What is "The Good of the Game" and "Playing D&D Well"?

[M.L. Martin]

At the back of the 1e DMG, Gary Gygax admonished the DM to consider what is best for the game first, best for an individual campaign second, and best for any given player(s) third. As time has gone on, I am more and more of the mind that Gygax knew what he was talking about.

RC

You know, this quote's bugged me for a while, so I thought I'd put some questions about it (and some other questions about a parallel quote in the 1E PH) out there.

What does "the good of the game" mean in this context? Is Gygax just thinking of an overall set of interlocking campaigns, or is there some sort of 'ideal of AD&D' that supersedes campaign success and player enjoyment? That is, is it better to play D&D 'right' and have everyone miserable than to do it 'wrong' and have a campaign that's enjoyable for all concerned? I realize that's a somewhat loaded question, so is there some meaning I'm missing to this statement that doesn't give that impression of IMO skewed priorities?

On a related note, at the end of the PH, Gygax states that "if you find AD&D to be a game worth playing, you will find it even more worthwhile if you play it well." (I'm quoting from memory here, so I may be wrong on the details, but I'm pretty sure I've got the sense of it.) What is 'playing D&D well' in the Gygaxian/old-school sense? I think that an examination of this might help clarify some of the differences between different schools of play and, through that understanding, perhaps quiet some of the conflict by highlighting the difference in aims that lead to differing methods and systems, rather than assuming everyone is shooting for the same thing. Or maybe I'm just full of hot air.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Upon some reflection, I think pulling from one of Gygax's more abrasive articles--"Poker, Chess and the AD&D Game", IIRC--may help explain some of what he's talking about. He makes the comparion between someone 'pushing pawns around on a chessboard' to someone playing chess, and I can see the analogy. From this point of view, sacrificing the rules of the game to the campaign or the players compromises their long-term enjoyment and skill by depriving them of the challenge of working within the structures of the game.

I can see the point of this, but it does make some assumptions about play goals. It seems to continue from the wargaming tradition, with a strong emphasis on tactics and problem-solving as the 'ends' of the game. Gamers from later schools, who emphasize story and characterization or mechanical detail and system mastery, and casual gamers who just want to have fun, will probably see this as a misplaced priority.

 

[Doug McCrae]

From this point of view, sacrificing the rules of the game to the campaign or the players compromises their long-term enjoyment and skill by depriving them of the challenge of working within the structures of the game.

This is it, as I understand it, though I've not seen the quote in context. It's about putting long-term benefits over short-term.

 

[FireLance]

What is "The Good of the Game" and "Playing D&D Well"?

A can of worms.

Now that I've got the obligatory joke out of the way...

I would say that the key idea behind "the Good of the Game" is D&D's survival as a hobby, and central to that is getting the right mix of challenge and reward, simplicity and complexity, familiarity and mystery. To elaborate:

Challenge: If the game is not challenging enough, and it soon becomes trivial and the players get bored. Too challenging, and the game becomes frustrating and the players stop playing. This is a simple fact of human nature.

Reward: This ties in closely to how challenging the game is because too much reward (especially in terms of XP and magic items) can cause the game to become not challenging enough, and too little can cause the game to become too challenging. Beyond this, rewards help keep the players engaged in the game because they have something to look forward to, but even in this, a balance needs to be struck. If rewards are too frequent, they lose their value, and if rewards are too rare, players will not find it worth their time to wait.

Simplicity and Complexity: Ideally, the game should be simple to learn, in order to make it easy for new players to get into the game. However, it should also contain enough complexity to keep players in the game and prevent them from getting bored before too long. Simplicity and complexity are not necessarily polar opposites. Chess has often been cited as a game which is both simple and complex. The basic moves of each piece are simple, but getting your pieces to work well together is highly complex.

Familiarity and Mystery: In a way, these two are related to the earlier concepts. Familiarity ties in to simplicity, but from the flavor angle rather than the rules angle. The closer the elements in a setting tie in to what the players expect, the easier it is for them to imagine themselves in that setting. In my view, this is the best argument for "simulationism" (or what passes for it in a fantasy setting). However, mystery (or unfamiliar elements in a setting) helps keep the game fresh for players and shake them out of their complacency that they understand how the world works (unchecked, this may lead to boredom). Mystery also ties in to challenge. The less the players know, the greater the apparent level of challenge.

In my view, most of the arguments arise because there is no one true way to balance all of the above elements. Some players like a game with higher levels of challenge and lower levels of reward, while others like just the opposite. And of course, both sides are convinced that the other is going to destroy the game as they know it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The quote from the 1e DMG I find most troubling, and least comprehensible, is "Never give a sucker an even break" and it's on essentially the first page of the book after the contents, etc, page 9.

 

[Hussar]

Sigh, I cannot give props to Firelance. Can someone cover me.

Really, in my mind, the way I look at rpg's has changed over time. It helps to remember context. The idea of a cooperative game like D&D was very novel at the time. The idea that everyone at the table should be working together and there was no winner was a huge shift in games at the time. I can't think of anything similar out there.

It's not really surprising to me then, that at the time, it was difficult to let go of the old paradigm of competitive play. I see much of this as simply reflecting the times and it's not until some time later that the hobby truly begins to embrace the idea of cooperative play where the GM is seen as less of the top of a pyramid and more as just a somewhat more priveleged kind of player.

 

[Filcher]

@Hussar

Maybe that's why so many of the "original" PCs were lawful evil, neutral evil variants. They were still operating out of the, "I can win this," paradigm. When I hear tales of the original games, it seems like someone was getting backstabbed/betrayed every other session.

 

[Umbran]

Before we talk about them, how about we actually have the quotes before us?

Pg 230:
It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons volumes, you are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a whole first, your campaign next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do!

And the other quote mentioned:

Pg 9:
....Welcome to the exalted ranks of the overworked and harrassed, whose cleverness and imagination are all too often unappreciated by cloddish characters whose only thought in life is to lot, pillage, slay, and who fail to appreciate the hours of preparation which went into the creation of what they aim to destroy as cheaply and quickly as possible. As a DM you must live by the immortal words of the sage who said: "Never give a sucker and even break." Also, don't be a sucker for your players, for you'd better be sure they follow sage advice too. As the DM, you have to prove in every game that you are still the best. This book is dedicated to helping to assure that you are.

 

[Umbran]

Now looking at that first quote, I don't feel one can say it is saying we should have some loyalty to "the hobby as a whole" per se. Only lines before, he mentions that you're supposed to be tossing out bits of the game as you need to if they don't fit.

I think he's more saying that the game is a sort of framework in which your campaign sits. The campaign will falter if that framework is not solid. Then, the PCs have to fit within the framework of the campaign. They aren't going to have much going if your campaign is not well constructed (in whatever mode you are choosing).

 

[Fifth Element]

Sigh, I cannot give props to Firelance. Can someone cover me.

You're covered.

It's not really surprising to me then, that at the time, it was difficult to let go of the old paradigm of competitive play. I see much of this as simply reflecting the times and it's not until some time later that the hobby truly begins to embrace the idea of cooperative play where the GM is seen as less of the top of a pyramid and more as just a somewhat more priveleged kind of player.

Agreed.