TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

Whitey said:

There is one way they say, fun or not fun, to do it. And that is the harshest limitation of all.

Click to expand...

And you're saying this is a new phenomenon? It's not, by decades.

Who is doing all this limiting and saying this or that is fun/not fun? It's more a perception of the individual, not something inherent in the game. EDIT: I'm going to expand upon this a tad, so as to ask Gary a question related to this.

Way back when, I was very obsessive-compulsive about buying game books, especially for D&D. For whatever reason, I just had to have every book that came out, and every book's new gewgaws for the game had to have a place in my game. I was the completist's completist. Anyway, as I got older, and especially with the advent of the 3e/d20 era, I finally had an epiphany - I didn't have to buy anything. I didn't have to use everything that TSR/WotC published. The implications which I thought were in those books - implications that one's game was not complete or cool or fun without the books in question - were, in all fairness, just my own perceptions of how things were, rather than something actually present in the books.

Now, for a question to Gary. I think this has been addressed in the past, but hey, I'll ask it again - there is and was a perception that you took on a very, hmm, how shall I put this....authoritarian air in the 1e books. That is, many have said that you were proclaiming that when it came to playing D&D - or, maybe more correctly in this case, AD&D - it was either your way or no way. The HackMaster game actually bases much of its tone in the Players Handbook and Game Masters Guide upon this very notion. In my opinion, much of your tone was definitely tongue-in-cheek, which I think HackMaster's designers picked up on. Was that your intention? Another possibility that I've mulled is that you were basically stressing that the game had to have commonly agreed-upon foundations in order for tournament play to be feasible, and this assertion was taken, by the more sensitive, to be commandments issued by you for any game, whether played at home or a con. After getting acquainted with your online persona, I'm much more inclined to believe the former rather than the latter. Any thoughts?

Half-halflings. possible or not?

Hi, Gary!

Ok, I got into a debate with a friend tonight, because I was creating a Half-human Half-halfling character. He said I couldn't do that because the rules say it is impossible for those two races to breed. I told him to show me where it is written, then he said that it isn't written anywhere, meaning that nowhere does it say about the existance of half-halflings, so by the CORE rules they CAN'T exist, unless the DM allows it. That doesn't satisfy me, because the DM can allow anything. I want to know if the rules support it or not.

So, you are the father of the game, what is your take in this? Would the core rules support a half-halfling or not? I know half-kenders are possible, because there are several Dragonlance novels with half-kenders in it, one of them being Brothers in Arms from Margaret Weis. And kenders are a subrace of halflings.

Kender are not halflings.

Moreover, if your DM says that there's no such thing as human-halfling hybrids - regardless of what his rationale is - then there's no such thing as human-halfling hybrids.

Thanks, but that was NOT the question.

The_Magician said:

Thanks, but that was NOT the question.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was.

You wanted to know if the rules support human-halfling hybrids.

They aren't in the book, so the answer starts off as "No." However, Gary will be the first to tell you that everything is really in the DM's hands, so if the DM says, "Yes," then that means the rules - which are actually guidelines - support human-halfling hybrids.

Your DM said "No."

Ergo, the rules don't suppport human-halfling hybrids - at least, not with that particular DM.

Oh, he is not the DM. We were just discussing rules. I was making a character for another game and the DM will allow it. I am not worried about that. It's just that this friend of mine was so annoying in his arguments that I had to look for a third opinion. Even though there aren't any templates for half-halflings, there are guildelines for creating new races, so my friend's argument that the rules don't back up the possibility of half-halflings sounds invalid to me. The DMG talks about creating new races or modifying existing ones. Sure, by doing that you would need DM's approval, but still, doesn't that mean the core rules back up the existance of half-halflings?

Edit: The DMG from 3E says in page 24 and 25: "An interesting avenue you may wish to examine regarding new race creation is the idea of half-breed races. The players Handbook already presents half-elf and half-orc. The MOnster's Manual gives rules on half-celestials, half-dragons, (...) orc-ogre (orog), gnome-halfling, (...) You may wish to rule that some crossbreeds are impossible or unfeasible, such as dwarf-elf, halfling-human..."

That sucks. First they remove their infravision and now they screw up their fertility! =(

Thanks for the clarification!

The_Magician said:

Sure, by doing that you would need DM's approval, but still, doesn't that mean the core rules back up the existance of half-halflings?

Click to expand...

Not really. That'd be what's normally referred to as a "house rule."

This doesn't mean it's less of a rule, or somehow invalid, but it does mean "I am stepping beyond / refining / changing an aspect of the rules in the books."

By a certain argument, yes, the rules support half-halflings, but they do so less "strictly" than they do laser guns and muskets (both of which are present in the DMG in an optional section) and about equally as well as they support players taking on the role of dirt molecules.

The_Magician said:

Oh, he is not the DM. We were just discussing rules. I was making a character for another game and the DM will allow it. I am not worried about that. It's just that this friend of mine was so annoying in his arguments that I had to look for a third opinion. Even though there aren't any templates for half-halflings, there are guildelines for creating new races, so my friend's argument that the rules don't back up the possibility of half-halflings sounds invalid to me. The DMG talks about creating new races or modifying existing ones. Sure, by doing that you would need DM's approval, but still, doesn't that mean the core rules back up the existance of half-halflings?

Edit: The DMG from 3E says in page 24 and 25: "An interesting avenue you may wish to examine regarding new race creation is the idea of half-breed races. The players Handbook already presents half-elf and half-orc. The MOnster's Manual gives rules on half-celestials, half-dragons, (...) orc-ogre (orog), gnome-halfling, (...) You may wish to rule that some crossbreeds are impossible or unfeasible, such as dwarf-elf, halfling-human..."

Click to expand...

Not to speak for the good Colonel, but if your question relates to 3e or any game system that is the IP of another party I doubt if he'll say anything other than "whatever the DM says."

That sucks. First they remove their infravision and now they screw up their fertility! =(

Click to expand...

Actually, IIRC, in 1e only some halflings had infravision (2e may be different) and I don't recall any half-halflings in either of those editions.

Gray Mouser

Gray Mouser said:

Actually, IIRC, in 1e only some halflings had infravision (2e may be different) and I don't recall any half-halflings in either of those editions.

Gray Mouser

Click to expand...

Wouldn't half a halfling be a quarterling?

gideon_thorne said:

Wouldn't half a halfling be a quarterling?

Click to expand...

Heh, I think Gary might have actually made that pun in a 1e book, although I can't remember which one.

Gray Mouser