Gygax vs Mearls

Thymos · Post by **Thymos** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:59 am

We all know these two are some of the best designers to grace to planet.

Which one is the best however?

Ok, seriously now, which of these fuckheads is worse?

I can think of two things to measure.

1. Who is the worse designer.

2. Who hates players more.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:04 am

Mearls is worse designer

Gygax hated players.

You're really going to need a tiebreaker criterion

squirrelloid · Post by **squirrelloid** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:32 am

Maxus wrote:Mearls is worse designer

Gygax hated players.

You're really going to need a tiebreaker criterion

Agreed on Mearls as worse designer.

Not actually sure Gygax hates players more. I mean, releasing rules sets that cause friends to come to (hopefully only figurative) blows over a game is pretty high on the 'hates players' list. And while Gygax's ideas were patently unfair, intent was rarely an issue - which beget obvious functional interpretations. (And I don't know about you, but I actually had fun playing ToH. 4e not so much).

Thymos · Post by **Thymos** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:11 pm

Tiebreaker... hmm

How about during their time working on the DnD license who would win in a fight (cuz gygax is an old man by now I have to get them when they were similar ages)?

Hicks · Post by **Hicks** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:22 pm

Thymos wrote:...cuz gygax is an old man DEAD AND BURIED by now...

Fixed that for you. But seriously, fuck Gygax.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:26 pm

Hicks wrote:
Thymos wrote:...cuz gygax is an old man DEAD AND BURIED by now...
Fixed that for you. But seriously, fuck Gygax.

It hasn't been 10*CL years yet. He can still be Resurrected.

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:47 pm

Gygax was a +5 flaming douche and incompetent, whereas Mearls is just incompetent (albeit more so than Gygax.)

So my vote for the worst goes to Gygax.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:55 pm

Darth Rabbitt wrote:Gygax was a +5 flaming douche and incompetent, whereas Mearls is just incompetent (albeit more so than Gygax.)

So my vote for the worst goes to Gygax.

Mike Mearls wrote:It's pretty easy to argue with someone when you make up their statements for them.

In that vein, as to Frank Trollman's specific observation that skill challenges are the Ghandi of game mechanics, I can only agree.

There, we agree now! Case closed, comrade.

Mike Mearls is also a +5 flaming douche. We need a tie breaker.

-Username17

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:00 pm

I give the tie-breaker to Mearls (for being worse), based on resources available to each.
Gygax pretty much had to invent things from whole cloth; whereas Mearls has 30+ years of trial-and-error to work with.
Furthermore, Mearls has much more access to market research.

Rawbeard · Post by **Rawbeard** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:05 pm

Gygax is venerated by grognards all over. That should make him at least +6 epic flaming douche.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:32 pm

Gygax is like Mearls in one important way, Gygax basically got the idea from someone else (Arneson). Mearls says he wants to take ideas from everywhere. We can forgive more Gygax a lot more because he was a pioneer.

I don't think Gygax hated players, he liked punishing certain types of players. His relationship was more sadistic then hateful. If he legitimately disliked players he wouldn't have such a history of running games. He obviously liked running games so he could fuck with people. That doesn't mesh with RPGs published this century but it must have been popular if the 80's RPG boom is to be believed.

I don't know if Mearls loves or hates players. His design failures don't seem malicious, just profoundly incompetent. Unlike Gygax (at least while at TSR) however Mearls has played better games, so his failures as a designer are unforgivable. While Mearls may or may not hate individual players he must not hold much love for the franchise, because if he did he would want to preserve it in some way. Even if he insisted on staying at the helm wouldn't he want to bring in other competent people so that 5e could succeed if he actually cared?

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:10 pm

"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent can recognize genius."

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:16 pm

Gygax got to appear on Futurama -- so why are we even having this debate?

Tumbling Down · Post by **Tumbling Down** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:25 pm

Gygax may have been a +5 douchebag, but Mike Mearls is personally the +12 Hackmaster.

So what we need isn't a tie-breaker, but a DBZ fight to see if the power level of Mearls' incompetence can compare with Gygax' assholery once the latter transforms and goes full Super Sonuvabitch.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:50 pm

Maxus wrote:"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent can recognize genius."

I like how this has become "Game recognizes game". History doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:56 pm

Gygax was making up shit as he went along because it was mostly new ground. Kind of like how the first Star Wars movie had shitty effects by today's standards, it's because they had to invent a lot of the techniques they used.

Mearls had the resources and the advanced knowledge to do better and he chose not to do better.

I vote Mearls is worse in the same way screwing up because you didn't know better isn't as bad than screwing up on purpose.

Desdan_Mervolam · Post by **Desdan_Mervolam** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:53 pm

From what I could tell, Gygax continued to support the same sort of late-70s style, fuck-the-PCs, GM-is-god bullshit the rest of his life. If he had moved away from that as time went on like the rest of us did, then the whole "He did what he did because he was a pioneer" thing would hold more water.

SlyJohnny · Post by **SlyJohnny** » Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:39 am

I don't get the excuses people make for Gygax. Sure, he was inventing the wheel from scratch, whatever, but whenever I or anyone I know is homebrewing a game on a forum and we want to use dice, we have someone roll 2d6 or whatever and they get to add modifiers if their character is good at whatever they're trying to do. Because that MAKES SENSE. Where does this THAC0 shit come from? And the endless tables? bend bars/lift gates and strength checks? What diseased mind sets that bullshit as the gold standard?

I just honestly don't understand how we didn't start with something like 3.5, and work our way up from there.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:58 am

@SlyJohnny
You, sir, appear to be suffering from what is known as the Curse of Knowledge.
(granted, after about 20 years, he should have been able to look back and say "damn, I've been kinda fucked up" .... but he didn't)

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp · Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:46 am

Mearls is a worse designer. 4th edition lasted merely a few short years before being updated to Essentials which was then cancelled. Compare this to the life span of OD&D and 1st edition.

Gygax hates players more. Gygax restricted options and fun within the system a lot more than Mearls did.

Emerald · Post by **Emerald** » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:22 am

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Gygax was making up shit as he went along because it was mostly new ground. Kind of like how the first Star Wars movie had shitty effects by today's standards, it's because they had to invent a lot of the techniques they used.

That's a pretty good metaphor, actually. Gygax is Original Trilogy-era George Lucas and Mearls is Prequel Trilogy-era George Lucas. The OT was great for its time, but anyone who tried to make something with those effects today would be dismissed for being out-of-date and out of touch, and nowadays Lucas is laughed at for constantly fiddling with and trying to fix something that worked for its time and should have been left well enough alone.

PT George Lucas had everything he needed for success--plenty of existing material to work with, plenty of consumer feedback, a beloved franchise with many diehard fans--but because he's become a self-absorbed douchebag who let his fame and influence (real or imagined) get to his head and refused to listen to people telling him his ideas were bullshit, he created a trilogy(/system) widely regarded as terrible by former fans and pissed away all his good will with them, while casual fans and young kids somehow thought it was okay.

SlyJohnny wrote:I don't get the excuses people make for Gygax. Sure, he was inventing the wheel from scratch, whatever, but whenever I or anyone I know is homebrewing a game on a forum and we want to use dice, we have someone roll 2d6 or whatever and they get to add modifiers if their character is good at whatever they're trying to do. Because that MAKES SENSE. Where does this THAC0 shit come from? And the endless tables? bend bars/lift gates and strength checks? What diseased mind sets that bullshit as the gold standard?

I just honestly don't understand how we didn't start with something like 3.5, and work our way up from there.

Because he was adapting and adding onto a wargame that used dozens of lookup tables and roll-under mechanics, rather than creating something from scratch, and that's the explanation for several other 1e idiosyncrasies as well (like the "elves are immune to paralysis because ghouls were OP" thing).

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:19 am

Yeah, this isn't respect for the dead (I don't do that - see: Thatcher), but I don't think Gygax is as bad for the hobby. He stole stuff from Arneson, he set the tone for a terrible future*, and he didn't so much hate players as love ruining their fun - he was a bully.

On the other hand, he and Arneson were both basically taking a wargame and adapting it (probably in the style of "as little effort as possible, we're not getting paid for this (yet)"), and wargames are known for stupid rules - 40K is up to 6th Ed and still has "High numbers are good, unless it's the Saving Throw or AP", "High rolls are good, unless it's a Leadership Test", "Look at the chart to see what it does", and "Push the RNG all around the place, but fuck you, 1 and 6 are still special". So they took something awful and made something less bad out of it. But there was still a long way to go (and RPGs moved forward before wargames did, if we assume that the only wargames that exist are Warhams and Skubmachinehordes).

The bit where it evolved from wargames also sort of explains the hostility - wargames very much are X vs Y, all dirty tricks allowed, winner dunks their junk in the loser's drink (HAHAHA I DRINK HOT TEA).

Now let's look at Mearls: he's clearly a douchebag, better yet an internet-age douchebag! He starts projects with what he thinks is a grand vision, talks a good talk, then decides it's too hard and dumps the half-started piece of shit on someone else and somehow convinces people that he isn't the reason for the failure. He looked at existing successful things and decided "Right, first thing first, NONE OF THAT."

Gygax wrote "Wish: ask for anything you want. You bring your attorney, I'll bring mine, and then we find out how I can fuck you or if you get everything you want." Mearls wrote "Wish: you gain a bonus equal to a magic item for your level. It wears off after a few levels so you'll need a new wish. Also it costs the same money as buying the item."

*For what it's worth, I think LotR can also take a lot of blame for setting up some terrible standards for all the games that will end up being based on it, including D&D in a roundabout way.

Desdan_Mervolam · Post by **Desdan_Mervolam** » Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:41 am

SlyJohnny wrote:I don't get the excuses people make for Gygax. Sure, he was inventing the wheel from scratch, whatever, but whenever I or anyone I know is homebrewing a game on a forum and we want to use dice, we have someone roll 2d6 or whatever and they get to add modifiers if their character is good at whatever they're trying to do. Because that MAKES SENSE. Where does this THAC0 shit come from? And the endless tables? bend bars/lift gates and strength checks? What diseased mind sets that bullshit as the gold standard?

I just honestly don't understand how we didn't start with something like 3.5, and work our way up from there.

There have been points in time when it was widely believed that games that are more complex were more realistic, and that being more realistic universally made your game better.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:33 am

SlyJohnny wrote:I don't get the excuses people make for Gygax. Sure, he was inventing the wheel from scratch, whatever, but whenever I or anyone I know is homebrewing a game on a forum and we want to use dice, we have someone roll 2d6 or whatever and they get to add modifiers if their character is good at whatever they're trying to do. Because that MAKES SENSE. Where does this THAC0 shit come from? And the endless tables? bend bars/lift gates and strength checks? What diseased mind sets that bullshit as the gold standard?

I just honestly don't understand how we didn't start with something like 3.5, and work our way up from there.

THAC0 wasn't even the original system. The original system was a chart of arbitrary to-hit chances based on your level and their armor class. Lower armor classes were better because it was adapted from a miniatures battle system in which the best armor class was "A" and the next best was "B" and so on. The Gygaxian advance was to convert it to a number line so that "better than A" could be "0", "-1", etc. instead of fiddling around with "AA" or "A+" or something that was hard to compare or use consistently.

THAC0 was an advance over that, and was trotted out in (IIRC) Unearthed Arcana. The idea was that you gave people a formula where they could generate the to-hit charts in their heads instead of forcing them to go look up the to-hit charts each time they attacked.

Baby steps, but still clearly an advance over what had come before.

-Username17

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Mon Apr 22, 2013 5:19 am

Desdan_Mervolam wrote:There have been points in time when it was widely believed that games that are more complex were more realistic, and that being more realistic universally made your game better.