|
|
Post by cadriel on May 10, 2017 19:32:35 GMT -5
I think the reviewer "John" raised one question that I also had while reading the book: has Rob read Playing at the World? I know it's out of date in certain respects, but I find that it's directly relevant to the ideas Rob is presenting, and it's unfortunate that Dave Arneson's True Genius doesn't reference PatW at all. Why? The ideas I am addressing are etched in my own history and are derivable through my own research; there was no need for referencing PATW for if there was I would have done so (  ) This is really a question about how history should be written. I feel that when a work like Dave Arneson's True Genius comes along and wants to make unique claims about history, it is incumbent on that work to deal with contradictory claims from prior works. Playing at the World offers a very different account of the creation of Blackmoor, and is one of the histories that deals in some detail with the derivation question. Because you choose not to deal with PatW, the arguments in DATG are not convincing. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 10, 2017 19:35:32 GMT -5
Paul Stormberg like anyone else is an interested person in D&D's history and nothing more. You are now disparaging his POV, and likely his character, based on what? Your opinion. So anyone who understands this is a rabid fan or has some ulterior purpose; and those who do not understand easily referenced scientific terms and usage are correct in their assessments that it is my style alone that fails to illustrate the content? I am done with this converse Stormcrow as you are not only channelling it as you see fit according to what you do not know but assuming that anyone who does not take the effort to dig into the work is indeed my fault and the fault of others who otherwise do. Gimme a break. I didn't say any of that. I didn't disparage Paul Stormberg or his character; I said he was not a disinterested reviewer. I didn't say anyone who understands your book is a rabid fan or has an ulterior purpose; I challenged the notion that anyone who DOESN'T understand it is an ignorant moron. Systems theory is NOT scientific terminology, and I repeatedly said that it is your writing style that is cumbersome, not the systems terminology. I, too, am quite done with this thread. You do not listen to anything except glowing praise. I think you'll find it scarce outside the little bubble of this community. You compare people here who criticize what they see as a lack of proper review and while dismissing the book as if they had not even read it, you compare this to them elevating themselves above the "unwashed masses" and further criticize my style without even reading the book? But yet you are in a position to defend their views and attack those with the opposite views as well as criticize my style which is seemingly comprehensible to the point that we have multiple reviews which are in depth and favorable? You must have a superior set of ESP skills and one darn powerful crystal ball, or maybe its just bias. It's surely anything but cordial, especially calling this forum a "little bubble" "community". But then, being the great Kreskin, you should know... |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 10, 2017 19:44:19 GMT -5
...Playing at the World offers a very different account of the creation of Blackmoor... Is there anything specific in PATW which conflicts with Kuntz's book? I think it would be a good topic of conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 10, 2017 19:51:51 GMT -5
Why? The ideas I am addressing are etched in my own history and are derivable through my own research; there was no need for referencing PATW for if there was I would have done so ( ) This is really a question about how history should be written. I feel that when a work like Dave Arneson's True Genius comes along and wants to make unique claims about history, it is incumbent on that work to deal with contradictory claims from prior works. Playing at the World offers a very different account of the creation of Blackmoor, and is one of the histories that deals in some detail with the derivation question. Because you choose not to deal with PatW, the arguments in DATG are not convincing. Well, I dealt with the claims in the third essay by taking to the scientific level which debunks all outstanding historical claims of note. In leading up to that I presented the history which is no where apparent to my knowledge about the shift in the concept and noted the difference between open and closed systems, as well. Something no one has done to date. I defined the architecture and the system qualities of D&D. Not done to date. I did not need to define myself by something that has been done, I am defining the history by what has not been done. If you find new information that cannot be related to anything other than new history or relevant science that has not been engaged to date to describe a transcendent system and track its qualities and ranges as unconvincing, well, I can''t help you there. This is a designers and systems view with some history to frame it in its proper contexts. So far the reviews have been very good for those who see the difference, but I expected that there would be a wide range of objections, can't help that. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 10, 2017 19:56:00 GMT -5
We have basically 3 classes: the traditional fighting man, several varieties of Spell Users, & a skill based archetype. That has been the way that it is for the last 40 years. Sure we mix them up, reclassify them and what not, but they are essentially the same thing regardless of what we want to call them. Why have we not been able to add more? The Thief is the most modern, but even it came out shortly after OD&D, since that, nothing. Even Races as we know them are derivatives of the 3 basic classes. If we compare them to the color wheel, do you feel that they are R, B, & Y, or do you suspect that there are more, we just haven't discovered them yet? I believe I need an shot of what you're drinking...  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 10, 2017 19:58:02 GMT -5
Gimme a break. I didn't say any of that. I didn't disparage Paul Stormberg or his character; I said he was not a disinterested reviewer. Agreed! I didn't say anyone who understands your book is a rabid fan or has an ulterior purpose;... What you said was. I am challenging the self-congratulatory tone of the people here who think your book is the bees knees and look down at someone who doesn't get it and says so. I have written the first two parts of my review (more to go) and they are quite a bit earlier in this thread and ripx187 just linked to his review. Both of us addressed the fact that the way the book is written can be challenging and Rob still liked both of the reviews. I am really not seeing the "self-congratulatory tone of the people here who think your book is the bees knees" If you read what the two of us wrote, you should not come to that conclusion. I thought Cedgewick asked quite a few really tough questions which Rob fielded and gave answers to. I really do not think this is a love-fest, robertsconley also posted his criticisms as have you and I only ask that no one make it personal. Although taking it to your own thread might be quite helpful at this point. I also do not think we are looking down on someone who doesn't get it and say so, for crying out loud I read the book 4-5 times before I really made any substantive comments on the book as a layperson/ref/player and not a designer. Do you really think that when I tell people that I have read it 4-5 just to start commenting and yes I will read it and re-read it until I think I understand all of it, that I am looking down on anyone having difficulty getting it. I for one like all the discussion and questions it is helping me greatly. I challenged the notion that anyone who DOESN'T understand it is an ignorant moron. No one is saying anything remotely close to that IMO, especially me. Systems theory is NOT scientific terminology, I don't think I know enough to even respond meaningfully to this statement. Don't all sciences have their theories and don't those theories use scientific terminology? I am not really sure what you are getting at here. and I repeatedly said that it is your writing style that is cumbersome, not the systems terminology. As I noted above there is a level of agreement about this, but those of us who like the book and agree with its premise are willing to stretch our minds a bit to fully understand the points. Everyone's writing could be better, mine surely could be better. I think some of the later books Rob is working on will break all of this down in great detail, but that was not the purpose of this book. I don't have a problem with that. You do not listen to anything except glowing praise. I think you'll find it scarce outside the little bubble of this community. I do not find the first statement to be true, Rob has listened to criticism and has responded to it in a positive manner. He has proposed an additional document thats purpose is to make the ideas more accessible to a wider audience. Perhaps we should wait for it and give him a chance. Yes we are a little community, but I see a lot of posts that are far from "glowing praise". Please start you own thread and I am not in anyway banning your viewpoint. Just don't make it personal is what I ask. Besides which, I don't even think it is doing Rob any favors for the dissenting viewpoints not to be posted, but in their own thread might be better for the forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 10, 2017 19:59:10 GMT -5
...Playing at the World offers a very different account of the creation of Blackmoor... Is there anything specific in PATW which conflicts with Kuntz's book? I think it would be a good topic of conversation. Yes, I wish that thread would get started by people who have read both. Perhaps Jon will be back after he has read the book. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 10, 2017 20:02:06 GMT -5
This is really a question about how history should be written. I feel that when a work like Dave Arneson's True Genius comes along and wants to make unique claims about history, it is incumbent on that work to deal with contradictory claims from prior works. Playing at the World offers a very different account of the creation of Blackmoor, and is one of the histories that deals in some detail with the derivation question. Because you choose not to deal with PatW, the arguments in DATG are not convincing. Well, I dealt with the claims in the third essay by taking to the scientific level which debunks all outstanding historical claims of note. In leading up to that I presented the history which is no where apparent to my knowledge about the shift in the concept and noted the difference between open and closed systems, as well. Something no one has done to date. I defined the architecture and the system qualities of D&D. Not done to date. I did not need to define myself by something that has been done, I am defining the history by what has not been done. If you find new information that cannot be related to anything other than new history or relevant science that has not been engaged to date to describe a transcendent system and track its qualities and ranges as unconvincing, well, I can''t help you there. This is a designers and systems view with some history to frame it in its proper contexts. So far the reviews have been very good for those who see the difference, but I expected that there would be a wide range of objections, can't help that. I would note here that the purpose and focus of the two books are completely different, as well, both Jon and Rob continue to research things as new or perhaps previously undiscovered information becomes available. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 10, 2017 20:02:44 GMT -5
We have basically 3 classes: the traditional fighting man, several varieties of Spell Users, & a skill based archetype. That has been the way that it is for the last 40 years. Sure we mix them up, reclassify them and what not, but they are essentially the same thing regardless of what we want to call them. Why have we not been able to add more? The Thief is the most modern, but even it came out shortly after OD&D, since that, nothing. Even Races as we know them are derivatives of the 3 basic classes. If we compare them to the color wheel, do you feel that they are R, B, & Y, or do you suspect that there are more, we just haven't discovered them yet? I believe I need an shot of what you're drinking... Perhaps we could all us a shot of that!  |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 10, 2017 20:29:33 GMT -5
Is there anything specific in PATW which conflicts with Kuntz's book? I think it would be a good topic of conversation. Yes, I wish that thread would get started by people who have read both. Perhaps Jon will be back after he has read the book. Jon PMed me that he'd e-mail with questions or clarifications about DATG and noted that his work is certainly open to critique. And so is mine. My claim however is in direct opposition to established claims which have stood as provisional history. Now mine stands as provisional science. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 10, 2017 21:40:54 GMT -5
Everyone is shooting their drinks? What's going on here? (returning to my Zevia)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 10, 2017 22:25:48 GMT -5
Everyone is shooting their drinks? What's going on here? (returning to my Zevia) Better by far than drinking their shoots, don't want to get too much green in your diet, you might turn into a plant. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 10, 2017 22:28:58 GMT -5
Playing at the World skimmed over the time which took place between Arneson taking up Braunstien and moving on to Blackmoor, Rob fills in these gaps. I personally don't see how these really conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 11, 2017 2:21:39 GMT -5
I'd like to point out that Paul Stormberg was the first one to read the book and he decided on his own to write a review of it. Of the reviews/ratings at Goodreads I do not know two of the 4 people who gave it a five star rating and I know 1 of the two people who gave it a 1 star rating. The SoBM review was mixed and for political reasons as was explained to me in a post-review e-mail by the source.
I do know that I am being endlessly attacked OR praised for the books's matter. I have received Google+ praise or the opposite in equal amounts.
It appears to me, thus, that the opinions are splitting not according to style but according to proclivity, that is, right along the lines that they split into the Arneson and Gygax camps and that remain intact to date.
This is unfortunate as I have seen dismissive attitudes in the face of facts and that are attempting to obscure new and deciding information by attacking the messenger rather than honestly confronting the message. You just don't get a group with 5's on one side and 1's with a dismissive attitude on the other due to style. The book's matter, in my view, has become politicized and for the reasons I stated.
Another fallout from not being able to rise to the occasion and put away bias for truthful appraisal will be that the scientific community I am currently in touch with will be able to verify my research, leaving the very RPG community beholden to an outside source to confirm what Arneson accomplished. This, in my view, would not be necessary as a part of this hobby's long term history if bias and politics were instead set aside. i sense that the latter will not happen (except perhaps in Europe where this bias is not as widespread) given the earliest reactions by many that they will not even read the book and/or otherwise continue to attack anything but its central matter. That only leaves me with seeking the scientific community for the final verdict.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on May 11, 2017 3:28:10 GMT -5
This is really a question about how history should be written. I feel that when a work like Dave Arneson's True Genius comes along and wants to make unique claims about history, it is incumbent on that work to deal with contradictory claims from prior works. Playing at the World offers a very different account of the creation of Blackmoor, and is one of the histories that deals in some detail with the derivation question. Because you choose not to deal with PatW, the arguments in DATG are not convincing. Well, I dealt with the claims in the third essay by taking to the scientific level which debunks all outstanding historical claims of note. In leading up to that I presented the history which is no where apparent to my knowledge about the shift in the concept and noted the difference between open and closed systems, as well. Something no one has done to date. I defined the architecture and the system qualities of D&D. Not done to date. I did not need to define myself by something that has been done, I am defining the history by what has not been done. If you find new information that cannot be related to anything other than new history or relevant science that has not been engaged to date to describe a transcendent system and track its qualities and ranges as unconvincing, well, I can''t help you there. This is a designers and systems view with some history to frame it in its proper contexts. So far the reviews have been very good for those who see the difference, but I expected that there would be a wide range of objections, can't help that. The third essay is only a few pages long, and its centerpiece consists of a list of bare assertions with no discussion, evidence, or context provided. Writing the words "NO/NO" after a bullet list of sentences, whose full elaboration is left for a future work, is not debunking any other history. It's just asserting your opinion about that history, in a very oblique way. I think your lengthy exchange here with Jon has shown, clearly, that there is a great deal that could be further discussed about two issues: one, which of your list of changes were actually inherent in the creation of Blackmoor; and two, whether those changes were innovations or substantially prefigured in earlier games. I don't think any of it is nearly as cut and dried as you present it in Dave Arneson's True Genius. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 11, 2017 4:06:50 GMT -5
The third essay is in fact 6 pages long, which is "many" not "a few pages". It has in depth commentary as well as cross comparison evaluations (some are marked NO/NO but others have extended commentary where necessary, so your summarizing the entire list in that way is misleading), such as paragraphs regarding accounting for Arneson's Conceptual Component (the integral part of the architecture) sub-section and which occurs prior to the summary.
I am concerned due to my research of what is missing in everyone else's evaluations that are actually extant in mine; and that forms the basis for refutation of existing provisional history. In its place I present a breakdown of the architecture for the RPG engine and explain its qualities which 1) Exposes a history that was not extant and thus a previous lack of understanding of what it is that Arneson created; and 2) Guarantees that Arneson's contributions are attributable to him alone.
Scientific facts using methodology consistent with design and systems analysis are not opinions as they must bear up under the scrutiny of the methodology used and as confirmed by those competent to do so. They stand as provisional assertions of fact by use of such methods until equal methodologies would dispute or deny them, so this is not "your opinion" "my opinion". It is whether I have used the methods properly to arrive at the facts that I am asserting. As noted, my book has been forwarded to the scientific community for just that purpose. I am confident of the various outcomes that will result from this. In between I continue seeking for any model that I have been searching for for 7 years that matches what Arneson created. No echoes as yet, and that has made me more confident that the scientific community will confirm my findings.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on May 11, 2017 7:47:02 GMT -5
The third essay is in fact 6 pages long, which is "many" not "a few pages". It has in depth commentary as well as cross comparison evaluations (some are marked NO/NO but others have extended commentary where necessary, so your summarizing the entire list in that way is misleading), such as paragraphs regarding accounting for Arneson's Conceptual Component (the integral part of the architecture) sub-section and which occurs prior to the summary. I am concerned due to my research of what is missing in everyone else's evaluations that are actually extant in mine; and that forms the basis for refutation of existing provisional history. In its place I present a breakdown of the architecture for the RPG engine and explain its qualities which 1) Exposes a history that was not extant and thus a previous lack of understanding of what it is that Arneson created; and 2) Guarantees that Arneson's contributions are attributable to him alone. Scientific facts using methodology consistent with design and systems analysis are not opinions as they must bear up under the scrutiny of the methodology used and as confirmed by those competent to do so. They stand as provisional assertions of fact by use of such methods until equal methodologies would dispute or deny them, so this is not "your opinion" "my opinion". It is whether I have used the methods properly to arrive at the facts that I am asserting. As noted, my book has been forwarded to the scientific community for just that purpose. I am confident of the various outcomes that will result from this. In between I continue seeking for any model that I have been searching for for 7 years that matches what Arneson created. No echoes as yet, and that has made me more confident that the scientific community will confirm my findings. That's not how any of this works. There is no science with such a burden of proof. A model is consistent or it isn't based on its own internal state, with no reference to "equal methodologies." In Dave Arneson's True Genius, you have not established the twenty-six or so design leaps that you claim for Arneson; you have only offered an outline and the promise of further elaboration. I honestly don't think there can be a full discussion until you publish A New Ethos in Game Design, which you have said will offer a complete explanation of each of these points. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 11, 2017 8:33:44 GMT -5
That is not true in the strictest sense, as one understands what ongoing systemization means and it can be further described as I have done so in this forum. It is merely a general reference to the processes and ranges of creating in real time, i.e., (ONGOING) something else precedes it + (SYSTEMIZATION) and that something is a system that extends itself (I do assume that we are conversant with English and definitions, of course, and that the reader has read the other essays which note this concept as well. That is why I saved the comparative analysis for the third essay). First order game form? (and referenced as well as a new form repeatedly in the book...) Explained as-is for one with even a passing interest in the history of games, etc.
There is certainly a burden of proof to assess that the model is what I state it is; and that can be proven through the methodologies and information I leverage. That is my tool for proving what it is, and thus the apparatus which can also be used to disprove my assertion of such a systems model if I have erred in any way in my procedures and application of the wielded knowledge bases. Of course the whole stands as provisional just like anything that is being checked for veracity sake. That I start and end with objective science is of prime import rather than asserting a piecemeal subjective stance, which is not the case as you continue to allude to.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 11, 2017 15:00:47 GMT -5
I will be culling these posts here for possible future use.
It's been fascinating noting the various reactions to the book and that includes the exploding heads that I have witnessed, some actually carrying on their arguments in the shadows but not caring enough to come forward out of them to face the light of actual discourse. It does say something about entrenched views that are hard to move for whatever reasons; and I can understand that as this will be my second run-in with entrenchment, the establishment. The first we did not ask for as TSR employees, it just happened mostly due to industry jealousy as I note in the book. The second seems similar to that resistance but has changed since 1974 in many ways. The people then were seemingly more accepting of things, it was not as divisive and the discourse was constant, unerring (and unforgiving at times). We had no use of the instant communication as we do now and that lent a certain resolve and determination, I believe, in between predominantly face to face communication to do less searching without and more researching within, of more intrinsic value being added as compared to extrinsic goals (that always seem to manifest from the former, anyway).
Arneson was a person of that era; and it wasn't until I published his Facts About Black Moor in Domesday Book #13 did we even know in Lake Geneva that he had been running a "Fantasy" game and that we were to intimately learn about many months later when we adventured into said Blackmoor as I have related elsewhere. These seemed like times with no prejudice, no position that could not be surmounted to, no goal too crazy, no thought too keen, a time lacking political correctness and defined solely by the merit of concepts alone. No one dared to be offended and everyone learned due to that.
After some of what I have heard here and elsewhere I must say that those times, along with Gronan and so many others like Dave Arneson, were a magical evolution. A continuous rite of passage with no complaint, only the next turn and then another, all of which we demanded as a challenge to ourselves. They are missed, and not so much for what they were, but for what today is not by comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 11, 2017 18:40:27 GMT -5
I'm kind of disappointed in people. I was hoping for a better debate, but the channels are flooded with sophomoric anti-marketing that just repeats the same message "Rob Kuntz is an over-educated dummy, blah blah blah." over and over again.
Your points are valid, I had noticed that my players think that they are playing AD&D, but I am not, and really haven't been for a long time. I'll use basic mechanics because they are convenient, Movement Rates and basic stuff, but the pacing is more important to me than THE OFFICIAL ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS RULE BOOK. I'll make up a mechanic real quick, apply it and move on.
I've also noticed that 1e AD&D is primarily focused on the Greyhawk setting, and 2e rules enforce Forgotten Realms. You can draw your own maps, make your own classes, but if you play by the book you are still playing Forgotten Realms. The only way to really play anything but Forgotten Realms, is to overhaul the system.
AD&D was introduced to create a standard for use during competitions at conventions, but somehow this suddenly became "THE GAME" and they claimed that everybody who says otherwise is wrong or a pirate. This happened! This is in the books. The new and improved D&D, now featuring less thinking! TSR had this incredible talent for making people forget things and believing things that aren't true.
You made the case that the first person to claim credit for and highjack the engine was Gary Gygax. I enjoy reading Gary Gygax, the AD&D DMG is "FUN"! It is full of ideas, and years and years of entertainment can be found within, but that doesn't make what you are saying untrue. Instead of figuring out WHY they feel the way they do, they attack the messenger and never even consider the thought that their version of Uncle Gary isn't up there with Jesus Christ. Gygax was a man who had a talent for writing and loved inventing rules.
I think that the leap from Braunstein to Blackmoor is intellectually offensive to Arneson, and I applaud you for pointing this out. Arneson put himself into Blackmoor, he didn't just rename Braunstein and call it a day, there is much more to this story than that. I also think that the same can be said for Gygax. Gygax's work is incredible, but what pisses me off is that he blatantly hid where Arneson's work stops and his begins, and then destroyed all of the evidence. Now we'll probably never know the true genius of either man because of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by xizallian on May 11, 2017 21:19:37 GMT -5
You make some very good points ripx187 , when people make the attack personal they have lost the argument. All the Arneson haters have proved for years that they are just jealous. They don't honestly believe that Arneson had nothing to do with it. If it was an honest belief there would be no reason for the hate and vindictiveness, they would just ignore him and no drama would ensue. The fact that so many people whose lives are built around and consumed with hate for Arneson and blind worship of Gygax is sad and pathetic. One of the worst of these people declared the other day that, "AD&D (i.e. the real game) in favor of OD&D (i.e. the rough draft beta-test version) or, even worse, B/X D&D (the watered-down version for kids." What an ignorant and hate filled thing to say, why anyone takes this person seriously as the self-proclaimed expert and gatekeeper of what old school is, is beyond me. Like I said, sad and pathetic. Get over it already. Let each of us play what we like, promote what we like and eliminate the drama, the angst and the denial, and get back to having fun and talking about what we like without dogging what someone else likes. robkuntz book is IMO from everything I have read so far, here and other places, is a breath of fresh air into a stagnant air pocket. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 11, 2017 21:32:55 GMT -5
Great post xizallian! That is a lot of why I am here instead of other places, too much hate other places. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 11, 2017 22:35:49 GMT -5
Anton Ego, Ratatouille (2007)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 11, 2017 22:43:19 GMT -5
Anton Ego, Ratatouille (2007) It is odd, in a way, that throughout the history of animation, (which has been used primarily, but not exclusively, for the entertainment of children) that so many profound truths make it into the scripts. You can learn a lot about life, watching "Cartoons". Some of the most poignant moments in film have been in "Cartoons." Cedgewick, have an Exalt for sharing that! |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 11, 2017 23:14:01 GMT -5
Two words: Bambi's mother.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 12, 2017 9:23:46 GMT -5
From a blog post about a year ago...
A New Ethos in Game Design: The Paradigm Shift Originated by Dungeons & Dragons, 1972-1977
©2017. Rob Kuntz
As many people and communities throughout the Internet are aware I have been steadily adding chapters to a book that I undertook researching and writing 8 years ago, actually now almost 9 years, in fact. It is now approaching 200,000 words and with 20 diagrams; and my projection for its release has been amended several times due to moves (first to Wichita, then to France), the releasing of my DVD Collection (a long project started in Illinois, continued in Wichita and finished in France), and to my marriage to my wife Nathalie Hachet-Kuntz. Though slowed in bringing the book to immediate release due to all of these life-changing and, ultimately, happy life circumstances indeed, I am now on track to finishing it.
This book is a culmination of over 42+ years of being actively exposed to game design and game theory and in combining this with my research to achieve a goal: To discover the true essence of the RPG concept and, moreover, to describe it in scientific terms to allow for its continued expansion in many ways. The book intersects many disciplines, such as game design, game theory, play theory, cognitive science and systems thinking, to name a few. In my estimation I believe that I have achieved my goal; and I am in the process of fleshing out the details of it as gathered through reading and referencing 50+ major texts, over 200 related articles and from my copious notes, a copy of the latter which is being held for me by my close friend and associate, Allan Grohe. I have also had in-depth discussions and readings by me of the ms with Allan Grohe and Jon Hershberger (Black Blade Publishing), Paul Stormberg (the Collectors Trove) and of course my wife Nathalie. I have also extensively sampled its parts for all of the above named and my wife retains a full back-up and is one of the editors assigned to the project.
In essence, this is my grand opus, so to speak. It is not only a culmination but a beginning, just as Arneson's concept was for game history and for the theories he espoused.
My current book (the manuscript is finished and we are about 2 months out, if not sooner, from releasing it) is entitled Dave Arneson's True Genius; and it is not only a send-up to Dave Arneson but is an in-depth study of what Arneson gifted to us: his genius. It is also a shot across the bow for A New Ethos in Game Design, the former being a solid prelude of it that will include samples from this much larger companion work.
With all good news comes a rumor which I am tracking for its origin and that a text similar to mine in kind is now being prepared, this after I recently went public and put myself on the radar at several forums in stating my purpose.
Though just a rumor at present I cannot but now feel delighted, if it has any basis in fact, that someone might join the scientific fray by way of attempting to ride my coat-tails whereas no such wind was in the air prior to my recent announcements. Rumors are what they are, and I also claim no right of way to be the only one to pursue such a course as I have partially described herein; and since science is science and historically it seems that the advantage therein not only lies with the true thinker but sometimes with the hasty doer who would forward a cause based upon ego and denial rather than truth and the patience of a scholar who reads first and then decides upon matters worthy or not of the pen.
Whether folks in this hobby care to notice or even to admit this behavior--and as paraded in the past as fact and not as rumor as in this case--it is pretty entrenched in RPG's history. It derives explicitly from the split between Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, the resultant obfuscation of facts due to out of court settlements, and the continued marginalization of Arneson's real contributions due to that. This attitude has desisted in large part to a norm which is now promoted less virulently but more remotely. "Historians" who do not quote living persons associated with that era have come forward to paper over the past with the "truth". They have their own interpretations based upon non-primary sources, which are the actual people themselves who are excluded from such "scholarship."
My research is based upon my information from not only historical texts but from my own 42+ years of involvement starting at the pre-dawn of this industry/hobby, as someone who has witnessed the great majority of primary shifts that caused its rise; and by participating with those primary and secondary people--living history--who were there. I have taken the high road of real scholarship in stating facts as I know them to be and have left interpretation aside which has no place in science or history as even provisional truth. Therefore it is of interest in all the many books that have come forth as of recent regarding D&D's and TSR's past that very few primary people from that time period have been asked to participate in their formation, and apparently fewer still are solicited if they do not fit onto a certain narrowly defined output so apparent from these books.
One might ask the whys about this--and many have. To my knowledge there have been countless redirections to myself--and endless other redirections to primary people associated with that history--by secondary people who were being asked primary questions. Of those redirections I can only speak for myself directly: nothing came from them. The secondary source's recommendations to enquire of the primary source, myself in this case, were ignored. In three cases to date my name occurs in the same number of printed works and in many instances. In every case I have not been asked a single question regarding contextual use or to verify such uses as fact. In one case I was not even aware that the book was just about to be released in two weeks time. I can only assume that this form of exclusionary approach holds true for other living persons from that time period who are referenced within these works.
Expediency has no place in scholarship no matter the subject. This sort of careless approach can speak to many outcomes but never to truthful reporting.
There is no doubt that the end-use reader has the final verdict with all such matter, and as often compared to similar works--but that they should be from the very onset given a clear picture based upon equally researched views that are verifiable and attributable and not in the least bit "interpretable" is what defines properly executed research. Minus this we are left with a hodge-podge of interpretations which become voided as opinions.
You have my guarantee that my own works have not, nor will not, proceed along such a marginal course as I have described above. The LGTSA (Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Association) cut their teeth on intensive research time and again and within overlapping and multiple subject areas. It was part and parcel of my own existence as its membered president--now 47 years removed but not forgotten.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 12, 2017 13:08:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 12, 2017 17:16:48 GMT -5
Arneson is surely deserving of being classed in this manner as he bucked 2,000 years of design thinking! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 23:34:55 GMT -5
" It used to be supposed that one of the functions of a critic was to help authors to write better. His praise and censure were supposed to show them where and how they had succeeded or failed, so that next time, having profited by the diagnosis, they might cure their faults and increase their virtues. "
C.S. Lewis, "On Criticism"
I hate the term "constructive criticism." If it's not constructive, it's not criticism; it's just bitching.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 13, 2017 2:23:55 GMT -5
" It used to be supposed that one of the functions of a critic was to help authors to write better. His praise and censure were supposed to show them where and how they had succeeded or failed, so that next time, having profited by the diagnosis, they might cure their faults and increase their virtues. " C.S. Lewis, "On Criticism" I hate the term "constructive criticism." If it's not constructive, it's not criticism; it's just bitching. The word "better" is also very subjective. Critics who have no inkling of science who say that scientific theories or notions could be written better are pretty stupid. Further, the idea that anyone, now, can write a review on GoodReads is a novel concept to some, but at least they might follow from what the book's back-matter and type note that it is. In DATG case it is: Design Philosophy, Systems Theory; RPG History. This is its classification. However, just because you can read doesn't make you a reviewer in this case, as is demonstrated by DATG's reviews where one states that the book doesn't seem to have a point. Really? There's so many points in it, like, 2,000 years of design history left behind; a system never before created, etc, that it is obvious that it's a biased review lacking substance. So, yes, there is a difference between a critique with knowledge and unbiased intent behind it, bitching, and in this illustration, outright misrepresentation. |
|
)
