�Given that Arneson�.. had only an inspirational influence over the production of the original three booklets� � page 573;footnote 165
Well, this is demonstrably inaccurate. I suppose, if there is one general criticism of what I feel is a truly outstanding book, it is that Jon has taken to heart a little too uncritically the version of events regarding the writing process of D&D most enshrined in popular knowledge. The documents themselves belie it.
"It was very much a case of me providing various ideas and concepts but not having any say on many aspects as to how they were used."
- Arneson
I get "inspirational" from remarks like that. If that was indeed inaccurate, it was Arneson's view of the situation, anyway.
I built the account in the book from the evidence that I had seen at the time, which did not include BTPbD. I certainly had no initial bias as to who had created what. I do continue to think that Chainmail exerted a great influence on the eventual design of OD&D, and I certainly agree that some material Arneson wrote, including the rules for castles and swords, ended up in OD&D. I suspect the collaboration was not a three-way handshake of manuscripts, though, but a much less organized and probably more frequent exchange of notes and ideas through the post and over the telephone. Trying to assign hard lengths or percentages or what have you to these contributions seems to me a very speculative exercise. Gygax held the pen at the last, and Arneson was unhappy with the results, with a specific set of grievances.
For reasons that nothing about BTPbD would convince me to abandon, I do maintain that the origins of armor class, hit points and level are clearly visible in Chainmail. I wish Arneson hadn't claimed otherwise.
Joined: Dec 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 207 Karma: 18
Re: _Playing at the World_ and Domesday Book #1 « Reply #46 on Aug 16, 2012, 8:43pm »
I have to side with Jon on the question of Arneson's input into OD&D. Trying to derive authorship from purely hypothetical working drafts is an exercise in speculation and tells us nothing about the origin of the game. There is a great deal of bias and side-taking in this, as the attribution of the game's origins are a live and hotly contested question.
The criterion Jon set forth for Playing at the World was broadly correct: don't rely on reminisces or anything published after 1980, and take anything after 1976 with a grain of salt. Anything else is just going to wind up being tendentious.
Joined: Oct 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 350 Location: Seattle Karma: 31
Re: _Playing at the World_ and Domesday Book #1 « Reply #47 on Aug 16, 2012, 9:13pm »
I think regardless of the exact nature of the invention of critical system elements, the important thing is that Arneson did not seem to have the drive to author a rule set and publish it. Without the work of Gygax, Blackmoor would have been just one more Hyborian campaign, or Dip campaign, or Braunstein campaign without a broad, culture-changing impact. It was Gygax's drive, vision and so on that resulted in the culture-changing game of OD&D.
I am still reading the book so I can't comment on whether or not I think increment's treatment of Arneson is fair.
...... I do continue to think that Chainmail exerted a great influence on the eventual design of OD&D, and I certainly agree that some material Arneson wrote, including the rules for castles and swords, ended up in OD&D. I suspect the collaboration was not a three-way handshake of manuscripts, though, but a much less organized and probably more frequent exchange of notes and ideas through the post and over the telephone. Trying to assign hard lengths or percentages or what have you to these contributions seems to me a very speculative exercise. Gygax held the pen at the last, and Arneson was unhappy with the results, with a specific set of grievances.
....... I do maintain that the origins of armor class, hit points and level are clearly visible in Chainmail. I wish Arneson hadn't claimed otherwise.
Heh, funny you should mention that, in that I was debating whether to comment on that too. I can see the argument, but semantic similarities aside, would argue the use of those terms in D&D is very conceptually and operationally different from their analogs in CM or other wargames of the era. <shrug> In the end it's probably more a matter of viewpoint.
A man may do both. For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day! —J.R.R. Tolkien
Re: _Playing at the World_ and Domesday Book #1 « Reply #51 on Aug 17, 2012, 11:31am »
Get an Amazon credit card, which gives 3% back on Amazon purchases. Buy other stuff on discount for a few months, and then use your credit towards this book. It'd be like shifting part of the discount on other purchases to this book. I saved $6 this way. (Also, IIRC you get $30 credit just for signing up for the card, so you could use that towards the book right away).
But spending $35 for this book, which has so much info and will serve as a great reference tool, is certainly worth the price.
"Story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of an older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.” - Holmes rulebook
Zenopus Archives - Holmes Basic D&D - website & blog
Joined: Jul 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 478 Karma: 37
Re: _Playing at the World_ and Domesday Book #1 « Reply #52 on Aug 17, 2012, 11:40am »
When discussing the whole "Arneson contribution or Gygax contribution" issue one would do well to remember the nature of the whole process, which was numerous people threw a sh*tload of ideas onto Gary's desk, and I speculate at some time he and Don Kaye said, "f**k it, let's publish." I base this on the fact that we were talking about stuff that ended up in Greyhawk months before the LBB went to press.
There was a large amount of "put ideas into a barrel and stir vigorously." And it's true Dave never liked hit points, he told Victor Raymond and I so in as many words.
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
Re: _Playing at the World_ and Domesday Book #1 « Reply #54 on Sept 14, 2012, 4:35am »
This book is outstanding.
I've only just finished the first chapter, but the wonderful picture Peterson builds of the wargaming fanzine scene, the excitement and the collaborative nature therein, is heady stuff. Wonderfully inspiring.
If he's done as well with the rest of the book as he has in capturing the gamer zeitgeist of the late 60s/early 70s, this book will be a classic (in an admittedly miniscule field).
Highest recommendation to anyone interested in the history of the game.
After you read the third chapter, I'd be interested to know if you still feel like you need Perla on your shelf. I did aim pretty explicitly to render the historical account in his book (and its sources, really) obsolete.
I finished up Playing at the World last month on a long weekend in a cabin in the woods (I was very glad to have such a meaty book to read -- I spent a lot of pleasant time in a hammock reading). I have been going through Perla's account and taking notes on the two books.
After I finish this I will post the result on my gaming blog (which I am working on in Blogspot but which is not public yet). To summarize briefly: The topics which are covered in both books are covered much more thoroughly in Peterson's book than in Perla's. The historical account of the development of wargames from the earliest times up to the mid-war period in Peterson's book is much more thorough and carefully sourced than that in Perla's.
Re: _Playing at the World_ and Domesday Book #1 « Reply #56 on Nov 18, 2012, 10:10pm »
I’ll join the chorus of positive reviews here – Playing at the World is the best history of early D&D that I have read. Although the author covers a lot of ground, make no mistake about it: this book is all about early D&D.
I think what makes this book best in its class is the author’s usage of sources: he privileges contemporary sources, “preferably printed within a year or so of the events in question,” as opposed to relying on interviews, often done years after the fact.
Definitely recommended if you are interested in the history of early D&D.
�Given that Arneson�.. had only an inspirational influence over the production of the original three booklets� � page 573;footnote 165
Well, this is demonstrably inaccurate. I suppose, if there is one general criticism of what I feel is a truly outstanding book, it is that Jon has taken to heart a little too uncritically the version of events regarding the writing process of D&D most enshrined in popular knowledge. The documents themselves belie it.
"It was very much a case of me providing various ideas and concepts but not having any say on many aspects as to how they were used."
- Arneson
I get "inspirational" from remarks like that. If that was indeed inaccurate, it was Arneson's view of the situation, anyway.
I built the account in the book from the evidence that I had seen at the time, which did not include BTPbD. I certainly had no initial bias as to who had created what. I do continue to think that Chainmail exerted a great influence on the eventual design of OD&D, and I certainly agree that some material Arneson wrote, including the rules for castles and swords, ended up in OD&D. I suspect the collaboration was not a three-way handshake of manuscripts, though, but a much less organized and probably more frequent exchange of notes and ideas through the post and over the telephone. Trying to assign hard lengths or percentages or what have you to these contributions seems to me a very speculative exercise. Gygax held the pen at the last, and Arneson was unhappy with the results, with a specific set of grievances.
For reasons that nothing about BTPbD would convince me to abandon, I do maintain that the origins of armor class, hit points and level are clearly visible in Chainmail. I wish Arneson hadn't claimed otherwise.
I think that the focus on individual rules can lead to loosing perspective here. D&D is clearly a dramatically different game from Chainmail.
Inspirational input or not, something happened on the way from a miniatures skirmish game to the first Roleplaying Game.
Regardless of the specific rules, the Blackmoor Game was very close to what we today consider a Fantasy Roleplaying Game, something that in the modern understanding of the term had not existed before (in spite of Braunstein and similar variants).
So while Arneson may have been unhappy about specific rules and how they were presented, the overarching game concepts developed during the Blackmoor campaign seem to have been incorporated.
![[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
![[avatar]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wmRZ0oFN84k/T7VZkxFVuUI/AAAAAAAAAAc/n_E_Zk830vQ/s170/%2521cover-2-front-ss.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6614pf.JPG "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://mux.net/~ulmo/ThorinII.jpg "[avatar]")
![[icq]](http://images.proboards.com/icq.gif "[icq]")
![[avatar]](http://i51.tinypic.com/34oeau1.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lpL870wV2A4/SSi3dCn1SZI/AAAAAAAACl4/XuB-bD4_W4Q/s400/carcosa.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://blackmoor.mystara.us/img/55.png "[avatar]")