The Gaming Den

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1110244393[/unixtime]]
That's why it's so important to piss on his memory. If we don't, the moral of the story will be "If you alienate a lot of people and plagarize a bunch of peoples' life work - you'll end up getting sole credit and be beloved by millions in the long run."

Last time I checked, that's actually how the world works.

I ignored that Gary Gygax was such a dickhead.
I'm really disappointed...Have you some link on a D&D historical website? I'd like to know more about it.

Anyway, you opened my eyes about his deprecable habits, thank you. And it doesn't matter if the world works this way.
In my country, Gygax is a hero, a kind of divinized overbeing, and really few are the ones who know real information about D&D history.

And anyway, his talking mood in the EN board ("call me Gary, fellow gamer"), as if he were some indulgent old Sage, really stands on my neck.
After all, he's only the King of Nerds , not Master Yoda.

I'm with Frank on this one. And that picture of Arneson is fucking gold.

EDIT: Found a neat interview with Arneson. LINK

rapanui at [unixtime wrote:1110321222[/unixtime]]I'm with Frank on this one. And that picture of Arneson is fvcking gold.

EDIT: Found a neat interview with Arneson. LINK

Since this thread started, I've now read about 4 articles/interviews with Dave Arneson. He seems a lot more humble, self-deprecating, and genuine ... in comparison to the Gygax stuff I've read in his interviews and EnWorld posts.

Yeah, that's why I posted that pic, Rapanui. He's got a grin that could charm the devil. And for you boys, I figured you could use a little cheesecake to tide you over. :tonguesmile:

I'm just glad it wasn't a certain notorious and . . . disturbing picture Frank discussed a while back . . .

Oberoni wrote:

Maj wrote:If this is the garbage he inspires, he is no one I'd want to hang out with.

I have no problem with people dissing Gygax's business ethics. And I have no problem with people saying that he's not on the cutting edge of the industry (That's probably what happens when you're getting into your 70s. We can't all be Clint Eastwood, you know)

However, I find all the we're-too-good-for-one-of-the-founders-of-the-game attitude in your post and others to be elitist, and not in that cool, hip sort of elitist sense for which I frequent Nifty and the Den in the first place.

My attitude couldn't care less about what role Mr. Gygax actually played in the history of the game of D&D. My attitude stems directly from the fact that Mr. Gygax, like my father-in-law, seems to be one of those people who - regardless of actual accomplishment - is stuck in a given time period, refusing to escape. Time happens. Innovation happens. It's OK to be a god for a little while, but unless you update yourself, all you're going to become is a powerless old man with delusions of lost grandeur.

As I said in my post, if books like Castles and Crusades are what the man inspires today, I don't want to have anything to do with him (update: I found out he's writing the modules for the "new" system). The book attempts to return to the "good old simple days" when roleplaying was about roleplaying, where classes leveled at differing rates and where encumbrance may or may not have had something to do with Strength, but certainly wasn't as simple as a chart. In attempts to steal from 3.x, the book presents players with only 12 levels per class, but 20 class levels of spells per day for the casters. It harkens back to the time when stat attributes weren't able to fully be derived by a unified formula, and the monk was - in theory - the most badass class to be.

It's the 21st century. If you want to go back to more roleplaying and simplicity, you need to address the obstacles of complication - not recreate older ones. Mr. Gygax may have had a significant impact on the game I play now, but the game I play now doesn't have much impact on him... And that's a shame.

Maj at [unixtime wrote:1110328712[/unixtime]]
My attitude couldn't care less about what role Mr. Gygax actually played in the history of the game of D&D. My attitude stems directly from the fact that Mr. Gygax, like my father-in-law, seems to be one of those people who - regardless of actual accomplishment - is stuck in a given time period, refusing to escape. Time happens. Innovation happens. It's OK to be a god for a little while, but unless you update yourself, all you're going to become is a powerless old man with delusions of lost grandeur.

Let me get this straight. You:

1. Don't care what Gygax might have done in the past, but

2. Do care that he's not constantly staying on the cutting edge?

That is the most ridiculous combination of things I've ever read from you. No, seriously.

1. Past accomplishments are the only way to measure someone's impact upon a field. The instant you're done doing something, it's a past accomplishment. I don't care if it's five minutes ago, five years ago, or five decades ago.

At what chronological point do you suddenly stop cheering someone for their accomplishments? Please tell me.

2. By not constantly staying on the cutting edge, and in fact revelling in the proudest moments of his past, Gygax has become like every other older person throughout time. Hell, he's like a lot of youngins, too.

The instant you stop producing innovation, or wear clothing that is so last year, or don't get a computer with a Pentium IV because your Pentium III is holding up just fine, you're committing the same "crime" you accuse Gygax of. Seriously, he (and everyone else I know) is either in or will enter the state where he's not on the cutting edge; that has all of jack shit to do with whether or not you should respect him.

As I've said before, Gygax has done some pretty cold stuff in the past (as related by Frank's posts). You could hate him for that.

But considering past accomplishments irrelevant? Dissing someone because they're not constantly evolving with the times?

Come on now.

Oberoni at [unixtime wrote:1110342918[/unixtime]]
At what chronological point do you suddenly stop cheering someone for their accomplishments? Please tell me.

I can't answer for Maj, but in my case, the answer here is:

At the chronological point when their more recent accomplishments start making you ashamed of your prior admiration of their less recent accomplishments.

I'd like to chime in on the "Gygax, what a bastard." side of things.

Table top role playing games were inevitable, they were going to happen one way or another, even if you credit him with producing the seed of the idea, which is inaccurate as the idea was pre existing, so what?

Its like crediting some guy with the invention of the computer and worshipping his mighty godlike creativity. The idea already existed in a variety of forms since the dawn of time, it was inevitable that it would take this new form, someone had to do it, and its hard to say if it was even him who happened to draw the lucky short straw.

And Gygax was a thief, a nutter, and a sabotage merchant to boot. So when you wiegh up the scales "definitely did bad bunch of stuff that he didn't need to" outweighs the "MAY have done a bit of good stuff that didn't need him"

But I'd like to chime in briefly on the passing mention of that Mr Newton fellow.

If I recall correctly there is in fact a great deal of speculation that Newton was in fact little more than a thieving plagurist himself. Many suspect that even some of his most famous discoveries were in fact stollen from his much more acedemically active students.

Most notably though when Newton published formulas describing projectile motion as his own work he was accused by a slighlty less prominent mathemetician of stealing his more obscure but functionally identicle work, modifying it slightly and re publishing it under his own more prominent name.

In response Newton wrote an infamous letter to the angry fellow (I think his was Norwegian). Any way Newton was a rather tall guy, and regardless of plagurism status apparently a complete asshole, and this other guy was famously very short. So Newton writes back to him an insulting letter saying that he merely "Stood upon the shoulders of giants".

Or quiet possibly in other words "Yeah so I stole it, what you gonna do about it shorty?"

So apparently there may be some evidence that Newton may well have been little more than a pompous celebrity who illgetimately crossed out a bunch of other names in the ledgers of history and wrote in his own.

If Gygax or Newton came knocking on my door I don't owe them anything, nothing at all. And condsidering their histories it might not be wise to let them into my house, as they might steal my favourite stuff.

Not to be the fly in the ointment here, but where are all these people who were supposedly dissed, screwed, or swindled by EGG?

Why aren't they coming out of the woodwork by the handfuls and educating the public as to the reality of EGG's character and past misdeeds? Even Arneson just states that he and EGG had disagreements - and he states that with little drama attached.

In fact, is there proof positive via testimonials from other credible gaming sources that EGG really performed all these bad acts?

Or is it just fvcking hearsay?

This is not meant to be an attack on Frank. But seriously, we are only hearing about "bad" EGG stories from you. And I can't find anything on the net that speaks badly of him.

I personally think he looks desperate on his EnWorld posts. And his advice is often contradictory to 3.E RAW and RAI. He seems like one of the last guys I would ever want to have as my DM.

PhoneLobster at [unixtime wrote:1110345686[/unixtime]]
And Gygax was a thief, a nutter, and a sabotage merchant to boot. So when you wiegh up the scales "definitely did bad bunch of stuff that he didn't need to" outweighs the "MAY have done a bit of good stuff that didn't need him"

Yeah, you know it's not like D&D was popular or anything. It's just some no name RPG nobody has heard of or played. The last game of D&D was probably some 15-20 years ago.

Some guy told me a while back that there are message boards specifically for the D&D game, but I just ignored him. Clearly, that guy was a loon, because everyone knows D&D was a short lived insignificant little RPG that only a handful of people ever played.

Oberoni wrote:Let me get this straight. You:

1. Don't care what Gygax might have done in the past, but

2. Do care that he's not constantly staying on the cutting edge?

Something like that, yes. If Mr. Bill Gates insisted that everyone continue using Windows 3.X despite the fact that we're in the era of XP, I'd think he was a total quack. So would a lot of other people.

Oberoni wrote:1. Past accomplishments are the only way to measure someone's impact upon a field. The instant you're done doing something, it's a past accomplishment. I don't care if it's five minutes ago, five years ago, or five decades ago.

At what chronological point do you suddenly stop cheering someone for their accomplishments? Please tell me.

At the point in time when their attitude toward progress is a negative one. At the point where they want other people to go back and remember what they did because they're so important that their accomplishments are way better than anyone else's. At the point in time when someone says something akin to, "Everyone should buy a Ford Model T because it's the direct product of more progress and impact and imagination than a 2004 Honda Accord."

Oberoni wrote:2. By not constantly staying on the cutting edge, and in fact revelling in the proudest moments of his past, Gygax has become like every other older person throughout time. Hell, he's like a lot of youngins, too.

The instant you stop producing innovation, or wear clothing that is so last year, or don't get a computer with a Pentium IV because your Pentium III is holding up just fine, you're committing the same "crime" you accuse Gygax of. Seriously, he (and everyone else I know) is either in or will enter the state where he's not on the cutting edge; that has all of jack shit to do with whether or not you should respect him.

Not updating your old 486 because it's way better than a brand new computer is indeed the same "crime" I'm talking about. Not updating your computer because you can't afford to or because you've heard about something cooler you're willing to wait for is not the same "crime." Updating your computer, but keeping the 486 around because it's got a lot of personality and nostalgic value is only the "crime" of which I speak if you continue to shun the newer computer despite having it.

Oberoni wrote:As I've said before, Gygax has done some pretty cold stuff in the past (as related by Frank's posts). You could hate him for that.

I could.

Oberoni wrote:But considering past accomplishments irrelevant? Dissing someone because they're not constantly evolving with the times?

Past accomplishments are irrelevent to "temporal felonies." It doesn't matter whether you've done something or not. I can pretty much guarantee that my father-in-law (step father-in-law?) has pretty much done nothing with himself, but all during my husband's young life, my SFIL imposed strictures like, "You can't listen to music on my stereo that was made after 1975." Granted, he never stated that in a coherent, easy to comprehend way like I just did. He'd just get angry that something had been near his stereo, start being pissy and mean to everyone, and start drinking. This guy still rolls up his cigarettes in his sleeve, and he hates the fact that he can't drive his classic Chevelle around everywhere. He was fired from his job and replaced with "some young college student" because he wouldn't update his skills, and as a result, he sat on his ass and moped for years. Do you know it took to get him to think about considering the possibility of joining the new millenium? A psychiatrist and Zoloft (he was only on it for a few months). He's found modern artists he listens to, he goes ballroom dancing with his wife, he got a job, and he listens to a CD player! He has yet to update his computer, but now, at least there's hope that it will happen.

If you honestly can't relate to anything I'm saying, consider yourself lucky that you've never met someone like that.

So... what you're saying is Gygax needs Zoloft?

Don't forget the psychiatrist . . .

Also, the word would be "needed" - back when he was publishing articles in Dragon about how he was the sole creator of role playing games, and anyone who used house rules or - heaven forbid actually played Runequest or Traveler were thieves.

At this point it's basically too late for Zoloft and a shrink to help - he's already pushed everyone away and fragmented the gaming community beyond reconciliation.

-Username17

C'mon, Frank. The "fragmented" gaming community started basically the instant the second person bought Dungeons and Dragons. Everybody's played their own game since then, and nobody I've ever played with cared much what Gygax had to say about anything.

And it's not like Traveller or Runequest failed b/c Gygax badmouthed it. He only made himself look like an ass, which is why most people don't feel nearly as upset as you do about it.

He may be a manipulative, egotistic glory-hound, but he had a part in making the paradigm of RPG's. So what if he hogged a little credit? If Gygax isn't entitled to say "I created RPG's," no one is. It's not like we're talking about a shared Nobel prize for Excellence in the Field of Gaming, we're just talking about an old guy grabbing a little credit.

Zherog wrote:So... what you're saying is Gygax needs Zoloft?

Honestly, I don't know what Mr. Gygax needs, but it doesn't matter. So long as I don't have to read much of what he says, and can return those books with the smell of 197X sprayed on them, I can use my D&D inspired imagination to acknowledge his efforts in the creation of a genre of games, and my intellect to acknowledge he's a worm. Any further thoughts about him are a waste of my mental processes and time.

About Arneson: there was a time when Gygax was fairly open about the fact that D&D owed a debt to him, however great or small that debt might actually be. He was credited as co-author on white box, after all, contributed to the supplements, and there are Dragon articles from the '70s era where Gygax straightforwardly admits that it was Arneson who first began having players take individual character roles and allowing them to increase in power, and that he (Gygax!) worked off a copy of Arneson's campaign notes. Of course, even according to Arneson, Blackmoor in turn recycled parts of the rules from Chainmail ...

Having read some material from Blackmoor, it's fairly clear that his ideas were similar, but not identical, to what was eventually published in white box, and the similarities become less and less evident in AD&D. The magic system was very different, character advancement was handled differently, even some of the basic elements we take for granted in D&D were absent (he talks about characters never gaining hit points, for instance -- only getting harder to hit) ... there were a lot of differences, and without a look at the complete rules I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that D&D was not a new game "based upon", rather than the same game stolen and repainted.

I say this not in defense of Gygax -- who I've never met or spoken with, even online, and who in any case has never been so shy about defending himself that he requires someone else to do it for him -- but in acknowledgement that we're talking about things (how much of a debt one game owes another) that are fairly subtle, that happened more than 30 years ago now and about which even fair-minded people could honestly differ at the time, never mind today.

I was a (very young) player in the late '70s, and I was aware then that there had been a game before "Greyhawk", the "first D&D" game; that it had been called "Blackmoor", and that someone called Dave Arneson had been its creator and had then apparently contributed some things to D&D (but not AD&D? Who knew?). At the minimum I think Gygax could be reproached for not making clear what the game did owe to Blackmoor and Arneson, as well as what it didn't. I just don't know beyond that.

--d.

It'd be interesting to see Arneson's original rules. See what the game looked like before Gygax actually impacted it.

Yeah, especially since the magic system and hit points are two of the things I hate most about D&D.

grey_muse at [unixtime wrote:1110604464[/unixtime]]Yeah, especially since the magic system and hit points are two of the things I hate most about D&D.

Yeah definitely, it'd be very funny if Arneson had the perfect game from the beginning and Gygax just screwed it up.

Not that funny, it'd mean I'd been playing the wrong game for the past 20 years.

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1110640958[/unixtime]]

grey_muse at [unixtime wrote:1110604464[/unixtime]]Yeah, especially since the magic system and hit points are two of the things I hate most about D&D.

Yeah definitely, it'd be very funny if Arneson had the perfect game from the beginning and Gygax just screwed it up.

That would be hilarious-in a twisted sort of way.

Judging from This Interview and Mr. Gygax's debate with Sean "Forgotten Rums" K. Reynolds below, I think it's safe to say that his grasp on reality is pretty tenuous anymore.

I'm still charitible enough to chalk it up to senility.

that article wrote:Q6) If you would have been present at WoTC when the decision was made to create an open license, how would you have gone about it, assuming that not doing it was not an option.

Gary: I would have resigned my position with the company rather than seeing the OGL come into being.

Of all the...

You know, it does get harder to defend him if he says stuff like this.