TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

This is the multi-year Q&A sessions held by D&D co-creator Gary Gygax here at EN World, beginning in 2002 and running up until his sad pasing in 2008. Gary's username in the thread below is Col_Pladoh, and his first post in this long thread is Post #39.

 

[haakon1]

BTW I was at Wrigley Field with my pal Dave Dimery when Jackie Robinson played his first game there. I can'r recall how old I was thenbut likely somewhere between age 10 and 13.

As an aside, my father saw the Tinkers to Evers to Chance combination, as well as Honus Wagner and Ty Cobb play. He had othing good to say about the St. Louis "Gas House Gang"

That's amazing. Being Brooklyn-born, I've always been a fan of Jackie Robinson, even though I was born after his time, in the year of the Amazin' Mets (1969). I like to think the Mets are the "real" Dodgers in disguise. Don't tell LA!

I almost mentioned Ty Cobb in there, but then I remember he had a reputation as being a meany, so I left him out.

And I left off Ted Williams because we don't want anyone freezing your head!

 

[Treebore]

Nothing like repeating a story...even if it was germane to the discussion :\

Cheers,
gary

I wasn't implying anything negative. just letting you know your memory still has its good moments. Even at 40 I am having memory issues and I find it extremely irritating.

Besides it is a good story. Proves that if your going to ask someone a question, especially in a public forum, the one asking the question better make sure they know what they are talking about. Unless it is an educational forum, then I had better get asked the stupid questions along with the "good" ones.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Heh, Treebore,

What I find both amusing and disturbing is that I can remember things from my early childhood and youth better than I can what traspired at many a gaming convention. Perhaps it is that most cons look alike after awhile

Cheers,
Gary

 

[SuStel]

I believe I have related this anecdote before, but here goes again:

When attending an I-Con at SUNY on Long Island, I took part in a panel discussion dealing with modern fantasy. …
Thereafter that twit had very little to say.

Aw, that was at I-Con? Drat, that was one of the years I didn’t go. I would have liked to have seen that exchange…

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Aw, that was at I-Con? Drat, that was one of the years I didn’t go. I would have liked to have seen that exchange…

Yes indeed it was...

That is the only con that has so many guests from NYC. Now I wonder why...

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Generally, folks (at least in modern times) mean the westerners -- mostly Wisconsin boys, also known at the time as the Black Hat Brigade. The 24th Michigan was attached to that Iron Brigade, at least for part of the war.

*prods haakon1 with his bayonet*



You should have scrolled down to the bottom of the Wikipedia article, as it plainly states:

Other Iron Brigades
There were and are other brigades known to some extent by the same nickname:

Another brigade in the Army of the Potomac had previously been known as the Iron Brigade (later the Iron Brigade of the East or First Iron Brigade to avoid confusion). This was the original 1st Brigade, 1st Division, I Corps, and consisted of the 22nd, 24th, 30th, and 84th New York (14th Brooklyn) Infantry regiments.

BTW, I was sorry, Col_Pladoh, the article in question is 'Will the Real Iron Brigade please stand up?' by Tom Clemens (linked in the Wikipedia article). This same author wrote an article for The Columbiad years ago entitled 'Black Hats off to the Original Iron Brigade'.

linky

Anyway, happy Birthday soon, Mr Gygax!

 

[Llaurenela]

Ciao Llaurenela

Thanks. You have been absent from the Talk List, and I was windering what was happening.

Cheers,
Gary

Hi ya Gary,
Yeah, a lot of RL family health issues. I am sure you know the drill on that. But everything is fine with me personally.

Happy Birthday!!!!!! Hope this one is your best yet! And here's wishing you many more that you can enjoy to the full!!
Cheers,
Llaurenela

 

[Steverooo]

Don't Say It!

Happy B-day, Colonel Play-D'Oh!

 

[D'karr]

Happy Birthday Gary. May you be blessed with many more.

 

[riprock]

Howdy!

Recently I was reflecting that very often my player characters tend to reflect the preferences and limits imposed by the DM rather than my original vision. By contrast, many wargames allow me to use points to just buy an army. When I try this tactical approach in D&D, fellow players will often advise me (with touching pity) that I am addicted to power.

Well, Dave Arneson gave the following warning, in Blackmoor:

Caution! This is the second supplement to the highly addictive game DUNGEONS &
DRAGONS. Handle it at your own risk. Even a brief perusal can infect the reader with the desire
to do heroic deeds, cast mighty magical spells, and seek to wrest treasure from hideous monsters.
The most insidious factor, however, is the secondary nature of this work. Any reader who
becomes infected from this work will immediately develop a craving for the other parts, i.e.
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, GREYHAWK (supplement I). CHAINMAIL (medieval
miniatures rules), polyhedra dice, and various and sundry other items. Anyone so completely exposed
will certainly be hopelessly lost. In short, if you are not already an addict of fantasy adventure,
put this booklet down quickly and flee!

I was recently trying to compare Chainmail (with the fantasy supplement), OD&D, and AD&D. I'd like to think that I play for the battles, not for the super-powered characters.

Robin Laws, in the book Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering, writes:

One of my pet theories about the popularity of roleplaying games
goes like this.
Roleplaying is fantasy shopping for guys.
That is, men would, as a group, be more interested in shopping if a)
it meant never having to leave the house and b) they were shopping for
super-powers.
In that sense, the typical roleplaying rulebook is like a Nieman-
Marcus catalog for super-powers. Depending on the game system and
character type, these extraordinary abilities might be called feats, spells,
schticks, disciplines, skills, high tech gear, psionics, or whatever. For lack
of a better all-encompassing term, I refer to these things as ?crunchy
bits.? Players who dig crunchy bits can not only have fun at gaming sessions,
but can enjoy rule books at their leisure, paging through them in
shivery anticipation of powers to come. It?s no secret that the best-selling
game supplements are collections of additional crunchy bits.
Dungeons and Dragons is the classic crunchy bits game, doling out
coveted powers on a punctuated schedule that would make B. F. Skinner
proud. (Skinner was the psychologist whose pioneering studies examined
the impact of rewards and other external stimuli on behavior. He
found that rewards that occurred every so often were more likely to
encourage a desired behavior than those doled out constantly and consistently.)
Vampire ingeniously aims its play style advice at method actors and
storytellers, but doesn?t stint on the crunchy bits. Some of its top-level
crunchy bits put to shame any zillionth level wizard/paladin with his +50
vorpal sword.
Though the power gamer is the purest exponent of the love of
crunchy bits, even the most dedicated method actor or storyteller can
secretly lust for them in his heart. They allow us to fantasize about flying
even after we?re too old to run around the house with red towels tied
around our necks.

I think Robin Laws is saying that a D&D campaign is like a long sequence of story events, and different characters get a Skinnerian "reward" at different points in the sequence.

The trick is that some points of a D&D campaign really are scheduled -- like the progress through various levels. I think Laws is arguing that D&D's levels are set up so that the players are always driven to get "just one more" level, and so they end up playing characters for hundreds of sessions. The numerous random elements in role-playing games are the only gambling I enjoy, but I know far more folks who "gamble" with invested time in games than with actual cash money.

But is it possible for just a few designers and playtesters, over just a few years, to produce that much "Skinnerian" conditioning? For Laws to be right, this addiction would have to apply to all the popular classes. Were there earlier wargames which exploited this ambitious side of human psychology? I've never read of any game which combines "gambling" and strategy before D&D ... earlier wargames, so far as I can tell, were not described in such terms.

I don't *think* it's the progress through the levels that has me addicted. I think it's that tactical battles are like a special kind of gambling where tactics makes it just rational enough to be interesting. Of course, battles are often decided by random dice rolls, which might be Skinnerian random rewards.


So I wonder if Robin Laws is right. Am I really a strategist and tactician, or am I just hooked on the periodic "rewards"? Are the two compatible? Are successful wargames characterized by a similar kind of "Skinnerian" reward cycle?

I suppose there's little doubt that I'm addicted to strategic and tactical gaming in various forms. At least it's cheaper than tobacco.