D&D General Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Magic Missile: Why Gygax Still Matters to Me

[mamba]

Rather than reducing Gygax’s legacy to these criticisms, it is important to consider the full scope of his contributions and the ongoing evolution of the community he helped create. History should guide us toward understanding, not serve as a simplistic tool for condemnation.

a few weeks late, we just had a long thread about that…

Misogyny is alive and well today, as is racism, that doesn’t excuse it now and it did not excuse it then. What has shifted a bit is how many people are to what degree, but Gygax was not exactly the norm back then either.

Apart from that no one is reducing him to just that, but just like that is not called for neither is hero worship and excusing his faults away

 

[EzekielRaiden]

People have different preferences, obviously. I love long form, flowery language. Gygax and Jordan both were my jam. It's all subjective, so we don't want to yuck anyone else's yum.

It's less a matter of yucking yum, and more one of, I guess, trying to see what the appeal beyond one person's yum is. "I'll never forget Gygax, even if that means remembering the bad too" is perfectly fine, but it leads to the bigger question, how much of what he did is worth...not "preserving," because preservation doesn't require active use. How much of what he did is, I guess, meriting being embraced and continued into the present?

The purple prose ain't it for me, but that seems to be one of the things folks truly adore about his work. I'm just not sure what can be gleaned from it that is warranted/useful/enriching for future work. "Be evocative and descriptive" is sort of generic and not terribly action-able advice for writing.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

From the Ben Riggs thread.

Writing in EUROPA, a European fanzine, Gygax said: “I have been accused of being a nasty old sexist-male-Chauvinist-pig, for the wording in D&D isn’t what it should be. There should be more emphasis on the female role, more non-gendered names, and so forth."

"I thought perhaps these folks were right and considered adding women in the ‘Raping and Pillaging[’] section, in the ‘Whores and Tavern Wenches’ chapter, the special magical part dealing with ‘Hags and Crones’...and thought perhaps of adding an appendix on ‘Medieval Harems, Slave Girls, and Going Viking’. Damn right I am sexist. It doesn’t matter to me if women get paid as much as men, get jobs traditionally male, and shower in the men’s locker room."

"They can jolly well stay away from wargaming in droves for all I care. I’ve seen many a good wargame and wargamer spoiled thanks to the fair sex. I’ll detail that if anyone wishes.”

I read that as a snarky and sarcastic answer, not the absolute proof that it seems to be regarded as.

 

[TiQuinn]

Taken me a bit to wrap my head around the issue some folks have with artists and their creations and society. For some folks, Gygax is D&D, and folks also see Mythos as Lovecraft. If the person ends up being awful, then it poisons the well of the creation and its shared experience. However, if you can off load that behavior onto a general society tolerance, it excuses the person and seemingly restores the good nature of the creation. "It was the times...It was all of us!"

Where I think this fails is in a general, not specific application. For example, if someone writes a story using popular misconceptions and lends offense unknowingly, they can be challenged on that. A person who meant no offensive intent can own up to that as a mistake, and be part of the culture that rectifies it. Others, reject the notion they have given any offense, or worse, they own it as proclaiming to be a bigot. It was their goal all along to give offense because they fully intended what they created. To be fair, to some artists were/are never challenged, or recorded on the nature of the intent and topic. Others, however, speak directly to it and you can weigh their place in society in general in comparison.

Personally, I think a creation can grow a community that goes beyond its creator. At this point, D&D is part of our culture and the collective owners, designers, editors have responsibility for it going forward. I can enjoy D&D and the mythos regardless of the stature of their creators becasue it is beyond them at this point.

I think growing beyond the original author is where D&D and the Mythos have a lot in common. There’s a lot of authors and filmmakers who’ve expanded upon the Mythos in the same way that other built on D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's less a matter of yucking yum, and more one of, I guess, trying to see what the appeal beyond one person's yum is. "I'll never forget Gygax, even if that means remembering the bad too" is perfectly fine, but it leads to the bigger question, how much of what he did is worth...not "preserving," because preservation doesn't require active use. How much of what he did is, I guess, meriting being embraced and continued into the present?

The purple prose ain't it for me, but that seems to be one of the things folks truly adore about his work. I'm just not sure what can be gleaned from it that is warranted/useful/enriching for future work. "Be evocative and descriptive" is sort of generic and not terribly action-able advice for writing.

I don't really see your point. I enjoyed reading that style of writing from Gygax and others, and still enjoy it. Are you calling for some of action here?

 

[Voadam]

I read that as a snarky and sarcastic answer, not the absolute proof that it seems to be regarded as.

I see it as a mix.

"I thought perhaps these folks were right and considered adding women in the ‘Raping and Pillaging[’] section, in the ‘Whores and Tavern Wenches’ chapter, the special magical part dealing with ‘Hags and Crones’...and thought perhaps of adding an appendix on ‘Medieval Harems, Slave Girls, and Going Viking’. Damn right I am sexist."

That seems to be sarcastic deliberately offensive provocation. An over the top overreaction to his perception of being called sexist.

I consider it sarcastic hyperbole. Just being contextually nasty to respond to criticism and provoke such critics with stuff that would anger them more and show he would not be browbeaten on the issue.

"They can jolly well stay away from wargaming in droves for all I care. I’ve seen many a good wargame and wargamer spoiled thanks to the fair sex. I’ll detail that if anyone wishes.”

This latter part seems of a different character, this sounds like a genuine position.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't really see your point. I enjoyed reading that style of writing from Gygax and others, and still enjoy it. Are you calling for some of action here?

I'm hoping for something that can actually be discussed. "I just loved X thing” is not amenable to discussion; in being immune to dispute, it is also immune to any actual dialogue unless both parties share the feeling and wish to reminisce. Given this is a forum, I had understood the point of a thread (that isn't sharing news nor seeking advice) to be to discuss something.

If it's just "I just liked X, despite its known flaws, and want to say that but don't want to talk about it at all unless you share that feeling," well...alright. Not much to say at that point, for anyone.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I see it as a mix.

"I thought perhaps these folks were right and considered adding women in the ‘Raping and Pillaging[’] section, in the ‘Whores and Tavern Wenches’ chapter, the special magical part dealing with ‘Hags and Crones’...and thought perhaps of adding an appendix on ‘Medieval Harems, Slave Girls, and Going Viking’. Damn right I am sexist."

That seems to be sarcastic deliberately offensive provocation. An over the top overreaction to his perception of being called sexist.

I consider it sarcastic hyperbole. Just being contextually nasty to respond to criticism and provoke such critics with stuff that would anger them more and show he would not be browbeaten on the issue.

"They can jolly well stay away from wargaming in droves for all I care. I’ve seen many a good wargame and wargamer spoiled thanks to the fair sex. I’ll detail that if anyone wishes.”

This latter part seems of a different character, this sounds like a genuine position.

There is a difference between sarcastic hyperbole and "X isn't offensive, I'll show you offensive!" (Which is also something my father did and really disliked it.)

That is, doubling down—"deliberately offensive provocation"—is in its own way a reflection that the critic is correct, and the person doing the doubling down is angry not because the accusation is false, but because they dislike the assertion that that true thing is somehow bad. Like if Strom Thurmond had said something of that same shape, but about race and ended it with "you're damned right I'm racist," there would be zero discussion of whether this was Mr. Thurmond being not actually racist, but just intentionally provocative. It would unquestionably be both "deliberately offensive provocation" and nasty, hurtful racism. I don't see why Gygax should get a pass for open misogyny, even in hyperbolic form, that Thurmond would not get for open racism.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm hoping for something that can actually be discussed. "I just loved X thing” is not amenable to discussion; in being immune to dispute, it is also immune to any actual dialogue unless both parties share the feeling and wish to reminisce. Given this is a forum, I had understood the point of a thread (that isn't sharing news nor seeking advice) to be to discuss something.

If it's just "I just liked X, despite its known flaws, and want to say that but don't want to talk about it at all unless you share that feeling," well...alright. Not much to say at that point, for anyone.

I don't particularly want to discuss problems others have with it, sure.

 

[GreyLord]

There were things that he did that I may not agree with, but it is easy to be derogatory to someone when they are dead. Far too easy at times. He did nothing that I am so irate about that I would besmirch his name about it now (though there may be an individual or two out there that I MIGHT be willing to besmirch them due to how badly it went between them and I, Gygax is definitely NOT one of them).

My dealings with him were not so much over RPGs though, but more with gaming (wargaming and such).

All I can say is that he was always nice and wonderful in any and all interactions I had with him on a personal level. He always seemed to try to be nice to those who tried to start arguments or be unkind to him, at least in his later years from what I saw.

In his later years, even when he disagreed with something (for example, say WotC D&D) he would still try to be polite about it, and even say positive things about it that could make others think he thought it was the BEST thing ever!

I think he was a very nice man from what I saw of his interactions and how he acted, at least in his later years.