Disclaimer: This is not a thread about Gary Gygax, directly. This is a thread about the name, and the uses and abuses thereof. It is not about what you or I think about Gary Gygax as a person or as a game designer. It is not a thread about whether Gary was racist, sexist, theist, numismatic, thespian, smelled good, or his skills as a cobbler. It is a thread about his celebrity, para-social relationships, and how D&D fans act as stewards of his legacy.
I respect and care about Gary Gygax a lot. I've been on EN World since he was a fellow poster. I'm a big fan of history and giving credit where credit is due. And there are a lot of great threads about why Gary Gygax is important (e.g. Here D&D General - Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Magic Missile: Why Gygax Still Matters to Me or here D&D General - The Human Side of D&D History - From Gary Gygax to Temple of Elemental Evil ). If you want to discuss Gary Gygax as a person, please go to one of those thread to do it.
So, on to the meat of it.
I've noticed a thing where the name "Gary Gygax" is sometimes brought into conversations where (IMNSHO) it doesn't belong. There are even threads where I can mark the point that it goes from a reasonable conversation to one that I know will eventually be locked when someone drops the Gygax name in the thread. That bugs me. These are my personal guidelines for when one should or shouldn't name-drop Gary Gygax, why it bugs me, and how I try to do better.
When one should generally NOT invoke Gary Gygax's name:
Conflating an edition with a name takes something that could be objective and makes it personal. It changes the discussion from being about publications to something more intimate. In a bad way. Fans at large already take discussions about D&D editions too personally, and treating Gary Gygax like an edition only serves to make attacks on games more personal, and fuel the fires of edition wars.
The key is that the references should match. If we're talking about games in terms of Jeremy Crawford, Monte Cooke, or Frank Mentzer, then it makes perfect sense to refer to Gary Gygax. But if you're talking about 5e 2014, 3.0E, and AD&D, don't bring the Gygax name (or others) into it. Titles of editions (sans names) should match, the same way you match tenses in a sentence. Obviously, there are times when we must talk about editions, authors, and designers together. Especially in the early editions, where we commonly call out Holmes and Moldvay versions. And that's perfectly fine as long as it's consistent. But if you're talking about Pathfinder and don't use the name Jason Bulmahn, you shouldn't name-drop Gygax in any of your comparisons to D&D.
The critical idea here is that one should avoid talking about "Gary's cleric" or "Gary's Shield spell" because there generally is no version that is 100% Gary's. It was all a collaboration. Gary was not the sole creator of D&D, and that's not a bad thing. That's the backbone of D&D. Gary was a manager, a funnel, and a filter, and he did a great job at it. It's not belittling to Gary to deny him sole credit for every book that has his name on it, but it is belittling to everyone else in the process to give Gary credit for their works.
To avoid this, the general best practice is the name the source (i.e. book) that you're talking about, not the individual (and if Gary Gygax happens to have an author's credit on the book, you're free to feel smug about it). It's "The OD&D cleric" not "Gary's first cleric". The above "match tenses" rules should also be followed; only name Gary when you're referring to other authors by name. And you should only refer to Gary as an author when you're sure he's the only author, not just the only author on the cover.
People often argue about "How Gary did this" or "Gary said it should be done like that". But most of the time when an argument hinges on "Gary Gygax said...", the simplest counter-argument is to find a quote of Gary Gygax contradicting it. This is not Gary's fault. The fault is trying to treat a human being like a legal text, and it ultimately does nothing to honor the man being put on the pedestal.
Simply remember that everything Gary Gygax said is only an opinion, just like everybody else's.
When you SHOULD invoke Gary's name:
2nd Disclaimer: I am not a mod, I am not your mother, and I have no authority over anyone here. I have intentionally not quoted specific times I've seen things like this done on EN World to avoid making it personal. This is a discussion of things I have seen on the internet at large, not just here. I have intentionally avoided using the more inflammatory examples of issues associated with Gary Gygax to avoid turning this thread into yet another discussion of those topics. If you feel like this is a bunch of strawman arguments that don't apply to you, then they probably (hopefully?) don't apply to you. This post is roughly 10% disclaimer, and I have doubts that will be sufficient.
I respect and care about Gary Gygax a lot. I've been on EN World since he was a fellow poster. I'm a big fan of history and giving credit where credit is due. And there are a lot of great threads about why Gary Gygax is important (e.g. Here D&D General - Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Magic Missile: Why Gygax Still Matters to Me or here D&D General - The Human Side of D&D History - From Gary Gygax to Temple of Elemental Evil ). If you want to discuss Gary Gygax as a person, please go to one of those thread to do it.
So, on to the meat of it.
I've noticed a thing where the name "Gary Gygax" is sometimes brought into conversations where (IMNSHO) it doesn't belong. There are even threads where I can mark the point that it goes from a reasonable conversation to one that I know will eventually be locked when someone drops the Gygax name in the thread. That bugs me. These are my personal guidelines for when one should or shouldn't name-drop Gary Gygax, why it bugs me, and how I try to do better.
When one should generally NOT invoke Gary Gygax's name:
- When referring to an edition.
Conflating an edition with a name takes something that could be objective and makes it personal. It changes the discussion from being about publications to something more intimate. In a bad way. Fans at large already take discussions about D&D editions too personally, and treating Gary Gygax like an edition only serves to make attacks on games more personal, and fuel the fires of edition wars.
The key is that the references should match. If we're talking about games in terms of Jeremy Crawford, Monte Cooke, or Frank Mentzer, then it makes perfect sense to refer to Gary Gygax. But if you're talking about 5e 2014, 3.0E, and AD&D, don't bring the Gygax name (or others) into it. Titles of editions (sans names) should match, the same way you match tenses in a sentence. Obviously, there are times when we must talk about editions, authors, and designers together. Especially in the early editions, where we commonly call out Holmes and Moldvay versions. And that's perfectly fine as long as it's consistent. But if you're talking about Pathfinder and don't use the name Jason Bulmahn, you shouldn't name-drop Gygax in any of your comparisons to D&D.
- As a identifier for creative content in early D&D.
The critical idea here is that one should avoid talking about "Gary's cleric" or "Gary's Shield spell" because there generally is no version that is 100% Gary's. It was all a collaboration. Gary was not the sole creator of D&D, and that's not a bad thing. That's the backbone of D&D. Gary was a manager, a funnel, and a filter, and he did a great job at it. It's not belittling to Gary to deny him sole credit for every book that has his name on it, but it is belittling to everyone else in the process to give Gary credit for their works.
To avoid this, the general best practice is the name the source (i.e. book) that you're talking about, not the individual (and if Gary Gygax happens to have an author's credit on the book, you're free to feel smug about it). It's "The OD&D cleric" not "Gary's first cleric". The above "match tenses" rules should also be followed; only name Gary when you're referring to other authors by name. And you should only refer to Gary as an author when you're sure he's the only author, not just the only author on the cover.
- When referring to an absolute, or to win an argument.
People often argue about "How Gary did this" or "Gary said it should be done like that". But most of the time when an argument hinges on "Gary Gygax said...", the simplest counter-argument is to find a quote of Gary Gygax contradicting it. This is not Gary's fault. The fault is trying to treat a human being like a legal text, and it ultimately does nothing to honor the man being put on the pedestal.
Simply remember that everything Gary Gygax said is only an opinion, just like everybody else's.
When you SHOULD invoke Gary's name:
- When reminiscing about times when you personally met and interacted with Gary Gygax.
- When talking about his (highly specific) contributions to a game/book, or when explicitly comparing one named author/designer/whatever to another named author/designer/whatever.
- When discussing his legacy, estate, and related topics such as GaryCon, the Gygax Memorial Fund, the "Wizard of the Lake" exhibit at the Geneva Lake Museum, or a trip to Lake Geneva.
- When discussing his non-D&D projects, such as Lejendary Adventures.
- (Unfortunately) When you want to troll on the internet. When you want to bait a D&D discussion into being personal rather than objective. When you want to end one discussion by injecting controversies or otherwise ensure the original topic is sidelined by discussions about Gary Gygax. Or when you just generally want to ramp up emotions to ensure you get a heated response.
2nd Disclaimer: I am not a mod, I am not your mother, and I have no authority over anyone here. I have intentionally not quoted specific times I've seen things like this done on EN World to avoid making it personal. This is a discussion of things I have seen on the internet at large, not just here. I have intentionally avoided using the more inflammatory examples of issues associated with Gary Gygax to avoid turning this thread into yet another discussion of those topics. If you feel like this is a bunch of strawman arguments that don't apply to you, then they probably (hopefully?) don't apply to you. This post is roughly 10% disclaimer, and I have doubts that will be sufficient.
