What do you guys think of Gygax's prose?
Personally I can't stand it. It feels like I'm listening to a Grognard talk about his game instead of actually reading a rulebook. And most surprising of all is the fact that his word count is gigantic, yet the fluff is minimal. As in he is overtly descriptive about things that could be better explained with fewer words, yet there's very little imagery and colorful narrative in the rulebooks.
I think the man had a great imaginative mind; he could come up with great rules, but he wasn't too good about making a rulebook out of them.
>>45721988
I have had similar thoughts. I think his influence on early roleplaying culture may have been somewhat overstated. especially when you consider how bad his post dnd rpgs were.
>>45722041
I think he deserves the praise; he did come up with tons of cool things, BUT I think it's really weird that he's the face of old school TTRPG and considered the father of it, when I believe Arneson was the one who really came up with the actual idea of playing roles and exploring dungeons and all that.
>>45722212
However his last name doesn't sound like a dragon.
>>45722212
Arneson was the Wozniak to Gygax's Jobs.
Wozniak had the good ideas, Gygax ran with them and actually pushed a product out and marketed it.
>>45721988
Gygax is overrated. He's a semi decent game designer and one of the first to develop roleplaying games as we know them. Beyond that? He's nothing special.
So, I have this laying around.
Which editon, if any, are the rules contained in this boxset supposed to be?
Is it worth getting a couple of friends together to run it?
>>45724132
You're literally one google image search away from the first answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Game_%281991_boxed_set%29It's not like google can't track you without actually using it. Let the bot net flow through you.
As for the second part:
Go find a copy of it, show it to your friends. If they like what they see, play it. If they're not sure, try it. If they don't want it, leave it.
We're talking about a tabletop RPG here. There are as many tastes as there are players. You'll only know if it's good for you if you decide for yourself.
Alternatively, look up Dragon Magazine 166 (I think it's in the OSR trove, so go find that). There's a preview for it there.
>>45721988
He's a pretty terrible writer. His attempts at erudite turn-of-phrase come off as really obnoxious and patronizing as well.
>>45724233
I just noticed I posted this in the wrong thread, lel. Thanks for the answer anyways.
>>45724702
No worries man.
Good gaming.
>>45724132
While you got lost in this thread, I got lost in your eyes. Do you want to, I don't know, maybe go kill some orcs together sometime?
This isn't about Gygax, but there seems to be a consensus that his prose is passable at best.
Since we are on the topic of D&D writers, what do you guys think about Chris Perkins?
He seems to have a lot of fanboys, but I don't see what the big deal is. He is a good DM, but I don't find his adventure writing to be particularly special.
>>45725279
Having watched exactly one session of Acquisitions Inc., I don't understand what makes people say he's a good DM, or better than say, Matthew Mercer.
>>45721988
>yet the fluff is minimal
Why in the fuck would you look for setting fluff in a Dungeon Master's Guide?
>>45722347
Yeah, Arneson was a great DM (so was Gygax, BTW) and a fantastic ideas man, but he had serious trouble writing those ideas down, or keeping to a schedule, or getting much of anything done. If it wasn't for Gygax, D&D would have been a bunch of incoherent notes scribbled on a napkin or something.
(To this day, I can't figure out how spellcasting is supposed to work in Blackmoor)
>>45725437
>Why in the fuck would you look for setting fluff in a Dungeon Master's Guide?
Because the DMG is supposed to inspire DMs, not bore them to death.
I can read through the tome are the Shadowrun books in a day, devour the DMGs of any edition; heck, I read through the entirety of the Rules Cyclopedia the day I bought it.
But I just can't read more than a dozen pages of Gygax without feeling really tired and wanting to start skimming ahead. It's long winded and too personal; his writing has a voice that is way too present, and too often obnoxious.
I agree he was visionary and dutiful, a great DM and a great guy, and D&D wouldn't be what it is today without him, but I just can't stand his writing.
>>45725375
I wouldn't judge him on his AcqInc work (though it would be easy to, because that's what he's most known for), but it's pretty obvious that's just a paid gig and he's not actually trying.
For the record, I don't actually think Mercer is as good as everyone believes he is. I'd say at least 50% of his perceived skill is due to the players actually being engaged and acting out on their own. All he really does is narrate a lot, and he has the benefit of being able to act well. But his plot-writing and story pacing are really lackluster.
>>45725279
Perkins fan here.
I will fully admit his adventure writing to be very average, and also his fanboys can get obnoxious.
I like his improv, humor, good nature, and level headed-ness about things. Also his voices are really good and not "forced". I feel this puts him over the top of most other people and helps to balance out the writing. I played with lots of "dry" DMs. Shit gets boring quick, DMing is not really something you can teach either. Perkins gets it.
To me, the 2 most important traits of a DM is improv and humor. I'm NOT saying "LOLRANDUMB". Like...to me comedians make good DMs since they have a higher understanding of thinking on the spot. Plus you can train a monkey to run a standard adventure.
I don't need HUEG epic plotlines of intrigue, I just want to go on an adventure with cool shit happening.
I just wish his fucking players knew how to read a character sheet. I also wish Matt Mercer's players would stop eating while talking into the mic and be able to focus on a task for more than 2 seconds.thanks for reading my blog
>>45725580
>Because the DMG is supposed to inspire DMs, not bore them to death.
I thought it was to instruct them; I always look to music and books and movies to inspire me. When I read a book on DMing I just expect it to give me advice on how to DM.
But if his style grates on you, I can see how it would be hard to get through. I, personally, found the 1e DMG to be full of useful advice and interesting observations on DMing.
>>45725595
>I'd say at least 50% of his perceived skill is due to the players actually being engaged and acting out on their own.
>...and he has the benefit of being able to act well....
I would say that adds up to a large portion of where his praise comes from. But that, coupled with the DM tips he's released makes me believe he's actually a pretty good DM.
> But his plot-writing
Ehhh, you can be a good DM without writing a single bit of your own plot running pre-made modules / adventures. Also, this is for a group of mostly (for the most part) NON-tabletop gamers / casuals / normies or whatever.
>story pacing
Can you expound on that? I don't really see it.
>>45721988
Keep in mind that a lot of the things that we think of as taking fewer words to explain were concepts that nobody at the time would have been familiar with. Yes the description of the magic user's class levelling as a "hard road to the top" is unnecessary when you already understand how wizard power curves work, but considering few if any games had explored the concept before, it was worth spending an extra sentence or two to explain.
>>45725683
But for me he fails to explain concepts that non-gamers wouldn't know of, WHILE using way too many words to explain simple concepts.
Way too often he says things like "Obviously, this is like this." or "Clearly, this is why...etc" and makes some weird assumptions.
>>45725678
>coupled with the DM tips he's released makes me believe he's actually a pretty good DM.
I mean, he certainly cares about the craft, but his discussion of the topic really is very surface-level and shallow, and doesn't ever rise past the level of shitt, overused generic "advice" that you get from a "lol how I DM?" thread here on /tg/. He would actually impress me if he attempted to discuss the intricacies of DMing in a way not designed to pander to people who just started RPGs.
>Can you expound on that? I don't really see it.
Well, my biggest thing as a DM is always "How did we get here?", so in my eyes a campaign is not actually successful unless your players (not the DM) can stop somewhere along the road and ask how they actually arrived at the place they are, and trace a logical and followable trail of events.Which is why I don't think sandbox games will ever be successful.
Mercer's campaign in Critical Role is...not that. It's a series of small vignettes designed to tell self-contained stories that don't connect in any way. It's a trail of "Ok we're here now. Oh look it's this character's backstory. Ok we're done with that, what's the next plot hook?"
I mean, in a campaign where you can name-drop Orcus, Vecna, fucking vampire lords, and Tiamat, and yet somehow none of them actually have anything to do with the "main story", you're doing something massively wrong.
Seriously. Horn of Orcus? Temple of Vecna? And now a coven of chromatic dragons? Which one of those is the BBEG? If you don't know, then it means the story isn't well written.
>>45725634
Thanks for the detailed reply. I think some of the fanboys project his DMing skill onto his writing so they expect it to be great and psychology does the rest.
His voices are pretty damned good.
>>45725876
>I mean, he certainly cares about the craft, but his discussion of the topic really is very surface-level and shallow, and doesn't ever rise past the level of shitt, overused generic "advice" that you get from a "lol how I DM?" thread here on /tg/
But advice become generic and overused because it's true, and it works. Why would that detract from his abilities as a DM?
>He would actually impress me if he attempted to discuss the intricacies of DMing in a way not designed to pander to people who just started RPGs.
At that point, each DM is already "good" and is just playing up their strengths as a DM. What secret gamemastering techniques are you talking about?
>Mercer's campaign in Critical Role is...not that. It's a series of small vignettes designed to tell self-contained stories that don't connect in any way. It's a trail of "Ok we're here now. Oh look it's this character's backstory. Ok we're done with that, what's the next plot hook?"
To be fair, we haven't been privy to 2/3 of their campaign, and the first half of what we did see is them getting used to the system change over.
>I mean, in a campaign where you can name-drop Orcus, Vecna, fucking vampire lords, and Tiamat, and yet somehow none of them actually have anything to do with the "main story", you're doing something massively wrong.
I don't see a problem with encountering different things like that in different parts of the world? To me, that paints a picture of a world where there are always bigger things at play than whatever one might see in their direct vicinity.
>>45725595
I think that Mercer has the benefit of being most, if not all, of his players introduction to the game so there is a level of trust that most of us just don't have access to. The players do tend to generate a lot of the credit that he receives. It is like a sports team built around a star player, which begs the question that can't be answered: would Jordan have shone as brightly without Pippen and Grant?
>>45727333
>To me, that paints a picture of a world where there are always bigger things at play than whatever one might see in their direct vicinity.
Except it's not. It's unfocused and makes everything seem cheap.
You know what's going to happen with the temple of Vecna that was supposed to be set up as this big, evil thing? Nothing, it's been forgotten already. You know what's going to happen with the "Horn of Orcus" that they locked away, and heavily hinted that there was another one out in the world? Yeah, nothing. It's already been forgotten.
It's not implying that there's bigger things in the world, it's episodic and disjointed. It's just false starts and stops, which really only served to level the players up until the point where dragons could come break everything and the players be strong enough to fight them.
>>45727457
>The players do tend to generate a lot of the credit that he receives. It is like a sports team built around a star player, which begs the question that can't be answered: would Jordan have shone as brightly without Pippen and Grant?
That's kind of my issue. Not an issue with Mercer himself, he's fine as a DM and honestly he's way better than 99% of the DMs on the planet. But then again, 99% of every group is complete shit, so that's not a huge compliment. But the best DM in the world will look like shit if his group is a bunch of uninterested, lazy assholes who drag the material down. You pitch a great scene full of well-acted and voiced NPCs at a player who only responds with flat, monotone half-sentences and no one will see you as a good DM.Honestly, my biggest issue with CritRole is the community around it. They're a bunch of hugbox assholes who will take a bullet defending their celebrities from criticism and most of them literally just started D&D because of the show, which causes them to think that it's actually a good representation of how most groups and games are, which means most all of them have hugely inflated expectations that they bring into games they join, and get mad when other players they group with aren't as outgoing and charismatic as the actors on the show, not taking into account the fact that they themselves are not remotely as good either.
But that's a whole other discussion about how professional-run, actor-based D&D shows are bad for the community as a whole.
>>45727698
>But that's a whole other discussion about how professional-run, actor-based D&D shows are bad for the community as a whole.
How are they any worse for the community than documentary after documentary of neckbeard social outcasts saying, "It's really for everybody."
>>45728047
>saying, "It's really for everybody."
Well, first, I don't agree with this sentence. No hobby is "for everybody", and no hobby is ever made better by demanding that everyone be catered to in order to make sure they're comfortable enough to bother trying it.
But second, I didn't say it's "worse" than anything. I said it's not a net benefit, and will only lead to everything about RPGs being worse, in the exact same way that the ultra-demanding and minimally-supporting "progressives" have kicked video games into the downward spiral of shit they've become. I don't want to compare anything to anything else, what I'm saying is that the professional studios who find they can make a ton of money and reach an audience by putting a few girls in front of a camera and saying "Nerd stuff is for everyone, this is a safe space" are only ever going to be a bad thing for the hobby as a whole.
Unless you started with, or are part of that movement, in which case you think it's the best thing ever.
Personally? The hobby was healthier when no one liked nerds or wanted to be called one because it was an insult.
>>45721988
>What do you guys think of Gygax's prose?
Not a fan, but AD&D was better written than AD&D 2nd edition (way worse organization though).
>It feels like I'm listening to a Grognard talk about his game instead of actually reading a rulebook.
That's because it *is* a Grognard talking about his cool homebrew.
>And most surprising of all is the fact that his word count is gigantic, yet the fluff is minimal.
>As in he is overtly descriptive about things that could be better explained with fewer words, yet there's very little imagery and colorful narrative in the rulebooks.
If his writing is anything to go by, Gygax earnestly and erroneously believed himself to be the second coming of Vance.
>>45728174
>progressives ruined games
>not shitty companies forcing Day 1 DLC, season passes, releasing broken games that are "fixed" in patches afterwards, and other retarded shit that no one asked for
You're a retard. Gaming died a long time before your epic progressive meme became the cultural cancer it is.
>>45728174
>Personally? The hobby was healthier when no one liked nerds or wanted to be called one because it was an insult.
>>45728992
Only the hobbyists and industry were far worse off, the hobby itself *was* healthier.
>>45729050
Define healthier.
>>45729050
Only the hobbyists and the industry were worse off? That's everything, you simpleton. What else could be better? The metaphysical concept of the hobby?
Gaming is fine. The influx of new players is good, even if we wanna bitch about the secret club being invaded. Don't get me wrong, I'll bitch about that, but good players grow from shitty players who just started. More people means more good players and DMs and more ideas that can be made into awesome quests and adventure paths. Shutting the hobby off from the rest of society results in nothing but stagnation as no new ideas enter the fray.
>>45721988
Take a look at the alignment tables for everything before 3.0e, they're weird as fuck. Gygax was the guy who chalked up Chaotic Neutral as the 'dedicated anarchist' archetype.
>>45728174
DnD has always been pretty shit though. The Grog highpoint of 3.5e had very badly-balanced rules with mostly dreadful settings. The other editions were better balanced but still had the mostly dreadful settings.
All of them tend towards being simple games that lurch from combat encounter to combat encounter, with players throwing dice at the occasional social encounter in-between.
Just today someone recommended I read Gygax's "Roleplaying Mastery." Maybe he says some worthwhile things in the 170 pages eventually but he just FUCKING goes on and ON about inane BULLSHIT. I read about half of it total but didn't really get anything.
>>45732876
Pdf anyone?
>>45733021
Guess I may as well include it with my bitching.
Extremely readable, enjoyable, and entertaining to anyone but a wotcfag
>>45730290
>>Gaming is fine. The influx of new players is good
You sound like an asshole trying to defend something you know is shit. "It's fine, trust me guys. They seem like faggots and we have to walk on eggshells to make sure they feel comfortable and coddled or else they'll run for the hills so we all have to be real nice and change the way we play to be more welcoming." Yeah, this is the sign of a healthy hobby. You keep telling yourself that.
>>45733224
>NEW THINGS BAD
>OLD THINGS GOOD
You can also refuse to be sensitive and let them run to the hills on their own, m80. The world isn't just you, you know.
>>45721988
>I think the man had a great imaginative mind; he could come up with great rules, but he wasn't too good about making a rulebook out of them.
Let's not forget the random prostitute encounter table.
>>45721988
A bit overwrought and over-verbose at times, but not horrible.
For all you cock-goblins saying he is bad. You're comparing him to current standards. The man INVENTED the fucking thing, there was standards back then, no progress, no years and years of evolution to come uo with somplier wirds to explain concept. Jeez, think please.
>>45733224
You sound like a virgin fatass.
>CHAD IS TAKING MUH GAEM.
God damn, grow up, there is nothing special about playing DnD, stop defining yourself by how many "underground" things you make.
I enjoy his prose. I find it more pleasant to read than the prose of many other rulebooks.
>>45735969
>You're comparing him to current standards
I've read prose from the 70s. Gygax does not write good prose and he never improved with age.
>>45735701
The irony is lost on someone complaining about Gygax, and using "overwrought and over-verbose"
>>45733060
I'll have to give this a read later.
>>45728174
But every hobby is improved by exposure and popularity. More people means more money means more ideas means higher quality products.
>>45727588
It's like you don't like open threads in a story that can be revisited later. Every quest HAS to be completed before you can start a new one? There's a spectrum for that.
>>45737452
>The irony is lost on someone complaining about Gygax, and using "overwrought and over-verbose"
You should definitely read more of his writing. Also if either of those words are over the top for you then you're missing out on a lot. Language is the lifeblood of virtually everything /tg/-related, and those aren't really as 'out there' as you're pretending.
Here's a selection from the introduction to "Master of the Game":
>Do you recall classroom days in elementary school? Return with me now to those thrilling days of yesteryear when your teachers introduced you to the basic questions that must be asked and answered to learn all about something: WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW. These are important words, and not just because they are used in this volume as a way of conveying information. They are also the basis for questions that you, as Game Master, Master GM, and Grand Master GM, must ask and respond to continuously as the principal performer in your role-playing games.
And then there's the intro to the player's equivalent where he all but says that if someone hasn't played in one of his games they're bad at roleplaying. They're interesting books, but it all drips with self-importance and he will use four words where one would do.
>>45737452
>>45737641
>he will use four words where one would do
Or to put it more directly he'sover-verbose.
>>45737641
>>45737659
I'm saying that it's ironic that he's using "over-verbose" to describe Gygax....
Verbose has the "over" built into the definition.
Similar to "from whence" or the on the nose redundancy of "ATM Machine".
