|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 18, 2016 11:20:13 GMT -5
If I translated The Disoriented Ranger 's comments into my own terms, it would be something like "D&D, a holdover from a now-lost culture, can act as a seed to regrow much of what has been lost in the West in the last 40 years and especially the last 20." That possibility is relevant to our continued existence as social creatures, so in that sense, I agree that D&D is "socially relevant". That, @hengest, is the essence of it. Thank you! robkuntz , I don't know if it helps to use another one's words, but that's it, right there. I agree on the genius in the concept of role playing games and their complexity, that's why I wrote what I wrote. And that will be regrown through learning by self-organization, which I've stated at least twice...  Social order in Europe has, on the main as it has in America, been the lessening of learning and the individualism that indeed prompted Arneson to achieve what he did, whereas the State, and not so much the individual, decides upon most issues of social "relevancy". This is what has lead, in part, to the collapse of the original game and the onset of narrow-sightedness of the many in viewing it and in many instances, as it is for the most part business controlled, i.e., just like with the State, "centrally planned". Business' concern is production, not enlightenment or evolution. The latter rarely occurs if ever. It is predominantly outsiders, not insiders, who have moved the societal progress bar throughout history; and so too will it be for the game as it goes through its evolutions. It will be the "future Arnesons" that move that bar. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 13:38:10 GMT -5
Unless you're a trained, licensed thereapist, leave "D&D as Therapy" the hell alone. Amateurs trying to justify their hobby as "socially relevant" by pretending it's therapy is jejune and possibly dangerous.
And my sister is a licensed therapist, and we've discussed this very issue.
Also, "shared worlds and player migration" are of anti-interest to me, but that's just a matter of personal taste.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 18, 2016 14:06:44 GMT -5
Unless you're a trained, licensed thereapist, leave "D&D as Therapy" the hell alone. Amateurs trying to justify their hobby as "socially relevant" by pretending it's therapy is jejune and possibly dangerous. And my sister is a licensed therapist, and we've discussed this very issue. Also, "shared worlds and player migration" are of anti-interest to me, but that's just a matter of personal taste. I don't believe that he is anywhere advocating that anyone other than a trained, licensed therapist, try to do "D&D as Therapy," unless I completely misunderstood he was just identifying the professional are more and more using it as therapy in a suitable setting for that specific purpose. A shared world of the type that Rob and Gary did would be a lot of fun IMO, but hard to find a DM to partner with for that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 19, 2016 2:29:26 GMT -5
Thanks again, @the Perilous Dreamer. Yes, "identifying" is the right word here. Qualified people should do this thing. It is possible for clubs to organize stuff like that, maybe even offering workshops or seminars to qualify people (which, I'm sure, has already happened somewhere). That's what I meant when I wrote about being able to quantify a DMs ability to DM and (incidentally) one way to find that DM to partner with. It's that or having something like "Dating Profiles" for Dungeon Masters, with a nice logarithm attached to it to make match finding easier And I'm actually not making fun of this ... And yes, it's easy to forget that the first published campaign worlds had been nothing else but shared world efforts. Not as much with the intention to sell those worlds, but to actually share them. |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 19, 2016 3:22:34 GMT -5
That, @hengest, is the essence of it. Thank you! robkuntz , I don't know if it helps to use another one's words, but that's it, right there. I agree on the genius in the concept of role playing games and their complexity, that's why I wrote what I wrote. And that will be regrown through learning by self-organization, which I've stated at least twice... Social order in Europe has, on the main as it has in America, been the lessening of learning and the individualism that indeed prompted Arneson to achieve what he did, whereas the State, and not so much the individual, decides upon most issues of social "relevancy". This is what has lead, in part, to the collapse of the original game and the onset of narrow-sightedness of the many in viewing it and in many instances, as it is for the most part business controlled, i.e., just like with the State, "centrally planned". Business' concern is production, not enlightenment or evolution. The latter rarely occurs if ever. It is predominantly outsiders, not insiders, who have moved the societal progress bar throughout history; and so too will it be for the game as it goes through its evolutions. It will be the "future Arnesons" that move that bar. Regarding that first sentence of yours: why are we arguing, then? We seem to be in total agreement. But for it to happen, we need to talk about it to begin with and we'll also need a nomenclature and some form of organisation. I actually wrote that in Part 2: humanity has a gift to evolve by social interaction and shared experiences can result in progress when built upon. I'd offer that what you describe as "self-organized" is nothing else but what I describe as "non-corporate organized play" at the very beginning and clubs (or whatever you may call it, but I'm referring here to the German "Verein") are one way to make this happen. This is established throughout history, as, for instance, clubs and fraternities formed enough pressure in Germany in 1830 ( Hambacher Festival) to be regarded as the founding fathers of the German republic ... Anyway, I'm happy that we have arrived at "mixed messages". I consider that progress So how would you recognize those "future Arnesons"? Who'd qualify for such a thing? As for giving a bullet point account of what I had in mind, I'd have to say that I did that already several times, considering several approaches, linking additional sources and discussing it here and on my blog and g+ in detail with several persons. There are limits to what I can do here (this is lots of stress for me to begin with and I have exams coming up ...). But I will add one more thing. I'm not sure it helps, but it might illustrate one approach I consider valid enough to use as an example. You have been associated with HackMaster, so you might be familiar with the HMA (the HackMaster Association). Of course it's parody, but the idea to have a code of conduct for DMs and players, league games, point systems for players and DMs that allow different levels of influence (if you participate and get along, you get benefits and standing), sponsoring by publishers, public relations, a shared world, nomenclature and canon, tournaments ... in short, guidelines, facilities and a number of options you only get when people start working together. Like that German club FOLLOW in Part 3, doing that and going strong for 60 years now, responsible for almost 40 years of role playing culture in Germany ... I hope that helps illustrating my points a little further. I know it's not for everyone (never was supposed to be) and it really needn't be limited to one system to work. But that's it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 19, 2016 4:29:35 GMT -5
Let's see how this jives with you guys, as it describes the very beginning of the shift from TSR sharing content to TSR going corporate, just aiming to sell: Thoughts on the Greyhawk Wars Board Game & Publisher Metagaming from the blog Advanced Gaming & TheoryIt resonates to some extent, if I may say so, with my sentiments so far as it describes how advanced players have different need than beginners and shows the appeal of shared worlds, how corporate marketing interferes and how the DIY-movement takes matters into its own hands ... I can't say anything about how historically accurate Ripper is here, but he's pretty thorough with his research, links his sources and I believe that his opinion is valid. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 19, 2016 4:36:10 GMT -5
"and we'll also need a nomenclature and some form of organisation."
As stated, self-organization.
"Self-organization produces heterogeneity and unpredictability. It is likely to come up with whole new structures, whole new ways of doing things. It requires freedom and experimentation, and a certain amount of disorder." -- Donella H. Meadows, Thinking in Systems
"So how would you recognize those "future Arnesons"? Who'd qualify for such a thing?"
Did you see Arneson coming? Did anyone? Did we see the telephone, the plane, the "progress" of most anything that genius individuals gift to us? There is no qualifying up front, only an accounting for after the fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Oct 19, 2016 7:22:10 GMT -5
When people who practice an art like music become captives of those positive assumptions of system, when they forget to credit that happening against negation which system is, and when they become disrespectful of the immensity of negation compared to system – then they put themselves out of reach of that replenishment of invention upon which creative ideas depend, because invention is, in fact, a cautious dipping into the negation that lies outside system from a position firmly ensconced in system. --Glenn Gould (this one's for robkuntz especially) |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 19, 2016 7:42:59 GMT -5
"The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle." - Panama & Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Oct 19, 2016 9:33:52 GMT -5
When people who practice an art like music become captives of those positive assumptions of system, when they forget to credit that happening against negation which system is, and when they become disrespectful of the immensity of negation compared to system – then they put themselves out of reach of that replenishment of invention upon which creative ideas depend, because invention is, in fact, a cautious dipping into the negation that lies outside system from a position firmly ensconced in system. --Glenn Gould (this one's for robkuntz especially) Can someone translate that into standard English. I have a decent vocabulary, but I cannot follow that. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Oct 19, 2016 9:39:49 GMT -5
When people who practice an art like music become captives of those positive assumptions of system, when they forget to credit that happening against negation which system is, and when they become disrespectful of the immensity of negation compared to system – then they put themselves out of reach of that replenishment of invention upon which creative ideas depend, because invention is, in fact, a cautious dipping into the negation that lies outside system from a position firmly ensconced in system. --Glenn Gould (this one's for robkuntz especially) Can someone translate that into standard English. I have a decent vocabulary, but I cannot follow that. My understanding: "There is order and there is chaos outside of it. Artists work more or less inside order, but are constantly and cautiously dipping into chaos for new material. When they forget to do this and get trapped inside order, their creativity dries up." Edit: I can see now that that quote was pretty ridiculously phrased. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 19, 2016 11:30:08 GMT -5
Let's see how this jives with you guys, as it describes the very beginning of the shift from TSR sharing content to TSR going corporate, just aiming to sell: Thoughts on the Greyhawk Wars Board Game & Publisher Metagaming from the blog Advanced Gaming & TheoryIt resonates to some extent, if I may say so, with my sentiments so far as it describes how advanced players have different need than beginners and shows the appeal of shared worlds, how corporate marketing interferes and how the DIY-movement takes matters into its own hands ... I can't say anything about how historically accurate Ripper is here, but he's pretty thorough with his research, links his sources and I believe that his opinion is valid. I think that his timeline on "the shift from TSR sharing content to TSR going corporate, just aiming to sell" is off and started much sooner than he implies in the article and also he is giving TSR credit for things that I believe should be credited to Dave Arneson. robkuntz has more firsthand knowledge of this, where I like most people do not have firsthand knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 19, 2016 11:34:56 GMT -5
Can someone translate that into standard English. I have a decent vocabulary, but I cannot follow that. My understanding: "There is order and there is chaos outside of it. Artists work more or less inside order, but are constantly and cautiously dipping into chaos for new material. When they forget to do this and get trapped inside order, their creativity dries up." Thank you Mighty Darci for asking so I didn't have to  and thank you hengest for answering. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Oct 19, 2016 11:52:10 GMT -5
My understanding: "There is order and there is chaos outside of it. Artists work more or less inside order, but are constantly and cautiously dipping into chaos for new material. When they forget to do this and get trapped inside order, their creativity dries up." Thank you Mighty Darci for asking so I didn't have to and thank you hengest for answering. Yes, thank you hengest, that is much more useful. Admin Pete my mama always told me that the only stupid question is the one you are too proud to ask.  |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Oct 19, 2016 11:59:34 GMT -5
Yes, thank you hengest , that is much more useful. Admin Pete my mama always told me that the only stupid question is the one you are too proud to ask. I've been hearing that my whole life, and it just gets truer and truer. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 19, 2016 12:14:06 GMT -5
When people who practice an art like music become captives of those positive assumptions of system, when they forget to credit that happening against negation which system is, and when they become disrespectful of the immensity of negation compared to system – then they put themselves out of reach of that replenishment of invention upon which creative ideas depend, because invention is, in fact, a cautious dipping into the negation that lies outside system from a position firmly ensconced in system. --Glenn Gould (this one's for robkuntz especially) Can someone translate that into standard English. I have a decent vocabulary, but I cannot follow that. It is rather difficult phrasing and not one I would have chosen for simply stating that if you are part of the established inside that you are constrained by that system and thus it becomes difficult to think or produce anything outside of that particular "box". The idea path is somewhat similar to the negation of negation, where in order to see the other/different view one has to first negate their own ensconced view. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 14:05:48 GMT -5
Or to quote C.S. Lewis: "It is the duty of the artist to lead us beyond ourselves, but the artist must start in a place that we can understand."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 18:41:04 GMT -5
Okay, I've now read carefully Part 3.
What the writer sets up as desideratum is of no interest to me; in fact, I am antithetical rather than neutral to the concept, to be honest. I hope such a thing never occurs. (I also find it hilarious that his cure for "lack of originality" is "a massive controlling organization." First time I've seen Marxist-Leninist Big State Communism suggested as a cure for D&Ds ills.)
Fortunately it's a strong hope, because the odds of something like this actually happening are almost nil. People do what works for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 18:42:51 GMT -5
Let's see how this jives with you guys, as it describes the very beginning of the shift from TSR sharing content to TSR going corporate, just aiming to sell: Thoughts on the Greyhawk Wars Board Game & Publisher Metagaming from the blog Advanced Gaming & TheoryIt resonates to some extent, if I may say so, with my sentiments so far as it describes how advanced players have different need than beginners and shows the appeal of shared worlds, how corporate marketing interferes and how the DIY-movement takes matters into its own hands ... I can't say anything about how historically accurate Ripper is here, but he's pretty thorough with his research, links his sources and I believe that his opinion is valid. I think that his timeline on "the shift from TSR sharing content to TSR going corporate, just aiming to sell" is off and started much sooner than he implies in the article and also he is giving TSR credit for things that I believe should be credited to Dave Arneson. robkuntz has more firsthand knowledge of this, where I like most people do not have firsthand knowledge. Yeah, he's off by close to 10 years too late. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 18:47:33 GMT -5
When people who practice an art like music become captives of those positive assumptions of system, when they forget to credit that happening against negation which system is, and when they become disrespectful of the immensity of negation compared to system – then they put themselves out of reach of that replenishment of invention upon which creative ideas depend, because invention is, in fact, a cautious dipping into the negation that lies outside system from a position firmly ensconced in system. --Glenn Gould (this one's for robkuntz especially) Can someone translate that into standard English. I have a decent vocabulary, but I cannot follow that. Demoiselle, more people need to follow George Orwell's rules of writing: Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 19, 2016 19:23:09 GMT -5
Okay, I've now read carefully Part 3. What the writer sets up as desideratum is of no interest to me; in fact, I am antithetical rather than neutral to the concept, to be honest. I hope such a thing never occurs. (I also find it hilarious that his cure for "lack of originality" is "a massive controlling organization." First time I've seen Marxist-Leninist Big State Communism suggested as a cure for D&Ds ills.) Fortunately it's a strong hope, because the odds of something like this actually happening are almost nil. People do what works for them. You'll note that I referenced "central planning" twice in my posts. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 19, 2016 19:37:17 GMT -5
Can someone translate that into standard English. I have a decent vocabulary, but I cannot follow that. Demoiselle, more people need to follow George Orwell's rules of writing: Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. Orwell was really good. I wrote a blog post on him years back which was actually just a long quote from his essay on writing. Robert Louis Stevenson has some good advice as well, this one in particular even as one considers economy: “The difficulty of literature is not to write, but to write what you mean; not to affect your reader, but to affect him precisely as you wish.” ― Robert Louis Stevenson |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 19, 2016 19:54:40 GMT -5
Robert Louis Stevenson was one of the earliest author's I ever read.
I have not thought about him for a while. I remeber reading Treasure Island and the Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. After that the Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane and then The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas. Now those were some good books, but I digress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Oct 19, 2016 20:01:17 GMT -5
Demoiselle, more people need to follow George Orwell's rules of writing: Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. William Strunk Jr.: "Omit needless words." |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 19, 2016 20:05:35 GMT -5
I think that his timeline on "the shift from TSR sharing content to TSR going corporate, just aiming to sell" is off and started much sooner than he implies in the article and also he is giving TSR credit for things that I believe should be credited to Dave Arneson. robkuntz has more firsthand knowledge of this, where I like most people do not have firsthand knowledge. Yeah, he's off by close to 10 years too late. Once TSR became corporate, there was that need to draw serious cash. I acknowledge this, but to me, there is a thicker line of producing useful products and capitalizing on greed. As a user in this period, I found the products released in 89 and 90 to be very helpful, this no doubt was do to the fact that I was their target audience, a new user, but even today I find them to be easier to reference. Is the content in the book valuable? Do you get a good bang for your buck! This, is what I go by. In regards to Dave Arneson. When I first started my journey, I saw these books as nothing but corporate products. I didn't realize that these books had faces, that they had names behind them. That didn't happen until I got interested in the stories behind the books. D&D has its own mythology, Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, James Ward, Rob Kuntz just to name a few, these men are legend. Dave Arneson is especially illusive. There is truth and myth associated with these men, and I am but a student (a freshman at that). Slowly I am learning this stuff. I watch interviews on YouTube, I found the ancient posts on Dragonfoot, I'm chasing the ghosts. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 19, 2016 21:14:06 GMT -5
"Never use a metaphor," suggests Gronan, but I never metaphor I didn't like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 19, 2016 22:26:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 20, 2016 2:20:38 GMT -5
Yeah, he's off by close to 10 years too late. Once TSR became corporate, there was that need to draw serious cash. I acknowledge this, but to me, there is a thicker line of producing useful products and capitalizing on greed. As a user in this period, I found the products released in 89 and 90 to be very helpful, this no doubt was do to the fact that I was their target audience, a new user, but even today I find them to be easier to reference. Is the content in the book valuable? Do you get a good bang for your buck! This, is what I go by. In regards to Dave Arneson. When I first started my journey, I saw these books as nothing but corporate products. I didn't realize that these books had faces, that they had names behind them. That didn't happen until I got interested in the stories behind the books. D&D has its own mythology, Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, James Ward, Rob Kuntz just to name a few, these men are legend. Dave Arneson is especially illusive. There is truth and myth associated with these men, and I am but a student (a freshman at that). Slowly I am learning this stuff. I watch interviews on YouTube, I found the ancient posts on Dragonfoot, I'm chasing the ghosts. There was a want to increase monetary yield, there was no "need" per se, as TSR had gone from a basement concern to a 700,000 usd corp in 3 years time. They were swimming in cash by 1977 around the time I quit the company. So yes there was greed even beyond that. "Useful" products? Well. I hope so considering what the opposite entails... "Value" is a relative concept, of course. Dave Arneson is/was only elusive and not illusive as he was written out of D&D's and TSR's history cycle, which coincides with OD&D being designed out of the same cycle. BTW: I am not a ghost, yet... www.threelinestudio.com/bio/ www.threelinestudio.com/ Dave Arneson's True Genius |
|
|
|
Post by The Disoriented Ranger on Oct 20, 2016 3:14:34 GMT -5
Okay, I've now read carefully Part 3. What the writer sets up as desideratum is of no interest to me; in fact, I am antithetical rather than neutral to the concept, to be honest. I hope such a thing never occurs. (I also find it hilarious that his cure for "lack of originality" is "a massive controlling organization." First time I've seen Marxist-Leninist Big State Communism suggested as a cure for D&Ds ills.) Fortunately it's a strong hope, because the odds of something like this actually happening are almost nil. People do what works for them. You'll note that I referenced "central planning" twice in my posts. It's communism now, eh? Still not what I'm talking about, but at this point I don't see what I can do to change that. What I proposed in Part 3 is a marketing concept for a non-corporate platform to grow our hobby. Not more, not less. It's not that hard to understand, either. As a matter of fact I can say now with some confidence that you guys are the only vocal group claiming it is unintelligible or misconstruing my argument. Interestingly enough, I've been asked a couple of times now why you guys keep making this political (this being on public display and all). You don't like it? Fine by me. Say so or ignore me as the rest of the world, end of story. But writing something like "I read this carefully" and then ignoring that I quote Kant as a base of my proposal in the very beginning or that this is clearly arguing a DIY ethos (like you guys did in the very beginning of the hobby, actually), just to be able to say it's communism? That's making politics, maybe even tribalism. I'll quote a bit: Why DIY? "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment." (Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment, 1784) Consumerism today? "WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH" (The fascist Party in George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four") The difference between making politics or having a constructive argument? “Shape clay into a vessel;
It is the space within that makes it useful.
Cut doors and windows for a room;
It is the holes which make it useful.
Therefore benefit comes from what is there;
Usefulness from what is not there.” (Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching) All right, I've said my piece. Keep making this about me or political and I will just ignore it. I didn't come here for advice or absolution but for an exchange of opinions and thoughts. It's happened, somewhat, which I really appreciate and I honestly think we don't need to agree on any of this. It's all good on my end and I will stay around, contribute at times, if I'm allowed to. Just not necessarily on this topic here |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Oct 20, 2016 3:31:59 GMT -5
But non corporate platforms are growing our hobby as they have always been doing; they still exist even outside the OSR mini corporations now extant for mere proliferation of "product". This platform here, this forum, is indeed an example of that as are many others far and wide, and not counting the clubs, meet ups and conventions small to large, the various online or print magazines, some brick and mortar game stores, of what remain, electronic mailing lists, Reddit, et al.
I do not believe this is political, but what you suggest is some massive organization that would bring, supposedly, all of the various above-mentioned entities together or at least for a different fulcrum point? What I see is that you have not convincingly bulleted why that would be desirable or better or more meaningful than the current self-organized processes to date, and as I noted in the sparse samples above.
Answering this question would perhaps move the bar of responses away from the superficial. Why will that be important and different compared to what is already apparent?
|
|
Social order in Europe has, on the main as it has in America, been the lessening of learning and the individualism that indeed prompted Arneson to achieve what he did, whereas the State, and not so much the individual, decides upon most issues of social "relevancy". This is what has lead, in part, to the collapse of the original game and the onset of narrow-sightedness of the many in viewing it and in many instances, as it is for the most part business controlled, i.e., just like with the State, "centrally planned". Business' concern is production, not enlightenment or evolution. The latter rarely occurs if ever. It is predominantly outsiders, not insiders, who have moved the societal progress bar throughout history; and so too will it be for the game as it goes through its evolutions. It will be the "future Arnesons" that move that bar.
and thank you 
