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.

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

Re: Paladin's Detect Evil Power

Howdy Ken

Well, as the Paladin is supposed to be the virtuous warrior wholly dedicated to being upright and doing good, the Detect Evil capacity seemed natural.

I envisaged it as being one that the Paladin must use with active thought, that meaning when he is thus engaged he can be doing nothing else. (It was not meant as an automatic sensing device akin to a Geiger counter detecting radiation level.)

Okay, there is is, and don't ask why this isn't quantified thus in the original PHB

cheers,
Gary

So as a follow then why would people think it is rude for a paladin to detect evil? or would they, not that they do IMC, as it is considered part of there make up.
Ken

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Re: Re: Paladin's Detect Evil Power

So as a follow then why would people think it is rude for a paladin to detect evil? or would they, not that they do IMC, as it is considered part of there make up.
Ken

If in the company of gentle folk, certainly belted knights and nobles, for a Paladin to perform a detection for evil is clearly a gross insult to all those present! Only if there is ample reason for a devoutly religious person to suspect some malign influence might the act be considered otherwise. To do so before a sovereigh head of state, directed at that one, is certainly lesse majeste, perhaps a capital offense.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Hadit]

Re: Re: Re: Paladin's Detect Evil Power

If in the company of gentle folk, certainly belted knights and nobles, for a Paladin to perform a detection for evil is clearly a gross insult to all those present! Only if there is ample reason for a devoutly religious person to suspect some malign influence might the act be considered otherwise. To do so before a sovereigh head of state, directed at that one, is certainly lesse majeste, perhaps a capital offense.

Cheers,
Gary

Yeah, I always sort of looked at it like that as well.
To a lesser degree, the casting of detect evil on folks seems similar to the modern habit of imploying lie-detectors or urinalysis on prospective employees... extreme annoyance!

This brings up a tangential question in my mind.
How do you view the changes a society would exhibit that had access to clerical spells of healing and divination? (The D&D society, basically.)
Would hunger and disease be effectively eradicated for the lower classes, or are clerics powerful enough just too rare to cover everybody's needs?

Thanks, Gary!
Take care, Duglas

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Paladin's Detect Evil Power

This brings up a tangential question in my mind.
How do you view the changes a society would exhibit that had access to clerical spells of healing and divination? (The D&D society, basically.)
Would hunger and disease be effectively eradicated for the lower classes, or are clerics powerful enough just too rare to cover everybody's needs?

Thanks, Gary!
Take care, Duglas

If the world setting has active deities and clerics able to employ magic, the lot of the lower socio-economic class would be very much improved. There would certainly be sufficient lower grade ecclesiastics--hedge priests, friars, and monks--to cover the basic needs of the ordinary folk, while more able clerics would see to the greater concerns such as disease and crops.

The more affluent the agrarian and worker base, the more wealthy and advanced the middle and upper classes.

I am propounding this general theme, and admitting my error on not placing sufficient importance upon the ecclesiastics in the fantasy milieu that assumes active magic and like deities in the upcoming "Gygaxian Fantasy Worlds" reference book, LIVING FANTASY. that's a bald-faced plug, but the fact is i deal with the subject of improved conditions at some length therein.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Devall2000]

bump

 

[Grishnak]

Bit of a goofy question but what did you think of the D&D film that was made? Do you think that they should have had a better story than the 1 in place?
Also have you read any books by David Gemmell? If so what do you think of his style of writing?

P.S On a final note thank you for letting me lose 8 years of my life so far on D&D Well worth it though!!

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Bit of a goofy question but what did you think of the D&D film that was made? Do you think that they should have had a better story than the 1 in place?
Also have you read any books by David Gemmell? If so what do you think of his style of writing?

Heh, and frankly I found no single redeeming feature in the D&D movie. even the special effects weren't special. Yes, then needed a story with a good plot and developed characters, then actors to properly play the roles, real direction, decent costuming, makeup that omitted blue lipstick, and dramatic music...

I've read one book by David Gemmell and enjoyed it.

P.S On a final note thank you for letting me lose 8 years of my life so far on D&D Well worth it though!!

Only eight years! So you are still a journeyman, eh? I've been at this for over 30 now

Cheers,
Gary

 

[The Blue Elf]

Mr. Gygax have you hear about another D&D movie is in the making?

And thank you

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Heh, and frankly I found no single redeeming feature in the D&D movie. even the special effects weren't special. Yes, then needed a story with a good plot and developed characters, then actors to properly play the roles, real direction, decent costuming, makeup that omitted blue lipstick, and dramatic music...

I agree with much of what you're saying. The direction of the film was, apparently, close to non-existent. A couple of actors had good screen presence, but had nothing to work with; I'd say the lead actor who played Ridley is a good example. The actor who played the dwarf is another. They deserved better. Jeremy Irons could not have been taking his role seriously, else he would not have played it so over-the-top. I think the film suffered most from coming out pre-Lord of the Rings. Had Irons, for example, seen how Ian McKellan and Christopher Lee played their roles with dignity and grace, perhaps his portrayal would have been more thought-out. I kept getting the feeling he had no liking or respect for the genre.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Whoa!

The guy who played the (giant) dwarf did nothing other than mug the camera during the whole dreadful performance.

If the D&D movie had awaited filming until after the first LotR one, I think they would have canned the whole project, as it would have been obvious that it was a total bomb, something that fell out of the back end of a horse

Cheers,
Gary

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I think the dwarf's (yeah, he was too big, but I guess they didn't have the money to squeeze him down like they did with John Rhys-Davies in LotR) performance was harmed by editing. I didn't think his mugging was too bad, and seemed appropriate. Of course, that may be just in comparison to the performances of Wayans and Irons.

I think that if it had been in production post-LotR, they would have recognized the value of the genre and the D&D imprint, and would have rewritten much of it. The dialogue, for example, is some of the worst I've heard in a professional production.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Colonel Suh!

I do believe you are being too generous

Heh,
Gary

 

[optimizer]

Howdy!

that's a difficult question to answer, for the beginning Avatar in the LA game is more like a 7th - 8th level PC in many ways. When placing weaker creatures in encounters, the Lejend Master needs to have plenty of them, and be careful to operate them in as clever a manner as possible considering their nature.

Increasing dangers aren't so difficult, as the creatures with higher Health and chance to hit, those doing a lot of extra Harm or with special attack forms are clearly ratable and tougher to defeat. Also. problems requiring the use of some not-too-common Ability, come into play, as to difficult problems and tricky situations.

One needs be careful, though, for Avatars take a long time to work up to potency greater that their corresponding level in AD&D terms. Regular play (40 + sessions) adds what amounts to about a level and a half per year, assuming the acquisition of some good Extraordinary Items (magic) along the way.

They system can manage Avatars of considerable potency, of course, and even veterans of six or more years can be properly challenged. Don't forget that the LA game does not center on combat, makes it a key element amongst several or many

Cheers,
Gary

It sounds like LA can emulate a progressive dungeon setting like in OAD&D, except that the levels would be much larger since it would takes longer to traverse them, allowing characters to gain power before heading lower.

AlLternativelly, the extra dimension of LA opens the possibility of gaining experience (power) outside the dungeon, between dungeon expeditions. In this view, the LM would spend as much time (or more) defining the world outside the dungeon for the Avatars to explore.

Please let me know if this is incorrect. If I am correct, then I think I do what I would like in a campaign in LA -- and probably more!

Thank!

Mike

 

[Grishnak]

I agree with you pretty much on all the points regarding the film, my only redeeming feature was the Beholder but that was down to the old EOTB games and really liking the Beholder kin!

I would love a company to make a film using 1 of David Gemmells books, He seems to get the background without going over the top with page after page of useless info.

Have you played 3e at all? Do you plan to play at all if you dont already? Or do you prefer past editions? Sorry if you've been asked this already haven't been able to read all the thread

Anyway thanks for the reply and I'm still a young lad of 24 so yes still a journeyman but still think of myself as more of a beginner again with 3e and 3.5e.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Howdy!

It sounds like LA can emulate a progressive dungeon setting like in OAD&D, except that the levels would be much larger since it would takes longer to traverse them, allowing characters to gain power before heading lower.

Well, not necessarily. I have an "Olde Time Dungeopn Crawl" scenario amongst the adventures found in the HALL OF MANY PANES module. It is set up for experienced Avatars, mainly, say with at least a year of adventuring credits, but it can handle beginners or veteran Avatars with three or more years of play. the key is the judgement of the Lejend Master on adjusting the number of creatures or NACs encounterd, their Health and chance to hit and inflict Harm. Of course, I packed the normal-sised dungeon level quite full of interesting places, and made it difficult to move around and map, and it must be mapped in order to find the keys to escaping the place, cause the return pane portal to appear

Alternativelly, the extra dimension of LA opens the possibility of gaining experience (power) outside the dungeon, between dungeon expeditions. In this view, the LM would spend as much time (or more) defining the world outside the dungeon for the Avatars to explore.

Please let me know if this is incorrect. If I am correct, then I think I do what I would like in a campaign in LA -- and probably more!

Thank!

Mike

Your second assumption is correct. the LA game does offer, not to say demand, the LM to spend as much time developing adventures not set in dungeons, and the players' Avatars gain as much from such activity therein as they do from subterranean delving. Outside dungeons the focus can be on role-play, intregue, politics, or just about anything else including exploration and combat.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

I agree with you pretty much on all the points regarding the film, my only redeeming feature was the Beholder but that was down to the old EOTB games and really liking the Beholder kin!

The movie was such a stinker that most gamers I know have pretty much the same take on it. What is so infiriating is that it could have been a decent film that promoted D&D

I would love a company to make a film using 1 of David Gemmells books, He seems to get the background without going over the top with page after page of useless info.

Who can say? As the "Harry Potter" and LotR movies have raked in big bucks at the box office, fantasy films are not dead...only those relating to the D&D game...

Have you played 3e at all? Do you plan to play at all if you dont already? Or do you prefer past editions? Sorry if you've been asked this already haven't been able to read all the thread

Yes, I played for about 20 sessions in the test of Ernie and Luke Gygax's module THE LOST CITY OF GAXMOOR. I enjoyed the gaming but not the rules. As a matter of preference I play mainly own LA RPG system, my next favorite is OAD&D, and thereafter METAMORPHOSIS ALPHA. Being a gamer, if I have the time and opportunity I will typically play any game end enjoy it

Anyway thanks for the reply and I'm still a young lad of 24 so yes still a journeyman but still think of myself as more of a beginner again with 3e and 3.5e.

Well, when you try Monty's ARCANA UNEARTHED, you can enjoy yet more apprenticeship then. Back in the good Old Days when I was a mere stripling of 24, all we had were chess, board wargames, and military miniatures--all stillgreat fun!

Cheers,
Gary

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Colonel Suh!

I do believe you are being too generous

Heh,
Gary

Yeah, probably. I just figure that in the post-LotR era, a production like that wouldn't get very far without massive rewrites.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Yeah, probably. I just figure that in the post-LotR era, a production like that wouldn't get very far without massive rewrites.

That and a massive increase in budget, plus maybe some recasting. Jeremy Irons playing Boris Karloff in his role didn't really cut it... After the first day of shooting that would need to be addressed by Irons getting into the role seriosuly or a new actor brought on board. The same applies generally to the other leading cast members

Cheers,
Gary

 

[boschdevil]

My issue is that I think many of the authors that wrote the original modules for D&D could write circles around many of the Hollywood script writers. So at times I wonder why they just don't take part of a module (like The Keep on the Borderlands, for example) and write a movie about that. I know it would have been a hell of a lot better than the tripe that they decided to plop onto the screen.

Heck, you could make an excellent movie on the encounters prior to the Caves of Chaos (imagine if they did a movie on the lizard men's mound, the bandit camp, the spider's web, and the Hermit (man, I love that hermit!)).

The only ones that probably made better stories (yes, to me to some degree the modules are stories) would be loremasters like Homer. (Sorry, to me they haven't met Homer's standard, but they're still pretty good). Then, I wouldn't mind it so bad if the movie tanks. Poeple outside the game could appreciate the modules that allowed us to gain a love for the game. I've owned Descent into the Depths of the Earth for 20 years, and I still like to open it and read it from time to time. But, to watch my favorite game get dragged down by movie trash like that D&D movie just drives me crazy.

 

[Hadit]

Originally posted by Grishnak ... my only redeeming feature was the Beholder [/B]

Grunt!
You can't be serious!

The beholders in that movie were horrid and brain-damaged.
UNLIKE D&D behoders totally.
TOTALLY.