|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 27, 2018 5:39:22 GMT -5
I don't know. I've never thought of myself as a moron. Morons are usually in charge of stuff. I think that I'm more of a twitt, really. Yeah, lets go with twitt. Yeah morons are usually in charge of stuff and in regard to this forum, I guess that would be me.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 27, 2018 5:50:22 GMT -5
So, even after somebody who was THERE saying that Bath did not influence D&D, you morons are persisting in saying Bath influenced D&D? Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack. I'm done. Unless I missed it, robkuntz hasn't spoken to these questions yet, I know he was there at the beginning of things with Gary. I wish we could talk to someone that was there really early on with Arneson, pre-Gary and Rob, as well. As for calling people morons, I am tired of this @gronanofsimmerya . Tone it down and drop the holier than thou attitude, almost everything in this thread has been posed as "ifs?" not "for certain" so quit calling names. Instead of telling us a one liner and calling it done. Why don't you tell us about what you do know in some detail.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 27, 2018 6:30:46 GMT -5
So, even after somebody who was THERE saying that Bath did not influence D&D, you morons are persisting in saying Bath influenced D&D? Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack. I'm done. It has been a rather a lop-sided, IMO, topic anyway, so I agree. The real father of wargaming and who predates Bath by at least 4 years, and whose books occupied Gary's and Dave's shelves, was of course Donald Featherstone. Gary and Dave did not "learn of" campaign play from Bath. Bath learned of Campaign play (and expanded it like all al others, like Gygax and Arneson were doing) from Featherstone and the Wargaming Project. Featherstone included Bath, later, and extolled his POV in his later books, of course. But Bath is not some (or the) primeval source for campaign play in Wargames. Nor were his actual rules that well thought out (it took 37 pages to describe melee rules for ancient battles, thus making them very inaccessible and cumbersome unlike Perren's & Gary's Chainmail). I would believe that his Hyboria angle, as appended, should be of more interest for the fantasy/wargame slant he took in his postal games. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Featherstone_(wargamer)Also see links at the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 27, 2018 7:35:49 GMT -5
So, even after somebody who was THERE saying that Bath did not influence D&D, you morons are persisting in saying Bath influenced D&D? Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack. I'm done. It has been a rather a lop-sided, IMO, topic anyway, so I agree. The real father of wargaming and who predates Bath by at least 4 years, and whose books occupied Gary's and Dave's shelves, was of course Donald Featherstone. Gary and Dave did not "learn of" campaign play from Bath. Bath learned of Campaign play (and expanded it like all al others, like Gygax and Arneson were doing) from Featherstone and the Wargaming Project. Featherstone included Bath, later, and extolled his POV in his later books, of course. But Bath is not some (or the) primeval source for campaign play in Wargames. Nor were his actual rules that well thought out (it took 37 pages to describe melee rules for ancient battles, thus making them very inaccessible and cumbersome unlike Perren's & Gary's Chainmail). I would believe that his Hyboria angle, as appended, should be of more interest for the fantasy/wargame slant he took in his postal games. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Featherstone_(wargamer)Also see links at the bottom. Now we have an answer that is definitive on the subject of Bath and Featherstone and who was influential on Chainmail and with additional information and IIRC over at playing at the world there was some other information posted with some games that Gygax was aware of in the you alls newsletter of the time, again IIRC. Now I hope you are not agreeing with Michael calling us all morons for asking questions, since IMO the majority were asking questions rather than making statements and I think that part was over the top on Michaels part. So to further the conversation, was the Hyboria part of Bath, an influence at all or was that something that was off the radar at the time?
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 27, 2018 8:09:39 GMT -5
It has been a rather a lop-sided, IMO, topic anyway, so I agree. The real father of wargaming and who predates Bath by at least 4 years, and whose books occupied Gary's and Dave's shelves, was of course Donald Featherstone. Gary and Dave did not "learn of" campaign play from Bath. Bath learned of Campaign play (and expanded it like all al others, like Gygax and Arneson were doing) from Featherstone and the Wargaming Project. Featherstone included Bath, later, and extolled his POV in his later books, of course. But Bath is not some (or the) primeval source for campaign play in Wargames. Nor were his actual rules that well thought out (it took 37 pages to describe melee rules for ancient battles, thus making them very inaccessible and cumbersome unlike Perren's & Gary's Chainmail). I would believe that his Hyboria angle, as appended, should be of more interest for the fantasy/wargame slant he took in his postal games. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Featherstone_(wargamer)Also see links at the bottom. Now we have an answer that is definitive on the subject of Bath and Featherstone and who was influential on Chainmail and with additional information and IIRC over at playing at the world there was some other information posted with some games that Gygax was aware of in the you alls newsletter of the time, again IIRC. Now I hope you are not agreeing with Michael calling us all morons for asking questions, since IMO the majority were asking questions rather than making statements and I think that part was over the top on Michaels part. So to further the conversation, was the Hyboria part of Bath, an influence at all or was that something that was off the radar at the time? People are starting to strain at the gnat. I can sense and agree with Michael's frustration with that. I have no observations or comments upon his expressions otherwise. I do believe that this "assumptive" line of approach is not conducive to forwarding true histories or design understandings, and that appears to be the wont of a lot of Opinion oriented and less fact based forums these days. Speculation and errant posts made on these speculations is neither historical, design-fact-based, nor theoretically grounded in fact. They appear to be very popular none-the less; but for all the energy spent at getting to this point, people would have been better advised to do their research first and without such errant observations which has driven a very false narrative. Internet boards, thus, and IMO have never been nor will ever be, the place to solve these issues; and thus, and seemingly even here at times, become a dumping ground for opinions; and yes, to the true designer, fact-based, scholar or informed person, that is frustrating. I have of course spoken endlessly, here or at other places over, what, 20 years or so, on this very general topic as it relates to other subjects. It has a lot to do with the ability, unfortunately, for people just to immediately post what they are surmising, guessing about, or what is their topic de jour that they feel like pushing for the day, and less to do with getting the answers, more to do with expending electrons; and as I have noted, that axis has never been the route to truth. But people perhaps are more interested in spending their energies not on exacting research but on the aforementioned approaches which conclude unsatisfactorily in the vast majority of cases. Internet boards, when linked with such access-oriented behavior (i.e., immediacy), tend to confuse matters because of that rather than offering clarity. They will not replace research if they themselves and their posters do not embrace the tenets of what good research means. YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 27, 2018 10:09:57 GMT -5
I look over this thread and I see NOTHING that warrants being demeaned and dehumanized over.
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 27, 2018 10:50:31 GMT -5
To ME! And I express that this refers only to myself. Tony Bath is an important part of the chain. Many rules systems, Chainmail included, are not complete. They modify rules that had already been written. Tony Bath included the basics of the rules. While Bath most definitely, and I cannot stress this enough, most definitely had no influence on D&D what-so-ever, he does have an influence over how I play the game.
Bath also wrote some ideas on how to get a fantasy setting up and running. These rules and suggestions are less polished than the ones which you can find in other books, such as the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, but they are less intimidating and are deep enough to get a world up and running in less time and with less fuss.
I would also like to say that I'd like to check out the work of Tony Bath's opponent Don Featherstone, however, it has been brought to my attention that this material may be beyond my current reading level but I shall press on, undaunted and ever forward.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 27, 2018 11:48:07 GMT -5
I would also like to say that I'd like to check out the work of Tony Bath's opponent Don Featherstone, however, it has been brought to my attention that this material may be beyond my current reading level but I shall press on, undaunted and ever forward. Tony Bath was not Featherstone's opponent; he was his contemporary that supported Featherstone's POV; and Featherstone included Bath in the Wargaming Project already underway by Featherstone, Phil Barker, Fletcher Pratt and others.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 27, 2018 11:51:09 GMT -5
Many rules systems, Chainmail included, are not complete. They modify rules that had already been written. As a primary play-tester of the Chainmail rules I would be interested in your elucidating upon these assertions as everyone who played the rules, including the publisher, Guidon Games, found them complete for their purpose as written.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 12:44:31 GMT -5
I think people don't realize that the Internet is only 25 years old.
In the 1960s and 1970s, one did NOT instantly hear about everything that everybody with a similar interest was doing. The only lines of communication were physically printed pages, because "long distance" phone calls were still rare and expensive.
Don't superimpose the modern world on history.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 12:45:09 GMT -5
Many rules systems, Chainmail included, are not complete. They modify rules that had already been written. As a primary play-tester of the Chainmail rules I would be interested in your elucidating upon these assertions as everyone who played the rules, including the publisher, Guidon Games, found them complete for their purpose as written. That is rather a "1000-meter conclusion jump."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 12:47:57 GMT -5
People are starting to strain at the gnat. I can sense and agree with Michael's frustration with that. Indeed. This is every bit as frustrating as the insistence in some quarters upon finding an "Appendix N" reference for each and every rule, creature, and magic item in AD&D. The notion is, to quote Gary, "fatuous and jejune," as well as showing a real lack of understanding of how creativity works.
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 27, 2018 16:28:41 GMT -5
Many rules systems, Chainmail included, are not complete. They modify rules that had already been written. As a primary play-tester of the Chainmail rules I would be interested in your elucidating upon these assertions as everyone who played the rules, including the publisher, Guidon Games, found them complete for their purpose as written. To experienced wargamers, the Chainmail rules are all you need. You didn't want to reread how to play the game. They are complete. To "myself" who has never had the pleasure of being taught the game by an experienced player, there are key pieces missing and they are frustrating. Once I understood Bath, then and only then did Chainmail start to make sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 16:37:57 GMT -5
Say more. I read CHAINMAIL at age 16 for the first time and found the basic game perfectly well explained. Move, countermove, missile fire, melee, morale. Just like it says in the turn order.
What key pieces were missing?
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 27, 2018 16:45:55 GMT -5
As a primary play-tester of the Chainmail rules I would be interested in your elucidating upon these assertions as everyone who played the rules, including the publisher, Guidon Games, found them complete for their purpose as written. To experienced wargamers, the Chainmail rules are all you need. You didn't want to reread how to play the game. They are complete. To "myself" who has never had the pleasure of being taught the game by an experienced player, there are key pieces missing and they are frustrating. Once I understood Bath, then and only then did Chainmail start to make sense. Well, they were created for gamers who had played miniature games, so they were complete for them as people who played miniature games of all types. If you mean that they are incomplete for you because you expect more from them, fine. But the connection to Bath is at best a false equivalence, because as written Chainmail is not a campaign oriented set of rules. It's kinda like saying that a motorcycle isn't a car.
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 27, 2018 18:27:43 GMT -5
To experienced wargamers, the Chainmail rules are all you need. You didn't want to reread how to play the game. They are complete. To "myself" who has never had the pleasure of being taught the game by an experienced player, there are key pieces missing and they are frustrating. Once I understood Bath, then and only then did Chainmail start to make sense. Well, they were created for gamers who had played miniature games, so they were complete for them as people who played miniature games of all types. If you mean that they are incomplete for you because you expect more from them, fine. But the connection to Bath is at best a false equivalence, because as written Chainmail is not a campaign oriented set of rules. It's kinda like saying that a motorcycle isn't a car. Yeah, I get that. Trust me, I'm not going to forget it. What I don't get is how a group of guys sitting around discussing a book on a discussion board is worthy of such negative attention. This wasn't a history lecture, this wasn't discrediting anybody, this wasn't "Spinning our little webs", this was a fun conversation until we all got screamed at and the thread derailed completely by someone who probably just needed a Snickers bar. But, whatever. Just to be perfectly clear, we were childishly insulted by an adult who still calls people names. That's on him. But then you follow it up by telling us HOW we are all stupid, which is even more insulting than Gronan. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I misread it or took it the wrong way. The way that I see it, we are all a part of the chain. You, me, Mr. Bath, "Booger-eating retards", we all mean something. If it wasn't for all of us then Table Top RPGs and wargames wouldn't even warrant a subsection in the history books. They would be forgotten. They would be that weird thing that a couple of nerds did while we waited for computers to be invented. I am not here to be insulted, I've got kids who handle that for me. I am here because I want to play a specific style of game, which I have and I really dig it! But I am here to hang out and relax with like-minded folks too. This isn't a FACT board, this isn't a newsletter edited by anyone, this isn't a BORG hive (thank God), this is a discussion board. You aren't dealing with masses of people, this is an intimate setting where it is just individuals. People who are sharing their thoughts and feelings. Whenever anyone goes out of their way to demean another person, it pisses me off. There is far too much of that going on in the world. Nobody is stupid. We may say or do stupid things! But nobody is stupid. There are worse things than having to repeat yourself. It is a very simple thing to tear another person down, but it is just as simple to build people up, and it is those people who chose to do just that that become important to us. Important to who we are. Anyway, I've said too much. You and everybody else here has the right to say and do whatever you want to, but it is also our right to get offended by it.
|
|