Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2020 1:35:56 GMT -6
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the variant Chainmail D&D claim. Though, I believe Chainmails role is now often understated. This is why Strategos is problematic as an alternative source for resolving combat. What was the alternative before the whole Strategos theory? Basically Arneson altering and expanding of Chainmail. The LBB's and Dalluhn seem to support the later. As for being open to debate, Havard and increments discussion seems to suggest otherwise and is touching on some of what I allude to. I think it's really an issue of botched semantics: There is no "Chainmail vs Strategos" here. There is only a big "we don't know". As I wrote above, from a practical point of view, I think Chainmail might well a bigger influence on Arneson than Strategos was - just not an important one. And that's the trick - nobody doubts that Arneson knew and probably quite liked both games; it's just that their significance for his Blackmoor game seems to have been fairly limited. |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Sept 27, 2020 5:26:44 GMT -6
While it would be interesting to look more closely into this exchange between Dave and Gary, we also have the opportunity to compare Chainmail and D&D. I think that's a separate matter. The exchange between Gary and Dave was meant to illustrate how we collectively ended up without much hope of consensus, given that we can't even rely on the consistency of the eyewitnesses closest to all of these matters. It was not meant to litigate the respective importance of either of their contributions to D&D, but instead to show how they later belittled one another's contributions in a way that kicked up so much dust that even the things that seem - to me anyway - like they should admit of some resolution instead just kind of languish in people agreeing to disagree. I agree that it is a separate issue. But it is probably one of the reasons why fans keep bringing up these old arguments. To me, just by looking at Chainmail and OD&D side by side tells me that these are very different types of games though, even though Gary's influence can be seen in both. And just to this point: It depends on what context that part of the FFC was written. Many section of that book do appear to have been prepared for publication in the Domesday Book or D&D Supplement II. But I am not saying we should ignore this either. My reading anyway of those quotes is that they were created by Arneson editorially as he was stitching together material for the Judges Guild - they were not fragments of his original notes. Yeah, it makes sense that this comment was added afterwards. I am still wondering if the FFC, almost in its entirety might have been what Dave submitted to TSR for Supplement II, but that they discarded as useless though. So it is possible that it was written with a TSR audience in mind. Admittedly, this is speculation on my part. -Havard |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Sept 27, 2020 5:48:23 GMT -6
Yep. This is the classic argument thrown around as "proof" that Dave wasn't a very good designer. But instead of looking at what Dave wasn't able to accomplish, I would challenge you to also look at what Dave did accomplish. How did he manage to inspire so many people and draw them into a completely new form of gaming? What was it he was doing that made Gary Gygax think: I would really love to work with this man again (after Don't Think the Ship) to create D&D which Gary was convinced would blow people's minds? -Havard I'm not talking about Gary. Any criticism of Dave is always met with "yeah. well Gary sux" comments. A far more tired argument than the proof positive of how poorly done AIF is. I hope my arguments weren't seen as a "Gary sux" type of comment. My personal project of researching Arneson has never been intended as an anti-Gary thing. I have respect for both and love the game they created together. AiF is a flawed game, but compared to OD&D, it shares many of the same flaws. A better editor and a more skilled team behind it could have improved this game quite a bit. AiF though is often compared, I think, to AD&D 1st Ed, which to me is unfair, because that was a game with all of TSR behind it. As I have stated plenty of times, I am mostly unimpressed with all of Dave's published works that I own or used to own- AIF, FFC, AIB, and his contributions to supp II (barring TotF). I also had some d20 books but unsure how much/if any of that was his work. I think Dave was a great "idea guy" and I believe he was amazing at the table and I would have loved to play in a game of his. In 1974, Gary had been doing semi-professional gaming related work for a decade and worked professionally since 1971. Gary was certainly talented both when it came to writing and designing games and also for having an understanding of what gamers wanted. Dave who was 9 years younger may not have been as good a writer or game designer, but given more experience and a solid team behind him could probably have produced even better gaming material than he did. That said, I am actually a big fan of his writing, especially in the FFC which while poorly edited and organized has some incredibly entertaining writing in it. My main point above was the "idea guy thing though". Dave didn't just have one great idea. He had a set of amazing ideas and concepts. These ideas and concepts were so strong that they became the talk all over the Twin Cities and soon also in Lake Geneva. When published, it was these ideas that would shake the industry and create what we have today. This is why I am saying that whether Dave used Chainmail or not is nearly irrelevant. Doing Chainmail with single characters and the fantasy "supplement" was already an extreme take on Chainmail. And Dave Arneson's game wasn't about the combat rules anyway. The D&D that I discovered wasn't a war game. If it had been, I would have moved on. Something had happened in between. Could Dave had done it without Gary? Certainly not. But Gary could not have done it without Dave either. And Gary was smart enough to realize that after the first demo game Dave ran in Lake Geneva in 1972. Again, this isn't an anti-Gary post. It isn't a Dave was the most amazing game designer ever post. It is the "We Need to Reevaluate the Importance of Ideas and Concepts" post.  -Havard |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 27, 2020 7:49:28 GMT -6
I think it's really an issue of botched semantics: There is no "Chainmail vs Strategos" here. There is only a big "we don't know". As I wrote above, from a practical point of view, I think Chainmail might well a bigger influence on Arneson than Strategos was - just not an important one. And that's the trick - nobody doubts that Arneson knew and probably quite liked both games; it's just that their significance for his Blackmoor game seems to have been fairly limited. It's not a "Chainmail vs Strategos" thing. It's a "Not Chainmail" thing- a concerted effort to minimize it's role of influence. The argument has now changed by looking backwards and referring to the essence of D&D. This got traction with Rob K's book. The object is to create consensus in a new idea in order to supersede a predominant theory. He does this by looking at backwards causality in relation to a single source and asking if it could reproduce the same outcomes and effects. Here is where the problem lies. No one is saying D&D is derived from only a single source. All the influences are important. Some are more important than others in the development of Blackmoor. It seems silly to me to minimize Chainmail. Chainmail played an important role throughout all of this story, from it's introduction to the hobby, the C&C society, the Great Kingdom, the Fantasy Supplement, the FFC, the drafting of the LBB's, etc. It only makes sense to minimize Chainmail's role in relation to casting doubt on Gygax's claims and how this is connected to the law suits and the dissolution of friendships. So, if you're on this recent train ride, despite the deniability, it's to cast disparagement on the character of Gygax. Is it clearer what I mean by the "ugly red headed step child"? I don't have a bone to pick. I consider myself critical, yet unbiased about all this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2020 9:42:27 GMT -6
It seems silly to me to minimize Chainmail. Chainmail played an important role throughout all of this story, from it's introduction to the hobby, the C&C society, the Great Kingdom, the Fantasy Supplement, the FFC, the drafting of the LBB's, etc. It only makes sense to minimize Chainmail's role in relation to casting doubt on Gygax's claims and how this is connected to the law suits and the dissolution of friendships. So, if you're on this recent train ride, despite the deniability, it's to cast disparagement on the character of Gygax. Oh, come on, man. Let's stay civil, shall we? - I'm not on a "train ride", and I have "no bone to pick" either. I consider the arguments made to "minimize" Chainmail pretty sound and reasonable, and I have no interest in "casting disparagement" on anyone. I just think, based on the actual facts submitted by other people than myself, that the influence of Chainmail, and of Gary Gygax himself on the pre-1974 developments has historically been overstated. That doesn't say that Gygax wasn't an able game designer, that Chainmail wasn't, whatever, a good game, or that Chainmail's influence on the gaming scene wasn't considerable. To keep with a differentiation that captainjapan has made earlier on - the form of the Arneson games might well have been influenced by Chainmail. But the actual content is another matter. It's entirely plausible that Chainmail was part of the common knowledge base of Arneson and his - changing - group of players without being specifically relevant at the gaming table. Again - "specifically" relevant, not just "generally". Pointing that out is not a political statement, by the way. It's paying attention to the people who have actually sat at Arneson's gaming table, and to what they themselves have said. They have been consistent in their public statements for the last 20+ years, pretty much since "Dragons in the Basement" started being a thing. - And, as to their general integrity beyond that, just saying: Despite many of them working in key positions in the gaming industry, and having academic careers of a certain prestige, none of them have seen it fit to make a bit fuzz about their involvement with Arneson, or writing books about his supposed genius in game theory. Nobody of the St Pauls group is out there writing letters to the chamber of commerce, or suing their dead friend's family over campaign notes they forgot at their house fifty years ago. As I see it, this is not "a conceited effort to minimize the role of Chainmail", as it is a number of increasingly desperate attempt by some folks to stay relevant as the professional "RPG community spokespeople" that they have always tried to be - by making statements to support whatever is goes best along with the current of the tide. And, like broken clocks, sometimes they happen to say the right stuff at the right time. My simple recommendation regarding this is to stop paying them any attention until they stop their increasingly bewildering antics. Again, just saying - a former editor at TSR with less than one year of actual work experience in the industry sees it fit to run a Youtube channel. A former professional game designer that played with Arneson for 20+ years doesn't even have a public Facebook page. Maybe a lot of the discussions we're having on issues concerning gaming history would go down better if we focused our attention not on the loudest voices, but on those who actually have something to say? |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 27, 2020 11:08:06 GMT -6
Oh, come on, man. Let's stay civil, shall we? - I'm not on a "train ride", and I have "no bone to pick" either. I didn't intend to come off as uncivil and my comment wasn't pointed at you specifically, more at the hobby as a whole. People can unwittingly be participants without recognizing the outcomes. Maybe the narrative will change. Yes, these were Gygax's claims, influences, and actions. Yes, these were Arneson's claims, influences, and actions. It's apparent that they both believed what they were saying and were justified in their behavior because they were grossly ignorant in what was all unchartered ground, or some such tempered middle ground. And maybe it will be shown that is how everyone involved viewed it at the time it was happening, except for a few "broken clocks". I'm open to watching things unfold. |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Sept 27, 2020 11:09:00 GMT -6
I think it's really an issue of botched semantics: There is no "Chainmail vs Strategos" here. There is only a big "we don't know". As I wrote above, from a practical point of view, I think Chainmail might well a bigger influence on Arneson than Strategos was - just not an important one. And that's the trick - nobody doubts that Arneson knew and probably quite liked both games; it's just that their significance for his Blackmoor game seems to have been fairly limited. It's not a "Chainmail vs Strategos" thing. It's a "Not Chainmail" thing- a concerted effort to minimize it's role of influence. The argument has now changed by looking backwards and referring to the essence of D&D. This got traction with Rob K's book. The object is to create consensus in a new idea in order to supersede a predominant theory. He does this by looking at backwards causality in relation to a single source and asking if it could reproduce the same outcomes and effects. Here is where the problem lies. No one is saying D&D is derived from only a single source. All the influences are important. Some are more important than others in the development of Blackmoor. It seems silly to me to minimize Chainmail. Chainmail played an important role throughout all of this story, from it's introduction to the hobby, the C&C society, the Great Kingdom, the Fantasy Supplement, the FFC, the drafting of the LBB's, etc. It only makes sense to minimize Chainmail's role in relation to casting doubt on Gygax's claims and how this is connected to the law suits and the dissolution of friendships. So, if you're on this recent train ride, despite the deniability, it's to cast disparagement on the character of Gygax. Is it clearer what I mean by the "ugly red headed step child"? I don't have a bone to pick. I consider myself critical, yet unbiased about all this. I guess minimize depends on how you see the situation right now. There are two extremes here. The one extreme would be that Chainmail is irrelevant for the development of D&D and the other is that D&D is just a variant of Chainmail. Clearly none of us subscribe to either extreme. To clarify my own perspective at least, I am talking about how much influence Chainmail had specifically on Blackmoor. This is where I see the role of Chainmail being not only greatly exaggerated by most people talking and writing about it, but also problematic because it misses the point that Blackmoor was primarily a (proto-) Roleplaying Game, while Chainmail is clearly a Skirmish War Game. Now Chainmail is still important to the development of D&D because there were two co-creators of D&D. Before D&D, Chainmail did IMHO represent the published version of how Gary Gygax saw medieval (and fantasy) gaming. Both the game itself and his continued work with expansions for The Great Kingdom are a window for us to look into how Gary's ideas were evolving. -Havard |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 27, 2020 11:24:02 GMT -6
To clarify my own perspective at least, I am talking about how much influence Chainmail had specifically on Blackmoor. This is where I see the role of Chainmail being not only greatly exaggerated by most people talking and writing about it, but also problematic because it misses the point that Blackmoor was primarily a (proto-) Roleplaying Game, while Chainmail is clearly a Skirmish War Game. There is continued discussion about what it means to roleplay. SOB takes an expansive view of this by referring to roleplay in the Strategos campaigns. If you want to take a more restrictive view, what Rob K calls the RPG engine, I think it's worth recognizing that all the influences came through wargaming and a desire to mesh it with popular culture- films, comics, pulp fiction. |
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Sept 27, 2020 12:32:04 GMT -6
This is an absolutely fascinating discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by havard on Sept 27, 2020 13:02:10 GMT -6
To clarify my own perspective at least, I am talking about how much influence Chainmail had specifically on Blackmoor. This is where I see the role of Chainmail being not only greatly exaggerated by most people talking and writing about it, but also problematic because it misses the point that Blackmoor was primarily a (proto-) Roleplaying Game, while Chainmail is clearly a Skirmish War Game. There is continued discussion about what it means to roleplay. SOB takes an expansive view of this by referring to roleplay in the Strategos campaigns. If you want to take a more restrictive view, what Rob K calls the RPG engine, I think it's worth recognizing that all the influences came through wargaming and a desire to mesh it with popular culture- films, comics, pulp fiction. True. However, my assumption is that the first published roleplaying game in the modern sense of the world is Dungeons & Dragons. So when I say Blackmoor was a roleplaying game, I mean that Blackmoor had all the characteristics of a modern RPG, except that it wasn't published. Previous games had roleplaying elements, and some of them were important as direct or indirect influences of D&D, but Blackmoor is unique in that it was a direct predecessor of D&D, and the only direct predecessor to contain all the important elements. It is possible that other gamers ran games very similar to Blackmoor around the same time with said elements in place, but there is no direct line from those games to D&D. I am not saying that we should discard the role of war gaming and the various gaming traditions that lead to D&D, but if we put too much emphasis on what came before I think we are undercommunicating the fact that Dave and Gary sat down and created something completely new. Something the world had not seen before. And I think both men deserve proper credit for that -Havard |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 27, 2020 13:19:49 GMT -6
I consider the arguments made to "minimize" Chainmail pretty sound and reasonable, and I have no interest in "casting disparagement" on anyone. I just think, based on the actual facts submitted by other people than myself, that the influence of Chainmail, and of Gary Gygax himself on the pre-1974 developments has historically been overstated. While that's certainly true, I don't really think there's much we can do with the truth of it. Did Gary Gygax himself overstate the influence of Chainmail on the development and success of D&D? Definitely! Just read the intro to the PHB in light of, among other things, a guy named Leonard Patt. But pretty much everyone involved in the creation of D&D has overstated the importance of their own role for as long the legacy of this game has been something worth staking a claim over. That's just something we have to control for as we try to figure out what actually happened. I think our job, or at least the job I've been trying to do, is more about measuring the influence of things like Chainmail in a way that is not too big, and not too small, but just right. That's the end goal. Same for Strategos, same for the Braunsteins, same for whatever else. To do that, we need to deal with the fact that a lot of people said a lot of things and that as the years went on, those things got increasingly detached from reality. The fact that some people have overstated the influence of Chainmail is just the beginning of the quest, not a conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 27, 2020 17:34:26 GMT -6
However, my assumption is that the first published roleplaying game in the modern sense of the world is Dungeons & Dragons. So when I say Blackmoor was a roleplaying game, I mean that Blackmoor had all the characteristics of a modern RPG, except that it wasn't published. I think most would agree with your assumption. The caveat is that there was an evolution to Blackmoor. ...if we put too much emphasis on what came before I think we are undercommunicating the fact that Dave and Gary sat down and created something completely new. Something the world had not seen before. Do you really feel this is at risk? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 1:59:27 GMT -6
I didn't intend to come off as uncivil and my comment wasn't pointed at you specifically, more at the hobby as a whole. People can unwittingly be participants without recognizing the outcomes. Maybe the narrative will change. Yes, these were Gygax's claims, influences, and actions. Yes, these were Arneson's claims, influences, and actions. It's apparent that they both believed what they were saying and were justified in their behavior because they were grossly ignorant in what was all unchartered ground, or some such tempered middle ground. Sorry to be a hardass about this, my friend, but - no, it is not apparent, at all: Gygax' "claims, influence, and actions" dwarfed Arneson's at all times, and there was was not, at any time, an even playing field between the two, if only because Gygax was Arneson's employer, both in a formal and an informal capacity. Also, since the whole matter had a legal dimension, we can reasonably assert that Arneson, who won three lawsuits against Gygax while not having the means and resources of a millionaire game industry professional, was generally truthful in his accounts of how D&D came to be, and that Gygax had intentionally and wrongfully overstated his own claims. Furthermore, we have to register that Arneson wasn't the only one to aggressively contest Gygax' accounts of the development of D&D and other RPGs, and that Gygax continued to face allegations of him having wrongfully appropriated other people's intellectual property until the end of his life. Many of statements have found to be willful misrepresentations of facts, as much by casual, and by professional researchers. - And that's not being unkind to him; that's listing the cold facts. So, we can reasonably assert that Gygax, as a source of information on these subjects, is materially less reliable than others. Or, to put it more bluntly: No former friend of Dave Arneson has written a book literally saying that Gygax was the real genius, or have they? Of course, we can - and some do tend to - spin the story until it flies to Neverland, and somehow come to the assertion that Arneson, the mild-manned nerd who would semi-retire from game design to become a teacher for disabled kids, fooled everyone, straight out of TSR's post office. Or, that the judges in the lawsuits between Gygax and Arneson, or between Gygax and TSR, otherwise consummate professionals, were all idiots or villains in just this one case. Or, that RJK and Frank Mentzer were always envious of Gygax and, to this day, thrive on creating misery for his loved ones. - But that doesn't change that the overall picture doesn't favor Gygax- if not for one reason, then for another: There is, indeed, no middle ground on this. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 28, 2020 15:44:19 GMT -6
Sorry to be a hardass about this, my friend, but - no, it is not apparent, at all: I probably should have put that last paragraph in quotes as I meant it as a hypothetical with a tinge of sarcasm. But sarcasm never translates well with this medium. You may be misunderstanding or reading into my comments. It's not my intent to defend anyone, Gygax included. My comments have to do with motives and outcomes. And I'll leave it at that. Who knows, those eighteen pages of notes that Rob K categorized as mostly "stats for Chainmail monsters" might surface at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Sept 28, 2020 16:04:49 GMT -6
I may be naive, but as a longtime fan of OD&D, FFC, and the Fantasy Supplement, I have to say they share a milieu, a milieu which continues to inspire and excite. Neither FFC nor the LBBs make much of the combat resolution. Somehow, between the two men, they made it possible for a fantasy world to come alive in a game. After the courts had their say, both coauthors are still credited as creators of Dungeons & Dragons. Personally, I love both of them. Not sure where everyone gets off being an expert and taking sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 28, 2020 21:55:58 GMT -6
we have to register that Arneson wasn't the only one to aggressively contest Gygax' accounts of the development of D&D and other RPGs, and that Gygax continued to face allegations of him having wrongfully appropriated other people's intellectual property until the end of his life. Many of statements have found to be willful misrepresentations of facts, as much by casual, and by professional researchers. - And that's not being unkind to him; that's listing the cold facts. I hadn't heard it put quite this way before. It's hard to take as Gygax has always held such an important place in my creative development. I knew much of his work was derivative, but I chalked that up to how all creative people are products of their influences. I didn't realize much of his work was straight up misappropriation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 2:36:00 GMT -6
I hadn't heard it put quite this way before. It's hard to take as Gygax has always held such an important place in my creative development. I knew much of his work was derivative, but I chalked that up to how all creative people are products of their influences. I didn't realize much of his work was straight up misappropriation. Yeah, it's a shame, because Gygax accomplishments for the hobby could well stand by themselves. The problem seems to be that, as was the fashion in the 1970s, he apparently wanted to be seen as a Warholian genius, instead of just as a "good content manager", which is what he was - just like people like George Lucas, Bill Gates, Elon Musk or Kevin Feige are content managers and content developers without necessarily also being content creators. All of these absurd claims by Gygax apear to have been a vanity exercise, for the most part, not even serving any practical purpose. The key to understanding these things is also what OSR-related websites usually don't like to talk about: That Gygax was widely disliked and ridiculed for his claims, back in the day, and that, after his exit from TSR, he found himself having no friends within the gaming scene beyond the people that had been his closest personal collaborators. Also, that, especially in the early 2000s, Gygax' claims started to carry maniacal traits, like when he claimed to also have invented Traveler or Tekumel (presumably by proxy), or expressed and supported ideas like that Arneson might have been "out to get him" from the moment they first made contact. - A lot of this stuff might have been said or written in the heat of the moment, a lot of this stuff was not worth commenting on even then - but it makes it clear that Gygax had no rational distance to the respective issues, and that he was clearly still reeling from the personal defeat. First and foremost, on a practical level, this simply makes him unreliable as a source for historical facts. But second, on a more personal level to us, it should mean that we don't continue his demonstrably false arguments out of a misplaced sense of, ugh, loyalty and romanticism. Let's move on from this. Folks might not have gotten along well, but they created the game like we play it today: Together. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 29, 2020 3:04:28 GMT -6
Yeah, it's a shame, because Gygax accomplishments for the hobby could well stand by themselves. The problem seems to be that, as was the fashion in the 1970s, he apparently wanted to be seen as a Warholian genius, instead of just as a "good content manager", which is what he was - just like people like George Lucas, Bill Gates, Elon Musk or Kevin Feige are content managers and content developers without necessarily also being content creators. And good content managers are very important, because the great creators: Nikolai Tesla, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Frank Frazetta, etc. tend to be terrible at managing. Well, credit to ERB for being savvy enough to get on top of the business side, and Frazetta married the right woman. Gygax was widely disliked and ridiculed for his claims, back in the day, and that, after his exit from TSR, he found himself having no friends within the gaming scene beyond the people that had been his closest personal collaborators. I'd heard in great detail about the hookers and blow, and the million dollar mansion in LA he wasted his money on. I didn't realize he'd become a pariah as well. That makes sense why his output was so terrible after being booted out of TSR. On top of legal troubles, no respectable company wanted to partner with him. Lejendary Adventure was in desperate need of good editing and production values. Still, man, the Drow series is epic. And the other early modules he penned are classics. As much of a mess as the 1e DMG is, it is a delight to read. Like the ravings of a self-absorbed mad man who was well read, and had moments of genius among random train-of-thought ramblings. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 29, 2020 3:12:06 GMT -6
You got me to thinking about content managers. It is a real problem when they try to be creative, like what has happened to Star Wars. They are much better off not trying to be original and instead use tried and true formulas. Something I think Jon Favreau gets. He doesn't try to make original stories, just take what works and put Star Wars art on it and we get The Mandalorian. Which I think is best we can hope for for that property.
Though Genndy Tartakovsky is a creative storytelling genius and his Star Wars Clone Wars is everything we all wish the prequels would've been.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 5:43:56 GMT -6
I'd heard in great detail about the hookers and blow, and the million dollar mansion in LA he wasted his money on. I didn't realize he'd become a pariah as well. That makes sense why his output was so terrible after being booted out of TSR. On top of legal troubles, no respectable company wanted to partner with him. Lejendary Adventure was in desperate need of good editing and production values. Yeah, pretty much, as it seems. Again, this depends on whether you accept Gygax' own narrative, in which he was always either the exceptional genius or the exceptionally wronged party - or whether one accepts the facts: Gygax personal credibility was massively compromised after the Arneson lawsuits, and his only noteworthy business operation had resulted in his removal from the company. If you're an artist or an otherwise content creator, and you can choose between this guy, "new" TSR, Games Workshop, or some video game studio like Coleco - where do you send your curriculum? The sam goes for prospective employers or business partners, by the way. Nobody wants to work with the guy who lacks discipline, and yet is unapologetic about creating a toxic workplace environment. Again, the Gygaxian narrative usually omits that TSR did substantially better without him, as long as RPGs sold well: "Forgotten Realms" is still in print over five editions of D&D, and "Dragonlance", as you yourself know, at least gets some demented Russian musicals made. So, it wasn't as if D&D, whatever, "ended" with his departure; for the lion's share of fans that roll the dice until today, D&D indeed begins with it. Again, hashtag #notnice, hashtag #truth. Still, man, the Drow series is epic. And the other early modules he penned are classics. As much of a mess as the 1e DMG is, it is a delight to read. Precisely. But because Gygax would so notoriously overstate anything he had ever done, he made it hard even today to appreciate that which he did that was exceptional. We varely get to talk about the good stuff he did. 1e being the all-around best edition of D&D, for example. Or, the adventures he authored setting quality standards for what good adventure writing is until the present day. - But because Gygax generally behaved like the barista who doesn't just brew you good coffee, but also claims to have invented Starbucks, we rarely ever get to talk about that in a way that excludes the drama. You got me to thinking about content managers. It is a real problem when they try to be creative, like what has happened to Star Wars. Funny story, if you look at the hype around "The Phantom Menace", that's another GIER narrative - "George invented everything, in retrospect". Like, if you listened to him, back then, all those script writers and script doctors, Leigh Brackett included, they had no idea what a good story was until he told them. It was only after the public backlash against the prequel movies that he stepped back from a narrative that would have paralleled Gygax' own - and would have been equally indefensible on the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 29, 2020 17:50:37 GMT -6
Nobody wants to work with the guy who lacks discipline, and yet is unapologetic about creating a toxic workplace environment. Again, the Gygaxian narrative usually omits that TSR did substantially better without him, as long as RPGs sold well: "Forgotten Realms" is still in print over five editions of D&D, and "Dragonlance", as you yourself know, at least gets some demented Russian musicals made. So, it wasn't as if D&D, whatever, "ended" with his departure; for the lion's share of fans that roll the dice until today, D&D indeed begins with it. When I first started working professionally in tabletop games back in 2000 I was a starry eyed Gygax fanboy, and had no idea about the havoc he'd wreaked. I was caught by surprise upon hanging out with pro game designers and publishers who knew or had worked with him to find out their negative opinions of him. To the average fan Lorraine Williams and the Blumes were the big baddies that made everything wrong with TSR. Of course the truth is far more twisted. It was a whole nest of vipers, mismanaged, and it's a miracle what amazing products did come out. I also got to hang out with my heroes like Elmore and Brom, and boy do they have some horror stories, and plenty of funny ones too. if you look at the hype around "The Phantom Menace", that's another GIER narrative - "George invented everything, in retrospect". Like, if you listened to him, back then, all those script writers and script doctors, Leigh Brackett included, they had no idea what a good story was until he told them. It was only after the public backlash against the prequel movies that he stepped back from a narrative that would have paralleled Gygax' own - and would have been equally indefensible on the long run. The real unsung hero of Star Wars was George's ex-wife Marcia Lucas, she was the brilliant editor that made Star Wars work. The prequels showed that he wasn't the brilliant story teller, but he was a technical maestro and despite their flaws there is still a Star-Warsishness to them that is lacking in all the non-Lucas Star Wars stuff. Content manager. I'm still chewing on that idea. A content manager with a keen sense of taste can make all the difference. Like John W. Campbell's contributions on Dune. Don't get me wrong, all the Dune books are great, but that first one is...extra special. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Sept 29, 2020 18:58:28 GMT -6
But because Gygax would so notoriously overstate anything he had ever done, he made it hard even today to appreciate that which he did that was exceptional. We varely get to talk about the good stuff he did. 1e being the all-around best edition of D&D, for example. Or, the adventures he authored setting quality standards for what good adventure writing is until the present day. - But because Gygax generally behaved like the barista who doesn't just brew you good coffee, but also claims to have invented Starbucks, we rarely ever get to talk about that in a way that excludes the drama. I have to say, I have the completely opposite experience. I love Gary’s rulebooks and modules and world and even novels. He left behind a veritable mountain of creative material, and I have gotten hundreds of hours of enjoyment from them. I have run most of his B, D, G, S, T, and WG modules. I enjoy discussing them on boards and reading blogs about them. Often people talk about the wealth of literature he was influenced by, or the wealth of influences he had on the fantasy genre, or his writing style, or his rules philosophies, or tell funny anecdotes about gaming with him, or share witty or insightful things he posted online. I think the PHB is perfect. If I want inspiration, I crack open Greyhawk or the DMG. My fandom is a joyous and living one.
This other stuff you’re talking about, the “claims” or whatever? I’m honestly not really aware of what you’re talking about. But please don’t take this as your cue to enlighten me.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 29, 2020 22:11:19 GMT -6
This other stuff you’re talking about, the “claims” or whatever? I’m honestly not really aware of what you’re talking about. But please don’t take this as your cue to enlighten me.
There is something to be said about never learning too much about your heroes. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend" |
|
|
|
Post by Piper on Sept 29, 2020 22:33:47 GMT -6
There is something to be said about never learning too much about your heroes. When Star Trek (1966) premiered back in the '60s I was instantly hooked. I admired the heck out of Captain Kirk, he inspired me ... he was my hero. Then, about a decade after ST went off the air I saw William Shatner on television. It was one of those shows where B- and C-list celebs competed on an obstacle course, I no longer recall the title. Shatner was, quite frankly, a jerk to both his teammates and the other guys. I was rather disappointed but realized, in the end, this didn't detract from the character he portrayed on my favorite show. So,yes, I'd fully agree with your statement, quoted above. I finally met Shatner face-to-face. We had a conversation about LA traffic and the hazards of air travel both here and abroad. It was a positive experience so I can only assume he, like many of us, managed to learn from his mistakes and become a better person than he was. [/ramble over] |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 1:32:40 GMT -6
It was a whole nest of vipers, mismanaged, and it's a miracle what amazing products did come out. Don't get me wrong, but this is why we need to make this an issue that we mostly leave to the serious researchers, or, indeed, this outpouring of unfriendly details will never end. Not to belittle anyone's memories and personal experience, but there's a difference between pointing out factual discrepancies, and between taking just about every negative story seriously.
Based on two general facts - one, that Gygax/Blume TSR started as a garage enterprise and only gradually professionalized its operations, and, two, that the RPG/Fantasy industry would go on to peak in the 1990s - it's very easy to dismiss everyone's actions as shortsighted/stupid. Like, there is no such thing as a happy ex-employee, and everyone always knows things better than the people in charge.
If you want to look this up a bit, Bruce Heard, Bruce Nesmith, and William W. Connors have, in contrast, given pretty level-headed, de-personalized accounts about their time at TSR that might be worth a look, particularly from your perspective as a pro. Now, they mostly and understandably don't talk a lot about Gygax, and more about their time with Lorraine Williams as CEO, but it's still quite interesting. This other stuff you’re talking about, the “claims” or whatever? I’m honestly not really aware of what you’re talking about. But please don’t take this as your cue to enlighten me.
There is something to be said about never learning too much about your heroes. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend" What Thomden just said, and what Piper just said. Let's perhaps also think about what you just wrote, Falc: Because it sure sounds as if you want to hand me a "he who smelt it, dealt it" for pointing out facts in a fact-based debate. I'm sorry if you and others are offended by the turn the discussion has been taking, but the truth is simply that the well-told tale about Gygax being the sole or the main creator of D&D is just not true. Any truthful and fact-based discussion will inevitably arrive at that conclusion, and Mr Gygax will never end up looking good in such a discussion because it's his false claims that will have to be corrected. If people would only stop repeating those false claims as if they had not long, and by universal consensus, been refuted, that would remove the necessity to have these debates. In this thread, I've repeatedly admonished everyone not to create a "political" debate over the immaterial question of how we should design a supposed new logo, precisely because of this: Because if it's not Gygax, then it's Strategos, or whatever other Strawman some people invent to be able to claim that the prerogative of interpretation should be theirs alone. And whatever that Strawman ends up to be, it will always be in blatant defiance of common sense and factual evidence. And, YES, the discussion will always, always devolve into a chilling autopsy of the friendly grandpas of gaming, just as long as some people seem to think that if they just cut the flesh thin enough, they might still find something that will nourish their Strawman just a while longer. So, let's indeed move on from this, but in a way that respects the actual facts. Neither Gygax, Arneson, nor the flaming ghost of Totten are sitting at our gaming tables; our players are, though. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 30, 2020 2:28:39 GMT -6
We varely get to talk about the good stuff he did. 1e being the all-around best edition of D&D, for example.
So, let's indeed move on from this, but in a way that respects the actual facts. Neither Gygax, Arneson, nor the flaming ghost of Totten are sitting at our gaming tables; our players are, though. Fair enough. I can't let this one thing slip by though. 1e is not aging well. While I love it, and it is dear to my heart, I've had to admit that in many ways it is a lacking design. Even by the standards of its day other RPG's were already leaps and bounds beyond it design wise. The one thing it had right, that it was ridiculed for at the time, was classes and levels. They may not simulate reality like a strictly skill based system does, but as a game mechanic it is brilliant. It took the incredible success of video games to show us that. But, THAT is definitely a discussion for a different thread. So, Gygax was human. Deserves credit, but not too much credit. This has all been enlightening. I'm done for now. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 30, 2020 7:07:53 GMT -6
Fair enough. I can't let this one thing slip by though. 1e is not aging well. While I love it, and it is dear to my heart, I've had to admit that in many ways it is a lacking design. My opinion that the root of the issue is that AD&D mostly designed by fiat, while OD&D was mostly designed through actual play. So, Gygax was human. Deserves credit, but not too much credit. This has all been enlightening. I'm done for now. So to throw this out, in my day job I write and maintain metal cutting software designed to be sold to control the metal cutting machines the company I work for sells. I been doing this since 1990. The shops we sell too are mostly small outfits with anywhere between two people to two dozen people. Because our machine serve a central role in these shop's productivity and because we are so good at customer service, I got to know some of these customers on a personal level and hear about what goes on with their shop. One thing I seen time and time again, are shops where there was one principle who was very creative like Dave Arneson, and other that was very good at working on the business side like Gygax. Many times but not always, problem will arise and I will say they echo the antidotes and accounts we hear about Arneson and Gygax. Including where the business savvy individual doesn't do as well later when the company is bigger and has more revenue. Over the three decades, I heard several permutations of this story. My take away is that it is rare when one is the complete villain the other other side paints them as being. And both side are not entirely free of blame. Mostly because folks involved quit putting any effort in to trying to communicate with one another. The problem is that it is hard get at the truth of the matter especially if most of what you heard is biased towards one side or another. What also hard is that this situation is not typical and it easy for an outsider to make assumptions that are not valid. Personally I have some guesses based on my experience but that what they are guesses. The firmest opinion I have that it is clear that circa 1975 when TSR grew large enough to employ Arneson, Twin Cities folks, and Lake Geneva folks, an enormous clash grew over expectations and work habits. By 1977 people left, and new people were hired over it. That it was bad enough that its bitterness lingered for decades. The ones I learned about in the metal cutting industry were a mess to untangle and I have no doubt that this one is a mess as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Sept 30, 2020 7:53:41 GMT -6
the truth is simply that the well-told tale about Gygax being the sole or the main creator of D&D is just not true. If people would only stop repeating those false claims None of your fellow-posters here are making any such claims. No-one brought that up until you did. I’d say don’t drag drama here from other boards, but I am not aware of people making those claims on other boards, either. I'm sorry if you and others are offended by the turn the discussion has been taking It’s not worth offending half the posters here by dragging their favorite game designer through the mud. I’m not so much offended as concerned about this becoming the sort of place where you can barely talk about D&D without someone calling Gary was a thief and a liar and an adulterer and a drug addict out of the blue for no apparent reason.
I wouldn’t want to be part of a Star Trek forum which constantly devolved into bashing of Shatner or Roddenberry, either.
I can't let this one thing slip by though. 1e is not aging well. Edition wars now? |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 30, 2020 10:11:58 GMT -6
This thread has drifted quite a bit but there are some awesome thoughts out there to ponder. So much to read, and I will confess that I haven't read each and every post clearly but I will toss in my two coppers anyway.
Maybe it's nostalgia, but I think that Arneson and Gygax (and Kuntz, Ward, Wesely, Magerry, and so many others) should be given the proper credit for the inception of the hobby. Whether Gary dreamed it by himself or was supported by Dave's notes, writing a RPG with no others to pattern after has to be a Herculean effort. And yet, OD&D "gets it right" a heck of a lot more than it gets wrong. AD&D was like that, too, where the quantity of rules were a lot more vast and encyclopedic than anything attempted before. AD&D lets folks down because it wasn't designed to be as user-friendly as Mentzer Basic or other later versions, but I think it does stand the test of time as a solid and complete rules set otherwise. It's unfortunate that the original old-timers found themselves separated from their own creation, because the history of D&D would have been quite different if this hadn't happened if there hadn't been others fighting over company direction or whatever.
I play a lot of 5E nowadays and I think that the books are designed to be better than the originals, but they had the originals to start with and model after. Personally, I like ascending AC and point-buy stats and stuff like that, but I can understand where folks might not like those things. And I can see where folks might like the newer products because they are designed for a novice audience but at the same time add in lots of options for a more advanced audience. I assume that Thomden's comment about AD&D not aging well is based on these advances to the game and not necessarily the actual rules themselves, as I know of quite a few folks who play AD&D and have played it since the late 70's and they feel like it ages fine because those advances aren't interesting to them. I give some credit to the guys who create the newer stuff, but not as much as the old timers because the new stuff is built on the old stuff.
But looking back at the contributions of Gygax and those of Arneson, I feel like Gygax liked to promote his product but so do folks selling cars or toothpaste or anything else in the marketplace. Somewhere along the line morphed from a hobby to a business and I can't fault businessmen from trying to cash in on a rising market, even if many of us are still in the hobby phase.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 16:01:29 GMT -6
It’s not worth offending half the posters here by dragging their favorite game designer through the mud. I’m not so much offended as concerned about this becoming the sort of place where you can barely talk about D&D without someone calling Gary was a thief and a liar and an adulterer and a drug addict out of the blue for no apparent reason. I hear you, but, with respect - we are not there. Not by a mile, really, and I will show you. Ernie Gygax, of all people, is quoted by saying the following about the book by Michael Witwer - the one which alleges the philandering, the drug abuse, and the generally abusive demeanor: So, let's make no mistake: The flack Gygax has been getting over the last few years is very much endorsed by his own family. That's the reason why I moderate threads like this with an iron fist, and why I insist that we keep things real, within the proper context, and as based on facts as possible: In the media, Gygax has long been turned from the friendly grandfather of gaming that he actually was into a mostly fictional character with deeply disturbing villainous traits. If we are fans of the game, and if we are interested in a proper, authentic portrayal of its history, we need to tone the drama down. That involves not getting fooled by Strawman debates - and it also involves keeping things real. Because the "Legend of Good Gary" will at this point only fuel a - honestly - pretty cruel counternarrative, and one that's as far from the truth as the previous, slightly oedipal exaggerations of Gygax' contributions were before. |
|
