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.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

...
One question, on a slightly different note: may seem odd, but could you please clear up something I've been wondering about for a while? How exactly is Mordenkainen's name pronounced? I always assumed that the "kainen" part was pronounced as a long "a" sound, "kay-nen". Is this correct? If not, so sorry! Anywho, thanks for your time, much appreciated!

Your assumption is correct. The name is pronounced as More-den-KAY-nen.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[BOZ]

i always figured it was like KYE-nen

 

[airwalkrr]

Then one must perforce assume your world was dominated by non-humans as demi-human racial factors made them generally superior to humans overall...

Cheers,
Gary

One of the many elements of fantasy that we merely glossed over because our group felt it added little to the game. I certainly see where you are coming from though. And actually, we did enforce level limits, just not for PCs, who we considered were more special.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

Hi Gary — like so many before me, it is impossible to express my gratitude for creating OD&D and AD&D.

Having said that, I want to share with the board a time that I met you at the 1983 WorldCon in Chicago. I asked why broadswords do less damage versus Large opponents then medium-sized opponents. You replied rather matter-of-factly that it is because broadswords can't thrust. It was an epiphanic moment for me. Of course that's the logic! When a spear thrusts through a medium-sized creature, so much of the energy is wasted. Whereas with a large creature, there is more to pierce.

I have to say that I really miss weapon lengths, speed factors, varying damage vs. medium & large as well as weapon vs. armor.

And more importantly the effect of helms! You, Gary are the only author I have found who rightly said that intelligent opponents attack the head 50% of the time and that low or non-intelligent opponents have a 1/3 chance. My experience in the SCA confirms all that you wrote about weapons and helms. Ever since 1979 when I read that note in the DMG I have enforced the rule on PCs not wearing helms. Basically I created a matrix indexing their helm AC and their body AC. Not wearing a helm will get your AC bonus cut in half. Not a smart thing when fighting Against the Giants!

Thanks again Gary!

 

[Col_Pladoh]

i always figured it was like KYE-nen

The character is patterened after a Finnish wizard, so thus the KAY-nen pronunciation

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

One of the many elements of fantasy that we merely glossed over because our group felt it added little to the game. I certainly see where you are coming from though. And actually, we did enforce level limits, just not for PCs, who we considered were more special.

That is a clever comprimise I did not consider. The demi-human, and humanoid, PCs being very special might indeed exceed the norm for their race.

Good show that

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Howdy Griffith Dragonlake,

Thank you for the kind words. Such are most heartening to an old trooper, so to speak

As a matter of fact in the case of intelligent opponents attacking PCs I have the formet aim at an unprotected ot poorly head about two-thirds of the time. If one so desires more "realism," that is a combat simulation, blows that hit the unprotected head should score double damage, quadruple where a special success is indicated. Most creatures have a head that is about one-seventh to one-eighth of the total body.

I am not recommending a combat simulation RPG, merely commenting on the matter

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

How about armor providing damage reduction? In the UA you presented field and full plate offering -1 and -2 DR over and above the AC. In my own campaign, I tried out a full AC to DR swap and it led to interesting results. Archers had a difficult time with knights and the knights would generally use halberds and 2-handed swords rather than long swords when fighting other knights or dragons. Lances also became popular. What made it interesting for us is that Medieval warfare followed a same pattern — a real eye opener.

So what are your thoughts? Where do you stand on the AC v. DR debate?

 

[Col_Pladoh]

How about armor providing damage reduction? In the UA you presented field and full plate offering -1 and -2 DR over and above the AC. In my own campaign, I tried out a full AC to DR swap and it led to interesting results. Archers had a difficult time with knights and the knights would generally use halberds and 2-handed swords rather than long swords when fighting other knights or dragons. Lances also became popular. What made it interesting for us is that Medieval warfare followed a same pattern — a real eye opener.

So what are your thoughts? Where do you stand on the AC v. DR debate?

Can't argue about the benefit of armor reducing damage, but being itself damaged in so doing. That is one of the bases for combat in my Lejendary Adventure RPG system.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Thulcondar]

That's an easy question for me. I never enjoyed the GW system very much, and I have always had a lot of fun playing MA. One might expand the MA game environment to include planetary ones, but I would never select one that used the GW rules system as I find it inferior to all of the MA game rules systems.

And just to clarify, you're referring to the original MA and GW rules, rather than the re-designs that have subsequently been published, right? (With, of course, the necessary caveat that every game has its house-rules.)

And I am very curious from your designer's-eye-view, what is it about the MA rules that you find superior? I've GM'ed both (back in the day), and didn't really have a preference one way or 'tuther.

Thul