The original D&D rules were very light, and left a lot of undefined space that allowed the DM to adjucate outcomes on the fly without wasting time to look up the rule or a player being able to cite a rule to the contrary. Gary also was not above ignoring any rules, to keep the game flowing.
Why was this so, and was this a good thing?
Immersion
The number one, biggest advantage to simple rules and ad-hoc adjucation is that you do not have to spend time to look something up. This means the immersive play experience is not interrupted.
Digging around in rules books is much the same as having the film break or the TV station experience transmission difficulties during an exciting program...a loss of the unagined participation. #7881
When I am DMing AD&D, I tend to ignore rules that get in the way of the flow of the game. #272
Generally, I just DMed on the fly, so to speak, and didn't use the rules books except for random encounters, monster stats, and treasure. when hand-to-hand fighting occurred I usually did that seat-of-the-pants rules--asking what the character was doing and deciding on the chance for success based on the circumstances. #692
[T]he only time [Gary] consulted the rules was when he gave out experience points for killed monsters and treasures. He made moving through his dungeon come alive. We could easily imagine the sights, sounds, and even the smells as he described the chambers and the corridors. [30.2]
A good DM has read the rules, knows the spirit of the game, and is aiming at captivating his player audience with the fantastic experience of the campaign, so he can make up what is necessary on the spot. #7881
The rules-light game facilitates freedom for all participants to exercise imagination and innovation without undue constraint. That encourages gaming rather than rule-playing. In short, I believe it encourages creativity in all participants, and allows greater immersion in the game milieu, not the mechanics that form the game #1298
The main assumption to follow is that a credible fantasy game does not seek to simulate reality beyond that stage necessary for the participants to immerse themselves in it. [11]
My belief is that the rules for an RPG should facilitate the enjoyment of the game for all concerned. If they get in the way then they are no good. #530
The lack of rules lead to endless Q&As, and to the publication of more comprehensive rules in AD&D. Later editions added more and more tables and rules, but also unified core mechanics, so it was much simpler to remember them. I think many players and DMs undervalue the insight Gary had about how important pacing is.
Players need to trust the DM - no adversarial DMing
For immersion to work, the players need to trust the GM that he will not screw them over in his ad-hoc rulings. The GM needs to at least listen once if the players bring forth a good argument why a chance could be much different. Then they need to halt, or the game will derail into arguments killing immersion and flow just as sure as looking up rules. This is why Gary points out the absolute authority of the GM and light rules together.
The original games of D&D and AD&D were about imagination, choosing an archetype to use as a vehicle for role-playing adventure, innovative play and PC group cooperation. The sole arbiter of such play was the DM, and rules lawyers were anethma #6741
Play is mainly reliant on rules. I ignored those I write when DMing if the game called for that, and in all added what was logical in terms of the game environment to play. Thus much of adventuring was not "by the book," but rather seat of the pants play by DM and players alike. #85
If the players aren't lost in known rules they tend to have more fun that way, and the sense of wonder comes back... #892
I’d like to move back to the days where players didn’t feel like they had to be protected from the whims of the referee. When we went into Greyhawk dungeon, Gary wasn’t the adversary. He was the referee who had set up the scenario. The referee is simply describing the action. The referee is not your opponent. [...] I could run an entire evening’s adventure with nothing but the notebook containing the dungeon, the hit charts, and the saving throw table. If I don’t remember a rule, I wing it [39]
- Absolute authority of the DM, rules lawyers given the boot
- Rule books seldom used by a competent DM #7878
There are many tongue in cheek comments, for example the GM "cursing the thoroughness" of the players as a player finds hidden treasure in the OD&D play example, and while I think these were meant in good fun, this is not entirely clear without the nonverbal cues, and may have also mislead novel GMs into an adversarial stance.
CAL: Empty out all of the copper pieces and check the trunk for secret drawers or a false bottom, and do the same with the empty one. Also, do there seem to be any old boots or cloaks among the old clothes in the rubbish pile?
REF: (Cursing the thoroughness of the Caller!) The seemingly empty trunk has a false bottom . . . in it you have found an onyx case with a jeweled necklace therein. The case appears to be worth about 1,000, and the necklace 5,000 Gold Pieces. Amidst the litter the searcher has located a pair of old boots, but there is nothing like a cloak there.
Other Reasons
There are other reasons, why OD&D was simplistic. As AD&D shows, too simplistic for players with more experience who knew the few original rules inside out. Maybe a good approach hence is to provide a very simple core rules set, and then add optional rules that individual GMs and Tables can adopt if they want to increase complexity, like 5e has done with encumberance. (Of course, with house ruling and DM authority, any rule essentially is optional. But it nudges the discussion, if the rule book says so).
Realism
This is the second most important reason for simple elegant rules. Rules are needed or outcomes would be arbitrary. If there are no rules at all, how would you decide who survives a sword fight, and who does not? How would you decide if the thief manages to sneak by unnoticed? Rules, especially simple ones, are helpful as they provide a framework to estimate outcomes and hence allow players to make meaningful decisions. A game without rules may be improv theater, but it is not a role playing game that presents a simulated world with challenges.
Rules however are always an abstraction and hence can lead to illogical outcomes. For example, in 5e two archers are as likely to hit hit each other when they cannot see each other, as they would in plain sight, because as per the rules, the advantage of being unseen when attacking and the disadvantage of not seeing your target cancel each other. These two rules in isolation are howerver pretty believable. In such cases, to not lose versisimilitude, you need to overrule the book.
When no manageable amount of rules can do justice to all situations, judgment is required to resolve situations where the rules make no sense or lead to unbelievable outcomes. And if you understand you have to ignore the rules occasionally anyways, why not keep the rules simple, so they are easy to remember? In this case it is not neccesary to have detailed rules or tables for everything, and try to cover every eventuality, combinaton of factors or corner case.
Someone must have the authority to decides when and how a rule be overruled, or you get endless discussions of what is realistic or not. This is the DM, who intially called the "Referee". Gary was not only extremely knowledgeable he also was the author of the rules, which gave him great authority. With such a setup from playtests, there was no need for complex or comprehensive rules.
Play is mainly reliant on rules. I ignored those I write when DMing if the game called for that, and in all added what was logical in terms of the game environment to play. Thus much of adventuring was not "by the book," but rather seat of the pants play by DM and players alike. #85
To my mind a rules-light system should be one that sets forth rules and mechanics that are uncomplicated and sufficiently intuitive so that after GMing the system for a dozen or so sessions there is no need to consult the rules save for unusual circumstances. The GM and players alike can manage from past experience. If something unusual comes up that rules do not cover, intuitive ruling based on the overall system should be simple. #8078
Being old and cranky, I have grown tired of arguing over rules, so I figured that doing a system that had as few rules as possible, just enough to facilitate easy play, and with mechanics that were "forgiving" in that they allow for some and just about any addition alteration without throwing the system out of kilter was the way to go. That way the GM can play the fast and easy way or add whatever else is enjoyable to him and his group without difficulty. #853
As for rules, nonsense. The name of the game is roleplaying, not ruleplaying. the Game master is there to handle all the thousands of situations where rules are UNNECESSARY. Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books. What is the first word I used in stating what a GM needed instead of rules? I'll remind you: "Knowledge." [11]
When hand-to-hand fighting occurred I usually did that seat-of-the-pants rules--asking what the character was doing and deciding on the chance for success based on the circumstances. #692
Origin in Chainmail
Intitially, OD&D was played essentially with chainmail combat rules. Chainmail was designed for tabletop battles between armies, so rules needed to be simple and resolution quick. The level of detail for combat of modern D&D versions would have made for unbearably slow resolution for dozens of combatants. In OD&D, all character classes had d6 as hit dice, and all weapons dealt d6 damage. There were no skills or feats. There were just 3 classes. Even using d20 to determine hits or misses against armor was even presented as an "Alternative Combat System", the default was Chainmail.
First and foremost, the FRPG is not a combat simulation. It is something entirely different. [11]
Anyway, keep in mind that the OA/D&D systems were never meant to be combat simulators, and all wise DMs ignored the few portions that lead in that direction. Damage and hit points in any game are most probably based on game considerations that have nothing to do with actual human or animal frailties, if you will. A 6" knife will kill a person just as dead as a 6' long two-handed sword, for example. [11]
Large Play Groups
In the playtest environment for OD&D there also were often up to 20 players. Such large groups neither could bear a detailed system, or combat rounds would have taken forever. While combat was a large part of the game and game rules, realistic or detailed simulation of combat was not.
For about six months the typical number of players in an adventure session in my basement was 18-22 persons packed in. That was when I asked Rob Kuntz to serve as my co-DM. Getting marching order was very important. Of course most activity was dungeon crawling, so actions were just done in order around the table. Be ready or lose your chance! Stick with the party or else something very nasty is likely to befall your character away from the group. The sessions were fun but somewhat chaotic, lacked most roleplay, and surely didn't allow for a lot of one-on-one time player and DM. #2471
Multiple Genres
The intent for the rules was to support multiple genres. The original campaign adventured a good bit in various sci-fi settings and on modern earth. The more detailed the rules for medieval combat would have been, the less useful for such other environments. The more general, and abstract the rules, the easier you could apply them to laser pistols as well as to swords.
The rules ommissions in OAD&D were generally done on purpose, so as to not shackle DMs and those writing for the system #522
All of these were grounded in the specific historical evolution or play style of Gary's home campaign. But there are more fundamental benefits of rules light systems, namely that they can be more realistic, and at the same time much more playable than rules heavy ones, at the cost of loss of consistency how a given situation will be handled.
[References: see Greyhawk References]
No comments:
Post a Comment