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.

 

[Ron]

Colonel,

What about the initial part of the Temple of Elemental Evil, up to the end of the moathouse? It's one of my favorite memory of a game, although it strikes me as quite diferent from your other books. Was it intentional to expand the kind of modules offered?

Best wishes,
Ron

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Colonel,

What about the initial part of the Temple of Elemental Evil, up to the end of the moathouse? It's one of my favorite memory of a game, although it strikes me as quite diferent from your other books. Was it intentional to expand the kind of modules offered?

Best wishes,
Ron

Howdy Ron,

Along with the Village of Hommlet module, Temple of Elemental Evil was what I planned as part of an ongoing demi-campaign series, something regarding Stoink to be the third, and then wherever my own group's play led for a concluding offering. As things shook out though I never did get to the latter part...

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Gentlegamer]

Haven't seen an answer, assuming Gary hasn't seen it:

That sort of campaign is hogwash in terms of the FRPG, proper for a comic book superhero system where the characters can become tremendously powerful and need such opponents to make the game even vaguely interesting. In short, I think the concept is childish and not worth pursuing by mature gamers.

Forgive me for back-tracking the thread a bit . . .

On this thought, what of campaigns deliberately designed for high-level play, such as that of Francois Marcela-Froideval?

 

[Ron]

Howdy Ron,

Along with the Village of Hommlet module, Temple of Elemental Evil was what I planned as part of an ongoing demi-campaign series, something regarding Stoink to be the third, and then wherever my own group's play led for a concluding offering. As things shook out though I never did get to the latter part...

Cheers,
Gary

I played T1-T4 but we stopped at the Temple door. However the part around Hommlet really captured my imagination. I found it to be quite refreshing compared to your other modules and it would be great if you could not only supervise but actually finish the whole book.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Haven't seen an answer, assuming Gary hasn't seen it:

Right-O,

I totally missed that post. sorry.

No question that Francois had a well run, cerafully thought-out campaign, but it was not really D&D, but rather a spin-off of that game that had moved into the realm of comic book superhero play. If you have seen any of his graphic novels, the Cronicles of the Black Moon, you will understand what I mean. that said, had be toned things down just a bit, the campaign would have been pure, if imaginatively evolved AD&D. Although none of even the most potent NPCs could slay deities, they and some of the Pcs, were as potent as demigods, Mephreton (sp?) most certainly at the top of that rank.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

I played T1-T4 but we stopped at the Temple door. However the part around Hommlet really captured my imagination. I found it to be quite refreshing compared to your other modules and it would be great if you could not only supervise but actually finish the whole book.

T1 was in the general vein of the D&D game module B2. Introductory modules are fine if you are breaking in a new group of players, but otherwise writing them is not very exciting... When I wrote the LA introductory module, Living the Lejend, it was a lot of fun for me and the play-testers, as several of them were not veteran LA game players. I still enjoy usng the work to introduce newcomers to the system.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[haakon1]

"Purists" insulted by WOTC

Re: The discussion of whether 3e has gotten a little too soft, with too much encouragement of level appropriate dungeons, etc. . . .

WOTC has gone way too far in this little bit on their site.

Basically, they say players should AUDIT their characters sheets for the value of their total against what WOTC says they OUGHT to have, and complain if their DM is "putting them in the poorhouse".

They are also encouraged to argue or quit if they don't like the DM's rules on core classes, and the WOTC writer says this, about the idea of not buying all WOTC's supplemental books, and just using the core books instead:

<<A "purist" is the most obnoxious brand of anything, because that label carries with it an implicit (or explicit) snootiness that declares that any other way of doing things is not only impure but also substandard and unworthy. There's a pretentiousness involved in declaring yourself a purist, and it seems as if you see this as a point of friction between yourself (and the other players perhaps) and the DM.>>
- Jason Nelson-Brown

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060623a

Clearly, WOTC has made a philosophical/marketing decision on what D&D ought to be like, and has moved away from the most basic rule: the DM decides.

I guess it makes sense from a short term sales point of view to maximize their sales of crunch books to players, but they don't seem to get that stats-crazed munchkins aren't running the games, and if nobody is running the game, nobody is buying books. In all my 25 years of playing and 20 years of DMing, I've never been so insulted. Actually, I just don't care what they have to say . . . but they are being jerks in a brazenly odd way.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Great Scott! If anyone ever needed evidence of the idea of player entitlement under d20, there it is! Unbelievable!

 

[lkj]

Re: The discussion of whether 3e has gotten a little too soft, with too much encouragement of level appropriate dungeons, etc. . . .

WOTC has gone way too far in this little bit on their site.

Basically, they say players should AUDIT their characters sheets for the value of their total against what WOTC says they OUGHT to have, and complain if their DM is "putting them in the poorhouse".

They are also encouraged to argue or quit if they don't like the DM's rules on core classes, and the WOTC writer says this, about the idea of not buying all WOTC's supplemental books, and just using the core books instead:

<<A "purist" is the most obnoxious brand of anything, because that label carries with it an implicit (or explicit) snootiness that declares that any other way of doing things is not only impure but also substandard and unworthy. There's a pretentiousness involved in declaring yourself a purist, and it seems as if you see this as a point of friction between yourself (and the other players perhaps) and the DM.>>
- Jason Nelson-Brown

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060623a

Clearly, WOTC has made a philosophical/marketing decision on what D&D ought to be like, and has moved away from the most basic rule: the DM decides.

I guess it makes sense from a short term sales point of view to maximize their sales of crunch books to players, but they don't seem to get that stats-crazed munchkins aren't running the games, and if nobody is running the game, nobody is buying books. In all my 25 years of playing and 20 years of DMing, I've never been so insulted. Actually, I just don't care what they have to say . . . but they are being jerks in a brazenly odd way.

To be fair, those couple of quotes are a bit out of context. Immediately after the paragraph about purists, the next line is "That said, there's nothing inherently wrong with playing with just the core rulebooks". In fact he goes on to argue that it's easier, and then says, that as long as you knew it was core-only going in-- "then what's the problem?" Given this, it seems hard to argue they are trying to trick you into forcing your DM to buy more books. Just from my quick read, it seems to me his argument is with people defining themselves as "purists".

Next-- The bit about 'auditing' comes only after he's explained that wealth accumulation is 'a matter of style' and that a DM might keep you on a tight budget for various reasons. His caveat is that the encounters should be designed accordingly. In fact, the whole audit is a suggestion if the whole thing "is affecting your enjoyment of the game" so that you can see if your DM realizes what he's doing.

Now, all that said, I agree the whole article is still a little thick on player empowerment. Just not as bad as your suggesting based on the particular quotes.

And this is coming from a bastard, tight-wad DM who is constantly putting his players on the brink of TPK and putting them in situations where they frequently need to run away. So there. All Hail Gygax!

Cheers,
AD

 

[merelycompetent]

The dragon was there as a part of the muscle of the fire giants--for attack and defense. It was not a part of a singular plot, but there as a general member of the overall one.

Ahh... hrmmm... Well, I guess I lost the bet I think I'll print that page out, sign it, and FedEx it (along with a 2-liter bottle of Coca-Cola) to my friend. It should fizz really well when he opens it...