Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9598444" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yeah.When I reference Gygax--presuming he isn't directly the subject of the thread in question--it's because I'm using examples of his game design ideas, or the overall stylistic approach that he pursued. Sometimes the comparison is favorable; as an example, while the design intent of early-edition D&amp;D has almost nothing in common with the things that interest me as a D&amp;D player, I can recognize clever design when I see it, and things like &quot;heavy armor is functionally a survival boost with an XP penalty that you can wear&quot; are clever design, especially in the context of the earliest TTRPGs. Sometimes, the comparison is unfavorable; Gygax's open antipathy for non-humanocentric worlds, for example, which he baked into the rules themselves.Does that meet the OP's requirements for what is allowed or not? Seemingly no: I'm referencing things where Gygax may not have been the sole author, I'm using his examples to prove a point rather than to discuss history, I'm expecting at least a certain degree of consistency. (I'll admit, that last one is something I have recognized as complicated--for a great many things, it is possible to cite Gygax both for and against it, and sometimes back and forth across his life!) Perhaps some of those uses really weren't warranted or reasonable. But I would not accept someone wagging their proverbial finger at me and saying, &quot;Ah-ah-ah! You referenced Gygax incorrectly. Your argument is invalid.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9598444, member: 6790260"] Yeah. When I reference Gygax--presuming he isn't directly the subject of the thread in question--it's because I'm using examples of his game design ideas, or the overall stylistic approach that he pursued. Sometimes the comparison is favorable; as an example, while the design [I]intent[/I] of early-edition D&D has almost nothing in common with the things that interest me as a D&D player, I can recognize clever design when I see it, and things like "heavy armor is functionally a survival boost with an XP penalty that you can wear" [I]are[/I] clever design, especially in the context of the earliest TTRPGs. Sometimes, the comparison is unfavorable; Gygax's open antipathy for non-humanocentric worlds, for example, which he baked into the rules themselves. Does that meet the OP's requirements for what is allowed or not? Seemingly no: I'm referencing things where Gygax may not have been the sole author, I'm using his examples to prove a point rather than to discuss history, I'm expecting at least a certain degree of consistency. (I'll admit, that last one is something I have recognized as complicated--for a great many things, it is possible to cite Gygax both for [I]and[/I] against it, and sometimes back and forth across his life!) Perhaps some of those uses really weren't warranted or reasonable. But I would not accept someone wagging their proverbial finger at me and saying, "Ah-ah-ah! You referenced Gygax incorrectly. Your argument is invalid." [/QUOTE]

Verification