Gygax doesn't matter?

[DaveMage]

As Waldorf would say, "The question is, 'Who cares?' "

Yeah, I read his bio on the site, but I still don't know who he is (or why we should care what he writes)?

 

[Gargauth]

To extend this guy's logic, and I doubt he's even aware of his own point, in short - NOTHING matters. By his line of thinking, when I die one day my wife can just say "Oh well... so I met my husband and we had two kids and shared a life together but what if I hadn't known him? I'd have known -somebody- so what's the big deal?" I find it ironic that while the author's stated point is that Gary was just "some guy" he finds the topic worthy enough to encompass his entire article.

It is exactly BECAUSE of the fact that hordes of gamers find Gary's life and work meaningful that MAKES IT SO.

It seems someone as cynical as this author would grasp the concept that MEANING is a construction in and of itself and thus totally subjective.

I never played 1st Edition and didn't know who Gary was until about 1996 or so but when I learned he had passed away, I sat down and wept. The friends I have are due to this game, almost to a person. Sure without it, I would be doing SOMETHING but I guarantee it wouldn't be as meaningful to me as hanging out with my closest friends and knocking heads with a horde of orcs.

One could make the argument that trees are happier than people because they feel no pain or sorrow.

 

[Mallus]

...and part of that was excising emotions and actions that I think are negative or useless.

Shil's not a robot, he's a Scientologist!

Plus, did I mention I also removed being offended from my programming ?

Wait, no he's not.

 

[pawsplay]

Shilsen, in no way do I want this to sound like an attack or personal judgement. I shall state that your viewpoint is very unusual. Many people who would describe themselves as you do have a diagnosable personality disorder. I have no way of knowing if that is the case with you. But for most people, emotions can be explained away, but they cannot simply be explained away. While in general I am a fairly detached person, it is a fact that some mornings, not very often, but sometimes, I wake up and become afraid of the idea of losing my loved ones. I have lost all but one of my grandparents. I lost my best friend to a car accident.

If becoming a "robot" was truly a conscious choice, then you are probably going to have to face some bottled emotions at some point. If that state is truly natural to you, then you have other problems. There is nothing "logical" about detaching from feelings any more than it is logical to not to be able to differentiate between tastes or logical to not understand a poem. Logic serves an end; it has no end unto itself.

I hope this was not too personal for you, shilsen, and not too tangent to this discussion. I think it does matter how we view death and how we process emotions. To me, a detachment from loss is not logical, it is a failure to engage the world.

I truly believe this:

If you would indeed behold the spirit of death, open your heart wide unto the body of life.
For life and death are one, even as the river and the sea are one.

 

[Mark]

I'm not sure if he could be any Snyder.

Well played, sir.

 

[Mallus]

I think it does matter how we view death and how we process emotions.

What matters most is that each person handles death/grief/emotion in their own way, and that each of us be respected for their personal choices.

As for the article... I didn't grieve Gary's passing, either. He wasn't responsible for my love of literature, nor my social life. I had both before I discovered D&D. What I did feel motivated to do was celebrate his achievement (the one thing I found odd --and a little mean spirited-- about the article was that the author didn't see fit to throw a some praise EGG's for his major role in creating the kind of game he himself designs). So last Friday night I toasted EGG w/a dirty martini while out with friends, then played a hell of a session on Saturday, with shilsen as DM, coincidentally enough.

BTW, shil laughs far too much --and loudly-- to be a robot. Unless he's a crazy robot. Which might be possible, I suppose.

 

[gizmo33]

Years ago I used to drive by this guy walking along the side of the road every morning on my way to work. His schedule was so regular that I could figure out whether or not I was late based on where he was when I passed him. One morning I got to work and someone told me that this guy had been killed. I didn't know him, but he was a part of my life in some weird unexpected way and it made me sadder than I thought I would be.

I thought about this when I heard about Gygax. The article in the OP was stupid. It intentionally missed some basic humanity in an effort to slam geeks. I don't know exactly what DnD is "responsible" for in my life, but it certainly contributed to my life, at least as much as some guy walking along the side of the road did. DnD gave me a reason to read certain things I wouldn't have otherwise. It gave me one more thing to do with my friends. It gave me something to think about and work on.

Of course without DnD we all would have found something else to fill that time with. But that seems to me like grieving a friend's death by saying "well, without him I just would have been friends with someone else." Or "but my friend wasn't as important as my family", or etc. etc. It's weird and unecessary.

Friends, family, teachers, musicians, authors, and other persons including Gygax, have all made important contributions to my life. I would like people to feel free to talk about those things without some idiot ranting about the same old tired stereotypes.

 

[Filcher]

The man's argument is flawed. Disregard it.

Gary was part of a group that founded an activity. We enjoy it, to differing degrees, and are thus in his debt. If you enjoy roleplaying, then you owe Gary a passing "thank you," end of argument.

That someone who makes a living writing roleplaying games (the Chimera Games guy) could not recognize this, is just silly to me.

And as for the sentimentality of gamers ---- give me a break. Do a google search for images of football fans. When you paint your skin the colors of a team, don a costume and stand out in the freezing cold ... are you really any different/better than a LARPer?

At least LARPers are actively participating in a game, whereas sports fans are passively engaged. 99% of the male population of the US devotes time to games of one sort or another (football, poker, RPGs, lottery) and they ALL wear costumes of some sort. Nerds and geeks are just smart enough to figure how to take an active role.

 

[shilsen]

Shil's not a robot, he's a Scientologist!

Gah! Are you trying to make Rackhir shoot me in the face?

Wait, no he's not.

*phew*

Shilsen, in no way do I want this to sound like an attack or personal judgement.

Well, it is a personal judgement, but that's okay. I figure everyone has a right to make their own personal judgements.

I shall state that your viewpoint is very unusual. Many people who would describe themselves as you do have a diagnosable personality disorder. I have no way of knowing if that is the case with you.

My sister would tell you I do have one. It's being me

But for most people, emotions can be explained away, but they cannot simply be explained away. While in general I am a fairly detached person, it is a fact that some mornings, not very often, but sometimes, I wake up and become afraid of the idea of losing my loved ones. I have lost all but one of my grandparents. I lost my best friend to a car accident.

For me, being afraid of losing my loved ones would be a little like being afraid of the next full moon. It's going to happen sooner or later and I can't prevent it. Admittedly one will be somewhat more unpleasant than the other, but that's about it. I'm not even afraid of dying myself, and I love myself a lot more than I love anyone else, so if I'm comfortable with the idea that I get to go at some point, I'm comfortable with the idea that they do too.

If becoming a "robot" was truly a conscious choice, then you are probably going to have to face some bottled emotions at some point. If that state is truly natural to you, then you have other problems.

I sincerely doubt it (and, of course, I could be wrong). The way I figure it, every human being's personality is a result of programming by a combination of nature, nurture and a couple of indefinable elements. I just wanted to have a bigger say in the programming, so I did.

There is nothing "logical" about detaching from feelings any more than it is logical to not to be able to differentiate between tastes or logical to not understand a poem. Logic serves an end; it has no end unto itself.

I personally think it is logical, or rational (and yes, these are very loaded words), to detach from some feelings. Is it a good thing to avoid feeling jealousy? How about rage? For me, yes. I do agree that logic serves an end. In this case, it serves the end of allowing me to be exactly the sort of person I want to be and to live every day without unhappiness, worry, or regret. For me personally it's a worthwhile end.

I hope this was not too personal for you, shilsen, and not too tangent to this discussion.

I think this is a tangent, but it seems we've covered the OP's question fairly thoroughly. And no, I have no issues with the personal. As noted above, I don't get offended, and even if I did you haven't said anything which is out of line.

I think it does matter how we view death and how we process emotions.

Agreed. I just view death differently from many people and process some (not all) emotions differently from most. Would you say we all need to view death and process emotions exactly the same way?

To me, a detachment from loss is not logical, it is a failure to engage the world.

I think it's safe to say that I engage the world a great deal. I just do so as I wish, and mostly on my term's, rather than on the world's.

I truly believe this:

Originally Posted by The Prophet, by Kahlil Gibran
If you would indeed behold the spirit of death, open your heart wide unto the body of life.
For life and death are one, even as the river and the sea are one.

Nice quote. I like Gibran a lot. But if we work with the quotation, shouldn't our response to someone's death be the same as our response to their life? Wouldn't sorrow at someone's death be extremely strange, considering that "life and death are one" and presumably one wasn't being sorrowful at the person's life? In this case, the response to Gary's death would presumably be the same as for his life and achievements, since his death was just one part, and a completely natural and expected one, of his life.

What matters most is that each person handles death/grief/emotion in their own way, and that each of us be respected for their personal choices.

And that just covers my stance perfectly.

So last Friday night I toasted EGG w/a dirty martini while out with friends, then played a hell of a session on Saturday, with shilsen as DM, coincidentally enough.

Thankee kindly.

BTW, shil laughs far too much --and loudly-- to be a robot. Unless he's a crazy robot. Which might be possible, I suppose.

I do cheat, you know. I do the emotions I want, such as joy and amusement, and just skip the ones I don't.

 

[Rykion]

Mr. Snyder's post on his blog reads like someone looking for attention. It seems it worked since most of us now have heard of Matt Snyder.