In the early days of 1st Edition D&D (AD&D), Gary Gygax made a point of saying that if you weren’t playing by the rules of the game, as they were presented in the rulebook, you weren’t really playing D&D.
Not only did Gary want to cut off third party products, but he wanted to make AD&D distinct so he could stop paying royalties to Arneson by migrating most products to his unique version. In later years, he admitted he didn’t use most of AD&D and still ran games mostly at the OD&D level of rules complexity.
The repercussions of this are kind of astonishing. It means AD&D was probably never played or tested prior to being written down, and was never intended to be. As AD&D rapidly became the most popular version of the game, it means our entire hobby is based on a phantom. All that early development of the player base and other rules and publishers was built off of smoke and mirrors; off of an illusion of Gygax’s fevered ramblings that didn’t exist at a real game table as assumed.
Gary literally sparked everyone’s imagination to create new things with nothing more than a book of half-formed ideas.
Ok, yes. But also, your examples are all character rules rather than systems rules. And when running a game customizing the rules isn’t just for adding character options. Adding modular systems is fine too… but I think you can loose something when all the modules are independent. Having those interrelationships can help create a unified design where each system works, but also feeds into and supports other systems. I mean you Know this with a capital K, you wrote Invisible Sun! Character Arcs tie into the experience economy. The Venture turns every role from ‘will I succeed’ to ‘how much effort am I willing to bring to bear to make sure I succeed’ by tying in half a dozen different systems that drive home the reality shaping power those characters wield. Those systems are all functional, but they really only make sense in the context of that particular game. They ‘suffer’ from the limitations of being deeply interconnected, but they also create something delicate and beautiful that a system of generic modules looses. I think there is a place for both, and a great GM can take a modular system where ever they want it to go… but it’s the GM doing that not the system. Whereas I.S. Uses the rules and systems to shape and manipulate the GM into being great…
You point out a great example of a game not built to be easily hackable (Invisible Sun), designed with extremely different goals than a modular one like Cypher. Every game should have its goals, and those vary from game to game.
I get your logic, and I understand the intent, but I find that game trying to be everything for every genre are very unsatisfying. With very few exceptions, it’s the setting that hooks people, not the mechanics. I love Numenera (the current edition) but the Cypher system has never done much for me. Watering it down even further…? I just don’t get it, personally.
I was kinda overwhelmed by the fact you were talking about things I am playing around with my system I’ve been working on since 2019.
I was so excited I blurted out something that could have been misconstrued.
I think modular design is awesome. The idea you decide what powers and skills that define your character allows players to have full agency when they are making their characters, while at the same time, making it easier for game masters because the rules for those powers and skills are clearly defined. So every player knows what they’re doing, and every game master can see it as well.
In my system, Thalendrial - a beautiful Elven archer with Elven Senses and Wind Running as primary abilities is one possible build, while Conan with Super Strength and Energizing Endurance as primaries is another possible build. Aragorn, something completely different.
All made possible with modular character builds, described by your blog.
Not only did Gary want to cut off third party products, but he wanted to make AD&D distinct so he could stop paying royalties to Arneson by migrating most products to his unique version. In later years, he admitted he didn’t use most of AD&D and still ran games mostly at the OD&D level of rules complexity.
The repercussions of this are kind of astonishing. It means AD&D was probably never played or tested prior to being written down, and was never intended to be. As AD&D rapidly became the most popular version of the game, it means our entire hobby is based on a phantom. All that early development of the player base and other rules and publishers was built off of smoke and mirrors; off of an illusion of Gygax’s fevered ramblings that didn’t exist at a real game table as assumed.
Gary literally sparked everyone’s imagination to create new things with nothing more than a book of half-formed ideas.
I find it fascinating tracking Dungeons and Dragons back to its roots. (Wargaming).
A closed ridged two player system, to be brocken open by a referee.
and then trying to close it again or own it by Gygax.
Ok, yes. But also, your examples are all character rules rather than systems rules. And when running a game customizing the rules isn’t just for adding character options. Adding modular systems is fine too… but I think you can loose something when all the modules are independent. Having those interrelationships can help create a unified design where each system works, but also feeds into and supports other systems. I mean you Know this with a capital K, you wrote Invisible Sun! Character Arcs tie into the experience economy. The Venture turns every role from ‘will I succeed’ to ‘how much effort am I willing to bring to bear to make sure I succeed’ by tying in half a dozen different systems that drive home the reality shaping power those characters wield. Those systems are all functional, but they really only make sense in the context of that particular game. They ‘suffer’ from the limitations of being deeply interconnected, but they also create something delicate and beautiful that a system of generic modules looses. I think there is a place for both, and a great GM can take a modular system where ever they want it to go… but it’s the GM doing that not the system. Whereas I.S. Uses the rules and systems to shape and manipulate the GM into being great…
You point out a great example of a game not built to be easily hackable (Invisible Sun), designed with extremely different goals than a modular one like Cypher. Every game should have its goals, and those vary from game to game.
Absolutely! Both have great value, and you have done both with tremendous success! 🤩
I get your logic, and I understand the intent, but I find that game trying to be everything for every genre are very unsatisfying. With very few exceptions, it’s the setting that hooks people, not the mechanics. I love Numenera (the current edition) but the Cypher system has never done much for me. Watering it down even further…? I just don’t get it, personally.
Edit: my first reply was a bit over zealous.
I was kinda overwhelmed by the fact you were talking about things I am playing around with my system I’ve been working on since 2019.
I was so excited I blurted out something that could have been misconstrued.
I think modular design is awesome. The idea you decide what powers and skills that define your character allows players to have full agency when they are making their characters, while at the same time, making it easier for game masters because the rules for those powers and skills are clearly defined. So every player knows what they’re doing, and every game master can see it as well.
In my system, Thalendrial - a beautiful Elven archer with Elven Senses and Wind Running as primary abilities is one possible build, while Conan with Super Strength and Energizing Endurance as primaries is another possible build. Aragorn, something completely different.
All made possible with modular character builds, described by your blog.
I do too…
Monte Cook has been a professional designer since 1988. I suspect his ideas are his own. 😉