Richard Garfield vs. Gary Gygax

[Mouseferatu]

As far as I'm concerned, coming to a well-known gaming site like EN World to ask questions about gaming history is research. Sure, it's not viable for an actual research paper, but as far as someone's personal curiosity, it's valid. Why should he go to Google first, when there's a number of people here who can answer his question? That's part of what this community is for. Anyone who doesn't want to deal with the issue certainly isn't required, but frankly, telling him that he's wasting people's time and he should go to Google is, IMO, only marginally less rude than the comment about "some people should lurk more." Some people's noise is other people's signal, and nobody has the right to dictate the proper ratio.

 

[Gutboy Barrelhouse]

Er, Lorraine Williams was never married to EGG.

Props to everyone who has posted in this thread pointing out that EGG has been very good to ENWorld by answering hundreds of questions here and being a gent and a good sport about it.

I've seen a lot of Gygax-bashing across the board-o-verse today and I'm glad that I read this thread first when visiting here today.

 

[Celtavian]

re

You know, I don't always agree with Gary Gygax's views on gaming. He is a very opinionated man as are many gamers. He definitely doesn't pull many punches with his opinions and somtimes he takes shots as people who don't deserve his derision (Ed Greenwood for example).

But, I also don't think people should be attacking him right now. I believe Gary is sick last I heard and unable to respond to these attacks (I don't whether he would if he could, but still). Right now I see two threads with a bash on Gary theme, and I don't think that is too cool.

Gary has been an advocate of gaming along time. He has a been a great inspiration to this industry. He deserves every bit of reverence he receives from gamers for creating this classic game that still survives 30 years later.

Please have some respect, and stop attacking Gary while he is sick.

 

[Zappo]

Man, I have the wrong hobby! Seriously, what is magic the gathering like? I know it is some kind of card game with a cult following in the late 90s, but Ive really never seen anyone play.

To oversimplify, each player represents a wizard with some life points, and each card represents either a land or a spell. Lands give you mana to cast spells. There are all sorts of spells; summoned creatures are rather prominent, so there's a very simple battle mechanic for them (basically, highest number wins). You win by depleting the other guy's life points. Fairly straightforward. The complexity arises from the fact that any card can modify the rules in an arbitrary manner; the special rules are written on the card itself in a very clear language, so you don't have to actually learn the text of every card to play. There are more than 6000 different cards in existance, though you only play with 60 (or more, but most players agree that the less, the better; randomness is your enemy).

The collectability arises from the fact that you've got to have a card if you want to use it. The skill (and, believe me, this isn't a game of luck) lies in "building a deck", i.e. defining a strategy, deciding how many of which cards will best implement that strategy, and fit everything in a 60 cards deck, as well as in actually playing, where you usually have to keep track of a lot of stuff going on while keeping a poker face. The money, if you are very good at it, comes from screwing other people in trades and selling your ill-gotten cards; few people actually make money at tournaments, since tournament-level playing requires lots of time and energy.

[/hijack]

As the mathematician Richard Garfield knew very well, simple elements produce incredible complexity if they are allowed to interact. Would you believe that I had a very similar idea in 1992? Then I dismissed it thinking it was too weird. I still mentally kick myself for it. Garfield's stroke of genius is comparable to Gygax's, but Richard Garfield has never been the face for his game. I think many players don't even know who he is.

 

[Henry]

Would you believe that I had a very similar idea in 1992? Then I dismissed it thinking it was too weird.

I had a similar idea as early as 1990, Back when I read Robert Aspirin's Myth series and learned of Dragon Poker. Of course, my and my friends' energies were all devoted to trying to really creat Dragon Poker, rather than making our own game.

 

[MerricB]

I've been playing Magic: the Gathering for over ten years, and it's still one of the games I love the most. It is one of the most interesting two-player games there is, because of the variety.

Does it require skill? Absolutely. When you look at tournaments, it is normally the same people who win. Even in Booster Draft and Sealed Deck (which is when you are given a random selection of cards to build a deck with), the better players still win consistently.

Great game. Really great.

Richard is just too interested in designing new games to be the face of Magic - there's a bunch of board and card games he's designed that were released by Wizards over the years.

Mark Rosewater is basically the "Face of Magic". I think he's currently the head of Magic Design, and he writes a weekly column for Magicthegathering.com - it's worth reading for some of the design insights he gives in it. (He was a professional writer, and it shows).

Like Gary, Mark seems a really great guy.

Cheers!

 

[Dogbrain]

Lorriane was also respoable for all those Buck Rodgers Games that no one ever bought but always made it on to the production schedule.

And it's her ownership of the Buck Rogers trademark and other IP that explains that quite nicely. She brought Buck Rogers in with her, even though I'm quite certain that she (like so many mere heirs) had nothing but disdain for "the sort of people" who would actually like the product.

 

[rogueattorney]

I think Gygax twists some things around, there's a bunch of stuff I've read that he's written only to find a second version of events from people who worked with him and around him.

Any citation from one of the principles would be appreciated. Or are you just repeating Internet gossip?

R.A.

 

[Desdichado]

You know, I don't always agree with Gary Gygax's views on gaming. He is a very opinionated man as are many gamers. He definitely doesn't pull many punches with his opinions and somtimes he takes shots as people who don't deserve his derision (Ed Greenwood for example).

Yes, that's certainly true. And that's what makes him a target for threads like this more often than not. In particular, his view on the OGL is under attack in the other main thread.

But, I also don't think people should be attacking him right now. I believe Gary is sick last I heard and unable to respond to these attacks (I don't whether he would if he could, but still). Right now I see two threads with a bash on Gary theme, and I don't think that is too cool.

Does that mean we also shouldn't post our opinion on statements or personalities that don't come to the message boards? Or are dead? These attacks aren't personal attacks, they aren't the kinds of posts that he needs to respond to or answer, they are discussions of his management of TSR (which is primarily, at least now, a matter of public record) and a discussion of his openly stated opinions on things like the OGL, 3rd edition, his style of gaming, etc. which are always open targets for discussion regardless of Gygax's health.

Gary has been an advocate of gaming along time. He has a been a great inspiration to this industry. He deserves every bit of reverence he receives from gamers for creating this classic game that still survives 30 years later.

Please have some respect, and stop attacking Gary while he is sick.

He deserves respect. Everyone deserves respect. Nobody deserves reverence. He doesn't deserve to be on a pedestal, nor does it really do him any service to place him on one. He's as likely to be wrong about the hobby as any other gamer, in my experience. His contributions to the hobby have been dubious since his ousting at TSR. His style of gaming specifically infused D&D with a culture that drove me away for a decade and a half while I did other games instead. What he did in promoting and marketting RPGs as a genre of game/book was impressive, but I have no doubt that someone else would have done the same thing within a few years if he hadn't. His efforts are the gestalt of the work and play of a number of people.

Unfortunately (for him, although it's certainly mitigated by the fact that he became fabulously wealthy over it at one point) that puts him in the position where his opinions will be analyzed and discussed more than most, and his olde fashioned ideas about gaming (indeed, some would say myopic, egotistical and obsolete ideas, and it's a valid opinion to have) ensure that they will recieve a fair bit of criticism.

But that's the nature of the beast. He's a minor celebrity amongst gamers, and he's outspoken, so these "attacks" will continue.

By the way, where were your noble goals stated here when you were "viciously attacking" Peter Jackson over the Lord of the Rings movies, who doesn't even read these boards (as far as we know?) Please, let's try to keep the hero worship and double standards to a minimum.

 

[EricNoah]

As far as I'm concerned, coming to a well-known gaming site like EN World to ask questions about gaming history is research. Sure, it's not viable for an actual research paper, but as far as someone's personal curiosity, it's valid. Why should he go to Google first, when there's a number of people here who can answer his question? That's part of what this community is for.

And to elaborate -- the research I've read on "information-seeking behavior" suggests (much to a librarian's dismay!) that a typical person's first impulse when faced with a need for information is to ask another person, no matter how many printed or electronic resources they have ready access to. It's human nature, baby!