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]

...that you may or may not want to answer:

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1933359&postcount=1

That's such a load of manure that i wouldn't waste time responding. the fellow is either delusional or a congenital liar. Real spell components indeed! As if there were real spells... Of course, a legume does usually produce a gust of wind

The magic is the game is as real as the weapons, gold, and monsters. Talk about not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality!

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Hi Gary---

Over on Dragonsfoot, we're having an extensive discussion about when a 1e invisibility spell/potion ends:

1. The PC appears before the attack is physically attempted---hence drawing the sword, notching the bow, etc. cancels the invisibility and forces the PC to appear.
2. The PC appears during/after an attempted attack, whether the attack is successful or not; whether the PC appears in the nanosecond the attack begins or anytime during the follow-through stroke seems to be the center of debate. In either case, a drawn sword or notched bow does not cancel the invisibility, which ends only when the physical attack is attempted.
3. The PC remains invisible until after an offensive action has been attemped. This can be in the form of a spell or melee attack (or a pick pockets attempt??). The PC is invisible throughout the entire attack attempt. After the attempt is finished, whether successful or not, the PC becomes visible. If PC attempts an attack but misses, the PC still becomes visible. Or, after the offensive spell casting begins, the mage will become visible, whether the spell has any effect or not.
4. The PC does not appear until a successful attack has been made. If the PC attempts the attack but misses, the PC remains invisible. The original query raised by Paul Stormberg was whether or not an MU's invisibility would end after his attempted fireball spell was interrupted by a giant's hurled boulder.

Can you please clarify which option is correct?

Thanks

Option #2 fits the bill perfectly. When in process of attacking, and that would include picking a pocket, the formerly invisible character appears, the dweomer of the invisibility spell being cancelled thus. the action takes place before anyne can do anything about it, but the attacker is visable and thereafter subject to counter-measures.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Hi Gary---

What's the status of your MMORPG for LA---any news on that front?

The Dreams Interactive team is working on the LA Online game. The delay is due to lack of major financing, so they are doing "side projects" to keep the income flowing. There is interest from a major producer, but such negotiations seem to take forever.

We hope that the beta test will happen this year.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Hi Gary!

First off, thanks ever so much (may not be important for you to hear, but it's terribly important for me to say).

Secondly, I was wondering if you had the chance to read George RR Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series, and if so, what you thought of them?

If you have not, (seeing as I think I owe you one), please let me recommend them. I read so little fantasy these days as I find so much of it tedious and unoriginal. Martin's works, happily, are the exception to the rule and a true diamond-in-the-rough.

Thanks for the tip

I am reading a book on Chuirchill's statesmanship and a David Drake SF novel after finishing all the "Judge Dee" mysteries.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Hi,

could you expound on those hidden means?

Thanks!

Yes, but I don't care to. That's my confidential creative material

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Wow. I won't bore you by going on and on about how much joy I've gotten from D&D, but I do want to say thanks. It's affected my life in some great ways, including better confidence in speaking, quick-thinking, responding to interpersonal situations - in other words, it's been great not just while I'm playing but has indirectly but meaningfully improved the quality of my life. So, err, thanks .

Anyway, this statement above grabbed my attention. The reasons might be widely known, so my apologies if I'm asking you to explain something for the 10th time. I've been playing since the early 80s, and to me 3E seemed such a clear improvement - standardized task resolution, clarified magic item creation processes, manageable skill ratings, ability to take character skill development in unexpected directions via new classes, linear attribute bonuses, etc. - that I wonder what it is that you dislike so strongly. Of course, maybe those are the same things you hate and it's simply a matter of taste? I've heard so many people talk about 'flavor' in denigrating 3E, but it's something I've never understood, as to me the DM has always been the determinant of that largely independent of the system - is this a part of your thought process?

Please be clear that I'm not putting early versions down, I've loved 'em all. Any additional color on your above point would be greatly appreciated. As always, best wishes in future endeavors and on your continuing health and prosperity.

Actually, I think it inappropriate to knock new D&D on a website designed to promote the game. Suffice to say it isn't my cup of tea. If you are at all familiar with the Lejendary Adventure game system, you'll be able to compare and contrast. know quite well what I find positive in a RPG and what I don't enjoy.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Is the Colonel still checking this thread, or is he too busy working on Castle Zagyg? If so, please continue good sir!
(Wipes drool from face at the thought of it finally being published.)

Heh,

What I am ding mainly of late is spending a lot of time reading and relaxing--working maybe an hour or two a day. However, I'd have kept up here, but I wasn't getting any emails calling my attention to poste being made here.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Gary had computer problems, a while back, and is still offline, as far as I know.

Steverooo, you said it. I had my desktop loaded with working files, and that crashed my machine. I was offliine and computerless for two weeks as my date was being recivered, a backup put into place, firewalls, and an external harddrive to save everythng automatically. All worked well, though, and things are in fine shape now--save for the 100-200 SPAM emails I get daily. My Delete action is well exercised and very quick these days

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Welcome back Gary! I'm sure I'm just the first of a chorus of wishes for your good health.

Thanks, and i can use all such

I know you're quite backlogged in this thread but, when you get to it, I'm wondering if you would be willing to comment on how you saw the Monk class as working when it first appeared in the core rules.

Did you imagine monks living in the same societies as characters of classes like the Paladin and Druid or did you see the Monks as part of an Oriental civilization that was separate from but in contact with the civilization that produced Paladins and Druids?

I must say that I enjoy posting, for it is almost as much fun as shooting the breeze with fellow gamers in person...and I don't get out and about much these days...

Anyway, as to the original Monk class, I envisaged them mainly as wanderers from afar, some few being established in monestaries in the non-Oriental (or whatever nomer one might choose to describe a place of like cultures, states and societies). If you ever saw the TV series Kung Fu, that was rather the model I used for the monk PC as far as general interaction in the campaign--sans the racism.

So yes, the cultures and societies that produced Monk characters were quite different from the usual Western/Northern/Southern European models, but actually covered in the World of Greyhawk setting, for the far western states therein could well house some small number of such monastic warrior societies.

BTW, we never had more than about three Monk PCs in my campaign, those out of some 60-70 players over time, each with around two or three different PCs.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[BOZ]

glad to see you back, double-G.