What is Gygaxian?

[Hussar]

IMO, Gygaxian can be summed up in the following words from an annonymous DM:

DM: Bob, you enter the dungeon. You die. John, you enter the dungeon. You die. Jim, you enter the dungeon, are stripped naked and then killed. Fred, you enter the dungeon, you're dead. So's your dog.

 

[The Shaman]

What is it that is so compelling about Gygax except the romance of old familiar names like Xagyg and Mordenkainen or the broken bindings of your lovingly fondled 1ed DM's guide with the efreet on the cover? In fact I think that the 1e DM's Guide was more interesting by far than the later incarnations of the same book. There was cool, obscure stuff in that book.

Well, that's one thing that I think of as Gygaxian right there - the rules were (are) fun to read!

When people talk about gygaxian I see a set of assumptions that seem IMO reminiscent of the RPing experiences of adolescents at best and my brother and I at 11 at worst. I am not trying to be insulting, but the things I read about Gary's campaigns ie. the nazi soldiers in a dungeon and other wacky crap seems to me about as similar to mature RPing as Hercules, The Legendary Journeys is to real greek mythology.

It sounds like your assuming that everyone has the same idea of what defines "Gygaxian" as you.

My one-and-only 3.0 D&D character was a barbarian 3/bard 1 (or thereabouts), called Chases-the-Wind. Chases-the-Wind wanted to become the chief of his tribe, so he set off in search of adventure, to gain skill as a warrior and to return covered in glory and riches. To me, THAT is Gygaxian - no childhood trauma, no racial angst, no family misfortune, just go out into the world and come back a hero, or die trying.

What else do I consider Gygaxian? I don't think dungeons need to have a reason to exist, beyond a mad wizard listening to the voices in his head. I think that a world with magical sustenance can find plenty of work-arounds for dealing with ecological constraints. Any player who ran a paladin like the one you described would end up running an ex-paladin fighter (after his horse beat him up, that is) in my games - then again, if something detected as evil, it was probably there to threaten the paladin at best, kill him at worst, since in my games, EVIL is an inimical force of nature, not a collection of abstract concepts painted in shades of gray. I think Conan was a 3-D character who's motivation could be described at times as "the next gold piece" - I think for Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, a gold piece was more than enough most of the time, and they were both 3-D characters, too. I think a steady diet of "morally-complex plotlines" is suitable only for anemic, angsty navel-gazers - give me red-blooded, flash-seared adventure, thank you, and serve it with a frosty-cold mug of ale carried by a blond-and-buxom wench before I trash the common room.

That's Gygaxian to me, not badly written adventures or shallow characters or inconsistent game worlds.

 

[The Shaman]

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.

 

[Sammael]

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.

Will this fallacy never end? The game only allows you to create such a character if, and only if your DM allows it. Templates are not a part of the Player's Handbook, and neither are ECL characters. I don't know a single person who played anything with more than one template under 3.x, and I've only had one half-dragon PC since 3E came out (he was a paladin, and he was woefully underpowered, compared to the other, non-ECL characters - plus, it was a Planescape game, so "wacky" was a standard).

Going by the same logic, you could have played the same thing in AD&D (and I know some people who did), only there weren't nearly as many balancing factors present to make such a character even remotely comparable to regular ones. Refer to Player's Option: Skills & Powers for a good laughter.

 

[The Shaman]

Will this fallacy never end?

I do not think that word means what you think it does.

It's not a "fallacy" - the rules do exist for creating the character I described, published in WotC's books.

All characters are subject to GM fiat to one degree or another - the GM can restrict options from the PHB if s/he chooses, or allow the kitchen sink if s/he prefers. Some GMs would allow it - others would not. In either case, it's not a "fallacy" to say that such a character can be created using the RAW.

 

[Hussar]

^ Wot he said.

Particularly the point that you could play that EXACT same character in earlier editions, only with umpteen more power and no balances. The half ogre I saw played in 2e with a 20 strength comes to mind. Nothing like a 3rd level fighter with a 7th level fighters abilities.

 

[Jupp]

IMO, Gygaxian can be summed up in the following words from an annonymous
DM: Bob, you enter the dungeon. You die. John, you enter the dungeon. You die. Jim, you enter the dungeon, are stripped naked and then killed. Fred, you enter the dungeon, you're dead. So's your dog.

That is so wrong that words fail me to counter the argument

Particularly the point that you could play that EXACT same character in earlier editions, only with umpteen more power and no balances. The half ogre I saw played in 2e with a 20 strength comes to mind. Nothing like a 3rd level fighter with a 7th level fighters abilities.

Aside from the fact that I see no logical reason why one would play such a thing, either in 3E or in older editions. But you would be a nice encounter for my party, I have to give you that

 

[The Shaman]

Particularly the point that you could play that EXACT same character in earlier editions, only with umpteen more power and no balances.

I wouldn't know, and perhaps more significantly, it's not to the point - whether or not you could create this character in 2e has nothing to do with Sundragon2012's point (as I understood it) that Gygaxian means wacky and inconsistent. Regardless of edition, such a character is pretty silly, IMHO.

 

[Fedaric_the_Axe]

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

 

[Jupp]

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

Gygaxian= Straight, fun, intense gaming without the attempt to try improv theater and deep psychological experiments at the gaming table. Encounters that ask for all the wits of the players, but they are still manageable. Things are not laid out in front of the players, they have to actually do some work to come up with conclusions. A certain style of writing that one does not see that much nowadays. you can actually die in the game. Etc, etc, etc....

I think the biggest mistake that a lot of people make is that they mistake Gygaxian playstyle with Deathtrap Dungeon gaming where the chance to die in is 99.9%. Perhaps it is due to the fact that everyone falls back to Tomb of Horrors when they try to come up with that kind of argument.

That is my interpretation of Gygaxian gaming style