|
Post by robkuntz on Jul 19, 2017 16:06:01 GMT -5
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. You see, some, as opposed to what? is a quantitative point. This is the minutia I have warned about, this swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat. The idea is that there are conceptual imaginative sequences regularly taking place, so it is a matter of quality and not a matter of quantity vs quantity as "some" suggests, as is also intimated by your next point, "We could debate in laymen's terms when a wargame becomes an RPG." This too is about quantity and should be solely about quality, like there is some imaginary quantitative line that when one, by increment, finally reaches where, wallah! it is then a RPG. This is utter fabrication brought about by Peterson's uninformed narrative of linear incrementalism that the RPG was lead (descended) via wargames, and it is also absolute balderdash. Please follow: 1) Wargames had no conceptual component 2) They had strict rules which could not change in real time 3) Their rules were standardized and were less likely to change; more often they did not and if a change occurred it was a variant that occurred before the next game and NEVER happened during the game itself 4) There were judges for various game function purposes as well as to clarify rules, but never arbitrate beyond these points Note that these are all qualitative views of the system. This broadly defines a wargame's general systemics. There is no need to re-emhpasize the general types or ranges of mechanics as ALL games have them. Now, Arneson broke with all of these qualitative POVs which had been consistent in games until that point. 1) There is a pervasive conceptual component 2) There are no strict rules or structure 3) The rules can be changed in real time and thus the idea of standards, a long held design tenet was thrown out the window, much to the horror of the clingers-on to standardization 4) The DM is omniscient and does more than adjudicate; in fact adjudication is one of the DM's lesser duties; rather he or she is part of the omniscient imaginative world interface which is very complex and demanding on sundry levels far in excess of any game preceding RPGs So it has always been the qualitative differences, as I point to in DATG's list of same, that define the system and sets it apart from other game categories as a new system and has nothing immediately to do with time (diachronic history) or the quantity of X by comparison in any case. It is a new system; its history started when Arneson created it as it cannot be traced back to any predecessor. It is of and by itself, just like the telephone was when first invented. Thus no amount of incremental history will reveal anything because there is nothing to compare it to. Peterson's chase will reveal a lot of documents but I guarantee there will be no conclusions, as I have determined that the system never existed. That is why it has to be deduced in system terms FIRST then compared by analysis for its qualities, that is the only way to determine its position in the history of game and play theory and design history.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 19, 2017 16:32:31 GMT -5
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? You either accept it, or you gather evidence and sue him for libel against Arneson. If you think Jon did this purposefully and maliciously then file suit against him using this as evidence. 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. His opinion is clearly stated. Maybe after reading this thread, he will change his opinion. Or, maybe he will maintain it. Either way, it's up to him, not you. 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" I suggest no such thing. We need to know what YOU mean by those terms. That's why we were all apprehensive to answer you question in the way you proposed. Way too many suppositions. 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. We can't determine his motives, only his written opinions. Big difference there. This isn't a courtroom. This is an internet forum. 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): You are probably correct, but again, you would need to prove this. You are assuming. Besides, we would need to hear his reasons for not including it before coming to any rational conclusion. It could have been an honest mistake. You have no way of knowing it wasn't. Of course, I agree it adds more to the story. No issues for me there. 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? I agree with this, naturally. That would be best practice. But he's still under no obligation to do so. It certainly hurts his case, though, IMO. My overall point, Cedgewick , is that we should debate his conclusions, NOT his character or intent. That's tacky and will NOT lead to any further cooperation on his part. I, for one, want to see what he uncovers and I am eager to hear his opinions. We might think that he is wrong but we can't say he is doing it maliciously. That's quite the slippery slope I'm not sure anyone but you is comfortable with. I think your heart is in right place. I really do. But, let's discuss his opinions and evidence, not his character or intent since we can't know that.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 19, 2017 17:01:10 GMT -5
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: 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. No, and that's why Blackmoor was so revolutionary. It doesn't rely on Chainmail at all. Chainmail combat is irrelevant as Rob and I keep saying. Blackmoor is a whole new concept. We are in total agreement on this. However, You claimed that you can't use Chainmail to adjudicate individual action. That's false and I showed why. Don't twist my meanings. 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. He mentions that there is more to the report. That's all I claimed. No more, no less. He could have been more specific, but he mentions it. So, I agree with you. 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." "The characters play a decisive role in the conflict, but they act as part of broader armies." Those are both true statements. They also do all the things you mentioned. Again, we are in agreement here. 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. Absolutely, I never claimed otherwise. Chainmail combat (individual or mass) is irrelevant to the Blackmoor concept. That's what makes Blackmoor the world's first RPG. I was simply reminding you that your insistence on evidence of "non-mass-combat" is irrelevant. Chainmail itself has individual and mass combat rules. Neither of which should come into play when talking about Blackmoor. Again, no arguments here. But overall, I think including the full report would have been beneficial. Yes, and certainly less deceptive. Arguing deception is your hill to die on. I'd rather not make an opinion on that matter. I don't know Jon's intentions. I will only say that including the full report would make his case that the game in question was merely a "wargame" much weaker. Although, even then I'd still like to know what he is calling a "wargame". That might be stubbornness on my part, but I don't like making assumptions for people.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 19, 2017 17:09:50 GMT -5
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. You see, some, as opposed to what? is a quantitative point. This is the minutia I have warned about, this swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat. The idea is that there are conceptual imaginative sequences regularly taking place, so it is a matter of quality and not a matter of quantity vs quantity as "some" suggests, as is also intimated by your next point, "We could debate in laymen's terms when a wargame becomes an RPG." This too is about quantity and should be solely about quality, like there is some imaginary quantitative line that when one, by increment, finally reaches where, wallah! it is then a RPG. This is utter fabrication brought about by Peterson's uninformed narrative of linear incrementalism that the RPG was lead (descended) via wargames, and it is also absolute balderdash. Please follow: 1) Wargames had no conceptual component 2) They had strict rules which could not change in real time 3) Their rules were standardized and were less likely to change; more often they did not and if a change occurred it was a variant that occurred before the next game and NEVER happened during the game itself 4) There were judges for various game function purposes as well as to clarify rules, but never arbitrate beyond these points Note that these are all qualitative views of the system. This broadly defines a wargame's general systemics. There is no need to re-emhpasize the general types or ranges of mechanics as ALL games have them. Now, Arneson broke with all of these qualitative POVs which had been consistent in games until that point. 1) There is a pervasive conceptual component 2) There are no strict rules or structure 3) The rules can be changed in real time and thus the idea of standards, a long held design tenet was thrown out the window, much to the horror of the clingers-on to standardization 4) The DM is omniscient and does more than adjudicate; in fact adjudication is one of the DM's lesser duties; rather he or she is part of the omniscient imaginative world interface which is very complex and demanding on sundry levels far in excess of any game preceding RPGs So it has always been the qualitative differences, as I point to in DATG's list of same, that define the system and sets it apart from other game categories as a new system and has nothing immediately to do with time (diachronic history) or the quantity of X by comparison in any case. It is a new system; its history started when Arneson created it as it cannot be traced back to any predecessor. It is of and by itself, just like the telephone was when first invented. Thus no amount of incremental history will reveal anything because there is nothing to compare it to. Peterson's chase will reveal a lot of documents but I guarantee there will be no conclusions, as I have determined that the system never existed. That is why it has to be deduced in system terms FIRST then compared by analysis for its qualities, that is the only way to determine its position in the history of game and play theory and design history. Even just reading the report, I would agree that it in no way resembles a wargame. This has been my position from the beginning. Maybe that didn't come across. And yes, I understand what you mean by "some" having no qualitative component which is necessary to fully describe a system. You have to take into account the degrees to which some elements appear. All that makes sense to me. BTW, your definitions of a wargame and an RPG are the best I've ever seen. I have no reason to dispute either. I'm not even capable of such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 19, 2017 17:39:23 GMT -5
FWIW, I was originally agreeing with Cedgewick that the full report makes the argument in the blog less persuasive. That may not have come across and I made a note in my response to his question: 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 in the blog post is less persuasive with the full report. The twisty phrasing of the question tripped me up. Sorry for any confusion.)
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jul 19, 2017 17:40:36 GMT -5
His opinion is clearly stated. Maybe after reading this thread, he will change his opinion. Or, maybe he will maintain it. Either way, it's up to him, not you. Its not up to him, its up to us. If enough people agree and speak up that removing half of a reference that disagrees with your argument is unacceptable behavior, he will change. If we all sit quietly and don't raise a fuss, he will continue doing this kind of stuff. 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. We can't determine his motives, only his written opinions. Big difference there. This isn't a courtroom. This is an internet forum. Disagreements are addressed in court. Disagreements are also addressed in forums. As I stated above, if enough people let Peterson know that they find this kind of behavior unacceptable, we might see a change in it. You are probably correct, but again, you would need to prove this. You are assuming. Besides, we would need to hear his reasons for not including it before coming to any rational conclusion. It could have been an honest mistake. You have no way of knowing it wasn't. Of course, I agree it adds more to the story. No issues for me there. If it was an honest mistake, Jon would have corrected it in the intervening 5 years, and certainly after I brought it to his attention publicly last week. He has made no such correction, nor even acknowledge that he did anything wrong. A rational person can read something from this. 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? I agree with this, naturally. That would be best practice. But he's still under no obligation to do so. It certainly hurts his case, though, IMO. If Jon was a collector, I would agree that he has no obligation to show his sources. You don't see me going after the many collectors that are hoarding items, do you? I am going after Jon because he 1) claims to be a historian, 2) he cites sources that few, if any besides himself, can view. The whole point of citing sources is to allow a reader to review the source for himself or herself and confirm that the conclusions drawn from it are valid. For example, He purchased the "Mornard Fragments" in 2012. The "Mornard Fragments" are actually *24 pages* of a D&D manuscript. Now, Jon frequently cites the Mornard fragments, yet how many of these 24 pages has anyone besides Jon actually seen? So far, after five years, this is all Jon has shown us of the 24 pages: Of the 24 pages of the manuscript Peterson calls the "Mornard Fragments," this the entirety of what Peterson has ever shown us after 5 years, despite frequently citing from it. Again, the purpose of citing sources is to allow your peers to review them and confirm that your conclusions are valid. How do you debate his conclusions if he cites evidence that he himself prevents you from seeing?
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 19, 2017 18:12:07 GMT -5
I can't answer your rhetorical question. Fuss away if that's what you want to do...
|
|
|
Post by bravewolf on Jul 19, 2017 20:32:08 GMT -5
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. 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. Yeah, historians do push a point of view. It isn't always good, it isn't always bad. The blog post in question makes no claim that Blackmoor is genetically derived from Chainmail, but you say that the subject post is a way to set up such an argument. Is this something that Peterson contends elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jul 19, 2017 21:07:03 GMT -5
I can't answer your rhetorical question. Fuss away if that's what you want to do... You responded with the above in answer to a valid point by Cedgewick: "How do you debate his conclusions if he cites evidence that he himself prevents you from seeing?" I would go further by stating that many documents are being sequestered in this industry and a narrative built from selections thereof; and these documents are not being made available, so how does one affirm or refute such narratives? Are we to accept them as truths without verification? PATW has several mistatements in it that I am aware of from other people who were referred to within it by name. Secrets of Blackmoor has already proven that Peterson's interpretation of a source document shared between the two is in error. There is also the double whammy that Peterson has imposed as not trusting verbal retellings or memory, leaving documents (in his view alone, which is self-imposed and not sound by any stretch of the imagination) that are sequestered and not shared, to be the only "proofs." Having done a bit of scholarly research over the years I can without hesitation say that the combination of his approach is haphazard at least and could raise the spectre of bias in the extreme view.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 19, 2017 22:47:48 GMT -5
I can't answer your rhetorical question. Fuss away if that's what you want to do... You responded with the above in answer to a valid point by Cedgewick: "How do you debate his conclusions if he cites evidence that he himself prevents you from seeing?" I would go further by stating that many documents are being sequestered in this industry and a narrative built from selections thereof; and these documents are not being made available, so how does one affirm or refute such narratives? Are we to accept them as truths without verification? PATW has several mistatements in it that I am aware of from other people who were referred to within it by name. Secrets of Blackmoor has already proven that Peterson's interpretation of a source document shared between the two is in error. There is also the double whammy that Peterson has imposed as not trusting verbal retellings or memory, leaving documents (in his view alone, which is self-imposed and not sound by any stretch of the imagination) that are sequestered and not shared, to be the only "proofs." Having done a bit of scholarly research over the years I can without hesitation say that the combination of his approach is haphazard at least and could raise the spectre of bias in the extreme view. Thanks robkuntz for shedding some more light on this controversy. You are 100% correct. His point is more than valid. I just don't have an answer for him. Nobody does. That's my point. His OP question was rhetorical as well and that's why I asked for clarification. He wasn't interested in that so I threw out some hypotheses for him to play around with. Not sure why he thinks I'm arguing for any of them, when I essentially agree with him. Carry on everyone...
|
|
|
Post by limeodyssey on Jul 26, 2017 20:48:15 GMT -5
I can't answer your rhetorical question. Fuss away if that's what you want to do... You responded with the above in answer to a valid point by Cedgewick: "How do you debate his conclusions if he cites evidence that he himself prevents you from seeing?" I would go further by stating that many documents are being sequestered in this industry and a narrative built from selections thereof; and these documents are not being made available, so how does one affirm or refute such narratives? Are we to accept them as truths without verification? PATW has several mistatements in it that I am aware of from other people who were referred to within it by name. Secrets of Blackmoor has already proven that Peterson's interpretation of a source document shared between the two is in error. There is also the double whammy that Peterson has imposed as not trusting verbal retellings or memory, leaving documents (in his view alone, which is self-imposed and not sound by any stretch of the imagination) that are sequestered and not shared, to be the only "proofs." Having done a bit of scholarly research over the years I can without hesitation say that the combination of his approach is haphazard at least and could raise the spectre of bias in the extreme view. To the extent Peterson is seen to be treating a sensitive topic with naivete, it's a bad idea not to put all of a quoted document out there. It looks deceptive whether it is or not. The underlying point gets to the Arneson/Gygax issue, much like the Kirby/Lee issue in comics. It's the age old tension between creative artistic originator and better marketer. I've read a lot of the old stuff and read some very old note type manuscripts. There is definitely something unique in what Arneson, following Weseley, did. It used wargame materials for convenience but it didn't fundamentally need them. Anything that suggests otherwise risks being seen as very disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 5, 2018 18:24:06 GMT -5
I tend to just go to the primary sources. All of the players say the same thing about the conceptual engine in this video; in that they describe events that are existing in a conceptual framework of interactive story telling. And there are many more interviews like this. Ross Maker's comments about the first RPG dwarf are a good indicator of the how Blackmoor was played right in the beginning. I didn't want to make the video too long and detailed/boring. Yet, what Ross goes on to describe is a system that has no rules. Most of the action is happening as make believe. There is a separate interview with David Wesely, about this very same game session, where he tells us how that adventure really had no rules and Arneson was just making things up without even a combat system. If these accounts at different times are true, then you see the quandary of: how do you document something that only exists as it is being played? Boring, only to people who have not an old school bone in their bodies. You question, "how do you document something that only exists as it is being played?" has only one answer and that is interviews often and early (unfortunately the early has sailed over 44 years ago. Of course many of us play very close to that way, leaving the books shut and just playing close to "no rules" as Dave did. Mr. Kuntz who has posted above, was in the room when Arneson AND Megarry show off their games at the same session. His recollections match what these people who played it earlier are stating. Everyone who was actually there does seem to agree which infuriates many of those who were not there. Having spoken with Jon, I would simply say that his attitude is that if it is not written down on a piece of paper somewhere, then it does not exist. That will, of course, limit the scope of his research, but that is a self imposed criteria, and he will not find any kind of evidence for RPG in his documents collection. IMO when you won't believe any first hand testimony that is not reflected in documents, it makes it easy to paint a false picture of the historical record while you claim to be an "honest" historian. Hopefully we can get enough testimony on video and in writing the future historians will look at some people books and they will know them for the agenda driven bias they contain. That is the real problem, there is no evidence of Role Playing within the historical record. All we have is little tiny indicators. Remove the Example of Play from OD&D and everyone would be playing the game like Dungeon! board game. All of these published RPG games relied on reproductions of real time game via Examples of Play, as a way to convey what an RPG is. Ok, so what do you see within the purple pages of the revealed continuation of the Loch Gloomen Report? And, consider the game of Dungeon! If Arneson was playing his game as a board game with minis on the table, then why would he allow David Megarry to create a game based on his game, if it was not inherently different? I leave it up to you to decide. I back when I found out enough about the origins of the game, that I was convinced that Gygax could not possibly have come up with the game himself, because he is so rule oriented his mind is too rigid to create the freeform open game himself, not too rigid to play it, just to rigid to have the idea in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 5, 2018 18:26:17 GMT -5
BTW we finally found out who Cedgewick is, does anyone know who limeodyssey is? I'd love to shake both their hands.
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 10, 2018 14:06:04 GMT -5
I have thought a lot about this thread. And I have to stick up for Jon Peterson. You may not agree with his interpretation on things, but to go after him personally is a bit much. Science requires a hegel-ian spiral. You have a theory, someone else has a different theory, you look at both and adjust both theories. And you move on. It is unscientific to attack a person based on a premise. Sometimes a bad premise leads you to better understanding. I am not sure what you mean by going after him personally. The discussion was about how his obvious bias is coloring what he publishes and that by hiding from public view things that don't support his conclusions he is giving the impression that he is being deceptive, whether that is his intention or not. But I'm not a scientist, I'm only a high school graduate and I did manual labor all my life, so maybe I am missing something. Please enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 10, 2018 20:11:25 GMT -5
"Please enlighten me."
That's the attitude that leads to wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 11, 2018 12:24:37 GMT -5
So we can all look at that stuff and we agree that it is an RPG. So what if Peterson does not? Either Publish a paper somewhere like a blog, or put up and shut up.You make a lot of good points. Here is the rub for a lot of us, it does look like he is cherry picking and he avoids publishing anything that contradicts his pre-research conclusions that align with all of the Arneson haters, all the people that claim Arneson was not creative and that Gygax deserves all the credit. I don't have a blog, but others do and a lot of them published essays during Blackmoor Week and Dave Arneson Game Day 2018. I don't know if you have read any of those or not. But ordinary fans that do not have the means or the ability to quit their day jobs and travel and try to find documents that have been missed aren't going to be able to do much "solid research" to counter what Peterson and others like him appear to be doing. All they can do is continue to call out on their blogs the appearance of bias, the appearance of being deceptive and the fact that the relevant documents are not available for public scrutiny. We have no assurance that those documents will survive to be reviewed 50 or 100 years from now. Many of us agree that he and others like him much be pushed to publish the documents for public scrutiny. If WotC tries to block that, then they must be held in public contempt as trying to hide the truth and promote the lies published on their website. Right now Peterson is hiding on a forum that is protecting him and his "research" from any scrutiny or criticism. A forum that limits its membership largely to true believers and lies about those that it bans. Cedgewick was after all banned from that location for disagreeing with increment and then they out and out lied about the reason he was banned. People who used to portray themselves as primary Arneson supporters are no longer supporting Arneson. Many of us at this forum are not interested in denying Gygax any credit that he deserves and have no animus against him, but we are fed up with Arneson being robbed of the credit that is clearly his and the wide array of people that are lined up deliberately perpetuating things that are known to be lies. I don't think Peterson is lying, I think he is a non-fan, non-player that is being used by people who know better and part of his apparent bias comes from his sheer ignorance of the game itself. He makes mistakes that can only be made by someone who doesn't actually know how to play a game. I think asking people to shut up about something that at best just smells and at worst is something so much worse tham that, simply because they have no access to the documents is wrong. We really want to see all of your information published, all the movies and all the documents that you are able to publish so that the truth can be known. Many of us wish we had been intimates of Arneson so that we could personally post every document we possessed and personally post our memories of things and that we had been doing that for the last 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 11, 2018 16:31:31 GMT -5
This is what I like about a passionate debate that relies on facts, the debaters pretty much keep their cool, and - unlike current Democrats, Republicans, and mobs - follow what was once common courtesy.
It makes good horse races.
And if the debating and the research continues in the spirit of friendship - eventually enough facts are uncovered to reach a consensus of what the truth probably (no guarantees of how much) is.
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 11, 2018 21:02:53 GMT -5
To be fair, I think that Playing at the World is the best and most complete published history of our fair hobby. I've read it a couple of times, it is a snapshot of the industry and I found the research presented to be much much better than trying to do it all yourself. I think that we can knit-pick and squabble about any given subject, but PatW is the perfect book to get one on the right path. Is it full of lies? No! Absolutely not! That is a very strong word. increment would not publish anything that he doesn't (or didn't) believe it. If anything, it is a victim of time as the research is still ongoing. The writer put a lot of effort into putting it together and is obligated to defend his work, after all, the book needs to pay some bills which were neglected while he was working on it. Is there enough new information to work with for him to write a second essay? I don't know. I applaud what he has done for our community. Guys who were there (as the saying goes) told me to pick it up because it answers so many of the questions that I had. Regardless of how one feels, this is the most complete work done to date on the subject. Those who are interested in the subject should start by reading it first and then coming up with their own conclusions. As far as Arneson goes, he was never properly appreciated in his time and has left many questions that will probably never be answered, there was just more information out there when it comes to Gygax because he was such a prolific writer. With anything, all of this work that we do is and probably always will be on-going. BTW, please do continue bickering as it is some thrilling stuff to read
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 12, 2018 5:47:16 GMT -5
To be fair, I think that Playing at the World is the best and most complete published history of our fair hobby. I've read it a couple of times, it is a snapshot of the industry and I found the research presented to be much much better than trying to do it all yourself. I think that we can knit-pick and squabble about any given subject, but PatW is the perfect book to get one on the right path. Is it full of lies? No! Absolutely not! That is a very strong word. increment would not publish anything that he doesn't (or didn't) believe it. If anything, it is a victim of time as the research is still ongoing. The writer put a lot of effort into putting it together and is obligated to defend his work, after all, the book needs to pay some bills which were neglected while he was working on it. Is there enough new information to work with for him to write a second essay? I don't know. I applaud what he has done for our community. Guys who were there (as the saying goes) told me to pick it up because it answers so many of the questions that I had. Regardless of how one feels, this is the most complete work done to date on the subject. Those who are interested in the subject should start by reading it first and then coming up with their own conclusions. As far as Arneson goes, he was never properly appreciated in his time and has left many questions that will probably never be answered, there was just more information out there when it comes to Gygax because he was such a prolific writer. With anything, all of this work that we do is and probably always will be on-going. BTW, please do continue bickering as it is some thrilling stuff to read To be fair here is what I said, I don't think Peterson is lying, I think he is a non-fan, non-player that is being used by people who know better and part of his apparent bias comes from his sheer ignorance of the game itself. He makes mistakes that can only be made by someone who doesn't actually know how to play a game. I think he is the dupe of people who are lying and supporting his questionable research practice of ignoring all first hand testimony of people who were there. The first hand testimony of people like Kuntz, Monard and all those people that secretsofblackmoor is talking to provide the context for the documents. What Peterson is doing is ignoring context while there are still people alive to provide the context. He is being cheered on by people with an anti-Arneson agenda. Everyone should be condemning him for using only documents and ignoring first hand testimony. Then he would change his approach, but as long as the majority applaud his questionable methods, he won't change them.
|
|
|
Post by secretsofblackmoor on Oct 12, 2018 11:37:24 GMT -5
This is out of hand. Jon Peterson is a hard working researcher. who has contributed a great deal to this field.
Do not make assumptions about his motives and methods that attack him as a person.
Do not attribute negative properties to him as a person.
This discussion has gone too far, and I am afraid I must no longer visit this forum.
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 12, 2018 13:59:39 GMT -5
This is out of hand. Jon Peterson is a hard working researcher. who has contributed a great deal to this field. Do not make assumptions about his motives and methods that attack him as a person. Do not attribute negative properties to him as a person. This discussion has gone too far, and I am afraid I must no longer visit this forum. You are greatly misinterpreting what has been posted. What negative properties are you talking about? And where has anyone said he is not hard working or that he has not contributed a great deal. This is not so much about what he has done, it is more about what he has not done. And it does happen to be a fact at that discounting first hand testimony in regard to Arneson and Blackmoor, while accepting all first hand testimony in regard to Gygax and relying only on documents where things are cherry picked in regard to Arneson is highly questionable and suspect. That can't legitimately be disputed. He is not being attacked as a person, he is being questioned for his actions, what he does, says and publishes. For the fact that people like Cedgewick are banned at another forum for disagreeing with him and questioning him and he stands by and fails to speak against an unjust banning. We have a right to question his methods when they are hiding and suppressing facts, which they are. His motives, he appears to be a dupe not a liar, how is that an attack, it is just an observation based on what we see happening? I see that you have deleted several informative posts in this thread and that does not help your case. If you choose not to visit the forum because you are also on the Peterson can never be criticized or questioned bandwagon, I am sorry that you feel that way. But it would be wrong on our part to stand by while Arneson's accomplishments are buried and his legacy assigned to another.
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 12, 2018 16:17:45 GMT -5
Okay, that was weird, and he deleted really good comments. Maybe they have his family? Or maybe you were getting too close to something? Perhaps Gygax really was a secret agent after all! Maybe Arneson was in on it and he's not really dead but deep undercover and tieing up loose ends! Maybe the spooks had the real secretsofblackmoor killed and have stolen his identity! MAYBE WE'RE NEXT! Such theatrics! Clearly, this suggests that everything in TSR's TOP SECRET game is real.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Oct 12, 2018 17:02:47 GMT -5
Okay, that was weird, and he deleted really good comments. Maybe they have his family? Or maybe you were getting too close to something? Perhaps Gygax really was a secret agent after all! Maybe Arneson was in on it and he's not really dead but deep undercover and tieing up loose ends! Maybe the spooks had the real secretsofblackmoor killed and have stolen his identity! MAYBE WE'RE NEXT! Such theatrics! Clearly, this suggests that everything in TSR's TOP SECRET game is real. Clearly SoB(ha!) was TPD!!!!!!!! The Hive Queen!!!
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 12, 2018 17:46:40 GMT -5
Who created the Role-Playing Game? This is a subject that I have been thinking about for a while now and I am going to share some of my thoughts here.
We can't prove WHO it was, and at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Whenever we play a game we are role-playing in some sense. Some games require us to be dastardly and reward lying to our friends to win the game. The game of Diplomacy is a good example, hopefully, we don't act that way in real life, but to play the game we have to accept a role that isn't us.
Military games sometimes require us to play specific personalities, specifically the games of the historical verity that often dictate that we play in a defined way. Even Featherstone who dispised in-character war reports would assign personalities and place limitations on tactics. Assuming a character during a game is not a new concept. A game of Chess, I see as a puzzle to be solved, but a game designed to simulate something, that requires me to be a general, I assume a character. I prefer to get immersed in the game so that I can see it more clearly. Perhaps that is when RPGs began? During the military training exercises in Germany? It probably goes further back than that as we dig up game pieces from lost cultures and we've no idea how they were played.
Arneson did not invent the Role-Playing Game. What he did invent was a game that allowed a player to define his own victory conditions and designed it to not end regardless of if the player succeeded or failed. He created a game with endless potential that could be designed in real time according to the actions or non-actions of the participants. Unlike other games where we play specific scenarios, in Arneson's game we simulate not events but people. If one wants to ignore the game presented to them, and instead focus on taking over the government, or start a criminal organization, or get married and have kids, Arneson's game lets you do just that. THAT is unique. That is different. That also doesn't really have a definition, we call it RPG but, at least to us, it goes further than that.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 13, 2018 11:50:05 GMT -5
Here is what secretsofblackmoor did in this thread before his drama queen exit. I have removed his IP address. The newest stuff is on top. He edited one post twice and then deleted it and then he deleted two others. He is welcome to come back and repost his defense of Jon Peterson, unlike other forums this is not an echo chamber and we are willing to debate with those who disagree with something one of us have said.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Oct 13, 2018 12:13:27 GMT -5
I think this makes the documentary suspect.
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 13, 2018 16:19:38 GMT -5
I think this makes the documentary suspect. No not necessarily and we need to see it and then the several that are to follow it. We need to see what other documents get published or at least made public over the next few years. Some people just get very thin skinned when questioned. I wish the documentary well, I want to see it. I just did not expect snowflake behavior from him.
|
|
|
Post by secretsofblackmoor on Oct 25, 2018 17:50:07 GMT -5
Just to pop in and make an observation. It is ironic to see a post being made that uses un-attributed material. That scan of the purple section of the page certainly looks a lot like what we have, because it looks like it is taken from the original master mimeograph stencil, and we happen to possess that very same one. Thus to begin a commentary about a fallacy by using unattributed material is a fallacy. *CLUNCK* And two fallacies are, well it's not like logic, it's just a heaping helping of fallacy. If you can't even tag something within the text with an attribution, how do you expect to be taken seriously? As it stands now, it looks like Jon Peterson made the entire image, because it has his tag on it. YOU GO JON! This is beyond sloppy. It looks like the work of angry drunk gnomes Certainly not reputable historians. Wow, my scan has been manipulated to look like it is a scan from Jon Peterson. I don't always agree with Jon Peterson, but he always makes attributions of what and who within his articles; although I do take umbrage with him not also noting the provenance of his artifacts, but he may do it to protect his sources. I give him the benefit of the doubt. I too have sources who prefer to remain unknown. The entire idea of "holding historians accountable" is absurd. It goes against the entire field of scientific research. It's also a delusional fantasy, as there is no historian police department out there ready to put people in cuffs. I have shared never before seen material with many people. It's not likely you would see that part of the page, if I had not shared it. All I ever ask for is an attribution. And it cost me a movie budget to get many of these things. Think of it as, I bought 5 cars and all I got was a box of old paper -- They weren't free to my partner and myself. My business partner is very experienced in the internet business. We have had people use our material on the web before. We are not unfamiliar with Website take downs, gosh I can click the link for the image and find exactly where it is. Not only do I share a great deal of material with many researchers, I don't tell them what they can say about these things, or how they interpret them. My attitude is: here you go, here is a thing. Now off you go, do your own thing. Don't forget to say thanks by citing your source -- Secrets of Blackmoor: The True History of Dungeons & Dragons, or with a website tag. Hopefully this kind of theft will not continue and future use of our hard earned material will be used with an attribution. Secrets of Blackmoor cannot speak for the Dave Arneson Estate, yet they would likely be disappointed to see that there is no attribution associated with the image for Dave Arneson. Perhaps that should be noted as well, since he created this fixed copyrighted material. But, I always give people the benefit of the doubt. So here is an example of what most people learn in college when they take a english 101 class and learn about citing sources. Consider this a lesson on how to be a historian. See along the top there. An attribution and provenance: Courtesy of the Daniel Nicholson Estate and: www.secretsofblackmoor.comOur own tag to say: Hey, we spent about 10 grand on a week long shooting trip for an entire film crew, and if you re-use this, you gotta credit us too. It cost us a crap load of money. Not only that, but we found it in a pile of papers and nearly missed it. Now of course , there is no David Arneson attribution. We left that up to other researchers to analyze the handwriting. Yet, our article did state that it was likely Dave Arneson. Now to respond to some people's comments about my having left in a huff. It is one thing to criticize methods, it is another thing entirely to engage in character assassination. There is even a legal term for unfounded character assassination, it's called slander. I refuse to take part in slander against Jon Peterson. Frankly, I don't want to get sued. In fact, I expect to see him at the next GaryCon and get into a huge argument over drinks with him about some game related thingie, because, that is what Jon and I do. Toodles!
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 25, 2018 18:39:15 GMT -5
Just to pop in and make an observation. It is ironic to see a post being made that uses un-attributed material. That scan of the purple section of the page certainly looks a lot like what we have, because it looks like it is taken from the original master mimeograph stencil, and we happen to possess that very same one. Thus to begin a commentary about a fallacy by using unattributed material is a fallacy. *CLUNCK* And two fallacies are, well it's not like logic, it's just a heaping helping of fallacy. If you can't even tag something within the text with an attribution, how do you expect to be taken seriously? As it stands now, it looks like Jon Peterson made the entire image, because it has his tag on it. YOU GO JON! This is beyond sloppy. It looks like the work of angry drunk gnomes Certainly not reputable historians. Wow, my scan has been manipulated to look like it is a scan from Jon Peterson. I don't always agree with Jon Peterson, but he always makes attributions of what and who within his articles; although I do take umbrage with him not also noting the provenance of his artifacts, but he may do it to protect his sources. I give him the benefit of the doubt. I too have sources who prefer to remain unknown. The entire idea of "holding historians accountable" is absurd. It goes against the entire field of scientific research. It's also a delusional fantasy, as there is no historian police department out there ready to put people in cuffs. I have shared never before seen material with many people. It's not likely you would see that part of the page, if I had not shared it. All I ever ask for is an attribution. And it cost me a movie budget to get many of these things. Think of it as, I bought 5 cars and all I got was a box of old paper -- They weren't free to my partner and myself. My business partner is very experienced in the internet business. We have had people use our material on the web before. We are not unfamiliar with Website take downs, gosh I can click the link for the image and find exactly where it is. Not only do I share a great deal of material with many researchers, I don't tell them what they can say about these things, or how they interpret them. My attitude is: here you go, here is a thing. Now off you go, do your own thing. Don't forget to say thanks by citing your source -- Secrets of Blackmoor: The True History of Dungeons & Dragons, or with a website tag. Hopefully this kind of theft will not continue and future use of our hard earned material will be used with an attribution. Secrets of Blackmoor cannot speak for the Dave Arneson Estate, yet they would likely be disappointed to see that there is no attribution associated with the image for Dave Arneson. Perhaps that should be noted as well, since he created this fixed copyrighted material. But, I always give people the benefit of the doubt. So here is an example of what most people learn in college when they take a english 101 class and learn about citing sources. Consider this a lesson on how to be a historian. See along the top there. An attribution and provenance: Courtesy of the Daniel Nicholson Estate and: www.secretsofblackmoor.comOur own tag to say: Hey, we spent about 10 grand on a week long shooting trip for an entire film crew, and if you re-use this, you gotta credit us too. It cost us a crap load of money. Not only that, but we found it in a pile of papers and nearly missed it. Now of course , there is no David Arneson attribution. We left that up to other researchers to analyze the handwriting. Yet, our article did state that it was likely Dave Arneson. Now to respond to some people's comments about my having left in a huff. It is one thing to criticize methods, it is another thing entirely to engage in character assassination. There is even a legal term for unfounded character assassination, it's called slander. I refuse to take part in slander against Jon Peterson. Frankly, I don't want to get sued. In fact, I expect to see him at the next GaryCon and get into a huge argument over drinks with him about some game related thingie, because, that is what Jon and I do. Toodles! Welcome back. I just want to say that I didn't see any slander going on, not to say that it wasn't happening, but I didn't observe anything like that happening. Questioning material and critiquing the work of other keeps us all honest. Discussion and debate without losing one's temper makes for productive conversations. As far as attribution goes, I'd like to believe that we try our best, I know I try but am probably horrible about it. I'll read something somewhere and then be unable or unwilling to look it up again because I am typically just making a casual statement. I personally promote the work that researchers, such as yourself, do.
|
|
|
Post by secretsofblackmoor on Oct 26, 2018 0:46:03 GMT -5
I'm not back. I am gone.
|
|