|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q: Can the DM also play in a RPG?
A: DMs should not
be players in their own campaigns;
they are supposed to be
N
and disinterested people who control the action,
resolve conflicts fairly,
and try to make sure that
everyone has a good time.
The DM may control NPCs
who join a party and act like PCs,
but this is not the same
as playing.
When playing in someone
else's campaign, a DM is just another player;
he has no special rights
or privileges.
(126.14)
Howdy John,
Indeed, the best advice I can give is design to please yourself and your trusty gaming comrades so as to maximize the enjoyment generated by playing the campaign.
I do indeed get a bit fed
up with disputes about which game is "best," for it is a matter or personal/group
taste.
The same with niggling over
mechanics and rules.
The RPG is a bloody GAME,
after all is said and done. <>
As random events occur all
the time in actual life, I am a firm believer in having the same thing
happen in the role-playing game.
Whether the probabilities
for various random things are relatively equal as with a linear curve,
or wildly disparate, as a bell curve with multiple dice delivers, no matter...
aslong as the resulting
event is approproate to the likelihood of it occuring when compred to the
class of other such events in which it appears.
I do prefer the 100 possibilities of the d% roll to most others, and one can have additional rolls if needed to reflect decrasing probability of the indicated result.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentlegamer
Since in the discussions
you remember you and others pointed out how much you didn't like "old"
D&D and had left the game and only "returned" for "3e," I can't help
but point out (by way of clarification) that "3e" and "3.5e" are not D&D,
but part of the d20 System rules set. I don't understand why it upsets
you so much.
Quite so!
New D&D is a different game than were D&D and AD&D in their various editions.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llaurenela
Gary,
Thank you kindly good sir!!
...
And another thanks to you
for the account of the OD&D
game campign.
I suppose you know that
I had been playing pretty much the same sort of campaign as a break from
the LA and C&C game systems...
but we are now back to the
LA game, playing in the C&C-designed Castle Zagyg, Yggsburgh setting.
Anyway, the OD&D
rules are meant to have house additions, because they are sketchy, and
the DM is there to be the judge and referee, write statutes as needed for
the group
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
With all due respect, Col.,
I suspect that has more to do with the campaigns than the system.
I remember back before I
was cured of Munchkinism (1979-81), PCs in our campaigns would gain 2-3
levels a session.
Soon, the very gods trembled
at our footsteps...
In fact, I just ran a 3Ed
campaign where the first magic weapon wasn't awarded until 3rd level...and
it was the only magic item the party had until 5th level.
And this wasn't a low magic
campaign.
(Lets just say it had things
in common with the Slave Lords modules.)
Of course poor DMing can
account for many anomalies.
that said, it is the game
rules that tell. If one follows them, then progress in AD&D
is slow, in new D&D rapid.
the team spirit of AD&D
is gone, as the emphasis is on individual progress in the new game. Experience
is aimed at seek and destroy power gaming.
Of course, AD&D wasn't
much better in that regard, but a revision shuld have corrected that flaw
Anyway, a debate of this sort is profitless, and hereafter i shall refrain from further comments in regards such matters.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper
What ( most some few none
all) {select the one you like} forget is D&D in any form is a GAME.
All games have rules. And
all rules don't have to make sense. The game is not the story. The story
is what happen during the game.
Just like the time me and
my brother got my parents, my uncle and aunt to play Life with us and my
Aunt won while Daddy when to the poor house with 1 kid and Jr went to poor
house with 4 girls and 3 boys.
all games and hobbies give
you stories to tell. They are only interesting if they are told in a interesting
fashion and to some one who shares your interest.
Hoi Jasper,
Not much case for disputation
in what you state
However, "told" isn't a
necessary part of most games.
The critical factors are
entertainment and enjoyment arising from play.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krieg
As opposed to Gary's personal
house rules? lol
Just FYI, the best of those
are called D&D and AD&D...
Heh,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuzenbach
OK, I've got one. Please
forgive me if this has been asked before, but I'm just too damned lazy
to look through all the "Gary Gygax Q&A" threads.
Tomb Of Horrors: What were you thinking? Don't get me wrong, I love it. However, this module has got to be the antithesis of dungeons for all those D&Ders who insist upon "role-playing" as opposed to "roll-playing". I mean, you play this thing "in character" and you die. Period. Was it, therefore, your way of indirectly dictating *how* D&D was to be played? It's been suggested by others that TOH was just your way of "weeding out" the average, bad, and good players from the truly great players, if such a thing can even be defined. Well, what gives?
PS: Congratulations on the creation of The Tomb Of Horrors. All dungeons should aspire to its scheming level of challenge and thought.
Forget the business about
role-playing.
It is as boring as rule-playing and roll-playing are when
made the focus of the game. Notice that I stress game, as
that's what is the main operative word in the description of the activity.
The majority of persons engaged in RPG activity love to go on dungeon crawls,
so the ToH was designed to challenge the best of that lot.
That's the gist of it <cool>
Cheers,
Gary
<bold added>
deimos3428 wrote:
... and the strategic employment
of mules.)
Death to all rule-players
and rules lawyers 
Gary
Virel wrote:
Gary,
When you decide to make a House Rule for say OD&D, OAD&D, Lejendary Adventures, or Castles & Crusades how do you go about implementing it?
By telling the assembles
players the new facts of campaign life;) even though many of such house
rules becme stone by being put into print in a game, that doesn't mean
i always use them...
Quote:
Use the Mark One eyeball
just "know" what will work and won't work due to experience with the game
system in question?
That's the way i do it nowadays.
House rule writing began
for me back in the 1960s when my opponent and I would argue about wargame
rules.
Eventually we would agree
on a new rule and write it down.
My original Gettysburg game
has about four pages of added rules written on regular lined paper.
Quote:
Do you play test it from
the DM's point of view by letting the NPC's & monsters test against
the party before turning it over for general use etc?
Include the rule then if it doesn't work over rule it etc?
I will certainly play-test
a rule that I am uncertain about, and if it is flawed I will amend it so
as to work better.
then the players' characters
get a break...one way or another...as something that happened in their
adventure didn't actually happen that way at all;)
Quote:
Wondering about your methodology
for this sort of thing for various game systems. I would appreciate any
tips about the "good ways to do this". I tend to tinker with my games a
little bit.
Thank You
Virel
if you have designed the
system or are intimately familiar with because of long and intense play,
you should be able to create rules changes by the proverbial seat-of-the-pants
method.
Try it on minor things initially,
and if the changes work as you assumed, keep on going.
Remember also that there
can be rule changes for special situations that do not affect general play.
When you make them, just
tell the players why the new rule is in effect, how it came about, and
what it is.
Those changes can be forgotten,
and only a player with a great memory will ever plague you if you don't
bother to record them;)
Cheers,
Gary
Gandalf Istari wrote:
Mr. Gygax, another question
if I may...
I would prefer it if you
addressed me as Gary 8)
Quote:
Actually, a question in
two parts. Its obvious that your life-long love of games had an influence
on you when it came to inspiration and the perspiration of creating the
(A)D&D game. Would you say that different bits and peices of the game
came to you over time as you worked through various board games, card games,
war games, etc. before roleplaying in the D&D sense was invented, or
was it like a "Eureka" moment where you saw the potential for a great game
wherein people mathematically represented a character in a fantasy world?
In other words, was it a gradual process of thought that slowly over time
lead you into creating a role playing game, or was it a flash of insight
that brought together alot of stuff that had been floating around in your
subconcious?
the material for the initial
D&D game's content came from over 30 years of game playing, more than
20 years of intense reading of imaginative literature,
nearly as many years of
studying history and military history, and a decade of active game development
and design work.
The specifics for the D&D
game sort of fell into place automatically after the Chainmail "Man-to-Man"
and "Fantasy Supplement" material was published and Dave Arneson related
that his college group were playing the system on a pure player-for-hero
(or wizard) basis, with mercenaries for hire to add to the force.
Gandalf Istari wrote:
...
So if I'm reading that right, you thought (A)D&D would take off among people who wargammed and among readers of various fantasy genres, but you didn't expect the game to expand much beyond those specific customer groups? If I am reading that right, then you must have been quite surprised when (A)D&D caught on as well as it did outside of the demographic groups you had in mind for the game.
30 years later and gaming is going strong. :)
No, by the time I was writing
the AD&D game I was well aware that the audience for the game
was much larger than I had thpought in 1972-5, and virtually world wide
in scope.
My initial assessment was
based on the D&D game and changed only after we had published it for
two years.
By the end of 1975 I was
very much aware of the broad appeal of the game.
The appeal was to almost
anyone with an active imagination, as the theme
of the game is the heroic quest one of mankind's folklore
and legend.
Cheers,
Gary
- Silver Bold Added
Hi Richard,
As a practical matter the DM has control over everything, including the rules that govern play of the game. - Gary
GutboyBarrelhouse wrote:
Col_Pladoh wrote:
...the DM can do whatever
he wishes, assuming that his player group generally agree and do not abandon
the campaign because of such alterations.
Behold: The Concise Dungeon
Masters Guide!
:: runs and hides ::
No, take a bow!
That is indeed what every
able GM should have firmly in mind.
He is there to provide fun
and entertainment to his player group, and himself as well, not to adhere
slavishly to some game system that at times interferes with the group's
enjoyment.
Cheers,
Gary
Dammadon wrote:
Quote:
That's rather telling, to
me. I would've thought most anything AD&D is convertable. But then
I wasn't thinking in terms of 'campaign' either...
Regards,
Jerry
It is indeed tha campaign
aspects and the level progression involved, and only those considerations,
that makes a conversion to the LA system unpalatable to me.
Cheers,
Gary
Originally posted by johnsemlak
Questions:
2. In your own words, how
would you summarize the difference between AD&D and Basic/Expert/etc.
D&D?
2. I am not going to try
to do critical comparative anayyses here or in any chat. That's a task
that demands much careful thinking and effort. The only thing I can say
about the matter is this: Play the two and judge for yourself. I think
that AD&D is a "tighter" game than D&D was, more directed, less
free-form. However, that applies mainly to those DMs who followed the book,
if you will, as AD&D could be played in the same style as D&D.
Quote:
Originally posted by
ColonelHardisson
Actually, I don't want you
to do a qualitative comparison between games. I'm not a raving d20 fanboy
(well, not that way, at least) that sees no value in anything printed prior
to the turn of the millennium (or close to it). I played AD&D 1t edition
for well over a decade. I'm actually interested in what you feel the spirit
of older editions was. It doesn't have to entail anything about other games.
One could surmise a certain mood or feel for the game based upon the fiction
you gave as recommended reading in the DMG. However, older editions/versions
of the game seemed to have a different feel from the later AD&D. Can
you articulate what that was?
Being close to the matter,
it is difficult to write with clear objectivity.
About all I can say is the
enthusiasm and the love of the game were possibly conveyed to the reader
by the style in which I wrote the material.
Also, some of the rules
and mechanics that were included in the original, removed later on, were
actually critical to the "feel" and the "spirit" of the whole work.
That's about all I can relate,
Colonel.
Quote:
Originally posted by
Clay_More
[snip]
... As the ogres begin looking around, trying to find out why all their entertainment vanished, the Dwarf looks at the Wizard and asks; "Is this good or bad?"
Anyways, thanks for the game
Gary. And I hold you personally responsible for the fact that half of my
childhood memories contains orcs...
Heh! Gotta love that dwarf!
And Clay_More, you should
be happy that those memories are of orcs, not orgre, right?
When my son Luke was about seven years old two of his older sisters made him DM (OAD&D, of course) for them, and they dictated what treasure was found when opponents were defeated. Finally he came to me, and I invested him with the "DM's Crown," thus putting an end to that abuse. Young players do many odd things to an RPG, but all in fun <eek>
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm
Raven
No, it's noting that the
progression of the game tends to work in a particular way, until it is
arbitrarily stopped because of an odd game mechanic.
As if all game rules weren't
arbitrary, eh? Heh, and so much for you, mister smarty pants... <stick
out tongue>
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally
Posted by oldschooler
I've
always been curious as to how much material Gary uses in his D&D games
(both original and Advanced). Would he stick with the original stuff, like
the lil' brown/white box and Greyhawk supplement for OD&D and just
the first few hardcovers for AD&D; or does he go all out and use the
Rules Cyclopedia and stuff from Unearthed Arcana (some or all?) or the
Wilderness/Duneoneer's
Survival Guides?
Short
answer: I am not now, not have i ever been, a rules lawyer. Rule-playing
is distasteful to me. The rules I use in any play session depend on underlying
game, the player group, and the demands of the scenario. As the GM I pick
and choose what I think will best suit the situation.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally
Posted by oldschooler
...
Having said that, Gary: Is there any part of AD&D that you wrote (i.e. in the original Monster Manual, Players Handbook or Dungeon Masters Guide) but would'nt actually use in a game run by yourself?
I know from previous posts that you don't use Weapon Speed, Weapon vs. Armor Class and Psionics. But what about stuff like age affecting abilities, or whatever? Do you even play Advanced D&D nowadays? I'd like to know where your current gaming preference lies; As well as what games you plan to use most in the future, and to what extent (house rules, "by the book", etc..)?
Hopfully, this will be a catch-all question to cover many that tend to come up over and over, and allow you to tend to more important matters (like family, Castle Zagyg, LA, etc.)!
Generally
speaking, when I DM AD&D, which OI do now and again, the areas you
note above are the only rules I don't use. As I am not running an ongoing
campaign, there's no need to worry about age, save when creating NPCs.
I never did create house rules, but I seldom open a book either. I create much material and referee on the fly as the players have their characters interact with the game environment.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally
Posted by oldschooler
Gary,
is this still the way you prefer to play original D&D?
Bonus question: Do you have such house rules for original Advanced D&D or Legendary Adventures?
When
I am in the mood I love to fly by the seat of my pants as the Dm for OD&D...or
AD&D.
Having house rules would rather spoil thewhole idea of winging it <EEK!>
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally
Posted by Orius
At
least on the bright side, there've been a number of good computer games
over the years that have been based on D&D and AD&D.
Perhaps
not as good, but it's proven to be a good license, even if occasional bombs
came out of it.
According
to experts,. most of the computer games of fnatasy and like sort borrow
at least something from the A/D&D game.
That's
is why I am mentioned as being so influential in computer gaming
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally
Posted by haakon1
Luckily,
you are the only gamer with that problem.
I think "never role-play alone" is up there with "never drink alone", for avoiding addictions.
Bah!
I see
my son Alex wasting far too many hours to believe that initial statement,
and refer you to the game known as "Evercrack."
Actually,
my wife threatened to leave me because I would sneak out of bed to play
a computer game at 3 AM, was doing no productive work at all...
When
I get a special boardgame I might blow a week, but a computer game can
eat up months <EEK!>
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally
Posted by airwalker
Oh
obviously. I find AD&D an incredibly well-designed and well-thought
out system. I am not trying to tell you that you could have done a better
job or anything. I am just seeking to make some adjustments to coincide
with my tastes and the tastes of my group and was trying to be circumspect
about the consequences of "changing the rules."
I
appreciate the lauds 
Rest
asured that I don't that the OAD&D rules
are perfect, can't be improved upon by change, addition, or excision.
As
a matter of fact, I did that frequently as I DMed 
Quote:
Originally Posted by genshou
This is a good answer. I
especially like the last sentence. Elegant is not the term I chose, but
rather that of the OP in that thread. I didn't think it was a good word
either, but to some people role-playing is an art. They would not enjoy
the same games I do.
Anyone that claims playing
a "Let's Pretend" game formalized by rules, no matter what it is called,
is an art form is deluded, or else attempting to delude theaudience.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by riprock
...
Colonel, your responses generally
focus on entertainment, imaginative fun, and so on.
Do you have any advice for
folks using make-believe for business simulations, military training, etc.?
A most intersting application
of an interest in the RPG, amigo!
While games can educate and instruct, they must be first and foremnost fun and entertaining, or else the audience will not participate in the play for any meaningful period.
What you are speaking of are simulatioons. I well recall the internation simulations that were vogue in the late 1960. They were interesting, challenging, and entertaining if one had the proper mindset.
Those participating in a simulation must be engaged in the subject, motivated by a desire to further their knowledge and understanding of what is being simulated, and the "play" is more similar to competitive sports/games than that of the RPG. The rewards for excellence in a simulation must be set forth clearly, as they are not likely to be obvious and immediate.
That's about all I have to
offer off the top of my head...short of a real study on my part and a scholarly
essay thereafter based on that research 
Cheers,
Gary
Hi Storm Raven,
No quibble with what you
state,
but I do believe the number
of persons tha played OAD&D was greated
than the number playing the new game despite "unfriendly" rules.
Perhaps that was because
those rules were explicit in alloting to the Dm the role of ultimate arbiter
with free reign to excise and alter whatever was desired.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranes
Continued from http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=71486
You... you... so what are your feelings on 'metagaming'?
Depends on the subject matter
and the character.
Who can say what a PC knws
and doesn't know aboit the world he lives in?
if it's something that could
be known, then there's no metagaming involved.
Also, coming up with new ideas not common to the assumed society should not be labeled as metagaming is the PC is reasonably inteligent.
Getting to the case of the
wind
walker, the PC I was playing had faced one before, also associated
with a broad range of knowledgeable, high-level characters.
Thus he (I) should have
remembered how to attack the critter.
It was a case player NUMBRAINING,
NOT A HINT OF METAGAMING THERE
Cheers,
GAry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jemal
Hmmm.. So, does that mean
you've completely given up on any new D&D stuff that wizards puts out,
or are you hopeful about the possible 4th edition that everybody (at least
around here) has been obsessesing over?
Maybe hopeful is going too
far.. How about will you give it a chance, or a pass?
Here are the RPGs I am or
will soon GM:
Lejendary Adventure
Lejendary AsteRogues
(coming out late this year, I hope)
OD&D
OAD&D
I will happily play:
The above RPGs
Metamorphisis Alpha
Any nin-rules-heavy RPG
that someone else is willing to run for the group.
That answer your question?
Cheerio,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc_Souark
Hiya Mr. G 
Was there anything that you wished you had done in DnD that was excluded or toned down ?
Well, if i were writing
the D&D or AD&D game today, the results would be quite different
systems; but in answer to your question, no nothing I wanted in the games
I authored was expurgated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcas
My guess is that Mr. Fisher
is referring to C&C. 
Ah well, I treat that the
same as AD&D 
Cheers,
Gary
It is soooo easy to assume
that C&C is AD&D 
It is also very easy for
my original material to be expressed in terms of the C&C game system...especially
when someone edits the material to make it conform 
Ciao,
Gary
I will occassionally DM
OAD&D...and
although not AD&D, the C&C game as well.
Gryphon: When did you realize that Dungeons and Dragons would need the massive rewrite/redesign which would become Advanced Dungeons and Dragons?
Gygax: We knew you could
play Dungeons and Dragons if you were very bright or very imaginative or
had some game experience. But we knew initially, probably in early 1975,
that we had to do a more clearly done introductory piece. We began looking
at it. Dr. Holmes was kind enough to volunteer. I got talking with him
and Eric and I arrived at a very happy agreement and he took that over.
I
was not satisfied with Dungeons and Dragons in that it did not allow continuity
of play from group to group and from region to region. The game
had too many open ends and not enough structure and at that point I decided
that we better have a new game with the same role playing principles and
so forth, but one a little more tightly controlled.
Gryphon: Why do you want this continuity form place to place?
Gygax: So that people are
playing the same game and have some uniformity of interest? It's very frustrating
for someone to go from one place to another and sit in on a game that he
or she doesn't recognize and it's called Dungeons and Dragons. There were
some very good games that didn't resemble Dungeons and Dragons and there
were some incredibly wretched ones. I did get a letter and I don't know
if I still have it or not from a "43rd level Balrog" complaining that he
didn't enjoy the game anymore -- it was too boring. Too many things were
being done going from the sublime to the ridiculous that were virtually
killing the game. Now, of course, there is a choice. You can play Dungeons
and Dragons which is an open ended, freeform, lightly structured type of
a game or you can play Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, which is a different
game.
- Interview with Gary Gygax,
1980 (citation: Grognardia)