Look who made the big time
- Thread starter specks
- Start date
Teflon Billy
Explorer
FrankTrollman said:
Well if that's the case then I think he has staged an amazing comeback. Nearly everyone here has good to say about him, and the reprts from the cons that I've heard about are universally positive.
Gary is, in my opinion, super cool.
MerakSpielman
First Post
Ah. They must be referring to him INVENTING THE GAME TO BEGIN WITH! I'm sure D&D players will never forgive him that heinous sin.alsih2o said:
Jürgen Hubert
First Post
Well, to be honest, his Dangerous Journeys RPG didn't exactly leave me impressed...
Teflon Billy
Explorer
MerakSpielman said:
I'm serious here, so if anyone can answer; please do...
Does anyone have any idea what unforgivable thing "Gamers" (us) think Gary "did to the game"?
Because I am pretty much onside with Spielman on this.
Teflon Billy
Explorer
Jurgen Hubert said:
Different game my man
Last edited:
Teflon Billy said:
It wasn't us, it was D&D players. A lot of them weren't very happy about some of the changes, and especially about the price hike, when D&D was replaced by AD&D back in, umm, 1979. Since Gygax wrote AD&D, I guess it would be possible to blame him.
Let's face it, if you can get worked up over the difference between there being seven armour classes instead of only six between nudity and cap-a-pied, then you can blame anyone for anything.
Regards,
Agback
FrankTrollman
First Post
No. He did that kind of crap to the game - to the whole hobby in fact. Read some old Dragons - and the bile he spewed in them. About how people who played other game systems were stealing from him and similar rantings.
Gygax's treachery and paranoia caused heavy divisions in the gaming community back in the seventies and eighties.
As to what he did to the game? Well, we have him to thank for the marvelous "if the players do something you don't like just kill their charcaters" methodology - he wrote a bizzare rant about it in the old AD&D DMG. That was how he told people to run games. None of this touchy-feely "talk to your players about what you and they want to do with the story" crap!
In the AD&D DMG, this was his methodology for the dreaded "Monster as a Player Character" question:
1> Allow the player to start with full monster powers, hit dice, natural attacks, everything. And a class level. At first level. Example monsters include: Gold Dragons and Titans (!)
2> Allow the player to rampage across the campaign for awhile, as he will be massively more powerful than any of the other characters. Allow this to continue until you feel that the player should be getting tired of completely dominating the game and hogging all the glory from all the other players.
3> Send the party into combats so overwhelmingly lopsided that the monstrous character is bound to be killed. If that doesn't work - send more powerful monsters until the overpowered character dies.
---
I'm not even making that up! Nevermind the fact that the other players were being set up to have very little fun for several playing sessions - the final step was virtually guaranteed to kill the entire party! Any bounce which is virtually guaranteed to kill a Gold Frickin Dragon is probably going to make short work of the second level Cleric standing next to him.
Gygax actively encouraged a vindictive and adversarial relationship between the DM and the players. And he actively encouraged an adversarial relationship between D&D players and players of other games.
That's what he did to the game. He turned D&D players into social outcasts even among role players for a decade and a half!
-Frank
Gygax's treachery and paranoia caused heavy divisions in the gaming community back in the seventies and eighties.
As to what he did to the game? Well, we have him to thank for the marvelous "if the players do something you don't like just kill their charcaters" methodology - he wrote a bizzare rant about it in the old AD&D DMG. That was how he told people to run games. None of this touchy-feely "talk to your players about what you and they want to do with the story" crap!
In the AD&D DMG, this was his methodology for the dreaded "Monster as a Player Character" question:
1> Allow the player to start with full monster powers, hit dice, natural attacks, everything. And a class level. At first level. Example monsters include: Gold Dragons and Titans (!)
2> Allow the player to rampage across the campaign for awhile, as he will be massively more powerful than any of the other characters. Allow this to continue until you feel that the player should be getting tired of completely dominating the game and hogging all the glory from all the other players.
3> Send the party into combats so overwhelmingly lopsided that the monstrous character is bound to be killed. If that doesn't work - send more powerful monsters until the overpowered character dies.
---
I'm not even making that up! Nevermind the fact that the other players were being set up to have very little fun for several playing sessions - the final step was virtually guaranteed to kill the entire party! Any bounce which is virtually guaranteed to kill a Gold Frickin Dragon is probably going to make short work of the second level Cleric standing next to him.
Gygax actively encouraged a vindictive and adversarial relationship between the DM and the players. And he actively encouraged an adversarial relationship between D&D players and players of other games.
That's what he did to the game. He turned D&D players into social outcasts even among role players for a decade and a half!
-Frank
Similar Threads
