Richard Garfield vs. Gary Gygax

[MDSnowman]

I thought the original subject was Gary Gygax vs. Richard Garfield

Like celeberity Death Match?!?!

Gary Gygax all the way... he's got a mace +1 and Richard has to wait to gather more mana before he can do anything.

 

[rogueattorney]

I'm not the person you were questioning, but there's the whole he-said, he-said of Arneson's and Gygax's versions of events WRT the origins of D&D. That's at least one significant point, well-documented, where others question Gygax's take on what happened. Not saying Gygax is the one who's wrong [personally, i suspect they're both wrong, and probably to about the same degree], just that there is reputable counter-evidence.

The poster I was responding to was stating that Gygax was not telling the truth with regard to his dismissal from TSR and the Blumes/Williams regimes who ran it. I was asking for any support for that position.

I noted the disagreement between G.G. and D.A. regarding the creation of the game in a previous thread.

R.A.

 

[woodelf]

Gary Gygax is most likely "revered" because he co-created an amazingly influential game--the RPG that basically every RPG since has been based on.

I certainly would question whether there would be such a thing as RPGs at all if it hadn't been for EGG. His influence is all over the hobby, from Ars Magica to Vampire: the Masquerade. Adulation may be a little much, but it's certainly an achievement worthy of respect.

There were at least 2 other groups, elsewhere in the US, that were --><--this far from inventing RPGs. If EGG hadn't done so, someone else would've within a few years.

As to his influence on current RPGs--i'm not sure that's something to brag about. This is not, in the slightest way, EGG's fault, but i do think that the very fact that most RPGs haven't strayed very far from the model OD&D laid down is a bad thing, not a good thing. The fact that i can pick up any RPG supplement published in the last 20-25yrs, save a handful, and it is mechanically similar enough to be mechanically compatible with whatever game i'm playing, has some good points, but also speaks to the lack of innovation in the RPG field. This, of course, has nothing to do with EGG, one way or the other. But i don't think it is an unquestioned good that a lot more than the fundamental concept (role-assumption with mechanical guidelines) has been copied by most RPGs. IOW, the fact that you can see his influence "all over the hobby" isn't necessarily so good. The hobby and industry would be healthier, IMHO, if there was more diversity. Think how much poorer fiction would be if everything was clearly descended from, say, C.S.Lewis--that's, sort of, where we're at with RPGs.

And, as long as they're all gonna be the same, i personally wish they were based on a different model--what if RPGs had grown out of story circles, or round-robin writing, or improvisational acting, or fanfic, or any number of cooperative, rather than competitive, group activities, rather than wargames?

Oh, and as a nitpick: it'd be hard to pick two games closer in pedigree than Ars Magica and V:tM. It's sort of like trying to demonstrate how someone has a huge influence on "the sports world" by citing NFL and XFL.

 

[woodelf]

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.

And, your comment about a similar undeveloped idea notwithstanding, i'm much more confident that, had EGG not been around someone would've invented commercial RPGs than i am that, had Garfield not been around, someone would've invented CCGs.

Mind you, i'm not sure what my feelings are on that--as a mathematical exercise, CCGs are awesome; as a commercial enterprise, i don't think i like what they did for/to the market; as a game, i'm completely uninterested. Whereas i love RPGs, even when they get too crunchy and wargamey for my tastes (I'd rather play an RPG i "don't like" than pretty much any other type of game out there, save Once Upon a Time). So, if CCGs hadn't been invented, i'm not sure i'd mind. [And, yes, i'm considering the secondary effects of no CCGs-->WotC small or gone-->nobody to buy D&D when TSR fails-->no D&D today. I continue to believe that the D&D brandname does as much or more harm than good for the industry as a whole. I wonder if we'd have open-content RPG development without the D&D brandname to drive it initially, however, and i *do* think that open-content development is a Very Good for the RPG industry. So i guess i'll just accept the way the world currently is. ]

 

[woodelf]

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.

Can you put that style into words? Because, from my POV, the style he espouses was there for AD&D1 and has returned with D&D3E, but was largely absent in AD&D2. That is, i think that D&d3E has successfully "returned to its roots" in a lot of ways, and is, if anything, more wargamey and less "amateur theatrics" or world building than AD&D1. Which is why i don't like it. But you do [like it], so i'm wondering what differences you see between the feel/style of current D&D and D&D under Gygax's direction.

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.

One of the Gregs, in particular--it was Stafford behind Glorantha, right?

 

[Celtavian]

re

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.

Some are discussion, some are attacks.

He deserves respect. Everyone deserves respect.

Joshua,

I would assume you know what context I am using the word "respect" in as in respect for his contribution to gaming.

Nobody deserves reverence.

I'm sure you understood what context I was using this in as well. The reverence one may feel for a famous person that you are truly impressed with for their accomplishments. Gary deserves a degree of reverence for his contributions to gaming. He certainly isn't beyond reproach, but he definitely created some memorable gaming materials and had quite the impact on the D&D game.

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.

Gary is a member of the EN World community. He does post on this board and has for quite some time. I disagree with alot of Gary's points as well, and have openly disagreed with him about 3.5.

I just think it is in poor taste to start a string of threads that invite personal attacks on and criticism towards Gary while he is unable to explain his position or engage the community that he is a part of in a dialogue on the subject. I'm sure he expects this kind of criticism, but my opinon will not change: It is a poor way to treat a member of this community while he is sick.

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.

Agreed. As I said, I have personally disagreed with Gary on more than one occasion.

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

Yes, I'm aware of his status. As I told someone else here, he is Grandpa D&D in my eyes. His name is on all those old books I used when I first began playing this game.

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.

I would not have changed my position if Peter Jackson did post on this board. I would love to have a sit down with Peter Jackson to let him know how displeased I am with the changes he made to Lord of the Rings.

He is not a part of this community, Gary Gygax is, or did you fail to notice the multiple threads he uses to answer questions? If someone is part of the community, I think we should pay them some common courtesy if we are attacking their positions and they are unable to answer for reasons of poor health. If Peter Jackson were part of this community, I would have paid him the same respect if he were in poor health.

Joshua,

Personally, I gave Peter Jackson his credit for the beautiful cinematography and visuals. I also gave him credit for getting quite a few scenes right. I certainly am pissed off that he went way off base on more than a few major characters in the film and a few major events. I honestly can't believe that a fellow Lord of the Rings fan was satisfied with the current adaptation? I really, really do.

I kind of think you are taking a personal shot for no good reason. I ripped Peter Jackson because I really, really, really love Lord of the Rings. He really, really screwed up on quite a few things IMO. I'm not going to list them because I have already done so many times, just as I have listed what I think he got right.

Please don't try to compare this and my criticism (and praise) of Peter Jackson. You are misremembering my comments. If you return to my posts and go over them, you will find my opinion very mixed on the Lord of the Rings.

 

[gideon_thorne]

But you do [like it], so i'm wondering what differences you see between the feel/style of current D&D and D&D under Gygax's direction.


Ill take a stab at this. Its simply because, in 3e, its a clear case of too much information. Everything is spelled out for you. And while I am not saying that is a bad thing, for those who like such a style. It is definitely not the type of gaming feel created when the industry started.

I for one prefer an interaction where game masters create antagonists and the players character interaction creates story. From my experiences with 3e, and yes I have played ALL editions, its a matter of who has the highest stack of rule books that contain some hitherto unknown feat. Some quite alien race/species combo's have come out of it as well. Most of which make no logical consistent sense, and appear to be created to see who gets the most power.

Again, not saying this is entirely wrong, its just not the style of game once played in 2e and editions previous.

Stylisticly, idealisticly, the 3.0 system and beyond is quite removed from the sense of the games roots. Again, I am not condeming anyones choice for the system they choose to game with. I am pointing out that the ideologies of the systems are headed in quite different directions. And these directions are going to be suited to certain temperments and styles.

Having everything micromanaged and spelled out for me just doesnt' happen to be MY style.

 

[rogueattorney]

There were at least 2 other groups, elsewhere in the US, that were --><--this far from inventing RPGs. If EGG hadn't done so, someone else would've within a few years.

I've heard this a lot. And I've always wondered... Who? What game? Other than D&D, what classic RPG's were produced in the 70's? Which one was going to be published right on the heels of D&D independant of D&D's creation?

Let's see, we've got:

Empire of the Petal Throne (1975): came after D&D, was mechanically based on D&D, and was produced by G.G.'s company, TSR.

Chivalry & Sorcery (1977): came out a full 4 years after D&D was first published. Is there any chance that the impetus for its publication might have had a little something to do with D&D's popularity?

Runequest (1978): now a full 5 years after D&D's first publication, with BRP rules with a few similarities to D&D (attributes, some with the same name, ranging from 3-18, for example).

Metamorphosis Alpha (1976) and Gamma World (1978): Again, very similar rules to D&D and published by TSR.

Traveller (1977): Like C&S, does this get published (by the great wargaming company GDW, no less) if D&D hadn't already happened and become quite popular?

Superhero 2044 (1977): Grew out of a D&D campaign.

Boothill (1979): Another TSR game.

What am I forgetting? The Fantasy Trip (the forerunner to GURPS), not really put together as a complete RPG until 1980 or so. Tunnels and Trolls? Nope.

With all due respect to the creators of the above games, they would not have have been published when they were published if D&D hadn't already happened.

I think it's telling that Avalon Hill, the dominant gaming company of the time, refused to publish D&D (as did everyone else it was offered to), and was subsequently unable to ever develope their own RPG, eventually buying Runequest from Chaosium. And #2, SPI, wasn't able to come up with their own RPG, Dragonquest, until seven years after D&D came out. This doesn't indicate that G.G. and D.A. were a couple guys following the crest of a trend. This indicates to me, some pretty radical thought. I think it's apparent from reading the initial D&D rules, the subsequent Supplements, and the early issues of S&T and TD, that G.G., et al. were still coming to grips with their creation and realizing exactly what they had through 1976 or so.

And even if I'm wrong... There's a reason we celebrate Columbus day and not John Cabot day. There's a reason why we give the gold medal to the guy that finishes first. There's a reason we know who Henry Ford is, but not the second guy to build an assembly line, etc. I'm sure someone else would have eventually invented the light bulb; I'm just glad that Edison did it when he did it. Ditto Gygax and Arneson creating the RPG.

R.A.

 

[JeffB]

The seeming hero worship comes from the fact that Gary not only helped create the game, but is also personally responsible for writing a campaign setting and many adventure modules that long-time gamers consider to be classics largely unmatched by later rpg products (with, as always, some few exceptions). He is a skilled and enjoyable DM, and those individuals (again mostly long-term gamers) who had a chance over the years to play with him have generally fond memories of the experience. Gary also possesses a wealth of knowledge on many topics related to medieval-based gaming, is a very accessible and friendly individual, and, while he is not always correct, is always worth listening to.

BRAVO! Well said.

 

[Wolv0rine]

*Nods* I think most everyone here's on the same page. EGG is The Man because we're all here on the road he started building. Gary put it all together in the end (even if he didn't do it alone, he was the face on the masthead), he tried to watchguard the quality of it, he was the PR man. Before he lost control He made the D&D cartoon happen (and the cartoon, along with the D&D ads in comics, are what initially hooked Me). Everywhere you look, when the RPG field was being pushed, helped, hyped, or encouranged, you seem to find Gary.
Now all these years later, I strongly disagree with the man on nearly every aspect of RPG theory, but I Respect the man.. because I'm here on the road he started building. Sure, someone else might have done it, but they didn't. Gary did.

As far as this Garfield guy goes... I was into M:tG for about a year, after which I developed a sudden and overpowering hatred of the game and anyone who played it through a combination of my own personal experiences with game stores and players of the game. Aside from the info given in this thread, I never heard of the guy. But if he's a near-unknown among the players of the game he created, I feel for the guy for missing some good-will that Gary definately gets.