by Gary Gygax

-

-	-	Best of Dragon, Vol. II	-	-
Dragon #16	-	1st Edition AD&D	-	Dragon magazine

Role-Playing: Realism vs. Game Logic;
Spell Points, Vanity Press and Rip-offs

Despite the continued success of D&D, despite the evergrowing demand
for the game, I remain somewhat amazed and very pleased that
so many people share a love for the fantastic and heroic with me. It is
indeed an unusual honor to have been able to bring so many people so
much enjoyment. It tends to make one work harder at other projects so
as to make certain the best possible effort is presented. Whatever is
done will invariably be compared to D&D, and none of us at TSR have
any desire to produce a game which falls short of public expectations.

The position of originating the concept of a paper & pencil fantasy
role playing game and introducing it to the gaming hobby stands
greatly to the credit of TSR. In my mind, it puts us beside the creators
of chess (whoever they were), miniature wargames (H.G. Wells), and
board wargames (thank you, Avalon Hill!). TSR designed and promoted
the whole; it pioneered a concept which is today the most popular
form of our hobby. Little did I — or the other members of the Lake
Geneva Tactical Studies Association — realize as we fought out fantasy
miniatures battles on my sand table that the publication of the rules we
used to do so, the “Fantasy Supplement” to CHAINMAIL (Copyright
1971), would pioneer a whole new form of game. There are currently
some 100,000 D&D  players, and at the current rate of growth that number
could easily double next year. This large audience is highly devoted.
Well-wishers are many, and there but few who complain that D&D is
not everything they had hoped for in a game.

However, amongst those who play the game avidly there are a
vocal few who continually state their opinions as to how and where the
game is lacking — and, of course, how they have the perfect solution. I
do not take issue with any general statement that D&D is not flawless;
obviously, human imperfection precludes the claim to perfection. I do
admit to becoming a trifle irritated at times to read an article in some
obscure D&D fan magazine or a letter to the editor of some small publication
which attacks the game — or claims to be sure to improve D&D
if only their new and “improved” rules are followed — with ill-conceived
or asinine logic. My irritation is, I hope, only impatience with
those who only dimly preceive the actual concepts of the game, and not
wounded vanity. Consider what a game is:

Gaming is a form of play. Games are usually for diversion or
amusement, although sometimes they are played for a stake (gambling)
or prizes. They are typically contests. Fun is a synonym for game. To
my mind, a game which provides ample fun and enjoyment is good,
and if it brings endless hours of amusement and diversion it is proportionately
better. This view is held in common with most D&D enthusiasts,
but there are those vociferous few who seem to find their principal
enjoyment in attacking rather than playing the game. The uniform element
amongst these individuals is a complete failure to grasp the simple
fact that D&D is a game. Its rules are designed and published so as to
assure a balanced and cohesive whole. Each segment has been considered
and developed so as to fit with the other parts. Each part, meshing
with the others, provides an amusing diversion, a game which is fun
to play and set so as to provide maximum enjoyment for as long a
period of time as possible. Each separate part must be viewed as something
which contributes to the whole. Pulling this or that section from
the body and criticizing it is totally invalid unless the workings of that
particular segment do not harmonize with the whole, thus causing the
entire game to be unenjoyable. That the vast majority of players agree
with this view is evident. There are very few who attempt to insert dissimilar
rules into a system which was carefully designed to work on precepts
totally at odds with what the would-be designer views as crucial to
making DUNGEONS & DRAGONS a “good” game.

D&D encourages inventiveness and originality within the framework
of its rules. Those who insist on altering the framework should
design their own game. Who can say that such an effort might not produce
a product superior to D&D? Certainly not I.

Interestingly, most of the variant systems which purport to “improve”
the game are presented under the banner of realism. I have personally
come to suspect that this banner is the refuge of scoundrels;
whether the last or first refuge is immaterial. “Realism” has become a
bugaboo in the hobby, and all too many of the publishers — TSR included
— make offerings to this god too frequently. The very definition
of a game gives the lie to this false diety. Real implies being true to life,
not artificial and related to actuality. A game is real, but its subject
matter can, at most, give only a “sense” of what actually took place or
exists. Paper maps, cardboard counters, plastic markers, or toy tanks
and soldiers are not and never will be the stuff of historical reality.
There, real bullets kill and maim actual people. Men, women, and children
suffer and die, millions of dollars are spent and destroyed, all for
the glory of war. Therefore, those who desire realism in wargames, or
simulations of social or political events, or racing, or anything else used
as subject material for a game should go and do the actual thing —join
the military, enter politics, become a race car driver, and so on. At best
a game can give a reflection of reality, and then only if its rules reflect
historical actualities and logically proceed from truth and facts.

When fantasy games are criticized for being “unrealistic” — and
by fantasy I certainly mean both imaginary “science fiction” games
and heroic fantasy — the sheer magnitude of the misconception absolutely
astounds me! How can the critic presume that his or her imagined
projection of a non-existent world or conjectured future history is any
more “real” than another’s? While science fantasy does have some
facts and good theories to logically proceed from, so that a semblance
of truth can be claimed for those works which attempt to ground themselves
on the basis of reality for their future projections, the world of
“never-was” has no such shelter. Therefore, the absurdity of a cry for
“realism” in a pure fantasy game seems so evident that I am overwhelmed
when such confronts me. Yet, there are those persistent few
who keep demanding it. The “camel” of working magic, countless
pantheons of gods and devils, monsters that turn people to stone or
breath fire, and characters that are daily faced with Herculean challenges
which they overcome by dint of swordplay and spell casting is
gulped down without a qualm. It is the “gnat” of "unrealistic” combat,
or “unrealistic” magic systems, or the particular abilities of a class
of characters in the game which makes them gag. This becomes hard to
cope with, because I am basically a realist.

In a pure fantasy game, one based on myth, mythos, and its own
unique make-believe, realism (as a reflection of the actual) and logic
can not be defined in terms conventional to other game forms. Realism
in such a game can only be judged by the participants acceptance of the
fantasy milieu invoked by the game. If this make-believe world is
widely and readily accepted, if players fully agree to suspend their disbelief
when playing it, the game has reality for them. Involvement and
enjoyment indicate acceptance of a game reality, and the game becomes
realistic thereby. Game logic in such a fantasy can only follow the basic
tenets of the game, logical or illogical. If the basic precepts of the fantasy
follow the imprimus, it has its own logic. Just as the fantasy must
be accepted to achieve the game reality, so must the underlying principle
of the game system be understood to follow its logic.

D&D is a make-believe game. It is designed, however, to facilitate
close personal involvement in all aspects of play; this makes suspension
of disbelief easier for those who can initially accept a game form which
does not relate to any reality except a few tenuous areas, ‘viz. actual
kinds of weapons from the medieval period are generally named, as are
actual types of armor, and the social order of medieval Europe (and
occasionally the Middle East and elsewhere in the world) is mentioned
as bases for the game, to state the most obvious factual sources for
D&D. It is a game for the imaginative and fanciful, and perhaps for
those who dream of adventure and derring-do in a world all too mundane.
As a game must first and foremost be fun, it needs no claim to
“realism” to justify its existence. D&D exists as a game because thousands
of people enjoy playing it. As its rules were specifically designed
to make it fun and enjoyable, and the consensus of opinion is that D&D
is so, does it need to have logical justification of any or all of its rules?
Because logic does not necessarily create an enjoyable game form, the
reply must be generally negative. Logic, even game logic, must be transcended
in the interest of the overall game. If an illogical or inconsistent
part fits with the others to form a superior whole, then its very
illogicalness and inconsistence are logical and consistent within the
framework of the game, for the rules exist for the play of the game, although
all too often it seems that the game is designed for the use of the
rules in many of today’s products. When questioned about the whys
and wherefores of D&D I sometimes rationalize the matter and give
“realistic” and “logical” reasons. The truth of the matter is that D&D
was written principally as a game — perhaps I used game realism and
game logic consciously or unconsciously when I did so, but that is begging
the question. Enjoyment is the real reason for D&D being created,
written, and published.

With the popularity of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS increasing so
dramatically, I fervently desire to put the matter of variants, particularly
“realistic” variants, to rest once and for all, so as to get on to
other more important things, but it keeps springing up every time a
sound stroke is dealt to it. Additions to and augmentations of certain
parts of the D&D rules are fine. Variants which change the rules so as
to imbalance the game or change it are most certainly not. These sorts
of tinkering fall into the realm of creation of a new game, not development
of the existing system, and as I stated earlier, those who wish to
make those kind of changes should go and design their own game. In
order to make this clear, a few examples of destructive variants are
given below.

Why can’t magic-users employ swords? And for that matter, why
not allow fighters to use wands and similar magical devices? On the
surface this seems a small concession, but in actuality it would spoil the
game! Each character role has been designed with care in order to provide
varied and unique approaches to solving the problems which confront
the players. If characters are not kept distinct, they will soon
merge into one super-character. Not only would this destroy the variety
of the game, but it would also kill the game, for the super-character
would soon have nothing left to challenge him or her, and the players
would grow bored and move on to something which was fun. This same
reasoning precludes many of the proposed character classes which enthusiasts
wish to add to D&D. Usually such classes are either an unnecessary
variation on an existing class, are to obtuse to be interesting, or
are endowed with sufficient prowess to assure that they would rule the
campaign for whomever chose to play as such (most certainly their
authors). Similarly, multi-classed character types such as elves and
dwarves are limited in most class progressions in order to assure game
balance. That this can be justified by game logic, pointing out that
humankind triumphs and rules other life forms in most if not all myths
and mythos is a pleasant superfluity.

Combat is the most frequently abused area, for here many wouldbe
game inventors feel they have sufficient expertise to design a better
system. Perhaps someone will eventually do so, but the examples to
date are somewhat less than inspiring of confidence. The “critical hit”
or “double damage” on a “to hit” die roll of 20 is particularly offensive
to the precepts of D&D as well. Two reciprocal rules which go with
such a system are seldom, if ever mentioned: 1) opponents scoring a
natural 20 will likewise cause a double damage hit or critical hit upon
player characters; and 2) as a 20 indicated a perfect hit, a 1 must indicate
a perfect miss, so at any time a 1 is rolled on the “to hit” die, the
attacker must roll to find if he or she has broken his or her weapon,
dropped it, or missed so badly as to strike an ally nearby. When these
additions are suggested, the matter is usually dropped, but the point
must be made that whole game system is perverted, and the game possibly
ruined, by the inclusion of “instant death” rules, be they aimed at
monsters or characters. In the former case they imbalance the play and
move the challenge which has been carefully placed into D&D. In the
latter, “instant death” no longer allows participants to use judgement
when playing. Certainly some monsters are capable of delivering death
at a single stroke, but players know these monsters and can take precautions.
If everything that is faced has an excellent chance to kill characters,
they will surely die before long. Then the game loses its continuity
and appeal, for lasting character identification cannot be developed.

There are a number of foolish misconceptions which tend to periodically
crop up also. Weapons expertise is one. Given the basic assumption
that those normally employing weapons are typical of the
medieval period, and D&D is plainly stated as a medieval fantasy game,
it should follow in the minds of knowledgeable players that any fighting
man worth the name made it a point to practice daily with all forms
of arms. There was a prejudice against the use of the bow by knights,
granted. This is of no consequence in game terms. Any particular preference
as to weapon type by a fighter most assuredly was not indicative
of any lack of ability with another one. More to the point, however,
D&D presumes that the adventurers are the elite, the cream of the
cream. Each is a potential Hero, Archmage, and so on. Certainly each
is also capable of employing a simple hand weapon to effect, and correctly
utilizing any such weapon. The truth of the matter with respect to
weapon expertise is, I believe, another attempt to move players closer
to the “instant death” ability. For those who insist on giving weapons
expertise bonuses due to the supposed extra training and ability of the
character, I reply: What character could be more familiar and expert
with a chosen weapon type than are monsters born and bred to their
fangs, claws, hooves, horns, and other body weaponry? Therefore, the
monsters must likewise receive weapons expertise bonuses. While this
does put part of the system into balance again, it moves player characters
closer to situations where they can be killed before they can opt
to follow a course of action aimed at extricating themselves. Again, this
feature is undesirable and must be discarded.

In general, the enjoyment of D&D is the fantasy: identification
with a supernormal character, the challenges presented to this character
as he or she seeks to gain gold and glory (experience levels and magical
items), the images conjured up in participants’ minds as they explore
weird labyrinths underground and foresaken wildernesses above, and
of course the satisfaction of defeating opponents and gaining some
fabulous treasure. This is the stuff of which D&D is made. Protracted
combat situations which stress “realism” will destroy the popularity of
the game as surely as would the inclusion of creatures which will always
slay any characters they fight. The players desire action, but all but the
odd few will readily tell you that endless die rolling to determine where
a hit lands, having to specify what sort of attack is being made, how
their character will defend against an attack, and so on are the opposite
of action; they are tedious. Furthermore, such systems are totally extraneous
to the D&D system. Although they might not ruin the game
for a particular group of players, general inclusion in the published
rules would certainly turn off the majority of enthusiasts. It would turn
me to other pursuits, for if I was interested in that sort of game I would
be playing a simulation of something historical, not a fantasy game.

Spell point systems are also currently in vogue amongst the fringe
group which haunt the pages of “Amateur Press Association” publications.
Now APAs are generally beneath contempt, for they typify the
lowest form of vanity press. There one finds pages and pages of banal
chatter and inept writing from persons incapable of creating anything
which is publishable elsewhere. Therefore, they pay money to tout their
sophomoric ideas, criticise those who are able to write and design, and
generally make themselves obnoxious. * While there are notable exceptions,
they are far too few to give any merit to the vehicles they appear
in. From this morass rose the notion that a spell point system should be
inserted into D&D. Strangely enough, “realism” was used as one of the
principal reasons for use of spell points. These mutterings are not as
widespread as the few proponents of such a system imagine. The D&D
magic system is drawn directly from CHAINMAIL. It, in turn, was inspired
by the superb writing of Jack Vance. This “Vancian” magic system
works splendidly in the game. If it has any fault, it is towards
making characters who are magic-users too powerful. This sort of fault
is better corrected within the existing framework of the game — by requiring
more time to cast spells, by making magic-users progress more
slowly in experience levels. Spell points add nothing to D&D except
more complication, more record keeping, more wasted time, and a
precept which is totally foreign to the rest of the game.

There are numerous additions and supplemental pieces which are
neither detrimental nor particularly useful to the game. If players find
them enjoyable, there is certainly no reason why their particular group
cannot include such material in their particular campaign. The important
factor is the integrity of the game as a whole. The use of social
level (as originally conceived by Game Designers Workshop and appearing
in EN GARDE) is a good case in point. In the overall scheme of
the game, social level is unimportant to a band of adventurers going out
to slay monsters and gain treasure. However, in a campaign it can be
used as scenario background — or not used — as the referee and his or
her players see fit. Basically, social level means nothing to adventurers
such as Conan, Fafhrd and Gray Mouser, Elric, Kugel the Clever, etc.
Yet in a game, it can be a handy referee’s tool for setting a stage or rewarding
player characters. It does not pervert the intent of the game, it
does not destroy game systems. It can be readily included, or ignored,
without effect upon the whole.

Certain small publishers of amateur magazines or second-rate
work have accused TSR of maintaining a proprietary interest in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
from a purely mercenary motivation. This is
usually because they have fervent desire to trade on D&D’s repute and
make a reputation or quick buck on its merits rather than their own.
Oddly enough, some individuals also fault TSR for being careful to
protect its trade marks and copyrights and reputation, blandly faulting
a desire to profit from our labors. D&D is inseparable from TSR. The
repute of the game and of the company are high because we honestly
strive to give buyers real value for their money. TSR’s customers, the
buyers of D&D, etal are satisfied and then some, for what they have
purchased has provided them with hours of enjoyment, and will continue
to do so for many more gaming hours. Just as we must prevent
the ignorant and inept from spoiling the game by tinkering with the integral
systems, we also take every possible step to prevent exploitation
of D&D enthusiasts by publishers who hide shoddy products under a
fantasy role playing guise. We cannot stop them from putting worthless
material into print, but we can certainly make it clear that it is neither
recommended nor approved for use with DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.
As long as these worthless goods do not trade on the good name of
D&D, we can only tell our readers that they should beware of the
products they purchase, so read before you buy!

To some extent, this same exploitation continually takes place in
fantasy gaming oriented publications. Many seek to trade on D&D’s
popularity by offering “new” or “variant” systems which fit only with
D&D, even though the game is not actually named. Buy them if you
have money to throw away, but at peril of your campaign; do not use
material which alters the basic precepts of the game.

Commerce is neither immoral nor unethical. It is part and parcel
of our world. Workers are paid for their services, just as authors and
publishers receive financial gain for what they provide. The same individual
has a family which depends upon commerce to support itself
(and possibly the individual if he or she is a student). The individual
does, or will one day, work to earn his or her own living. But our interest
in D&D extends beyond money and even beyond reputation. TSR
created the whole of fantasy role playing gaming as a hobby, and we
are proud of this achievement. Pride is what we have accomplished
gives us a paternal right to protect our creation. Be glad, for it will help
to assure that your game remains a good one, and that when you see
“D&D” on a product you will have reasonable expectations with
respect to its quality. Use your imagination and creativity when you
play D&D, for there is much room within its parameters for individuality
and personalization; always keep in mind that everything in the
game is there for a reason, that major systems are carefully geared and
balanced to mesh together to make a workable whole. Changing one
part could well ruin the rest, and then what would you play?
 

*Editor’s Note: In recent months, I have been the target of some pretty
vicious and petty attacks from some of the “APA’s”. Much to the attackers’
collective dismay, I am still alive and well. I’ve never made any
bones about my feelings toward the field: they are unprofessional, unethical
and seemingly ignorant of the laws concerning libel. Most of the
so-called “authors” seem to live in some sort of fantasy world, totally
unconnected with the realities of everyday life. A good many of them
are incapable of even quoting correctly.

When apprised of error or inaccuracy, their usual response is an
outburst of paranoia and persecution complexes. As the author mentions,
there are a scant few exceptions in the field. A few have written
material for this magazine in the past. Hopefully, a few will continue to
do so. There is one who once wrote for TD who will never be asked to
again, after he grossly misquoted something I said at Origins last year.

When I first got into this business, I felt that the APA-zines might
be good for the hobby. I even reviewed a number of them for TD
readers. Now I know the error of my thinking. They serve no useful
purpose.