What is the #1 most important thing to remember about DMing?

[ExploderWizard]

Now that's true. I was just reacting to the idea that EW put forth that earlier books were somehow more "tinker friendly" in their writing. Opaque rules, rules that were rarely, if ever actually followed (take a look at the chart for determining the xp value of creatures and then look at the actual xp values given for creatures and you'll see what I mean - at least in 2e (not sure about 1e) the chart and the actual xp values were pretty far apart), and rules that quite often contradicted other rules do not make for a "tinker friendly" environment.

Actually they are more tinker friendly. A tightly knit rules system such as 3E works but is harder to start playing with without messing something else up. The old rules were a hodgepodge of mini-systems, some of which didn't work very well at all (1E unarmed combat I'm lookin at you). Since they were relatively disassociated you could replace a given subsystem with something more agreeeable without too many unforseen consequences.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There have been all sorts of threads on En World about how authorial intent is the only "true" interpretation of a work. RC has repeatedly stated that in Tolkien threads, just as an example I can think of off the top of my head.

Quote that or retract.

As far as "No idea what that book is. None that I have ever read. " I suggest that RC go back to the 1e DMG and early Dragon magazines that he loves to quote all the time. Since what I said is almost word for word taken straight from either of those sources.

Quote that please. I would love to read the word-for-word.

But, I am guessing that you cannot. Nor can you even tell us what the source is. Is it Dragon? Which one? Is it the DMG? Where?

I have quoted the 1e books and Dragon once or twice to make a point, but "that he loves to quote all the time"? Are you confusing me with someone else?

RC dislikes having to quote those books -- it is work to do so. First off, he usually doesn't have them lying around with him. Second off, he has to retype whatever it is he wants to quote. So, if it actually comes to the point where RC quotes, you can be certain it is because that seems the only means left to carry a point after all other means have been taken.

For example, in Q's thread about leveling expectations vis-a-vis 1e and 3e, as every demonstration of problems with the methodology were largely ignored or brushed aside, I did take the time to quote both the author of 1e and the author of 3e -- the only authorities on what their expectations were -- as to what those expectations were. And I did quote B1 (which was rather funny, because it was the module Q took his user name from) to demonstrate that there was not an expectation that all treasure would be found, but rather the reverse.....and rather explicitly so.

And still that wasn't enough to demonstrate authorial intent for some folks! Neither Gygax's nor Cooke's statements about the rate of leveling that they expected was taken as evidenciary of the rate of leveling that they expected.

For another example, when someone says "Earlier games where I was told if I don't follow the letter of the rules I'm not playing the game the way it's intended" I might be tempted to quote the exact opposite from the rules.

I imagine that you are misremembering Gygax's Preface to the 1e DMG.

Similarly, you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and will usually wither. Variations and differences are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system.

You may have failed to read on.

Look, I certainly hold that statements of the author are the primary vehicle for determining authorial intent, just as you would hope that I would take statements of Hussar as the primary vehicle for determining Hussar's intent.

But, within the context of the fictional universe, any interpretation that matches the fiction is equally valid. Heck, you are talking about a person who has repeatedly argued the same about the actual universe -- any model that predicts actual experience is valid to the degree that it predicts that experience.

To be fair to RC, Gygax did tend to contradict himself, and say different things at different times in different places.

As do we all.



RC

 

[Rel]

The #1 rule of GMing is "Don't come to ENWorld and bicker with other posters to the extent that it irritates Rel."



Not that any of you would dream of that.

 

[Dracorat]

(I'm the DM)

In my games, the rule is:

DM isn't always right. But he is deaf to shouts of indignation. He hears clearly the whispers of reason.

 

[Kobold Boots]

1. The point is to bring enjoyment to the players.
2. With few exceptions, character death should be carefully scripted in execution or in recovery.
3. DM enjoyment should be conditional on player enjoyment.

 

[Nookie]

Tell us ONE (and only one) thing that you think is the most important thing to remember, consider, or do when DMing.

Kill the bastards!

Can I get a paranoia shout out?

 

[Krensky]

Kill the bastards!

Can I get a paranoia shout out?

Already covered that.

Killing the PCs isn't the GMs job in Paranoia.

It's getting the PCs to kill each other.

 

[Hussar]

But, I am guessing that you cannot. Nor can you even tell us what the source is. Is it Dragon? Which one? Is it the DMG? Where? (questioning the presence of Gygax claiming that there were one true ways to play)

From the Dragon review, here

D&D, AD&D and gaming: Gary talks about the origins of D&D, and then goes on to talk about the difference between D&D and AD&D. This is where the division between the freewheeling, make it up yourself D&D style, and the standardised, comprehensive, tournament oriented, you've got to play it by the rules in the book or you aren't doing it right AD&D style is spelled out in detail to everyone, and is quite representative of Gygax's opinion on why the games needed to be separated. His focus is also clearly going to be with AD&D from this point on, as that's the one he wants to promote as more important as a game. Which is very informative, if slightly amusing in hindsight. He also defends his rather venomous reviews of a few issues ago, essentially saying that they deserved it for being crap, and if they aren't told so, they'll never improve. And lots of good gaming material is what he wants. So that's ok then

This is hardly earth shaking information. I would have thought that someone with your interest in the history of the hobby RC, you would recall things like this. Sorry, I just assumed that you would have known these sorts of things which were hardly rare in the pages of The Dragon and elsewhere.

My bad for assuming. One never should I suppose.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My bad for assuming. One never should I suppose.

Cool. You're going on the basis of secondhand information. Thank you for establishing that. It saves me from having to pull out first-hand quotes, which, frankly, I prefer not to do. What you should have assumed is that I would prefer Gary's actual words to the things others say about them.

On that same topic of "Actual words vs. the things people claim about them", can you please quote where "RC has repeatedly stated that [authorial intent is the only "true" interpretation of a work] in Tolkien threads, just as an example I can think of off the top of my head" or retract that statement?

Thank you kindly.

Second request.


RC

 

[Hussar]

RC - even if I honestly could be bothered to search through the threads to show you where you've stated that authorial intent is the true interpretation of the work, you'd just play silly semantic games and claim that I'm misinterpreting you. It's quite honestly not worth the effort.

You have shown a repeated tendency to pick and choose selectively what versions of history you want to bring up, so, this is futile and will not go anywhere. I'm just too tired of running the exact same treadmill yet again with you. So, I'm not going to.