Friday, July 2, 2021

Random Roll: DMG, p. 230

The afterword of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Masters Guide, found on page 230 is another one of those passages that bears examination. In it, Gary Gygax attempts to present a summation of his overall philosophy toward both AD&D and gaming in general. He begins by stating that

IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME.

These two sentences are reminiscent of similar passages in OD&D, which not only establish that the referee is the final arbiter of how the rules are to be interpreted in his campaign but also to resist being bullied by players in making such interpretations. I think statements like these can be easily misinterpreted and exaggerated to give the impression that Gygax was a dictatorial referee who would brook no dissent, which is not only untrue but unfair. Speaking of which, he offers us another such sentence.

AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. 

From context, I think it's pretty clear that what Gygax is counseling here is simply that a good game rests on a foundation of consistency, both in its rules and its rules interpretations, hence his notion that "the game is to be mastered by you," which is to say, the referee. Though Gygax often presented himself, for business reasons, as a champion of rules uniformity in AD&D, I can't shake the feeling that, in his heart of hearts, his concern was simply that games have rules that provided an intelligible basis on which to make decisions for their characters. The referee plays a vital role in ensuring this – indeed it is his primary occupation.

WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. 
I think it interesting that Gygax pairs "creator" with "final arbiter." Clearly, he considered both to be important parts of the referee's job. The act of creation is not passive; Gygax did not see the referee of AD&D as simply a rules arbiter and interpreter but as an active participant on par with the players. It's also interesting that Gygax nevertheless places "the game as a whole" ahead of the referee's campaign in terms of "ordering things as they should be." I'm not quite sure what to make of that. Is this an instance of "TSR Gary" intruding or is something else going on? 

MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!
Ultimately, this is why I retain a fondness for Gary Gygax, despite all those times when he spoke in a way that reinforced people's worst opinions of him. At the end of the day, Gygax loved games and derived a great deal of pleasure playing them with others. I recall that, on several occasions, when publicly asked how he wanted to be remembered, he said something very close to what I just wrote. He wanted to be remembered as someone who loved playing and making games. I have no doubt that, when you strip away everything else – the business success, the cranky commentary, the disputes with others – that's what we're left with. It's something that comes through often in Gygax's writing in the Dungeon Masters Guide and I'd like to try and highlight it a bit more often, because it's important to recall.
 

7 comments:

  1. I think the passage on ”barracks room lawyers” is interesting. It seems obvious to me, at least, that this early usage of ”rules lawyer” (or close enough) doesn’t refer to players who quote rules in general, but more specifically players who stick to the letters of a rule even when it obviously goes against the intent of the rule in question.

    These days, it seems, ”rules lawyers” is used to describe any player who oppose a referee’s interpretation of a certain rule.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As Jason observed in another thread, it's bizarre that so much ink is spent on how to manage difficult players.

    Do other games do this? Does chess, Monopoly, poker or Parcheesi feel the need to opine at such length on this subject in their rules and supporting content?

    What does it say about roleplaying games, and the people it attracts, that makes RPGs do this? :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the answer is that board games like chess aren't attempting to model some sort of 'reality' with any level of fidelity, and the rules are relatively short. There is simply less scope for argument.

      More complex board games -- for example, hex and counter war games -- are just as susceptible as rpgs to rules lawyering, IME.

      Delete
    2. It’s interesting because I think RPGs honestly don’t need rules to be as well-written and irontight as other types of games. There is always so much room for GM/player interpretation and improv, and there isn’t rally the expectation that one side will “win” or “cheat” if things are unfair.

      Delete
    3. Hi Sir Harrok. I dunno.

      If it's a matter of modeling reality, Monopoly is modeling an economic system. And Axis and Allies and Risk ARE modeling reality on a complex and global scale.

      If it's a matter of how long the rules are, the rulebook for major league baseball is 188 pages long. Yet it, and the rules for war games, don't include sections on how to deal with difficult players.

      It would seem that rules lawyers and how to manage them is a decidedly RPG problem. :)

      Delete
  3. Regarding "the game as a whole"; with the sum of his comments in many places over the years, I think it's clear that what Gary was aiming for was many people playing variations on a theme that was still recognizable as a theme.

    OD&D is a fantastic game, but it's not hard to see that the variation was so great across all participants, that there was no recognizable core theme.

    This is one case where "TSR Gary" was no wrong, no matter if people don't like the authority in his voice. No version of the official game since has returned to free-wheeling OD&D style because they recognize that, while the style may be perfect for certain immensely creative people dedicating massive amounts of time - most people want to be playing a shared experience. Period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That seems a very plausible interpretation. Thanks!

      Delete