|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 12, 2016 8:34:47 GMT -6
Whoa! Awesome! An by none other than Rob Kuntz! Okay, I'll stop with the exclamations! Blog Post: Dave Arneson's True GeniusPublisher Website: Three Line StudioLooks like it may be a bit controversial... It also looks like the Honorable Mr. Kuntz is working a much larger treatise, as well... I'd have to say we're living in a golden age of books about this hobby.  |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jul 13, 2016 10:16:24 GMT -6
Has anyone actually argued that "the RPG concept" is descended from Chainmail? I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone to defend that, as it's pretty much trivially false. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 13, 2016 10:32:14 GMT -6
These days, I don't know that anyone would argue, it per se; more like believe it as an underlying assumption. While certainly true that if you even just scratch the surface of RPG-as-such origins, it's almost immediately obvious that Chainmail is not the genesis, I think the actual percentage of people who've scratched that surface is pretty small.
Perhaps more controversial in tone, as opposed to the presentation of controversial ideas?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 11:42:18 GMT -6
Whoa! Awesome! An by none other than Rob Kuntz! Okay, I'll stop with the exclamations! Blog Post: Dave Arneson's True GeniusPublisher Website: Three Line StudioLooks like it may be a bit controversial... It also looks like the Honorable Mr. Kuntz is working a much larger treatise, as well... I'd have to say we're living in a golden age of books about this hobby. Has anyone actually argued that "the RPG concept" is descended from Chainmail? I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone to defend that, as it's pretty much trivially false. These days, I don't know that anyone would argue, it per se; more like believe it as an underlying assumption. While certainly true that if you even just scratch the surface of RPG-as-such origins, it's almost immediately obvious that Chainmail is not the genesis, I think the actual percentage of people who've scratched that surface is pretty small. Perhaps more controversial in tone, as opposed to the presentation of controversial ideas? Sadly,that is the official line at the WotC site(see the following false statement at the WotC site): And others have argued that the Blackmoor campaign (and OD&D by extension) were descended from Chainmail in other threads on this forum IIRC and that argument has been presented multiple times over on Dragonsfoot and over on one forum which shall remain nameless the party line is that OD&D was directly descended from Chainmail and that same unnamed forum also insists (incorrectly) that Dave Arneson deserves no credit and it was all Gygax. So the fact that it is indeed trivially false does not prevent more than a few people from asserting that it is true. Of course of relevance is the fact that they have an ax to grind.  |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jul 13, 2016 12:05:40 GMT -6
And others have argued that the Blackmoor campaign (and OD&D by extension) were descended from Chainmail in other threads on this forum IIRC and that argument has been presented multiple times over on Dragonsfoot and over on one forum which shall remain nameless the party line is that OD&D was directly descended from Chainmail and that same unnamed forum also insists (incorrectly) that Dave Arneson deserves no credit and it was all Gygax. So the fact that it is indeed trivially false does not prevent more than a few people from asserting that it is true. Of course of relevance is the fact that they have an ax to grind. The relationship between Chainmail and OD&D has been discussed here in terms of the influence of the combat system, monster and spell lists and so on... odd74.proboards.com/thread/11559/chainmail-od-rob-kuntz... but that really has no salience to the origins of "the RPG concept." Even that thread tries to tease apart what parts of say the combat system did and did not come directly from Chainmail, what parts were mutated and by whom, what parts were new inventions. The problem with this topic is indeed the tremendous amount of ax grinding it inspires, as apparently no one is content to acknowledge "it's complicated" and instead it must be reduced to all or nothing punditry in favor of one party or another. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 12:37:28 GMT -6
The problem with this topic is indeed the tremendous amount of ax grinding it inspires, as apparently no one is content to acknowledge "it's complicated" and instead it must be reduced to all or nothing punditry in favor of one party or another. And unfortunately that is not likely to change. If I understand things correctly Dave Arneson came to Gygax and reffed his Blackmoor game for Gygax, Gygax was enthused, they corresponded and Arneson sent notes to Gygax and unfortunately they could not both set down at computers bitd and hash things out and ask questions in real time. After that it gets murky indeed because: one they are no longer with us and two there was likely no point in time where they both would have answered things the same way, both having there own perspective. In the best of all worlds those notes would be posted on the WotC website right now along with the Dave Arneson notes that were given to Tim Kask when the Blackmoor supplement was written. In the latter case we know exactly what Tim Kask did and did not do and why, since he told us himself in his own posts. One clear cut and one not. I would love to be able to see the first set of notes to see how Gygax used/altered/rewrote what was given and I would love to see the second set of notes to see what Kask refused to use. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 13, 2016 13:27:10 GMT -6
Seems to me folks want to be able to point to some published game and say: hey, look D&D came from that.
But you can't. Because D&D (at least at first) was / is not a game per se, but suggestions for how to run a fantastical medieval war games campaign.
One suggestion includes using Chainmail, as it has rules for resolving medieval war games and includes a fantasy supplement. How convenient. Use of course, whatever helps you with the resolution of particular battles. Tony Bath's rules, for example.
It is the failure to distinguish categories (like a lot of things!). There is a difference between running a wargames campaign and any given set of wargame rules that might be employed in that campaign.
Folks don't seem to get that and I think that may be the key to the problem.
Oh, and then, in terms of "role play," there is the Diplomacy connection. Also some convenient rules for a wargames campaign at a highly strategic level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jul 13, 2016 13:52:53 GMT -6
over on one forum which shall remain nameless the party line is that OD&D was directly descended from Chainmail and that same unnamed forum also insists (incorrectly) that Dave Arneson deserves no credit and it was all Gygax. Tsk tsk, Crim. Attempting to bait cross-forum warring is poor form. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 13:58:36 GMT -6
over on one forum which shall remain nameless the party line is that OD&D was directly descended from Chainmail and that same unnamed forum also insists (incorrectly) that Dave Arneson deserves no credit and it was all Gygax. Tsk tsk, Crim. Attempting to bait cross-forum warring is poor form. I am not Crim whoever that is and I am not baiting cross-forum warring, if I were I would have called that bunch of skunks out by name. The poor form is the lying accusation that I was baiting cross-forum warring that you just made. That is both poor form and true to skunk nature. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jul 13, 2016 14:08:49 GMT -6
Oh, and then, in terms of "role play," there is the Diplomacy connection. Also some convenient rules for a wargames campaign at a highly strategic level. An argument that "the RPG concept" descended from Diplomacy would be more viable for a number of reasons, yes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 14:17:22 GMT -6
... but that really has no salience to the origins of "the RPG concept." Even that thread tries to tease apart what parts of say the combat system did and did not come directly from Chainmail, what parts were mutated and by whom, what parts were new inventions. The problem with this topic is indeed the tremendous amount of ax grinding it inspires, as apparently no one is content to acknowledge "it's complicated" and instead it must be reduced to all or nothing punditry in favor of one party or another. I think that if we had all the information available we would find out that the vast majority of Chainmail related things in OD&D we put there by Gygax and not Arneson. By all accounts I have read Arneson likely took a lot more from the Braunsteins, books and movies than he did Chainmail. As far as the origins of the RPG concept that was Arneson taking the next step that David Wesely was not willing or interested in taking. In fact David Wesely comes off as conflicted about playing the Braunsteins as it went further than he anticipated or wanted. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jul 13, 2016 14:47:10 GMT -6
]I think that if we had all the information available we would find out that the vast majority of Chainmail related things in OD&D we put there by Gygax and not Arneson. By all accounts I have read Arneson likely took a lot more from the Braunsteins, books and movies than he did Chainmail. As far as the origins of the RPG concept that was Arneson taking the next step that David Wesely was not willing or interested in taking. In fact David Wesely comes off as conflicted about playing the Braunsteins as it went further than he anticipated or wanted. I would say that "the RPG concept" in the Twin Cities emerged from a number of threads, of which Braunsteins were one, and Diplomacy was another, and Tony Bath's stuff was another (and yes, we can prove that Arneson and people in his circle knew it at the time), and Fight in the Skies was another, and Korns was another, and... that the combination of these influences inspired the role-playing elements in Arneson's Napoleonic Simulation Campaign, which Blackmoor would copy. Once OD&D was released, then "the RPG concept" was further informed by the fans who picked up the game, some of whom had little wargaming background and brought to the rather skeletal structure of OD&D their own preconceptions and prior experiences. Only in 1976 did anyone seriously start talking about it as as a "role-playing games." But again, these threads are all separate from the mechanical question of what was a Hero, a Superhero or a Wizard, or a fireball spell, or a saving throw, or the effect of a magic sword, or what have you. There are surviving documents from Blackmoor before collaboration on OD&D began, and they use modified Chainmail for those purposes. It's not a matter where I think there are two reasonable sides to the discussion. Arneson faithfully and bluntly reported that he appropriated these things from Chainmail and then expanded them. If you're confused about that, you're disagreeing with him and all the evidence that we have. I mean seriously, Arneson in the FFC says that "the dungeon of Blackmoor. It began with only the basic monsters in Chainmail." Or read FFC 44, on how he designed dungeon rooms: "Having gone over all my records the surest indication is that the point values given in 1st edition Chainmail formed the basis for my system. Exceptions occurred were due to the addition of new creatures beyond those given in Chainmail and thus necessitating changes." Or how did magic swords work? "The nature and powers the spells and swords were taken right from the available copies of Chainmail, which served as the basis for all our combat" (pg 64). Again, "the basis for all our combat." Do systems elements like this amount to "the RPG concept"? No, of course not. But they make the claim that Arneson didn't take significant material from Chainmail totally untenable. It wasn't just a situation where Gygax reintroduced these Chainmail elements to the game once collaboration towards OD&D began. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 13, 2016 15:15:23 GMT -6
I can't wait for this book, to get RJK's perspective if nothing else. I'm looking forward to both this book and Gronan's, actually. I enjoy "back in the day" reading.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 15:50:46 GMT -6
I can't wait for this book, to get RJK's perspective if nothing else. I'm looking forward to both this book and Gronan's, actually. I enjoy "back in the day" reading. Yeah, me too and that reminds me, we need a status update from Gronan. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 13, 2016 17:49:59 GMT -6
And others have argued that the Blackmoor campaign (and OD&D by extension) were descended from Chainmail in other threads on this forum IIRC and that argument has been presented multiple times over on Dragonsfoot and over on one forum which shall remain nameless the party line is that OD&D was directly descended from Chainmail and that same unnamed forum also insists (incorrectly) that Dave Arneson deserves no credit and it was all Gygax. So the fact that it is indeed trivially false does not prevent more than a few people from asserting that it is true. Of course of relevance is the fact that they have an ax to grind. The relationship between Chainmail and OD&D has been discussed here in terms of the influence of the combat system, monster and spell lists and so on... odd74.proboards.com/thread/11559/chainmail-od-rob-kuntz... but that really has no salience to the origins of "the RPG concept." Even that thread tries to tease apart what parts of say the combat system did and did not come directly from Chainmail, what parts were mutated and by whom, what parts were new inventions. The problem with this topic is indeed the tremendous amount of ax grinding it inspires, as apparently no one is content to acknowledge "it's complicated" and instead it must be reduced to all or nothing punditry in favor of one party or another. Hmm, I may unfortunately be lumped in as an ax grinder. I am under no illusion that the concept of roleplaying is owed solely to the game of Chainmail. There are a number of possible contributors to the idea of roleplaying a single character in a game. A few have already been mentioned. Braunstein is one that always stands out. But, if we limit our scope from what, I gather, is now being called "the RPG concept" and speak specifically of Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, the questions might be, would it have existed without the inspiration of Chainmail? Specifically, would it have succeeded without the Fantasy Supplement? Could it have spawned from Arneson's Napoleonic game alone? Would Gygax have been impressed with the idea of roleplaying Count Jean-Baptiste Bessieres or Marshal Nicolas Oudinot during the 1800's? I have my doubts. Others of you may be of the opinion that a game like D&D was inevitable, despite Chainmail's role. Personally, I think D&D owes a great deal, beyond just the combat system, to Chainmail. I'll reserve further comment until after I read the book, so as not to whittle my ax down to a tack hammer |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jul 13, 2016 18:10:26 GMT -6
I can't wait for this book, to get RJK's perspective if nothing else. I'm looking forward to both this book and Gronan's, actually. I enjoy "back in the day" reading. Definitely, always valuable to get the first-hand perspectives down on paper. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 18:34:59 GMT -6
The BIGGEST problem with discussions of this sort is that people seem to want to treat as a simple direct path a situation which was more like unto a gigantic cauldron into which people were tossing things in and pulling things out all the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 19:24:01 GMT -6
]Hmm, I may unfortunately be lumped in as an ax grinder. Not by me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 19:25:46 GMT -6
The BIGGEST problem with discussions of this sort is that people seem to want to treat as a simple direct path a situation which was more like unto a gigantic cauldron into which people were tossing things in and pulling things out all the time. I agree with this and I like the description. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 6:20:05 GMT -6
]I think that if we had all the information available we would find out that the vast majority of Chainmail related things in OD&D we put there by Gygax and not Arneson. By all accounts I have read Arneson likely took a lot more from the Braunsteins, books and movies than he did Chainmail. As far as the origins of the RPG concept that was Arneson taking the next step that David Wesely was not willing or interested in taking. In fact David Wesely comes off as conflicted about playing the Braunsteins as it went further than he anticipated or wanted. I would say that "the RPG concept" in the Twin Cities emerged from a number of threads, of which Braunsteins were one, and Diplomacy was another, and Tony Bath's stuff was another (and yes, we can prove that Arneson and people in his circle knew it at the time), and Fight in the Skies was another, and Korns was another, and... that the combination of these influences inspired the role-playing elements in Arneson's Napoleonic Simulation Campaign, which Blackmoor would copy. Once OD&D was released, then "the RPG concept" was further informed by the fans who picked up the game, some of whom had little wargaming background and brought to the rather skeletal structure of OD&D their own preconceptions and prior experiences. Only in 1976 did anyone seriously start talking about it as as a "role-playing games." But again, these threads are all separate from the mechanical question of what was a Hero, a Superhero or a Wizard, or a fireball spell, or a saving throw, or the effect of a magic sword, or what have you. There are surviving documents from Blackmoor before collaboration on OD&D began, and they use modified Chainmail for those purposes. It's not a matter where I think there are two reasonable sides to the discussion. Arneson faithfully and bluntly reported that he appropriated these things from Chainmail and then expanded them. If you're confused about that, you're disagreeing with him and all the evidence that we have. I mean seriously, Arneson in the FFC says that "the dungeon of Blackmoor. It began with only the basic monsters in Chainmail." Or read FFC 44, on how he designed dungeon rooms: "Having gone over all my records the surest indication is that the point values given in 1st edition Chainmail formed the basis for my system. Exceptions occurred were due to the addition of new creatures beyond those given in Chainmail and thus necessitating changes." Or how did magic swords work? "The nature and powers the spells and swords were taken right from the available copies of Chainmail, which served as the basis for all our combat" (pg 64). Again, "the basis for all our combat." Do systems elements like this amount to "the RPG concept"? No, of course not. But they make the claim that Arneson didn't take significant material from Chainmail totally untenable. It wasn't just a situation where Gygax reintroduced these Chainmail elements to the game once collaboration towards OD&D began. I got out my copy of Chainmail and FFC last night and read through both of them. It looks to me like Chainmail was obviously one source among many. Of course you have to consider that much of the things in Chainmail, such as the monsters as only one example, were taken from other places and had Chainmail not been around the monsters for the most part already were around. As far as the Magic Swords, Arneson goes way beyond what was in Chainmail and again, if Chainmail were not around this could have been derived from other sources. Now this is not to say that there was not original material in Chainmail, there was a lot of original material in Chainmail. Arneson, just like Gygax, made use of all the existing materials that he was aware of. Does this mean that Chainmail is the main thing from which the Blackmoor game was derived, of course not. Does it mean that Chainmail was absolutely crucial to the development of Blackmoor? I am not sold on that as being true. |
|
|
|
Post by robertthebald on Jul 24, 2016 11:55:38 GMT -6
I agree with The Perilous Dreamer that David drew from many sources when he came up with Blackmoor. It was not just a matter of coming up with role playing, but inventing an entire world that people could exist in just as much as they exist in this world. All the pieces were there. He combined the pieces that he needed with the new world he invented and came up with something different that did not exist before. Don't forget that a major reason that he invented Blackmoor was so he could avoid the problems he was having with the players in the Napoleonic campaign that he was running (players were insisting that the rules allowed them to do something; then they would turn around and insist that they could do something else because it was historically accurate). By inventing his own rules and world, he was sidestepping that problem entirely; and as the creator of the rules, he could add or change rules as needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ritt on Jul 24, 2016 15:53:09 GMT -6
...like unto a gigantic cauldron into which people were tossing things in and pulling things out all the time. That's an awesome metaphor for this entire hobby. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 3:13:38 GMT -6
Is Jeff Perren still with us, by the way? What's his take on the matter?
|
|
