Pithy and, in my view, accurate.
Gygax on Realism in Game Design
Libramarian
Adventurer
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.
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.
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
Adventurer
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.
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
Adventurer
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
Legend
God help me, this cannot end well, but I have to disagree.
Emerikol
Adventurer
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
Legend
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
Legend
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
Adventurer
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.
Similar Threads
