One of the things that has concerned me of late is how EGG has been quoted, or how people have used the term "honoring Gary", and some of these bits concern me.
I'm going to use an analogy--forgive me if it seems a little over the top. Imagine if you knew a famous figure. Imagine if you friends for a long time, then he dies and you see biographers get things wrong which you witnessed. Wouldn't you want to correct a few things before they become a sort of "canon"?
I fear in some cases that is happening with EGG, in some ways. He is the most famous RPG creator, known to the "civilian public". There's a lot of analysis going on in blogs, message boards, etc. I think this is a good thing, but I also think we need to be careful about it sometimes. I have some suggestions regarding this:
1) If you pull a quote, I think you need make sure it accurately reflects his true feelings. I saw the following quote in somebody's signature.
This seems to emphasize Gary endorsed piracy and the free culture, but the following quote is more accurate: From The Kyngdoms interview.
I believe we should avoid letting our own biases try to paint a "false Gary".
2) If you're actually doing research on Gary Gygax, for anything from a biography to a blog entry, make sure to do the following. Don't just read the old school stuff, if you can, read the various message boards, read his other works. Most importantly, talk to people who knew him. And not just the old guard from TSR--talk to friends, read the names of the people who worked with Gary on other projects and talk to them. Talk to the family, and to people in the industry.
3) As part of #2, have a skeptical attitude towards any of the sources for bias. I know that sounds contradictory, but we all have biases. (And yes, I am including myself as somebody to be skeptical of). The bias could be opinions about games, personal agendas (maybe some are publishers or are benefiting from name dropping), personal perspectives, differences of opinion, etc. At the same time, don't let your own biases color researching the facts. The important thing is to give the correct weight to the source(s), and take into account all the perspectives.
4) Be careful of the term "honor" or "tribute". I say this because I believe if you really want to honor a man, you need to make sure you are not doing anything that would cause disapproval.
I'm not saying this based on Gary's preference for games or what version of D&D. From what I knew about him, Gary's disdain for a game did not mean he judged the fans of that game harshly.
I am saying ask questions, when it involves other things. For instance, if you wanted to give to a charity "in Gary's name and memory", make sure it's one he would approve of. For instance, don't give to the ACLU in his name--he liked freedom of speech, but he hated that particular organization. (I'm not trying to get political, I'm just using this as an example--it would be like giving to Catholic Charities in Richard Dawkings name).
I think we should all be brave enough to challenge certain perspectives based on what we know, and not self-delude ourselves. For instance, as much as it might be an unpopular perspective, I know Gary would not be pleased with people creating competitive Castle Zagyg's. (When I mentioned it here, I was actually pleased the author of CoTMA agreed that Gary would be upset, and that it wasn't done as a tribute or "honor").
There's a tendency to use a few old quotes sometimes to "prove an agenda", such as early D&D quotes used to say "this is a hobby and not about the money", yet people who know Gary knew he cared about making money.
I know all of this sounds like a ramble, but I guess I want us to consider all things when we discuss Gary. I was a friend and while I respected, loved, and miss him, and I like to see him praised and viewed in a positive light, I also want to make sure none of us twist him into a deific (or cursed) figure, used for our own agendas. (I'm including myself her because nobody is perfect). I honestly don't care if you love, hate, or are indifferent towards him, but I do care that we are honest about the reasons.
Does that make sense, or am I just tired?
I'm going to use an analogy--forgive me if it seems a little over the top. Imagine if you knew a famous figure. Imagine if you friends for a long time, then he dies and you see biographers get things wrong which you witnessed. Wouldn't you want to correct a few things before they become a sort of "canon"?
I fear in some cases that is happening with EGG, in some ways. He is the most famous RPG creator, known to the "civilian public". There's a lot of analysis going on in blogs, message boards, etc. I think this is a good thing, but I also think we need to be careful about it sometimes. I have some suggestions regarding this:
1) If you pull a quote, I think you need make sure it accurately reflects his true feelings. I saw the following quote in somebody's signature.
This seems to emphasize Gary endorsed piracy and the free culture, but the following quote is more accurate: From The Kyngdoms interview.
I believe we should avoid letting our own biases try to paint a "false Gary".
2) If you're actually doing research on Gary Gygax, for anything from a biography to a blog entry, make sure to do the following. Don't just read the old school stuff, if you can, read the various message boards, read his other works. Most importantly, talk to people who knew him. And not just the old guard from TSR--talk to friends, read the names of the people who worked with Gary on other projects and talk to them. Talk to the family, and to people in the industry.
3) As part of #2, have a skeptical attitude towards any of the sources for bias. I know that sounds contradictory, but we all have biases. (And yes, I am including myself as somebody to be skeptical of). The bias could be opinions about games, personal agendas (maybe some are publishers or are benefiting from name dropping), personal perspectives, differences of opinion, etc. At the same time, don't let your own biases color researching the facts. The important thing is to give the correct weight to the source(s), and take into account all the perspectives.
4) Be careful of the term "honor" or "tribute". I say this because I believe if you really want to honor a man, you need to make sure you are not doing anything that would cause disapproval.
I'm not saying this based on Gary's preference for games or what version of D&D. From what I knew about him, Gary's disdain for a game did not mean he judged the fans of that game harshly.
I am saying ask questions, when it involves other things. For instance, if you wanted to give to a charity "in Gary's name and memory", make sure it's one he would approve of. For instance, don't give to the ACLU in his name--he liked freedom of speech, but he hated that particular organization. (I'm not trying to get political, I'm just using this as an example--it would be like giving to Catholic Charities in Richard Dawkings name).
I think we should all be brave enough to challenge certain perspectives based on what we know, and not self-delude ourselves. For instance, as much as it might be an unpopular perspective, I know Gary would not be pleased with people creating competitive Castle Zagyg's. (When I mentioned it here, I was actually pleased the author of CoTMA agreed that Gary would be upset, and that it wasn't done as a tribute or "honor").
There's a tendency to use a few old quotes sometimes to "prove an agenda", such as early D&D quotes used to say "this is a hobby and not about the money", yet people who know Gary knew he cared about making money.
I know all of this sounds like a ramble, but I guess I want us to consider all things when we discuss Gary. I was a friend and while I respected, loved, and miss him, and I like to see him praised and viewed in a positive light, I also want to make sure none of us twist him into a deific (or cursed) figure, used for our own agendas. (I'm including myself her because nobody is perfect). I honestly don't care if you love, hate, or are indifferent towards him, but I do care that we are honest about the reasons.
Does that make sense, or am I just tired?
Last edited:
