Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2016 22:09:47 GMT -5
Rob, I have two questions for you:
Did you play with Gary when Dave demoed BLACKMOOR at Gen Con?
Secondly, if so, was Dave already using a version of the "alternate" system, or CHAINMAIL?
(I suspect that Rob DID play, and that Dave was NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT using CHAINMAIL. That would give us a terminus ante quem of August 1972 for CHAINMAIL being used in Blackmoor, though I suspect it ended much earlier.)
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 1, 2016 11:04:57 GMT -5
@gronanofsimmerya, okay, thanks. Will do. robkuntz, how would you describe the connection between CM and original D&D? I mean historically. Not logically or game-mechanically.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 1, 2016 11:57:29 GMT -5
You cannot divorce design from the history of design without the greater result of creating false assumptions therefrom.
I will get back to you when I settle this quandary in less than the terms that they should be described in.
Seriously.
RJK
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 1, 2016 13:47:26 GMT -5
Awesome. What is the sound of one hand clapping?
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 1, 2016 15:02:11 GMT -5
Rob, I have two questions for you: Did you play with Gary when Dave demoed BLACKMOOR at Gen Con? Secondly, if so, was Dave already using a version of the "alternate" system, or CHAINMAIL? (I suspect that Rob DID play, and that Dave was NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT using CHAINMAIL. That would give us a terminus ante quem of August 1972 for CHAINMAIL being used in Blackmoor, though I suspect it ended much earlier.) The first time either of us played in Blackmoor was not at GENCON, but at Gary's house, November 1972 when Arneson and Megarry visited with us for that purpose as well as to play Megarry's "Dungeon". I have lost count of how many times I have told this story for years on end. At that time Dave was not using the Chainmail system (he had in fact abandoned it, according to his many interviews, after the first few play sessions of the MMSA members, so i would estimate that being late 1971 or early 1972, though Megarry or Svenny would be more reliable sources for the latter date). Now, Gary received the typed notes (typed by Megarry for Arneson and by others, maybe even Mike Carr from what I understand) approximately 2 weeks after the DAVES' visit; and I read through all of them. The formulas he was using were his own or borrowed in some manner from Wesley's Strategos N, and this confirms that the Chainmail Combat Matrix (that Dave insists he jettisoned after the first few initial Blackmoor sessions) was not in use by November 1972. How far back the change occurs is where one reckons, date-wise, that is was jettisoned. I also confirmed this with Wesley and Megarry at Garycon two years ago but did not ask about the specific date. There are "others" who are doing that, however.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2016 21:45:10 GMT -5
Oh, yeah, right, I knew that. Yeah. Sure I did.
Short term memory is the first thing to go, I forget what the second thing is. Actually, considering that 1972 is 44 years ago, I guess long-term memory is the second thing to go.
Jeez. I can't remember what I had for lunch last Thursday, never mind 1972.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 11, 2016 3:24:02 GMT -5
@gronanofsimmerya , okay, thanks. Will do. robkuntz , how would you describe the connection between CM and original D&D? I mean historically. Not logically or game-mechanically. This cannot be *effectively* answered without an in-depth response, but I will attempt a VERY BRIEF summary: The connection to D&D of CM is real, just as is Braunstein's; but its influence, as in Braunstein's case, is overstated and misunderstood. And this can only be assessed from a design view, as we are dealing with a new design which is Role-Playing as promoted by Arneson and the MMSA and then as re-iterated by Gygax (much of it without consulting Dave Arneson) but therethrough retaining the RP and conceptual realms organization that Arneson had forwarded. Without accessing that information, as we are discussing a historical leap, there is no way to assess it from a "historical" POV, just as there would be no way to assess a past military battle, other than very generally, except by having or accessing specific knowledge of the subject area--the battle reports, interrogating the military officials involved, etc. IOW having primary and acute knowledge of the subject matter you are assessing. The reasons for my saying that CM's and BS's cases are "overstated and misunderstood" is that these have not been studied and assessed from a contiguous, diachronic design view as a designer like myself would do and has done, but as a detached amalgamation of unlinked and unweighted parts by historians who, typically, know absolutely nothing about design or complex systems. My professional assessment as both designer and historian will be published in my book: "A New Ethos in Game Design: The Paradigm Shift Originated by Dungeons & Dragons, 1972-1977" so I will leave the majority of my commentary for that. But I will state that Chainmail and Braunstein are influences, and timely ones, upon the real genius which is Arneson; and that you cannot derive the varied and expanding play and embedded ranges of real-time design as contained in D&D game experiences "as is" by playing either of the aforementioned (CM & BS) "as is". Backward causality has been overlooked in most of this, and that is no wonder considering that historians, as of late, collect facts but do not analyze these while creating (or oftentimes intentionally forwarding) various impressions. Scientific "facts" in this case will be proven to be provisional only and not truth.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 11, 2016 8:14:02 GMT -5
Thank you Rob, that is succinct and I look forward to your book. I must say that I never envisioned this thread going in this direction. Since it culminates in your brief and excellent answer, I am going to regard this as a serendipitous result!
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Feb 11, 2016 9:37:22 GMT -5
@ PD--
Haven't seen you around much of late. How are you doing? How's everything going?
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 11, 2016 11:31:51 GMT -5
Thank you Rob, that is succinct and I look forward to your book. I must say that I never envisioned this thread going in this direction. Since it culminates in your brief and excellent answer, I am going to regard this as a serendipitous result! Thank Tetramorph, he asked the 500 dollar question...
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 11, 2016 11:38:33 GMT -5
Thanks, Rob, that was a really helpful answer.
I too am looking forward to your book.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 11, 2016 12:16:13 GMT -5
@ PD-- Haven't seen you around much of late. How are you doing? How's everything going? I am around trying to keep an eye on things, but life is really really really busy right now.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 18, 2016 18:41:42 GMT -5
As a final note here, this emphasis on drawing comparisons between D&D and Chainmail really come from Gary's insistence that what Arneson was doing was in fact derived from Chainmail, Gary then goes on to claim that position by cross-promoting the two--and thus this is where the confusion stems from. Armeson used elements from Chainmail, elements from Braustein, BUT, when it is all said and done, his gigantic leap transcended both. In the OD&D RPG the combat system is a sub-system, not the system itself. Thus Arneson is influenced by a few sub-systems to create a greater whole, which is the RP elements, AND, the ongoing mutability of both the sub-system and the conceptual system environments. I would like folks to concentrate on the latter for a moment or two, especially those folks at OD&D 74 PB, maybe excluding Stormcrow who seems to get it.
You folks are arguing about sub-systems and re-imagined elements, but in so doing can derive no holistic picture of whether it is important (or not) where these derive from. Why? BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MATTER. WHY AGAIN? Because Arneson's leap transcended 2,000 years of game theory and game design, making any other causes and effects miniscule by comparison. NO WHERE, read, NO WHERE in the history of games has an adult game utilized an ongoing mutable mechanic and mutable play environment IN REAL TIME. How Chainmail or Braustein might have influenced Arneson to leap to such a grand systemization is no where apparent. Why? Because it was a gigantic, original leap that adapted many parts into a greater whole while adding in an infinity of possibilities based upon individual, in-game proclivities and changes taking place by the moment.
So, Gygax was wrong in his assumption that D&D is derived from Chainmail, It's a timely influence only as a parcel of derived elements, but the historical leap is all Arneson's. People who otherwise cannot parse this design view can continue to claim that a tomato (Chainmail) defines the whole salad (Arneson's leap), but that would be a sophist's salad only...
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 18, 2016 21:06:31 GMT -5
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MATTER. WHY AGAIN? Because Arneson's leap transcended 2,000 years of game theory and game design, making any other causes and effects miniscule by comparison. NO WHERE, read, NO WHERE in the history of games has an adult game utilized an ongoing mutable mechanic and mutable play environment IN REAL TIME. How Chainmail or Braustein might have influenced Arneson to leap to such a grand systemization is no where apparent. Why? Because it was a gigantic, original leap that adapted many parts into a greater whole while adding in an infinity of possibilities based upon individual, in-game proclivities and changes taking place by the moment. Empahasis added!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 10:54:59 GMT -5
a tomato (Chainmail) defines the whole salad (Arneson's leap), but that would be a sophist's salad only... This is a really, really apt analogy. I myself often describe the spirit of "the old days" as "this gigantic primordial stewpot in which all kinds of things were floating." For instance, Dave said both to me personally and on many other occasions that he never liked the "more hit points per level" approach, but rather preferred the idea of a "saving throw" to resist damage that got better as you leveled up. That "save vs damage" is straight out of Tony Bath's ancients rules, which predate Blackmoor and CHAINMAIL both, and were quite well known. In fact it was, and is, a popular idea in a lot of British wargame rules. So, is Blackmoor derived from CHAINMAIL or from Tony Bath's ancients rules? "Yes." (Personally, I like the "more hit points per level" just fine, but I'd probably like the other system just fine too.)
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 19, 2016 12:47:12 GMT -5
a tomato (Chainmail) defines the whole salad (Arneson's leap), but that would be a sophist's salad only... This is a really, really apt analogy. I myself often describe the spirit of "the old days" as "this gigantic primordial stewpot in which all kinds of things were floating." For instance, Dave said both to me personally and on many other occasions that he never liked the "more hit points per level" approach, but rather preferred the idea of a "saving throw" to resist damage that got better as you leveled up. That "save vs damage" is straight out of Tony Bath's ancients rules, which predate Blackmoor and CHAINMAIL both, and were quite well known. In fact it was, and is, a popular idea in a lot of British wargame rules. So, is Blackmoor derived from CHAINMAIL or from Tony Bath's ancients rules? "Yes." (Personally, I like the "more hit points per level" just fine, but I'd probably like the other system just fine too.) Yes, but... elements are derived as a re-imagined whole. It's adaptation by re-interpretted use in all cases, as was the case in all design then, and which still exists to this very day. There is no straight lineage from Chainmail since there are too many self-organized contexts at work and a gigantic leap, besides, which transcends the re-interpretted use of the adapted parts. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts in Blackmoor's case, and thus, too, in D&D's, as it incorporated Arnesons leap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 13:24:36 GMT -5
Certainly. The point I was trying to make is that there was a HUGE array of elements available to Dave and later Gary to choose from, and that things were not neatly kept in tidy little boxes and "the game" assembled like putting electronic components on a printed circuit board... it was a much more organic, amorphous process.
I don't think a lot of younger gamers understand the degree to which wargames (and their descendants) -- ALL wargames -- were created by the process of "Come up with an idea that more or less works, play a couple times, and start fiddling with it and changing it as you continue playing." People tend to seem to want to project the process of large scale software development with schedules and releases and modular design onto those days, and it just ain't so.
|
|