On Role-Playing (Part 3 of 11)

Yes, yes, I realize that parts of this essay are pure speculation on my part: I wasn’t playing D&D pre-1980 and there are no rules sidebars of the Great Divine Founders to give us insight into their design philosophies and besides they’re all dead now anyway (well, Gygax and Arneson and Holmes and Moldvay are)…but if you’ll allow me to speculate tangentially for a moment (this series is going to take a few pages anyway):

• D&D was designed as a wargame (not just like a wargame…the title says it all!) by wargamers for wargamers. It was certainly a different TYPE of wargame (small scale, fantasy in setting), but still very playable as such…and written to use a wargame’s resolution mechanics (specifically, CHAINMAIL).
• While the game begs for additional rules to fill the gaps, it is still MECHANICAL in nature. Want to hire someone? Spend X gold and roll a certain dice looking at a certain target number. Want to run a kingdom? Here’s the code to show how many citizens you have and your tax basis. And that hoary old code of “alignment” is simply a mechanic to tell the referee/players whose side a critter is running with.
• Combat: whether on foot, or naval, or in the air is TACTICAL and movement/mechanically based. No, it doesn’t have the bells and whistles of D20 or 4^th Edition, but it can play like a cheap version of this.
• No personality or role-playing is required: gamers are simply defined by their courage (do we fight this monster or run?), their cunning (where are you searching for treasure, concealed items), and creativity (how are you going to circumvent this trap you discovered).

So how did we get from that to Holmes? “Good characters should not be torturing prisoners.” Why would they even want to? And even if so, who cares? I mean, “points” (XP) are only gained from finding treasure and defeating monsters…why would you bother torturing anyone?

As I said, I can only speculate, but I’d think the “morphing” of the game can be linked to a couple possibilities (one, the other, or both):

1. Long term play and character identification. Over time, players playing the same PC develop a bond with the character (the “My Guy” syndrome) and begin to invest the character with personality…whether through actions/behavior or out of simple boredom from “moving the piece around the (imaginary) board.” The game STARTS as a wargame…but survive long enough and you develop an attachment (and dare I say, “infatuation?”) with your heroic imaginary persona.
2. Supplement I: Greyhawk. Gygax’s first supplement introduces two new character classes to the game that change the whole dynamic of play: the THIEF and the PALADIN.

Prior to Greyhawk, your choice of character was both limited and fairly straight-forward. Fighters fight. Magic-users use magic. Clerics occupy a place somewhat in-between, and providing some necessary support skills, including a means of repelling those especially dangerous undead monsters. The different races provided a little variation/variety but otherwise your place in the adventuring hierarchy (your “role”) was fairly set…unless you started taking an active role-playing stance (due to long term play and identification). Of course, as said there are no guidelines or advice on “role-playing” at all in those Little Brown Books.

That changes with Supplement I. With the inclusion of the paladin class, players are suddenly forced to think about character behavior and motivation. The character class didn’t have to have the inherent behavior restrictions: Gygax could have simply made paladins dependent on the proper ability scores (17 Charisma) and an XP penalty that normal fighters don’t suffer. Instead, players are forced to start putting their mind into the mind of their character: why does my character go into these dungeons? What is the best use of the treasure I’ve acquired (since I’m not going to keep it)? How do I interact with NPCs in a way that’s upright and noble? How do I “embody goodness” in-play? Are these actions going to cost me my powers (due to being “selfish” and/or “evil”)? Just making such a character class available in the game can cause players of other classes to consider their own characters’ motivations.

The thief kind of seals the deal. The paladin class provides a system of behavioral strictures that impact actual play (do the wrong thing and you lose your special abilities). The thief, by its very name and level titles, describes a character of mean and honor-less nature. Such doesn’t have to be the case, of course (there are no behavior strictures that will cause the thief to lose HER skills, for example), but the definition of the character (a thief!) opens up the idea of PERSONALITY for the character. Not just a party role, but a means and way of life.

And the pick pockets skill. I mean, how many dragons (or trolls or worms or giant rats or shriekers) have pockets? How many creatures in the Underworld…or the Wilderness, for that matter? Fauns and nymphs and giant beavers?  Treants? Patrols of plate-armored knights? For the most part, this is a skill to be used within an urban environment (a type of adventure environment NOT discussed in the LBBs)…or against one’s own party members. And in the latter case, what is that in aid of? Nothing…from a wargaming “accomplish-the-objective” mentality.

On the other hand, if you are role-playing a character with a less-than-savory personality, then the ability makes perfect sense within context. And it helps push that mental shift by giving you (the player) one more thing to be paranoid about besides the possibility of a pit trap or Big Ugly lurking in the dark.

The OD&D rules tell you how to make a character. They tell the referee how to create a challenging environment. They provide information on what monsters and magic items might be encountered. But they tell you nothing of the attitude or mind-set you should have in the game…nothing about role-playing, in other words.

Sprinkling in a dash of paladin and thief starts to put your head in the game. At least, that’s my speculation.

Back to Holmes: we can see there’s no paladin, but the thief is definitely present…has been present in every edition ever since, by the way. The addition of the thief PLUS the updated take on alignments (that they are some sort of gauge for…and provide judgment of…a player based on the character’s behavior)…and we start to see the emergence of a new type of game. A role-playing game.

Just not one with any real guidelines on how to role-play.

When AD&D comes out shortly thereafter (the next iteration of Dungeons & Dragons) we see no mention of “role-playing” in the title. Not terribly surprising considering that

1. Gygax and Arneson’s original game wasn’t designed to be a “role-playing” game, and
2. Gygax’s AD&D set out to be a definitive codification and compilation of OD&D, its supplements, and various magazine articles, and
3. It seems fairly clear (based on the results) that Holmes’s and Gygax’s AD&D were not on entirely the same page. There are clear and substantial differences between the two editions despite Holmes Basic’s explicitly stated intention of being a bridge and introduction to AD&D.

Is it any wonder that nowhere on the AD&D covers can the phrase “role-playing” be found? Despite Holmes promoting the game as the original fantasy role-playing game?

[to be continued]