What is Gygaxian?

[Sundragon2012]

Oh, and Sundragon2012, one more thing: the current iteration of D&D allows a player to create a fiendish half-troll half-dragon gnome wereboar ranger/sorcerer/wizard by the RAW.

That's my definition of "wacky crap" and inconsistent game-worlds right there.

No doubt, no doubt.

I agree that 3.5 has its share of wacky crap, usually having to do with half human/half everything but the kitchen sink race combos and class combinations based on power optimization as opposed to setting and character integrity. However, this is the weakness of individual DMs in this modern D&D era allowing this crap the same way Gygaxian contained wierdness that was unique to Gary. D&D 1 was no more or less intrinsically wacky as current D&D but that individual DMs made it so. Gygaxian IMO represents the wackiness, not of 1e but of Gary's early campaigns using the 1e rules.


Chris

 

[Wormwood]

Gygaxian means the characters have no skills because the players are expected to.

 

[diaglo]

visit this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=115338

 

[Quasqueton]

Gygaxian means the characters have no skills because the players are expected to.

So true.

* * *

Interesting how this thread is breaking down into an edition war.

Quasqueton

 

[Jupp]

So true.

* * *

Interesting how this thread is breaking down into an edition war.

Quasqueton

OK, I read through the thread again, and there is not evidence of that...Well, ok, with your statement you attempt to start one. But other than that, nope, no edition war.

Nothing to see here. No War. Move Along.

 

[Henry]

I think this has gone WAAAY over the simple answer it needs:

Anything "Gygaxian" means something penned by Gary Gygax. It's that simple. He's the only one I know who can hit that exact style of writing, adventure creation, and expectation from the players. Goodman Games can't, Necromancer can't, Troll Lords can't, and when they can, it's from something he penned.

In truth, it's such an undefined term, that trying to characterize and define it only leads to unintentional insults, harsh feelings, and misunderstandings, as this thread shows.

Is "Gygaxian" killer-DM'ing, as Hussar's friend suggests? No, and in fact Gary has an entire section of the old DMG devoted to that topic. Killer DMs are no fun to Gary just like DMs who give everything away disproportionate to challenge aren't fun.

Gygaxian adventures often do however, involve a bit of critical thinking, even if the thinking is not open to all possible outcomes. Often, in Gary's adventures, there is a "right" answer and a "wrong" answer; however, what ISN'T said in the adventures, and left as an unspoken rule, is that the DM is open to interpret creative thinking, and I think often people miss this in looking at the adventures with hindsight.

 

[Akrasia]

... I am talking about:

Dungeons that have a reason to exist.
Monsters with ecologies that seem believable.
Paladins who do more than kill critters in holes in the ground because their detect evil ability rang off.
Actual 3-D characters who have motivations outside of their next gold piece.
Naming conventions that are believable within their millieu.
Moral complexity to plotlines.
Internally consistant environments.

And so on...

You should check out Gygax's new setting from TLG, "Castle Zagyg: Yggsburgh". It has all of these features (well, some of the names are still quirky, including of course 'Zagyg' and 'Yggsburgh'), and yet is still very 'Gygaxian'.

 

[Jupp]

Add to this that Mister G did write books like

Canting Crew
Living Fantasy
World Builder
Essential Places

Dunno, but I think that those books pretty much have everything Sundragon is asking for...

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Fun for the most part.

Designed to challange the player as much as his character.

Verbose writing

The occasional off the wall encounter or module(but not to the WG7 level)

Closer to a tactical game than the improv theater idea of later game designs, not that D&D ever really went there except by the choice of players.

umm...very tough at times is the last one I have.

 

[ThirdWizard]

This isn't true for a lot of people, I being one of them. I doubt you ever truly understood what Gygaxian ever was.

True for a lot of people? Truly understand? What are you talking about? Gygaxian quite simply isn't about improv theater. It isn't about creating vast political intrigue with lots of character development. It isn't about angst and it isn't about sunshine and daisies.

I'm not saying you can't have interesting characters in a Gygaxian game. I'm saying the game isn't character driven. Saying that Gygaxian is character driven gameplay is just plain wrong. Saying that Gygaxian is equivalent to earlier editions of D&D is just plain wrong. Gygaxian has a feel to it, all its own.