"The FBI's Gary Gygax File Makes Him Sound Like a Bad*ss"

[ritt]

An FBI source in the report alleges that Gygax was "eccentric and frightening," carried a weapon, proudly responded to every letter he received from an inmate, and had a Liberian holding company. It concludes: "He is known to be a member of the Libertarian Party."

This is just pure gold. It totally made my day and has increased my admiration of Gygax tenfold.

reason.com/blog/2017/06/15/dd-creator-gary-gygaxs-fbi-records-make

[oakesspalding]

Yeah, I wrote about this in more detail at my blog, Save Versus All Wands here.

Many people, including the Reason reporter are making this out to be an FBI thing. But I think it's a Lorraine Williams thing. She just went off on a tangent about her "enemy" Gygax. So, from my perspective, the FBI guys were just faithfully recording the statement of their source, as is their job.

The full document also shows Williams' contempt for some of her own customers, or at least of "war gamers" (whom she may have differentiated from role-players):

"[Redacted] (almost certainly Lorraine Williams) advised that war gamers are generally extremely intelligent individuals. Often they will live frugally to support the cost of the war gaming hobby. [Redacted] further advised that the typical war gaming enthusiast is overweight and not neat in appearance."

I find this more humorous than anything else, partly because it's not exactly completely false, or at least wasn't so, back in the day.

What does make me angry, though, is how she ran the company into the ground, artistically. In my view, some of the horribles that we associate with the transition from "old school" to "new school" gaming can be traced back not merely to some natural progress or evolution, or even to the disinterested artistic decisions of game designers, but to the business decisions of a person who knew or cared nothing about the artistic integrity of the product.

It would be fascinating to peer into that alternate universe where Gary Gygax had remained in artistic control of TSR, perhaps up until his death. I imagine the evolution of D&D, and in fact of the entire RPG field, would have been quite different.

Then again, there probably would not have been an OSR...

[ritt]

Very interesting. Thank you, Oakes.

[oakesspalding]

I also wrote the following on another thread. I hope Finarvyn will forgive me for seemingly getting "political," but my point is it's not political. If that makes sense. There are all sorts of arguably good reasons to laugh at, criticize or condemn the FBI (in general or in 1995) but I just don't think this is one of them.

With respect [in reply to another poster], I don't think it's quite correct to say that the FBI "had a file on" Gygax (as far as we know). They went to the offices of TSR to interview them about an earlier legal dispute between TSR and the Fresno Gaming Association, which they had reason to believe the Unabomber might have been linked to in some way. I suppose, in the back of their minds, they might also have thought that many wargamers and roleplayers had similar profiles to the one they had drawn up on the suspect. Frankly, that doesn't sound unreasonable to me. They would catch Theodore Kaczynski less than a year later, and while he didn't appear to have any wargaming links, he was a highly intelligent, obsessive, socially awkward white guy. Sorry, but for a long time that was 80% of the hobby.

It looks like the reason that Gygax's name came up was that Lorraine Williams (almost certainly the person whose name was "redacted") decided to take the opportunity to offer up some snarky gossip about her old enemy to the FBI. And they dutifully wrote down everything that she said, as is their job, I think. As far as we know, that was the end of it.

In the same way, if the FBI were interviewing someone else about a crime, and your name was mentioned by a witness (for whatever reason), your name would be "in an FBI file." But that's not the same thing as the FBI surveilling you. And of course, a mere transcription of such an interview would itself say nothing about whether the agents attached any importance to you or your name.

Remember, too, that the Unabomber case was perhaps the most notorious modern terrorism investigation before 9/11. McVeigh, of course killed many more people, but he was caught almost immediately. The Unabomber attacks, each of them patiently planned against unprepared targets, went on for years, and the authorities were at their wits end, trying pretty much everything and anything to get a lead on the guy. Indeed, if they hadn't received a tip from his brother, he might have continued to send mail bombs for years. It's notable that during the interview they asked Williams or someone else whether she had any ideas on the meaning or origin of "F.C." - the name for the "group" that the Unabomber said he was part of. This is what good detectives do, you follow 1000 leads, most of which look pointless os even silly, in hopes that something will turn up. It's humorous (if humor is allowed against the background of multiple deaths and injuries) that the answer they got from TSR was this:

"In the historical war context, F.C. stood for 'Forward Center' which was a troop movement designation. It was also inscribed on cannons in the Franco-Prussian War, probably as an insignia."

By the way, the working theory was that "F.C." stood for "f*ck computers." But Kaczynski would later say that it meant "freedom club."

But I digress. In sum, I think this is much more a Lorraine Williams thing than an FBI thing.

As for the cocaine trafficking documents, since half of the text is redacted, it's very hard to know what they mean. But I think it's well established that Gygax used drugs, including, I assume, cocaine. And whether or not he was a "suspect" or "person of interest" or whatever, it's not surprising or unreasonable to find his name popping up against the background of an investigation of drug trafficking in Lake Geneva.

There's no public evidence that the FBI "followed up" re: Gygax in either case. But, of course, the FOIA request was for "TSR," not "Gary Gygax"...

[foxroe]

Have to agree with Ritt; very interesting. I had no idea Mr. Gygax was a Libertarian.

It's too bad that someone at TSR didn't seize the opportunity to have a little fun. Would of made for a great story.

FBI Agent: "...and this 'Egg of Cool'..."

Employee: "It's 'Coot'; as in 'boot', only with a 'C'."

[employees snickering in background]

FBI Agent: "Yes, of course. This 'Egg' person... do you have a description?"

[raucous laughter in background]

[oakesspalding]

"My predecessor enjoyed devising ingenious ways to kill people, many of them his own employees. It was 'imaginary,' of course, but still. He liked to play God. When I moved into his office I found this small utensil in his desk drawer. They said it was a Bohemian Ear Spoon. It had traces of some kind of powder on it. Would you like to see it?"

"That's okay, Ma'am."

"By the way, I think 'F.C.' stands for 'Fighter-Cleric.'"

[premmy]

Jun 17, 2017 10:18:02 GMT -6 foxroe said:

Have to agree with Ritt; very interesting. I had no idea Mr. Gygax was a Libertarian.

It’s not that surprising; after all, D&D is the ultimate libertarian fantasy.

It’s about Ayn Randian übermenschen who, because of their levels, are objectively stronger, smarter, and just better than the 0-level throngs of useless social leeches. Their Randian powers allow them to run roughshod over society’s rules – when was the last time a D&D adventurer paid taxes and customs, or turned in all the loot from the ruined castle’s dungeons because the land and castle used to be the king’s property, therefore so is everything therein?
The social class they were born into is utterly irrelevant to them, since even the son of a peasant can become a nobleman, an archmage, or even a king, as long as he follows the path of libertarian adventuring, because social structure suddenly no longer applies to them. And if you ask a retired adventurer how he made his first five levels and his first million GPs, he’ll tell you it was through "free enterprise, diligent work, and lifting myself by my own straps", even though in actual fact it was through preying on the weak, robbing tombs and massacring uppity natives (indians, orcs, hapless peasants) who happened to have something shiny; but hey, making it big, rich and powerful means nobody will ever take you to task for that!

D&D really is the posterboy of libertarianism. With swords.

[jcstephens]

Piffle. The archetype of the penniless adventurer cutting his way to the top far predates Ayn Rand, or even the notion of libertarianism itself. The earliest historical example I can recall off the top of my head is Emperor Maximinus, others no doubt exist:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximinus_Thrax

Jun 17, 2017 12:02:54 GMT -6 premmy said:

Jun 17, 2017 10:18:02 GMT -6 foxroe said:

Have to agree with Ritt; very interesting. I had no idea Mr. Gygax was a Libertarian.

It’s not that surprising; after all, D&D is the ultimate libertarian fantasy.

It’s about Ayn Randian übermenschen who, because of their levels, are objectively stronger, smarter, and just better than the 0-level throngs of useless social leeches. Their Randian powers allow them to run roughshod over society’s rules – when was the last time a D&D adventurer paid taxes and customs, or turned in all the loot from the ruined castle’s dungeons because the land and castle used to be the king’s property, therefore so is everything therein?
The social class they were born into is utterly irrelevant to them, since even the son of a peasant can become a nobleman, an archmage, or even a king, as long as he follows the path of libertarian adventuring, because social structure suddenly no longer applies to them. And if you ask a retired adventurer how he made his first five levels and his first million GPs, he’ll tell you it was through "free enterprise, diligent work, and lifting myself by my own straps", even though in actual fact it was through preying on the weak, robbing tombs and massacring uppity natives (indians, orcs, hapless peasants) who happened to have something shiny; but hey, making it big, rich and powerful means nobody will ever take you to task for that!

D&D really is the posterboy of libertarianism. With swords.

[sixdemonbag]

The "Zero to Hero" trope has been around since greek mythology and probably before. Perseus anyone? Achilles' myrmidons? Jason's party of heroes, the argonauts? Perseus grew up dirt poor and sought wealth, adventure, and glory. The desire to form adventuring parties and to explore the wilderness and ancient ruins while defeating monsters that threaten humanity (medusae, giants, gorgons, witches, minotaurs, nymphs, krakens, grendel etc.) is as old as civilization. Conan, The Hobbit, Beowulf, and John Carter all predate The Fountainhead.

[Scott Anderson]

Yet again the FBI covering themselves in glory. Whitey Bulger is laughing.

[geoffrey]

D&D also uses the gold standard rather than fiat money. Murray Rothbard would be proud.

[foxroe]

I consider myself Libertarian. I can assure you, my "fantasy" is not to murder my neighbors (no matter how monstrous they may be) and "take their stuff", all in an effort to gain power. D&D is a game, not a simulation or representation of anything real, much less political agenda.

I apologize if this offends anyone or violates the board policy on politics. I suspect this thread will be locked in short order.

[Otto Harkaman]

Interesting you think the redacted name is Lorraine Williams. So she took advantage of the situation to malign Gary, perhaps get him investigated for drug use?

[oakesspalding]

An excerpt from some stupid article in Salon. Randian Objectivists are just like D&D players:

"It is no coincidence that Ayn Rand books appeal to the same people at an age to delve into fantasy and science-fiction reading. The worlds in Rand books are simultaneously idealized and dystopian. A world run by collectivists is dystopic; a world where a true individual shines above all is a place of romantic beatitude.

It does make for whimsically pretentious Rush (the band) lyrics. Get out the album “2112” and listen to the words — a combination of Randian individual/collectivist conflict as well as a dash of Kurt Vonnegut and Aldous Huxley. Those guys had good books too, but nobody ever turned their writings into a life philosophy: Vonnegutism, Huxleanism?

The Fountainhead is based on the architect Frank Lloyd Wright. But you won’t hear Randians acknowledging that many of Wright’s buildings were structurally unsound and poorly planned. Nor will you hear Republican fans of Ayn Rand admitting that their hero’s actions later in the book are equivalent to terrorism.

Nor will you see a real scrutiny of the philosophy itself. As moral philosophy it fails the test of reason. Put to the test, it’s illogical, because it simply cannot account for any instance in which there is a conflict of interest.

Objectivism is also in many ways like Libertarianism. They’re two sides of the same training-wheels level delusion, in which grown adults attempt to reduce the complexity of civilized society to a few simplistic bullet-point ideas. Going through life is so much easier if you abstract it into whatever neat, easy concepts suit you.

The concepts themselves can be useful and make thoughtful templates for building a personal set of principles. But if you’re codifying somebody’s romantic literature into a form of dogma, you’re as misguided as a bunch of 1970s teenagers playing Dungeons & Dragons and then believing it’s real."

[MormonYoYoMan]

Extremely stupid, as it merely resorts to childish name-calling rather than trying to make its case. Sadly, emotional persuasion is more effective than reasoning together.

[oakesspalding]

As an ex- big "L" and small "l" libertarian, but still quasi-sympathizer, I find Rand's views, often, obnoxiously annoying but also, often, incredibly inspiring.

There's no evidence of Rand's views on D&D. I doubt she was even aware of the game. And she was in some ways, such an unpredictable curmudgeon that it's impossible to know what she would have thought of the game. As insightful as she sometimes was, she was also prone to making snap prejudiced judgments.

But I'd like to think she would have been in favor of D&D, at least in its "old school" formulation. You make your own way, and don't rely on an "altruistic" DM. Death might come, but if you stick to your principles, it will at least be a heroic, and even, yes, "romantic" death.

Even if you're slimed to your bones.

They didn't play story games in Galt's Gulch.

And Dagney Taggert was Chaotic Good.

[oakesspalding]

"The worst thing about death, and what I regard as the most horrible human tragedy, is to lose someone you love. That is terribly hard. But your own death? If you're finished, you're finished. My purpose is not to worry about death but to live life now, here on earth."

Ayn Rand, channeling Conan.

[sixdemonbag]

Discussing Rand and Objectivism really needs historical context. Her views are a direct reaction to growing up and experiencing first-hand the Russian Revolution. She was an upper class Jew and her family was stripped of their wealth and business by the state. Later, she would be purged from the university system as well.

After immigrating to NYC, she would likely conclude that any system that was as far away from totalitarianism would be the ideal. She naturally took these ideas to their logical, and some would say, extreme conclusion. Essentially, whatever the opposite of the Russian regime was, that would be best. Of course, too far in that direction and you have anarchy, warlords, tribalism, and ultimately a dictatorship. Keep going in the other direction, and you have socialism, communism, then single party control, then again, ultimately, a dictatorship. Left or right, conservative or liberal, red or blue, puppies or kittens, the extremes end up in the same place where power is consolidated among too few.

Finding a happy medium has been this moment is human history's major achievement, in my opinion. Or not, who knows.

EDIT: Regardless, that Salon piece is condescending, elitist garbage.

[MonkeyBees]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

[terrex]

Jun 18, 2017 5:51:46 GMT -6 MonkeyBees said:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

I've seen this quote before and I don't agree with it. Perhaps its author was singularly influenced in that particular way by those two books as a child. But I certainly wasn't, despite having read both Tolkien and Rand (and a host of others). In regard to Ayn Rand, I find her books inspiring and philosophically worthwhile. I recommend them to young people looking for alternatives and I look forward to introducing them to my own daughter.

[xerxez]

What silliness that whole affair was. Great article though, thanks for putting it out, I'm part of a very cool Community!

[Deleted]

I read some Rand when I was 13 and thought it was awesome. I reread it at 21 and thought it was puerile garbage, and still do.

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2017 0:44:21 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

Discussing Rand and Objectivism really needs historical context. Her views are a direct reaction to growing up and experiencing first-hand the Russian Revolution. She was an upper class Jew and her family was stripped of their wealth and business by the state. Later, she would be purged from the university system as well.

After immigrating to NYC, she would likely conclude that any system that was as far away from totalitarianism would be the ideal. She naturally took these ideas to their logical, and some would say, extreme conclusion. Essentially, whatever the opposite of the Russian regime was, that would be best. Of course, too far in that direction and you have anarchy, warlords, tribalism, and ultimately a dictatorship. Keep going in the other direction, and you have socialism, communism, then single party control, then again, ultimately, a dictatorship. Left or right, conservative or liberal, red or blue, puppies or kittens, the extremes end up in the same place where power is consolidated among too few.

Finding a happy medium has been this moment is human history's major achievement, in my opinion. Or not, who knows.

EDIT: Regardless, that Salon piece is condescending, elitist garbage.

Yeah, the political spectrum is like circumnavigating the earth, if you travel west long enough you end up in the east.

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2017 7:30:57 GMT -6 terrex said:

Jun 18, 2017 5:51:46 GMT -6 MonkeyBees said:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

I've seen this quote before and I don't agree with it. Perhaps its author was singularly influenced in that particular way by those two books as a child. But I certainly wasn't, despite having read both Tolkien and Rand (and a host of others). In regard to Ayn Rand, I find her books inspiring and philosophically worthwhile. I recommend them to young people looking for alternatives and I look forward to introducing them to my own daughter.

I read The Fountainhead in the eighth grade and those were in the days where I finished every book I started. I tried to read it again when I turned 50 and I forced myself through two chapters and had to put it down as unreadable. I also looked at Atlas Shrugged and had the same experience. Not for me.

[Deleted]

Jun 17, 2017 12:02:54 GMT -6 premmy said:

Jun 17, 2017 10:18:02 GMT -6 foxroe said:

Have to agree with Ritt; very interesting. I had no idea Mr. Gygax was a Libertarian.

It’s not that surprising; after all, D&D is the ultimate libertarian fantasy.

It’s about Ayn Randian übermenschen who, because of their levels, are objectively stronger, smarter, and just better than the 0-level throngs of useless social leeches. Their Randian powers allow them to run roughshod over society’s rules – when was the last time a D&D adventurer paid taxes and customs, or turned in all the loot from the ruined castle’s dungeons because the land and castle used to be the king’s property, therefore so is everything therein?
The social class they were born into is utterly irrelevant to them, since even the son of a peasant can become a nobleman, an archmage, or even a king, as long as he follows the path of libertarian adventuring, because social structure suddenly no longer applies to them. And if you ask a retired adventurer how he made his first five levels and his first million GPs, he’ll tell you it was through "free enterprise, diligent work, and lifting myself by my own straps", even though in actual fact it was through preying on the weak, robbing tombs and massacring uppity natives (indians, orcs, hapless peasants) who happened to have something shiny; but hey, making it big, rich and powerful means nobody will ever take you to task for that!

D&D really is the posterboy of libertarianism. With swords.

I would disagree with this in the strongest terms. My OD&D has nothing to do with "Ayn Randian übermenschen."

Their Randian powers allow them to run roughshod over society’s rules – when was the last time a D&D adventurer paid taxes and customs, or turned in all the loot from the ruined castle’s dungeons because the land and castle used to be the king’s property, therefore so is everything therein?

That does not resemble any OD&D I have ever played. Nor is it some the ultimate libertarian fantasy, whatever that is supposed to mean, apparently my view of libertarian and yours is extremely different.

And if you ask a retired adventurer how he made his first five levels and his first million GPs, he’ll tell you it was through "free enterprise, diligent work, and lifting myself by my own straps", even though in actual fact it was through preying on the weak, robbing tombs and massacring uppity natives (indians, orcs, hapless peasants) who happened to have something shiny; but hey, making it big, rich and powerful means nobody will ever take you to task for that!

That does not resemble any OD&D I have ever played. Also equating orcs and native americans and hapless peasants is something I find offensive. IMC it only evil all the time orcs are to be fought, native americans or the equivalent and hapless peasants are not treated badly by anyone IMC.

Jun 17, 2017 19:13:52 GMT -6 foxroe said:

I consider myself Libertarian. I can assure you, my "fantasy" is not to murder my neighbors (no matter how monstrous they may be) and "take their stuff", all in an effort to gain power. D&D is a game, not a simulation or representation of anything real, much less political agenda.

I apologize if this offends anyone or violates the board policy on politics. I suspect this thread will be locked in short order.

Thank you foxroe , I agree that OD&D has nothing to do with any political agenda of any persuasion.

[ritt]

There is a weird stereotype held by a minority of fans of more modern RPGs that old-schoolers are all politically super-conservatives.

This does not match with my personal RPG experience of 35+ years in any way, shape, or form. The OSRers I know are all over the place ideologically.

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2017 14:56:10 GMT -6 ritt said:

There is a weird stereotype held by a minority of fans of more modern RPGs that old-schoolers are all politically super-conservatives.

This does not match with my personal RPG experience of 35+ years in any way, shape, or form. The OSRers I know are all over the place ideologically.

I know very few people, if any that are all one thing, the people I know are a mix and each individually is all over the map, and most of them don't even know they are all over the map. So yeah, I agree with ritt, that is what my experience for 60+ years has been.

Do people have an issue here or there that they are passionate about, yeah; however, most of them avoid politics like the plague and wish it would all just go away.

[foxroe]

Jun 21, 2017 16:02:28 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

...most of them avoid politics like the plague and wish it would all just go away.

AAAAAmen, brother!

Oh crap. I just violated the board policy on religion too...

[oakesspalding]

I have always found myself criticizing Rand to Randians and defending Rand to non-Randians and neutrals. (See, I'm nuanced and so above it all. You can have my autograph if you want.) I think one can be a flawed philosopher and a flawed human being (like just about everyone) while still being a fine and inspiring writer. In a way, I think Rand would agree (though she might stridently deny it). Her literary idols were mainly socialists or liberals, not libertarians.

I agree that the old school movement seems all over the map, politically, though I would argue that most of us are "individualistic," at least in a general sense that covers or transcends most of the conventional political spectrum. We don't care what the "mainstream" thinks. Indeed, we probably disagree with it, whether we clothe that in the "as long as you're having fun, it's okay" caveat or not.

We're all over the map in terms of religion, as well.

But I think that we have more than ours share of "extremists" on these matters. Old schoolers tend to think hard about things and have strong opinions, whether it's about skill systems or the existence of God. If you really want to know, I like that, as long as it doesn't become intolerant, rude or interfere with the enjoyment of the hobby, among other things by potentially politicizing it.

[Scott Anderson]

Trying to map real world ideology to D&D says more about the pundit than it does about either D&D or the several ideologies. Realpolitik has invaded every public space, which is unhealthy.

I have strong views and in other venues I act upon them but guys, I am coming to you with tears in my eyes begging you to leave politics at the threashold when we come together to play elf games. Please. Please give us a place where we can just be kids, ok?