Gygax vs Realism

[TristramEvans]

A spin-off from the RuneQuest thread, where BlackWolf called attention to this article by Gary Gygax in an early issue of "The Dragon"



Curious, I hunted down a copy of the article. And wow, is it a doozy. At once a strange glimpse into the mind of Gygax when D&D was rapidly vaulting towards it's acme, and a also such a direct contradiction to so many current attitudes towards gaming, by which I'm including many prominent voices in the OSR.

I figured it would be fun to tackle this a bit of a time



LOL, well, I'm not sure whether to congratulate him for giving credit to TSR rather than taking it on himself for the creation of RPGs, or if that was a backhanded way of not having to mention Dave Arneson. Either way, at least no one can say Gygax had self esteem issues. Gygax estimates 100,000 players at this point in time. I wonder how that would compare to modern numbers?

It's also interesting that by this point Gygax clearly concieves of RPGs as a completely separate hobby from wargames, in contrast to the text of OD&D,




I think the quote "fun is synonymous with game" is fantastic, not just for what it reveals about Gygax's priorities, but also the way it undermines the concept of RPG rules "evolving" that is touted so often these days. Moreover, however, it's an upfront (unwitting?) admission that the major premise of his argument is utterly subjective. There exists no universal conception of "fun".

It's also incredibly interesting the way Gygax views D&D as a "balanced and cohesive whole". In other words, the exact opposite of how everyone* sees it today. We just had a conversation in a thread recently about the prevalence of exception-based design in modern RPGs and how there must be certain advantages overlooked in TST D&D's "throw together a bunch of unrelated subsystems each tailored to the specific thing they're trying to model". But no, Gygax believes any criticism of one aspect of D&D comes from someone who can't percieve the intricate planned puzzle pieces of the system that interlock in a meticulously designed way to intentionally deliver the most harmoniously balanced and entertaining experience.

* - Not literally everyone, just everyone, you know?

(to be continued)

 

[Mankcam]

Yes, please post more!

 

[Baeraad]

It's also incredibly interesting the way Gygax views D&D as a "balanced and cohesive whole". In other words, the exact opposite of how everyone* sees it today. We just had a conversation in a thread recently about the prevalence of exception-based design in modern RPGs and how there must be certain advantages overlooked in TST D&D's "throw together a bunch of unrelated subsystems each tailored to the specific thing they're trying to model". But no, Gygax believes any criticism of one aspect of D&D comes from someone who can't percieve the intricate planned puzzle pieces of the system that interlock in a meticulously designed way to intentionally deliver the most harmoniously balanced and entertaining experience.

In fairness, I think I've heard that argument from some old-school D&D fans, too. "Of course the system breaks down if you don't PLAY EVER SINGLE RULE THE BOOK PRECISELY AS WRITTEN!" I am not well-versed enough in D&D to be able to evalulate the truth of it, but at least Gygax was not purely deluded - other people seem to have had the same experience in play as he intended.

 

[AsenRG]

"(...) but there are those vociferous few who seem to who seem to find their principal enjoyment in attacking rather than playing the game".

Did Gygax predict Internet fora, here ?

 

[Tommy Brownell]

"(...) but there are those vociferous few who seem to who seem to find their principal enjoyment in attacking rather than playing the game".

Did Gygax predict Internet fora, here ?

Turns out he was a goddamn prophet.

 

[Jetstream]

My irritation is, I hope, only impatience with those who only dimly perceive the actual concepts of the game, and not wounded vanity.

It's the vanity thing, Gygax.

 

[robertsconley]

Some context. Some of it going to read like a defense however overall Gygax shoot his foot with his editorial. He had reasons for writing the things he did but went about it poorly or should have left it unsaid and let TSR market position speak for itself.

The position of originating the concept of a paper & pencil fantasy role playing game and introducing it to the gaming hobby stands greatly to the credit of TSR. In my mind, it puts us beside the creators of chess (whoever they were), miniature wargames (H.G. Wells), and board wargames (thank you, Avalon Hill!). TSR designed and promoted the whole; it pioneered a concept which is today the most popular form of our hobby.

Yes Dave Arneson invented tabletop roleplaying in through his Blackmoor Campaign. However the rest of us learned about through Gary Gygax publishing Dungeon & Dragons. It was Gygax who put his livelihood at stake while having a family.

Dave Arneson was invaluable creatively. Until their correspondence is unearthed we won't know how much he contributed. But it telling that at time of D&D release he was credited as co-author and given a royalty.

When TSR grew the day to day details of running started to loam large. There is always a lag time between when you have enough money to hire staff to when you have to start working about accounting, shipping, warehousing, etc.

Numerous accounts indicate out that 1975 to 1976 was a critical period when Arneson, Kuntz and other folk from the Twin Cities and Lake Geneva were hired to work at TSR. Overall this proved to be a negative experience due to different expectations or personality conflicts at work. That by 1977 more than a few had left leaving both side with an ill impression of each other.

From what I can tell from my reading Gygax felt that he was putting in most of the work to get the business up and running and Arneson and others were treating more as a lark and an excuse to game.

Gygax also didn't indulge everybody creative ideas particular in the case of Rob Kuntz, who relayed a first hand account the True Genius of Dave Arneson. Right or wrong, this was another source of conflict that left a sour taste in everybody mouth.

My own experience with family owned small business like TSR was in the beginning is that personality issues can have an outsized effect. Often everybody is to blame for the conflict as the different personalities mix like oil and water. There is little in the way of any type of policy or structure to moderate this.

From everything I read, up to this point my opinion is that both side are right and both side are wrong.

However his tone in this sections is a preview of his serious error judgment when he decided to claim all the credit and royalties for the development of AD&D.

 

[robertsconley]

However, amongst those who play the game avidly there are a vocal few who continually state their opinions as to how and where the game is lacking — and, of course, how they have the perfect solution. I do not take issue with any general statement that D&D is not flawless; obviously, human imperfection precludes the claim to perfection. I do admit to becoming a trifle irritated at times to read an article in some obscure D&D fan magazine or a letter to the editor of some small publication which attacks the game — or claims to be sure to improve D&D if only their new and “improved” rules are followed — with ill-conceived or asinine logic. My irritation is, I hope, only impatience with those who only dimly perceive the actual concepts of the game, and not wounded vanity.

Gygax should have left this unsaid, however again there is a larger context that is missing. Namely that TSR at the time was experiencing the 70s version of spam through letters and phone calls. Along with the articles he mentioned. This "spam" was quite bad and often disruptive. Everybody here has gotten a irritating reply from somebody that is a form of "Well if you only do this way". Gygax and TSR staff were getting a quite a few of these.

Next, Gygax, the TSR staff, gamers in the upper midwest, were like most gamers in that they had an idea of what they liked to game and what are fun ways of gaming. And those involved in TSR been gaming a while and tried a lot of things. So developed an opinion backed by experience of what worked and what didn't

So in the first year, they were probably ecstatic about answering question, and giving reasons for why a writer's idea would work or not. Then the letters and phone calls keep coming, the ideas more varied starting to include stuff they felt that didn't work from their own experience. And on and on and on. Then to cap it all of the negative articles in print.

It wasn't just Gygax but the staff of TSR who had a negative attitude about this. Just look at part of Tim Kask's intro to Gods, Demigods, and Heroes.

This volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the “Monty Hall” DM’s. Perhaps now some of the ‘giveaway’ campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are. This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters. When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th-level Lord seriously?

 

[robertsconley]

Its rules are designed and published so as to assure a balanced and cohesive whole. Each segment has been considered and developed so as to fit with the other parts. Each part, meshing with the others, provides an amusing diversion,

While over the top, keep in mind that Gygax playtested the hell of the initial release of OD&D in his Greyhawk campaign. It wasn't just him and his six friend sitting in a basement. It was dozens of people from around the Upper Midwest who showed up to play at various points. Running sessions multiple times a week was the norm not the exception.

He put a lot of thought into the rules and just as importantly tried them out across dozens of sessions. Unfortunately when combined with the spam I mentioned early he opts to write about this in a negative sense what doesn't server him well and is in of itself a subject of ridicule.

 

[Lunamancer]

I think the quote "fun is synonymous with game" is fantastic, not just for what it reveals about Gygax's priorities, but also the way it undermines the concept of RPG rules "evolving" that is touted so often these days. Moreover, however, it's an upfront (unwitting?) admission that the major premise of his argument is utterly subjective. There exists no universal conception of "fun".

There may be no single one right way to do things. But that doesn't mean there aren't wrong ways. And for most things in life, there will be far more wrong ways than right ways. This is a general principle of how the world works. I think the fact we even have these forums where people discuss ideas to make the game more fun (or criticize ideas they feel makes the game unfun) is an affirmation that this general truth of things does also apply to RPGs. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to spend any time thinking of it. Just wave a magic fun wand, and we're there.

My personal observation is RPG forums tend to have the worst time dealing with the subjective. I usually see one of three things. Speaking on something subjective as if it is objective. Focusing only on objective things regardless of how irrelevant they may be in the big picture. Or just throwing hands up in the air and saying, "It's subjective, therefore.. anything."

Most decisions on whether or not to purchase an RPG are mainly based on subjective criteria. Most decisions on whether to run an RPG are mainly based on subjective criteria. Most decisions on whether or not to join a group or play in a game are based on subjective criteria. Unless a DM or game designer has some insight into what is likely to be fun for the audience, it's just not going to go anywhere. Some individuals are able than others to more consistently run or write games that people enjoy. So it's certainly not the case that, eh, subjective, anything goes. It's also not the case that you can science out and theorize what they're doing into some formula that every DM and game designer can follow so that everyone can do it just as well.

But no, Gygax believes any criticism of one aspect of D&D comes from someone who can't percieve the intricate planned puzzle pieces of the system that interlock in a meticulously designed way to intentionally deliver the most harmoniously balanced and entertaining experience.

I read the same words from the same article as you. I thought it was clear that he was responding to specific people and specific criticisms. Not "any criticism." If you're trying to get any insight into his real meaning, you'd have to first track down what those other criticisms were to place this in proper context. For myself, I don't think it's that hard to imagine a criticism seeking to "fix" some part of the game--maybe even making that part more fun and realistic--but didn't fit in with the whole.

I have had some first-hand dealings with Gary, so I can imagine what some of those criticisms might have looked like. I can tell you he didn't like most of my criticisms or fixes to his game. On a couple of occasions he smacked me down pretty harshly. But he did like some of my ideas. A couple of them he loved and added to his game. And in at least one case that I recall, he agreed and seemed dismayed that I find a real problem in his game and he promptly accepted my fix and published it almost verbatim. So he's certainly not out to smack down "any criticism."

Some people say Gary changed over time. I think he was actually fairly consistent over his life in RPGs. As consistent as anyone can be over that long a period of time. One of the things I remember him saying about Lejendary Adventure is that he tried to create that game with fewer "moving parts" so that making changes to one part of the game wouldn't cause so many unintended consequences for the other parts that it spoils the whole. I think he recognized this as being a flaw in D&D that he was trying to improve upon with LA. But nonetheless, for D&D, it is true that you have to be careful about changing some parts. I find there's a pretty broad range within which you can make tweaks without upsetting the whole, but if you go way off the rails, you do upset the whole.

 

[CRKrueger]

TE hasn’t posted the whole thing yet, but as you keep reading, I get the sense that yeah, Corporate Gary is here (and he can be quite the cockknocker), but there’s more to it. I don’t think we can really appreciate how pervasive the flood of mail, phone calls, etc were with regards to “this one rule fixes D&D”.

Add to this, the fact that when you’re #1, everyone distinguishes themselves by taking a shot at you. Stafford could be a bit of a cockknocker himself talking about D&D, and he wasn’t the only one. RuneQuest and Chivalry & Sorcery were hitting D&D on the combat realism front. One of my friend’s older brothers was in college when we were in grade school just learning D&D and he was big into the ‘zine scene, and he’d be trashing D&D as a kid’s rpg (we were playing Moldvay).

Gary’s angry in this piece. I also think he’s frustrated and defensive, possibly even offended or hurt.

In any case, it’s a shame, because he certainly didn’t do himself any favors, some good points are lost in the ranting and he gave his haters plenty of giggles.

 

[CRKrueger]

There may be no single one right way to do things. But that doesn't mean there aren't wrong ways. And for most things in life, there will be far more wrong ways than right ways. This is a general principle of how the world works. I think the fact we even have these forums where people discuss ideas to make the game more fun (or criticize ideas they feel makes the game unfun) is an affirmation that this general truth of things does also apply to RPGs. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to spend any time thinking of it. Just wave a magic fun wand, and we're there.

My personal observation is RPG forums tend to have the worst time dealing with the subjective. I usually see one of three things. Speaking on something subjective as if it is objective. Focusing only on objective things regardless of how irrelevant they may be in the big picture. Or just throwing hands up in the air and saying, "It's subjective, therefore.. anything."

Most decisions on whether or not to purchase an RPG are mainly based on subjective criteria. Most decisions on whether to run an RPG are mainly based on subjective criteria. Most decisions on whether or not to join a group or play in a game are based on subjective criteria. Unless a DM or game designer has some insight into what is likely to be fun for the audience, it's just not going to go anywhere. Some individuals are able than others to more consistently run or write games that people enjoy. So it's certainly not the case that, eh, subjective, anything goes. It's also not the case that you can science out and theorize what they're doing into some formula that every DM and game designer can follow so that everyone can do it just as well.



I read the same words from the same article as you. I thought it was clear that he was responding to specific people and specific criticisms. Not "any criticism." If you're trying to get any insight into his real meaning, you'd have to first track down what those other criticisms were to place this in proper context. For myself, I don't think it's that hard to imagine a criticism seeking to "fix" some part of the game--maybe even making that part more fun and realistic--but didn't fit in with the whole.

I have had some first-hand dealings with Gary, so I can imagine what some of those criticisms might have looked like. I can tell you he didn't like most of my criticisms or fixes to his game. On a couple of occasions he smacked me down pretty harshly. But he did like some of my ideas. A couple of them he loved and added to his game. And in at least one case that I recall, he agreed and seemed dismayed that I find a real problem in his game and he promptly accepted my fix and published it almost verbatim. So he's certainly not out to smack down "any criticism."

Some people say Gary changed over time. I think he was actually fairly consistent over his life in RPGs. As consistent as anyone can be over that long a period of time. One of the things I remember him saying about Lejendary Adventure is that he tried to create that game with fewer "moving parts" so that making changes to one part of the game wouldn't cause so many unintended consequences for the other parts that it spoils the whole. I think he recognized this as being a flaw in D&D that he was trying to improve upon with LA. But nonetheless, for D&D, it is true that you have to be careful about changing some parts. I find there's a pretty broad range within which you can make tweaks without upsetting the whole, but if you go way off the rails, you do upset the whole.

Yeah, you have a good point, Lunamancer, I think this essay is very much a “diss track” (or whatever you call the response to a diss track). While he may be speaking generally, I get the sense that there’s specific people in mind that triggered this rant, and that people in the small industry in ‘78 knew who and what he was targeting.

 

[Lunamancer]

Yeah, you have a good point, Lunamancer, I think this essay is very much a “diss track” (or whatever you call the response to a diss track). While he may be speaking generally, I get the sense that there’s specific people in mind that triggered this rant, and that people in the small industry in ‘78 knew who and what he was targeting.

Whatever you call it, he's definitely written a lot of them. There are some juicy ones in the Mythus zines. But I think this is the real reason why there seem to be two Gary's. There's the one who tells you it has to be like this. And there's one who says you're only limited by your imagination. I think the AD&D commentary--foreword, introduction, and afterword--show a little of both, and when both sides are taken to account, it's clear at least to me what he really means. It takes a little bit of wrestling with it, but not that much. But as far as his rants go, the reason he seems more polar (and again, it goes to either extreme) has everything to do with what he's writing in response, too.

 

[TristramEvans]

Gary does get into specifics of tsome hose criticisms that he's objecting to in the next part that I will post (after school this afternoon), but I disagree that it's necessary to take his statements in the context of the criticisms he chose not to share to critisize the statements he's making "in defense". This isn't a Dear Diary entry from Gary's Journal, it's a published opinion piece, therefore he intended for his statements to stand as they are, and while I'm not one of those that carries any animosity towards Gygax, I'll allow others to step up to his "defense". My intention is to respond as I would to any other published editorial.

 

[Moonglum]

What I find interesting about this issue (including the other, basically supporting essays) is the picture it paints of everyone's thinking at a point where all these emerging games - including D+D - were undergoing big changes. Dragon #16 might be the peak of Gygaxian retrenchment and push-back against the ideas found in the games that were first published in the late 70's, but the evolution of the published D&D game paints a different picture; as Gygax was rationalizing his core design choices in essays he was simultaneously revising the game to enable characters who merge powers of the distinct classes, munchkin powerzzz, skill-based character abilities, etc.

And in retrospect I would say pretty much everything he added to the game, in terms of core rules, in this period degraded it. That is, his instincts were correct; even if they manifested in pointlessly negative attitudes about newer games, he was right about the strengths of D&D, and the sorts of pitfalls that would degrade it. Other games that stripped the concept back to the foundations and started over could present really good core systems that included these newer ideas, but D&D did not benefit from them.

He was also right that a huge fraction of what was coming out from other companies was inadequately play tested and not really ready for the gaming table. Publishing crappy white-room-argument house rules was (and remains) one of the stupidest things in our hobby. Of course, he was also doing it himself, at a break-neck pace, and was doing so from the start (e.g., the Chainmail based combat system presented in OD&D was, by all reliable reports, never used at the table as a way of resolving combat in roleplaying sessions)*. If you think all the pistons were firing in this period please go back and re-read the rules for grappling or psionics in 1E AD&D - both are the purest of trash and I find it unimaginable that got the sort of play testing that would have been needed to make them good. This is another issue where his personal instincts and the game design decisions he made when not under pressure were excellent, but when he was scrambling to make it all work as a large business these instincts went out the window and he made worse decisions than the people he was criticizing.


*At least not by them; I was doing it ca. 1975-76!

 

[TristramEvans]

He was also right that a huge fraction of what was coming out from other companies was inadequately play tested and not really ready for the gaming table.

I think that continues to be true to this day.

My experience with Phaserip is that I'll spend a period writing all these great rules that seem incredibly clever, and then when I take them to the game table 90% just get thrown out. There are realities of play that it's impossible to see in "writer mode".

 

[Edgewise]

If you think all the pistons were firing in this period please go back and re-read the rules for grappling or psionics in 1E AD&D - both are the purest of trash and I find it unimaginable that got the sort of play testing that would have been needed to make them good.

I try to imagine what 1e would have been if it had been through playtesting and the hands of an editor. Would the DMG/PHB division even exist as such? Heck, was 1e even necessary? Consolidating BEC into a single game seems vastly preferable.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

"(...) but there are those vociferous few who seem to who seem to find their principal enjoyment in attacking rather than playing the game".

Did Gygax predict Internet fora, here ?

The oldest model railroad magazine I have is from April 1947. It contains a letter bitching about other modelers having fun the wrong way.

Nothing is new under the sun. This too is vanity.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

Yeah, you have a good point, Lunamancer, I think this essay is very much a “diss track” (or whatever you call the response to a diss track). While he may be speaking generally, I get the sense that there’s specific people in mind that triggered this rant, and that people in the small industry in ‘78 knew who and what he was targeting.

Yes indeed. And besides big games like RUNEQUEST, there were a myriad of forgotten games that included swipes at D&D.

But the most vexing were the letters to TSR telling them how to change the game, often of the " and now pay me. " variety. This rant isn't directed at other manufacturers, it is directed at the vzst quantity of shit being sent to TSR, most of which was utter garbage.

And let us not forget "D&D is too important to leave to Gary Gygax."

Nothing happens in a vacuum.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

Gygax should have left this unsaid, however again there is a larger context that is missing. Namely that TSR at the time was experiencing the 70s version of spam through letters and phone calls. Along with the articles he mentioned. This "spam" was quite bad and often disruptive. Everybody here has gotten a irritating reply from somebody that is a form of "Well if you only do this way". Gygax and TSR staff were getting a quite a few of these.

Next, Gygax, the TSR staff, gamers in the upper midwest, were like most gamers in that they had an idea of what they liked to game and what are fun ways of gaming. And those involved in TSR been gaming a while and tried a lot of things. So developed an opinion backed by experience of what worked and what didn't

So in the first year, they were probably ecstatic about answering question, and giving reasons for why a writer's idea would work or not. Then the letters and phone calls keep coming, the ideas more varied starting to include stuff they felt that didn't work from their own experience. And on and on and on. Then to cap it all of the negative articles in print.

It wasn't just Gygax but the staff of TSR who had a negative attitude about this. Just look at part of Tim Kask's intro to Gods, Demigods, and Heroes.

By "some", read " hundreds of letters a week".

 

[Ladybird]

I think the quote "fun is synonymous with game" is fantastic, not just for what it reveals about Gygax's priorities, but also the way it undermines the concept of RPG rules "evolving" that is touted so often these days. Moreover, however, it's an upfront (unwitting?) admission that the major premise of his argument is utterly subjective. There exists no universal conception of "fun".

I think these two points are deeply related. There are a bunch of different types of fun, and we've learnt a lot about making games that provide these different types of fun for different types of players; but just like real evolution, there's no perfect solution, only local optimals.

A crocodile may be kinda crap as a fluffy house pet, for example, but if you need a river-based predator then there's few better.

 

[robertsconley]

I try to imagine what 1e would have been if it had been through playtesting and the hands of an editor.

Probably like OSRIC except written in Gygax's distinctive style. More than a few people like using OSRIC as a better AD&D reference than the original books.

Would the DMG/PHB division even exist as such?

Yes, because of the initial step of taking all of OD&D, the supplements, and Strategic Review, cutting them apart with scissors and rearranging them. It was likely obvious to Gygax and Kask that it was going to wind up as three books.

Heck, was 1e even necessary? Consolidating BEC into a single game seems vastly preferable.

So you got OD&D and its supplement. Hobbyist love those books. However you have a need to teach people the game. A guy, Holmes, comes along saying "Ya I got it covered. " So they published the first Basic D&D but AD&D was just getting started when it was being finalized for printing. So it based on OD&D.

Then Gygax and Kask slice up OD&D and supplements and find that the Monster Manual is the most straight forward section so get that done first in 1977. When you look at the Monster Manual it has new stuff in it like expanded treasure type but in many respect it is an OD&D supplement. For example nothing has AC 10 but plenty of things with no armor has AC 9.

Then we get the PHB in 1978 which is basically several lists of stuff, classes, spells, and equipment. Most of which are refinement of material found in the supplements and strategic review. And where it becomes definitively AD&D.

It with the DMG in 1979 where most of the problem areas arises as much of it is opinion and advice. Where the lack of playtesting is felt.

During all this Holmes Basic is chugging alongside OD&D. It wasn't until 1980 that a revision to Holmes was developed in the form of Moldavy's Basic D&D. The Moldavy/Cook B/X adheres closely to OD&D in many spots but follows Holmes in terms of organization.

Finally two years later we get Mentzer's revision and the expansion of the line into the full BECMI series.

So I don't thing a BEC path was ever plausible in the cards. The critical time period of 1977 hinged on what Gygax and Kask came up with after slicing up OD&D and its supplement. Holmes was an unexpected outlier that popped in 1976 that served a specific need of TSR as a intro to D&D.

Holmes sold and ;ater when TSR to continue a Toy store friendly version of D&D they commissioned Moldavy and Cook B/X D&D. That proved popular enough to spawn BECMI at which point it was own thread of the D&D hobby.

 

[robertsconley]

And let us not forget "D&D is too important to leave to Gary Gygax."

Here is a link from Archive.org with Gygax's response to that letter. It was written in 1975.

Interesting are the last two paragraphs.

Please inform Ted that I too subscribe to the slogan "D&D is too important to leave to Gary Gygax." Gosh and golly! Whoever said anything else. However, pal, best remember that it is far too good to leave to you or any other individual or little group either! It now belongs to the thousands of players enjoying it worldwide, most of whom will probably never hear of you or your opinions unless you get them into THE STRATEGIC REVIEW. As soon as we can manage it, we intend to have expand SR, publish bimonthly and include a letter column.

Thanks again for sending A&E. It was most enjoyable. Watch out though, that it doesn't start D&D down the road of DIPLOMACY fandom with its constant feuds, bickering, invective, etc. Now tell the fellows to pick on Dave Arneson awhile -- after all he had as much to do with the whole mess as I did!

Regards, E. Gary Gygax

 

[ffilz]

Yes indeed. And besides big games like RUNEQUEST, there were a myriad of forgotten games that included swipes at D&D.

But the most vexing were the letters to TSR telling them how to change the game, often of the " and now pay me. " variety. This rant isn't directed at other manufacturers, it is directed at the vzst quantity of shit being sent to TSR, most of which was utter garbage.

And let us not forget "D&D is too important to leave to Gary Gygax."

Nothing happens in a vacuum.

One thing that not everyone may be aware of is that this editorial was ALSO submitted to the APAs and near the end in fact attacks them. It wasn't just ranting at submissions to TSR, it was also ranting at the house rules that were being published and discussed in the APA zines. To those people it felt like an attack on anyone who didn't bow to the supremacy of D&D. And the APAs would mercilessly rip on people's house rules that were way off the mark (I remember one individual who was shot down for 25 lb swords or something like that), but not so nasty as Gygax's editorial.

Now I agree, the folks who would submit stuff to TSR and make demands deserved a harsh response.

On the other hand, the Illusionist class that was published in The Strategic Review and later in AD&D was written and submitted by a high school student (who was in the APA circles). So not everything that was submitted was considered trash.

 

[Moonglum]

This is what happens when you undertake a large scale editing, revision and reformatting project under a deadline. If OD&D had been revised and republished in a more deliberative way we might have gotten something much better, clearer and closer to the original system. The way things developed really was shambolic, when you look back at it all. Even as late as the Rules Compendium we were getting the most unbelievable crap added in as new sub-systems (does anyone seriously use its weapon mastery rules as written? Did anyone ever use them in a serious way before they were published in a core book for the biggest system in the hobby?).

For comparison, I feel like the revival of The Fantasy Trip (i.e., the Legacy Edition) shows you how this should be done: Play test and contemplate for 40 years, and then revise with clean formatting, a good index, a few new accent notes and fixes to widely recognized problems, but by and large stay faithful to the core system.

 

[Edgewise]

A crocodile may be kinda crap as a fluffy house pet, for example, but if you need a river-based predator then there's few better.

That reminds me, our upcoming PbP adventure has a real shortage of river-based predators. Gotta stat those up tonight.

Just kidding, there is no water.

So I don't thing a BEC path was ever plausible in the cards

Oh I know, I’m just wondering exactly what 1e would have looked like if it had been a bit more carefully assembled. Probably nothing like that but I can dream.

 

[Edgewise]

Now I agree, the folks who would submit stuff to TSR and make demands deserved a harsh response.

Or maybe TSR should not have wasted a read and just sent a form letter response. “Thank you for your continued blah blah blah”

 

[robertsconley]

Oh I know, I’m just wondering exactly what 1e would have looked like if it had been a bit more carefully assembled. Probably nothing like that but I can dream.

In the hands of a strong editor: OSRIC
Something that was actually playtested: Moldavy/Cook B/X but with AD&Dish stuff. Somewhat like Advanced Labyrinth Lord or Old School Essentials Advanced Fantasy.

So in a way the OSR made your dream a reality. Or at least give the tools for fans to fix it themselves.

 

[Ladybird]

That reminds me, our upcoming PbP adventure has a real shortage of river-based predators. Gotta stat those up tonight.

Just kidding, there is no water.

Don't do what I did, and forget rhinos and hippos are different animals.

 

[Edgewise]

So in a way the OSR made your dream a reality. Or at least give the tools for fans to fix it themselves.

I wonder what the Gygax who wrote that editorial would have thought about that!

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

Or maybe TSR should not have wasted a read and just sent a form letter response. “Thank you for your continued blah blah blah”

How do you know the shit from the sugar without reading?

And after your tenth "you're ruels are shit" letter of the day, you're fresh out of patience.

 

[TristramEvans]

How do you know the shit from the sugar without reading?

And after your tenth "you're ruels are shit" letter of the day, you're fresh out of patience.

This is why comicbook companies, film studios, publishing houses, etc. pretty much all have the strict rule "no unsolictied submissions". That and you get idiots who try to sue you for "using their ideas". I'm sure reading a bunch of letters with moronic suggestions how to "fix" D&D would be a very taxing experience. I have no idea why Gygax willing subjected himself to it, because honestly if it were me, those letters would have ended up either in the trash or the hands of an administrator whose job it was to sift through the garbage.

 

[TristramEvans]

If OD&D had been revised and republished in a more deliberative way we might have gotten something much better, clearer and closer to the original system. The way things developed really was shambolic, when you look back at it all.

I think, at least as far as OD&D is concerned, however, it's important to filter that through the knowledge that it was never intended for a general audience. OD&D was aimed specifically at wargamers, who had already developed a sort of cultural shorthand for many hobby concepts. I don't think Gygax initially percieved any sort of audience beyond the hundred or so folks that he would have been in communication through the fanzine community the time.

Ultimately, though, I think it's fair to say that Gygax never actually knew how to communicate to a general audience. Hence AD&D reading like stereo instructions, and Unearthed Arcana being a whiplish-inducing menagerie of ideas vomitted on the page.

I've never read Cyborg Commando, I'd be interested to see how that compares as an RPG written post RPGs going mainstream - if Gary adjusted to clearly communicating his ideas for new players, or if it's just as much of a mess.

 

[robertsconley]

I have no idea why Gygax willing subjected himself to it, because honestly if it were me, those letters would have ended up either in the trash or the hands of an administrator whose job it was to sift through the garbage.

You are not taking into account several things

1) The 70s was still in the era when receiving a personal letter was a big deal.
2) The early print runs were quite small by later standards hence at first it was a marvel to get a letter (or mention) at all.
3) Had a slow ramp up starting in 1975 so there is lag.
4) TSR was just a handful of people so there was nobody else that could take the job of opening the letters. And because it was a handful of people everybody became aware of the extreme examples both good and bad.


I have little doubt that starting around 1977 Gygax and staff did just what you advised.

 

[Edgewise]

How do you know the shit from the sugar without reading?

You don't. But why bother? Relying on write-ins for good ideas for rules is silly - you're panning for gold in beach sand. Besides, there have to be many other avenues (probably too many) where EGG could be exposed to the half-baked ideas of his fans. Finally, if he absolutely had to rely on letter writers for content, then he should have hired someone to sift through the chaff and bring him the wheat. Very few corporate heads waste their valuable time reading letters to discover the next hot potato chip flavor. The ones who occasionally do dip into customer correspondence invariably take the sides of their customers and terrify their own support departments (I should know; I worked at Amazon).

That and you get idiots who try to sue you for "using their ideas".

Yes, this, too. I think it's a lot worse these days, though. In my lifetime I've seen many places where IP is far more vigorously enforced than it used to be. But FWIW, the GURPS submission guidelines only a few years later were about one million times more explicit and legal about you losing all rights to what you've written.

 

[ffilz]

This is why comicbook companies, film studios, publishing houses, etc. pretty much all have the strict rule "no unsolictied submissions". That and you get idiots who try to sue you for "using their ideas". I'm sure reading a bunch of letters with moronic suggestions how to "fix" D&D would be a very taxing experience. I have no idea why Gygax willing subjected himself to it, because honestly if it were me, those letters would have ended up either in the trash or the hands of an administrator whose job it was to sift through the garbage.

One thing to keep in context was the wargaming environment that Gygax was part of. He subscribed and contributed to a number of Diplomacy and other zines, and had articles more pro-magazines like War Gamer's Digest. In this environment, people were sharing ideas and alternate rules and historical research and such. So idea submissions would not necessarily have been anathema to Gygax, but D&D exploded in popularity way beyond that wargaming community and I can well imagine that many of the submissions were not put together in the same context of research and play testing that he was used to, and the volume would have been way higher. On the other hand, the APAs that he rips near the end of the editorial were much in the same vein as the Diplomacy zines, with a relatively small community. It feels to me like Gygax was overwhelmed by all the submissions, critiques, and other stuff going on that he lost his cool and fired a shotgun blast at everyone. And yea, some folks caught in that blast are going to have not good thoughts about the author of the blast.

 

[TristramEvans]

One thing to keep in context was the wargaming environment that Gygax was part of. He subscribed and contributed to a number of Diplomacy and other zines, and had articles more pro-magazines like War Gamer's Digest. In this environment, people were sharing ideas and alternate rules and historical research and such. So idea submissions would not necessarily have been anathema to Gygax, but D&D exploded in popularity way beyond that wargaming community and I can well imagine that many of the submissions were not put together in the same context of research and play testing that he was used to, and the volume would have been way higher. On the other hand, the APAs that he rips near the end of the editorial were much in the same vein as the Diplomacy zines, with a relatively small community. It feels to me like Gygax was overwhelmed by all the submissions, critiques, and other stuff going on that he lost his cool and fired a shotgun blast at everyone. And yea, some folks caught in that blast are going to have not good thoughts about the author of the blast.

All fair points. I almost wonder if Gary thought this editorial would "dissuade people" - my suspicion based on what I've observed in human behaviour is that it probably had the opposite effect.

 

[TristramEvans]

You are not taking into account several things

1) The 70s was still in the era when receiving a personal letter was a big deal.

That might be going a bit far. Letter spam was already well in effect before the 70s.

2) The early print runs were quite small by later standards hence at first it was a marvel to get a letter (or mention) at all.

I think Gygax contradicts this himself in the essay though, with his appeal to popularity arguments (which continue as we go on with the essay)

3) Had a slow ramp up starting in 1975 so there is lag.
4) TSR was just a handful of people so there was nobody else that could take the job of opening the letters. And because it was a handful of people everybody became aware of the extreme examples both good and bad.
I have little doubt that starting around 1977 Gygax and staff did just what you advised.

This article is from '78.

When did D&D hit it's Zenith? WAs it concurrent with the publication of AD&D in the early 80s? The 100, 000 that Gary references seems quite small if he was doing 10 times that in about 2 years.

 

[RunningLaser]

I've never read Cyborg Commando, I'd be interested to see how that compares as an RPG written post RPGs going mainstream - if Gary adjusted to clearly communicating his ideas for new players, or if it's just as much of a mess.

I don't think he wrote Cyborg Commando- pretty sure it was written by another but had Gary's name on it.

Maybe Mythus or Lejendary Adventures would be better for that?

 

[Endless Flight]

If you send a company a letter they aren’t under any obligation to send a response or even read it. I would only have taken questions in person at convention Q and As, etc.