Chapter 1- Role-Playing: The Foundation of Fun
Oh crikey, there's the f-word.
To begin at the beginning, it is important to know the difference between role-playing and role assumption.
This starts the chapter off in a rather technical way, and goes into a lengthy explanation. Basically:
Think of role-playing as taking the position and characteristics of someone you cannot actually become at the time (or ever)... Role assumption is generally considered as taking a role that the individual could or might actually have.
Gygax uses one paragraph to talk about role-playing exercises used in teaching and therapy. He then takes four paragraphs to describe conflict-simulation exercises, wargaming, and miniatures battles and how players take the role of a commander or national leader. I don't think this is an accident.
Gygax then talks about Chainmail, and claims that it was the first game to both include fantasy elements, and the first to include wargaming on a 1-to-1 scale. I have no background in wargaming (and thus I am not, nor could I ever be, a grognard), so I can't tell you if Gygax is telling tales here. The 1-1 scale issue is one I'd be most surprised at being true, with the vibrant wargaming scene happening at tha time.
What is undeniable is that Chainmail was the important factor, and Gygax mentions both the 1-1 issue as well as the suggestion that mining and counter-mining operations use a third-party judge and paper maps to resolve siege operations. (Gygax claims Chainmail contained specific advice to use graph paper for this, but my 3rd edition copy just mentions "paper operations" with little in the way of specifics; perhaps this is just an organizational issue within Role-Playing Mastery or my own mis-reading, as Gygax does speak of answering a good amount of mail in this time period)
Enter David L. Arneson. "Soon Dave and I were corresponding and exchanging ideas, and a new game took shape." It is my rough understanding of the timeline that Gygax co-wrote Chainmail, including all of the Fantasy Supplement section. Arneson took this and started the first role-playing campaign Blackmoor, introducing the descending AC system and individual hit points (Chainmail was alive-or-dead, with no wounded states), and much of what we'd recognize as early D&D. Gygax adopted that, re-organized (contemporaries seem to indicate that Arneson was not that organized as a writer), and most important had the impetus and the means to publish this collaboration. Worrying about who should take the lion's share of the credit for the birth of "real D&D" is probably pointless. If Arneson did do a lot to form the basis of the game itself, he used Gygax's Chainmail ideas as the base, and Gygax was the one that got it out to the world (with Arneson co-credited). The stories are many, sometimes nasty, and now clouded by 30-35 years of passed time. It would be nice for historical purposes to get all this straight (I hope the details of Arneson's legal issues with TSR are made public after his death), but First Fantasy Campaign is out there, and while it would have been nice for Arneson to have the platform and the drive to be as vocal and influential as Gygax (Arneson is with us now, but for various reasons isn't as involved with answering fan questions as Gygax was on multiple forums), and while it does seem unfair to always fly the flag of Gygaxian D&D when he was not, in and of himself, the creator of the game, that does not diminish the real and genuine vision that Gygax had.
Sorry for the digression, but it's so easy to forget or downplay things that are very important and without which we wouldn't be here doing this today. These things are important and should be remembered and discussed and studied.
Back to commentary on the book.
Gygax calls the 1977 Basic Set (that would be the Holmes-edited set) the second edition of D&D, and (keep in mind Role-Playing Mastery was written in 1987) Gygax says that, "By the timethe D&D Basic Set was published in 1977, the game had fully evolved from its 'accessory' status to a game system that stood alone.
So the original box wasn't intended to be its own stand-alone game, and those references to Chainmail therein weren't throwaways.
He then talks about the explosion of the RPG hobby in both variety and availability to the point where it was being played by "millions."
In a search for mastery of role-playing, it is important to understand why this occurred.
Historical understanding of the hobby, and not just superior play, are necessary for Role-Playing Mastery, according to Gygax. This sort of thing is awesome because to argue against it is to champion the idea that mastery and ignorance is a perfectly acceptable state of affairs.
The most obvious answer is the one usually overlooked. At the foundation of all the other facts about "why" is the simple truth that it is fun to play role games. All leisure-time products and services are created and sold for exactly such a reason - to bring enjoyment to those who use them. However, role-playing games, by their nature, call upon the participants to develop a deeper involvement in the activity than another type of game might require. Many of those with the time and inclination to indulge in such a demanding but fulfilling pastime become avid players. A role-playing game, instead of being an idle activity only engaged in when the weather is wet or cold, quickly becomes one of highly active and eager participation. This deep involvement and commitment shared by all enthusiasts is indeed a contributing reason for the popularity of role games.
The book then describes how the interactive aspects differ from books or television.
Gygax turns this discussion into a highlight of the importance of the campaign.
Enjoyment grows as the game matures and becomes more complex and as a campaign's unique and independent personality develops. The game campaign actually alters to become the cooperative effort of the game manufacturer and the group playing it. In this way, the game, in each particular manifestation of itself, takes on a life of its own.
I take this as meaning, in a modern context, that one-shots and simply playing a series of modules as a campaign (note that such an admonishment concerning pre-prepared materials also appears on p87, first paragraph under the "Setting Things in Motion" heading, as well as the last paragraph in the first column of page 91) means that one won't get the full satisfaction and benefits and potential from role-playing.
Gygax then talks a bit, in a roundabout way, concerning the hysteria of the time (a few years previous, really) that suggested D&D had undesirable effects upon its players.
To attribute war, killing, and violence to film, TV, and role-playing games is to fly in the face of thousands of years of recorded history. In Little Wars, H.G. Wells pointed out that tin soldiers leave no orphans or widows and ventured the thought that if more people were busy "fighting" such "little wars," they would have no time for big (real) ones... A master player or game master does not allow - in fact, never gives a conscious thought to allowing - actions taken in the context of the game to dictate or affect his or her activities in the real-world environment. A master knows the difference between role-playing, role assumption, and real life and never mixes one of these with another. This is the best, and indeed the only, way to get the utmost benefit out of each activity.
(there is also this bit that appears later, when discussing character morality:)
It is neither wrong nor condemnable to act the part of a character who by the social and cultural standards of our society is bad, evil, or wrong. When all is said and done, games are not reality or actual life. It makes as much sense to vilify an actor for playing the role of a villain as it does to say that a participant ina game who has a PC whose moral standards cannot be called good is engaging in some form of wrongdoing. Master role-playing gamers easily separate the difference between play and reality. In fact, even novices can do so without much difficulty.
The last two sentences are emphasized in the book.
It seems odd at first glance, in current times, to end a section entitled Role-Playing: The Foundation of Fun with an admonishment concerning fantasy versus reality. But putting it into historical perspective, when Gygax pretty much had the deaths of young people laid at his feet, perhaps it isn't so odd that he would stress this point so much.
And maybe current times aren't so difference. I wish I had remembered these two sections when dealing with certain moral alarmists who are also followers of the Gygaxian ways.
Oh crikey, there's the f-word.
To begin at the beginning, it is important to know the difference between role-playing and role assumption.
This starts the chapter off in a rather technical way, and goes into a lengthy explanation. Basically:
Think of role-playing as taking the position and characteristics of someone you cannot actually become at the time (or ever)... Role assumption is generally considered as taking a role that the individual could or might actually have.
Gygax uses one paragraph to talk about role-playing exercises used in teaching and therapy. He then takes four paragraphs to describe conflict-simulation exercises, wargaming, and miniatures battles and how players take the role of a commander or national leader. I don't think this is an accident.
Gygax then talks about Chainmail, and claims that it was the first game to both include fantasy elements, and the first to include wargaming on a 1-to-1 scale. I have no background in wargaming (and thus I am not, nor could I ever be, a grognard), so I can't tell you if Gygax is telling tales here. The 1-1 scale issue is one I'd be most surprised at being true, with the vibrant wargaming scene happening at tha time.
What is undeniable is that Chainmail was the important factor, and Gygax mentions both the 1-1 issue as well as the suggestion that mining and counter-mining operations use a third-party judge and paper maps to resolve siege operations. (Gygax claims Chainmail contained specific advice to use graph paper for this, but my 3rd edition copy just mentions "paper operations" with little in the way of specifics; perhaps this is just an organizational issue within Role-Playing Mastery or my own mis-reading, as Gygax does speak of answering a good amount of mail in this time period)
Enter David L. Arneson. "Soon Dave and I were corresponding and exchanging ideas, and a new game took shape." It is my rough understanding of the timeline that Gygax co-wrote Chainmail, including all of the Fantasy Supplement section. Arneson took this and started the first role-playing campaign Blackmoor, introducing the descending AC system and individual hit points (Chainmail was alive-or-dead, with no wounded states), and much of what we'd recognize as early D&D. Gygax adopted that, re-organized (contemporaries seem to indicate that Arneson was not that organized as a writer), and most important had the impetus and the means to publish this collaboration. Worrying about who should take the lion's share of the credit for the birth of "real D&D" is probably pointless. If Arneson did do a lot to form the basis of the game itself, he used Gygax's Chainmail ideas as the base, and Gygax was the one that got it out to the world (with Arneson co-credited). The stories are many, sometimes nasty, and now clouded by 30-35 years of passed time. It would be nice for historical purposes to get all this straight (I hope the details of Arneson's legal issues with TSR are made public after his death), but First Fantasy Campaign is out there, and while it would have been nice for Arneson to have the platform and the drive to be as vocal and influential as Gygax (Arneson is with us now, but for various reasons isn't as involved with answering fan questions as Gygax was on multiple forums), and while it does seem unfair to always fly the flag of Gygaxian D&D when he was not, in and of himself, the creator of the game, that does not diminish the real and genuine vision that Gygax had.
Sorry for the digression, but it's so easy to forget or downplay things that are very important and without which we wouldn't be here doing this today. These things are important and should be remembered and discussed and studied.
Back to commentary on the book.
Gygax calls the 1977 Basic Set (that would be the Holmes-edited set) the second edition of D&D, and (keep in mind Role-Playing Mastery was written in 1987) Gygax says that, "By the timethe D&D Basic Set was published in 1977, the game had fully evolved from its 'accessory' status to a game system that stood alone.
So the original box wasn't intended to be its own stand-alone game, and those references to Chainmail therein weren't throwaways.
He then talks about the explosion of the RPG hobby in both variety and availability to the point where it was being played by "millions."
In a search for mastery of role-playing, it is important to understand why this occurred.
Historical understanding of the hobby, and not just superior play, are necessary for Role-Playing Mastery, according to Gygax. This sort of thing is awesome because to argue against it is to champion the idea that mastery and ignorance is a perfectly acceptable state of affairs.
The most obvious answer is the one usually overlooked. At the foundation of all the other facts about "why" is the simple truth that it is fun to play role games. All leisure-time products and services are created and sold for exactly such a reason - to bring enjoyment to those who use them. However, role-playing games, by their nature, call upon the participants to develop a deeper involvement in the activity than another type of game might require. Many of those with the time and inclination to indulge in such a demanding but fulfilling pastime become avid players. A role-playing game, instead of being an idle activity only engaged in when the weather is wet or cold, quickly becomes one of highly active and eager participation. This deep involvement and commitment shared by all enthusiasts is indeed a contributing reason for the popularity of role games.
The book then describes how the interactive aspects differ from books or television.
Gygax turns this discussion into a highlight of the importance of the campaign.
Enjoyment grows as the game matures and becomes more complex and as a campaign's unique and independent personality develops. The game campaign actually alters to become the cooperative effort of the game manufacturer and the group playing it. In this way, the game, in each particular manifestation of itself, takes on a life of its own.
I take this as meaning, in a modern context, that one-shots and simply playing a series of modules as a campaign (note that such an admonishment concerning pre-prepared materials also appears on p87, first paragraph under the "Setting Things in Motion" heading, as well as the last paragraph in the first column of page 91) means that one won't get the full satisfaction and benefits and potential from role-playing.
Gygax then talks a bit, in a roundabout way, concerning the hysteria of the time (a few years previous, really) that suggested D&D had undesirable effects upon its players.
To attribute war, killing, and violence to film, TV, and role-playing games is to fly in the face of thousands of years of recorded history. In Little Wars, H.G. Wells pointed out that tin soldiers leave no orphans or widows and ventured the thought that if more people were busy "fighting" such "little wars," they would have no time for big (real) ones... A master player or game master does not allow - in fact, never gives a conscious thought to allowing - actions taken in the context of the game to dictate or affect his or her activities in the real-world environment. A master knows the difference between role-playing, role assumption, and real life and never mixes one of these with another. This is the best, and indeed the only, way to get the utmost benefit out of each activity.
(there is also this bit that appears later, when discussing character morality:)
It is neither wrong nor condemnable to act the part of a character who by the social and cultural standards of our society is bad, evil, or wrong. When all is said and done, games are not reality or actual life. It makes as much sense to vilify an actor for playing the role of a villain as it does to say that a participant ina game who has a PC whose moral standards cannot be called good is engaging in some form of wrongdoing. Master role-playing gamers easily separate the difference between play and reality. In fact, even novices can do so without much difficulty.
The last two sentences are emphasized in the book.
It seems odd at first glance, in current times, to end a section entitled Role-Playing: The Foundation of Fun with an admonishment concerning fantasy versus reality. But putting it into historical perspective, when Gygax pretty much had the deaths of young people laid at his feet, perhaps it isn't so odd that he would stress this point so much.
And maybe current times aren't so difference. I wish I had remembered these two sections when dealing with certain moral alarmists who are also followers of the Gygaxian ways.
I just wanted to give a bit of thanks for sharing your examination of this book. It is always good to know the perspective of one of the originators of the hobby.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to reading about the rest of the book.
"Historical understanding of the hobby, and not just superior play, are necessary for Role-Playing Mastery, according to Gygax. This sort of thing is awesome because to argue against it is to champion the idea that mastery and ignorance is a perfectly acceptable state of affairs."
ReplyDeleteHuh???
You are mixing two things (empiric thruth & what YOU consider to be morally acceptable) which don't belong together.
Let's take a look at the original statement, shall we:
"In a search for mastery of role-playing, it is important to understand why this occurred."
Gygax talks about the *importance* of history as one possible way of "mastering" the hobby (whatever the heck this means).
If he had to say "the only way" (like you did), then I would have cried foul, since I have plenty of experiences, which *clearly* disprove such an absolute statement.
The entire RPG-hobby is based on the assumption, that to improve your roleplaying-skills, you needn't have a fucking clue what you are doing (read the original Braunstein APs for prove of this).
Anyone claims otherwise isn't talking about the RPG-hobby, but rather about a *very specific* branch of RPG-theory (the branch which tries to impose a normative view of what roleplaying should be like, rather then a descriptive one), which is a very dangerous thing to forget.
In short: what you wrote, is not very different from the average RPGnet post about GNS.
Great and wise stuff from the Master of the Game. Thanks for posting this, James! :)
ReplyDelete>>Huh??? You are mixing two things (empiric thruth & what YOU consider to be morally acceptable) which don't belong together.
ReplyDeleteThere is no empirical truth in a matter such as this.
>>Gygax talks about the *importance* of history as one possible way of "mastering" the hobby (whatever the heck this means).
Actually, Gygax was wont to making absolute proclamations ("YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT" sound familiar?) and this book (which this series of posts comments on, but hardly replaces or fully explains... you need to read the book to get Gygax's full views on the subject) suggests a thorough approach to mastery. It isn't "There is this way or this way or this way," but rather, "This AND this AND this AND this are necessary for mastery."
>>If he had to say "the only way" (like you did), then I would have cried foul, since I have plenty of experiences, which *clearly* disprove such an absolute statement.
... which only works if we agree that you are A- a "master," and B- using the term the same way Gygax does. Participating in, enjoying, and being good at RPGs is not by itself "mastery" in the way Gygax uses the term in the book.
As far as Braunstein... I've read up on it, and can certainly accept its contribution into the stew that RPGs emerged from... but calling it an RPG in and of itself isn't something I'm prepared to do. Everything I've heard about it is that it was more of a LARP (which I consider a related, but fundamentally different hobby than tabletop role-playing, which should be understood is what I mean by "RPG" when I use the term) and certainly wasn't ever intended as an ongoing game.