"When you build your campaign you will tailor it to suit your personal tastes. In the heat of play i t will slowly evolve into a compound of your personality and those of your better participants, a superior alloy." --EGG DMG 1e preface
That doesn't sound like it is all on the DM to create everything!
From the 1e DMG.
"Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play this game, not one made up on the spot. By the same token, they are playing the game the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it."
The game is pretty clearly the DMs. Gygax does often caution against abusing the power or altering things too much, but he has in fact given that ultimate power to the DM.
So I've had a look at my copy of Gygax's DMG.
AbdulAlhazred's quote is found on p 7. It's the first sentence of the second paragraph of the preface. The second sentence of the fourth paragraph appears to reinforce the point that AbdulAlhazred has taken from it (namely, that participants other than the GM have a singificant role to play in shaping the campaign):
As a participant in the game, I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into a campaign and how it must be handled; if so, why not play some game like chess?
(And now that I type it out, I remember that someone - AbdulAlhazred again? - already quoted this upthread.)
The passage that Maxperson quotes is found on p 9, as the first quarter or so of the final paragraph of the introduction.
Here are a few interpretive possibilities:
* Gygax (and his book) is just flat-out contradictory;
* Gygax changed his mind between writing the introduction and writing the preface (I'm assuming here that, as is normal with a book, the preface was written towards the end of the process);
* The two passages can be reconciled.
I think that the last option seems the most plausible in this case. Here is the entirety of the paragraph from which Maxperson's quote comes:
Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play this game, not one made up on the spot. By the same token, they are playing the game the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it. Remembering that the game is greater than its parts, and knowing all of the parts, you will have overcome the greater part of the challenge of being a referee. Being a true DM requires cleverness and imagination which no set of rules books can bestow. Seeing that you were clever enough to buy this volume, and you have enough imagination to desire to become the maker of a fantasy world, you are almost there already! Read and become familiar with the contents of this work and the one written for players, learn your monsters,
and spice things up with some pantheons of super-powerful beings. Then put your judging and refereeing ability into the creation of your own personal milieu, and you have donned the mantle of Dungeon Master. Welcome to the exalted ranks of the overworked and harrassed, whose cleverness and imagination are all too often unappreciated by cloddish characters whose only thought in life is to loot, pillage, slay, and who fail to appreciate the hours of preparation which went into the creation of what they aim to destroy as cheaply and quickly as possible. As a DM you must live by the immortal words of the sage who said: “Never give a sucker an even break.” Also, don‘t be a sucker for your players, for you‘d better be sure they follow sage advice too. As the DM, you have to prove in every game that you are still the best. This book is dedicated to helping to assure that you are.
Clearly the adversarial tone of this paragraph is intended in humour. But the message of the last part of the paragraph seems clear enough: in adjudicating the game, and especially setting up and adjudicating the fiction, the GM should be impartial rather than easily swayed by self-interested players. (Rembering, as the references to looting etc make clear, that the whole assumption that informs this paragraph is that the GM is designing a world which provides opportunities for the players to acquire XP by looting and, to some extent, killing.)
The earlier part of the paragraph, which includes what Maxperson quoted, stresses that the players want to play
this game (ie AD&D) but also that the GM must arbitrate and not simply interpret the rules. What does Gygax have in mind here? To me, at least, a key idea - reinforced by what the paragraph goes on to discuss - seems to be that the GM has to establish and adjudicate the fiction. Eg deciding what happens when a player delcares that his/her PC pokes the 10' pole into the green demon mouth isn't primarily a matter of rules interpretation (the rules for spheres of annihilation simply aren't that rich) but of adjudication of the fiction.
My view is that it's very clear, not just in this paragraph but throughout classic D&D rulebooks, both in word and in tenor, that the GM is the one who must adjudicate the fiction. (Which takes us back to the discussion of "free kriegsspiel" way upthread.) But that doesn't mean that the GM has sole authority over the entirety of the campaign. Which is where the "superior alloy" idea comes in. The players don't
adjudicate the fiction, but I think they are expected to
contribute to it - or, at least, the "better" players are. This may involve anything from inventing new dungeon tactics, to trying new combinations of spells and items, to conceiving of madcap schemes to take over rulership of the 20th level of the Greyahwk dungeon, or whatever it might be. Why does the DMG have rules for two-weapon fighting? Almost certainly because a player asked what happens if his/her PC wields two weapons! The idea that the limits of the players' imaginations should be set by the limits of the GM's imagination is not something that I find at all in these classic D&D books. Quite the opposite - it's expected that the GM will be having to respond, all the time, to players who push the envelope! Hence the importance of the GM "prov[ing] in every game that [s/he is] still the best." S/he has to be able to keep up with the players, and handle whatever adjudicative challenges they throw his/her way.
I personally think there is a marked contrast in tone between these classic texts, and this particular version of the player/GM dynamic that they put forward, and the 2nd ed PHB (pp 9, 18, 47, 49):
An adventure usually has a goal of some sort: protect the villagers from the monsters; rescue the lost princess; explore the ancient ruins. . . .
Remember, the point of an adventure is not to win but to have fun while working toward a common goal. . . .
t is possible to turn . . ."disappointing" stats into a character who is both interesting and fun to play. Too often players become obsessed with "good" stats. These players immediately give up on a character if he doesn't have a majority of above-average scores. There are even those who feel a character is hopeless if he does not have at least one ability of 17 or higher! Needless to say, these players would never consider playing a character with an ability score of 6 or 7.
In truth, [a PC]'s survivability has a lot less to do with his ability scores than with your desire to role-play him. If you give up on him, of course he won't survive! But if you take an interest in the character and role-play him well, then even a character with the lowest possible scores can present a fun, challenging, and all-around exciting time. Does he have a Charisma of 5? Why? Maybe he's got an ugly scar. His table manners could be atrocious. He might mean well but always manage to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. He could be bluntly honest to the point of rudeness, something not likely to endear him to most people. His Dexterity is a 3? Why? Is he naturally clumsy or blind as a bat?
Don't give up on a character just because he has a low score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him. . . .
[A]lignment is an aid to role-playing and should be used that way. Don't choose an alignment that will be hard to role play or that won't be fun. A player who chooses an unappealing alignment probably will wind up playing a different alignment anyway. In that case, he might as well have chosen the second alignment to begin with. A player who thinks that lawful good characters are boring goody-two-shoes who don't get to have any fun should play a chaotic good character instead. On the other hand, a player who thinks that properly role-playing a heroic, lawful good fighter would be an interesting challenge is encouraged to try it. . . .
[T]he game revolves around cooperation among everyone in the group. The character who tries to go it alone or gets everyone angry at him is likely to have a short career. Always consider the alignments of other characters in the group. Certain combinations, particularly lawful good and any sort of evil, are explosive. Sooner or later the group will find itself spending more time arguing than adventuring. Some of this is unavoidable (and occasionally amusing), but too much is ultimately destructive. . . .
Ultimately, the player is advised to pick an alignment he can play comfortably, one that fits in with those of the rest of the group, and he should stay with that alignment for the course of the character's career. There will be times when the DM, especially if he is clever, creates situations to test the character's resolve and ethics. But finding the right course of action within the character's alignment is part of the fun and challenge of roleplaying.
To me, at least, these passages suggest a much more passive role for the players than Gygax seems to envisage. There is no suggestion that they will test the GM! Rather, they will enjoy the experience of "roleplaying" their characters, which seems to mean manifesting their PCs' personalities without too much regard to whether or not this will lead to success at goals, but not to such an extent as might disrupt group cohesion.
When players approach the game in that spirit, it seems a natural consequence that the role of the GM in shaping the fiction will be quite predominant if not exclusive.
