|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 11, 2018 22:47:12 GMT -5
I have been reading the threads about @chirinebakal , his workbench blog and his Q&A threads all 800+ pages of it (that is going to take weeks) and I ran across this post over on the blog. The Chilling Effect He starts off by talking about miniatures and the issue of painting them for wargames. Then he moves on to the response many have to miniatures in RPGs. I will quote just a little of it with added bold type by me I think he makes a great point that much of the "OSR" are so disconnected from the origins of and the early days of D&D that in many parts of the "OSR" Dave and Gary would both be shown the door for heresy. The bigger problem is that they just don't stop at miniatures, it bleeds over into everything about D&D (ie OD&D). He is also right that forums are worse than the blogs, not that some of the blogs are pretty bad too. But on most forums the re-writing of history is part of the culture and if anyone posts the truth, people like @chirinebakal and others, people just come unglued because what they post does not follow the accepted party line. This Chilling Effect touches almost every post that is made on those boards and if they are all you are reading you will come away with a distorted view. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 12, 2018 6:46:53 GMT -5
Yeah @chirinebakal makes an excellent point. The original old school views are frequently met with disdain and disbelief and are often silenced. History is reported and the response is not to learn something, but to interpret history as though we are saying they are having bad wrong fun. But we are not saying that, just here is what we did, here is how it was. Instead of listening and learning, they shout history down and deny it, solely because they are not willing to admit that their way is not the original way. It is OK to be different, but to pretend history is something other than it really was, that is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Jun 12, 2018 8:48:25 GMT -5
Humans have always been quick to misinterpret living as Us vs The Other, whether rolegaming's One Troo Wayism curse or politics. Our hobby/vocation, being filled with humans, is prone to the same infuriating insanity - including the ever-popular rewriting of history.
I think it was Eric Blair who noted that Lenin rejected original sources for historical data, and we see this attitude even in current rolegaming historians.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2018 12:35:08 GMT -5
The OSR, alas, has taken a serious wrong turn and did so almost from the beginning.
To use Rob's nomenclature, they are obsessed with the mechanical aspects of the system as a method to discover ur-D&D. But as Rob has pointed out, the key to original D&D is the conceptual system being an open one.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 12, 2018 13:00:37 GMT -5
I have been reading the threads about @chirinebakal , his workbench blog and his Q&A threads all 800+ pages of it (that is going to take weeks) and I ran across this post over on the blog. The Chilling Effect He starts off by talking about miniatures and the issue of painting them for wargames. Then he moves on to the response many have to miniatures in RPGs. I will quote just a little of it with added bold type by me I think he makes a great point that much of the "OSR" are so disconnected from the origins of and the early days of D&D that in many parts of the "OSR" Dave and Gary would both be shown the door for heresy. The bigger problem is that they just don't stop at miniatures, it bleeds over into everything about D&D (ie OD&D). He is also right that forums are worse than the blogs, not that some of the blogs are pretty bad too. But on most forums the re-writing of history is part of the culture and if anyone posts the truth, people like @chirinebakal and others, people just come unglued because what they post does not follow the accepted party line. This Chilling Effect touches almost every post that is made on those boards and if they are all you are reading you will come away with a distorted view. Huh. Well. No miniatures were used AT ALL in the D&D games we played or DMed, during or after the playtests. This was covered previously in the Grognard Games interview with myself; and ALL players from that time period will attest to it. Period. End of story, Nada, And, by the by, the "elastolins" were not just Gary's; I had an equal share in them from the beginning; they were ours, also period. This is mentioned by EGG in the Dragon 'Zine (early issue? number not off the top) that "Rob Kuntz and I had acquired a large number of elastolin" figures; and of course all living LGTSA members recall this as well. Really hate unsourced/unverified information that could have been easily verified by contacting me or others; it adds more and more (to the already overflowing lot of it) that proliferates so many segments of this Hobby's history. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2018 13:42:24 GMT -5
Well, what you've got there is a hunk out of context.
Chirine and I talked about this, and I told him exactly what you said; in the period I played with Gary, about 1972-1976, I never saw him use minis.
And when I played with Dave up in Minneapolis, he ALWAYS used minis.
And Chirine and I both played with Phil Barker, and he SOMETIMES used minis.
But there are plenty of people insisting that using miniatures is "NOT OLD SCHOOL."
Honestly, the OSR is starting to give me what my late father used to call "a pain in the kazotsky."
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 12, 2018 14:19:37 GMT -5
Well, what you've got there is a hunk out of context. Chirine and I talked about this, and I told him exactly what you said; in the period I played with Gary, about 1972-1976, I never saw him use minis. And when I played with Dave up in Minneapolis, he ALWAYS used minis. And Chirine and I both played with Phil Barker, and he SOMETIMES used minis. But there are plenty of people insisting that using miniatures is "NOT OLD SCHOOL." Honestly, the OSR is starting to give me what my late father used to call "a pain in the kazotsky." But in the 1972 game at Gary's table and the subsequent Adventure to the City of the Gods 1976 at the Dungeon Hobby shop (played by myself and Gary), we did not use Miniatures for the Blackmoor adventures; and neither was this mentioned by Megarry or DA in retrospect. So "Always" is at least suspect in ALL cases to say the least. The OSR is a hodge-podge of opinions that have been stripped from hither and yon and oftentimes twisted; and they should be, for the most part, taken with a grain of salt. I have debunked so much of their a-historical "evidence" that it wearies me to continue, for it keeps on cropping up, like a potato endlessly passed around in a circle, it ends up back in your hand but in another form (hashed instead of baked). Some major parts of these revisionist histories will be dealt with in my upcoming book. I wish the MMSA and others would be doing the same, but apparently they are siding with the SoB doc to cover that base. That leaves depending on the questions asked by Griff, of course, and I hope he concentrates more than on the Dave Wesley angle. IMO, miniatures are not old or new school. Miniatures are a mode; and modes affect play, that cannot be argued. Gary and I had the same reasons for not using them; and I maintain those reasons to this day as he did to his dying day. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 12, 2018 14:58:36 GMT -5
I have been reading the threads about @chirinebakal , his workbench blog and his Q&A threads all 800+ pages of it (that is going to take weeks) and I ran across this post over on the blog. The Chilling Effect He starts off by talking about miniatures and the issue of painting them for wargames. Then he moves on to the response many have to miniatures in RPGs. I will quote just a little of it with added bold type by me I think he makes a great point that much of the "OSR" are so disconnected from the origins of and the early days of D&D that in many parts of the "OSR" Dave and Gary would both be shown the door for heresy. The bigger problem is that they just don't stop at miniatures, it bleeds over into everything about D&D (ie OD&D). He is also right that forums are worse than the blogs, not that some of the blogs are pretty bad too. But on most forums the re-writing of history is part of the culture and if anyone posts the truth, people like @chirinebakal and others, people just come unglued because what they post does not follow the accepted party line. This Chilling Effect touches almost every post that is made on those boards and if they are all you are reading you will come away with a distorted view. Huh. Well. No miniatures were used AT ALL in the D&D games we played or DMed, during or after the playtests. This was covered previously in the Grognard Games interview with myself; and ALL players from that time period will attest to it. Period. End of story, Nada, And, by the by, the "elastolins" were not just Gary's; I had an equal share in them from the beginning; they were ours, also period. This is mentioned by EGG in the Dragon 'Zine (early issue? number not off the top) that "Rob Kuntz and I had acquired a large number of elastolin" figures; and of course all living LGTSA members recall this as well. Really hate unsourced/unverified information that could have been easily verified by contacting me or others; it adds more and more (to the already overflowing lot of it) that proliferates so many segments of this Hobby's history. , sorry for the confusion. In the whole thing about miniatures we are not talking about anyone using miniatures aside from @chirinebakal and his experiences and is in the context of chirine personally being really into models and miniatures. None of what was written was meant to imply that miniatures where used in the playtests of D&D or by you Lake Geneva folks. As I read his essay, it was not talking about Arneson either. My take away and I think the thrust of @chirinebakal's essay is that the hostile reaction he gets from his recounting of what he did by much of the "OSR" would likely be the hostility that Dave and Gary would receive these days from much of the OSR, the same hostility that you and @gronanofsimmerya are met with much of the time. The other points I made after reading his essay is that the same thing many "OSR" folks do to chirine in reference to his love for miniatures is also what the same people do to you and and others. In fact as I understood him, he was talking about his experiences from 1976 on and was not referencing anything outside his personal experience, so I am sorry if I created any confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 12, 2018 15:02:54 GMT -5
Well, what you've got there is a hunk out of context. Chirine and I talked about this, and I told him exactly what you said; in the period I played with Gary, about 1972-1976, I never saw him use minis. And when I played with Dave up in Minneapolis, he ALWAYS used minis. And Chirine and I both played with Phil Barker, and he SOMETIMES used minis. But there are plenty of people insisting that using miniatures is "NOT OLD SCHOOL." Honestly, the OSR is starting to give me what my late father used to call "a pain in the kazotsky." I honestly don't think I took it out of context as I was using it in reference to chirine himself and extending the principal of how he is treated to the rest of you, not the specifics in regard to miniatures. Again I apologize if I created any confusion. I also believe he is correct that people will quote both Arneson and Gygax out of context to support their attack on all of you. I am not aware that there are any real quotes floating around by Gygax saying that using minis is bad wrong fun. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 12, 2018 15:05:40 GMT -5
Well, what you've got there is a hunk out of context. Chirine and I talked about this, and I told him exactly what you said; in the period I played with Gary, about 1972-1976, I never saw him use minis. And when I played with Dave up in Minneapolis, he ALWAYS used minis. And Chirine and I both played with Phil Barker, and he SOMETIMES used minis. But there are plenty of people insisting that using miniatures is "NOT OLD SCHOOL." Honestly, the OSR is starting to give me what my late father used to call "a pain in the kazotsky." But in the 1972 game at Gary's table and the subsequent Adventure to the City of the Gods 1976 at the Dungeon Hobby shop (played by myself and Gary), we did not use Miniatures for the Blackmoor adventures; and neither was this mentioned by Megarry or DA in retrospect. So "Always" is at least suspect in ALL cases to say the least. The OSR is a hodge-podge of opinions that have been stripped from hither and yon and oftentimes twisted; and they should be, for the most part, taken with a grain of salt. I have debunked so much of their a-historical "evidence" that it wearies me to continue, for it keeps on cropping up, like a potato endlessly passed around in a circle, it ends up back in your hand but in another form (hashed instead of baked). Some major parts of these revisionist histories will be dealt with in my upcoming book. I wish the MMSA and others would be doing the same, but apparently they are siding with the SoB doc to cover that base. That leaves depending on the questions asked by Griff, of course, and I hope he concentrates more than on the Dave Wesley angle. IMO, miniatures are not old or new school. Miniatures are a mode; and modes affect play, that cannot be argued. Gary and I had the same reasons for not using them; and I maintain those reasons to this day as he did to his dying day. Again if I created confusion, I apologize. I did not intend to write anything that disagreed with anything you have said, nor did I understand anything that chirine wrote to disagree with what you have said. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 12, 2018 15:07:22 GMT -5
BTW I do not and have not owned any miniatures or used them in a game. So I was not arguing that they were required, just that I did not see anything wrong with using them if you wanted to and extended idea that to other things.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 12, 2018 15:15:58 GMT -5
But in the 1972 game at Gary's table and the subsequent Adventure to the City of the Gods 1976 at the Dungeon Hobby shop (played by myself and Gary), we did not use Miniatures for the Blackmoor adventures; and neither was this mentioned by Megarry or DA in retrospect. So "Always" is at least suspect in ALL cases to say the least. The OSR is a hodge-podge of opinions that have been stripped from hither and yon and oftentimes twisted; and they should be, for the most part, taken with a grain of salt. I have debunked so much of their a-historical "evidence" that it wearies me to continue, for it keeps on cropping up, like a potato endlessly passed around in a circle, it ends up back in your hand but in another form (hashed instead of baked). Some major parts of these revisionist histories will be dealt with in my upcoming book. I wish the MMSA and others would be doing the same, but apparently they are siding with the SoB doc to cover that base. That leaves depending on the questions asked by Griff, of course, and I hope he concentrates more than on the Dave Wesley angle. IMO, miniatures are not old or new school. Miniatures are a mode; and modes affect play, that cannot be argued. Gary and I had the same reasons for not using them; and I maintain those reasons to this day as he did to his dying day. Again if I created confusion, I apologize. I did not intend to write anything that disagreed with anything you have said, nor did I understand anything that chirine wrote to disagree with what you have said. I have no issue with you at all. I have many issues with the reports by those, near, far and wide, that sometimes omit, oftentimes construe, and in some cases outright lie about events from those days. I have had my fill with it in fact to the point of having written a blog piece on it, with the many books and articles and symposiums, et al making the rounds these days as 'History'. I have been fighting these stories for years; and when opinion is opinion I note it. But get the facts straight when flinging names and dates and such around; or don't fling them, and that is a general statement aimed at no one in particular, you included. BTW: I never shoot the messenger. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2018 16:08:50 GMT -5
Well, what you've got there is a hunk out of context. Chirine and I talked about this, and I told him exactly what you said; in the period I played with Gary, about 1972-1976, I never saw him use minis. And when I played with Dave up in Minneapolis, he ALWAYS used minis. And Chirine and I both played with Phil Barker, and he SOMETIMES used minis. But there are plenty of people insisting that using miniatures is "NOT OLD SCHOOL." Honestly, the OSR is starting to give me what my late father used to call "a pain in the kazotsky." But in the 1972 game at Gary's table and the subsequent Adventure to the City of the Gods 1976 at the Dungeon Hobby shop (played by myself and Gary), we did not use Miniatures for the Blackmoor adventures; and neither was this mentioned by Megarry or DA in retrospect. So "Always" is at least suspect in ALL cases to say the least. Please note, I said "when I played with Dave up in Minneapolis, he ALWAYS used minis." All the words in that sentence are important. I don't know what Dave did when he played with other people, or elsewhere. I was extremely specific.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 12, 2018 16:22:15 GMT -5
But in the 1972 game at Gary's table and the subsequent Adventure to the City of the Gods 1976 at the Dungeon Hobby shop (played by myself and Gary), we did not use Miniatures for the Blackmoor adventures; and neither was this mentioned by Megarry or DA in retrospect. So "Always" is at least suspect in ALL cases to say the least. Please note, I said "when I played with Dave up in Minneapolis, he ALWAYS used minis." All the words in that sentence are important. I don't know what Dave did when he played with other people, or elsewhere. I was extremely specific.
That's true. You were specific. As was I in dispelling what could be construed as a leading assumption (something I do not accuse you of, but others are indeed reading this and your words are sought after just as my own are). In fact Gary and I owe a debt of gratitude to David for his playing without miniatures in our case, then, as I believe to this day that this particular course totally ensconced us in the conceptual mode of possibilities regarding his new system; and from there Gary and I easily distinguished between two distinct realms of game/play during the play-tests. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 12, 2018 23:37:46 GMT -5
I use miniatures when I have to, but I stand by my statement that they mess with immersion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 12, 2018 23:51:10 GMT -5
I use miniatures when I have to, but I stand by my statement that they mess with immersion. I've never used mini's and I would have no idea how to use them without seriously slowing down the game. |
|
|
|
Post by dragondaddy on Jun 13, 2018 4:44:07 GMT -5
When we first started playing D&D we didn't use minis because none were available. By 1980 though, had a very good growing collection. I always liked using minis, and find that having a good tabletop minis setup really helps players to become immersed in the game. Plus, every minis game setup is unique and reflects preferences of the GM and the players. It was easy to adopt minis for Fantasy games, because in the early 70's I built a very large collection of 1/72 scale plastic minis from Airfix, Italeri, Atlantic, and Pegasus along with model vehicles from Airfix, and Hasegawa for wargames. 1/72 Miniatures are bigger than ever... Michigan Toy Co.
MegaHobbies
Hobbylink
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Jun 13, 2018 11:25:43 GMT -5
It's disturbing to learn that so many of these stalwarts have been wearing minis while gaming. I suppose if you have the legs for it....  |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Jun 13, 2018 13:38:54 GMT -5
It's disturbing to learn that so many of these stalwarts have been wearing minis while gaming. I suppose if you have the legs for it.... How sexist and misogynist of you! Shame on you! Well, I do admire those legs though. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 17, 2018 14:25:07 GMT -5
In fact Gary and I owe a debt of gratitude to David for his playing without miniatures in our case, then, as I believe to this day that this particular course totally ensconced us in the conceptual mode of possibilities regarding his new system; and from there Gary and I easily distinguished between two distinct realms of game/play during the play-tests. What are the two distinct realms of game/play that you easily distinguished during the play-tests? I have never used the miniatures myself. I can see how minis would slow down the game, tend to limit things to a given area, and require a lot of work to reset the table every time you change location. So do minis tend to close the game down for most people? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 17, 2018 14:47:50 GMT -5
In fact Gary and I owe a debt of gratitude to David for his playing without miniatures in our case, then, as I believe to this day that this particular course totally ensconced us in the conceptual mode of possibilities regarding his new system; and from there Gary and I easily distinguished between two distinct realms of game/play during the play-tests. So do minis tend to close the game down for most people? Well yes, because as I asserted up-thread that (the use of) miniatures are not old school or new school, t hey are a mode (more specific to our own contextual purpose here, a PLAY mode). And the mode ALWAYS expands or contracts the system output in ways related to its initial parameters and ongoing execution. One way of breaking this down is to examine (right column/left column) how these outputs are equal, unequal, emended, changed or remain the same in relation to each other. Just like I did with the following (Copyright 2013-2018, Robert Kuntz, A New Ethos in Game Design; and the handout at a Garycon seminar I gave on Open Form; see hereafter appended). Just to say that "it slows down play" is to generalize one of the symptoms (or, contractions of an otherwise purely conceptual system), thus the right/left column comparison), though this one is easily isolated. The real reason Gary and I never used them is that it gave away too much information, the latter which we saw as paramount for summoning and sustaining a fantastic immersion in the conceptual environ. Thus information was TIGHTLY controlled for that purpose. But this is not the only reason, I could state more and I do so in NEIGD. OOps. I cannot post columnar text here, nor an image. So PD might want to receive it, make it into an image file and post it for me. E-mailing PD now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 15:26:26 GMT -5
Scene: Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, early 1980s, the local fast food joint near to the TSR building; the evening, after the afternoon's TSR stockholders' meeting with Gary Gygax, Brian Blume, Kevin Blume, and Jeff Berry sitting in as Dave Arneson's proxy for his one and only share of TSR stock. Gary and Jeff are talking about gaming over dinner. (Gary bought, bless him.)
Jeff: I hear from Mike Mornard you have a lot of really nice Elastolins. Do you use them in your Greyhawk games?
Gary: No. They cost too much, and I don;t want to get them broken. Want to play for a bit?
Jeff: That makes sense, and yes, I'd love to!
(Gary runs a little Greyhawk, there at the table. It was grand.)
I'm sorry; I report what I know and have experienced. If that's a problem, do feel free to let me know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 15:37:09 GMT -5
I use miniatures when I have to, but I stand by my statement that they mess with immersion. I can agree with you, actually; it's all about how you and your group play, and IF stuff like this works for you. If it doesn't, then I'd be the first person to help you clear the table for your game. by the same token, if it did, then I'd be the first person to try to help you and your players out. I do not view your statement as a negative one; you are simply stating the facts of what you see, and I'm fine with that. The important thing, from my perspective, is that you and your players are having fun. What has largely caused me to leave gaming - at least, what purports to be 'the OSR' portion of it, have been the very negative - almost rabid - reactions from various of the elders of the OSR to the news that we used miniatures in RPGs in our groups. I am, if I may be frank, tired of getting kicked for the kind of fun I like to have. Which was, as has been pointed out up thread, what I was saying in my post. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 15:41:15 GMT -5
I use miniatures when I have to, but I stand by my statement that they mess with immersion. I've never used mini's and I would have no idea how to use them without seriously slowing down the game. Don't overthink it. Most gamers, especially OSR ones, get into the mode that everything has to be precise, perfect, and In The Rules. Don't worry about it, and just run the game; the miniatures serve as a sort of tactical display, and a way of imparting information as Rob points out. I just like building the stuff, and people seem to like it. Ask the Shieldmaidens for their opinion, if you want another viewpoint; I'm back with them for their pirate town game in a week. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 17, 2018 16:13:44 GMT -5
Scene: Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, early 1980s, the local fast food joint near to the TSR building; the evening, after the afternoon's TSR stockholders' meeting with Gary Gygax, Brian Blume, Kevin Blume, and Jeff Berry sitting in as Dave Arneson's proxy for his one and only share of TSR stock. Gary and Jeff are talking about gaming over dinner. (Gary bought, bless him.) Jeff: I hear from Mike Mornard you have a lot of really nice Elastolins. Do you use them in your Greyhawk games? Gary: No. They cost too much, and I don;t want to get them broken. Want to play for a bit? Jeff: That makes sense, and yes, I'd love to! (Gary runs a little Greyhawk, there at the table. It was grand.) I'm sorry; I report what I know and have experienced. If that's a problem, do feel free to let me know. The point being Jeff, is that no miniatures were used, for the only ones that could have been used were owned by Gary and myself; and that is not the reason, as could be inferred, that we did not use miniatures in ANY D&D game. I know. I playtested Chainmail with "our" elastolins, but their non-use in the play-tests of D&D by us was not due to their expensiveness. That's a throw away comment by Gary. Sheesh. We used them on the sand sand table, does one think that their expensiveness after that grinding and grueling handling for years could be forwarded for their non'use, just a few of them, even f we had wanted to? No. It's because of factors that I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread that we didn't use them. Your otherwise isolated point there can and will be taken out of context; and we already have "historians" out there that I am too battling, you are not alone. And as the person who owned almost half of those miniatures, was Gary's confidant and co-DM and co-designer, experienced all the playtests, I'd hope that you can respect my view as well in heading off another possible misunderstanding in D&D history which is proliferated at this point with literally thousands of pieces of misinformation. If not, feel free to let me know, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 17, 2018 17:10:53 GMT -5
I think from reading this that no one is arguing with anyone else's personal experience experiences and I think most (if not all of us) have the greatest respect for those who were around bitd and only want to hear more and more about those experiences and how they molded the things that happened.
I think Rob makes an excellent point that Jeff will say something that is completely true and then someone will take it out of context to try to prove that Rob or someone else has it wrong and vice versa. When we quote people these days we must make extra effort to provide context for no reason other than some people refuse to act in good faith and will seize on anything to distort the truth.
Rob's point about the Elastolins used on the sand table being a lot rougher on them that using them in the manner most people play D&D is well taken. From the pictures that Jeff has posted it appears though that he plays D&D on a sand table so Gary's comment carried a different meaning to him than Gary intended since Gary did not play D&D on a sand table.
If I have any of that wrong please correct me.
I said all of that to really just say that we can often misunderstand things in any number of creative ways when we don't know the full context of anyones comments. That is true even when we are acting in good faith and have no intent to distort anything. Now imagine what it is like when there is no good faith and there is the intent to distort. That is what gets us to the place where Rob and Jeff both get push back from people using "history" that is fiction and not history.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 17:35:10 GMT -5
The point being Jeff, is that no miniatures were used, for the only ones that could have been used were owned by Gary and myself; and that is not the reason, as could be inferred, that we did not use miniatures in ANY D&D game. I know. I playtested Chainmail with "our" elastolins, but their non-use in the play-tests of D&D by us was not due to their expensiveness. That's a throw away comment by Gary. Sheesh. We used them on the sand sand table, does one think that their expensiveness after that grinding and grueling handling for years could be forwarded for their non'use, just a few of them, even f we had wanted to? No. It's because of factors that I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread that we didn't use them. Your otherwise isolated point there can and will be taken out of context; and we already have "historians" out there that I am too battling, you are not alone. And as the person who owned almost half of those miniatures, was Gary's confidant and co-DM and co-designer, experienced all the playtests, I'd hope that you can respect my view as well in heading off another possible misunderstanding in D&D history which is proliferated at this point with literally thousands of pieces of misinformation. If not, feel free to let me know, as well. I understand what you're saying Rob, and I happen to agree with you. I've had my own sand table, and I still play on one at the FLGS. I knew exactly what Gary was saying with his off-hand comment, both then and now, as I've had the same issues and discussions with a great many people over the years. I do respect your point of view, as well. And, if I offer a very personal opinion, I am very sorry that the OP chose to repost my comments on my blog without asking me beforehand, or asking what the context of those comments were. As you say, Rob, isolated snippets do get quoted out of context and then get misinterpreted and nit-picked to death by people on the Internet. All of which. I am forced to admit, is why I tend to shun gamers and gaming these days. (I don't know why I've suddenly become all 'trendy-witch-popular' on this forum all of a sudden, and I'd like somebody to be polite enough to explain why they want to make a big deal out of anything I happen to say in my musings. I have the perception - and I'd like to be wrong - that the quarter of a million views I've brought to RPG Pundit's forum are what's in play, here. I'm just an old cynic, I guess.) It's really too bad. I had a great day yesterday doing a ten-hour open table game at the FLGS, and coming home to this has pretty much spoiled the pleasant feeling I had coming out of the game - and the Shieldmaidens' game two weeks ago, and the 5e campaign's marathon last Sunday - to the point where I'm wondering if I can get a refund from the FLGS for the $75 worth of figures I bought for my campaign yesterday. Of it I should go ahead and pay for the airline tickets for the speaking engagement I'm supposed to do for a library for their pop-culture symposium. " Sheesh," as you say. What's astonished me is how gamers seem to have this deep-seated compulsion to suck the fun out of gaming, so that they can get some air time on a forum by sparking some controversy. Shrug. Not my forum, not my hobby, and not my problem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 17:43:32 GMT -5
I think from reading this that no one is arguing with anyone else's personal experience experiences and I think most (if not all of us) have the greatest respect for those who were around bitd and only want to hear more and more about those experiences and how they molded the things that happened. I think Rob makes an excellent point that Jeff will say something that is completely true and then someone will take it out of context to try to prove that Rob or someone else has it wrong and vice versa. When we quote people these days we must make extra effort to provide context for no reason other than some people refuse to act in good faith and will seize on anything to distort the truth. Rob's point about the Elastolins used on the sand table being a lot rougher on them that using them in the manner most people play D&D is well taken. From the pictures that Jeff has posted it appears though that he plays D&D on a sand table so Gary's comment carried a different meaning to him than Gary intended since Gary did not play D&D on a sand table. If I have any of that wrong please correct me. I said all of that to really just say that we can often misunderstand things in any number of creative ways when we don't know the full context of anyones comments. That is true even when we are acting in good faith and have no intent to distort anything. Now imagine what it is like when there is no good faith and there is the intent to distort. That is what gets us to the place where Rob and Jeff both get push back from people using "history" that is fiction and not history. I do not play on a sand table here at home; my table uses MDF/foam tiles covered with sawdust and painted in order to avoid the very issue that Rob brings up - it's like rubbing figures with sandpaper. When I use the FLGS sand table, I use 'expendible' figures on plywood bases that will take the abuse. As a miniatures player and painter, I knew exactly what Gary was trying to say; what I find fascinating is how what used to be an important part of this hobby has now been largely forgotten. I've seen people freak out over there being NO GRID on my game tables, and they are paralyzed with indecision over what to do in the game as a result. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 18:17:18 GMT -5
Don't overthink it. Most gamers, especially OSR ones, get into the mode that everything has to be precise, perfect, and In The Rules. Don't worry about it, and just run the game; the miniatures serve as a sort of tactical display, and a way of imparting information as Rob points out. I just like building the stuff, and people seem to like it. Ask the Shieldmaidens for their opinion, if you want another viewpoint; I'm back with them for their pirate town game in a week.
This is SO true. I've participated in a lot of Jeff's games. Nongamers tend to say "I move over there", Jeff moves them as far as they can that turn, and all is well.
WRG Ancients gamers, on the other hand, are a pain in the tuchus. Moving to the "optimum" point, prechecking every possible condition, etc, etc, etc. Somebody go warm up Number 3 trebuchet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 18:24:48 GMT -5
Personal opinion:
I have mixed feelings about miniatures in this kind of gaming. On the one hand, "a picture is worth a thousand words;" ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, ya shoulda seen Mos Eisley. Oh, the splendor. Oh, the glory. Oh, the wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Oh, the screaming and shouting when Princess Leia realized she'd given the Rebel Alliance war chest to Jabba the Hutt.
On the other hand, I HAVE seen people get bogged down by the miniatures; not only in the sense of fighting for fifteen minutes over getting the "perfect position," trying to position their figure to, quoting "Doc" Smith, "a skintillionth of a whillimeter," but I've also seen it drop people 100% out of character, and suddenly they might as well be playing Parcheesi.
Jeff's worked the tech end of theater, he knows what I mean by "dropping character."
And of course, there are people who get utterly paralyzed if the figure is not exactly what it's supposed to represent.
I have no answers, just observation and opinion.
|
|
