily create an enjoyable game form, the
reply must be generally negative. Logic, even game logic, must be 
transcended in the interest of the overall game. If an illogical or inconsistent
part fits with the others to form a superior whole, then its very
illogicalness and inconsistence are logical and consistent within the
framework of the game, for the rules exist for the play of the game, although
all too often it seems that the game is designed for the use of the
rules in many of today’s products. When questioned about the whys
and wherefores of D&D I sometimes rationalize the matter and give
“realistic” and “logical” reasons. The truth of the matter is that D&D
was written principally as a game — perhaps I used game realism and
game logic consciously or unconsciously when I did so, but that is begging
the question. Enjoyment is the real reason for D&D being created,
written, and published.


-------------------------

I think there's a lot to say for this approach, and there's been several exemplar systems of it recently.  From AD&D's save versus everything, we got it narrowed down to Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.  Not particularly realistic categories, but it beat having "Save versus poison, save versus death, save versus red ants, save versus stinky socks." Then those got overused and had corner cases (for instance, how do you model a swarm of rats having individual members of the swarm clinging to you and still chewing?  Is that a Fortitude, Reflex, or Will save) and it got simplified to Saving Throws.  What does a Saving Throw do?  It represents your chance to shake off an effect.  Is it logical that every character has the same chance to shake off most every effect?  Meh, maybe.  But being blinded just isn't any fun, and a 50% chance to shake it off every round makes it much less likely to ruin your experience (over being essentially taken out of combat).

Also, 

"If an illogical or inconsistent
part fits with the others to form a superior whole, then its very
illogicalness and inconsistence are logical and consistent within the
framework of the game"

I think that Gygax just told everyone to "Not sweat the corner cases" a memo game designers still haven't gotten in 2012!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 5, 2012)

There, he doesn't seem to be allowing for the fact that, for some people at some points, illogical and arbitrary rules DEEPLY hurt the enjoyment of the game, due to what I pointed out above. What points those are may vary for people ("Halflings make no sense when they are 2.5 feet tall! They must be at least 3.5 feet tall to make sense!"; "Wait, why does one night's rest heal all my grievous injuries?"; "Man, what's the deal with six-foot long greatswords?!"), but it happens to most people at some point, and telling people to suck it up isn't going to make them enjoy the game any more.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Sep 5, 2012)

Mind blowing, this thread should have been closed/locked instantly.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 5, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> There, he doesn't seem to be allowing for the fact that, for some people at some points, illogical and arbitrary rules DEEPLY hurt the enjoyment of the game, due to what I pointed out above. What points those are may vary for people ("Halflings make no sense when they are 2.5 feet tall! They must be at least 3.5 feet tall to make sense!"; "Wait, why does one night's rest heal all my grievous injuries?"; "Man, what's the deal with six-foot long greatswords?!"), but it happens to most people at some point, and telling people to suck it up isn't going to make them enjoy the game any more.




I've found that's pretty much the ONLY way to actually play the game. 

Sooner or later someone sees something that they disagree with (and surprise surprise it's almost always something related to why their character is about to be eaten by something). Also factor in that a lot of people base these arguments off of their own world view assumptions which might differ from that of the designer (the katana was of near mythical stuff! I saw Bodyguard it should do WAY more damage then that! This is unrealistic and breaks my suspension of disbelief!)

Eventually you just have to say "Because that's just the way the damn game is- suck it up bitch nozzle, or I'ma deduct 1d6 off of your next characters stats!"


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 5, 2012)

Oh Gary, I do miss you.
Even though you called me a scoundrel.


----------



## GreyICE (Sep 5, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> There, he doesn't seem to be allowing for the fact that, for some people at some points, illogical and arbitrary rules DEEPLY hurt the enjoyment of the game, due to what I pointed out above. What points those are may vary for people ("Halflings make no sense when they are 2.5 feet tall! They must be at least 3.5 feet tall to make sense!"; "Wait, why does one night's rest heal all my grievous injuries?"; "Man, what's the deal with six-foot long greatswords?!"), but it happens to most people at some point, and telling people to suck it up isn't going to make them enjoy the game any more.




I think he is, if you read the feature (Dragon Magazine #16 , so, pretty ancient), saying "the rules cannot possibly cover every single corner case, so _if you accept that_ then the game works best as an integrated whole, even if certain parts seem illogical."

In other words, some people may be offended by 2.5 ft halflings.  Some people may be offended that status conditions are not specifically given for each monster and varied enough to encompass all of them.  Some people may be offended that fireballs don't act volumetricly in enclosed areas.  Some people may be offended by the fact that gangrene is not properly modeled in their fantasy game.

But if the game is presented as a unified whole that is fun to play, people should accept these quirks and have fun with the game.  Or at least game designers are not about to try and make sure that each condition has exceptions for all relevant monsters.  

Anyway, it's just interesting to dig up the origins of some of this stuff, especially when they talk about going back to the beginning.  Minus the polearms (what?  Gygax REALLY liked Polearms)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 6, 2012)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I've found that's pretty much the ONLY way to actually play the game.




I've found that's not really true. 

The thing is, when folks play D&D, what is important to them is different. You need detail for the things which are important, and you need to be able to ignore the things that are not important. What is important to a given person is always fairly arbitrary, from a game-design perspective. Whether you have a game where encumbrance matters or not is largely arbitrary: some folks wouldn't love the game without it, others haven't bothered to track equipment weight ever. The folks that love it would have a big problem if the game all of a sudden said "NO ENCUMBRANCE!" The folks that don't like it would have a big problem if the game all of a sudden said "ENCUMBRANCE RULES ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND WILL BE USED AS THE CORE DESIGN METRIC."

The big thing is that, at various points in history, D&D has largely decided to tell people what SHOULD be important, and what SHOULDN'T be important. It has tried to dictate that to them. It's been more effective in current e's (3e and 4e have highly networked rulesets, which is part of why disentangling them is so difficult), but it's been tried since Gygax's day. 

But you can't dictate that to people. It's not just inadvisable, it's often impossible. For me, for instance, no matter how much any D&D edition tries to tell me that MINIS ARE VERY IMPORTANT FOR A PLAY EXPERIENCE, I never want to use them. If you tightly weave their use into your ruleset, you don't make me use minis, you just cripple your ruleset. Similarly, if D&D turned around and forbade minis and didn't enable them and allowed their use only for simple visualizations, folks who really like them wouldn't adapt, they'd rebel. These are not logical positions, these are arbitrary likes and dislikes. You have to let people decide what they want out of the experience themselves, and try to provide them that. You have to let people take ownership of their own D&D games. 

If D&D falls down on what is _important_ to you, you won't have fun playing it. Because what's important to a given person is mostly arbitrary, trying to dictate any one ruleset as THE CORRECT ONE is going to go horribly awry. Gygax's rules were great for Gygax, but the moment Dave Arneson got his paws on them, they were changed for Arneson's purposes. They're different people, and considered different things to be important for their games. And so it has been unto the Nth generation. 



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> Eventually you just have to say "Because that's just the way the damn game is- suck it up bitch nozzle, or I'ma deduct 1d6 off of your next characters stats!"




See, there's two reasonable responses to such a thing.

The first is to admit the thing isn't important and go with the flow.

The second is to say, "Wait, no, if the game works that way, that's not fun for me. If the point of the game is my enjoyment, and the game works that way, _it fails_. Lets go play flashlight tag in the park instead."

Life's full of awesome distractions. No one needs to play D&D. Playing D&D is actually kind of a commitment. If D&D doesn't deliver the enjoyment you want, there's plenty of other things to fill your free time with. Because what can ruin a D&D game can be so specific and arbitrary, if you're going to make a D&D that reaches the largest possible audience, you're going to want a D&D that isn't dogmatic about what you need to accept as a precondition of playing it.



			
				GreyICE said:
			
		

> But if the game is presented as a unified whole that is fun to play, people should accept these quirks and have fun with the game. Or at least game designers are not about to try and make sure that each condition has exceptions for all relevant monsters.




This presumes that you have more fun playing a game that annoys you than you would have doing _anything else_.

For most people, that's not true. For me, that's kind of true, but I've got a design bug in me so even bad games are interesting to me.


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 6, 2012)

I think what needs to be said is that it is up to the individual DMs to make their games as plausible (not realistic) as they want them to be.  If someone wants a realistic game they are looking for a simulation which is far beyond the true scope of RPGs such as D&D, C&C and the like.


----------



## The Shadow (Sep 6, 2012)

Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> As its rules were specifically designed
> to make it fun and enjoyable, and the consensus of opinion is that D&D
> is so, does it need to have logical justification of any or all of its rules?
> Because logic does not necessarily create an enjoyable game form, the
> ...




I really have to thank the people on this thread for reminding me _Just How Much_ Gary's atrocious writing style gets under my skin.  The man just oozes pomposity... and if that weren't enough, he combines a preference for ten-dollar words with a complete failure of precision in using them.

Saying 'logic must be transcended' is a magnificently ludicrous phrase.  Who needs the law of non-contradiction, or the law of the excluded middle?  We must transcend the nature of thought in the name of FUN!

That isn't really what he meant, of course.  It's just what he said.  What he meant was something like, "A foolish desire for over-consistency in rules is the hobgoblin of little minds."  I would take issue with that too, as it happens, but such is life.

  [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] :  Life is so, so unfair.  Why can I not xp you for the posts you've been making in this thread?!


----------



## Emerikol (Sep 6, 2012)

I love Gary's style but I agree that it's a distinct style not for everyone.

I like what I like.  For three editions I didn't have to deal with a bunch of playstyles I don't care for.  Either I didn't notice them as they occurred in the next house over or they just didn't happen.  Doesn't matter.  I was able to play D&D in the style I like and I was happy.

Then 4e came along and changed the game so it really only played well in one style.  It was "modernized".  That was great if 4e was your style.  It was terrible if the new style wasn't your style though.  I tried at first not realizing all the changes that had occurred or their impact on my game.  

When 5e was announced I returned to the boards to see what was up.  Would 5e just continue 4e, or would it be something based on earlier editions?  Or a little of both.  I don't know.  I have though by reading threads here and on the WOTC boards learned a lot about what I like in an rpg.  That newfound knowledge will arm me well in making my decision about 5e.  Right now I don't know.  It's a playtest so why should I know.  

I have started "making my own" game.  If that works out for me and my group, I think Gary looking down would approve.  We are having fun.  We made the game our own.  Rules were always guidelines in Gary's day.  The DM was empowered.  Never let a rule trump commonsense.  I learned all those lessons from long ago and they've served me well.  Thank you Gary.


----------



## F700 (Sep 6, 2012)

Love him or hate him, I think everyone can agree Gygax had an abundance of personality and love for the game. I think a big factor in D&D catching on like it did was the fact that reading those first manuals weren't just learning the rules, you were also making a friend.

One of D&Ds problems since Gygax left is the fact that it no longer has a face. No Stan Lee or Col. Sanders to welcome new players.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 6, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The first is to admit the thing isn't important and go with the flow.




And for the most part they aren't very important. 



> The second is to say, "Wait, no, if the game works that way, that's not fun for me. If the point of the game is my enjoyment, and the game works that way, _it fails_. Lets go play flashlight tag in the park instead."
> 
> Life's full of awesome distractions. No one needs to play D&D. Playing D&D is actually kind of a commitment. If D&D doesn't deliver the enjoyment you want, there's plenty of other things to fill your free time with. Because what can ruin a D&D game can be so specific and arbitrary, if you're going to make a D&D that reaches the largest possible audience, you're going to want a D&D that isn't dogmatic about what you need to accept as a precondition of playing it.




While for the most part I agree with you, you can't do that for every single thing in the game that eventually will bug someone. I disagree that it's possible. (Especially when it's things like the aforementioned Katana that are just based on someone's world view, and we disagree completely. How do you come to a perfect match there?) And I'm not really sure I'm would even want to game with someone who every time something came up that disagreed with their worldview, and they didn't get their way went to play laser flashlight or whatever in the woods...

As a DM I try my best to make the game as perfect as it can be for everyone. I've argued in countless (DM Should haz all the powerz!) threads- D&D isn't just about the players fun or the DM's fun it's about the group's fun... So I try to find workable compromises and such, but ultimately the DM is the arbiter of the game, and to keep things flowing you just have to tell someone to just deal with it.

IE Sometimes the best way to keep up the fun for everyone at the table is for the person to just accept it, and move on.


----------



## Emerikol (Sep 6, 2012)

Scribble said:


> > The second is to say, "Wait, no, if the game works that way, that's not fun for me. If the point of the game is my enjoyment, and the game works that way, it fails. Lets go play flashlight tag in the park instead."
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think ultimately we might all agree.  I don't have that many deal breakers but the ones I do have I can't accept.  I mostly DM though so it's no big deal.  I pick the game and I design the world and then I find players in that order.  People know I like to try different things and experiment with various rules.  So playing in one campaign doesn't mean you'll love the next one I run.  And my style isn't for some people at all.  I try real hard to make myself clear on what I do and how it works.  Because honestly I have more players than I have slots.  So it doesn't help anyone to accept someone who isn't going to be happy.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 6, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> Why? 3E is an aberant game compared to previous editions. 4E in general was a heck of a lot more closer to the original game.




4e is _very_ different to the original game.  The game 4e is close to is one I can't trace back much past 1984 and the Dragonlance Saga.  What 4e has in common with Gygax era D&D is a desire to be a specific game - but a different one from the one Gygax and Arneson created.  2e and the various 3.Xs were all written in an attempt to be D&D by people who hadn't created it and in various ways didn't understand it.

Which means we have absolutely no idea what Gygax would have made of 4e.  My guess is "Interesting game.  Not one I want to play much."  Which is very different to his opinions on 2e and 3.0/3.5 which (especially for 3.X) are very different to his versions of D&D but trying to look as if they aren't.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 6, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> I really have to thank the people on this thread for reminding me _Just How Much_ Gary's atrocious writing style gets under my skin.  The man just oozes pomposity... and if that weren't enough, he combines a preference for ten-dollar words with a complete failure of precision in using them.



The failure of precision is kinda intentional (though it is an odd choice for a rule book). It adds up to a very distinctive voice, a style. 

Back in the day I wasn't a fan of Gary's writing, either. I've come to appreciate it a lot more now, and here's why. 

Gary's language serves two purposes. It's suppose to explain the game at the same time it inspires you to play it, and it often does the latter far better  than the former. Having come to gaming from fantasy fiction, I didn't need the rules of the game to be inspiring in and of themselves; I'd already read much of the source fiction Gary lists in Appendix N. 

But many gamers didn't follow that route, and over the years, I've read numerous testimonials to Gary's writing, citing it as the principle inspiration for people's campaigns, for their love of D&D.

Bit of an eye-opener, that was. Now, 25 or so years on from my first reading of the AD&D core books, I see them in a different light, their language as Gary's love letter to the fiction he admired, particularly Jack Vance's and Fritz Lieber's. I can also see the humor in it, the self-awareness, the places where the tone slips knowingly in self-mockery -- it's a lot less pompous than I first thought. 

It's still a damn strange way to write a rule book. But there's nothing else like it, and after all these years, I count myself a fan.


----------



## triqui (Sep 6, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I wiuld just keep in mind that the discussion about reaism and gaminess were very different at the time he said that. People were making intricate and extraordinary attempts toward realism that you just dont really see today. I dont know that one can take a 30 year old quote from Gary and assume it sheds much light on what the man would have though about current discussions concerning things ike martial encounter powers or putting game play considerations ahead of setting considerations. I think he was really talking more against attempts to break combat into detailed and realistic mechanics.




I don't think so. He was making a point about "fun" being more important than "realism". He did not made a scale about it, or "how much realism is too much realism". Nor he was talking about complexity. You don't really need to make systems more complex to make them more realistic. For example: "you get maximum hit dice at first level. You roll your hit dice at second level. You don't gain more hit points, ever" isn't a complex rule. And it is much more "realistic" than having 200 hp at lvel 20 and being able to fall from the Empire State. His point (and I agree), is that fantasy RPG shouldn't try to be "realistic", they should try to be "fun". One could argue that the ablative mechanic of having a big bag of hit points work greatly as "plot protection" for the PC, and thus is inherently superior to other, more realistic mechanics where a single hit can kill you right on the spot. I certainly can live with HP, and honestly think they work great for D&D. Gygax point was, precisselly, that you shouldn't worry about your game being "realistic", but being "fun". Some people might agree with Gygax, and some others might disagree with him. This is no different than any other thing where Gary has a stance (like Vancian magic). Some people will agree, and some other will not.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 6, 2012)

triqui said:


> I don't think so. He was making a point about "fun" being more important than "realism". He did not made a scale about it, or "how much realism is too much realism". Nor he was talking about complexity. You don't really need to make systems more complex to make them more realistic.




Yep, yep, and heck yeah!  In his later writing he was much more a fan of rules-lite systems, possibly because he didn't want the added complexity of a bunch of rules.

IME rules should do the bare minimum needed to play, and get the heck out of the way so the DM can do what he does best.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 6, 2012)

Scribble said:
			
		

> While for the most part I agree with you, you can't do that for every single thing in the game that eventually will bug someone. I disagree that it's possible.




Perfection is an impossible dream of extremists, but that doesn't mean that improvement is not possible in most cases. 



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> Especially when it's things like the aforementioned Katana that are just based on someone's world view, and we disagree completely. How do you come to a perfect match there?




In these cases, you generally allow a choice. The more you enable a true choice (and not a false kind of "Well, you _technically can_..." kind of choice), the more robust your game is against this possible failure. It will never be perfect, but it can be more solid. 



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> And I'm not really sure I'm would even want to game with someone who every time something came up that disagreed with their worldview, and they didn't get their way went to play laser flashlight or whatever in the woods...




It's my opinion that no one should feel OBLIGATED to ENDURE a game of D&D. If the purpose of D&D is enjoyment, and it fails at that purpose for you (for whatever arbitrary reason you think it fails), you shouldn't be playing it (or at least not in that way). It's not unreasonable, if you're not enjoying the game, to go do something else with your time. If the experience isn't enjoyable to me, and I try to point that out, and the response is "Take it or leave it!", then there's really zero incentive for me to take it. Repeated over and over again across multiple tables it becomes a strategy of jamming your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" rather than actually facing the horrifying prospect that you might have to _allow people to do things differently if you'd like them to play your game_. And if you don't want them to play your game, well, mission accomplished!

There are things D&D can't change. D&D will probably never be a game for those who think heroic fantasy is stupid. It will probably not be a very good game for playing outdoors (though LARP is an interesting variant!). It will not replicate the graphics and sound feedback loop of a videogame. It won't be very good at scratching a competitive itch.

There are things D&D can change, or at least allow the option for individual tables to change (since what people want is arbitrary). Things like...the level of assumed magic in your game (which 3e had trouble changing) or using minis on a grid (which 4e didn't like you futzing with) or HP representing fate or meat or...etc.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> Sometimes the best way to keep up the fun for everyone at the table is for the person to just accept it, and move on.




Sure, it's usually no big deal.

But lets not make the mistake of being too proud to change, or too Manichean to be flexible.  The world is not divided into "rational folks who I can play with and who don't question the game" and "crybaby bellyachin' nancypantses with Problems." Not every beef is an illegitimate whine. Even most illegitimate whines have some grounding in a real experience. Criticism should not be rejected, it should be incorporated.

There's really no reason why D&D has to have some monolithic One Way To Play. Someone who wants a more "realistic" combat system (meaning: grim-n-gritty!) should probably get one (without requiring those who don't care about it to bother with it). D&D should be able to make that adjustment. That's not really an intractable request.


----------



## Jupp (Sep 6, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> I really have to thank the people on this thread for reminding me _Just How Much_ Gary's atrocious writing style gets under my skin.  The man just oozes pomposity... and if that weren't enough, he combines a preference for ten-dollar words with a complete failure of precision in using them.




Gary's style was not really pompous when you consider in what time he  grew up and what kind of writing did influence him the most. When you  read some of those novels of the pulp fiction era you will find that  this is why Gary sounded like Gary. And he never aligned his way of  writing and talking to the modern times, as was his right for being a  man of times gone by. And honestly I always liked his style, whether in  his novels or in rule books. I'm a fan of people talking like in the olden times


----------



## Scribble (Sep 6, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Perfection is an impossible dream of extremists, but that doesn't mean that improvement is not possible in most cases.




Never argued otherwise?



> It's my opinion that no one should feel OBLIGATED to ENDURE a game of D&D. If the purpose of D&D is enjoyment, and it fails at that purpose for you (for whatever arbitrary reason you think it fails), you shouldn't be playing it (or at least not in that way). It's not unreasonable, if you're not enjoying the game, to go do something else with your time.




This is not an argument that I made.



> If the experience isn't enjoyable to me, and I try to point that out, and the response is "Take it or leave it!", then there's really zero incentive for me to take it. Repeated over and over again across multiple tables it becomes a strategy of jamming your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" rather than actually facing the horrifying prospect that you might have to _allow people to do things differently if you'd like them to play your game_. And if you don't want them to play your game, well, mission accomplished!




Again I think you're ascribing intentions never stated.

D&D is a group experience. Sometimes in order to please the group as a whole one person has to suck it up and deal with it. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I don't think "My way or the highway" works in a D&D game, so yeah if someone threatens to leave a game every time they disagree with something in the game? I probably would be perfectly fine with them leaving.

If you re-read my statements though you'll see that that goes for everyone in the group though, so it's not about finding someone and forcing them to play a game they hate in some weird ass Logan's Run style D&D game or something.

(Incidentally- I also think a D&D game is usually far more then the rules. I've played in plenty of games where I think the rules suck (RIFTS???) simply because the group I game with is incentive enough.

Hanging out with people I've been friends with for a long long time tends to be reason enough to suck it up.) 

[quoteThere's really no reason why D&D has to have some monolithic One Way To Play. Someone who wants a more "realistic" combat system (meaning: grim-n-gritty!) should probably get one (without requiring those who don't care about it to bother with it). D&D should be able to make that adjustment. That's not really an intractable request.[/QUOTE]

Sure. I didn't argue otherwise so, have at ye!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Sep 6, 2012)

"Realism" seems to become one of those charged terms that is now used derisively to refer to any attempt or desire to make the game make more sense. I have seen very few rules systems that actually push for realism, but many that push for a naturalistic feel, verisimilitude, believability, etc.

When I watch the Dark Knight or the LotR movies or any high-quality piece of genre fiction, am I watching something that is realistic? No. But I believe in it. I connect to the story that I'm watching. The same should be the goal for D&D.


----------



## slobster (Sep 6, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> "Realism" seems to become one of those charged terms that is now used derisively to refer to any attempt or desire to make the game make more sense. I have seen very few rules systems that actually push for realism, but many that push for a naturalistic feel, verisimilitude, believability, etc.
> 
> When I watch the Dark Knight or the LotR movies or any high-quality piece of genre fiction, am I watching something that is realistic? No. But I believe in it. I connect to the story that I'm watching. The same should be the goal for D&D.




Stupid xp button not responding to my demands! I agree 100%. Internal logic and consistency should always (weeeell almost always; gag rpgs channeling warner bros cartoons or something might be an exception, but let's assume we can ignore those corner cases for the purposes of this D&D-specific discussion) be a design goal, even if "realism" (i.e. process simulation mapping directly onto reality) explicitly isn't.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 6, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Perfection is an impossible dream of extremists, but that doesn't mean that improvement is not possible in most cases.




And, we must remember that not all improvement is in the rules.  It can also be in the players.  For this, we can think in terms of improved tolerance for things that bug them.  Sure, if a given game has a ton of stuff you don't like in it, then of course don't play it.  But on the other hand, be reasonable.  

An example from these boards: I've seen people gripe that, for instance, lack of a particular class in the game is a show-stopper, and they will not buy the rules or play the game if that class is not present.

What?  You only ever play that one class?  Really?  Is the issue there with the rules, or with the player?  Which one needs adjustment?


----------



## triqui (Sep 6, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Repeated over and over again across multiple tables it becomes a strategy of jamming your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" rather than actually facing the horrifying prospect that you might have to _allow people to do things differently if you'd like them to play your game_. And if you don't want them to play your game, well, mission accomplished!



This has so much truth in it that I agree 200%.



> But lets not make the mistake of being too proud to change, or too Manichean to be flexible.



 I also endorse you here.



> Someone who wants a more "realistic" combat system (meaning: grim-n-gritty!) should probably get one (without requiring those who don't care about it to bother with it). D&D should be able to make that adjustment. That's not really an intractable request.




And this is where I somewhat disagree. While I the system might be taylored to change and adapt to *groups* in this regard, it cannot addapt to *individuals* to such degrees. As you mentioned before, we all have to agree to have people in the table that like a different game approach. More often than not, those are *friends* of us, so we *want* them in our groups, regardles of different playstyles. While you can easily have a player who loves Vancian and one who loves spell points in the same table (as 5e does with wizards and sorcerers), you can´t have a game that is gritty for two players and heroic and mythic for two players, in the same group, at the same time. So, even if there are some modules that allow groups to change that, you need to have some "base assumption" about "what is D&D". Hit points, for example. It's ok to have different optional rules in "unearthed arcana" or whatever, but you still need a base default.

Beyond the default assumptions, we, as the players, should try to be flexible about other players tastes. We shouldn't "force" people to "endure" through a D&D game, as you nicely put it. I might not like Vancian, but I should allow you to play a Vancian wizard anyways. In that regard, I find your post to be a great one.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Sep 6, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Mind blowing, this thread should have been closed/locked instantly.



You know, I didn't want to XP this or add to it because it might be categorized as threadcrapping. But now the OP has now been upgraded to a news article? I just can't believe it. The original post was, to me, obviously just an attack, not really a productive starting points for discussion. And I'm not even a fan of 1e or earlier (I have a lot of books, but at 27 years old, I never played it).

I really wish this thread had been locked, not promoted. As always, guys, play what you like


----------



## D'karr (Sep 6, 2012)

Maybe because closing a thread, "reactively", is not a good way to encourage mature discussion.

Nobody is forcing anyone to participate in the thread.  If the thread is not to your liking, ignore it and don't post in it.  By posting, all that's accomplished is "bumping" the thread.  Counterproductive, no?






-


----------



## Emerikol (Sep 6, 2012)

Umbran said:


> And, we must remember that not all improvement is in the rules.  It can also be in the players.  For this, we can think in terms of improved tolerance for things that bug them.  Sure, if a given game has a ton of stuff you don't like in it, then of course don't play it.  But on the other hand, be reasonable.
> 
> An example from these boards: I've seen people gripe that, for instance, lack of a particular class in the game is a show-stopper, and they will not buy the rules or play the game if that class is not present.
> 
> What?  You only ever play that one class?  Really?  Is the issue there with the rules, or with the player?  Which one needs adjustment?




For me it is almost always the underlying design and structure of the game.  The individual elements are easy to change and/or ignore.  Marvel RPG for example is rampant with plot coupon style mechanics.  So I won't pick that game up.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 6, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> You know, I didn't want to XP this or add to it because it might be categorized as threadcrapping.




That's because it is.


----------



## The Shadow (Sep 6, 2012)

Mallus said:


> The failure of precision is kinda intentional (though it is an odd choice for a rule book). It adds up to a very distinctive voice, a style.




I have to say, your post brought me up short and made me think.  I'd xp you for that if I could.  I still don't 100% agree, but I'm listening.



> Having come to gaming from fantasy fiction, I didn't need the rules of the game to be inspiring in and of themselves; I'd already read much of the source fiction Gary lists in Appendix N.
> 
> But many gamers didn't follow that route, and over the years, I've read numerous testimonials to Gary's writing, citing it as the principle inspiration for people's campaigns, for their love of D&D.




The idea of encountering D&D before encountering fantasy fiction is downright alien to me.  When I first came in contact with D&D at the age of 11 or so, I had already read reams of fantasy, science fiction, mythology, and literary classics.

I've seen those testimonials too, and have been forced to chalk it up to extreme differences in taste.  But if there really are lots of people who encountered D&D before reading fantasy... Well, I don't know.  Maybe it would have an entirely different effect on them.



> Now, 25 or so years on from my first reading of the AD&D core books, I see them in a different light, their language as Gary's love letter to the fiction he admired, particularly Jack Vance's and Fritz Lieber's.




Not having read Vance, I'll take your word for it there.  But I've read plenty of Lieber, and I'm just not seeing the resemblance.

And though I love many of the Appendix N books, I really have to question if Gary loved them for the same reasons I do.  (Which is fine, of course - it just means we're on very, very different wavelengths.)  His fumbling disdain for Tolkien in an infamous Dragon article revealed him to have a TOTALLY different imaginative life than mine.

(Though how the guy who wrote the GREAT artifact chapter in the DMG could possibly dismiss the One Ring as 'merely an ordinary Ring of Invisibility, albeit one with a nasty curse' is utterly beyond me.  It's like saying because your low-level character has figured out only one setting of the Machine of Lum the Mad, therefore it doesn't do much.)



> I can also see the humor in it, the self-awareness, the places where the tone slips knowingly in self-mockery -- it's a lot less pompous than I first thought.
> 
> It's still a damn strange way to write a rule book. But there's nothing else like it, and after all these years, I count myself a fan.




It's been a long time since I've read the AD&D DMG.  It may be that if I were to reread it now, I'd see the same self-deprecating humor you do.  I sincerely hope that I would, and I'm encouraged that someone does see it.

I do hasten to add that my dislike of the man's style does not equate to a dislike of the man's ideas.  Gary could be wildly creative, and his *descriptive* writing at times becomes very fine indeed.  There are passages from the Vault of the Drow, in particular, that I will never forget - more for the evocative imagery than for his wording.  And I've already mentioned my admiration for the artifacts chapter.

His narrative prose, however, is abysmally awful.  The Gord the Rogue books are nearly unreadable for me, on several levels.  I find it hard to believe they ever would have been accepted for publication without his name on the cover.

And I find it hard to believe that throwing around Anglo-Saxon words like dweomercraeft without ever defining them helped anyone enjoy the hobby.  Still, I have no wish to deny that we owe him a tremendous debt for many hours of fun.



			
				Jupp said:
			
		

> Gary's style was not really pompous when you consider in what time he grew up and what kind of writing did influence him the most. When you read some of those novels of the pulp fiction era you will find that this is why Gary sounded like Gary. And he never aligned his way of writing and talking to the modern times, as was his right for being a man of times gone by. And honestly I always liked his style, whether in his novels or in rule books. I'm a fan of people talking like in the olden times




Let's see, where do I start?

'When you read some of those novels' of the pulp era?  I've read lots of them, thanks.  Never gotten around to Vance (and intend to remedy that someday), but I've read plenty of the others.

'A man of times gone by'?  He wasn't *that* old, you know.  Perhaps he mentally did occupy earlier times, though;  in much the same way that a man of historical sensibility once told me quite seriously that I have a medieval mind. (I took it as a compliment.)

But by no stretch are the 1920's 'olden times'.  Nor can I think of any era of Western civilization in which a style like Gygax's has been the norm.  Still... you like what you like.  I like what I like, and it seems the twain do not meet.  If you enjoy Gary's novels, more power to you.  De gustibus non est disputandum.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Sep 6, 2012)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> That's because it is.



Yeah, that's probably true. Which is why I said it, and you agreed. Just expressing concern or, if nothing else, bafflement at this thread becoming a news article, especially considering the tone of the post. Seemed very "onewaytrueismistness"; here's what the "creator" said about the game, and this is how it should be played.

Maybe that's not what's being said. I'm judging this based on recent talk in other threads, poster history, and how the conversation evolved almost immediately (people almost immediately started in on standard point and counterpoint in support of or against "realism" in play).

I could be really wrong by posting here; maybe I shouldn't be voicing my surprise at this being a news article. Maybe I shouldn't be expressing my concerns at the point of the original post, or the type of conversation I'm afraid it will produce. So, on that note, I'll let people reply to me, and stay out of this thread, unless it ends up rather productive. And I hope it does end up that way. As always, play what you like 



D'karr said:


> Maybe because closing a thread, "reactively", is not a good way to encourage mature discussion.



If we're going by ways to encourage mature discussion, I have some critiques for the original post, as well. And I think that it's a lot more important to get the original post right than to close probable troublesome threads "reactively". But, again, I'm bowing out of this thread unless I think it becomes pretty productive (since I think me expanding on my views aren't particularly productive).


D'karr said:


> Nobody is forcing anyone to participate in the thread.  If the thread is not to your liking, ignore it and don't post in it.  By posting, all that's accomplished is "bumping" the thread.  Counterproductive, no?



I "bumped" a thread that someone had posted in twenty minutes earlier; not too worried about bumping it, all things considered.

But, as far as "if you don't like what's in it, don't post in it" goes, I agree to a point. If it's productive conversation that I don't wish to participate in, I agree. If it's not... well, I'm just voicing my concern. Neonchameleon's post on what he wants in 4e and how 5e seemingly isn't delivering? Fine by me (in fact, I said as much on the first page of that thread). This original post didn't seem nearly so potentially productive, and the fact that it got promoted to a news article is kinda baffling to me.

Hopefully, this thread becomes productive, rather than people flaming one another for preferences (specifically on "realism"). I do hope that's the case. I just voiced my concern when it became a news article. As always, play what you like


----------



## The Shadow (Sep 6, 2012)

While I don't see this thread as a problem in itself - I certainly have gotten some food for thought out of it - I have to say that I'm quite mystified as to what makes it 'News'.  That seems quite bizarre.


----------



## rounser (Sep 6, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Mind blowing, this thread should have been closed/locked instantly.



Instead it gets promoted to news item?

What's next, a little victory lap?  Official confirmation Gygax supports 5e and 4e?  Really unclassy. 

20 to 30 years out of context, and conveniently he can't tell us what he'd say of today's standard of "realism" any more.  And those words were directed at a completely different enemy - the Rolemasterites, crit hit locationists and gritty realists have receded - now the dissociative, Forge-influenced neo-gamists are actually using the D&D name.  And they've stormed the compound, with one edition under their belt already.  Didn't go so well, IMO.

He couldn't even stomach 3E.  "Let them play their little game," he said.

Gygax set the standard for RPGs, and was defending that standard against those who wanted more realism.  4E, and maybe 5E, with complaints from players of Gygax's games of _less_ realism than the standard he set, cannot hide behind these words.  May as well use them to justify Monopoly.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 6, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> bafflement at this thread becoming a news article




Yeah - no idea why this is a news article, myself.  Of course, I hardly look at the news article listings, anyway, so ... ?

Instead, I just read it as, "Hey - here's some things Gygax said."  Interesting in its own right for that alone.

I mean, I may not agree with what Gary thought all the time (especially given that I like 3.XE!), but I still like to read what he wrote.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 6, 2012)

EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT!

TSR set to start publishing a monthly periodical entitled "The Dragon" that aims to support its hobby game "Dungeons and Dragons."


----------



## GreyICE (Sep 7, 2012)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Yeah - no idea why this is a news article, myself.  Of course, I hardly look at the news article listings, anyway, so ... ?
> 
> Instead, I just read it as, "Hey - here's some things Gygax said."  Interesting in its own right for that alone.
> 
> I mean, I may not agree with what Gary thought all the time (especially given that I like 3.XE!), but I still like to read what he wrote.




As the author of the OP, I can tell you two things.  First, it wasn't an attack on any game system.  Gary didn't like 3E much.  I doubt he'd like 4E.  It's pretty obvious to me that he had constructed his perfect gaming system at some point, and his philosophy was never one of change for the sake of change.  He wanted D&D to achieve a state of perfection - simple, streamlined rules, unified system, good design.  And he wanted to leave it like that.  He didn't envision class bloat or tables for combing your hair or anything else, he liked the simple, basic system.  He saw D&D being like chess - achieve a good state and remain there, static and unchanging.  No edition of D&D has ever attempted to follow this paradigm.  

It was simply some thoughts that Gary had on the realism debate.  Since the debate had been cropping up quite a bit, and I happened to read this recently, I found it fascinating.  Not all of Gary's writing is fascinating, but to this day some of it resonates very strongly with me, and this was one of those pieces.  It's a brief shining moment where he just sits down and TALKS to the reader, telling them exactly what he wants to accomplish.  Not moderated by editors, or marketing departments or anything else, just straight chatting with the reader like he's on the couch with you and you're both cracking beers and relaxing.  

And second, this wasn't an edition war.  If it was construed that way, maybe those construing it as such are a tad too personally invested in this.  Gygax is not Jesus, he is one designer who did some great things and some awful things - the life of any game designer anywhere, ever.  He had opinions and was not shy about stating them.  You may agree with some and disagree with others.

But E. Gary Gygax was never, ever boring.

P.S.  I have no idea why this is in news, but I'm glad someone enjoyed it enough to move it here!  Dragon Magazine number 16, I believe the scans are online somewhere if you want to read these old, long out-of-print works no one is making any money on.   Also (un)reason is doing an amazing review of each issue if you want to figure out where the highlights are.  Or just enjoy his sense of humor and witty writing, which is reason enough to read the thread (even if he has an unflattering picture of Gary at times  ).


----------



## D'karr (Sep 7, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> But E. Gary Gygax was never, ever boring.




So true.  He was such a pleasure to "talk" to in this board.  So very giving of his time and knowledge.  An example to be sure.






-


----------



## The Shadow (Sep 7, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> He wanted D&D to achieve a state of perfection - simple, streamlined rules, unified system, good design.  And he wanted to leave it like that.  He didn't envision class bloat or tables for combing your hair or anything else, he liked the simple, basic system.  He saw D&D being like chess - achieve a good state and remain there, static and unchanging.




I stand in mute awe.

Is there anyone willing to describe AD&D as "simple, streamlined rules, unified system, good design"?  To deny that it has anything comparable to "tables for combing your hair or anything else"?  We're talking about a game that has a _random harlot_ table, after all!

But to compare it to chess... that is truly the crowning audacity.

If this was truly Gary's goal... Wow.

EDIT:  I say this as someone who spent many hours playing AD&D, and who enjoyed it thoroughly, by the by.  But also as someone who loves it while being aware of its flaws.


----------



## hamstertamer (Sep 7, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> I stand in mute awe.
> 
> Is there anyone willing to describe AD&D as "simple, streamlined rules, unified system, good design"?  To deny that it has anything comparable to "tables for combing your hair or anything else"?  We're talking about a game that has a _random harlot_ table, after all!
> 
> ...




Indeed, if Gary's goal was to make AD&D like Chess or just "simple, streamlined rules, unified system, good design" then he failed from start to finish.  Just reading the rules for surprise will leave people confused or with different interpretations.


----------



## ggroy (Sep 7, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> The idea of encountering D&D before encountering fantasy fiction is downright alien to me.




I didn't read any fantasy fiction before I encountered D&D.

In those days, I was mostly reading nonfiction and some science fiction.  For example, at that age I use to like spending a lot of time reading my father's old university calculus and chemistry textbooks.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 7, 2012)

triqui said:


> While I the system might be taylored to change and adapt to *groups* in this regard, it cannot addapt to *individuals* to such degrees.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Hit points, for example. It's ok to have different optional rules in "unearthed arcana" or whatever, but you still need a base default.



I tend to agree, but would add/qualify in a couple of respects.

First, I think hit points _might_ be a special case, where the default can support _either_ meat or metagame (but then some other things that push one way or another, like "death's door" rules or martial healing, might have to be flagged as optional).

Second, I think there is a limit to how flexible the system can be and still be a good system. Some design choices have to be made and their consequences worn, I think.



Emerikol said:


> Then 4e came along and changed the game so it really only played well in one style.



How many counterexamples do people have to post?

I play 4e as a light narrativist ("story now") game. [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] seem to play similarly. [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] seems to have a different take on narrativist play from mine, but I think can play in that style using 4e. [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] plays it as light gamist ("step on up") game - mostly about showing off build + skill with that build. [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] plays a houseruled 4e as a somewhat more Gygaxian gamist system (eg strategic resource management is important in LostSoul's game). [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] plays a more simulationist 4e. Then there are other 4e players on these boards like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION], [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] and others whose style seems a little different again (maybe high concept sim? If I've mischaracterised anyone's style I apologise, but I'm trying my best to work from my memory of posts and threads).

Even within my play group, there is one player - of the paladin - who plays almost the whole time in 1st person and actor stance, while another - the player of the wizard-invoker - who has said that one thing he likes about 4e is that it makes it easy for him to _play_ his character rather than _be_ his character. So the game can be played from mulitple player approaches too.

None of that contradicts your claim that _you_ couldn't make 4e fit your style. But there is more than one style that is not yours!


----------



## GreyICE (Sep 7, 2012)

Well first, I'd like to point out that Gary always strongly discouraged people from houseruling D&D heavily.  And second, most people play AD&D 2E.  

And Advance Dungeons and Dragons Second Edition was not under the control of Gygax.  Gygax parted ways with TSR in a fairly hostile and combative blowup, the details of which don't really have to be gotten into, but suffice to say he later published another gaming system that TSR bought out and buried, simply to keep Gygax from publishing anything.  

Gygax may have been the father of D&D, but by the time AD&D was truly hitting its stride he had nothing to do with it anymore.


----------



## Ichneumon (Sep 7, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> He wanted D&D to achieve a state of perfection - simple, streamlined rules, unified system, good design.  And he wanted to leave it like that.




If that's true, he really should have spent more time looking over the shoulders of 'Red Box' architects Tom Moldvay and Frank Mentzer.

Still, I believe that his distinctive style and singular approach was vital in helping D&D become a social phenomenon. People were inspired to challenge him, thus resulting in a plethora of houseruled games. I doubt that D&D would have survived if players had stuck to Gary's way instead of striving to find their own way. He may have wanted to bring D&D to a point of stability, but his real legacy was to inspire the gaming community to keep it in flux, and therefore, alive.


----------



## Manbearcat (Sep 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Second, I think there is a limit to how flexible the system can be and still be a good system. Some design choices have to be made and their consequences worn, I think.
> 
> How many counterexamples do people have to post?
> 
> ...




I tend to agree with the first part.  However, many (most?) will disagree I suspect as it seems that D&D adherents historically love the incoherency/lack of focus/driftability of the various systems above all else.  As I've grown into a 35 year old curmudgeon though, looking back I'm not certain that (at least for my group) this "driftability" of the system was inherent to D&D.  I wonder if it was more a product of the lack of our "refined" (and I don't mean this in a snobby way...I just mean that it took some time to pare away what we didn't want and focus solely on what we want) tastes, understanding of our playstyle inclinations and knowing how to get there.  My tastes (and that of my group) are now focused like a laser-beam and I am certain that if I went back through our games (from Basic onward) I/we could not have mustered _exactly_ what I/we want with those systems.  I/we could have fun...but not "the most fun possible."

A few things on my (and my groups) playstyle:

- Your depiction is accurate of my own tastes and therefore my games and that of my group.  Because of this, I am certain that "light narrativist" play is fully supported by 4e.  

- Our game drifts toward "light narrativist married to gamist" off and again.  So I'm certain it supports that playstyle.  

- I've run dozens of combat sims on my own in order to master the tactical interface of the system (in order to provide the fastest, climactic and most dynamic and interesting combat possible for my players) so I'm certain that strident gamist "step on up" is supported.  "Encounters" obviously bears this out as well.  

- I've run long term "Appalachian Trail" strategic-resource-attrition, extended Skill Challenges by way of leveraging Disease Track mechanics...so I'm certain that this portion of Gygaxian play is supported.

Regarding my players' interests:

My players (3 primary) are all over the map.  They love Call of Cthulu, Classic Traveler, Rolemaster, GURPS, Flashing Blades, All prior iterations of D&D.  I would say that two of the three are first and foremost ardent "Right to Dream"-ers...but we've made 4e work...and we've had our best experience to date.  And they certainly have enjoyed 4e's mechanics that let them actualize their favored archetypes and their PC-build resources that allow them to enter Author and Director stance and express their favored archetype within the fiction.  The 3rd player is new to gaming.  She is a Chemist by formal training and career.  Her everyday life is grounded in hard, physical science.  Her mind is very much organized in a "left brain" fashion (logical, sequential, analytical, looks at parts rather than whole).  One would think that she might potentially be turned off by 4e if it is so utterly threatening to a Simulationist agenda.  The opposite is true.  She loves the system and leverages each of its moving parts to bring her character to life within the fiction.

I can understand that some folks may not be able to reproduce their playstyles toward the end of "the most fun possible."  However, in light of the above, I just cannot accept the premise that 4e allows only the most narrow form of play and excludes all others.</snip></snip>


----------



## Mark CMG (Sep 7, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> Well first, I'd like to point out that Gary always strongly discouraged people from houseruling D&D heavily.  And second, most people play AD&D 2E.
> 
> (. . .)
> 
> Gygax may have been the father of D&D, but by the time AD&D was truly hitting its stride he had nothing to do with it anymore.





Care to clarify how you come by that assertion?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 7, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> Well first, I'd like to point out that Gary always strongly discouraged people from houseruling D&D heavily.  And second, most people play AD&D 2E.
> 
> And Advance Dungeons and Dragons Second Edition was not under the control of Gygax.  Gygax parted ways with TSR in a fairly hostile and combative blowup, the details of which don't really have to be gotten into, but suffice to say he later published another gaming system that TSR bought out and buried, simply to keep Gygax from publishing anything.
> 
> Gygax may have been the father of D&D, but by the time AD&D was truly hitting its stride he had nothing to do with it anymore.




I don't know where you came up with that idea.  I've seen very few people playing 2e, but TONS playing 1e.
The heyday of AD&D was the early 80s, long before 2e.


----------



## Unwise (Sep 7, 2012)

I think that anti-realism rants tend to miss the most important parts of why realism can be important to people. D&D is a decision making game, you need to know what framework you are working in, in order to make the appropriate decisions.

Every game needs a baseline that says "this is how you can expect things to work". Take for instance a Hong Kong action movie setting, those experienced with the genre would know what to expect their characters can and cannot do and what the consequences would be. The problem here is, that not everybody knows those expectations, or holds them to be exactly the same.

This is where realism is useful, everybody knows the basics of how the real world works. It is a useful baseline to say "if I do this, then I can expect that to be the result".

Realsim is not the enemy of immersion and roleplaying, jarring uncertainty is.

Lets take a few examples:

1) The bad guy has a crossbow pointed at my chest, he has the drop on me and plans to take me prisoner. I need to make a choice as to what I should do. In a realistic genre game, I better do what he says or I am a dead man. In Gygax's games, I just go "bah, he will only hit for 1d8+3, that is barely a scratch, who needs a plan!".

For all of Gary's ranting about the evils of realism, it clearly leads to a more engaging, story driving moment here.


2) I wish to make a hastey retreat, or chase a villian. There is a 50' cliff I must get down in order to do so. In a realistic genre, I try to scale the cliff as quickly and safely as possible, fearing grim death if I fail.

In a Gygax game, I just look at my HP, compare them to the damage I will take from a fall and decide to jump.

In this instance, it is not reality that is the enemy of fun here.


3) My fellow player is crashing to the ground as his fly spell is disrupted. Do I grab a rope and dive off the cliff hoping to catch him and save the day? I'm playing a realistic game, it is obvious the physics of that won't work, so I just stand by and watch him plummet to his death.

In a Gygax game I grab a rope in one hand and swing down Erol Flynn style and scoop him up.

In this instance, reality is indeed the enemy of fun. Even more so though, uncertainly is. As I stand at the top of that cliff, I need to know what I can expect from the world. I need to understand cause and effect. I need to know what the DM expects of me. If the realistic option has been taken in the previous 2 examples, a DM should not be too shocked to find the PC just letting thier companion fall in this example.

So as you can see, I'm not pushing a pro-reality agenda here. Realism is just a useful tool to set the groundwork for decision making. The solution really seems to be communication built up over time between the DM and group.

In my games, I would like to think that the PCs can tell the effects of their actions by considering "what will this do to the story being told?" generally they will take the realistic options, but they seem to sense the difference between gameist-stupidity and the time for heroic action.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 7, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> Well first, I'd like to point out that Gary always strongly discouraged people from houseruling D&D heavily.  And second, most people play AD&D 2E.




My group played 1e until the the mid-90's.  I didn't know anyone that was fond of 2e.  It was largely deemed a kids game by existing players.  We'd occasionally buy some of the books as supplemental material but the 1e books were considered cannonical.  

D&D was never as big again as it was in the early '80's.


----------



## GreyICE (Sep 7, 2012)

Celebrim said:


> My group played 1e until the the mid-90's.  I didn't know anyone that was fond of 2e.  It was largely deemed a kids game by existing players.  We'd occasionally buy some of the books as supplemental material but the 1e books were considered cannonical.
> 
> D&D was never as big again as it was in the early '80's.




Oh, well... different groups then.  But then, that was the pre-internet era.  I thought what the people I knew did was the same thing that everyone everywhere did.  Really should go kick that bias of mine


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 7, 2012)

I feel like the realism debate is a total rehash, but I do want to say that over the years there has been a lot of times when I thought I was smarter than EGG - including over the issue of realism.

And the more time I spend gaming and the older I get, the more credit I'm willing to give EGG.  All the stuff that I used to think was 'obviously' stupid - like hit points, Vancian magic, alignment, AC, classes, etc. - turned out, after some experience of the alternatives, to be not so stupid.  

EGG created his game as he gamed, not with some deep vision, but organicly.  It evolved as he learned and it grew.  The result is typical of an organic system.  It's messy.  It's complicated.  It's at times illogical.

But it has something that almost all the attempts to replace it carefully crafted from elegant theories about fun and built with (or without) careful math generally don't have.  It just works.  The fundamental mechanical systems he created have never really been replaced on a wide scale.  Lots of people try, but it never seems to work out.  The design endures.  You can pretty much find it everywhere now.


----------



## Argyle King (Sep 7, 2012)

The answer -for me- lies (ironically enough) in Gary's own rant against realism; in his own words.
_
While science fantasy does have some facts and good theories to logically proceed from, so that a semblance of truth can be claimed for those works which attempt to ground themselves on the basis of reality for their future projections, the world of “never-was” has no such shelter._


If we can look at technologies which do not exist in science fiction and draw conclusions about how something might work based upon the world we know in the here and now, why is it impossible to do the same when considering dragons, magics, and elves?  

Do I accept that my conclusions may not necessarily be the same as those arrived at by someone else? I certainly do. The question I then get in many of these discussions is which 'logic' for 'realism' is correct.  Is it mine or that of someone else?

Quite obviously, the first answer to that would be mine if I am at my table and somebody else's at their own table.  However, I am willing to believe that -while there certainly will be differences- there will generally be a ballpark area of similarity between my conclusions and those of someone else in most cases (if we're using realism as a baseline.)  

It is that generally shared ballpark which is important for a game which is intended to be shared among a community; among a group of friends sitting around a table rolling some dice.  Yes, fantasy involves a world that never was, but I still feel there are are things which fit into a ballpark of 'realism' which would be more acceptable to the majority of those looking at realism as a goal, and I likewise believe there are things which would not fit into that same ballpark for the majority of those who want realism -or at least conclusions which resemble the plausibility of what we are familiar with- to be given a nod from fantasy.


----------



## Animal (Sep 7, 2012)

Unwise said:


> In my games, I would like to think that the PCs can tell the effects of their actions by considering "what will this do to the story being told?" generally they will take the realistic options, but they seem to sense the difference between gameist-stupidity and the time for heroic action.



Clearly in all three examples the problem was not in game mechanics but in player's metagaming mentality.


----------



## GreyICE (Sep 7, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> The answer -for me- lies (ironically enough) in Gary's own rant against realism; in his own words.
> _
> While science fantasy does have some facts and good theories to logically proceed from, so that a semblance of truth can be claimed for those works which attempt to ground themselves on the basis of reality for their future projections, the world of “never-was” has no such shelter._
> 
> ...




Because magic, quite simply, breaks the rules.  That's what it does.  Were magic to follow rules, it would just be reflavored technology.   Spells can veer dangerously close to that, but the fact of the matter is that in a magical setting, logic is not only a burden, but something that snaps you OUT of the setting.  Try it some time.  Take a party member who is trying to figure out HOW the magic works, or WHY a demon chose to answer one person and not any of thousands of others or WHAT causes dragons to love hording so much and WHERE do the gods live all the time and what makes a god anyway, how does that even work and see how quickly you get irritated. 

Gods exist.  Wizards exist.  Magic exists.  Demons and Devils exist.  Wishes can be granted, and can backfire in amazing ways.  You might find the Deck of Many Things.  And none of this follows any sort of overall rules of realism.  It's not like a Warp Drive, which someday we might invent, or an Alien Species, which someday we might meet, or nanotechnology, which someday we might have.  It's MAGIC.  And it doesn't have to follow your logic.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 7, 2012)

Unwise said:


> D&D is a decision making game, you need to know what framework you are working in, in order to make the appropriate decisions.
> 
> Every game needs a baseline that says "this is how you can expect things to work".
> 
> ...



I've got nothing at all againt communication over time between GM and group, but I don't think "realism" is a particularly firm baseline for that - after all, I've seen posts on this board in which posters estimates for jumpable distances and runnable speeds don't match contemporary elite athlets, let along demigods. I think a common understanding of the genre, in combination with generous rather than restrictive adjudication by the GM, is just as good if not better.


----------



## Iosue (Sep 7, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> I stand in mute awe.
> 
> Is there anyone willing to describe AD&D as "simple, streamlined rules, unified system, good design"? To deny that it has anything comparable to "tables for combing your hair or anything else"? We're talking about a game that has a _random harlot_ table, after all!
> 
> ...






hamstertamer said:


> Indeed, if Gary's goal was to make AD&D like Chess or just "simple, streamlined rules, unified system, good design" then he failed from start to finish. Just reading the rules for surprise will leave people confused or with different interpretations.




The mistake you are making here is believing that AD&D represented D&D in its "ideal" form to Gygax. The game Gygax played was essentially OD&D with the Greyhawk supplement and some house rules. AD&D, OTOH, was written for the market. He through all those rules in there because there was _demand_ for those rules, not because he personally thought they should be in there. One might think of original D&D as what Gygax wanted people to play as a gamer, but AD&D's existance was heavily tied into the business of TSR. The Advanced title and single by-line saved money that would go to Arneson. Dungeons & Dragons had exploded at GenCon, and they needed common rules for organized play, preferably rules that could handle corner-cases. Gygax's last product for TSR was Unearthed Arcana, a book written less because it represented what Gygax thought D&D needed, but to pull TSR out of the financial whole it was in.

So while it's counter-intuitive, AD&D is not the place to go to see Gygax's Platonic Ideal of Game Design, particularly that of D&D.



Ichneumon said:


> If that's true, he really should have spent more time looking over the shoulders of 'Red Box' architects Tom Moldvay and Frank Mentzer.




He did. When those sets came out, Gygax was still top dog at TSR, and he worked closely with both Moldvay and Mentzer. IIRC from Mentzer's posts on Dragonsfoot, while Gygax was listed as the author and Mentzer the editor, in fact it was the other way around.  In fact, the word came down from Gygax himself that in writing BECMI, Mentzer was not to use anything from AD&D.



GreyICE said:


> Well first, I'd like to point out that Gary always strongly discouraged people from houseruling D&D heavily. And second, most people play AD&D 2E.
> 
> And Advance Dungeons and Dragons Second Edition was not under the control of Gygax. Gygax parted ways with TSR in a fairly hostile and combative blowup, the details of which don't really have to be gotten into, but suffice to say he later published another gaming system that TSR bought out and buried, simply to keep Gygax from publishing anything.
> 
> Gygax may have been the father of D&D, but by the time AD&D was truly hitting its stride he had nothing to do with it anymore.



I can see where you are coming from, but can't agree at all. While Gygax did express such sentiments about AD&D (since he was looking for it to be TSR's primary cash cow), he expressed quite _the opposite_ in the rules of OD&D, as well as implicitly endorsing such houseruling freedom (by editorial control) of the two Red Box Sets.

And I agree with others that AD&D's heyday in terms of mass popularity were in the 1980s, also coincidentally when the D&D line was also well-supported. When you get into the 2e era, the D&D line was practically dead. They capped it off with Rules Cyclopedia, and then started cannablizing it for 2e.


----------



## Argyle King (Sep 7, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> Because magic, quite simply, breaks the rules.  That's what it does.  Were magic to follow rules, it would just be reflavored technology.   Spells can veer dangerously close to that, but the fact of the matter is that in a magical setting, logic is not only a burden, but something that snaps you OUT of the setting.  Try it some time.  Take a party member who is trying to figure out HOW the magic works, or WHY a demon chose to answer one person and not any of thousands of others or WHAT causes dragons to love hording so much and WHERE do the gods live all the time and what makes a god anyway, how does that even work and see how quickly you get irritated.
> 
> Gods exist.  Wizards exist.  Magic exists.  Demons and Devils exist.  Wishes can be granted, and can backfire in amazing ways.  You might find the Deck of Many Things.  And none of this follows any sort of overall rules of realism.  It's not like a Warp Drive, which someday we might invent, or an Alien Species, which someday we might meet, or nanotechnology, which someday we might have.  It's MAGIC.  And it doesn't have to follow your logic.




A good point, but there is also ground for reality to support magic.  I don't need to know the specifics of how exactly a wizard conjures a fireball to still believe that the fireball should generally behave like fire once put into play.    

You're right, I would get irritated (and do if you've read some of my other posts) when trying to make sense of things which have no way to make sense such as why it is safer and tactically better for my D&D character to be inside the mouth of a crocodile being chewed on than outside of the mouth of the crocodile.  Realistically, being chewed on by a crocodile (or a dragon if we want to ramp up the example) should suck; it should be harmful to my character barring some reason why it isn't.  ...and, yes, magic would be an acceptable answer to me as to why it isn't.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 7, 2012)

Animal said:


> Clearly in all three examples the problem was not in game mechanics but in player's metagaming mentality.



I don't feel that that is entirely fair. As a general rule we (or at least I) want players to play in accordance with hit points remaining, as well as with some regard to the likely damage they might take from various sources - for example, to be more cautious when entering the dragon's cave on low hit points than when entering the goblins' cave on full hit points. Given the way that D&D works, if players are expected to play their PCs as if every threat might be immediately deadly, the game will tend to turtle to a halt.

I'm not sure why damage from archery and falling should be treated differently.


----------



## GreyICE (Sep 7, 2012)

Iosue said:


> The mistake you are making here is believing that AD&D represented D&D in its "ideal" form to Gygax. The game Gygax played was essentially OD&D with the Greyhawk supplement and some house rules. AD&D, OTOH, was written for the market. He through all those rules in there because there was _demand_ for those rules, not because he personally thought they should be in there. One might think of original D&D as what Gygax wanted people to play as a gamer, but AD&D's existance was heavily tied into the business of TSR. The Advanced title and single by-line saved money that would go to Arneson. Dungeons & Dragons had exploded at GenCon, and they needed common rules for organized play, preferably rules that could handle corner-cases. Gygax's last product for TSR was Unearthed Arcana, a book written less because it represented what Gygax thought D&D needed, but to pull TSR out of the financial whole it was in.




I'm not sure that Gygax really felt that way.  He referred to AD&D several times as a groundbreaking system that would change everything, calling it something "like nothing that had ever come before," and generally raving about how good it is.  Here's a few samples:

In summation, the “Basic Set” of D&D is aimed at new players,
those persons as yet uninitiated to the wonders of fantasy role playing.
While it channels these new adventurers towards the ADVANCED
game, with its better ordered and more clear rules, it suits such players
for play of the Original game just as well. Nearly all of the Original
booklets will remain unchanged and in print, only G, D-G, & H will be
revised to fit into ADVANCED D&D. The whole of AD&D will be a
better, cleaner system aimed at improving the understanding of the role
playing game system. The first three books, the main part, will be ready
in mid-1978 if all goes as expected. I am certain that you will find them
worth the wait! - Dragon Magazine #14 ​

This next one is from Issue 20, in December 1978 (so you can see the mid-1978 schedule is going real well).

Fanatical game hobbyists often express the opinion that DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS will continue as an ever-expanding, always improving
game system. TSR and I see it a bit differently. Currently
D&D is moving in two directions. There is the “Original” game system
and the new ADVANCED D&D® system. New participants can
move from the “Basic Set” into either form without undue difficulty
— especially as playing aid offerings become more numerous, and that
is in process now. Americans have somehow come to equate change
with improvement. Somehow the school of continuing evolution has
conceived that D&D can go on in a state of flux, each new version
“new and improved!” From a standpoint of sales, I beam broadly at
the very thought of an unending string of new, improved, super,
energized, versions of D&D being hyped to the loyal followers of the
gaming hobby in general and role playing fantasy games in particular.
As a game designer I do not agree, particularly as a gamer who began
with chess. The original could benefit from a careful reorganization
and expansion to clarify things, and this might be done at some future
time. As all of the ADVANCED D&D system is not written yet, it is a
bit early for prognostication, but I envision only minor expansions
and some rules amending on a gradual, edition to edition, basis. When
you have a fine product, it is time to let well enough alone. I do not
believe that hobbyists and casual players should be continually barraged
with new rules, new systems, and new drains on their purses. Certainly
there will be changes, for the game is not perfect; but I do not
believe the game is so imperfect as to require constant improvement.​
This is probably Gygax's clearest mission statement for AD&D ever.   Didn't quite work out how he wanted, but, well.


----------



## Unwise (Sep 7, 2012)

Animal said:


> Clearly in all three examples the problem was not in game mechanics but in player's metagaming mentality.




I'm just curious, what was the _correct_ answer to those three examples? The answer that would not indicate a metagaming mentality?

It might just be a matter of definition, but I don't agree with this, the issue is that I would say Gygaxian players reactions are a bit 'gameist' but not metagaming at all. Meta-gaming in our culture tends to be a judgement call against munchkinism and is not what is happening here. They are playing the game presented to them, in the way that it has been proscribed in the rules _and culture of the gaming table_. 

Meta-gaming would be using out-of-game knowledge about the DMs mood or preferences for instance. E.g. "He just bought the Underdark book, so my character blames the Drow for this kidnapping. Chances are I will be right".

Take my first example for instance. Imagine this situation where 10 minutes earlier a PC got shot at point blank range with a crossbow during combat and it did minimal damage to them. Now they are in pretty much the same situation, they try to attack the enemy like they did last time, but the DM just says they are shot through the heart and die. 

- The player knows it is "silly" that crossbows don't do much damage, but is playing the game presented to him. He is not one of those annoying guys that spends his time ranting about how much platemail a longbow can penetrate etc.
- The sudden shift from gameism to realism was not necessarily overt.
- The DM comes across as the bad guy now, for just 'breaking the rules' and summarily and arbitarilly executing a PC.

What happened here was a failure to communicate the shift in scene and paradigm (for lack of a better word).

In the second example, last game session say the Fighter got knocked over a cliff of that height during combat, he took the significant damage, climbed back up and rejoined the party. Now the evil villian is about to get away with the princess. Why wouldn't the brave knight risk bodily harm to himself and jump down after him? After all, 24hrs earlier he did that. So he jumps, and the DM describes that he is now a red smear on the ground...

_If the DM likes to swap regularly between gritty realism and heroic gameism, then occasionally there will be a jarring disconnection and uncertainty regarding PC actions._

I know this could be true in my games, at least for a new player that joined our group. I guess in reflection, we have two unspoken rules 1) You can get away with more in combat than out of it e.g. falling, running through fire etc. and 2) If what you are doing seems stupid, it probably is. e.g. jumping down a 50' cliff.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Sep 7, 2012)

Animal said:


> Clearly in all three examples the problem was not in game mechanics but in player's metagaming mentality.




Absolutely not.  

Metagaming happens when a player has to choose between an option that is optimal according to the game mechanics and an option that makes sense for the fiction/setting/genre, and he chooses the mechanically optimal option.  If you have mechanics that are true to genre (which might be realism) then a player doesn't have to make that choice:  the mechanically optimal choice and the genre-reasonable choice are one and the same.  

For me at least, this makes the game a lot more fun.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure why damage from archery and falling should be treated differently.




But that is the beauty of an RPG.  In D&D specifically, the basis for the rules are tied directly to the adjudication of the DM.  The DM is the person that can, and should, inject into the game whatever level of "realism" the game needs at his table to remain fun.

If the DM decided that the arrow to the chest was going to be lethal if you did not follow the guard, he could.

Gygax's rail against realism is not against the vision of the DM.  It's against the "vision" of the rules.  He didn't provide realistic rules.  He made workable rules.  Realism, he left entirely at the mercy of the DM.

I think that is the legacy of Gygax.  The rules are simply guidelines and the DM does not have to follow any rule that will "break" HIS game.  The responsibility of *providing* a workable set of rules was put on the game.  The responsibility to *keeping* the game "fun" was put on the DM.  And the tools were given to the DM to do so.  The rules are workable and abide by certain genre (high fantasy) conventions.  The DM needs to decide what works, and doesn't at his game.  If the situation you put the players in is not going to follow those specific genre conventions, then the DM needs to bend/break the rules to accommodate his vision.  In essence, Gygax gave you, the DM, "carte blanche" to disregard anything provided by the rules that does not work at "your" table.

That is and will always be the genius of Gygax.






-


----------



## S'mon (Sep 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] plays a more simulationist 4e.




Yeah - I've learned to turn it down a bit though, after my initial 4e campaign (Vault of Larin Karr) was not a huge success. For my Loudwater Forgotten Realms campaign I try to go fairly light on the sim, in accordance with the story-centric tropes of the setting and the advice in the 4e FRCG, as well as in the 4e DMG. But I still tend to stat out major NPCs, for instance, even ones I don't expect the PCs to fight - and they have 'Platonic' levels, not 'Schrodinger levels' - they're "Level 8 Baleful Thaumaturge" not 'PC Level+2 Baleful Thaumaturge'.
Meanwhile I'm getting my sim fix more with my 1e AD&D campaign, which is  mostly a sim/drama game, a soap opera with plausible geography and politics - which is kinda weird considering my players there are ur-Gamist Dragonsfoot grognards.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 7, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> Well first, I'd like to point out that Gary always strongly discouraged people from houseruling D&D heavily.  And second, most people play AD&D 2E.




What a weird thing to say.   You often see "What do you play?" polls on ENW, rpgnet etc, and I've never seen 2e be more than a small minority taste. It might have had more players than 1e some time in the late '90s, but I rather doubt it. Personally I did use bits of the 2e PHB awhile alongside my 1e stuff, but I've never owned a 2e DMG.


----------



## Bluenose (Sep 7, 2012)

S'mon said:


> What a weird thing to say.   You often see "What do you play?" polls on ENW, rpgnet etc, and I've never seen 2e be more than a small minority taste. It might have had more players than 1e some time in the late '90s, but I rather doubt it. Personally I did use bits of the 2e PHB awhile alongside my 1e stuff, but I've never owned a 2e DMG.




It might perhaps be true in the late 80s/early 90s, when 1e books were harder to find and the B/X series was discontinued. I have my doubts, though.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 7, 2012)

Iosue said:


> Gygax's last product for TSR was Unearthed Arcana, a book written less because it represented what Gygax thought D&D needed, but to pull TSR out of the financial whole it was in.




Hm... I have to strongly concur with this. And yet Celebrim is also right - since I dropped UA and a few of the esoteric 1e sub-systems, I'm finding that the 'OD&D+Greyhawk' chassis that remains is extremely elegant and effective! I'm finding all sorts of beneficial emergent properties. For instance, using DMG random spell acquisition, I get interesting Magic-User characters well balanced against other classes. Dropping UA Weapon Spec, suddenly the listed Armour Class values for armour and monsters feel 'right' - plate is genuinely hard to penetrate, troll hide is hard to hurt even at mid-level.

Overall, I have to say that in retrospect the post-UA AD&D I grew up with is a 'decadent' game; the beauty of the original was severely degraded. I'm enjoying my PHB-only AD&D game more than I've ever enjoyed AD&D before.


----------



## Maggan (Sep 7, 2012)

Ichneumon said:


> Still, I believe that his distinctive style and singular approach was vital in helping D&D become a social phenomenon.




That could be the case. But there are instances in other countries where the hobby exploded from a set or rules other than D&D, where the rules didn't feature Gygax's style of writing.

I'm thinking of Sweden, where "Drakar och Demoner" (a BRP translation originally) dominated in the same way D&D did in the US, and of Germany, where "Das Schwarze Auge" was the foundation of the hobby (if I'm correctly informed).

In the states, it was D&D that ruled supreme. In other parts of the world, others lay claim to the throne. And many were as successful in their markets as D&D was in the US, even though they didn't share all characteristics of D&D.

My take on that is that it wasn't the rules or the prose that was vital in helping D&D becoming a social phenomenon, but rather that it was the essence of the idea of roleplaying games that was what caught on.

And that essence came garbed in many guises, some more verbose than others.

/M


----------



## Scribble (Sep 7, 2012)

S'mon said:


> What a weird thing to say.   You often see "What do you play?" polls on ENW, rpgnet etc, and I've never seen 2e be more than a small minority taste. It might have had more players than 1e some time in the late '90s, but I rather doubt it. Personally I did use bits of the 2e PHB awhile alongside my 1e stuff, but I've never owned a 2e DMG.






Bluenose said:


> It might perhaps be true in the late 80s/early 90s, when 1e books were harder to find and the B/X series was discontinued. I have my doubts, though.




If you were to use any of the numerous conventions I attended throughout the 90s as any kind of evidence, it might lean towards 2e being more popular at the time... Most of the pages were filled with 2e games, with only a few token 1e games. Most of the hobby store games (in my area at least) were also 2e...

It was odd. It always seemed like everyone played 2e but talked about how 1e was better.

Myself I played 2e, but mixed in some 1e elements.


----------



## tlantl (Sep 7, 2012)

I only ever played in one campaign where the DM insisted on using 2e over 1e and that was because he didn't own any 1e books and couldn't find any to buy. 

This was about two years before 3e came out so I guess it makes sense. 1e AD&D had been out of print for six or eight years by then.

The rest of the groups I ran or played in only took select pieces from 2e, the stuff they liked that added to the AD&D experience. No one I knew who played D&D just up and switched to 2e.

I did see a lot of people go to 3e and from my experience with that is none of them were tickled pink by the new rules once the brand new and shiny wore off. I don't know anyone who enjoys DMing the thing. 

Around these parts 4e might just as well not exist. I imagine there are a couple of high school groups playing it but none of the established groups I have contact with have made the switch.


----------



## The Shadow (Sep 7, 2012)

Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> I do not believe that hobbyists and casual players should be continually barraged with new rules, new systems, and new drains on their purses.




Well that, at least, is a laudable sentiment that doesn't seem to have been held by his successors.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 7, 2012)

On the 1st ed/2nd ed issue - in the uni groups I played in from the early through the mid-90s, 2nd ed was played exclusively, and very much in the "story" style (there were a lot of Vampire players around too). I don't think anyone was playing 1st ed AD&D, and gamist play (of the Gygaxian "skilled play" kind, or the points-buy-ish PC build kind, or of the tactical cleverness kind) was definitely sneered at.

In my personal view it was a bit of a low point for D&D play, but others would probably disagree!


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 7, 2012)

S'mon said:


> Overall, I have to say that in retrospect the post-UA AD&D I grew up with is a 'decadent' game; the beauty of the original was severely degraded. I'm enjoying my PHB-only AD&D game more than I've ever enjoyed AD&D before.




As a general rule, there are only a _tiny_ handful of games I've played whether RPG or boardgame that have been improved by supplements in general.  (4e, Dominion, and Carcasonne are all on this list).  RPGs are allowed one free setting book, of course. 

Carcasonne is improved by many supplements because they change the way the game is played, making it more cooperative (this is done by giving people an incentive to finish off each others' roads and cities).

4e and Dominion are both improved (mostly) because they add replacements to what is a small and tightly limited list of options rather than add (in particular) new spells when the spell list is already vast.  This isn't to say you can't do the same in 3.X - I exempt the Book of 9 Swords and Magic Of Incarnum from my general criticism as they replace the entire classes.


----------



## Animal (Sep 7, 2012)

Mishihari Lord said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> Metagaming happens when a player has to choose between an option that is optimal according to the game mechanics and an option that makes sense for the fiction/setting/genre, and he chooses the mechanically optimal option.  If you have mechanics that are true to genre (which might be realism) then a player doesn't have to make that choice:  the mechanically optimal choice and the genre-reasonable choice are one and the same.
> 
> For me at least, this makes the game a lot more fun.



You kind of proved my point here. In all three instances player chose an option that was optimal according to the game mechanics rather than what made sense for "the fiction/setting/genre". Hence he metagamed in all three instances. Who's to blame?
You can never have mechanics, however "realistic", that will be impossible to metagame. 



Unwise said:


> I'm just curious, what was the _correct_ answer to those three examples? The answer that would not indicate a metagaming mentality?



There was no correct answer. One can metagame, one can stay in character. Different groups have different playstyles. And those don't even depend on game mechanics, just personal preferences.
Again, if a player wants to metagame - he will be able to do it in any RPG, no matter the level of realism.


----------



## Balesir (Sep 7, 2012)

Animal said:


> You kind of proved my point here. In all three instances player chose an option that was optimal according to the game mechanics rather than what made sense for "the fiction/setting/genre". Hence he metagamed in all three instances. Who's to blame?
> You can never have mechanics, however "realistic", that will be impossible to metagame.



It's actually easy to have a system that's impossible to metagame - it just requires a shift of viewpoint, not a change of system.

Instead of taking the view "this is my vision of how the game world works - I'll use a system to emulate it, but in the end my vision trumps all systems", you just switch to the view "the system defines and describes how the game world works - let's see how that turns out".

I'm not saying that either of these is necessarily "right" or the "proper" way to play - but the second gets rid of metagaming instantly; it becomes impossible, in fact. Any character choice that leverages the system becomes a sensible in-character choice. In addition, the players have as good an understanding of the game world as their characters, and player decisions gain agency through the player's understanding of the consequences of those decisions. Overall, the second way may have features that some folks find unpalatable, but it does away with many of the old bugbears (no, not the goblinoid kind!) of roleplaying at a stroke.


----------



## Unwise (Sep 7, 2012)

Balesir said:


> Instead of taking the view "this is my vision of how the game world works - I'll use a system to emulate it, but in the end my vision trumps all systems", you just switch to the view "the system defines and describes how the game world works - let's see how that turns out"




As an extreme example, the Order of the Stick universe is a perfect example of this. Everybody knows the 'laws of nature' in their universe. Those laws just happen to match a D&D edition.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 7, 2012)

Isn't that just "accepting" metagaming, as opposed to doing away with it?


----------



## GreyICE (Sep 7, 2012)

Scribble said:


> Isn't that just "accepting" metagaming, as opposed to doing away with it?




No, it's reacting to the rules and conceits that make up the system.

If resurrection is easy, then death becomes a lot less of a big deal.  It's like clothing.  Way back when, people had 1-2 pairs of clothes, TOTAL.  A rip in clothing was a huge deal, that might be their only pair of pants.  Today if a pair of pants gets torn and you flip out over it, everyone would think you're a little odd.  Is that metagaming?

If players easily survive falling off a cliff, then falling off a cliff isn't a big deal.  You might ask "are you alright?" if someone trips and falls down, but you don't expect them to be dead.  

If crossbows don't do enough to kill you, then someone threatening you with a crossbow isn't really making a credible threat. You know you can take the bolt, and close with them and attack before they can do anything about it.


----------



## Mark CMG (Sep 7, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> Oh, well... different groups then.  But then, that was the pre-internet era.  I thought what the people I knew did was the same thing that everyone everywhere did.  Really should go kick that bias of mine





Judging by what I see at gaming conventions/gamedays, and the prices commanded by 1E and 2E products on eBay, I'd say there is little doubt that 1E had and has a larger following by a considerable margin.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 7, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> No, it's reacting to the rules and conceits that make up the system.
> 
> If resurrection is easy, then death becomes a lot less of a big deal.  It's like clothing.  Way back when, people had 1-2 pairs of clothes, TOTAL.  A rip in clothing was a huge deal, that might be their only pair of pants.  Today if a pair of pants gets torn and you flip out over it, everyone would think you're a little odd.  Is that metagaming?
> 
> ...




 I see what you're saying... But is it "fair" to change reality in order to do away with the problem of reality busting meta-gaming?

That kind of reminds me of the joke: DR it hurts when I go like this- So don't go like this! whaka whaka whaka!


----------



## Balesir (Sep 7, 2012)

Scribble said:


> I see what you're saying... But is it "fair" to change reality in order to do away with the problem of reality busting meta-gaming?



What 'reality' are you changing?? There's no actual 'reality' there in the first place - this is the classic illusion of RPGs...


----------



## Steely_Dan (Sep 8, 2012)

Can we stop talking ill of the dead, especially so recently.


----------



## GreyICE (Sep 8, 2012)

I think Gygax would be honored and delighted that his ideas are still seriously discussed over three decades after he wrote them.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 8, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Can we stop talking ill of the dead, especially so recently.




Who is talking ill of the dead?  Most of the comments here are talking respectfully about his work?  And what do you mean recently?  He died four years ago.

What we are talking about is his creations and his views - remembering him as the person and the game designer he was.  That, to me, is far, far more respectful than putting up a marble statue and trying to sweep his beliefs, his creative skill, and his flaws under the carpet and therefore treat him as less than a person who was once alive.


----------



## rounser (Sep 8, 2012)

Has anyone started a thread on this in meta?


----------



## cyderak (Sep 9, 2012)

May I remind everyone.



Eh Hem..........


ITS A FREAKING GAME!  

YOUR *PLAYING* A *GAME*!!!!!


----------



## Iosue (Sep 9, 2012)

Mallus said:


> Bit of an eye-opener, that was. Now, 25 or so years on from my first reading of the AD&D core books, I see them in a different light, their language as Gary's love letter to the fiction he admired, particularly Jack Vance's and Fritz Lieber's. I can also see the humor in it, the self-awareness, the places where the tone slips knowingly in self-mockery -- it's a lot less pompous than I first thought.



Yes, this.  The 1e books differ from later editions not just in editorial tone and presentation, there's a vein of very conscious comedy running throughout that totally undermines the idea of D&D as a high-minded Serious Thing.  A good deal of the artwork is literally humorous cartoons.  And I think it's there in Gygax's writing.  When I read Gygax's words about using earseekers to discourage listening at doors, I didn't read that as completely straight advice to new DMs for adopting an adversarial attitude towards players, I read it as a rather self-deprecating passage commiserating with other DMs reading the books: "Man, players will really screw up your plans, won't they?  It's a constant idea arms race."

You see the same kind of "piss-take" attitude in the potion miscibility table, the wandering harlot table, and other places.



GreyICE said:


> I'm not sure that Gygax really felt that way.  He referred to AD&D several times as a groundbreaking system that would change everything, calling it something "like nothing that had ever come before," and generally raving about how good it is.  Here's a few samples:



It surprises me not at all that Gygax was raving about AD&D in pre-publication publicity.  I just don't think that necessarily was a full and accurate presentation of his views on design.  But I think your quotes support my position more than they contradict it.  The Basic Set remains as a largely cleaned up presentation of the Original game (including Gygax's encouragement to change and modify the game to fit one's own group), while the Advanced line provides a place to satisfy other gamers' hunger for more and more rules.



Celebrim said:


> I feel like the realism debate is a total rehash, but I do want to say that over the years there has been a lot of times when I thought I was smarter than EGG - including over the issue of realism.
> 
> And the more time I spend gaming and the older I get, the more credit I'm willing to give EGG.  All the stuff that I used to think was 'obviously' stupid - like hit points, Vancian magic, alignment, AC, classes, etc. - turned out, after some experience of the alternatives, to be not so stupid.
> 
> ...






S'mon said:


> Hm... I have to strongly concur with this. And yet Celebrim is also right - since I dropped UA and a few of the esoteric 1e sub-systems, I'm finding that the 'OD&D+Greyhawk' chassis that remains is extremely elegant and effective! I'm finding all sorts of beneficial emergent properties. For instance, using DMG random spell acquisition, I get interesting Magic-User characters well balanced against other classes. Dropping UA Weapon Spec, suddenly the listed Armour Class values for armour and monsters feel 'right' - plate is genuinely hard to penetrate, troll hide is hard to hurt even at mid-level.
> 
> Overall, I have to say that in retrospect the post-UA AD&D I grew up with is a 'decadent' game; the beauty of the original was severely degraded. I'm enjoying my PHB-only AD&D game more than I've ever enjoyed AD&D before.



I enjoy all kinds of D&D, from B/X to 4e, but I also agree with S'mon and Celebrim that looking back at AD&D has given me a better appreciation for it.  A lot of folks hate Vancian magic*, and while I never hated it, I can't say I particularly loved it, either.  But now I think the 1e AD&D Magic-user is tremendously flavorful.  And while, no, it is not designed so that it remains in full balance with the rest of the party from Levels 1 to 30, it has a different kind of balance, and one that leaves open the option for solo play, something very much a part of 70s and 80s D&D.

*I should note that I'm thinking of Vancian magic in the AD&D/BD&D sense, rather than the overpowered/under-limited 3.x version.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 10, 2012)

rounser said:


> Has anyone started a thread on this in meta?




From the Meta thread:



> You all know he's being taken out of context, and that he wouldn't support what you're trying to use his words to support.
> 
> ...
> 
> Col Pladoh deserves more respect than even that, as he is no longer  around to clarify his opinion with regard to the context you're trying  to hijack his words for.



Can I ask on what basis you consider that his words are being taken out of context to support things he wouldn't have supported?  You certainly don't appear to have shown this.  And what I now believe Gygax thought after reading his writings and listening to people who gamed with him explain the purpose of certain rules is very different from what I believed three years ago.  I do not believe he's being taken out of context and would be fascinated to find evidence he was.

 <acronym>







> 4E </acronym>and 5E fans/designers do not need to call on Gygax for legitimacy.  Do  it by designing a game which doesn't need to justify it's  not-D&Dness after having gone too far out into left field.  We know  what D&D is - TSR showed us, and <acronym title="D&D 3rd Edition">3E</acronym> looked pretty passable too.



Really?  Because neither 2e nor 3e look much like Gygaxian D&D to me.  Gygaxian D&D (whether white box or 1e) is a pretty well balanced game about the exploration of dungeons.  D&D versions after Lorraine Williams hijacked TSR first deprecated then eliminated the most fundamental rule of the game.  You gain XP in D&D for getting Gold Pieces.  Your job is to explore the dungeon and carry off the loot and the game rewards this.  You don't get much reward for killing monsters.  2e is an attempt to take D&D rules and make the game about something other than Dungeons and the dragons who live there.

2e and 3e only look passable if you are comparing rule for rule rather than goal for goal.  They are IMO about as passable as playing soccer on a rugby pitch using a rugby ball (or an American Football ball).

Ironically, 4e looks at the playstyle 2e and 3e tried to replace Gygaxian D&D with and says "What if we had a system designed to do this?"  And it therefore fits a lot of material written for 2e and 3e (or even 1e starting with the Dragonlance Saga - and just about every single Pathfinder AP I've looked at) much better than the original rules do.  It, however, is a poor fit for dungeoncrawling - but most of the dungeoncrawling mechanics were removed edition by edition.


----------



## jeffh (Sep 10, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Can we stop talking ill of the dead, especially so recently.




There have been several comments, such as this one, insinuating that this thread is somehow inflammatory (never pointing to anything specific about it, so presumably its _very existence_ is what is being questioned here). Ironically, those comments themselves have been _easily_ the most inflammatory things posted here.


----------



## jeffh (Sep 10, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Really?  Because neither 2e nor 3e look much like Gygaxian D&D to me.  Gygaxian D&D (whether white box or 1e) is a pretty well balanced game about the exploration of dungeons.  D&D versions after Lorraine Williams hijacked TSR first deprecated then eliminated the most fundamental rule of the game.  You gain XP in D&D for getting Gold Pieces.




This rule was controversial and widely criticized even "back in the day". The very first Forum letter I read in Dragon was a critique of this very thing, and that was (albeit just barely) when Gygax was still with TSR. Every circle of people I ever gamed with disliked this rule and actively sought alternatives. Even modern OSR folks are not universally fans of it (though some certainly are). So I certainly wouldn't call it "the most fundamental rule of the game"!


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 10, 2012)

jeffh said:


> This rule was controversial and widely criticized even "back in the day". The very first Forum letter I read in Dragon was a critique of this very thing, and that was (albeit just barely) when Gygax was still with TSR. Every circle of people I ever gamed with disliked this rule and actively sought alternatives. Even modern OSR folks are not universally fans of it (though some certainly are). So I certainly wouldn't call it "the most fundamental rule of the game"!




Oh, I know it was controversial.   And it has no place in e.g. The Dragonlance Saga (1984 - or before Lorraine Williams) or certain styles of game.  Which is why I specified Gygaxian D&D rather than the whole field that is D&D.  D&D was written for a specific purpose (which is what I'm referrign to as Gygaxian D&D) and then hacked into other purposes.  4e takes the most common purpose D&D is used for and starts out by designing a game to play that using a D20 ruleset.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 10, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> D&D was written for a specific purpose (which is what I'm referrign to as Gygaxian D&D) and then hacked into other purposes.  4e takes the most common purpose D&D is used for and starts out by designing a game to play that using a D20 ruleset.



Pithy and, in my view, accurate.


----------



## Libramarian (Sep 11, 2012)

Gygax here is defending AD&D against a slew of competing games popping up at the time that pretty much entirely sold themselves on being more realistic, like Rolemaster and Chivalry & Sorcery. This type of rules-heavy medieval fantasy sim doesn't really exist anymore, much less as a significant competitor to D&D, so it's doubtful that his comments in that context have any application to the contemporary realism discussion, primarily focusing on the differences between 3e and 4e.


----------



## GreyICE (Sep 11, 2012)

I think that might be true if Gygax had addressed the D&D clones by name, and perhaps discussed how they failed as a gaming system.  

But Gygax chose to look far deeper than that.  He asked not "which gaming system achieves the best realism" but whether realism itself was either *realistic* or *desirable* for a gaming system.  Thus his words and opinions remain valid.  They cannot easily be dismissed as a product of the era, for although Gygax was inspired by the events of the era, he did not choose to limit his perspective to that of the era. He looked beyond that, to the very fundament of that their arguments rested upon, and tried to determine the nature of that foundation.  

Gygax's words here are timeless, like so much of his writing.  For every review or debate or article on polearms there's some nifty piece of writing that simply transcends the notion of eras and focuses on what makes a game compelling.


----------



## Libramarian (Sep 11, 2012)

He says "the variant systems"...

But you're clearly trolling Gygax fanboyism now, so this conversation is over.

I will join several others from the thread in criticizing the decision to elevate this to a news item.


----------



## Emerikol (Sep 11, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> I think that might be true if Gygax had addressed the D&D clones by name, and perhaps discussed how they failed as a gaming system.
> 
> But Gygax chose to look far deeper than that.  He asked not "which gaming system achieves the best realism" but whether realism itself was either *realistic* or *desirable* for a gaming system.  Thus his words and opinions remain valid.  They cannot easily be dismissed as a product of the era, for although Gygax was inspired by the events of the era, he did not choose to limit his perspective to that of the era. He looked beyond that, to the very fundament of that their arguments rested upon, and tried to determine the nature of that foundation.
> 
> Gygax's words here are timeless, like so much of his writing.  For every review or debate or article on polearms there's some nifty piece of writing that simply transcends the notion of eras and focuses on what makes a game compelling.




I find it distasteful that people try to abuse Gygax for their own ends now that he is dead when they wouldn't have dared while he was alive.

There are two ways to look at Gygax.  His words and his works.  His work is very clearly not in the vein of 4e.  

While an interesting aside, does anyone really think this is a convincing argument for changing your playstyle preferences?  People like what they like.  It is also clear that 1e,2e, and for some 3e allowed for people to play their style of game.  Thats all that matters.  No one ever cared if other people were playing it differently.


----------



## Iosue (Sep 11, 2012)

Emerikol said:


> His work is very clearly not in the vein of 4e.



God help me, this cannot end well, but I have to disagree.


----------



## Emerikol (Sep 11, 2012)

Iosue said:


> God help me, this cannot end well, but I have to disagree.




Well to be fair, I think a lot of 3e decisions went against his philosophy too.  Perhaps 3e went half way and 4e went the rest.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 11, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> Gygax here is defending AD&D against a slew of competing games popping up at the time that pretty much entirely sold themselves on being more realistic, like Rolemaster and Chivalry & Sorcery. This type of rules-heavy medieval fantasy sim doesn't really exist anymore, much less as a significant competitor to D&D, so it's doubtful that his comments in that context have any application to the contemporary realism discussion, primarily focusing on the differences between 3e and 4e.




Can I ask out of curiosity what you consider the defining characteristics of a rules-heavy medieval fantasy sim to be?  Because when I look at the amount of mechanical worldbuilding and making NPCs play by the same rules as PCs, the Attack of Opportunity rules, the grapple rules, 36 skills before we break open the knowledges, performs, crafts, and professions, a Use Rope skill, and a flagrant disregard for balance due to "realism", I believe myself to be looking at a rules-heavy fantasy medieval sim - with the only thing missing being a tight tie to a specific setting.  (But then I've played GURPS quite happy as a rules-heavy fantasy medieval sim so a tight tie to a setting isn't necessary).

So yes, I find Gygax's comments _extremely_ relevant for the differences between 3e and 4e.  And that there is a clear reason why there aren't any rules-heavy fantasy medaeval sims that competed with D&D in the past dozen years.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 11, 2012)

Iosue said:


> God help me, this cannot end well, but I have to disagree.




For once I agree with [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION].  Gygax set up a tight fantasy game about dungeon crawling and balanced, playtested, and polished it.

4e is a tight fantasy game about epic quests that has been balanced, playtested, and polished.

The goals are fundamentally different - and I don't believe Gygax would have written 4e - it was not what he wanted to write a game about, and I don't believe that epic quests interested him.  On the other hand once you have the differing design goals, the _methods_ to achieve those goals are similar.

2e and 3e on the other hand turned their backs on all the methods Gygax used.  For that matter, the tagline of 3.0 was "Back to the dungeon" due to 2e neglecting the very thing Gygax wrote the game about.  And the dungeon focus didn't stay long in 3.0 and was almost entirely gone by the time 3.5 came out and made the Sunrod core equipment.  Near the end of 3.5 (and continuing into Pathfinder), the focus is Epic Quests - something 4e was designed to do.


----------



## Emerikol (Sep 11, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> For once I agree with [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION].  Gygax set up a tight fantasy game about dungeon crawling and balanced, playtested, and polished it.
> 
> 4e is a tight fantasy game about epic quests that has been balanced, playtested, and polished.
> 
> ...




Wow.  You agreed with me.  Let me wait for the shock to wear off before I continue.  

I agree with a lot of what you said.  4e was far less optimization driven.  3e was an optimizers dream.  You could tweak your class some in 4e so I'm not saying it's zero optimization but it was far less.  I agree that Gygax didn't design a game that was optimization driven.

I like more than 1e or 2e ever offered but I don't need 3e.  Here's some changes I'd make in 3e.

1.  No prestige classes at all.  Never used them never liked them.
2.  All multiclassing is level balanced (Fighter 5/Wizard 5)
3.  The fighter class would boost your caster level a little
4.  Fewer rules systems and more DM empowerment
5.  I'd keep Feats and make them all manuevers.  (I'd bring in some 4e powers as feats.  Some.)
6.  I'd remove feats from classes that have no martial connection
7.  I'd have a long skill list.
8.  I'd add an advantages/disadvantages system.  Optional of course.
8.  I've give everyone the same skill points.  I'd have limits on max skill level like +7 or something.
9.  Rogue would be a fighter subclass like Paladin/Ranger/etc...

So yeah. I'd either bring 1e/2e forward a little or 3e back a little.  Since I like the d20 roll high math of 3e I'd likely start there and go back.


----------



## Tsuga C (Sep 12, 2012)

*Loved Those Tables!*



The Shadow said:


> This, very much.  And I would disagree about the 'mildly pompous', too.  He is VERY pompous, as a rule.
> 
> And considering the fact that he himself produced several rule-systems that got frequently house-ruled out because they were too cumbersome in attempting 'realism' (notably weapon speed factors), quite possibly he should be less ready to throw stones.




Weapon speed factors and "to hit" adjustments were an excellent addition to AD&D as they encouraged players to pick from a wider variety of weapons.  The high-damage weapons were slower to utilize and the lighter ones had inherently less success when used against heavier armor types.  That was as it should be and was a touch of realism I thoroughly enjoyed instead of the-- *yawn* --great axe / great sword monotony one often encounters in 3.X.  I also liked the greater variety of damage they'd do--again, choices!


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 13, 2012)

Tsuga C said:


> Weapon speed factors and "to hit" adjustments were an excellent addition to AD&D as they encouraged players to pick from a wider variety of weapons. The high-damage weapons were slower to utilize and the lighter ones had inherently less success when used against heavier armor types. That was as it should be and was a touch of realism I thoroughly enjoyed instead of the-- *yawn* --great axe / great sword monotony one often encounters in 3.X. I also liked the greater variety of damage they'd do--again, choices!




Um... Weapon Speed Factors weren't even close to realistic.  They were the opposite of realistic.  Daggers are _slower_ than greatswords - look at how far the point moves for a roll of the wrist.  And the person that hits first is the person with the longer weapon.  Swords dominated individual combat and spears and polearms the battlefield for a reason.


----------



## Tsuga C (Sep 13, 2012)

*Internal Consistency*



Neonchameleon said:


> Um... Weapon Speed Factors weren't even close to realistic.  They were the opposite of realistic.  Daggers are _slower_ than greatswords - look at how far the point moves for a roll of the wrist.  And the person that hits first is the person with the longer weapon.  Swords dominated individual combat and spears and polearms the battlefield for a reason.




Look at the weights assigned to the various weapons for purpose of balancing utility and encumberance and you'll be viewing the issue from my perspective.  _Within the context of the game_, the weapon speeds were realistic.  Thus, a 1lb dagger was far quicker to employ than a 25lb two-handed sword.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 13, 2012)

Tsuga C said:


> Look at the weights assigned to the various weapons for purpose of balancing utility and encumberance and you'll be viewing the issue from my perspective.  _Within the context of the game_, the weapon speeds were realistic.  Thus, a 1lb dagger was far quicker to employ than a 25lb two-handed sword.




And if you can find me a two handed sword anywhere that actually weighed 25lb I'll be impressed.  A claymore was under 7lb.  And the extra weight was meant, I believe, to account for length, bulk, and enccumberance.

Within the context of the game weapon speeds were a gamist balancing factor to account for the fact that bringing a knife to a swordfight migh even be a worse plan than bringing one to a gunfight.


----------



## jeffh (Sep 14, 2012)

Emerikol said:


> I find it distasteful that people try to abuse Gygax for their own ends now that he is dead when they wouldn't have dared while he was alive.




Yeah, it's so insulting to him to make claims like:

He "looked deeper" than even his fans give him credit for
"Thus his words and opinions remain valid."
"They cannot easily be dismissed as a product of the era... he did not choose to limit his perspective to that of the era."
"Gygax's words here are timeless..."
"some nifty piece of writing that simply transcends the notion of eras and focuses on what makes a game compelling."
Yeah, that's some really harsh stuff.

Seriously, with "supporters" like some of the ones who have shown up in this thread, Gygax scarcely needs enemies; fortunately for him, with "enemies" like GreyICE, he has little need of supporters either.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 27, 2013)

I had seen his quotes about the game not being a simulation but not sure how I missed this one. I will say that I like to think of the game as simulating the fiction of heroic and action fantasy.


----------

