How to respectfuly disagree with EGG?

[Rechan]

Here's an option: you might just not open your mouth and let people who enjoy Gygaxian D&D play and rave about their game(s) and Gary's work. It doesn't threaten your own gaming in any way, does it?

Unless they're using Gygax's corpse to argue that x Edition of D&D is TRUE D&d and y edition is NOT D&D or how since Gygax approved of it, that's the only way to play the game.

Take this article on Arneson's death, and these choice comments:

Like Gary Gygax, he’d rather die than live in a world where 4th Edition exists

Nothing saddens me more than to know these men have died shortly after their creation was turned into a lifeless husk. I’m sure it killed them. Arneson’s stroke probably came when he read his first D20 product.

Just because the guy you venerate died shouldn't give you immunity to disagreement, nor carte blanche to be obnoxious about what you like, or insult what others like.

To put it another way, if someone here has the "I <3 1e and/or Gygaxian style games" sand castle, I'm not going to kick it over. But if that same guy comes over to my "I <3 4e and new age styles" sand castle and tries to kick it over because his is better, I shouldn't have to keep my mouth shut.

 

[Ariosto]

I like RuneQuest, DragonQuest and The Fantasy Trip, and I don't consider them Dungeons & Dragons. I like Tunnels & Trolls, Lords of Creation and Prince Valiant, and don't consider them D&D either. I like Empire of the Petal Throne, and in some ways it's pretty darned close to OD&D -- but the differences are what make it stand out as great.

 

[Doug McCrae]

When someone just passes on

It's been a year and a half since Gary died.

But on public forums, loaded with people you don't know, some of which may know EGG for real? You are either careful, responsible and respectful in what you say and how you put it, or you don't say anything at all.

That would've been true for a short time following Gary's death. I noticed that anyone who criticised him in that period provoked a major flamefest, so just in the interests of clean discussion boards it should've been avoided. Now? Back to the usual rough and tumble.

 

[Ferret]

I've read a few of these posts, but I can't figure out...what's EGG?

 

[Ariosto]

Ernest Gary Gygax, co-inventor (with Dave Arneson) of Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Many of those who dislike 4e have repeatedly stated that 4e (like 3e before it) isn't really D&D. They do so for a variety of reasons, but, almost universally it boils down to "I like X, I don't like Y, therefore Y cannot possibly be a subset of X".

That also comes in flavors as well.

I've said as much myself, but always with the coda "to me." IOW, 4Ed is D&D, but for a variety of reasons, its not a game I'll be referencing when I say something like "I'm starting up a D&D campaign." Metaphysically, 4Ed lacks some things that, to me, made D&D D&D; elements that set it apart from other FRPGs.

From what I understand, EGG was of the opinion that 3Ed wasn't D&D in that same sense.

An opinion with which I respectfully disagree.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My problem is that his name became associated with somethign I love and something I hate...

Gygax the man made D&D

Gygaxian adventures suck...and I don't mean ones he wrote neccesarlay...but when I hear "Do x and you die no save", or "well if you ran you would still be alive", or my least fav of the bunch "Well bring 3 or 4 characters this is a leathal dungeon" all my brian says is "This is gygaxian thoughts at there worst"

I embrace balance, I embrace change, I don't feel Jack Vance had the best spell casting system, and I hate op wizards well my fighter takes a back seat... but that all gets put on his name...and not just in a bad way, I have herd people say "Tomb of horros 4e will suck it wont be gygaxan enough"

or the guy a few up that had the quote of 4e killing them...

I play D&D shouldn't that make me gygaxian? but becuse I think 4e is the best edtion so far I am not????

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why not drop the ridiculous ice cream bit and say what you really mean?

(1) The ice cream bit is a pre-existing analogy, not mine.

(2) I said what I really mean. Saying, in effect, "In a perfect world, we would all get along despite dissenting opinions" is all well and good, if dissenting opinions is all that is being discussed. However, the reality is that the expression of dissenting opinions can and does have an influence on what is happening now, and what will happen in the future. So, if you like X, but not Y, and you are saying so, you are encouraging the production of X over Y.

Moreover, the "let's just get along" isn't (and, AFAICT, cannot be) applied equally. Where divisive opinions exist, the only way to avoid divisive discussion is, effectively "In a perfect world, you would just not voice your opinion" (regardless of edition, or game system, you prefer, etc., unless your preference matched that of the speaker).

You will note that the above is, AFAICT, the policy of Dragonsfoot re: post-2e D&D.

What your implying seems pretty outrageous an assertion to make to me so why don't we remove any ambiguity and see how well it actually holds up.

Okay, here are some assertions you can examine:

1. Older D&D is no longer in print, and those who have the means to put it back in print (in pdf form or otherwise) have pulled the plug.

2. 4e is marketted as D&D.

3. 4e is marketted as being essentially different from previous editions of D&D.

4. Prior to 4e, previous editions of D&D are the metric for defining the identity of D&D.

5. If something is essentially different from the existing metric of identity of any term, it is not the same as that term, except by extension or reduction of that term. Even so "Everything has changed but it is still all the same!" is an oxymoronic mantra.

6. It is therefore not irrational for those who do not appreciate the attempted extension or reduction to oppose the redefinition of the term, with the caveat that

7. If the people attempting to redefine the term were inclusive of the older meaning (and kept the materials thereof available) the redefinition would seem less like co-option, and therefore make it easier to simply ignore (rather than oppose).

I don't claim that 4e is not D&D, but I can certainly understand why some might. And asking them to simply be quiet about it will change EN World from a site about D&D to a site about 4e.....in exactly the same way that Dragonsfoot isn't a site about D&D, but rather a site about TSR-D&D.

Frankly, I view that as a more divisive option than being willing to discuss it here. The mods could, of course, create a subforum for such discussion, so that it doesn't need to disturb anyone else. But removing that disucssion, IMHO, does a real disservice to the site.


RC

 

[Ferret]

Ernest Gary Gygax, co-inventor (with Dave Arneson) of Dungeons & Dragons.

His first name is Ernest? Learn something new every day!

 

[Elbeghast]

It's been a year and a half since Gary died.

Yeah, because "respect" has an expiry date, didn't you know?

Edit. Just to be clear: I have personally nothing against respectful disagreements and healthy debate. If you can't formulate any opinion about EGG's or Dave's works without questioning their overall skills as game designers, intelligence and/or integrities as human beings, then you've gone too far and should have kept your mouth shut in the first place, IMO. It's all about the way the criticism is formulated. Not the criticism itself.