Unfortunately it looks like I missed the chance to ask the Colonel himself what he might think of these during the recent Q&A.
However, for your comments/criticisms/refinements, I present what I believe to be the Gygaxian Memes.
(Meme is a buzzword for exciting ideas that seem to take over folks' thinking.)
Rule #1: Realism is limited to the level of a ripping yarn. The game will make some weird and arbitrary approximations for playability (such as experience points for adventuring instead of for training), and the whole thing will have simple math, not a detailed statistical spreadsheet. This is imagination, not military history or any other serious topic. (This rule runs contrary to the design philosophies of Marc Miller and Steve Jackson, IMHO.)
Rule #2: The DM will not give very large amounts of detail about the world so that players can investigate it like scientists and exploit its natural laws like engineers. The world is detailed -- it has backstory and often it has illustrations and maps. The world has neat interactive puzzles and weird monsters with special powers and behaviors. But the world is not meant to be understood, it is meant for ripping yarns of high adventure. The players are not investigators, they are swashbuckling risk-takers. (I think Arneson published an anecdote about how his players tried to build steam engines but always failed; eventually they learned to trust magic swords.)
Rule #3: Even if an analysis of a game phenomenon is possible, the nature of the phenomenon is frequently determined by a random table that is sufficiently wacky to prevent effective exploitation. (This can severely frustrate physicists and engineers at the table, since it runs counter to their real-life intuitions. It can also frustrate hardcore military gamers, since real-life history of warfare often includes learning the enemy's tricks. The coolest stuff frequently is not analyzable or reproducible, e.g. a set of stone cogwheels that trigger an exotic door cannot be copied or imitated. The DM can spring numerous tactics on the party (including ambush, bizarre technology, etc.) but refuse to allow the party to learn and use the same tricks. Some tricks, like animating zombies, can simply be ruled off-limits.)
Rule #4: It's really cool to give the party a surface description and let them try to search, asking for more detail. Magic items often require extensive research into command words. This assumes that a party is willing to take the time to do the searching. Many players are not patient enough. Many DMs don't communicate well. (This is where less personal, more standardized experiences like "World of Warcraft" gain a foothold.)
Rule #5: It's cool to hand the party a problem such as how to transport bulky treasure. (This frustrates many folks so much that many DMs give highly portable treasure in order to skip past this problem. This has inspired games like Dungeon Siege, where the most distinctive element is the fact that most parties have at least one packmule.)
However, for your comments/criticisms/refinements, I present what I believe to be the Gygaxian Memes.
(Meme is a buzzword for exciting ideas that seem to take over folks' thinking.)
Rule #1: Realism is limited to the level of a ripping yarn. The game will make some weird and arbitrary approximations for playability (such as experience points for adventuring instead of for training), and the whole thing will have simple math, not a detailed statistical spreadsheet. This is imagination, not military history or any other serious topic. (This rule runs contrary to the design philosophies of Marc Miller and Steve Jackson, IMHO.)
Rule #2: The DM will not give very large amounts of detail about the world so that players can investigate it like scientists and exploit its natural laws like engineers. The world is detailed -- it has backstory and often it has illustrations and maps. The world has neat interactive puzzles and weird monsters with special powers and behaviors. But the world is not meant to be understood, it is meant for ripping yarns of high adventure. The players are not investigators, they are swashbuckling risk-takers. (I think Arneson published an anecdote about how his players tried to build steam engines but always failed; eventually they learned to trust magic swords.)
Rule #3: Even if an analysis of a game phenomenon is possible, the nature of the phenomenon is frequently determined by a random table that is sufficiently wacky to prevent effective exploitation. (This can severely frustrate physicists and engineers at the table, since it runs counter to their real-life intuitions. It can also frustrate hardcore military gamers, since real-life history of warfare often includes learning the enemy's tricks. The coolest stuff frequently is not analyzable or reproducible, e.g. a set of stone cogwheels that trigger an exotic door cannot be copied or imitated. The DM can spring numerous tactics on the party (including ambush, bizarre technology, etc.) but refuse to allow the party to learn and use the same tricks. Some tricks, like animating zombies, can simply be ruled off-limits.)
Rule #4: It's really cool to give the party a surface description and let them try to search, asking for more detail. Magic items often require extensive research into command words. This assumes that a party is willing to take the time to do the searching. Many players are not patient enough. Many DMs don't communicate well. (This is where less personal, more standardized experiences like "World of Warcraft" gain a foothold.)
Rule #5: It's cool to hand the party a problem such as how to transport bulky treasure. (This frustrates many folks so much that many DMs give highly portable treasure in order to skip past this problem. This has inspired games like Dungeon Siege, where the most distinctive element is the fact that most parties have at least one packmule.)
