Respect to Mr. Gygax and Mr. Arneson

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I lost a lot of respect for Gygax when I found out he didn't support the OGL.

http://p082.ezboard.com/fseankreynoldsboardsfrm1.showMessage?topicID=1827.topic

 

[alleynbard]

"Monte Cook: I'll nod to his editing/development with Rolemaster, but most of his impressive credits (save Labyrinth of Madness) are less than five years old. I won't even consider him in the above categories for another 5 years or so."

Umm, he practically wrote the 3.0 DMG. Why does he figure so low on your list?

 

[Particle_Man]

Actually, the more people get torqued at Gary, the more Gary follows the path of the "mythic hero", who comes to power by slaying dragons, becomes king, and then passes unpopular laws, loses favor with those in power, and eventually is killed, usually on a hill.

Not that I want to see Gary killed, on a hill or not. But just saying that the "Gary-bashing" is a psychological response with deep (mythic!) roots. People tend to want to tear down icons. Shoot John Lennon. Shoot Kennedy. "Get" Martha Stewart. That kind of stuff. Think of why tabloids sell so many copies.

Myself, I think Gary is a cool guy, and without him there would be no D&D. He is the face of D&D, in a way that no one else ever was or is (or likely will be, since the Wotc company does not usually put forward one person as a "face"). And whether there would have been 3E or not is irrelevent, as my 1st ed. books still work just fine, if I want to game.

So heck yeah, I bow to Gary. Gary the man, Gary the LEGEND! [Bows in respect]. Get well soon, big guy!

 

[Power_Word_Wedgie]

In so much that d20 resembles AD&D is purposeful choice, not lack of inspiration. It resembles OD&D and AD&D because it was meant to--but once you get past the shallow familiarity, you notice that everything simply works cleaner and better.

The people I listed (with the possible exception of Ryan) were just as able to create from whole cloth as Gary--the best example of this being Arcana Unearthed, which was intended to be a new set of archtypes for fantasy RPGs.

Well why was the choice made to stay with the framework of Arneson and Gygax. If it was so archaic why not just ditch everything. They did that when it came to THACO and combat charts. WotC owns the rights, so if the want to turn the game into roleplaying two lemming juggling, they can do so. There's no law saying that the OD&D and 1st Edition AD&D material has to stay in the books.

It's because there is more than just a shadow familiarity. All of the player races in the 1st edition PHB are the same as the 3rd edition PHB. All of the abilities are the same using the same 3-18 roll range. Most of the abilities provide the same bonuses. (to hit/damage for strength, armor class for dex, hit point bonus for con, etc.) All of the classes are the same from PHB/Unearth Arcana as they are in 3rd edition PHB. Initiative and combat sequenes are pretty similar except a rule change or two. The alignments are exactly the same between the two editions. Weapon damage is pretty much the same between the two editions. I would be shocked if there are no less than half of the spells the same at the same spell levels between the two editions. Arneson and Gygax should have been quoted as authors on the 3rd edition books because most of the material is the same.

Actually, Gary and Dave had the whole wargaming industry to fall back on. While their execution was very creative and undoubtedly influential, "one-person wargames" aren't exactly a genius-level leap as a conflux of wargames and fantasy literature.

Yes, I started in wargames before I went into D&D. None of the wargames that I was playing had the spell lists written up like D&D, had the ability score and 3-18 range like D&D, had the same player races as D&D, had the character classes like D&D. The only thing you could say it that they probably provided a combat sequence similar to D&D. You see, the authors of 3rd edition had all of the framework of Arneson and Gygax to fall back on, where Gygax and Arneson had very little. Arneson and Gygax were the inventors of D&D, and everyone else is just an optimizer. Optimizers can't work without inventors.

 

[Faraer]

I think if you're not going to extend a measure of reverence to Gary Gygax, you're taking the stance of irreverence to the point of parody. Reverence is not a sin or uncool or a gauche faux pas. Being blind to his unreplaceable significance, skill and creativity because you disagree with his views, or believe in unverifiable notions of RPG evolution and progress that he doesn't fit into, is daft.

Particle_Man is quite right above; some people are drawn to the 'knock it down' stance so powerfully that they make up reasons out of whole cloth (Gary would have destroyed TSR) to justify it.

 

[scourger]

I haven't met Dave, but I have met Gary. We had a nice conversation; none of it about gaming. He is a very nice guy. He deserves accolades for his accomplishments.

I wonder how many posters on this and other threads have actually met the people of whom they speak or if they are just basing opinions on works and quotes.

 

[Krieg]

Here is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

You seem to have confused your opinion for "the truth", you'll probably be surprised to find out how rarely the two have anything in common.

1: I never claimed not to be arrogant. But you don't see anyone bowing to me, or holding me up as an example of the hobby, so my arrogance isn't that bad.

It has nothing to do with the extent of your arrogance, rather it has everything to do with your contribution to the hobby.

No Gygax = no D&D. No Planesdragon = no change of any signifigance.

 

[adembroski3]

Though if Gary did have to die, on a hill would certainly be preferable.

Personally, Gygax's theory on OGL is irrelevant to me in terms of my level of respect for him. I'm not huge on the guy's writing, designing, or much else for that matter. I do resepect him for his contribution, ie the invention of D&D, but there something about him that just plain bugs me.

I think it goes back to the very first D&D paperback... it always seemed so damn condiscending... as does almost all of his writing. He comes off as though he thinks himself the godfather of RPGs, which I guess he is to an extent, but it's really sort of a put off.

Tracy Hickman is another guy like that. I think Tracy really dislikes the fact that Dragonlance is in anybody's control besides his. He's been quiet sense SovPress took over DL, so I think he's happy with their direction (Weis's involvement may have something to do with that). Tracy occassionally comes off as having a sort of "I"m Tracy Hickman, I Created Dragonlance, Bow Before Me" attitude. But I don't the same feelings on Hickman I have about Gygax... probably because I feel Hickman is right. He is the man behind Dragonlance, and I think it's better when he's involved.

Strange thing is, D&D's 3e facelift really took it back to a Gygaxian mentality. The whole Back to the Dungeons campaign made me think of him immediately.

 

[Dogbrain]

However, you forgot one truth: without Gary and Dave, there would have never been DnD.

So what? That doesn't mean that whatever sounds happen to randomly come out of his mouth these days are automatically pearls of wisdom. There is a vast difference between due respect and sycophantic fawning. Every single time, without fail, that somebody expresses disagreement with one of Gygax's more recent boneheaded statements, some lickspittle comes along to say "he invented the game" as if that were some sort of be-all and end-all response. It isn't. It's fawning, it's obsequious, it's sycophantic, and it's ridiculous.

 

[DClingman]

I spoke with Dave about this just yesterday. We talked at length about the history of the game and he gives great credit to others listed in this thread (Bledsaw, Zocchi, etc.). The one thing that Dave said that I thought was cool was that D&D's sucess and longevity is not measured by the creators who saw a new way to play, its the players embraced and walked down thier own paths. Without the players, there would be nothing. I took that as a particularly humble statment by a man who helped found this industry.

The forthcoming Blackmoor campaign book also has a dedication to the original players who helped create make the Blackmoor campaign fun. It lists each player as if they too owned some special place of the world. Many of the notable NPCs in Blackmoor are from actual players. I have personally met 4 of them.

These guys do deserve our respect. This is the 30th anniversary of D&D. If you want to really show respect to them, go play some games and quit worrying about what they would have done or did in the time since then. They showed us a way to play a game and we ran with it. What more should we ask of them?

Dustin