D&D General What the Melf's Guide to Greyhawk Cover Might Look Like

Below is a quick mockup of the potential cover of Melf's Guide to Greyhawk based on the Jeff Easley art revealed at Gary Con, using the current D&D 5.5E trade dress. The fonts aren't quite right, but it gives an approximate look at what the book may look like when it is released.

 

[Mournblade94]

I gotta say, you are getting a hell of a workout running the goalposts around this field.

I started with one premise. Its the same one. Youre allowed not to like it and insist the apology was necessary. You haven't made a convincing case why it is.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

NO! You really are just trying to make me sound like a bigot. You jump to alot of conclusions. Use the information available to you.

I am using your words: "Yes it takes an expert to write a blurb of an obvious bias in history that everybody brings up ad nauseum."

Its an Obvious bias of society of the TIME the game was Created. Its that simple.

This simply isn't true. As @Arilyn said upthread, even at the time, people knew that sexism and racism were wrong.

Gygax, I believe on this very site, said he was a sexist and was unrepentant about it.

There is no out for "well, they didn't know better, so let's not mention that some of the views expressed are problematic."

And if you don't want people thinking you are a bigot, you should figure out why this short, mild passage in a book hundreds of pages long gets under your skin so much.

 

[Azzy]

A hit dog hollers, and all that.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

You haven't made a convincing case why it is.

I think it's a fundamental disagreement.

I think it's appropriate for an unvarnished look at the creation of a project that includes some problematic issues to briefly say "hey, there's a few problematic things in this book; they were wrong then and they were wrong now" rather than pretending they're not there.

You would like those issues not to be acknowledged.

 

[Mournblade94]

And if you don't want people thinking you are a bigot, you should figure out why this short, mild passage in a book hundreds of pages long gets under your skin so much.

If it makes you feel better to "own the bigot" you do you. I have nothing to hide.

I figured it out already. It painted the designers in a bad light which was not necessary for a book where people can read and draw their own conclusions.

For some reason my stance bothers you enough to come after this every few hours.

 

[Mournblade94]

I think it's a fundamental disagreement.

I think it's appropriate for an unvarnished look at the creation of a project that includes some problematic issues to briefly say "hey, there's a few problematic things in this book; they were wrong then and they were wrong now" rather than pretending they're not there.

You would like those issues not to be acknowledged.

Fair enough. You've laid out your stance and I've laid out mine.

 

[Dire Bare]

NO! You really are just trying to make me sound like a bigot. You jump to alot of conclusions. Use the information available to you.

Its an Obvious bias of society of the TIME the game was Created. Its that simple.

Obvious. Simple.

You have a disagreement with the authors of "The Making of Original D&D", WotC, and some folks in this thread . . . that's okay . . . but your viewpoint is neither "obvious" or "simple", at least not from the point of view of other folks.

 

[mamba]

Its an Obvious bias of society of the TIME the game was Created. Its that simple.

eh, there were misogynists then, there are misogynists now. Times have not changed all that much, esp. since those guys are attempting to drag everyone back to the 1800s.

It’s more about the individual than the times. Gygax knew he was sexist, not sure why pointing that out today gets backlash except for what I wrote above, there are still a lot of them around and they do not like society holding a mirror up to them and pointing it out - which makes it all the more important that society does

 

[Infernal Teddy]

Getting back to the actual topic...

I do wonder about how much this is going to run into the fact that people have their own favorite parts of Greyhawk that may or may not have anything to do with Gygax, and it may not be transparent until you see a more "Gygaxian" Greyhawk that doesn't include some of those things you think are foundational.

When I discovered my favorite part of Greyhawk, The City of Greyhawk, I didn't even know what a Gygax was, nor would I have cared, back in 1991 at age 14, a year after making the step up from Fighting Fantasy to AD&A

 

[mamba]

I figured it out already. It painted the designers in a bad light which was not necessary for a book where people can read and draw their own conclusions.

people can always draw their own conclusions, so it is never necessary to point something out directly? That premise is very flawed…

If I retweet Andrew Tate and do not add a commentary of my own, what does that make my post? At a minimum an implicit endorsement of his views. This is not really all that different.

So you agree with the conclusions of the foreword, you just would rather they had not spelled them out?