Anti-Sean said:
That statement, as fully quoted in your post, includes the qualifier 'just about'; it also specifically applies to the campaigns those DMs ran, not the beliefs of the DMs themselves. It is far less of a generalization than you make it out to be. That statement, as reflected in the title of this thread where you edited out said qualifiers, might be the 'window' or implication' you claim it to be; that statement as fully quoted, however, is not.
OK, so I guess I have to be pedantic now. The qualifier changes nothing, since the statement is completely wrong, and the full statement, including the qualifier, supports my assertion.
The accurate qualifier would be "none of the campaigns", not "just about all".
The origin of the Corellon-shot-out-his-eye/stole-it/somehow-took-an-eye and reduced him from two to one comes from Carl Sargeant, well into 2E.
From Deities and Demigods, for all of first edition, and part of second edition, cyclopean Gruumsh had one eye. That is all he ever had. He never had two eyes in the first place.
Then, in Dragon 62 (reprinted in Unearthed Arcana) Roger Moore adds the story of Corellon trying to shoot out his cyclopean eye, to make him completely blind, but failing.
Its not until Monster Mythology, with Carl Sargeant, that the story becomes "Corellon shot out one of his two eyes". However, in MM, Gruumsh's eye is still described and drawn as cyclopean, so apparently Gruumsh's skull shifts/bones reshape, etc. so he is still cyclopean after losing the eye, but he can't regenerate it for some reason. Like I said, lame, but he doesn't run my campaign.
But the original statement by the 4E designer is completely wrong. So, the statement, "even back in 1st Edition, just about *every* campaign every DM ran assumed that Corellon Larethian put out Gruumsh's eye" is almost completely wrong.
Now, the designer is citing this to make a blanket statement about a shared fundamental basis for Dungeons and Dragons campaigns. His assertion is that THE single shared basis, even if not accepted by every DM, was that "Corellon Larethian put out Gruumsh's eye".
THAT assertion, from full context, it is COMPLETELY wrong. For all of first edition, the shared basis was NEVER that Corellon shot out/took/whatever one of Grummsh's two eyes. For all of first edition, the shared basis for D&D campaigns was: Gruumsh only had one eye, ever.
Thus, the designer's statement is wrong, it doesn't matter how many qualifiers are attached. Unless the qualifier is "no campaigns assumed this, because nothing published during all of first edition ever supported or assumed this". But thats not a qualifier. Its a complete sentence.
Now, is the designer right that there was a shared basis for almost all D&D campaigns? Sure, but I never asserted otherwise.
Now, who really cares? Honestly? Its just an inconsistent canon about a fake mythology, and the designer got it wrong/confused/whatever. Plenty of 1st edition gamers wouldn't have cared enough to read about Gruumsh (obviously I am not in that group).
The error is insignificant, of itself.
The thing is, why did he choose to cite something that was wrong? If he was a 1st edition player, and I have no evidence that he wasn't (and I sure don't care enough to try to prove it one way or the other), then why not just cite something from first edition that he did know? Say..."almost all campaigns were based on the idea that Iuz and Cuthbert hated each other".
Not too hard, right?
And thats the thing, beyond the insignificance of the error. The error itself says, "I feel comfortable making flat out wrong statements about 1st Ed., because...who even cares about first edition. Its forgotten, irrelevant. I can get stuff totally wrong about 1st Ed. because no-one even cares."
Its like...watching someone step on a dead animal with total nonchalance, as if they were walking on normal pavement. Thats what they think of 1E AD&D.
Now thats fine.
The guys at WotC can make the game whatever they feel like, just like Carl Sargeant did Gruumsh. They are getting paid by Wotbro, Wotcbro is letting them do it, and I can't change that. They can't tell me what to play, or how to play either, so its all fine.
But as someone who can look right over at his shelf at his first edition books, as a player looking for a first edition game, and someone considering running a first edition game (and bringing in some scenarios from other editions) I should be one of their potential customers. I could be described as a "unlikely to adopt core 4E rules, but likely to buy some supplements or expansions for 4E D&D that can be used in other D&D campaigns. And maybe look at the SRD/core to cherry pick some house rules from."
Instead, this statement, combined with many changes, like dropping the wheel cosmology, tells me I could be described as "irrelevant". Wotbro has their own business, and how they run it is ultimately just that: their business.
I was just a bit surprised to realize I have been discarded as a customer so coolly.
Message received and understood. Over and out.
