Knights & Knaves has a compilation of the various answers to questions Gary Gygax has posted on message boards over the past few years.  Some really interesting comments on his inspiration for elements in the original game, as well as how he actually played the game:

http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=570

Quote from: Gary GygaxThere is often player pressure to add complexities and complications to rules and systems, such additions being urged in areas that the players like and believe to be critical to enjoyment of the game. I did that for some writing in OAD&D and regretted it considerably thereafter--mainly weapons vs. armor types and psionics.

Quote from: blakkieBetter yet, they were told not to read it. Oh yes, that was a real standard setter. One of the biggest loads of elitist tripe to ever come down the RPG pike.

I remember that advice, but I don't see why it was 'elitist'.  I think EGG's point was simply that players would have more fun if they had to discover the way that the 'AD&D world' (so to speak) worked on their own.  Unknown = mystery and adventure.

Of course every AD&D player I knew in the early 1980s owned and read the DMG like a religious text ...

Yeah, I figured so:

QuoteDON'T WORRY, BE LEJENDARY
Water under the bridge is long gone, and there's little benefit in analyzing the distant flow. For my current thinking in regards to FRPG system excellence, I refer you to the Lejendary Adventure game

Ok, so maybe that's a bit of a sales plug too. But it does make sense when he had free reign and some time and experience behind him he'd come up with something different, and to his own personal gaming preferences. I'd be highly suspisious of any game made by a designer that didn't really crave to play what he was making.

Curiously Lejendary is a skills based, classless game. Never played the game but I've recently checked through i a bit. The gist is you pick up Abilities (skills) and select, or not, an "Order" that is sort of like careers but with dues and benefits for advancing while in the Order. You can also be Unordered, which has different benefits for advancing. Rewards (Merits) for advancement are both general and also awarded to specific Abilities.

Relatively rules "light" (EDIT:maybe rules "loose" would be a better term), so little wonder that his own preference is not for 3e since 1e was already headed in the wrong direction.

More Gary Gygax on 3rd edition...

Quote from: Gary GygaxWell, after being at RPG activity since 1972, I finally realized something that should have been evident to me a couple of decades ago. When I GM I prefer to "wing it" much of the time, and ignore rules that get in the way of the flow of the adventure. The same is true when I play a character, prefering to use logic and imagination in preference to hunting up rules. In short, I do not like rules-heavy systems. Rule-playing is worse than roll-playing. I can enjoy a good deal of hack & slash, but even a bit of rules lawyering makes me want to go and find something else to do.
Additionally, I find no soul in the new D&D game, no archetypes, just seek and destroy play and too much of the comic book superhero in characters.
It is no reflection on those who enjoy the game, just my personal taste that leads me elsewhere.

Quote from: Gary GygaxIMO there has been a vast shift in game focus in 3E. The archetype has gone by the board, comic book-like feats are a feature, the whole purpose of play is set on killing things, and power gaming is encouraged. Long-term play is not facilitated by the new game. However, all that seems to be acceptable, as so many of the RPG players like it.
Creating good adventure modules is very difficult, and the returns on average ones are minimal compared to core books and major supplements. You bet it is a clever business move on WotC's part to concentrate on the high-volume products and leave the production of low-volume support material to other publishers.
In all I believe that the long term result of this is indeed likely to affect the D&D game adversely. Only time will tell, but the advent of 3.5E so soon after 3E seems to bear out what I envisage.

Quote from: AkrasiaI remember that advice, but I don't see why it was 'elitist'.  I think EGG's point was simply that players would have more fun if they had to discover the way that the 'AD&D world' (so to speak) worked on their own.  Unknown = mystery and adventure.

I suspect that might have been the reason for the split. Hell, it even makes some sense. But how the split was made?  Mystery in worlds is great! Mystery in how the rules work sucks. Especially when they might change moment to moment.

Quote from: StuartMore Gary Gygax on 3rd edition...

Quote from: Gary Gygax....Long-term play is not facilitated by the new game.....

This I don't get. I wonder what he's thinking here?

EDIT: Hrmmm, I wonder if I can get my old ENWorld account to work so I can ask question of him directly.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat a joke. You're the one who is interpreting it totally out of context, and you aren't fooling anyone.

The "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense?

!i!

Quote from: blakkieI suspect that might have been the reason for the split. Hell, it even makes some sense. But how the split was made?  Mystery in worlds is great! Mystery in how the rules work sucks. Especially when they might change moment to moment.

No, the rules were just not the player's concern.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense?

!i!

No the "I'm quoting the FUCKING DMG" defense.  You're the one who picked apart the quote and interpreted it completely out of its context. And, I'll note, to try to put a spin on it that only the most ignorant would ever be able to buy as coming from Gary Gygax.

What you did was about on par with taking a quote from Simon Wiesenthal and trying to argue that he's actually being anti-semitic.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNo the "I'm quoting the FUCKING DMG" defense.  You're the one who picked apart the quote and interpreted it completely out of its context.

Really?  Let's have a look at this again...

Quote from: RPGPundit3. "As an active Dungeon Master I kept a careful watch for things which would tend to complicate matters without improving them..."

So much for gimmicky mechanics.

4. "...(and) rules which lessened the fantastic and unexpected in favour of the mundane and the ordinary"

That's yet another frequent problem of many games these days; they encourage routine and mundanity in the system.

Do you really think that Gygax was talking about gimmicky mechanics?  Back in a time when AD&D was pretty much the only game in town?  Do you still maintain that I'm the one who's quoting out of context for his own purposes, or did you mean to say something along the lines that we both are, only you forgot to mention yourself and that you failed to recognise that I was doing so to satirise your assertions?

!i!

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's yet another frequent problem of many games these days; they encourage routine and mundanity in the system. Players are encouraged to conform to gimmicky systems and funnel their creativity into how they will "define stakes" or where they will put their tokens or how many beans they will invest in their action; but the one thing they're not allowed to do in these games is roleplay outside of the rules.

Out of curiosity, what exactly qualifies "check the ability score, add the appropriate bonus points, compare the result against the target number" as more gimmicky than "roll the d20, add the appropriate ability bonus, compare the result against the target number"?

What I was doing was pointing out how Gygax's advice, ported to the modern day, is still as relevant, and perhaps more necessary, than ever.

He was talking about the equivalent to the "gimmicky mechanics" of his time. And his comments about mundanity are directly relevant today.

So no, my comments aren't out of any context other than the historical.

My comments are taking what he said, and saying "look, see? He is saying stuff that can be applied today".

What you did, on the other hand, was take his stuff and twist it into the exact opposite of what he was saying then, to try to apply it to the opposite of what it would be intended for now.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGentOut of curiosity, what exactly qualifies "check the ability score, add the appropriate bonus points, compare the result against the target number" as more gimmicky than "roll the d20, add the appropriate ability bonus, compare the result against the target number"?

I know what I'm talking about here.
I'm not sure you know what I'm talking about here.
But I surely don't know what the fuck you're talking about here.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat you did, on the other hand, was take his stuff and twist it into the exact opposite of what he was saying then, to try to apply it to the opposite of what it would be intended for now.

Actually, what I did was twist your assertions into the exact opposite of what you were trying to say, in order to show that Gygax's sensible advice can be applied to pretty much all games, not just your stable of favorites.  Your pinpointing of "gimmicky mechanics" was the most glaring bias you were trying to assert as wisdom.  I honestly believe that Gygax was discussing crappy mechanics, not cute gimmicks.  If a cute gimmick works and works well, why wouldn't someone use it?

!i!

Quote from: RPGPunditI know what I'm talking about here.
I'm not sure you know what I'm talking about here.
But I surely don't know what the fuck you're talking about here.

"Players are encouraged to conform to gimmicky systems and funnel their creativity into ... how many beans they will invest in their action..."

From a strictly mechanical point of view, I don't really see how this "beancounting" is enough to render a system any trickier than, say, d20.