TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

Col_Pladoh · Sep 22, 2006

DestroyYouAlot said:
Hi, Gary. I've actually had question or two I've been dying to ask.

Ed Greenwood: What's your opinion of his original work on the Forgotten Realms - i.e., the setting up until the point that TSR bought it (summed up in the "grey box" campaign set)? And, had things gone differently (i.e., had you stayed with the company and remained with a modicum of control), would you have purchased/licensed a new campaign world, whether his or another one?

I have insufficient knowledge of Forgotten Realms to comment.

Had I remained in creative control of the D&D game line at TSR one of the projects I planned was the complete development of of the Oerth world setting, and production of source nodules for the various states and outstanding featires of the Flanaess--such as the Roft Canyon, the Sea of Dust, etc.

That being the case, I doubt that TSR would have been interested in publishing and supporting another world setting--rather akin to creating and publishing another FRPG, so a waste of resources.

Cheers,
Gary

Henry · Sep 22, 2006

Thulcondar said:
Again, speaking of which, was the Battle of Emridy Meadows (which of course forms the backdrop to the venerable T1 "Village of Hommlet") ever actually played out? For that matter, where are the Emridy Meadows, anyway?

Col_Pladoh said:
Sadly, no. As a sort of military historian, board and tabletop wargamer, I used my imagation only to create those accounts.

Not 100% accurate, if you count the battle played out by you and "the gang" at the Lake Geneva Convention this year...

I still get a kick out of the pictures of the treant coming out of the forest...

airwalkrr · Sep 22, 2006

Col_Pladoh said:
Okay, but...

I would urge you to keep Feats moderate and limited in number, balance them with idiosyncrasies of some sort so as to get away from the comic book superhero PC.

FWIW,
Gary

Absolutely. I like the fact that feats allow a fighter to differentiate himself from another fighter (I just never liked the way kits did it), but I have a number of limits on the feats that the players can take and I have reduced the power level of a number of feats. I like for feats to be able to make your character *different*, not *better*. I quite dislike "super" PCs. PCs should become heroes through determination, luck, and skill, not because a feat allows them to kill a dragon in one hit. o.0

airwalkrr · Sep 22, 2006

Deuce Traveler said:
If I may add two cents, I also think the skill system can bog down gameplay. It seems everyone rolls for 'diplomacy' now instead of the DM judging that the conversation was roleplayed well enough to be successful.

My skill system is heavily simplified, and also a hybrid of old rules with new rules. Diplomacy is certainly not the equivalent of charm person.

My skill system, in rough form, can be found here.

Col_Pladoh · Sep 22, 2006

Henry said:
Not 100% accurate, if you count the battle played out by you and "the gang" at the Lake Geneva Convention this year... I still get a kick out of the pictures of the treant coming out of the forest...

Pish!

That is ex post facto, Henry, not to mention some judge fudging with the ent

Gary

Dracuwulf · Sep 22, 2006

Hi Gary,

In the 1st edition monster manual, kobolds, goblins, and orcs are all lawful evil and of low intelligence. Besides their particular hates (i.e., elves, gnomes, etc) What should differentiate these creatures tactics-wise when a party encounters each of them?

Col_Pladoh · Sep 22, 2006

airwalkrr said:
Absolutely. I like the fact that feats allow a fighter to differentiate himself from another fighter (I just never liked the way kits did it), but I have a number of limits on the feats that the players can take and I have reduced the power level of a number of feats. I like for feats to be able to make your character *different*, not *better*. I quite dislike "super" PCs. PCs should become heroes through determination, luck, and skill, not because a feat allows them to kill a dragon in one hit. o.0

Airwalker, sometime when you are looking for something to do, take a look at the LA game, the Avatar creation section. With, knacks and quirks, skill-bundle selection, and freedom to select new Abilities, no two Avatars will be alike, even if they are in the same Order (class-like skill-bundle selection mandated, for example an Enchanter, Geourge (elementalist), or Noble (knight) Order. Of course, players are free to not chose to have an Order and freely select their skill-bundles in any order they choose. (The higher the order of selection, the greater the percentage of capacity in the chosen Ability possessed.)

Cheers,
Gary

Col_Pladoh · Sep 22, 2006

Dracuwulf said:
Hi Gary,

In the 1st edition monster manual, kobolds, goblins, and orcs are all lawful evil and of low intelligence. Besides their particular hates (i.e., elves, gnomes, etc) What should differentiate these creatures tactics-wise when a party encounters each of them?

Howdy,

The named humanoids are not particularly different in their method of attack, only in the weapons they employ, their AC, and the chance to hit. The LE alignment means that they are well-organized and can plan ambushes, fight in formation, and will likely obey orders from a superior.

Cheers,
Gary

airwalkrr · Sep 23, 2006

Col_Pladoh said:
Airwalker, sometime when you are looking for something to do, take a look at the LA game, the Avatar creation section. With, knacks and quirks, skill-bundle selection, and freedom to select new Abilities, no two Avatars will be alike, even if they are in the same Order (class-like skill-bundle selection mandated, for example an Enchanter, Geourge (elementalist), or Noble (knight) Order. Of course, players are free to not chose to have an Order and freely select their skill-bundles in any order they choose. (The higher the order of selection, the greater the percentage of capacity in the chosen Ability possessed.)

Cheers,
Gary

Actually, although I do not own the LA system, I have based some of the changes to my 1e/3e hybrid on ideas I have gatherered from it here, and on other forums, not to mention the LA website, which is kicking by the way.

I hope one day to pick up the system and give it a whirl, but first I must find time to read these rulebooks, and time is a valuable commodity for me. I am definitely intrigued though and either this or Castles & Crusades will be my next game system purchase, when I do, in fact, get around to actually purchasing a new system.

airwalkrr · Sep 23, 2006

Col_Pladoh said:
Howdy,

The named humanoids are not particularly different in their method of attack, only in the weapons they employ, their AC, and the chance to hit. The LE alignment means that they are well-organized and can plan ambushes, fight in formation, and will likely obey orders from a superior.

Cheers,
Gary

This brings up an interesting question for me. Where did you get your inspriation for various humanoid races? Specifically orcs and goblins. We all know Tolkien used them extensively, but particularly on the alignment issue, what was your inspiration? Many old school gamers often argue for the LE alignment of orcs, but there are those who say they should be CE. I find myself on the fence on this issue. I like to think of my orcs as being very Tolkienesque and Turrosh Mak (as the paradigm for orcs in my campaign) certainly seems to be an organized and regimented kind of despot. But the wild feral nature of orcish combat often depicted in novels and movies does lend itself to making the CE argument worth considering. So I am often conflicted in wondering whether Mak should be a true paradigm, or rather an exception (and an exceptional exception at that!) to the rules.

TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

Henry

Autoexreginated

airwalkrr

Adventurer

airwalkrr

Adventurer

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

Dracuwulf

First Post

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

airwalkrr

Adventurer

airwalkrr

Adventurer

Similar Threads

Related Articles

Latest threads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Upcoming Releases