Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
I was just reading the excellent posting by M.T. Black about Dragon Magazine number 67, mentioning Gary "Jake" Jaquet, and it reminded me of an interview Jaquet did some time ago. In an effort to avoid finishing my series of posts about dice mechanics, I've been writing about some issues with "second-order design," and I realized that this early interview, from 1982, actually touched on it. I thought writing about this would achieve two goals- first, honoring Jake Jaquet, who is one of the forgotten important figures in early TSR and RPG history. Second, it would allow me to continue stalling on finishing my posts about dice mechanics. Done and done! As Mama Snarf always told me, "Snarf, never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until next week."
First, a brief refresher on terms-
One constant tension we see in RPGs is the distinction between first-order design and second-order design. While the game designer can exert direct control over the rules of the game, the actual gameplay depends on the processes that emerge at the table. This gameplay, this "second-order design" can be glimpsed through extensive playtesting, and can be addressed through the rules (the first order), but will always be, to some extent, beyond the ability of the game designer to dictate.
In other words, when you're thinking about designing an RPG, first-order design is the rules of the game. Second-order design is the actual gameplay.
A. Jaquet on D&D and AD&D.
A brief primer for those not familiar.
Jake Jaquet was an influential, albeit mostly "behind the scenes" figure, at TSR from 1977 until the end of 1982- corresponding with the dramatic rise of TSR and the RPG hobby. He left TSR at the end of 1982 to launch a new periodical (Gameplay) in 1983. Gameplay folded in 1984, and appears to have left the industry after that. At the time of the interview, Jaquet was credited with being the publisher of Dragon Magazine
Polyhedron was a magazine put out by TSR for the Role Playing Gamers Association.
This article (an interview) is from Vol. 2, No. 3, #6 of The Polyhedron (as it was called then) from 1982. So the references to "AD&D" are to what we call "1e" and the references to "D&D" are to what we call "OD&D". While you might think from the timing that he talking about B/X (Basic), you can see from his reference to playing it for years that he still is referring to the "old rules" (OD&D) as D&D.
So, without further verbiage or explanation, the relevant parts of the interview-
HQ: Strictly as a gamer, and not as a TSR employee, do you think that the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS or ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game (whichever you prefer) is a better fantasy role playing system than any other available?
JJ: II's a difficult question to answer on a strictly objective level, because of my association with the DUNGEONS &DRAGONS game from its beginning, and also because it was in existence before anything else. First of all, I find it more appealing than others simply because it WAS first, because it carries the concepts down to the wording of the thing (although it's been rewritten several times now) that puts it above the other fantasy role playing games. They're trying to say the same things without using exactly the same words, since the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game was out first, all the meaningful game terms were used. It's the flavor of the rules that appeals to me first, more so than the others.
I like the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS and ADVANCED DUNGEONS &DRAGONS games lots better than some, and just mildly better than others. There are some other good systems out there. I like it better in some respects because it does NOT attempt to say "This is away to handle every circumstance in a realistic fashion." It does NOT attempt to say, "There are no arbitrary rules to make the game playable in this system." This is what I hear from so many of the other systems, in both the wording of their rules and in their advertising.
The one thing we see more often than not, in comparing role playing systems, is "This one is more real; this one simulates reality better," blah, blah, blah. Well. how can you more realistically simulate the casting of a fireball? It's fantasy, you have to imagine it. Someone may say, "Well, the D&D game system uses the Vancean system to simulate magic, whereas this system uses the Johnson-Whitfield system of magic, and Johnson-Whitfield is obviously a far more realistic way for magic to work, because it involves the temporal energies flowing from six planes," and blah, blah, blah. Well, BUNK. I mean, fantasy is fantasy; the fireball is either cast, or it's not. And if it's your bag to have that rationalization behind it, if it somehow makes you feel better and more secure, or if somehow things are more playable or more enjoyable in the game, well that's fine, go ahead and play that way. But I really see no need for it. The D&D game system says a fireball works. In game terms, it has this effect, and that's all I need.
The D&D game rules say, basically, "This is a game, and it operates in this fashion." They admit that some of the mechanics in it are arbitrary, placed there to make the game work . Now, it may not be realistic to assume that a giant 30 feet tall exists. I've seen lots of scholarly works saying, "Well, a creature this large can't exist, because its muscles and flesh and blood would crack ..." well, okay, maybe it would. I'm not too concerned about that. If a 30 foot giant makes the game playable, that's what I require from the game, and that's what makes the game enjoyable.
I consider one game better than another because of playability and enjoyability. If I were doing a comparison of every game ever put out, I would have an "Enjoyability over Playability" quotient that I would rank them all by. Obviously you have to make some distinction; you can't compare OTHELLO against the TRAVELLER system, for instance.
There's another system for fantasy role playing that has characteristics in such detail that you wouldn't believe it. Maybe D&D game characteristics are a little arbitrary, to place a person's entire persona into 6 different characteristics, but how is having 57 characteristics any different? If we're going to try and simulate reality, we're going to have to carry that out to a couple of million different characteristics, and EVEN THEN it'll still only be a close simulation. It won't be real, because a human personality is infinite in its variability. But, okay, it's arbitrary, and if you, as a gamer, can't function without having a lot more detail in the game to make it more enjoyable for you -
HQ: Appearance, to add a simple one?
JJ: Right, right, exactly - then you can't enjoy D&D and AD&D games more than some other systems which claim to be more real, or more detailed, or whatever.
HQ: You're saying D&D and AD&D games; do you have a preference between the two, strictly personally?
JJ: Personally I like D&D game rules better than the AD&D game system. The AD&D system is sort of a concession to people that find the D&D system a little too free-form. But it's not really a concession, because it was an evolution; it's distinctly different from the D&D game rules. In D&D games, I don't have to worry about being constrained by an author's point or rule or chart, about making a judgement as a referee, or player within the D&D system. When I run a D&D game, the stuff I've put into the game myself is in my head. In an AD&D game, though, I can be called upon by the player and just pullout the DMG, and say "Right here on page 157 it says you can't do that"; yet in D&D games you CAN do that. because that rule doesn't exist. I mean, there's nothing that substitutes, or that's different, it's just that it doesn't exist; it's up to the DM to make that determination.
At this point, it is probably necessary to include the famous quote from Gary Gygax about why he is making AD&D as a counterpoint-
Because D&D allowed such freedom, because the work itself said so, because the initial batch of DMs were so imaginative and creative, because the rules were incomplete, vague and often ambiguous, D&D has turned into a non-game. That is, there is so much variation between the way the game is played from region to region, state to state, area to area, and even from group to group within a metropolitan district, there is no continuity and little agreement as to just what the game is and how best to play it. Without destroying the imagination and individual creativity which go into a campaign, AD&D rectifies the shortcomings of D&D.
B. All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again.
One theme that I have consistently returned to in my various posts is the push-pull between the desire for more rules, and the desire for less rules. In games, as in almost any sphere, new issues that arise almost invariably cause people to clamor for rules- "There should be a rule for that!" On the other hand, additional rules inevitably come with a cost- added complexity, added issues of interpretation, added issues of how different rules will intersect, and even just the cost associated with people learning more rules. Here, we see the same pattern repeated- on the one hand, we had a new system (OD&D) that allowed experimentation and variation and an explosion of new games; it is a practically a truism to say that the vast majority of RPGs in the 1970s were created as either the publication of DM's notes of OD&D campaigns, or as reactions to OD&D. On the other hand, you have a desire for standardization, for ORDER.
Which gets to the issue of second-order design. Second-order design is normally not that big of an issue in, say, board games. Yes, there can be house rules or misunderstandings (many people play Monopoly "incorrectly"), but generally the rules will prescribe exactly how to play; you can choose to put money under Free Parking in Monopoly, but you know, just by looking at the actual rules, that you have chosen to play something different.
On the other hand, second-order design is a much larger issue in RPGs, to the extent that in conversations about it, we try to ensure that we don't castigate variation as "badwrongfun." In the history of D&D, many people will refer to this distinction as "rules" (the first-order design) and "rulings" (the second-order design). More rules means more standardization. More rulings means more variation between tables.
Of course, it's not always that simple; many people played AD&D in a fast and loose manner, ignoring the multiplicity of rules for various reasons- sometimes because it added unneeded complexity (weapon v. AC), sometimes because it didn't make much sense (the full surprise and initiative rules), and sometimes because the rules were buried in dense verbiage (what do you do with a dead elf?). On the other hand, many people played OD&D and just codified their rulings over time in writing until they had their own notes that exceeded in depth and scope anything put out as AD&D. Just like Hasbro can't tell you what to do with Free Parking, Hasbro can't tell you how to play D&D.
The other interesting thing to note about the interview excerpt (other than the weird aside about appearance ... a preview of the late and not-lamented seventh ability score!) is Jaquet's insistence, which was common, that D&D was a game.
I consider one game better than another because of playability and enjoyability.
There are those that look askance when people say that what they are looking for in the hobby is ... fun. To a certain extent, I can understand the objection; fun, after all, is certainly a difficult-to-measure metric. Still, isn't that the only one that truly matters? Isn't fun ... playability and enjoyability ... what people look for in a hobby? Different people have different approaches to fun; but I would still say that Jaquet was entirely correct. The true measure of a game in the RPG field is not how it works in theory, nor how it slots into a given construct (even FKR!), but simply whether it is playable, and whether it is enjoyable.
Hope you found this brief detour interesting. Please feel to discuss any of the above issues!
First, a brief refresher on terms-
One constant tension we see in RPGs is the distinction between first-order design and second-order design. While the game designer can exert direct control over the rules of the game, the actual gameplay depends on the processes that emerge at the table. This gameplay, this "second-order design" can be glimpsed through extensive playtesting, and can be addressed through the rules (the first order), but will always be, to some extent, beyond the ability of the game designer to dictate.
In other words, when you're thinking about designing an RPG, first-order design is the rules of the game. Second-order design is the actual gameplay.
A. Jaquet on D&D and AD&D.
A brief primer for those not familiar.
Jake Jaquet was an influential, albeit mostly "behind the scenes" figure, at TSR from 1977 until the end of 1982- corresponding with the dramatic rise of TSR and the RPG hobby. He left TSR at the end of 1982 to launch a new periodical (Gameplay) in 1983. Gameplay folded in 1984, and appears to have left the industry after that. At the time of the interview, Jaquet was credited with being the publisher of Dragon Magazine
Polyhedron was a magazine put out by TSR for the Role Playing Gamers Association.
This article (an interview) is from Vol. 2, No. 3, #6 of The Polyhedron (as it was called then) from 1982. So the references to "AD&D" are to what we call "1e" and the references to "D&D" are to what we call "OD&D". While you might think from the timing that he talking about B/X (Basic), you can see from his reference to playing it for years that he still is referring to the "old rules" (OD&D) as D&D.
So, without further verbiage or explanation, the relevant parts of the interview-
HQ: Strictly as a gamer, and not as a TSR employee, do you think that the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS or ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game (whichever you prefer) is a better fantasy role playing system than any other available?
JJ: II's a difficult question to answer on a strictly objective level, because of my association with the DUNGEONS &DRAGONS game from its beginning, and also because it was in existence before anything else. First of all, I find it more appealing than others simply because it WAS first, because it carries the concepts down to the wording of the thing (although it's been rewritten several times now) that puts it above the other fantasy role playing games. They're trying to say the same things without using exactly the same words, since the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game was out first, all the meaningful game terms were used. It's the flavor of the rules that appeals to me first, more so than the others.
I like the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS and ADVANCED DUNGEONS &DRAGONS games lots better than some, and just mildly better than others. There are some other good systems out there. I like it better in some respects because it does NOT attempt to say "This is away to handle every circumstance in a realistic fashion." It does NOT attempt to say, "There are no arbitrary rules to make the game playable in this system." This is what I hear from so many of the other systems, in both the wording of their rules and in their advertising.
The one thing we see more often than not, in comparing role playing systems, is "This one is more real; this one simulates reality better," blah, blah, blah. Well. how can you more realistically simulate the casting of a fireball? It's fantasy, you have to imagine it. Someone may say, "Well, the D&D game system uses the Vancean system to simulate magic, whereas this system uses the Johnson-Whitfield system of magic, and Johnson-Whitfield is obviously a far more realistic way for magic to work, because it involves the temporal energies flowing from six planes," and blah, blah, blah. Well, BUNK. I mean, fantasy is fantasy; the fireball is either cast, or it's not. And if it's your bag to have that rationalization behind it, if it somehow makes you feel better and more secure, or if somehow things are more playable or more enjoyable in the game, well that's fine, go ahead and play that way. But I really see no need for it. The D&D game system says a fireball works. In game terms, it has this effect, and that's all I need.
The D&D game rules say, basically, "This is a game, and it operates in this fashion." They admit that some of the mechanics in it are arbitrary, placed there to make the game work . Now, it may not be realistic to assume that a giant 30 feet tall exists. I've seen lots of scholarly works saying, "Well, a creature this large can't exist, because its muscles and flesh and blood would crack ..." well, okay, maybe it would. I'm not too concerned about that. If a 30 foot giant makes the game playable, that's what I require from the game, and that's what makes the game enjoyable.
I consider one game better than another because of playability and enjoyability. If I were doing a comparison of every game ever put out, I would have an "Enjoyability over Playability" quotient that I would rank them all by. Obviously you have to make some distinction; you can't compare OTHELLO against the TRAVELLER system, for instance.
There's another system for fantasy role playing that has characteristics in such detail that you wouldn't believe it. Maybe D&D game characteristics are a little arbitrary, to place a person's entire persona into 6 different characteristics, but how is having 57 characteristics any different? If we're going to try and simulate reality, we're going to have to carry that out to a couple of million different characteristics, and EVEN THEN it'll still only be a close simulation. It won't be real, because a human personality is infinite in its variability. But, okay, it's arbitrary, and if you, as a gamer, can't function without having a lot more detail in the game to make it more enjoyable for you -
HQ: Appearance, to add a simple one?
JJ: Right, right, exactly - then you can't enjoy D&D and AD&D games more than some other systems which claim to be more real, or more detailed, or whatever.
HQ: You're saying D&D and AD&D games; do you have a preference between the two, strictly personally?
JJ: Personally I like D&D game rules better than the AD&D game system. The AD&D system is sort of a concession to people that find the D&D system a little too free-form. But it's not really a concession, because it was an evolution; it's distinctly different from the D&D game rules. In D&D games, I don't have to worry about being constrained by an author's point or rule or chart, about making a judgement as a referee, or player within the D&D system. When I run a D&D game, the stuff I've put into the game myself is in my head. In an AD&D game, though, I can be called upon by the player and just pullout the DMG, and say "Right here on page 157 it says you can't do that"; yet in D&D games you CAN do that. because that rule doesn't exist. I mean, there's nothing that substitutes, or that's different, it's just that it doesn't exist; it's up to the DM to make that determination.
At this point, it is probably necessary to include the famous quote from Gary Gygax about why he is making AD&D as a counterpoint-
Because D&D allowed such freedom, because the work itself said so, because the initial batch of DMs were so imaginative and creative, because the rules were incomplete, vague and often ambiguous, D&D has turned into a non-game. That is, there is so much variation between the way the game is played from region to region, state to state, area to area, and even from group to group within a metropolitan district, there is no continuity and little agreement as to just what the game is and how best to play it. Without destroying the imagination and individual creativity which go into a campaign, AD&D rectifies the shortcomings of D&D.
B. All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again.
One theme that I have consistently returned to in my various posts is the push-pull between the desire for more rules, and the desire for less rules. In games, as in almost any sphere, new issues that arise almost invariably cause people to clamor for rules- "There should be a rule for that!" On the other hand, additional rules inevitably come with a cost- added complexity, added issues of interpretation, added issues of how different rules will intersect, and even just the cost associated with people learning more rules. Here, we see the same pattern repeated- on the one hand, we had a new system (OD&D) that allowed experimentation and variation and an explosion of new games; it is a practically a truism to say that the vast majority of RPGs in the 1970s were created as either the publication of DM's notes of OD&D campaigns, or as reactions to OD&D. On the other hand, you have a desire for standardization, for ORDER.
Which gets to the issue of second-order design. Second-order design is normally not that big of an issue in, say, board games. Yes, there can be house rules or misunderstandings (many people play Monopoly "incorrectly"), but generally the rules will prescribe exactly how to play; you can choose to put money under Free Parking in Monopoly, but you know, just by looking at the actual rules, that you have chosen to play something different.
On the other hand, second-order design is a much larger issue in RPGs, to the extent that in conversations about it, we try to ensure that we don't castigate variation as "badwrongfun." In the history of D&D, many people will refer to this distinction as "rules" (the first-order design) and "rulings" (the second-order design). More rules means more standardization. More rulings means more variation between tables.
Of course, it's not always that simple; many people played AD&D in a fast and loose manner, ignoring the multiplicity of rules for various reasons- sometimes because it added unneeded complexity (weapon v. AC), sometimes because it didn't make much sense (the full surprise and initiative rules), and sometimes because the rules were buried in dense verbiage (what do you do with a dead elf?). On the other hand, many people played OD&D and just codified their rulings over time in writing until they had their own notes that exceeded in depth and scope anything put out as AD&D. Just like Hasbro can't tell you what to do with Free Parking, Hasbro can't tell you how to play D&D.
The other interesting thing to note about the interview excerpt (other than the weird aside about appearance ... a preview of the late and not-lamented seventh ability score!) is Jaquet's insistence, which was common, that D&D was a game.
I consider one game better than another because of playability and enjoyability.
There are those that look askance when people say that what they are looking for in the hobby is ... fun. To a certain extent, I can understand the objection; fun, after all, is certainly a difficult-to-measure metric. Still, isn't that the only one that truly matters? Isn't fun ... playability and enjoyability ... what people look for in a hobby? Different people have different approaches to fun; but I would still say that Jaquet was entirely correct. The true measure of a game in the RPG field is not how it works in theory, nor how it slots into a given construct (even FKR!), but simply whether it is playable, and whether it is enjoyable.
Hope you found this brief detour interesting. Please feel to discuss any of the above issues!
