D&D General The Human Side of D&D History - From Gary Gygax to Temple of Elemental Evil

No you did not, your entire focus has been on gygax as a person. The key part you are missing is how what you think you showed is relevant to early d&d & the history of d&d itself. Claiming you showed a thing you never attempted to show does not accomplish that
and denying that I did when I actually did will not help either 🤷

I do not need to write a dissertation on this to satisfy the sealions, for one that would not satisfy them either

I told you how it is relevant, Gary the person informed D&D the game, it reflects his perspective. There has been enough virtual ink shed on this that you can easily find things if you actually wanted to
 

log in or register to remove this ad

and denying that I did when I actually did will not help either 🤷

I do not need to write a dissertation on this to satisfy the sealions, for one that would not satisfy them either
No, I don't think you understand what is being asked, that or you very much do understand and know that you are uincapable of drawing a link so just declare it to be "sea lioning" "gaslighting" & similar.

If you didn't want a discussion perhaps the first step would have been to not make a claim like "gygax was sexist" in a thread about d&d history or start a thread separate from history like "list of sexists"
 

No you did not, your entire focus has been on gygax as a person. The key part you are missing is how what you think you showed is relevant to early d&d & the history of d&d itself. Claiming you showed a thing you never attempted to show does not accomplish that
The relevance seemed stated up front in the big book preface, that there are elements in the OD&D books and the development material that shows sexism and casual slavery and such and that the reader is being forewarned.

I am not familiar enough with the totality of OD&D or any of the development draft material and correspondences in the book to say how that played out in the 500 pages of the book's OD&D material.

The do not talk about religion thing axed supplement IV entirely from the project though.
 


1733170185871.jpeg


But we're just trying to understand. 😉
 

As a fan of history, I like work that shows historical figures in all their complexity, good sides and bad sides. There's so many stories of well-known criminals also being very kind and generous in other contexts, or strong-willed politicians being absolute terrible husbands, etc.

I often feel that a first group tend to overly defend or deny the flaws and wrong-doings of important figures "He wasn't sexist! She didn't have a choice! It was only the culture at the time!". The second group tend, once these flaws and wrong-doings have come out, to erase these figures entirely.

I disagree with both approaches. My favorite author is Hemingway. Amazing writer, great journalist, captivating figure, not the best person. I think you can explore both of these sides, honor their work and study their shortcomings. It's just the richest path forward.
 





Trending content

Remove ads

Top