Afterword

Charles Wright · Aug 4, 2014

pemerton · Aug 4, 2014

I think this is rather self-serving on the publisher's part. Why should I, as an invididual RPGer, put "the game" first? For me, the participants in my game come first, my campaign next (and it is basically a function and consequence of the actions of those participants; it has no existence independent of them). The interests of "the game" - whatever exactly those might be beyond the commercial interests of WotC and TSR - come last.

If that is not playing D&D as it was meant to be played, well so much the worst for D&D - I am not going to let some barracks room lawyer force quotations from a rule book upon me!

Charles Wright · Aug 4, 2014

All I did was post the words of E. Gary Gygax. I'm not imposing anything.

Umbran · Aug 4, 2014

pemerton said:
I think this is rather self-serving on the publisher's part. Why should I, as an invididual RPGer, put "the game" first? For me, the participants in my game come first, my campaign next (and it is basically a function and consequence of the actions of those participants; it has no existence independent of them). The interests of "the game" - whatever exactly those might be beyond the commercial interests of WotC and TSR - come last.

Two things:

1) Context in time means something. Gygax was writing at a time when "campaign" often meant something rather different than it does today. A Campaign was a shared world, which may be played in by dozens of players over time. Putting a half-dozen of those players first may have impact upon a dozen others - sometimes the needs of the many may outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

2) I think you're reading "the game" with a prejudice. I don't think he meant "the game" to mean anything related to TSR's commercial interests. Since hes talking about the DM going outside of the printed words in the rulebooks, that seems pretty evident to me. He is being a tad pretentious, perhaps, but he's trying to put the DM in a context where they wouldn't as easily get pushed about by players - the game, the long-term thing the players and DM share, was to take precedence over anything going on in a particular session of play.

And, I'm not sure you'll argue with that - it is basically telling the DM that you have to worry about what precedent you set with any given ruling - either when it is going strictly by the book, or deviating from it, it sets expectations.

pemerton · Aug 4, 2014

Umbran said:
Gygax was writing at a time when "campaign" often meant something rather different than it does today. A Campaign was a shared world, which may be played in by dozens of players over time. Putting a half-dozen of those players first may have impact upon a dozen others - sometimes the needs of the many may outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

I know what Gygax had in mind, but I think even in 1979 that was probably a minority way of playing, and within a year or two, when Moldvay Basic came out, I think that it was cetainly a minority way of playing.

More generallly, though, I think that Gygax is emphasising the integrity of the GM's creation over the experience of the players. That's not unreasonable or anything - it was debated in the letters pages and articles of the magazines of that time, and it continues to be debated on these boards today - but it's not a position I agree with.

Umbran said:
I think you're reading "the game" with a prejudice. I don't think he meant "the game" to mean anything related to TSR's commercial interests. Since hes talking about the DM going outside of the printed words in the rulebooks, that seems pretty evident to me. He is being a tad pretentious, perhaps, but he's trying to put the DM in a context where they wouldn't as easily get pushed about by players - the game, the long-term thing the players and DM share, was to take precedence over anything going on in a particular session of play.

You may be, probably are, right about that. Though I think there is also a heavy emphasis in the AD&D books on the virtues of "official" rules and the threat posed by various alternatives (eg the attacks upon variant combat and spell systems sprinkled throughout the books). I don't think Gygax is clearly distinguishing "the game" as an individual groups play experience and "the game" as a commercial offering from TSR in competition with other systems like T&T, C&S etc, which he clearly is arguing are inferior.

Charles Wright said:
All I did was post the words of E. Gary Gygax. I'm not imposing anything.

Well, in part I was being ironic - or, rather, pointing to what I take to be an irony in giving such forceful instructions about how priorities should be ordered in a passage that tells the reader to prioritise the spirit of things over the written word. (By contrast, when Moldvay talks about "guidelines not rules" he doesn't then go on to say how things should be.)

But I did take your post to be an endorsement, to at least some extent, of Gygax's passage. Otherwise why post it without further comment?

Charles Wright · Aug 4, 2014

Mostly because I think that it's a part of play that has been lost by a lot of people I see posting.

When I started playing the idea was to put the game first. What that meant was "putting fun first". Doing so at the expense of the other players (which includes the person running the game) wasn't good for the game (everyone having fun).

Using the rules to bully other players (which includes the DM) is not something I endorse.

What I endorse, and how I've played the game in the past and play it now is that I create a world and I invite people to take part in it. To help me grow and create that world. I think of the DM-Player relationship as inherently cooperative. I think that people who don't like this quote think of that relationship as inherently antagonistic.

This saddens me because I feel that they aren't playing to the original spirit of the game. It also saddens me because I think that a cooperative game isn't possible when you've cowed the person running the game under the guise of "player advocacy".

Raith5 · Aug 4, 2014

Charles Wright said:
Mostly because I think that it's a part of play that has been lost by a lot of people I see posting.

When I started playing the idea was to put the game first. What that meant was "putting fun first". Doing so at the expense of the other players (which includes the person running the game) wasn't good for the game (everyone having fun).

Using the rules to bully other players (which includes the DM) is not something I endorse.

What I endorse, and how I've played the game in the past and play it now is that I create a world and I invite people to take part in it. To help me grow and create that world. I think of the DM-Player relationship as inherently cooperative. I think that people who don't like this quote think of that relationship as inherently antagonistic.

This saddens me because I feel that they aren't playing to the original spirit of the game. It also saddens me because I think that a cooperative game isn't possible when you've cowed the person running the game under the guise of "player advocacy".

I agree with you about a cooperative or shared relationship between players and DM being important. But I see common rules as being the core of that relationship - not external to it.

The problem as I see it is that when I first played AD&D I had to play it like the Afterword says and ignore stuff here and there (and fudge things) because the rules were not always clear, consistent or fun. But each edition of D&D have improved this IMO . DMs in 4e and 5e can still frame things and challenge players in lots of ways but they dont have to bend or break fundamental rules. Furthermore in 4e and 5e there seem to be more resources for players to draw from - so they can do things without asking anyone - but these resources are constrained. So I dont see anyone being cowed in this context and the fun still fundamentally depends on the DM's scene setting ability.

ExploderWizard · Aug 4, 2014

Umbran said:
Two things:

1) Context in time means something. Gygax was writing at a time when "campaign" often meant something rather different than it does today. A Campaign was a shared world, which may be played in by dozens of players over time. Putting a half-dozen of those players first may have impact upon a dozen others - sometimes the needs of the many may outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

2) I think you're reading "the game" with a prejudice. I don't think he meant "the game" to mean anything related to TSR's commercial interests. Since hes talking about the DM going outside of the printed words in the rulebooks, that seems pretty evident to me. He is being a tad pretentious, perhaps, but he's trying to put the DM in a context where they wouldn't as easily get pushed about by players - the game, the long-term thing the players and DM share, was to take precedence over anything going on in a particular session of play.

And, I'm not sure you'll argue with that - it is basically telling the DM that you have to worry about what precedent you set with any given ruling - either when it is going strictly by the book, or deviating from it, it sets expectations.

+1 Can't give XP at the moment. A rain check perhaps?

"The game" as described is indeed not about a particular product or product line. The game refers to the good time and ongoing fun to be had by ALL participants. Any rulings or judgment calls that put that above all else are kind of necessary for long term enjoyment. A more voluminous code of RAW may seem like a replacement for this but it really isn't. When viewed in this light, putting the game first IS actually putting the interests of the participants as a collective whole first.

The temporary desires of individual participants will come into conflict with the needs of the game from time to time. It is these specific desires which are subservient to the game.

billd91 · Aug 4, 2014

pemerton said:
I know what Gygax had in mind, but I think even in 1979 that was probably a minority way of playing, and within a year or two, when Moldvay Basic came out, I think that it was cetainly a minority way of playing.

I'm not so sure it was. We may not have had multiple groups in the campaign with the intensity that Gygax did, but we did have some distinct groups with some overlapping members, playing in a campaign setting at one time and under the same DM. And the events occurring with one group would permanently affect the world and thus every other group playing in the campaign. And this was through the 1980s and into the 1990s.

I think the frequency with which you might see such a campaign may depend on the density of gamers in the area. Southern Wisconsin is pretty gamer-rich. But I couldn't begin to guess how gamer-dense anywhere in Australia is.