"Dave Arneson's True Genius": April 13th at 6:00AM EDT

[The Archivist]

Apr 13, 2017 14:32:25 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

According to the sales figures for over 12 hours we expect this baby to break the sound barrier in a week. Great response so far! Thanks to everyone here (and there) that's spreading the good word. Huzzzah!

So how it is doing?

[The Archivist]

Apr 22, 2017 15:21:55 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Apr 20, 2017 12:35:34 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I'm looking forward to reading this.

My Jedi powers tell me that most people will be confused by or disparaging of this book, not because the book is bad, but because most people are booger-eating morons.

Your thoughts align, somewhat, with my own.  The hatchet-job has commenced as I thought it would.

LINK:  plus.google.com/+GregGorgonmilk/posts/aXAsb1Y1zvb

My thoughts are as follows:  “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Mahatma Gandhi

Great quote and quite true.

[The Archivist]

Apr 28, 2017 11:46:45 GMT -5 Crimhthan The Great said:

Snip

When I pass on, some of my descendants and some of my friends (the original players) descendants will continue the campaign, hopefully from generation to generation.

Well said in its entirety and don't we all hope that someone continues on where we leave off.

[robkuntz]

Apr 28, 2017 11:46:45 GMT -5 Crimhthan The Great said:

Apr 25, 2017 11:15:00 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

Hello Rob,

Could you explain and provide an example of what you mean on pgs 12 and 51 by "Ongoing granularity of applied thought through embedded design principles"?

Thanks!

Have an exalt Cedgewick for asking a question. Please anyone that has questions, ask them. Likely someone else has the same question too. A book has been published and the author resides among us ready to answer questions and clear up any confusion.


I will add my two coppers to what robkuntz said.

First to quote part of the introduction in OD&D if you do not have a copy yet:

INTRODUCTION:
These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity -- your time and imagination are about, the only limiting factors, and the fact that you have purchased these rules tends to indicate that there is no lack of imagination -- the fascination of the game will tend to make participants find more and more time. We advise, however, that a campaign be begun slowly, following the steps outlined herein, so as to avoid becoming too bogged down with unfamiliar details at first. That way your campaign will build naturally, at the pace best suited to the referee and players, smoothing the way for all concerned. New details can be added and old "laws" altered so as to provide continually new and different situations. In addition, the players themselves will interact in such a way as to make the campaign variable and unique, and this is quite desirable.

Rob often describes things in the technical language of design and uses words and phrases that most of us may not often use or be familiar with. Sometimes that may hinder understanding. However, there are a lot of old Refs on this site to chime in and Rob himself is very approachable, so we should always ask if something is not clear to us.

Regarding the above quoted text, this is one of IMO definitive statements that establishes from the beginning that this is a game like no other and that it is indeed by definition an open system. These are not "rules" they are "guidelines" and as such we can color inside or outside the lines as it suits us individually. This establishes that there is no by the book in OD&D, that concept (closed system) is the anti-OD&D. We are encouraged and instructed to remake the game in our own image and that of no one else, although of course it will be influenced by everything we have heard, seen, read, tasted, touched, smelled or experienced. In the beginning no two campaigns were alike and that is as it should be, note the part that I placed in bold.

All of the things that are debated around the forums and blogs, of level limits, alignment and on and on, often with harsh words and hard feelings between people are irrelevant in that context. The only reason to discuss these things is not to reach a consensus or to prove that one way is better than the other, it is find out the many different ways that different people handle things, and that may spur you on to some new unique approach of your own.

I have been reffing OD&D since early 1974 and have 16 games to go to reach 4000 games in the main campaign and I can tell you that there is no end to the campaign and the surprises and the new ideas. When I pass on, some of my descendants and some of my friends (the original players) descendants will continue the campaign, hopefully from generation to generation.

Great post.  I have some commentary that time on my end doesn't allow for, so I will post soon enough.  Open and Closed systems are the key to understanding the shifts that occurred with the original game as promoted by Dave, and then by Dave, Gary and myself. I'll speak more upon why I feel it is very important to have this language, and thus the philosophy attaching to it, finally brought to the front and center.

[robkuntz]

Apr 28, 2017 11:56:05 GMT -5 The Archivist said:

Apr 13, 2017 14:32:25 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

According to the sales figures for over 12 hours we expect this baby to break the sound barrier in a week. Great response so far! Thanks to everyone here (and there) that's spreading the good word. Huzzzah!

So how it is doing?

About 30% of the print run was purchased in the first two weeks.  I would say that reaction is "good" but not overwhelming.  We are working another route to get the idea out there; and I am receiving startlingly negative feedback from some quarters that refuse to read the book and in the same breath dismiss it and myself as its author (when one has no viable position to debate you from they aim low and attempt tp assassinate the messenger).  These are the same loud (and politicized) voices that in the past have out and out assaulted Arneson's contributions to the game, go figure, so it was expected, but not the (now) personal attacks against me that are attached to them. 

[Cedgewick]

Rob,

Thanks for answering my first question.  In your book, you wrote:

The insistence by some RPG historians (but not all), fans, speculators or by the actual D&D-IP holders, Wizards of the Coast, is that Original Dungeons & Dragons (and thus, lumped into this, the very RPG concept itself) is descended from Chainmail and/or Braunstein. The claims are often just mere echoes of Gary Gygax's repeated assertions that Chainmail gave birth to D&D;...

The "Jovian Clouds" website, which seems to have had Dave's blessing, states:

Originally Arneson played his own mix of rules, using rock, paper, scissors to resolve combat. Later he adapted a set of rules intended for conducting naval combat. These rules had an armor class system like that which would be used later in D&D. In particular, the lower the armor class, the harder the ship (or creature) was to hit. Arneson later dabbled with the Chainmail rules, written by Gygax and Jeff Perren, but found them lacking. After 3 tries they dropped all consideration of replacing his system with them.

From the above, it would certainly seem that Chainmail served as the "mechanical apparatus" at some point in Dave's game, while Dave provided the far more important "conceptual interface", the RPG concept engine, that made D&D the magical game we all know and love (the terms in quotes are from Rob's book). In your book you wrote:

Herein will also be revealed the beginning of 'Arneson's Code'. And such a beginning! If we were so lucky during any one of our days or years to be enabled to conceive of only one of the many and sumptuous conceptual leaps that Arneson attained then we would think good of ourselves in light of the enterprise, hobby or industry in which we endeavored.

You list 26 advances in "Arneson's Leaps in Applied Design, Design Theory, Cognitive Theory and Social Theory" including "Challenged and successfully leapt past 2,000 years (at the minimum) of design thinking and game design history" and "Instantly created a new first-order game category"

However, you wrote in 1977 in FGU's Wargaming magazine #1:

Where did D & D originally come from? This cannot be answered so simply for it involved a many staged process. Inspired by Gary Gygax's & Jeff Perrens' rule booklet entitled Chainmail, David L. Arneson took fantasy a step further by adding an old castle (Blackmoor) complete with dungeons and a handful of monsters gleaned from Chainmail and his own fertile imagination.

That "Inspired by [Chainmail], David L. Arneson took fantasy a step further..." statement seems to suggest that Arneson's contribution was far less of a leap in game design than your book suggests. While I agree with your book that Arneson's contribution was groundbreaking, could you shed some light on the muted history you forwarded in that article? Did "Gary Gygax's repeated assertions that Chainmail gave birth to D&D" influence or pressure you at the time?

[robkuntz]

This too will have to wait for the time I do not have as of the moment to respond to it in the manner it deserves.  For now I will leave you with this thought:  There is no ambiguity between "inspired" as related to "influenced by" as noted in the third essay. Also, you are referring to mechanical elements, game elements, that are used within the system; but that system is not traceable to either Chainmail or Braunstein as I have outlined in the book.  So, the short answer until I post more is that it is the systems architecture these otherwise disparate elements operate through that is the leap Arneson achieved (as again noted in the third essay and elsewhere) and that is no where apparent in game history/design preceding its invention.  Think of buggies and cars.  Both have seats (elements) but their engines and drivetrains, that which defines their capacities and functions, are quite different.  More later.

[robkuntz]

Just a heads-up to folks who are interested. Besides being in the midst of designing a MAJOR board game,getting DATG translated to French and Italian, and in negotiating two deals (one *very large* and very exciting and looking pretty good right now) I have decided to write a companion volume to DATG which will deal in detail with Open & Closed systems in table-top/RPG games. I have also started outlining a smaller set of pdf or limited print editions of the LGTSA history and which covers the design tenants we embraced.This will treat with the major LGTSA members' histories in that organization,their accomplishments, including the design tenants and designs of Gary Gygax pre-D&D and a run-up to TSR and the advent of D&D and its playtests. This will also include samples of play-test games and miniature battles we fought and a lot of history. I am soon to become out of touch with direct posting. So, if you want to contact me directly during any lapse try [e-mail]

[Deleted]

Received my copy today.

[Deleted]

Apr 28, 2017 13:59:48 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

From the above, it would certainly seem that Chainmail served as the "mechanical apparatus" at some point in Dave's game, while Dave provided the far more important "conceptual interface",

The problem is one of nomenclature.  A system may use objects without being derived from those objects; a digital computer uses ones and zeroes, but it is in no sense derived from ones and zeroes.  For that matter, a digital computer can use relays, vacuum tubes, or transistors, but that does not mean it is in any way derived from any of those three objects.

Similarly, just because Dave may have used parts of Chainmail in part of his game does not mean that his game is "derived" from Chainmail.

Unfortunately, over the last forty years people have been extremely sloppy in their use of language.

[mormonyoyoman]

Apr 28, 2017 18:05:37 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Just a heads-up to folks who are interested. Besides being in the midst of designing a MAJOR board game,getting DATG translated to French and Italian, and in negotiating two deals (one *very large* and very exciting and looking pretty good right now) I have decided to write a companion volume to DATG which will deal in detail with Open & Closed systems in table-top/RPG games. I have also started outlining a smaller set of pdf or limited print editions of the LGTSA history and which covers the design tenants we embraced.This will treat with the major LGTSA members' histories in that organization,their accomplishments, including the design tenants and designs of Gary Gygax pre-D&D and a run-up to TSR and the advent of D&D and its playtests. This will also include samples of play-test games and miniature battles we fought and a lot of history. I am soon to become out of touch with direct posting. So, if you want to contact me directly during any lapse try [e-mail]

PDF! PDF!

(says the old man who doesn't have room for even One More Book and dreads throwing out 34 years of comics this coming Monday)

[mormonyoyoman]

Re: the old problem of "you said something entirely different 30 years ago.

I've been wrong many times in the past, and am always grateful for new information to correct my assumptions. It's the nature of the true historian to hope further research and discoveries explore more facts.

[Cedgewick]

In the March 2003 issue of Dragon, Gary wrote:

...So when The Monk with No Name called upon the Mage of the Tower, he got the usual treatment and then some. After suffering outrageous treatment and being told to try again in the morning, the infuriated monk lost track of the reason he had come and decided to make the mage and his apprentice sorry. Revenge would be had, and how sweet it would be. Never again would these uppity spellmutterers lord it over their supplicants! It was no problem for the monk to acquire paints and brushes in the city, of course. Clambering up the tall structure, working feverishly in the darkness, the whole of the mage's tower was soon covered in pigments according to plan. When dawn spread over the city, everyone was stunned. The heretofore drab edifice was now bedecked with bold stripes of red and white. The onlookers might have thought of a barber pole when viewing it ... had there been barbers who dressed wounds on Oerth; however, as there was no analogy, all they could do is admire the colorful decor the tower now sported.
The Mage of the Tower was delighted. As the word spread and people came to look, he spoke to the crowds, taking full credit, and informing the good citizens that from that moment on he was to known as "The Striped Mage of Greyhawk," and so he is to this day.

No official comment has been forthcoming from The Monk with No Name.

In this thread:
odd74.proboards.com/thread/4178/official-dave-arneson-thread

Dave was asked:

It is known that you first invented this game after you spent a week reading Conan, and watching B category horror films (It seems like one of the dream vacations for me... ) So my question is, was it Robert E. Howard Conan, or something else/not important? And what other fiction you read/watch/like, for inspiration/amusement?

and

Recently Rob Kuntz released his module The Original Bottle City and mentioned you as a player (monk PC – your prize was 2-8 smoke bombs) along with Brian Blume, Mike Carr, Ernie Gygax, Don Kaye, Mike Mornard, David Sutherland and Jim Ward among others. Would you care to share with us, any thoughts or recollections about Bottle City or any other games that you played in back in the day.

(emphasis mine) To which Dave replied, mashing two responses together:

Well it was a weekend without any other gaming, not a whole week. I used Conan was an example because they were so bad. I read about three books a week back then.
Did you mention the popcorn? ;-) it was a magic paintbrush I used on the Wizard's tower in Greyhawk. I thought that the barber pole effect was nice.

(emphasis mine) Gary attributed the stripes to your brother Terry.  However, I don't see any reason why Dave would take credit for something he didn't do in an offhand remark in a random forum post.  Additionally, the anachronism of painting a medieval tower to look like a barber's pole seems like something Dave would do.  Rob, I've heard that your memory is razor-sharp.  Was Gary mis-remembering which player it was that had their monk stripe the tower?

[robkuntz]

Apr 28, 2017 22:31:49 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

In the March 2003 issue of Dragon, Gary wrote:

...So when The Monk with No Name called upon the Mage of the Tower, he got the usual treatment and then some. After suffering outrageous treatment and being told to try again in the morning, the infuriated monk lost track of the reason he had come and decided to make the mage and his apprentice sorry. Revenge would be had, and how sweet it would be. Never again would these uppity spellmutterers lord it over their supplicants! It was no problem for the monk to acquire paints and brushes in the city, of course. Clambering up the tall structure, working feverishly in the darkness, the whole of the mage's tower was soon covered in pigments according to plan. When dawn spread over the city, everyone was stunned. The heretofore drab edifice was now bedecked with bold stripes of red and white. The onlookers might have thought of a barber pole when viewing it ... had there been barbers who dressed wounds on Oerth; however, as there was no analogy, all they could do is admire the colorful decor the tower now sported.
The Mage of the Tower was delighted. As the word spread and people came to look, he spoke to the crowds, taking full credit, and informing the good citizens that from that moment on he was to known as "The Striped Mage of Greyhawk," and so he is to this day.

No official comment has been forthcoming from The Monk with No Name.

In this thread:
odd74.proboards.com/thread/4178/official-dave-arneson-thread

Dave was asked:

It is known that you first invented this game after you spent a week reading Conan, and watching B category horror films (It seems like one of the dream vacations for me... ) So my question is, was it Robert E. Howard Conan, or something else/not important? And what other fiction you read/watch/like, for inspiration/amusement?

and

Recently Rob Kuntz released his module The Original Bottle City and mentioned you as a player (monk PC – your prize was 2-8 smoke bombs) along with Brian Blume, Mike Carr, Ernie Gygax, Don Kaye, Mike Mornard, David Sutherland and Jim Ward among others. Would you care to share with us, any thoughts or recollections about Bottle City or any other games that you played in back in the day.

(emphasis mine) To which Dave replied, mashing two responses together:

Well it was a weekend without any other gaming, not a whole week. I used Conan was an example because they were so bad. I read about three books a week back then.
Did you mention the popcorn? ;-) it was a magic paintbrush I used on the Wizard's tower in Greyhawk. I thought that the barber pole effect was nice.

(emphasis mine) Gary attributed the stripes to your brother Terry.  However, I don't see any reason why Dave would take credit for something he didn't do in an offhand remark in a random forum post.  Additionally, the anachronism of painting a medieval tower to look like a barber's pole seems like something Dave would do.  Rob, I've heard that your memory is razor-sharp.  Was Gary mis-remembering which player it was that had their monk stripe the tower?

Yes, Gary (much later) got confused about the two monks, Arneson's who played only once in a city adventure <> and Terry's Monk with No Name.  The barber-shop-like striped pole is also noted in Dave's Journey to the City of the Gods that Gary and I (as Mordenkainen and Robilar) dealt with by Robilar pulling it out of the ground.  That adventure-story was written by me and is floating around the net in one of the Oerth Journal 'zines.  The short of it is as I've stated.  Arneson and Terry were both mischievous players as monks and befitting their abilities due to class.  You can almost hear Dave looking at the drab tower and saying, "I'll just pretty it up a bit."   Quite in line with his humorist ways that he (at times) approached the whole aspect of Fantasy, though that is by no means saying that he could not scare the pants off you through his DMing!  BTW:  As new potential players arrived on the scene in LG I added in their names to the special treasure lists in Bottle City so that they would be accounted for if they adventured within it. Dave, as I've noted, only played once in our City of Greyhawk DMed by Gary, but Gary and I were co-DMs and he informed me of the change that had taken place with the tower after that adventure occurred.

[robkuntz]

Apr 28, 2017 21:39:50 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

Re: the old problem of "you said something entirely different 30 years ago.

I've been wrong many times in the past, and am always grateful for new information to correct my assumptions. It's the nature of the true historian to hope further research and discoveries explore more facts.

Information is only provisional especially to a researcher.  So we are in agreement.

Arneson created something not even he or his players, neither Gary or I and our players, could type.  It took nearly two years after its publication to even type it as an "RPG" and that symbology still does not do it supreme justice but in fact has confused the matter as to what he actually created (a new systems architecture) and by people concentrating on the generalized "Role" and "Game" words almost exclusively.

[Cedgewick]

Apr 29, 2017 5:36:18 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Arneson created something not even he or his players, neither Gary or I and our players, could type.  It took nearly two years after its publication to even type it as an "RPG" and that symbology still does not do it supreme justice but in fact has confused the matter as to what he actually created (a new systems architecture) and by people concentrating on the generalized "Role" and "Game" words almost exclusively.

Who first typed it as a "role-playing game"?














Edit: don't mind me I just fixed the quote since I was already in the thread, Admin.

[Admin Pete]

I ran across this article online, by Anthony Pryor in Gaming 18 Comments on January 3, 2012 titled Gary Gygax: Gamer, Designer, Pompous Ass, Legend… Wait, what?. Although the article reflects some misunderstanding of a few things and some of the misinformation still floating around, he also makes some points that relevant to the current conversation. I think it also points to a bigger market that is IMO still completely unaware of the latest developments.

[robkuntz]

Apr 29, 2017 8:57:48 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

Who first typed it as a "role-playing game"?

I do not recall who did. We were calling it FRP until that point for 'Fantasy Role Playing'. The 'Game' part was added some time afterwards no doubt due to market inclusive pressures, i.e., how to classify it and shelve it according to current hobby/book store standards; but also to have a handy descriptor when talking about it with others.









Admin Edit: fixed the quote, sometimes it can be clunky in the preview mode.

[robkuntz]

Apr 29, 2017 9:11:01 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

I do not recall who did. We were calling it FRP until that point for 'Fantasy Role Playing'. The 'Game' part was added some time afterwards no doubt due to market inclusive pressures, i.e., how to classify it and shelve it according to current hobby/book store standards; but also to have a handy descriptor when talking about it with others.

Something is really weird with this post as I tried twice to respond outside of the quote box but it would not let me. Strange.









Admin edit: fixed it, something is weird this morning with proboards. Everyone may need to click on the BBCode before adding your own comments.

[robkuntz]

Apr 28, 2017 21:35:37 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

Apr 28, 2017 18:05:37 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Just a heads-up to folks who are interested. Besides being in the midst of designing a MAJOR board game,getting DATG translated to French and Italian, and in negotiating two deals (one *very large* and very exciting and looking pretty good right now) I have decided to write a companion volume to DATG which will deal in detail with Open & Closed systems in table-top/RPG games. I have also started outlining a smaller set of pdf or limited print editions of the LGTSA history and which covers the design tenants we embraced.This will treat with the major LGTSA members' histories in that organization,their accomplishments, including the design tenants and designs of Gary Gygax pre-D&D and a run-up to TSR and the advent of D&D and its playtests. This will also include samples of play-test games and miniature battles we fought and a lot of history. I am soon to become out of touch with direct posting. So, if you want to contact me directly during any lapse try [e-mail]

PDF! PDF!

(says the old man who doesn't have room for even One More Book and dreads throwing out 34 years of comics this coming Monday)

You should sell the comics and fetch a good price for them, don't throw them out!

[Cedgewick]

Apr 29, 2017 9:11:01 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

I do not recall who did. We were calling it FRP until that point for 'Fantasy Role Playing'. The 'Game' part was added some time afterwards no doubt due to market inclusive pressures, i.e., how to classify it and shelve it according to current hobby/book store standards; but also to have a handy descriptor when talking about it with others.

Who among you came up with the "role-playing" part?

[robkuntz]

Apr 29, 2017 10:44:57 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

Apr 29, 2017 9:11:01 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

I do not recall who did. We were calling it FRP until that point for 'Fantasy Role Playing'. The 'Game' part was added some time afterwards no doubt due to market inclusive pressures, i.e., how to classify it and shelve it according to current hobby/book store standards; but also to have a handy descriptor when talking about it with others.

Who among you came up with the "role-playing" part?

I am not sure whether it was us or how how Dave Arneson and Dave M. described to us what we were about to partake in in our first Blackmoor session that exposed us to the new concept.  Either way that is what it was being referred to soon thereafter. Can't say definitely who coined it, it, just like the term "R-P-G" just started being used and passed along until it caught on.

[Admin Pete]

Apr 29, 2017 9:25:27 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Apr 28, 2017 21:35:37 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

PDF! PDF!

(says the old man who doesn't have room for even One More Book and dreads throwing out 34 years of comics this coming Monday)

You should sell the comics and fetch a good price for them, don't throw them out!

You beat me too it, I was intending to give him the same advice. If you can delay it at all, you might want to pull out the ones that may be rare and not include them in the mass at a blanket price.

[Cedgewick]

Apr 29, 2017 11:07:06 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

I am not sure whether it was us or how how Dave Arneson and Dave M. described to us what we were about to partake in in our first Blackmoor session that exposed us to the new concept.

Was that first session run at Gary's kitchen table?

[robkuntz]

Apr 29, 2017 11:22:04 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

Apr 29, 2017 11:07:06 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

I am not sure whether it was us or how how Dave Arneson and Dave M. described to us what we were about to partake in in our first Blackmoor session that exposed us to the new concept.

Was that first session run at Gary's kitchen table?

Actually run at the dining room table right off the kitchen, the kitchen table was small and could seat only 3 as it was flush with the wall.  Yes.  And i recall the seating arrangement of the six of us, also.

[Cedgewick]

Apr 29, 2017 11:53:29 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

And i recall the seating arrangement of the six of us, also.

Here's what you mentioned in Wargaming #1 about that session:

This idea caught on deeply with Gary after an exciting adventure in which our party of heroes fought a troll, were fireballed by a magic-user, then fled to the outdoors (being chased by the Magic-user and his minions), fought four (gulp!) Balrogs, followed a map to sixteen ogres .and destroyed them with a wish from a sword we had procurred from the hapless troll earlier.

Any more details you can remember? Did Dave have you roll up characters right at the dining room table? Did anyone miserably fail a saving throw?

[robkuntz]

Apr 29, 2017 12:27:56 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

Apr 29, 2017 11:53:29 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

And i recall the seating arrangement of the six of us, also.

Here's what you mentioned in Wargaming #1 about that session:

This idea caught on deeply with Gary after an exciting adventure in which our party of heroes fought a troll, were fireballed by a magic-user, then fled to the outdoors (being chased by the Magic-user and his minions), fought four (gulp!) Balrogs, followed a map to sixteen ogres .and destroyed them with a wish from a sword we had procurred from the hapless troll earlier.

Any more details you can remember? Did Dave have you roll up characters right at the dining room table? Did anyone miserably fail a saving throw?

Sure I have details, but this steers us away from the matter of the book, and most of those details have been written for future unpublished works as well as being detailed for other major projects that I am in the process of negotiating these days.  

[Cedgewick]

Wikipedia of braunstein says:

In 1967,[1] David Wesely served as referee for a Napoleonic wargame set in the fictional German town of Braunstein.[2][3] As usual, two players acted as commanders of the opposing armies, but because he was interested in multi-player games,[4] Wesely assigned additional, non-military roles. For example, he had players acting as town mayor, banker, and university chancellor.[3] When two players challenged each other to a duel, Wesely found it necessary to improvise rules for the encounter on the spot. Though Wesely thought the results were chaotic and the experiment a failure, the other players enjoyed the role playing aspect and asked him to run another game.[5]

Wesely thus contributed to the development of RPGs by introducing a one-to-one identification of player and character, and open-ended rules allowing the players to attempt any action, with the result of the action determined by the referee.

In your book you listed:

The(*/*) is (left) for Chainmail and (right) for Braunstein.
Merger of Open & Closed Systems (Super-Systemization) (NO/NO)

From the above description of non-military roles and the role playing of a duel combined with some dueling rules made on-the-fly, it does sound like a combination of open and closed systems. Why did you put a no for braunstein?

[robkuntz]

Just as I would put a no for Diplomacy and Monopoly which both utilize open elements in a closed system but are not truly open systems themselves. Both Braunstein and Chainmail are closed systems (scenario-based); and the former utilized, at times, open elements. However, Arneson's take is an ongoing world where a truly open system manifests and is not (as originally proposed) scenario driven (closed) and having limited resources due to that. In fact,  game-play can extrude itself off the current map or conceptual area at any time and then re-enter or relocate and thereby reintroduce new materials and information in a constantly mobile and unconstrained manner--it is not locked in place as scenarios are; and play has no ultimate objective except as proposed through ongoing exploration (i.e., it is scenario neutral). This is the true test of a real open system compared to one that uses open variability in part, and that is the ability of the unlimited transference of information (or energy) inside and/or outside of the system. In essence it must have no constraints. Try to walk off the Braunstein closed scenario map and/or introduce more information or resources than allowed for by the scenario and you will get the meaning.

[The Archivist]

Apr 28, 2017 13:38:09 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Apr 28, 2017 11:46:45 GMT -5 Crimhthan The Great said:

Regarding the above quoted text, this is one of IMO definitive statements that establishes from the beginning that this is a game like no other and that it is indeed by definition an open system. These are not "rules" they are "guidelines" and as such we can color inside or outside the lines as it suits us individually. This establishes that there is no by the book in OD&D, that concept (closed system) is the anti-OD&D. We are encouraged and instructed to remake the game in our own image and that of no one else, although of course it will be influenced by everything we have heard, seen, read, tasted, touched, smelled or experienced. In the beginning no two campaigns were alike and that is as it should be, note the part that I placed in bold.

All of the things that are debated around the forums and blogs, of level limits, alignment and on and on, often with harsh words and hard feelings between people are irrelevant in that context. The only reason to discuss these things is not to reach a consensus or to prove that one way is better than the other, it is find out the many different ways that different people handle things, and that may spur you on to some new unique approach of your own.

Great post. I have some commentary that time on my end doesn't allow for, so I will post soon enough. Open and Closed systems are the key to understanding the shifts that occurred with the original game as promoted by Dave, and then by Dave, Gary and myself. I'll speak more upon why I feel it is very important to have this language, and thus the philosophy attaching to it, finally brought to the front and center.

I look forward to reading those comments, perhaps we could use some of that for some blog posts.

Apr 28, 2017 13:48:07 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Apr 28, 2017 11:56:05 GMT -5 The Archivist said:

So how it is doing?

About 30% of the print run was purchased in the first two weeks. I would say that reaction is "good" but not overwhelming. We are working another route to get the idea out there; and I am receiving startlingly negative feedback from some quarters that refuse to read the book and in the same breath dismiss it and myself as its author (when one has no viable position to debate you from they aim low and attempt tp assassinate the messenger). These are the same loud (and politicized) voices that in the past have out and out assaulted Arneson's contributions to the game, go figure, so it was expected, but not the (now) personal attacks against me that are attached to them.

Naysayers are always the loudest, usually insecure and jealous to boot. I wonder if there is anyway to get libraries to order it, and get it on their new book shelves?

Apr 28, 2017 18:05:37 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Just a heads-up to folks who are interested. Besides being in the midst of designing a MAJOR board game,getting DATG translated to French and Italian, and in negotiating two deals (one *very large* and very exciting and looking pretty good right now) I have decided to write a companion volume to DATG which will deal in detail with Open & Closed systems in table-top/RPG games. I have also started outlining a smaller set of pdf or limited print editions of the LGTSA history and which covers the design tenants we embraced. This will treat with the major LGTSA members' histories in that organization, their accomplishments, including the design tenants and designs of Gary Gygax pre-D&D and a run-up to TSR and the advent of D&D and its playtests. This will also include samples of play-test games and miniature battles we fought and a lot of history. I am soon to become out of touch with direct posting. So, if you want to contact me directly during any lapse try [e-mail]

Let us know when we can post about this stuff. Is there a preview blurb about the board game available yet? I think the companion volume is going to be a must with some good outtakes for advertising. Perhaps a discount to those who bought the first book or a discount for someone buying both books together. I would recommend pdfs for a lot of your production at some point in time and print on demand at some point in time. I think the history and playtest accounts are vital to your efforts.