Was Gygax a good DM?

[kyoryu]

The story is illustrative of the context OD&D was created with and its influences, but without easy distribution of such knowledge with things like the internet people were doing it 'wrong'.

Yeah, this is one of my theories about how roleplaying has significantly changed. That, combined with the fact that a bunch of kids picked up rules for a game that wasn't really aimed at kids, and interpreted it in the only natural way for kids to do so. Myself included.

If I hadn't had the opportunity to play in a *real* old-school campaign, I probably wouldn't have nearly as much of a feel for how they differ.

[Stubbazubba]

This is a sign of a good businessman, and also, I'd argue, of a good DM. You aren't so much defined by your mistakes as you are by how you respond to them. If your action is "deny it, and pretend it never happened", it probably won't help you improve. Admitting the mistake and finding out why it happened is definitely the way to go.

Hear, hear!

[Synovia]

The rational response to being faced with a decision where you have insufficient information isn't to guess - it's to *gather more information*.

Of course, but how much information you can gather in an RPG is completely dependant on how much the DM is willing to give you.

[1337 b4k4]

Synovia

Do you often play with DMs that are that much of a jerk? It seriously seems like you have no trust for your DM and I can only hope that you are playing devils advocate and you don't seriously have this little trust and communication at your table.

[teslasdream]

I found this forum while searching for videos of Gary Gygax DMing (I don't think any exist on the internet, unfortunately), and I joined the forum as a result of seeing how much good discussion the topic churned up! Some good talkers and smart folks on here!

I know the thread is 6 years old at this point, but its still a good discussion and I wanted to give my two cents on the matter:

I don't know whether Gygax was a good DM or a bad DM. He innovated the concept of a DM as we know it today, so that's not really a great question. But I do see a lot of people laboring under some misconception that Gygax's D&D was somehow more authentic because it was "no-nonsense wargaming."

What?

You simply can't call Gygax a wargamer in his approach to early D&D. The wargaming movement has been defined by comprehensive KNOWABILITY from its very inception in 1898 when Robert Louis Stevenson published his naval warfare rules for all to read. The idea is that you and your opponent are playing a glorified, hyper-detailed game of chess in which both sides are well-informed generals who know what the enemy's capabilities are. Both sides have read the rules and are thoroughly briefed on how the wargame world works. The only surprises come from how your opponent chooses to behave in the situation... while bound by the same rules as you.

This central characteristic of wargames was still a defining feature in the 70's when Gygax created D&D. That had not changed. Rules and knowability were still the core of wargames.

What set early D&D apart from wargames and made it substantially different -- to the point that I would argue it was not a wargame at all -- is the very nature of the DM being unknowable and being given an infinite allowance for whimsy and even deceit. It would be like playing a game of chess where your opponent got to decide how his pieces moved and got to change that up every turn, Calvinball-style.

These days, D&D has moved closer to wargaming, I would argue, despite the much higher emphasis on roleplay. It's still a constipated game at its core, as I'll explain later, but it is closer to a proper wargame than it was under Gygax. DMs are held to account for providing a fair game now. Rulings are called into question. You swarm your party of level 1s with 30 goblins, they're going to groupwipe, of course, and then questions will be asked. "Was that fight winnable? What allowed the goblins to do this or that?" And if you can't defend your actions as a DM with anything beyond "I'm the DM, you joined my game, deal with it," then you've merely proven yourself to lack class, maturity, and skill as a DM. Games that are not fair are really not games, as they lack ... well, gamesmanship.

That said, this nostalgia for the old days when your DM would give you a 50/50 chance to choose a door of life or a door of death... that's very understandable. There is a very appealing sort of masochistic make-believe going on there, similar to what I still have for the old Choose Your Own Adventure books where you would die all manner of entertaining and appalling deaths until you got lucky and found the right solution. The mindless gotchas are very tickling, especially when you're among friends. But they aren't games. They're acts of imaginative domination/submission, an asexual, creative variation of Fifty Shades of Gray. Though again, even there... trust is paramount.

Now, I grant that one could argue that D&D was wargaming, just set in a highly unpredictable environment where terrain and objects carried severe and unplumbed risks. Sure. Like if your toy soldiers were transported to Pan's Labyrinth. Ok, I'd buy that. There's need to allow for caprice in order to establish veracity in such a setting. But Gygax also set the DM up to control the NPCs too, don't forget, and even with Monster Manuals, the DM was entitled to change whatever whenever on that front as well. And that's where the "Gygax was a wargamer" argument falls apart.

No, D&D's main competitor these days, Warhammer, is the true evolution of wargaming. It is defined by knowability and is truly a game with infinite possibilities yet defined by clear parameters.

Today, D&D is a commercial successful but highly conflicted game. It has an identity crisis. Clearly, roleplay and storytelling are its natural end, yet people still keep hanging on to the mechanical aspect, insisting that the game somehow can foster truly meaningful wargame play. This idea dies hard because they think they need it to legitimize their make-believe. To lend seriousness of some kind to the whole affair. But it's okay without it!

If D&D embraced its natural end as a vehicle for collective narrative interactions, it would scrap all of the silly mechanics like encumbrance, lifestyle expenditures, crafting, and even skill checks and just go with very simplified fight mechanics that foster smoothness and speed. Sand the "game" aspect out of it entirely and encourage people to just tell stories. Let them get their wargame fix elsewhere. An activity doesn't have to be everything. It can just be what it is.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

This is some hardcore thread necromancy. I didn't notice till I found a post by myself in the first page.

[Akal Saris]

Heh, I've had that happen before where I'm reading a resurrected post and think what I want to say, and then there it is, written by me 4 years ago :P

Maybe D&D is conflicted about what it wants to do, but I'd argue it fills a valuable niche with its cooperative team-based gameplay.

[Nifft]

I know the thread is 6 years old at this point

That's usually a good reason to not post in a thread.

You're new, so mods probably won't cut off your hand or anything, but I'd expect the thread to be locked rather than for more good discussion to occur.

I think the recommended behavior going forward would be for you to start a new thread and link to the old discussion -- but do ask a mod, I'm certainly not an authority about this forum's policy.

[FreddyNoNose]

That's usually a good reason to not post in a thread.

You're new, so mods probably won't cut off your hand or anything, but I'd expect the thread to be locked rather than for more good discussion to occur.

I think the recommended behavior going forward would be for you to start a new thread and link to the old discussion -- but do ask a mod, I'm certainly not an authority about this forum's policy.

I agree with this.

That being said, I have played in a game where EGG was DM and I thought he was solid.

[Mr Beer]

You're new, so mods probably won't cut off your hand or anything

Well not the namby-pamby Modern Mods that we get nowadays, the proper Old School Mods would totally cut off your hands back in the day and things were better for it.

[Nifft]

Well not the namby-pamby Modern Mods that we get nowadays, the proper Old School Mods would totally cut off your hands back in the day and things were better for it.

Spoiler

Show

[Roland St. Jude]

...I know the thread is 6 years old at this point, but its still a good discussion and I wanted to give my two cents on the matter:...

Sheriff: Please don't do that. Please review the Forum Rules on Thread Necromancy (and you might as well give them an overall read while you're there.)