|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 2, 2017 22:53:05 GMT -5
Then it's a good thing that's not what Rob's saying, isn't it! (shrug) he uses system throughout the book. It could either a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular.or a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method.So when it he started talking about design I took it to mean the latter not the former. It been clarified. Doesn't mean I agree it is as complex as he makes it out to be or it requires a new set of terms. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 2, 2017 23:12:17 GMT -5
1) The focus is on the player playing individual characters not nation, armies or some other type of abstract entity Individual character, i.e. "skirmish," wargames were around for years earlier. Gladiatorial combat is one of the most blatant examples. I am aware of that. But obviously that wasn't sufficient to be the first tabletop roleplaying campaign where Blackmoor was. While I used Melee/Wizard/Fantasy Trip to illustration of my point, Battletech is a wargame that blurs the line. You can have a battletech campaign where you track individual pilots fighting that gain experience different battles over the course of the campaign. So when I read about skirmish games being played it didn't surprise me that they were equally as blurry compared to Blackmoor. I said several times that is more about focus then some bright line you can point too. Shift your focus one way it is Battletech the wargame, shift it the other way it is Mechwarrior the RPG. 2) The focus is on the players interacting with some setting as their characters. They can't do anything that their character can't do within the setting. They have no special knowledge of the setting outside of the setting. That was not true in either Blackmoor or Greyhawk.[/quote] So a human character could flap his arms as fast as possible and fly? I didn't say your character because I know you played a balrog that could fly. As for the knowledge thing, yes if you are on your umpteenth character after a couple of deaths, you knew a good deal about where was what and were hopefully wiser in how you approached thing. But when you first started playing you didn't know what was where. You learned by exploring yourself or convincing other players who did explore to tell you. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 2, 2017 23:27:02 GMT -5
Before I start here - moderators, could you move this message and its parent(s) to another thread? This doesn't belong in the Rob's book thread. Actually, I'd like to make the case that it does. The claim that fundamental concepts in Blackmoor were derived from Chainmail is an excellent topic to use Kuntz's new book on. Let me talk about why. Kuntz writes on pg. 50: You are asserting that Chainmail is the primary pre-image of Blackmoor (and by extension, D&D). Kuntz's book continues: What Kuntz is proposing here is, in my estimation, brilliant. To see why, let us first consider what you said earlier about the letters you have between Gygax and Arneson: When I wrote PatW (like, back in 2010, say), I did have some surviving documents showing ways that Blackmoor relied on Chainmail that perhaps go beyond the sorts of superficial details you concede here. And to be clear, now I have a lot more. I have about 90 letters back and forth between Gary and Dave from the early to mid 1970s, say. I have a 1972 letter where Gary asks Dave about his Chainmail modifications, and I have the response from Dave. I equate this document-based approach to a detective looking for a smoking gun. You're looking for evidence that Dave based the game on Chainmail by what the two of them say. The letter you mention is an example of this; Dave writing back with his chainmail modifications implies that Dave was basing his combat system on Chainmail. What if you found another letter from Dave that said, "Gee, you know what Gary? My Blackmoor game is really just a complicated game of Chainmail when you think about it." Wow, bam! You have your smoking gun, and its REALLY smoking. You would conclude that Blackmoor derived from Chainmail. Now think carefully about what Kuntz is proposing. Kuntz's proposed method doesn't take into account what either Gary or Dave say at all. Their statements are entirely irrelevant. What Kuntz is proposing is analogous to DNA analysis, which revolutionized detective work. Now we are not looking for clues as to whether someone was in the room or not. Now we simply look for a DNA-containing sample, such as a strand of hair, and we then know by analyzing the DNA whether this particular person was in the room or not with near total certainty. Back to Gary and Dave. Lets say you found the smoking gun document. If Kuntz's method returns false, no matter what Dave said in a letter, we know Blackmoor didn't derive from Chainmail. The key aspect of Kuntz's method is to list out the qualities and components, forms and functions, including systems, to use as a basis to start the comparison. Kuntz establishes his metric at the beginning of his book by analyzing Blackmoor/D&D for what he believes are Arneson's leaps in applied design and other areas. By building out our own lists of what I am referring to as 'fundamental concepts' and analyzing them using Kuntz's method, we can then have an intelligent, scientific conversation about whether Blackmoor (and D&D by extension) derive from Chainmail, without worry about all the problems associated with looking 43 years in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 2, 2017 23:49:17 GMT -5
I equate this document-based approach to a detective looking for a smoking gun. You're looking for evidence that Dave based the game on Chainmail by what the two of them say. The letter you mention is an example of this; Dave writing back with his chainmail modifications implies that Dave was basing his combat system on Chainmail. What if you found another letter from Dave that said, "Gee, you know what Gary? My Blackmoor game is really just a complicated game of Chainmail when you think about it." Wow, bam! You have your smoking gun, and its REALLY smoking. You would conclude that Blackmoor derived from Chainmail. Well, in general I'd want to have a broader set of data points than just that, which we certainly have in this case - but yes, I am looking for solid evidence, as I think the validity of historical claims is established by evidence. I think DNA analysis still requires evidence, and the "room" where we need to go look for forensics is this elusive set of letters, fanzines, maps, character sheets, ephemera, and publications that you need to bring back to the lab for testing. If you don't have any samples, there's nothing to test. Theory and evidence serve different methodologies and different purposes. Theory tells you that 2 + 2 = 4. But if you want to know how many eggs there are in the fridge, you have to go open the door and count. Any method you are using to figure out what Blackmoor derived from has to be based on some reliable account of what Blackmoor was. That's what you can't derive a priori, you have to go open the fridge door to find out. You can't get around the problem of looking 43 years in the past. I mean, Blackmoor's not a text. You can at least compare various versions of Chainmail to various versions of D&D. Blackmoor was a campaign, a set of activities. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 3, 2017 0:09:45 GMT -5
I think DNA analysis still requires evidence, and the "room" where we need to go look for forensics is this elusive set of letters, fanzines, maps, character sheets, ephemera, and publications that you need to bring back to the lab for testing. If you don't have any samples, there's nothing to test. You're not getting me. The two games themselves are the evidence. That's the beauty of Kuntz's method. We're not relying on people's memories or documents. The DNA is embedded in the games. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 3, 2017 0:17:10 GMT -5
I think DNA analysis still requires evidence, and the "room" where we need to go look for forensics is this elusive set of letters, fanzines, maps, character sheets, ephemera, and publications that you need to bring back to the lab for testing. If you don't have any samples, there's nothing to test. You're not getting me. The two games themselves are the evidence. That's the beauty of Kuntz's method. We're not relying on people's memories or documents. The DNA is embedded in the games. I know what the game of Chainmail is, it comes in a pamphlet. I can poke one on the shelf next to me here. What do you think the game of Blackmoor is? You're telling me you think you can extract DNA from a ghost. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 3, 2017 0:53:12 GMT -5
You're not getting me. The two games themselves are the evidence. That's the beauty of Kuntz's method. We're not relying on people's memories or documents. The DNA is embedded in the games. I know what the game of Chainmail is, it comes in a pamphlet. I can poke one on the shelf next to me here. What do you think the game of Blackmoor is? You're telling me you think you can extract DNA from a ghost. I concede that point, my original post should instead be talking about comparing D&D to chainmail. The two systems to be compared must be known. From most accounts, including Gary's own admission that Blackmoor was the "prototype" of D&D, the comparison should be nearly the same, but we cannot perform the analysis for blackmoor without some assumptions of what it was. Chainmail and D&D can be directly compared with Kuntz's method without any evidence, however. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 3, 2017 0:58:56 GMT -5
I think DNA analysis still requires evidence, and the "room" where we need to go look for forensics is this elusive set of letters, fanzines, maps, character sheets, ephemera, and publications that you need to bring back to the lab for testing. If you don't have any samples, there's nothing to test. You're not getting me. The two games themselves are the evidence. That's the beauty of Kuntz's method. We're not relying on people's memories or documents. The DNA is embedded in the games. while the documents are not the whole story they are part of the story as much as the rule books themselves. In short if you want to build a picture of how it came to be and how things worked you need to account for the written edivence. I just reread the section in Playing at the World about the genesis of Blackmoor. While Chainmail was mentioned it flat out says in 1.11 that Dave made numerous rulings and recorded them in a notebook. And I have Pegasus 1 so I can say Jon's quote is accurate for that. So while Chainmail was the starting for the rules used for adjudication it quickly changed from there. Something that the accounts given in Hawk & Moor reinforces. So I have to ask what gives? So what Arneson started off with Cainmail. All accounts concur that it diverged from there. And Chainmail doesn't talk about campaigns or setting all stuff that Dave had to create or pull in from elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 3, 2017 1:12:48 GMT -5
I know what the game of Chainmail is, it comes in a pamphlet. I can poke one on the shelf next to me here. What do you think the game of Blackmoor is? You're telling me you think you can extract DNA from a ghost. I concede that point, my original post should instead be talking about comparing D&D to chainmail. The two systems to be compared must be known. From most accounts, including Gary's own admission that Blackmoor was the "prototype" of D&D, the comparison should be nearly the same, but we cannot perform the analysis for blackmoor without some assumptions of what it was. Chainmail and D&D can be directly compared with Kuntz's method without any evidence, however. What the point of that? It not like Blackmoor and Greyhawk are Chainmail devired games. Blackmoor evolved quickly through Dave's rulings. Greyhawk started with a manuscript that pulled a few things from chainmail but the rest was inspired by Gygax's experience in the Blackmoor game Dave ran for him and the notes that were sent. All the campaign stuff and other material was pulled together by Dave first from his experiences. Gygax to me after reading every account I could learned from that and put together the first manuscript. Textual analysis is going to cut it with this. You need letters and first hand accounts if you are going to makes sense of it all. And in the end it going to wind up being what Gronan is always saying, Dave and Gary were making up Shoot they thought was fun. What was special was that a boatload of other folks including myself found it fun as well. And still do. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 3, 2017 4:15:19 GMT -5
The true evidence of what Arneson created is in how he organized the parts into a new whole, as I describe in the book. That whole had never before existed in any game-form preceding it. Thus, the only way to determine type (as we know its current form and function as a design) and to describe it en total is to analyze and assess its systems qualities using scientific knowledge of systems, as what he created was a new system. I have done that, described his architecture and noted its extensibility via its system qualities. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts in this instance. This is science RC, not conjecture or opinion, no matter how much one froths at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 3, 2017 4:59:03 GMT -5
I know what the game of Chainmail is, it comes in a pamphlet. I can poke one on the shelf next to me here. What do you think the game of Blackmoor is? You're telling me you think you can extract DNA from a ghost. I concede that point, my original post should instead be talking about comparing D&D to chainmail. The two systems to be compared must be known. From most accounts, including Gary's own admission that Blackmoor was the "prototype" of D&D, the comparison should be nearly the same, but we cannot perform the analysis for blackmoor without some assumptions of what it was. Chainmail and D&D can be directly compared with Kuntz's method without any evidence, however. For Jon Mostly/Au contraire. There is a game and it was referred to as Blackmoor; and it was PLAYED, and when they played the players said let's play in Blackmoor. Any play/game has a system and can be modeled just like anything else. As what Arneson organized was greater than the sum of the parts being used we have a new system for play a new type of game system was created. Arneson could not describe it then; and neither could Gary or myself, but it was a system that worked and was real, unless one believes that FRP manifested in a vacuum. The problem which I have resolved is by noting that this was an emergent game form by identifying it as a new type iof systems architecture. That is the only way to describe it as the parts created a new system whole greater than the parts used. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 3, 2017 5:29:46 GMT -5
I concede that point, my original post should instead be talking about comparing D&D to chainmail. Even then, I'm not sure it'll always be trivial to say what you are comparing, or to convince others you are comparing the right things. A few pages back, I pasted in a little text from Gygax's "Chainmail Additions" article about how the rules were only guidelines and so on. Is that part of the game of Chainmail? More importantly, who gets to decide if it is or not? There will always be some judgment required to execute a comparison like this, and where there is judgment, there is bias. OD&D's numerous omissions, clarifications, and expansions would create a similar problem, even for something that may look at a distance like a stable text. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 3, 2017 6:38:25 GMT -5
There is a game and it was referred to as Blackmoor; and it was PLAYED, and when they played the players said let's play in Blackmoor. Any play/game has a system and can be modeled just like anything else. And how do we know exactly how they played Blackmoor? This is different from, say, Chainmail, where you and I can both look at the same text(s) from 1971 and maybe agree "okay, this is what the properties of Chainmail are." Cedgewick's point (he did say it, not me) was that in the absence of that kind of direct evidence about Blackmoor, we cannot perform this analysis for Blackmoor without making assumptions about what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 3, 2017 7:03:22 GMT -5
There is a game and it was referred to as Blackmoor; and it was PLAYED, and when they played the players said let's play in Blackmoor. Any play/game has a system and can be modeled just like anything else. And how do we know exactly how they played Blackmoor? This is different from, say, Chainmail, where you and I can both look at the same text(s) from 1971 and maybe agree "okay, this is what the properties of Chainmail are." Cedgewick's point (he did say it, not me) was that in the absence of that kind of direct evidence about Blackmoor, we cannot perform this analysis for Blackmoor without making assumptions about what it is. How they played Blackmoor has been documented by its players and Arneson, by me and Gary, and proceeds to Gary describing what Arneson was doing with his game systems architecture; and then after the split between them we have FFC, which supports all of the key philosophical points as extolled in Gary's D&D/and A&E #2 quotes as to what system type and organization has been forwarded, all of which is primary and scientific evidence. One then proceeds to verify that evidence by deconstructing the system itself and explaining it in scientific terms; and in both cases we have the same architecture (though slightly dissimilar sub-systems due to each designer's proclivities only and not due to cohesion problems extending from the base architecture) working in Blackmoor as they do in D&D. This is the defining point and no other, as D&D could not have been conceived of without a working model, or as I said, have been created in a vacuum. One cannot have their cake and eat it too in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 3, 2017 7:17:05 GMT -5
How they played Blackmoor has been documented by its players and Arneson, by me and Gary, and proceeds to Gary describing what Arneson was doing with his game systems architecture; and then after the split between them we have FFC, which supports all of the key philosophical points as extolled in Gary's D&D/and A&E #2 quotes as to what system type and organization has been forwarded, all of which is primary and scientific evidence. Good, so this brings us back around to where Cedgewick and I started. Cedgewick told me, "That's the beauty of Kuntz's method. We're not relying on people's memories or documents." Provided you agree that we are relying on people's memories and documents, then the output of your analysis will be as good as the accuracy and impartiality of that data inputted to it. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 3, 2017 7:29:50 GMT -5
How they played Blackmoor has been documented by its players and Arneson, by me and Gary, and proceeds to Gary describing what Arneson was doing with his game systems architecture; and then after the split between them we have FFC, which supports all of the key philosophical points as extolled in Gary's D&D/and A&E #2 quotes as to what system type and organization has been forwarded, all of which is primary and scientific evidence. Good, so this brings us back around to where Cedgewick and I started. Cedgewick told me, "That's the beauty of Kuntz's method. We're not relying on people's memories or documents." Provided you agree that we are relying on people's memories and documents, then the output of your analysis will be as good as the accuracy and impartiality of that data inputted to it. True. Yet you have not addressed that evidence as yet as I have as a designer and by pin-pinting it as a new systems form. That is the turning point; and it is the reason--to date--as to why no one could agree on the evidence as previously forwarded. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 3, 2017 7:39:05 GMT -5
True. Yet you have not addressed that evidence as yet as I have as a designer and by pin-pinting it as a new systems form. That is the turning point; and it is the reason--to date--as to why no one could agree on the evidence as previously forwarded. Addressed that evidence for what purpose? Look, I'm only still in this thread because Cedgewick called me out to the bike racks after school. Are you asking me to critique your work? |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 3, 2017 10:04:39 GMT -5
I posted this on my blog back in October 2016: I am not sure that I stated the historical parts completely accurately and I am assuming that the new book will help me correct that. I think reading it now from 6 months later that there are things that I could have stated better. I think this book will lead to at least some people having that light bulb moment and there will be for some a reset that will lead to new original good stuff. If I were to rewrite it, I would likely say something to the effect that something outside the OSR (using the Renaissance tag) would be the impetus of a reall Cultural Re-Birth and then talk about the new book and the book that will follow it and the impact they can and should have. The OSR happened because of open content. First the d20 System Reference expanded the number of people sharing tabletop roleplaying material both commercially and non-commercially especially in regards to D&D 3.X. Out of this group were players who played back in the day and were interested in supporting that style of play, or people who interested in exploring the roots of the hobby. Soon we saw a bunch of products that promoted themselves has (using Necromancer's slogan) new edition rules old edition feel. Finally it is culminated in Castles & Crusades which started as a AD&D reborn project. But the publisher, Troll Lords, wouldn't take the risk of making the first clone so made something that used newer mechanics but was designed to work with older adventures 'as is'. But shortly after there were people willing to take the risk and we saw the release of Basic Fantasy and OSRIC. After 2008 is cascaded from there as you can see in Hoard and Horde (which is fairly complete until Apr 2012). Now due to the ease of communication thanks to the internet, I have no doubt that in some alternate history without the retro-clones places like this sites would have been created and sites like Dragonsfoot continued to do their things. But it would have considerably muted due to people inability to share as much as they can now. The open content removed the uncertainty factor how much one can and can not share in regards to older editions. This broadened the possibilities of what one can do. Plus it turned out that the various classic editions are true classics and able to hold their own against the newest editions and RPGs. The combination produced what we see today. And now that we have a body of open content that is free for anybody to use in both sense of the word. Classic D&D is no longer chained to the whims of a single company or individual who owns the IP. As a side note, some what being produced is not open content and published with a traditional copyright setup. In the United States there has been legal precedent that game mechanics can't be copyrighted only the actual rulebook. Some who are willing to do their homework and shoulder the risk took advantage of that to support classic D&D. Looking at the fact that Wizard didn't issue a cease and desist or a lawsuit against any of the original retro-clones and taking it a step further. So while open content didn't directly help these authors it did lay the foundation on which to test the boundaries further. Which again increased the number of people supporting classic editions of D&D. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 3, 2017 10:41:55 GMT -5
True. Yet you have not addressed that evidence as yet as I have as a designer and by pin-pinting it as a new systems form. That is the turning point; and it is the reason--to date--as to why no one could agree on the evidence as previously forwarded. Addressed that evidence for what purpose? Look, I'm only still in this thread because Cedgewick called me out to the bike racks after school. Are you asking me to critique your work? Meaning that you have not read the book and cannot address the matter as yet. I am stating, emphatically, that what I assert in the book conclusively demonstrates that a new system was created and that the argument regarding ancestry over D&D, because of that, has also been concluded. That, in turn, Arneson's contributions to game design history are more than what were assumed ("an idea man" only) by framing them in their fullest design history contexts. As well, a new way of viewing the conceptual range of this system form, and as based upon intuited design philosophies as espoused through both Gary's and Dave's many quotes, has been made more concise for designers, historians, etc. I am assuming that you, as a historian of D&D, would examine the work, yes, and within the light of sustaining scholarship on a now broadened subject. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on May 3, 2017 11:18:33 GMT -5
I am assuming that you, as a historian of D&D, would examine the work, yes, and within the light of sustaining scholarship on a now broadened subject. I will check it out, though I don't expect I'll write a formal review of it, any more than I published reviews of Dave Ewalt's work or Shannon Appelcline's or that I plan to for the imminently-forthcoming "Rise of the Dungeon Master" book. I did however correspond some privately with Ewalt and Appelcline, as I do have an interest in trying to reach alignment on the key historical points: you learn more from talking to people you disagree with than people who see things that same way you do. I do think I'm getting enough of a sense of the general ideas here that I can dimly see some of the areas where you and I probably aren't entirely aligned today, anyway. My own interests are really almost entirely in pedantic factual questions, so really I'll gravitate towards which sources you invoked and which you excluded, dates and sequences, that sort of material. I'd be happy to check back in with your privately, or publicly if you prefer, when I've had a chance to look at it. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 3, 2017 11:31:42 GMT -5
I am assuming that you, as a historian of D&D, would examine the work, yes, and within the light of sustaining scholarship on a now broadened subject. I will check it out, though I don't expect I'll write a formal review of it, any more than I published reviews of Dave Ewalt's work or Shannon Appelcline's or that I plan to for the imminently-forthcoming "Rise of the Dungeon Master" book. I did however correspond some privately with Ewalt and Appelcline, as I do have an interest in trying to reach alignment on the key historical points: you learn more from talking to people you disagree with than people who see things that same way you do. I do think I'm getting enough of a sense of the general ideas here that I can dimly see some of the areas where you and I probably aren't entirely aligned today, anyway. My own interests are really almost entirely in pedantic factual questions, so really I'll gravitate towards which sources you invoked and which you excluded, dates and sequences, that sort of material. I'd be happy to check back in with your privately, or publicly if you prefer, when I've had a chance to look at it. I will PM you my private e-mail, Jon. Understood on all and thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 3, 2017 11:37:11 GMT -5
I've read DATG. I enjoyed it.
I will not offer a review of it myself; I have neither the blog or reputation that would make my impression of it worth anyone's while.
I think a lot of folks on both sides of the issue surrounding it, are grinding for all the wrong reasons. Which is a shame, because what DA gave us is, simply, not all that complicated.
ymmv
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 3, 2017 11:45:28 GMT -5
I've read DATG. I enjoyed it. I will not offer a review of it myself; I have neither the blog or reputation that would make my impression of it worth anyone's while. I think a lot of folks on both sides of the issue surrounding it, are grinding for all the wrong reasons. Which is a shame, because what DA gave us is, simply, not all that complicated. ymmv There is no grinding going on; and no one was stating complications but pursuing courses and expanding or contracting same. One must concede the difference between discourse and "grinding," and that is sometimes hard to otherwise distinguish between on a tone-deaf and inflection-proof Internet board, I'll admit.  |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 3, 2017 11:57:17 GMT -5
I am not using grinding in the sense of a soapbox. I just think, for those that don't get DATG, it's not really important. They will continue playing the game. People drive cars without knowing the physics behind momentum; and Henry Ford did not invent the first car. Hasn't stopped the car industry from emerging, or the public transportation of people and goods.
There is a speech Henry Drummond gives in the movie Inherit The Wind, in the courtroom scene. I wish I could quote it, because it speaks of what I am suggesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 3, 2017 12:08:29 GMT -5
I am not using grinding in the sense of a soapbox. I just think, for those that don't get DATG, it's not really important. They will continue playing the game. People drive cars without knowing the physics behind momentum; and Henry Ford did not invent the first car. Hasn't stopped the car industry from emerging, or the public transportation of people and goods. There is a speech Henry Drummond gives in the movie Inherit The Wind, in the courtroom scene. I wish I could quote it, because it speaks of what I am suggesting. Yes. Playing and designing are two different things. Extending the concept is also another thing. Understanding its theoretical potential is yet another thing. Producing a correct history surrounding its advent is yet another thing. Promoting it for play in ways we did not previously deduce that it could be promoted to is yet another thing. Things are things. We as individuals get to pick among these choices, so an artist draws and thus does not study art? Any driver of vehicles just drives and perforce does not study engines? A designer only designs and doesn't study design? I hope that choices expand with any concept worth its potential range than to say what we see for ourselves alone is its only worth for others. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 12:59:43 GMT -5
All this yammering draws a wandering monster. Roll reaction time.  |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 3, 2017 13:15:38 GMT -5
All this yammering draws a wandering monster. Roll reaction time. Fine I rolled a six. 1d6, rolled once. Roll set 1 Die rolls: 6 Roll subtotal: 6 Roll total: 6 -- Dice rolls generated by RPG Library Secure Dice www.rpglibrary.org/software/securedice/--- verified message ends here --- Roll ID: 313493 MD5 checksum: 89424014c7eaaaa8317199ec6e2e5ce4 |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 3, 2017 13:19:26 GMT -5
Good, so this brings us back around to where Cedgewick and I started. Cedgewick told me, "That's the beauty of Kuntz's method. We're not relying on people's memories or documents." Provided you agree that we are relying on people's memories and documents, then the output of your analysis will be as good as the accuracy and impartiality of that data inputted to it. Careful here. You are implying that Kuntz's method doesn't work without memories or documents. That is absolutely false. It does not rely on memories or documents in the case of any published game. Think about that. You can use his method with ZERO reliance on anyone's memories or any documents when you compare D&D to Chainmail, or D&D to Monopoly, or D&D to Spades, or D&D to Diplomacy, or D&D to Charades, or D&D to Tic-Tac-Toe. What I admitted was that, because the Blackmoor game wasn't published (or otherwise documented, same thing), we can't be 100% sure that we know all of the fundamental concepts of Blackmoor. However, we have very compelling evidence that the fundamental concepts of Blackmoor were identical to the fundamental concepts of D&D. Remember, by fundamental concepts, I am not talking about the names of monsters, which weapons were included, the effects of spells, and so on. I am talking about how the game works and is put together, systems-level. Gary Gygax's own admission that Blackmoor was the "prototype" of D&D is perhaps the strongest evidence of all that Blackmoor and D&D share the same fundamental concepts. Gygax's command of words and language is famous- surely he knew the meaning of the word "prototype". Merriam-Webster defines " prototype" as: What Gary Gygax said succinctly with his choice of the word "prototype" is exactly what I am saying here- Blackmoor and D&D share the same fundamental concepts. Using Kuntz's book, which uses systems terminology, you would say that Blackmoor was the primary or lineal pre-image of D&D. But beyond Gygax's admission, we also have testimony from players that played both Blackmoor and OD&D. I believe Rob Kuntz has made it clear that he believes that Blackmoor and D&D were fundamentally the same game. Here's another data point: I'm sure others are aware of a few more examples. Now, if you can accept the small assumption that the fundamental concepts of Blackmoor were identical to the fundamental concepts of D&D, then you need no further evidence beyond that. You simply compare Chainmail to D&D using Kuntz's method and you automatically have the answer for the comparison of Chainmail and Dave's game of Blackmoor. Rob Kuntz has done the comparison in his book, and the answer is that D&D did not descend from Chainmail, indicating that Blackmoor didn't either. Your only recourse here is to argue that Blackmoor and D&D are fundamentally not the same game, but if you did that you'd find yourself against the words of Gygax, Arneson, Kuntz, Svenson and probably others- an unenviable position. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 3, 2017 13:47:16 GMT -5
I've read DATG. I enjoyed it. I will not offer a review of it myself; I have neither the blog or reputation that would make my impression of it worth anyone's while.
I think a lot of folks on both sides of the issue surrounding it, are grinding for all the wrong reasons. Which is a shame, because what DA gave us is, simply, not all that complicated. ymmv I believe I should make clear the underlined above. What is meant is: I think DATG is worth anyone's while to peruse it. I just don't think my opinion of such, whether I had a blog or reputation, would be impetus enough for anyone to simply take my word for it. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding about this. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 3, 2017 13:48:47 GMT -5
All this yammering draws a wandering monster. Roll reaction time. Yes, but non-yammering draws monsters too. Remember Gronan's 11 in a row??  |
|
