Post by DungeonDevil on Jan 27, 2012 13:47:53 GMT -6
Honestly, I don't care who Wizbro -- or any other corporate entity -- endorses as the 'creator' of D&D with or without any prefixed O-, A-, or what have you. All that matters is that players understand that there were more than one (and even two) creators of the hobby.
Every time that a referee and one or more players sits down at that table to play there are multiple creators of the session. If there was only one creator at a session the others would be mere audience-members and not co-participants or co-narrators.
The problem is that players won't understand that there was more than one creator if WotC, the owner of the intellectual property, makes statements that indicate Gygax was the sole creator. People who use these boards understand how D&D came about; however, younger gamers -- and future gamers -- are going to take WotC's statements at face value.
I started this thread because WotC made statements that are false. This isn't about Gary. What Gary wrote in a magazine 35 years ago does not have nearly the same effect as what the official publisher says today. Gary isn't accountable for what WotC says; WotC is accountable.
If Wizards of the Coast put Gary Gygax's name on a product, it's simply because they need his name to reach optimum sales.
They certainly did not do it to honor Gary Gygax.
Both Dave and Gary are honored by the community they helped create and both live on in their achievements.
Gygax was gifted with an ability and drive to take the game and apply in it's commercial forms and infuse it with it's long shelf life, and this was as much because he put real creative substance into it as much as other reasons.
I salute them both.
As for WoTC, I don't buy their products. I basically turn my head in scorn and contempt when I pass by them on the shelves.
I buy used AD&D and D&D products where I find them and I would not even consider WoTC PDF's.
The only way I would relent is they actually created a physical copy of the OD&D books with original art and writing.
I would buy that.
But since they won't do that, I am fairly positive, they'll never see a dime of this gamer's money.
crussdaddy, as much as we respect getting along around here, we also respect the facts, and we respect our elders as a source of those facts. It is not wrong to ask people to stop making assertions that are in violation of the truth; it is wrong to get snippy with someone who we are lucky to have to provide an unusual degree of access to historical truth.
Not only are Rob Kuntz and Dave Westley still alive, but I gave a legal deposition on this very subject.
True, but legal deposition is made on first person and not on third person: a witness can guarantee only what he has witnessed (unless the witness himself is omniscient or ubiquitous, being there really 24/7).
I've just tried to say if something happens between subject A and subject B only (no other specific subjects in that specific time), then there's simply a Schrödinger's cat.
Last Edit: Jan 29, 2012 16:42:14 GMT -6 by Azafuse
I started this thread because WotC made statements that are false.
Statements globally believed to be false, not exactly the same thing.
Nope. The statements are obviously not globally believed to be false, nevertheless the referenced sentiment is demonstrably factually incorrect. This is not a case of he said he said. There are numerous living witnesses and physical evidence. Seriously Azafuse, without meaning to sound snarky, it would be useful not to have you making assumptions about what is or is not known if you are not familiar with the state of knowledge on the subject.
Oh I'm not saying he had no influence or wasn't important to D&D's early days, but his contributions (even to the Blackmoor supplement) were ancillary at best. At any rate, they're reprinting AD&D harcovers (TOTAL Gary, for a reason) specifically to raise some $$$ for his memorial fund (and yeah, themselves). If Dave's estate want to erect a statue of him, let some company do a reprint of The First Fantasy Campaign. I'm not trying to disrespect Dave or his fans, but he and Gary were never partners, Dave never actually wrote anything for D&D and the two rarely even saw each other IRL, let alone gamed or designed together. They aren't joined at the hip is all I'm saying.
IIRC they did play in each others campaigns on several occasions back at the beginning and Gary is quoted as having great respect for Dave as a ref. And if I understand correctly, it was Dave's skill as a ref that sold Gary on the whole thing and led to his taking Dave's notes and turning it into D&D. While they were never financial partners - Dave didn't have the cash to make that happen - they were very much in the creative sense partners in the authorship/creation of D&D. Several different things were blended in the writing of D&D and I don't put much stock in anyone trying so say either one deserves more or less credit than the other. They were and are co-authors and regardless of things either one (or others) said later after the lawsuits and disputes (both had their revisionist history momemts) it doesn't change that basic fact.