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

[billd91]

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.

Excuse me? Who needs Gygax to be a certain way? Because people who point out that Gygax put some pretty sexist stuff in print seem a lot more comfortable with him having a mixed legacy than the people who freak out about it so often you can just about set your clocks to it.

 

[Hussar]

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."

Sorry but “convict someone of a crime” is not an attack. And if someone in fact did something “ugly”, the correct response is not, well we shouldn’t talk about that. Hiding from facts is always, always wrong.

 

[Hussar]

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.

And, if it was a single example? I'd totally agree with you. 100% back you up on this.

But it wasn't. It was multiple examples, including his own words, words of people who knew him including his own daughter, and several other examples. You talk about needing "him to be that"? How much evidence is needed?

Note, the ONLY thing that was actually stated in the foreword was that some of the text in the documents contains language and statements that are less than enlightened by today's standards. That's it. The whole needing "him to be that" is 100% a fabrication from people who are insisting that we shouldn't rely on facts.

Every single evil thing in the history of the world boils down to the same thing - people refusing to actually accept facts. People insisting that facts don't matter. People insisting that facts should be hidden, or massaged, or partially told, all for the good of everyone so that we don't hurt anyone.

If anything was toxic, it's that.

 

[M_Natas]

I've met and spoken with a lot of the old TSR employees. Ironically, Gary wasn't one of them. Yes, humans are complex, and there are a lot of layers. I tend to see a lot of absolutes being taken, a lot of embracing mutual exclusiveness. Especially online. Like Gary couldn't be sarcastic in this example because he said these other things other times. When it's actually more likely Gary could have said and done all those other things and also be sarcastic for this one thing. The one example doesn't take away from the others. I can't tell you how many people I know who act like jerks and when confronted on something bad they said or did, react in defensive sarcasm, "If I were really X, I'd say this, so you see, I can't be X."

Instead we spend 100 pages arguing about if it was sarcasm or not.

I'm not asking anyone to change their opinion on their judgements of people. We all do it. I've made my opinions pretty clear by now. I'm just agreeing with others here when realizing that we are all just people. It's why I've been arguing against deifying anyone for years. After Eddings, Jimmy Page, and others, I'm starting to feel like don't be a fan of anyone because it will just lead to disappointment lol.

I will say, and I stress this strongly, be careful of saying "Person X was nice to me, so they must be nice" when you don't belong to the demographic who that person hasn't been nice to. Of course your experience was good. I'm sure a straight white man would have a much better interaction with a Proud Boy than a transgender black woman. That's an extreme example, but I hope you get the point.

I admit my bias. Good lord, if you pulled quotes from me when I was a teenager (I grew up in a rural religious family that was pretty racist and homophobic), or even from things I had posted online 25 years ago, I'm sure you'd have some harsh judgements of me as well. I'm frankly embarrassed. So for me personally, I'm less concerned about a bad thing someone said years ago, and instead see if they've learned from it. I know this is just me, and I don't judge others who feel that approach isn't for them. Especially if they've been targeted in the past a lot more than I have.

Anyway, the TL;DR version is that I'd like to see more grace for recognizing the complexities of a person as mentioned in the OP and also see more grace and listening to those folks who aren't like us who had different experiences rather than immediately dismiss them because we didn't experience the same.

Yeah - for me it is mostly about what those people are doing now. So for example Gygax is dead, so I would never judge him to harshly, because no matter what, he will stay dead and not change his mind or his ways. That's why I also have no problem enjoying H.P. Lovecraft Stories or content. He is dead. And even in life, he didn't use his income to agitate openly against minorities for example.

But for living content creators - I look at what they are doing right now and what they are doing with the money they gain from their content. J.K. Rowling for example uses her fame and money to support Anti-Trans-Hate groups. It looks like her whole purpose in life is to.make life for Trans people miserable. She gives money to this cause (and to Hate groups) and so I will abstain from buying anything Harry Potter related, because doing so would fund her crusade against Transpeople.
Now, if she would be dead for Xx years and the money of HP products would just go to a company holding the rights, but not fueling an AntiTrans Campaign I would have no problem buying HP products again.
Let's see ... ah, counter example Tom Curise. He is a freaking member of Scientology, but, he is not actively promoting Scientology or other harmful stuff. His money goes into making more Action Movies. I have no problems watching Movies of him. Or Chris Pratt - who seems like a horrible human being to his ex wife and first child, but (as far as I know) is not promoting anything harmful. I still can enjoy Guardians of the Galaxy and discuss him on his merits of his Acting and how good the movies are he is in. With J.K. Rowling I don't think that is possible anymore.
That's where I try to draw the line, of that makes sense.

 

[M_Natas]

One thing that I am struck by in the defensiveness that many have about Gygax and others is how thin-skinned it is, because the criticisms are actually pretty small potatoes: basically, that these were flawed people who did some stuff/published some things that most of us now see as problematic, but that are only a tiny bit of their legacy. Like, I don't understand why some folks seem so reluctant to admit that Gygax was a great creator who left a monumental, positive impact on our culture...but yeah, he was a sexist, and proud of it, and some aspects of this came into his creations.

And one reason I don't understand it is because I love reading rock biographies. You wanna talk about dealing with complicated legacies, pick up just about any biography of a famous rock star (or other artist) that you admire. Or don't, if you don't wanna be disillusioned. Because even the best of them have some skeletons. Sometimes some really terrible, clearly criminal ones. After you've read a few of these, you learn to start tempering your fandom with some realism.

So I don't see the criticisms of Gygax and co. as particularly difficult for me to wrap my head around. Not that sexism, for example, isn't a very important issue, but these guys weren't monsters. We're not talking Phil Spektor. We're talking a (mostly) culturally conservative mindset from mid-century Middle America, and a lot of fairly conventionally sexist beliefs that go along with that. Not a lot different from some of my older male relatives. Not even that different from a lot of guys my own age. I obviously disagree with these viewpoints, but they aren't the sum total of who these people are, or even close to it.

So I have no reason to doubt that Gygax was a gregarious, likeable fellow at cons. I too would be starstruck if he contributed to a thread I started. I have immense respect for what he accomplished. I would argue all day long with him on certain topics, but probably we wouldn't taking about that; I'd be way too busy picking his brains about how he made "Tomb of Horrors."

The defensiveness is twofwold:
1. Don't slander my perfect flawless hero! You will get that in any Fangroup. From football clubs to popstars actors and authors. He can't do wrong. Those are the star struck superfans. More naive, but good hearted.

2. The other group is ... culture war group. In their mind, what Gygax did was not wrong and he shouldn't be called out for it. And even if it was wrong, he shouldn't be called out for it. Because they want to change the culture to a backwards culture, we're sexism is not only okay, but basically mandatory. They want to behave like sexist dickheads and don't want to be called out for it. That's Elon and his fanbois.

 

[seebs]

I traded email with Gary once or twice, and like, I personally liked him but also disagreed a lot with some stuff he said. That seems normal to me. I don't really see why this is a big deal.

When I'm gone, if I have fans, I hope they are honest about my flaws and don't try to paper over them. In order to enjoy the rewards of being loved, we must undergo the mortifying ideal of being known. If people don't actually engage with the person I really am, what has their fandom got to do with me?

So think the dude was pretty sexist and that this was a flaw, but I also think he tried to make things and share them with people and bring joy to people, and I can accept that both of these things are true. It's fine.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Sorry but “convict someone of a crime” is not an attack. And if someone in fact did something “ugly”, the correct response is not, well we shouldn’t talk about that. Hiding from facts is always, always wrong.

Back at the turn of the millennium Ireland was rocked by a whole slew of sex scandals involving members of the clergy and one of the things that struck me then and in subsequent conversations, is that this would never have got to the point it did if people did their duty by the law and spoke the truth. Not just in the clergy but in the general population and agents of the state, since it was clear that many must have known of this.
In fact, it came to light that several victims attempted to get redress in the courts in the sixties and seventies and failed because people would not face the truth or speak the facts.
Not speaking the facts created shadows where crimes are covered up.
Not saying that any of the controversy around Gary involves crimes, or any outrages but failures in small things leads to failures in larger things.
A habit of ignoring the truth can lead to very bad things being tolerated.

 

[Future_Monkey]

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.

You need someone to tell you what Gary was thinking when he wrote this?

https://www.enworld.org/attachments/gr9iyo3xwaaqctk-jpeg.387338/

 

[Umbran]

How is an ugly fact an attack?

Simple: The attack isn't the fact itself - it is your use of it. How is a hammer a weapon? You hit people with it.

If your use of the ugly fact is to cause suffering or harm, it is an attack.

 

[OptionalRule]

Back at the turn of the millennium Ireland was rocked by a whole slew of sex scandals involving members of the clergy and one of the things that struck me then and in subsequent conversations, is that this would never have got to the point it did if people did their duty by the law and spoke the truth. Not just in the clergy but in the general population and agents of the state, since it was clear that many must have known of this.
In fact, it came to light that several victims attempted to get redress in the courts in the sixties and seventies and failed because people would not face the truth or speak the facts.
Not speaking the facts created shadows where crimes are covered up.
Not saying that any of the controversy around Gary involves crimes, or any outrages but failures in small things leads to failures in larger things.
A habit of ignoring the truth can lead to very bad things being tolerated.

Hyperbolic internet mobs are not justice