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

[Bedrockgames]

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


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


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

I don’t think this is a fair assessment. I haven’t seen his children complain that he was negligent. Not all marriages work out, for lots of reasons. But here I think it is kind of unfair and not very relevant to lob these kinds of labels at him (especially when the thing at issue here is how much time he spent gaming: when you consider the other possibilities we are talking about a fairly low level concern)

 

[Maxperson]

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.

If you don't think context is important, there's nothing more to say. Context is one of the most important things that there is in a conversation. People who want to willfully ignore context just want to win the internet and I'm not in the discussion for that.

 

[mamba]

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.

that is even on his Wikipedia page, how do you know it did not happen?

“Despite his commitments to his job, raising a family, and attending college, Gygax continued to play wargames. It reached the point that Mary Jo, pregnant with their second child, believed he was having an affair and confronted him in a friend's basement only to discover him and his friends sitting around a map-covered table.”

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

It is still a job

 

[mamba]

especially when the thing at issue here is how much time he spent gaming: when you consider the other possibilities we are talking about a fairly low level concern

you mean as opposed to keeping the job that kept his family fed, that he did lose over his gaming obsession?

Not a low level concern at all… if not for D&D the family would have stayed in poverty because of Gary’s obsession with gaming, and that was not some kind of master plan he skillfully executed…

 

[mamba]

It is still a job

that did not have them make ends meet, and instead of securing his family’s well being, he gamed with his buddies any chance he got

 

[Sacrosanct]

that is even on his Wikipedia page, how do you know it did not happen?

Because I asked Mary and Heidi directly.

More accurately, when Heidi was asked, she said, "Mom, did this ever happen?" And Mary responded, "No, it didn't." I didn't actually ask Mary directly, I had asked Heidi. Maybe 2 years ago now? Can't keep track. Doesn't matter, because I've seen others ask her the same question since and the response was the same.

 

[Bedrockgames]

you mean as opposed to keeping the job that kept his family fed, that he did lose over his gaming obsession?

Not a low level concern at all… if not for D&D the family would have stayed in poverty because of Gary’s obsession with gaming, and that was not some kind of master plan he skillfully executed…

Obviously you dissaprove. He wouldn’t be the first artist or creative person to lose a job over a passion (not sure how accurate it is or not this is the cause of him losing the job but let’s concede it here for argument’s sake). And he would not be the first person to struggle with balancing life priorities like work and creative outlets. And the fact remains he did still care for his family. He took what job he could, and he worked on a project that ended up paying the bills (you might dismiss it as not part of a master plan, but this is an incredibly difficult thing to do: it takes hard work, planning, seeing opportunities and taking them and talent). Plus his children seem to have largely good things to say about the guy. Look we know how horrible a bad parent can be. There are countless examples of true neglect or abuse. Gary seems to have afforded his children a fairly good upbringing

 

[billd91]

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?

Why is any of this important for us pointing out that Gary was sexist in paragraph 2? See paragraph 1. I'm sure a lot of us would be perfectly fine with letting the subject go... if it weren't for the flare-ups from paragraph 1. People like Tondro and Peterson deserve to be defended from the slings and arrows of outrageous reactions and the inevitable sea-lioning and whataboutisms that accompany these debates rather than leave them isolated and unsupported.

 

[CellarHeroes]

that did not have them make ends meet, and instead of securing his family’s well being, he gamed with his buddies any chance he got

Why would it have been up to Gary, alonge, to secure his family's well-being? Why wasn't Mary out in the workforce?