|
Post by limeodyssey on Sept 28, 2017 5:20:13 GMT -5
Who are the ones who have in your opinion? As indicated, it's merely my opinion - and just off the top of my head - and this includes only those of whom I have knowledge: Liz Danforth, Mark Thornton, Roy Cram, Rob Kuntz, Marc Millar, the Keith Brothers, Jeff Dee, Ann Dupuis, and a great many of the people with whom I have gamed. Darned few at rolegaming conventions, oddly enough. The problem with the top of my head, is that it gets cold up there. It's worth remembering that some very eclectic books are OSR, and that they PREDATE THE MONSTER MANUAL and other "essential" AD&D books. They are in fact in terms of age and precedent, more central to the core OSR than the Gygaxian books, which almost immediately began the creation of the exclusionary **A**D&D to the detriment of everyone else's D&D. Errol Otus published Booty and the Beasts before the "original" full set of AD&D hardcovers had been published. He predated the Monster Manual as did All The World's Monsters. All The World's Monsters is a direct insight into OSR as it was being played and it shows the divergence early on - Jack Vance campaigns, similar adaptations of science fiction novels into campaign settings, mishmash science fantasy inspired by Andre Norton's Witchworld, campaigns that were very Tolkienesque and the adaptors of the Dynasty proto-roleplaying Braunstein type elements of that boardgame. These contributors to the genesis of the hobby follow Arneson closely, having been taught to play by his earliest converts. Then, OSR becomes a version of the Acts of the Apostles where Gygax as St. Paul basically wholesale alters and reinvents the hobby as far as he can, leaving many originators to simply give up on him and his closed system antics in favor of constant changes and experimentation.
|
|
|
Post by Dartanian on Sept 28, 2017 7:40:26 GMT -5
As indicated, it's merely my opinion - and just off the top of my head - and this includes only those of whom I have knowledge: Liz Danforth, Mark Thornton, Roy Cram, Rob Kuntz, Marc Millar, the Keith Brothers, Jeff Dee, Ann Dupuis, and a great many of the people with whom I have gamed. Darned few at rolegaming conventions, oddly enough. The problem with the top of my head, is that it gets cold up there. It's worth remembering that some very eclectic books are OSR, and that they PREDATE THE MONSTER MANUAL and other "essential" AD&D books. They are in fact in terms of age and precedent, more central to the core OSR than the Gygaxian books, which almost immediately began the creation of the exclusionary **A**D&D to the detriment of everyone else's D&D. Errol Otus published Booty and the Beasts before the "original" full set of AD&D hardcovers had been published. He predated the Monster Manual as did All The World's Monsters. All The World's Monsters is a direct insight into OSR as it was being played and it shows the divergence early on - Jack Vance campaigns, similar adaptations of science fiction novels into campaign settings, mishmash science fantasy inspired by Andre Norton's Witchworld, campaigns that were very Tolkienesque and the adaptors of the Dynasty proto-roleplaying Braunstein type elements of that boardgame. These contributors to the genesis of the hobby follow Arneson closely, having been taught to play by his earliest converts. Then, OSR becomes a version of the Acts of the Apostles where Gygax as St. Paul basically wholesale alters and reinvents the hobby as far as he can, leaving many originators to simply give up on him and his closed system antics in favor of constant changes and experimentation. The "OSR" is a recent thing, those guys all predate that. Now if you are using OSR just as Old School Roleplaying I agree with you, but outside this thread when most people talk about the "OSR" they are talking about that recent "Renaissance" thiing. Errol Otus is great and All The World's Monsters is a hoot.
|
|
|
Post by limeodyssey on Oct 1, 2017 2:03:47 GMT -5
All of those originators are the spirit of an age to which contemporary OSRites are seeking to return.
Anyway, the pattern of all of this is all too familiar, sad, and unconstructive. Gygax is Stan Lee, Arneson is Jack Kirby, Otus is Steve Ditko. And I am out.
“It is said that what is called "the spirit of an age" is something to which one cannot return. That this spirit gradually dissipates is due to the world's coming to an end. In the same way, a single year does not have just spring or summer. A single day, too, is the same.
For this reason, although one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation. This is the mistake of people who are attached to past generations. They have no understanding of this point.
On the other hand, people who only know the disposition of the present day and dislike the ways of the past are too lax.”
― Tsunetomo Yamamoto, Hagakure: The Book of the Samurai
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 1, 2017 6:05:47 GMT -5
I Have had my opinions of "movements," OSR included, put forth on my OLD blog many moons ago. They stand today as proven correct if the details are examined in light of what I was posting. It turned into a flame war against my POV and for my daring to note that I did not belong to any movement by associative activities (just as I do not automatically become a member by osmosis with the Tomato Growers League by myself planting and nurturing my own patch). Anyone who wishes to read the brutality visited upon like-minded souls as myself, just PM me and I shall send you the links for posterity sake...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 19:39:52 GMT -5
I'm not part of the OSR because I'm still playing this silly game the way I always did... no "renaissance" involved.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 1, 2017 21:15:10 GMT -5
Here I thought it stood for Oh, Some Rulings.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 2, 2017 6:01:31 GMT -5
I'm not part of the OSR because I'm still playing this silly game the way I always did... no "renaissance" involved. Pretty much what I intoned but was then castigated for not being part of the club. The OSR claims it's a nebulous do anything you want "movement" but then maintains the opposite by noting whether you are in it or out of it. The movement tried to co-opt proclivity by politicizing it and I was having nothing to do with that as I had been doing very well on my own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 12:14:01 GMT -5
Self-proclaimed movements tend to do stuff like that.
"Hi, We're the Bowel Movement."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 12:55:54 GMT -5
Self-proclaimed movements tend to do stuff like that. "Hi, We're the Bowel Movement." This made me laugh a lot more than it probably should have. Thanks for the chuckle!
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 2, 2017 14:34:17 GMT -5
My mind works in strange ways - nothing that I seem to be able to control - and I immediately flashed back to Mad Magazine's "Bats, Man" spoof of 1966, in which Sparrow keeps referring to Bats Man as "B.M." B.M. rebukes him, saying it sounds like a Jack Parr joke, which caused my rebellious mind to find out what Jack Parr joke Larry Siegel (I believe it was Siegel who wrote the Bats, Man spoof.) was referencing.
So an exhalt to Gronan for causing my rebellious mind to take me to TWO flashbacks to ancient jokes. This may be some kind of record.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 2, 2017 16:31:00 GMT -5
Self-proclaimed movements tend to do stuff like that. "Hi, We're the Bowel Movement." This made me laugh a lot more than it probably should have. Thanks for the chuckle! I don't usually appreciate bathroom humor, but that one made me laugh.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 2, 2017 16:34:55 GMT -5
TALKING INTESTINES Monster Rating 9. 15 if encountered after eating iron rations. HD: 1, but every hit against Talking Intestines is taken off your own Constitution. Make a Sanity Check for hearing Talking Intestines.
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Feb 2, 2018 2:59:23 GMT -5
I think it is sad that not only Dave hasn't gotten his do, but others as well. Everyone lauds upon Gary (I've done my fair share in the past) but over the last few years I've been moving towards Old School role-playing & games such as OD&D & B/X appeal to me more than 1e to 5e 'D&D'. I fell in love with the humor of Dave's First Fantasy setting - I even like his 3.5 Blackmoor books, though I cannot stand the rules they are written for.
The rant by Lime, was brilliant & it speaks of a similar thing that happened to Jack Kirby at Marvel (a nod to Scott expanding upon it above); where Kirby was the artistic foundation stone to Marvel's success, he is overshadowed by Stan. If it wasn't for coverage on early Marvel & Kirby's contributions via Heavy Metal Magazine & other comic/art related sources I'd never learned of not only Kirby's contributions to Marvel; but to comics in general. I'll admit I am not a fan of Kirby he was far before my time & I am not a fan of his art, but you got to honor the dude.
The parallels with Dave vs. Gary with D&D & role-playing in general, if it wasn't for forums like this Havard's Blackmoor - I'd never had known how much actual influence Dave had on my favorite hobby. I'll not disrespect Gary, he co-created the game & one of my favorite settings (Greyhawk); but Dave deserves his do. I hope someone can craft a D&D/RPG timeline that gives Dave his do.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Feb 8, 2018 19:16:14 GMT -5
Arneson has become the "Bill Finger" or "Jack Kirby" of roleplaying and that is nothing short of outrageous. *Jeet Kune Do: "absorb what is useful, disregard what is useless." -Bruce Lee /rant Kirby was a genius and it's a shame the way his heirs have been...unable to get what's rightfully theirs. But it seems this happens often. The people like Arneson and Kirby (or Bathsua Makin or whoever) who have the vision - and discipline - to open up another world for us so rarely have a strong interest in money-grubbing. So their work is either lost or exploited or stolen or semi-stolen. Almost seems to be a sign of greatness...
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Feb 8, 2018 19:37:27 GMT -5
Jack's grandkids just wanted him credited. Jack and Roz wanted to leave some cash to their kids and grandkids, but the grandkids mainly wanted everyone to know their grandpa created these wonderful things. Say what we will about Disney buying Marvel, it initiated the new owner to settle this and more. Even Joe Simon was delighted, and wished Jack had seen the settlement and the Captain America movie. So do I.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Feb 8, 2018 21:58:07 GMT -5
Jack's grandkids just wanted him credited. Jack and Roz wanted to leave some cash to their kids and grandkids, but the grandkids mainly wanted everyone to know their grandpa created these wonderful things. Say what we will about Disney buying Marvel, it initiated the new owner to settle this and more. Even Joe Simon was delighted, and wished Jack had seen the settlement and the Captain America movie. So do I. Guess I missed the boat on some things. Great that there was a settlement.
|
|
|
Post by The Master on Feb 13, 2018 17:50:45 GMT -5
A lot of the OSR spirit strikes me as being a definite rejection of the endless iterations of $D&D and the desire to recapture the sense of wonder that Arneson definitely always brought. Eventually someone may recapture that sense of wonder. There are lots of people trying and hopefully someone will eventually make the leap. Some have. Some haven't. Most try. Who are the ones who have in your opinion? As indicated, it's merely my opinion - and just off the top of my head - and this includes only those of whom I have knowledge: Liz Danforth, Mark Thornton, Roy Cram, Rob Kuntz, Marc Millar, the Keith Brothers, Jeff Dee, Ann Dupuis, and a great many of the people with whom I have gamed. You are naming old school people who all predate the OSR and all of whom AFAIK are not OSR. I was asking who among the OSR folks do you consider to have captured the original spirit of the game? Not those who helped establish the spirit of the game. All of those originators are the spirit of an age to which contemporary OSRites are seeking to return. Anyway, the pattern of all of this is all too familiar, sad, and unconstructive. Gygax is Stan Lee, Arneson is Jack Kirby, Otus is Steve Ditko. And I am out. I am more in agreement with Crimhthan The Great . While I am sure that there are some OSR people that really want to return to the spirit of Dave Arneson, I find it quite striking that everyone named is from the early days and are people who all went there own way separate from the uniform corporate model. It is hard for me to credit naming these people as an answer to "who among the OSR folks do you consider to have captured the original spirit of the game." I think the question of "who among the OSR folks do you consider to have captured the original spirit of the game?" is a valid question and one that deserves some consideration. I for one am not sure that it would be fair to claim that the entire OSR or even the majority is seeking to return to the spirit of the age of Arneson back in the early 70's. It is an interesting to question to me as to how many of the OSR truly have that vision. Who among the current author/designers who embrace the OSR label could be named along with "Liz Danforth, Mark Thornton, Roy Cram, Rob Kuntz, Marc Millar, the Keith Brothers, Jeff Dee, Ann Dupuis, and a great many of the people with whom I have gamed." Perhaps the reason that no one has answered that question is that to name someone as capturing the original spirit of the game would be to infer that others have not and that could make someone a target for that opinion. Perhaps it would be good first to say what is the original spirit of the game. And what OSR products and authors have truly embraced that original spirit and produced something that reflects that original spirit accurately? BTW on a separate matter who are Cedgewick and limeodyssey ? They both seem to speak from a well of knowledge and insight, but who are they and have they published? They seem to be researchers or historians at least to some extent and I am curious to know more about them.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 14, 2018 6:18:13 GMT -5
The original spirit of the game was essentially free to design what you wished to and to implement it as you saw fit. That is based upon Arneson's (still being iterated) Blackmoor and his design philosophy (very glossed over) being espoused by Gygax in OD&D. We have further strong indicators of that philosophy post-publication OD&D in many quotes by Gygax in Alarums & Excursions #2 and #15, all of which strengthens the DIY design ethic exposed by the minimal quotes in OD&D.
The OSR has, IMO, sided with the corporate production model of disposability (pre-made adventures abound), and even Matt Finch (in his primer) glosses the DIY ethic and jumps past it to be accommodating, thus leading one to believe that the marketing model later imposed through the advent of the more rigidly structured AD&D/Adventure script model is but a "maturation" of the original game whereas, in reality, it is a strident break from it based upon TSR's production/mass marketing aims. Thus, IMHO and due to my origins and insights, they do not, en total, embrace the original spirit of that philosophy.
As for who Cedgewick is, well, you may be learning more about him soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Feb 14, 2018 10:07:30 GMT -5
And what OSR products and authors have truly embraced that original spirit and produced something that reflects that original spirit accurately? Good question, any of our senior refs/DMS want to take a stab at this? BTW on a separate matter who are Cedgewick and limeodyssey ? They both seem to speak from a well of knowledge and insight, but who are they and have they published? They seem to be researchers or historians at least to some extent and I am curious to know more about them. I wonder about this too, I am kinda surprised from their posts that they are not AFAIK well known.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Feb 14, 2018 10:16:02 GMT -5
The original spirit of the game was essentially free to design what you wished to and to implement it as you saw fit. That is based upon Arneson's (still being iterated) Blackmoor and his design philosophy (very glossed over) being espoused by Gygax in OD&D. We have further strong indicators of that philosophy post-publication OD&D in many quotes by Gygax in Alarums & Excursions #2 and #15, all of which strengthens the DIY design ethic exposed by the minimal quotes in OD&D. The OSR has, IMO, sided with the corporate production model of disposability (pre-made adventures abound), and even Matt Finch (in his primer) glosses the DIY ethic and jumps past it to be accommodating, thus leading one to believe that the marketing model later imposed through the advent of the more rigidly structured AD&D/Adventure script model is but a "maturation" of the original game whereas, in reality, it is a strident break from it based upon TSR's production/mass marketing aims. Thus, IMHO and due to my origins and insights, they do not, en total, embrace the original spirit of that philosophy. One are there any OSR people that you think break with the crowd and embrace the original spirit of the game? Two is there a way to create adventure modules that are not inherently bad? Or can they be done in such a way that they point the user back to DIY? As for who Cedgewick is, well, you may be learning more about him soon enough. Hmm, that's cryptic! Any comment regarding limeodyssey?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 12:35:27 GMT -5
One are there any OSR people that you think break with the crowd and embrace the original spirit of the game? I feel austinjimm writes pretty authentic material, though most of it isn't commercially available (to my knowledge). During NRTPCon last year he ran a deadly but light-hearted (that's pretty old school right there!) quest for [mysterious but whimsically named item] which, when found, gave us the power to control one of the session's two co-referees. Other gamers in Jimm's circle here in Austin run games, too; and because they have play with Jimm (and have me as a reference point) their games are much like the sessions Rob describes. Tetramorph, an active poster & moderator here, is another one of these. Myself as a reference because, like many here at this board, I started playing the game when it was first published. I wasn't in the "inner circle" in Lake Geneva or the Twin Cities, I was in a tiny town in nowhere Texas. So, my campaign was pretty "off the books" too. I think, and forgive me if I'm wrong here, I believe Rob is saying the truest stuff to the original game wouldn't have mass appeal. It is tailored to the individual referee's imagination and the playing style of the referee's group. It is a similar conundrum to what filmmakers face -- moviegoers want something "different" but if you stray from the formula too much nobody likes what you've done. Modules are the same way, players are largely conditioned to expect certain things from an adventure and turn their noses up at truly "off the wall" adventures like were being written and played back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 14, 2018 18:30:51 GMT -5
The original spirit of the game was essentially free to design what you wished to and to implement it as you saw fit. That is based upon Arneson's (still being iterated) Blackmoor and his design philosophy (very glossed over) being espoused by Gygax in OD&D. We have further strong indicators of that philosophy post-publication OD&D in many quotes by Gygax in Alarums & Excursions #2 and #15, all of which strengthens the DIY design ethic exposed by the minimal quotes in OD&D. The OSR has, IMO, sided with the corporate production model of disposability (pre-made adventures abound), and even Matt Finch (in his primer) glosses the DIY ethic and jumps past it to be accommodating, thus leading one to believe that the marketing model later imposed through the advent of the more rigidly structured AD&D/Adventure script model is but a "maturation" of the original game whereas, in reality, it is a strident break from it based upon TSR's production/mass marketing aims. Thus, IMHO and due to my origins and insights, they do not, en total, embrace the original spirit of that philosophy. One are there any OSR people that you think break with the crowd and embrace the original spirit of the game? Two is there a way to create adventure modules that are not inherently bad? Or can they be done in such a way that they point the user back to DIY? As for who Cedgewick is, well, you may be learning more about him soon enough. Hmm, that's cryptic! Any comment regarding limeodyssey? To the 1st/2nd, TSR's later model changed the perception of what an RPG was as originally proposed by both Gygax and Arneson. Whereas one can create adventures and play these for entertainment, the original concept was to create differences by thousands of design attitudes (this is what initially happened) thus spurring thousands of iterations and systems and a growing design and creative force, a veritable tidal wave as it turned out to be as everyone embraced it, that's 100%. That was changed by Gary's rigid course and the rest is history, very muddled by what I noted above as a feeling that the game just "naturally" matured with the addition of a closed systems design (One could point out the absurdity of this posture as "natural maturation" by noting that it's "maturing" from growing your own tomatoes and learning along the way what it means on many levels to, instead, to exchanging that for merely buying tomatoes.). As I note in DATG when comparing the two, they are night and day, there is no maturation, it is a redaction, a closed system strand which is being used exclusively for a mass marketing entertainment model. One need only compare other forums to say, this one, to note that that remains the case to this day. There is no talk on creating but it exclusively revolves around consuming. The Original game had no consumer model in place, it was strictly and sufficiently about creating and implementing one's singular creations. Thus the idea that pre-made adventures are bad is of no consequence--they are what they are for the model they are being employed through; it is about how one implements the idea of what an RPG is; and if you go all the way back to the beginning and then come forward to now you can see the change (due to a systems change) that transpired; and from there one must ascertain for themselves what is the original spirit. I am sticking with the original vision as then espoused as it has more breadth and far way more positive (rather than median) and enduring results than the other which is, when all is said and done, merely another disposable entertainment model only. A for the last, yes it was cryptic. And no, I do not know limeodyssey other than from this board.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Feb 16, 2018 8:21:20 GMT -5
Rob gets an exalt for his innovative publication of the facts, which rarely seem to be discussed in real book form. Conflict was inevitable.
- On the one hand, you have a guy discovering a new style of game, and continually twisting and turning it to see what it does. His desire is that his discovery be used to teach creating itself, possibly prompted by his inherent desire to teach and raise his fellow humans in abstract thinking and creation.
- On the other hand, we have a guy who needs to get out of the shoe repair business and support his wife and kids. He may or may not hate the idea of working for someone else, but we see that he's not very good at adapting to the employer's needs and decisions. If he can succeed in his own business, he will. If he can succeed with something he loves doing, that's a HUGE bonus.
The second will see this new style of game as a property in which to make money. The first is a discoverer, a Lewis & Clark of the mind. When art meets making-a-living, making-a-living will succeed in the marketplace. Art isn't really sure there is a marketplace, and making a living isn't as important as the creation anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 16, 2018 9:28:48 GMT -5
Rob gets an exalt for his innovative publication of the facts, which rarely seem to be discussed in real book form. Conflict was inevitable. - On the one hand, you have a guy discovering a new style of game, and continually twisting and turning it to see what it does. His desire is that his discovery be used to teach creating itself, possibly prompted by his inherent desire to teach and raise his fellow humans in abstract thinking and creation. - On the other hand, we have a guy who needs to get out of the shoe repair business and support his wife and kids. He may or may not hate the idea of working for someone else, but we see that he's not very good at adapting to the employer's needs and decisions. If he can succeed in his own business, he will. If he can succeed with something he loves doing, that's a HUGE bonus. The second will see this new style of game as a property in which to make money. The first is a discoverer, a Lewis & Clark of the mind. When art meets making-a-living, making-a-living will succeed in the marketplace. Art isn't really sure there is a marketplace, and making a living isn't as important as the creation anyway. Have an exalt! You deserve one also!
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 22, 2018 6:26:03 GMT -5
Rob gets an exalt for his innovative publication of the facts, which rarely seem to be discussed in real book form. Conflict was inevitable. - On the one hand, you have a guy discovering a new style of game, and continually twisting and turning it to see what it does. His desire is that his discovery be used to teach creating itself, possibly prompted by his inherent desire to teach and raise his fellow humans in abstract thinking and creation. - On the other hand, we have a guy who needs to get out of the shoe repair business and support his wife and kids. He may or may not hate the idea of working for someone else, but we see that he's not very good at adapting to the employer's needs and decisions. If he can succeed in his own business, he will. If he can succeed with something he loves doing, that's a HUGE bonus. The second will see this new style of game as a property in which to make money. The first is a discoverer, a Lewis & Clark of the mind. When art meets making-a-living, making-a-living will succeed in the marketplace. Art isn't really sure there is a marketplace, and making a living isn't as important as the creation anyway. Conflict only becomes "inevitable" in the commerce of ideas and discourse when one side retains an inherent bias and thus shuts down or limits the exchange to suit their pre-established position(s). Thus we move from Science to Political Posturing which is where the real conflicts arise in life, between the purposeful siding with entrenched political positions vs. the honest and open discourse of facts. Though there is some inherent truth in what you state about Arneson's attitudes I believe that the picture is yet more complex; Arneson liked to fiddle with designs; he insisted on this all the way to his death, in fact. Is that an art for arts sake posture? Arneson accepted money for his designs so I would say no. Maybe it has to do with, then, that he was investigating the scope of his creation (which ends up, in the long run being infinite in scope)/ There is also the possibility that he, as you suggest, was just interested in tinkering only, but I still do not buy this. Game designers back then, and on the whole, were no different than most, they all experimented, so did Gygax. What is different here is what Arneson arrived at through his experimentations--a new and amalgamated system structure that had never before existed; and when presented to the LGTSA, then to existing game companies, could not be typed for what it was, with the latter claiming that it was not going to work in the market (even though it was working in spades outside of the market). The last point is important in the pursuit of original ideas and their implementation. Arneson brought his system to showcase it (to us) because it worked. Gary saw this and acknowledged that is was innovative and worth marketing. Gary indeed was the catalyst for getting an iteration of it into the market, But Gary made choices for its furtherance based upon the want for more success and not for lack of providing a living--he had attained the latter already by 1975/1976 as he was on the payroll of TSR and was moving out of his rental property and into a purchased house in the LG Township. I believe that the change occurs because he wanted more monetary yield not more creative yield (for others). Remember, even with that change he still played the way we all played, and how many of us still remaining play to this day. Gary knew the power of Arneson's concept and used it to personally expand his DMing, design, monetary and power positions. So I see it as Gary being wholly on the side of the market while Arneson was on a more balanced course, neither was he against the market or for closing down the design opportunities inherent to the concept (which Gary did by isolating and thereafter promoting a single feature of it). In my estimation, just as it was Arneson's, the conceptual latitude of his breakthrough has barely had its surface scratched, both in the commerce of ideas and in the market(s).
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Feb 22, 2018 7:19:11 GMT -5
Didn't intend to infer that either was all X type while the second was all Y type. Part of the problem of compressing entire lives and minds into a couple of paragraphs. As you've proved, the actual story requires several books worth of paragraphs.
Until you, I don’t think anyone saw the real story going on. And I don't think there was any other person who saw as much or knew the principle actors as did you.
Nor do I imagine that Arneson believed in art for art's sake. If I read him right (I can't keep from talking like an old Okie) he did make a living from what he learned, but he was no one-trick pony and he never stopped discovering. Probably made him seem picky to some folks here and there.
I don’t think the full scope of his (discovery? invention?) has been tested yet. Whether it leads back to the fields of psychiatry or teaching, improvisational theater or yet another type of game, I haven't the skills sets nor smarts to recognize any markers. You may well be the only person who is uniquely situated, trained, and creative enough to be able to tell this unfinished story. And I hope to stick around long enough to read it all.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 22, 2018 8:23:28 GMT -5
Didn't intend to infer that either was all X type while the second was all Y type. Part of the problem of compressing entire lives and minds into a couple of paragraphs. As you've proved, the actual story requires several books worth of paragraphs. Until you, I don’t think anyone saw the real story going on. And I don't think there was any other person who saw as much or knew the principle actors as did you. Nor do I imagine that Arneson believed in art for art's sake. If I read him right (I can't keep from talking like an old Okie) he did make a living from what he learned, but he was no one-trick pony and he never stopped discovering. Probably made him seem picky to some folks here and there. I don’t think the full scope of his (discovery? invention?) has been tested yet. Whether it leads back to the fields of psychiatry or teaching, improvisational theater or yet another type of game, I haven't the skills sets nor smarts to recognize any markers. You may well be the only person who is uniquely situated, trained, and creative enough to be able to tell this unfinished story. And I hope to stick around long enough to read it all. High praise indeed. There's much more on the way concerning that era and the new design philosophy it spawned, and I don't think that it will always be exclusively from me. As people become aware of the specifics I tend to see a widening of perspectives. It's the human condition, even for "Old Oakies". :0
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Feb 22, 2018 8:30:08 GMT -5
No praise; just fact.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 22, 2018 8:55:10 GMT -5
Funny that you should use a post with Brennan speaking, as I just re-watched Rio Bravo last night, w him as Stumpy. Great story, great script, great movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 10:46:31 GMT -5
My brothers and I used to say “no brag just fact” to each other in his tone of voice!
|
|