Gygax on Realism in Game Design

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.