|
Post by increment on Jul 13, 2016 7:44:03 GMT -6
Now THAT is a fascinating statement, Jon. What are the sources of these quotes? The usual: obscure fanzines where Gygax is a bit more candid than he should have been.
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jul 14, 2016 8:17:04 GMT -6
There is no contemporary source I'm aware of that suggests Elise was one of his playtesters, though it has been widely reported based on very late statements from Gygax (probably triggered by his piece in Dragon #302 and his reiteration of that anecdote on various web forums). Gygax did name his playtesters on a few occasions in the 1970s, and as my "First Female Gamers" piece indicates, Bob Dale's sister Mary is the only female name on his list. Gary once told me through e-mail correspondence that Elise was one of the original players. This was confirmed for me by the entire group of Gygax siblings at the "Growing Up Gygax" seminar at GaryCon this year.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jul 14, 2016 11:49:07 GMT -6
Gary once told me through e-mail correspondence that Elise was one of the original players. This was confirmed for me by the entire group of Gygax siblings at the "Growing Up Gygax" seminar at GaryCon this year. I didn't mean to suggest that Gygax never claimed that Elise was one of his original playtesters - I cited his article in Dragon #302, which is the first place I'm aware of that he made that claim. That was in 2002, when he was a grandfather, and if you read the article, it is a very rosy and nostalgic love letter to his children. Now let's wind back to the 1970s, when D&D was new, and Gary was explaining how it came about. He put out lists then of who his earliest playtesters were. They included everyone we'd expect: folks like Rob Kuntz and Mike Mornard, less famous people like Tom Champenay and Bob Dale who nonetheless we know were there, and of course his son Ernie. But not Elise. If she were one of his playtesters, it would be really, really weird that he didn't include her name in those lists back then. For example, here is Gary in June 1977, Dragon #7: So what do we make of that 2002 article, and the many Internet forums where he repeated its contents after it was published? Or with the concurrence of the Gygax siblings to this claim? Well, if Gary Gygax was your father, and he said in print multiple times that you were one of his playtesters, and it was long enough ago that you don't really remember either way... well, I wouldn't be going on a crusade to tell the world he was wrong, anyway. He was old, he loved his children, and he remembered things his own way, in this and many other matters. When it comes to the 1970s, I am more inclined to believe 1970s Gary than I am to believe 2000s Gary. None of us can prove that Elise did or didn't sneak downstairs to play in one of her dad's earliest dungeon. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just saying it's irresponsible to report it as fact, and that there's too much doubt to consider it "confirmed" that Elise was, as the article claimed, "the First Playtester."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 13:04:59 GMT -6
There is no contemporary source I'm aware of that suggests Elise was one of his playtesters, though it has been widely reported based on very late statements from Gygax (probably triggered by his piece in Dragon #302 and his reiteration of that anecdote on various web forums). Gygax did name his playtesters on a few occasions in the 1970s, and as my "First Female Gamers" piece indicates, Bob Dale's sister Mary is the only female name on his list. Gary once told me through e-mail correspondence that Elise was one of the original players. This was confirmed for me by the entire group of Gygax siblings at the "Growing Up Gygax" seminar at GaryCon this year. Well unless someone like robkuntz or @gronanofsimmerya or someone else that were in those games can confirm that Elise was a playtester we will likely never know for sure 100%. I think it is important to make a distinction, since Elise would have been 11 in 1972 and 12 in 1973, I think it is most likely that she played in those games. But Gary did not think of her at that point in time as a play-tester due to her age. Since Gary told you she was a player I think that was true, he just did not think of her as a play-tester at that age and so did not put her on the list. Ernie was two years older and so that is why he is recognized as a play-tester since he would have been 13 in 1972 and in many cultures and earlier generations, he would have been on one or more levels considered as a man instead of a boy.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jul 14, 2016 14:26:23 GMT -6
Well unless someone like robkuntz or @gronanofsimmerya or someone else that were in those games can confirm that Elise was a playtester we will likely never know for sure 100%. Someone relating what they remember happening forty years ago should not make you or anyone else 100% sure of anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 14:36:58 GMT -6
Well unless someone like robkuntz or @gronanofsimmerya or someone else that were in those games can confirm that Elise was a playtester we will likely never know for sure 100%. Someone relating what they remember happening forty years ago should not make you or anyone else 100% sure of anything. Well perhaps I am not so comfortable in believing everyone is lying aside from those who have proven they are liars. When someone has no history of lying I tend to believe them. I am perfectly comfortable believing that someone can remember whether or not someone else was consistently present at some event they attended on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jul 14, 2016 14:45:29 GMT -6
Someone relating what they remember happening forty years ago should not make you or anyone else 100% sure of anything. Well perhaps I am not so comfortable in believing everyone is lying aside from those who have proven they are liars. When someone has no history of lying I tend to believe them. There's a big difference between not knowing whether or not something is true and maliciously trying to deceive others about it. In other words, you don't have to be a liar to be wrong. Gary Gygax, bluntly, was wrong about a great many things that he remembered. It's a natural, human thing, doesn't make him a bad person or a dumb person or anything. It just makes him wrong about those things. Take a gander over at this thread here: odd74.proboards.com/thread/11538/precursor-chainmail-fantasy-supplementBack in 2007, I asked Gary what pre-existing systems influenced the fantasy supplement Chainmail. He responded unambiguously that no previously published systems influenced either the fantasy supplement or the man-to-man combat system of Chainmail. He was wrong about that. Generally speaking, I find that his remarks about what happened in the 1970s tend to be more accurate if they were made in the 1970s than thirty or forty years later. This too is a natural, human thing that has nothing to do with being a liar.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 14, 2016 17:20:43 GMT -6
Although my "First Female Gamers" piece was cited as a source for this article, I'd have to say that there are actually pretty good reasons to think that Gygax intended to exclude female participants. Since I wrote that piece, I've found quotes from Gygax from the era (1975) that state this quite explicitly, in regrettable language. That will factor into a revised version of the essay which I'll release someday. Whoa Nelly! I somehow missed this (bold). Am I to understand you as saying that Gary was intentionally excluding women from playing D&D? How exactly was he accomplishing this? Who were these women that he was excluding? And why would he want to? The rest of the gang at TSR went along with this? Saying someone intentionally excluded females is an exponentially more damaging statement then they failed to include them. I'd be interested in reading your revised essay and the letters that support this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 19:37:05 GMT -6
Ernie and Elise both have said, in person, and in the last year, that Gary ran the very first adventure for them, and that their first encounter was centipedes. Elise also says she only played one or two times, so she didn't really participate in a campaign in any meaningful sense.
You may make of this what you wish. (I can make a hat, or a chrysanthemum, or a pterodactyl, or a corsage...)
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jul 14, 2016 21:20:21 GMT -6
Although my "First Female Gamers" piece was cited as a source for this article, I'd have to say that there are actually pretty good reasons to think that Gygax intended to exclude female participants. Since I wrote that piece, I've found quotes from Gygax from the era (1975) that state this quite explicitly, in regrettable language. That will factor into a revised version of the essay which I'll release someday. Whoa Nelly! I somehow missed this (bold). Am I to understand you as saying that Gary was intentionally excluding women from playing D&D? How exactly was he accomplishing this? Who were these women that he was excluding? And why would he want to? The rest of the gang at TSR went along with this? Saying someone intentionally excluded females is an exponentially more damaging statement then they failed to include them. I'd be interested in reading your revised essay and the letters that support this. I hesitate to further tease information that I don't intend to release at the moment, but just to clarify: Yes, there exists a particular line of argument from Gygax, from 1975, which effectively states that he feels women have no place in gaming, expresses a preference that they not participate in the hobby, and makes several sarcastic and derogatory remarks about how he might alter the D&D rules to grant women what he would humorously consider a fitting place in the game. He doesn't have some sort of plan to literally prevent women from playing D&D through, I don't know, legislation or something, but it's pretty bad. This has nothing to do with TSR's corporate policy, it's a personal statement. But I'd say it goes well beyond merely failing to include women, and openly mocks the idea that he should. Having seen that naturally changes the way I see this discussion. I'll see what I can do about getting that piece into shape sooner than later, though I'm juggling a great many projects at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jul 15, 2016 6:59:41 GMT -6
Ernie and Elise both have said, in person, and in the last year, that Gary ran the very first adventure for them, and that their first encounter was centipedes. Elise also says she only played one or two times, so she didn't really participate in a campaign in any meaningful sense. Thank you for the back-up, Mike. John could also be right, though. Gary distinctly recalled that Rob did not play until the second game session, while both Gary and Elise remember Rob being at the first session. So memories can get mixed up and flawed over time. But primary sources from the 1970s could be equally suspect. Gary might have been writing anti-woman rants because he assumed that's how his players felt. Or Perilous' explanation for how ageism could affect the definition of playtester. It's all just choosing one possible narrative over another.
|
|
Chainsaw
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 303
|
Post by Chainsaw on Jul 15, 2016 7:12:01 GMT -6
It's certainly possible that EGG was worried his crusty male wargamer target customer might think he'd developed a game for girls or kids. I'm not sure I would let some comment to a fanzine in 1975 redefine the man as "anti-woman." Of course, this is the age of the internet rage brigade, constantly on the prowl for any reason to be offended. /shrug
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jul 15, 2016 7:17:34 GMT -6
Ernie and Elise both have said, in person, and in the last year, that Gary ran the very first adventure for them, and that their first encounter was centipedes. Elise also says she only played one or two times, so she didn't really participate in a campaign in any meaningful sense. Thank you for the back-up, Mike. John could also be right, though. Gary distinctly recalled that Rob did not play until the second game session, while both Gary and Elise remember Rob being at the first session. So memories can get mixed up and flawed over time. But primary sources from the 1970s could be equally suspect. Gary might have been writing anti-woman rants because he assumed that's how his players felt. Or Perilous' explanation for how ageism could affect the definition of playtester. It's all just choosing one possible narrative over another. Which is why I only argued that we shouldn't present the "first playtester" as fact, as there's too much doubt to be 100% certain. I very carefully said that I wasn't asserting that it didn't happen. Regarding the anti-woman rant, we can speculate about why Gary wrote it, but it is just one data point among several. When I wrote the "First Female Gamers" piece in the first place, I included at the very start a quote from Gary about "women's libbers" that I was inclined to read one way at the time, but I read it a bit differently now. His "rant" alludes to specific problems he had incorporating women into his games.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jul 15, 2016 7:23:27 GMT -6
It's certainly possible that EGG was worried his crusty male wargamer target customer might think he'd developed a game for girls or kids. I'm not sure I would let some comment to a fanzine in 1975 redefine the man as "anti-woman." Of course, this is the age of the internet rage brigade, constantly on the prowl for any reason to be offended. /shrug And I totally get that times were different then than they are now, and you would be crucified today for saying some things that were common sentiments in the 1970s. It is easy to forget that Gary's world was more like Don Draper's than ours. Figuring out how to present this new information in a way that will minimize this sort of misunderstanding is one the reasons i haven't just thrown these quotes up on my blog and enjoyed the sensational traffic.
|
|
Chainsaw
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 303
|
Post by Chainsaw on Jul 15, 2016 7:27:49 GMT -6
It's certainly possible that EGG was worried his crusty male wargamer target customer might think he'd developed a game for girls or kids. I'm not sure I would let some comment to a fanzine in 1975 redefine the man as "anti-woman." Of course, this is the age of the internet rage brigade, constantly on the prowl for any reason to be offended. /shrug And I totally get that times were different then than they are now, and you would be crucified today for saying some things that were common sentiments in the 1970s. It is easy to forget that Gary's world was more like Don Draper's than ours. Figuring out how to present this new information in a way that will minimize this sort of misunderstanding is one the reasons i haven't just thrown these quotes up on my blog and enjoyed the sensational traffic. You seem very objective and professional to me, Jon. I did not mean to seem to accuse you of an agenda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 9:57:25 GMT -6
Nobody liked my "Airplane" joke. * cries *
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 10:03:15 GMT -6
It's certainly possible that EGG was worried his crusty male wargamer target customer might think he'd developed a game for girls or kids. I'm not sure I would let some comment to a fanzine in 1975 redefine the man as "anti-woman." Of course, this is the age of the internet rage brigade, constantly on the prowl for any reason to be offended. /shrug And I totally get that times were different then than they are now, and you would be crucified today for saying some things that were common sentiments in the 1970s. It is easy to forget that Gary's world was more like Don Draper's than ours. Figuring out how to present this new information in a way that will minimize this sort of misunderstanding is one the reasons i haven't just thrown these quotes up on my blog and enjoyed the sensational traffic. And Gary was a complex character; even at the time I wondered sometimes at how what he said differed from how he acted... I never saw him do anything to make Mary Dale feel the least bit "excluded" or "unwelcome," for instance. I do know that even as early as 1974 TSR was getting bombarded by letters. What was in them? Was Gary reacting to something? Was he, like many of us do, shooting off his mouth without really thinking it through? Was he constipated that day? We'll never know. And I appreciate your thoughtfulness about this information, considering that there are STILL people waving torches and pitchforks about the special rules for female characters in the AD&D 1E DMG, despite the fact it was published 35 d**n years ago!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 10:08:06 GMT -6
It is easy to forget that Gary's world was more like Don Draper's than ours. 1975 to today = 36 years. 1962 to 1975 = 13 years. Korean War to 1975 = 22 to 25 years. There is less time from WW2 to 1975 than from 1975 to now.
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Jul 15, 2016 10:36:14 GMT -6
I believe that EGG's usage of "man" or "men" in OD&D was entirely consistent with the cultural norms as of the time of his writing. For example, "fighting man" was a common reference to fighter types in the literature of the 19th and 20th century up to that point. This is not to say that there were no women warriors in fiction. For example, we have the writings of C. L. Moore.
I would suggest that though the woman's liberation movement started in the 19th century, it took time for gender inclusive language to become a cultural norm. To the best of my memory, this really was starting to take hold in the late 70s/early 80s, after OD&D was published.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 15, 2016 16:11:57 GMT -6
Whoa Nelly! I somehow missed this (bold). Am I to understand you as saying that Gary was intentionally excluding women from playing D&D? How exactly was he accomplishing this? Who were these women that he was excluding? And why would he want to? The rest of the gang at TSR went along with this? Saying someone intentionally excluded females is an exponentially more damaging statement then they failed to include them. I'd be interested in reading your revised essay and the letters that support this. I hesitate to further tease information that I don't intend to release at the moment, but just to clarify: Yes, there exists a particular line of argument from Gygax, from 1975, which effectively states that he feels women have no place in gaming, expresses a preference that they not participate in the hobby, and makes several sarcastic and derogatory remarks about how he might alter the D&D rules to grant women what he would humorously consider a fitting place in the game. He doesn't have some sort of plan to literally prevent women from playing D&D through, I don't know, legislation or something, but it's pretty bad. This has nothing to do with TSR's corporate policy, it's a personal statement. But I'd say it goes well beyond merely failing to include women, and openly mocks the idea that he should. Having seen that naturally changes the way I see this discussion. I'll see what I can do about getting that piece into shape sooner than later, though I'm juggling a great many projects at the moment. I appreciate your candor Jon. I'm not that sure what you present will actually change the way I see this discussion, though. I'd simply like to form my own opinion on what Gary said and what he was reacting to. I realize that I'm not going to change anyone's views, but I feel like what you're telling us only reinforces what I was trying to express to Stormcrow. Gygax was the one at the helm when Moldvay/Cook was published. It's akin to a company, like Nike, saying, "We're a socially responsible company. We care about the environment. We use recycled products to produce our sneakers. Buy our stuff." Yet, at the same time, they are sourcing out the product to sweat shops in third world countries using child labor. And we are happy with ourselves for buying those sneakers because we're saving the planet. Eh, not exactly. You get my point Forgive my cynicism.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Jul 16, 2016 12:13:52 GMT -6
It is easy to forget that Gary's world was more like Don Draper's than ours. 1975 to today = 36 years. 1962 to 1975 = 13 years. Korean War to 1975 = 22 to 25 years. There is less time from WW2 to 1975 than from 1975 to now. Math oops. 2016 - 1975 = 31 1975 - 1939 = 36 Frank
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 16, 2016 14:58:59 GMT -6
1975 to today = 36 years. 1962 to 1975 = 13 years. Korean War to 1975 = 22 to 25 years. There is less time from WW2 to 1975 than from 1975 to now. Math oops. 2016 - 1975 = 31 1975 - 1939 = 36 Frank He might be counting from the end of WWII. 1975 - 1945 = 30 So, just barely less time than 1975 to now. Or, he typed "WW2" but meant Korean War.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2016 16:34:54 GMT -6
While perhaps flippant in tone, I don't think it's at all clear that Stormcrow's statement in the highlighted paragraph is "untrue". In fact, as far as I can tell, it's pretty historically accurate in regard to the development of American English. I was referring to the "conservative claptrap" comment which is untrue. It is not "conservative claptrap" that "corrupted by political correctness" is a bad thing, "corrupted by political correctness" is an objectively observable bad problem in today's world. As far as the historical accuracy I think that is an eye of the beholder issue more than anything else. I see what I believe and he sees what he believes. Since I am not intentionally trying to ferret out every possible indication of bias no matter how big or little by viewing the past solely through the lens of current left-wing ideology, which is never a good idea because it leads to erroneous conclusions about peoples beliefs and motivations, I don't view all historical information from a negative perspective. If I take that point of view, then all historical figures are evil and they all had bad intentions. I choose not to assume that everything in the past was done in bad faith. Without getting into my beliefs on PC and the like, I think this is an uncharitable interpretation. Nobody is accusing the OD&D writers of malice or deliberate sexism, just of being "products of their time" (this is a condescending phrase, but applicable).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2016 18:48:10 GMT -6
Math oops. 2016 - 1975 = 31 1975 - 1939 = 36 Frank He might be counting from the end of WWII. 1975 - 1945 = 30 So, just barely less time than 1975 to now. Or, he typed "WW2" but meant Korean War. I wasn't going to say anything, but now I have to. 2016-1975 equals 41 not 31.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2016 20:19:55 GMT -6
41 indeed.
And I was counting 1945, the end of WW2.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Jul 16, 2016 23:10:55 GMT -6
He might be counting from the end of WWII. 1975 - 1945 = 30 So, just barely less time than 1975 to now. Or, he typed "WW2" but meant Korean War. I wasn't going to say anything, but now I have to. 2016-1975 equals 41 not 31. Duh.... I can't do math either.... Ok so yea the original statement was true Frank
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 17, 2016 8:00:59 GMT -6
And you guys call yourselves math nerds. tsk-tsk. Hand in your membership cards, please
|
|