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

[Bedrockgames]

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 think people can learn a lot from it. It is very readable. It isn't dry. It is engaging and has wit and a bit of bite. It also drips with the guy's personalty (for all that entails). That is for me what makes it compelling, not dull. It is also at a point in time when the ideas are forming. It is kind like going back to start of a musical genre in its early forms. One of the benefits of going back is you can see what was thrown out with the bathwater and purge yourself of overly derivative or stale ideas.It certainly isn't for everybody but I think there is a reason people like going back to it. If you don't find value in it, you don't. But plenty of people do. And plenty of people feel its important to acknowledge his contribution to the hobby

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think people can learn a lot from it. It is very readable.

At least for me, I do in fact struggle to read it. Which, I admit, is a mite hypocritical, as I also dump out words like water. But something about it just...I get lost in the layers of clauses.

 

[Bedrockgames]

At least for me, I do in fact struggle to read it. Which, I admit, is a mite hypocritical, as I also dump out words like water. But something about it just...I get lost in the layers of clauses.

I can understand that. Not everyone enjoys his style. When I say readable, I mean even though his style is a bit archaic and he certainly uses plenty of clauses--something I don't mind as I feel overly simplistic sentence structure isn't good to consume all the time--he is still very conversational and engaging.

 

[Mr. Lahey]

I can’t take credit for this, as I read it elsewhere, but I think it is applicable here.

There have been a number of discussions lately trying to label people or companies (Gygax is sexist, WotC is evil, stupid, etc.). Rather than try to come to a conclusion, it can be better to simply describe actions.

Gary said sexist things. On multiple occasions. Over a period of many years. He also left really good impressions on may people who met or interacted with him at conventions or elsewhere. Others have had good and poor impressions from post he made on this board. There’s no need to “figure out” who he really was. Assuming the accounts are basically accurate, we are left with contradictions and complexity. Ultimately our actions are what others are left with. We cannot hope to understand what anyone is “really” thinking or feeling.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There’s no need to “figure out” who he really was. Assuming the accounts are basically accurate, we are left with contradictions and complexity. Ultimately our actions are what others are left with. We cannot hope to understand what anyone is “really” thinking or feeling.

In general I think this is a healthy attitude to have. People aren’t simple. It feels good to be reductive but most people are complicated and sometimes the way people approach this stuff feels very ‘scooby doo’ level: like it is just a matter of peeling off a mask to see who someone ‘really’ is.

Also at the end of the day, I am not looking to artists and designers for my moral guidance (I got that from my family, religion and philosophy), nor am looking to them as parental figures. I also think there is something to be said for flawed people making more compelling art than the Mr. Roger’s of the world

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can understand that. Not everyone enjoys his style. When I say readable, I mean even though his style is a bit archaic and he certainly uses plenty of clauses--something I don't mind as I feel overly simplistic sentence structure isn't good to consume all the time--he is still very conversational and engaging.

Exactly. I want the experience to be enjoyable, not just a technical manual dutifully conveying data. Reading such prose is evocative, inspirational, and fun for me.

 

[SteveC]

I wanted to share a story from a friend of mine about Gary. I have a friend who would take his 1E DMG to Gen Con every year to get Gary to sign and later update it He did this for a few years and they spent a fair bit of time just laughing and joking about it. So one year, Gary signed the book and noted that it was now an artifact. He made a short table of things the book could do now that it had been completed.

My friend still met up with Gary every year he was at the Con.

 

[Belen]

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

This.

I can just see him responding in sarcastic hyperbole because he is annoyed by hearing it for the 100th time.

I do not agree with it and I think it is wrong but I know a lot of folks who respond this way in either anger or humor. It gets you in far more trouble these days...

 

[Bedrockgames]

This.

I can just see him responding in sarcastic hyperbole because he is annoyed by hearing it for the 100th time.

I do not agree with it and I think it is wrong but I know a lot of folks who respond this way in either anger or humor. It gets you in far more trouble these days...

I think that is a fair reading of it, and am inclined towards this interpretation myself. Tone, intent, humor and irony isn't really isn't something people account for a lot in these discussions. Obviously it is a debatable point. The text is up to interpretation. But it gets frustrating when people hold up things like this as a smoking gun, declare one interpretation viable, when there is clearly lots of ways something can be interpreted.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I can’t take credit for this, as I read it elsewhere, but I think it is applicable here.

There have been a number of discussions lately trying to label people or companies (Gygax is sexist, WotC is evil, stupid, etc.). Rather than try to come to a conclusion, it can be better to simply describe actions.

Gary said sexist things. On multiple occasions. Over a period of many years. He also left really good impressions on may people who met or interacted with him at conventions or elsewhere. Others have had good and poor impressions from post he made on this board. There’s no need to “figure out” who he really was. Assuming the accounts are basically accurate, we are left with contradictions and complexity. Ultimately our actions are what others are left with. We cannot hope to understand what anyone is “really” thinking or feeling.

In general I think this is a healthy attitude to have. People aren’t simple. It feels good to be reductive but most people are complicated and sometimes the way people approach this stuff feels very ‘scooby doo’ level: like it is just a matter of peeling off a mask to see who someone ‘really’ is.

Also at the end of the day, I am not looking to artists and designers for my moral guidance (I got that from my family, religion and philosophy), nor am looking to them as parental figures. I also think there is something to be said for flawed people making more compelling art than the Mr. Roger’s of the world

Which is why I'm a huge advocate of never deifying anyone. Anyone. Hero worship is the path to disappointment or a whole heck of a lot of cognitive dissonance. I learned this lesson the hard way with David Eddings. I find it exceptionally damaging in our own community when we got Dave Arneson camps vs. Gygax camps. I have no idea why people who don't personally know either of these guys take sides in that war.

Let me add: I mentioned upthread about how these constant conversations about Gary put his kids in a tough situation and I'm sure they're tired of constantly seeing it, and how many times people apply sins of the father to the kids. I have to admit my bias. My own father is a piece of garbage who should be in jail. That doesn't mean me or my siblings are bad people. I know this, just like Luke, Heidi, and the others know they aren't bad people. But good lord, I'm tired of hearing about how awful my dad is, and I only hear it from my mom and aunts and uncles, not thousands of gamers on the daily. I imagine it has to be extra tough for them when people constantly deify Gary like he's a saint. How else are his kids supposed to react to that?

This.

I can just see him responding in sarcastic hyperbole because he is annoyed by hearing it for the 100th time.

I do not agree with it and I think it is wrong but I know a lot of folks who respond this way in either anger or humor. It gets you in far more trouble these days...

I'm no Ben Riggs, but I have had many conversations with many people who personally knew Gary, and the impression I've got was that he hated to be challenged. And often reacted with angry sarcasm.

"You think that's bad? Let me tell you what is really bad!" A classic defensive take on how what they did wasn't bad because it could always be worse. Kinda the mantra us Gen X kids grew up with from our parents

Everyone is going to make their own judgement, but that's how I read that statement. Of course, that doesn't mean all the other things he said or did were not a problem, only that I suspect in that statement this is the case.