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.

 

[Jhulae]

Yuppers One genius or two very able players can get by, but who to such a small group if they are not "on" during a session where the challenges are extreme. Three or more persons tend to cross-pollenate ideas and the diversity of abilities amongst several characters makes play easier and more interesting.

Cheers,
Gary

I'll agree that with less players (three or less), the players really do have to be "on" (as you say) to avoid disaster, especially in tough combats or tricky puzzles. And, larger groups tend to have more 'exciting' adventures, because there's usually a lot of action going on.

However, sometimes, the play with a smaller group can be more interesting than with a larger group, because the DM can give more attention to each player, and there's more opportunity for roleplay between the characters and NPCs without having to worry about other players getting bored.

In fact, I think some of the most interesting games can be 'two player' games, with one player and the DM, because the roleplay can be so intense.

I guess, in short, I'm really saying that both large and small groups have their pros and cons, and that I like both, but wouldn't want to be limited to just one of the two.

 

[RFisher]

When I write for publication I add a lot more detail than I do for my own personal use.

You know, I still sometimes have to consciously force myself not to try to fully emulate modules when I'm working on my own dungeons. When I was a kid, modules were the only example I had to follow, & I didn't recognize the difference between rough & practical preparation v. polish for publication. By the time I did, I'd already formed bad habits that are tough to break.

 

[BOZ]

Well, he's already (kind of) done television!

cartoon voices definitely count.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Gary,

Here's a link with free pdf's to download and print various types of graph paper.

http://incompetech.com/beta/plainGraphPaper

Thanks for the heads up

I would like to ask about your views on the female strenght limits in OAD&D.

After playing for a while with them, as DM I dropped the limits in my campaign when a female player rolled 18/95 strength for her female fighter. One half of my long time OAD&D gaming group is female, so I let my orginal ruling from way back in 1980 still stand. The character gender ends up being about 50/50 most of the time. It's never been a balance issue, however it gives up a little realism in favor of flexibility for players.

Later one of the players and I did a little research (mid 1980's) on female strength based on the Olympic/world records etc. 18/63 seemed a realistic limit. Last year I revised the topic and based on the new records etc 18/76 seemed like a new realistic limit.

When DMing OAD&D these days, at character generation do you keep the orginal limits for females or have they been changed etc?

I agree that human males can develop greater upper body strength than human females etc.

Your alternation doesn't disturb me in the least. Why I decided on realism in regards to male/female strength is beyond me. After all in a fantasy game that doesn't make a great deal of sense. I suppose I just wasn't thinking the matter through in regards the genre. I do not have such differentiations in the Lejendary Adventure game.

As for the actual difference between males and females, I am quite comfortable with the limits I placed in the book...unless steroids are taken into account. Males have some 30% more muscle mass, IIRR, and they are taller and heavier than females. All of that matters in combat.

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[Davelozzi]

You know, I still sometimes have to consciously force myself not to try to fully emulate modules when I'm working on my own dungeons. When I was a kid, modules were the only example I had to follow, & I didn't recognize the difference between rough & practical preparation v. polish for publication. By the time I did, I'd already formed bad habits that are tough to break.

Me too. I can remember when I was young actually going so far as to draw and color in a cover for my adventures, complete with level recommendations, the D&D (or AD&D) logo, and a letter-number designation. Later that evolved a bit into simply a tendency to overprepare, and these days I'm at a point where I just make notes sufficient to run the game.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

I've always been curious as to how much material Gary uses in his D&D games (both original and Advanced). Would he stick with the original stuff, like the lil' brown/white box and Greyhawk supplement for OD&D and just the first few hardcovers for AD&D; or does he go all out and use the Rules Cyclopedia and stuff from Unearthed Arcana (some or all?) or the Wilderness/Duneoneer's Survival Guides?

Short answer: I am not now, not have i ever been, a rules lawyer. Rule-playing is distasteful to me. The rules I use in any play session depend on underlying game, the player group, and the demands of the scenario. As the GM I pick and choose what I think will best suit the situation.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Hello again Gary, it is nice to see the time you have taken to answer these many queries.

As a follow up to this, when did you do unique Greyhawk gods, and why?

You mention Norse dieties in the DMG, and the impression I had of the OD&D cleric and paladin was that they were basically Christian!

The first published dieties for the game were from human cultures--though some non-human dieties were added for the AD&D dieties and demigods. The first time I saw Greyhawk gods was in the pages of Dragon.

So, what motivated you to do your own pantheon?

Well, amigo,

When one "creates" a fantasy world setting that is totally divorced from our world, it is logical that special, unique deities are needed to fill it, for clerics subsume deities that are served. Thus I began adding deities to my campaign early in 1973, and those became the first deities of the World of Greyhawk.

BTW, as the Lejendary Earth world setting is a parallel earth, the deities used for it are all based off of those from our mythology.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[francisca]

Thanks for the heads up



Your alternation doesn't disturb me in the least. Why I decided on realism in regards to male/female strength is beyond me. After all in a fantasy game that doesn't make a great deal of sense. I suppose I just wasn't thinking the matter through in regards the genre. I do not have such differentiations in the Lejendary Adventure game.

As for the actual difference between males and females, I am quite comfortable with the limits I placed in the book...unless steroids are taken into account. Males have some 30% more muscle mass, IIRR, and they are taller and heavier than females. All of that matters in combat.

Cheerio,
Gary

Seems you were under the spell of realism when writing the OAD&D PHB, with AC adjustments, weapon speeds, and gender differences. Gladly, they are all easily ignored, with no detriment to play (at least not in my experience).

Oh, and get to work on Hazgar!!!!

 

[Col_Pladoh]

I'll agree that with less players (three or less), the players really do have to be "on" (as you say) to avoid disaster, especially in tough combats or tricky puzzles. And, larger groups tend to have more 'exciting' adventures, because there's usually a lot of action going on.

...

For me that says it all. I know few players that prefer yakking over hacking, and if as the GM I don't supply some action situations after an hour, the group takes matters into their own hands and begins creating mayhem.

As a matter of fact, I have played a good deal of one-on-one adventuring. I used that opportunity to gather a body of henchmen, direct them, and thus managed a great number of successful ambushes, raids, forays, and melees

Different strokes and all

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

You know, I still sometimes have to consciously force myself not to try to fully emulate modules when I'm working on my own dungeons. When I was a kid, modules were the only example I had to follow, & I didn't recognize the difference between rough & practical preparation v. polish for publication. By the time I did, I'd already formed bad habits that are tough to break.

I don't believe detailed notes are a bad habit at all! just don't include a lot of explanatory material that you read aloud. That's for commercial modules and serves to generally familiarize all persons participating, the GM included, with the tenor and style of the scenario.

Anyway, if you don't slavishly adhere to your detailed notes, they are a boon, and such information might well enable you to have your module published;0

Cheers,
Gary