Shrapnel Games Blog

When the news broke earlier this year at Gen Con that the long rumored 4th edition version of Dungeons and Dragons was indeed a reality I wondered what Gary Gygax, the father of role-playing and original creator, thought of this (yet again) new direction that WOTC/Hasbro was taking the game into? So I decided to find out.

The following interview, conducted through email, answers the above question, amongst others and should be of interest to any role-players. For historical gamers Gary also talks about his upcoming board game on the Hundred Years War.

My thanks to Steve Chenault of Troll Lord Games for his role in making this interview happen, and of course Gary Gygax for taking the time to respond. Be sure to stick around after the interview to hear about Troll Lord Games, and my favorite current FRPG, Castles and Crusades.

And now, on with the interview. Enjoy!

Scott Krol: As the years progressed and D&D strayed from your original vision it seems like more and more emphasis has been placed on taking it away from its pure imagination/story telling roots. While third edition was bad enough with its collectible miniature angle, fourth edition seems to be going one step further and trying to make the game dependent on the online experience. Personally I think the further one gets away from the genius simplicity of sitting around a table telling tales the worst role-playing suffers. What are your thoughts on this new direction?

Gary Gygax: It would be surprising if I did not generally concur with your observations.

In my estimation 2nd Edition AD&D began to lose the spirit of the original, and 3E D&D completed the destruction. As 3.5E was not particularly successful, likely reduced rather than expanded the audience for the game, WotC sought a means of attracting a larger potential audience for the D&D game. What better place to find that than the ranks of the MMP online Search & Destroy (a/k/s CRPG) game players. Their number is vastly larger than that of actual (paper & pencil) RPGs. Besides which, a good deal of the underlying elements of the true RPG have been excised in the new D&D games anyway. I refer to such matters as DM control of play, not rule-book rule; emphasis on group cooperation, not individual PC aggrandizement; freedom to select the ethical and moral views of the character being played; actual threat to PC viability without coddling; the called-for requirement for lengthy successful play for advancement in PC level; and avoidance of comic book superhero abilities for PCs.

SK: The home computer came of age shortly after D&D, yet there was never a push to tie the game into it beyond licensed computer games. Did anyone ever suggest moving away from the tabletop into the digital realm in the late ‘70s/early ‘80s?

GG: As a matter of fact, and with much urging from Francois Marcela Froideval. I urged TSR to get into the production of computer fantasy games c. 1976. The Blumes listened, but failed to do the logical thing, develop a fantasy game based on D&D. Instead they did some military simulations that failed to succeed. They then licensed the right to do a D&D-based computer game to Mattel, and so forth. As a minority shareholder in the corporation there was little I could do.

SK: Role-playing, while not as bad off as the world of wargaming, is definitely suffering from a lack of fresh blood gravitating towards it. What’s the best way to get more gamers interested in tabletop RPGing? Can we do it without resorting to online social networking, or any of the other current Internet fads?

GG: The Games Workshop people would not agree with your assessment of the state tabletop miniatures gaming. It was apparent that before Hasbro acquired WotC, the wizards were planning on emulating Games Workshop in order to market D&D game miniatures play. I know, I am not addressing historical military miniatures, but in truth, I have no idea as to how to increase the audience for this branch of gaming.

As the figurines are expensive, require extensive preparation work such as painting and mounting, and the demands of playing space, multiple players with figurines, and in-person attendance for extended periods of time at the play location are insurmountable drawbacks for any large-scale audience participation in my considered opinion.

The ease and availability of home computer and online historical wargames further weakens the chance for gaining a larger in-person audience. The advantages of the electronic game are too obvious for me to enumerate, and they overcome the drawbacks for most people, just as is the cane with CRPGs in comparison to true RPGs.

SK: It seems like roughly every decade the landscape of traditional RPGs changes. During the last cycle one positive development was the return of old school gaming, such as Castles and Crusades, which seemed to be in direct response to the disappointment many felt with the “new” D&D. What will the RPG landscape look like in another ten years?

GG: My crystal ball is cloudy, and Nostradamus I ain’t. About all I can respond other than that is I am certain that in-person RPGs will still be in play…and likely I won’t be around to play them

SK: Moving away from D&D I see that you’re developing a historical board game, King of England–King of France. From the description it mentions it’s a card game, is it strictly a card game or is it a card driven game like We The People, Paths of Glory, etc? Could you tell us more about it?

GG: Heh, aside from my work on the Lejendary Adventure rules-light, skill-bundle-based RPG system, expansion of that system into other genres besides fantasy, the Castle Zagyg adventure material for the C&C game system, and the ongoing additions to the “Gygaxain Fantasy Worlds” reference book series, I do have a boardgame in the works at Troll Lord Games. It is one of several I created from 15 to 20 years ago. The other two that are viable in my estimation are a family-type haunted house game and a Trivial Pursuit style game based on socio-economic class. To respond directly:

The King of England—King of France game is a 3-5 player card/board game of the 100 Years War. Players represent the Angevin Empire (England), France, Flanders, Savoy, and Toulouse. The mapboard shows the France and bordering places as provinces or states, that can be gained by various means, taken from another player or not controlled by another player but acquired by one. Each player has a hand of action cards from the stock, plays them on behalf of his state on his turn in a round, can play them against others when they are taking their turns. Combat has only a minor role in the game, most gain and loss of territory being through means of marriage, inheritance, or protectorate. Of course there are counter measures for all such possible acquisitions. The chance for any is the player states to achieve victory are equal, but in the event of a draw France wins the game…the actual historical outcome of the war.

The turn track is annotated with such facts as the actual heads of state during the years each turn encompasses, the names of Popes and Holy Roman Emperors, and so forth.

There is money (marks) and many sorts of cards that are for attacking, defending, taxation, capture and ransom of heads of state, Imperial intervention, Papal intervention, and so forth. Active trading of cards between players at all times is a requirement for success of any participant, and with that and the continual opportunity to play cards during other’s turn, there is no time that all participants are not fully engaged in the game.

As an aside, the inspiration for the King of England—King of France game came from a history book that was my mother’s from her class at the university of Wisconsin way back when. It showed the provinces of France and the surrounding lands very much as does the game’s mapboard. When I was a teenager I would look at the map and imagine a wargame based on it. When I became able to actually create such games back in the early 1960s, I drafted one, but it did not play properly, mainly because the 100 Years War was not centered on warfare only, even though some monumental battles took place during the course of the conflict—Agincourt and Crecy most notably from the standpoint of military history. So after analyzing the matter over a long period of time I eventually devised the card/board game that includes diplomacy and all the other meaningful factors in the struggle.

SK: If there are any other comments concerning the current state of role-playing, or the future of it, please feel free to remark on it!

GG: There’s not much I can add here regarding game design, save that some of the forays into variations of the underlying themes upon which the game form is based are travesties, not actual RPG at all. Their lack of acceptance by any meaningful number of the RPG audience underscores this assertion. About the only significant addition to the game genre has been the substitution of skills for character classes. This impacts the mechanics and play of the game considerably.

As for style of play, there seems to be a resurgence of interest in what is called “Old School” approach. I would prefer it be called “Actual Roleplaying,” rather than coddled, no-risk-to-PCs monster slaying or, worse still, tedious yakking with no adventures or deadly action at all.

***
I discovered Troll Lord Games as we were winding down a 3.5 campaign and were looking to the future. While hardly a fan of 3.0 and the subsequent 3.5 rules from the start, the more we played the more annoyed I grew with them. As Andrew Ryan would say, “What is the difference between a man and a slave? A man chooses, a slave obeys.” With 3.5 you’re not a man, you’re a slave; slave to the most gamey munchkin/power role-playing mechanics this side of Palladium. Surely there was something better out there. Something that would reawaken the passion I felt for gaming in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s. Heck, something like out of those days!

When looking at my options I wanted something that the players could easily acclimate to so I wouldn’t hear them whining about having to learn a completely new system. I had seen Castles and Crusades before but had never really investigated it. Upon looking into it I quickly fell in love with its playability, and since it was d20 OGL, I wouldn’t have to hear anyone complain. Beautiful.

What makes the system genius is that it’s old school, rules light gameplay, melded with modern sensibility (e.g. high rolls are always good) that can support a variety of play styles. From pure hack and slash to high drama, the only limits is what the GM and the players are willing to put into it. Never do you feel constricted by the rules, instead you have as much freedom as you want.

Another nice touch is that since the roots are very much old school you can dust off all your 1st and 2nd edition books and adventures, and with a few tweaks use them once more. Time to face off against The Ghost Tower of Inverness again!

Besides the Castles and Crusades system Troll Lord Games also publishes many lines by Gary Gygax (Castle Zagyg, the Encyclopedic set of Fantasy Role Playing Aids, and Lejendary Adventures), a great support mag in the Crusader, games from legends like Tom Wham, and more. Speaking of legends, check out the honoree list for their Lake Geneva Gaming Convention, it’s like reliving the golden age of RPGs!

If you remember the days when your group could actually get through a session without needing to crack a manual…when combat was vivid, descriptive, and fit seamlessly into the game, and not just a scam to push plastic miniatures…when role-playing meant more than roll-playing…by all means, check out Castles and Crusades. For around $50, along with your imagination, you can get everything you need to run. They also offer a discount for all military personnel, which you can check out here. (Speaking of discounts, this is a good time to point out that Shrapnel Games has their own military discount program, which is also extended to university students, in the Soldiers and Scholars Program. Details can be found here.)