D&D General I wish people would avoid name-dropping Gary Gygax

[Staffan]

He is the sole author of the three core rulebooks, as well as at least one other hardcover. That is where 1E AD&D is different, and different even than some earlier D&D products.

For example, the only other people credited in the AD&D 1E DMG are the illustrators and the only portion not written by Gygax himself is the Foreword. Further Gygax uses 1st and 2nd person in the book, it is written as if it is I (Gygax) telling YOU (the reader) about how to be a DM.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the words in the AD&D 1e core books weren't written by Gygax. What might be in doubt is how much of that was Original Gygax Creations and how much was codification of ideas that were in the general "zeitgeist". It is clear that the books were, at least to some degree, written as a response to the discussions of the time. For example, there's a section in the PHB saying, paraphrased: "Some people say it's confusing to use level as a term for many unrelated things like experience level, dungeon level, spell level, and monster level. We could have used different terms like rank, circle, or degree, but we thought level was too established to change and it is usually clear from context." That sort of text isn't written in a vacuum.

 

[ECMO3]

Unearthed Arcana is mostly a collection of articles (some of which EGG wrote, to be fair).

I believe he wrote all of what actually got published in Unearthed Arcana. I could be wrong on that, but there were a lot of stuff from Dragon by other authors that was more widely used in the games we played and more often revisited in the magazine, but did not make the official rules. This includes off the top of my head better Monk, better Bard, different Ranger updates, different Paladin updates and better unarmed combat.

I'll agree that what we'd now call the core 3 are very clearly Gary's writing (so much so that they are notable in their use of 'Gygaxian prose'). Honestly moreso than oD&D, which feels more like a (n incomplete) summation of playtest findings collected by Gygax.

I do think there's more nuance in the statement that we shouldn't treat the person and the edition as the same, though. Gygax contained multitudes, and only himself as a point in time truly aligned with 1e AD&D -- and particularly the AD&D that existed flowing from his pen (/typewriter) as he was writing these books. Even during the 1e era he vacillated wildly in thoughts on the importance of DM impartiality and other important game qualities.

I agree with all this, but the core rulebooks of 1E AD&D are Gygax's and in that respect the edition is as well as those are the defining manuals. The other pieces of it you describe are minor

Ben Franklin changed his opinion and writing wildly over the course of his life on a variety of topics related to liberty, freedom and religion. Yet all his writings are still his writings.

Where I shift back to OP's point, is the use of Gary in support (or just framing) of anything else (usually an argument in favor of/against something, or in how something ought to be).

I agree with the OP on this, however referring to an edition is a pretty broad stroke, much more so than the much narrower definition you are talking about here.

Also as I stated he is IMO essentially the core of 1E AD&D, not part of it, not the main contributor, the literal author. This is not true of later versions or oD&D or other earlier or contemporary versions outside of 1E AD&D specifically.

I don't see any utility in using Gygax name to support or frame a position. In 1E AD&D sure, you can say "this is the rules" because he wrote those rules, but outside of that it is pretty flat as when you move outside what he actually said in those books you run into the wide variations you talk about.

The most obvious (in my mind) case would be arguing for something to be the way to play D&D 'as Gary intended it.' This ought immediately call up the two responses of 1) 'how do you figure?,' and more importantly 2) 'so what/yes, and?'

Any argument about 1E using Gygax to frame a historical point of reference is fine, but 1E had a ton of shortfalls and downright contradictions written by his own pen in the core rulebooks.

Whether you like Gary or not, his version of AD&D was heavily flawed. Any play of 1E AD&D necessarily requires houseruling or deviating from what is written because what is written (presumably what he intended at least when he wrote it) is either unplayable or in conflict with other things he wrote in the core rules.

 

[ECMO3]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the words in the AD&D 1e core books weren't written by Gygax. What might be in doubt is how much of that was Original Gygax Creations and how much was codification of ideas that were in the general "zeitgeist". It is clear that the books were, at least to some degree, written as a response to the discussions of the time. For example, there's a section in the PHB saying, paraphrased: "Some people say it's confusing to use level as a term for many unrelated things like experience level, dungeon level, spell level, and monster level. We could have used different terms like rank, circle, or degree, but we thought level was too established to change and it is usually clear from context." That sort of text isn't written in a vacuum.

I don't know the quote you refer to, the closest I know of is on page 8 where it talks extensively about why they use the term level, including some of the things you mention, and says the term is "prevalent among existing players". Nowhere does he say "we" that I see.

He also stated in the preface:
"The whole of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS was a protect which involved varying degrees of my thought, imagination, and actual working time over a period of more than a year and one-half. Because of other demands, the project was perforce set aside for a day or a week or even longer, making it hard to get back to."

No I agree, it is not written in a vacuum, and he had significant playtesting and experience from many people that had a bearing on the text he wrote. But it is still written by him and the kind of wording you cite is exactly WHY it should not be considered a collective work.

As a comparison, Thomas Paine wrote "Common Sense" and drew his observations from numerous Patriots and contemporary theories and events, but he still wrote it and Common Sense is Paine's work alone, despite the others that influenced him or thought similarly or were otherwise involved in the Patriot movement. This is contrasted with the "Declaration of Independance" which was largely written by Thomas Jefferson some 6 months later but was a collaborative work of many authors.

IMO the same is true when comparing core 1E AD&D vs any other edition.

 

[Charlaquin]

He is the sole author of the three core rulebooks, as well as at least one other hardcover.

Sole author is not the same as sole creative contributor.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Regardless of how flawed early D&D was, his greatest contribution to modern gaming has little to do with that. What is important is how he worked to get it to be the most recognizable TTRPG. Live him or hate him (and there are many valid reasons for both) he made that happen, did he have help, of course, but it is hard to say he wasn't the driving factor that made D&D the most recognizable game in TTRPG'S to this day. Heck it is hard to find a RPG video game that isn't influenced by D&D.

It just gets tiresome to deal with people bringing up his many short comings so often when his name is mentioned in a discussion when he has influenced so many games in so many mediums.

Plenty of people throughout history have made wonderful contributions while being severely flawed, can we not separate the good from the bad? Reddit is full of stories with far worse people doing far worse things in the TTRPG space than Gygax did, and they have contributed far less to the gaming community.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Sole author is not the same as sole creative contributor.

Wizbro is no better in that sense, heck they have been caught REMOVING credits from publications gotta love digital media!

Let's not forget creating is not the same as owning

 

[Clint_L]

I don't know the quote you refer to, the closest I know of is on page 8 where it talks extensively about why they use the term level, including some of the things you mention, and says the term is "prevalent among existing players". Nowhere does he say "we" that I see.

He also stated in the preface:
"The whole of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS was a protect which involved varying degrees of my thought, imagination, and actual working time over a period of more than a year and one-half. Because of other demands, the project was perforce set aside for a day or a week or even longer, making it hard to get back to."

No I agree, it is not written in a vacuum, and he had significant playtesting and experience from many people that had a bearing on the text he wrote. But it is still written by him and the kind of wording you cite is exactly WHY it should not be considered a collective work.

As a comparison, Thomas Paine wrote "Common Sense" and drew his observations from numerous Patriots and contemporary theories and events, but he still wrote it and Common Sense is Paine's work alone, despite the others that influenced him or thought similarly or were otherwise involved in the Patriot movement. This is contrasted with the "Declaration of Independance" which was largely written by Thomas Jefferson some 6 months later but was a collaborative work of many authors.

IMO the same is true when comparing core 1E AD&D vs any other edition.

Gygax didn’t just use ideas that were in the zeitgeist, though. Tons of 1e stuff was originally created for 0e, or contributed through letters, magazines, etc. and then rewritten by Gygax for 1e. Meaning specific rules, spells, monsters, even character classes.

One of the primary purposes of 1e, after all, was to get out of paying royalties to Arneson. That went to court, and a judge ruled against Gygax. From a legal perspective, 1e is not his sole work. And that’s setting aside all the other contributors.

Nobody is disputing that those are mostly Gygax’s words on the page. But rewriting something does not make it your creation.

 

[Deset Gled]

It just gets tiresome to deal with people bringing up his many short comings so often when his name is mentioned in a discussion when he has influenced so many games in so many mediums.

Plenty of people throughout history have made wonderful contributions while being severely flawed, can we not separate the good from the bad?

This is, of course, one of the driving forces behind creating this thread. Not to debate the man again; there are seemingly endless threads about that. And not to ask "can we not separate the good from the bad?", because that's also been discussed. Rather, to look another step further and ask "How can we move past these distractions entirely?"

We can discuss Call of Cthulhu without discussing HP Lovecraft. We can talk about Tensers Floating Disk without talking about Ernie Gygax. We can debate the Forgotten Realms without debating Ed Greenwood. We can optimize a cleric without mentioning Mike Carr. And we can analyze every other edition of D&D without invoking a name printed on the spine of the book. IMNSHO, one of the best things we, as a community, can do to preserve the memory, legacy, and experience of 1e is to learn how to discuss this edition with that same respect. YMMV.