Respect to Mr. Gygax and Mr. Arneson

[Dogbrain]

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

This is exactly the sort of fawning I'm talking about. We must never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever criticize Saint Gary because he started the game.

I do not fawn.

 

[heimdall]

I look at Gygax in much the same way as I look at Bobby Fischer from chess.

Bobby Fischer did things in chess that were beyond belief. He even gave away a game in forfeit before winning the world chess title. His march to the title with the win streaks at the Interzonals were unthinkable. However, if you look at Bobby's words of today, it's pretty sad. I can respect the man's chess without respecting the man's viewpoint.

With Gygax, I respect what he has started. I respect a lot of the work he put into the RPG industry and the efforts he still contributes. While I may disagree with him about the OGL, I can still respect what he's done. I also have read his threads on here and he has been very, very kind in answering questions that are thrown from every different angle. That, too, is worthy of respect.

 

[Lurch]

This is the same type of debate that gets whipped up when people discuss Tolkien. Any time I describe LOTR as "a great story told poorly" people break out the torches & pitchforks. I happen to enjoy Tolkien's stories a great deal, but at the same time I find Tolkien's writing style excessively, annoyingly dry & pedantic.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

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.

In reading interviews with and articles from the designers, they considered the sort of changes you describe.

All of the classes are the same from PHB/Unearth Arcana as they are in 3rd edition PHB.

This, of course, is flat-out not true. Were this so, I would expect one of two things:

1) to see the Cavalier, Thief-Acrobat and Assassin in the PHB 3e

or

2) to see the Sorcerer in the PHB 1e or Unearthed Arcana 1e.

Initiative and combat sequenes are pretty similar except a rule change or two.

Another completely untrue statement. In 1e, roll a d6 each round, high roll goes first, modified by the incomprehensible Weapon Speed Factor rules everyone ignored. (I'm talking about 1e, not 2e, I know Weapon Speed Factor was much better in that.) In 3e, roll d20 at the start of combat, Dex modifier, same order continuously.

Weapon damage is pretty much the same between the two editions.

Except for the different damage against large size creatures.

Arneson and Gygax should have been quoted as authors on the 3rd edition books because most of the material is the same.

Read the title page on the 3.5e PHB:

"Based on the original Dungeons & Dragons game created by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson."

 

[Ourph]

Condemnation?

Go back and read my post. I said that Gary (1) had a lack of understanding and (2) was arrogant--as in, more confident and outspoken than his accomplishments give him a right to.

I'm not an idiot. I did read your post. In fact, if you'll read MY post, I quoted the parts I was responding to. I'll do so again, so that your obfuscation and misrepresentation of what I said can be clearly illustrated.

OTOH, Mr. Gygax's actions since he left TSR nearly twenty years ago are suffiicent to give some cause to disrespect him

You clearly said that Gary deserves disrespect for his actions. Condemnation precedes disrespect. I'm just curious to know what exactly you think those actions are. Can you enumerate them, or are you simply speaking from ignorance?

If I wanted to list things to condemn Mr. Gygax for, I would probably start with what he did while in charge of TSR, and continue with the overly geeky way he has portrayed our hobby since.

What exactly did he do while he was in charge of TSR that is deserving of disrespect. When Gary was forced to leave the company it had strong sales, the fans of D&D numbered in the millions and the company was publishing quality products for those fans. The D&D brand name didn't tank until years after Gary was gone. At that time, the people who drove him from the company were in charge. Gary was forced out of control of TSR several times during his tenure. Each time the company did poorly. Each time Gary was put back in charge it recovered. Please tell us what about that is worthy of disrespect.

1: I never claimed not to be arrogant.

Then maybe you shouldn't be complaining about that trait in others.

2: The man wrote a game system that had names changed for no real good reason, and not a few weeks ago advocated the sort of tight-control over RPG products that would have meant that everything d20 that SSS or Mongoose or Malhovic have ever done would have simply not been created.

IIRC, the people you hold up as worthy of respect changed quite a few names when they did their rewrite of Gary's game. If we're going to complain about that particular sin, there's a WHOOOOLE LOT of blame to pass around. As for his opinions on the OGL, Gary was ASKED for his opinion by an interviewer. He gave it. Arrogance is broadcasting your unsolicited opinions in the mistaken notion that people do or should care about them. The fact is, there ARE people who still consider Gary's opinions and thoughts relevant for any number of good reasons, but I've only seen him give them when he's asked.

As for the indy products you mention,from his past comments, it's clear that Gary thinks they are of lower quality than products that could be produced by a dedicated, focused licensee or core company and that gamers and the hobby would be better off with other products in place of them. Obviously you disagree. The problem is, your response, Sean K. Reynolds response, lots of people's response is to say that Gary Gygax is "uninformed" about the OGL and independent RPG products. That's a crock! Gary has a different opinion, a different perspective about what makes good gaming material. It's a perspective that I and a lot of other gamers agree with. Dismissing someone's opinion as uninformed just because you disagree with it is intellectual dishonesty and analytical cowardice at its worst.

Some people express a fondness for differenet "game systems", as if learning how to play a game was so much fun you'd rather learn a new game than play one you know. This is, in my opinion, simply wrong--not maliciously wrong, not foolishly wrong, but the sort of wrong that a good meaning intelligent person can mistankingly conclude.

And some people think that standardizing the RPG industry to a single game system is good for the gaming industry, despite the fact that no one gaming system is going to appeal to every RPG player. In fact, some may loathe that gaming system and refuse to play it, leaving RPGs altogether or buying only OOP products rather than playing a gaming system that they do not find enjoyable. Some people think that a single game system can do justice to every genre and game type. Thinking that a single system industry is beneficial for both players and the hobby is simply wrong -- not maliciously wrong, not foolishly wrong, but the sort of wrong that comes from the self-centered attitude that your opinions, likes and dislikes are the opinions, likes and dislikes of every other intelligent well-meaning RPGer in the hobby.

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.

Funny! Once I got past the shallow familiarity I noticed that everything worked slower and worse, and that neither I nor my players enjoyed the game anymore.

Oops! I guess that makes me an outdated dinosaur whose opinions don't matter because I'm "out of touch". I'd better shut up before I destroy the gaming industry.

 

[Power_Word_Wedgie]

In reading interviews with and articles from the designers, they considered the sort of changes you describe.

But, at the end of the day, they didn't. It is a game that remarkably similar, if not the same, to their predecessors. That's why I put more creedence in what was done versus what was said. Anybody can say anything, but at the end of the day, it is what they do which is important.

This, of course, is flat-out not true. Were this so, I would expect one of two things:

1) to see the Cavalier, Thief-Acrobat and Assassin in the PHB 3e

or

2) to see the Sorcerer in the PHB 1e or Unearthed Arcana 1e.

Ok, the sorcerer wasa slip-up on my account. I think that I put the sorcerer in an earlier post but not in the one. All the same, 11 out of the 12 classes (92%) in the 3rd edition character classes were from 1st edition AD&D references. I'd call that a sizable population of the available classes.

Another completely untrue statement. In 1e, roll a d6 each round, high roll goes first, modified by the incomprehensible Weapon Speed Factor rules everyone ignored. (I'm talking about 1e, not 2e, I know Weapon Speed Factor was much better in that.) In 3e, roll d20 at the start of combat, Dex modifier, same order continuously.

Please note that I say a rule or two difference. It's still the surpirse-initiative-combat methodology used for determination of combat as was used for OD&D and AD&D versions.

Except for the different damage against large size creatures.

Yes, but the damage is pretty much the same as small creature damage from 1st edition AD&D. Thus, I wouldn't call this type of change in 3rd edition revolutionary and would lean toward them beingthe same.

Read the title page on the 3.5e PHB:

"Based on the original Dungeons & Dragons game created by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson."

I'd say it's a little more than "based", but it is still credit where credit is due. It's the same framework as OD&D and AD&D which is the reason why I'm flabbergasted when people say that they hate AD&D and OD&D but love 3rd edition or vice-versa. It's the same game.

 

[Power_Word_Wedgie]

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.

No, whatever they say are not automatically pearls of wisdoms. That's why I equated them to kings, not gods. Kings are still human, like Gygax and Arneson. Kings have said some bad stuff, and their subjects may not agree with what they did, but at the end of the day the king is still king.

However, Arneson and Gygax invented the game, which is a sizable achievement. Furthermore, they are the first that came up with campaign worlds and modules, so they offer a unique perspective to these subjects. They should be given credit for these significant accomplishments and shouldn't be waived off by the "what have you done for me lately" mindset.

If you don't want to fawn for Arneson and Gygax, the more power to you. No one is saying that you should. However, when you pick up a die to roll initiative or peruse through the core rule books, please note that you're doing the items due to Arneson's and Gygax's accomplishments. That's all I'm trying to say as well as the thread originator.

 

[Darklone]

Well... I don't mind the OGL or other changes about D&D in the last 10 years... but everytime some dude tells me about D&D rules he knows from a mediocre computergame, I really doubt whether THAT was worth the whole trouble.

Sooo Virate... no computergames with D&D rules would have been fine by me.

 

[CarlZog]

In the hierarchy of gaming legends: Gygax, Arneson, and Lou Zocchi sit atop the gamer gods by the grognards (google Zocchi - Gamescience little children and learn!).
For ba-jillions of little card gamers, Richard Garfield goes here.


Steve Jackson, Sandy Peterson, and *cough* Kevin Siembeda (sp?) are on the intermediate level. Peter Adkinson would fit here in an directly opposite spot that she-who-shall-not-be-named should be here (Not all gaming legends are good! )

Amen, brother.

To that intermediate level, I'd add Greg Stafford.

And if we are talking about the real origins of this hobby, H.G. Wells and Charles Roberts had better start getting some credit again!

zog

 

[JRRNeiklot]

"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?

Not that Monte is low on my list, but the above IS a strike against him.

I like Monte's writing, but the 3e mechanics drove me to Hackmaster.