Improvisation vs "code-breaking" in D&D

Celebrim

Legend
A very brief history of the origin of RPGs.

The modern RPG was created by Dave Arneson using ideas developed by David Wesely and Gary Gygax, who in turn had many inspirations. Gygax would then formalize Arneson's play into a set of published rules that became known as D&D.

Wesely was an avid reader of professional wargaming theory. Unlike the amateur games of the day, professional games were still heavily dependent on arbitration. A typical scenario was a sort of 'play by memo', which participants in separate rooms and a judge reading all the proposed moves sent to them. Because the proposed moves were supposed to be identical to real world orders and courses of action, they weren't constrained to an abstract board or set of codified rules. The orders were read by a panel of expert judges, that would then respond with the consequences of the actions. Wesely organized a rather short series of chaotic games of this sort with himself as the judge which, despite the complete lack of rules or anything like a mastermind pattern, were very well received and highly influential. In particular, Arneson - who'd become bored with the dreary sameness of moving pieces about in normal wargame scenarios - was taken with the idea of running a more freeform game in the style Wesely had introduced for a medieval setting where the participants were various knights, bishops, and other influential persons, with himself as the judge and after a session or two Gygax's Chainmail used to adjudicate combat between the various parties, their armies and retainers, and invading forces. The early focus of the game was largely economic, but the longer the group played the more they enjoyed playing out the choices and actions of the individual personalities they'd assumed and the more personal the action became.

Thus, right from the start, even before something like D&D can be said to exist, the interest of play was primarily personal and story driven. Indeed, the game was invented as a story framework for generating scenarios, which would be improvised by a referee and judged in large part by fiat.

Because Gygax's Chainmail had a fantasy supplement, and because Arneson was becoming bored with the economic aspect of fantasy kingdom management, one especially memorable scenario had the major participants in the story leave behind their armies and delve into a ruined castle filled with monsters. Although it never fully eclipsed the rest of play, exploration of the dungeons of Castle Blackmoor rapidly became the most popular part of the Blackmoor game and dominate focus of play. D&D had effectively been born. Gygax observed one session and was immediately taken with the potential of the game. He set up his own campaign in Castle Greyhawk using his children as the first playtesters, and immediately set out to create a marketable set of rules.

There was never a point in any of this that it didn't depend almost entirely on improvisation. Neither Gygax or Arneson said, "Before I can play I need a regularized content generation system produced by a decipherable mechanical pattern, and I need to make my decisions in such a way that the players can reverse engineer the rules of the system." Gygax and Arneson largely made up everything as they went along, and while Gygax at least leaned toward formalizing a sharable rules set, all of D&D's early rules sets Chainmail/OD&D/Basic/AD&D relied heavily on DM improvisation and said so.. The game rules aren't shy about the fact that DM's will need to be able to improvise solutions and content.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zak S

Guest
I don't see the difference. If my character is not good tactically, then it would be extraordinarily bad roleplay to be at my best with tactics and overcome his deficiencies. Therefore, I am also going to intentionally be not that good tactically. The imagined expertise of my PC is critical to how I will behave tactically. I will never overcome the PC's tactical limitations, because I'm not supposed to.

Exactly my point:

Your choice of tactics is limited to the ones your limited PC could make, but within that you have a wide range of possible interesting choices--and this is good and fun.

These games involve creativity within restraints which make for interesting choices, the PCs imaginary limits (psychological, physical and situational) are such restraints.
 

Celebrim

Legend
The 1st edition AD&D DMG was published in 1979, about 5-6 years before H&W would be introduced to the hobby, but apparently some time after the hobby had been ruined by the notion that the DM was something more than just a referee and the game generally ruined by the fact that it was no longer an exalted grand game of Mastermind or Fairy Chess.

When describing how a novice DM was to set a campaign in motion on page 87, that clueless noob E. Gary Gygax had the temerity to describe the game thusly:

"On the other hand, there is nothing to say that you are not capable of creating your own starting place; just use whichever method is best suited to your available time and more likely to please your players. Until you are sure of yourself, lean upon the book. Improvisation might be fine later, but until you are completely relaxed as a DM, don't run the risk of trying to "wing it" unless absolutely necessary."

But although this information is hidden away on page 87, there is an even more startling suggestion made on page 9 in the introduction as practically one of the first things that is said.

And that suggestion is simply this - the DM should suspend the rules of the game if they are getting too much in the way of the player's well conceived goals. In other words, not only is the DM told that he may put his finger on the scales with partially, but actually that he should, and not only that but he should be doing so in the service of creating a particular narrative. Read this little bit of 'blasphemy':

For example, the rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such can actually spoil the game by interfering with an orderly expedition. You have set up an area full of clever tricks and traps, populated it with well thought out creature complexes, given clues about it to pique players' interest, and the group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of imagination and equipment that they will need to face and overcome the imagined perils. They are gathered together and eager to spend an enjoyable evening playing their favorite game, with the expectation of going to a new strange area and doing their best to triumph.....But, Lo! Everytime you throw the "monster die" is a wandering nasty is indicated, and the party's strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area...Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monster indicated by the die.

What's this! The players are in danger of not reaching your newly created interesting sublevel of some dungeon somewhere that you labored over? The players' plans for the evening might be frustrated? Just fudge the dice says the writer! Suspend the rules. Don't just allow the players to fail because the dice say so; act partially toward the players and don't even mention that nasty that would have depleted their resources.

Who does this guy think he is, and just what would he know about RPGs?
 
Last edited:

Zak S

Guest
If you find people who are emotionally impacted by the "danger" the King is in because they are placing themselves in the shoes of the King, I suppose so.
Yes. Precisely my point

Now, if you also then decide your King panics and makes a less than optimal move as a consequence (rather than YOU panicking about the prospect of losing the game and moving the king in a less than optimal manner), then we're getting into a role playing game.

But this is only relevant to our conversation if you assume that the threshold for "realness" of a character (and therefore as a human) is that they panic under pressure.

Not all real humans do, therefore not all "real" characters do.


In most games as in "classic board games", when the player loses, he is out of the game until a new game begins. D&D does not have to end for me to play again - the game continues and I rejoin it.

Yes, but not with the same character picking up in the same place, therefore you don't play in exactly the same way.

A character represents a WAY to play in the campaign (as Frodo, a hobbit from the shire for example). PC death means you lose that and that is a fate players famously very often seek to avoid. Many people would rather lose a game of chess than a treasured character in D&D, because they are as "real" as characters in angstgames.

Actually, a heroic death in D&D (or a very much in character and meaningful death) can be a marvelous capstone to a character's career.

The word "can" makes this sentence true.

Insipidly creeping along making "the best tactical choice in each situation" is infinitely worse.

The adverb "insipidly" here makes this sentence a piece of disturbing onetruewayism and retroactively explains all your other comments.

It looks like what you're trying to say is:

"I have a preference for games that encourage angsty characters and the way I express this preference is by saying other people's less angsty characters aren't 'real' or that the playstyle of these players is 'insipid' or 'not fun' despite the fact that absolute nothing backs this up at all. It's just my taste ."

"I never make a tactical error" characters may sometimes be appropriate,
This is outside the scope of the discussion--we are talking about characters that make mistakes only when the player does, not characters that are infallible. And they're super fun.
Batman, Elektra, James Bond...

This is a classic dichotomy between ROLE PLAYING and "Roll Playing".
LOL at anyone saying that in 2015.

I get that you have had bad experiences at the table with people who are into playing tactically clever PCs and have been unable to also give those characters personalities in a way that interests you, but it's not rational to generalize to everyone's experience from your own.

Simply put:

A lot of people apparently handle this way better than whoever you were playing with that made you come to such a bizarre conclusion about the entire world. You can assume they don't exist and I made them up, but I can't imagine what possible motive I could have to do that. I'm not going to log onto a forum just to pretend something is fun that totally isn't fun, I don't get anything out of that.
 
Last edited:

howandwhy99

Adventurer
You know that it is literally impossible to rewrite an open culture in a *closed* subset community, right? Within a closed group, you can at best rewrite the culture of the closed group. This is obvious in how the Forge *utterly failed* to rewrite all game culture. The world today plods along rather like it did before the Forge, just with a few extra game designs out there.
Except is doesn't as can be evidenced by a new "discipline" used to study games as "games have never been studied before", which begins by not treating them actual games, but as narratives. Mass cultural conformity and suppression of ideas.

And, as already noted, I don't see how your current approach is really any different than theirs. You don't seem to allow any room for dissent either. Your writing is very, "my way is the only Truth," much like Edwards was before he realized his own model was not his favorite any more, which kind of put the lie to how his theory was The One.
Edwards has disavowed The Big Model as wrong? That's news.

I"m not seeking to propose a model on how all games everywhere should be thought of and spoken of, a complete redefining of game terms instead of an honest canvasing of their use. History has been forgotten. Most people I know in the hobby for only 10-15 years have no understanding at all of why any of the things that used to be in the game could ever be conceived as being needed. Why is it mandatory for play to use dice? maps? minis? hidden information? note passing? awarding XP?

Don't listen to me, if you wish. But don't pretend RPGs are what the Forge sought to subvert them into "all along".

With respect, you are not the accepted arbiter of history. Many people have pointed out how your view of history is inaccurate. Moreover, you have failed to establish that, even if your history was accurate, that this history forms the definitions we need to use forevermore. It is just as (and likely more) reasonable to say that in the early history of RPGs, the authors actually knew very little about the subject, as it was new, and we would be best served to apply the greater understanding time has granted us to inform our designs and play going forward.
With respect, we are all the arbiters of history. It is up to each and every one of us to insure things like this contemporary cultural genocide against gamers and game culture doesn't occur.

This is a largely anonymous community - how do you know you're not referring to someone here?
Of course I don't. This is a public forum open to everyone. But by my reading I'm not referring to anyone here.

Let us be very clear on this - calling people liars is generally a Bad Move. You don't seem to allow for the difference between "being duplicitous" and "being wrong" or the even less problematic, "have a different opinion/preference in a space with no objective fact". You speak as if anyone who disagrees with you actually knows you are correct, and is lying - you need to do a lot of work to establish that guilt before throwing around such accusations.
I agree plenty of pepole are simply uneducated and believing in falsehoods about "gaming", the lie that it is "making stuff up". And while I believe the vast majority of people simply take what is at hand and enjoy it for what it is, unknowingly perpetuating falsehoods doesn't mean these shouldn't be contradicted and corrected.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Well, you're wrong about everything above.

Seriously? I give reasoning and examples and you respond with "Nuh, uh!"? Nice.

What you're expressing is a widespread falsehood. And what this thread is about proving the obvious invalidity of.
It has never been false and nothing in this has even remotely come close to proving that it is. You keep making unsubstantiated claims, and they yelling "Nuh uh!" at the evidence that shows you to be wrong, but that's about it.

Roleplaying was part of wargaming for decades, long before the hobby of wargaming learned about it and took the term up for D&D and its ilk. That's why the name of the hobby is roleplaying, not storytelling. Gary repeated such stuff his whole life.

I quoted him saying otherwise. He owned the company, so no one could have forced him to say those things.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I have said it before, but it deserves to be said again. Game culture is being whitewashed out of existence by attempts to redefine it as storytelling, primarily now by people in enterprises like "game studies" and other narrative absolutists.

I fully believe this will continue until gamers in mass stand up and demand this censorship masquerading as bigoted falsehoods stop.

This his has been a definition of games for centuries. It's not something new that "storytellers" have come up with.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
With all respect, and full acknowledgement this is an accurate dictionary definition, I don't find it a helpful definition in the context of this discussion. In fairness, that is more likely because I (and, I think some others) are restricting the terms "Game" to "Game with mechanical rules" than because we are correctly using the more broad, and more technically correct, definition of a "game".

This is why it's relevant. Howandwhy is trying to set up RPGs as being rules only with no improv, theater or other aspects. The definition I provided is used in conjunction with the definition dealing with rules when it comes to RPGs. It's not one or the other and I'm calling attention to that definition, because it's part of D&D, and therefore, part of any discussion dealing what what kind of game D&D is.
 

RedShirtNo5.1

Explorer
Gary Gygax said:
Two major adventuring areas were thus solidly in play early on 1973. There were the castle ruins and its dungeons and there was the city, with key places that players’ characters would likely visit indicated by color: red for a tavern or inn, gold for a money changer or gemner, gray for a weapon and arms dealer, green for a merchant, blue for a temple, purple for the place of a potent wizard, etc. Other areas around the city were developed on the spot as the need arose. As a matter of fact, all of the adventures in the City of Greyhawk were “winged”, created from whole cloth on the spot, for being so immersed in the game it was quite easy to create exciting encounters, and play character roles suitable for such a fantasy city.

The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.
 


Remove ads

Top