|
|
Post by tetramorph on Nov 24, 2015 9:44:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hengest on May 10, 2016 16:53:40 GMT -5
I have none of Dave's stuff save the Blackmoor supplement. I know there's periodic interest in AIF and I guess more regular interest (?) in the FFC. I've read threads on them but would really like to learn more about Dave's pre-D&D fantasy games. Took a look at tetramorph 's thread on "The Characteristics of Games" at ODD74. Can't read it all now, but just the post on chapter 1 reminded me of my periodic fascination with unusual card games (check out Stýrivolt for a strange scoring system or click through unfamiliar stuff in general at pagat.com if you want a sense of "wonder" without any connection to fantastical beasts or character classes)... |
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 11, 2016 21:19:29 GMT -5
FFC is cheap in PDF IIRC and covers a wide range of topics. It is a good resource for campaign ideas and I think will give a good picture of his gaming, although I think the PDF is scanned from a later edition so it may include material beyond your time period. I am being called to dinner so I can't look up the date.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 12, 2016 14:41:14 GMT -5
Can an RPG that defined itself of itself be summarized within the bounded contexts of some time period? I am not sure what "...material beyond your time period" refers to in either the referring sense or in any active sense of continuation of a specific principle of design that starts at a time and carries on through time unbounded until the creator of the design (and its principles) calls it quits. I know that you are referring to something contrived to fit into a time period in question (a category), a framed POV, but my question still stands as a note to that limitation.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 12, 2016 23:40:27 GMT -5
Can an RPG that defined itself of itself be summarized within the bounded contexts of some time period? I am not sure what "...material beyond your time period" refers to in either the referring sense or in any active sense of continuation of a specific principle of design that starts at a time and carries on through time unbounded until the creator of the design (and its principles) calls it quits. I know that you are referring to something contrived to fit into a time period in question (a category), a framed POV, but my question still stands as a note to that limitation. Hengest's question was specifically asking about the period prior to D&D publication while I think the printing which is in the PDF is from 1980. I was trying to be clear that this document may contain material after the period he was discussing. For me, the gaming reason I am very interested in the earlier period is that I am fascinated by the wargaming elements which were progressively de-emphasized in published RPG material, with the wargaming elements pretty much removed from mainstream RPGs before the end of the 70s. Since the 70s I have been interested in games that have RP elements embedded in larger scale conflicts (also interested in wargames that had an RPG element, like Squad Leader's optional campaign rules, or a lot of SPI fantasy games that had character elements in hex and counter wargames). I am however still happy to take elements from games published later. I prefer to discard portions of the OD&D game that I just don't like (dungeons, non-humans, many of the monsters). OD&D is a mishmash of many design themes, not always well integrated (pretty sure I am preaching to the choir here). I like the parts that are systems that can be repurposed, and dislike some the world-building assumptions that underlie a lot of the game (what we now call mythic underworld, alignment, some of the later classes). I like to have more prominent larger scale battles and some way for the players to take a part in these events. So while I am happy to consider the published FFC in its entirety, not just the parts that reflect early play conditions for Arneson and his gaming crew, those rules regarding troop composition, upkeep, fortification building and so on, which I imagine have a fairly direct connection to the earliest Chainmail campaigns, are the ones I am most interested in. I won't take those systems entirely as written any more than I do D&D itself, but treating the book as a source of design elements to consider in constructing a campaign, those are the parts I pay most attention to. I find the entire book to be very interesting and useful though. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 13, 2016 2:00:48 GMT -5
Got it. You might also start asking, as of 1978, where Arneson's original RPG ethic went to as well. For it has fled in many ways more insidious than in the natural move from the table top to conceptual realms... I do not blame you for the discards... I have my own as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 14, 2016 11:26:34 GMT -5
Got it. You might also start asking, as of 1978, where Arneson's original RPG ethic went to as well. For it has fled in many ways more insidious than in the natural move from the table top to conceptual realms... I do not blame you for the discards... I have my own as well. Will you elaborate on that a little? What do you mean by ethic, and how was it replaced? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 14, 2016 12:43:33 GMT -5
DIY ethic was replaced (creating your own content) by predominant rise of premade adventures; DIY interpretation of rules was replaced by standardization of rules, having now reached its height in all versions of D&D beyond AD&D 2nd Ed. Where OD&D had 100% in both categories, as noted, a 180 degree reversal is now the case in D&D RPGs. Thus the original concept has been, shall I say, disposed of...
|
|
|
|
Post by hengest on May 14, 2016 14:38:21 GMT -5
I appreciate the recent contributions to this thread. It was a good idea to pick up the PDF, which I've read now and am still going through to pick up more. It is from later on, but it does feel like a not-exactly-D&D item. At first it seemed to be not to my taste, but I'm getting a feel for the world suggested by the writeup now, and (I think) seeing a little of how Dave and the editors made that happen. It and the contest entries from this board really have me thinking...also about jmccann 's comments on wargaming and mass combat. I'm attracted to the notion but am still very slow in figuring out how and when I would zoom out to that level, and what kind of resolution I'd use for mass combat in a mostly PC-driven campaign. Not obvious to me. |
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 14, 2016 16:18:36 GMT -5
I appreciate the recent contributions to this thread. It was a good idea to pick up the PDF, which I've read now and am still going through to pick up more. It is from later on, but it does feel like a not-exactly-D&D item. At first it seemed to be not to my taste, but I'm getting a feel for the world suggested by the writeup now, and (I think) seeing a little of how Dave and the editors made that happen. It and the contest entries from this board really have me thinking...also about jmccann 's comments on wargaming and mass combat. I'm attracted to the notion but am still very slow in figuring out how and when I would zoom out to that level, and what kind of resolution I'd use for mass combat in a mostly PC-driven campaign. Not obvious to me. It is not obvious to me either. There is a set of design elements I want to make use of but they don't exist in the right combination yet. |
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 14, 2016 16:37:13 GMT -5
DIY ethic was replaced (creating your own content) by predominant rise of premade adventures; DIY interpretation of rules was replaced by standardization of rules, having now reached its height in all versions of D&D beyond AD&D 2nd Ed. Where OD&D had 100% in both categories, as noted, a 180 degree reversal is now the case in D&D RPGs. Thus the original concept has been, shall I say, disposed of... It's the business model. You can't have everyone writing their own rules and creating their own adventures - there's not enough to be sold that way. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 14, 2016 16:47:54 GMT -5
Wrong. TSR reached almost a million dollars in sales in 3-4 years on the DIY model. Besides, I was not attacking the business model, why so defensive? I was merely pointing out the fact. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 14, 2016 18:06:42 GMT -5
DIY ethic was replaced (creating your own content) by predominant rise of premade adventures; DIY interpretation of rules was replaced by standardization of rules, having now reached its height in all versions of D&D beyond AD&D 2nd Ed. Where OD&D had 100% in both categories, as noted, a 180 degree reversal is now the case in D&D RPGs. Thus the original concept has been, shall I say, disposed of... It's the business model. You can't have everyone writing their own rules and creating their own adventures - there's not enough to be sold that way. I was not there so I am only guessing that with the hiring of Tim Kask, the untimely death of Don Kaye, and the pushing aside and exit of Dave Arneson that explains a lot of the change away from the DIY model. Had things been different in a number of ways the DIY model might have survived in a profitable way and while the company might not have reached the size that it did, it may not have crashed and burned either. As robkuntz points out... Wrong. TSR reached almost a million dollars in sales in 3-4 years on the DIY model. Besides, I was not attacking the business model, why so defensive? I was merely pointing out the fact. Cheers! Some people would have been happy with that performance and have continued to do what got them there and if the company did not grow into a monster, no big deal. Unfortunately and perhaps I am attacking the business model a bit, as jmccann states there is less to be sold in the short term with the DIY ethic firmly in place and some pushed for only what they thought would result in high sales rather than perhaps the long term stability and more moderate growth of the company. With the DIY ethic in place, the cartoons, the movies and the educational tie-ins that were pursued could all have happened and much much more besides. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 15, 2016 3:36:07 GMT -5
Short term models always crash and burn. I know the history and am still noting its after-effects. Hindsight is 20/20 so they say. Losing complete sight is another matter entirely.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 15, 2016 12:45:04 GMT -5
Wrong. TSR reached almost a million dollars in sales in 3-4 years on the DIY model. Besides, I was not attacking the business model, why so defensive? I was merely pointing out the fact. Cheers! I am certainly not interested in defending anyone or anything, I was pointing out that the DIY ethic stands in opposition to MAXIMIZING sales. Much better to sell an endless series of expansion rules and adventures. I prefer to get back to the topic of the thread, sorry for the careless derail. |
|
