Ah Jeez,

Curious if anyone of you Dwarven guard bearers of GG, commenting on this article, happened to see the satirical Slate article about "upcoming memoirs debunked" (something to that effect), which raised a lot of stink because it included a spoof claim concerning Obama's biological father? Some to it for fact and others excoriated it for adding to campaign disinformation.

Just take a look at the header again:

"hey, wait a minute: The conventional wisdom debunked. Orc Holocaust: the reprehensible moral universe of Gary Gygax's Dungeons & Dragons."

*********

Now doesn't that, taken all together, just seem a little over the top? Christopher Hitchens doesn't even get that vindictive in his column titles.

Clearly the writer knows his RPG's fairly well, and knew of real WG company lore, such as the short-lived TSR/GDW collaboration (I vaguely remember this). Ergo he has to appreciate 'Ol Gary. Just take a deep breath and re-read the whole thing. It's hilarious. And those of you who are citing the D&D official rules on experience points -- you are the ones the author really gotcha'ed, because you demonstrated the adherence to rules the game breeds, which the article lambasted; you fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

My hat is off to the author for stirring up the D&D geeks* who take themselves and their game too seriosly , unless, of course, he really means all of what he wrote, then he is the biggest d.b. in the universe.

*Yeah you're all geeks (all belly-aching to the contrary in the GG memoriam thread aside). And if you're indeed not a geek, then you're surely a nerd. Get over, people. Now get out of here, you knuckle heads -- I mean it.

Satire is a tricky beast at best, and especially so on the Internet, where there are so many people spouting such bizarre opinions in perfect seriousness that it's virtually impossible to tell who means it and who doesn't. This essay is either snarking idiocy or mediocre, uninspired satire. Either way it fails.

No . . . I'm pretty sure the author is just stupid. It has that kind of feel to it.

Sag.

It's not satire so much as flamebait--that is, designed for the sole purpose of producing antagonistic reaction.

I would definitely agree with that statement. He's a troll, and you must prevent his regeneration with either fire or acid damage.

Or if it IS satire, it's really crappy satire.

Sure, he has some knowledge of the genre, but I don't see how that translates. Stanley Crouch is a famously outspoken jazz critic who knows his genre very well and is well-known for trashing Miles Davis' work, among others. Does that make HIS writings satire?

There has to be some kind of "wink, wink" effect in satire, in my uninformed opinion, and there doesn't appear to be any here.

But I like how you hedge your bets by flaming the folks who are passionate about D&D and then flaming the author who may turn out to be the "biggest d.b." Way to come down on both sides of the argument.

-- The Grey Man

No, I don't think the writer intended the piece to be satirical. That said, I'm not sure he intended it to be sincere, either: Slate's modus operandi has long been to throw up contrarian pieces that revel in being contrary for the sake of contrariness, with the implication that, by being contrary, they're really being smarter, hipper, cooler, and prettier than all the other kids hanging out smoking behind the school gym. "We'll rag on anyone, criticize whatever is garnering praise and respect and apologizing for things that earn scorn, because that's just how we roll, baby!"

That's why I run hot and cold with Slate. Sometimes I read it every day for months, because there are a few writers they have on staff like Lithwick and Bazelon who write pretty cogent pieces. And then you have Hitchens, Noah and Kaus, and it's like... wow, okay... sure wish I could be a paid troll. And then I go weeks or even months without even looking at the place.

I think Sofge probably doesn't even care that much: he was asked or offered to write a contrarian hit-piece to challenge the supposed "conventional wisdom" about Gygax and D&D to inflame the geeks and bring in a few hits on the site. And to that extent, the piece is obviously successful. Hell, I'm writing this (my second comment on his piece) and might even do a little response on my own blog if I can't come up with anything better to write about today. The problem is, he's not really challenging the conventional wisdom: I suspect that if you did a poll, you'd find that most gamers are familiar with the flaws he points to, have discussed it, and they either don't care or they work around it. And that the praise Gygax is receiving in the geek world isn't hagiography, but appreciation: we all know that E. Gary Gygax had his flaws as a game designer, referee and writer; but we still appreciate that he helped invent a hobby, co-created one of the most enduring games (not just in the RPG genre; D&D has outlasted countless board and card games over the past 30 years and has the same recognition even among non-gamers that Monopoly has), and gave a generation of geeks and nerds a common cultural touchstone. And he treated us with respect, too, which isn't a small thing at all. Being grateful isn't the same thing as canonization, and there's no good reason to "bring Gygax down a peg or two." The conventional wisdom is that Gygax was a flawed leader, but he was our flawed leader, and his death has given us a reason for thanks and sorrow, to remember and commemorate, and to be glad for his accomplishments and look past his failures (at least for now).

Grey Man,

Yeah, I was really covering my butt there, having it both ways, huh? I wouldn't want to face the wrath of enraged Fraysters -- oooh, scary!

My point, was: Good people, it's a joke; and if possibly it weren't, then I would be in agreement all the offended fans of Gary Gygax.

And flaming the folks who are passionate about D&D? If by passionate, you mean people who are so obsessed, they can't see or take a joke, and feel the need to recite D&D rules to defend their point, then guilty as charged.

I started playing D&D in 1977. Introduced it to my crew. One friend pulled himself out of illiteracy in order to learn the rules. I played RPGs off and on until about a decade ago, when our group came under the lordship of a fascist, control-freak game master who also had an abysmal sense of humor -- apparently like most of the posters here. I appreciate Gary Gygax about as much has the next gamer. I spent endless hours of enjoyment with my friends playing D&D and such. But I also appreciate a good joke, and the fact that you gaming denizens took the bait, hook, line and sinker, from the author's piece, even now after it's been pointed out, is hilarity tinged with pathos.

Reading the responses to my initial post in this thread, I was underwhelmed by the arguments against my main conjecture:

"Satire is a tricky beast at best, and especially so on the Internet, where there are so many people spouting such bizarre opinions in perfect seriousness that it's virtually impossible to tell who means it and who doesn't. This essay is either snarking idiocy or mediocre, uninspired satire. Either way it fails."

Give me a break. If you can't read things in context and take clues/cues from an author, that is your problem. The author was essentially likening attacks on innocent Orcs to war crimes. The title is "Orc Holocaust", for cryin' out loud. How obvious does satire have to be? Too obvious and it becomes ham-fisted for anyone with half a wit. The best satire is that which can barely be detected.

And another poster, replying to my question regarding it possibly being satire:

"No . . . I'm pretty sure the author is just stupid. It has that kind of feel to it."

So this person is using his apparent psionic ability to come to this conclusion, but can't give any real reason for it.

Again everybody fuming over this article, take a deep breath and re-read it, from the header on. The author makes all kind of ridiculous ad hominem attacks against the game and Gygax. How could anyone actually have it so in for the Grande Don of RPG'ing? It's a joke, already.

And agreed, the author was a real imp for writing this trash talk about GG and D&D. He clearly knew what a poopie storm he was spawning. This article might well get more angry, indignant responses than even the satire involving Obama's father's background. This piece, did its job: it got the dander up on the D&D fans and resulted in many postings and hits. The fact that so many D&D geeks have got their chain mail panties all bunched up about it, is what makes so successful. In other words, all you complaining about it and being indignant about it and claiming that even if it were meant to be satire then it isn't funny -- you by your reactions make this satirical piece that much that sweeter, albeit at your all's expense.

Along similar lines, I was amazed by all the responses to the GG eulogy, in which gaming geeks protested just too dang much about not being geeks, and that being an unfair lable for D&D'ers and other such RPG'ers. Uh huh. Me thinketh the gamers doth protest too much.

Hm, it seems Esofge is taking his article fairly seriously:

<link>

It's such a clever satire that even the author doesn't know he's putting us on.

Sorry to disappoint, but this isn't satire...now that you mention it, I kind of wish it was, that I had taken the Modest Approach tack, and maybe pulled off an argument for why all orcs deserve summary execution, in the name of a society better able to detect traps, or survive poisonous fumes. But would that sort of inside-baseball approach have made it into print on anything but a gaming blog?

I'm going to extremes here, and using a horrific vignette instead of the standard faux-heroic one, but I stand behind the central argument, which is that Gygax's legacy should be really, fully examined, and in my opinion dismantled. If I'm wrong that D&D has cultivated a tendency towards mindless, often repulsive play, then I want to explore what it is that's kept this industry from really flourishing, or gaining mainstream success or attention.

If we put aside system preferences, and look at what the lasting dominance of D&D has done for gaming, am I missing something positive? Sure, Gygax came first, but maybe it's best for all of us to acknowledge that fact, and then go about the business of cleaning up the mess he ultimately left behind.

Erik, You are a MORON. Aside from the fact that you are Emo Larp freak who has played little of any D&D, you can't seem to grasp the fact that without Gygax's creation, there would be no other alternatives at all. NONE.

Its really kind of sad that any fool with a computer can spout the garbage that you did with this article, but with the freedom of speech you have to take the good with the bad. I will say that if E. Gary Gygax was a hack like you claim that he was, then someone needs to create a whole new word to describe writers who sput the tripe like you write as the word "hack" just isn't going to come anywhere close to cutting it anymore.

I will leave you with this thought by Mark Twain:

"Some times its best to be thought the fool than to open your mouth and prove it.."

I'm going to extremes here, and using a horrific vignette instead of the standard faux-heroic one, but I stand behind the central argument, which is that Gygax's legacy should be really, fully examined, and in my opinion dismantled. If I'm wrong that D&D has cultivated a tendency towards mindless, often repulsive play, then I want to explore what it is that's kept this industry from really flourishing, or gaining mainstream success or attention.

I think the problem lies in your question, or in the underlying assumptions behind the question. Sure, D&D can be played mindlessly and repulsively--like almost any recreation. You can play video games that way, or poker, or even watch TV or have sex in ways that are mindless and "often repulsive." I'm not sure what that has to do with any particular system of game.

And I'm not sure what kind of "flourishing" you're looking for. The RPG industry did flourish for awhile in the 1980s, then sank--along with almost every other kind of game except the collectible card games. If RPGs aren't doing as well now, they're not alone: board games, card games, wargames, family games and the entire lot aren't exactly "flourishing," and there's been major consolidation and upheval in the industry. Most innovative game design of any kind is coming out of Germany and much of American game design seems to be mired in an obsession with collectibles (cards and miniatures) because those are consistently profitable sectors that appeal to marginal gamers and some non-gamers. As for mainstream acceptance, one might note that RPGs are no longer tucked away into the corners of bookshelves or hidden in sleazy-looking strip mall gameshops: you can find several RPGs on prominent display near the SF and comics sections of major booksellers like Barnes & Noble, something that wasn't always true 20 years ago.

Which also brings us to another problem underlying your questions: the mainstream is fragmenting. It's a process that's happening a bit like an ice shelf breaking up--some pieces take longer to splinter and some chunks are larger than others--but the reality that's been emerging for about 15 years now is that technologies (primarily cable/satellite and the internet) have made niche communities defined by interest over geography viable. One side effect of this is that much of what passes for "mainstream" in fact represents a relative minority interest. How many popular American TV shows draw more than a third of available viewers? How's radio doing these days? How about the Times bestseller lists? Recreations that have true "mainstream appeal" tend to be surprisingly rare--Harry Potter, for instance.

What kind of mainstream appeal would you be looking for, and (honestly) why would it matter? I'm not asking from the cliched elitist position--there's no superiority in being in a minority. But there's no longer the same stigma, either: we're all in minorities these days, the people who play games and the people who watch football and the people who really like everything to do with The Carpenters and people who like piercing themselves and so on. Even ostensibly popular things like Evangelical Christianity tend to have far less support than you'd think--the Evangelicals make up, what, less than a third of self-identified Christians when you start crunching numbers? And if your hobby is collecting doilies, no doubt there's a healthy chatroom or message board out there for you--do you really need the reassurance of a Doilies With Celebrities! show on FOX that in actuality would only need to be watched by 20% of TV households to be a veritable hit among the 300 other shows on at the exact same time?

As for Gygax's legacy, let's do talk about that. If you actually look around at what the freaks and geeks are saying about the man, you're not seeing a whole lot of "OMG R0XX0RZ D&D IZ T3H AW3SOME RIP GARY!!!11!" What you're seeing is that most folks found Gary Gygax to be a guy who helped them see that thinking and imagination are important, that he introduced people to the power of books, to the idea that thinking could be fun, that he showed how things like history and math could be important, that for all of his faults he was something of a teacher and guru who didn't show us the end so much as he showed us how much fun the means to that end could be. His legacy isn't really the sort-of-mediocre game he invented so much as it's that he showed a lot of us that it was fun and okay to try being smart back in the era when so much of popularity was still measured by being pretty and/or being good at sports. I fear, Mr. Sofge, that you've inadvertently started to sound a little like the Grinch on top of the cliff, hand cupped to his ear, wondering why the Whos down in Whoville are still singing their Christmas songs when there are no toys nor even roast beast. Gygax's legacy wasn't really RPGs, or experience points, or hit points, or a thirty-five year old game. Gygax's legacy is that he was our nerd, the nerds' nerd, and many of us didn't really realize it until we heard he'd died, and began to remember what he'd really given us--people who became computer experts and history teachers and actors and internet personalities and lawyers and engineers and writers and such. Gary Gygax is dead. Long live Gary Gygax!