D&D General Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Magic Missile: Why Gygax Still Matters to Me

[EzekielRaiden]

The problem is that we can’t extrapolate too much from the 1e DMG to Gygax’s home game, because even he over the course of time discussed that he didn’t follow many of the rules he wrote.

Which, of course, just makes the whole situation that much worse from a game design perspective.

There are a lot of people who treat so-called "Tradition" as though it were the single most important thing about being D&D. But many of those so-called "Traditional" elements...were just off-the-cuff stuff, or something intended for one specific campaign context (e.g. the entire Cleric class), or entirely unexplained (e.g. the fact that armor was functionally a survival bonus with an XP penalty attached), etc.

So we are now hamstrung as designers, because stuff that never had any design intent behind it at all is utterly immutable; to question it is to question the very heart of D&D. Yet, conversely, things that were just as classic and just as off-the-cuff--like the sci-fi elements of Expedition to the Barrier Peaks--are utterly verboten, never to be included except in their time-locked historical context.

It's just incredibly frustrating to me as a player that a huge space of effective, productive game design is absolutely forbidden because a group of people did something on a lark 50 years ago, and now no one is allowed to question or displace it.

Edit: And to be clear, I actually think Gygax had some pretty good design chops. Several of his off-the-cuff answers were much better than one would expect from an experienced DM today, let alone someone living at a time when TTRPGs were still in their infancy. But to have the TTRPG locked so hard into what it was 50+ years ago, never to be altered for fear of a fandom revolt--something the revolutionaries are all too keen to do, since it's now been proven to work spectacularly (for them)--is just so frustrating and saddening. Our hobby theoretically embraces the full spectrum of human imagination; so of course we concern ourselves only with one hyperspecific context (faux-medieval pseudo-Tolkienesque schizotech humanocentric Dung Ages settings with Maximized Fantasy Racism), with one playstyle (dungeon heisting with a light sprinkling of RP), etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which, of course, just makes the whole situation that much worse from a game design perspective.

There are a lot of people who treat so-called "Tradition" as though it were the single most important thing about being D&D. But many of those so-called "Traditional" elements...were just off-the-cuff stuff, or something intended for one specific campaign context (e.g. the entire Cleric class), or entirely unexplained (e.g. the fact that armor was functionally a survival bonus with an XP penalty attached), etc.

So we are now hamstrung as designers, because stuff that never had any design intent behind it at all is utterly immutable; to question it is to question the very heart of D&D. Yet, conversely, things that were just as classic and just as off-the-cuff--like the sci-fi elements of Expedition to the Barrier Peaks--are utterly verboten, never to be included except in their time-locked historical context.

It's just incredibly frustrating to me as a player that a huge space of effective, productive game design is absolutely forbidden because a group of people did something on a lark 50 years ago, and now no one is allowed to question or displace it.

Edit: And to be clear, I actually think Gygax had some pretty good design chops. Several of his off-the-cuff answers were much better than one would expect from an experienced DM today, let alone someone living at a time when TTRPGs were still in their infancy. But to have the TTRPG locked so hard into what it was 50+ years ago, never to be altered for fear of a fandom revolt--something the revolutionaries are all too keen to do, since it's now been proven to work spectacularly (for them)--is just so frustrating and saddening. Our hobby theoretically embraces the full spectrum of human imagination; so of course we concern ourselves only with one hyperspecific context (faux-medieval pseudo-Tolkienesque schizotech humanocentric Dung Ages settings with Maximized Fantasy Racism), with one playstyle (dungeon heisting with a light sprinkling of RP), etc.

It's not verboten: WotC just doesn't want to change it. But who cares? That's what other games are for.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's not verboten: WotC just doesn't want to change it. But who cares? That's what other games are for.

And those other games will never make more than ripples on an ocean, because D&D is always king. Even when PF1e was riding high...PF1e was D&D too. And just as much trapped in those "traditions," including some that only came into existence with 3.x specifically (like screwing over Fighters for skills, one of the few sacred cows 4e didn't kill and absolutely 100% should have.)

 

[MGibster]

There are a lot of people who treat so-called "Tradition" as though it were the single most important thing about being D&D. But many of those so-called "Traditional" elements...were just off-the-cuff stuff, or something intended for one specific campaign context (e.g. the entire Cleric class), or entirely unexplained (e.g. the fact that armor was functionally a survival bonus with an XP penalty attached), etc.

That's kind of how tradition works, right? At some point people started doing something for some reason and they just kept doing it. I still put up a Christmas tree every year even though I have no firm idea of why people started doing it in the first place. At this point, I expect the Cleric and other classes to be a part of D&D largely because they've always been a part of D&D from my perspective (even if that isn't historically true). The same goes for hit points, levels, classes, etc., etc. I expect them to continue being a part of D&D.

It's just incredibly frustrating to me as a player that a huge space of effective, productive game design is absolutely forbidden because a group of people did something on a lark 50 years ago, and now no one is allowed to question or displace it.

Forbidden by who? There are plenty of other games besides D&D. There are plenty of other fantasy games besides D&D. After 50 years, D&D has an identity. Maybe it didn't start out that way, but that's where we are now.

 

[payn]

And those other games will never make more than ripples on an ocean, because D&D is always king. Even when PF1e was riding high...PF1e was D&D too. And just as much trapped in those "traditions," including some that only came into existence with 3.x specifically (like screwing over Fighters for skills, one of the few sacred cows 4e didn't kill and absolutely 100% should have.)

I think PF2 shows that there is a way out though.

 

[mamba]

The problem is that we can’t extrapolate too much from the 1e DMG to Gygax’s home game, because even he over the course of time discussed that he didn’t follow many of the rules he wrote.

makes one wonder why he wrote them like that in the first place

 

[Bedrockgames]

So we are now hamstrung as designers, because stuff that never had any design intent behind it at all is utterly immutable; to question it is to question the very heart of D&D. Yet, conversely, things that were just as classic and just as off-the-cuff--like the sci-fi elements of Expedition to the Barrier Peaks--are utterly verboten, never to be included except in their time-locked historical context.

I would say this isn;t the case at all. We are free to design RPGs however we want and people all over are doing so. I don't even make d20 games myself. Plenty of people are experimenting with different concepts and ideas in RPGs. There is no limit whatsoever to design and the bar to entry is incredibly low with POD and platforms like Drivethru and Itch.io.

What is true is D&D is a very mainstream game and appeals to a broad swath of the hobby so for it to remain so, it must cleave to certain concepts so it expands while not losing people. Some experiments have worked well for them. I am not a big fan, but adding skills and feats to the game was hugely popular and a big change from how it operated before. Other changes haven't gone over as well and they have had to backtrack. With each edition, they are able to test that out and see where they can go.

One thing I will say about 'tradition' in D&D. I don't think most of us who are praising the 1E DMG or classic D&D are worshipping tradition for its own sake. There is plenty in classic D&D I ignore. But what we recognize is there is something about D&D that works well. We can debate what it is. I just notice when I break from other games and go back to D&D it is reliable in terms of you sit down with the books to prep and it works, and a long term campaign is very easy to sustain. I don't pretend to know exactly why, or to know which aspects of the tradition of the game are responsible but I suspect things like a character creation system built around simple choices like Class and Race, around the mini game of rolling stats (admittedly this may be less the case now), levels, having a vast tome of monsters and magic items, conceits like the dungeon and wilderness, etc are all a big part of it.

 

[mamba]

And those other games will never make more than ripples on an ocean, because D&D is always king. Even when PF1e was riding high...PF1e was D&D too.

D&D became the big game, not eg Traveller. That one was sci-fi and one was not might have something to do with it too.

There are plenty of games if you want something other than medieval fantasy, I don’t think trying to make D&D something other than that stands a chance. If you do not want that, you are not playing D&D already and those that do play D&D will fight you over turning it into something they do not want

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's kind of how tradition works, right?

Occasionally. I find most IRL traditions actually do have real weight and value behind them, and are often much better-understood than the "traditions" of D&D.

I still put up a Christmas tree every year even though I have no firm idea of why people started doing it in the first place.

It was originally a pagan ritual (hence tinsel and candles/lights), with the tree having various symbolic meanings. Immortality/life beyond death (because it is evergreen, despite the winter), sacred pillar, possible links to the World Tree, to Odin sacrificing himself to himself by hanging himself from said World Tree, etc.

At this point, I expect the Cleric and other classes to be a part of D&D largely because they've always been a part of D&D from my perspective (even if that isn't historically true). The same goes for hit points, levels, classes, etc., etc. I expect them to continue being a part of D&D.

Other than the Cleric, those aren't the sorts of things I'm talking about. I'm talking about fireball being overpowered for its level because it's always been overpowered for its level because it was, originally, a literal grenade recast as a spell. I'm talking about Wizards being the most powerful class because of course if you're tapping the fundamental secrets of existence you're just flat better than everyone else. I'm talking, as noted above, Fighters getting shortchanged on skills because that was a thing 3e did and somehow it instantly became a tradition everyone (even folks critical of following tradition!) would just...follow along with.

Forbidden by who? There are plenty of other games besides D&D. There are plenty of other fantasy games besides D&D. After 50 years, D&D has an identity. Maybe it didn't start out that way, but that's where we are now.

The community at large.

You say there are plenty of other games. I literally cannot find people to play them.

There is a difference between "having an identity" and "no, we can't ever reconsider whether the Cleric should really be a Priest." There is a difference between "having an identity" and "Dexterity is, was, and always will be the God Stat." Etc. These are "traditions" that genuinely hold back the game from delivering better on its stated design goals AND on the "feel" that people are so eager to chase. They genuinely prevent us from recapturing the special-ness, the "making magic feel magical again," "making magic items special," etc. Because somehow we have to make everything feel magical and yet not change anything.

And, perhaps most importantly of all, there is a vast difference between "having an identity" and "99.999% of settings are cookie-cutter copies of one another, especially the setting that WILL be enforced on everyone." Which, for now, remains Forgotten Realms, even with the pivot to Greyhawk (which I still don't know how Greyhawk actually differs from FR, thematically, other than being rather more blatantly grimdark.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think most of us who are praising the 1E DMG or classic D&D are worshipping tradition for its own sake.

That is not the experience I have had when discussing "tradition" with essentially anyone previously. If it doesn't hew extremely close to tradition--with minor allowances made for it being a different system so it can't be 100% identical--then it's not only not good, it is morally unacceptable.

Hypertraditionalism is second only to hyperreductionism in the current vogue.

I don't pretend to know exactly why, or to know which aspects of the tradition of the game are responsible but I suspect things like a character creation system built around simple choices like Class and Race, around the mini game of rolling stats (admittedly this may be less the case now), levels, having a vast tome of monsters and magic items, conceits like the dungeon and wilderness, etc are all a big part of it.

Not one of those things is what I'm talking about.