The "Blackmoor is Just a Chainmail Variant" Fallacy

[Admin Pete]

See our friend havard's Blog Post The "Blackmoor is Just a Chainmail Variant" Fallacy.

[captaincrumbcake]

I think I understand the point, but, since I kind of like to mess around with everyone's minds I'll offer up a response, and an additional supposition. (They're tied together.)


1. I can see BM, and GH, even TKW, Forgotten Realms, heck, even DL, as all variants based upon CM. Sheesh. But in saying so, it is not so much CM exclusively that deserves the honorific title of "The Origin of all modern gaming!" That would be silly. CM itself is a variant of lots of crap that came before it. If I take the game--Monopoly, and remove everything except the concept of going around the board and claim I had created something entirely different, I'd be lying; especially if I had been inspired and/or influenced by the game (Monopoly) to begin with.

If you follow the branches from the ends to the source, you'll eventually end up at the trunk. They all come from it.

2. So I'll throw this out as well: is it possible that CM, Braunstein, BL, GH, etc., etc., are simply re-engineered variants of The LOTR? (which is just a variant of...the Scandinavian mythology from which it derives much of its substance); which is just a variant of previous mythology from epochs past; and, and, and...egadz! It's mind busting.

But its a good blog. I like Havard. We is buds. 

[robkuntz]

Good-hearted Havard once again approaching the subject from the wrong direction.

@ccc: Various history/literature are not variants of games.  They are not derivable therefrom as part of game or play theory.  They are fictive elements which have no bearing upon game design but only as bastardized themes when so attached to games.

[captaincrumbcake]

Mar 1, 2016 20:30:50 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

@ccc: Various history/literature are not variants of games.  They are not derivable therefrom as part of game or play theory.  They are fictive elements which have no bearing upon game design but only as bastardized themes when so attached to games.

Uh, hang on. That's backwards. I was suggesting the reverse. 
Clearly, it is possible that games (2nd) could be derivable from historical myth/literature(the 1st). Isn't it?

[robkuntz]

Mar 1, 2016 20:57:25 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

Mar 1, 2016 20:30:50 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

@ccc: Various history/literature are not variants of games.  They are not derivable therefrom as part of game or play theory.  They are fictive elements which have no bearing upon game design but only as bastardized themes when so attached to games.

Uh, hang on. That's backwards. I was suggesting the reverse. 
Clearly, it is possible that games (2nd) could be derivable from historical myth/literature(the 1st). Isn't it?

You are not stating "How they can be derived?" in any specific terms whereas I am stating why they can not be derived except as I noted above.  For instance, to support the proposition more clearly you would have to emphatically state "How" they are derived as I have done in the opposite case.  Further, literature and myth, etc. has no sharable/mutable mechanic (besides other things) as games do, so my proposition is supported whereas, at the moment, yours is not.    Games are made from the organization and furtherance of combined elements in a system structure and thus they are historically "derived" from these categories alone.  Backward causality notes that since this is a combined structure that only one facet of that structure can not be the cause of the combined game itself.  Thus I stated that literature/myth "are fictive elements which have no bearing upon game design but only as bastardized themes when so attached to games."


Cheers!

[robkuntz]

I have made several comments at his blog. End point, however, is that we need more design thinking than historical meandering which does not include the former. To divorce design thought from the history of design which is embedded in Blackmmor is like looking at an incomplete picture and then attempting to definitively describe what it means and where it derives from. Try that with a car without being a mechanical engineer and see how far it goes...

[captaincrumbcake]

So, Rob... if I had said, that, the clear definition of class/racial powers as depicted in past literature (i.e., wizardry in the LOTR*, the rangeresque skills, the racial hobbit or elf or dwarf, throwing-smithing- and mining abilities) can be directly attributable to the mechanics of RPGs that were designed using these premises, that such doesn't validate the supposition (that all RPG games today are variants of things past)?










* And multiple other works.

[robkuntz]

They are thematic elements used within a pre-existing system structure which is based upon the extrapolation of a mechanical interface. They bring no mechanical structure with them by relation to the overt structure. A variant can only be something that is being made variable within a pre-existing structure (in this case a mechanical one).  As they bring no mechanics they are not variables. Neither are they derivations. Thus as thematic elements they are mere overlays of that quality and have nothing to do with game theory or play theory, which is what game structures and their systems are based upon.

[captaincrumbcake]

I think I got it.

So, .what you're saying is that there is a difference between a definition/mechanic within a given genre (such as a movie, or book) and a game component, as the former is purely thematic.  

[Admin Pete]

Mar 2, 2016 12:40:27 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

I think I got it.

So, .what you're saying is that there is a difference between a definition/mechanic within a given genre (such as a movie, or book) and a game component, as the former is purely thematic.  

As I am understanding it, the book or movie has no mechanic for a given type of character - it is not that specific or defined, whereas the game component brings in a mechanic defining things about the character type and how it works. These defining game component(s) would take different forms in different types of games as for example between OD&D and Runequest.

[robkuntz]

Mar 2, 2016 12:51:21 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

Mar 2, 2016 12:40:27 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

I think I got it.

So, .what you're saying is that there is a difference between a definition/mechanic within a given genre (such as a movie, or book) and a game component, as the former is purely thematic.  

As I am understanding it, the book or movie has no mechanic for a given type of character - it is not that specific or defined, whereas the game component brings in a mechanic defining things about the character type and how it works. These defining game component(s) would take different forms in different types of games as for example between OD&D and Runequest.

Right to a greater extent!  Another way of seeing it is that the theme acts as an influence upon its adopted structure but does not variate it.  This is only possible because the thematic element is only what it is and nothing else, and is merely given statistics within the mechanical structure predicated upon the influence (weighted choice according to the prevailing system mechanic).  Thus your point that the adopted theme would take different forms in different game structures points to its mutability as an influence and nothing more, and is quite sound thinking on your part.  

[havard]

Hey guys! Been a while since I last visited this place. Cool to see that my article caught so much interest. I like that even those of you who disagree with me comment in such a friendly manner. That is a rare thing on the Internet

What made me write this article was the discussion going on about when Dave ran his first session of Blackmoor and whether he had access to the Chainmail Rules at that point or whether he would have gotten them later. The notion being that if he had a copy of the four page version of Chainmail before he ran his first session of Blackmoor then maybe Blackmoor was just a Chainmail campaign, again implying that Dave's contribution to D&D was even less than some already claim. My point in the article is that it doesn't really matter because the legacy of Blackmoor is much more significant than what combat rules it used. Fantasy Environment, Roleplaying individual characters, Dungeon Crawl Adventures, a Dungeon Master running all the monsters. These are the things Dave Arneson's group introduced. So if Dave rolled 2d6 to see if someone hit their opponent, who cares?

-Havard

[Admin Pete]

Hi Harvard! Welcome back!

I am really looking forward to reading Rob book "Dave Arneson's True Genius: First Major Treatise on Dave Arneson" when it comes out and I hope you will join us for what I hope will be some lively discussion.

[robkuntz]

Yes, me too. Havard is basically right but there are many other points that have been glossed or not fathomed at all which are equally, if not more, important to finally establishing Dave's true legacy. I know this sounds corny, but I feel that some folks are going to have an absolute awakening, if not a fit on the other side of that coin, when the book hits the stands in about 2 months. I have also written 1,500 words on a related matter that will be finished at 5-6 thousand words and that I'll be releasing as a pdf initially. This also is about Arneson but is rather a surprise. for now

[Admin Pete]

[Deleted]

1) People put WAAAAAY too much emphasis on the combat rules for early Blackmoor, and not enough on all the other elements.

2) People have GOT to learn, like Rob, to separate literature and games! They are NOT the same thing, and I am sick unto death of people insisting that rules model things done purely for the purposes of narrative. Darth Maul killed Qui-Gon Jinn because THE SCRIPT SAID SO, not because of any inherent difference between a double-bladed lightsaber and a single-bladed one! If you must have a rules explanation, try "Maul was younger, stronger, more fit, and had more skill points in lightsaber combat." There. Done.

He used a double bladed lightsaber BECAUSE IT LOOKED COOL! And for NO other reason.

[Deleted]

Also, I have never, EVER heard somebody suggest that "Blackmoor is just a CHAINMAIL variant." But if I did, my answer would be three simple words: "You're an idiot."

And as Rob will tell you, yes, I indeed WOULD.