|
|
Post by Wothbora on Mar 11, 2008 12:14:02 GMT -6
|
|
wulfgar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 126 
|
Post by wulfgar on Mar 17, 2008 13:24:03 GMT -6
www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/news/2008/03/ff_gygax?currentPage=allI learned several things I'd never heard about before. The article gives a lot of insight into the early years of D&D as well as the rest of Gary's life. Here's a quote that struck me as key to all the "is x old school?" discussions that go on around here: [glow=red,2,300]He had little time for people who played too by-the-book. "They'd write in and ask the publisher of the game what to do," he says. "Whatever they were told, they did. And I said, that's silly — just make it up." [/glow] In Old School games the DM just makes it up. The funny thing is that Gary went "silly" with AD&D, although his later work seems more back in line with this early take on the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Mar 17, 2008 13:38:04 GMT -6
The funny thing is that Gary went "silly" with AD&D, although his later work seems more back in line with this early take on the rules. To be fair, I think it's truer to say that TSR went silly, with Gary's assistance. I've recently been re-reading old issues of The Dragon from around the time AD&D was announced and while it was being released piecemeal. The vibe I can't shake is that AD&D was conceived, at least in part, to give TSR a leg-up over its imitators by placing more emphasis on "official" as a mark of quality and consistency. I imagine that Gary saw this approach as a necessity for TSR as a business, whatever his own opinions were as a gamer. (It's pretty well known that he never played AD&D in the way he advocated it be played, for example). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2008 16:31:55 GMT -6
Indeed. That was a great article; the best I've seen yet. |
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 17, 2008 17:27:25 GMT -6
Nice article, especially all the vintage pictures of Gary. Of course, as with almost any general-interest article on a specialized subject there are various minor errors that those of us with specialized knowledge will catch ("The Advanced D&D Handbook," Lorraine Williams as mother rather than sister to Gary's friend, etc.). It's also a bit curious (and presumably this was Gary's doing, not the article author's) to see Rob Kuntz's role in the history of D&D reduced to that of "a kid from up the street."  |
|
|
|
Post by doc on Mar 17, 2008 19:14:27 GMT -6
What a great article! I now know the proper name for a 20 sided dice, and I intend to drop this knowledge into my casual conversation for quite some time. My wife won't be thrilled, but hey!
And I find it rather humbling that the name for the game that became the cornerstone of our entire hobby was coined by a four year old girl.
Doc
|
|
|
|
Post by Rhuvein on Mar 21, 2008 19:22:14 GMT -6
Nice article, especially all the vintage pictures of Gary. Of course, as with almost any general-interest article on a specialized subject there are various minor errors that those of us with specialized knowledge will catch ("The Advanced D&D Handbook," Lorraine Williams as mother rather than sister to Gary's friend, etc.). It's also a bit curious (and presumably this was Gary's doing, not the article author's) to see Rob Kuntz's role in the history of D&D reduced to that of "a kid from up the street." Re: "The kid up the street" ~ indeed!  This guy was at the LGGC last summer. I didn't meet him but saw him hanging around at times. I think it was Kim (from DF) who said that this guy played his first AD&D game at the CON. Still, it was a pretty good article.  |
|
|
|
Post by amityvillemike on Mar 3, 2009 23:17:27 GMT -6
Thank you, Gary. We miss you.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Mar 3, 2009 23:49:19 GMT -6
The diagram is cute, something maybe to throw at the kid who traces the roots of Western Civilization back to "Star Wars" (which I think is in there somewhere).
I'm not sure about the line directly away from D&D to Girls. My tempestuous relationships with both were pretty synchronous. Historically, the huge and barbaric type of fellow has often bemoaned the allure that ladies see in guys who can actually talk with 'em. That might often coincide with guys more interested in other things than in Miss Hottie (hence not tongue-tied around her, and also more challenging to pursue), but a hobby-horse with a larger vocabulary can't hurt. I reckon a couple more girls joined campaigns mainly because they considered me "cute" than took up football on such grounds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2009 23:53:14 GMT -6
Thank you, Gary. We miss you. Indeed we do. Your imagination & love of adventure is sorely missed... |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 4, 2009 15:12:07 GMT -6
Hard to believe that it's been a year. :-(
|
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Mar 4, 2009 20:26:01 GMT -6
All hail great Gygax.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on May 10, 2011 8:41:29 GMT -6
GaryGygax 1938-2008This is an article published on John Curry's The History of Wargaming Project. It's an interesting take on Gygax, wargaming, and the missed potential of D&D. Also interesting that he doesn't mention Arneson at all...
|
|
|
|
Post by spectresghost on May 10, 2011 20:07:47 GMT -6
It's definitely an interesting take on Gygax's role and impact in gaming and popular culture. I never really thought of 10,000 BC as a D&D-inspired movie, but I can sort of see it.  BTW, Dave Arneson is mentioned in the second paragraph in the same way as always, a passing mention as the co-creator of D&D. It makes sense in this context. What I want to know, though, is whether Dave got the same treatment in a similar article. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on May 10, 2011 20:45:29 GMT -6
Man, you're right! It was so passing that I didn't even notice it...
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on May 10, 2011 21:09:23 GMT -6
Meh. I'm perhaps 50% historical miniatures wargamer, and 50% RPGer, and I'm well aware of the wargaming community's chilly (or outright hostile) attitude toward roleplaying games, but I'm not one of their number, frankly. I don't look to the likes of HMWers for a sensitive, balanced, appreciative perspective of what Arneson, Gygax and peers added to the world of recreation. By the same token, I'm also cognisant of the lack of understanding of wargaming evidenced by a large number of RPGers. I occupy that delicate twilight area, enjoying both hobbies pretty much equally, though for different reasons. It's rather lonely here in the twilight.  |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 29, 2011 14:53:55 GMT -6
I'm well aware of the wargaming community's chilly (or outright hostile) attitude toward roleplaying games, but I'm not one of their number, frankly. It would be interesting to see how this opion has or hasn't changed over the years. I know that for myself, as a wargamer and miniatures gamer in the 1970's, when I discovered OD&D it took first place in my heart and the other stuff slowly faded away. I have a couple of wargames on my shelf but never play them. The number of games of miniatures combats (not counting Warhammer and 40K, which are really my son's hobby and I share sometimes) has been very limited since I started role playing. I never really thought much of a dislike from one group to another, since I did some of each. Now on the other hand, I think that the term "grognard" has been applied to wargamers for a long time and I get the vibe that many old wargamers dislike the use being applied to RPG players. It's like "grognard" is their turf and you'd best not step on it. Also, many of the wargamers I know seem anti any gaming that is computer-based, and perhaps that applies more to RPGs than wargames. Other than that, I'm not aware of much dislike between wargamers, miniatures gamers and role players. I'd be curious as to what experiences others have had with this. |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on May 29, 2011 20:04:20 GMT -6
...I never really thought much of a dislike from one group to another, since I did some of each. You've hit one of the sore points there, Fin' - the manner in which "wargaming" and "role playing" were somehow (built up to be?) mutually exclusive camps whereas in reality that doesn't fit the actual history or personal experience (yours or mine). Heck, it took EGG/TSR several years to claim "role playing" was something different since the likes of Diplomacy and Royal Armies of the Hyborean Age were both considered to be games like D&D in 1976. You can see where that rubs the obit. writer the wrong way with the cry of "splittist" pointing back to the SoA rules (presumably referring the 1968 set) as prefiguring Chainmail (whomever the author was there *g*). Now on the other hand, I think that the term "grognard" has been applied to wargamers for a long time and I get the vibe that many old wargamers dislike the use being applied to RPG players. It's like "grognard" is their turf and you'd best not step on it. *chuckles* Unless they're GW crack addicts in which case they're unlikely to last in "the hobby" long enough to grumble (a deliberate churn strategy which /is/ successful for GW)? Also, many of the wargamers I know seem anti any gaming that is computer-based, and perhaps that applies more to RPGs than wargames. Again, step back in history and there's far more commonality (*points to the editorial column of Owl & Weasel #1*) in historical development than a latecomer might believe - or wish to impose on a mental of map of "their hobby" vs. "other hobbies". Rather than putting some of that down to "x is superior to y" snobbishness it's far more easy to explain by the breadth of each field nowadays being more than enough for someone to lose themselves in entirely without even considering other games/gaming approaches. Other than that, I'm not aware of much dislike between wargamers, miniatures gamers and role players. I'd be curious as to what experiences others have had with this. It depends /entirely/ on whom you ask and the context in which you ask that. For example, without "disliking role players" it's entirely possible to dislike the manner in which D&D (as published) throttled and cliched the concept of "role playing" so badly that it took decades to reconsider its potentials. 02c only, anyhow. d. |
|
