|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 24, 2017 6:40:36 GMT -5
This is of course is summarized in the 3rd essay:
"In summary Chainmail and Braunstein are influences but cannot be used “AS-IS” to produce even a fraction of D&D’s systems qualities.
Arneson’s unique system whole transcends its parts, influences included.42"
Which is in accord with what state in the first essay:
"But this is where Arneson’s “progress towards the goal” becomes more than just a historical milestone in design and in social impacts (the latter instances which I note hereafter by way of an appended list, below). For he not only used “given ones” (systems) to create a new expression, but he transcended these by merging open and closed systems them- selves. The emergent system he created from this utilized specific qualities from both system types that, in effect, cross-communicated with each other.5"
"Conversely these distinct system qualities, in isolation, cannot achieve what they do when combined within Arneson’s reorganized systems whole.6 This co-equal systems-interdependency characterizes a transcendent system model that defies singularly applied interpretations through either of the (open or closed) system types used in creating it. This has resulted in a new systems design philosophy and, as a consequence, a new systems language for describing it should have followed.7"
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 24, 2017 6:50:25 GMT -5
Now, when we take, "This co-equal systems-interdependency characterizes a transcendent system model that defies singularly applied interpretations through either of the (open or closed) system types used in creating it." then how, if it is thus positioned, will any singular study, to date, achieve the results of positively identifying where Arneson's leap is linearly derived from (backward causality)? It cannot. Why? Because there is no existing model to compare it to for that determination as Arneson created a new model.
This is what I derived from 9 years of research. Since it is new it cannot be tracked for origin (or defined other than as generally separated views) with the past knowledge bases consonant with either closed game theory systems or open play theory systems. These two have in fact merged to create a super system that never before existed. Thus the only route to describe it is through going to the raw systems level and by generally comparing relatedness to other preceding types to define what Arneson's new system is not, which then defines the new qualities that have emerged due to this new systems alignment.
Thus the parts (the isolated information that everyone studying D&D seems to be intent upon) do not matter for their historical beginnings, as Arneson took these and made a new whole beginning from them.
|
|
|
|
Post by dragondaddy on Feb 26, 2018 0:41:25 GMT -5
increment is the guy who's been trying to make his way out the door for the last two hours of this party. It's Hotel California's one-way, revolving door...  PD had it installed last week to up the page views and PMs. I just found this thread, I'll have a few comments to share on account Dave said to me, which was; "One day, these guys are going to be talking about who really invented D&D, so I'm going to share some things with you today, so you can tell them, ...when they are talking and arguing about it."Now this conversation happened during an unplanned Interview in 2004. I had went to Origins to meet Gary Gygax, but instead met Dave Arneson. Gary had been laid low by a heart attack or stroke or something, and wasn't really out and about that year, doing shows. Dave had gotten together with Dustin Clingman and Joe Goodman and re-released Blackmoor as a d20 campaign setting, and of course had showed up at Origins for the pre-release party. On that day we spent two hours together, ...just me and him, and I wish I had tape recorded that entire conversation. It was a good conversation, a couple of old school gamers reminiscing about the golden days of yore. Some of this unplanned Interview is on a G+ post that I put up a couple of years back for Dave Arneson Game Day. I really need to get it all together in one place. Until then though, an exalt for Rob, ...because, Yeeeeaaaas!!!, Hotel Californiiiiaaa! |
|
|
|
Post by dragondaddy on Feb 26, 2018 2:34:54 GMT -5
Okay, I have only made it through this thread to about May 5th of last year, however will add a few things here now, before I retire for the evening. More later After I read through the remainder of this thread...
Chainmail May have been where Dave started with his Blackmoor Campaign, However, I can confirm firsthand that he tossed the combat rules from Chainmail early on, and that he had also been experimenting with a percentile based combat system very similar to what we know today as Runequest (this is from my unplanned 2004 Interview with him). Dave also dispensed with the D6's used in Chainmail, and made his version of Blackmoor, and D&D using Polyhydral Dice. That was according what he told me, 100% his idea.
The White Box set did not come with Polyhydral Dice. One had to buy the dice separately, which were being sold at Mile High Comics, my local gaming store in 1977. Holmes D&D Bluebox Boxed set did come with polyhedrals, ...this, ...the price, ...and because I could also afford the Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets, ...was the reason I bought these as my first D&D buys in February of 1977. By early summer I had a Whitebox set (had to mow a few lawns for cash!!!).
Another proof D&D was an open system: Many wargamers hated it, because the DM had a license, written into the rules, to change the game any way they liked, at any time they liked. Do as you would like it to be, and make it so.
"What do you mean the Ref can change the rules if he likes???!!! That's Outrageous!!!!" Most of the Refs I know, ...Or Dms, did their best to fix the rules, or to make just rulings when players had disputes, just like a wargaming tournament judge would adjudicate the tournament results. Only the DM was the Judge.
I'm not sure that just 10% of the Dms these days create their own campaigns. None of the 5e Group of Millennials that I'm playing with now plays in a published campaign setting, though one did host a two-session pre-published adventure... This is because i showed them it's both Ok, and desirable to create their own game worlds, ...and why that is so. Almost everyone that I know that is a DM/GM, and many people who are not (including players) work on, or create their own fantasy worlds. Rob Conley's figure of 1/4 homebrew campaigns and 1/2 Hybrid (A mix of homebrew and published campaign setting) seems accurate to me based on local observation of GM's and at Conventions. I'd have to look, but I think at conventions about half the events are organized play, and the other half, something a GM cooked up and wants to try to run at the game show. I'll look at my data on this and revisit this a bit later.
I will say there is a huge market to publish your own gaming modules or supplements, better and larger than anything we have previously seen. To give you just some idea of the size of that market, Geek & Sundry a Youtube video channel, is getting an average of five hundred thousand views per video episode for it's 5e D&D videos and tutorials, with some episodes garnering almost 2,000,000 unique views. WOTC set new sales records in 2017 for RPG sales. This year, Matt Coleville raised about $1.8 Million dollars on a Kickstarter fundraiser so far (Right now, he still has two weeks to go!) for a 5e stronghold supplement/hardback book. That's what Blackmoor for 5e is worth, ...for just one GM....
On Why Chainmail wasn't influential like D&D.
1) In 1977 I never saw it in my local gaming store.
2) When I finally did get a copy in 2001, I was like "This is a 2d6 wargame... too lame!". I sold my copy of Chainmail in 2008, because I wasn't using it for anything, not even as a reference.
This is for Jon Peterson and Rob Conley, as well as Aldarron (Daniel, ...we had been discussing this a few days ago...). Gary did change the subsystems in 0D&D to his liking. Dave told me in 2004 that he had a final draft manuscript for D&D that was submitted to TSR for changes to the White Bookset. This was not included in the white bookset because Gary had not been clear about the publishing deadline date, and hastily rushed D&D to the market publishing it in 1974. That was the very beginnings of the "Bad Blood" between Gary/TSR and Dave over D&D that culminated with the publication of AD&D (An entirely new game) in 1977 to deliberately cut Dave out of the "Royalties" chain, and the first lawsuit between in 1979.
Also, this to some extent is an answer to Rob Conley about why D&D doesn't incorporate systems Dave used in Blackmoor...
I asked Dave if he had a copy of that final D&D draft manuscript that I could look at (The final submission which had included even more percentile based tables, and a percentiles based combat system), and he said no, that Gary/TSR had never returned the original manuscript even though nothing in it was used, and that he did not know what became of it. (He was still unhappy about that too, even in 2004!). In them days manuscripts were painstakingly typed using a typewriter, and most small businesses could not afford copy machines. Dave said he thought his final manuscript had been pitched into file thirteen.
I'd have to disagree with Jon Peterson, Arneson's campaign did not move towards tactical wargames, and wargames were not the focus of the Blackmoor campaigns after 1973 or so, as evidenced by the publication of the First Fantasy Campaign in 1977 where Dave describes his Blackmoor Kingdom and Noble House Management system (which includes war, but has a ginormous amount of economic, and magical subsystems, as well as opportunities for nobles to go "adventuring"), as well as the publication of D&D in 1974.
Jon also asked "Where in D&D is it stated as law, in any way different from Chainmail?"
Not only does D&D give you permission to improvise, there are example in the book! This includes the sample dungeon, and playthrough in the back.
The detailed leveling process is another example of where Chainmail is vague, Character Classes (For players) have a definite arc, or path, and character progression is much better defined, with more gameplay rewards for the players with D&D. Almost every GM I knew wrote up one or more unique character classes to include in the game, I have three I still use on a regular basis, Elemental Wizards, Amazon Warriors, and Amazon Priestesses.
That's it for now... More after some rest, ...it's 2:30 AM Wowza!!!
P.S. I really like the book Dave Arneson's True Genius, Thank You!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 7:54:39 GMT -5
will add a few things here now, before I retire for the evening. More later More, please! Interesting post. |
|
|
|
Post by dragondaddy on Feb 26, 2018 11:27:04 GMT -5
Wow! This thread was almost as enlightening as DATG!
D&D broke with Tolkien Fantasy in that Wizard's were not nearly as powerful as the Istari like Gandalf, however in the early days many of my players were inspired to play a Wizard similar to Gandalf, so one of my early house rules was that Wizards (As well as Clerics) could use any kind of weapon that they really wanted to. Still run games that way, though their is still a spellcasting penalty for wizards that insist on wearing heavy, or metallic armor, into battles.
In my campaigns I also very quickly broke with using just the monsters as listed in the Monsters & Treasures book. For example, you might rightly encounter Orcs with more than one, two, or even three hit dice. My Uruk-Hai were 2D standard who were led by 4 HD Lieutenants, or 6 HD Captains, and I included Orc Shaman's as well that could cast spells,... both Magic and Cleric spells. I remember laughing out load in the theater when I first watched Peter Jackson's " The Fellowship of the Ring" with the Uruk-Hai in the scene where Boromir died. Yes the Fellowship killed a lot of Orcs and Uruk Hai, but the Orc Captain Killed Boromir, and I'm pretty sure Aragon was down to like just two or three hp after he finally finished off the Orc Captain that had slayed Boromir. I remember thinking this is exactly like how I like to run Orcs in my D&D game, and I'm pretty sure this is how J.R.R. Tolkien envisioned his Orcs as well.
Lord of the Rings - Boromir and Aragorn vs. the Uruk Hai
For Cedgewick;
Gary was successful with collaborations after his initial success with D&D. He was so successful with the Mythus/Dangerous Journeys RPG that TSR shut him down. He was also successful with the Troll Lords and published an excellent series of GM's Guides ...Worldbuilder, etc. He also managed to publish yet another RPG, ...Lejendary Adventures, and even more d20 Gaxmoor supplements for Oerth like Castle Zagyg, however was cut short in these endeavor, by his untimely death. When I saw him in 2006 and 2007 he was in really good spirits, because he realized the sheer number of gamers that were still supporting him.
What made D&D different from earlier incarnations like Chainmail and Braunstein was, not only could players control troops and armies like a wargamer, in addition players played one (or more) specific characters as well who could personally influence the course of a game. There was no predetermined scenarios (D&D was not a simulation or model, like most wargames), D&D was an open-ended adventure much like a fantasy movie or book, however without a predefined middle, or end (So this new game wasn't a story, novel, or narrative either).
A note for Stormcrow on the whole -- "They cut D&D, so the thing that people have been playing, the thing that everyone loves to play, ...is not the thing that Arneson invented."
Is absolutely false! About the time you guys were all originally writing this thread early last year, I had a brand new gaming group composed almost entirely of Millennials and Teenagers coalesce around me. They want to play creatively, making their own worlds and their own rules as they go along. I for one, have always preferred Original D&D, and not 1e AD&D or any other version. With Original D&D we had to design what to run, Not so with 1e AD&D. It was consumer oriented, not producer oriented. When I spoke earlier in another thread about being at Ghengis Con II in 1980 and the convention events coordinator specifically prohibiting me from running my D&D games, it was becuase they (The RPGA) wanted me to run the A Series adventures, you know ... what became A1, Slave Pits of the Undercity Secrets of the Slavers Stockade, The Aerie of the Slave Lords. I remember also laughing at the RPG coordinator and saying something to the effect of; "you are not a guildmaster, I'm not beholden to you to run any of these adventures!". I never have, ...even up to this day run anything published by TSR, but the B-series and avoided AD&D modules like the plague, becuase of the intimidation tactics used by the Ghenghis Con RPG events Coordinator (Who also, coincidentally happened to be the RPGA Director in Denver). The 5e Gamers in my group custom design their own adventures and game worlds and are not using published material, except as a supplement to their creations (like for example, the additional character classes in Xanathar's Guides... I'm playing a Cavalier in one of the 5e games they are running).
For Rob -- a short 48-60 page supplement on New Models of RPGs would be a most welcome addition to my gaming library!
For Stormcrow -- I don't look down on someone who "Doesn't Get" DATG. I just think TSR took the short term view and missed a really super opportunity as up until as late as 1980 all of the marketing and growth of D&D was organic. TSR lost a lot of fans in what I call the "Kin Slaying" because what transpired was eerily similar to the Elven civil war that began between the Noldar and the Sindar in the Silmarillion. The entire gaming community divided, and that was mostly an involuntary reflex to the aggressions of Feanor and his Noldar kinfolk (Cough... TSR and the RPGA). If the entire D&D gaming community had somehow remained intact, it would be way bigger than it is now. As it was, only two or three of the ten of us in our original gaming group were still playing D&D by 1982, and I was the only one running 0D&D games.
For the Red Baron -- Dave confirmed for me in 2004 that both him and Gary also played in Bob Bledsaw's Wilderlands campaign at Judges Guild. I have some specific stories that he shared with me about this, that I re-shared over on the Acaeum forums in the Judges Guild sub-forums there. Dave actually asked Bob to do up the First Fantasy Campaign Judges & Players Maps of Blackmoor after seeing and playing in the Judges Guild Wilderlands Campaign.
Some of the other reasons D&D was better than wargames like Chainmail, is, with a wargame you have one winner, and one loser, or one winning team and one losing team ...always! With RPGs like D&D players can all work together as a team! They can all survive and win! This is just another thing that sets RPGs apart from war games. Always 50% (or so) of the people playing wargames are destined to lose.
Yes, some elements of Chainmail and Braunstein are included in D&D, so there is definitely some history and a bit of influence, but the biggest influence with RPGs is the ad hoc player interactions, and the spontaneous judges/player interactions. They are richer and far more rewarding than any war game, or simulation, or any games that had previously existed, even ones with a Judge or Referee, because the Judge or referees are tied to those rules of those games. Not so with D&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 28, 2018 1:10:09 GMT -5
A note for Stormcrow on the whole -- "They cut D&D, so the thing that people have been playing, the thing that everyone loves to play, ...is not the thing that Arneson invented."
Is absolutely false! About the time you guys were all originally writing this thread early last year, I had a brand new gaming group composed almost entirely of Millennials and Teenagers coalesce around me. They want to play creatively, making their own worlds and their own rules as they go along. I for one, have always preferred Original D&D, and not 1e AD&D or any other version. With Original D&D we had to design what to run, Not so with 1e AD&D. It was consumer oriented, not producer oriented. When I spoke earlier in another thread about being at Ghengis Con II in 1980 and the convention events coordinator specifically prohibiting me from running my D&D games, it was becuase they (The RPGA) wanted me to run the A Series adventures, you know ... what became A1, Slave Pits of the Undercity Secrets of the Slavers Stockade, The Aerie of the Slave Lords. I remember also laughing at the RPG coordinator and saying something to the effect of; "you are not a guildmaster, I'm not beholden to you to run any of these adventures!". I never have, ...even up to this day run anything published by TSR, but the B-series and avoided AD&D modules like the plague, becuase of the intimidation tactics used by the Ghenghis Con RPG events Coordinator (Who also, coincidentally happened to be the RPGA Director in Denver). The 5e Gamers in my group custom design their own adventures and game worlds and are not using published material, except as a supplement to their creations (like for example, the additional character classes in Xanathar's Guides... I'm playing a Cavalier in one of the 5e games they are running). Hi dragondaddy, great to have you back and I love your contributions. FYI, Stormcrow is no longer a member. But your point is quite valid. I have spoken a number of times about the issue you note above and there are those who claim to be the ONE TRUE GROUP OF GROGNARDS, who claim it is impossible to play like Arneson always did, Kuntz always has and Gygax originally did because none of us are smart enough, none of us have that much time and none of us have that many dedicated players, to which I replied that you have a lot lower opinion of D&D players than I do, because I believe that anyone who has enough imagination to play and the desire to ref can do exactly what Arneson did with your own MIY campaign. Of course you won't be Arneson, you'll be you and that is enough. They also claimed that my saying that you could play like Arneson or Gygax is my trying to invalidate everything they've done for the last 40 years. IMO if someone thinks my telling the truth invalidates everything they've done, that is on them and not my problem. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Feb 28, 2018 1:48:32 GMT -5
If playing like Arneson did, required age, experience, and wisdom - my three grandmonkeys of ages 7, 5, and 4 - as well as our oldest daughter waaay back in 1978 at age 3.5 - could not have played so well. They only wanted to know what species and traits they could be, and immediately took to the concept of "anything can be tried."
But why not? That's the way the grandson normally played outside. As for the granddaughters and our oldest daughter - really, hasn't anyone noticed that girls have been rolegaming with Barbies for almost 70 years?
So the kids didn't know, didn't care about rules. "What do you want to do?" The ranger wanted to hunt and prepare a deer for the party. The hobbit wanted to eat allllll the deer while everyone else was still on their first servings.
And back in 1978 our oldest daughter chose to play Hollie Hobbit, a thief. A 1st level thief who made her saving roll against a sleep gas trap, while two 3rd level fighters and a 2nd level magic-abuser went unconscious. "Everyone's asleep?" the cute innocent little 3-year old asked.
"Yes. Do you want to wake them?"
"Nope. I take the box of money an' leave 'em for the rats."
Players shouldn't have to know a player' s manual. Try anything, roll dice, let the GM do the hard work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 28, 2018 8:27:19 GMT -5
If playing like Arneson did, required age, experience, and wisdom - my three grandmonkeys of ages 7, 5, and 4 - as well as our oldest daughter waaay back in 1978 at age 3.5 - could not have played so well. They only wanted to know what species and traits they could be, and immediately took to the concept of "anything can be tried." But why not? That's the way the grandson normally played outside. As for the granddaughters and our oldest daughter - really, hasn't anyone noticed that girls have been rolegaming with Barbies for almost 70 years? So the kids didn't know, didn't care about rules. "What do you want to do?" The ranger wanted to hunt and prepare a deer for the party. The hobbit wanted to eat allllll the deer while everyone else was still on their first servings. And back in 1978 our oldest daughter chose to play Hollie Hobbit, a thief. A 1st level thief who made her saving roll against a sleep gas trap, while two 3rd level fighters and a 2nd level magic-abuser went unconscious. "Everyone's asleep?" the cute innocent little 3-year old asked. "Yes. Do you want to wake them?" "Nope. I take the box of money an' leave 'em for the rats." Players shouldn't have to know a player' s manual. Try anything, roll dice, let the GM do the hard work. Young children are completely attuned to make believe and magic. I love to play with kids, they make the best players and are a blast to run a game (any game) for. And no, no one noticed that girls rolegame with Barbies, but that is exactly what they are doing. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 28, 2018 9:27:51 GMT -5
Playing and imagining things is now to be understood as hard? That's NOT the real reason some people espouse such tripe, it is instead to push their own version of play only. From A New Ethos in Game Design Copyright RJ KUNTZ:
C85: Those who claim that gaming is a serious business and thereby deny that its base is at all rooted in childhood fancies and imaginings are in fact exposing, if only in some slight way, the negative childlike side of themselves. We all experienced them in our youth. They wouldn’t adapt to play unless they controlled it with their rules, this while attempting to force these upon an otherwise open, shared process. They were either ignored or finally fell in with the open process and played. This type of personality still exists today. Formerly known as bullies, the worst aspect of these types have transformed into parasites that tear down creation with the idea of binding its remains to their own laws. As there are no steadfast laws that guide the intuited act of individualized creation, these types--no matter their station, or the degree to which they attempt to attune others to their dogmatic ways--are always exposed for the control-oriented personas that they are.
C21: According to kids there are no absolute rules for creating imaginary things. If we follow their logic, likewise there are no steadfast rules for playing with imaginary things; adults would like to believe otherwise, but the only real deciding difference between how RPG gamers and kids actualize their respective creations is “the die roll.” The die roll defines that RPG circumstances don’t always happen as imagined or planned. This minor difference in play styles is likely due to the fact that children have yet to “graduate” to Life, Incorporated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 28, 2018 9:45:47 GMT -5
Playing and imagining things is now to be understood as hard? That's NOT the real reason some people espouse such tripe, it is instead to push their own version of play only. From A New Ethos in Game Design Copyright RJ KUNTZ: C85: Those who claim that gaming is a serious business and thereby deny that its base is at all rooted in childhood fancies and imaginings are in fact exposing, if only in some slight way, the negative childlike side of themselves. We all experienced them in our youth. They wouldn’t adapt to play unless they controlled it with their rules, this while attempting to force these upon an otherwise open, shared process. They were either ignored or finally fell in with the open process and played. This type of personality still exists today. Formerly known as bullies, the worst aspect of these types have transformed into parasites that tear down creation with the idea of binding its remains to their own laws. As there are no steadfast laws that guide the intuited act of individualized creation, these types--no matter their station, or the degree to which they attempt to attune others to their dogmatic ways--are always exposed for the control-oriented personas that they are. Sad but true and well stated. C21: According to kids there are no absolute rules for creating imaginary things. If we follow their logic, likewise there are no steadfast rules for playing with imaginary things; adults would like to believe otherwise, but the only real deciding difference between how RPG gamers and kids actualize their respective creations is “the die roll.” The die roll defines that RPG circumstances don’t always happen as imagined or planned. This minor difference in play styles is likely due to the fact that children have yet to “graduate” to Life, Incorporated. I would point out that I have played D&D while walking in a park with no dice or paper or pencil or anything else but imagination and a player. Just the give and take between the ref and the player - two good friends having fun. So IMO it can be played just like kids play. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 28, 2018 9:50:53 GMT -5
Well, yes, I did too, but people on the main do not. The comparison was for real elucidation between Game PURISTS and Play Purists; and the game purists have always defined themselves by the die roll (and set in stone rules,also) whereas this is not so with kids and their play styles.
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Feb 28, 2018 16:13:30 GMT -5
I would point out that I have played D&D while walking in a park with no dice or paper or pencil or anything else but imagination and a player. Just the give and take between the ref and the player - two good friends having fun. So IMO it can be played just like kids play. Soooo true. Arneson tapped into and continued to research (however scientifically or unscientifically) the "thing" which enables us humans to envision that there will be another day. Imagine that! We have no real assurance that we will be alive or that Earth will still exist when we retired to sleep; yet we plan ahead, plant, sow, etc. And the "thing" involves the method that we learn fastest, best, and most comprehensively: play. We learned, as babies, at least one complicated language with NO language or concepts from which to translate. Total immersion doesn't explain how quickly it happens. In play, we learn interactive cooperation and competition. Rolegaming is an untapped resource in education and even politics - it may be the only way to help some personalities to "live in someone else's shoes." The US military learned that a long time ago, and we (especially in hazardous zones) got extra points for playing wargames and rolegames. 45 years and it's still sitting out in the field, waiting to be nurtured and reaped. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Feb 28, 2018 16:14:42 GMT -5
Playing and imagining things is now to be understood as hard? That's NOT the real reason some people espouse such tripe, it is instead to push their own version of play only. From A New Ethos in Game Design Copyright RJ KUNTZ: C85: Those who claim that gaming is a serious business and thereby deny that its base is at all rooted in childhood fancies and imaginings are in fact exposing, if only in some slight way, the negative childlike side of themselves. We all experienced them in our youth. They wouldn’t adapt to play unless they controlled it with their rules, this while attempting to force these upon an otherwise open, shared process. They were either ignored or finally fell in with the open process and played. This type of personality still exists today. Formerly known as bullies, the worst aspect of these types have transformed into parasites that tear down creation with the idea of binding its remains to their own laws. As there are no steadfast laws that guide the intuited act of individualized creation, these types--no matter their station, or the degree to which they attempt to attune others to their dogmatic ways--are always exposed for the control-oriented personas that they are. C21: According to kids there are no absolute rules for creating imaginary things. If we follow their logic, likewise there are no steadfast rules for playing with imaginary things; adults would like to believe otherwise, but the only real deciding difference between how RPG gamers and kids actualize their respective creations is “the die roll.” The die roll defines that RPG circumstances don’t always happen as imagined or planned. This minor difference in play styles is likely due to the fact that children have yet to “graduate” to Life, Incorporated. For showing the VERY touchy but topical facts of how rolegaming, childhood play, and politics are intertwined, you deserve an exalt. Here's a Caffeine-free Exalt for you. |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Feb 28, 2018 18:23:29 GMT -5
I would point out that I have played D&D while walking in a park with no dice or paper or pencil or anything else but imagination and a player. Just the give and take between the ref and the player - two good friends having fun. So IMO it can be played just like kids play. Rolegaming is an untapped resource in education and even politics - it may be the only way to help some personalities to "live in someone else's shoes." Well said. Check this out. The interview talks about the tremendous benefits of RPGs for those with certain conditions, both physical and mental, and the current research being done: Interview starts at 16:55 |
|
|
|
Post by Traveroark on Mar 1, 2018 14:04:24 GMT -5
Playing and imagining things is now to be understood as hard? Too many preach to that effect for the reason you note below - Control - total Control. This type of personality still exists today. Formerly known as bullies, the worst aspect of these types have transformed into parasites that tear down creation with the idea of binding its remains to their own laws. As there are no steadfast laws that guide the intuited act of individualized creation, these types--no matter their station, or the degree to which they attempt to attune others to their dogmatic ways--are always exposed for the control-oriented personas that they are. You have identified the primary source of all human misery and the ills of the world. Never crush the creativity of a child. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Mar 1, 2018 14:57:51 GMT -5
You have identified the primary source of all human misery and the ills of the world. Never crush the creativity of a child. Maybe this child. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EiFhCWUF6wI" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe> If that doesn't embed properly: |
|
|
|
Post by Traveroark on Mar 10, 2018 11:34:00 GMT -5
You have identified the primary source of all human misery and the ills of the world. Never crush the creativity of a child. Maybe this child. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EiFhCWUF6wI" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe> If that doesn't embed properly: Ahh, what a sweet little guy. Can we clone him? |
|
|
|
Post by Jakob Grimm on Apr 7, 2018 8:41:25 GMT -5
Comments made elsewhere recently on this subject
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 13, 2018 9:01:35 GMT -5
Comments made elsewhere recently on this subject The idea that I use confusing or inaccessible language is very humorous! Take a VERY deep breath all of you who think as much and clear your mind to what has been presented in the first case: Arneson created a NEW SYSTEM. NEW. That is, NEVER BEFORE DESCRIBED. It has no pre-exising language (see my attachment below) Now, here is a paraphrase example pretty much representative of all of the confused languages used in describing 'what a RPG is', this one lifted from Kobold Quarterly (IIRC): "RPG was a 90 degree shift from table top wargames down into dungeons".... Yep. That and other pithy, mushy and generally meaningless expulsions of carbon dioxide have sufficed to describe what the 'history' of this concept is for the past 40+ years. And there is a GLARING REASON for this: (The Following is copyright 2018 Robert J. Kunzt. All Rights Reserved.)
Why Arneson’s new systems architecture can only be described in systems terminology.Paragraph quotes from Dave Arneson’s True Genius, page 11; 2nd paragraph emphasis point addition, mine:
But this is where Arneson’s “progress towards the goal” becomes more than just a historical milestone in design and in social impacts (the latter instances which I note hereafter by way of an appended list, below). For he not only used “given ones” (systems) to create a new expression, but he transcended these by merging open and closed systems themselves. The emergent system he created from this utilized specific qualities from both system types that, in effect, cross-communicated with each other.
Conversely these distinct system qualities, in isolation, cannot achieve what they do when combined within Arneson’s reorganized systems whole. This co-equal systems-interdependency characterizes a transcendent system model that defies singularly applied interpretations through either of the (open or closed) system types used in creating it. This has resulted in a new systems design philosophy and, as a consequence, a new systems language for describing it should have followed.&&& Taking into account the above information, the following points regarding what Dave Arneson created must hold true: 1) He created a new system.2) This system defies existent languages to definitively describe it when singularly sourced from either play theory or game theory. That is, if one uses stand-alone game theory as a tool for examining it, there is no holistic returned value derived from that particular language base; and so too for singularly applied play theory. The reasons for this directly stem from #1, above. The new system he created not only consists of parts play theory and game theory information, but that information has been uniquely re-aligned and in many cases evolved to function differently than what either language base can describe with their current data. 3) Arneson merged two existing systems information fields into an interoperable (or, “cross-communicating”) new system that utilizes evolved, specific aspects from each pre-existing field; as well he initiated a unique systems view regarding the whole. In doing so he transcended to an emergent (but only intuitively applied) design philosophy minus its corresponding language. Regarding the latter, it is at present non-existent since the new system--for the past 40+ years--had never been identified as transcendent and thus no effort was made to concretely define the, then, emergent design philosophy and the language used to access it. Thus the new system’s entire history has been limitedly accessed on the raw intuitive level alone with no primary language to describe what such a system is or, by extension, what in can be. In addition, even though its systems qualities are extant through 40+ years of intuitively accessing these during play no one has, until now, coherently identified or described them. 4) Because there is no direct historical antecedent to Arneson’s RPG engine in any singular game or play form preceding its advent, this emergent system cannot be identified (fully accessed, assessed and categorized) except through a systems interrogation and the resulting information feedback derived from it. This grounding accomplishes four decisive milestones as I have illustrated in DATG: A1. It generally defines its systems architecture as 2 distinct and cross-communicating parts: conceptual & mechanistic. A2. It identifies what it is not (including what it is not lineally derived from) thus identifying it as a transcendent system. A3. It identifies its many systems qualities. This allows the observer to assess its lineage (if any) and further allows for a fuller contextual view of just how far its transcendence reached when compared to existing game-pool/play-pool types. A4. Because of its “garden of eden” nature and organization as a new system we are left with no other option but to initially describe it in systems terminology. Future-wise, this would allow for complete access to it by way of understanding its initial and contingently evolvable states. Since systems science is always generally applied until linked to a specific information field (such as the expressions provided through the use of Arneson’s new system), we have by its use an immediate scientific conduit to identify and promulgate what Arneson did not have time to formulate: a precise language for his new system which would be used to describe its emergent design philosophy. &&& People are insisting I describe from the get go an entirely new system that Arneson contrived and that we all intuitively accessed only without its pre-existing language! How cute. Kinda like trying to describe the initial design and application of a car engine by using the terminology derived from a horse and buggy system. This system never existed in the history of games, people need to get that through their heads, for this is a STARTING POINT, a stage, in that language's development.... Like I said, very humorous. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 10:36:11 GMT -5
Rob, you're missing the point, and in this case I must say I believe you to be wrong.
Yes, I'm still working on my review, and, in fact, the one criticism I have is that the language is too technical, too academic. Remember, I have both an MBA and a Master's degree from Seminary, so I know how easy it is to slip into dense technically based writing. To effectively get your point across, you have to adjust your writing and speaking for your audience. If I am discussing Eucharistic theology, I will use different language when speaking to lay Christians as opposed to the House of Bishops. When talking about railroad operations, I will use different language when speaking to ordinary folks as opposed to railroad employees or fellow enthusiasts. Et cetera.
George Orwell said "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent," and in this case I agree with him.
And it's got nothing to do with "describing something new and needing new language." You aren't creating neologisms, you're using standard English words. The point is, WHICH words you choose to use.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 13, 2018 12:22:45 GMT -5
Rob, you're missing the point, and in this case I must say I believe you to be wrong. Yes, I'm still working on my review, and, in fact, the one criticism I have is that the language is too technical, too academic. Remember, I have both an MBA and a Master's degree from Seminary, so I know how easy it is to slip into dense technically based writing. To effectively get your point across, you have to adjust your writing and speaking for your audience. If I am discussing Eucharistic theology, I will use different language when speaking to lay Christians as opposed to the House of Bishops. When talking about railroad operations, I will use different language when speaking to ordinary folks as opposed to railroad employees or fellow enthusiasts. Et cetera. George Orwell said "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent," and in this case I agree with him. And it's got nothing to do with "describing something new and needing new language." You aren't creating neologisms, you're using standard English words. The point is, WHICH words you choose to use. You cannot compare an existing language set to a non-existing one, for no language has been formulated as yet for the non-existing set. There is only technical systems language ( Initially) that can be used UNTIL that language set is formulated; and I have done just that and identified the system architecture, the system's qualities, and other while doing so. This is as astounding as it would be for a nuclear physicist to be criticized for not describing the operative qualities of a new atomic generator by way of a common language accessible to all, which could not be done. One can generalize to kingdom come, but they will not understand what the new system is and what language must be used to further describe it if this is not identified for what it is, first. So, no, Michael, for all of your eduction and such you miss wide the mark, here. This is a new system and cannot be described in any other terms (again, initial terms) than in the manner I have done. Perhaps understanding a NEW SYSTEM requires people to dig in and do just that, just as others who developed or inquired into new systems have done? Anyway this is stage 1; as noted, systems language is always general until applied to a specific information set (like Arneson's applied system)l and that is where the language which describes the design philosophy he intuitively expressed will be forthcoming. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 13:13:56 GMT -5
I understand, I simply disagree. Your phrase "there is only technical systems language (initially) " is what I disagree with. Technical language is used for economy's sake, but I maintain that nothing that can be expressed in technical language cannot be expressed in more "ordinary" language. It will require more words, I grant. But I maintain that it CAN be done. My last career before retiring was as a journalist. If I can write an article on Dark Matter and neutrino research that is both accurate and comprehensible to the average newspaper reader -- which I did -- then ordinary language can express technical concepts.
Was it in depth? No. But that was a constraint of length, not vocabulary. DATG had no length constraint.
Also, I must confess that I think "he uses lots of big words some people might have trouble with" is a pretty minor criticism.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 13, 2018 13:31:28 GMT -5
I understand, I simply disagree. Your phrase "there is only technical systems language (initially) " is what I disagree with. Technical language is used for economy's sake, but I maintain that nothing that can be expressed in technical language cannot be expressed in more "ordinary" language. It will require more words, I grant. But I maintain that it CAN be done. My last career before retiring was as a journalist. If I can write an article on Dark Matter and neutrino research that is both accurate and comprehensible to the average newspaper reader -- which I did -- then ordinary language can express technical concepts. Was it in depth? No. But that was a constraint of length, not vocabulary. DATG had no length constraint. Also, I must confess that I think "he uses lots of big words some people might have trouble with" is a pretty minor criticism. Listen, once again you make a false comparison (before it was the Eucharist, now it's Dark Matter). The former was codified from interpretations of scripture and an enforced ideology; the latter is still not understood and is still being analyzed). Talk about divergent POV's yet both used as comparative examples for something that has NOW been identified as a new system. I did that, buck-o, and with systems science and 45 years at the game design helm. If I truly believed that there was another approach that could isolate, identify, describe, and to further the formulation of a language for it, do you not think that I would have done so?? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 13:48:25 GMT -5
It doesn't matter what the subject is; non technical language is always a possible means of communication. You may have used the language and theory of system design, but there is nothing in that science that cannot be described in ordinary words.
Let me be sure I'm being clear here. I have said nothing about either your methodology or your conclusions. All I have said is that in my opinion, your monograph in which you present your thesis to the general public is written in language that the average reader will find overly technical.
That is all.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 13, 2018 16:45:27 GMT -5
It doesn't matter what the subject is; non technical language is always a possible means of communication. You may have used the language and theory of system design, but there is nothing in that science that cannot be described in ordinary words. Let me be sure I'm being clear here. I have said nothing about either your methodology or your conclusions. All I have said is that in my opinion, your monograph in which you present your thesis to the general public is written in language that the average reader will find overly technical. That is all. Once again, since I have identified a new system for which a pre-existing language is not present how do you wish me to describe it otherwise? Think of it this way: Two folks discover Tahiti for the first time. They come ashore and the natives start speaking to them. The two discoverers do not understand the language, but that does not reduce to the idea that it is meaningless (for the natives), nor does it necessitate the same for the discoverers (nor for them throwing up their arms and saying we cannot deal with this and instead vacating the island). The two disparate groups then form a system of communicating, a common core representational language by association. One points to an apple and says "apple". The native says, "ambarella". So we have the beginning of a systematic and comparative understanding between the two as they build upon a common idea set. Now, Arneson created a new system. There is no corresponding, specific language that can describe it. BUT, just like with the natives and the discoverers, we can create a corresponding understanding from the raw systems level by first identifying what it is and how to approach it in unfolding terms. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 19:26:43 GMT -5
Once again, since I have identified a new system for which a pre-existing language is not present how do you wish me to describe it otherwise? You have created no new words. Every word you used is a standard English word with a meaning one could look up in a dictionary. There are other standard English words that could have been used to make the point in a matter less concise but simpler. I no longer have any idea who you are responding to, because what you've said bears no resemblance to my point. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 13, 2018 20:07:31 GMT -5
Once again, since I have identified a new system for which a pre-existing language is not present how do you wish me to describe it otherwise? You have created no new words. Every word you used is a standard English word with a meaning one could look up in a dictionary. There are other standard English words that could have been used to make the point in a matter less concise but simpler. I no longer have any idea who you are responding to, because what you've said bears no resemblance to my point. Well. You are wrong. In order to specifically identify that it is a new system systems science allows for that and no other language does. There is no better way to describe it. Your inference is as strange as it would be trying to teach music theory by using secondary or tertiary words and phrases, whereas we all know that is not the case and one cannot learn music theory that way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 20:44:01 GMT -5
One teaches high school students differently from how one teaches PhD candidates.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 14, 2018 0:21:15 GMT -5
One teaches high school students differently from how one teaches PhD candidates.
Re-read the back cover bullet points and back matter:Design Philosophy/ Systems Theory//RPG History
This part isn the thread has ended. Go have a beer. |
|
PD had it installed last week to up the page views and PMs. 
