|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 2, 2017 2:18:54 GMT -5
As my third essay is a challenge to pre-existing thoughts regarding a direct lineal descent of D&D from either Chainmail or Braunstein it was inevitable that such scholarly discourse would come to pass. Jon has yet to read the book, however, an oversight that I tried to remedy two weeks ago, for which I am truly apologetic.
The need for exactness and preciseness is at hand. All scholarly treatments must be based upon what we know and and be guided by that alone. Inquiries are part of that process, but assumptive leaps of logic are not. By bringing science to the fore I hope to prove that we can return to preciseness. I will add that Jon has done a great service for RPG history, as the filmmakers involved with the Secrets of Blackmoor documentary are doing, and I have always looked forward, as I am sure they have, to a more precise recounting of those days; and thus mine has been forwarded into the pot of discourse from a designer's view. Let the chips fall where they may goes the saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 2, 2017 4:07:40 GMT -5
I think it was Hugh Nibley who said, or maybe quoted someone else, that if it doesn't surprise the researcher, it's not really research; if it doesn't surprise everyone, it may not be history.
Paraphrased from memory, which is always dangerous.
|
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 2, 2017 6:20:16 GMT -5
Still, I'll give him at least a half a day to dispute this before I go into analyzing his concept list with Kuntz's new book. As Perilous Dreamer suggested, we should take the question of whether or not my book (or me personally) thinks Blackmoor is based on Chainmail to another thread. If, however, you want to try to use Rob's methods or evidence to show that my historical claims or understanding are mistaken, I'll leave it to others to say whether that belongs in another thread or right here. To just one point: You are excerpting that from a sentence-by-sentence paraphrase of a paragraph of 1975 text by Gygax immediately before it; that sentence is a paraphrase of "Dave A then took these rules and changed them into a prototype of what is now D&D." But I do that paraphrasing so that I can then explain, in the bulk of the introduction, the need to explore those topics in far more detail - high-level statements like that can't tell the whole story. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 2, 2017 10:07:12 GMT -5
Well the reactions to and reviews of DATG are as polarized as I expected them to be:
I have had it described as either “brilliant” or “useless jargon,” “fantastic” or “jargon”
“seminal” or “full of jargon,” with some saying that they won’t even read it while condemning me out of hand while others can’t wait for the next offering! It appears to have struct a resounding chord on both sides of the curtain and to have achieved results no matter the outcome. The personal attacks are mounting as well as the applause--so I must be on the right track!
I am in a word, thrilled, by the response from both ends of the spectrum as it indicates to me that there is a notable divide and perhaps a strong yearning not to understand coming from the naysayers as well as a true appreciation from others for what I have offered. It also may be an indicator of what I have been feeling for years compared to my bygone days of being around designers from the LGTSA, MMSA, IFW and elsewhere during those days of yore: that such an ilk, then open-minded to greater or lesser extents, have been replaced by a new breed with a comfortable mindset of the establishment kind, the type we faced as TSR BitD and which attacked us out of hand and whenever possible. IOW, admitted ignorance and a yearning to know has been replaced over the years by rampant disregard based upon inflated opinion.
It is such a delight to know that my 42 years of game design and nearly 9 years of research can be brushed aside nonchalantly with the word, “jargon.”
What is more telling is that it can be appreciated by those that truly want to know more. To those folks, the yearners for more just like Gary, Dave, myself and so many others from those days of yore were, I am grateful!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 2, 2017 11:36:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 2, 2017 12:22:13 GMT -5
And once again another one misses the point. Bias clouds the issue of what Arneson accomplished and whole swaths of information and insights into what he created is swept away with the generalization of commercialization, notwithstanding the fact that D&D's history notes it as being commercially successful under the Arneson model and at a ratio of investment to return which has since been unequalled. More rubbish, but RC is a die-hard btb mechanist and not a designer. Too bad, another read and another low-ranging dismissal as if the whole matter boiled down to "this" or "that" only. I am starting to believe that there is a cognitive dissonance at play that won't let people see past the tree for the forest regarding Arneson's concept. A full 100% of people were DIY creators and masters and propelled TSR to a nearly $1,000,000 concern in three short years starting from a basement! If left to its own devices what masters and geniuses and money would have been produced? One must wonder, but obviously this is of no concern to the establishment which RC proves he is wholly aligned to. The establishment couldn't, bitd, see the forest before the tree, either, and so it goes with the New Establishment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 13:06:23 GMT -5
Well the reactions to and reviews of DATG are as polarized as I expected them to be: Some of the negative reactions have actually made me laugh. One source complained that you spent too much time on the nuts and bolts of rules detail and not enough talking about the system, while somebody else complained you didn't talk about rules but spent all your time talking about systems. In the words of Terry Pratchett, "Oh, how I am laughing." |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 2, 2017 13:14:17 GMT -5
Well the reactions to and reviews of DATG are as polarized as I expected them to be: Some of the negative reactions have actually made me laugh. One source complained that you spent too much time on the nuts and bolts of rules detail and not enough talking about the system, while somebody else complained you didn't talk about rules but spent all your time talking about systems. In the words of Terry Pratchett, "Oh, how I am laughing." Both have the same thing in common: They both missed the crystal clear and delineated point I was making. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 2, 2017 14:08:43 GMT -5
And once again another one misses the point. Bias clouds the issue of what Arneson accomplished and whole swaths of information and insights into what he created is swept away with the generalization of commercialization, notwithstanding the fact that D&D's history notes it as being commercially successful under the Arneson model and at a ratio of investment to return which has since been unequalled. More rubbish, but RC is a die-hard btb mechanist and not a designer. Too bad, another read and another low-ranging dismissal as if the whole matter boiled down to "this" or "that" only. I am starting to believe that there is a cognitive dissonance at play that won't let people see past the tree for the forest regarding Arneson's concept. A full 100% of people were DIY creators and masters and propelled TSR to a nearly $1,000,000 concern in three short years starting from a basement! If left to its own devices what masters and geniuses and money would have been produced? One must wonder, but obviously this is of no concern to the establishment which RC proves he is wholly aligned to. The establishment couldn't, bitd, see the forest before the tree, either, and so it goes with the New Establishment. Regardless of ones feeling about commercial publishing the fact is that an individual is unable to share material derived from a written work without an explicit grant of copyright. For gaming this hinders people from sharing and reusing each other ideas. That is before the the introduction of the idea of open content and the creation of various licenses like creative commons, open game license, GNU Free documentation license. Your bias against commercialization is rooted in an earlier era. The moment that D&D was copyrighted and licensed to TSR, you and everybody else were not able to copy freely from its text and use it for whatever project folks had in mind. And for a long time that was the cycle, formulate an idea and write it down. Either share it or publish it, it doesn't matter, copyright law restricted an individual's ability to use those idea. Whether it is COMMERICAL OR NOT. Since 1976 in the United States and in the countries that ratified the Bern Copyright treaties ANY piece of writing is automatically copyright with the EXCLUSIVE right to copy the work and more importantly for tabletop roleplaying prepare derivative works. So when Gygax refused to move you over to the TSR Creative, and refused to consider to publish your works you had no alternative other than redesign everything using a system you designed from scratch. This is also at odds at how the various accounts and anecdotes depicted how the gaming community operated in the 60s and early 70s. Everybody figuring out interesting things to try to play and coming up with rules to play them. Then sharing the result with the rest to use in their own games. Your book is focused on the rules and the design of the rules leavened with antagonism against commercialization. None of these are the problem. The problem is copyright. Fortunately we have a solution and that is open content backed by explicit copyright license designed to ensure that it remains open content. Thanks to software developers the copyright system has been hacked to create a body of material that any hobbyist is free to plunder for whatever purpose they see fit. For example my own works. The text and map of Blackmarsh is 100% open content. Everybody including yourself is free to make as much or as little of it as desired. The only limitation that if you incorporate it in a work it too must be open content. The same with the first two sections (out of three) of my Majestic Wilderlands. I also have a dozen shorter works posted on my blog and website that also open content as well. Authors other than myself have open contents as well. Including entire games like Fate, and much of the 3rd and 5th edition of D&D. All of out there free for any hobbyist to use as they see fit. This situation allow anybody including yourself to take advantage of what Dave Arneson created and create type of game they want. More important these license ensure that they don't remain locked up with other unable to use them. I don't know about you but to me that sound a lot more like fulfilling the dream of what Arneson created then worrying about the design of rules one uses to run a tabletop roleplaying campaign. Open Content does more to return the hobby to the state it was in in the 60s and 70s when people freely shared their ideas. The upshot of all this is that these tools are for you as well. Whatever project you didn't get to make or couldn't realize because of the restrictions that existed in the 70s are now possible. Even you not interested in revisiting what you were working on before, you can use Creative Commons or the Open Game License to create something new and ensure whatever it is remain Open Content and free for everybody to use. Isn't that the point what Dave Arneson did? If not profit then had to be sharing, open content ensure that it will be shared. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 2, 2017 14:11:29 GMT -5
In another thread with the same title in a different section of the forum that some may not read is this thread with some interesting posts; What is Dave Arneson’s True Genius? This is down in the Dave Arneson's Blackmoor subforum. derv (who is not yet a member here) makes some points in his posts I find interesting and need to chew on. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 2, 2017 14:20:19 GMT -5
Well the reactions to and reviews of DATG are as polarized as I expected them to be: Some of the negative reactions have actually made me laugh. One source complained that you spent too much time on the nuts and bolts of rules detail and not enough talking about the system, while somebody else complained you didn't talk about rules but spent all your time talking about systems. In the words of Terry Pratchett, "Oh, how I am laughing." As far as I am concerned the only system that matter is that Arneson developed an effective and fun way of taking people within a pen & paper virtual reality of one's imagination. That way being a players interacting with a setting as individual characters with their actions adjudicated by a human referee. How that specifically accomplished i.e. the rules system is personal preference. My advice is anybody is "Goes with whatever makes it happens for you." For many in this group that "whatever" is original rules for Dungeon & Dragons. For others it something different. Even the storygamers for all their talk of drama and narrative are obsessed with the darn rules and the darn system. If a referee is skilled it possible to run a tabletop roleplaying campaign with no rules at. Just write up a character description on paper and the referee uses his experience and judgment as the basis for the rulings. Hell if it setup right you can even jettison the dice. That how flexible the idea that Dave Arneson genius came up with. Doesn't get any more open than that right? For me, there are limits to my life experiences, and limit to how consistent I can be without a system of rules to fall back on. So I use the rules that work best for me which for the last couple of years happened to be based on OD&D. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 2, 2017 14:20:57 GMT -5
In another thread with the same title in a different section of the forum that some may not read is this thread with some interesting posts; What is Dave Arneson’s True Genius? This is down in the Dave Arneson's Blackmoor subforum. Sorry, feel free to move my posts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 14:31:15 GMT -5
Some of the negative reactions have actually made me laugh. One source complained that you spent too much time on the nuts and bolts of rules detail and not enough talking about the system, while somebody else complained you didn't talk about rules but spent all your time talking about systems. In the words of Terry Pratchett, "Oh, how I am laughing." As far as I am concerned the only system that matter is that Arneson developed an effective and fun way of taking people within a pen & paper virtual reality of one's imagination. That way being a players interacting with a setting as individual characters with their actions adjudicated by a human referee. How that specifically accomplished i.e. the rules system is personal preference. My advice is anybody is "Goes with whatever makes it happens for you." For many in this group that "whatever" is original rules for Dungeon & Dragons. For others it something different. Even the storygamers for all their talk of drama and narrative are obsessed with the darn rules and the darn system. If a referee is skilled it possible to run a tabletop roleplaying campaign with no rules at. Just write up a character description on paper and the referee uses his experience and judgment as the basis for the rulings. Hell if it setup right you can even jettison the dice. That how flexible the idea that Dave Arneson genius came up with. Doesn't get any more open than that right? For me, there are limits to my life experiences, and limit to how consistent I can be without a system of rules to fall back on. So I use the rules that work best for me which for the last couple of years happened to be based on OD&D. Sorry, man, this mostly shows me that you really don't understand systems. Unfortunately I'm not a good person to teach about systems; most of my understanding is empirical, and just because somebody knows something doesn't mean they can teach it. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 2, 2017 14:31:49 GMT -5
This is for game designers, true game designers, and game and play theorists and serious historians of RPG history or even budding designers of any game genre: Arneson created a model that had not previously existed in games. Let that sink in. I have described that systems architecture and note how it might otherwise be promoted in the future, in games or in publications. Repeat, Arneson broke with 2,000 years of game design philosophy and history and I used readily available systems science to prove it. This rises WAYYY above "who did this or that" at the same time as adding a new dimension to it, for Arneson created that architecture. Some people do get it as a significant find; but those dismissing DATG out of hand are doing this hobby and industry a great disservice as well as continuing to minimize Arneson's history.
Somerset Maugham once stated: "The world in general doesn't know what to make of originality; it is startled out of its comfortable habits of thought, and its first reaction is one of anger."
I take no credit for Arneson's originality, I have merely described why it transcends to a many tiered level and possibly beyond if clear eyes are once again set to it; as well he and Gygax had to sustain the barbs, along with TSR and its employees, for having stood by this genius concept once. I am glad to do it at another level and in another day. For I give credit to Arneson for being part and parcel of what that allowed me to become: a true designer who has since won awards. Kudos to both him and Gygax for shaping me, for they were each champions in their own unique ways and I benefitted from them. And now the tables turn: It is Arneson who deserves the credit and the place in history that has been forever denied him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 14:34:19 GMT -5
I need to read the essays at least once more before I can really comment in depth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 2, 2017 14:36:22 GMT -5
In another thread with the same title in a different section of the forum that some may not read is this thread with some interesting posts; What is Dave Arneson’s True Genius? This is down in the Dave Arneson's Blackmoor subforum. Sorry, feel free to move my posts. You are good! No apology needed. I am just linking to stuff on ODD74 that I think are relevant to this thread. This was in reference to a different thread that you are not posting in, but both links this one and the one your are posting in are over on ODD74. If I have permission to post quotes from there by you that would be cool. As @gronanofsimmerya pointed out there is no completely common language and set of terms that we are all using in common and that is creating some of the disagreement. Since robkuntz makes a living with what he creates and sells, I am sure he is not arguing against making money on your creative efforts. Me I like free stuff and I like good stuff I have to pay for, whatever my wife will agree that I can spend - budgets are important in all areas of life. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 2, 2017 15:07:22 GMT -5
Sorry, man, this mostly shows me that you really don't understand systems. Unfortunately I'm not a good person to teach about systems; most of my understanding is empirical, and just because somebody knows something doesn't mean they can teach it. You are probably right. I will be the first to admit that when it comes to tabletop roleplaying games, my strength has always been the roleplaying not the game. In fact I find it funny for myself to be writing rules supplements. But apparently after nearly 40 years of gaming I have developed some opinions on how some things ought to be adjudicated. And apparently there are people interested in me sharing them provided I take the time to properly organize, edit, and write comments on them. Look my view as a referee boils back to the idea that I am making a world available for my players to trash. I set things up and I am willing to handle wherever they want to go even it into places that I haven't prepared for explicitly. The rule are there as support and NOT the point of why I am running a campaign. What dictates what is possible or not is the setting. In a fantasy middle ages outside of magic, players can expect things to work like they do in our middle ages. In a campaign centered around a fantasy Olympus the assumptions and rules to support those assumption are going to be way different. And ironically during a campaign I am pretty much a by the book rules as written referee. It only before I start a campaign is where I hammer on the rules until I am satisfied that they work with the setting I am using. The main reason I am publishing rules because I have written down the stuff I came with while running my Majestic Wilderlands using OD&D. Whether that works as a system, freak if I know, it does however fits with how the Majestic Wilderlands works in my campaign and I played it over enough campaigns and one-shot to hammer any of the egregious rough spots. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 2, 2017 15:13:54 GMT -5
Sorry, feel free to move my posts. You are good! No apology needed. I am just linking to stuff on ODD74 that I think are relevant to this thread. This was in reference to a different thread that you are not posting in, but both links this one and the one your are posting in are over on ODD74. If I have permission to post quotes from there by you that would be cool. As @gronanofsimmerya pointed out there is no completely common language and set of terms that we are all using in common and that is creating some of the disagreement. Since robkuntz makes a living with what he creates and sells, I am sure he is not arguing against making money on your creative efforts. Me I like free stuff and I like good stuff I have to pay for, whatever my wife will agree that I can spend - budgets are important in all areas of life. 1) I am OK with links. 2) I like to debate. More often than not I learn something in the process. I don't take this stuff personally. If circumstances were such Rob and anybody else that I argued "vigorously" with is more than welcome to sit at my table and I would be happy to sit at theirs. So again all good here. 3) As for commercialization the True Genius book helped me understand his position. Doesn't mean I still agree with all of his conclusion or what he focuses on. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 2, 2017 18:18:13 GMT -5
You are excerpting that from a sentence-by-sentence paraphrase of a paragraph of 1975 text by Gygax immediately before it; that sentence is a paraphrase of "Dave A then took these rules and changed them into a prototype of what is now D&D." But I do that paraphrasing so that I can then explain, in the bulk of the introduction, the need to explore those topics in far more detail - high-level statements like that can't tell the whole story. Here is Gary's quote and the topic sentence of your paragraph: By opening your history of D&D with a paragraph-length quote from Gygax, then repeating it in your own words, you are affirming Gygax's account of D&D's history. You are telling your readers that you believe that his statement that it all began with Chainmail is true. Imagine if your book began with a quote on how D&D started from Arneson instead: See the difference? But lets get back to the analysis. Increment, could you tell us which, among the two paragraphs of concepts you listed previously, do you believe are the fundamental concepts that Blackmoor derived from Chainmail? I counted 13 from your two paragraphs, but surely you do not believe they are all fundamental concepts? I define a fundamental concept as one that, if changed or removed from D&D, would render it something other than D&D. For example, D&D would cease to be D&D if you removed the concept of characters persisting between gaming sessions. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 2, 2017 19:45:10 GMT -5
Derv over at ODDPro said:
"At it's core, I believe Kuntz is saying that he created a framework (architecture), not thought of before, that is not dependent upon structured rules (sub-systems) or data, yet is still complete as a system. The essence of the original concept is found in the architecture of the game. The sub-systems are inconsequential and/or mutable and do not truly define Arneson's creative leap, an ever changing and adaptive design."
Ding-Ding as Gronan would say... We have a winner!
Now was that so hard? Perhaps for some, but FRP was also a learning curve for the LGTSA in 1972 and I am describing a never before modeled concept, so give me time to wind up here.
Thank you Derv!
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 2, 2017 19:53:02 GMT -5
See the difference? But lets get back to the analysis. Increment, could you tell us which, among the two paragraphs of concepts you listed previously, do you believe are the fundamental concepts that Blackmoor derived from Chainmail? I counted 13 from your two paragraphs, but surely you do not believe they are all fundamental concepts? From the various accounts I read neither quote is 100% accurate as Dave Arneson did use Chainmail as ONE of the elements of the Blackmoor Campaign. However your use of the WG #4 quote, if I am reading the citation correctly, is more accurate as it focused on the Blackmoor Campaign as whole which was the revolutionary part not the specifics what Dave Arneson used to resolve combat, handle advancement, generated treasure, etc. It is the fact he took various pieces that people been using to run various kinds of wargames and combined into what turned out be the first tabletop roleplaying campaign. As Jon correctly notes most if all the indivdiual parts of Blackmoor were being used in one place or another. I define a fundamental concept as one that, if changed or removed from D&D, would render it something other than D&D. For example, D&D would cease to be D&D if you removed the concept of characters persisting between gaming sessions. That not fundemental people play one session tabletop roleplaying all the time. From my own studies the core elements are as follows. 1) The focus is on the player playing individual characters not nation, armies or some other type of abstract entity 2) The focus is on the players interacting with some setting as their characters. They can't do anything that their character can't do within the setting. They have no special knowledge of the setting outside of the setting. Now the last sentenance gets a little fuzzy when you have a player play a second or third character in a characters. Usually because the previous character died. Referees handle the player's prior knowledge in different ways. 3) When the players interact with the setting it is adjudicated by a human referee. Usually but not always by using a set of wargame rules and dice. Individual characters, interacting with a setting only as a character, adjudication by a human referee. These three elements are the minimum for a campaign of one or more sessions to be considered tabletop roleplaying in my opinion. What made me an advocate of this is the difference between Metagaming's Melee/Wizards vs. The Fantasy Trip. The former is considered a wargame and the later is a tabletop roleplaying game. Both are using the same rules. The only difference is focus. Melee/Wizards by themselves are used by two or more players as a wargame where individuals fight it out on a battefield. The Fantasy Trip in constrast focuses on setting a campaign where the players interact with a setting as individual characters where a human referee is using the Melee/Wizards rules to ajudicated some of the things the players attempt to do. Another example is SPI's Freedom in the Galaxy vs. WEG's Star Wars the Roleplaying Game. Both have individual characters, both have a setting, etc, etc. Yes Freedom in the Galaxy is focused setting a situation where two players fight out for control of the galaxy. WEG's Star Wars is focused on players being characters within the Star Wars setting. Because of that and other things I studied my conclusion where Dave Arneson's true genius lies in developing the tabletop roleplaying campaign not in a particular set of rule. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 2, 2017 20:09:10 GMT -5
Derv over at ODDPro said: "At it's core, I believe Kuntz is saying that he created a framework (architecture), not thought of before, that is not dependent upon structured rules (sub-systems) or data, yet is still complete as a system. The essence of the original concept is found in the architecture of the game. The sub-systems are inconsequential and/or mutable and do not truly define Arneson's creative leap, an ever changing and adaptive design." Ding-Ding as Gronan would say... We have a winner! Now was that so hard? Perhaps for some, but FRP was also a learning curve for the LGTSA in 1972 and I am describing a never before modeled concept, so give me time to wind up here. Thank you Derv! Why didn't you put something that straightforward in the opening paragraph or chapter of your book? Instead I am reading about Herbert Simon and you tying what he said to how commercialization corrupted Arneson's creation. Because if that your overall thesis about what Dave's true genius then our respective position are not that far about. What you are calling a system I am calling a campaign. A tabletop roleplaying campaign can incorporate any type of setting or situation that the referee and his players find fun interesting. Hence system/campaign is an open framework on which to hang the fruits of one's imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 2, 2017 20:45:42 GMT -5
The only way to definitively describe a game system is through systems theory and its terms, or else we deal with the vagueness of too many imprecise interpretations. What Dave created needed to be modeled (which I have done in my larger work) and since it is a combination of systems a NEW systems language must be learned to define it with the aim to framing its future potentials. I have just about finished that, but I did append some parts in the footnotes which everyone, so far, has failed to mention. Modeling is important as is the language since RPGs are not the only sphere that this concept has been used within as I noted in passing in the first essay.
Derv described what I was expressing in the text; so perhaps your detour into the perceived topic of commercialization kicked in and clouded your thoughts. I have also been contacted by many others who understand it. Some get it quicker than others, Some don't.
BTW: There is no way to disassemble--for studying and describing--a complex system as Arneson's is without using such language. It took me sometimes 15 minutes just to frame a single paragraph, rewrite after rewrite. I am a student of 8 years of research on the science but not yet a master; and thus I feel good that many people are getting it as thai also validates my systems learning which I felt comfortable enough with to write the book.
Ciao!
|
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 2, 2017 21:23:29 GMT -5
Before I start here - moderators, could you move this message and its parent(s) to another thread? This doesn't belong in the Rob's book thread. Here is Gary's quote and the topic sentence of your paragraph: By opening your history of D&D with a paragraph-length quote from Gygax, then repeating it in your own words, you are affirming Gygax's account of D&D's history. You are telling your readers that you believe that his statement that it all began with Chainmail is true... Imagine if your book began with a quote on how D&D started from Arneson instead: As the text at the start of PatW suggests, I chose that 1975 quote from Gygax because it was the earliest "history" of D&D written by either of the principles involved that I was aware of (at the time, anyway). I think opening my book with any statement from either Gygax or Arneson that dated after the two of them openly went to war with each other would have been a blunder. At this early date, I think Gygax genuinely believed that this is how things had happened; three years later, I would hesitate to issue the same voucher for prevailing sentiments. And while it requires some caveats, as all really high-level and general statements of this form do, I don't think it's far from the mark to say of D&D that "it all began with Chainmail." I mean, I think Chainmail itself owes a certain debt to the prior work of a guy named Leonard Patt, and I'd qualify a bunch of other things about the transmission path from Chainmail to D&D, but, I don't think D&D as we know it would have appeared without Chainmail appearing first, no. I think we can do this two ways: I can be brief or I can be thorough. Let me try being brief first. I think the Blackmoor campaign in the "interesting" time of 1971-2 was a wargame campaign, albeit one with some transitional role-playing elements, and that Chainmail rules with some relatively minor modifications were used to decide tactical battles in the campaign (like that Loch Gloomen battle I mentioned). I think the campaign itself was staged within the larger context of the Great Kingdom campaign of the Castle & Crusade Society, such as it was, and that this involved Gygax in it from the very start - this was not something sprung on him years later. I think without the fantasy elements defined in Chainmail, it is likely that the first "medieval Braunstein" would have been just medieval rather than fantastic. I think concepts I would consider fundamental like armor class, hit points, and even level in Blackmoor took the shape they did because of the precedents for each in Chainmail, and indeed I'd say that as they appeared in the Blackmoor campaign in that initial period, each is more similar to Chainmail than to OD&D. I know this is a sore spot for some people, but I think the idea that when an underground area is involved, a referee should keep information about underground passages on a secret map maintained with pen and pencil is a mechanism described in Chainmail, and it is kind of a striking coincidence that it happens to be how dungeon maps were done in Blackmoor. In general I think a lot of things about how dungeons and so on were defined have connections back to Chainmail - though to be clear, Arneson should be credited with inventing the dungeon adventure concept, and a number of other important system elements that made their way from Blackmoor to D&D, of which the most important is probably the experience system. I'm not going to claim that's absolutely everything, but it's probably a good place to start. Other activities in the Blackmoor campaign apart from tactical wargames and dungeon crawls drew influences from other places - I could do a shorter and probably less interesting write-up for Outdoor Survival, say - and of course Chainmail itself was subject to a similar web of precursors and influences. As a final note, I think Arneson treated the tactical, competitive wargaming component as the most important part of the "interesting" era of the Blackmoor campaign, and in fact actively steered the campaign back to it if people started to dwell too much on other activities. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 2, 2017 21:31:17 GMT -5
The only way to definitively describe a game system is through systems theory and its terms, or else we deal with the vagueness of too many imprecise interpretations. What Dave created needed to be modeled (which I have done in my larger work) and since it is a combination of systems a NEW systems language must be learned to define it with the aim to framing its future potentials. I have just about finished that, but I did append some parts in the footnotes which everyone, so far, has failed to mention. Modeling is important as is the language since RPGs are not the only sphere that this concept has been used within as I noted in passing in the first essay. That of course is true if it is assumed what Dave Arneson created was a new type of game. That not my view. My view is that he created something completely new only happened to use a wargame as one of its component. Tabletop Roleplaying is about creating an experience. Not one that you passively observe on a screen or watch happen on a stage or even read about. No he figured out how how to create somethat can be actively experienced by the particpants. Some talk in awe of the ideas behind Star Trek's Holodeck and it viritual reality but Dave Arneson figured how to do it with pen & paper back in the early 1970s. The game aspect is just one of the tools used to make this happen. You don't need new terms to describe it has one, Tabletop Roleplaying. Individual components of tabletop roleplaying have used to play various types of wargames for a number of years. The campaign, mechanics for the actions of individual character, defining a setting, etc. But the combination of all those into tabletop roleplaying was unique and a direct result of Dave Arneson work in putting together the Blackmoor. I disagree that we have to come up with a new system language to talk about this and it would only confuses the issue. I contend that the definition pf table roleplaying is very simple and very straightforward. It the execution that gets complex and where choices multiply. Just how do you define a setting? Just aspects of a character do you need to represent with mechanics. How do you start a campaign? How do you keep a campaign going once it started? How much does the genre or specific setting matter? For example what differs between Fantasy and Science Fiction in running a campaign? All these questions have many possible answers. The process for answering many of them involves listening to the players and what interests them. Libraries have bookshelves of people writing about how to listen to people. Derv described what I was expressing in the text; so perhaps your detour into the perceived topic of commercialization kicked in and clouded your thoughts. I have also been contacted by many others who understand it. Some get it quicker than others, Some don't. In the book you get into how Arneson's vision was clouded by the commercialization of D&D in the few paragraphs of the first chapter. And it is mentioned again throughout. So I don't think I am off base for thinking that was ONE of your major thesis of the book. BTW: There is no way to disassemble--for studying and describing--a complex system as Arneson's is without using such language. Well we are going to have to disagree on this point. I don't what Arneson came up with is complex at all. My primary job involves developing computer controlled machinery in the 40 years I been doing software and systems design it is the simple things that are often the hardest. Usually the first iteration is overally complex for the job. But after working at it for a while many times there is a aha! momeent and it all falls in place with a elegant simplicity. In hindsight the solution looked obvious but it really isn't. That how I view what Dave Arneson did with tabletop roleplaying. Something that everybody missed and would have continued to miss until Dave put together the pieces together in the Blackmoor Campaign. It is marvelous to think that by sitting a group of people around a table, asking each of them to imagine a character, writing it down, a human referee starting things out with saying something like "you all stand on the top of a flight of stairs leading down to darkness" and it unlocks a whole world of imagination and experiences. Leaving a powerful enough impression so that years later we remember it fondly like we actually travelled there and did those things. It took me sometimes 15 minutes just to frame a single paragraph, rewrite after rewrite. I am a student of 8 years of research on the science but not yet a master; and thus I feel good that many people are getting it as thai also validates my systems learning which I felt comfortable enough with to write the book. On this I agree, I write forcefully about my opinions but I didn't arrive at them overnight. It was after years of personal experiences with tabletop, LARPS, MMORPGs, reading everybody's forum posts, Dragon Articles, the books that came out in the past decade, your posts. That I arrived at my conclusions. Enjoying the debate and appreciate taking your time to answer my points. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 2, 2017 21:32:15 GMT -5
I don't mind the inter-topic which in fact touches upon some relevant areas in the current discussion, re: my third essay. Keep it here, no problem. I am appreciative of the historical feedback link.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 2, 2017 21:35:45 GMT -5
The only way to definitively describe a game system is through systems theory and its terms, or else we deal with the vagueness of too many imprecise interpretations. What Dave created needed to be modeled (which I have done in my larger work) and since it is a combination of systems a NEW systems language must be learned to define it with the aim to framing its future potentials. I have just about finished that, but I did append some parts in the footnotes which everyone, so far, has failed to mention. Modeling is important as is the language since RPGs are not the only sphere that this concept has been used within as I noted in passing in the first essay. That of course is true if it is assumed what Dave Arneson created was a new type of game. That not my view. My view is that he created something completely new only happened to use a wargame as one of its component. Tabletop Roleplaying is about creating an experience. Not one that you passively observe on a screen or watch happen on a stage or even read about. No he figured out how how to create somethat can be actively experienced by the particpants. Some talk in awe of the ideas behind Star Trek's Holodeck and it viritual reality but Dave Arneson figured how to do it with pen & paper back in the early 1970s. The game aspect is just one of the tools used to make this happen. You don't need new terms to describe it has one, Tabletop Roleplaying. Individual components of tabletop roleplaying have used to play various types of wargames for a number of years. The campaign, mechanics for the actions of individual character, defining a setting, etc. But the combination of all those into tabletop roleplaying was unique and a direct result of Dave Arneson work in putting together the Blackmoor. I disagree that we have to come up with a new system language to talk about this and it would only confuses the issue. I contend that the definition pf table roleplaying is very simple and very straightforward. It the execution that gets complex and where choices multiply. Just how do you define a setting? Just aspects of a character do you need to represent with mechanics. How do you start a campaign? How do you keep a campaign going once it started? How much does the genre or specific setting matter? For example what differs between Fantasy and Science Fiction in running a campaign? All these questions have many possible answers. The process for answering many of them involves listening to the players and what interests them. Libraries have bookshelves of people writing about how to listen to people. Derv described what I was expressing in the text; so perhaps your detour into the perceived topic of commercialization kicked in and clouded your thoughts. I have also been contacted by many others who understand it. Some get it quicker than others, Some don't. In the book you get into how Arneson's vision was clouded by the commercialization of D&D in the few paragraphs of the first chapter. And it is mentioned again throughout. So I don't think I am off base for thinking that was ONE of your major thesis of the book. BTW: There is no way to disassemble--for studying and describing--a complex system as Arneson's is without using such language. Well we are going to have to disagree on this point. I don't what Arneson came up with is complex at all. My primary job involves developing computer controlled machinery in the 40 years I been doing software and systems design it is the simple things that are often the hardest. Usually the first iteration is overally complex for the job. But after working at it for a while many times there is a aha! momeent and it all falls in place with a elegant simplicity. In hindsight the solution looked obvious but it really isn't. That how I view what Dave Arneson did with tabletop roleplaying. Something that everybody missed and would have continued to miss until Dave put together the pieces together in the Blackmoor Campaign. It is marvelous to think that by sitting a group of people around a table, asking each of them to imagine a character, writing it down, a human referee starting things out with saying something like "you all stand on the top of a flight of stairs leading down to darkness" and it unlocks a whole world of imagination and experiences. Leaving a powerful enough impression so that years later we remember it fondly like we actually travelled there and did those things. It took me sometimes 15 minutes just to frame a single paragraph, rewrite after rewrite. I am a student of 8 years of research on the science but not yet a master; and thus I feel good that many people are getting it as thai also validates my systems learning which I felt comfortable enough with to write the book. On this I agree, I write forcefully about my opinions but I didn't arrive at them overnight. It was after years of personal experiences with tabletop, LARPS, MMORPGs, reading everybody's forum posts, Dragon Articles, the books that came out in the past decade, your posts. That I arrived at my conclusions. Enjoying the debate and appreciate taking your time to answer my points. Well, your view is your own, then, an opinion. I side with science which is the best place to side with when searching for facts and substantiating them. There's no debate, thus. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 2, 2017 21:57:21 GMT -5
Before I start here - moderators, could you move this message and its parent(s) to another thread? This doesn't belong in the Rob's book thread. I don't mind the inter-topic which in fact touches upon some relevant areas in the current discussion, re: my third essay. Keep it here, no problem. I am appreciative of the historical feedback link. (Jon) unless you feel strongly about it, I will just leave it here for now. Let me know if you still want it moved. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 2, 2017 22:32:43 GMT -5
Well, your view is your own, then, an opinion. I side with science which is the best place to side with when searching for facts and substantiating them. There's no debate, thus. If what you write is science in what way is your hypothesis is falsifiable? Where at any point do you discuss the observations that doesn't fit your hypothesis? This is not science. What you outlined so far is just as much opinion as mine,. Yes you were present at the start of it all and you have at least a decade of more experience that I do. But I been at this for forty years myself. Like you, I have decades on which to base my observations about tabletop roleplaying. And when somebody challenges me on an observation or opinion I answer them. There been plenty of times I been wrong about something or somebody answer caused me to think of it in a different light. What I don't do is claim what I say is science and argue there no point in debate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 22:37:15 GMT -5
1) The focus is on the player playing individual characters not nation, armies or some other type of abstract entity Individual character, i.e. "skirmish," wargames were around for years earlier. Gladiatorial combat is one of the most blatant examples. 2) The focus is on the players interacting with some setting as their characters. They can't do anything that their character can't do within the setting. They have no special knowledge of the setting outside of the setting. That was not true in either Blackmoor or Greyhawk. Because of that and other things I studied my conclusion where Dave Arneson's true genius lies in developing the tabletop roleplaying campaign not in a particular set of rule. Then it's a good thing that's not what Rob's saying, isn't it! |
|
