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

[Maxperson]

I can't even remember enough about it to be able to search for it.

That's a shame. It sounded like it would have been a very interesting read.

 

[Umbran]

How do we balance honest criticism while remembering these are real people who helped build our hobby?

Unfortunately, the way internet discussions go, they tend to drive to poles. It doesn't matter if we are talking about Damage on a Miss or Gary Gygax - the discussion goes to the extremes. This happens even if the people in the discussion don't start with extreme positions.

 

[Umbran]

I can't even remember enough about it to be able to search for it.

That's a shame. It sounded like it would have been a very interesting read.

You might start by a search for posts by "Col_Pladoh", which was Gary's username here. There's 25 pages of search results - which is a lot, but tractable if you're dedicated.

 

[Maxperson]

You might start by a search for posts by "Col_Pladoh", which was Gary's username here. There's 25 pages of search results - which is a lot, but tractable if you're dedicated.

I went through it and didn't see the thread. It's possible I missed it among all the Q&A posts, though. I did find a number of threads he posted in that I found interesting, though, so it wasn't a waste of time.

 

[Hussar]

The thing is, people need to recognize that putting something into context is not a condemnation. That it's okay that something isn't perfect. That you don't have to defend EVERY SINGLE CRITICISM as if it was the end of the world.

But, apparently, people have a really difficult time separating things. Saying something like, "There was sexist art in early D&D" is not condemning early D&D. It's not saying that that is all there was. It's stating a fact. And easily demonstrable fact. That doesn't make it an attack on anyone. It doesn't meant that if you liked Elmore art you are somehow a bad person.

It's simply stating a fact. And facts are not attacks.

 

[Umbran]

The thing is, people need to recognize that putting something into context is not a condemnation. That it's okay that something isn't perfect. That you don't have to defend EVERY SINGLE CRITICISM as if it was the end of the world.

When the man is more of a symbol than a man, though, and he has become a symbol of your personal identity, it can feel like you do.

So, one of the things that would help these conversations is folks recognizing that emotional attachment, in themselves and in others, and managing the responses it generates.

Same goes for the game as a whole - when part of your identity includes a particular game or style, watch for and manage the emotional reactions.

 

[Voadam]

And facts are not attacks.

I don’t agree that is always true. Ugly facts can be devastating attacks.

That doesn’t mean the facts should be hidden or not put into context but they can be attacks depending on their use.

 

[Hussar]

I don’t agree that is always true. Ugly facts can be devastating attacks.

That doesn’t mean the facts should be hidden or not put into context but they can be attacks depending on their use.

How is an ugly fact an attack? If it’s a fact then it’s true. Which means it should be known. If it wasn’t known then what was known was a lie. Probably a deliberately fabricated lie for the benefit of someone.

Saying that Roman society was sometimes incredibly cruel isn’t an attack on Roman society. It’s a fact of that society and ignoring that fact paints Roman society in a very different light. A light that’s generally been used to hide all sorts of ugly truths and justify quite a few more.

If someone thinks that facts are an attack, they need to step back and really examine the thing they are defending.

 

[Voadam]

How is an ugly fact an attack? If it’s a fact then it’s true. Which means it should be known. If it wasn’t known then what was known was a lie. Probably a deliberately fabricated lie for the benefit of someone.

Saying that Roman society was sometimes incredibly cruel isn’t an attack on Roman society. It’s a fact of that society and ignoring that fact paints Roman society in a very different light. A light that’s generally been used to hide all sorts of ugly truths and justify quite a few more.

If someone thinks that facts are an attack, they need to step back and really examine the thing they are defending.

Facts can be effective attacks.

Facts are a huge way you can convict someone. "They did the crime."

It is a way you can attack a proposal.

"I propose we cut this regulation to reduce costs to industry." "If you cut the regulation it will mean that these safety protections go away and the cost benefit analysis says that will cost x health costs in resulting damages and y deaths and here is how much those costs compare to the industry savings for net society costs and benefits."

It is a way you can attack a person's character. "You know what they did right? Its real ugly."

 

[OptionalRule]

Facts can be effective attacks.

Facts are a huge way you can convict someone. "They did the crime."

It is a way you can attack a proposal.

"I propose we cut this regulation to reduce costs to industry." "If you cut the regulation it will mean that these safety protections go away and the cost benefit analysis says that will cost x health costs in resulting damages and y deaths and here is how much those costs compare to the industry savings for net society costs and benefits."

It is a way you can attack a person's character. "You know what they did right? Its real ugly."

I don't see many people dealing in facts. At best they start with a fact and follow it up with a characterization, conclusion, or assertion about how you should feel about it.

They don't just put in a quote by Gary - they put some quote out, label it, and tell you what Gary was thinking or feeling with some claim about who he was. If any of that were true, it's a coincidence. Even then, the idea that they have some accurate perspective on the entire exchange and context of the conversation is not only laughable, it's toxic. It comes off like they need him to be that, and it's more than a little creepy and ghoulish.