Gygaxian Memes

[Shades of Green]

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.)

Marc Miller's greatest creation, Classic Traveller (CT), also takes weird and arbitrary approximations for playability (such as abstract range-bands for combat rather than a tactical organization of forces on grid/hex paper). The three key differences between OD&D and Traveller are these of genere (fantasy vs. sci-fi), of a class/level-based system as opposed to a skill-based system, and the fact that Traveller has a mechanism for beginning play with experienced characters. Most of the three basic books of Classic Traveller are quite comparable in complexity and learning curve to OD&D, with the exeption of the older ship-combat system (vector-based), which was scrapped in the later "The Traveller Book" edition (a few years later) in favour for a simple range-band system. Yes, Marc Miller had suspension of disbelief (that is, a realistic "feel" as opposed to realistic accuracy) in mind, especially in matters of world-creation, but he too had little problems with weird and arbitrary "hanwavium" science, such as artificial gravity, FTL travel, inertialess (or inertia-dampend) drives and psionics, the first three exiting in order to allow simpler gameplay (and fitting the sci-fi of the time), and the last existing in order to put a little "magic" into Traveller's sci-fi setting.

Now, the "gearheady" (i.e. complex rules and complex formulae) versions of Traveller - MegaTraveller and Traveller: New Era - were written by other people, not Marc Miller.

In short, Marc Miller's "realism" was somewhat similar to H.P. Lovecraft's "realism" - it may be handwavium or quasi-fantasy, but it should *look and feel* scientific and realistic. That's why I love Traveller: it has a degree of inner logic and is quite believable, yet I, as a Referee (game master), can be very creative and very imaginative (up to the point of inserting an SRD monster - an Aboleth - as a Lovecraftian horror to a Traveller adventure), and so could my players.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

...

Of course, Gygax will immediately dismiss the notion of realism in a fantasy game with wizards & dragons.

Realism yes, verisimilitude, no.

But to me, a Gygaxian game casts the referee in the role of living rulebook. The written rules need not be perfect. The written rules are merely a framework that the referee should overrule in the interests of fun & a certain level of versimilitude. At least, that's the impression I get from some of his writings, his comments online, & tales from those who've gamed with him.

Spot on!

The material I create and pass along to fellow gamers is for their use in devising their own, unique campaigns.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[riprock]

Marc Miller's greatest creation, Classic Traveller (CT), also takes weird and arbitrary approximations for playability (such as abstract range-bands for combat rather than a tactical organization of forces on grid/hex paper). The three key differences between OD&D and Traveller are these of genere (fantasy vs. sci-fi), of a class/level-based system as opposed to a skill-based system, and the fact that Traveller has a mechanism for beginning play with experienced characters.

Well, the issue is not really suitable for scientific proof, but I must dig in my heels and vehemently disagree.

I would say that Marc Miller's style is entirely different. It's influenced by American military conventions such as the ASVAB, its math can be crude at times, but I can't say it's anything like Gygaxian design.

I think we come down to incompatible axioms on this issue. A worthwhile discussion of Miller's design would have to get pretty deep, and I don't know if I can do it justice at present.

Most of the three basic books of Classic Traveller are quite comparable in complexity and learning curve to OD&D, with the exeption of the older ship-combat system (vector-based), which was scrapped in the later "The Traveller Book" edition (a few years later) in favour for a simple range-band system.

Well, perhaps my experience isn't representative, but in my experience, Traveller had a shorter learning curve, almost non-existent rules disputes, and very little complexity.

Bear in mind that I was fresh out of programmable calculator class and learned Traveller from a "gifted" student, so the math that seemed immediate to us might have seemed complex to others. But Traveller seemed much easier to compute than D&D.

Yes, Marc Miller had suspension of disbelief (that is, a realistic "feel" as opposed to realistic accuracy) in mind, especially in matters of world-creation, but he too had little problems with weird and arbitrary "hanwavium" science, such as artificial gravity, FTL travel, inertialess (or inertia-dampend) drives and psionics, the first three exiting in order to allow simpler gameplay (and fitting the sci-fi of the time), and the last existing in order to put a little "magic" into Traveller's sci-fi setting.

Well, this isn't a science forum, so if I disagree with your beliefs on science there's not much to be done about it. I'll note my disagreement and move on.

In short, Marc Miller's "realism" was somewhat similar to H.P. Lovecraft's "realism" - it may be handwavium or quasi-fantasy, but it should *look and feel* scientific and realistic.

All right. I think we could talk for quite a while without getting to consensus on "look and feel." I don't think we'll ever agree about Lovecraft, but that's okay.

 

[riprock]

Marc Miller had suspension of disbelief (that is, a realistic "feel" as opposed to realistic accuracy) in mind, especially in matters of world-creation, but he too had little problems with weird and arbitrary "hanwavium" science, such as artificial gravity, FTL travel, inertialess (or inertia-dampend) drives and psionics, the first three exiting in order to allow simpler gameplay (and fitting the sci-fi of the time), and the last existing in order to put a little "magic" into Traveller's sci-fi setting.

Yes, well, as said above, this is not a science forum, but I think Miller was drawing more on science facts than science fiction to get his "antigravity" and "reactionless" drives.

New Scientist (14 Nov. 1974) ~

"Eric Laithwaite Defies Newton"

Robert Walgate

The Professor of Heavy Electrical Engineering at Imperial College London, Eric Laithwaite, highly successful inventor of the linear motor, has entered the sacrosanct domain of the mechanical engineers. And he says "they need me". Last Friday as the piece de resistance of his evening discourse at the Royal Institution he demonstrated a machine that, he claimed, violated gravity and produced lift without any external reaction.

Professor Eric Laithwaite, who died on 27 November 1997, was a talented engineering maverick who spent much of his academic life investigating unusual forms of mechanical propulsion and the linear induction motor.

Between 1964 and his retirement in 1986, Eric was professor of heavy electrical engineering at Imperial College. In 1990 he accepted a visiting professorship at Sussex University and it was there that he died, just a month after securing a NASA contract for the design of a space launcher based on his linear motor system.

Obituary from
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/publications/reporterarchive/0055/feat03.htm


This isn't the time or the place to debate whether NASA was right to believe in Laithwaite. But the fact is NASA did believe in Laithwaite. Miller's reactionless anti-gravity was reasonable so far as anyone could tell at the time.

The whole psionics debate I leave in the hands of Nobel laureate, Brian C. Josephson, whom you can find at:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/

 

[Shades of Green]

Well, the issue is not really suitable for scientific proof, but I must dig in my heels and vehemently disagree.
I would say that Marc Miller's style is entirely different. It's influenced by American military conventions such as the ASVAB, its math can be crude at times, but I can't say it's anything like Gygaxian design.

I am sorry for my unclear writing; I did not intend to say that it was like Gygaxian designs, but rather to say that Marc Miller's design philosophy was also focused on imagination and story (sometimes much more dependant on imagination that Gygaxian designs, actually, as some of the early Traveller material was designed to give the "bare bones" of the situation and let the Referee fill in the "meat" or fluff) rather than on complex game mechanics or on non-abstract realism. The main point of similarity between OD&D and Classic Traveller in terms of design philosophy, is of being quite mechanic-light and non-simulationist; simulationism was a later addition to Traveller.

I think we come down to incompatible axioms on this issue. A worthwhile discussion of Miller's design would have to get pretty deep, and I don't know if I can do it justice at present.

I agree with that; this is not a good place to discuss Miller's design philosophy in details, but feel welcome to hop to the ComStar/Avenger forums or to The Citizens of the Imperium forum to discuss the matter in detail (both are Traveller forums).

Well, perhaps my experience isn't representative, but in my experience, Traveller had a shorter learning curve, almost non-existent rules disputes, and very little complexity.

Classic Traveller is indeed quite easy to learn to play, though the parts with more complexity of it are mostly Referee-centric, such as world generation, shipbuilding and animal encounter building. But even then it's quite simple; that's what I like about CT as opposed to later editions of Traveller. Rules are light; therefore, you must make heavy use of your imagination. Ofcourse, very early Traveller supplements did make a huge increase in complexity (High Guard/Book 5 especially, and Striker which is an early Traveller wargame and VERY simulationist). However, similarly to OD&D, Classic Traveller lacks a unifying game mechanic; different subjects use different mechanisms to resolve them (e.g. ship combat vs. personal combat). My point was that both were more on the gamist and narrativist sides of the scale rather than on the simulationist one.

Well, this isn't a science forum, so if I disagree with your beliefs on science there's not much to be done about it. I'll note my disagreement and move on.

Again, I am sorry about not being clear enough; I did not intend to say that artificial gravity, inertialess drives, FTL or even psionics were impossible per se, but are not based on any fully-proven scientific concept (unlike fusion power, which science understands the basic principle of very well, but actually having a controlled fusion reaction that yealds more energy than it recieves ; they might be possible, and they might not. What we disagree on is probably more on the definition of "Hard Science" than on our beliefs of what might or might not be possible.

All right. I think we could talk for quite a while without getting to consensus on "look and feel." I don't think we'll ever agree about Lovecraft, but that's okay.

I've mostly refered to stories such as At the Mountains of Madness, which had a "scientific" feel on it despite being quite fantastic; generally speaking, IMHO the main virtue of Lovecraft is in making horror with a very good suspension of disbelief, which, ofcourse, helps the horror be even more horrifying to the reader.

 

[Shades of Green]

Going back to Gary Gygax, I'd say that I have a feeling that there are several game-mechanics concepts that he has created: levels (as opposed to linear progression) as a method of measuring character development, spell levels, distinct character classes, armor reducing the chance of hitting that target (rather than, for example, absorbing damage), saving throws, combat turns and rolled initiative, seperate to-hit and damage rolls. All of these have appeared in so many P&P RPGs and computer-RPGs since D&D came out.

Also there are central concepts such as the "traditional" pseudo-Tolkienian fantasy world with dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, trolls, orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, beholders, dragons and so on, or the cleric/wizard split, that might also be (atleast in part) Gygax's creation. In other words, D&D's world is a combination of Tolkien (and, I've heared, Vance, but I haven't read any of his books) with many mythologies and myths from around the world (mostly European, but a few, such as the Raksash and Yuan-Ti, are not) and with original creations (beholders? mind-flayers? a dragon's color as its "race"?); is that kind of world (that is, the combination itself, not its sources), later repeated (dirctly or in a more or less modified form) in so many places, the creation of Gary Gigax?

How many of these were actually created by Gary Gygax and how many were brought forth by pre-D&D wargames and/or fantasy novels?