Did Gygax owe a bit of thanks to WotC?

[Bullgrit]

This is all from my perspective:

Before 2000, Gary Gygax had pretty much fallen to obscurity, known about, really, only by old-time D&D fanatics. He hadn't been associated with D&D, the biggest RPG in the industry, for 15 years. His RPG work after D&D was pretty much third-tier stuff compared to D&D and the next closest games.

I was interested in the man and his writings -- I had read just about everything he had ever written, or had been written about him. I loved his imagination. But even I lost track of him in the 90s. I played with gamers in the 90s who didn't know his name.

Then WotC revitalized D&D as a brand. As a bonus, WotC brought Gygax back into the realm of "known names" in the RPG market. He had a column in Dragon magazine, again. He created gaming materials for the d20 market. I thought this was great.

In the early 2000s, his opinion of the "new D&D" seemed to be neutral to mildly favorable. (He said a few good things about the game, but he never went so far as to endorsed it --= and I don't think anyone expected him to.) It seemed to me that he was satisfied to be a part of the "D&D world" again, but was unsatisfied that the game wasn't his. Understandable.

But as time moved on, he seemed to take a more and more negative stance on the game. He would often insult it as an abomination from his true D&D.

It seemed that the more fans who found him, due to his exposure because of the new company and new edition, the more negative he got toward the company and the game. I found this disappointing and distasteful. I mean, the company seemed to treat him well, (considering they didn't have to treat him at all), and the resurge in popularity of the latest edition of the game supported his own resurgance in notierity.

When given an audience through the official gaming media, he was neutral, (not a problem with me), but when talking elsewhere, like on ENWorld or Dragonsfoot, or in interviews, he essentially put down the new company and the new game. This just struck me as . . . "impolite."

Now, it's not like this was out of character for him -- just check old issues of Dragon magazines to see him give negative opinions. But that was usually toward competitors.

In the last few years that he acted like this, it annoyed me, as an observer. I felt he owed a little something to the company and the game that brought him back out of relative obscurity. Not that he should have been all gushy/smoochy with WotC and new D&D. But he could at least not bad mouth them behind their backs. I mean, WotC and new D&D did nothing bad to or for him – in fact, they both did good to and for him.

Didn’t Gygax owe a little thanks to WotC and new D&D? Don’t we all owe them a little thanks for bringing the man back on stage for us?

Bullgrit

 

[ExploderWizard]

Gary's opinions were his own and he had just as much right to them as you do to yours.

 

[Obryn]

I don't think Gary ever faded into obscurity in the first place. I don't know where you're getting that.

I saw WotC's wooing him as (1) lending legitimacy to their taking over the reins of D&D, and (2) extending an olive branch after TSR's mishandling of the situation. It earned a ton of geek goodwill for those who care about such things.

Characterizing him as an ungrateful houseguest is pretty well off-base. Regardless of what projects he'd been working on - Dangerous Journeys, etc. - he was still inextricably associated with D&D.

-O

 

[TerraDave]

Hmm.

I think the point was to thank him. Both by settling some long standing legal issues and making nice.

From everything I read, he had good things to say about those personally involved in 3E, like Peter Adkinson, but had soured on 3E/D20 through play. (read familiar?). I think a D20 product done by--his son?--and the play testing for that, had been the last straw.

However, I also beleive that he had proposed for WotC to just republish AD&D. Which had been rejected. (though I am impressed about how much 1E detail went into that edition, including a few things that many probably thought were new).

You can always review his col pladoh postings here.

 

[samursus]

While I agree Gary had a right to his opinions and expression thereof, I agree with Bullgrit that such behaviour in light of the circumstances would lower my estimation of the character of that person.

 

[ExploderWizard]

While I agree Gary had a right to his opinions and expression thereof, I agree with Bullgrit that such behaviour in light of the circumstances would lower my estimation of the character of that person.

So someone who is not a fan of game X means that they are of low character now assuming such "circumstances" were correct to begin with?

 

[Obryn]

While I agree Gary had a right to his opinions and expression thereof, I agree with Bullgrit that such behaviour in light of the circumstances would lower my estimation of the character of that person.

Which circumstances would those be?

Bullgrit's narrative is basically backwards. WotC didn't woo him as a favor in order to help out the old guy and raise him from oblivion. WotC wooed him for much the same reason Leonard Nimoy was in the new Star Trek movie. Fans of D&D already knew him - he was brought in to show that 3e was really D&D, and that WotC respected the game he co-wrote. (Remember that Arneson was similarly wooed.)

And it worked, too - it earned them a ton of goodwill and PR all around the interwebs.

You can basically ignore Bullgrit's theory that WotC brought him on-board as a favor and that he should be grateful for it. I have no idea where he's getting any of that.

-O

 

[Longtooth Studios]

When you put it like that, it reminded me of my own grandfather who had a stroke and eventually died of it. His temperament had grown increasingly irritable and dissatisfied toward the later years of his life. Stressful situations would sent him into, what seemed at the time, grumpy old man tantrums. It was actually early effects of the illness that would eventually take his life.

Now I know that Mr. Gygyx is revered by many, including myself, please don't mistake this as an assumption of his state before his departure.
It just bears mentioning that regardless of his opinion of the modern game, or the source of dissatisfaction, the man himself should be remembered for his (and Mr. Arneson's) contribution of the game, and honored for starting something so powerful that many millions of people still play today.

I didn't know the source of my grandfather swings in temperament at the time, but I still loved and respected him as a man who had contributed much to my life.

 

[interwyrm]

I hope this isn't too much of a threadcrap...

The guy is dead. I'm sure, like many RPG geeks, he had very strong opinions and wasn't too good at knowing when to keep them to himself. That doesn't matter. He was instrumental in creating this hobby, even if he hasn't carried it to where it is today.

I don't think it is anyone's place to say now that "he didn't show enough gratitude". He did what he did. He's dead now, and WOTC's D&D is alive in spite of or because of Gary's existence.

From what I've read, he had good reason to be bitter about D&D. There's no need to fault him for it.

 

[amerigoV]

Gary Gygax was person of strong opinions, and one can see it in the writing style of the old rulebooks and modules (I never followed him much outside of that environment). I personally never expected him to hold back on his opinions regardless the format. What was his old Dragon article from years ago? Up on Soapbox? I think that says it all. One can discuss of the right or wrong of his opinions, but if you did not like what what he said or how he said it - then that was your problem not his (that is the attitude that came across when I read him anyway).