Dungeons & Dragons: Changing Views

 Long ago in the saga that is this blog, a fellow gamer once told me that D&D is whatever the owners of the IP say it is. I heartily disagreed, and did so with numerous self assured reasons why. I have also been a staunch defender of Gygaxianism in seeking to know what the spirit of the game truly is. I am as guilty as any for taking Gary's words as scripture, and quoting them as definitive pronouncements. Even when they appeared contradictory, I was the first apologist to point out that apparent contradictions were just that apparent.

 I wouldn't say I totally disagree with my previous positions. I still hold to them by and large. But I have come to the point where certain personal interpretations should be admitted as such, personal. As well as make admission that much of what I confounded with the idea of the game was a gestalt of a certain confluence of events that simply can't be replicated. No matter how hard I may try 1981 aint coming back. The folly of men to replicate past ages is always shot through with anachronisms and perspectives that didn't exist in those same past ages. Hindsight is, as they don't say, faulty--not 20/20.

So I now recognize a few things. 

1. AD&D is not the game I played back in the day. I mean it was, but it really wasn't. I have written about this before but it bears repetition. We didn't use all the rules, or even most of them actually. While we rested assured that the Golden Trinity could answer any question that might come up, we didn't resort to them all that often. The hindsight of years poring over the rules make it clear that there is almost too much to play with here. Watching groups try and play RAW AD&D is at times laborious--especially for those who have not mastered the intricacies. We played a rough approximation of something resembling Original D&D (0e) with rules add ons (that were actually material from the Greyhawk and other supplements) but more codified in AD&D. And that made sense as I was taught to play by guys who had started with 0e, and I taught most of my friends to play. 

2. AD&D was not the game Gary played. Though I have been loathe to admit it, evidence and personal testimony make clear the unmistakable fact that Gary was running a very "loose" game, and rarely referred to rules details in the books. 

3. AD&D was the official version of D&D for going on 10 years (circa '80 to '89). Which meant that it became increasingly so, and in official pronouncements the pinnacle of "how the game should be played." It was set up as the final pronouncement on what D&D was in as much as it covered a topic. Gary himself admitted this much in his foreword. It was also the game most played at the Dungeon Hobby Shop and TSR as well, at least in name--interview evidence has also born this out. However, in practice something very different occurred. The real spirit of D&D couldn't be confined to the bottle and most AD&D games ran wild with untied shoelaces for most 1e groups everywhere. 

4. The spirit of D&D was elusively pointed at by those three little brown books back in 1974. The resulting creative explosion can not be underestimated. Those at the starting gate realized that something magical was happening, Rob Kuntz spoke to this in an interview I had with him. The potentiality of what roleplaying games could bring to the world seemed absolutely revolutionary. However, TSR was a business after all. And the shift from "imagine the hell out of it", to only buy original TSR products was pretty quick. The hunger for product and the need to defined what was what as well as exert final ownership all resulted in the game that was AD&D first edition. It wasn't the pinnacle, so much as it was an expression of of what could be at the time. 

5. The original Wizards of the Coast, KenzerCo, and 3e showed us first what could become of AD&D. The OSR showed us what could become if we went back to our 3 little brown roots. But even then, AD&D made us lose something as well. I do think some avenues of the OSR have explored a bit of space of that original untapped magic Rob and others alluded to, but I believe it is still a largely untapped gold mine. Not even a gold mine really, but an endless energy source available if we only had the eyes to see. But TSR and AD&D actually shut that valve off by the clear definition of AD&D--what the game was and who owned it. The players no longer owned it, the corporation did. 

What this means for me, and my changing views? Well, AD&D will always be my sweet spot. It is my D&D home as it were. But the fact is, I'm not sure how I would even run a BTB AD&D game, or how I would like it. And it would be wrong for me to continue to weight everything against the AD&D rulebooks. Gary's motives were as complex and varied as any human's when he created 1e. I just really wish he had been around to create a second edition and "fix" all the issues that arose with 1e. 

Warning: Political Post Ahead or The OSR has Political Parties?

 

So, color me ignorant, but I was cruising through posts on an OSR group, when I ran across one blasting three names I wasn't familiar with. It was a short, sweet blast to the effect of F this guy, that guy and this guy too. Reading through the comments failed to bring forth any real explanation, though some were asking for one. I did notice in the comments that others decried other individuals names, and it became clear as I read that some of the names they were vilifying were people I know and respect in what I would call the OSR community. There were some comments shared from conversations on other platforms as proof, reason, or evidence of these later mentioned names and their alleged crimes. The evidence was largely of the nature of political disagreements, pro Trump support, anti-socialist statements, etc. 

Now, I am an avowed political moderate, at least I consider myself moderate. I am not affiliated with either party and vote as an independent. I have voted on both sides of the aisle. I am also not super politically active. I try to stay relatively well informed (hard to do in today's age) listen to NPR, BBC, read the Times, the Wall Street Journal (mostly online) and the Salt Lake Tribune (I'm from Utah). I am religious, but what those in my faith might call liberal in my theology--which is why I stay quiet most Sundays :-). I am pro gun rights, but support more restrictions to gun ownership. I support actions to preserve, balance and restore the environment, but am supportive of well managed land use involving hunting, recreation and farming. I believe in climate change and feel we need to take strong action to reverse human induced warming trends. I tend to be fairly libertarian in regards to social issues, and believe most personal choices should be left with the person making the choice. I'll admit I struggle with how to handle termination of pregnancies, but do not claim to know the right/best decision on if/how the government should be involved on that count. For that reason I leave that choice in the hands of the woman making the decision. 

But ... and this is a big but, it is mine after all. I think the system is really, really big. We individually have very little pull anymore. I believe in voting, and think it is critical. I wish I had more time and motivation to get out there and be politically active. I have friends who have, some ardently so. And in almost all cases it leads to heart break and disappointment. I know one who ended up in therapy and medicated because of it. Politics, or the dynamics of power, is an ugly, messy business. Some call it a necessary evil. Most of the time it just seems evil. And admittedly, with the quote ringing in my ears “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” I tend to busy myself with other matters. I certainly don't risk friendships over such things.

But the sad fact is that in this huge megalithic system we live in, we feel so powerless to change things that we often resort to yelling louder than everybody else. The whole squeaky wheel phenomenon I suppose. If we can get enough people mad about something then change will occur. And this isn't  always wrong. Just sure can be toxic. But then I suppose some people feel that war is justified when the currently existing circumstances are too toxic to put up with.

However, I'm not going to choose or not choose something based on the politics of someone who made it. From Mists of Avalon to Judges Guild, I buy products because I like them, not necessarily the people who create them. Most of the time I barely know them, let alone their politics or personal proclivities. 

Now, some argue that their creations are unavoidably contaminated by their creator's sins or contrary views. I suppose this could be true. But isn't this just human. Whatever you say about Lovecraft, his works weren't a political tract on pro-racism stances. Marion Zimmer Bradley wasn't writing a how-to book on pedophilia or BDSM in Mists. And Gygax was writing a mysoginistic treatise. And I personally never read them as such. Now, was Lovecraft racist, seems likely. Was Gygax mysoginistic--I don't really think so, but he certainly was a product of his time; as was Lovecraft. And was Bradley complicit in some heinous activities on the part of her husband--the evidence isn't greatly in her favor. But let's go back some more ... was Lincoln a racist? Given the views of his day I am sure he was very progressive, but he was still a product of his time. What about Ghandi? Who happens to sleep with young girls to test his chastity? Or was Jesus perhaps a little too Jewish in who refusing to teach those outside of his religion? How many stones do we want to throw? 

I personally believe we can grow personally and as a people. And yes, there are certainly bigots out there who defend racism, mysogyny and other forms of prejudice and deserve to be rightly called out for it. But I personally refuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We are all human, and we are not any one view we express at a certain time. We are more than that. And where judgment is leveled, judgment is sure to come.