D&D General The Human Side of D&D History - From Gary Gygax to Temple of Elemental Evil

[Steampunkette]

What you did was take the order of things out of context and merge those two different parts of my arguments here to make it sound a way that I didn't use it.

I literally looked at your argument in this thread and said "This is what you're arguing" based on your own words.

The additional context or history of WHY you're arguing it is irrelevant to the point that it is the argument you've made in this thread, so I won't be addressing or correcting any of that.

I'll go ahead and drop the pendulum because apparently it has nothing to do with the conversation.

If you are not trying to downplay his sexism, thus creating an excuse for it by minimizing it's importance in comparison to other, worse, forms of sexism, why did you outright and explicitly downplay his sexism by comparing it to other, worse, forms of sexism?

If your response is going to be "To increase understanding" I will follow it up with "Understanding of what?"

Because the only answer I can see is that the answer is "Understanding Gary Gygax's sexism isn't -that- bad and we shouldn't be so worried about it while other, worse, forms of sexism exist" which is categorically a defense of Gary Gygax's sexism through minimizing it. In the same form of "wickedness calculus" as saying X Murderer isn't as bad as Y Mass Murderer 'cause more people died.

 

[mamba]

I just don't see why any of the circumstances of his life should be a knock against him holding this attitude

I am sorry, if you are living off food stamps as a cobbler having trouble to make ends meet and cannot even point to a higher degree as some sort of ‘justification’ for your feeling of superiority, then I do not see any reason for you to feel that you are part of an elite.

This does not even touch on whether you should feel superior in the first place, even if you had the trappings for it.

If Gary was anything at the time, it was a failure at his job, as a husband and father, and a gaming addict (which caused all the other problems). Not what is generally considered ‘elite’, and whether or not he had a high opinion of himself does not change anything about that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am sorry, if you are living off food stamps as a cobbler having trouble to make ends meet and cannot even point to a higher degree as some sort of ‘justification’ for your feeling of superiority, then I do not see any reason for you to feel that you are part of an elite.

While I would criticize being part of an elite, people feel elite for all sorts of reasons. And there is nothing keeping a cobbler on food stamps from achieving spiritual, literary, intellectual greatness that might make them feel as though they belong to an elite group.

This does not even touch on whether you should feel that way in the first place, even if you had the trappings for it.

Again I don't think elitism is a good thing. I just don't think people with degrees and high paying jobs have any special claim to it

If Gary was anything at the time, it was a failure at his job, as a husband and father and a gaming addict (which caused all the other problems). Not what is generally considered ‘elite’, and whether or not he had a high opinion of himself does not change anything about that.

This seems pretty harsh to me. The guy was holding a job, was pursuing something that turned out to be quite lucrative (and also a product of a lot of work). Plenty of people fall on hard times. This doesn't make them failures as people or as parents

 

[Sacrosanct]

Over the past several days, I've reached out to several people and looked back at those who knew him best. Most everyone agrees. Gary was a sexist. Even for the times. He was not a misogynist (a lot of folks seem to think misogynist and sexist are the same thing and freely intermix the two, they're not). There isn't any evidence he actively hated women (David C Sutherland, OTOH...). There are several examples of him actually trying not to be a racist. That is, he signed off on things we certainly consider racist today, but when editors came up to him and said, "Hey, you might want to change this because it might come off as bad." he actually listened and made the changes. Personally, I judge someone who is an accidental racist differently than someone who is an intentional racist, while knowing that the impact to those can often be the same. These things are really complex and include a lot of nuance.

And I think that's the key. Recognizing that someone tried to avoid problems but just didn't know better at the time while also acknowledging that even if someone tried, they still had an impact to those marginalized groups. It's about realizing nuance while holding accountability. It's the difference between "You're a horrible human being" and "You made some mistakes that had this impact on people." On these internet forums, I see too much "He was horrible in every context" and too much "He did nothing wrong so you're offended by nothing."

It seems the racism in D&D from Gary's side was accidental while the sexism was intentional, if that makes sense. Any racism was embedded into cultural norms that weren't recognized or thought of as racist. Take orcs for instance. Evil orcs are racist because they are dark skinned? D&D pulled orcs directly from Tolkien, so Gary nor anyone else would even think they are racist. However, at the same time, putting most of the dark skinned humanoids as evil did have a real impact to people of color who noticed that trend. Both can be correct. I cannot overstate enough how just because someone didn't intentionally mean to do harm, harm wasn't done. Listen to those folks who are saying harm was done. Ignoring or invalidating them is more often not coming from a position of privilege.

I don't think it's really debatable re: sexism. That's pretty clear, even by his own words.

All this means is that Gary was X, but not necessarily Y or Z. People seem to jump to "if he was bad here, then he was obviously meant to be bad there too!" On the other side, I hear a lot of "Gary wasn't really bad here, so he wasn't bad at all! Sign of the times! You're just getting too offended!" Gary could be a sexist and also be sarcastic in another statement. Gary could be influenced by the sign of the times and also be accountable. These conversations seem to embrace mutual exclusion when the reality is not.

But really, the important question is, why does it matter? I understand why WoTC has disclaimers on products that reproduce old material because they want to avoid the impression they are endorsing that material that includes problematic themes. But for the rest of us, what does it matter? Too many people assume those disclaimers are calling them racists or sexists and it doesn't. Outrage over made-up offenses. Like I said the other day, if Universal Studios said that 16 Candles had racism and sexism that wouldn't be appropriate today, that doesn't mean Universal Studios is calling John Hughes or people who enjoyed the movie back then all racists and sexists. Throwing fits by saying they are is immature and irresponsible IMO.

On the same note, Gary is dead. Why is it important to keep pointing out, every couple months, that he was sexist. What does that do? Who are you convincing that doesn't already have an opinion? Like I said, I get why WoTC does it, but why do we do it? Gary isn't here, but his kids are. Has anyone asked how they feel to keep having this argument over and over and over again? Is hurting them (of who most are good people) worth proving to someone rando on the internet that Gary was sexist?

That's the question I think we need to ask before we have this conversation again.

 

[Maxperson]

I literally looked at your argument in this thread and said "This is what you're arguing" based on your own words.

The additional context or history of WHY you're arguing it is irrelevant to the point that it is the argument you've made in this thread, so I won't be addressing or correcting any of that.

I'll go ahead and drop the pendulum because apparently it has nothing to do with the conversation.

If you are not trying to downplay his sexism, thus creating an excuse for it by minimizing it's importance in comparison to other, worse, forms of sexism, why did you outright and explicitly downplay his sexism by comparing it to other, worse, forms of sexism?

If your response is going to be "To increase understanding" I will follow it up with "Understanding of what?"

Because the only answer I can see is that the answer is "Understanding Gary Gygax's sexism isn't -that- bad and we shouldn't be so worried about it while other, worse, forms of sexism exist" which is categorically a defense of Gary Gygax's sexism through minimizing it. In the same form of "wickedness calculus" as saying X Murderer isn't as bad as Y Mass Murderer 'cause more people died.

Right. Context is irrelevant.

 

[mamba]

Again I don't think elitism is a good thing.

I agree with this

I just don't think people with degrees and high paying jobs have any special claim to it

I’d say they have more of a reason, esp since he was looking down on the ‘lower class’ in that letter (?), failing to recognize that he is very much a part of the class he is looking down upon, and not near the upper end of it either

But yeah, I do not like it in the guys with degrees and well paying jobs either, it never is a good look

seems pretty harsh to me. The guy was holding a job

no he wasn’t, he bought some cobbler business to have any kind of income after having lost his actual job that he could not hold on to. That was nowhere near a full time job

was pursuing something that turned out to be quite lucrative (and also a product of a lot of work). Plenty of people fall on hard times. This doesn't make them failures as people or as parents

he was a negligent father and husband who spent every minute of his free time obsessing over wargames, playing them, writing letters back and forth, collaborating on them. Him falling on hard times was not what made him a bad father, spending no time with his family and rather gaming with his buddies did.

That he eventually stumbled into D&D and succeeded beyond his wildest dreams is looking at it from the end towards the beginning

 

[Steampunkette]

Right. Context is irrelevant.

This is a dodge, Max. And I think you know that.

You have put forth an argument. I pointed out you put forth that argument. You said you did not put forth that argument. I pointed to where you put forth that argument. You said "I did it because of the history of the discussion."

The history of the discussion may be the reason you felt the need to include those words into your current argument: But it's -still- your current argument. The context of why you put that into your current argument is irrelevant to it being your current argument which you've claimed you did not make and been confronted as having made.

Do you stand by your "He wasn't as sexist as these other sexists" statement as your argument or do you want to reframe your argument to exclude that?

'Cause right now, the argument you've made outright, explicitly, defends Gygax's sexism by minimizing it in comparison to other, worse, forms of sexism that also exist.

Which is why so many people are saying, even though you've explicitly denied it, that you're defending Gygax's sexism.

 

[Clint_L]

To me, Gygax's story is a pretty classic one of a frustrated creative person struggling to find a way to express his passion, and finally succeeding against all odds. Made harder, in this case, because he and others had to basically invent a new medium to get their ideas out there. I think what they accomplished is amazing, and the guy certainly put the hours in.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If Gary was anything at the time, it was a failure at his job, as a husband and father, and a gaming addict (which caused all the other problems).

he was a negligent father and husband who spent every minute of his free time obsessing over wargames, playing them, writing letters back and forth, collaborating on them. Him falling on hard times was not what made him a bad father, spending no time with his family did.

I'd ask to avoid making comments like this. There are a whole lot of stories about Gary out there (like the one about Mary thinking he was cheating and following him to the basement where she found him with guys playing games) that aren't actually true. Didn't happen. My own father was a horrible human being and father. I can say that because I was there. I've never heard any of his kids say he was a bad dad. In fact, I've only heard positive things. They know. You and I don't. We shouldn't be making those judgements about how good of a dad or husband he was when we weren't there, especially if they override what the people who were directly involved say.

 

[TiQuinn]

Again though, what is wrong with someone putting their energy into this kind of goal, suffering some setbacks and working through them, and then achieving the goal. Lots of people struggle financially for all kinds of reasons, and it is pretty laudable I think to fall on hard times, take a difficult job you don't have much experience with to put food on the table, and still work on something you believe in. To @Clint_L 's point, where is the poor work ethic here? And are we really going to judge people on their work ethic? We are talking about a creative field. Creative fields are littered with people who made contributions but had terrible work ethics or got sidetracked by a passion.

What’s wrong with it, IMO, is that for every Gary Gygax rags to riches story, there are hundreds if not thousands more who do not achieve that success and are left in dire straits. I’m very wary of these lightning strike stories that make it seem like pursuing your dreams without a plan is somehow a good idea. Gygax did not really have a plan - he had incredible luck. Luck is not laudable in my book.

Was it a poor work ethic, per se? To me, it feels like a hard-working person who was putting all of his energy into his passion rather than his day job - much like an screenwriter working in a restaurant or something, but the midwest, frustrated warmer version of it. Arneson I would definitely accuse of a poor work ethic, but not Gygax.

I think because Arneson was worse at this than Gygax does not make Gygax a hard worker. After Gygax’s work on the 1e AD&D PHB and DMG, there’s a strong argument that he tapped out; that in some ways he resented the idea that he needed to keep working at his business - again, based on the podcast.

Also, I can’t really put someone who places their family’s financial security in jeopardy because they can’t separate work from their passion on a pedestal. As I mentioned, there are people who are able to separate those two things, and hold down day jobs while working on what they love secondary until the time they can make that move. It always comes with risk but nothing I heard made me believe that it was a calculated decision on Gygax’s part. Again, I don’t applaud luck.