How to respectfuly disagree with EGG?

[fba827]

(didn't read the whole thread, just the OP - so apologies if this was already covered)

But how about something as simple as "That may have been EGG's intention, and it's fine if it was, but for me, today, X is what I'm looking for in a game."

I mean, you're not trying to debate his words/intentions/vision... I'm presuming you are in fact trying to debate how you want it (still talking about gaming here )

 

[Asmor]

I disagreed with him plenty while he was alive, why should his death make much of a difference?

Gary Gygax has left a strong and endurring legacy; I don't think there's any worry of besmirching his name by simply disagreeing with him.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think the "how" question is pretty well answered…

So let's hear the disagreement, man!

 

[auspexRex]

(didn't read the whole thread, just the OP - so apologies if this was already covered)

But how about something as simple as "That may have been EGG's intention, and it's fine if it was, but for me, today, X is what I'm looking for in a game."

I mean, you're not trying to debate his words/intentions/vision... I'm presuming you are in fact trying to debate how you want it (still talking about gaming here )

This.

I think if the argument comes down to what EGG thought or what his opinions or intentions were, there's little point in continuing the discussion anyways. People can quote specific sources, but outside of that, it's going to be a discussion rife with assumptions about what people want EGG to have intended. That's not terribly useful at the end of the day. If someone is playing X version of D&D because someone else think it's best, even EGG, that's silly.

As long as you're not disrespecting a person overtly or implying some personal insult, living or dead, you should be fine. If certain people are offended because you disagree with EGG, or have slightly different opinions, then that's a deficiency on the part of certain people, not you.

 

[Aus_Snow]

This extends to things like "School wars". If you go on Dragonsfoot, they refer to 3etards and 4orons.

Oh, it gets even better than that: TETSNBN, and - possibly - TATSNBN.

But that's the thing. This ain't Dragonsfoot, K&K, or wherever else. Totally different focus, typical crowd, rules, moderation, content, etc.

I just want to be able to say I don't care what Gary said/thought without being accused of speaking ill of a dead man.

Then hey, simply don't speak ill of a dead man. In this instance, E.G.G. (R.I.P.)

*If* someone actually accuses you of that (and, on EN World anyway, that's a pretty big 'if'), and you haven't done so - even unintentionally - well then, kill them and dump their old school gems on eBay, natch.

 

[Vartan]

He's a founding father of RPGs, but that doesn't mean he's the last word on the subject. If he was always right, or if he said everything that ever needed to be said about gaming, then why even have an EN World?

Reading and discussing--or even disagreeing with!--Gary's work is a worthy endeavor for any serious role-player. If you want to respectfully disagree with something he wrote then do so. If you emulate the logic, passion and seriousness that Gary brought to the table then you're well on your way to being a productive member of our hobbyist community, even if you don't agree with something that EGG wrote.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Well, the answer to the citing of the 1e DMG is simple. That IS how it's done...

in 1E.

It may be done differently in 2E, 3E, 3.5E, and 4E. And it'll probably be done a whole new way when they get to 5E in a few years, too.

Better would be to point out that a specific rule in the 1E DMG was not how it was done in 1E. Having played 1E for years, there were very many rules that had to be abandoned or heavily modified simply for reasons of playability. The removal of level limits by race is one of the most prominent examples. Contemporary clones of 1E also make significant rules changes because the majority of contemporary players simply will not play by the earlier rules.

The mere presence of a statement in the rule books is not enough for a rule to be a good rule or something worthy of following in any game.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Later iterations of D&D were a rebuke of many of Gary's design philosophy; playing those editions in favor of those authored by him is a succinct disagreement enough, no?

 

[Mallus]

Later iterations of D&D were a rebuke of many of Gary's design philosophy...

Or an evolution/refinement/expansion. Depends on your perspective, what you want out of the game.

playing those editions in favor of those authored by him is a succinct disagreement enough, no?

I think the newer editions are unavoidably a celebration of EGG's work. Every game where your playing piece is a fictional character winds up being that.

 

[Umbran]

Later iterations of D&D were a rebuke of many of Gary's design philosophy...

Sorry, I don't agree with that. A "rebuke" is a sharp criticism. Saying later versions of the game were a rebuke is rather like saying that making strawberry ice cream is a rebuke to those who make chocolate. I can partake of one flavor without saying or implying that the other is wrong, or bad.