|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 17, 2017 16:40:19 GMT -5
RPX187: "Once you told the DM how to climb walls, could all of your characters and all of the players at the game repeat this action? "
Is every wall the same? In fact I never noted the plural, we are dealing with one distinct wall. Some have slants of greater or lesser degrees, some are more rough hewn with protrusions, some silky smooth sandstone and vertical, etc. Generally speaking anything could be attempted (or mimicked as a repeatable base model), so the answer is really by way of rejigging the question. Yes, anyone could repeat actions depending on the inputs relative to the environment in question. Swimming for instance. Is it water vs. knowing how to negotiate it as in a test tube environment, or does it depend on other factors, like strength of current, etc.? The environments in our games were real and we described them. They were not cardboard cut-outs with superficial qualities alone. Details. They're important in a real world and so too were they in the Greyhawk that Gary and I DMed.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 17, 2017 16:41:42 GMT -5
One Discoverer, a Mr. Mormonyoyoman. Once a true seeker of facts, now about to find out that fact is but one step in his excursion in the Twilight Zone. ? Evidently Mr Rob is as much a follower of John Newland as of Mr Sterling? www.tv.com/shows/one-step-beyond/I have a DVD with a lot of OSB shows on it, but it's back in the States with all of my other DVDs. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 17, 2017 16:59:40 GMT -5
RPX187: "Once you told the DM how to climb walls, could all of your characters and all of the players at the game repeat this action? " Is every wall the same? In fact I never noted the plural, we are dealing with one distinct wall. Some have slants of greater or lesser degrees, some are more rough hewn with protrusions, some silky smooth sandstone and vertical, etc. Generally speaking anything could be attempted (or mimicked as a repeatable base model), so the answer is really by way of rejigging the question. Yes, anyone could repeat actions depending on the inputs relative to the environment in question. Swimming for instance. Is it water vs. knowing how to negotiate it as in a test tube environment, or does it depend on other factors, like strength of current, etc.? The environments in our games were real and we described them. They were not cardboard cut-outs with superficial qualities alone. Details. They're important in a real world and so too were they in the Greyhawk that Gary and I DMed. THAT IS TRUE! And, much better than what I am doing. We clung to the skill system, perhaps out of laziness. In some cases, I think that the players enjoy it, they use it more than I do. If they want to write that stuff down, fine, but they aren't restricted to it. It gives them ideas, but I don't want it to dominate the game. We can have a more open game when the players are more challenged than the characters. Unlearning something is difficult, we convince ourselves that we need this to play the game, and we really don't! Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 17, 2017 17:28:22 GMT -5
RPX187: "Once you told the DM how to climb walls, could all of your characters and all of the players at the game repeat this action? " Is every wall the same? In fact I never noted the plural, we are dealing with one distinct wall. Some have slants of greater or lesser degrees, some are more rough hewn with protrusions, some silky smooth sandstone and vertical, etc. Generally speaking anything could be attempted (or mimicked as a repeatable base model), so the answer is really by way of rejigging the question. Yes, anyone could repeat actions depending on the inputs relative to the environment in question. Swimming for instance. Is it water vs. knowing how to negotiate it as in a test tube environment, or does it depend on other factors, like strength of current, etc.? The environments in our games were real and we described them. They were not cardboard cut-outs with superficial qualities alone. Details. They're important in a real world and so too were they in the Greyhawk that Gary and I DMed. THAT IS TRUE! And, much better than what I am doing. We clung to the skill system, perhaps out of laziness. In some cases, I think that the players enjoy it, they use it more than I do. If they want to write that stuff down, fine, but they aren't restricted to it. It gives them ideas, but I don't want it to dominate the game. We can have a more open game when the players are more challenged than the characters. Unlearning something is difficult, we convince ourselves that we need this to play the game, and we really don't! Thanks! Cool. BTW: As one can note, this is part and parcel of Arneson's "ongoing systemization." As noted, no system was in place; it had to be deduced in real time. It's a simple input to output system that could vary somewhat depending on how complex you wanted to make it. We also used d% in this manner to get more compact or expanding statistical spreads. One of our functions as DMs, therefore, was to create on the fly probability system generators. Neat, huh? |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 17, 2017 18:13:14 GMT -5
I have another question about Arneson's game. Magic. Gygax introduced us to Vancian Magic, and it took over. I've seen people get irritated because fiction doesn't follow the AD&D method of spell work, which I always thought was silly, but hey. To each their own. I always felt that it was a jype to charge players to use Cantrip. To me, that just adds color and fun. Prior to Vancian Magic, how was magic handled?
EDIT: Actually, that question is too broad; all I really want to know is if Arneson's Magic system was open or closed. I don't think that I have ever read this anywhere, has it been discussed elsewhere?
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 18, 2017 0:36:08 GMT -5
I have another question about Arneson's game. Magic. Gygax introduced us to Vancian Magic, and it took over. I've seen people get irritated because fiction doesn't follow the AD&D method of spell work, which I always thought was silly, but hey. To each their own. I always felt that it was a jype to charge players to use Cantrip. To me, that just adds color and fun. Prior to Vancian Magic, how was magic handled? EDIT: Actually, that question is too broad; all I really want to know is if Arneson's Magic system was open or closed. I don't think that I have ever read this anywhere, has it been discussed elsewhere? Since he was building the rules as a continual, oftentimes reinterpreted, iteration, Arneson allowed many things to manifest if he could deduce a system for it. Many of these systems were preserved (see FFC). He was very fluid with his allowing new information to manifest, like magic, and as described by the players in the input to output phases. A later example of this can be seen in the way Gary handled creating new spells (in the DMG, researching). This example, btw, is hardly Vancian, as the Vancian system is predicated on a limited remaining source of spells being gathered by competing wizards from knowledge that has been long lost (thus the ability to create these spells, or similar manifestations, has ceased in Vancian magical history, at least as far as I understood the premise. Vancian magic was, in terms of design, a new interpretation by Gary, a final addition in the D&D history chain, as the D&D spell system was INITIALLY based on Chainmail, Arneson's additions to that and used as a guide ("wishes" etc.) and these two prior examples were not Vancian-based). If I can find the time I'll peruse FFC again, but I've been very busy here. Also note DH Boggs blog (I forgot the name of it) for possible other points i may have glossed. Finally, yes, it was open in many cases, but Arneson, like any designer, could have chosen to close down specifics due to many factors, just as he could have chosen to open them up. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 18, 2017 2:39:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 18, 2017 7:15:06 GMT -5
Excellent blog, I highly recommend it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on May 18, 2017 8:03:33 GMT -5
Do you remember Arneson ever playing a character in someone else's game? I recall hearing he played in Tekumel as a pirate, but I am unaware of him playing in any other games.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 18, 2017 8:11:13 GMT -5
Do you remember Arneson ever playing a character in someone else's game? I recall hearing he played in Tekumel as a pirate, but I am unaware of him playing in any other games. He played one session as a monk in a Greyhawk City adventure adjudicated by Gary. Gary told me about it the next day. It was pretty short involving Dave painting the wizard's tower in the city like a striped barber's pole and with a magical paint brush. Gary later misremembered that as being done by my brother's monk PC, The Monk With No Name, but it was actually Dave's monk (unnamed as well). |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 18, 2017 9:16:08 GMT -5
What was Dave like outside of the game? What was he like as a ref? Do you have any memories that you will share outside of your memoirs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on May 18, 2017 11:17:36 GMT -5
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt 1910
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 18, 2017 14:46:46 GMT -5
What was Dave like outside of the game? What was he like as a ref? Do you have any memories that you will share outside of your memoirs? Hi MD (that's what I am gonna need, a doctor, if I don't get back to work). I will post a snippet of something over the next 24 hours as I am in crunch mode right now. You are so understanding, sweet little Darci! Thanks! LOL! Seriously, "I'll Be BACH!" (or perhaps Vivaldi)... |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on May 18, 2017 17:23:45 GMT -5
What was he like as a ref? that's a big question. "Dave's first venture into the fantasy genre of gaming as he refrees the game of Romans vs Gauls, in which the Gaul Druid (Megarry) secretly was allowed to be armed with laser weapons." "To say that Dave was completely impartial with regards to the game was not to say that Dave was completely impartial with regards to players, often with hilarious results. Once, while the party was being attacked by some sort of flying machines over the swamps near the Temple, a player whinged a bit that, since he had been paralyzed, he had nothing to do while everyone else got to fight the machines, and how unfair that was. Dave regarded him quietly for a moment, then handed him a d6, and said "here, roll that every round." The player, confused, asked why. "That," Dave said, "is how much damage you take every round. That should keep you busy." I don't believe anyone else complained about anything for the rest of the session." "If you ever got a chance to sit in one of his convention games, he would pull out a pile of pregen characters - a hodgepodge of sheets from different editions and versions of editions. At one session, I received an 8th level D&D 3.0 Cleric, and the fellow next to me had what I am pretty sure was some sort of OD&D ranger. When one of the players, obviously confused, asked him what edition we were going to be playing, Dave grinned at him, held out his hand for a shake, and said "Hi, I'm Dave Arneson."" "elves with fire hoses that sprayed holy water" odd74.proboards.com/board/11/dave-arneson-blackmoor |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 18, 2017 22:24:03 GMT -5
What was Dave like outside of the game? What was he like as a ref? Do you have any memories that you will share outside of your memoirs? Hi MD (that's what I am gonna need, a doctor, if I don't get back to work). I will post a snippet of something over the next 24 hours as I am in crunch mode right now. You are so understanding, sweet little Darci! Thanks! LOL! Seriously, "I'll Be BACH!" (or perhaps Vivaldi)... Understanding, thank my parents!  Sweet & little, that was me at five, but I am not sure it is very apt now.  I'm glad you'll be BACH! I'm more in Scott Joplin and ragtime piano myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 18, 2017 22:27:01 GMT -5
that's a big question. "Dave's first venture into the fantasy genre of gaming as he refrees the game of Romans vs Gauls, in which the Gaul Druid (Megarry) secretly was allowed to be armed with laser weapons." "To say that Dave was completely impartial with regards to the game was not to say that Dave was completely impartial with regards to players, often with hilarious results. Once, while the party was being attacked by some sort of flying machines over the swamps near the Temple, a player whinged a bit that, since he had been paralyzed, he had nothing to do while everyone else got to fight the machines, and how unfair that was. Dave regarded him quietly for a moment, then handed him a d6, and said "here, roll that every round." The player, confused, asked why. "That," Dave said, "is how much damage you take every round. That should keep you busy." I don't believe anyone else complained about anything for the rest of the session." "If you ever got a chance to sit in one of his convention games, he would pull out a pile of pregen characters - a hodgepodge of sheets from different editions and versions of editions. At one session, I received an 8th level D&D 3.0 Cleric, and the fellow next to me had what I am pretty sure was some sort of OD&D ranger. When one of the players, obviously confused, asked him what edition we were going to be playing, Dave grinned at him, held out his hand for a shake, and said "Hi, I'm Dave Arneson."" "elves with fire hoses that sprayed holy water" odd74.proboards.com/board/11/dave-arneson-blackmoorSounds like no one was ever the same after they played in his game. what a great way to play.  |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 19, 2017 5:08:35 GMT -5
Dave also had a serious side that spooked players in the way he described things. This is noticed in some of his descriptions of Castle Blackmoor (FFC snippets thereof) like the ghosts of the past rulers still occupying their rooms in which had occurred something dreadful. But he could alternate to dark humor as is witnessed in campaign reports from CotT. He definitely showed both types of abilities in our adventure in 1972. I call his humor "disarming the opponent" in many cases. If one believes that his innate jocularity meant no player respect for his imagined environs then they would be DEATHLY mistaken.
But what would you expect from a guy who would walk into convention halls while noting miniature games in progress and exclaim, "Oh boy! Toys!"
Arneson was one of a kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 19, 2017 8:58:07 GMT -5
Thank you Rob. I've got a copy of FFC, I'll have to give it another read-through. At the time, a lot of it didn't make much sense, but after reading your book and getting a much better idea of design principals, I betcha that I can read it with fresh eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 19, 2017 9:17:02 GMT -5
Thank you Rob. I've got a copy of FFC, I'll have to give it another read-through. At the time, a lot of it didn't make much sense, but after reading your book and getting a much better idea of design principals, I betcha that I can read it with fresh eyes. If you read FFC as a note book of design ideas that are implemented in his game and that these ideas for ongoing systemization are continually updated, changed or added to, you have the understanding of what we do in our own games when similarly disposed. They are codifications of what he was then implementing and continuing to iterate. They make little sense to a person who would want to implement everything whole cloth as they could in D&D, because, to Arneson, everyone would be doing it all differently. His focus was on how he did it, and therein is exposed the gap between an initial state that is preserved by notation and in ones head and one that, for market reasons, is finally closed down to a final state for mass consumption. In that sense D&D is more portable, but it doesn't make Arneson's state less desirable from a DMs/Designer, less polished, nonpublished stance as the majority of us here still adhere to this day. In fact, it exposes the bone closer to the processes of design that one goes through to arrive at the published state. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 19, 2017 18:55:03 GMT -5
Mystery solved! This is a DM Journal, and I thought that it was a Setting. This makes a lot more sense to me now.
This is interesting; if I am reading this correctly, the initial game was more of a kingdom management game financed by a dungeon delve? I mean, you could do what you wanted, but this would be information missing from World Building Manuals. One can create a new world more efficiently through play than just drawing a map and the DM doing it all before play can begin.
The politics of Greyhawk were always interesting, I wasn't sure if it started as a Wargame or not, the elements are all there. 2nd Edition sold a setting called BIRTHRIGHT that was interesting, and it was a kingdom game, however, it was much harder to understand than this. I like this!
Lots to think about.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 19, 2017 19:03:48 GMT -5
Mystery solved! This is a DM Journal, and I thought that it was a Setting. This makes a lot more sense to me now. This is interesting; if I am reading this correctly, the initial game was more of a kingdom management game financed by a dungeon delve? I mean, you could do what you wanted, but this would be information missing from World Building Manuals. One can create a new world more efficiently through play than just drawing a map and the DM doing it all before play can begin. The politics of Greyhawk were always interesting, I wasn't sure if it started as a Wargame or not, the elements are all there. 2nd Edition sold a setting called BIRTHRIGHT that was interesting, and it was a kingdom game, however, it was much harder to understand than this. I like this! Lots to think about. More, it was a DM Journal containing the systems he used for building the game in real time, just like Gary and I did in our shared environs before he decided to close his down and rework the whole as the WoG Boxed set (which had 90% material NOT EXTANT in the shared environs we had run). |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 20, 2017 17:19:58 GMT -5
... jumping the sharp with spurs on. I think I am going to remember this one, quite quotable. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 21, 2017 17:17:50 GMT -5
If a chair never before existed and a prototype of one was conceived of and built by a person, who thereafter revealed it to another person who decided to change it slightly and market it, who is then more important in the history of the chair? The one who conceived of it and proved that it was a chair, or the one who changed it slightly and sold the chair? The second cannot sell something that does not exist. The first still can sell in (with some future thought, which is within the probability stream) given diligence as they created and own the prototype. So whereas the second might be considered important to the marketing of the chair, they cannot be paramount, as the first person may have eventually marketed it as well. But the second could not (and did not) have conceive of it as well. And therein lies the difference between the debate of the D&D chicken and egg (no pun intended).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 21, 2017 18:08:16 GMT -5
If a chair never before existed and a prototype of one was conceived of and built by a person, who thereafter revealed it to another person who decided to change it slightly and market it, who is then more important in the history of the chair? The one who conceived of it and proved that it was a chair, or the one who changed it slightly and sold the chair? The second cannot sell something that does not exist. The first still can sell in (with some future thought, which is within the probability stream) given diligence as they created and own the prototype. So whereas the second might be considered important to the marketing of the chair, they cannot be paramount, as the first person may have eventually marketed it as well. But the first could not (and did not) have conceive of it as well. And therein lies the difference between the debate of the D&D chicken and egg (no pun intended). I think that first was intended to be the second instead. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 21, 2017 19:14:40 GMT -5
If a chair never before existed and a prototype of one was conceived of and built by a person, who thereafter revealed it to another person who decided to change it slightly and market it, who is then more important in the history of the chair? The one who conceived of it and proved that it was a chair, or the one who changed it slightly and sold the chair? The second cannot sell something that does not exist. The first still can sell in (with some future thought, which is within the probability stream) given diligence as they created and own the prototype. So whereas the second might be considered important to the marketing of the chair, they cannot be paramount, as the first person may have eventually marketed it as well. But the first could not (and did not) have conceive of it as well. And therein lies the difference between the debate of the D&D chicken and egg (no pun intended). I think that first was intended to be the second instead. Right! I out-firsted my second. The point being, the probability of creating another RPG is WAAAYYYY a long shot compared to the probability of marketing one already in place and at some time in the future. Gary ended up in the right place at the right time, not Arneson, for Arneson could have created that time in the future market at any time. It would not have been D&D; and he would have had to had help in order to do it (which was forthcoming from those around him, i,e,. mostly Snider) but that's the way reversing the order goes for people who claim that Arneson was nothing without Gygax. Probability doesn't lie in this case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 11:27:34 GMT -5
What was Dave like outside of the game? What was he like as a ref? Do you have any memories that you will share outside of your memoirs? Dave Arneson was the kindest, sweetest, most gentle person I've ever met in my life. Until you sat down opposite him at the gaming table, at which point he'd rip out your heart, show it to you, and eat it, all the while laughing maniacally. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 12:19:23 GMT -5
Years ago, Dave was involved in the playtest of a SF boardgame. "Bug Eyed Monsters from Outer Space (They Want Our Women)", I believe.
I remember it involved monsters trying to steal human women. That much I do know.
Dave noticed that if they aliens killed a human female, they lost the game.
He also noticed that the only thing an alien could do to a human with a gun, was kill it.
SO...
He gave all the weapons to the women, had them form a skirmish line, and retreat in good order out of the town, protecting all the men behind the line as they retreated. The women had lousy combat abilities, but it didn't matter... killing any of them would cost the aliens the game.
The writers' eyes bugged out and they said "We never thought of that." Dave said, "It's the obvious strategy given the rules and the victory conditions."
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 23, 2017 13:03:34 GMT -5
Same with the Banana Republic Braunstein he took utter control of and elevated to before unseen levels, flummoxing everyone including Wesely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 22:14:35 GMT -5
Same with the Banana Republic Braunstein he took utter control of and elevated to before unseen levels, flummoxing everyone including Wesely. Glorious. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 24, 2017 5:17:36 GMT -5
Going back to the idea of emergence and systems organization of the book, people interested in such might want to acquaint themselves with some base concepts of wholeness and parts, a view that starts in Ancient Greece and has worked forward to current systems thinking, A good discussion of this occurs here: www.quora.com/What-does-the-phrase-The-whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts-meanThere is a comment there that refers to getting caught up in the nitty gritty details that may cloud our vision. That is what has happened, and is still happening, in the examination of Arneson's leap and which will never be grasped through such a linear applied dissection of the parts which make it up, as Arneson reorganized those parts into a new whole as I note in the book. From there the system qualities can be ascertained and then compared to preceding types to show or disprove relatedness, which I have also done. For the studious among us, have a fun read. |
|
Sweet & little, that was me at five, but I am not sure it is very apt now. 
I'm glad you'll be BACH! I'm more in Scott Joplin and ragtime piano myself.
