|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 7, 2017 10:26:03 GMT -5
Yes. I agree that Dave might have been familiar with it, but I was only answering the previous point regarding whether he possessed it like he did Chainmail. We never played Korns in LG, however, Mike Reece stated that Tractics was influenced by Korns, and I play-tested scenarios for that for a year or so as an LGTSA member. It was Mike Reese and Leon Tucker in particular I was thinking of in Lake Geneva, yes. They regularly mentioned it in the Tracklinks column in the IW. And since they worked with Gygax on Tractics, I'd find it a bit unlikely that he was unaware of it. Bar trivia factoid: know that book Bio One? The slim hit location pamphlet that TSR put out in 1976? It was originally published in the Twin Cities in 1974, and originally, it was published specifically as a variant of Korns. True story. Last post (for now) as I must eat, And then there was that Al Mccintyre game, the title of which I forget but involves a time traveling assassin or such? Al, like Goldberg, were IFW members like myself. He lived in Ohio and I believe he is still living. He had a site that visited some years back and boasts having a book collection numbering 25,000. Now, to lunch. __Yes, Reese not Reece (Mike would flog me for that!) |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 7, 2017 10:39:07 GMT -5
Last post (for now) as I must eat, And then there was that Al Mccintyre game, the title of which I forget but involves a time traveling assassin or such? Al, like Goldberg, were IFW members like myself. He lived in Ohio and I believe he is still living. He had a site that visited some years back and boasts having a book collection numbering 25,000. Assassin by Al Macintye, James Gaines, and Howard Goodrich. Described in the August 1970 IW. Another fine product of the IFW Game Design Bureau. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 7, 2017 10:54:36 GMT -5
Last post (for now) as I must eat, And then there was that Al Mccintyre game, the title of which I forget but involves a time traveling assassin or such? Al, like Goldberg, were IFW members like myself. He lived in Ohio and I believe he is still living. He had a site that visited some years back and boasts having a book collection numbering 25,000. Assassin by Al Macintye, James Gaines, and Howard Goodrich. Described in the August 1970 IW. Another fine product of the IFW Game Design Bureau. Showing that the razor sharp memory Gary said I had is still functioning.  Robilar didn't plumb the depths of GH Castle without "mapping" (as it was all in my head). There is a b&w picture of Al at an early GENCON, this from among John Bobek's photos at Boardgame Geek. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 7, 2017 12:11:55 GMT -5
I agree that the focus should not be on whether Arneson created it or not, but what it is and whether Dave is given the due to him (which he has not been given) and now in a much expanded sense, What is Dave due? What could be done that you would look at it and agree that he has finally been given his due? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 7, 2017 12:28:58 GMT -5
I agree that the focus should not be on whether Arneson created it or not, but what it is and whether Dave is given the due to him (which he has not been given) and now in a much expanded sense, What is Dave due? What could be done that you would look at it and agree that he has finally been given his due? This: "Not only is this a transcendent game, it is a transcendent way of thinking in design and systems. Arneson's genius is thus two-fold as I note in the book." extracted from the same post you quoted. As opposed to many quotes over the years that Dave's game was just a knock-off and progression of Chainmail, as is still affirmed on WotC's history of D&D time line, plus other. I see that as being due him, that clarification; and you can ask his players (of those still living) and I can guarantee that they'd also indicate the same thing. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 7, 2017 12:37:40 GMT -5
There was no question Mr. C. You have taken the quote out of its contextual point. If you do not wish to contribute to this converse without imposing accusations and negatives, please don't post to the thread. You have been very belligerent and making accusations all throughout while pushing your POV. Fine. Push your POV, I have accepted that as part of the ongoing discourse. But I will not accept your rudeness any longer, instances of which I will go back and repost to clarify what I mean if your memory is lacking. I am being disrespectful in the light of how you answered many of the questions including my won on this thread, my point still stands. But it was personal to you and not on-topic when it comes to the points being raised within this thread. I was wrong to bring it up and will refrain from commenting on how you answer questions and stick to the topic. It's all cool. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 7, 2017 14:28:14 GMT -5
Agreed, but I was hoping for more not on those other games (Midgard 1 or 2 and Korns) but info on Blackmoor. If we have more data points demonstrating that Dave's Blackmoor had all the fundamental concepts of D&D by November 1972, his genius would be more widely recognized. Increment originally felt the Loch Gloomen battle report didn't contain anything that couldn't be represented with the chainmail rules, but look how far he has come: I think more evidence of what Blackmoor was will make Daves genius more concrete not only for Increment, but for others looking for hard proof as well. One cannot discount how the game was played in Minneapolis and as was played by us in 1972, and as coming from the two sources on both ends. By framing it in that manner you discount history and selectively say history can be presented from one view alone. Increment wrote in PATW: So it should be of no surprise, then, that Increment is extremely difficult to convince about anything with eyewitness accounts, even multiple eyewitness accounts, even when they are backed up by magazine articles written a few years afterwards. He is not the only skeptic though. His standard for what is a reliable account is probably one of the highest though, so I figure if we can convince Increment, many other people with less extreme standards will be convinced as well. Well, that was what Increment was arguing against originally. Since one of the few sources he trusts with regard to Blackmoor is the Loch Gloomen battle report, he looked for evidence in that report for any significant difference between what was going on in Blackmoor and what could be represented with Chainmail. Originally, he felt there wasn't anything there that couldn't be represented with Chainmail, particularly with the way he was looking at the note at the end of the IW article. I think Increment originally felt that the Loch Gloomen report lacked evidence of a game system that was anything more than Chainmail with the IW Chainmail Additions article's "guidelines" note, assuming that the note was talking about on-the-fly rulings made by a judge. But I think I have since dissuaded him from that interpretation, which then indicated to him that Dave's game system was something more than Chainmail, even with the IW additions, because it was able to handle things like gaining, losing, and regaining favor, avoiding taxes, carrying people off, and kicking a dragon. I think the main problem Increment is having with regard to Blackmoor is that it isn't fully specified because it wasn't published or fully documented. With the comparative analysis approach you use in DATG, peoples opinions, recollections, etc... are all irrelevant, which is truly wonderful for studying something in the past. But, the method requires, as you said in DATG, "comparing both of their qualities and components, their forms and functions, i.e., their entire designs including their systems, etc., in order to render the claim as either true or false." Given what Increment wrote in PATW, he is discounting just about everything anyone is remembering, and building his picture of what Blackmoor was based solely on the scant documentary evidence we have of Blackmoor from the period. Logic can unlock more information from that evidence, as I have tried to do for him, but it remains to be seen whether his picture will ever be complete enough to be able to use the comparative analysis approach with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 7, 2017 14:42:07 GMT -5
Assassin by Al Macintye, James Gaines, and Howard Goodrich. Described in the August 1970 IW. Another fine product of the IFW Game Design Bureau. Showing that the razor sharp memory Gary said I had is still functioning. Robilar didn't plumb the depths of GH Castle without "mapping" (as it was all in my head). There is a b&w picture of Al at an early GENCON, this from among John Bobek's photos at Boardgame Geek. I have an anecdote that speaks to the power of Rob Kuntz's memory. A few years ago Paul Stormberg had uncovered a map from Greyhawk Castle that Gary had used to DM Rob's Robilar with. Notably, this is one of the areas that Robilar went through purely on memory- Rob did no mapping. Paul said he was absolutely certain that nobody had seen that map in ~40 years. When he mentioned it to Rob, Rob was able to recall many specific details that were on the map, despite the fact that he probably had never seen the map, and if he had, he hadn't seen it for 40 years (!) |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 7, 2017 15:21:30 GMT -5
One cannot discount how the game was played in Minneapolis and as was played by us in 1972, and as coming from the two sources on both ends. By framing it in that manner you discount history and selectively say history can be presented from one view alone. Increment wrote in PATW: So it should be of no surprise, then, that Increment is extremely difficult to convince about anything with eyewitness accounts, even multiple eyewitness accounts, even when they are backed up by magazine articles written a few years afterwards. He is not the only skeptic though. His standard for what is a reliable account is probably one of the highest though, so I figure if we can convince Increment, many other people with less extreme standards will be convinced as well. Well, that was what Increment was arguing against originally. Since one of the few sources he trusts with regard to Blackmoor is the Loch Gloomen battle report, he looked for evidence in that report for any significant difference between what was going on in Blackmoor and what could be represented with Chainmail. Originally, he felt there wasn't anything there that couldn't be represented with Chainmail, particularly with the way he was looking at the note at the end of the IW article. I think Increment originally felt that the Loch Gloomen report lacked evidence of a game system that was anything more than Chainmail with the IW Chainmail Additions article's "guidelines" note, assuming that the note was talking about on-the-fly rulings made by a judge. But I think I have since dissuaded him from that interpretation, which then indicated to him that Dave's game system was something more than Chainmail, even with the IW additions, because it was able to handle things like gaining, losing, and regaining favor, avoiding taxes, carrying people off, and kicking a dragon. I think the main problem Increment is having with regard to Blackmoor is that it isn't fully specified because it wasn't published or fully documented. With the comparative analysis approach you use in DATG, peoples opinions, recollections, etc... are all irrelevant, which is truly wonderful for studying something in the past. But, the method requires, as you said in DATG, "comparing both of their qualities and components, their forms and functions, i.e., their entire designs including their systems, etc., in order to render the claim as either true or false." Given what Increment wrote in PATW, he is discounting just about everything anyone is remembering, and building his picture of what Blackmoor was based solely on the scant documentary evidence we have of Blackmoor from the period. Logic can unlock more information from that evidence, as I have tried to do for him, but it remains to be seen whether his picture will ever be complete enough to be able to use the comparative analysis approach with it. Not only the last, requires studying their forms and functions, but in studying the game forms (models) preceding them. This done you isolate whether such a form existed (in Chainmail) or in anything else, If the values returned from that repeated inquiry are FALSE, then it is a new game form. Since D&D did not start until Arneson's arrival and Gary's commitment to excitedly pursuing it, then are we to assume that Arneson had other than the prototype, that architecture, beforehand whereas it had never existed in the history of games previously?  That would be more of a ridiculous leap would it not? As I stated, and as is verified by our accounts, LGTSA/MMSA (in the newsletters and interviews and letters) this was. One can also verify the verbal accounts of what we experienced in Nov 1972 among those still living, myself, my brother (whose PC was killed in Blackmoor's depths by facing the MU as he was fire-balled while the rest of us ran), Ernie Gygax and David Megarry who led us in the adventure. The day afterwards Gary summons me and we attempt to make a story game out of it (maps upthread). We have the accounts of the MMSA players and the FFC which is factual enough evidence of what they were doing as well. This whole balance hinges on denying that Arneson did not create a conceptual component. Who will now say that he did not do so? Anyone here? If he did, the mechanics do not matter in the architecture and thus Arneson is vindicated. If the claim is that he did not I refer you to the previous paragraph, which would mean that Gary just leapt to a historical milestone of an architecture never before contrived in history and by what Arneson presented to him after 1 and one-half years of play was... what would that be...?? The same architecture as everyone had been playing? That last would be an absurd postulation, and I reject it out of hand as completely false if it is so forwarded under the auspices of "research". Arneson created the arch: 1) Conceptual component and 2) functional mechanical apparatus that work in the manner that they work in D&D under Gary's new mech. subsystems. Mornard understands this due to his game theory and systems background, that the mechanics only change the complexity ranges within the architecture but not the architecture itself. Jon does not understand this (as yet) and is intent upon his path that he was used to. There is value in that path but not in denying the architecture nor in attempting to prove it was not originated by Arneson, both of which are easily disproven. As I stated. the crux is in the architecture which is The Conceptual System PLUS a functional mechanical apparatus. Is there anyone here who will say that Arneson did not wield this architecture? If not then we have that prototype. If otherwise, Arneson did nothing to be so excited to unveil to us and Gary was not really excited to get me over there to try to turn that "same architecture that had existed for years" into a way of generating stories. Yep. And I have a piece of swamp land at the top of the Rocky mountains for sale, too... |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 7, 2017 16:47:51 GMT -5
As far as I can tell, Dave Arneson came from competitive strategy games where players controlled multiple pieces and referees either only or primarily enforced rules and he didn't invert the central behavior of gaming (as improv storytelling "games" do), but expanded it to everything imaginable from a single person-centered point-of-view.
By my understanding here are some of the basics of what must be in his architecture:
1. Instead of controlling troops, players controlled a single figure, their misnomered "character".
2. Instead of competing against the other players, the game promoted cooperative play by balancing the design towards it.
- In other words, players succeeded alone or cooperatively, but stategically speaking cooperation was the best course for long term, high scoring success.
3. Like competitive games Players were still scored separately, but could share scoring when accomplishing objectives together.
4. Instead of static ability for gaming pieces, each "character" advanced in game abilities as higher point totals were achieved.
- This drove players' natural instincts to win towards scoring points, so they could go up in level and accomplish even greater achievements in the game.
5. Instead of everyone playing for the same strategic goals, each player and their character focused on one of the mechanically supported classes - a set of character abilities specialized and advanced in.
- By supporting multiple goal focuses and scopes within the game, players were put into the position of needing to cooperate with others even though each one's greatest success could depend upon achieving different accomplishments.
- Also, while this eponymous characteristic did not define the entirety of Arneson's unique game architecture, it is why we call it a roleplaying game.
6. Instead of the players knowing the rules leading to a highly deductive affair, the procedural rule systems were hidden, never told to the players, yet still being enforced by the referee following them - leading to a highly rewarding inductive game for the players.
7. Instead of the gameboard or sand table shown to the players, the "map" was hidden and described to the players according to their characters abilities to sense it - thus making memory and note taking a major aspect of play.
8. Instead of being a finite game with a bordered field of play and game pieces set out in balanced positions between two or more competing players, the hidden map and components could be expanded in any direction and the opposing challenges were rated for difficulty and reward if overcome.
- This means, there was no loss of strategic consequences when the game pieces would normally have moved off the board and a second game design begun, as in many "best of series" games. Instead, the importance of the first action in the game will still matter even upon the last action in the campaign.
...Ugh. Tons more I'm sure, but I'm interested in hearing if some of these are considered mechanical or architectural, essential or nonessential.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 7, 2017 17:00:25 GMT -5
Did the 1st game at Gary's dining room table with Dave DM'ing have a map? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere no map or miniatures were used. Maybe Rob could clarify.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 7, 2017 17:06:38 GMT -5
The architecture's MAIN component that had never existed in games for 2,000 years is the Imaginative Conceptual one; the mechanics, no matter what they are that are utilized through that intertwined process are really negligible for defining the general architecture. I am stating, thus, that generally you could add in any of the above in various ways and it still would not change the underlying fact that such an architectural arrangement between conceptual/imaginative and mechanical had NEVER EXISTED (not shouting, just emphasizing) before Arneson created it. People tend to forget that this is a CONCEPTUAL game. Though I was reserving this part for New Ethos here is a snippet from the Chapter, What Gygax Knew and What He Changed (this part has nothing to do with what he changed, btw)
The following is Copyright 2012-2017. Robert J. Kuntz. All Rights Reserved.
What Gygax knew he knew through Arneson and the MMSA. That is not my opinion as someone who was there; but it is derived from the fact that if Arneson had not made known to us what he knew, the opposite would have existed. Though there has been a lot of controversy over who did what with the final manuscript for D&D, historians have missed widely the point here. For if we are to seek out Arneson’s contributions in whole we must include his most important one: the realization and integrated use of conceptual environments for play.
This may seem a difficult (or perhaps an inconclusive) category for some, for it has been assumed, I suppose, that the imagination is some sort of shadowy, passive mover of “concrete” game parts alone. But, the imagination is being actively applied within a system with rules, and so it is tied to those rules for its expression within it and thus it is neither a chaotic interloper running amok nor an idle meanderer. It is the applied imagination, working in combination with/as a conceptual environment, with the inlaid system and its rules, all of which in various interactive ways have standing relationships with each other. Without the imagination the whole would not be possible, this is true, but as we imagine their uses in these ways they indeed function as delineated, just as Arneson proved to be true. We are in a sense imagining what it is to imagine (conceive here of what is conceived there), as Fantasy is not real, but by our imagining of it as a character and as an environ the character is entering we are instantaneously able to perceive of it in both realms, conceptual and game. It is an immersion in a specific sense, and that sense is directly tied to a conceptual environment to which we attach systemic rules for immersing ourselves therein and in specific ways related to those rules that guide our imagined actions within it.
In other words, we are imagining imaginary characters interacting with a conceptual environment that we have imagined.
Imagine that.
And since these imaginings have or will have standing relationships with each other they form a conceptual system...
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 7, 2017 17:22:28 GMT -5
Did the 1st game at Gary's dining room table with Dave DM'ing have a map? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere no map or miniatures were used. Maybe Rob could clarify. As I stated up thread there was no map, no miniatures and no access to written rules. We just stated what we were doing (entering the Comeback Inn first for that sequence, then onto the Castle where we had the way cleared into it by the elves spraying ahead of us (the holy water treatment to protect from the vampire, I suppose which was Jenkin's PC who lurked within)) and so it went. It was all imagination as Arneson did the dice rolling out of site behind his folder. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 17:35:20 GMT -5
I'm going to further muddy the waters here by pointing out that rules, and therefore text, do not definitively define play of a game. For instance, the rules for poker contain NOTHING about bluffing; yet, bluffing is a key strategy of the game. The "negotiation" section of the Diplomacy rules is only, I think, 154 words or so, but what happens face to face ... defined in the text only as "the player may say anything he wants, and does not have to keep his promises" is overwhelmingly the important part of the game.
But you would never, ever know either of those things just reading the rules of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 7, 2017 17:38:38 GMT -5
Wouldn't this aspect below be the first time in 2000 years, not just the imaginative component alone? I'm thinking cops and robbers would be the imaginative component alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 7, 2017 17:46:25 GMT -5
Wouldn't this aspect below be the first time in 2000 years, not just the imaginative component alone? I'm thinking cops and robbers would be the imaginative component alone. I was mis typing and of course was referring to the integration of the conceptual and the mechanical, saw that after the post. As understod from other posts, i hope we are forwarding the information from. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 7, 2017 17:55:47 GMT -5
I'm going to further muddy the waters here by pointing out that rules, and therefore text, do not definitively define play of a game. For instance, the rules for poker contain NOTHING about bluffing; yet, bluffing is a key strategy of the game. The "negotiation" section of the Diplomacy rules is only, I think, 154 words or so, but what happens face to face ... defined in the text only as "the player may say anything he wants, and does not have to keep his promises" is overwhelmingly the important part of the game. But you would never, ever know either of those things just reading the rules of the game. Yes. But can you change the rules and the system in real time? Charades comes to mind as well as a parlor game, but nether have the same qualities of Arneson's general architecture as part of the underlying mechanic is the ability to transform the rules via interaction with the conceptual environment. There is no muddying the waters in my pond by your statement as Diplomacy is a bounded system utilizing a granular, variable component. Just like the negotiating sequence in Monopoly. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 7, 2017 18:02:06 GMT -5
It was all imagination as Arneson did the dice rolling out of site behind his folder. Again, reemphasizing that the state of the hobby may not be what you state it is in DATG. Rather most everyone is convinced that: 1. gaming is storytelling 2. roleplaying is fictional character improv 3. RPGs are games where we "just make stuff up" for a "shared fiction". All of which are the utter opposite of the case for D&D as I see it. We are gaming the design hidden behind the screen in order to accomplish goals within it / score points - aka roleplaying. Otherwise I think we might as well join the storygamer crowd who think they are the actual RPG hobby. I saw the comment below and I fixed the post. Your friendly neighborhood Admin. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 7, 2017 18:11:55 GMT -5
It was all imagination as Arneson did the dice rolling out of site behind his folder. Again, reemphasizing that the state of the hobby may not be what you state it is in DATG. Rather most everyone is convinced that: 1. gaming is storytelling 2. roleplaying is fictional character improv 3. RPGs are games where we "just make stuff up" for a "shared fiction". All of which are the utter opposite of the case for D&D as I see it. We are gaming the design hidden behind the screen in order to accomplish goals within it / score points - aka roleplaying. Otherwise I think we might as well join the storygamer crowd who think they are the actual RPG hobby. Would you please state what you feel from DATG, re what I think the hobby is, as that is rather an elusive generalization that I have no way of juxtaposing with what you list thereafter. Maybe I'm getting tired and more easily confused... l( |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 7, 2017 18:21:22 GMT -5
I think tiredness on my part is coming through as grouchiness. My apologies for the last post.
As I understand it, your saying the hobby is largely focused on commercialization of the Arneson Conceptualization.
I'm saying the hobby has quit that framework almost in every respect. Most are looking for interesting ways mechanics can influence a narrative for their characters to participate in. Others prefer rules in front of the screen to game a character build. Old schoolers have their own preference for "rules light" improv "storytelling". Not one I know of is looking for a game system hidden from them.
I'd say this is why so many are confused we are using Systems Theory to refer to games. Systems theory is simply one aspect of game theory. But the purveyors of Narrative Theory as an absolutism have trashed pretty much every corner of the RPG hobby into "making a story" games. They either don't understand, don't care, or openly laugh at the idea of D&D as a strategy game.
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 7, 2017 18:25:17 GMT -5
I see my original quote is dropping and refuses to be edited:
RJK: It was all imagination as Arneson did the dice rolling out of site behind his folder.
I fixed your original posts and the related posts by putting the missing information back. I find that things are really hard to impossible to fix in the Preview mode and I always go to the BBCode view to fix things.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 7, 2017 18:46:56 GMT -5
I think tiredness on my part is coming through as grouchiness. My apologies for the last post. As I understand it, your saying the hobby is largely focused on commercialization of the Arneson Conceptualization. I'm saying the hobby has quit that framework almost in every respect. Most are looking for interesting ways mechanics can influence a narrative for their characters to participate in. Others prefer rules in front of the screen to game a character build. Old schoolers have their own preference for "rules light" improv "storytelling". Not one I know of is looking for a game system hidden from them. I'd say this is why so many are confused we are using Systems Theory to refer to games. Systems theory is simply one aspect of game theory. But the purveyors of Narrative Theory as an absolutism have trashed pretty much every corner of the RPG hobby into "making a story" games. They either don't understand, don't care, or openly laugh at the idea of D&D as a strategy game. Hmm. First, and more exactly, I stated that Arneson's concept was changed to a self-contained model for play by redacting it, that it is a strand of the former as originally presented, and that strand was linked to premade adventures for a disposable repeatable entertainment model that drove TSR's market worth upwards as the original consumer pool steadily decreased, on the main, for creating worlds and adventures (for whatever purpose, battle, storytelling, whatever) and indeed concentrated on the mission adventure and battle game aspect of it. D&D started as a framework based on a corporate ladder type model of ascension via endeavor/challenge and rewards but people did start using it according to their strengths and proclivities otherwise, I am sure. Paizo still maintains that model to this day with their PF series, so too for FG Games and whatever is being generated for 5E under the license. In whatever case of end-use the main point is that people are, on the main, not creating content and thus not experiencing the full range of Arneson's original system qualities as I delineated. Secondly and as separated from the above matter, I used systems theory to describe not only Arneson's original conceptual range with his model, but its other design impacts by throttling the model into the future to thereby show its elasticity. This is a general design representation and was not utilized to describe any specific market state, but to illustrate its initial condition and elasticity as well as the negative impacts upon the initial state by its redaction. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 7, 2017 19:08:18 GMT -5
I guess I see 3rd and Pathfinder as the children and grandchildren of 2nd edition design thinking - the game which published the rules to be in the players hands out in front of the screen. This has led to rules lawyers and setting canonists. Not the best situation, but they still do -sort of- resemble the basic framework of D&D in their rule sets, though I'd say 2nd edition did more. 4th and 5th far more emphasize "modern game theory" as it's put forth, but 5th is far more savvy courting everyone to it. They have some mechanical similarities, but the designs have drifted so far they are manifestations from alternate planes.
So in some respects there are designs which might support the Arnesonian framework. But I don't purport to fully understanding the full extent of it yet.
I champion your using and advocacy for Systems Theory. I believe it hasn't been used for D&D since TSR was lost in the 1980s. I also think it gets to the roots of wargaming and the culture of ideas D&D was born from, all very positive things. I guess I was mainly here to find out what you thought about my list of traits, but perhaps they aren't connected.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 7, 2017 19:18:02 GMT -5
I guess I see 3rd and Pathfinder as the children and grandchildren of 2nd edition design thinking - the game which published the rules to be in the players hands out in front of the screen. This has led to rules lawyers and setting canonists. Not the best situation, but they still do -sort of- resemble the basic framework of D&D in their rule sets, though I'd say 2nd edition did more. 4th and 5th far more emphasize "modern game theory" as it's put forth, but 5th is far more savvy courting everyone to it. They have some mechanical similarities, but the designs have drifted so far they manifestations from alternate planes. So in some respects the designs which might support the Arnesonian framework. But I don't purport to fully understanding the full extent of it yet. I champion your using and advocacy for Systems Theory. I believe it hasn't been used for D&D since TSR was lost in the 1980s. I also think it gets to the roots of wargaming and the culture of ideas D&D was born from, all very positive things. I guess I was mainly here to find out what you thought about my list of traits, but perhaps they aren't connected. No problem. I am in fact very tired as it is after 2:00 am here in France and I have been up since 8:30am posting almost non-stop (I believe that I could have written a good short story by now, LOL!) I appreciate your interest and prodding and the encouragement. It's been a long design career for me (not quite ended yet) and if I can contribute something more of worth as a synthesis from that I have achieved my goal as a designer, so to speak. Keep on making your saves & Good Night. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 7, 2017 19:25:21 GMT -5
Thanks for corresponding, and good night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 7, 2017 19:47:12 GMT -5
Again, reemphasizing that the state of the hobby may not be what you state it is in DATG. Rather most everyone is convinced that: 1. gaming is storytelling 2. roleplaying is fictional character improv 3. RPGs are games where we "just make stuff up" for a "shared fiction". All of which are the utter opposite of the case for D&D as I see it. We are gaming the design hidden behind the screen in order to accomplish goals within it / score points - aka roleplaying. Otherwise I think we might as well join the storygamer crowd who think they are the actual RPG hobby. perhaps Rob will look at this again when he gets some sleep. So I want to make sure I understand your point, you are saying I believe that these three things are what most believe, is that correct? 1. IMO gaming is not storytelling in the sense that I understand storytelling, coming as I do from parents that grew up in the oral storytelling tradition where stories were handed down from generation to generation and my father told new stories of his own devising both pure fiction and stories of the people, things and situations that he lived through. IMO gaming, or playing OD&D at least, is the place where story is what is told between games about the last game and previous games that were played. Story is what exists after the game has been played, it is the record of what happened, filtered by each persons perspective. If the story is a script that is provided for the players to follow with or without their knowledge, that IMO is just a railroad and not a game, so put on costumes and get up on the stage and become an actor if that is what they want to do. 2. I do not agree with this one either as it is too limited, but I am not prepared to try to write a definition that covers all the essentials right now. I will say that I have read many definitions. I may start a thread on that sometime or anyone is welcome too. 3. Again I think this is too limited and I do prefer Fantasy Role Playing Game [FRPG] and the related Science Fantasy Role Playing Game [SFRPG] as the terms of choice to differentiate them from role playing in other fields, such as, psychology. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 7, 2017 19:58:59 GMT -5
Thanks for your response, Perilous.
I haven't kept abreast of ideas as steadily the last few years, but when I do talk I'm mostly finding myself out of step with those around me. The further from early D&D I get, the further any game resembles what I'm looking for.
I think you understand my points in that I am stating those definition are -not- the definitions used in D&D.
1. Gaming is deciphering (code breaking, not making stuff up) and manipulating a design to achieve objectives within it.
2. Roleplaying is from Role Theory and the definition overwhelming used in our society from the 1940s thru the early 1980s: "the performance of a social role."
-- In D&D this means mastering your class. In D&D gaming is roleplaying & game mastery is role mastery.
3. Games are manifested actualities, neither fiction nor nonfiction. And making stuff up is strictly against the rules for a referee. They enforce the rules. They aren't players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 20:24:58 GMT -5
I'm going to further muddy the waters here by pointing out that rules, and therefore text, do not definitively define play of a game. For instance, the rules for poker contain NOTHING about bluffing; yet, bluffing is a key strategy of the game. The "negotiation" section of the Diplomacy rules is only, I think, 154 words or so, but what happens face to face ... defined in the text only as "the player may say anything he wants, and does not have to keep his promises" is overwhelmingly the important part of the game. But you would never, ever know either of those things just reading the rules of the game. Yes. But can you change the rules and the system in real time? Charades comes to mind as well as a parlor game, but nether have the same qualities of Arneson's general architecture as part of the underlying mechanic is the ability to transform the rules via interaction with the conceptual environment. There is no muddying the waters in my pond by your statement as Diplomacy is a bounded system utilizing a granular, variable component. Just like the negotiating sequence in Monopoly. Agreed. What I see I left out in my statement is that we... generic "we," not "Rob and Michael" ... will probably never find exact, written, pinpoint evidence of Dave Arneson crying "Behold, I have done a new thing, and its newness is as follows." Even play descriptions will be incomplete. Which is aimed more at the entire discussion in general rather than any one person or post. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 7, 2017 20:27:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 7, 2017 20:42:15 GMT -5
1. gaming is storytelling 3. RPGs are games where we "just make stuff up" for a "shared fiction". I think it more accurate to say that a significant segment of the hobby view tabletop RPGs as the above. 2. roleplaying is fictional character improv Doing "funny voices" has always a point of debate but I wouldn't include it as something as opposite of the case for D&D. It in the same bucket as whether your use miniatures or not. A bigger issue for the hobby is organized play. My view is that organized play is responsible for a lot of the ills that plagued both the industry and the hobby since the middle 70s. I can go into the details why if people are interested and if folks it is on topic. I stated above that storytelling is only a segment, well one of the other significant segments is organized play. Both the storyteller and organized play folks are very visible and very out spoken. Otherwise I think we might as well join the storygamer crowd who think they are the actual RPG hobby. However open content and digital technology means us (or any other segment of hobby for that matter) are NOT beholden to the good graces of the majority. My view the list that would reflect the current state of the hobby would be 1. hobbyists viewing tabletop RPGs as storytelling and creating shared fiction. 2. hobbyists involved organized play conducted at game stores and conventions 3. hobbyists taking advantage of open content to publish their own material. 4. fans of a publishers works (think Runequest, Traveller, etc) 5. hobbyists who are independents doing their own projects. there is overlap between #3 and 5, #1 and #2 has caused issues with the larger hobby over the decades by including what was published. |
|
Robilar didn't plumb the depths of GH Castle without "mapping" (as it was all in my head).
That would be more of a ridiculous leap would it not? 
