Should we call historians to account for distorting Arneson?

[Cedgewick]

Jon Peterson wrote here:

Pretty much the worst thing we can do to celebrate Dave's actual achievements is to distort them.

I agree with Jon.  Yet, in this 2012 blog post, Jon wrote:

We will never uncover a document that comprises "the Blackmoor system," but we can see glimpses of some characteristics in contemporary sources. Sometimes, as with the excerpt from a late-1972 Corner of the Table shown above, we can learn a lot from just a battle report. This one describes the beginning of the Loch Gloomen phase of the campaign.

Jon posted only the section in black below, removing the non-mass-combat half of the report:

In his blog on the Loch Gloomen battle report, he concluded:

Overall, the action described here is clearly a wargame, in which the opposing sides are represented by players, rather than a dungeon adventure where the characters collaborate to fight perils controlled by the referee. We see giants and dragons attacking the town along with Kurt Krey and an anonymous Anti-Hero. The rescue force of Wesely, Maker and Belfry arrive with one hundred cavalry at their side, and we see many references to large attack forces and garrisons. The characters play a decisive role in the conflict, but they act as part of broader armies.

Copies of Dave Arneson's fanzine Corner of the Table are extremely rare, and up until recently, due to the efforts of the Secrets of Blackmoor folks, only a handful of people in the world could have possibly known that Jon had removed the non-mass-combat half of the report.  We know that Jon was fully aware that few, if any, of his readers would realize that he had cut the non-mass-combat half of the report because he wrote on page XV of his 2012 book:

Without Arneson's Corner of the Table, a fanzine scarce to the brink of endangerment, posterity would have precious little insight into the formative years of Blackmoor...

If we look at the non-mass-combat half of the report that Jon removed, we see a lot of activity that has nothing to do with "a wargame," or where the characters are "part of broader armies".  In fact, the non-mass-combat half of the report that Jon removed sounds very much like a D&D game and not a wargame at all.

This year, he drew a similar conclusion in a thread on this board:

Now personally, my opinions about this tend to be informed by the pieces of documentary evidence that survive. Maybe the most useful single thing I can point to is the Loch Gloomen battle report that appeared in COTT late in 1972. I know the "Secrets of Blackmoor" folks recently put up a scan of this, and I put one up as well a few years ago (I can furnish a link if it's hard to find). If you want to read about the kinds of things that were going on in the Blackmoor campaign at this stage, it's a pretty rich source of data. It is describing an attack on the town of Loch Gloomen involving hundreds of orcs and soldiers, and it contains a number of references to the characters involved. The terms "Hero" and "Super-hero" are used to designate the types of those characters in a way that has an obvious debt to Chainmail. In fact, I think Blackmoor at that time still had a concept of class and level that was closer to Chainmail than what we see in OD&D. But moreover, reading that description, you might be hard pressed to explain how what you are reading is not a description of a Chainmail game. Is there anything you see happening here that does not seem resolvable with the baseline Chainmail rules? Whatever else may have been going on as people participated in Blackmoor, there was also a certain amount of, well, just wargaming.

Jon has said here:

I don't pretend to "know" anything myself, as I am really just a conduit for the sources I am channeling. An argument with me is almost always just an argument with my sources. In those few cases where I make inferences or draw conclusions, I appropriately festoon them with hazard tape. 

Neither his blog post from 2012 nor his forum post from 2017 warns his readers that he had removed the non-mass-combat half of the report that runs counter to his conclusions.

Even after I called Jon to account on ODD74 last week (the posts have since been removed), Jon has still not revised his blog post, nor his forum post, to add a warning that he had removed the non-mass-combat half of the report.

Did historian Jon Peterson have a legitimate reason for removing the non-mass-combat half of the report?

Please stay on topic when posting a response in this thread.  Please state something like:

"I think historian Jon Peterson had a legitimate reason to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report, because..."

"I do not think historian Jon Peterson had a legitimate reason to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report, because..."

[Mighty Darci]

"I do not think historian Jon Peterson had a legitimate reason to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report, because" real historian's have a duty and an obligation to provide complete information, all that they have and to honestly and transparently evaluate it and then the reader can make up their own mind. If you do much reading of history you find out that most of what you are taught in schools are fairy tales compared to what really happened.

Reading through your introductory post Cedgewick, it seems that this Jon Peterson has an incomplete understanding of OD&D. The 3LBBs clearly state that you should be using Chainmail along side of it and Outdoor Survival. Why is that?  Even someone as young as I have figured out that OD&D was designed to include PCs going on dungeoncrawl's, outdoor trek's (Outdoor Survival gives guidance in that area), travel to other worlds and planes, anything they want to do. It is also apparent that the game intended that players at name level, if they wished, would have strongholds and controls armies and could use Chainmail (or other wargames) to run those battles of armies. So yeah, the complete report sounds like an OD&D game to me. His conclusions that it is just a Chainmail game appears to be a mistake to me.

[sixdemonbag]

Cedgewick He does acknowledge this part of the report when he says: (though later in the same issue, Mel Johnson's character is referred to as "Mello the Hobbit"), in the blog post you linked.

So, is your question, "Why did he not post an image after he references it?"

[captaincrumbcake]

I think, before going after anyone else, we should start with TSR and its own agenda in this regard.

Or is that a different issue?

[sixdemonbag]

TSR still exists?

EDIT: CCC's joke flew right over my head. (Continues to chase pretty butterflies...)

[bravewolf]

Jul 18, 2017 14:23:16 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

Jon Peterson wrote here:

Pretty much the worst thing we can do to celebrate Dave's actual achievements is to distort them.

I agree with Jon.  Yet, in this 2012 blog post, Jon wrote:

We will never uncover a document that comprises "the Blackmoor system," but we can see glimpses of some characteristics in contemporary sources. Sometimes, as with the excerpt from a late-1972 Corner of the Table shown above, we can learn a lot from just a battle report. This one describes the beginning of the Loch Gloomen phase of the campaign.

Jon posted only the section in black below, removing the non-mass-combat half of the report:



In his blog on the Loch Gloomen battle report, he concluded:

Overall, the action described here is clearly a wargame, in which the opposing sides are represented by players, rather than a dungeon adventure where the characters collaborate to fight perils controlled by the referee. We see giants and dragons attacking the town along with Kurt Krey and an anonymous Anti-Hero. The rescue force of Wesely, Maker and Belfry arrive with one hundred cavalry at their side, and we see many references to large attack forces and garrisons. The characters play a decisive role in the conflict, but they act as part of broader armies.

Copies of Dave Arneson's fanzine Corner of the Table are extremely rare, and up until recently, due to the efforts of the Secrets of Blackmoor folks, only a handful of people in the world could have possibly known that Jon had removed the non-mass-combat half of the report.  We know that Jon was fully aware that few, if any, of his readers would realize that he had cut the non-mass-combat half of the report because he wrote on page XV of his 2012 book:

Without Arneson's Corner of the Table, a fanzine scarce to the brink of endangerment, posterity would have precious little insight into the formative years of Blackmoor...

If we look at the non-mass-combat half of the report that Jon removed, we see a lot of activity that has nothing to do with "a wargame," or where the characters are "part of broader armies".  In fact, the non-mass-combat half of the report that Jon removed sounds very much like a D&D game and not a wargame at all.

This year, he drew a similar conclusion in a thread on this board:

Now personally, my opinions about this tend to be informed by the pieces of documentary evidence that survive. Maybe the most useful single thing I can point to is the Loch Gloomen battle report that appeared in COTT late in 1972. I know the "Secrets of Blackmoor" folks recently put up a scan of this, and I put one up as well a few years ago (I can furnish a link if it's hard to find). If you want to read about the kinds of things that were going on in the Blackmoor campaign at this stage, it's a pretty rich source of data. It is describing an attack on the town of Loch Gloomen involving hundreds of orcs and soldiers, and it contains a number of references to the characters involved. The terms "Hero" and "Super-hero" are used to designate the types of those characters in a way that has an obvious debt to Chainmail. In fact, I think Blackmoor at that time still had a concept of class and level that was closer to Chainmail than what we see in OD&D. But moreover, reading that description, you might be hard pressed to explain how what you are reading is not a description of a Chainmail game. Is there anything you see happening here that does not seem resolvable with the baseline Chainmail rules? Whatever else may have been going on as people participated in Blackmoor, there was also a certain amount of, well, just wargaming.

Jon has said here:

I don't pretend to "know" anything myself, as I am really just a conduit for the sources I am channeling. An argument with me is almost always just an argument with my sources. In those few cases where I make inferences or draw conclusions, I appropriately festoon them with hazard tape. 

Neither his blog post from 2012 nor his forum post from 2017 warns his readers that he had removed the non-mass-combat half of the report that runs counter to his conclusions.

Even after I called Jon to account on ODD74 last week (the posts have since been removed), Jon has still not revised his blog post, nor his forum post, to add a warning that he had removed the non-mass-combat half of the report.

Did historian Jon Peterson have a legitimate reason for removing the non-mass-combat half of the report?

Please stay on topic when posting a response in this thread.  Please state something like:

"I think historian Jon Peterson had a legitimate reason to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report, because..."

"I do not think historian Jon Peterson had a legitimate reason to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report, because..."

Peterson's conclusions look perfectly reasonable to me & he was very specific about what he parsed & commented on from the battle report. The play report reads like a war game & could have been resolved with a rules like Chainmail + referee rulings. The inclusion of the remainder of the play report doesn't change my mind on the matter; its omission from Peterson's seems to distort little.

[bravewolf]

And regarding the connection between Arneson's pioneering work & a certain war gaming ruleset, Zenopus posted this at ODD74:

Thanks for the confirmation! I'm just sort of walking through this information for myself and anyone new who wanders into this thread, so I may write some things that seem obvious to you.

* * * * *

Regarding the 100 page manuscript that Gygax mentioned, Playing at the World (pg 73) provides two citations: Alarums & Excursions #2 and Dragon #7.

In A&E #2, published July 1975 (so about 1.5 years after the LBBs), Gygax wrote:
"In case you don’t know the history of D&D, it all began with the fantasy rules in CHAINMAIL. Dave A. took those rules and changed them into a prototype of what is now D&D. When I played in his “Blackmoor” campaign I fell in love with the new concept and expanded and changed his 20 or so pages of hand-written “rules” into about 100 ms. pages. Dave’s group and ours here in Lake Geneva then began eager and enthusiastic play-testing, and the result was the D&D game in January of 1974" (part of a letter in response to receiving a copy of A&E #1)

In Dragon #7, published June 1977, Gygax wrote:
"When the whole appeared as CHAINMAIL, Dave began using the fantasy rules for his campaign, and he reported a number of these actions to the C&C Society by way of articles.

I thought that this usage was quite interesting, and a few months later when Dave came down to visit me we played a game of his amended CHAINMAIL fantasy campaign. Dave had taken the man-to-man and fantasy rules and modified them for his campaign. Players began as Heroes or Wizards. With sufficient success they could become Superheroes. In a similar fashion, Wizards could become more powerful. Additionally, he had added equipment for players to purchase and expanded the characters descriptions considerably — even adding several new monsters to the rather short CHAINMAIL line-up.

The idea of measured progression (experience points) and the addition of games taking place in a dungeon maze struck me as being very desireable. However, that did not really fit in the framework of CHAINMAIL. I asked Dave to please send me his rules additions, for I thought a whole new system should be developed. A few weeks after his visit I received 18 or so handwritten pages of rules and notes pertaining to his campaign, and I immediately began work on a brand new manuscript. “Greyhawk” campaign started —the first D&D campaign!

About three weeks later, I had some 100 typewritten pages, and we began serious play-testing in Lake Geneva, while copies were sent to the Twin Cities and to several other groups for comment. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS had been born. Its final form came over a year later and consisted of nearly 300 manuscript pages which I wrote during the wee hours of many a morning and on weekends" (pg 7, Designers Forum column, "GARY GYGAX ON DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: Origins of the Game")

(bolding added to emphasize portions referring to the typewritten manuscript of ~100 pages)

[Deleted]

Jesus, Cedgewick, she never told Jon Peterson she was your mother.

[Cedgewick]

Jul 18, 2017 14:23:16 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

Did historian Jon Peterson have a legitimate reason for removing the non-mass-combat half of the report?

Please stay on topic when posting a response in this thread.  Please state something like:

"I think historian Jon Peterson had a legitimate reason to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report, because..."

"I do not think historian Jon Peterson had a legitimate reason to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report, because..."

sixdemonbag , captaincrumbcake , bravewolf , @gronanofsimmerya it sounds like you are disagreeing with me. Please answer the question I posed and explain what you think the legitimate reason was for Jon Peterson to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report above...

[bravewolf]

Jul 18, 2017 22:42:41 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

Jul 18, 2017 14:23:16 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

Did historian Jon Peterson have a legitimate reason for removing the non-mass-combat half of the report?

Please stay on topic when posting a response in this thread.  Please state something like:

"I think historian Jon Peterson had a legitimate reason to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report, because..."

"I do not think historian Jon Peterson had a legitimate reason to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report, because..."

sixdemonbag , captaincrumbcake , bravewolf , @gronanofsimmerya it sounds like you are disagreeing with me. Please answer the question I posed and explain what you think the legitimate reason was for Jon Peterson to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report above...

Apologies, Cedgewick; I overlooked those instructions in your original post.

I think that Peterson's omission of the rest of the Loch Gloomen battle report was deliberate in that his point hinged on the qualities of the beginning of the Loch Gloomen phase of the campaign. That that phase of play could be adjudicated with Chainmail is plausible. Since Peterson did not claim that roleplaying did not occur (war gaming is not a sufficient condition to preclude engagement in roleplaying), the remainder of the play report was not germane to his thesis. Therefore, it seems legitimate to have omitted it.

I concede that the omitted material mentions a dungeon expedition. Note, however, Peterson's conclusion that "overall" the Loch Gloomen portion of the campaign was prosecuted like a wargame. "Overall" because that dungeon expedition & the verve with which the players guided their characters are suggestive of roleplaying as we all call it these days. Peterson actually softened his conclusion to take into account material that he had read, not reproduced on his blog, yet remained cognizant of in making his case. Legit.

[sixdemonbag]

I can't speak for anyone else, but your questions have so many embedded assumptions that there is no way anyone can provide any actual answers save one person. Your questions should be directed at Jon, and if he doesn't wish to answer, then just accept the situation for what it is.

I do not know why Jon does what he does. I'm not him nor is anyone else you singled out. In fact, only one person on this planet can answer your question. See the problem here?

Most importantly, you need to define "historian", "legitimate", "remove", "non-mass-combat", "half", and "report". Every single one of those terms is a subjective assumption on your part. It's called "leading" in legal parlance. It's a sneaky tactic you just tried to pull on us.

However, in general, you have valid points of discussion that I would enjoy reading, but your tone is off-putting and accusatory. You should ask Jon these questions if you want actual non-conjectured answers. We can't help you.

Besides, even those who took the time to respond to you, you disregarded out of hand. We are under no obligation to follow your silly rules. My reply was a simple clarification of your questions that you had no interest in. Well, I will offer the same courtesy to you. Furthermore, nobody likes being told what to do by a stranger in a place where most of us enjoy healthy debate. You tell us what to do, and how to answer, then ignore our concerns. That's rude and hypocritical.

BUT, just for giggles and because I'm bored, I'll play along:

I think historian Jon Peterson had a legitimate reason to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report, because...

He doesn't have access to the scans of that page.
He is not able to scan that page.
He is not in possession of that page.
He is citing that page from memory.
He is under legal contract not to post certain images of certain documents.
He is legally liable for any images he posts.
He made a personal promise not to release certain parts.
He is waiting to post at a future date of his choosing.
He wishes to be compensated for his research through published works.
He is protecting the privacy of those he acquired documents from.
He did not feel the page was relevant to the discussion.
He did not feel the page added any further to our understanding of his thesis or sequence of events.
He forgot.
He's lazy.
He enjoys annoying Cedgewick .
He is waiting for the page to undergo professional restoration.
He doesn't want to upset the Gygax estate which paid him large sums of money to protect their legacy.
He doesn't want to upset Hasbro which paid him large sums of money to protect their intellectual property.
He sold the item before scanning it.
He lost it.
He fed it to his dog.
He is verifying authenticity.
He is The Riddler.

Flipside:

I do not think historian Jon Peterson had a legitimate reason to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report, because...

He should share an image of anything he publicly references.
He should share an image, in entirety, of anything he publicly references.
He should share an image of everything he privately owns.
He should scan, post, and publish everything he owns that pertains to D&D regardless of being referenced or not.
He should do what I say.
He is my witch.
He has things I want.
He owes it to history and society.
He owes it to humanity.
He would be providing a public service.
He mentioned it in passing, and thus should post visual proof of it.
He should cite every source he references via PDF scans to the public.
He knows that the public wants free access to his private collection and should oblige.
He hurt my feelings.
He is a smart, dedicated guy, and I want to see what collectibles such a person owns.

What did I miss? Maybe Jon will answer himself and give you what you want.

[sixdemonbag]

A better question Cedgewick should have posed:

Here is the full report that Jon mentioned earlier. Is this role-playing or wargaming? Let's discuss.

Not:

Why did Jon leave this part out? Let's all conjecture about his methods and motivations. Follow my answer syntax or else I will ignore you.

EDIT: It occurs to me that there are a few frequent posters on this very forum, who were around during those days and could provide some insight if asked. One of which even wrote an entire book discussing and making a case to answer this very question. Maybe try taking advantage of some very valuable resources available to you rather than posing questions nobody can answer.

And godbless bravewolf  and Mighty Darci  for actually engaging in a civil discourse despite being condescended to.

[sixdemonbag]

Jul 18, 2017 16:32:10 GMT -5 Mighty Darci said:

"I do not think historian Jon Peterson had a legitimate reason to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report, because" real historian's have a duty and an obligation to provide complete information, all that they have and to honestly and transparently evaluate it and then the reader can make up their own mind. If you do much reading of history you find out that most of what you are taught in schools are fairy tales compared to what really happened.

Reading through your introductory post Cedgewick , it seems that this Jon Peterson has an incomplete understanding of OD&D. The 3LBBs clearly state that you should be using Chainmail along side of it and Outdoor Survival. Why is that?  Even someone as young as I have figured out that OD&D was designed to include PCs going on dungeoncrawl's, outdoor trek's (Outdoor Survival gives guidance in that area), travel to other worlds and planes, anything they want to do. It is also apparent that the game intended that players at name level, if they wished, would have strongholds and controls armies and could use Chainmail (or other wargames) to run those battles of armies. So yeah, the complete report sounds like an OD&D game to me. His conclusions that it is just a Chainmail game appears to be a mistake to me.

A really well-reasoned response here.

However, this is a particularly cruel trick Cedgewick pulled in the way he posed the question. Mighty Darci is answering in the general in the first paragraph, and yet people will read this response and think she is criticizing Jon personally, despite just responding to the OP. (If this isn't the case, then I apologize in advance, but it sure feels like you goaded her into this response. If not, then her opinion of Jon is as valid as any.)

She actually took the time to answer your IMPLICIT question in her second paragraph (roleplaying vs wargaming). Kudos to her for that! That's the discussion we SHOULD be having. Not about why Jon does what he does or what he should or shouldn't do. Only he knows that. It doesn't matter what he should do because we can't force him. That discussion leads nowhere and only serves to germinate undue hostilities.

SHOULD George Lucas release the original trilogy in its unaltered form on Blu-Ray without his special edition changes? Is that our right to his property? Can we force him to give up his private property? Does he owe his fans? Should GRRM finish his books before he dies? Does he owe his fans his published conclusion?? Fans are rabid and unreasonable, unfortunately. D&D is no exception.

Her points in the first paragraph are valid and I'm even inclined to agree with most of it, but we can't apply it to Jon, specifically, because we don't know if he is has finished his work or why he releases what he does at the pace he does. Maybe he is still crafting his conclusions.

He is still releasing documents. He is publicly showing a never-before-seen pre-publication draft of D&D at a museum at GenCon this year (Gary's infamous 100-pg ms.) He is also working on a follow-up book with new information. He could just sit on this information but he decides to showcase it instead; that's pretty hard to criticize.

Let's let Jon finish his work, and then evaluate it on it's own merits. This will not happen today or tomorrow. These things take time and care and shouldn't be handled frivolously. A real historian takes as much time and as slow a pace as necessary to do the best work possible or desirable. Peer review will occur. Just be patient.

Without Jon's hard work we wouldn't know a fraction of what we currently know about the history of D&D. Let's give him some respect and provide useful debate for him and the rest of the community instead of outright dismissal.

[robkuntz]

The point being that Paterson's assertion that one cannot ascertain the Blackmoor system is patently false, made moreso by the omission of facts which would otherwise clarify the system's characteristics.

In reality Peterson cannot deny, nor can anyone, that there is no conceptual interface component BEFORE Blackmoor, and thus if we understand systems architecture, which apparently he does not, then this component is the preeminent component in Arneson's architecture that defines it as a RPG, and thus the FIRST RPG. That the architecture also uses mechanics is a ho-hum idle point, as the mechanics cannot distinguish it as an RPG, so they can be anything, Arneson's take on the mechanical apparatus or Gygax's later take, doesn't matter which one as the conceptual component is the main defining part of the RPG architecture. So that IS Arneson's SYSTEM, as no other game previous to this incorporated it at such a level, degree or range. That no one who experienced it could type it as an RPG then is of note, as this perforce reveals that Arneson created a new gaming category (Conceptual Games for Adults) that defied categorization--so they, including we of the LGTSA, just referred to it as another "wargame".

[bravewolf]

Jul 19, 2017 5:57:39 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

The point being that Paterson's assertion that one cannot ascertain the Blackmoor system is patently false, made moreso by the omission of facts which would otherwise clarify the system's characteristics.

In reality Peterson cannot deny, nor can anyone, that there is no conceptual interface component BEFORE Blackmoor, and thus if we understand systems architecture, which apparently he does not, then this component is the preeminent component in Arneson's architecture that defines it as a RPG, and thus the FIRST RPG. That the architecture also uses mechanics is a ho-hum idle point, as the mechanics cannot distinguish it as an RPG, so they can be anything, Arneson's take on the mechanical apparatus or Gygax's later take, doesn't matter which one as the conceptual component is the main defining part of the RPG architecture. So that IS Arneson's SYSTEM, as no other game previous to this incorporated it at such a level, degree or range. That no one who experienced it could type it as an RPG then is of note, as this perforce reveals that Arneson created a new gaming category (Conceptual Games for Adults) that defied categorization--so they, including we of the LGTSA, just referred to it as another "wargame".

Peterson didn't claim that one couldn't ascertain the Blackmoor system, unless he just exercised poor English usage in his blog post. Sounds to like he's saying we might not ever find is a document that forms a Blackmoor ruleset written explicitly as such.

[robkuntz]

Jul 19, 2017 9:30:21 GMT -5 bravewolf said:

Jul 19, 2017 5:57:39 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

The point being that Paterson's assertion that one cannot ascertain the Blackmoor system is patently false, made moreso by the omission of facts which would otherwise clarify the system's characteristics.

In reality Peterson cannot deny, nor can anyone, that there is no conceptual interface component BEFORE Blackmoor, and thus if we understand systems architecture, which apparently he does not, then this component is the preeminent component in Arneson's architecture that defines it as a RPG, and thus the FIRST RPG. That the architecture also uses mechanics is a ho-hum idle point, as the mechanics cannot distinguish it as an RPG, so they can be anything, Arneson's take on the mechanical apparatus or Gygax's later take, doesn't matter which one as the conceptual component is the main defining part of the RPG architecture. So that IS Arneson's SYSTEM, as no other game previous to this incorporated it at such a level, degree or range. That no one who experienced it could type it as an RPG then is of note, as this perforce reveals that Arneson created a new gaming category (Conceptual Games for Adults) that defied categorization--so they, including we of the LGTSA, just referred to it as another "wargame".

Peterson didn't claim that one couldn't ascertain the Blackmoor system, unless he just exercised poor English usage in his blog post. Sounds to like he's saying we might not ever find is a document that forms a Blackmoor ruleset written explicitly as such.

 "Peterson didn't claim that one couldn't ascertain the Blackmoor system, unless he just exercised poor English usage..."  So is it  didn't (absolute) or not absolute unless? Methinks you offer nothing but a contradiction, which in turn says nothing. What he meant is what he said if one understands proper English usage.  I am not here to argue with defenders of interpretations of another's POV and usage.  I reserve that as my own exercise, thank you.  

[bravewolf]

Jul 19, 2017 9:58:35 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Jul 19, 2017 9:30:21 GMT -5 bravewolf said:

Peterson didn't claim that one couldn't ascertain the Blackmoor system, unless he just exercised poor English usage in his blog post. Sounds to like he's saying we might not ever find is a document that forms a Blackmoor ruleset written explicitly as such.

 "Peterson didn't claim that one couldn't ascertain the Blackmoor system, unless he just exercised poor English usage..."  So is it  didn't (absolute) or not absolute unless? Methinks you offer nothing but a contradiction, which in turn says nothing. What he meant is what he said if one understands proper English usage.  I am not here to argue with defenders of interpretations of another's POV and usage.  I reserve that as my own exercise, thank you. 

You're welcome. I will put it plainly. Peterson's plain writing states that we will never find a document that IS the Blackmoor system. He made no claim that one could not ascertain the system from existing documents. In fact, he said that we could do so. Ergo, you saying that Peterson said one cannot ascertain the system is patently false. All done.

[sixdemonbag]

Let's actually have the discussion shall we? So, question to the class (robkuntz , Mighty Darci , bravewolf , Cedgewick ):

Jon's assertion: "Overall, the action described here is clearly a wargame, in which the opposing sides are represented by players, rather than a dungeon adventure where the characters collaborate to fight perils controlled by the referee."

This looks to be his definition of a "dungeon adventure". Do we think he is equating a "dungeon adventure" to an RPG? Is his definition valid? How does everyone define a "wargame" and an "RPG" or a "dungeon adventure"?

I have thought about this and I don't have a good answer. Rob defined it in his book. How does this statement compare? Is it even a valid comparison? Thoughts?

[bravewolf]

It sounds to me that JP is contrasting troop-level action (wargame) and dungeon adventures (Not wargame). I am stepping into the office now, so that is all I have time to write just now.

[Admin Pete]

I fixed a couple of posts where the quotes got tangled and now I am getting offline again. Please have a civil debate and if you find you cannot then let it alone for a while. As usual please check any snark at the door, if others are telling you that you have snark in your posts, likely that is it true, so take a deep breath and resolve to not do that. @gronanofsimmerya, you made me laugh, it hurt, don't do that. Besides, I shouldn't have found that to be funny, but I did, I repeat that hurt, don't do that. I may not be back on for a couple more days. Carry on and don't burn the place down.

[robkuntz]

Jul 19, 2017 10:49:38 GMT -5 sixdemonbag said:

Let's actually have the discussion shall we? So, question to the class (robkuntz , Mighty Darci , bravewolf , Cedgewick ):

Jon's assertion: "Overall, the action described here is clearly a wargame, in which the opposing sides are represented by players, rather than a dungeon adventure where the characters collaborate to fight perils controlled by the referee."

This looks to be his definition of a "dungeon adventure". Do we think he is equating a "dungeon adventure" to an RPG? Is his definition valid? How does everyone define a "wargame" and an "RPG" or a "dungeon adventure"?

I have thought about this and I don't have a good answer. Rob defined it in his book. How does this statement compare? Is it even a valid comparison? Thoughts?

They are simplistic portrayals at best because Peterson is not a designer.  Strip away all of the minutia and superficial descriptions that he hides within and get to the point, if one can:  What is or is not something is defined by its architecture.  Period.  As noted in DATG all  game architecture occurring before Arneson's RPG, Blackmoor (aka FFC), had NO conceptual component!  Nada.  Squat.  They also did not allow for the organization of the system's structure in a mutable way as one could with Arneson's omniscient system view (the DM) who could also control the way the mechanics were organized, AND IN REAL TIME. NO where.  Repeat,  NO where in history is this type of systems organization apparent prior to its advent in Blackmoor--it's THAT SIMPLE folks.  This is a new system because it is a new game category, and that is all traced to Arneson. Please understand backward causality; if you cannot duplicate the results of the new form--AS-IS--from the older forms then we have a transcendent form and no true relation to the supposed prior forms.  That's the real news here, not whether someone used a 2 six-sided dice or whatever.  That is Arneson's genius and Gary's and our good fortune because of it.

[Cedgewick]

Jul 18, 2017 23:38:51 GMT -5 bravewolf said:

I think that Peterson's omission of the rest of the Loch Gloomen battle report was deliberate in that his point hinged on the qualities of the beginning of the Loch Gloomen phase of the campaign. That that phase of play could be adjudicated with Chainmail is plausible.

The battle report included a mass combat as well as individual character actions following the mass combat. Chainmail could be used to adjudicate the mass combat, but not the individual character actions.

Jul 18, 2017 23:38:51 GMT -5 bravewolf said:

Since Peterson did not claim that roleplaying did not occur (war gaming is not a sufficient condition to preclude engagement in roleplaying), the remainder of the play report was not germane to his thesis. Therefore, it seems legitimate to have omitted it.

The remainder of the play report may not have been germane to his thesis, but the remainder of the play report was germane to his readers in evaluating the validity of Jon's thesis and conclusions. Clearly, by leaving out the non-mass-combat portion of the report, and failing to tell his readers that he had done so, the reader is left to believe that the report included only the description of a mass combat that he did show. Take a look at his conclusions:

"Overall, the action described here is clearly a wargame"

"The characters play a decisive role in the conflict, but they act as part of broader armies."

Would these conclusions have been very persuasive to you if he had only shown the portion of the battle report in blue?

[bravewolf]

Jul 19, 2017 13:29:11 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

Jul 18, 2017 23:38:51 GMT -5 bravewolf said:

I think that Peterson's omission of the rest of the Loch Gloomen battle report was deliberate in that his point hinged on the qualities of the beginning of the Loch Gloomen phase of the campaign. That that phase of play could be adjudicated with Chainmail is plausible.

The battle report included a mass combat as well as individual character actions following the mass combat. Chainmail could be used to adjudicate the mass combat, but not the individual character actions.

Jul 18, 2017 23:38:51 GMT -5 bravewolf said:

Since Peterson did not claim that roleplaying did not occur (war gaming is not a sufficient condition to preclude engagement in roleplaying), the remainder of the play report was not germane to his thesis. Therefore, it seems legitimate to have omitted it.

The remainder of the play report may not have been germane to his thesis, but the remainder of the play report was germane to his readers in evaluating the validity of Jon's thesis and conclusions. Clearly, by leaving out the non-mass-combat portion of the report, and failing to tell his readers that he had done so, the reader is left to believe that the report included only the description of a mass combat that he did show. Take a look at his conclusions:

"Overall, the action described here is clearly a wargame"

"The characters play a decisive role in the conflict, but they act as part of broader armies."

Would these conclusions have been very persuasive to you if he had only shown the portion of the battle report in blue?

Yes. I think in an earlier post I stated that reading the rest of the play report didn't alter my view on the matter. It still doesn't. 

[robertsconley]

If somebody can tell me how I advance from being a level VIII to a level IX wizard via Dave's Blackmoor rules that would be great. It not obvious from what been presented how that was done. Or what I need to roll to hit an orc as a Level III Village Priest.

And I don't know about the other folks, but when I reread Jon's post it can be summarized as

The Blackmoor Campaign featured players resolving things with mass combat as well as acting as individual characters.

His post clearly assumes that the reader accepts the fact the Dave' Blackmoor campaign incorporated roleplaying individual characters. And it about making the point that they also fought out wargame battles little different than the standalone scenarios run prior to the campaign. That this can be confusing at first glance but quite consistent with everything that people were doing then.

Hell after I was introduced to RPG I was doing that as well. Talking an Avalon Hill or SPI games that was the right time period and mashing it up with Traveller or AD&D. Half of the action of a AD&D campaign ran by a friend of mine was handled using Swords & Sorcery by SPI as we went around recruiting from the Evelyn Woods and making sure that the Orcish Revolutionary Council didn't get any traction, those darn Reds!

[bravewolf]

Jul 19, 2017 13:40:22 GMT -5 robertsconley said:

If somebody can tell me how I advance from being a level VIII to a level IX wizard via Dave's Blackmoor rules that would be great. It not obvious from what been presented how that was done. Or what I need to roll to hit an orc as a Level III Village Priest.

And I don't about the other folks when I reread Jon post is can be summarized as "The Blackmoor featured players resolving things with mass combat as well as dealing with individual characters." His post clearly to me assumes that the reader accepts the fact the Dave' Blackmoor campaign incorporated roleplaying individual characters. Making the point that they also fought out wargame battles little different than the standalone scenarios run prior to the campaign.

Shortly after I was introduced to RPG I was doing that as well. Talking an Avalon Hill or SPI games that was the right time period and mashing it up with Traveller or AD&D. Half of the action of a AD&D campaign ran by a friend of mine was handled using Swords & Sorcery by SPI as we went around recruiting from the Evelyn Woods and making sure that the Orcish Revolutionary Council didn't get any traction, those darn Reds!

I hold a similar view, Mr. Conley.

[robkuntz]

Jul 19, 2017 13:29:11 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

Jul 18, 2017 23:38:51 GMT -5 bravewolf said:

I think that Peterson's omission of the rest of the Loch Gloomen battle report was deliberate in that his point hinged on the qualities of the beginning of the Loch Gloomen phase of the campaign. That that phase of play could be adjudicated with Chainmail is plausible.

The battle report included a mass combat as well as individual character actions following the mass combat. Chainmail could be used to adjudicate the mass combat, but not the individual character actions.

Jul 18, 2017 23:38:51 GMT -5 bravewolf said:

Since Peterson did not claim that roleplaying did not occur (war gaming is not a sufficient condition to preclude engagement in roleplaying), the remainder of the play report was not germane to his thesis. Therefore, it seems legitimate to have omitted it.

The remainder of the play report may not have been germane to his thesis, but the remainder of the play report was germane to his readers in evaluating the validity of Jon's thesis and conclusions. Clearly, by leaving out the non-mass-combat portion of the report, and failing to tell his readers that he had done so, the reader is left to believe that the report included only the description of a mass combat that he did show. Take a look at his conclusions:

"Overall, the action described here is clearly a wargame"

"The characters play a decisive role in the conflict, but they act as part of broader armies."

Would these conclusions have been very persuasive to you if he had only shown the portion of the battle report in blue?

If one were pushing that the RPG is descended from Chainmail that is how one would couch it; and by omitting the full report would tend to push the narrative in that direction.  It has always appeared to me that historians push their own narratives, and that seems the case here and is corroborated elsewhere in PATW.

[Cedgewick]

Jul 19, 2017 0:23:35 GMT -5 sixdemonbag said:

I can't speak for anyone else, but your questions have so many embedded assumptions that there is no way anyone can provide any actual answers save one person. Your questions should be directed at Jon, and if he doesn't wish to answer, then just accept the situation for what it is.

When there's evidence a public figure is deceiving the public, is that how we normally deal with it? Just accept it?

Jul 19, 2017 0:23:35 GMT -5 sixdemonbag said:

I do not know why Jon does what he does. I'm not him nor is anyone else you singled out. In fact, only one person on this planet can answer your question. See the problem here?

The problem you point out is the same problem appearing in every courtroom in every country, every day. Individuals accused of misdeeds are given a trial, usually by peers. In this thread I have accused Peterson of misleading his readers, and for being unrepentant about doing it-- he has yet to make any revision to either his blog or his post, or a warning that he removed the non-mass-combat half of the report.

Jul 19, 2017 0:23:35 GMT -5 sixdemonbag said:

Most importantly, you need to define "historian", "legitimate", "remove", "non-mass-combat", "half", and "report". Every single one of those terms is a subjective assumption on your part. It's called "leading" in legal parlance. It's a sneaky tactic you just tried to pull on us.

Leading a witness is done in real time and requires an immediate response. Everyone here is free to spend as much time reading both sides of the argument, researching, and so on before responding, and there is no requirement to respond. Additionally, I think the terms I used have fairly self-evident meanings. If you are suggesting that Jon does not claim to be a historian and is therefore excluded from having to conduct himself like a historian, I would like to point out that Jon refers to himself as a historian. For example, he entitled his post "I am Games Historian Jon Peterson" in this Ask Me Anything Reddit, where he claimed his book "has been widely accepted as an authoritative"

Jul 19, 2017 0:23:35 GMT -5 sixdemonbag said:

However, in general, you have valid points of discussion that I would enjoy reading, but your tone is off-putting and accusatory. You should ask Jon these questions if you want actual non-conjectured answers. We can't help you.

Do defendants typically admit guilt when charged by a plaintiff? I have made my accusation, and it is up to Jon's peers to determine if there is some validity to it.

Jul 19, 2017 0:23:35 GMT -5 sixdemonbag said:

BUT, just for giggles and because I'm bored, I'll play along:


I think historian Jon Peterson had a legitimate reason to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report, because...

He doesn't have access to the scans of that page.
He is not able to scan that page.
He is not in possession of that page.
He is citing that page from memory.
He is under legal contract not to post certain images of certain documents.
He is legally liable for any images he posts.
He made a personal promise not to release certain parts.
He is waiting to post at a future date of his choosing.
He wishes to be compensated for his research through published works.
He is protecting the privacy of those he acquired documents from.
He did not feel the page was relevant to the discussion.
He did not feel the page added any further to our understanding of his thesis or sequence of events.
He forgot.
He's lazy.
He enjoys annoying Cedgewick .
He is waiting for the page to undergo professional restoration.
He doesn't want to upset the Gygax estate which paid him large sums of money to protect their legacy.
He doesn't want to upset Hasbro which paid him large sums of money to protect their intellectual property.
He sold the item before scanning it.
He lost it.
He fed it to his dog.
He is verifying authenticity.
He is The Riddler.

Most of your serious responses are addressed by the fact that we know that the portion of the report he cut is on the same page as the portion he included because of the Secrets of Blackmoor folks.  You will note that the portion of the report that Peterson removed (the portion that refutes his conclusions) immediately follows the portion that he kept (the portion that supports his conclusions):

Jul 19, 2017 0:23:35 GMT -5 sixdemonbag said:

Flipside:

I do not think historian Jon Peterson had a legitimate reason to remove the non-mass-combat half of the report, because...

He should share an image of anything he publicly references.
He should share an image, in entirety, of anything he publicly references.

I'm in agreement with your first two reasons.  How can there be peer review of his conclusions if his peers cannot review the sources he references as evidence?

[sixdemonbag]

Jul 19, 2017 13:29:11 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

The battle report included a mass combat as well as individual character actions following the mass combat. Chainmail could be used to adjudicate the mass combat, but not the individual character actions.

False. The individual man-to-man melee and missile combat tables and the individual fantasy combat table could and WERE used to adjudicate individual character actions. There are rules for individual melee, individual missile fire, initiative, morale, individual jousting, individual leaders, and individual fantastic combat in Chainmail. These were used in battlefields and inside castles, etc.

Jul 19, 2017 13:29:11 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

failing to tell his readers that he had done so,

False. He mentions in the blog post: "(though later in the same issue, Mel Johnson's character is referred to as "Mello the Hobbit")"

Jul 19, 2017 13:29:11 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

"Overall, the action described here is clearly a wargame"

I think this is a good topic of debate. I'd like to know what Jon means by this. Is he using the term as it would be used at the time or is he using the modern context?

Jul 19, 2017 13:29:11 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

"The characters play a decisive role in the conflict, but they act as part of broader armies."

I have no issues with this.

Jul 19, 2017 13:29:11 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

Would these conclusions have been very persuasive to you if he had only shown the portion of the battle report in blue?

I agree with this. (EDIT: Meaning the argument is less persuasive with the full report. The twisty phrasing of the question tripped me up. Sorry for any confusion.) The full report does show some examples of activities that were not solely mass-combat related. However, Chainmail is not solely mass-combat related. robkuntz has a clear definition of the system architecture DA invented. We could debate in laymen's terms when a wargame becomes an RPG.

But overall, I think including the full report would have been beneficial. But, I don't know that it fundamentally changes his thesis unless he is using "wargames" in the strictest sense.

Good discussion.

[sixdemonbag]

Also, I like robkuntz emphasizing that it's more about WHAT Arneson did, not HOW he did it. Chainmail combat, IMO, is pretty irrelevant to Jon's thesis.

[Cedgewick]

Jul 19, 2017 14:34:03 GMT -5 sixdemonbag said:

Jul 19, 2017 13:29:11 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

The battle report included a mass combat as well as individual character actions following the mass combat. Chainmail could be used to adjudicate the mass combat, but not the individual character actions.

False. The individual man-to-man melee and missile combat tables and the individual fantasy combat table could and WERE used to adjudicate individual character actions. There are rules for individual melee, individual missile fire, initiative, morale, individual jousting, individual leaders, and individual fantastic combat in Chainmail. These were used in battlefields and inside castles, etc.

Lets take the first line of the part Jon left out:

With the driving off of this attack the Blackmoor Bunch was granted their long awaited pardons

Does Chainmail have rules for a ruler of a kingdom to grant pardons to a party of characters run by the players? Already in the first line we can plainly see how Blackmoor far transcends Chainmail. Blackmoor was quantum leap in thinking over Chainmail, as Kuntz goes over in detail in his book.

Jul 19, 2017 14:34:03 GMT -5 sixdemonbag said:

Jul 19, 2017 13:29:11 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

failing to tell his readers that he had done so,

False. He mentions in the blog post: "(though later in the same issue, Mel Johnson's character is referred to as "Mello the Hobbit")"

Arneson's Corner of the Table fanzine had multiple articles in it, and references to Blackmoor appeared in multiple articles. Jon gave no indication that the "Mello the Hobbit" reference was from a portion of the report that he had removed. Indeed, he didn't tell his readers that he had removed anything.  Even after I pointed this fact out, he still did not revise his blog to warn his readers that he had removed the non-mass-combat portion of the report.

Jul 19, 2017 14:34:03 GMT -5 sixdemonbag said:

Jul 19, 2017 13:29:11 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

"The characters play a decisive role in the conflict, but they act as part of broader armies."

I have no issues with this.

In the portion of the report that Jon cut, the characters are acting individually, (the dungeon trip, the confrontation with the Sorceress, etc...).  These actions have nothing to do with the broader army.  Consider the first line of what was cut: "With the driving off of this attack the Blackmoor Bunch was granted their long awaited pardons and promptly caused the disintegration of our Heros"  The heros didn't literally disintegrate, but rather the group disintegrated and the individuals began acting individually, as described.   These individual actions directly contradict the conclusion that "they act as part of broader armies." 

Jul 19, 2017 14:34:03 GMT -5 sixdemonbag said:

Jul 19, 2017 13:29:11 GMT -5 Cedgewick said:

Would these conclusions have been very persuasive to you if he had only shown the portion of the battle report in blue?

I agree with this. The full report does show some examples of activities that were not solely mass-combat related. However, Chainmail is not solely mass-combat related. robkuntz has a clear definition of the system architecture DA invented. We could debate in laymen's terms when a wargame becomes an RPG.

While chainmail is not solely mass-combat related, it is solely combat-related. The pardoning, the dungeon trip, the Sorceress decorating her front yard pond with a player character that she turned into a frog, these are all examples of non-combat activities that the purely combat-related rules of Chainmail simply cannot adjudicate. Again, Blackmoor was a quantum leap over Chainmail.

Jul 19, 2017 14:34:03 GMT -5 sixdemonbag said:

But overall, I think including the full report would have been beneficial.

Yes, and certainly less deceptive.