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]

Good luck with your current work, Gary.

Well how kind.

With as many projects going as I have going, I can use all the good luck I can ger.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Deogolf]

And there it is again.

Keep it to yourself, GG.

I can see by this "playful" banter why there isn't the growth that could be attained. The more editions of D&D that are developed the more players are left behind and divided. And as me mum said, "I you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all!"

 

[ColonelHardisson]

You can't be serious...

Well, yeah, I can be. That's why I asked. Vertical intergration went the way of the dodo in the movie business, and it seemed to do so in the gaming business. It's a different era.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

The fact that some of us may wonder how you can have fun doing it is not your problem

Well, I don't really wonder how someone can have fun doing something I don't enjoy; I just assume that human beings have different tastes. I mean, do chess players sit around denigrating checkers players, and wonder how said players could possibly be having fun? I doubt it.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I can see by this "playful" banter why there isn't the growth that could be attained. The more editions of D&D that are developed the more players are left behind and divided. And as me mum said, "I you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all!"

I don't think that many were left behind. I grew up with AD&D 1e. It was fairly complex for its era. It was designed by the Honorable EGG himself, so I assume it fit his vision of what the game should have been. I loved the game, but I recognized after years of playing that refinements were possible. If one likes the older versions of the game, that's fine. There are editions that cater to the needs of all manner of gamers, not just one particular group that feels that only its vision is the correct one. I think that's the strength of the game.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

If you are not a munchkin, with all perfect numbers across the board and every possible feat etc added to your character and you don't whine when a character gets killed off, then I would not take anything you mentioned as being directed at you.

There is nothing wrong with the current edition, if you like a rules heavy game with everything defined and spelled out. On the other hand if you like to let you imagination roam free and you like being able to roll up a new character in under 5 minutes and be ready to play as soon as the ref (DM) can fit you back in the game then try Original Dungeons and Dragons the way it was played back in the mid 70's and the way thousands of people still play. To each his or her own. To my mind 3.0 and 3.5 take so much time and paperwork that there is too little time left to play. I like rules lite fly by the seat of your pants. I find it more fun. If you have fun playing the current edition, then continue to do so. The fact that some of us may wonder how you can have fun doing it is not your problem and we don't think about it except when someone brings it up anyway, we are too busy having more fun with the older version.

Llaurenela

Y'know, think about this: if someone said: "There is nothing wrong with the older editions, if you like a rules bereft game barely a step above playing "Let's Pretend." On the other hand, if you like to let your imagination roam free with multiple options with actual game effects that are internally consistent and not subject to DM whim, and you like to have detailed characters that are more than a handful of dice rolls that define little beyond how hard a PC hits..." would it not come off as patronizing? Besides, there are plenty of gamers from that era who did, indeed, wish for more detail in their game. I ran across them all the time, bundles of house rules in tow, or their AD&D books in hand. Some people like rules-light, some like rules-heavy. One is not inherently superior to the other.

Besides, it's not like your old books were struck blank with the coming of new editions, so you can continue playing as you like. Some complain that their version has no current support, which I find paradoxical - how much more support does a rules-light game need? How much support makes it a rules-heavy game? I can't see why there would be any necessity of further support for a game that, by its very nature, eschews more support. So I'm not seeing why there is such ire or defensiveness about this subject.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

You're not playing the current edition of (A)D&D . . . you're playing d20 Fantasy, a wholly different game system.

Edition wars are no fun. It's a game. Don't take it so seriously. If anything divides gamers, it's that.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

You mistake disgust for hate.

As the one who created GenCon, the game, DRAGON magazine, the World of Greyhawk, and the basis for the RPGA I am qualified to make comments, am I not?

Gary

Absolutely. You're in a unique position to so comment. You also are in a unique position in that you are so closely associated with the game, of whatever edition, that your word carries a lot of import. When they object to your dismissal of the game they like, it is a sign of their respect for you, if you see what I mean. They don't like thinking the patron saint of gaming dislikes their game, and, by extension, them. It's kind of an emotional reaction.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Thank you for your unwanted opinion.

Take your own advice.

Gary

I think he was replying to Gentlegamer, not you, GG

 

[gideon_thorne]

*grin* What do you think Gary? Should I repost my short essay on the lousy job security and short carreer's of saints?

They don't like thinking the patron saint of gaming dislikes their game, and, by extension, them. It's kind of an emotional reaction.