|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 2, 2016 15:30:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 2, 2016 19:00:08 GMT -5
An interesting blog, though.
I'm not one of those that believes Basic & Advanced D+D are all that different in philosophy, though.
Both were/are, as Tim K. points out, produced to codify the system toward a particular (age/grade?) audience, and (both) with the intention of curtailing the seat-of-the-pants gaming that was encouraged and a critical component of pre-Holmes '77.
What I find sad (though informing), was that those that revered the creative paradigm of (1)do-it-your-way and (2)it's your game, why have us do it for you? turned on the intended recipients of their efforts and felt a complete reversal was necessary in order to make sure others played the game properly. (I suppose, from a $ making POV this makes sense.)
All in all, enjoyed the read.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 3, 2016 8:10:22 GMT -5
--comment withheld, but forthcoming in my book...
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 3, 2016 8:19:58 GMT -5
I'm not one of those that believes Basic & Advanced D+D are all that different in philosophy, though. The proof is in the implementation of each of their designs and marketing. Are you referring to Basic as meaning (inclusive of) OD&D (which some do), which I refute as being co-equal? But if you are not then I agree with you, that Basic (not OD&D) and AD&D are birds of the same feather.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 3, 2016 8:30:04 GMT -5
What I find sad (though informing), was that those that revered the creative paradigm of (1)do-it-your-way and (2)it's your game, why have us do it for you? turned on the intended recipients of their efforts and felt a complete reversal was necessary in order to make sure others played the game properly. (I suppose, from a $ making POV this makes sense.) Not all turned on the DIY crowd, but they were mostly ignored for a booming market share by TSR, even though TSR staffers, and Gary and the older crowd designers/players, never used a pre-made adventure or hardfast rules, though they promoted the PM adventures and the "right way to use the rules" (i.e., RPGA tournament reinforcement) for generating company revenues. Gary, Arneson and myself stated time and time again that there is no proper way to play the game, so the real reason for the divergent game kinds is indeed money, which, in essence, reversed the first creative course and dumbed the game down to what you now see it as today. This is covered in many different chapters in my book (that darn book again..)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2016 9:32:14 GMT -5
So ... When do you think we're gonna see this book, Rob?
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 3, 2016 11:52:13 GMT -5
Correct, Rob. I'm referring to "Basic" beginning with Holmes and going through Moldvay-Cook-Mentzer. Which I think anyone studying the situation today, even without having gone through it, would agree. And from a purely business sense, I sadly agree with. Since the purpose of business is to make money...period. And hurry up with that book, will ya!
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 3, 2016 12:36:54 GMT -5
I'm not one of those that believes Basic & Advanced D+D are all that different in philosophy, though. The proof is in the implementation of each of their designs and marketing. Are you referring to Basic as meaning (inclusive of) OD&D (which some do), which I refute as being co-equal? But if you are not then I agree with you, that Basic (not OD&D) and AD&D are birds of the same feather. OD&D (3LBBs) is its own distinct game. The Supplements, the materials in The Strategic Review and in The Dragon, were understood by myself and my fellow ref and players BITD (1974-1979)(the other ref and his original group started in early 1974 and the rest of us started in the fall of 1975) to be entirely optional materials. Aside from the published documents we were isolated from Lake Geneva and the rest of the gaming community. We did not write or call asking for help, we worked it out ourselves. As of the end of 1979 none of us had ever bought any of the AD&D books or the basic stuff. IMO one thing that I think confuses everything is that the majority of those who self-identify as old school experts, particularly on one of the more strident forums are rigid By the Book true believers who abhor the DIY nature of OD&D and widely preach that the Supplements, the materials in The Strategic Review and in The Dragon are not optional, but are mandatory and then conclude that OD&D and AD&D are the same thing and the only difference is that AD&D is better organized. This loud organized misinformation campaign that has been going on a long, long time has confused things and led many to false beliefs about what old school is and in particular what OD&D is. I have always viewed B/X, BECMI, the RC and AD&D as essentially the same since they all endeavor to define and limit everything to discrete little boxes. As for Holmes Basic I view it as a hybrid that was dropped into the middle of everything.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 3, 2016 13:02:12 GMT -5
So ... When do you think we're gonna see this book, Rob? Yeah. I knew that my mentioning it too often would finally stir up that question. And I have an answer. After I release the initial Kalibruhn Supplements, yes, they are now reorganized into several if not many. The first two, then the book. I need some money to align with my (and my wife's) expenses for the move overseas and settling in, office expenses, etc. So I am (somewhat unfortunately due to my great headway made--about 170,000 words), back to straight RPG gamist work, and only continue on the book PT until I can finish it. The upcoming release of the RJK DVD project through the Collector's Trove might reorient the schedule a bit back to the book FT, if the sales are good, but, I gotta eat and pay rent, yah know?
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 3, 2016 13:10:13 GMT -5
The proof is in the implementation of each of their designs and marketing. Are you referring to Basic as meaning (inclusive of) OD&D (which some do), which I refute as being co-equal? But if you are not then I agree with you, that Basic (not OD&D) and AD&D are birds of the same feather. OD&D (3LBBs) is its own distinct game. The Supplements, the materials in The Strategic Review and in The Dragon, were understood by myself and my fellow ref and players BITD (1974-1979)(the other ref and his original group started in early 1974 and the rest of us started in the fall of 1975) to be entirely optional materials. Aside from the published documents we were isolated from Lake Geneva and the rest of the gaming community. We did not write or call asking for help, we worked it out ourselves. As of the end of 1979 none of us had ever bought any of the AD&D books or the basic stuff. IMO one thing that I think confuses everything is that the majority of those who self-identify as old school experts, particularly on one of the more strident forums are rigid By the Book true believers who abhor the DIY nature of OD&D and widely preach that the Supplements, the materials in The Strategic Review and in The Dragon are not optional, but are mandatory and then conclude that OD&D and AD&D are the same thing and the only difference is that AD&D is better organized. This loud organized misinformation campaign that has been going on a long, long time has confused things and led many to false beliefs about what old school is and in particular what OD&D is. I have always viewed B/X, BECMI, the RC and AD&D as essentially the same since they all endeavor to define and limit everything to discrete little boxes. As for Holmes Basic I view it as a hybrid that was dropped into the middle of everything. The one true way philosophy is a sham, made so by the "Elders'" many quotes and examples in print. And yes, the supplements, material from the SR, et al, was all optional. They were examples, idea generators, and in some cases not even fully fleshed out concepts (as in Tricks & Traps (mostly mine) in the GH Sup), etc. It's much more fun imagining what things could be (the unknown) as fantastic renderings from the imagination imprinted upon the canvas of the game rather than knowing (not fantastic, eh, to know?) every tiny detail and being able to repeat it verbatim. Gary and I fed on that while DMing and creating. It was a treat for both ourselves and our players.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 3, 2016 13:12:49 GMT -5
Correct, Rob. I'm referring to "Basic" beginning with Holmes and going through Moldvay-Cook-Mentzer. Which I think anyone studying the situation today, even without having gone through it, would agree. And from a purely business sense, I sadly agree with. Since the purpose of business is to make money...period. And hurry up with that book, will ya! OK, I'll hurry. But do hurry up with more Lost Lands, will yah?
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 3, 2016 13:25:15 GMT -5
Just posted a little something in the OD&D Monsters folder.
|
|
monk
Prospector
Posts: 90
|
Post by monk on Mar 4, 2016 1:41:02 GMT -5
I count myself lucky that I had a non-standard D&D "upbringing". We had, for several years, access to Moldvay Basic and nothing else. We were monetarily and situationally confined to that book and I guess we read more openness into it than was, perhaps, intended. We had to believe that you were supposed to make up your own scenarios, monsters, worlds, etc., because if we didn't we'd have to stop playing. And as for the rules in the book, Moldvay specifically said in his introduction that they were guidelines to be fiddled with.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 4, 2016 1:56:23 GMT -5
@ccc:
Regarding: "And from a purely business sense, I sadly agree with. Since the purpose of business is to make money...period."
I could go on about this, and I do in the BOOOK... But for now will say that the purpose of business is to increase the stock holder's share of value; and as TSR was not a privately traded firm, though with a select number of principal public stock holders (Blumes and Gygax held the majority of shares), then in this case the purpose of the company was to increase that value for them.
However, as to this "making sense" as you put it begs other lines of thought. Consider: No where is the investment to return ratio higher for TSR and its principal investors (Don Kaye before he died and Brian Blume) than during their first three years. The company started on a shoestring investment and within 3 years had acquired nearly a million dollars in sales, and so is revealed the reason for that ratio. TSR then became greedy and sacrificed the vision that they had been initially successful with; Businesses must also maintain truth and honesty with their customer base. You cannot sell lemons disguised as limes, which is what TSR finally did with the original concept. without adverse results. In the end it is a short term philosophy of acquiring as much as possible in the shortest time span, which also flies in the face of what good business is always understood as: adding continuous long term value for both customers and stock holders. So bad business is concerned with making money and should not be grouped with good business under businesses in general. TSR ultimately failed. I like to remind people of that; and also remind them as to why that happened, which started with the abandonment of its initial vision for a short term philosophy as I have stated above.
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 4, 2016 13:19:41 GMT -5
Well put, Rob. I (meant, but) should have stated, "And from a purely bad business sense..."
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 7, 2016 1:40:28 GMT -5
--comment withheld, but forthcoming in my book... I will add only this (for now) to my final thoughts on the aforementioned blog post: The original concept was created and forwarded by Arneson and the MMSA 1971-NOV 1972 whereupon they revealed it to the LGTSA in a game session at Gary's house involving myself, my brother, Gary and his son; and with the "Two Daves" in attendance to take us through Blackmoor and to showcase the completed game, DUNGEON. The next day Gary summoned me to his house 3 blocks away where we sat down and discussed Dave Arneson's concept and attempted to shoe-horn it for "story-making" possibilities (as Gary put it) for the two sessions of me "DMing". Unsatisfied with that, Gary then contacted Dave for his notes; these were typed by members in his group and sent to Gary, who then summoned me, again, to read same. Half way through that reading he interrupted me to say that they were in need of revision (on his part); and so started his involvement with that course. A few weeks later the first three levels of GH Castle were sculpted by him as well as a very base, preliminary, set of guides/rules for play, the latter amounting to 10 pages. Thus started the creation of the game (Gary's iteration of Dave's foundational take), which occurred due to Dave Arneson's and his groups's involvement, and then as handed off to us, where it was created in the backwash of the playtests for over a year in both Gary's initial campaign, my own, and in our conjoined campaign where we were co-DMs. That's 1971-1974; and then the supplemental rules occurred, Greyhawk, as Gary and I forwarded and which had already seen purchase in many respects within our campaign PRIOR to their printing in 1975. In all of that time, endeavor, sweat, idea-storming and unpaid creation, where is Tim Kask? I'll tell you: nowhere in sight. One would be lead to believe that the creation of said game starts and stops with Mr. Kask; yellow journalism aside, his glaring and contrived omissions of fact, and as equally substituted for by a re-imagined reality conforming to a biased and inflated POV, just does not make the cut with truth.
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 7, 2016 17:20:01 GMT -5
Rob-- have you seen this? hexcellency.blogspot.no/2016/03/arneson-saint-paul-not-city.htmlI'm pretty sure you've addressed all this time and time again, here, there, and everywhere. So, you don't need to post anything you haven't already said. And especially if doing so is going to reduce the time you could use finishing your book. (Get back to the writing table, knave! )
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 7, 2016 17:31:27 GMT -5
CCC who is the author of that blog? Do you know? If the only thing holding that documentary up (which sounds like interviews at least in part with Arneson and Barker) is using the Gygax name and you could get around it by just bleeping the name, then I would bleep it in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 7, 2016 18:04:09 GMT -5
DK--
I guess....HExcellency?
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 7, 2016 18:50:47 GMT -5
Rob-- have you seen this? hexcellency.blogspot.no/2016/03/arneson-saint-paul-not-city.htmlI'm pretty sure you've addressed all this time and time again, here, there, and everywhere. So, you don't need to post anything you haven't already said. And especially if doing so is going to reduce the time you could use finishing your book. (Get back to the writing table, knave! ) I am no K-Nave! I am a K-Wizard (see icon above left). A rather amusing post. Its splashes of ironic humor reminds me of a quote by Kurt Vonnegut: "Humor is a way of holding off how awful life can be, to protect yourself.” -- A Man Without a Country
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 1:11:51 GMT -5
Oh, Crom's hairy nutsack, ANOTHER Fafhrd-come-lately who is going to dig up the REAL TRUE TRUTH.
"I hear that John Kentner’s documentary, Dragons in the Basement, is delayed still because of Gygax legal issues."
The clown sat on the material since when Dave Arneson was still alive. I was sitting with Dave and Kentner when Dave told Kentner to interview me and I gave him my contact information (which is STILL valid.) I was never contacted.
And that's just one turd in the barrelfull of bull cookies.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 9, 2016 8:16:44 GMT -5
Oh, Crom's hairy nutsack, ANOTHER Fafhrd-come-lately who is going to dig up the REAL TRUE TRUTH. "I hear that John Kentner’s documentary, Dragons in the Basement, is delayed still because of Gygax legal issues." The clown sat on the material since when Dave Arneson was still alive. I was sitting with Dave and Kentner when Dave told Kentner to interview me and I gave him my contact information (which is STILL valid.) I was never contacted. And that's just one turd in the barrelfull of bull cookies. I could care less about Kentner, but I would love to see an unedited interview with Arneson and with Barker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 22:11:37 GMT -5
I need some money to align with my (and my wife's) expenses Humina humina humina.... um, congratulations!!
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 10, 2016 3:17:00 GMT -5
Thank you Gronan! How did you end up in South Dakota?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2016 22:10:10 GMT -5
Jean has been ordained as an Episcopal priest and was offered a call to a church here.
|
|
|
Post by The Master on Oct 11, 2016 21:12:12 GMT -5
This "interview" with Tim Kask, shows just how incompetent he was as an editor. Interview: Tim Kask (Part I)Elsewhere I have read that he said that notes included many contradictory ways of doing things. What an incredible supplement that would have been if he had edited it with a loving hand and have brought forth a whole range of Arneson options to light. I would have loved the job of editing Blackmoor, of course I would have spent time with Dave Arneson and time gaming with him to get a good feel for how to present the material. It likely would have been even better than Greyhawk. Consider a well edited Arduin Grimoire while Dave Hargrave was alive. Oh what could have been. robkuntz mentioned above "the initial Kalibruhn Supplements" being published. He is still with us and still writing. I would say that the "Kalibruhn Supplements" will give us all insight into what the "Blackmoor Supplement" could have been.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 12, 2016 7:22:00 GMT -5
This "interview" with Tim Kask, shows just how incompetent he was as an editor. Interview: Tim Kask (Part I)Elsewhere I have read that he said that notes included many contradictory ways of doing things. What an incredible supplement that would have been if he had edited it with a loving hand and have brought forth a whole range of Arneson options to light. I would have loved the job of editing Blackmoor, of course I would have spent time with Dave Arneson and time gaming with him to get a good feel for how to present the material. It likely would have been even better than Greyhawk. Consider a well edited Arduin Grimoire while Dave Hargrave was alive. Oh what could have been. robkuntz mentioned above "the initial Kalibruhn Supplements" being published. He is still with us and still writing. I would say that the "Kalibruhn Supplements" will give us all insight into what the "Blackmoor Supplement" could have been. True. The actual realization of dealing with Arneson over the interpretation of the material seemingly never occurred to him, or Gary for that matter. The problem lies in the fact that most of it, just like with Gary and myself, was in Arneson's head. He played his system but was not intent on publishing it, so it worked as he intuitively understood what it was that he'd created and how it worked within his processes, but then taking it and publishing it for general consumption is another matter entirely, something Gary even learned from OD&D where more could have been stated, clarified or simplified, etc. Editors, including myself when editing Gary's parts here of there, are supposed to seek clarification from the designer. I have had it done for me time and time again from editors for the Dragon 'zine, from Paizo, from just about all editors I have interfaced with. Certainly to dispense with it as "gibberish" as Mr. Kask did, this upon considering that it was Dave's new and never before heard of concept that Gary then reiterated under different mechanical sub systems, sounds a dim note for the relationship as author<>editor. I have more to say about this in general in my two books forthcoming. This line of thought, sold as a false bill of goods about Arneson and the contributions of the MMSA members specifically, will soon have a final accounting, and not just from my vantage point.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 12, 2016 10:19:29 GMT -5
Excellent post from both of you and it certainly points out what could have been. Shame we still don't have those notes that Kask dismissed. Even as "gibberish' they may have been quite informative to an interested reader.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 21, 2016 9:40:31 GMT -5
My impression that the fact that folks at TSR were being bombarded with phone calls and deluged with letters was a major if not the major factor in how the design of the supplements and later AD&D played out. Given the environment of early D&D publishing I don't see any point of divergence short of D&D not being as popular as it was resulting in a different outcome.
Alternate history is a favorite pastime of mine so I familiar with spotting moment where little changes can have large consequences. I just don't see anything at the time that would deflect the idea that firmer rules and more concrete guidelines were needed. Unfortunately from the accounts I read Dave Arneson's way of writing and referee wasn't compatible with that path. Remember you need to factor in that a lot of people viewed D&D as just another game rather than a distinct form of gaming. A game has rules and if people are asking questions about rules then you need more clear and firm rules not more vague suggestions.
The good news is that today in 2016 we know more and we have the tools to take a look back, and actually try out some alternatives along with actually publishing those alternatives inexpensively and accessible to a lot of people. I said this a few years ago.
So it great that we are having this conversation, that Rob Kuntz is going to release his books, that Tim Kask is telling his side of the story, and so forth and so on. It all grist for the mill and will serve as a good foundation for what folks do next.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 21, 2016 10:51:12 GMT -5
My impression that the fact that folks at TSR were being bombarded with phone calls and deluged with letters was a major if not the major factor in how the design of the supplements and later AD&D played out. Given the environment of early D&D publishing I don't see any point of divergence short of D&D not being as popular as it was resulting in a different outcome. Alternate history is a favorite pastime of mine so I familiar with spotting moment where little changes can have large consequences. I just don't see anything at the time that would deflect the idea that firmer rules and more concrete guidelines were needed. Unfortunately from the accounts I read Dave Arneson's way of writing and referee wasn't compatible with that path. Remember you need to factor in that a lot of people viewed D&D as just another game rather than a distinct form of gaming. A game has rules and if people are asking questions about rules then you need more clear and firm rules not more vague suggestions. The good news is that today in 2016 we know more and we have the tools to take a look back, and actually try out some alternatives along with actually publishing those alternatives inexpensively and accessible to a lot of people. I said this a few years ago. So it great that we are having this conversation, that Rob Kuntz is going to release his books, that Tim Kask is telling his side of the story, and so forth and so on. It all grist for the mill and will serve as a good foundation for what folks do next. Though I have more to comment on your post I will say this immediately: the RPG concept starts in 1971 and moves through to play-test and publication by 1974. Arneson, Gygax, Kuntz, Mornard, and others were there. Kask was not. Whatever he weighs in on is totally minus the actual foundational and formational years, the entire history involving everything, about the game. He was biased against Arneson, his words admit to it as do his actions so many years now removed. So much so that during later stock holder meetings Arneson would ask Dave Wesely to sit between him and Tim so he did not have to deal with his proximity. As a personal note I never had problems with Arneson since 1969 when we met and up until the time he passed. He was my friend--I've been in his house and he's been in mine and I talked for an hour over the phone with him 7 days before he died--, a friend, you know, as was Sutherland, Megarry and Carr. I cannot say the same for Kask. I find Mr. Kask's post about Arneson not only biased but absolutely fictional in many respects, no doubt brought on by the former circumstance. I get into sumptuous detail about those days in my Memoirs, but that's just a tip, a taste, of it.
|
|