NOTES FOR THE DUNGEON MASTER
This is a somewhat philosophical look
at realism and variants.
My chief objection to "realism" in any
fantasy role playing system is the simple
fact that it takes too long. Consider
taking a simple 1-on-1 combat to a
state of ultimate realism.
You determine the energy state of the
invidividual cells along each of the muscle
tissues in each portion of the entire body
of each of the participants. Add the
myriad of factors involving current
weather and climate of the battle area,
and details of the terrain; the overall "will
to win" of the fighters, based on their
lives so far, their current emotional and
physical state; the specific condition of
each individual element of their equipment,
and the probabilities of ideal vs.
actual performance of each element;
their degree of training in the weapons
and tactics used plus their ability to
apply this information--
I could go on for pages. The point is,
how "realistic" do you want to get -- and
at what price?
The AD&D combat system is not
designed nor intended to simulate realistic
combat. A completely realistically
simulated duel would either require more
knowledge than is currently available,
even with all our modern knowledge of
biology, history, the mind, and so forth,
or would be an actual duel: a reenactment.
We recommend that you NOT choose
the reenactment option; medieval times
and techniques were dirty, primitive, and
dangerous. I'll take modern medicine,
plumbing, and literature over the middle
ages any day, thank you.
The AD&D game system WAS designed
for our fun, and also with several
criteria firmly in mind -- including
playability, entertainment value, self-consistency,
and many other things. I
think it's the best system in existence
when ALL these factors were considered.
In the mid-70s the 1st elements
of the AD&D game system were coming
out, and the transition between the
original and advanced versions was
confused. I've realized since then that
they're different systems entirely. As a
result, I treated the advanced system (at
first) as guidelines only, and immediately
decided that casting a magic missile
spell for a mere 6 seconds couldn't
possibly use up your actions for an
entire minute. The resulting variant of
multiple attacks per round based on
casting time plus recovery time resulted
in an imbalance of the game in favor of
magic-users. Other variants intended to
increase realism resulted in other
imbalances. It was quite a mess.
Everyone's free to make their own
mistakes. Once I stopped considering
the "flaws" as "obvious absurdities" and
looked at (and used) the system as
printed, I realized that I had fallen into
the Democratic Fallacy: the attitude that
my opinion was as good as anyone's.
This is wrong; the opinions of experts
and professionals are much more valid;
this is why they command good salaries
in the modern business world. The system
as published is a usable, workable
compromise between the various things
that make a good game. I don't know
how I go the idea that I could do a better
design than the professionals, but I got
over it.
This is not to say that the designs are
perfect. Now that I've been in the
publishing business for a while, I know
that there are times when you have to
compromise between doing everything
the way you want to, as a gamer, and the
financial requirements of business,
legalities, and time. So when you do find
a flaw, or an area that wasn't fully detailed,
go ahead and try to work things out. But
be CAREFUL -- try to make the changes
and additions fit the rest of the system.
Here are some definitions, in my own
terms: a variant is a game procedure
which is done differently than the
procedure published in the system.
EXAMPLE: the multiple-spell-per-round
system I mentioned earlier; the books
state that it's to be done an entirely
different way.
A deduction is the fixing of a minor
hole in the system which is repaired by
considering the phrasing and context in
which the hole appears, and applying
the system's logic to fix it properly.
EXAMPLE: the Area of Effect of the
teleport spell says "Special"; spells which
apply only to 1 creature say so, as
"Creature Touched," "One Creature," or
something similar; therefore, the caster
CAN carry another person along as part
or all of the specified weight carryable.
A derivative is a whole procedure that
is never specified in the published game
system, which must be created in detail
and usually from scratch. EXAMPLE:
AC for horses in barding is never specified. <UA details barding>
As an unarmored horse
is AC 7, I decided to award a 10% bonus
per class of barding (leather, chain, plate)
with the resultant armor classes of 5, 3,
and 1 respectively. I'm generous.
Feel free to use any of the above in
dealing with the player who complains
about lack of realism.
Feel free also to play games in whatever
form you want, using whatever rules you
want. But I urge all of you who are using
variants -- procedures which are different
than those given in the system -- to stop
and think a minute: did you give the
system a chance?
If you did, then great. Fine! GO AHEAD
and modify things you don't like; there's
no law that says you have to obey the
rules of an amusement form like this, and
there never will be. But note that you'll be
using the Official by-the-book system in
any and all Official tournaments, and
you better be GOOD at it if you expect to
win.