So what's the popular view on Gygax?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I'm kind of confused. Is he universally despised by the gaming
community, universally loved, or somewhere in between?

Everything I've read about him seems to indicate that he resembles a
large pink organ of phallic dimensions.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Telendil Silverleaf wrote:
> I'm kind of confused. Is he universally despised by the gaming
> community, universally loved, or somewhere in between?

Yes.


--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Telendil Silverleaf wrote:
> I'm kind of confused. Is he universally despised by the gaming
> community, universally loved, or somewhere in between?
>
> Everything I've read about him seems to indicate that he resembles a
> large pink organ of phallic dimensions.

He's very divisive. Basically, he pioneered the "DM is God, and should
demonstrate this by screwing the players whenever possible" style of
gaming. His adventure modules almost invariably have unfair, instakill
traps, many of them undetectable.

Gaming has passed him by. Modern takes on the role of the DM are very
different, and most of us have no wish to return to the bad old days.

But there is a significant minority who _like_ the old ways, for
whatever reason. And that, in a nutshell, is one of the big flamewar
topics around here.

Laszlo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ian R Malcomson wrote:
> In message <1125354635.747252.54700@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> chaoslight@gmail.com writes
>
> Untrue - blatantly so, if you read the adventures he wrote and the
> various accounts of the games he was involved in (Sorcerer's Scroll
> etc.) with more than an ounce of applied intelligence. He pioneered a
> DM methodology that challenged *players* (rather than characters) in
> problem solving within adventure design, and acted as a neutral arbiter
> during play (occasionally viciously so). Heck, he pioneered DMing full
> stop. The current apparent design philosophy is to challenge
> *characters*, and to DM in a way that, if anything, slants a bias
> towards PCs.
>
> Even the traps in the notorious Tomb of Horrors can be circumvented by
> clever players. The emphasis of 3E takes the game away from the players
> towards the characters (viz, players can rely more on the intelligence -
> skills, if you will - of their characters, more than their own
> problem-solving capabilities).
>
> >Gaming has passed him by. Modern takes on the role of the DM are very
> >different, and most of us have no wish to return to the bad old days.
>
> The role of the DM in 3E is different than it was. But to call those
> days of yore "bad" is to completely deny that a heck of a lot of us had
> a heck of a lot of fun for a heck of a long time before "modern takes"
> appeared.
>
> >But there is a significant minority who _like_ the old ways, for
> >whatever reason. And that, in a nutshell, is one of the big flamewar
> >topics around here.
>
> There's a significant group who missed the point then, and continue to
> miss the point now - that's the nutshell "bad days/good days" concept.
>

Wow. That's the most lucid, logical (and polite!) argument in favor of
that style of gaming I think I've seen.

Nazi.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Telendil Silverleaf" <michael.hofer@civigenics.com> wrote in message
news:1125346615.073931.7620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm kind of confused. Is he universally despised by the gaming
> community, universally loved, or somewhere in between?

A little of "all of the above."

> Everything I've read about him seems to indicate that he resembles a
> large pink organ of phallic dimensions.

He certainly comes off that way in many of his interviews. I do not like
his style much, but I give him props as one of the founders of the game.
The game *has* clearly grown beyond him, and of course, that is a good
thing. We now have *many* ways of playing that were not readily available
before.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> Nazi.

LET'S ALL QUIT THIS THREAD! GODWIN'S LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN!

Naw really though.

Still, you are a big retard for resorting to such language.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I'm wondering, which of you are willing to help me out with a kind of
dnd conversion, which is really a new game altogether?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In message <1125354635.747252.54700@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
chaoslight@gmail.com writes
>
>Telendil Silverleaf wrote:
>> I'm kind of confused. Is he universally despised by the gaming
>> community, universally loved, or somewhere in between?
>>
>> Everything I've read about him seems to indicate that he resembles a
>> large pink organ of phallic dimensions.
>
>He's very divisive. Basically, he pioneered the "DM is God, and should
>demonstrate this by screwing the players whenever possible" style of
>gaming. His adventure modules almost invariably have unfair, instakill
>traps, many of them undetectable.

Untrue - blatantly so, if you read the adventures he wrote and the
various accounts of the games he was involved in (Sorcerer's Scroll
etc.) with more than an ounce of applied intelligence. He pioneered a
DM methodology that challenged *players* (rather than characters) in
problem solving within adventure design, and acted as a neutral arbiter
during play (occasionally viciously so). Heck, he pioneered DMing full
stop. The current apparent design philosophy is to challenge
*characters*, and to DM in a way that, if anything, slants a bias
towards PCs.

Even the traps in the notorious Tomb of Horrors can be circumvented by
clever players. The emphasis of 3E takes the game away from the players
towards the characters (viz, players can rely more on the intelligence -
skills, if you will - of their characters, more than their own
problem-solving capabilities).

>Gaming has passed him by. Modern takes on the role of the DM are very
>different, and most of us have no wish to return to the bad old days.

The role of the DM in 3E is different than it was. But to call those
days of yore "bad" is to completely deny that a heck of a lot of us had
a heck of a lot of fun for a heck of a long time before "modern takes"
appeared.

>But there is a significant minority who _like_ the old ways, for
>whatever reason. And that, in a nutshell, is one of the big flamewar
>topics around here.

There's a significant group who missed the point then, and continue to
miss the point now - that's the nutshell "bad days/good days" concept.

--
Ian R Malcomson
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ian R Malcomson wrote:
>
> Even the traps in the notorious Tomb of Horrors can be circumvented by
> clever players.

Sure. They just have to be clever enough to "think outside the box", as
it were, and read the module when the DM goes to the bathroom.

There are traps in there which will 100% kill PCs that act (as they
should) like heroes. There are also traps that cannot be detected, and
must be evaded through sheer luck.

> >Gaming has passed him by. Modern takes on the role of the DM are very
> >different, and most of us have no wish to return to the bad old days.
>
> The role of the DM in 3E is different than it was. But to call those
> days of yore "bad" is to completely deny that a heck of a lot of us had
> a heck of a lot of fun for a heck of a long time before "modern takes"
> appeared.

Like I said, one of the big flamewar topics around here.

Laszlo

 

[Waldo]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ian R Malcomson wrote:

> >He's very divisive.

Yes. This has led to a minority of hardcore Gygaxians defending his
legacy, facing off against a larger group that has learned to despise
him.


> He pioneered a
> DM methodology that challenged *players* (rather than characters) in
> problem solving within adventure design, and acted as a neutral arbiter
> during play (occasionally viciously so). Heck, he pioneered DMing full
> stop.

Hrm. I'd say it's a little more complicated than that.

One, if anyone deserves the title "first DM", it's Dave Arneson, not
Gary.

Two, that said, yes he did pioneer all sorts of stuff. His were the
first /immersive/ role-playing adventures. That is, Gygax expected
players to engage fully with the game in a way that you wouldn't with,
say, a boardgame. This has been the norm for 30 years now, so we've
forgotten what a huge advance it was at the time.

About 2/3 of the key elements of modern D&D are Gygax's. Hit dice.
Levels. The concept of rolling a die to hit against armor class.
(Arneson claims this too, but the evidence supports Gary.) Alignment.
The "Vancian" magic system.

And, as you say, the concept of the role of DM. Arneson saw the DM as
more of a referee in an old-fashioned miniatures campaign. Gygax was
the first to realize that the DM could (1) create a fully realized
fantasy world, and (2) "push back" at the players, challenging them
with unexpected encounters, puzzles, traps, and things that were just
completely 'out of the box' from a board-game POV. Gygax arguably made
the key breakthrough to a simulationist view of RPGing.

The industry owes him a huge debt. He does seem to be a bit of a
pompous ass, but OTOH we could have done worse. Much, much worse.

Final thought: Gygax went through phases. He didn't stay fixed in his
opinions over 35 years. IMS he had a lot of ups and downs in both his
personal and professional lives over that period. In his public
persona, he varied from totally obnoxious and unbearable -- especially
during his THESE ARE THE RULES, OBEY THEM period in the late '70s and
early '80s -- to surprisingly flexible and generous.

His views on a lot of things evolved over time. In the '70s he was a
pretty unabashed sexist pig -- "A woman's place in gaming is bringing
the snacks to the gaming table", type of thing. (No, he never actually
said that, but close enough.) He's mellowed a lot since then... see,
for instance, his friendly and pleasant interview in 2000 with
womengamers.com.

Again, we could have done much worse.


> The role of the DM in 3E is different than it was. But to call those
> days of yore "bad" is to completely deny that a heck of a lot of us had
> a heck of a lot of fun for a heck of a long time before "modern takes"
> appeared.

True. Most people (not all, just most) find 1e unplayable now that
we've played 3.x. But that doesn't mean we didn't have, as you say, a
heck of a lot of fun for a heck of a long time with 1e.

Waldo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Telendil Silverleaf wrote:

> I'm kind of confused. Is he universally despised by the gaming
> community, universally loved, or somewhere in between?
>
> Everything I've read about him seems to indicate that he resembles a...

Well... you just proved beyond a reason of a doubt, that you're a
total retard.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Dirk Collins" <dirk.collins@Earthlink.Net> wrote in message
news:biQQe.3935$_84.1757@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Telendil Silverleaf wrote:
>
>> I'm kind of confused. Is he universally despised by the gaming
>> community, universally loved, or somewhere in between?
>>
>> Everything I've read about him seems to indicate that he resembles a...
>
> Well... you just proved beyond a reason of a doubt, that you're a total
> retard.

Don't listen to Dirk. Someone is home, but the porch light is out.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

chaoslight@gmail.com wrote:

> Telendil Silverleaf wrote:
>>I'm kind of confused. Is he universally despised by the gaming
>>community, universally loved, or somewhere in between?
>
> He's very divisive. Basically, he pioneered the "DM is God, and should
> demonstrate this by screwing the players whenever possible" style of
> gaming. His adventure modules almost invariably have unfair, instakill
> traps, many of them undetectable.

He did not. It's not his fault that many other GM's and players
lacked imagination and had even less initiative to improve the game.

> Gaming has passed him by. Modern takes on the role of the DM are very
> different, and most of us have no wish to return to the bad old days.

Yeah! Roleplaying has been changed into a win-lose proposition,
instead of a win-win proposition for both the players and GM. The
time it takes without good software to prep a fun game is
excrutiating, and storytelling and heroics have been sacrificed in
favor of repetitive mechanics and a mind boggling array of
choices. The Winners; Those you spend the money and take the time
to memorize every arcane rule, optional rule, and variation
thereof. The Losers; The folks that want a simple fun game that
can be played to a reasonable conclusion in just one evening.

>
> But there is a significant minority who _like_ the old ways, for
> whatever reason. And that, in a nutshell, is one of the big flamewar
> topics around here.

Naw. There are a few new ways that are really interesting... C&C,
Some of the Green Ronin publications, Spycraft, and Fudge OGL for
example. I'll still play or GM a home grown 0D&D game anytime though.

Re,
Dirk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

No 33 Secretary wrote:

> Many of us never had the bad old days. We though Gygax was a pompous prick
> then, too.

I didn't like chamber of horrors, and shrine of the kua-toa either
(Don't know what hand EGG had in the latter, if any). Most of the
rest was just peachy though.

You don't like any of the d20 Gygaxian Fantasy Worlds volumes
published by the Troll Lords?

Re,
Dirk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ian R Malcomson wrote:

> Untrue - blatantly so, if you read the adventures he wrote and the
> various accounts of the games he was involved in (Sorcerer's Scroll
> etc.) with more than an ounce of applied intelligence. He pioneered a
> DM methodology that challenged *players* (rather than characters) in
> problem solving within adventure design, and acted as a neutral arbiter
> during play (occasionally viciously so). Heck, he pioneered DMing full
> stop. The current apparent design philosophy is to challenge
> *characters*, and to DM in a way that, if anything, slants a bias
> towards PCs.

Makes the game grow for vets, but not for newbies.

>
> Even the traps in the notorious Tomb of Horrors can be circumvented by
> clever players. The emphasis of 3E takes the game away from the players
> towards the characters (viz, players can rely more on the intelligence -
> skills, if you will - of their characters, more than their own
> problem-solving capabilities).

and...

> The role of the DM in 3E is different than it was. But to call those
> days of yore "bad" is to completely deny that a heck of a lot of us had
> a heck of a lot of fun for a heck of a long time before "modern takes"
> appeared.

and...

> There's a significant group who missed the point then, and continue to
> miss the point now - that's the nutshell "bad days/good days" concept.
>

Well... I happen to agree on all these major points. We had fun
with making new rules to improve the game, and making sessions a
good fit for the players at the table. In making up good epic
stories, and in seeing epic stories created by the players at the
table.

Re,
Dirk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

quuxa23@yahoo.com wrote:

> Ian R Malcomson wrote:
>
>>In message <1125354635.747252.54700@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>>chaoslight@gmail.com writes
>>
>>Untrue - blatantly so, if you read the adventures he wrote and the
>>various accounts of the games he was involved in (Sorcerer's Scroll
>>etc.) with more than an ounce of applied intelligence. He pioneered a
>>DM methodology that challenged *players* (rather than characters) in
>>problem solving within adventure design, and acted as a neutral arbiter
>>during play (occasionally viciously so). Heck, he pioneered DMing full
>>stop. The current apparent design philosophy is to challenge
>>*characters*, and to DM in a way that, if anything, slants a bias
>>towards PCs.
>>
>>Even the traps in the notorious Tomb of Horrors can be circumvented by
>>clever players. The emphasis of 3E takes the game away from the players
>>towards the characters (viz, players can rely more on the intelligence -
>>skills, if you will - of their characters, more than their own
>>problem-solving capabilities).
>>
>>
>>>Gaming has passed him by. Modern takes on the role of the DM are very
>>>different, and most of us have no wish to return to the bad old days.
>>
>>The role of the DM in 3E is different than it was. But to call those
>>days of yore "bad" is to completely deny that a heck of a lot of us had
>>a heck of a lot of fun for a heck of a long time before "modern takes"
>>appeared.
>>
>>
>>>But there is a significant minority who _like_ the old ways, for
>>>whatever reason. And that, in a nutshell, is one of the big flamewar
>>>topics around here.
>>
>>There's a significant group who missed the point then, and continue to
>>miss the point now - that's the nutshell "bad days/good days" concept.
>>
>
> Wow. That's the most lucid, logical (and polite!) argument in favor of
> that style of gaming I think I've seen.
>
> Nazi.

See. You missed the point, yet again. Try harder... cogitate some
more.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

My throw on the Gygax thing would be

yes... we owe him a lot for the early development of RPG's (etc)

but

It always got to me a bit (even when I was reading the then brand new
1st ed DMG as a youngster) that his words didn't match his actions. In
dragon mag and running through the rule books was a smug line of "some
people run monty haul campaigns" with characters "decked out like
christmas trees of magic items" (actual qoute I believe from mem)

Also he stressed that dungs should not be random collections of
beasts.. But then - check out some of his designs - HUGE amounts of
magic treasure, loads of critters mixed up and always..

"There are xxx stoneroper bards playing dice, they look up and attack"
and
The creatures with xxx special attack (eg petrifcation) will always
have a xxx curing potion or scroll in its treasure.

Also he had something pervy going on about pole arms and owlbears

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Starbles@Earthlink.net wrote:
> > Nazi.
>
> LET'S ALL QUIT THIS THREAD! GODWIN'S LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN!
>
> Naw really though.
>
> Still, you are a big retard for resorting to such language.

Main Entry: satire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura,
satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from
feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis.
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice
or folly

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Noted. He seems to have completely missed the point of the post. The
operative phrase was "seems to indicate", not "I firmly believe."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

See, that's what confuses me. I used to think he was a great guy, and
respected him a lot as the inventor of D&D. I didn't even KNOW there
was a guy named Dave Arneson until a few months ago. And then, when I
read about Gygax in the forums, there USUALLY (but not always) seems to
be a great deal of ire and venom directed at him.

So it would be useful to me to know what people think of him, and why.
I'd rather form my own opinion of him (if I even do so) by gathering
input from lots of people. (Ideally, you'd meet the guy and form it
from first-hand evidence, but that's not likely going to happen any
time soon.) That seems more preferable to me than sitting alone in my
room, and just arbitrarily deciding that I do or don't like the guy,
and that's that.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Telendil Silverleaf wrote:
> See, that's what confuses me. I used to think he was a great guy, and
> respected him a lot as the inventor of D&D. I didn't even KNOW there
> was a guy named Dave Arneson until a few months ago. And then, when I
> read about Gygax in the forums, there USUALLY (but not always) seems to
> be a great deal of ire and venom directed at him.

You came pretty close to answering your own question, there. People
who can't stand Gygax come by their opinions in a variety of ways, but
one of the reasons for the venom may stem from the popular conception
that he is *the* inventor of D&D, and thus the "father" of what we
consider modern RPGs. The fact that Dave Arneson (at least as
responsible for the game's creation as Gary) goes all but unnoticed by
many fans and the media tends to get under the skin of folks who
understand and care about that sort of thing.

>
> So it would be useful to me to know what people think of him, and why.

Personally, I'm rather ambivalent about the man. He's notable for his
role in the origins of the hobby, and for some rather entertaining
turns of phrase in the D&D/AD&D1 books, but that's about it for me.

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

chaoslight@gmail.com wrote:
> Ian R Malcomson wrote:
> >
> > Even the traps in the notorious Tomb of Horrors can be circumvented by
> > clever players.
>
> Sure. They just have to be clever enough to "think outside the box", as
> it were, and read the module when the DM goes to the bathroom.
>

I ran it once at a convention. It ended in a TPK--but that was
mostly because the players just would not quit monkeying with
the traps. Most of the kills were of the "Ooh! I wonder what
*this* button does!" type. A complete refusal to take any
divination spells didn't help.

Granted, in many modules of the time you were *supposed* to
pull any big red shiny levers you found.

 

[Waldo]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Telendil Silverleaf wrote:
> See, that's what confuses me. I used to think he was a great guy, and
> respected him a lot as the inventor of D&D.

He deserves a certain amount of respect.


> I didn't even KNOW there
> was a guy named Dave Arneson until a few months ago.

Well, yeah, and that's a big part of the problem. Gygax had -- still
has -- a pretty big ego, and quite deliberately shoved Arneson aside
and grabbed as much glory as possible. Sort of like a Newton and
Hooke, Edison and Tesla kind of thing.

Mind you, this was a pretty damn effective strategy in terms of
maximizing Gygaxian income and personal status. Most people think he
is the sole inventor of D&D (not on this forum, but the much larger
group with just casual knowledge of the history of the hobby).

But, let's face it -- a lot of great innovators are obnoxious,
egotistical jerks. That doesn't mean they aren't also great
innovators.


> So it would be useful to me to know what people think of him, and why.

Well, you have my opinion: kind of a jerk, and not everything he's
tried to claim he is, but a hugely important figure nonetheless.

Waldo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Telendil Silverleaf wrote:
> I'm kind of confused. Is he universally despised by the gaming
> community, universally loved, or somewhere in between?

Yes.

Gygax tends to create powerful responses: There are those who revere
him for his role in shaping their formative years and creating their
favorite pasttime. There are those who revile him for (a) poor design
skills; (b) his god-like ego; (c) stealing credit from Dave Arneson;
and (d) Cyborg Commando.

Personally, I respect him for his design skills (a praise which must be
tempered with a strong critique for his ability to selectively edit hs
own work). I think his active effort to diminish Dave Arneson's
contribution to D&D (when he wasn't ignoring him outright) is
contemptible. I find his insistence that his style of play is endorsed
by Divine Writ to be tedious.

--
Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Telendil Silverleaf wrote:
> I'm kind of confused. Is he universally despised by the gaming
> community, universally loved, or somewhere in between?

Yes.

> Everything I've read about him seems to indicate that he resembles a
> large pink organ of phallic dimensions.
>

The same could be said of the current President. As always, opinions
vary by person and are ultimately valueless in that regard.