|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 4, 2017 17:32:54 GMT -5
It's getting too serious here again. Before an eye gets poked out, let's break the tension for a moment. Seriously. That's the one which had surgery. And you may say that it surge me right, if the pun is EARresistible. Ah I lured you in! I actually meant that whatever the instance there's nothing ever "Right" with you...  I'm in my 44th year of marriage, so I already know I haven't been right for at least that long. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 4, 2017 17:50:20 GMT -5
I pondered your statement and Increments statements some more. Let me restate positively what I think Increment considers Blackmoor: "Blackmoor was a campaign, meaning that it was a series of gaming sessions, each session involving one or more existing games. The predominant game played during these sessions was Chainmail. Earlier sessions used the game of Braunstein. Sessions in which outdoor travel was involved used the game of Outdoor Survival. Dave may have house-ruled each of these games, but their fundamental concepts were unchanged." Increment, how did I do? Is this how you view Blackmoor? Um, pretty well, yeah. I mean I compulsively edit things, so of course I'd have edits. Rather than saying that each session involved one or more existing games, I'd say that rules from existing published designs were used to decide events in those sessions, with the group's modifications. I don't think I'd say "used the game of Braunstein," I'd say cloned the format of previous Braunstein games, or something like that. Again, the first Braunstein, from what we know of it, was a particular one-off game session that used Totten's rules, as abridged and adapted by Wesely, but most importantly Totten's maxim that "anything can be attempted." That spirit of Strategos, which Totten inherited from the free Kriegsspiel movement of the 1870s, was crucial to how the "shenanigans," as I called them, of Braunstein got started, and people brought that spirit to Blackmoor from the Braunstein sessions. Rather than say that Chainmail was predominant, I would say that Arneson steered the campaign into tactical wargames when it strayed too far into dungeon adventures or what have you, and that those tactical wargames were, for him anyway, the intended focus of the campaign rather than the other parts. And yes, those tactical wargames were governed by Chainmail plus his hacks - and Chainmail plus his hacks decided how combat in the dungeon happened, too. Okay, maybe you're right, maybe I do mean Chainmail was predominant. I know I never got an answer to my repeated question of who gets to decide what the game of Chainmail "really" is for the purposes of comparing it to D&D, but I was driving at that point really to be able to do one thing, to pull this quote from the first edition of Chainmail: Although the rules have been playtested for many months, it is likely that you will eventually find some part that seems ambiguous, unanswered, or unsatisfactory. When a situation arises settle it among yourselves, record the decision in the rules book, and abide by it from them on. These rules may be treated as guide lines around which you form a game that suits you.
If I may borrow Rob's words for a moment, let that last bit sink in. The system is Chainmail is there to let you form a game around it that suits you. "When a situation arises," meaning during the course of playing at a session, where the rules don't answer how to resolve something ("I want my horse to kick the dragon!"), you are told to settle rules for it in real time and abide by the results henceforth. Oh, and to record the decision in the rules book. When I look at the text in the introduction to D&D, where it says that the rules are "guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign" and a "framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity," I see the shadow of that text in first edition Chainmail looming over it. Even to the point where it tells you to record the results of the decision in the rulebook, though D&D wisely suggests you only do so in pencil. So, what if that text were what someone seized upon when they picked up Chainmail, the way Wesely seized on how "anything can be attempted" in Totten? In so far as we believe that this flexibility towards rules was the most important feature of how they played Blackmoor, and Chainmail seems to be a place somebody wrote that down that people involved knew, maybe Chainmail was predominant. Let me say one more thing about that, which is that I am not, really not, suggesting that this flexibility was original or unique to Gygax or Chainmail. It wasn't, it was just in the air then. That's why the beginning of that sentence in the Intro to D&D reads, "As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign." As with any other set of miniatures rules. This is just how people used miniatures rules. Guidelines to maybe change the rules are not the same as LAWS that emphasize that you may amend, discard, re-invent, generate new systems from, create rules in real time, etc. That comprehensive LAW is embedded as part of the system, as I have noted earlier. It is apparent UP FRONT and not as a dangling afterthought. Laws and guidelines are two different things, thus. I have explained why (re, the open world which cannot be described up front and thus must be systematized in situ, as play occurs). Except for the open play systems of children there is NO correspondence to this type of systems arrangement, And that is because, in both, the environs are infinite Fantasy realms rife with unpredictability. What one would have to do to dispel that argument is to discount Arneson's conceptual component which is factored right into the architecture. Good luck with that! If you accept the component then you have to accept its qualities as they are manifest within the conceptual sphere of the game, and one of those qualities is exactly what Arneson & Gary proposed for ordering its promulgation and is the only LAW in D&D: that there are no absolute "LAWS". This describes an entirely open system architecture that can be built upon to produce games of "simplicity" to "ultimate complexity" and not one, as in Chainmail, that could be managed for omissions if the author has overlooked something, etc. This is not only a matter of degree but of kind. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 4, 2017 19:49:21 GMT -5
Guidelines to maybe change the rules are not the same as LAWS that emphasize that you may amend, discard, re-invent, generate new systems from, create rules in real time, etc. That comprehensive LAW is embedded as part of the system, as I have noted earlier. It is apparent UP FRONT and not as a dangling afterthought. It is up front in Chainmail as much as it is up front in D&D. Well, in 1st edition Chainmail it is on page 6, which is the first page after the introduction. In D&D it is on page 4, the first page after the foreword (or "forward" as it is given). But where in D&D is it stated as a law, in a way any different from Chainmail? I still haven't read your book (though Paul has my address now!) so I'm not sure what you mean by Arneson's conceptual component. I don't understand what you're saying is present in the text of D&D that is different from the text I have quoted from Chainmail. How could any rule of Chainmail be absolute, given the text above? What is the difference in kind? Chainmail gives you permission to improvise if the rules are ambiguous, unsatisfactory, or missing, only the last of those might be limited to "overlooked." But as I've said many times before in this thread now, that permission is just an acknowledgment of the reality on the ground - people did always improvise whether the design granted them permission or not. You can't not improvise. That's why the D&D rules acknowledge that this is true of all miniature wargames rules. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 4, 2017 20:54:28 GMT -5
Guidelines to maybe change the rules are not the same as LAWS that emphasize that you may amend, discard, re-invent, generate new systems from, create rules in real time, etc. That comprehensive LAW is embedded as part of the system, as I have noted earlier. It is apparent UP FRONT and not as a dangling afterthought. It is up front in Chainmail as much as it is up front in D&D. Well, in 1st edition Chainmail is it on page 6, which is the first page after the introduction. In D&D it is on page 4, the first page after the foreward (or "forward" as it is given). But where in D&D is it stated as a law, in a way any different from Chainmail? I still haven't read your book (though Paul has my address now!) so I'm not sure what you mean by Arneson's conceptual component. I don't understand what you're saying is present in the text of D&D that is different from the text I have quoted from Chainmail. What is the difference in kind? eated of this complexity for adults. Thus a major part of the system (one of its two primary components) is the applied imagination, and the imaginative interchanges between the players and the ominicscient DM. Everything outside of the mechanical apparatus (the second component in the architectural make-up, aka the "subsystems") is conceptual, the conceptual interface. "What do you do?" "You see this." "It does that." "What's over there?" "Can I do that?" And these impressions are stored as images and acted on through the inagination and then sometimes even adjudicated with rules, but not always. D&D seamlessly and quickly functions between these two components at will and when necessary for both, as they are linked due to Arneson's systems organization. Take out the conceptual component and guess what? We are back to a static closed model, a board game or minis game dependent of linear, immutable structure. But since it is not a board game or a miniatures game it must be... well a new type called (after much debate and anxiety) a RPG, though we referred to it as FRP (Fantasy Role Playing) during and after the play-tests, Remember Gary''s Forward?" "These rules are strictly Fantasy." That was not for a genre where each type of fantasy is otherwise described by a noun phrase. His was the usage of the noun, Fantasy: fantasy |ˈfantəsē| noun ( pl. -sies) 1 the faculty or activity of imagining things, esp. things that are impossible or improbable However, the systems structure allows for the imagination to actively create in real time, so this extends its use from receiving images to using it to grow the system and the surround it functions through. Thus it is also... conceptual |kənˈsep ch oōəl| adjective of, relating to, or based on mental concepts The conceptual component is in fact the systematized use within the system of the applied imagination and the ability in real time to create or recreate the rules according to unfolding circumstances within that imaginative surround, all due to the interactions taking place between the players and the DM. The rest of what I posted on kind and degree stands as stated. Please do not equate UP FRONT with being "embedded in the system" by isolating it. They were distinct in their presentations and comparisons. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 4, 2017 22:39:25 GMT -5
Everything outside of the mechanical apparatus (the second component in the architectural make-up, aka the "subsystems") is conceptual, the conceptual interface. "What do you do?" "You see this." "It does that." "What's over there?" "Can I do that?" And these impressions are stored as images and acted on through the imagination and then sometimes even adjudicated with rules, but not always.
So what you mean by the conceptual interface is a game architecture which takes place in a dialog among the participants and in their respective imaginations. That's what I'd consider the free Kreigsspiel part, which trickled down to the Twin Cities through Totten's circa 1880 "anything can be attempted." Players voice a "positive statement of intention," as Totten calls it, and it is up to the referee to respond with a statement about the results in the game world, which may require the referee to consult some system and/or roll dice, or the referee may just decide by exercising discretion. This also trickled down to the Twin Cities through Korns, who gives direct examples of a fast-paced dialog of exactly this form in his 1966 book. I know that despite the antiquity of these systems, such mechanisms may have seemed novel to some players in the Twin Cities at the time, but I believe Arneson knew well that this system copied Korns and Totten... where the latter was of course the cornerstone system for a Braunstein. And parallel systems based on this were circulating in Midgard at around the time Blackmoor took shape, as I said years ago in this thread, and also in some Tony Bath things I haven't yet had occasion to cite (but which people in the Twin Cities certainly knew). So, if it was trickling down from so many different sources, did this also trickle down through Chainmail? Maybe just a tiny bit. Chainmail might not have given an example dialog like Korns, but, the "Chainmail Additions" text I cited long ago from the International Wargamer does indeed suggest that players can innovate in Chainmail, proposing to attempt things not in the rules, and leaving it to the discretion of the referee to determine exactly how they are adjudicated. It was awhile ago, so here it is again: "The rules are purposely vague in areas in order to encourage thinking and initiative" and "there is seldom any reason for precluding something unusual, although the final ruling should be left to the game judge." How could that mechanic work if the player is not telling the referee what unusual thing they want to do, just a statement of intention like any other in Totten or Korns? Now to be clear, no one is saying D&D inherited all this just from Chainmail. I'd say Arneson learned the dialog-driven mechanics from intermediaries like Korns and Totten, and maybe Chainmail offered enough wiggle room here to avoid friction with those systems. But Gygax knew Korns too, and he learned of Totten from Arneson in like 1970. This stuff was going around. I think it would be hard to argue away these immediate historical precedents and say that system mechanisms of this form were unique and original to Blackmoor. Where you and I might be more aligned is that I do think that both flexible rules and the dialog were crucial to the invention of D&D. I also gather the invention of dungeon adventures and a compelling experience and leveling system had a lot to do with why Gygax wanted to publish a whole new game based on the Blackmoor campaign. Here I don't think we're aligned. I think you can have a non-linear, mutable structure without having a Korns-like dialog of player statements of intention trading off with referee statements of results, though I suspect this is probably a detail we can skip over for now. If so, I for one don't understand it. I gather you are arguing that in D&D it is a law, and in Chainmail it is not, but I don't see where the text of either supports that reading. I think the existence of the text I cited in 1st edition Chainmail, and its obvious connection to the parallel text in D&D, is more consequential than this "distinction" would suggest. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 5, 2017 5:15:41 GMT -5
Everything outside of the mechanical apparatus (the second component in the architectural make-up, aka the "subsystems") is conceptual, the conceptual interface. "What do you do?" "You see this." "It does that." "What's over there?" "Can I do that?" And these impressions are stored as images and acted on through the imagination and then sometimes even adjudicated with rules, but not always.
So what you mean by the conceptual interface is a game architecture which takes place in a dialog among the participants and in their respective imaginations. That's what I'd consider the free Kreigsspiel part, which trickled down to the Twin Cities through Totten's circa 1880 "anything can be attempted." Players voice a "positive statement of intention," as Totten calls it, and it is up to the referee to respond with a statement about the results in the game world, which may require the referee to consult some system and/or roll dice, or the referee may just decide by exercising discretion. This also trickled down to the Twin Cities through Korns, who gives direct examples of a fast-paced dialog of exactly this form in his 1966 book. I know that despite the antiquity of these systems, such mechanisms may have seemed novel to some players in the Twin Cities at the time, but I believe Arneson knew well that this system copied Korns and Totten... where the latter was of course the cornerstone system for a Braunstein. And parallel systems based on this were circulating in Midgard at around the time Blackmoor took shape, as I said years ago in this thread, and also in some Tony Bath things I haven't yet had occasion to cite (but which people in the Twin Cities certainly knew). So, if it was trickling down from so many different sources, did this also trickle down through Chainmail? Maybe just a tiny bit. Chainmail might not have given an example dialog like Korns, but, the "Chainmail Additions" text I cited long ago from the International Wargamer does indeed suggest that players can innovate in Chainmail, proposing to attempt things not in the rules, and leaving it to the discretion of the referee to determine exactly how they are adjudicated. It was awhile ago, so here it is again: "The rules are purposely vague in areas in order to encourage thinking and initiative" and "there is seldom any reason for precluding something unusual, although the final ruling should be left to the game judge." How could that mechanic work if the player is not telling the referee what unusual thing they want to do, just a statement of intention like any other in Totten or Korns? Now to be clear, no one is saying D&D inherited all this just from Chainmail. I'd say Arneson learned the dialog-driven mechanics from intermediaries like Korns and Totten, and maybe Chainmail offered enough wiggle room here to avoid friction with those systems. But Gygax knew Korns too, and he learned of Totten from Arneson in like 1970. This stuff was going around. I think it would be hard to argue away these immediate historical precedents and say that system mechanisms of this form were unique and original to Blackmoor. Where you and I might be more aligned is that I do think that both flexible rules and the dialog were crucial to the invention of D&D. I also gather the invention of dungeon adventures and a compelling experience and leveling system had a lot to do with why Gygax wanted to publish a whole new game based on the Blackmoor campaign. Here I don't think we're aligned. I think you can have a non-linear, mutable structure without having a Korns-like dialog of player statements of intention trading off with referee statements of results, though I suspect this is probably a detail we can skip over for now. If so, I for one don't understand it. I gather you are arguing that in D&D it is a law, and in Chainmail it is not, but I don't see where the text of either supports that reading. I think the existence of the text I cited in 1st edition Chainmail, and its obvious connection to the parallel text in D&D, is more consequential than this "distinction" would suggest. Good morning Jon, I will be appending my responses much later in the day by way of comparing Chainmail's architecture to Arneson's architecture, both used AS-IS within the same possibility streams to achieve the results on either side, and as I will illustrate. This will clarify both the degree and kind separation as well as the guidelines vs. D&D's first LAW-as-an-integral-part-of-the-system point. It will be a semi-long post. I beg off posting it now as I am catching up with several important projects here that have become neglected due to the rampant exchanges occurring here. See you around the corner of time.  RJK |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 5, 2017 8:43:17 GMT -5
I will be appending my responses much later in the day by way of comparing Chainmail's architecture to Arneson's architecture, both used AS-IS within the same possibility streams to achieve the results on either side, and as I will illustrate. This will clarify both the degree and kind separation as well as the guidelines vs. D&D's first LAW-as-an-integral-part-of-the-system point. It will be a semi-long post. I beg off posting it now as I am catching up with several important projects here that have become neglected due to the rampant exchanges occurring here. See you around the corner of time. RJK Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to drag you personally into this, I was exchanging with Cedgewick there and you kind of stepped into the line of fire. Take your time, don't go to trouble on my account. And since your book should be here soon by all means don't just redo anything that I'll soon be reading in there. If you do want to kind of step into Cedgewick's shoes, let me just summarize two points from that discussion that would be a likely source of objections to what you're proposing to write, so you can anticipate and squash them: 1) To any argument showing how Arneson's architecture would achieve various results in comparison with Chainmail, my objections would mostly be about why you think Arneson's architecture is what you argue it is, and why you think it's Arneson's in particular as opposed to an idea that was just going around. In my exchange with Cedgwick at one point I complained about him trying to extract DNA from a ghost, because the lack of a published 1972 Blackmoor design kind of creates an opportunity for us to project onto the Blackmoor campaign whatever we want it to be. As Mr. Conley said in this thread at some point, if this is to be science, then it needs to be testable and falsifiable. When I talk about what went in on Blackmoor before D&D, I try to limit myself to things we have direct evidence for that were actually written down before D&D: direct evidence like the Loch Gloomen battle report, or the quotes in COTT about the "Brown stein-type" games, or in "Facts about Black Moor," or the Wizard Gaylord sheet, or quotes from letters at the time, or the stuff Dave Megarry has recently been pulling out of his attic. And, to some degree, what's in the FFC - though again, it's a mixed bag of things from Blackmoor before D&D, and things from after, and it isn't always clear which you're looking at. I am very skeptical of circular lines of argument of the form "well, this was in D&D, and D&D was based on Blackmoor, therefore this was in Blackmoor," and even more skeptical of what anyone has had to say about this after lawsuits started flying. 2) Similarly, when talking about what you can do with Chainmail's architecture, for any result you say Chainmail would produce, I'm likely to object, "sure, but these are guidelines around which I can build a game that suits me, so my results could be different than yours." This is at the heart of the question I kept putting to Cedgewick about who gets to decide what Chainmail "really" is. I mean, I get that Chainmail is a miniature wargame, and that for the most part you have people moving miniatures on a table (apart from that pesky text about how, when things move underground, the action relocates to a secret map kept by the referee). And I get that Chainmail says nothing about the dialog, but largely I'm not arguing that mechanism came to D&D from Chainmail, but instead from other games like Korns. I just don't want you to go to a ton of trouble to show how architecture (1) with properties A, B and C will produce different results than architecture (2) with properties X, Y and Z, only to have my response be, "Great, but I don't think there's any reliable evidence that (1) reflects what the Blackmoor campaign was like and I think someone who read the text of Chainmail could walk away with a very different impression than the properties you assigned to (2)." |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 5, 2017 10:19:43 GMT -5
I just don't want you to go to a ton of trouble to show how architecture (1) with properties A, B and C will produce different results than architecture (2) with properties X, Y and Z, only to have my response be, "Great, but I don't think there's any reliable evidence that (1) reflects what the Blackmoor campaign was like and I think someone who read the text of Chainmail could walk away with a very different impression than the properties you assigned to (2)." I will add that based on what you presented in Playing at the World along with other similar works like Hawk & Moor, I don't think the actual Chainmail rules are not all that important to the development of Blackmoor as the first tabletop roleplaying campaign. Other people were running campaign, there was a bit of roleplaying going with people in the roles of generals, dictators, kings, and presidents. As Gronan said there were games run that focused on individual characters. When you went into the details of hit points, armor class, etc it obvious to me there was a creative stew going on in the Upper Midwest with people mixing and matching ideas to run games they thought were fun. The genius of Dave Arneson is pulling all those together into the first tabletop roleplaying campaign. The text of Chainmail is incidental to this process. He could have easily homebrewed his own fantasy miniature wargame. What more important is what he did with all the different elements including chainmail. This is reinforced by that fact that other people had copies of chainmail and yet you don't hear about them running Blackmoor style campaigns. Instead the antecdotes seems to focus on using the fantasy supplement to run battles in the spirit of Helm's Deep, Conan stuff, the Battle of Five Armies, etc. Also it looks like Dave had a system but it was mostly in his head and in notes that were mostly memory aides. And correct me if I am wrong, but the details of the system were constantly evolving as Dave and the players kept changing what they were focusing on. So as much everybody would love to know Dave's system used to adjudicate the campaign it lost in the mist of time or buried in a attic somewhere. Even then it going to be open to interpretation because without Dave to explain things there will be gaps in what written. In short the focus on analyzing the Chainmail and the OD&D is a dead end as the path of D&D doesn't leap from Chainmail directly. It leaps from what Dave experiences with Grand Strategy campaigns, Brausteins, and refereeing combined with his love of fantasy, Hammer Horror, science-fiction, etc. The lesson to be learned here is that Dave took the different elements that were floating around at the time and crafted a unique campaign from them. He wanted to run Blackmoor first and then used his experience to figure out how to do it. And when things didn't work, didn't quite fit, or something wasn't covered he figure out a way to handle that rather than saying "It not in the rules." If you want to game like Dave then that the core process to emulate. Figure out the kind of campaign you want to run, then assemble the piece, starting running, don't be afraid to alter or add to make for a better campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 5, 2017 11:59:12 GMT -5
This is reinforced by that fact that other people had copies of chainmail and yet you don't hear about them running Blackmoor style campaigns. Instead the antecdotes seems to focus on using the fantasy supplement to run battles in the spirit of Helm's Deep, Conan stuff, the Battle of Five Armies, etc. One thing I might suggest comparing it to is the Battle of the Brown Hills. A number of people have posted scans of it these days, here's one: vintagewargaming.blogspot.com/2012/06/battle-of-brown-hills-early-chainmail.htmlYears ago I looked at this and compared it to what I was reading about in like COTT - the Loch Gloomen battle, say - to try to get a sense of whether I thought Arneson and Gygax were actually doing similar things with Chainmail rules or starkly different things, back in 1972. So, in the Brown Hills we see innovations that hack Chainmail, things like how a Wizard has a new spell called Circle of Protection, or the bits about the war chest . But one of the most striking things about it is the note at the very end. When Count Aerll died in the battle, his magic sword was "lost in the field." Writing about this after the fact, Gygax notes that "Chaos did not search for it. So far, neither has Law enquired of it," where Chaos was the Madison wargaming group, and Law was the LGTSA. What struck me about this was that it suggested this wasn't just an odd, unconnnected battle, but that people in the LGTSA could still have asked Gygax about what had happened to that sword (hence the "so far"). He was the referee and he kept secret information like that about the game world. Nothing in the preordained Chainmail rules lets you search for swords in the battlefield after a fight, but that doesn't matter, you just had to ask and they'd figure out a way to do it. And this was part of an ongoing campaign about that "mythical continent" he mentions in the first sentence - see how "we may be fighting this campaign for quite some time yet" - and elsewhere, the battle report mentions Iuz. Comparing a battle report like this one to a battle report like the Loch Gloomen one is an apples-to-apples comparison. But... Yes, this is why I think it's really tough to provide a model of what some implicit Blackmoor system "really" would have been if there was one. Comparing it to a published set of rules like Chainmail, or to D&D, faces some real challenges. You're comparing apples to the ghost of an orange. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 5, 2017 12:56:07 GMT -5
Increment noted: "Yes, this is why I think it's really tough to provide a model of what some implicit Blackmoor system "really" would have been if there was one. Comparing it to a published set of rules like Chainmail, or to D&D, faces some real challenges. You're comparing apples to the ghost of an orange."
Not true. Science provides the information on systems, and D&D is a system prototyped after Blackmoor. What Arneson organized was a system and so it can be modeled, and I have done so and described its architecture and systems qualities. This is science not speculation or voodoo or opinion. One can ignore the findings and stick their heads in the sand but they cannot ignore science. All systems can be isolated and described, including (and especially) those used for games. This is not rocket science, it's just that no one had done it with D&D until now. It stands as provisional evidence of the prime sort that has not been brought to bear as yet and cannot be dismissed as a chimera as you are attempting to do. I find this line of thought, in fact, in opposition to your solid position of examining "all evidence". Well I have presented scientific facts, not opinions. The book is already being reviewed by a systems theorist who also plays games and I am sourcing others in the scientific community to support my conclusions. As well I am forwarding a related pre-theory, an abstract of which I am in the process of preparing. I would not discount my own experiences and 8 years of research, my design achievements and systems knowledge, so readily, Mr. Peterson.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 5, 2017 13:41:10 GMT -5
Not true. Science provides the information on systems, and D&D is a system prototyped after Blackmoor. What Arneson organized was a system and so it can be modeled, and I have done so and described its architecture and systems qualities. This is science not speculation or voodoo or opinion. What is Blackmoor? It been demonstrated by documentation that it is more than just the text of Chainmail. It also been demonstrated by documentation that the text of Dungeon & Dragons does not incorporate every system that Dave Arneson used in his Blackmoor campaign. Therefore the use of the text of Dungeons & Dragon and Chainmail do not encompass the entirety of the material that Dave Arneson used for his Blackmoor nor do the two texts encompass the entirety of the material the material Dave used for Blackmoor at any one moment in time. Yes System Theory can be used even when partial data is present. But the data has to be sufficient for the scope of the analysis. It has been documented that the Chainmail rules were used at one point to provide statistics of NPCs and Monsters, used to resolve Mass Combat, used to resolve individual combat. But the other aspects of Dave Arneson's campaign were drawn from other sources again documented in part by the research done by Jon and others. The data you are basing the book is very thin. Devoted fans of Dave Arneson work has been trying to piece together the material he used for the Blackmoor campaign for years and without much success. Yes we know more than what we did a decade ago. But not enough to accurately fully describe the details of the Blackmoor Campaign and how it developed over time. As Jon pointed out new details emerge solely. Science is only good as the data. Claiming that your work is the definitive analysis of what Dave Arneson accomplished is premature. What we do know about what Dave Arneson accomplished is more than sufficient to herald his achievement. To establish his place as the Father of Tabletop Roleplaying and the creator of an entirely new form of gaming. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 5, 2017 14:06:53 GMT -5
In Response to Mr. Conley
Blackmoor is a system that was used to play what was later to be referred to as an RPG. A game is a system. Play is a system. These are unassailable truisms. You cannot separate the two and say "something" was played and not have a underlying system attached to it. That's sophistry of the worse type. It's as impossible as it would be ludicrous for any game designer worth his or her salt who would attempt to forward such a falsehood. As the two architectures are the same--Blackmoor and D&D--we have the basis for determining the system, as I have noted above. The only thing that differed between the two "games" as played were the subsystems, the mechanical apparatus, and that does not effect the underlying architecture but only the mathematical and mechanical sequences operating within it.
I stated that I used scientific methodology and principles and that I reached a conclusion which must stand as provisional primary evidence, all of which I stand by. Unless you are willing to debunk my claim through science-- which I would welcome you attempting to do--then your "premature" statement has nothing in it to further the discourse to that end, positive or negative.
|
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 5, 2017 14:23:44 GMT -5
D&D is a system prototyped after Blackmoor. What Arneson organized was a system and so it can be modeled, and I have done so and described its architecture and systems qualities. So what you're saying is that your model of Blackmoor is effectively a model of D&D? Or how is it different? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 5, 2017 14:38:50 GMT -5
D&D is a system prototyped after Blackmoor. What Arneson organized was a system and so it can be modeled, and I have done so and described its architecture and systems qualities. So what you're saying is that your model of Blackmoor is effectively a model of D&D? Or how is it different? The game I played in Blackmoor in Nov 1972 (and then another in late 1975, Journey to the City of the Gods) did not differ in its architecture and organization from what we played in Greyhawk many weeks later. The only things that differed, as I just noted above with RC and even further up thread, were the subsystems, as Gary, after we both reviewed Arneson's typed notes, decided to implement his own mechanics. The MMSA member quotes also corroborate the "no real difference" between the two other than the fact that we now had a set of rules whereas Arneson kept his out of sight and away from his players (and us in 1972/75). |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 5, 2017 14:57:18 GMT -5
In Response to Mr. Conley Blackmoor is a system that was used to play what was later to be referred to as an RPG. A game is a system. Play is a system. These are unassailable truisms. You cannot separate the two and say "something" was played and not have a underlying system attached to it. I did not say that Blackmoor didn't have a system. I said that the system that was attached to play Blackmoor is not documented and can not be constructed fully out of the text of Chainmail and Original Dungeons & Dragon. If it is not fully documented then that limits the scope of any analysis by any method to what has been documented. As the two architectures are the same--Blackmoor and D&D--we have the basis for determining the system Then what documentation are you using that demonstrates that the architecture of Blackmoor and D&D are the same? From the research so far published we only have documentation for part of the system along with other materials Dave Arneson used to run the Blackmoor Campaign. It does not follow that one can do a definitive analysis on that basis. The only thing that differed between the two "games" as played were the subsystems, the mechanical apparatus, and that does not effect the underlying architecture but only the mathematical and mechanical sequences operating within it. A system is made of interrelated and interdependent parts. If the parts are not the same, subsystems in your words, then they are not the same system. They may be have similar parts with similar relationships so an analysis of a more limited scope may prove to be useful. In order to prove conclusively whether Blackmoor and OD&D are the same system then we need to turn to what has been documented about the two systems. Which include what subsystems were used and how they are interdependent. I stated that I used scientific methodology and principles and that I reached a conclusion which must stand as provisional primary evidence, all of which I stand by. Unless you are willing to debunk my claim through science-- which I would welcome you attempting to do--then your "premature" statement has nothing in it to further the discourse to that end, positive or negative. That not quite the entirety of how the scientific method work. There are three things you are missing, one your hypothesis has to be falsifiable. You have to explain in what ways it could be false and why it is not so. You have to talk about what related data you have that doesn't fit your hypothesis. Any relevant data you don't address, you still has to explain why it wasn't important. Finally the data used for the basis of any hypothesis also needs to be examined. In this reply and in the prior reply I am challenging the data you are using. I contend that the data you are relying on is insufficient for the scope of your conclusion. It is insufficient in that we do know have enough written or verbal accounts that exposes the details of the system at the level that the details of OD&D are exposed. Therefore we cannot content that Blackmoor and OD&D are the same system. To be crystal clear, I will stipulate that there is enough known about the system used by Blackmoor and the system used by OD&D to say that they can be considered tabletop roleplaying games. However those details amount to a list considerably smaller than the two dozen plus points you raised in your book. I am not offering any other theory or conclusion in this reply or the previous reply. And because this all being posted on the internet and not a verbal exchange, I want to make clear that your work has merit. I am not convinced that it encompass the scope you claim it does nor it is as settled as you claim it is. The repeated claims that you use the scientific method to end debate is in of itself a red flag. If you or anybody else want to challenge me on the conclusion I stated in earlier posts about the nature of Dave Arneson's genius. I will be happy to walk people through the chain of documentation I used to reach my conclusions. And I have been corrected in the past and I expect to be corrected in the future. But for this post I am talking about one specific point, the data you are using for the basis of your hypothesis. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 5, 2017 15:00:05 GMT -5
The game I played in Blackmoor in Nov 1972 (and then another in late 1975, Journey to the City of the Gods) did not differ in its architecture and organization from what we played in Greyhawk many weeks later. The only things that differed, as I just noted above with RC and even further up thread, were the subsystems, as Gary, after we both reviewed Arneson's typed notes, decided to implement his own mechanics. The MMSA member quotes also corroborate the "no real difference" between the two other than the fact that we now had a set of rules whereas Arneson kept his out of sight and away from his players (and us in 1972/75). It sounds like you're saying that you have made your model of the Blackmoor system just a model of D&D because your recollection, and that of some members of the MMSA, is that there was no material difference between Blackmoor and D&D. Is that a fair statement? |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 5, 2017 15:22:39 GMT -5
The game I played in Blackmoor in Nov 1972 (and then another in late 1975, Journey to the City of the Gods) did not differ in its architecture and organization from what we played in Greyhawk many weeks later. The only things that differed, as I just noted above with RC and even further up thread, were the subsystems, as Gary, after we both reviewed Arneson's typed notes, decided to implement his own mechanics. The MMSA member quotes also corroborate the "no real difference" between the two other than the fact that we now had a set of rules whereas Arneson kept his out of sight and away from his players (and us in 1972/75). It sounds like you're saying that you have made your model of the Blackmoor system just a model of D&D because your recollection, and that of some members of the MMSA, is that there was no material difference between Blackmoor and D&D. Is that a fair statement? Remember that Gygax himself in 1975 called Blackmoor the "prototype" of D&D. What are your thoughts on this statement Increment? |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 5, 2017 15:37:42 GMT -5
Remember that Gygax himself in 1975 called Blackmoor the "prototype" of D&D. What are your thoughts on this statement Increment? Oh, I'd agree, don't get me wrong here man. We all agree that lots of things came to D&D via Blackmoor, and it might even be true, depending on how your modeling process works, that the only important conceptual things about D&D for your model were all present in the play of the Blackmoor campaign by the fall of 1972 (though maybe not earlier, or maybe so). But since, let's say, we "lost" the prototype of Blackmoor, it's a bit more of a leap to just assume that was true. Maybe some important things about D&D were present in Blackmoor then but others weren't. It was a long time ago. I don't think we can be very confident about some of these points. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 5, 2017 15:42:52 GMT -5
The game I played in Blackmoor in Nov 1972 (and then another in late 1975, Journey to the City of the Gods) did not differ in its architecture and organization from what we played in Greyhawk many weeks later. The only things that differed, as I just noted above with RC and even further up thread, were the subsystems, as Gary, after we both reviewed Arneson's typed notes, decided to implement his own mechanics. The MMSA member quotes also corroborate the "no real difference" between the two other than the fact that we now had a set of rules whereas Arneson kept his out of sight and away from his players (and us in 1972/75). It sounds like you're saying that you have made your model of the Blackmoor system just a model of D&D because your recollection, and that of some members of the MMSA, is that there was no material difference between Blackmoor and D&D. Is that a fair statement? The use of the game is its primary evidence; and that was borne out in Gary's quotes that Blackmoor was a prototype for D&D and that both Gary and Dave used different mechanics but that the systems architecture that both operated through did not differ. These are not "recollections". This is corroborated by the way we played, the way Arneson presented it to Gary and us, and the way the D&D ms is organized into the specific areas that Arneson had used--City, Outdoor, Dungeon--and even that we used the OS Survival Map as well as did Dave. Other evidence is incorporated here or there over the years (my Wargames #1 article D&D Past Present & Future, 1977). Even the campaign play was incorporated that is noted in Dave's newsletters and changed (again due to Gary's proclivities as a designer) for the final ms. Mr. Conley does not understand the concept of subsystems which have no negative effect on the underlying systems architecture (in either Blackmoor or D&D), the latter which is a constant unless the base is remade (like with En Garde). Think of a house with a base architecture and then think of the subsystems as what fills its rooms and that's a fair approximation. You can move in new items to fill the house or move things out without destroying or perturbing (in systems terms) the base. That is what Gary did with the architecture, he appointed it as he saw fit according to his design proclivity but not due to cohesion issues with the architecture. This is in keeping with his all games (quote) "should be a variants," just as Greyhawk was in relation to Blackmoor, and as I have illustrated. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 5, 2017 15:52:26 GMT -5
Remember that Gygax himself in 1975 called Blackmoor the "prototype" of D&D. What are your thoughts on this statement Increment? Oh, I'd agree, don't get me wrong here man. We all agree that lots of things came to D&D via Blackmoor, and it might even be true, depending on how your modeling process works, that the only important conceptual things about D&D for your model were all present in the play of the Blackmoor campaign by the fall of 1972 (though maybe not earlier, or maybe so). But since, let's say, we "lost" the prototype of Blackmoor, it's a bit more of a leap to just assume that was true. Maybe some important things about D&D were present in Blackmoor then but others weren't. It was a long time ago. I don't think we can be very confident about some of these points. I must say at this point that you seem to be selectively cherry picking and using Gary's quotes in a manner to disprove the lineal relationship between Blackmoor to D&D, Gary's statement of prototype is emphatic, it is not a casual term that a game designer uses, nor is his quote, “Now tell the fellows to pick on Dave Arneson awhile — after all he had as much to do with the whole mess as I did!”19 — E. Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #2, 1975. AS MUCH TO DO? Like in creating the prototype? This is becoming in a word, absurd, from not only a designer's view but from a logician's as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 5, 2017 15:54:37 GMT -5
Oh, I'd agree, don't get me wrong here man. We all agree that lots of things came to D&D via Blackmoor... Blackmoor being the "prototype" of D&D has a different meaning than what you just said, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 5, 2017 16:01:15 GMT -5
The use of the game is its primary evidence; and that was borne out in Gary's quotes that Blackmoor was a prototype for D&D and that both Gary and Dave used different mechanics but that the systems architecture that both operated through did not differ. I really don't understand how to read this as other than a circular argument. "The use of the game [D&D?] is its primary evidence" for the hypothesis that it was the same as Blackmoor? That statement would be necessarily circular. Or do you mean that it is impossible to play D&D without playing just like people played Blackmoor? I'd have other qualms with that version. When you say "the way you played" you are referring to some experience in the past, I don't know how to understand that other than as a memory. Ditto for "the way Arneson presented it." I'll grant that "the way D&D is organized" is not just a memory, nor is the fact that D&D used OS - no one is arguing that it didn't. I am familiar with your Wargaming #1 article, and the context in which you wrote it, but I'm not sure what in there signals to us that D&D was in all important senses identical to Blackmoor. I think I know what you mean here, the campaign material (some is preserved in the FFC: price lists, investments, etc.) that was altered by Gygax for inclusion in D&D? Again, no argument there. I would have thought you wouldn't consider that sort of material fundamental. We know stuff moved from Blackmoor to D&D. The contention that it is therefore safe to assume that you can model D&D and feel confident that was how the Blackmoor campaign was played is what alarms me. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 5, 2017 16:03:13 GMT -5
Oh, I'd agree, don't get me wrong here man. We all agree that lots of things came to D&D via Blackmoor... Blackmoor being the "prototype" of D&D has a different meaning than what you just said, doesn't it? ... um, I think prototypes can have varying degrees of similarity to their finished products. I think for example you can have several generations of prototypes that become progressively closer to a finished product, and we would say that earlier prototypes are less similar to the finished product than later ones. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 5, 2017 16:07:53 GMT -5
I must say at this point that you seem to be selectively cherry picking and using Gary's quotes in a manner to disprove the lineal relationship between Blackmoor to D&D, Gary's statement of prototype is emphatic, it is not a casual term that a game designer uses, nor is his quote, “Now tell the fellows to pick on Dave Arneson awhile — after all he had as much to do with the whole mess as I did!”19 — E. Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #2, 1975. AS MUCH TO DO? Like in creating the prototype? This is becoming in a word, absurd, from not only a designer's view but from a logician's as well. Caution, the following is intended to be humorous: "As much to do" actually sounds like Dave did half the work of designing D&D and Gary did the other half. Each would then have done 50% there. If that were true, then D&D would be 50% different from Blackmoor? Humor concluded. No one is trying to disprove that D&D was based on Blackmoor. Really. But they were not identical either. To prove that the key concepts you are talking about in D&D derived from Blackmoor would require some evidentiary basis. So far I'm not hearing you offer anything other than that this is how you (and some other people who were indeed there) remember things. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 5, 2017 16:24:15 GMT -5
Blackmoor being the "prototype" of D&D has a different meaning than what you just said, doesn't it? ... um, I think prototypes can have varying degrees of similarity to their finished products. I think for example you can have several generations of prototypes that become progressively closer to a finished product, and we would say that earlier prototypes are less similar to the finished product than later ones. I am sorry, but you have no evidence to the contrary that it wasn't a prototype that Gary sated it was. You are now super-posing your view on his which is not scientific but conjecture. The evidence must stand as stated unless those who produced it alter it; you as the scholar are here to present the facts as you have derived them, so, by direct transference "prototype" means prototype, unless Gary had stated that it was a prototype "except that" so and so and such and such differed. We have that form of evidence for his placing things in context in order to derive his exactness for details and approximately around the same time as the prototype quote:
“Dave and I disagree on how to handle any number of things, an d
both of our campaigns differ from the “rules” found in DandD. If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, DandD will have become staid and boring indeed.” E. Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #2, 1975. I bolded the pertinent matter. What he is referring to are the rules, the mechanics, and not the architecture itself, and this indeed can be used for his ability to describe with exactitude when he made expressions, and I will vouch for that as well (though Jon, you will say that that is only a memory and doesn't count, LOL!). So if prototype can be edited or even thrown out, so can this quote, as what Gary says here may or may not be really what he meant. Again, we are here to present, as scholars, what is apparent and to reserve speculation, opinion, or selective editing of the facts which do not belong in such a realm of inquiry. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 5, 2017 16:27:46 GMT -5
... um, I think prototypes can have varying degrees of similarity to their finished products. I think for example you can have several generations of prototypes that become progressively closer to a finished product, and we would say that earlier prototypes are less similar to the finished product than later ones. I am sorry, but you have no evidence to the contrary that it wasn't a prototype that Gary sated it was. I am not disagreeing that it was a prototype, just that it was identical. So let's try to be more concrete. Let's say that the concept of hit points is fundamental - I don't know, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. In D&D you roll your hit points as a starting character, and as you go up in level you gain more. Dave in 1974 wrote a letter saying that's not how Blackmoor worked. Here's what he said he gave to starting characters: "I gave them all twice the number of hits (one dice roll for the number of dice you roll for the number of damage points that they take) 1st throw is a three meaning you cast three dice 3,4,2 meaning that you take nine hits (but you could take as many as 36).” Got that? If not I think I can explain what he means. Now, what about when you level up? "Another point of mixup was that players were not intended to become harder to hit and take more damage as they progress. Instead they were to take the same amount of hits all the time (with the exceptions of spells, magic, etc.) while becoming more talented in inflicting hits and avoiding the same. This has a great equalizing influence.” So, I'd say the Blackmoor system for hit points was not identical to D&D, not by a long shot actually. And in Blackmoor, when you dealt hits of damage, you only dealt one, you didn't do 1d6, say. There are kind of a lot of things like this. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 5, 2017 16:51:54 GMT -5
I am sorry, but you have no evidence to the contrary that it wasn't a prototype that Gary sated it was. I am not disagreeing that it was a prototype, just that it was identical. So let's try to be more concrete. Let's say that the concept of hit points is fundamental - I don't know, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. In D&D you roll your hit points as a starting character, and as you go up in level you gain more. Dave in 1974 wrote a letter saying that's not how Blackmoor worked. Here's what he said he gave to starting characters: "I gave them all twice the number of hits (one dice roll for the number of dice you roll for the number of damage points that they take) 1st throw is a three meaning you cast three dice 3,4,2 meaning that you take nine hits (but you could take as many as 36).” Got that? If not I think I can explain what he means. Now, what about when you level up? "Another point of mixup was that players were not intended to become harder to hit and take more damage as they progress. Instead they were to take the same amount of hits all the time (with the exceptions of spells, magic, etc.) while becoming more talented in inflicting hits and avoiding the same. This has a great equalizing influence.” So, I'd say the Blackmoor system for hit points was not identical to D&D, not by a long shot actually. And in Blackmoor, when you dealt hits of damage, you only dealt one, you didn't do 1d6, say. There are kind of a lot of things like this. Right. And as I stated, and is corroborated by Gary's quote that you snipped, prototype is a prototype to Gary even though he and Dave have different rules. Thanks for helping us corroborate that! Now. If the rules differed from his campaign to Greyhawk, why would Gary say, "Dave had as much to do with this mess as I did"? Your argument falls to pieces here, Jon, as the only answer for prototype is the architecture, this supremely wondrous architecture that had never been imagined before. I rest my case and good night to all as it is about midnight here in Corsica. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 5, 2017 17:11:48 GMT -5
Blackmoor being the "prototype" of D&D has a different meaning than what you just said, doesn't it? ... um, I think prototypes can have varying degrees of similarity to their finished products. I think for example you can have several generations of prototypes that become progressively closer to a finished product, and we would say that earlier prototypes are less similar to the finished product than later ones. Yes, prototypes can have varying degrees of similarity to their finished products. However, the word "prototype" has a very specific meaning attached to it, and that is that a prototype has the essential features of the finished product. Lets say I show you three successive prototypes of an automobile. The first prototype may be lacking turn signals, mirrors, and paint. The second prototype may be lacking only the mirrors, but have a different shade of paint from the final product. The last prototype probably is almost indistinguishable from the final product. But each of the three car prototypes have the essential features of a car: 1) carries at least 1 passenger 2) is configured to stay on the ground 3) has a means to accelerate 4) has a means to decelerate 5) has a means to change direction Gygax chose the word "prototype" because it best fit what Blackmoor was: the prototype of D&D, from which D&D inherited all of its essential features. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 5, 2017 17:28:43 GMT -5
I am not disagreeing that it was a prototype, just that it was identical. being identical to the final product is not what "prototype" means. It means having all of the essential features of the final product. So let's try to be more concrete. Let's say that the concept of hit points is fundamental - I don't know, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. In D&D you roll your hit points as a starting character, and as you go up in level you gain more. Dave in 1974 wrote a letter saying that's not how Blackmoor worked. Here's what he said he gave to starting characters: "I gave them all twice the number of hits (one dice roll for the number of dice you roll for the number of damage points that they take) 1st throw is a three meaning you cast three dice 3,4,2 meaning that you take nine hits (but you could take as many as 36).” Got that? If not I think I can explain what he means. Now, what about when you level up? "Another point of mixup was that players were not intended to become harder to hit and take more damage as they progress. Instead they were to take the same amount of hits all the time (with the exceptions of spells, magic, etc.) while becoming more talented in inflicting hits and avoiding the same. This has a great equalizing influence.” So, I'd say the Blackmoor system for hit points was not identical to D&D, not by a long shot actually. Again, being identical is not what "prototype" means. It means having all of the essential features of the final product. Something along the lines of what you are talking about would be to say that an essential feature of D&D is having a graduated damage system (versus 1 hit 1 kill). Did D&D and Blackmoor both have a graduated damage system? Yes. Were they the same graduated damage system? No. Did Chainmail have a graduated damage system? As far as I am aware, no. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 5, 2017 19:09:39 GMT -5
OK all, take a look at this, I think you will enjoy it, at least I did. Thank captaincrumbcake for it. |
|
Seriously. That's the one which had surgery. 
RJK
