2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Thread Started on Feb 16, 2010, 9:44am »
(My apologies - I was swamped yesterday with work, but I did want to put up another study topic and generate some discussion. I know these things may be slow or fast/furious, but I'm going to press on!)
The next study I'd like to cover is a few lines from the "Scope" in Vol 1.
Quote:
With the various equippage listed in the following section DUNGEONS and DRAGONS will provide a basically complete, nearly endless campaign of all levels of fantastic-medieval wargame play. Actually, the scope need not be restricted to the medieval; it can stretch from the prehistoric to the imagined future, but such expansion is recommended only at such time as the possibilities in the medieval aspect have been thoroughly explored.
Back in late 2008, Dave Bowman of "Sham's Grog & Blog" did a Cover to Cover reading of OD&D Vols. 1-3 and provided some fascinating commentary. I'd like to kick it off discussing this passage by quoting from Dave's blog commentary on it.
Quote:
This is a wargame, set apart from its brethren by the D&D campaign concept, and its creative potential. It is a “basically complete” framework for such campaigns, which need not be restricted to the medieval. This is an important reference, in that Gygax and Arneson are hinting around at the role-playing concept, while still managing to not go so far to say that no actual, official rules are needed for such an undertaking. When I first read this passage, I assumed that the authors were referring to versions of D&D in other time periods, whether that might mean the wild west, or a high tech future ala Boot Hill or Metamorphosis Alpha, respectively. In reading this now, I take it to mean that the campaign has the potential to actually cover multiple epochs, eras and ages of that same world.
That's an interesting thought! Certainly Blackmoor and Greyhawk explored that concept early on (and continue to do so today), and we've seen subsequent settings like Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun and the like be explored through generations.
The one bit in the passage that I'd also like to consider is this: such expansion is recommended only at such time as the possibilities in the medieval aspect have been thoroughly explored.
When I read this, I have to remember that we read these things with the benefit of 30 years of RPGs that span all of the various times and places that anyone can imagine. If you put together the published games and settings, the magazines, the fan contributed material in blogs and forums, the campaigns that we'll never hear about because they were private... there's probably very little left that hasn't been said or played in an RPG.
But these gentlemen, all they had were their Napoleonic, medieval, ancient history miniatures wars. War games were becoming a popular past time but were pretty focused on topics like the World Wars and humanity's major battles. This is where they felt comfortable and this is where they probably had experienced their most enjoyment. So I wonder if that comfort level is what gave them pause to go elsewhere. It's ironic, as we learn more about the history of Blackmoor, Chainmail and D&D, that we find that the boundaries were probably being pushed even as that passage was written. So I wonder, why the caution?
It could be that they feared that going off into the wild blue yonder would somehow expand the scope beyond mixing war-gaming with role playing. As Dave pointed out, these were war-gamers that had no idea of what they were getting into. When I play war-games, you have a scenario and a set sandbox that you play in. It has a bit of comfort in that you have an idea of what to expect. If you're playing Civil War and you suddenly throw in an element that is armed with AK-47s, you are going off into areas unknown. I get the feeling, and it might be a stereotype, that this wouldn't be well received.
In the end, D&D went way off into many directions, certainly well before "the possibilities in the medieval aspect [were] thoroughly explored." I think that's a good thing.
Joined: Mar 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 571 Location: NYC Karma: 34
Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #1 on Feb 16, 2010, 12:49pm »
Over at EN World there's been some discussion of a passage from the AD&D DMG, the relevant bits of which I'll quote here:
While it might seem high unlikely to those who have not been involved in fantasy adventure gaming for an extended period of time, after the flush of excitement wears off - perhaps a few months or a year, depending on the intensity of play - some participants will become bored and move to other gaming forms, returning to your campaign only occasionally. Shortly thereafter even your most dedicated players will occasionally find that dungeon levels and wilderness castles grow stale, regardless of subtle differences and unusual challenges.
While that was written ~1979 and the OD&D passage ~1974, I think it's likely that Gygax had been running D&D campaigns for at least "a few months or a year" by the time OD&D was published, and Arneson certainly had.
So I think that this passage is saying two things:
- just working out the implications of the basic D&D framework will keep you occupied at first, and sticking to medieval assumptions will help everyone get on board and understand how to play this kind of game
- although the possibilities of just the medieval period are endless they will start to lose their luster, at which point you can take the framework of the game you've learned using that limited scope and apply it to other eras and genres
I believe the AD&D passage can be read as a direct building-upon of this OD&D one because, as they note in that EN World thread, it appears in the context of rules for converting Gamma World characters et al. to AD&D - in other words, part of the general AD&D mission of codifying possibilities suggested in OD&D using undefined but evocative terms like "the imagined future".
Joined: May 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 308 Location: Ohio Karma: 27
Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #2 on Feb 17, 2010, 9:59am »
Quote:
... but such expansion is recommended only at such time as the possibilities in the medieval aspect have been thoroughly explored.
By the time you're done exploring the possibilities of a medieval game, you've become either a competent referee or player. You're familiar with the rules, how things work in play, and on that groundwork you're experienced enough to utilize the D&D rules in another genre or time period and make them work.
Everything in the 3LBB's is geared towards this fantastic, pseudo-medieval time period where people are using swords and casting magic. Jumping right in with laser pistols and such has a high probability of disrupting the game if they're not handled well.
--
Of course, Gary also penned Sturmgeshutz and Sorcery (or How Effective is a Panzerfaust Against a Troll, Heinz?) where he opens up the article with:
Quote:
How could we mix moderns with swords & sorcery? The structure of D&D is such that it easily lends itself to such adaption, and the brief rules will be given at the end. (The Strategic Review, Vol. 1 No. 5, December 1975)
Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #3 on Feb 19, 2010, 12:17pm »
@Verhaden - I think there's a lot of truth to that, but it's interesting that Dave was already ignoring that advice to a certain extend, and one would say that Tekumel is hardly medieval, and even Gary ignored his own advice now and again.
We often say that OD&D is a "tool kit", that it's open ended enough to overlay with any sort of setting. If there's an advocacy of "medieval first", then it follows that what we're really saying is "it's a tool-kit that you should get experience with... then it can be applied in many different directions."
Which seems a bit contradictory to those advocating using WB as a "first exposure" for children and young adults - putting up a fence of experience before going off into the wild-blue yonder.
themattjon Level 5 Thaumaturgist member is offline
Frank Frazetta's The Silver Warrior (1972)
Joined: Jul 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 296 Location: Midcoast Region, Maine (USA) Karma: 9
Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #4 on Sept 19, 2010, 2:49pm »
I always figured it meant D&D is a starting framework for a concept that each individual Referee needs to flesh out, and that a medieval setting might be the easiest one to start with, but one could end up playing space opera D&D or wild west D&D or post apocalyptic D&D or bunnies & burrows D&D or pulp serial D&D or... Or whatever. You get the idea. D&D starts with fantasy, but can really be for any genre or setting. Witness Metamorphosis Alpha or Gamma World (1st edition anyway)! It's one of my favorite passages in the book
LBB Club Cover to Cover week 1 « Reply #5 on Oct 30, 2011, 9:29am »
Of the existing threads I think our beginning fits best here. We're covering about the first 6 pages. Forward, Introduction, Scope, Age Level and Recommended Equipment.
Just a personal note today is my one year anniversary on the ODD74 pro-boards.
These are just my comments as I noted while I was reading through.
Dedication: The Dedication was made to fantasy wargamers who expanded Chainmail Fantasy rules but in the very next sentence now here's something better! So it begins with house rules but shifts back to how to play the game the right way. Some of the OSR blogs have made an issue of how from OD&D to AD&D Gary shifted and seemed focused on how to make the rules firm, how to make TSR the official authority on how the game is played. But I don't think this was really a shift it's right in the first two sentences of the LBBs. It seems to me Gary was always focused on there being a correct way to play. I think this is further reinforced by placing the next section inviting rules inquiries. It seems to me in his mind there was always a “right” way to play the game.
Forward: In the forward I think I found the best description of what has kept me personally fascinated with the game since I was a teenager “its possibilities go far beyond any previous offering anywhere”. Seldom in GMing or playing have I ever truly lived up to the fantastic possibilities of the game but I get close enough from time to time that I keep wanting to come back.
In the second paragraph here three things jumped out at me: 1. It will cost almost nothing, 2. the most extensive requirement is time, and 3. there should be no want of players.
I think it's interesting that in these tight economic times that more hasn't been made of the cost effectiveness of pen and paper roleplaying games. It CAN be very inexpensive to play these games. Cheaper than being a regular movie goer, video gamer or just about anything else. Something that has always struck me always since my early days why is it we have to turn it into an expensive hobby? Why more dice, more books, more minis, etc.? From the perspective of the company it makes perfect sense you have staff, designers and artists to pay but from the player and GM you just need a very few things.
Just a brief thought with time. I don't know if it's our culture or our age but time is the big constraining factor in pursuing pretty much anything. One of the big draws for 4e has been the online tools that make GMing easier. Monster creators, encounter calculators. Do you think this is something that can or could be effectively done with the older editions of the game? Would it even be desirable to do so? Or is being hands on ;rolling the dice consulting the chart, flipping the pages is that part of the draw of the older games? I would probably say it is, but that's just me. I spend all day in front of a computer so much so that a real book seems a luxury almost.
On having no want for players I have to say at current that's not been my experience. At least regular players who I want to actually be around but I think that ties back into the issue of time. Another thing I've noticed in my attempts to get a “Old School” game going is the perception that the older games are silly or no fun. IF I can get someone to play though they always have fun and almost instantly do more “role-playing”. It's like the lack of rules to define characters opens their creative minds.
One last bit on the Forward later this week (November 1) it will have been 38 years since it was authored.
More to come.
« Last Edit: Oct 30, 2011, 9:30am by ghostofmarx »
Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #6 on Oct 30, 2011, 12:41pm »
Introduction: The first actual advice seems to be the rules are guidelines. The text recommends beginning slowly and allowing the game to evolve. It also emphasizes the role of characters are co-creators. I don't see enough of either of these in play for my preference.
I think the most interesting thing with this section the suggestion that the rules be read through as presented and in their entirety. It seems to me that modern RPGs are designed so that they can be taken piecemeal sections by section. I'm going to guess that this could explain why many consider OD&D so difficult to interpret: the way people are used to reading RPGs is different.
Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #7 on Nov 4, 2011, 10:29pm »
My how a few decades changes how I read these words when I was a kid.
On the FORWARD
The first paragraph reveals how much Dave Arneson influenced the game. I reread it multiple times but each reading reinforced his influence. Time changed the relationship but I wonder if had Arneson not been present if the game would have ever happened or been successful without him.
The theme of simplicity and ease to setup a game required only time on the part of the referee is something I recalled. As a requirement, time is really the only element other than some willing players.
of all forms of wargaming, fantasy will soon become the major contender for first place.
Precognition for the win on that bit. Not so much on war gaming but fantasy did indeed rule them all.
I also like the bit about the those who lack imagination not enjoying the game.
On the INTRODUCTION
There is the bit about miniatures... As with any other set of miniature rules. Even though the forward said they weren't needed but now its back in. Shows there was likely a mixture of focus and an overall lack of editing in the day. Not major but interesting nonetheless.
I also noted the foreshadowing of what would become the term roleplaying in this bit: players themselves will interact in a such a way to make a campaign variable and unique, and this is quite desirable.
And dang it, why did they have to encourage writing in books: simply note them in pencil. Of course I did it but now its a frustration hardly unique to me.
On the SCOPE:
Miniature figures can be added...miniatures are not required More mixed messages on that front. I kept thinking they wanted to encourage them but also say this isn't a variant of the nerd game of the day. That's not a bash, it made me chuckle.
from four to fifty players … ratio should be about 1:20
Sorry, I cannot even fathom 50 players at a time. Or even the suggested ratio of 1:20. Seems like a WAG to me. No clue what the audience might be but hey, if you have 50 friends, you might need to recruit another buddy to help referee. The rules weren't that simple or easy even then.
Then shades of the future in the RECOMMENDED EQUIPMENT
Chainmail miniature rules
See we have this other product. Its suggested; but its miniature based. Those aren't required. But...
Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #8 on Nov 5, 2011, 7:47am »
As Mark notes, in rereading this, the line about fantasy taking over wargaming jumped out at me, given the subsequent history. If you consider just miniatures gaming (leaving out the now moribund hex and counter games), fantasy has been the tail wagging the dog since the late '70s.
As far as the miniatures go, let's not forget that the cover proclaims that these are rules for "Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures". They were originally sold through wargames distribution channels (such as they were), advertised in wargames magazines, and so forth. Most of the original cohort of buyers (1st and 2nd printings at least, probably into the 3rd and 4th) would have been people who already had miniatures available. The novelty was in the paper and pencil part...
Also, it might be worth remembering that TSR did not sell miniatures at the time; there were no licensed figure ranges...so this wasn't some sort of marketing ploy.
I was interested to note the last paragraph of the forward, regarding sources of inspiration. Given the (still contentious) debate about the extent to which the Lord of the Rings influenced D&D, and given that there was no hesitation in the early printings about using Tolkien ideas without filing the serial numbers off, I doubt that there was any intention to cover up or confuse matters by misdirection in the shout-outs to Howard, Burroughs, Leiber etc. I'd be willing to believe that they honestly didn't consider it to be a major influence on their style of play.
In the Equipment section, I'll note that you needs lots of d6s, and only a pair or so of the other dices. I had such a hard time finding dice that we had a single set of polyhedra for quite a while, which made Greyhawk's d8 a bit of a pain at first.
from four to fifty players … ratio should be about 1:20
Sorry, I cannot even fathom 50 players at a time. Or even the suggested ratio of 1:20. Seems like a WAG to me. No clue what the audience might be but hey, if you have 50 friends, you might need to recruit another buddy to help referee.
Sigh.
Once again, it wasn't 50 people AT ONE TIME.
Gary had a pool of approximately 15 to 20 players. Typically, 3 to 4 of us played at a time. And no, the composition was NOT constant. That was part of the fun.
That is also why Gary was so insistent about keeping track of time; if one group finds a treasure, it's not there later for OTHER groups.
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
I must protest bitterly that my aircraft still has not been painted red.
Joined: Mar 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 1,596 Location: Schenectady Karma: 73
Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #10 on Nov 5, 2011, 5:54pm »
Yeah, there also seems to be a fairly common misconception here about wargames.
Dungeons and Dragons is a wargame. Chess is a wargame. Heck, even checkers is a wargame. Back in the day, "role playing games" were not distinguished as a seperate genre of wargame as they later would be, but any game that involves simulated combat is by definition, a "war game" So when Gary wrote "Fantasy wargames" he meant D&D and CHAINMAIL both.
Joined: Oct 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 50 Location: Stouffville, Ontario, Canada Karma: 6
Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #11 on Nov 6, 2011, 3:12pm »
One the things that has always intrigued me about the Forward (sic), along with the Introduction and Scope, is what it has to say about expectations for play.
"While it is possible to play a single game, unrelated to any other game events past or future, it is the campaign for which these rules are designed." (from the Forward)
Here is clearly an important facet of the game: persistent play. D&D is not a game that can be fully enjoyed or comprehended in just one sitting; it takes time to explore well the game's possibilities for play. This also says something, I think, about its design philosophies: that D&D game's expected play duration is conceived of over the long term. Characters, the things they do, goals they accomplish, all develop over the course of persistent play. So too it is expected that the game itself, its rules and play style, will evolve and develop over that time (cf. the comments to this regard in the Introduction, p. 4). The idea of one-shot gaming isn't really what D&D is meant for. Increasingly, I feel that modern games down play down the idea of campaign-play in preference for more one-shot and short-arc play. One might argue that this later trend begins gently with AD&D and its stated design philosophies in order to facilitate tournament play.
Dedication: The Dedication was made to fantasy wargamers who expanded Chainmail Fantasy rules but in the very next sentence now here's something better! So it begins with house rules but shifts back to how to play the game the right way. Some of the OSR blogs have made an issue of how from OD&D to AD&D Gary shifted and seemed focused on how to make the rules firm, how to make TSR the official authority on how the game is played. But I don't think this was really a shift it's right in the first two sentences of the LBBs. It seems to me Gary was always focused on there being a correct way to play. I think this is further reinforced by placing the next section inviting rules inquiries. It seems to me in his mind there was always a “right” way to play the game.
I do tend to agree that Gygax's attitudes towards rules is less permissive and perhaps more prescriptive than was Arneson's, but I wonder whether those attitudes were present from the onset, or whether those attitudes developed over time as Gygax observed the phenomenon of fantasy roleplaying rapidly unfolding around him. Certainly, as you point out, the fact that Tactical Studies Rules invited rules inquiries, created errata, as well as published answers to frequently asked questions regarding D&D (see, for example, TSR, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 3-4), does indicate an attempt at least to establish authority as regards rules. This contrasts greatly, however, with much of what the game actually says about itself--that the game is meant to be a "framework" only, a toolset with which to build a medieval fantasy campaign.
In the waning years of the 1970s, I suspect that Gygax was increasingly unhappy with the idea that D&D was a framework to be used by others to build the games/campaigns individual referees wanted to play. D&D's early emphasis on imagination and creativity, as applied to the rules of the game (not just in playing the game as characters), had led to a number of imitators, unsanctioned add-ons, an explosion of role-playing games in general. In addition, as tournament play became increasingly popular, there seemed to be little common, regularised play between referees. Already by the summer of 1977, you can find Gygax commenting about how he had been unsatisfied with the original set as published and that a revision was in progress.(1) What the specific cause of this dissatisfaction was is not made explicit at that time (In the same article, Gygax simply mentions that the game was "not ready"). However, by the summer of 1979, Gygax has formed a clear opinion that the D&D game is not sufficiently regularised and that, therefore, there is a decided lack of uniformity in play to the detriment of the game and correct play. This attitude seemed to carry the day for some time thereafter.
1 See Gygax's closing comments in "Gary Gygax on Dungeons & Dragons: Origins of the Game," The Dragon 7 (June, 1977), p. 7. Are there other, early comments to be found? 2 Gary Gygax, "D&D(R), AD&D(R) and Gaming," The Dragon 12 (June, 1979), pp. 28-30, 39.
One the things that has always intrigued me about the Forward (sic), along with the Introduction and Scope, is what it has to say about expectations for play.
"While it is possible to play a single game, unrelated to any other game events past or future, it is the campaign for which these rules are designed." (from the Forward)
Here is clearly an facet of the game: persistent play. D&D is not a game that can be fully enjoyed or comprehended in just one sitting; it takes time to explore the game's possibilities for play well. This also says something, I think, about its design philosophies: that D&D game's expected play duration is conceived of over the long term. Characters, the things they do, goals they accomplish, all develop over the course of persistent play. So too it is expected that the game itself, its rules and play style, will evolve and develop over that time (cf. the comments to this regard in the Introduction, p. 4). The idea of one-shot gaming isn't really what D&D is meant for. Increasingly, I feel that modern games down play down the idea of campaign-play in preference for more one-shot and short-arc play. One might argue that this later trend begins gently with AD&D and its stated design philosophies in order to facilitate tournament play.
Welcome to the central tenet of Champions of ZED Kris.
Dedication: The Dedication was made to fantasy wargamers who expanded Chainmail Fantasy rules but in the very next sentence now here's something better! So it begins with house rules but shifts back to how to play the game the right way. Some of the OSR blogs have made an issue of how from OD&D to AD&D Gary shifted and seemed focused on how to make the rules firm, how to make TSR the official authority on how the game is played. But I don't think this was really a shift it's right in the first two sentences of the LBBs. It seems to me Gary was always focused on there being a correct way to play. I think this is further reinforced by placing the next section inviting rules inquiries. It seems to me in his mind there was always a “right” way to play the game.
I do tend to agree that Gygax's attitudes towards rules is less permissive and perhaps more prescriptive than was Arneson's, but I wonder whether those attitudes were present from the onset, or whether those attitudes developed over time as Gygax observed the phenomenon of fantasy roleplaying rapidly unfolding around him. Certainly, as you point out, the fact that Tactical Studies Rules invited rules inquiries, created errata, as well as published answers to frequently asked questions regarding D&D (see, for example, TSR, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 3-4), does indicate an attempt at least to establish authority as regards rules. This contrasts greatly, however, with much of what the game actually says about itself--that the game is meant to be a "framework" only, a toolset with which to build a medieval fantasy campaign.
In the waning years of the 1970s, I suspect that Gygax was increasingly unhappy with the idea that D&D was a framework to be used by others to build the games/campaigns individual referees wanted to play. D&D's early emphasis on imagination and creativity, as applied to the rules of the game (not just in playing the game as characters), had led to a number of imitators, unsanctioned add-ons, an explosion of role-playing games in general. In addition, as tournament play became increasingly popular, there seemed to be little common, regularised play between referees. Already by the summer of 1977, you can find Gygax commenting about how he had been unsatisfied with the original set as published and that a revision was in progress.(1) What the specific cause of this dissatisfaction was is not made explicit at that time (In the same article, Gygax simply mentions that the game was "not ready"). However, by the summer of 1979, Gygax has formed a clear opinion that the D&D game is not sufficiently regularised and that, therefore, there is a decided lack of uniformity in play to the detriment of the game and correct play. This attitude seemed to carry the day for some time thereafter.
1 See Gygax's closing comments in "Gary Gygax on Dungeons & Dragons: Origins of the Game," The Dragon 7 (June, 1977), p. 7. Are there other, early comments to be found? 2 Gary Gygax, "D&D(R), AD&D(R) and Gaming," The Dragon 12 (June, 1979), pp. 28-30, 39.
I'm not sure there's any particular value in parsing out when or if Gary's attitude toward stricter adherence to rules took place. In a 2004 Mortality radio interview (which, unfortunetely seems no longer to be available) Dave Arneson claimed that during the D&D writing process he repeatedly tried to curb Gary's enthusiasm for writing rules. "but we needed rules" Arneson added so apparently he didn't, in his mind, curb him too much.
I dunno; For me, while it can be interesting to guess at Gary's state of mind, it's more important to note what can be taken from reading the rules and it's worth noting that Greyhawk adds a great deal of rulings and doesn't repeat the same do it your own way attitude, whatever the reason.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/Verhaden/sa_avatar.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[avatar]](http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/themattjon/TheSilverWarrior.jpg "[avatar]")
![[yim]](http://images.proboards.com/yim.gif "[yim]")
![[aim]](http://images.proboards.com/aim.gif "[aim]")
![[avatar]](http://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6614pf.JPG "[avatar]")