|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 6, 2022 16:05:28 GMT -6
Should Gary have maintained full control over the design of D&D up to the moment of his passing? Or would it have been better if he'd passed the design responsibilities over to a team of hand picked designers while he oversaw their efforts? Or was it best how things worked out?
Would 2nd edition have been better with Gary writing and designing it?
Is D&D: B/X, BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia a peek into what a D&D without Gary would have looked like?
To be clear, this is not in any way intended as a bash Gary thread. I draw great inspiration from his writing and design work up to AD&D. Post TSR I think his super-adventure Necropolis is a masterpiece. His adventure modules hold up to the test of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 6, 2022 16:07:06 GMT -6
I have slowly come to the conclusion over the last 20 years or so that maybe it would have been better if he'd let D&D design duties go and focussed on running the company. Only overseeing the efforts of designers like Tom Moldvay and others who might have shepherded the development of the game better.
Considering the design work he did post TSR he may have been too set in his wargaming roots to take the RPG where it needed to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Nov 6, 2022 17:19:20 GMT -6
Should Gary have maintained full control over the design of D&D up to the moment of his passing? Yes. Of course Gary (along with everyone else) could have benefited from teams of editors and play-testers, but I wish Gary had maintained the final say in all to do with A/D&D.  |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 6, 2022 17:32:39 GMT -6
I wish Gary had maintained the final say in all to do with A/D&D. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Nov 6, 2022 17:37:44 GMT -6
I think we've talked about this elsewhere, and my opinion is this- despite being a huge Gary Fan-Boy, based on his later works I feel it was best he was no longer writing the books/rules sets. As full of wonder/inspiration as they are, DJ/Mythus and LA are horribly written games from a play/use at the table standpoint.
Would I liked to have seen him write and contribute further? Absolutely- in the same way he did in T(he)SR and The Dragon: opinion pieces, greyhawk lore, additions and suggestions to the game (unofficial Unearthed Arcana bits, if you will)
I would have LOVED to see him produce more adventure materials, and not have had to pass it off to Frank, Dave Sutherland, etc. I think Temple and Queen would have been much better products under his primary authorship. I don't have as much disdain for Q1 as I do T1-4, but both could have used more guidance.
As for running the company? Who knows. I think like Bob Bledsaw before him, at a certain point the needs of the game/company had gone beyond their ability as businessmen (not that it was in the best of hands afterward).
None of us may be here to discuss the game today had the cards unfolded some other way.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Nov 6, 2022 17:39:19 GMT -6
His Hall of Many Panes box set is very cool too. I used a few of the scenarios with OD&D and they did great.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2022 17:48:30 GMT -6
Warn the followers of Saint Cuthbert! The milieu remains haunted by the specter of, "what if Gary had remained in charge"? Bruhahahah Bruhahahah!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Nov 6, 2022 19:34:13 GMT -6
I wish Gary had maintained the final say in all to do with A/D&D. Why? Gary basically lost control (though not entirely) of A/D&D in 1980. I suspect that a lot of his later peregrinations were determined in large part because of considerations other than "what would make a cool A/D&D product". Contrast that with his golden A/D&D works from the 1970s. I suspect that we would have seen a normal, natural development of Gygaxian A/D&D all the way up to his death--rather than the herky-jerky, back-and-forth reinventions of A/D&D that we in fact saw. Imagine scads of Gygaxian modules of the same caliber as the G trilogy, the D trilogy, S1, and B2. Imagine the Dungeons of Castle Greyhawk--dozens and dozens of levels--all in AD&D terms written by the hand of the Master. Imagine Oerth's development. Imagine Cthulhu and Elric staying in DDG. Etc. Instead of... Gary's rushed-to-market AD&D books in the mid-1980s (a futile effort to avoid bankruptcy) the off-putting Mystara stuff *cough* Dragonlance *cough* "Well met!" Ummm...... the pointless post-Gary AD&D hardbacks the bland-as-mush 2nd edition AD&D Gary's nearly impossible to understand DJ Gary's LA (better than DJ, but not as good as A/D&D) the different game known as 3rd edition D&D the different game known as 4th edition D&D etc. |
|
terrex
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 113 
|
Post by terrex on Nov 6, 2022 21:02:28 GMT -6
Gary Gygax, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Nov 6, 2022 21:15:12 GMT -6
I think Gary certainly would have done better than those who purchased it.
I believe Gary's behavior had become a problem by the mid 80s and was likely not a good fit for all the roles he captained in the company.
I really do believe his game design philosophy was at the core of what the hobby was at that time (not anything like it is today). Which might have led to something better if he had kept it up rather than lost control.
I dearly wish he had continued to create and design his setting and module material. His best work was inspiring and seemingly unattainable by other designers throughout those years.
I feel it's quite a personal tragedy to Gary and the hobby to have had a publisher decide to erase (or overwrite), for whatever reasons, a setting, game rules, and ultimately the hobby's future just to thwart the driving source of material which created all those fans.
I think there certainly could have been better futures than having Gary running everything after 1985. Though it was quite painful outcome which what we did get.
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Nov 6, 2022 21:40:15 GMT -6
Nihil nisi bonum.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 7, 2022 1:32:44 GMT -6
"Of the dead, [say] nothing but good" Yeah, hopefully we stay focussed on the game itself and the design philosophies behind where it started, where it went, and where it could have or should have gone. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 7, 2022 1:38:57 GMT -6
It seems to me that running a healthy business through a global growth phase, and being an excellent game designer are two very different things. How many mega corps have a single person acting in both the creative director and CEO roles?
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 7, 2022 2:05:30 GMT -6
Gary wrote some of the best adventure modules, he was truly gifted at it. Ideally he would have produced decades of adventures for D&D.
As for the design of D&D. When I compare AD&D to B/X, the clarity of design in Basic - and I don't mean the simplicity though that is part of it - shows that the game could have moved along that trajectory rather than 1e and all the kludgy weirdnesses of things like the Survival Guides. But Gary didn't write those! Ah, but they followed along the path set by AD&D.
AD&D has a lot of dross where it should have been gold. Whereas BECMI and ultimately the Rules Cyclopedia, despite its flaws and being straightjacketed by things like race-as-class, to me seems a finer game.
And to think I looked down at BECMI as a kiddy version of D&D back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Nov 7, 2022 5:41:54 GMT -6
I am a firm believer in the idea that creators have "golden years", beyond which their quality of output goes downhill.
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Nov 7, 2022 7:15:12 GMT -6
Golden years, gold whop whop whop
I think that, over the years, he would have tired of it and would have wanted to move on anyway. Creative types don't like being nailed down to the floor.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesmishler on Nov 7, 2022 10:49:44 GMT -6
I will weigh in on this more fully later after I've had some time to consider, but, in all this discussion, it should be remembered that Gary did not play AD&D in his personal games, and even when he ran at conventions he much preferred to play his own house ruled version of OD&D.
Gary the Gamer much preferred the open rulings of OD&D to the tight and confined delimitations of AD&D. He created AD&D not out of love of the system, but out of the needs of the business.
AD&D was created and maintained by Gary the Businessman, not Gary the Gamer.
Consider that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Nov 7, 2022 11:24:45 GMT -6
”… it should be remembered that Gary did not play AD&D in his personal games …. AD&D was created and maintained by Gary the Businessman, not Gary the Gamer. …. Would love to hear more. My impression has been AD&D was birthed primarily by two converging influences: Gary’s desire to put some distance between Dave and him, and the need for a system that provided a singular experience at conventions and/or tourney play. |
|
|
|
Post by atlantean on Nov 7, 2022 12:33:28 GMT -6
Future editions were inevitable. I, for one, would have preferred that Gary had worked on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Nov 7, 2022 12:43:09 GMT -6
...Gary did not play AD&D in his personal games, and even when he ran at conventions he much preferred to play his own house ruled version of OD&D. Gary the Gamer much preferred the open rulings of OD&D to the tight and confined delimitations of AD&D. He created AD&D not out of love of the system, but out of the needs of the business. AD&D was created and maintained by Gary the Businessman, not Gary the Gamer... Very good points. All of that being true does not preclude real love in those early 1970s AD&D volumes. If Gary's love does not shine through the text of the DMG, then I cannot read English! At the same time, God above knows that there is plenty of extraneous junk in AD&D. So... My heartfelt wish is that Gary had been able to be a full-time D&Der from 1974 to 2008, personally netting enough money on his D&D hobby to pay all his family's bills and maintain his middle-class lifestyle. No more and no less. Let him be "relaxed and devil-may-care Gamer Gary" for his whole life. No business headaches whatever. I think that Gamer Gary recognized that 1974 D&D + supplements was a bit of a mess, and that he truly wanted to knock it all together in a nice, organized, easier-to-understand edition with cool art. (Let us remember that Sutherland and Trampier were born to illustrate AD&D.) We consequently would have seen a version of D&D in the late 1970s that would have basically been all the cool, atmospheric stuff in AD&D, minus the insanity (such as the ridiculous initiative rules [which I won't dignify by the name of "system'], the weapons vs. AC stuff, psionics, etc.). Think of it as either "OD&D, AD&D-style" or "AD&D, OD&D-style". Imagine this Gygaxian version of the game losing absolutely nothing of value of Gary's AD&D rule books, while being as straightforward and as easy to understand as Holmes's basic D&D rule book, and heavily illustrated by Trampier and Sutherland. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2022 13:07:07 GMT -6
They [the rules] provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity – your time and imagination are about the only limiting factors, and the fact you have purchased these rules tends to indicate that there is no lack of imagination – the fascination of the game will tend to make participants find more and more time. – Gygax G., Arneson, D., Men & Magic
More and more time; that's the ticket!
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 7, 2022 13:38:32 GMT -6
I am a firm believer in the idea that creators have "golden years", beyond which their quality of output goes downhill. I cannot think of any creator this isn't true of except Clint Eastwood. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 7, 2022 14:43:18 GMT -6
Future editions were inevitable. I, for one, would have preferred that Gary had worked on them. I'd like Gary flavored D&D with Moldvay flavored design. But each edition being designed by the next up-and-coming brilliant designer so the game stays fresh for the current generation. In other words Gary captain of the ship, with a first mate to really run the nuts and bolts. I don't know, maybe that analogy doesn't work. What I mean is Gary writing in the way only he can write, but the design continually being refined and polished by next generation designers. For example when I look at Conditions, Damage Types, and Advantage/Disadvantage in the newer editions those are genuinely great additions and refinements to the game while still feeling "D&D". But the game has also lost a lot of that distinctive flavor that made AD&D great. The 2nd edition and beyond rulebooks read like dry instruction manuals. That style is fine for boardgames, but in an RPG loses something. |
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Nov 7, 2022 14:57:39 GMT -6
Future editions were inevitable. I, for one, would have preferred that Gary had worked on them. ... For example when I look at Conditions, Damage Types, and Advantage/Disadvantage in the newer editions those are genuinely great additions and refinements to the game while still feeling "D&D" ... Yes, they feel D&D, because in some sense, the core ideas were already present. Their most recent expressions in 5e being a manifestation of its current design philosophy, which I believe is "simpler is, often than not, better." Take for example ... Fatigue. A notion that existed in the very beginning. Damage Types. So too damage types, beginning with Undead immunity to normal missiles. Advantage. See the Tween description from the Fiend Folio. "The tween has the ability to see a few seconds into the future and is able to increase its host's luck. It is also able to move material things short distances, reacting with such speed that ft can affect the movement of a weapon in melee. For example, it can move a sword so that It hits rather than misses. As a result, any character or creature with a tween ‘partner" has two die rolls instead of one. whenever a die roll is called for, and may select the more advantageous of these rolls, (This applies to ‘to hit' rolls, saving throws and the like). In contrast, while a tween has a beneficial effect on the actions of its host, it has the reverse effect on any other creature — friend or foe, human or otherwise, player-character or otherwise - within 50" of the host. Again, two die rolls are made in respect of the persons or creatures affected whenever a die roll is called for; however the less advantageous is selected." The way in which these were expressed and codified has changed from edition to edition, but they were there from the beginning. Even monster types, so heavily expressed in 3e, are in the OD&D M&T booklet, with Men, and Men-types, and Giant-Types, etc. The codification wasn't as rigorous, but the key concepts and usage are there. |
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Nov 7, 2022 15:04:01 GMT -6
How would the contributors assess Gary's direction with Unearthed Arcana?
He was solely and directly involved in its development, and that work is seen by some as a evolutionary step of the AD&D system, some of which was unpopular.
Are we to see that work as a unwanted but necessary development by Gary, who, given his play-preference for a simpler D&D, could not undo AD&D and thus had to "turn it to 11," so to speak, to keep the game moving forward?
Why not reconsider the whole thing?
Would it be the fear, which came to pass, that a re-envisioning of the effort would lead to impossible back-compatibility, like 3e to 2e, 4e to all else, etc.?
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 7, 2022 17:00:12 GMT -6
Yes, they feel D&D, because in some sense, the core ideas were already present. Their most recent expressions in 5e being a manifestation of its current design philosophy, which I believe is "simpler is, often than not, better." Take for example ... Fatigue. A notion that existed in the very beginning. Damage Types. So too damage types, beginning with Undead immunity to normal missiles. Advantage. See the Tween description from the Fiend Folio. "The tween has the ability to see a few seconds into the future and is able to increase its host's luck. It is also able to move material things short distances, reacting with such speed that ft can affect the movement of a weapon in melee. For example, it can move a sword so that It hits rather than misses. As a result, any character or creature with a tween ‘partner" has two die rolls instead of one. whenever a die roll is called for, and may select the more advantageous of these rolls, (This applies to ‘to hit' rolls, saving throws and the like). In contrast, while a tween has a beneficial effect on the actions of its host, it has the reverse effect on any other creature — friend or foe, human or otherwise, player-character or otherwise - within 50" of the host. Again, two die rolls are made in respect of the persons or creatures affected whenever a die roll is called for; however the less advantageous is selected." The way in which these were expressed and codified has changed from edition to edition, but they were there from the beginning. Even monster types, so heavily expressed in 3e, are in the OD&D M&T booklet, with Men, and Men-types, and Giant-Types, etc. The codification wasn't as rigorous, but the key concepts and usage are there. Woah, my mind is blown. I had no idea advantage/disadvantage came from the Fiend Folio. That might be the single greatest thing in that book, overlooked for decades until 5e codified it into the overall design of the game. Amazing. It is such a fun mechanic. Also B/X describes Damage Types succinctly in the prelude to Monsters, it is a bit mixed up with Attack Types and an early form of Conditions: Damage TypesAcid Continuous Damage Poison Energy Drain ConditionsCharm Paralysis Attack TypesCharge Swallow Swoop Trample |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2022 17:08:05 GMT -6
I like the Gygax World Builder series. It has heart while being useful, especially as a touchstone from which deviations might arise. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 7, 2022 17:13:54 GMT -6
BTW. As good as Gary was at grouping and listing things, except mechanical systems in AD&D and Unearthed Arcana which seem to miss how to simplify and systematize mechanics. Or maybe he was just unwilling to break away from OD&D what needed to be revised (like descending AC had to be fixed) and what to keep. This is where teaming up with designers like Moldvay, Marsh, Zeb Cook, Tweet, Monte Cook, etc. really benefited the game. Where some may have oversimplified, others overcomplicated (I'm looking at you Monte).
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 7, 2022 17:15:38 GMT -6
I like the Gygax World Builder series. It has heart while being useful. Interesting. I was preparing a batch of old books for eBay that I never use, and the World Builder book is in the sell pile. I find so many other books do it better, like the Ultimate Toolbox by AEG which I use all the time. And the Lazy Dungeonmaster series. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Nov 7, 2022 17:19:36 GMT -6
How would the contributors assess Gary's direction with Unearthed Arcana? He was solely and directly involved in its development, and that work is seen by some as a evolutionary step of the AD&D system, some of which was unpopular. Are we to see that work as a unwanted but necessary development by Gary, who, given his play-preference for a simpler D&D, could not undo AD&D and thus had to "turn it to 11," so to speak, to keep the game moving forward? Why not reconsider the whole thing? Would it be the fear, which came to pass, that a re-envisioning of the effort would lead to impossible back-compatibility, like 3e to 2e, 4e to all else, etc.? Unearthed Arcana was published too soon without enough editing. But the company was in trouble and it probably saved TSR. It is little more than a collection of "From the Sorcerer Scroll" articles, and Best of Dragon magazine. Comeliness was just unnecessary nonsense, and perhaps the worst name for an Ability ever. Yet, despite all that, I love that book. It fills me with warm fuzzies just looking at it and reading it, still all these years later.  |
|
