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.

 

[gizmo33]

There's an interesting quote in the Slayers Guide to Undead regarding Mummies and the Positive Energy plane. Basically it states that it was a mistake, and like all undead, it should say Negative Energy Plane.

That makes sense for 3E, because 3E seems to put the positive/negative material planes on the good/evil axis. But ADnD as I recall didn't really define it so clearly - ex. creatures like the Xeg-Ya/Xag-Yi seem like mirror images and neither good nor evil. The one, as I recall, doesn't heal anyone. The later books, like Manual of the Planes, made Positive a kind of healing energy, but that was after Gary's involvement (I think). I always had this feeling in ADnD that the positive material plane was equally dangerous, and it was conceivable that such energy could power undead. Perhaps it's just a case of my imagination running off due to a typo? I was just wondering if there was a design, perhaps abandoned later on, that explained what postive material energy was in ADnD.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Hi Gary,

I have, not one, but two questions about mummies in ADnD that have had me wondering for a long time:

The first is that the DMG, the section on "Handling Troublesome Players" recommends "attack of an ethereal mummy (which always strike by surprise, naturally)". Why ethereal? Why mummy? Is there an interesting tidbit of gaming history here? The outer planar rules in ADnD were always mysterious to me, and I've always wondered whether it was something special about the mummy that allowed for the physical attack across the plane.

Howdy Gizmo,

An ethereal mummy would not be seen and its attacks would be punishing but not likely fatal, unlike many other sorts of monsters that might be names. The only itdbit cnnected to it is an inside joke sometimes used when someone not partoicularly welcome woulld come around. then I'd usually remark, "Who has been burning tanna leaves?" As for being able to attack from ethereal to physical, that's no more remarkable that a long dead, dried, preserved corpse being animate, thinking, and powerful

The second mummy question has to do with their connection to the Positive Material Plane. Did you ever flesh out this idea? Were there other undead that would have a connection to the Positive plane? Did you ever speculate on a criteria or reason for this connection as opposed to the Negative plane?

See ScottyG's post below. It was an error, although I probably could create a rationale for mummies drawing their energy from the positive plane is pressed...

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Hi Gary,

For all the balance and rules things going on, I think more people worry about rules than about playing. What do you think? I've been involved in a lot of balance debates, and I've got the feeling that this might be true.

Of course I hold that there is far too much rule-playing that detracts from role-playing. the rules are supposed to assist the group in suspending disbelief, assist in immersion in the adventure, and generally enhance enjoyment of play. Balance should be built into the system, relatively unobtrusive, completely so in play.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

That makes sense for 3E, because 3E seems to put the positive/negative material planes on the good/evil axis. But ADnD as I recall didn't really define it so clearly - ex. creatures like the Xeg-Ya/Xag-Yi seem like mirror images and neither good nor evil. The one, as I recall, doesn't heal anyone. The later books, like Manual of the Planes, made Positive a kind of healing energy, but that was after Gary's involvement (I think). I always had this feeling in ADnD that the positive material plane was equally dangerous, and it was conceivable that such energy could power undead. Perhaps it's just a case of my imagination running off due to a typo? I was just wondering if there was a design, perhaps abandoned later on, that explained what postive material energy was in ADnD.

Actually, the negative isn't necessarily evil or inherantly malign. Consider Osiris, the Egyptian god of the dead and his afterlife world, the Duat or Tuat. Neither is positive necessarily good ot benign. Using the same pantheon, consider Ra supporting Set over Horus son of Osiris and Isis. Osiris put him in his place, though...

Cheers,
Gary

 

[gizmo33]

I have to admit that I'm stumped as to how to glean the nature of negative material energy from the example of Osiris, but I'll do some rereading.

I could have about a zillion questions, all of the form: "Tell me everything you can remember about your sources of inspiration and the circumstances under which you developed <insert DnD element here> and describe how you used it in your own game. Negative Material Plane, or whatever. I would be very interested in a sort of "Gary Gygax's Gaming Autobiography". Of course something like that could always raise more questions than it answers.

Speaking of books-

I recall something about a book of gaming anecdotes that you were going to co-author with RJK based on the material published in Dragon Mag a few years ago. Do you have any news on that?

 

[Col_Pladoh]

I have to admit that I'm stumped as to how to glean the nature of negative material energy from the example of Osiris, but I'll do some rereading.

As death and shadow are clearly negative, the association should be obvious. Osiris is a "god with a still heart," clearly a negative-force deity.

I could have about a zillion questions, all of the form: "Tell me everything you can remember about your sources of inspiration

Those are in the main listed in the OAD&D game's DMG and in the bibliography for the Mythus game,

and the circumstances under which you developed <insert DnD element here> and describe how you used it in your own game. Negative Material Plane, or whatever. I would be very interested in a sort of "Gary Gygax's Gaming Autobiography". Of course something like that could always raise more questions than it answers.

That sort of detail is not likely recallable, and thus such a work is quite unlikely

Speaking of books-

I recall something about a book of gaming anecdotes that you were going to co-author with RJK based on the material published in Dragon Mag a few years ago. Do you have any news on that?

No news :\

Rob hasn't gotten any of needed additional material in to me, and I have been quite busy with other business and creative matters to do a proper job of nagging him
Cheers,
Gary

 

[BigBastard]

Grettings Gary, I was on www.rpg.net a couple of minutes ago and someone put up a post asking who Dave Anreson was. What had concerned me is that as the hobby evolves and gets new people into it the creators could be forgotten about or thier importance lessened by new companies that gain control. Being the creator of the hobby do you have any concerns of being forgotton as the hobby grows older? Do you think Wizards of the Coast(Hasbro) has a reposibility to educate the new gamers coming into the hobby of who the founders were?

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Grettings Gary, I was on www.rpg.net a couple of minutes ago and someone put up a post asking who Dave Anreson was. What had concerned me is that as the hobby evolves and gets new people into it the creators could be forgotten about or thier importance lessened by new companies that gain control. Being the creator of the hobby do you have any concerns of being forgotton as the hobby grows older? Do you think Wizards of the Coast(Hasbro) has a reposibility to educate the new gamers coming into the hobby of who the founders were?

Howdy Amigo!

As far as recognition goes, it isn't up to anyone but the individual concerned to see to that. Generaly speaking, that's why folks want their name on the works they have created and are published.

The serious student of anything will look into the history of the subject and know the "names" connected to it.

People do forget, though, and no game author should consider his name and work "immortal" eh?

Cheers,
Gary

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Hey Gary, I can't recall if this question has been posed to you before, so pardon if it covers old ground. The gnome of 3e D&D has gone through something of an identity crisis, in my opinion. Can you tell us what your role was in bringing the gnome into D&D in the first place, way back when, and what niche you felt the gnome occupied? The question was prompted by a recent rereading of Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth and Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, in which there is a gnomish enclave deep within the mountains. In the Forgotten Temple module, in particular, the gnomes seem to be very much like how dwarves are usually portrayed in RPGs - bluff, serious, perhaps rather grim. Any thoughts on how to differentiate between the portrayal of gnomes and dwarves?

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Hey Gary, I can't recall if this question has been posed to you before, so pardon if it covers old ground. The gnome of 3e D&D has gone through something of an identity crisis, in my opinion. Can you tell us what your role was in bringing the gnome into D&D in the first place, way back when, and what niche you felt the gnome occupied? The question was prompted by a recent rereading of Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth and Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, in which there is a gnomish enclave deep within the mountains. In the Forgotten Temple module, in particular, the gnomes seem to be very much like how dwarves are usually portrayed in RPGs - bluff, serious, perhaps rather grim. Any thoughts on how to differentiate between the portrayal of gnomes and dwarves?

Good question, Colonel,

As you undoubtedly know, gnomes were originally the nbame for small earth elementals, as salamanders were of fire, sylphs of air, and undines (I think, it's been a long time since I read on this subject) water.

Despite the origination of the gnome, I meant to make the race more attuned to nature than are dwarves. The deep gnomes, Svirfneblin, are meant to be exceptional. The balance of their cousins deal well with both nature and the subterranean.

Dwarves are miners, forgers, and somewhat mechanical.

Gnomes are miners, botanists, and highly mechanical.

Dwarves love gold and gems.

Gnomes appreciate objects d'art more than gold, although those of Zurich love to keep the wealth of dwarves and others secure.

That cover it?

Cheers,
Gary