|
Post by derv on Aug 28, 2016 17:08:28 GMT -6
So, you heard that Michael Korns created a wargame in 1966, called "Modern War in Miniature", that introduced individual player controlled characters and a Judge (GM) who set up the scenario for the players to explore. You may also have heard suggestions that Korns game can be attributed as part of gaming history that led to the concept of roleplaying and the development of our beloved D&D. Yet, how many have actually played Korns game? It sounds intriguing doesn't it? How far does it take those concepts? Well, the game's still in print through John Curry's The History of Wargaming Project. But, even if you're a wargamer, it's still not highly accessible as something the average gamer is likely to pick up. In that vein, I offer you Colonels of Korns. This is my condensed take on Korns original game. Get a couple guys together and give it a go. Any questions, post em. Cheers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2016 19:47:07 GMT -6
I played it, a lot. It's definitely a skirmish wargame; it's about the battle and nothing else. I also don't think it's the first "single figure" wargame either; gladitorial combat for one was almost always "one player one figure."
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 28, 2016 20:46:34 GMT -6
Certainly there are other examples of single figure wargames. Not many existed before 1966, though.
Korns was definately focused on trying to simulate combat and learning from it, but I'm not sure I would say his game was "about the battle and nothing else".
In comparison, I'd be inclined to ask some questions about other single figure wargames, like gladiator arenas. Prior to Korns, would you be playing Marcus Attilius the Retiarius against Raecius Felix the Secutor? That might have been a possibility. Was there a Rudis to judge the game? Probably. Did the Rudis allow you free choice to try anything within reason? Likely, depending on the judges experience. Was all information about the environment withheld until it was observed by your character? Probably not. Did the game encourage exploration of the environment? Again, probably not. Was the scenario limited only by the referees imagination as far as terrain, objectives, and outside elements go, such as finding a random item of use or interacting with peasants, for example? Less so.
Korns game definately introduced a few novel concepts. The later Braunstein (1967) is only one small step away, in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2016 22:33:59 GMT -6
The gladiator games I played did not include any of those things. Most of them didn't use a referee, either.
And having actually played Korns, there was nothing in there on doing things like shore leave, writing letters home, chow call, or anything else. It is a wargame.
If your experience with either of these games was different I'd be interested in hearing about it.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 29, 2016 12:29:51 GMT -6
Yes, Korns is a wargame, no doubts. I'm not suggesting otherwise.
To respond to your point, Korns does not include information about performing any of the examples you give. Yet,it does not say you couldn't include such elements, either. I'm not saying it would have made a lot of sense to the early players, but Korns game is very much informed by Free Kriegspiel. From the few descriptions of play that I have read of the early games, it's not as tightly orchestrated as what many would think and there were often impromptu additions by the ref- some of a humorous nature.
If you like, I can share my own experiences, Michael. But, I'm not sure you would consider them objective since they are informed post-1974 experiences. What sort of information are you looking for me to confirm or disprove?
Looking at some of your examples, I'd say they are not likely inclusions in a Korns game as you have written them to infer. That's not to say they couldn't be an element of a scenario. How about a group of G.I.'s in the chow line during Pearl Harbor as the Japanese attack? Maybe there were some Japanese who made it ashore in order to sabotage. Or a scenario where a German position in a bombed out building is discovered, where there are found written orders and a map of troop positions, next to a love letter and picture to someones wife. Is the map legit? Does the love letter and picture add to the feel of the game? The possibilities are endless and only limited by the GM. Maybe the scenario involves half the Russian soldiers not having weapons at all. They must find a weapon, either recovered from a dead comrade or from an overrun German position. This literally happened during WW2. It is a good representation.
The main question I pose in the OP is, how far does Korns game advance concepts of roleplay? I did not answer that question.
Do consider that not all roleplay is gonzo fantasy. Some is historical fantasy. In Korns you are transported to the battlefield to observe it through the officers eyes and ears. How that is achieved is up to the GM and is totally dependent on him being a good communicator.
My real feeling about the claims of Korns historical contributions to the development of RPG's is that a person should play the game and form their own opinions. Don't take my or anyone else's word for it. I feel the same way about Chainmail.
|
|
|
Post by ritt on Aug 29, 2016 14:13:39 GMT -6
This game is fifty years old, yet still kinda avant-garde.
Thanks for sharing this.
EDIT: In my humble opinion, I would consider this a role-playing game...albeit a very primitive one with a very narrow focus.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 31, 2016 19:34:06 GMT -6
Here's some of my thoughts about Korns. These are things that seem to be unique contributions for the time and ring of familiarity in what we currently know about roleplaying games.
1. Personalized characters
You are not simply a nameless Lieutenant in the Wehrmacht among dozens of other figures that all move and function en masse on the battlefield. Instead, you are Lt. Dietrich Hertzler III of the 8th SS Cavalry Division. You are personally armed with a 9mm Luger P08, SS trench dagger, and a set of Zeiss binoculars. The player speaks in character when giving orders and uses first person pronouns when describing their own actions.
2. Fictitious Soldiers
Korns introduces the concept of "fictitious soldiers" whose decisions and actions are determined by the GM. This is pretty much how we have come to understand NPC's.
3. Theater of the Mind
Though Korns is meant to be played with miniatures, only the GM was privy to the play area. The players were given maps and rough drawings of the current situation. Most information needed to be passed verbally to the players. It also seems that some games did not incorporate the use of miniatures at all, but used markers or tokens directly on maps instead (this is what I chose to do). The game certainly does not require the use of miniatures to play and would be highly adaptable to digital formats using modern platform tools.
4. Hit Points, Defense Class, and Variable Damage by weapon type
A very basic system is evident within the tables for determining fatigue, wounds, and small arms accuracy.
5. Hit Location
Possibly the first game to introduce hit location on an individual level.
6. Combat Psychology
Not necessarily ground breaking, since it really represents a morale check. But, it is a reaction check that's geared towards the individual instead of the group.
7. Fluid Movement
Movement is not particularly affected by terrain. Instead, it is determined by intent (Combat and non-combat run, walk, crawl, hide).
8. Hidden movement
The players must explore and observe in order to uncover the environment around them. Consequently, it is the GM's job to design the environment for the players to explore.
9.. Graduated Abilities
Limited idea of graduated abilities found in hand-to-hand classes and snipers.
10. Use of polyhedrals
Korns incorporated the use of percentile dice (d20's) in order to satisfy statistical data and determine outcomes with his tables.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 20:18:21 GMT -6
1) We never played it that way. You could but it was not necessary.
4,5, and 6 were common in skirmish wargames.
8) Other games used hidden movement.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 31, 2016 20:49:30 GMT -6
Michael, the rulebook that included Platoon, Squad, Foot Section, and Patrols, gives every soldier in a unit an individualized, nation appropriate name. Why would it have done so if you weren't expected to use them?
Please tell me what these other skirmish wargames were before 1966. Featherstone doesn't write his book on Skirmish Wargaming until 1975. By the 70's there is a plethora.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 12:55:07 GMT -6
Beats me, I never read the rules, we just played. And nobody used those rules.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 1, 2016 18:12:37 GMT -6
Well Michael, let me suggest that it's because it's something that can be found among skirmish wargames (and even mass combat wargames where players name leaders). It's intent is to personalize the figures on the table. You don't have to use them. Of course, you don't have to name your character in D&D to play, either.
BTW, the earliest skirmish rule sets that I could uncover were "Western Gunfight Wargame Rules" (1970) and "Colonial Skirmish Wargame Rules" (1972). Both by the same creators. I've also come across claims that Jim Dunnigan's "Sniper" (1973) was the first man-to-man WW2 rule set. This was a hex and counter game, though (it was republished by TSR in 1986). Unless you can point out otherwise, I'm inclined to believe Korns contributed more then you're willing to credit him with.
Otherwise, it seems we may be at an impasse in our dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Sept 1, 2016 22:52:26 GMT -6
Here's some of my thoughts about Korns. These are things that seem to be unique contributions for the time and ring of familiarity in what we currently know about roleplaying games. Very interesting, derv. Thanks for writing about this.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 2, 2016 15:41:55 GMT -6
One thing that is not often made clear, that I'd like to point out, is that there are at least four separate publishing's of Korns rules that I'm aware of. Each version is different from one another in some way.
The first set was likely produced in very limited numbers. I have not personally seen copies. It was produced as three separate booklets- an Umpire booklet, American Infantry Squad booklet, and German Squad booklet. There was supposedly two supplements to this set as well. One detailing Sherman tanks and one on German Tigers.
Korns then published a one volume compilation in 1966. This is the version most people are talking about when Korns is mentioned. The rule book is marked by it's heavy use of charts containing technical details and statistics that a ref would need in order to compute solutions using mathematical equations. There is a poor scan of these rules floating around the internet.
The 1966 compilation was followed by another compilation in 1972. This set is commonly referred to as SUTC (Small Unit Tactical Combat). Korns took all his statistical data and formula's and converted them into a friendlier to reference table format. The ref could now judge a few factors effecting outcomes to come up with a final exponent. This resulted in a single percentile chance of a result on each table.
The final version that I know of is John Curry's "More Wargaming Pioneers Vol. 4", published in 2012. This version actually contains the introduction to the 1966 rules, but the table version of the SUTC mechanics. It also contains some commentary that is interesting, like the information that I'm providing here.
In my brief research I also came across some comments by someone that supposedly played with Korns. He spoke of continuing to play the game after Korns left the area (around 1972). He also talked about how the rules continued to be adapted to new situations and things not covered in the original rules, like stats for animals or jeeps and how to develop scenarios.
My point in sharing these facts is to say that a person may form different impressions about Korns depending on which set of rules you are reading or exposed to. John Curry's republishing certainly gives you the most background.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 19:27:34 GMT -6
Well Michael, let me suggest that it's because it's something that can be found among skirmish wargames (and even mass combat wargames where players name leaders). It's intent is to personalize the figures on the table. You don't have to use them. Of course, you don't have to name your character in D&D to play, either. BTW, the earliest skirmish rule sets that I could uncover were "Western Gunfight Wargame Rules" (1970) and "Colonial Skirmish Wargame Rules" (1972). Both by the same creators. I've also come across claims that Jim Dunnigan's "Sniper" (1973) was the first man-to-man WW2 rule set. This was a hex and counter game, though (it was republished by TSR in 1986). Unless you can point out otherwise, I'm inclined to believe Korns contributed more then you're willing to credit him with. Otherwise, it seems we may be at an impasse in our dialogue. Probably, because the vast majority of wargames rules were not published in a mass produced format. I have or had some early 70s English wargame magazines that had several games in them, among them a gladitorial game. Seige of Bodenburg was originally published in an early set of Strategy and Tactics magazine. I played many games of rules where the referee had the only copy. Many, if not most, old school miniatures gamers wrote their own rules. I wrote two sets myself before 1975. I'd bet a beer that just after "SPARTACUS" came out with Kirk Douglas there was a flurry of gladitorial games written. Most of them were probably never seen by more than the writer's own game group. The task you are requiring is literally impossible because it would require every issue of every magazine, fanzine, and convention game for the entire pre-1966 20th century to be exhaustive, and even then it would still miss hundreds of house rule sets. This is what makes Jon Peterson tear his hair out. Or would, if his hair were as long as mine.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 3, 2016 8:10:16 GMT -6
If I have not been clear, I am in agreement with you that there already existed 1:1 wargames, such as gladiator combat, jousts, and duel's. Such games, prior to Korns, would likely have included common elements of dicing for a probability of a hit or maybe the use of a combat odds table, like those popularized by AH, or a simple results table based on matching player choices for attack and defense, like Chainmail. I am not seeing any evidence that any contained elements, like those found in modern skirmish wargames, as we find present in Korns. This causes me to reflect on an earlier conversation you and I had here on these boards where you argued that Chainmail's Man-to-Man rules were not a skirmish rule set. Most of the examples you are giving are during the 1970's. This is understandable since it is what most consider the "Hey Days" of the wargaming hobby. Again, it suggests Korns was ahead of his times. As for Bodenburg, it was published in S&T in 1967. It is precisely because Korns went to the trouble of publishing his rules in 1966 that make it both groundbreaking and accessible to a wider audience. To put this into perspective, Featherstones first introductory book, War Games, was only published four years prior, in 1962. History contains many people who claim to have invented things prior to their popularization. But, credit is usually given to the individual who made a product a viable and marketable success. Why would you not want to offer Korns the same? Are you telling me that when you first played Korns, it really wasn't any different then any number of other rule sets floating around at the time? If so, did you play it prior to the 1970's? I'm interested in hearing some facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2016 11:44:26 GMT -6
If we're talking about published rules sets, you're very probably right, or close to right (that is there MAY have been other published rules sets before Korns). I didn't realize you wanted to confine it to published products, though that makes sense.
I got into wargaming in 1971 and I was a gamer, not a historian, so I really didn't worry a lot about "what came before".
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 3, 2016 16:18:29 GMT -6
And I'm not attempting to write a treatise, as is obvious by my OP. The claims about Korns have already been put forth. I'm simply sharing my own observations, feelings, and experiences, while encouraging others to give the game a try.
It seems you want to refute what I have to say. Consequently, I was trying to be generous by giving you the benefit of the doubt. All I was asking is for you to substantiate your statements. You're telling me that is not a realistic request. <shrug>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2016 19:50:30 GMT -6
I thought you were saying that Korns was absolutely the first time anybody ever used a "1 figure to 1 player" ratio. Since it seems that is not, in fact, your assertion, then never mind.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 4, 2016 12:02:36 GMT -6
Since Mike is tapping out here, I suppose I should pick this one up. I do think Korns deserves way more attention than he gets, and I think it's amply clear that both the LG and Twin Cities crowds learned a lot of key principles from Korns. The question of whether Korns was the inventor or just the messenger, though, gets a little more tricky. While Korns may have gone through a few revisions, when it comes to the history of RPGs in particular, I think I'd be on safe ground saying the only relevant one is 1966. Here's some of my thoughts about Korns. These are things that seem to be unique contributions for the time and ring of familiarity in what we currently know about roleplaying games. Unique is a strong word. What I find most innovative about Korns is the time scale, how short a period of time the move represents: he recommends two seconds. A lot of interesting consequences fall out of that decision. Soldiers with names became a factor in pretty much all 1:1 scale wargames of the era. I give a prominent example of Jack Scruby's soldier "Pierre la Duc" from 1962 in Playing at the World. I do understand that it matters that these things be in print in order to have a chance of influencing people - so, it's handy that we know that Korns himself read Table Top Talk, the magazine where Scruby tells the "Pierre la Duc" anecdote, because Korns wrote in to TTT himself. But seeing things in print is a two-way street here. To Korns (1966) in particular - can you cite the passage in Korns where he says that in his game, soldiers have names? Or an example of a fictional soldier with a name? Our hindsight makes it easy for us to read things into these games that aren't there. The idea that you interact with specific characters controlled by the referee was a factor in the earliest Reiswitzian kriegsspiel. Referees could torment players in that game by creatively interpreting vague written orders sent by a commander to a subordinate, say, where the player is the commander and there is no shortage of specific fictional subordinates played by the referee. By the time of Verdy du Vernois (before the end of the 19th century), this had moved off the page into the verbal dialog between the player and the referee. I don't think there are any qualities here we don't find in Totten, or even Reiswitz - in any event, in the nineteenth century. I give tons of examples of the "feedback loop" dialog that drove wargames in this tradition in Playing at the World - Korns surely learned it from Sayre, via McHugh (to understand Korns, you need to be looking at those, not Featherstone). Examples like this were common in wargaming books before Korns. Other than the vague statement "multiple wounds have the effect of the worst wound" I don't know what you mean by "hit points" here. Nor do I see anything I'd immediately suggest is variable damage. Or defense class. Can you point to the specific system elements in Korns (1966) you mean here? More to the point, does Korns really even articulate a combat system? He articulates statistics that he believes govern combat - like, all things being equal, that small arms fire is 70% accurate at 200 meters - and we're left to infer how we're supposed to make a game out of this. Again, I'd be real cautious about reading more into it in hindsight than is there. You need to be a lot more specific here. Do you mean hit location on people? If not, Fletcher Pratt came out a long time before Korns. Most of our hit points, damage, armor, and hit location systems derive from the way that Pratt modeled boats being applied to other vehicles, and ultimately to our frail human bodies. Surely Pratt pioneered the techniques that RPGs would borrow for those. I do think he considers pre-combat morale differently than earlier authors because he is considering such a small time scale for "reaction." I'm not sure I understand this point exactly. Korns is what the kids today would call a hardcore simulationist. He doesn't go in for Avalon Hill style "terrain types", as those are too gross an approximation, but otherwise I don't think his movement system is unusual for a Reiswitzian simulation. This is a (maybe, the) signature mechanic of all Reiswitzian kriegsspiel, including Totten et al. I don't think these are at all out of parity with systems circulating in the wargame zines at the time. I talk a lot about Bath and Scruby experimenting with these principles. If anything, Korns is far more vague about it than they are. Though again, I kind of have to guess what text you could be referring to here - that one-phrase reference to making "allowances for superior or inferior troops"? Can you cite a passage in Korns (1966) where he mentions d20s? Famously, he has a chart for showing how to get percentile results from six-sided dice. Nor would it be unique or ground-breaking if he did mention them: he knew McHugh's work, and McHugh (1960) had detailed the use of polyhedrals to resolve percentile possibilities. I do vaguely recall there was some complication in sequencing the various editions of McHugh before 1966, and I don't have time to redo that work just this second, but it was an idea that was out there.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 4, 2016 14:22:20 GMT -6
Since Mike is tapping out here, I suppose I should pick this one up. I do think Korns deserves way more attention than he gets, and I think it's amply clear that both the LG and Twin Cities crowds learned a lot of key principles from Korns. The question of whether Korns was the inventor or just the messenger, though, gets a little more tricky. While Korns may have gone through a few revisions, when it comes to the history of RPGs in particular, I think I'd be on safe ground saying the only relevant one is 1966. I'm interested to read what all you have to say on the subject, Jon. I'll try to respond to the rest of your comments later on. But, I have to comment on your opening statement, that the 1966 version is the only relevant one. On a certain level, yes, the 1966 version has particular relevance since it was produced prior to the 70's revival of wargaming. But, it seems a little hasty to come to that conclusion so easily. The SUTC rules were published in 1972. When people talk about playing Korns, I'm not sure which version they are actually referring to- that is one of the reasons I tried to clarify this above. People, like Michael, who were only ever players that did not see the actual rules, may not know either. Many of my impressions are a result of reading the reprint as found in John Curry's, Wargaming Pioneers. I have also read the 1966 version, which actually contains more data on such things as firearms, aircraft, and tanks. As I pointed out, I have never seen the original booklets that were produced prior to 1966. What's interesting and, I think, relevant is a quote from Ned Zuparko about Korns' publishing of the 1972 rules. He was one of Korns original players. "The SUTC is a sort of 'second edition' in 1972 when his previous booklets were combined into one, and some additional statistics included. He actually purchased a printing press to produce the rules." Since the 1966 rules are only one book, I can only assume Zuparko is talking about material from the original pre-1966 booklets, or that Korns produced other booklets (that no one has ever mentioned) after the 1966 rules, but prior to 1972. At the very least, the 1972 rules help clarify some of Korns intent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2016 15:48:49 GMT -6
Soldiers with names became a factor in pretty much all 1:1 scale wargames of the era. I give a prominent example of Jack Scruby's soldier "Pierre la Duc" from 1962 in Playing at the World. I do understand that it matters that these things be in print in order to have a chance of influencing people - so, it's handy that we know that Korns himself read Table Top Talk, the magazine where Scruby tells the "Pierre la Duc" anecdote, because Korns wrote in to TTT himself. The idea that you interact with specific characters controlled by the referee was a factor in the earliest Reiswitzian kriegsspiel. Referees could torment players in that game by creatively interpreting vague written orders sent by a commander to a subordinate, say, where the player is the commander and there is no shortage of specific fictional subordinates played by the referee. By the time of Verdy du Vernois (before the end of the 19th century), this had moved off the page into the verbal dialog between the player and the referee. In the wargaming hobby specifically, the notion of large Napoleonic battles where the players are the various officers and write orders to their units and messages to each other was venerable by the time I got into the hobby in 1971. I can't establish a firm date, but when I heard about it it had been around for "a long time." Whatever the heck THAT means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2016 15:51:51 GMT -6
You know, it was not rare back then for players to play games and never read the rules (especially since so many rules were homebrews.) That really gets frustrating when trying to derive information from accounts of actual play; rules we didn't actually interact with might never be known.
EDIT: That is an awkward sentence. What I mean is "a player might never know of the existence of a certain rule because of never interacting with it."
Cf. discussions on "how much CHAINMAIL is in OD&D;" I didn't see the rules for "Greyhawk" until after a year of play, and even then all I got was the "Mornard Fragments".
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 4, 2016 18:48:00 GMT -6
But, I have to comment on your opening statement, that the 1966 version is the only relevant one. On a certain level, yes, the 1966 version has particular relevance since it was produced prior to the 70's revival of wargaming. But, it seems a little hasty to come to that conclusion so easily. Unless there's any reason to think that Korns was known to the LG or Twin Cities crowd through anything other than the 1966 publication, I don't find this argument a particularly hasty one. By 1972, Chainmail was out, and a great many other systems that provided cues for role-playing that went well beyond Korns. I doubt that a 1972 work, regardless of whether or not it explained Korns's intent, would have pushed us any closer to role-playing when Fight in the Skies had already been out for four years, Strategos N for two, etc. I can furnish from the wargaming fanzines of the era a number of citations to Modern War in Miniature. I might point to the July 1966 Table Top Talk. Or the Novermber 1968 IFW Monthly. Or to S&T #9, or #14. Or to the February 1970 International Wargamer. Or Panzerfaust #52. Or later to S&T #40 (which mentions the "re-issue"). Or to Moves #18, which is talking about Sniper! at the end of 1974, but which still cites the 1966 version of Korns. Or I might point to the Avalon Hill General, Vol.5 No. 3 (1968), where a gamer solicits for opponents with that title. Or to more obscure fanzines, like say Galaxian Vol. 1 No. 4 in 1968. Or even the Whole Earth Catalog (true story). I can point to exactly zero references to any other work by Korns. If you can, I'm all ears. If not... I don't think this is a question of being over-hasty. These zines are the space where the people who transitioned us from wargames to RPGs lived and breathed.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 4, 2016 21:26:47 GMT -6
I can point to exactly zero references to any other work by Korns. If you can, I'm all ears. If not... I don't think this is a question of being over-hasty. These zines are the space where the people who transitioned us from wargames to RPGs lived and breathed. You seem to be dismissive of John Curry's efforts. Either way, sure it would be helpful to hear excerpts from early zines on the subject of Korns. I'd be particularly interested in what they were saying about the game and what sort of requests were being put forth. I was going to attempt to respond to each of your comments you made to all of my points above. Instead, I'll just make a few general comments. Let me reiterate that I am not attempting to write a historical treatise on Korns. It seems people are not listening to my OP and stated intent. My comments were a response that offered my own feelings and observations about the game. In light of this, I do not consider "unique" a strong word, especially when it is preempted with "seems to be". Possibly there is a better term, but that's the one I used in my attempt to make a parallel between Korns and roleplaying, as we have come to know it. It seemed worthwhile to note all these elements as a whole. I did fail to include #11, Free Agency. It appears I have already addressed some of your comments, like the fact that I was aware that other wargamers personalized figures before Korns. But, they did not seem to do it in the fashion that modern skirmish wargames do. Again, you seem dismissive of Curry, where those charts do appear. One thing I find interesting is your linear thought about how Korns was influenced. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I wasn't there and privy to all the fanzine buzz. I've acknowledged what appears to be Verdy du Vernois Free Kriegspiel influences on how a ref is open to judge each interaction. I'm less likely to see a clear connection to Reiswitz's Strict Kriegspiel. From my understanding, much of what we know about the game is a result of Bill Leeson's translation from German to English and publishing it in 1983. Now, if you want to trace a loose line of influence on Korns from Reiswitz through Totten's Strategos, sure, I guess I can see that.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 4, 2016 21:42:19 GMT -6
You seem to be dismissive of John Curry's efforts. I'm not dismissive of anyone's efforts to republish crucial wargaming material that is now largely inaccessible. I've certainly benefited from Mr. Curry's work; he's reprinted historical systems I wouldn't have otherwise. I'm only in this thread because it concerns the influence of Korns on role-playing games, and the extent to which his ideas were at their time of publication novel or derivative. Well, and because certain key historical details here matter: if Korns were telling people to use d20s in 1966, that would certainly weigh in my own account of why d20s appeared in D&D. Again, as I said, that line of influence on Korns was through McHugh and Sayre, English secondary sources that summarized (often poorly) the wargame tradition from Reiswitz through Verdy du Vernois and others. Korns knew Reiswitz and others through those intermediaries; as you rightly point out, no one was reprinting Reiswitz in English in the 1960s. I can't say I recall off the top of my head if there is some smoking gun in Korns that shows he read Totten, but some aspects of his style are similar to Totten, like how Totten reprinted vast amounts of raw military statistics from the authorities of his day as an aid to the referee. When people ask me which wargaming authors really informed the development of role-playing games, Korns is always near the top of my list, don't get me wrong. But as is always the case, the devil of these questions is in the details - exactly which elements were novel, which were influential despite their lack of novelty, and so on. What would seem novel to you in Korns if you knew Totten well, for example, is a question that should probably inform how we see a lot of RPG innovation in the Twin Cities in the late 1960s. Korns deserves credit for bringing really immediacy to that feedback loop between the referee and the players - but perhaps not for some other things.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 4, 2016 22:15:45 GMT -6
Again, as I said, that line of influence on Korns was through McHugh and Sayre, English secondary sources that summarized (often poorly) the wargame tradition from Reiswitz through Verdy du Vernois and others. Korns knew Reiswitz and others through those intermediaries; as you rightly point out, no one was reprinting Reiswitz in English in the 1960s. I can't say I recall off the top of my head if there is some smoking gun in Korns that shows he read Totten, but some aspects of his style are similar to Totten, like how Totten reprinted vast amounts of raw military statistics from the authorities of his day as an aid to the referee. Here again, I can recognize what you're saying as plausible. The Navy War College or the RAND system could have had a similar influence on Korns as it did on Wesely. Yet, the most often cited work of McHugh is his Fundamentals of War Gaming, 3rd ed. that was interestingly published in 1966. I'm not aware of Korns serving in the military and he makes no references to McHugh in a book that seems intent on referencing all the sources of its data. Part of the reason I'm having difficulty accepting the logic behind these tangential connections with Reiswitz, Totten, McHugh, and Sayre, is because you want to repudiate the same possible sort of influence by Korns on the LG and Twin City gamers. What I was expecting to hear were examples of other games that existed and were being played at the same time as Korns (or at least that same prior decade), that contained those elements that are common to modern skirmish wargames and reflect our current understanding of roleplay. So far, I havn't seen any examples of this.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 4, 2016 23:29:08 GMT -6
For those interested, I put together a brief scenario called Broken Spirits. It's a house-to-house combat scenario in Stalingrad. Cheers! And another one of a different spin called Like Rats in a Trap.
|
|
|
Post by ritt on Sept 5, 2016 11:22:19 GMT -6
This is an awesome thread, thank you everyone. Korns seems like a really hip cat who was way ahead of his time. A very interesting lost chapter of our hobby.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 5, 2016 12:07:34 GMT -6
Part of the reason I'm having difficulty accepting the logic behind these tangential connections with Reiswitz, Totten, McHugh, and Sayre, is because you want to repudiate the same possible sort of influence by Korns on the LG and Twin City gamers. ... where did I repudiate the influence of Korns? I've been saying that Korns was a crucial influence on RPGs for years. I was very clear that I joined this thread to talk about whether or not the innovations you identified in Korns were unique: whether when it came to those elements, Korns was the inventor or just the messenger. ... and I did furnish such examples. I didn't claim that Korns read Totten, say, but we know Dave Wesely sure did. Those ideas which you flagged as "unique" that have close analogs in Totten clearly could have come to the Twin Cities without Korns's help (when I saw "hidden movement," I hit the "quote" button). Or ideas about damage, armor, and hit points could always come from Pratt. The point is, gamers of the late 1960s were getting these ideas from multiple sources, filtered through different intermediaries, not through some arboreal chain that traces back to Korns alone. Ideas like having 1:1 scale battles with named and individuated soldiers were being common socialized by people like Scruby at the time. When Korns first wrote in to TTT in 1962, it was largely to tell Scruby that he found that his own homebrew system "strangely enough resembled" the Scruby rules. Surely Korns's system evolved over the next four years - we seem him hooking up with other Kansas City gamers in the pages of TTT, just like we see Wesely beginning to form up with the Twin Cities gamers in that same venue. And yes, I concluded a while ago that McHugh was one catalyst in Korns's evolution, for a couple reasons. The way Korns presents his dialog between the player and "judge" is part of a clear tradition in that literature, which McHugh learned about from Sayre. The way that Korns used percentile statistics and then gave a table for resolving percentile results from 2d6 also follows McHugh. And, guess who else you can find contributing to TTT? McHugh himself. He actually wrote an article about the Reiswitzian principles of wargaming for Vol. 3 No. 3 of TTT - about two years before we see the first ad for Korns's "Modern War in Miniature" in TTT. But don't read "one catalyst" as a stronger statement than it is. All of these people - Korns, Wesely, Scruby, McHugh - they were all bouncing ideas off each other in this open and collaborative environment. Trying to stand anyone up as the unique source of this or that idea is usually problematic. Of course Korns has his place in the evolution of RPGs - but man, it takes a village.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 5, 2016 14:17:44 GMT -6
I feel a little like I'm pulling teeth with you and Michael.
What you repudiated was the relevance of any of Korns previous and post 1966 rules elaboration/revisions and there possible influence, whether direct or indirect, on the larger hobby, such as you're forwarding with Reiswitz and Totten on Korns.
I find your TTT evidence about McHugh far more compelling. It would have been helpful to put it forth earlier.
I agree that "trying to stand anyone up as the (not a) unique source" can be problematic.
|
|