Gygax on Realism in Game Design

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Patryn of Elvenshae said:

That's because it is.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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

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.

Steely_Dan said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

JamesonCourage said:

bafflement at this thread becoming a news article

Click to expand...

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.

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."

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.

Click to expand...

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 ).

GreyICE said:

But E. Gary Gygax was never, ever boring.

Click to expand...

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.






-

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!

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.

Click to expand...

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.