EGG on 'The Spirit of AD&D'

[Voadam]

pg 26 Role-Playing Mastery (1987), by E Gary Gygax:

"This is a fantasy RPG predicated on the assumption that the human race, by and large, is made up of good people. Humans, with the help of their demi-human allies, are and should remain the predominant force in the world. They have achieved and continue to hold on to this status, despite the ever-present threat of evil, mainly because of the dedication, honor, and unselfishness of the most heroic humans and demi-humans - the characters whose roles are taken by the players of the game."

I'm sorely tempted to apply some cultural Marxist Frankfurt School Deconstruction/Critique to this, but I'll just say I thought this was a very interesting perspective. I wondered to what extent you think your own D&D games and campaign worlds conform to this analysis?

In my Wildwood game humans are not on the list of predominant forces on the continent realm. They predominate the choices players have made for character races even given huge numbers of choices, but the setting as I run it is dominated by dragons, dover (canine humanoids) elves, goblinoids, gnolls, and lycanthropes (and generally non human lycanthropes). Trolls, hags, and treants are the next tier. Humans don't make the list as I have set things up though any race can fit in due to the nature of the setting.

In my Freeport game humans dominate. PCs are more good but it is a pulpy style setting with a lot of not nice people.

In my dwarven veangance game humanity dominated the surface world, but had no significant presence in the underdark or the planes.

 

[jdrakeh]

This is just another example of Gary's consistent inconsistency when commenting on the D&D game. On numerous occasions he has asserted that D&D is primarily based on and intended to emulate the pulp sword and sorcery genre (as typified by the works of Howard, Leiber, Vance, Burroughs, Lovecraft, etc.). A quick perusal of that genre reveals worlds where the vast majority of humanity is corrupt, selfish, short-sighted and dishonorable, and the protagonists rarely act in anything other than their own self interest. Most of the conquests over evil associated with the heroes of S&S fiction derive accidentally from some quest for personal comfort or survival, not because of an altruistic or honorable dedication to the greater good (i.e. seeking out evil and destroying it for the greater good of humanity). As much as Gary likes to insist that Lord of the Rings wasn't a major influence on the conception of the D&D game, the above certainly sounds more like Tolkien's world-view of humans and demi-human than anything you're likely to encounter in Howard, Leiber or any of the other S&S authors Gary does cite as major influences (should you encounter anything corresponding to a demi-human at all, which is rare).

All good, valid, points, though hardly unique to Mr. Gygax. There are a great many people on these very forums who, failing to understand genre classification at all, erroneously file things like Lord of the Rings or many similarly High Fantasy D&D settings under the Swords & Sorcery genre heading.

 

[Desdichado]

pg 26 Role-Playing Mastery (1987), by E Gary Gygax:

"This is a fantasy RPG predicated on the assumption that the human race, by and large, is made up of good people. Humans, with the help of their demi-human allies, are and should remain the predominant force in the world. They have achieved and continue to hold on to this status, despite the ever-present threat of evil, mainly because of the dedication, honor, and unselfishness of the most heroic humans and demi-humans - the characters whose roles are taken by the players of the game."

I'm sorely tempted to apply some cultural Marxist Frankfurt School Deconstruction/Critique to this, but I'll just say I thought this was a very interesting perspective. I wondered to what extent you think your own D&D games and campaign worlds conform to this analysis?

Very, very little. My campaigns don't conform to the "standard" story of D&D very often, though. I think it's terribly trite and boring.

Rather, my campaigns tend to be occult versions of a Robert Ludlum story. Some humans are good. Some are very, very bad. The vast majority are apathetic. The bad ones make a big mess. The PC's---usually for very selfish reasons, end up opposing them. Status quo is more or less preserved, occasionally with a major shake-up of the power structure. Even the best ones have to use questionable practices to accomplish what needs doing.

I'd rather do away with demi-humans altogether.

 

[haakon1]

Duty to an "evil" regime

I've been thinking about the argument that PC's can't be heroic if the world they are saving is not good.

Generally, I think that's true, but I think an exceptional version might be interesting.

I'm thinking of things like Rommel (and many members of the Wehrmacht) in WWII. When there's a conflict between the professional and patriotic duty to serve your country and protect your men, and the moral duty to oppose a clearly evil leader and or country, whaddya do? Conflict = drama, so it could be interesting.

Less extreme examples would be a South African apartheid era soldier fighting the ANC terrorists or the communist in Angola. Or an good-hearted cop trying to help people, but serving a colonial regime or the pre-1964 American South. Late Roman soldier capturing slaves and defending the frontier against the barbarians. You get the idea.

I can imagine a similar D&D campaign, where duty and honor are clear, but what exactly they require is not.

 

[LostSoul]

IMHO, you look at what the individual players want. If one player wants heavy RPing, and another wants heavy combat, you reward the combat-guy for letting the RP-guy do his thing by making sure that a fair percentage of those RP bits lead directly into combat. Likewise, you make sure that a fair percentage of combats include, or lead directly to, RP opportunities.

How do you do that without railroading?

 

[S'mon]

I've been thinking about the argument that PC's can't be heroic if the world they are saving is not good.

Generally, I think that's true, but I think an exceptional version might be interesting.

I'm thinking of things like Rommel (and many members of the Wehrmacht) in WWII. When there's a conflict between the professional and patriotic duty to serve your country and protect your men, and the moral duty to oppose a clearly evil leader and or country, whaddya do? Conflict = drama, so it could be interesting.

Less extreme examples would be a South African apartheid era soldier fighting the ANC terrorists or the communist in Angola. Or an good-hearted cop trying to help people, but serving a colonial regime or the pre-1964 American South. Late Roman soldier capturing slaves and defending the frontier against the barbarians. You get the idea.

I can imagine a similar D&D campaign, where duty and honor are clear, but what exactly they require is not.

I like a bit of moral ambiguity in my games. One of my favourite campaigns was the one set in Mystara's Empire of Thyatis, a Rome-analogue ideal for a more shades-of-grey approach.

 

[Mallus]

IMHO, you look at what the individual players want. If one player wants heavy RPing, and another wants heavy combat, you reward the combat-guy for letting the RP-guy do his thing by making sure that a fair percentage of those RP bits lead directly into combat. Likewise, you make sure that a fair percentage of combats include, or lead directly to, RP opportunities.

Make what one player wants into the reward for doing what the other players want, and you will have a happier table! IME, at least.

RC, I'd like to take this opportunity to agree with you %100. Fine advice. Kudos.

 

[Reynard]

All good, valid, points, though hardly unique to Mr. Gygax. There are a great many people on these very forums who, failing to understand genre classification at all, erroneously file things like Lord of the Rings or many similarly High Fantasy D&D settings under the Swords & Sorcery genre heading.

I think it is worth noting that the quoted passage was from a book written in 1987 -- a decade after the introduction of AD&D. People's opinions and perspectives do change over time. I am curious -- what tone, in respect to the subject of the thread, do EGG's more recent games and gaming materials present?

 

[Hussar]

Well said Ourph.

It's funny. Some around here have trumpetted the need for 4e to emulate S&S fiction, particularly Conan very strongly. Yet, Conan is about as far from the OP's quote as you can get. Yet, that same person is nodding sagely in tune with what Gygax wrote.

Irony's funny.

 

[S'mon]

I think it is worth noting that the quoted passage was from a book written in 1987 -- a decade after the introduction of AD&D. People's opinions and perspectives do change over time. I am curious -- what tone, in respect to the subject of the thread, do EGG's more recent games and gaming materials present?

The ones I've bought have had a heavy emphasis on fey/fairy type critters. Both Hall of Many Panes and The Hermit involve seeking for a missing person, employed by Good (Hall) or evil (Hermit) individual to do so, and encountering much whimsy and strangeness. Both were written for his Legendary Adventures game.