D&D General Game Wizards: The Epic Battle for Dungeons & Dragons

[MerricB]

There were other typists and publishers in the community at the time. There’s no reason to assume that “without Gygax” Arneson’s invention would have languished in obscurity.

Actually, once you read the book... it seems quite a lot more likely that it may have not gone anywhere.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"Never admire people because they will always disappoint you." is not a philosophy I want to live by, even if it is an accurate one.

All people are terrible, it's true. But in much the same way that "Someday I will die." is unquestionably true. it's not something I want to think about constantly.

And ... I don't have to!

So I prefer to think that the creators of D&D were great people, because my life is not improved by the opposite being true.

 

[Lyxen]

"Never admire people because they will always disappoint you." is not a philosophy I want to live by, even if it is an accurate one.

Actually, don't admire people in general, fine, but you can admire some qualities in some of them. These qualities will much more rarely disappoint you.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There were other typists and publishers in the community at the time. There’s no reason to assume that “without Gygax” Arneson’s invention would have languished in obscurity.

Eh, no. Obviously, anything could happen. But one thing that this book truly hammers home is that this was all on Gygax. The unlikely success of D&D? All Gygax.

And when I say this, I come from the perspective of someone who appreciates the genius of Arneson, and more than ever, appreciates the proto-D&D that he was playing. But this isn't about Chainmail. This is about the fortitude to carry through as a business. This is about running GenCon and publicizing the game when it looked like no one was going to buy it (seriously, Arneson didn't even want to come).

Arneson had already moved back to wanting to be miniature caster before D&D succeeded- and, just like with D&D, he was sabotaging that as well by sniping at the people who he needed to succeed. It's a difficult thing, sometimes, to realize that personalities are what they are.

(None of this excuses Gygax, by the way- his "flexible" approach to the truth and to other people's ideas ... until they became "his ideas" after which he was incredibly protective of them .... may have helped make D&D succeed early on as business from the hobbyist roots, but doesn't exactly make him look great in hindsight.)

 

[Lyxen]

Eh, no. Obviously, anything could happen. But one thing that this book truly hammers home is that this was all on Gygax. The unlikely success of D&D? All Gygax.

And when I say this, I come from the perspective of someone who appreciates the genius of Arneson, and more than ever, appreciates the proto-D&D that he was playing. But this isn't about Chainmail. This is about the fortitude to carry through as a business. This is about running GenCon and publicizing the game when it looked like no one was going to buy it (seriously, Arneson didn't even want to come).

Arneson had already moved back to wanting to be miniature caster before D&D succeeded- and, just like with D&D, he was sabotaging that as well by sniping at the people who he needed to succeed. It's a difficult thing, sometimes, to realize that personalities are what they are.

(None of this excuses Gygax, by the way- his "flexible" approach to the truth and to other people's ideas ... until they became "his ideas" after which he was incredibly protective of them .... may have helped make D&D succeed early on as business from the hobbyist roots, but doesn't exactly make him look great in hindsight.)

Note that it's a constant pattern in the industry, between the person having an idea but not enough determination to push it forward, and the person who is not at the origin of the idea but having the determination to make it succeed. The world has a tendency to reward the second one (although, as knowledge spreads, it can balance itself), but really, it's hard to deny that determination can be as good a quality as inventiveness, especially since "pushing it through" sometimes requires a lot of inventiveness too...

 

[Parmandur]

"Never admire people because they will always disappoint you." is not a philosophy I want to live by, even if it is an accurate one.

All people are terrible, it's true. But in much the same way that "Someday I will die." is unquestionably true. it's not something I want to think about constantly.

And ... I don't have to!

So I prefer to think that the creators of D&D were great people, because my life is not improved by the opposite being true.

It's genuinely better to think of the creators of D&D as flawed humans. Realism cannot be disappointed.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The phrase "never meet your heroes" has an easy (although pessimistic) way out of the cycle of "idolize someone, learn what they're truly like, stop idolizing them, move onto a different person to idolize, and repeat". Stop idolizing people. Anyone and everyone. Admit everyone is flawed, and although you can be grateful towards someone else for their contributions to your life and the world in general, always remember that no one is an idol to venerate/worship. We're all human, we're all flawed, and all of us have parts of our behaviors and personalities that suck.

You'll always be disappointed in your heroes if you learn what they're truly like, because they're not actually heroes. They're not perfect, and there will always be a part of them to be disappointed in. That's just a fact of life.

It sucks and it's pessimistic, but it's true.

I'm a newer player. I've only been playing (and DMing) for about 5 years, but I'm familiar with the hobby and its history. I met a lot of older players that idolize Gary Gygax, or Dave Arneson, or one of the other creators of early D&D. I'm grateful to them for creating the game and I can acknowledge how much their creation has changed my life, but I don't idolize them. I'm glad that D&D exists, I'm thankful that they created it, and I think that a lot of the ideas that they had were ingenious and revolutionary, but they're still people, and people shouldn't be idolized.

It's always better to know. Facts over feelings. The answer to "knowing about these people's flaws will make me admire them less" isn't to choose to not learn about their flaws, it's to not admire/idolize them in the first place. That's the proper choice. Ignorance begets poor decisions and disappointment.

And I don't mean this as a personal attack. Just an explanation on a more correct way to view the creators of D&D (and people in general).

As a less pessimistic take: Realize that your hero is the idea, not the person.

There are plenty of inspiring and empowering stories and ideals out there, divorced from the messy complexities.

Just never publicly admit you like anyone or someone will purposefully go out to find skeletons to dump on you because pessimism and despair is the fuel that runs the internet. No one can be openly happy or inspired. Ever.

 

[BookTenTiger]

There's nothing wrong with admiring what someone achieved, even when acknowledging they were a flawed human being.

I think Picasso's Musicians painting is absolutely stunningly beautiful. I think he revolutionized art. I love his playful sculptures. He was also a not kind person who was outright cruel to women, including his wife.

I admire Picasso for his revolutionary ideas about art.

I don't want to copy his treatment of women.

Separating those out helps me consider the kind of person I want to be in life, without putting Picasso on a pedestal for his misogyny, and without ignoring his achievements in art.


On the topic of the book, one should admire the creativity and tenacity of Gygax and Arneson. At the same time, you can accept that they are human, and you can celebrate what they achieved while also acknowledging that they, like the rest of us, are flawed. We can choose to not copy the negative behaviors, and in fact be grateful we can learn from their mistakes.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

"Never admire people because they will always disappoint you." is not a philosophy I want to live by, even if it is an accurate one.

Okay. You're choosing feelings over facts. I can't say that I recommend that approach, or even understand it, but it is your choice. An incorrect one, but it is yours.

All people are terrible, it's true. But in much the same way that "Someday I will die." is unquestionably true. it's not something I want to think about constantly.

Those are not equivalent. It's more like saying "Don't think that you or anyone else is immortal, because everyone dies eventually". They're both inaccurate beliefs that will end up making you disappointed (and possibly emotionally crushed) when you find out the truth. You don't have to think about death all the time or the fact that everyone is flawed, but you do have to acknowledge those are true. Otherwise, you're fooling yourself in order to live in a disappointing fantasy.

And ... I don't have to!

Nope. I can't make you or anyone else realize or do anything! However, that doesn't mean that one of the approaches isn't superior to the other.

So I prefer to think that the creators of D&D were great people, because my life is not improved by the opposite being true.

But it's wrong. They weren't great people, because "Great People" are a myth. They don't exist. They're all just "people", like all of us. It was great that they made D&D, but that doesn't make them great people. Their actions can be great, but that doesn't mean that they were great, anymore than writing a good book makes you a good person good (I'm sure most of you know who I'm referring to).

And I do believe that your life will be better if you admit that. I've found that the more that you admit that people are flawed and heroes don't exist, you have more realistic expectations of people. It's just like how children have to realize that their parents are human and flawed when they grow up. It's hard to do, but it makes your life better.

 

[Nefermandias]

Eh, sometimes.

"Tends"