RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Jagga Spikes]

Imo, this should be enough to illustrate that they knew they had something special:
D&D - Book 3, The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures
"AFTERWORD:
There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires that we put in the essentials only, and the trimming will often have to be added by the referee and his players. We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you. We could always do with a bit of improvement in our refereeing."

bolded part mine. "fantastic" should be read as "imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality." For all the failure in trying to be a rulebook, original D&D did not doubt what it wants to be.

 

[Emberashh]

It seems to me people are just reading into the apologetic "we know this is incomplete" commentary what they want to hear.

When I read this, particularly the quote Jagga posted, I'm inclined to focus on the consideration that what was in the book as being the essentials. That contextually implies that there was a pretty heavy handed value judgement given to whatever was missing as being non-essential to running the game.

So even if we accept the premise that the improv game was supposed to be there, its status as non-essential speaks volumes about its prevalance, especially in comparison to modern examples.

In modern games, the improv game roughly speaking accounts for anywhere from 40-90% of the playtime. In no sense of the word could you ever say the improv game is "non-essential" in these games, unless one is just deferring to the oral tradition (in which case its an impasse and we need to debate that instead).

So when we look at ODND, see that the improv game, whether it was meant to be there or not, is deemed non-essential, that then calls into question how much prevalance it should have had. It couldn't have been comparable to a modern game, because then that contradicts the non-essential wording.

Unless, of course, the designers were just full of it and were just hoping nobody would notice that they're basically pandering by saying they totally meant for XYZ to all be there after the fact and after people have tried to play. Perhaps its not charitable, but it does firmly establish the tradition of DND devs being, well, full of it.

 

[pemerton]

I'd actually argue its very easy to play an RPG without actually having any PCs. Hell, I do it all the time in fact because Ive taken quite a shine to just running my gameworlds on their own, and I've come up with some pretty clever ways to do it too.

This is not something that I would regard as paradigmatic RPGing. To me it seems like rather an edge case - it's obviously quite different from the GM leads in respect of situation/players lead in respect of their respective characters idea that Arneson consolidated and that remains core to most RPGing.

I also don't see how it fits your own criterion of RPG = game that consolidates/promotes "playstyle" via a reward/feedback loop.

GMs have more than a few characters they're in charge of

<snip>

Course, I also controversially don't consider GMPCs to be a fundamentally bad thing to begin with, so that does influence my thoughts on this particular train of thought. Since around 2018ish nearly every major villain I've ever used in any game has been a solo character I introduce and run no differently from any other PC

If it was no different from any other PC, how did it turn out that your character was the villain - eg why weren't the other participants' characters the villains, to your protagonist?

 

[Shardstone]

It seems to me people are just reading into the apologetic "we know this is incomplete" commentary what they want to hear.

When I read this, particularly the quote Jagga posted, I'm inclined to focus on the consideration that what was in the book as being the essentials. That contextually implies that there was a pretty heavy handed value judgement given to whatever was missing as being non-essential to running the game.

So even if we accept the premise that the improv game was supposed to be there, its status as non-essential speaks volumes about its prevalance, especially in comparison to modern examples.

In modern games, the improv game roughly speaking accounts for anywhere from 40-90% of the playtime. In no sense of the word could you ever say the improv game is "non-essential" in these games, unless one is just deferring to the oral tradition (in which case its an impasse and we need to debate that instead).

So when we look at ODND, see that the improv game, whether it was meant to be there or not, is deemed non-essential, that then calls into question how much prevalance it should have had. It couldn't have been comparable to a modern game, because then that contradicts the non-essential wording.

Unless, of course, the designers were just full of it and were just hoping nobody would notice that they're basically pandering by saying they totally meant for XYZ to all be there after the fact and after people have tried to play. Perhaps its not charitable, but it does firmly establish the tradition of DND devs being, well, full of it.

First ever rpg doesnt include it but then every rpg, including itself, does afterwards just means they realized it was essential all along.

 

[pemerton]

I thought I would go back to my original D&D books. Here's what I found:

D&D v1 (Men & Magic), pp 3-6, 9, 12-13

It is relatively simple to set up a fantasy campaign, and better still, it will cost almost nothing. In fact you will not even need miniature figures . . .

The campaign referee . . . will have to devote a number of hours to laying out the maps of his "dungeons" and upper terrain before the affair begins. . . .

These rules . . . cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns . . . They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity - your time and imagination are about the only limiting factors . . . New details can be added and old "laws" altered so as to provide continually new and different situations. . . .

First, the referee must draw out a minimum of half a dozen maps of the levels of his "underworld", people them with monsters of various horrid aspect, distribute treasures accordingly, and note the location of the latter two on keys, each corresponding to the appropriate level. . . . When this task is completed the participants can then be allowed to make their first descent into the dungeon beneath the "huge ruined pile, a vast castle built by generations of mad wizards and insane geniuses". Before they begin, players must decide what role they will play in the campaign, humans or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user. Thereafter they will work upwards - if they survive- as they gain "experience". . . .

Before the game begins it is not only necessary to select a role, but it is also necessary to determine what stance the character will take - Law, Neutrality, or Chaos. . . .

The "common tongue" spoken throughout the "continent" is known by most humans. . . .

It will be necessary for the players to equip their character with various basic items of equipment. Selection of items is strictly up to the players . . .​

The equipment list includes 50' of rope, the famous 10' pole, mirrors, and various water-going vessels.

D&D v3 (The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures) discusses movement, searching, and listening at doors, on pp 8-9. On p 15 we are told

"Blackmoor" is a village of small size (a one-horse town), while "Grayhawk" is a large city. Both have maps with streets and building indicated, and players can have town adventures roaming around the bazaars, inns, taverns, shops, temples, and so on. Venture into the Thieves' Quarter at your own risk!​

And on pp 12-14 there is an example of dungeon-based play. This includes the following (pp 13-14):

REF: . . . doors east and west.
CAL: Listen at the east door.
REF: (After appropriate check) You hear shuffling.
CAL: Two of us (specifying which two) will throw our weight against the door to open it. All will be ready for combat.
REF: (After rolling two dice: ) The door opens! You can't be surprised, but the monsters -you see half-a-dozen gnolls - can be. (Here a check for surprise is made, melee conducted, and so on.)
CAL: Okay, what does the room look like . . .
REF: . . . The elf has noted that there seems to be a hollow spot near the east end of the southeast wall. The floor and ceilings seem to have nothing unusual. The room contains the bodies of the gnolls, a pile of refuse in the north corner of the west wall, and two trunks along the wall opposite the one which sounds hollow.
CAL: The elf will check out the hollow sound, one of us will sort through the refuse, each trunk will be opened by one of us, and the remaining two (naming exactly who this is) will each guard a door, listening to get an advance warning if anything approaches.
REF: Another check on the hollow sound reveals a secret door which opens onto a flight of stairs down to the south. . . One chest is empty; the other had a poison needle on the lock. (Here a check to see if the character opening it makes his saving throw for poison.) The chest with the poison needle is full of copper pieces - appears to be about 2,000 of them.
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. . . .
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. . . .
CAL: . . . I will secure the case and necklace in my back pack, while the others will, by turn, fill their packs with coppers.
REF: This will require four turns. (He checks for monsters wandering in, and on the forth try one is indicated. However, as there was a listener at the door it is approaching, he also checks to see if it is detected, allowing a good probability that it will be heard.) As you complete your loading the dwarf at the west door detects heavy footsteps approaching. . . .
CAL: . . . Our Magic-User will cast a HOLD PORTAL on the west door while the elf opens the secret one. We will then all beat a hasty retreat down the stairs to the south. Onward, friends, to more and bigger loot!​

It is blindingly obvious that this is a game of shared imagination having a core structure of (i) a referee (GM) who prepares, via map-and-key methodology, a series of situations for characters to encounter, and (ii) "player" participants who each declare/control the actions of a particular character, saying what that character does in the imaginary situation, with the situation changing as a result.

The role of imagination is reinforced by some of that stuff from Men & Magic. What is rope used for? Or a pole? What does one do with water-going vessels? The answer is, obviously enough, whatever one can imagine doing with them, subject to everyone agreeing. In the particular dynamics of this RPG, everyone will agree if the referee agrees: the referee has a lot of authority over what follows from declared actions. Other RPGs display many variations in how declared actions are resolved - departing to greater or less degrees from "GM decides" - just as they illustrate other ways, besides map-and-key, whereby situations can be prepared and "presented to"/"framed for" the players and their characters.

But the core is clear in these books. Crystal clear, in my view.

 

[Emberashh]

Snipping the post so we can stop the reports.

 

[Clint_L]

I tend to frame this discussion in terms of open and closed rules systems.

To give an example close to my heart, Forbidden Desert is a closed rules system. We always add an element of role-play - for example, when we get our roles at the beginning we always come up with a character name and amusing backstory. And when we take our turns, I always narrate what my character is doing in a dramatic fashion. But all of this is extraneous to the rules: and the win/lose conditions are clearly spelled out, giving the game objectivity. At a fundamental level, the game is purely mathematical and finite. It's measurable.

TTRPGs, on the other hand, are designed to be open. There are rules, but the scope of the game is infinite and win/lose conditions are fundamentally subjective. Thus, there is a need not just for rules but for rulings, so some form of referee is essential. TTRPGs are emergent games.

 

[Lanefan]

And on pp 12-14 there is an example of dungeon-based play. This includes the following (pp 13-14):

REF: . . . doors east and west.​

CAL: Listen at the east door.​

REF: (After appropriate check) You hear shuffling.​

CAL: Two of us (specifying which two) will throw our weight against the door to open it. All will be ready for combat.​

REF: (After rolling two dice: ) The door opens! You can't be surprised, but the monsters -you see half-a-dozen gnolls - can be. (Here a check for surprise is made, melee conducted, and so on.)​

CAL: Okay, what does the room look like . . .​

REF: . . . The elf has noted that there seems to be a hollow spot near the east end of the southeast wall. The floor and ceilings seem to have nothing unusual. The room contains the bodies of the gnolls, a pile of refuse in the north corner of the west wall, and two trunks along the wall opposite the one which sounds hollow.​

CAL: The elf will check out the hollow sound, one of us will sort through the refuse, each trunk will be opened by one of us, and the remaining two (naming exactly who this is) will each guard a door, listening to get an advance warning if anything approaches.​

REF: Another check on the hollow sound reveals a secret door which opens onto a flight of stairs down to the south. . . One chest is empty; the other had a poison needle on the lock. (Here a check to see if the character opening it makes his saving throw for poison.) The chest with the poison needle is full of copper pieces - appears to be about 2,000 of them.​

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. . . .​

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. . . .​

CAL: . . . I will secure the case and necklace in my back pack, while the others will, by turn, fill their packs with coppers.​

REF: This will require four turns. (He checks for monsters wandering in, and on the forth try one is indicated. However, as there was a listener at the door it is approaching, he also checks to see if it is detected, allowing a good probability that it will be heard.) As you complete your loading the dwarf at the west door detects heavy footsteps approaching. . . .​

CAL: . . . Our Magic-User will cast a HOLD PORTAL on the west door while the elf opens the secret one. We will then all beat a hasty retreat down the stairs to the south. Onward, friends, to more and bigger loot!​

It is blindingly obvious that this is a game of shared imagination having a core structure of (i) a referee (GM) who prepares, via map-and-key methodology, a series of situations for characters to encounter, and (ii) "player" participants who each declare/control the actions of a particular character, saying what that character does in the imaginary situation, with the situation changing as a result.

Agreed. That there's shared imagination happening here is not - and really cannot be - in question.

What's missing from the above-quoted example of play, however, is any indication of players (including the caller) actually speaking and-or thinking in character: there's no direct quotes of what the characters say, and the declarations are without any character-based emotion or personality. That might (?) be where @Emberashh is getting the (IMO incorrect) notion that the so-called improv game wasn't (yet) a part of proceedings.

By contrast, the example of play in the 1e DMG (pp 97-100) includes numerous instances of the players - including the caller - both speaking in character and declaring their actions based on their characters' emotions and personalities.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Agreed. That there's shared imagination happening here is not - and really cannot be - in question.

What's missing from the above-quoted example of play, however, is any indication of players (including the caller) actually speaking and-or thinking in character: there's no direct quotes of what the characters say, and the declarations are without any character-based emotion or personality. That might (?) be where @Emberashh is getting the (IMO incorrect) notion that the so-called improv game wasn't (yet) a part of proceedings.

By contrast, the example of play in the 1e DMG (pp 97-100) includes numerous instances of the players - including the caller - both speaking in character and declaring their actions based on their characters' emotions and personalities.

There was certainly a lot of what I always called avatar-play (which is similar to token play, but not quite identical) early on; that is to say, people who were engaging with setting and situation but not significantly playing their character as different from themselves within its mechanical limitations. I wouldn't be surprised there's still at least some of that out there, especially in dungeon-crawl-centric campaigns.

 

[Clint_L]

Agreed. That there's shared imagination happening here is not - and really cannot be - in question.

What's missing from the above-quoted example of play, however, is any indication of players (including the caller) actually speaking and-or thinking in character: there's no direct quotes of what the characters say, and the declarations are without any character-based emotion or personality. That might (?) be where @Emberashh is getting the (IMO incorrect) notion that the so-called improv game wasn't (yet) a part of proceedings.

By contrast, the example of play in the 1e DMG (pp 97-100) includes numerous instances of the players - including the caller - both speaking in character and declaring their actions based on their characters' emotions and personalities.

This is why I think framing this conversation in terms of imagination is problematic. For one thing, it's a loaded term - nobody wants to be called unimaginative, or told that their way of playing is less imaginative than someone else's. And, as you point out, the way imagination is applied is personal and contextual. Imaginative play is an essential ingredient of any TTRPG - it's what makes these open rather than close game systems - but how it's applied is a spectrum. Some folks particularly love applying their imagination to the how the rules and tactics might apply in an emergent situation. Others get right into play-acting. All of us mix these and other elements of imagination up to some degree or another.

Nobody is doing it wrong. There are just different preferences.