When did We Stop Trusting Game Designers?

[The Little Raven]

Technically, I am using my real name as my handle, as Brendan in Gaelic means "little raven."

I don't think so, since the first sentence was "Wotc does not design a game". The context then indicated Mr.Gygax "designed" the game (D&D). So I think there's a misunderstanding in how the word "design" is being used in this thread.

I always find it interesting that Dave Arneson almost never gets a mention.

 

[Fifth Element]

It is the distinction among "design a game" and "design the game" or "design a new version of the game". In the first case you are regarded as a game designer, in the second case as the responsible of the status of support of something already valueable.

Okay, but you didn't make that distinction in your post. And the term "game designer" is not being used so literally as I think you're using it here.

I'm also not sure what your point is, given that one of the OP's examples was from 2E, and was no written by Mr. Gygax.

 

[catsclaw227]

I agree with your post (my name is in my sig).

I am also now putting my name in my sig. Between that, and my location, I am now putting up DEFCON 3 defenses outside my home.

 

[xechnao]

I'm also not sure what your point is, given that one of the OP's examples was from 2E, and was no written by Mr. Gygax.

The OP is talking about general impressions. If we try to analyze things perhaps we'll find out nothing that much but a lesser effect of what the OP is claiming to happen.

 

[WizarDru]

I think this is merely a case of rose-colored glasses and nostalgia trumping reality. EGG made such pronouncements 'from on high', as it were, exactly BECAUSE many different gamers had long and voiciferuous rules and DM-ing arguments. The letters and forums columns of Dragon, even edited as they were, would have such continued heated discussions. I remember quite clearly many of the arguments of giving female characters -2 ST/+2 CHA, for example, or over falling damage, paladins, the alignment system, Vancian magic, "Monty Haul" games or a host of other topics...many of which persist today.

Everyone I've met in my travels had 1e house-rules, for example, so clearly EGG's RAW was not considered gospel. Gary did, as someone points out, have a certain gravitas as the game's core co-designer and shepherd...but he was hardly considered the sole authority from which all authority flowed. A fact he himself reinforced multiple times, pointing out that each DM's game was his own (which I believe he even points out in the 1e DMG, iirc).

People at cons, clubs and other places were just as vocal then as they are now...the only difference is one of scale, IMHO.

 

[TerraDave]

RPGs have always had a strong DIY ethos, and there has always been some tension between doing it yourself, and the efforts of games desingers to dictate how the game is played. (EGG, of course has many, many quotes on both sides of this). (and designers always have some "play like this", back then, and certainly now).

When did this go from politely ignoring the designers to threatning them with flame and pithforks? As noted above, the Letters and Forum of Dragon Magazine always had raging debates, and in face to face contact people certainly called out, and defended, the designers.

But the answer is the internet. People didn't loose trust, they just found it easier to vent. On both sides. In some ways I am still suprised at the deference certain posters still show the desingers and WotC, and how agresively they defend them. It goes both ways.

 

[Garnfellow]

The premise of the OP isn't simply flawed, it's ridiculous.

Poor little Mike Mearls isn't given any more flack than any other designer from the hoary past. As many others have already pointed out, there was just no forum for readers to express their disagreement.

Tons of players and DMs I knew back in the eighties chaffed mightily at the Gygaxian pronouncements of official AD&D orthodoxy that became more common and more strident toward the end of 1983 *. Your quote is a perfect example of something that would drive people bonkers. This fiat against firearms, coming from the same guy who made Murlynd, the six-gun toting quasi-deity?

You could find plenty of disagreement with EGG in the pages of Dragon magazine, or even better, in White Dwarf or other magazines like Space Gamer.

In fact, many of the design principles behind second edition were pretty much an explicit rejection of this one-true-wayism. It's ironic that you picked one of the very few examples in the 2e core rules that did not follow this permissive philosophy. Generally, the 2e rules were only presented as suggestions and guidelines, giving DMs arguments both for and against particular rules.
_____

* EGG's insistence on AD&D rules heterodoxy was a curious and relatively short-lived phase. See "Poker, Chess, and the AD&D System" for one of the best expressions of this impulse. However, the intro to the DMG certainly calls for DMs to make the game their own, and certainly after he left TSR he frequently stated that individual DMs could and should feel free to do their own thing.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

As a game designer, I find the notion of unquestioningly trusting every piece of rules that comes from any game designer troubling. If Gary wants to say that in Greyhawk, gunpowder doesn't work, which is why he didn't include guns, that's cool. If the player wants to include it, that's cool too. If Gary says that guns can's work in D&D, that attempts to take choice away from the DM.

I'm all in favor of DMs tinkering with their own games and making decisions about what does and does not appear/work in their own games. Because these are roleplaying games, I consider any rule in the game as optional (keeping in mind that if you decide to change something, you must then deal with the ripple effect throughout the rules of all changed things). For that reason, if someone were to take a prestige class, spell, monster, or some other thing that I wrote and declare it broken, overly complicated/not complicated enough, incompatible with the flavor of your game, then I'm in favor of not including it in their game. My philosophy is that the game mechanics were tailored for you to use, not use, or modify as you see fit. Once I've done the best I can with them and put them out there, it's out of my hands and in yours.

Exactly.

If I don't care for a particular designers work I just dont support them. I think some of the parts of things that Mearls has done for 3E / 3.5 pretty good and I was a fan of his up until 4E.

If I (as a GM) buy a ruleset, splatbook, whatever I'll use what I like and adjust / modify the rest. A designer has little or no bearing on what get's used at my table outside of the material that they provide. Not even Gygax. It's one of the things that I love about tabletop play.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Indeed, the internet has made the public's voices heard much more loudly and constantly, and the *access* to dissenting views is much more prevalent today than back in the days of old.

As for Gary Gygax, yes, even then there were ideas and rules of his that people disputed. Gary also, as noted, encouraged DM's to add to, subtract, or modify the game for their campaign.

In a general sense, though, Gary was always somewhat special, because he was the "Father" of the game. Dave Arneson is a co-designer, certainly--but for practical *consciousness*--Arneson has never been vocally involved with the game, or engaged in the public platform in nearly the same way that Gary Gygax was. Thus, Gary has always been *The Voice*.

In addition, a condition at the time--was simply this: Gary was the designer, and also had immeasurably more experience with the rules, running campaigns, and so on, which of course added to his Gravitas and authority concerning the game.

Nowadays, well--The situation is entirely different. There are millions of intelliegent, educated, talented gamers that also have 10, 20, *30* years of experience with D&D and gaming. That's a considerably different kind of fan-base than what existed 30 years ago, when comparing the knowledge and experience of the game particulars and systems to Gary, or other designers and staff at the time.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Collectively, I trust game designers more than I trust, say, gamers posting on message boards. Individually? No comment!

However, any such trust has always been somewhat guarded. Trust, but verify.