Examining Role-Playing Mastery by Gary Gygax, Part IX

Chapter 7: Tactical Mastery

Do you like the Successful Adventures section of the Players Handbook (p107)? Gygax obviously did too (and I think it's one of the better, in terms of both usefulness and clarity, bits he's ever written), because Chapter 7 is all about that sort of thing... but watered down a bit for more general usage.

The chapter begins with a lot of hoo-ha about how difficult it is to come up with advice that is universal, since so much depends on the game system in question and the goal of play at the individual table. But never fear, Gygax has assembled a list of tips "that any PC can follow in any game and scenarios that will help assure success."

While I do believe that's a bit of an exaggeration, I also think that players would do well to keep (most of) these in mind.

Know the mission. Based on the information you are given in the background and setting of a scenario, define exactly what you are going to try to do. Sometimes the mission will be spelled out in no uncertain terms; if it is not, you should be able to deduce it logically from the information provided. Keep the mission in mind at all times, so that each activity you engage in assists in the overall aim.

Know the goal. The mission should have a set goal. When that goal is successfully achieved or arrived at, the mission is complete and the adventure should conclude at that point. The distinction between "mission" and "goal" may not always seem clear-cut, but the distinction is there nonetheless. The mission is a description of what must be done to achieve success; the goal is an enumeration of the condition(s) that will prevail when the mission is complete. For instance, the mission of a lawman is to apprehend and detain a suspected criminal; the goal of that mission is attained when the quarry is safely behind bars.

Define the objectives. The mission and goal, once defined and analyzed, will contain distinct places where progress can be measured. Each such objective should take you one step closer to attainment of the goal and completion of the mission. At times, however, the reaching of an objective does not lead directly toward the next objective. After reaching an objective, examine your remaining resources. If you have incurred losses so great as to make further objectives probably unattainable, then break off the mission for the time being. Run away that day, reequip, and return to the mission when you are back at full strength. In our example, one of the lawman's first objectives would be to find the trail of the criminal he is seeking; then he must catch up with and force an encounter with his quarry, and so forth.

I do believe, despite his protests to the contrary, that these things are pretty much the same thing. "Know what you need to do, and break it down into steps if it's a big thing."

I do find it interesting that it seems that Gygax had given up on, or at least accepted that the RPG audience would have given up on, "sandbox" and exploration type gaming. This advice seems to assume a specific mission of some sort. Sandbox/exploration advice might look a bit similar, but I don't think it would be the same.

Make, and follow, a plan. When the mission is understood, the goal is clear to all, and objectives have been set, then it is time to devise a plan that takes into account all members of the PC group and how they will communicate and operate together. Have each team member understand his assignment. Assess strengths and weaknesses. Know all the resources available. The plan is to be adhered to at all times when it appears to have a chance at success - or less chance of failure than some other plan. In the plan should be recognition signals, a rendezvous point in case the team should become separated, and even some cover story to explain your presence/activity in the area where the scenario takes place.

This could probably be put into the first bit as well, but I can also see where "Know what you need to do," and, "figure out how you're going to do it," are separate.

Maintain the tempo. Keep moving. Press toward the goal. Time is often the ally of the opponents, so allow as little as possible to be wasted.

... ELSE WANDERING MONSTERS CHOMP ON YOUR BUTT!!!!!

Operate as a unit. The characters involved in an adventure must cooperate to achieve their goal and successfully complete the mission. Utilize each character's strength and cover everyone's weaknesses as a group entity. Separated, fingers are vulnerable. In tightly closed form, they become a fist.

You'd be surprised how many parties don't follow this advice as a rule. Short-term selfishness never leads to long-term good results when you have to deal with the same people tomorrow as you did yesterday...

Use your sense... Use your common sense at all times. Usually it is the best method for average problem solving.

... and your character's senses. Your character has them - use them! How? You have to stay in constant contact with the GM in this regard. When your PC is in any situation in which information is lacking - entering an unknown area, for example - address the GM and assume a mode such as this: "I'm looking up, down, all around. What do I see? Can I hear anything? What do I smell? Do I sense or feel anything unusual?"

Ah yes. Challenge the player and his skills, not a character's "awareness" stat. This also plays into the idea of Gygaxian Naturalism, because only in a more-or-less recognizable world would all of these reap any benefit.

Record, refer, and remember. Keep track of your resources. This means weapons, devices, and anything else useful. (Team members are resources, too, of course, but that utilization has already been dealt with.) Use this information as reference material when you're trying to determine a course of action. Additionally, record information as to where you've been, where you are now, and where you're going. Note anything unusual in this regard. When actual record-keeping would be cumbersome or time consuming, make a conscious effort to remember what you have come across so that you will recognize it if you see it again.

I believe this advice comes from the position that "a PC is a guy who does stuff," not from the "a PC is an awesome hero that we're telling a story about," because in the latter case, all of this stuff would be boring. "What action hero keeps track of his stuff?" In an exploration/vulnerable game, doing that very thing can be the difference between life and death.

And it's funny as hell when a party finally finds the big score... and then realizes they can't carry any of it out because their sacks are full of rations needed for the trip back home. :D

Scout the enemy. Take the time and make the effort to get to know your opponents as fully as possible. This knowledge will enable the most efficient handling of such opposition with a minimum expenditure of time and other resources in overcoming whatever stands between you and your goal. In the example used earlier, the lawman's search for the criminal will go more quickly if he takes the time to question townspeople and find out that the wrongdoer has a cohort waiting for him in the town to the east. With that one piece of information, the lawman finds out two important things: the criminal's destination, and the fact that he (the lawman) will probably have to face two opponents instead of just one when he arrives at the same place.

"Rushing in blindly, swords swinging/guns blazing, is bad, mmmkay?"

Be consistent. Strategy and grand tactics will often dictate unique methods of handling familiar problems, because the opponents will be surprised by such methodology. Small-scale tactical applications, on the other hand, call for a high degree of consistency. Think of how one gets through a maze. By placing one hand, let us say the left, on the wall of a maze and always keeping it on a wall, one will eventually complete the entire path between entrance and exit. In similar fashion, if you are exploring, take a direction that seems promising and follow it. If you are unable to continue in that direction, have a second choice. Thus, for instance, if one moves always north and west, to return to a place previously passed, one need only move south and east.

Advice that again seems only relevant to an exploration/down-to-earth kind of game.

Evade and avoid. Whenever possible, conserve time and other resources by avoiding unnecessary confrontation. Slip away without fighting, negotiate, or use trickery. The goal of the mission is paramount, and only those activities that will lend probable success to attaining that goal should be undertaken.

Classic D&D survival trait. Especially if your evil referee doesn't hesitate to put NASTY STUFF on level one that isn't even intended to be defeated.

Don't be afraid to improvise. At times, the plan cannot be followed. Improvise a new set of short-term plans immediately. Again, at times, resources will not be sufficient to complete the mission. Improvise! Perhaps materials and/or friendly individuals at hand can be utilized. When you are improvising, keep your goal and objectives in mind. In our example of the lawman and the criminal, let us suppose that the lawman arrives at the town and finds the cohort (without revealing his own true identity, of course), but discovers that the man he's after is nowhere to be seen. Was the lawman's original information incorrect? Has he somehow arrived at the destination before his quarry got there? Should be bide his time or resume his search in a different locale? The lawman must improvise because things haven't gone the way he expected them to, but no matter what he decides to do at this juncture, he should always keep sight of his mission and his goal.

"You know all those plans I was talking about early on? They're not going to work. Be prepared!"

Yeah, after the Successful Adventures section of the Players Handbook, this does all seem either wanting, or redundant. Not to mention RPGs have gotten so diverse that this advice is dubious for many of them, and playing this way may actually break genre emulation if practiced (as I think I did during the Dirty World demo at Ropecon...). I'm not sure RPGs weren't already too diverse for this to be weak universal advice already in 1987. It does bring a few questions to mind, as I try to reconcile Gary's gaming style of the 70s with what he's written about the "mission" and such here.

And if there is any doubt about his plot-and-story leanings at this time, after the points above there is a section called The Disappearing Dwarf, where Gygax outlines three scenarios in different genres, all bearing the same title. He then attempts to apply the advice he gave before to these scenarios as an example of how it works in practical play. I think this is a particularly weak section. Gygax, in addition to being a game designer and writer and publisher, has a vast amount of experience playing and running games. He should have given examples from his real-life games, with any appropriate serial numbers filed off if legally necessay, instead of inventing things that give him all the leverage in saying what's best to do. If he'd used, say, Village of Hommlet as an example, then we could read it and judge whether Gygax has a point and how well that point works.

It's fantastically simple to come up with a theory for how things work, and then give made-up examples to demonstrate that those theories are correct. The Forge and the designers there seem to have done it, creating games different from (but hardly replacing) the games that came before. We're all doing it now with the theorizing and exploration of old D&D, learning from and noting, and then playing with these new-old interpretations of What Things Mean. Gygax falls into the same trap we all seem to, in applying these theories universally... and the theories at this point weren't very coherent. D&D, the market, and Gygax's attitudes towards them all changed over the years (note the DMG's given reasons for not providing social status generation for PCs... and note that the same are in Unearthed Arcana). Dragonlance and the other Hickman modules may have been a change in direction that struck deep with many gamers, but we can hardly say that Gary was asleep at the wheel or that he failed to recognize or fix these "problems" as they developed. He seemed to be on board, at least as far as producing product was concerned. I have no idea how he was running his home games as the early 80s shifted undeniably into the mid-80s... (kind of like how I kept saying I was in my "early 30s" until I turned 34. :P)

The next bit in our series will be about Chapter 8: Designing Your Own Game... which, honestly, seems like a disaster-in-the-making considering that greatest standard to judge these tips against would be Gygax's own designs... and I have never read a post-D&D Gygax game. Ah well, the worst that can happen is that the post is a disaster. :D

Examining Role-Playing Mastery by Gary Gygax, Part VIII

Gary Gygax was one of the most influential, inspirational, and evocative creative minds of the 20th Century... and one of the worst technical writers of that period.

Gygax's writing enabled, encouraged, and empowered millions of people to make creations of their own, creations that gave people joy in their own homes, and in a few instances, creations that later went on to become widely experienced on their own. His influence was far reaching, from the mundane and everyday to the bizarre fringe: His creations helped otherwise socially hopeless troglodytes find their niche and make friends, his creations helped extreme fundamentalists and grieving parents something irrelevant to bitch about, and his creations ended up being the engine that created the console and home computer markets. His presentation of his and others' concepts have had an incredible impact on this world when you think about it starting with some people pretending to be elves and exploring a castle that never existed.

But man oh man, as evocative and inspiration as Gary's work was, it also has to be said that it was also a complete mess. Perhaps the combination and the results it had were not unrelated. Maybe the whole thing wouldn't have worked if it had been any other way. But while Gary was blowing people mind's and changing the way their imagination worked, he was confusing the hell out of everyone as well.

OD&D doesn't explain itself very well. Not at all. If someone unfamiliar with RPGs picks that up (especially decades later when Chainmail and Outdoor Survival aren't a trip to the hobby shop away), are they going to be able to sit down and play a game? Thirty-five years later and people still can't agree exactly what "By the Book OD&D" actually is. I have my sinister doubts that the "It's meant to be customized and house-ruled!" was intended from the beginning, a happy accident resulting from not knowing how to exactly explain what to do rather than an attempt to present an open-ended product.

That by itself wouldn't be a criticism of Gary's writing. RPGs were something brand new, and it wasn't expected to appeal to Middle American Youth that weren't also voracious wargame players. Certain forgiveness is to be made for a pioneer who presents something rough around the edges when nobody yet has a concept of what a slick presentation would look like, or even where the edges even are.

(I still wonder how bad Dave Arneson's organization had to be, if we take Tim Kask's accounts at face value, if it was considered horrendous by Gygaxian standards...)

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons was a different story. This set of rules was intended from the start to be standardized and used for tournament play. It had one byline on the books - Gygax's - so no excuses, even if he obviously wasn't the sole contributor. The buck stopped with him.

And it's an organizational mess. Yes, the organization is logical, but it's hardly useful, and I defy anyone to tell me about one single session in which they ran an AD&D game by the book. Especially combat and initiative.

It can't be done.

I suspect J. Eric Holmes', Tom Moldvay's, and Frank Mentzer's efforts in providing Gygaxian-to-English translations and simplifications had a good amount to do with ongoing D&D play after AD&D came out. As it turns out, half the stuff people were doing with AD&D were actually based in the "Basic" versions of the game. Because by-the-book AD&D is impenetrable.

... which is strangely not a valid criticism of Gygax as a writer or D&D or AD&D as games. Because we took those things and played the hell out of them, and still continue to do so all this time later, with decades of RPG development of new offerings behind us, largely because of how Gygax wrote and how he energized the people around him. That's the way creative talent works... although it could be argued that the same impetus that got millions gaming also encouraged future revisions that we so revile today... but artists getting their creations mangled by the businessmen is an age-old tale as well.

Chapter 6: Searching and Researching

First up in this chapter? How to choose a role-playing game that's right for you! Seriously, on page 104 on a book on role-playing mastery, that's included all the stuff I've discussed (and much more - this analysis is intended as a companion for the book, not a bypass), it actually says, "If you are contemplating purchasing and learning a role-playing game for the first time..."

Yes, the logic is there (last chapter's explanation about how rules work together should enable someone to then know what kind of rules they'd want and blah blah blah) but it's absolutely insane to expect someone just getting interested, without having played yet, to sit through this book to get to this point where it starts talking to them.

So here we get the discussion of genres and the more popular games of the genres (for the record: Fantasy, science fantasy, science fiction, post-holocaust, horror, time travel, espionage, detective, and historical), and that goes for a few pages.

Then the section entitled Knowing the World of Your PC ramps up the Gygaxian Way of Things.

As a participant in a role-playing game campaign, you must be an expert on the world in which your game persona lives and has adventures.

Basically... you are commanded to study! Gary gives an example of a game he participated in at Stanford University (with Don Kaye, among others) in the mid-1960s called The Ad Hoc Committee for the Reconstruction of WWII.

I participated in the role of the Chinese Communist Commander... I proceeded to acquire books on the history, culture, agriculture, politics, and literature of China. I needed to know these things to understand the people and the politics of China. Of course, I bought maps, military histories, and even writings of Chairman Mao - the person I played in the game.

He then goes on to note that the game aborted before getting off the ground because the game directors were far too ambitious, but Gygax says he enjoyed the experience and the learning anyway.

Gygax notes that RPG campaigns don't require just fastidious scholarship, but "complete immersion in the make-believe world actually requires a fair amount of real knowledge."

... I recommend the reading of works such as A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages, Town Government in the Sixteenth Century, The Domesday Book, The Welsh Wars of Edward II, and Numbers in History. Armor, weapons, fortification, siegecraft, costume, agriculture, politics, heraldry, and warfare are the meat and drink of a serious participant in a game such as Dungeons and Dragons.

Just one look at the pole-arm fetish present in the AD&D books lets you know he's not kidding.

He recommends, beyond careful study of the game you're about to play, reading the works of the authors that inspired the game. "The pyramid gets broader as we go deeper; in some cases, a really energetic student of a game based on a single author's work may benefit from examining the works that influence the author's and designer's sources, and so on."

Gygax also suggests investing in the games that may have influenced the design of the particular game you're about to play.

And as we go out into the seemingly batshit insanity even further:

Consider two other works. One is the Boy Scout Handbook. The other is the Army Survival Manual. If you were actually to perform or experience everything contained within the pages of these two books, you would be well on your way to becoming a true explorer. In real terms, you would be self-sufficient under extreme conditions; you would be able to survive, or at least to survive more easily and more comfortably, by using your knowledge. In game terms, you could use this same knowledge to enable your character(s) to function and survive under adverse physical conditions in the majority of the make-believe worlds of adventure. Since these make-believe worlds are, by and large, are actually based on Earth or at least on an Earthlike environment, your real-world knowledge is transferable. You (and your characters) will know how to determine direction and thus, it is hoped, keep from getting lost. You will know how to perform basic first aid, which could save the life of a character in dire straits. And the list goes on... Coupled with what you know now and what you will learn in the future, how much broader is your knowledge base? How much greater your self-sufficiency level in other conditions? While there is no method of actually learning magic and there are no starships to pilot (yet!), much of what lies between can be known.

I love that "(yet!)" in there.

I also love this idea that this player knowledge, in Gygax's view, is expected to be applicable in-game, otherwise independent of a character's abilities. Player knowledge and ability should matter, and people that are clueless outside of the game shouldn't suddenly expect to be clueful inside of it. This also means that knowledgeable players could take their GMs for a ride if the GM isn't up on half the stuff the players are.

Those of us in bloggyland designing campaigns and megadungeons right now aren't really prepared for all that, are we?

I do believe that this was not a new philosophy of Gygax's, as stories from his early games are filled with shout-outs to literature he's read, not to mention the foundation of the wargaming hobby was knowing a thing or two about strategy and tactics. He expected a role-playing game to use all the real-world knowledge the referee and player had, and he expected the game to extend that real-world knowledge even further.

It really sounds insane to suggest that sort of thinking in today's role-playing environment... and it certainly goes against Gygax's DMG admonition that this is simply an "amusing and diverting pastime."

But doesn't that just sound better than letting some stat on your sheet take care of everything for you?

Man, that was quite the chapter. Everything bad, and everything great, about Gygax contained within 14 pages.

Next up will be Chapter 7: Tactical Mastery.

Examining Role-Playing Mastery by Gary Gygax, Part VII

Chapter V- Rules: Construction and Reconstruction

In this chapter, you will learn about the major pieces that comprise any RPG framework, how they fit together, and about how pieces from different games might be combined into an entirely new and unique game form to suit the special needs and desires of a playing group.

I wonder if he'd even attempt such an essay in 2008. Gygax goes on to talk about how "time and distance" scales are important (along with movement rates, concerns for terrain), combat, different character types, "technical data" (how items and such work), and rewards ("Because a participant does not 'win' an RPG in the traditional sense of the word, rewards in such a game come in the form of augmentation of the PC."

Hmmm. Is Gygax's definition of what an RPG is out of date (although certain of those factors were not present in some games even then), is he simply using a narrow view of what an RPG is, or is the definition of "RPG" really that narrow and people have been abusing the term more and more over time?

Then, in a section called "Adding Flavor," Gygax lists seven "major elements" than RPGs must possess in order to "have a good chance of being exciting and enjoyable (and thus popular):"

1. wonder and fear
2. adventure and heroism
3. problem solving
4. role-playing
5. combat, conflict, and battle
6. group operation
7. enlightenment and education

Some quotes about each of these:

Wonder and fear underlie the popularity of the whole hobby of role-playing games.
Adventure and heroism are present to a measurable degree in all role-playing games in which player characters are called upon to perform remarkable feats under adverse conditions.
There's nothing like the sense of satisfaction we get from using our minds to solve or accomplish something.
Role-playing is not the reason for the existence of role-games. Role-playing is the vehicle through which play becomes possible.
Conflict, combat, and battle are integral to all games.

Here's one:

Certain games claim to have a basis in role-playing while in fact all they offer is an aspect of role gaming. These designs feature role assumption. That is, you are given a game persona - you do not create and personalize the character you are to play. Typically, the situations you find the character in are also prescribed by the game. Choices are limited, and game play will always be channeled and of relatively short duration. Do not be misled by claims to the contrary. Role-playing and role assumption are quite different... [role assumption] is a different and lesser game form, I believe.

Does this take care of the Braunstein example (at least from Gygax's point of view)? Wouldn't this also include D&D if played using only modules (which isn't a problem since Gary really didn't play that way)?

And I like this one:

If one cannot define the subject matter, one cannot possibly expect to master it.

Gary then goes on to talk about the RPG play unit, noting that the minimum number of people needed to play is two (GM and a player), but that it is desirable to have more than two players for greater chance of game longevity. Player versus player is again discouraged:

The stronger the provisions within the rules for encouraging cooperation, the better the game... To invest effort in a work that is internally geared to destroy itself is unwise.

Gary then tackles the question of how many players in a session is best? His answer? Three or four. Double that with an assistant. So were all those classic modules, intended for these larger groups, meant to be run by a DM and assistant (that was curiously never mentioned)?

Last, but not least, we have the element of enlightment and education. The game system should in and of itself provide enlightenment. This applies to the correct and expert play of the game proper and also to the genre and the milieu in which it is set... the latter, most certainly, will come only if the participant pursues study on his own. All RPGs should, in fact, encourage such study and provide information as to what sources can be consulted for the effort.

Then it moves on to a section entitled Defining Parameters of Play.

The parameters of the game delineate, for the reader of the rules, just what is possible. Therefore, the reader must compare what is written and implied with what he expects from the game.

Emphasis mine. The text then describes that many house rules suggested are not to improve the game, but rather control it. It then talks about the folly of re-tooling a system to be something against the spirit of the game:

No thinking participant would seek to create a game persona who was a liberal, pacifist, nonviolent crusader for world harmony in a system based on survival after a worldwide holocaust. Yet to a lesser degree, this frequently occurs in RPG campaigns. Game masters beware!

"Hey," you might be wondering. "That sounds like it might be interesting!" Obviously, you're not a thinking participant!

The text does go into some general guidelines (nothing even remotely system specific) of how to properly introduce house rules, and even says that a comprehensively written RPG would be undesirable because a game should be personalized by the individual game group.

Then comes "Remodeling the Rules," a section that makes my vision go blurry. He uses an extended house remodeling metaphor to make his point (I can imagine the 2009 version would have EXTREME GAME MAKEOVER!).

Gygax then warns that groups that play unique (as in, homemade) games "must display a rare sort of mastery indeed to bring their game choice into acceptance and their group into a position from which it can communicate with the general audience for role-playing game activity." Like people who do this are isolated tribes in the jungle with no contact with civilization, right? This chapter seems padded and I don't think it made much sense in 1987. Everyone I knew was always making a game, and we'd try it out, in between playing D&D or Marvel Super Heroes or whatever we were doing to each other game-wise.

One interesting bit is about changing the campaign from one game system to another while retaining characters and prior events and everything.

My own fantasy campaign has been changed three times. Once the Greyhawk campaign went from D&D to AD&D game rules. Then it was altered from a single-GM campaign to a dual-GM setup, in which another person assumed GM duties when I was unable to participate. Finally it was redeveloped to enable the management of diverse player groups over a long period of time and at erratic intervals while still allowing those members of the core player group to continue their various PCs within the whole. My reduced time for game mastering forced some of these changes, but time and change were also factors, for the campaign was initiated in 1973 and is still reasonably active to date.

Then Gygax discusses the difficulty of bringing a brand new rules set to the gaming community, discusses the advantages of popular games, and then says, "This does not mean that this work advocates basing campaigns on only those games that are popular. To put it bluntly, I of all people would never do so. When I introduced the D&D game in 1974, there were only a few campaigns going."

Greyhawk, Blackmoor... and what else?

Anyway, that's 12 pages of basically saying, "Consider carefully the current rules, the reasons for them, and what changes would do to your game before you change anything. Oh yeah, and the rest of the hobby might think you're a stinkin' freak if you go too far."

The next part of our journey will be Chapter 6: Searching and Researching, in which Gary will explain how to go about deciding which RPG is right for you.

Examining Role-Playing Mastery by Gary Gygax, Part VI

Chapter 4- The Group: More Than Its Parts

The chapter starts off with laying down some Gygaxian law:

Group operation and cooperation are the nucleus of any RPG activity. This fact should be obvious from the rules of the game, even if it is not explicitly stated within those rules. Despite this, many long-time participants in a single RPG system do not truly understand or appreciate the interrelationships of the varying approaches to the problems posed by the game system or to the dynamics of a group that is balanced and works well as a team. At the other extreme are novices who instantly grasp these facts and attempt to put their knowledge into play. If the two opposites happen to comprise the same group, or a part thereof, sparks will surely fly. Mere time and experience at play do not make expertise. A veteran soldier is not necessarily either a good tactician or a master of strategy. Because role-playing games are group-oriented, and ongoing play and success requires cooperation, the other player participants must be regarded as friends, or at worst allies, until one or another demonstrates otherwise.

This is both bleedingly obvious and a bit profound. First, the statement that important things about games are not necessarily plainly stated in the rules. I don't think this is necessarily a shortcoming of those rules if someone doesn't understand; there is a good chance it's a failure on the part of the reader. These books shouldn't be written for the dullest of us.

The other good point is that experience does not necessarily mean anything. Someone can play and play and not get any better (and I would guess that such a situation occurs more likely for someone that doesn't take the game so seriously) while someone new at the whole thing might just get the principles involved immediately. Not to say that such a natural wouldn't benefit greatly from frequent playing, of course.

Nothing is more heartbreaking from the referee side of the screen than seeing a clueless veteran player browbeating a clever newcomer on the basis of seniority, not ability. Of course, it is heartwarming to see a clueful veteran being patient and explaining certain things to a clueless green gamer.

This bit also posits that player versus player is not a good situation for long-term gaming. Not to say such things can't be fun in their place, but the continuous accomplishing of goals, both short- and long-term, is surely easier when you know that neither character nor player are going to pull any shenanigans on you. (have there been any long-term Paranoia games, ever, by the way?)

This does not contradict my arguments for a possible "evil" game. This bit here is about group cohesion, and it's perfectly possible for a group of evil characters with scheming players to cooperate with each other and have long-term success... but I don't think the denizens of the campaign world will be much in favor of it. Different things.

Gygax then goes on to describe various types of groups (regular veteran playing group, fragmented veteran playing group, enthusiast-driven player group, peer-group, and club gatherings) and describes the dynamics of each sort of group. While it's interesting theory, I don't know how applicable it is to real-world 2008 traditional gaming. A lot of us have trouble getting any kind of group at all, and those without that problem can't exactly afford to be picky about the experience and caliber of the player at the time they first walk through the door.

That does involve Gygax's demand on GMs though: "The would-be master GM must exert himself to make them into regular veteran groups. This is done by accommodating new or less skilled participants in order to encourage and train them." It is noted that "personal sacrifice" on the part of veterans in order to acclimate new players (by "lowering the level of play" as one means) will enrich the hobby as a whole.

Again, about the benefits and demands of mastery:

Development of mastery subsumes a large and long-term investment of time and effort. Without a group, such investment is wasted. With a superior group, the investment is bound to bring returns quickly and in far greater degree.

Then is talks about demands on players within a group. "As a player, your analysis of your player group must direct your selection (and attendant play) of a PC." Reading between the lines, the master player doesn't have a "pet character type," but rather is able to step in with whatever character type makes the group operate best. The master player, while of course having certain archetypes he might be best with, would at worst be effective in any type that he would play. Pushing my agenda upon the wording even more, I believe a master player rolls a new character with curiosity wondering how it will turn out, rather than working to direct the process in any particular direction for his own enjoyment (of course this is for random generation) or hoping for a specific type to the point that he'd be disappointed if he didn't get it.

Then... Gygax sinks to the utter depths of negativity to discuss problem players and GMs!

If the game master is a novice, or tends to be weak in his direction of players, difficulties can arise. If the GM is unwilling to take effective control, one or more of the other participants must then do so, meanwhile encouraging the GM during nonplaying time, so that authority will be vested in the proper party as soon as possible.

Emphasis mine. Woohoo, is that antiquated stuff or what?

I don't think it is. People would have you believe it is, and maybe you have to pretend it is, but...

Anyway, the types of problem players: The bully, the know-it-all, the adviser (like the know-it-all but doesn't know jack), the cheater, and the pouter. Of special interest is the talker, who is split into two categories... the first is the guy who is using gaming to socialize, and in just being friendly disrupts the game with pleasant, but completely off-the-topic, chatter. Then there's the clueless type that actively distracts from his knowledge about the game or what to do by talking your ear off.

Often he will try to show that his acting ability is superior and use theatrics and overdramatization to cover for his lack of knowledge and playing skill.

I know a lot of people that would give that guy bonus XP for "role-playing."

Then the Player Problem section deals with hostility between players, and then wraps up talking about non-hostile, in-game only player versus player gaming is discouraged not only because of the possibility of real-life tensions resulting, but because such things make the game's "goal" that much more difficult to achieve.

Then... Problem GMs. This is all about not being a dick. The players aren't there for abuse, and neither are characters. Killer campaigns are bad, but then so are easy-reward campaigns (either GMs that give it all away or players that brow-beat GMs into giving it to them).

Which leads to the point, the section "Mastery is Group Success."

Whatever rewards you seek [from gaming], all that might come are based on the play group. As a member of this team, you must know how to invest your efforts to enable the team to become more successful. As you pursue individual excellence and strive toward mastery, you must always bear in mind that it is possible only through your interaction with your RPG group.

... and the text goes on to say that standards of success can't be measured, but they can be defined.

One definition Gygax goes into is whether or not the other players in the group tell stories about the in-game activities to other people. Not, "Let you tell you about my character," but, "Let me tell you about Joe's character!" Seems a little odd, although I see the point.

The next definition is group members participating "successfully" in events outside the group... here comes that tournament thing again, but also mentions getting published in periodicals. The final definition is, peer recognition.

If you are one of the hardworking and fortunate few who become known and renowned among the rank and file of those involved in a common activity, then you - and by well-deserved association, the others in your group - have made it to the top of the mountain.

I see what he's saying, but I also get hives thinking that the modern-day equivalent is having a group of people on RPG.net thinking you've got cool ideas... whether or not you're actually gaming.

Up next (not necessarily tomorrow) will be Chapter 5... Rules: Construction and Reconstruction... with one section I absolutely love for what it means (if Gygax's definitions mean anything) for 4e... :P

Examining Role-Playing Mastery by Gary Gygax, Part V

Chapter 3- The Master GM

I think most of us blogging and reading tend to be game masters (or DMs, or referees, or judges, or whatever). Who out there is simply a player? I do think this is to our detriment, and I have a feeling that referees who don't get to play will tend to over-write their own material. That is purely conjecture on my part though. I also feel that players who often referee might have a tendency to be more demanding of their current referee, but again, conjecture.

Still, I think the last installment, if being read more by people running games than participating in them, creates a sense of expectation on our parts. We're the ones planning and statting and drawing (and maybe hosting), and all the people at our table just show up and enjoy? Unfair! To the mines with you!

But this chapter is for us.

The name of the first section of the chapter? "The Creator, Organizer, and Arbiter of All."

yyyeeaaahhh!

Some choice bits there:

First off, there is a lot of discussion about setting creation (or world designing as it's called), but absolutely none about using an existing setting.

And on with the quotes...

Players and GMs alike, take heed: Despite misguided perceptions to the contrary, the game master is not the enemy of the player characters! At least, he shouldn't be. Those unenlightened or unscrupulous would-be GMs who take this stance of hostility towards PCs (or worse yet, towards players) won't be around long anyway, for their players will desert them in short order. Who then opposes the players' game personas? The GM does indeed have the duty of effecting opposition and posing problems - but not on a person-versus-person or person-versus-character basis. He does this by playing the parts of the various beings who are adversarial to the PCs engaged in the challenge posed by the session - on a character-versus-character basis, to distinguish it from the other forms of interaction just named. In addition to being the architect of the world in which the PCs' adventurers take place, the game master is also the representative of all the opposing creatures, forces, and phenomena that strive to keep the PCs from achieving their desired ends. This opposition must be personified in such a way as to present the maximum challenge for PCs and their players while not being so overwhelmingly powerful that any PC who dares to resist or combat the opposition is smeared flat when he makes his first move. This approach is valid and important even in the first stages of campaign creation; for instance, a GM who designs a world where the environment itself is fraught with naturally existing perils is asking for trouble. The point is to challenge the PCs, not kill them outright.

Much is made by the high body count in "old school" gaming, and often it is described as "antagonistic" or "DM versus players."

No.

No.

No.

The game master is the creator, organizer, and arbiter of all. His most important function during play, though, are more mundane. He is nature. He provides sensory data, and finally he fills in by playing the roles of living things the PCs interact with during the course of a session. With such an investment on an emotional level, the GM is prone to be something other than a disinterested party, although disinterested and impartial he must remain if it is at all possible. If the GM must succumb to a certain amount of emotional and preferential behavior - and it is virtually impossible not to do this - he should manifest these qualities not by desiring to see the PCs fail, so that the players become discouraged and (heaven forbid) cease play. Instead, he should be eager for the players to do so well with their PCs that they utilize every aspect, explore every bit of detail, and meet and overcome every obstacle that he has so painstakingly put into the scenario and the surrounding campaign.

The dedicated GM is not only an impartial judge of events, but at the same time he is an active force championing the cause of both the preservation of the PCs not bent on self-destruction and the continued satisfaction of players who do not seek to see the campaign ruined. Conversely, he has no ethical or moral obligation to keep a PC alive and viable if that character's player insists on leaping into the jaws of adversity - and he owes it to himself and the others in the group to discipline or dismiss a player who has a selfish and treacherous attitude towards the campaign.

See? Not an enemy.

Then he hits us with a rather unfortunate thing to say.

To be a truly masterful GM, the individual must have experienced extensive participation in one or more RPGs as a player.

I say unfortunate because many among us, I would guess, come more naturally to the refereeing role than the playing role... in my case, it's much easier to set up a game I want (and declare the language to be used) than to search out a game to my liking and hope I can understand enough to participate. I do wish I could play more often, and I do agree that my being on one side of the screen so often is a detriment to my efforts to excel there.

Then there's an evil, bad, wicked paragraph where Gygax comes out in favor of referee fudging for the players!!!!!

Crud. The last sentence of that paragraph:

If the party is in danger of extermination through no direct fault of their own and because a string of unlikely occurrences have all somehow come to pass, then this is the time for the GM to step in and set things back on the right track, or at least keep them from getting any worse.

I wonder how our definitions of "no direct fault of their own" would differ. "You sat in that room for four turns looking for a secret door, didn't find one, and now there's some nasty wandering monsters banging on the door!" :P

Of course, I say that in a case where the referee is going to let the characters escape (certainly I would think a referee should never let a PC succeed by fiat, merely at most prevent him from going out of play), that decision should be made and actions taken without picking up the die. I still stand by my belief that to roll a die is to accept its consequences, and that if you want something to happen that badly, just declare it so instead of going through the charade.

The next section is called Increasing the Excitement of Play, and it deals with the expansion and continuation of ongoing campaigns. The setup for the meat of the section is that ideas and direction can come from players, but the big line is "In all such cases, the superior game master protects the campaign first and foremost." Don't be bullied by the players, basically.

He then goes into a couple of weird tangents (weird since they seem out of place in a section about GM Mastery) explaining/defending his reasoning in not having gunpowder in D&D and not using a spell point system in D&D, using his players wishes for these things as an example of a referee standing firm to protect his campaign.

As far as his players wanting gunpowder, Gygax goes on about using kobolds armed with UZIs and "regenerating trolls plying bayonette rifles" as a way for "the harassed Dungeon Master looking for a way to put self-important PCs in their place." But, he concludes, "the game is medieval fantasy, and the spirit is magic, not technology." I guess the arquebus in Chainmail shouldn't be used then... ;)

The spell-point argument is actually well made. The meat of this argument is that the entire D&D magic system is built on the "fire and forget" assumption, and that certain spells are intentionally given lower levels than their power would indicate (I will guess that SLEEP is included here!), so a spell point system would overpower the magic-user. Gygax says there is nothing wrong with the idea of a spell point magic system, but the entire magic system would have to be written with the spell point system in mind from the start.

The role of the game master requires that a constant vigil be kept to see that the game campaign vehicle is maintained for use by the group for as long a time as they so desire.

So then, The Big List:

The Tenets of GM Mastery

1. The game exists to provide entertainment on an ongoing basis. The key words here are "entertainment" and "ongoing." The RPG activity must be entertaining (exciting, challenging, and fun at the same time), or else no one in the group will desire to continue participating. And following from that last thought, any role-playing game must be an ongoing, continuing activity in order for its full potential as a means of entertainment to be realized. Player characters are not created so that they can live through one or two brief episodes, and a campaign world is not designed for the sake of a few isolated hours of activity. If the effort that goes into playng is not to be wasted, the play must extend over a long period of time so that the effort invested can realize a return.

2. The individual campaign is an interpretive extension of the game it is based on, aimed at activity by a small group. The rules of a game describe a genre or a general situation in which game activity takes place. It is up to the game master to apply the principles and generalities given in the rules by creating a unique campaign environment in which those generalities are brought to life according to his sense of what sort of atmosphere will make for exciting and entertaining play. When he is creating his campaign, the GM must keep in mind that the realities of the world must be described in terms that can be appreciated and acted upon by a small group of player characters. If the world or some part is in peril and must be saved, the danger must not be something that can only be successfully combated by an army, because the players most likely do not (and should not) have an army at their disposal.

3. The creative interpretation of a campaign must remain within the scope and spirit of the game. This is a similar point to tenet #2, but different enough and important enough to warrant a separate place on the list. It has to do not so much with the campaign setting but with the nature of the challenges placed within that setting that must be met (and, ideally, overcome) by the PCs. For example, in an AD&D game campaign, the player characters cannot legitimately be chalenged by invaders from outer space, because that sort of challenge lies outside the scope of the game system. The challenge cannot be something that requires the PC to use the same methods used by the evil opposition in order to combat that evil (to be even "badder" than the "bad guys"), because that violates the spirit of the game.

4. The campaign is constantly undergoing modification through game master and player interaction. When the principal characters in a story (the campaign) are free-willed and have a multitude of choices regarding how to proceed, it is counterproductive - and, in fact, impossible - to preordain just how the events in the campaign will unfold. Any successful campaign must be flexible, and its creator must be open to changes - not only the changes that he perceives are necessary, but those that are directly or indirectly suggested by the preferences and actions of the players and the PCs. The result of ongoing modification is a campaign that at any point reflects and fulfills the desires and inclinations of the players as well as the GM.

5. The role of game master is that of an active neutral with duty first to the campaign, then the group, and then the game. First and foremost, the campaign must not only persevere but thrive. If it does not, then the group will founder and dissolve. Second - and a close second it is indeed - comes the interest of the group, specifically the player group. The members must be allowed and even encouraged to act in any way they see fit, as long as such action does not contravene the direction or the objective of the campaign. Third, but by no means unimportant, is the game system itself. The scope and the spirit of the game are inviolate and will remain so as long as the campaign remains dedicated to those ideals (as it always should). But the rules structure of the game is not and should not be immune to alteration. If the rules stress, for instance, combat over problem-solving, but the campaign and the group happen to lean in the other direction, then the GM is obliged to add to and delete from the rules structure selectively to reflect the aspects that the group desires the rules to focus on. In specific cases in which the PCs are in jeopardy because the rules of the game have worked against them through a rare succession of unlikely and adverse occurrences, the GM is within his rights to override the provisions of the rules for the sake of guaranteeing (for the moment, at least) the continued survival and viability of the player characters. In all cases, the GM must do his best to remain disinterested while retaining the power of absolute arbiter. If he allows his personality and emotions to creep into his methods of administering the campaign, he must do so with the intention of giving the PCs their best chance of success - as long as the players willingly and enthusiastically confront all the challenges that have been placed before their characters.

6. The game master serves best when he enables players to participate actively to their fullest.

7. Total mastery of a game system is desirable for game master and players alike. Self-evident on the surface, but a point worth elaborating upon nonetheless. A GM who has achieved mastery is in the best possible position to give the players in his group an exciting and enriching experience, by all the means and for all the reasons described elsewhere in this book. And the game master, who works so hard and long to provide players and PCs with the best he can give them, deserves the same consideration and the same benefits from the players with whom he interacts. A playing group composed entirely of master players plus a master GM has reached the pinnacle of RPG achievement. Once they have reached that peak, the members of that group should have no difficulty - and not incidentally, more than a little fun - in staying there. Following this maxim entails designing scenarios that will test PCs without overwhelming them; that will require the involvement of every PC in the participating group; and that will implicitly encourage each player to play his PC role "in character" instead of being tempted or compelled to deviate from that role in the interest of gaining some short-term benefit. Everyone in the group, including the GM, gets the most enjoyment out of a role-playing game when all participants share as equally as possible in the activity and when they all remain faithful to their chosen or designated roles in doing so.

(sorry, the formatting is a bit wonky, I dunno what blogger is up to with that, but ah well)

This is where Gygax and myself aren't sitting next to each other on the bus anymore.

1. No one-shots or closed-ended campaigns for you! I can dig this... I have never set up a game with the intention that it will ever end... and the definition of "entertainment" is one I can't argue too much with, since in the end it's neither solitary nor passive.

2. Gygax's talk about scope and armies seems to me to be off-base by going so far as to say characters "should not" have access to an army... especially since the rules he wrote specify many characters getting an army at name level. Maybe he's talking about initial play or something, but AD&D, surely the most intensely Gygaxian game out there, suggests dominions and holdings as the endgame for a character. His friend Frank Mentzer (who seems to have been something of a right hand man of Gygax in the 80s) codified this even more in his BECMI series of D&D rules, complete with mass conflict rules.

His boy Conan never was involved in situations where he commanded armed forces, right? (or are the types of adventures Conan went on suddenly out of bounds for D&D?)

That Gygax didn't think of mass combat as part of AD&D is fair to say, else there would have been rules for it. That Gygax would think that the same is out of bounds for role-playing games in general, let alone any iteration of D&D, is simply ludicrous.

3. I agree with the basic statement, but the two statements Gygax gives to support it... hmmm... how do I say this... Gygax is full of shit.

Also of note as part of this is that earlier in the text Gygax notes that, "Because [AD&D] is so extensively detailed and reflects a fantasy milieu in world-scale terms, there is no meaningful level of character success that is achievable with respect to the world community."

Raise your hand if you agree with that one. Hell, raise your hand if you can even conceive how that can be the case...

For example, in an AD&D game campaign, the player characters cannot legitimately be chalenged by invaders from outer space, because that sort of challenge lies outside the scope of the game system.

Gygax made it a point to separate AD&D from D&D as entities, so we can ignore the technological aspects of Blackmoor, the mention of robots in the original D&D set, and certainly third party oddness included in the Wilderlands and Arduin. We can disregard Spelljammer from consideration because not only did it not exist at the time of the writing, but it explicitly made outer space part of the scope of the system.

But... uhh...

EXPEDITION TO THE BARRIER PEAKS.

Gamma World conversion notes in the Dungeon Masters Guide.

... cross-genre madness was also encouraged by the Boot Hill conversion notes, not to mention things like an Alice in Wonderland excursion within Castle Greyhawk.

I can certainly appreciate that a student of medieval history like Gygax would suggest to keep genre purity, but it's a little rich that he would act like he ran his campaign in Hârn or something.

The challenge cannot be something that requires the PC to use the same methods used by the evil opposition in order to combat that evil (to be even "badder" than the "bad guys"), because that violates the spirit of the game.

Earlier in the text Gygax was explicit about his view of what the spirit of AD&D is:

This is a fantasy RPG predicated on the assumption that the human race, by and large, is made up of good people. Humans, with the help of their demi-human allies (dwarfs, elfs, gnomes, etc.) are and should remain the predominant force in the world. They have achieved and continue to hold on to this status, despite the ever-present threat of evil, mainly because of the dedication, honor, and unselfishness of the most heroic humans and demi-humans - the characters whose roles are taken by the players of the game. Although players can take the roles of "bad guys" if they so choose, and if the game master allows it, evil exists primarily as an obstacle for player characters to overcome... Each character, by virtue of his or her chosen profession, has strengths and weaknesses distinctly different from those possessed by other types of characters. No single character has all the skills and resources needed to guarantee success in all endeavors; favorable results can usually only be achieved through group effort.

I'll leave it up to you guys to decide whether Gygax's best work follows this 1987 interpretation of AD&D's spirit or not. I'll also leave the applicability of examples such as Robilar, Erac's Cousin, and all the other evil characters included in the Rogues Gallery up to you. Surely I'd believe that Gygax preferred more high-minded action in his campaign (but obviously did not forbid evil characters), but doing otherwise being against the spirit of AD&D?

Hmmm...

4. No comments, really...

5. The second half I've already discussed, but I like that it's quite clear that the needs of the campaign override the whims of the players. You don't have to go to the extremes of kobold commandos and changing spell point systems to see where sticking to the core concept of a campaign is a good idea.

6. I see this as a "don't put the screws to the players' concepts," but there's something about this wording that is both overly restrictive yet unclear in its meaning. I think, "make adventures that allow all classes to have something to contribute" isn't a complete reading of what this means...

7. I think he's meaning "mastery" in terms of what this book is saying, not "rules mastery" in an annoying rules-lawyer way... even though a thorough understanding of a game's rules is part of mastery in the first place. I'm so confused...

So I think Gygax really nailed it when he went on about what players should do to improve their game, but things are far more muddled when it comes to actually running games. I think it's also clear, even in the context of the excellent player suggestions, that despite the book's claim to general RPG relevancy (and the GM chapter here has a lengthy example of an early 20th-century San Francisco action-adventure campaign), when it comes down to it Gygax is talking about Dungeons and Dragons with all of the important points of this book. Not that it's a bad thing, and I bet there were reasons why he couldn't just write a book about Dungeons and Dragons (even though that name is plastered everywhere in the book, including the cover, an argument could be made based on the words printed in the book, if not by reading between the lines, that the book is about the hobby as a whole), but it doesn't help the clarity of the book at all.

We'll be back tomorrow with the next chapter The Group: More Than Its Parts. There are nine chapters in all and I really hope none of the rest generate as much commentary as these Player and GM chapters... eeeeek.

Examining Role-Playing Mastery by Gary Gygax, Part IV

Chapter 2- The Master Player

There is lots here, and much discussion of various things. For the most part, I'll merely give the lists that Gygax considered important. But there is one section I enjoy:

Someone who intends to participate in an RPG on a casual basis can indulge himself with the selection of any sort of PC. Because role games are group activities, many participants join in casually because the rest of their group of friends and peers is involved in play. As one desiring to master RPGs from a player's standpoint, you will seldom if ever approach play so casually. The selection of a PC and its initial development is serious business. After all, it will be involved in play episodes for a long time. The scope of the system to be played and your attitude must be harmonious, so that the "laws" of the game will not irritate you or impede your enjoyment, and your PC will not constantly run afoul of the milieu.

This does conflict with something else that Gygax says later (more on that later on in this very post), but I liked his describing anything involved with the game as "serious business." Too often I see the DMG page 9 quote of, "In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime... but in no case something to be taken too seriously," used as justification for treating the game and its play frivolously, when Gygax was constant and vociferous in his views that when you do play the game, putting your all into it is the way to get the most out of it.

Anyway... the first list of the section deals with how a player should choose his character.

1. Does the GM encourage or discourage the PC choice you are leaning toward?
2. What relationship will your PC bear to the balance of the group?
3. Do you really have the proper mind-set to play the particular game persona at this time?
4. Does the RPG deal with the concepts of good and evil? Law and chaos?

That last bit is where Gygax goes on about alignment (and gives the quote from the last post). In fact, all four of these issues has a lengthy discussion for them, but the essence is in the questions themselves.

Next is what I consider the grand achievement of the whole book, which I will re-type for you here. This stuff is too important to gloss over. I'll quote-box this instead of the usual bold-an-italics for readability.

Steps to Role-Playing Mastery

1. Study the rules of your chosen role-playing game. Being intimately familiar with the rules structure is essential to understanding what you are doing, and understanding is the foundation of mastery.
2. Learn the goal(s) of the game. In other words, understand what the role of the PCs is in the game environment - the responsibilities and obligations of the player characters around whom the game world revolves. This is not the same as knowing what your individual role as a PC is; that is covered in step 9.
3. Discover the spirit of the game, and make it your credo in play. The concept of "spirit" is defined in the foregoing text. Although the goal of the game may be contained within its spirit, the spirit of the game usually goes deeper. Perceive it, understand it, and have your PC live by it when you engage in play.
4. Know the genre in which the game is set, and study it often. If your PC is to act as though the game world is his or her native environment, then you as a player must feel comfortable and at home in the genre of the game. You cannot have a meaningful experience in a fantasy RPG without being familiar with the genre of fantasy as described in myth, legend, and literature. Likewise, background knowledge in science fiction, modern-day espionage, or the exploits of comic book heroes is vital if your game is set in one of those genre.
5. Remember that the real you and your game persona are different. An obvious fact, restated here for emphasis. The you of the game milieu is entirely different frim the you of the world you actually live in, even if your PC happens to possess many of the traits present in your own personality and behavior patterns. And, just as obviously, the same goes for all the other players and PCs in the group.
6. Know your team's PCs and those who play them. The only way to get along in a group is to be familiar with the other members of the group. Take the time to learn about the other PCs and the players who control them, so that you can understand and appreciate their intentions and methods and, in so doing, become a more useful and integral part of the group yourself.
7. Know the campaign in which you play. This is different from knowing the genre, because the game campaign devised by the GM is a unique entity unto itself. Accept and assimilate all the information given to you by the GM about the campaign world, and always strive to learn more. Knowledge is power, and more important, knowledge leads to success.
8. Understand the role of the game master and assist its fulfillment. More about this will be given in the text to come. For now, suffice it to say two things: The GM is the sole arbiter of all that goes on in the campaign world, but all-powerful in this case does not mean all-knowing; no game master can succeed without the willing assistance of all his players.
9. Role-play your character fully and correctly. Make sure that your actions, decisions, and behavior as a player are faithful to the role of the PC you are representing. When you have a trait or tendency your PC does not possess, do your best to keep that aspect of your personal makeup from surfacing during play.
10. Always seek to contribute the most to the team's success. From the players' and the PCs' standpoint, any role-playing game is a group endeavor. Individual success is secondary to the success of the group, for only through group achievements can the quality of a campaign be measured.
11. Put forth your personal best during play. The advice given in step 10 does not mean that you should ever compromise in your efforts to succeed as a player. Your PC may have to subjugate his or her individual desires from time to time to ensure the general welfare of the group, but that is as it should be, and this does not mean that you should ever allow your enthusiasm and drive as a player to lessen.
12. Play as frequently as possible. Just as in step 5, this could almost go without saying. The hobby of role-playing games is no different than any other endeavor in that exposure to the activity must be frequent and ongoing in order for the participant to achieve a high level of skill. If your life-style or life circumstances do not permit you to play often, or if you simply don't have the desire to spend a great share of your leisure time involved in RPGs, then you cannot hope to achieve mastery unless the prohibitive factors can be removed. You can, or course, still enjoy playing.
13. Play various characters as often as possible in as many different circumstances as possible. It is not enough to play as frequently as possible if each of your play sessions is essentially the same as all the others. To gain mastery as a player, you must first experience firsthand what it's like to take the role of as many different character types as your game provides for. You do not play these characters simultaneously but consecutively. If you start a new character after one is killed or retired, make a point of selecting a PC type you have not yet played or one with which you have relatively little experience. If action in the campaign occasionally shifts from one place to another in the GM's world, you may have an opportunity to change the character you play from one game session to another. However you do it, expose yourself to as much variety in the choice and operation of PCs as you possibly can.
14. Play outside your group's campaign frequently. In your quest for variety, don't overlook the opportunity for education and enjoyment that is offered by playing in more than one campaign. If you know more than one GM and are able to divide your playing time so as to be an active member of each campaign, there is no substitute for the breadth of knowledge and experience that this will give you.
15. Play in tournaments. (text not transcribed, and I'll explain why below)
16. Make yourself aware of the gaming community and contribute to it. As alluded to in the opening chapter of this book and in step 15, there's a great world of RPG activity going on around you. In addition to running clubs and conventions, or at least participating in them, aspiring masters can benefit from and even contribute to a number of amateur and professional magazines that cover RPG activity and the community in which it takes place. To keep abreast of what other gamers are thinking and doing, you should be a regular reader of at least one such periodical. To show evidence of your own expertise, you could prepare and submit article manuscripts to these magazines. If you are skilled enough and fortunate enough to have your writings accepted and published, then you will have accomplished something that only a few others among the millions of RPG enthusiasts can claim. Having your work published is not in itself an indication of mastery, but the converse does apply: Most of those who achieve mastery are eager and willing to share their ideas and their knowledge with others who seek that same goal, and in so doing, they maintain and increase their own high level of skill.
17. Continue to learn and grow even after you achieve mastery. Mastery is like any other acquired skill. If you do not continually use and exercise it, the skill will atrophy. But if you remain actively involved in the hobby at the highest level you can attain, you will be pleasantly surprised to find that your level of expertise keeps rising all the time. The sky is not the limit to mastery, for - as any science fiction enthusiast can tell you - there are infinite worlds left to explore once the sky is left behind.

Whew. My fingers are dead.

I'm interested in your thoughts on these, especially ones you most agree with, ones you most disagree with, and ones you find most interesting.

I left out the description for #15 for a few reasons. One, are there really any tournaments anymore, anywhere, the way there used to be? Sure, there are convention modules and games played, but in terms of groups of players all tackling the same adventure and figuring out who did it best? I don't know of any. And if we remove the competitive aspect of #15, then #14 and #16 cover the rest of the point - to gain experience in as many different situations as possible. Perhaps #15- Play at Conventions, with the idea that you'll experience play with complete strangers, would be a good replacement.

I love #12 for the "tough shit" aspect of it. "Holding down two jobs, have a debilitating disease, are in college, and are a single parent raising three kids? Haha, no role-playing mastery for you, bucko!" I wonder how many people will reject the validity of the idea simply because they couldn't pursue it if they wanted to.

I like #4 because it shows that time and care for more than the activity at hand can benefit that activity. I'm probably raging at phantoms when I talk about stuff like this but I have a hard time believing that any great numbers of modern gamers read a lot of source literature. Gygax plainly laid out what his prime influences were in shaping the atmosphere of the game, yet there are always those that ignore that and dismiss when it's shown to them.

#16 has been taken over by the internet, which is probably a good thing, as there is greater participation and a wider variety of views on display. The professional mags really aren't an option (and are useless if they're just house organs), but a crop of fanzines has popped up (or are in the process of popping up) and I do think things in print (especially things that have been gone over by an editor, for presentation more than content purposes really) are more valuable than things just crapped out on the internet on a whim.

Examining Role-Playing Mastery by Gary Gygax, Part III

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.