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.

 

[Quasqueton]

Gary,

In the 1980s version of the World of Greyhawk books, some of the shield devices on the inside cover have a symbol I can't identify. The symbol is a diamond (square standing on its corner) with an X through it. The realm shields I can see it on are: Onnwall, Idee, Lordship of the Isles, County of Sunndi, and City of Irongate. (See the attachment below.)

I can't find this symbol, or reference to it, in the books (even the section on Oerth runes). Can you shed some light on this symbol?

Quasqueton

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Gary,

In the 1980s version of the World of Greyhawk books, some of the shield devices on the inside cover have a symbol I can't identify. The symbol is a diamond (square standing on its corner) with an X through it. The realm shields I can see it on are: Onnwall, Idee, Lordship of the Isles, County of Sunndi, and City of Irongate. (See the attachment below.)

I can't find this symbol, or reference to it, in the books (even the section on Oerth runes). Can you shed some light on this symbol?

Quasqueton

Happy to oblige

The charge is a heraldric knot, the gray-black color indicating iron, and those armorial bearings showing the charge are members of the Iron League.

With the sad news of Fred Saberhagen's passing fresh in my mind, I must say that the Great Kingdom I pictured as akin to John Ominer's Empire of the East.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[RFisher]

I know these days you prefer to play LA or C&C. & I know you can get tired of AD&D questions, since you get so many of them. But I don't think I've asked one in a good while, & I don't remember seeing this one before.

If you were to run an oAD&D game today, would you use Unearthed Arcana? In whole or part? I believe you've said you regret including armor v. weapon adjustments & psionics in the PHB. Do you regret anything you included in UA?

If you were to play in an oAD&D game today, would you ask the DM to allow you to use anything from the UA?

 

[Col_Pladoh]

I know these days you prefer to play LA or C&C. & I know you can get tired of AD&D questions, since you get so many of them. But I don't think I've asked one in a good while, & I don't remember seeing this one before.

If you were to run an oAD&D game today, would you use Unearthed Arcana? In whole or part? I believe you've said you regret including armor v. weapon adjustments & psionics in the PHB. Do you regret anything you included in UA?

If you were to play in an oAD&D game today, would you ask the DM to allow you to use anything from the UA?

Here I expect to get questions regarding OA/D&D

I believe I would use most of the UA work in my theoretical OAD&D campaign--and not use weapon speed, adjustments vs. armor. I did use most of the components of that work in my actual campaign.

I know some grognards dislike the direction of changes included in the UA work, but IMO thay made the campaing more varied and interesting. That includes the raise in the level limits of some demi-human types, for I remain firmly behind the restriction on such races as the game assumes a human-dominated world.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[RFisher]

I know some grognards dislike the direction of changes included in the UA work, but IMO thay made the campaing more varied and interesting.

How do you respond to the charge that UA significantly increased PC "power" without a matching increase in the challenges arrayed against them, & thus encouraged munchkins?

 

[Col_Pladoh]

How do you respond to the charge that UA significantly increased PC "power" without a matching increase in the challenges arrayed against them, & thus encouraged munchkins?

First and foremost, munchkinism arose as a contemporary of the OD&D game. Nothing in the rules of that or any other version of the game was needed to make it flourish. SO that established as a truusm, let us move on.

I say that as barbarians get d12 for HPs, then clearlly extrapolation of the same principle must apply to large and vigorous creatures. This mitigates the potential increase in PC prowess. As a matter of fact, adult critters were assigned 7-12 HPs per HD in my AD&D campaigm--have been given the same in what I have designed for the C&C game system. Also, with increase in damage due to Strength, all large and powerful monsters, including ogres and giants, gain a damage bonus equal to their number of HD.

Admittedly, this is not in the UA work, but it logically follows, and would have been included in the revised edition of AD&D that I was planning.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Mycanid]

Good morning my good sir!

Had a lovely cold front clobber us here in the mountains which meant rain all last night! YAY! And with fog this morning you know what THAT means!

Anyhoo ... just stopping in to say hello.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

We had a week of very pleasant weather here in Wonderful Wisconsin, mostly sunny and not above 78 in the daytime, cool at night, moderate humidity. It is supposed to warm up after this coming weekend. A daughter that lives in Hamaii is coming here then, so likely that's sufficient to engender hot, muggy weather to greet her visit

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[Gentlegamer]

I say that as barbarians get d12 for HPs, then clearlly extrapolation of the same principle must apply to large and vigorous creatures. This mitigates the potential increase in PC prowess.

Does this mean the standard hit die for monsters was to be increased from d8 to d12, or only for certain monsters that fall into the "large and vigorous" category?

As a matter of fact, adult critters were assigned 7-12 HPs per HD in my AD&D campaigm--

Rolled on a d6? This sounds similar to the starting hit die for barbarians as originally presented in Dragon.

Also, with increase in damage due to Strength, all large and powerful monsters, including ogres and giants, gain a damage bonus equal to their number of HD.

Was the determination of such a damage bonus dependant on the monster's assumed Strength score or just on the fact that monster was large and presumably strong? Would this damage bonus apply to natural attacks as well as those attacking with weapons?

Admittedly, this is not in the UA work, but it logically follows, and would have been included in the revised edition of AD&D that I was planning.

It's always great to get some insight into the "lost" 2nd edition AD&D! Thanks!

 

[EvilPheemy]

d12 hit dice is an interesting twist on the classic OD&D d8 mechanic. Of course that means Ogres go to 4d12+1 which frightens my inner 4th level magic user.

The Giant Modules would almost have to be reclassified for levels 10-14 with d12 Frost and Fire Giants.