Knights & Knaves Alehouse

gleepwurp,

That sounds like a Major National Insurance Company I worked for briefly several years ago. I wasn't on the creative end of things, but same culture, same bs.

Zot.----my point is that your work took Gygaxian AD&D away from Gygax's vision of the game. The answer to the "so what" portion of your post is that S&W, OSRIC and is contributors get Gygax, moreso than the people who helped destroy the game from its Gygaxian mode.

Why didn't you bring all of this up while Mr. Gygax was alive and could defend himself? Weigel has been blasting Zeb for awhile, so why wait until EGG is dead?

Did you ever approach EGG at TSR and offer support as to his vision of the game?

Ska wrote:Zot.----my point is that your work took Gygaxian AD&D away from Gygax's vision of the game.

Y'know, people keep saying that, but it doesn't hold up. The published AD&D 2nd Edition is in content largely similar to the way Gary was moving with AD&D. The organization and style is certainly different, but this doesn't really impact any "vision" Gary had for the game—and I'm not even sure what "vision" you're talking about. Gary's ideas about the game were constantly changing.

The answer to the "so what" portion of your post is that S&W, OSRIC and is contributors get Gygax, moreso than the people who helped destroy the game from its Gygaxian mode.

The so-called retro-clones are exactly what that phrase says: backward-looking copies. They mimic certain forms of the game. Their authors were not in any situation remotely like those of the creators of the AD&D 2nd Edition. They also didn't have the benefit of 25 years of hindsight after the fact.

Why didn't you bring all of this up while Mr. Gygax was alive and could defend himself? Weigel has been blasting Zeb for awhile, so why wait until EGG is dead?

Mike has already answered this question: he wasn't even aware of the things people were saying about Zeb until someone pointed out a blog that linked to this site.

Did you ever approach EGG at TSR and offer support as to his vision of the game?

Was Gary's "vision" an actual subject at the time? Was anybody talking about Gary's vision vs. someone else's vision? That seems like a hindsight consideration to me. Gary certainly had ideas about how both the game and the company should evolve, but were these things a distinct "vision"?

Stormcrow wrote:

Ska wrote:Zot.----my point is that your work took Gygaxian AD&D away from Gygax's vision of the game.

Y'know, people keep saying that, but it doesn't hold up. The published AD&D 2nd Edition is in content largely similar to the way Gary was moving with AD&D. The organization and style is certainly different, but this doesn't really impact any "vision" Gary had for the game—and I'm not even sure what "vision" you're talking about. Gary's ideas about the game were constantly changing.

I agree for a variety of reasons. First, some of the things that are often perceived as "the beginning of the end" (e.g. Unearthed Arcana), were released with Gary's full blessing. Many other TSR publications released under his command received less than his full, personal attention. In his personal games, he used many houserules that many of the "originalists" would disagree with if they came from another hand. Of the rules in the books, he used only what he wanted, and ignored much of it, preferring to make up whatever he needed. Even some of his later answers on many of the thorny issues have contained contradictions. Now, this isn't a complaint about Gary, as it is a desire to dispel the sanctity of "Gary said so." I'm more in debt to that man than most of the others, by far. My game of choice is 1e AD&D. I love reading through the manuals to further crystalize my understanding of the ruleset, and to breath in the spirit of it. I've contributed to OSRIC, and am happy that it has come into being. I've done the same with BFRPG. But I find the style of the retroclones to be closer to 2e than 1e. They are better organized, and are a better introduction to the game than 1e was. I'm not saying they're better written, just better organized, which 2e certainly was.

As for the modules and campaigns that got published by TSR after Gary's golden age being less Gary-like, I can only impute that to the fact that the writers were not Gary. Would I have loved to see more stuff from Gary and his crew? You bet. But I'm not sure any of the employees that worked there, short of the stake-owning executives, could have really made that happen.

Stormcrow wrote:Mike has already answered this question: he wasn't even aware of the things people were saying about Zeb until someone pointed out a blog that linked to this site.

For me, it was someone at the local hobby shop pointing me toward the "Zeb is a Liar" thread. They knew I'd worked with Zeb and think highly of him; they also knew I'd worked with Gary in various capacities over my career. (I don't think posters realize how quickly this sort of defamatory shouting spreads in hobby circles.) And my own firsthand experiences with the people and companies being discussed directly contradicts the theories and conspiracies being offered up about various matters. So I'm offering what specific, firsthand information I can.

Cheers,
Jim Lowder

JLowder wrote:I don't think posters realize how quickly this sort of defamatory shouting spreads in hobby circles.

Zeb was being (I need more players; come join my campaign) a weenie!

You know, despite all the side trails this topic has taken, my whole intent here was to voice my opinion that Zeb is a good guy, a hard worker, and someone who takes pride in his work. I worked with him for five years and never once saw him be snarky about someone, do anything underhanded behind anyone's back, or be mean or cruel to anyone. I did see him work very hard, care deeply about what he was doing, and worry about fans' feelings and opinions. Those were my experiences working alongside Zeb, every weekday for five years.

While this is just one person's experiences and opinions (though you have Jim's as well, someone who also worked alongside Zeb), my intent in expressing myself was to bring some balance to what I felt was the unbalanced viewpoint of some members of this board. I hope that the open-minded members of this board, and they are many, will take Jim's and my words as something to think about and perhaps conclude that the Zeb Cook case isn't as black-and-white as it was sounding before.

I never meant to stain Gary's memory, but some of my comments in response to other's posts could certainly be taken that way. Not my intent and sorry if I offended anyone.

Mike

Nazim wrote:But I'm not sure any of the employees that worked there, short of the stake-owning executives, could have really made that happen.

Because of the personal hard feelings between Lorraine and Gary, and the continuing legal problems between Gary and TSR, no one below Lorraine herself was going to be able to bring Gary back into the fold.

Cheers,
Jim Lowder

This is a simple question to answer. Certain people took AD&D off course and made it something we no longer liked (in too many ways to cover at the moment). As players, we don't really care about the whys and hows, only about the final product that was for sale. If someone produced something we like they are praised, if its something we hate (and further more help drive TSR into the toilet) of course you hear about it. Remember, we are mere fans that still can't get over how such a wonderful game was systematically redefined (into crap) and then utterly destroyed. Sour grapes? You bet.

PS if Gygax had started taking AD&D off course (IMO this is wrong, I think he was pushed that way) then it was the job of those around him to keep the game focused on what had been so successful in order to keep the fan base growing. The changes made (the publication of UA and later books) may have saved the company in the short term, but lead to changes that doomed its wide general appeal, Brand identity and ultimately the company's collapse.

TheRedPriest wrote:Every day I now I have to see ZEB & LORRAINE at the top of the K&KA boards, whether I want to join those discussions or not.

Want cheese with that?

T. Foster wrote:

gleepwurp wrote: The lone exception, the only TSR/WotC product I've purchased since 1991 was the Monstrous Manual from 1993 -- because I wanted to "reward" TSR for finally having the good sense to retire that ridiculously ill-conceived binder format,

Bah being the Star Fleet Battle, Harn, junkie I was (still am with Harn) I loved the binder format and still have it. (the only 2e book to have survived)

JLowder wrote:For me, it was someone at the local hobby shop pointing me toward the "Zeb is a Liar" thread.

Y'know, despite it's provocative title, that thread is actually about the moderation practices at Dragonsfoot for about a page and a half. And then it drifted off to about 3 and a half pages of nonsense about metal bands and California produce markets.

robertsconley wrote:...I loved the binder format and still have it. (the only 2e book to have survived)

I originally thought the concept of a "monster binder" is solid. Unfortunately the 2e binder was a poor execution of the idea. First, the perforation on the pages that came with it (you had to separate them from a booklet before inserting them in the binder) sucked ass, so half the binders out there have ragged and ripped edges. Second, the monsters were printed 2 monsters per sheet (i.e. one on each side). That ruins the idea of being able to insert other monsters into the binder in the appropriate place (i.e. alphabetically).

Lastly, I've come to think that the "one monster per page" concept has some unfortunate side-effects, like encouraging "authoritative" encyclopedic entries filled with ecology info and such. I know some people like that detail, but I usually don't. I prefer a minimal description which leaves such things vague or undefined, encouraging the referee to "flll in the gaps" as best suits his game. (Although that criticism and preference applies more to "general monster" collections than setting-specific collections.)

I'm wondering if the ideal "monster binder" is a digest-sized binder with one monster per sheet: stats on one side, art on the other. (Of course, if you keep running with this idea, you reinvent "monster cards.")

rogatny wrote:...then it drifted off to about 3 and a half pages of nonsense about metal bands...

Any D&D-oriented board that doesn't occasionally do that is a D&D board that isn't worth going to.

rogatny wrote:Y'know, despite it's provocative title, that thread is actually about the moderation practices at Dragonsfoot for about a page and a half. And then it drifted off to about 3 and a half pages of nonsense about metal bands and California produce markets.

It may have drifted off to other topics, but it begins with a post accusing Zeb (wrongly) of dishonesty, someone claiming he is "a bad person."

Cheers,
Jim Lowder