RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

The skill system was pretty chunky, so level 1 pilot makes a GOOD pilot, not extraordinary, but capable of holding a license and carrying out any routine piloting task. level 2 is an expert, like your average military/commercial level, level 3 is HIGHLY expert, and level 4 is basically the pinnacle of achievement in any field (not that level 5 and 6 are forbidden exactly, but getting them via the normal lifepath is pretty much impossible). I always assumed that Miller shared my penchant for simple, direct presentation of things, and eschewed tiny variations that make practically no difference in practice: such as all the 1% skill increments of BRP, which just don't matter.

While I'm of two minds about that, the point is it wouldn't have been hard to implement something like what you mentioned below where you went up in a rank after, say, "X times Y hours of use" where X was your current rank + 1. Y would just have had to be a relatively large number.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The "role-playing" in role-playing game speaks directly to it being, in part, theatre. Not theatre as in putting on a show to entertain a passive audience (Critical Role et al notwithstanding!) but theatre as in inhabiting a character to whatever extent and framing one's declarations in terms of what that character would do in that moment*. Even if just superficially, you're playing a role; as opposed to playing in purely pawn-stance (or avatar) mode which - while it can be done - defeats much of the purpose.

This theatre piece is the Braunstein influence. I'm not sure if you've ever played Braunstein. I have, and honestly it more resembled a non-costumed and almost rules-absent LARP than a TTRPG as we know it: all you can do is think as your character and say (and in some cases do) what it would. The GM describes the setting to everyone and explains the situation, each player gets a short page of notes specific to their character, and after that - other than occasionally announcing that another in-game day has passed - the GM largely stands back and watches the fun.

* - the 1e DMG play example demonstrates this fairly well, I think. The oD&D play example you quoted does not, which only goes to show how play within the game had evolved between 1974 and 1979.
I don't think there was a ton of shift in how most of us played that I would attribute to either the rules evolutions between D&D and AD&D, nor to some more general evolution of the community's techniques of play. It was more like a personal evolution. You started out playing D&D in basically pawn stance, or at least 'avatar stance' where you were basically YOU. After you play for a while that gets old. Many people just stopped playing at that point, but those of us who were interested began to gradually develop more sophisticated characters which had somewhat of a 'life of their own' so to speak.

Now, maybe these days many people start out at that point, but there wasn't some great advance in overall ideas about play between 1974 and 1990 at least.

And then of course there's the personal style thing too. I personally don't tend to spend a lot of my time speaking in character. I might be more likely to say "I do X" as being 'in character' (I mean, you do have to kinda do that, unless you are playing my old college roommate who would keep a running monologe going of everything he was doing).
 

While I'm of two minds about that, the point is it wouldn't have been hard to implement something like what you mentioned below where you went up in a rank after, say, "X times Y hours of use" where X was your current rank + 1. Y would just have had to be a relatively large number.
Yeah, and then you have to figure out what you mean by 'hours of use' when players are very obviously not RPing every minute of piloting a starship! Nor will you achieve some form of 'realism' that way as it is pretty close to impossible to say what the relative worth of practice for highly divergent skills is. I mean we might imagine that an analogy with airline pilots would lead one to the conclusion that 1000's of hours are spent attaining the highest levels of mastery, but is that also true of Streetwise? And who runs characters for 20 years of the PC's life to accumulate realistic levels of skill anyway?

No, for those who wish to play a progressive type of game of Traveller, the "gain a tenth of a skill point after every consequential use" rule wasn't too bad. It still means advancement is very slow in terms of play time, and few PCs will gain more than a point or three before meeting their demise. Still, I guess it gives some people something to aim for, and a little 'reinforcement' too I suppose. It certainly wasn't a core part of the game as designed! I think that's sufficient to illustrate the non-centrality of both progression and reinforcement as paradigms, though both are quite commonly found in TTRPGs.
 

I don't think there was a ton of shift in how most of us played that I would attribute to either the rules evolutions between D&D and AD&D, nor to some more general evolution of the community's techniques of play. It was more like a personal evolution. You started out playing D&D in basically pawn stance, or at least 'avatar stance' where you were basically YOU. After you play for a while that gets old. Many people just stopped playing at that point, but those of us who were interested began to gradually develop more sophisticated characters which had somewhat of a 'life of their own' so to speak.
The two examples of play (1974 and 1979) show a fairly noticeable difference in their styles; particularly in how the players communicate to the DM and each other.
And then of course there's the personal style thing too. I personally don't tend to spend a lot of my time speaking in character. I might be more likely to say "I do X" as being 'in character' (I mean, you do have to kinda do that, unless you are playing my old college roommate who would keep a running monologe going of everything he was doing).
A fully-pawn-stance player wouldn't say "I do X", instead it'd be "Terazon does X" where Terazon is the name of his character.
 

And then of course there's the personal style thing too. I personally don't tend to spend a lot of my time speaking in character. I might be more likely to say "I do X" as being 'in character' (I mean, you do have to kinda do that, unless you are playing my old college roommate who would keep a running monologe going of everything he was doing).

The classic distinction if you want to stay in-character but mostly play in third-person is "[Character] does X."
 


The two examples of play (1974 and 1979) show a fairly noticeable difference in their styles; particularly in how the players communicate to the DM and each other.\
Sure, and that may say something about Gygax's changing views and techniques of play. I just don't think it means that everyone who started playing in 1979 went right out and played like the text in the AD&D DMG necessarily. Most of them probably started out tentatively playing in something closer to the 1974 style, though it would depend on the rest of the group and the individual of course. A lot of people you'd introduce to play today are likely to take the 1974 approach too, at first.

A fully-pawn-stance player wouldn't say "I do X", instead it'd be "Terazon does X" where Terazon is the name of his character.

Oh, I think people are less careful and precise in their speech though. I mean, I might say "I do it" or "Takeo does it" or even elaborate in first person fashion on my state of mind and such. It all depends. I personally was never all that wrapped up in stylistic considerations of play. I'm not even sure that these modes of speech actually tell us much about what someone is doing in play.
 


The "role-playing" in role-playing game speaks directly to it being, in part, theatre. Not theatre as in putting on a show to entertain a passive audience (Critical Role et al notwithstanding!) but theatre as in inhabiting a character to whatever extent and framing one's declarations in terms of what that character would do in that moment*. Even if just superficially, you're playing a role; as opposed to playing in purely pawn-stance (or avatar) mode which - while it can be done - defeats much of the purpose.
In the quote upthread from Men & Magic, we see "Before they begin, players must decide what role they will play in the campaign, humans or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user."

This is echoed in Gygax's PHB, where (p 18) it says that "The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class (or multi-class)."

I think these passages make it pretty clear that the core of the "role" in roleplaying is functional - what abilities does the player's character enjoy, in the fiction? The character goals are all taken to be the same, namely, acquiring loot such that the player can gain levels by earning XP. This is why we see, in the PHB (p 106), the following:

Experience is the measure of a character's ability in his or her chosen profession, the character's class. . . .

Gaining experience points through the acquisition of gold pieces and by slaying monsters might be questioned by some individuals as non-representative of how an actual character would become more able in his or her class. Admittedly, this is so . . . This is a game, however, a fantasy game, and suspension of disbelief is required. . . . While praying and religious-oriented acts are more properly the activities for which a cleric would gain experience points, this is not the stuff of exciting swords & sorcery adventure. So too, fighters need physical training and weapons practice, magic-users long hours of study in tomes of arcane lore, and thieves the repetition of their manual skills and discernitory prowess; but none of this is suitable to gaming. It is, therefore, discarded and subsumed as taking place on a character's "off hours".​

The DMG (p 86) similarly says that

Players who bolk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along. Similarly, fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts, tilting at the lists, and engaging in weapons practice of various sorts to gain real expertise (experience); magic-users should be deciphering old scrolls, searching ancient tomes, experimenting alchemically, and so forth; while thieves should spend their off-hours honing their skills, "casing" various buildings, watching potential victims, and carefully planning their next "job". All very realistic but conducive to non-game boredom!​

Of course, and somewhat contra Gygax, it is possible to make a FRPG that has a significant place for activities like clerics praying and engaging in ritual, fighters tilting and riding, MUs engaging in magical experimentation, and thieves casing buildings and planning their jobs. Burning Wheel provides an example. But Gygax's real point in these passages, at least it seems to me, is that in his (and Arneson's) game, the goal of play is gaining XP, and the development of the player character by earning XP from gold is part of the feedback to and reward gained by the player, and hence we ignore the "realistic" stuff he describes.

And in his (and Arneson's) game, the character - defined primarily by class and secondarily by race - is the role that is adopted to pursue that goal. This is reinforced by PHB p 106, which first sets out the major aims of each character class,

clerics' major aims are to use their spell abilities to aid during any given encounter, fighters aim to engage in combat, magic-users aim to cast spells, thieves aim to make gain by stealth, and monks aim to use their unusual talents to come to successful ends​
.

and then says,

If characters gain treasure by pursuit of their major aims, then they are generally entitled to a full share of earned experience points awarded by the DM.​

The goal of play - treasure acquisition - is clearly defined; and the major aims of each class - the "role" - are the means that each player adopts to pursuing that goal.

The idea of class-as-role, establishing "major aims" or means whereby a player obtains treasure, is further reinforced by the discussion of rating play in the DMG, p 86:

Consider the natural functions of each class of character. . . . Briefly assess the performance of each character after an adventure. Did he or she perform basically in the character of his or her class? . . . Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity,
fighters who hang bock from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating.​

The fit between the PHB description of class roles, and of the DMG description of failures to perform those roles, is clear.

The only personality-type idea that figures in the account of role given by Gygax is alignment. We see this in the quoted passage from Men & Magic (about it being "necessary to determine what stance the character will take"); and again in the DMG p 86 discussion of rating players, where - in addition to the class role points that I've quoted just above - Gygax says that the GM must

Consider also the professed alignment of each character. Briefly assess the performance of each character after an adventure. . . . Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed alignment?​

None of the above is to deny the point that, in reality, many D&Ders (thought as @AbdulAlhazred points out, not necessarily all of them) started playing their characters more elaborately. And Gygax himself tips his hat to this point in the intro to his PHB, where (p 7) he writes that "Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by", although the same sentence goes on immediately to set out the goal of play: "and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown". Classic D&D, as presented by Gygax in his rulebooks (and in Moldvay's version of it), will need pretty extensive supplementation to be played with the goal being something other than the acquisition of treasure from dungeons and the like. The original OA provides an example of what such supplementation might look like (including variant XP rules for some classes), although I think it's still fair to say that the game OA presents is a bit incoherent. Another obvious supplementation, well-known in discussions of high-level classic D&D play, is the addition of genuine wargame rules so that the game shifts from dungeon/hex-crawling to domain management and conquest.

This theatre piece is the Braunstein influence. I'm not sure if you've ever played Braunstein. I have, and honestly it more resembled a non-costumed and almost rules-absent LARP than a TTRPG as we know it: all you can do is think as your character and say (and in some cases do) what it would. The GM describes the setting to everyone and explains the situation, each player gets a short page of notes specific to their character, and after that - other than occasionally announcing that another in-game day has passed - the GM largely stands back and watches the fun.
I've played freeform sessions and relatively free-form miniature scenarios where every character has a goal (analogous to your short page of character notes).

I've also seen classic D&D's character and resolution mechanics used for this sort of scenario - eg Lewis Pulsipher's Bar Room Brawl, D&D-style in an early White Dwarf. But these require the sort of supplementation I've described above: writing character goals; setting up possible victory conditions; etc.

This is not essential to, or inherent in, the Arneson-Gygax game.
 


Remove ads

Top