Gygax on Realism in Game Design

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?

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.

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!