TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

This is the multi-year Q&A sessions held by D&D co-creator Gary Gygax here at EN World, beginning in 2002 and running up until his sad pasing in 2008. Gary's username in the thread below is Col_Pladoh, and his first post in this long thread is Post #39.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Here's an interview with Charles Stross about the origins of the Gith races.

http://www.planewalker.com/loz/mi_stross.shtml

Thanks for the URL.

Interesting that he has become a pro SF author, and too bad he has left gaming.

Mr. Stross' observations in regards to what inspired him to create the various monsters he did is pretty much the same as how I have done a number of them.

Although I know Larry Niven, I most certainly wasn't reading his material for monster ideas, then or now. As noted, the inspiration for the mind flayers came from a piece of cover art on a book in the Lovecraftian Cycle, Lumley's THE BURROWERS BENEATH. I still have that paperback in my libreay, too

Gary

 

[CrusaderX]

Gary, I'm curious about your thoughts on the D&D (or AD&D) Paladin class. Many gamers see the Paladin's Lawful Good alignment restriction as an essential part of this class. Other players, however, have no problem with allowing Chaotic Good Paladins, Lawful Evil Paladins, and Paladins of any and all alignments.

Do you think that the Paladin's Lawful Good alignment restriction is an appropriate, or even an essential, element of this class? I myself am all for having "Holy Warriors" of all alignments, but I've always viewed the "Paladin" title as being uniquely bound to the service of both Law and Goodness. Maybe I'm just a traditionalist.

Also, from where did the class concept originate? Is it true that Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions story is one of the main influences of the AD&D Paladin?

Thank you for your time, good sir! This is indeed a wonderful thread.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Gary, I'm curious about your thoughts on the D&D (or AD&D) Paladin class. Many gamers see the Paladin's Lawful Good alignment restriction as an essential part of this class. Other players, however, have no problem with allowing Chaotic Good Paladins, Lawful Evil Paladins, and Paladins of any and all alignments.

Do you think that the Paladin's Lawful Good alignment restriction is an appropriate, or even an essential, element of this class? I myself am all for having "Holy Warriors" of all alignments, but I've always viewed the "Paladin" title as being uniquely bound to the service of both Law and Goodness. Maybe I'm just a traditionalist.

Also, from where did the class concept originate? Is it true that Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions story is one of the main influences of the AD&D Paladin?

Thank you for your time, good sir! This is indeed a wonderful thread.

Welcome CrusaderX. Pleased to be of service...and to have a bit of fun in so doing.

As far as I am concerned, the Paladin is Lawful Good--perior. The class takes vows, swears an oath, and then follows it. The concept is drawn from some legend--Authurian--and some quasi-legend--the paladins of Charlemaine plus the code of chivalry as it was written, more honored in the breach than the keeping. As described in the game system, any characyer that was of paladin class would cease being so immediately his vows were broken.

Playing a proper paladin is often mishandled also. They are not stupid per se, only bound by oaths. For example I did allow paladins to slay dangerous prisoners if those individuals renounced Evil. In such a state of grace, killing them is actually a Good act, for they will then go on to a better life in another world instead of being sent to some dark and dismal plane to suffer for their ways after death. While a paladin will fight to the death if necessary, they are not usually bound to suicidal valor for no pirpose.

Anyway, while Poul Anderson in his excellent THREE HEARTS & THREE LIONS was treating Oiger the Dane as his protagonist, that work was not the source for the paladin class. I did borrow a good deal from the troll he had in the yarn though

Cheers,
Gary

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Three Hearts and Three Lions didn't inspire the paladin? Wow. I always thought it did. Another urban legend dispelled.

On the subject of the origins of familiar tropes in the game...from what I've read, Gary, D&D was originally an outgrowth of war games, in which the party was, basically, a small unit of what one could call "commandos" that infiltrated a besieged fortress. Is that accurate? If so, then what's surprising to me is that I can't think of very many adventures ever set in such a situation. That is, while some adventures feature infiltration of fortresses - such as the "Giants" series - few ever feature a beleaguering army outside. I guess it surprises me because of how much potential such a situation has - PCs could either be from the besieging army, or they could be from the within the fortress, trying to make a sally of sorts. I'm just surprised we never saw more adventures about such a situation, given D&D's wargame origins.

 

[Skarp Hedin]

Hi Gary,

It's very nice of you to be sitting around answering question after question here.. and when I saw this:

The FIEND FOLIO was compiled by those two, then the owners of GW, from submissions published in WHITE DWARD MAGAZINE, and brought to TSR as material for an additional book of monsters. I culled some, saw that other creatures were added, and then Lawrence Shick, the man in charge of project left in the monsters I'd said must be cut--he was leaving the company so...

I just had to ask: So, then, what monsters did you designate as "must be cut" from the Fiend Folio?

 

[Rel]

Although I know Larry Niven...

Do me a favor and next time you see him tell him thanks for being the best hard-sci-fi writer I've ever read and that I wouldn't mind seeing another Dream Park novel when he gets a chance.

Do you also know Jimmy Buffett? If so, we can just call this thread "All Rel's Greatest Heroes" and be done with it.

 

[The Sigil]

(Lighthearted) Would you?

I have to ask, because some of the posters on another thread were afraid to... and I figure that since I thought of it, I should bring it up...

This comes from the 1,000 Ways to Freak out your players thread... would you be willing to do this one, Colonel? It's way #1,000.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14010&perpage=40&pagenumber=17#post387575

--The Sigil

 

[Bjorn Doneerson]

Hello. I don't know what to say so I guess just thanks, and I'll get on to asking you annoying questions:

You came up with all the planes, right? And the planes have their little mysteries, like what's in Chronias. Do/did you have an answer in mind for any of these and would you be willing to tell us such things?

And on a dare I ask you: Will you be my friend?

 

[ScottGLXIX]

Greetings,
A question on some of the undead creatures. Did you originally see wights and wraiths as having corporeal forms or not? Early on wights and wraiths were very similar, the wraith was just the more powerful of the two. Over the years they’ve developed into very different critters with a wight having a physical form, and wraiths not.
Scott

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Three Hearts and Three Lions didn't inspire the paladin? Wow. I always thought it did. Another urban legend dispelled.

Well that's the way it goes

In truth I was using the older sources for the model of the paladin, and the 12 Paladins of Charlemaigne was my main inspiration. Of course it didn't hurt that I had been told the story of Roland at about age three...

[On the subject of the origins of familiar tropes in the game...from what I've read, Gary, D&D was originally an outgrowth of war games, in which the party was, basically, a small unit of what one could call "commandos" that infiltrated a besieged fortress. Is that accurate? If so, then what's surprising to me is that I can't think of very many adventures ever set in such a situation. That is, while some adventures feature infiltration of fortresses - such as the "Giants" series - few ever feature a beleaguering army outside. I guess it surprises me because of how much potential such a situation has - PCs could either be from the besieging army, or they could be from the within the fortress, trying to make a sally of sorts. I'm just surprised we never saw more adventures about such a situation, given D&D's wargame origins.

The D&D game grew out of wargaming on the table top uning the original CHAINMAIL Fantasy Supplement thereto. In that rules set there is a suggestion that when digging mines and counter mines graph paper be used, but as you note no actual D&D game module I've ever seen has taken the base, seiges, to the "commando" raid stage, either in infiltrating a fortress of for breaking out of one to wreak havoc on the besiegers lines.

As a matter of fact, though, in the HALL OF MANY PANES module I do have a scenario in which the team is sent from a besieged castle to seek help to break the encirclement.

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Hi Gary,

It's very nice of you to be sitting around answering question after question here.. and when I saw this:


I just had to ask: So, then, what monsters did you designate as "must be cut" from the Fiend Folio?

Hey! I don't sit around, but when I see a notice that a reply has been posted to this thread I get back here in due course

As to the should-have-been-gornished entries in the FF book, well, it's 20 years, and damned if I can recall many off hand. I haven't one of those books handy, or I'l flip through and answer in detail. I surely didn't care much for the Needleman, and I do believe that the Disenchanter was another that I found rather too flimsy a creature to include. The treatment of the Kenku (sp?) also was not liked by me--katana-armed sparrows didn't do it in my view.

Alas, all that's water under the old bridge, as every entry I said should be cut was left in. Bah!

Heh,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Do me a favor and next time you see him tell him thanks for being the best hard-sci-fi writer I've ever read and that I wouldn't mind seeing another Dream Park novel when he gets a chance.

Do you also know Jimmy Buffett? If so, we can just call this thread "All Rel's Greatest Heroes" and be done with it.

Last time I saw Larry was out in California in the 90s. I don't make it to many SF cons, but if I do, and the Good Mr. Niven is there, I will pass along your lauds and urging for more DREAM PARK sotires.

Can't say that I have ever met Jimmy Buffet, alhtough I have run into Willy Nelson at the Beverly Hills Hotel way back, exchanged a few words with him. Being quartered in Lake Geneva, working all the time, sort of diminishes one's social contacts, shall we say. About the only "name" people outside gaming I see regularly are cartoonist Joe Martin and author and motivational speaker John Powers.

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Re: (Lighthearted) Would you?

I have to ask, because some of the posters on another thread were afraid to... and I figure that since I thought of it, I should bring it up...

This comes from the 1,000 Ways to Freak out your players thread... would you be willing to do this one, Colonel? It's way #1,000.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14010&perpage=40&pagenumber=17#post387575

--The Sigil

LOL!

I have not followed that thread, 1,000 ways', because I don't want to freak them out save by what I throw at them--we don;t get to play but once a week and then only about 40 weeks a tear. So much gaming to get in so little time and all that...

Of course I would do that The idea is hilarious--likely more so in the exposition than in actual fact, but what the hell, I love practical jokes. I've played many a one in my younger days, mainly inspired by an old book named THE PRACTICAL JOKER'S HANDBOOK. My wife talked me out of the last one I was going to pull--putting smut zines in the john at a friend's house when he was giving a dinner and play for charity...

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Hello. I don't know what to say so I guess just thanks, and I'll get on to asking you annoying questions:

You came up with all the planes, right? And the planes have their little mysteries, like what's in Chronias. Do/did you have an answer in mind for any of these and would you be willing to tell us such things?

And on a dare I ask you: Will you be my friend?

To be fair, I mostly took existing material and arranged it so as to form a cosmology for PAD&D, the planes of existence. Then I made up and/or placed creatures from the game milieu into the various planes.

As for what didn't get done, all that is now moot. the property belongs to WotC, and they are the ones who will populate all of them now.

I will happily acept you as an acquaintance, and if throught the course of personal interaction friendship develops, then great! Have you ever read the essay ON FRIENDSHIP? I can't recall if it was done by emerson or Thoreau. When I first read it I was stunned--blown away in current parlayance. Well worth looking up and reading, that short piece of truly enlightening literature

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Greetings,
A question on some of the undead creatures. Did you originally see wights and wraiths as having corporeal forms or not? Early on wights and wraiths were very similar, the wraith was just the more powerful of the two. Over the years they’ve developed into very different critters with a wight having a physical form, and wraiths not.
Scott

Hmmm. Absolutely did have in mind that a wight was a physical being, a wraith mainly immaterial, and I thought that was clear from the get-go in original D&D. Certainly the movement rates for the two creatures reflected that, as I recall. (Heh, you can tell it's been a while since I have delved into the MM--over a year now, in fact.)

In fact, as I recall the Mm illos of the two showed the wight as a clearly physical, corpse-like monster, while the wraith was shown as spectral, ghostly, no?

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[Henry]

Gary, if you would -

This question came up elsewhere on these boards, and I had never thought about it before -

in 1st Edition AD&D, was the magic item known as Daern's Instant fortress meant to expand AND contract?

or

was it meant to be a single-use item only?

 

[Tewligan]

Mr. Gygax, I humbly offer up a question to thee:

Back in "the day", Judge's Guild material was pretty much official D&D/AD&D. In addition to JG's contributions, however, I remember plenty of material by plenty of other companies that declared themselves to be suitable for use with all major fantasy RPG's, or something to that effect. A quick look inside these books made it clear that "all major fantasy RPG's" meant "AD&D." Occasionally a term would be changed ("strength" becomes "might", "hit points" becomes "wounds"), but it was obviously D&D without coming out and saying it. I was just curious if this kind of thing got TSR's legal hackles up, or was it overlooked or even encouraged? Of course, I do remember the stern warning in the DMG against using unofficial material, but was there any non-TSR/JG material at the time that caught your fancy?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Have you ever read the essay ON FRIENDSHIP? I can't recall if it was done by emerson or Thoreau. When I first read it I was stunned--blown away in current parlayance. Well worth looking up and reading, that short piece of truly enlightening literature

Cheerio,
Gary

Are you thinking of the one by Cicero?

http://www.bartleby.com/9/1/

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Gary, if you would -

This question came up elsewhere on these boards, and I had never thought about it before -

in 1st Edition AD&D, was the magic item known as Daern's Instant fortress meant to expand AND contract?

or

was it meant to be a single-use item only?

What's the matter with you, Henry?:! I know what I had in mind, and just because I neglected to put down that one small detail, there is confusion! USe your psionic power of mind reading for goodness dake.

Heh, and sorry. The item, Daern's Instant Fortress, was meant as a multi-use object, anbd upon command it would contract after being activated.

The devil is in the details, and it seems that I oft shun the devil, eh?

Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Mr. Gygax, I humbly offer up a question to thee:

Back in "the day", Judge's Guild material was pretty much official D&D/AD&D. In addition to JG's contributions, however, I remember plenty of material by plenty of other companies that declared themselves to be suitable for use with all major fantasy RPG's, or something to that effect. A quick look inside these books made it clear that "all major fantasy RPG's" meant "AD&D." Occasionally a term would be changed ("strength" becomes "might", "hit points" becomes "wounds"), but it was obviously D&D without coming out and saying it. I was just curious if this kind of thing got TSR's legal hackles up, or was it overlooked or even encouraged? Of course, I do remember the stern warning in the DMG against using unofficial material, but was there any non-TSR/JG material at the time that caught your fancy?

As protective of its IP rights as TSR was, there was never any thought of attempting to somehow patent the RPG system. As long as the marks, D&D and AD&D were not used, or likenesses of creatures unique to TSR's games weren't used, "generic" material was ignored--neither encouraged nor discouraged.

Judge's Guild requested and received a license to use the marks belonging to TSR on its products. I was all for that, and wanted to license Mayfair's "Role Aids" line later on, but the BLumes would not agree.

As for me using any generic material, no. I was too busy creating new work of my own, checking that done in house, or going over tournament module material. never enough hours in a day to get in half what I would have liked to.

Cheers,
Gary