|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 16, 2018 7:13:23 GMT -6
Every now and then I do a google search and a youtube search on original edition, etc. I must say I am always a little depressed (or even angered) by what is out there. There is so much misinformation or even deliberate castigation that it makes me a little sad.
Seems like brief videos is the new format for EVERYTHING. Why not have out there some solid information about old school D&D and 0e in particular?
I have no idea how something like this happens. I'm a teacher in a field that could loosely be called liberal arts / humanities. But surely this is the kind of thing that kickstarter or patreon (did I spell that right?) is really built to help us, as an 0e community, achieve, collectively, yes?
Here is some of my ideas, brainstormed out:
A series of brief videos:
No more than 5-7 min each (to match contemporary inter webs attention spans), no less than 1-2 minutes These videos would be of, say, medium grade quality. Not amateurish, but not something with full dry-erase animation either! Just well thought-out, well-scripted, vetted by key members of our community, voiced and acted with decent voice actors, well edited with shots switching between the narrator talking to the camera, shots of the map (well videoed), shots of explanatory flow-charts, etc.
The videos would go more or less in a logical order. Something like (again, just brainstorming):
A brief history of D&D (where we compare editions by their development in time in a TOTALLY nonpartisan way, just concluding by saying why 0e is still appealing to some; i.e., as the "hexadecimal," underneath all the other "languages") How is a Wargames Campaign similar to, yet different from more contemporary "Role Playing Games"? (or something like that) How to decide if the Original Edition is right for you or your regular D&D group
Examples of play (really well filmed and edited with "interview like" follow-up interspersed): 1. ("Alternative") Combat Resolution 2. Exploration Mechanics 3. "Extraction" Mechanics (encumbrance, light, and other resource management, monster checks, etc.) 4. Campaign maintenance (healing, XP, "maintaining freshness") [we could show how XP works BTB and then discuss a couple of options for house rules. Come to think of it, we could do that for a LOT of the above!] 5. Wilderness Exploration
Setting up a Fantastical Medieval Wargames Campaign: 1. Local Area 2. Adventure Town 3. Lairs and Dungeons 4. Dungeon First Three Levels (Tricks, traps, monsters as distractions (not sources of XP)) 5. Treasure Maps and Expedition Maps
Compare Contrast 1e, Basic, etc. (Without making an argument. Just to present differences so folks can make an informed choice about what to play at their table. NO edition wars!)
What do you all think? Just crazy dreaming? A man can dream.
Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 16, 2018 9:26:51 GMT -6
Could you get any one to agree on any particular POV of what Original Edition is before it becomes increasingly vague in explanation? Would any one method meet the criteria or would it divulge into philosophical mumble without practicality? Perhaps you would have to present many methods and ideas. Or instead, it would be "this is how I play original edition".
Not being cynical, just thinking practical.... maybe a little doubtful.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 16, 2018 9:53:33 GMT -6
derv, I understand your concern. I still think there is significant overlap here on the boards. Enough for 2 to 7 minute videos that end by restating that there are many variant interpretations and perhaps giving a couple to a few examples. Although we interpret things differently, we agree on a lot on these boards and we are typically not cruel to each other about it. We also know who some of the "experts" are and we are often willing to differ to them (you can think of a few. Those are also the ones I am thinking of). Those experts would be some of the "chief consultants." That said, we could just leave out the examples of play in the series and just say: find a group playing 0e and learn from them, or something like that, if we really felt we couldn't agree on some core similarities of play across our different interpretations. I am a teacher. One of the things I can do is find the core, unmodified example of something, drill that into my students, then slowly introducing to them all the subtleties, differentiations and "modifications" that grow out from and over that core. I think if we stick to the core and then note that there are many details to account for in addition to that core (giving a few examples) then we've done enough. Also, we could consider our audience. Let's face it, I don't see 0e as almost anyone's introduction to D&D -- unless they are playing in a group that plays it. Most folks that are being introduced to 0e online are folks that are already playing some other version of D&D. And, again, facing the facts, they are probably in some camp or other of "OSR." If that is our audience, all we really need to do is point out core play styles that MAY differ in 0e compared to "other editions you may be familiar with," etc. Still just brainstorming. Thanks for interacting on it.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 16, 2018 10:28:19 GMT -6
Okay, I'll grab onto this idea of "core concepts". Your above list has to be severely simplified. But, let's come up with a list. I think the history of the game should be tossed out the window. It's a point of contention and has yet to be truly sorted out. Let's just talk about the style of play. What makes Oe unique.
It seems many think that the methods are not important to the original intent. Perhaps we could consider throwing the rulebook out when considering the core concepts? Take it and tear it up or set it aside if you have originals (:
Here's some ideas:
1. develop a character- you can be anything.
2. determine a way to resolve actions such as combat, searching, negotiating, etc.- you can use any method you'd like.
3. develop a setting to play in- it should be small, yet expandable at first, like a dungeon.
4. create interesting things to encounter- monsters, treasure, puzzles, etc.
5. GM's describe the setting and play the monsters. Players describe what their characters do.
6. The goal is to gain treasure, notoriety, and experience through exploration.
What do you think?
These core concepts would be applicable across editions. So, "what makes Oe different" is the question you have to answer. I think it has something to do with the idea of flexibility and adaptability.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 16, 2018 12:15:55 GMT -6
Okay, derv , I like where you are going and I see what you are driving at. But I believe I have a more generous notion of what counts as "core." Let me explain. The "rules" are clearly given as examples so that you can make up what you are going to do in your campaign. That is a given, and one of the big points we would have to come back to time and again. It seems like what you are saying, however, is that that fact is the only thing that can count as core. I would approach it slightly differently. Acknowledging, again and again, the importance of the above, we could still focus on answering questions like this: what does it look like when a group tries to follow the suggestions, in the main? What are some different traditions of interpretation? (Perhaps even how these wound up Basic / 1e in two different directions.) And then stress the importance of lived catechesis into the game through your own local group. So, to your points: 1. develop a character- you can be anything. Indeed. Nevertheless, there are three main "classes" outlined in the original LBB. Let's take a moment to look at those . . . 2. determine a way to resolve actions such as combat, searching, negotiating, etc.- you can use any method you'd like. To this end, the original rules gave examples such as Chainmail, and Fight in the Skies. It also offered what it called an "Alternative Combat System." This became the core of combat resolution in future iterations of the game. It is subject to much interpretation. But at its core, let's take a look at how someone might use it . . . 3. develop a setting to play in- it should be small, yet expandable at first, like a dungeon. As an example, here is the sample dungeon from U&WA . . . Here is Holmes sample dungeon . . . Here is what Gygax said about building campaign worlds in Europa magazine . . . Here are some early campaign settings represented in official supplements: Greyhawk; Blackmoor; and unofficial/official Judges Guild Material . . . 4. create interesting things to encounter- monsters, treasure, puzzles, etc. Here are some key examples of each offered in the LBB . . . 5. GM's describe the setting and play the monsters. Players describe what their characters do. Here is one possible way that might unfold . . . 6. The goal is to gain treasure, notoriety, and experience through exploration. This one should probably be right up front in terms of at least setting "old school" apart from "new school" (in an irenic way) The answer to what makes 0e different certainly includes flexibility and adaptability. But that can't be it, solely, as many "new school" games do the same thing. I would like to say (here comes the debate!) that it has to do with the fact that, conceptually, 0e is still about organizing Wargames Campaigns, and not about "adventures" in an "RPG." This offers and different feel or vibe that some people find attractive / creative / intriguing / engaging / inspiring / freeing / etc. (A more debatable point could be: that D&D was not yet self-referential. It was a set of suggestions for you to refer to the medieval fantasy campaign world you would like to engage. And some folks find that refreshing/freeing, etc.) Finally, in terms of your throwing out history. Hear me out. Here is what I mean: Basically, take this page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_DragonsPresent it in a visually appealing / interesting way. Perhaps with animation! Present only verifiable "facts" (dates of publication, authors, etc.). Then return to 0e and talk about how some people enjoy returning to the source of things, find energy at its origins, find creativity in imagining the direction they would have taken it. Then perhaps just leave it at that. That seems uncontroversial enough for me - but it would still clear up so much junk that you receive on the internet. Some folks think 1e is "original," some Holmes Basic, etc. That is the level of "clearing up things" that I am talking about. That and to, implicitly, blow up claims of "nostalgia," etc. What do you think of my more liberal interpretation of what we can count as core? Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 16, 2018 13:48:57 GMT -6
It seems like what you are saying, however, is that that fact is the only thing that can count as core. Mine were but a starting point, mere suggestions. But, I do like to break down core concepts to as close to their base form as possible. what does it look like when a group tries to follow the suggestions, in the main? What are some different traditions of interpretation? (Perhaps even how these wound up Basic / 1e in two different directions.) And then stress the importance of lived catechesis into the game through your own local group. You're using the controversial idea of "interpretation". I'll leave this with you to experiment with. It always seems to create a mixed bag of responses. Maybe you could present this in the most basic of ways without much fuss. So, to your points: 1. develop a character- you can be anything. Indeed. Nevertheless, there are three main "classes" outlined in the original LBB. Let's take a moment to look at those . . . 2. determine a way to resolve actions such as combat, searching, negotiating, etc.- you can use any method you'd like. To this end, the original rules gave examples such as Chainmail, and Fight in the Skies. It also offered what it called an "Alternative Combat System." This became the core of combat resolution in future iterations of the game. It is subject to much interpretation. But at its core, let's take a look at how someone might use it . . . 3. develop a setting to play in- it should be small, yet expandable at first, like a dungeon. As an example, here is the sample dungeon from U&WA . . . Here is Holmes sample dungeon . . . Here is what Gygax said about building campaign worlds in Europa magazine . . . Here are some early campaign settings represented in official supplements: Greyhawk; Blackmoor; and unofficial/official Judges Guild Material . . . 4. create interesting things to encounter- monsters, treasure, puzzles, etc. Here are some key examples of each offered in the LBB . . . 5. GM's describe the setting and play the monsters. Players describe what their characters do. Here is one possible way that might unfold . . . 6. The goal is to gain treasure, notoriety, and experience through exploration. This one should probably be right up front in terms of at least setting "old school" apart from "new school" (in an irenic way) Well, I think you have caught on to one of my points, that the core concepts can be expounded upon. The second would be that they can be compared and contrasted. So, how does OD&D do such-and-such as compared to another edition. You will find there is not always a point of dissociation. Personally, I'm not hung up on people playing newer editions. I really don't think in these terms. I only consider them when people start talking about standardization or some such thing. The answer to what makes 0e different certainly includes flexibility and adaptability. But that can't be it, solely, as many "new school" games do the same thing. I would like to say (here comes the debate!) that it has to do with the fact that, conceptually, 0e is still about organizing Wargames Campaigns, and not about "adventures" in an "RPG." This offers and different feel or vibe that some people find attractive / creative / intriguing / engaging / inspiring / freeing / etc. (A more debatable point could be: that D&D was not yet self-referential. It was a set of suggestions for you to refer to the medieval fantasy campaign world you would like to engage. And some folks find that refreshing/freeing, etc.) Oh, this one would make for a fun thread all on it's own. I'm not sure if there is one answer. I like your idea about it being intended for a campaign, but what about those people that were introduced through a one shot at a Con or something? What was the appeal? For some reason my computer has revolted against all things wiki and google. I'm not sure why and can't figure out how to fix it. I get certificate error warnings and my computers refusal to go to the page. It's been the case for awhile and is really frustrating. What do you think of my more liberal interpretation of what we can count as core? Fight on! Liberal? Not at all. It sounds reasonable. Just needs some fine tuning.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 16, 2018 16:12:02 GMT -6
tetramorph, I was hoping you'd give me more to mull on. Let's look at the first concept. Maybe others will offer some thoughts on it. 1. develop a character- you can be anything. Indeed. Nevertheless, there are three main "classes" outlined in the original LBB. Let's take a moment to look at those . . .Fighters fight. Magic users cast spells. Clerics do a little of both. What makes these unique in Oe? Why pick one over another? Would you talk about ability scores and prime reqs? Are they important? Probably not as much as future editions.
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Jun 17, 2018 5:56:04 GMT -6
I love this idea, as someone who's a video editor and who has a lot of faith in YT as a learning platform. If I were to make it, I'd make it about OD&D as detached from any future context - little to no references made to future editions because they do not exist(yet), I want to talk about what D&D and the culture surrounding it was like at the moment of creation in 1971-1974. It was a world before role-playing games even existed, and "tabletop gaming" meant Avalon Hill games. I figure 90% of the stuff it cites would be from Gronan's experiences
It has to start with Chainmail, though. I can not fathom how you can explain OD&D to people without the context of Chainmail.
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jun 17, 2018 7:27:44 GMT -6
This is interesting reading, but doesn't sound very visual to me. Let the 5e kiddies have their little Twitch streams and expound on this here.
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Jun 17, 2018 9:35:13 GMT -6
I would get a whiteboard and draw on it a picture of three blind men and an elephant. If you want to define OD&D, that's what you'd be doing.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 17, 2018 11:38:14 GMT -6
A brief history of D&D (where we compare editions by their development in time in a TOTALLY nonpartisan way, just concluding by saying why 0e is still appealing to some Riiiiiiiight. Nonpartisan, from a highly partisan original D&D group. If you were going ahead with a real project, this is the angle you should start with. Everyone has "What is D&D?" "What are role-playing games?" videos. Don't copy them. Your audience isn't people who have never heard of D&D or RPGs, but people who know other RPGs but don't know the appeal of the original D&D. What original D&D has that nothing else does is the story of how wargamers transformed wargaming into role-playing gaming, and how D&D was written to teach wargamers how to make this transformation happen for themselves. And I don't mean you should talk about how D&D rules grew out of Chainmail rules! I mean how the D&D campaign is a wargame campaign with a new dimension added. You'd have to start by setting up "What is a wargames campaign?" and get the viewer settled into understanding that, then spring "Look what happens when you become a single character instead of the general in command!" Introduce each element of D&D as an expansion of wargames campaigning rather than as a game from scratch. The underlying game mechanics aren't all that important, because for almost everything they're just "set a probability and roll some dice." For virtually everything else, they're "roll on this arbitrary table." What you DO want to do is produce that example of play, with players around a table. You especially want to show dungeon exploration, NOT combat, and not character generation. Everyone always demonstrates combat, and let's-make-a-character videos are common. What you need to do is show how the caller works. Everyone thinks the caller gets to do everything while all the other players are bored. Show them otherwise. You also want to show just how little dice-rolling there needs to be: a die should be rolled ONLY when the referee honestly can't make a better decision him- or herself, not every time the referee has a decision to make. You want to show theater of the mind, not staring at figures on a table, though this doesn't make for very good viewing. Oh, and no modules. They should be in a homegrown dungeon. Don't call it a megadungeon. Get rid of the retronym "Original Edition." Explain that it's the original Dungeons & Dragons, but for heaven's sake don't call it OD&D or 0E or any other idiotic abbreviation like that. Once the viewer knows what version of D&D you're talking about, just call it D&D. Don't insert your house rules. By all means explain that D&D is meant to be customized by the referee, but don't try to push your opinions on what rules are good. That's for the prospective D&D referee to decide, and it just muddies the waters for viewers who haven't necessarily learned that customized rules does not equal changed rules. While campaign maintenance may not be a very interesting or useful thing to depict, it does suggest that you can make a show of how D&D doesn't have to be constant nail-biting action. A more relaxed D&D is fun and more sustainable. Specifically, how wilderness exploration is as simple as dungeon exploration, and how non-encounters go by really fast: "Day 3: You go north 30 miles. The forest continues. No encounters. Day 4..." Don't do this. You WILL be making an argument, and your goal here should be to make the original D&D rules appealing, not to claim an objective assessment of every version of D&D. If you make the original D&D appealing on its own, people will choose it.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 17, 2018 11:45:52 GMT -6
Thanks derv, I'll have to reply in brief for now. What you've helped me to think through is: audience & goal. Audience: folks who already play and probably even ref some version of D&D. They've heard of old school and perhaps already prefer it or play it. They perhaps have heard of 0e, but don't know much (perhaps misinformed). They are winsome and curious. Goal: To clear up misconceptions, misinformation in order to show some of the features of 0e PLAY that might be attractive to some folks who like or are interested in certain kinds of things. (The which to be brainstormed by the group.) This means I (we?) should probably revised the outline of videos. To do the above for the above described audience does not need the initial set of videos I had imagined. So, like you, I also am not hung up on editions. But, I do love 0e and I have had such fun playing it that I would like good information about it to be available for other folks who might also enjoy playing it. I don't want to convert anybody. But I would like this particular edition to be available to the kinds of folks who like it through readily available media with sound, fair, and irenic presentation. Thanks for your appreciation of my idea of it (possibly, among many other things) being about how it is a (wargames) campaign and how that changes the vibe, feel, ethos, or whatever. In terms of CON games. I don't know. But I think if I had first experienced this at a con I would have been attracted to it for at least two reasons: rules-light attraction and "wow, this would be such a great way to put an on-going campaign together." Thanks for saying you think my thoughts so far sound reasonable. I appreciate that. Thanks for helping me to work them out. clownboss, thanks for weighing in. It is nice to know that a video editor has interest in a project like this. My emphasis on it being about a wargames campaign I think overlaps with your desire to present it linked to its past and sources rather than in comparison to later RPGs. Nevertheless, to help people understand, I think a little compare/contrast might be necessary. I read you on Chainmail. But I am not so sure details about that are really necessary for a project as defined above with regards to audience and goal. Let me know what you think, of course. scottenkainen, I know what you mean. But I'm not so sure. I am a visual thinker and I've found, with some imagination, that just about anything can be presented interestingly in a visual way. We could, of course, mention and point to written resources for further exploration.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 17, 2018 11:49:14 GMT -6
Stormcrow, sorry I didn't see your post when I last posted! It's Father's Day and I have to run. I will reply more fully when I get a chance, soon. Very helpful post. Thanks much. Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 17, 2018 12:40:06 GMT -6
Thanks for your appreciation of my idea of it (possibly, among many other things) being about how it is a (wargames) campaign and how that changes the vibe, feel, ethos, or whatever. In terms of CON games. I don't know. But I think if I had first experienced this at a con I would have been attracted to it for at least two reasons: rules-light attraction and "wow, this would be such a great way to put an on-going campaign together." You're guiding this ship of discussion. It touches on a number of interesting topics. Don't let me get in the way. But, if I might interject a thought that is open to anyone to comment on- What do you perceive "OD&D as a wargame campaign" means? Does it mean: wargame campaign = RPG campaign and/or RPG campaign = wargame campaign (are they interchangeable? were they interchangeable to original players?) or wargame campaign includes RPG (elements of roleplaying within a miniatures game) or RPG campaign includes elements of a wargame (because of how it developed)
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jun 18, 2018 10:11:08 GMT -6
Don't insert your house rules. By all means explain that D&D is meant to be customized by the referee, but don't try to push your opinions on what rules are good. That's for the prospective D&D referee to decide, and it just muddies the waters for viewers who haven't necessarily learned that customized rules does not equal changed rules. [snipped] Of all of Storm's good points, that one should be paramount. If someone were to pursue this project, he could mention areas the rules don't cover that require house rulings, but without mentioning or prescribing any house rules in particular. That will only fracture the audience between those who like those house rules and those who don't, and it won't be teaching them about the rules as-written.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jun 18, 2018 18:49:17 GMT -6
Good point by Piper, above. That's what I tell my final year students at the start of their thesis: you will do your best work if you write what you want to write about.
Beyond that, I agree with many of the points made above. Stick to OD&D, stick to the facts. You can include the origins, but only the firmly estabished stuff (so there won't be much, but enough for context). You can compare to other editions without explicitly mentioning them, just by expounding those points which make OD&D different.
Interesting thread!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 19, 2018 12:53:54 GMT -6
Stormcrow, I can understand your doubts about a nonpartisan presentation of the growth of the various editions. I think the conversation so far has shown me that it is more important to set the stage for where D&D came from than to compare it to later directions that it went. Still, I think in doing one of the very thing that you suggest (that of not using the retronymn "Original Edition" [something of which you immediately convinced me], but instead saying that it is the original D&D and then just saying D&D thereafter) that we could briefly mention, in an irenic way, some of the many directions D&D exploded into later RPGs. But, beyond that, I completely agree, no comparison to other editions. So, not so much "nonpartisan," (obviously impossible), but at least irenic and brief. Thanks for your point about our audience being those folks that already know about RPGs and D&D. The video could just briefly mention those things, inform the viewer that we assume knowledge of those things and point to some places to look if they don't. If the video were done well, it would focus on how wargames campaigns were transformed by D&D into RPGs. No need to waste too much time on Chainmail. Just mention it as an example of the kind of rules folks were using for medieval and medieval fantasy wargames. But there is nothing in Chainmail for how to string together a campaign. That is what D&D does. It gives suggestions for use of Chainmail for the wargames themselves. But any agreed upon means of resolving wargames would have, of course, done the trick. (That, in itself, might be something intersting to include in a video such as this.) I agree completely that it should focus on discovery and puzzle solving through careful exploration. (Might even mention how combat could be seen as a distraction! Especially with the what random encounters suggest. But that may be interpretation and not straightforward enough for the goals of such a video.) Yes to caller and few dice rolls. And yes to showing examples of both dungeon and (the relative ease of) wilderness. Agreed to NO modules. Here is where I would love to emphasize the way in which D&D invited an approach empowering you to "simulate" (in the wargame sense) a given fantasy setting (Lankmar, Hyperborea, or even Middle Earth or Narnia for that matter) or to develop one's own "hypothetical" (again, in the wargames sense) fantasy setting. Would it be too polemical to contrast this to the way later editions became relatively self-referential? Agreed to NO house rules. But with an emphasis on CAMPAIGN, there should be less concrete rules discussion anyway. The script could have the narrator almost constantly introducing things like, "for X and such situation (regarding running the campaign), G&A suggested blah blah blah . . ." Emphasis on the word "suggested." I love the idea of showing a referee, hunched over his kitchen table, notebooks, paper, graph paper, note cards, all spread out; slide rule in hand calculating XP for his players after they left, figuring out how their actions come back on them for the next session; etc. Fun times.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 19, 2018 12:59:39 GMT -6
Does it mean: wargame campaign = RPG campaign and/or RPG campaign = wargame campaign (are they interchangeable? were they interchangeable to original players?) or wargame campaign includes RPG (elements of roleplaying within a miniatures game) or RPG campaign includes elements of a wargame (because of how it developed) Good question. I guess I'd like to work it out through discussion. Gut reaction: they are not simply interchangeable. The latter two both seem true to me, depending upon the angle of approach. Wargames campaigns include an element of role-play. Even if you are playing a general you are imagining what decisions he might make. Thus you are playing his role. This aspect gets amplified when you drop the scale to 1:1. A role-playing campaign includes elements of wargames in order to resolve violent conflicts. If we expand wargame to include operational (and thus resource management) aspects as well as the use of skillful exploration in order to uncover hidden aspects of a location/situation, then a role-playing campaign seem to have a lot of wargaming going on.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 19, 2018 13:02:17 GMT -6
Piper and Vile Traveller, I agree that the content and the goal should be the driving factors. So I will down-play the audience thing going forward. Still, knowing your audience helps to a certain degree. My main point here is that we can assume knowledge of RPGs in general and D&D in particular so as not to have to reinvent the wheel when there are many many videos available out there to explain and introduce those very basic concepts. When we assume that knowledge, it makes our task more finite and manageable. Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 19, 2018 13:13:20 GMT -6
How about the below for a new rough outline of topics?
New Rough Outline: What were/is a wargame? What is a wargames campaign? How wargames attempt historical simulation but also expand into the hypothetical. How Medieval warfare was a subset of the above. How interest in medieval wargames opened interest in medieval fantasy: both its simulation (suggestions in Chainmail for the battle of 5 armies, etc.) and the construction of hypothetical scenarios. Wargames have different levels of scale: strategic/tactical/squirmish and 1:1 scale; how D&D opted for starting players at a 1:1 scale "Role-playing" in a wargames context; e.g., Diplomacy and the like; but even just playing the role of the general of your army, etc. Games of discovery of hidden things through careful play; e.g., Battleship, Stratego; transformed by Arneson in his first dungeon exploration scenario Combination of 1:1 scale and roleplaying, with hypothetical medieval fantasy wargames campaigns, together with discovery of hidden things through careful exploration = birth of D&D
Something like that?
Behind the camera, driving some of the topics we want to discuss, but presented in an irenic way, might be some of the common mistakes and complaints that we often hear about D&D. Here is my initial brainstorm of some of those things:
Amateur (why is this a bad thing? maybe it is great!) Poor editing (true enough. but, see above) "Incomplete" (only if you are not a fellow wargamer) Difficult to understand (see above) Needs too much interpretation (that was the goal) Rules seem arbitrary (why can't dwarves be clerics? that kind of thing. Point: trying to simulate existing medieval fantasy settings. No dwarf clerics out there!) Not enough rules Who wants a barony and an army?
What else?
One thing I think we can avoid is those things we share with "old school" folks in general. Other people can argue for why old school isn't "hack and slash," or "murder hobos" and other such silliness. Others have done that work for us.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 19, 2018 15:25:48 GMT -6
But there is nothing in Chainmail for how to string together a campaign. That is what D&D does. It gives suggestions for use of Chainmail for the wargames themselves. There is not, because wargamers were already doing that, and had been doing it for ages. The idea of campaigning did not come from D&D. The innovations over wargames were to have the player use a character-avatar in the game instead of being the general that commanded armies and to codify the ability of each player to attempt anything at all, regardless of what the rules say. That is why I put it in terms of D&D adding a new dimension to wargames campaigns. It didn't invent the campaign; it added new depth to it. Whether the rules of D&D grew out of Chainmail's rules or not is almost irrelevant. The exact form of the rules isn't what's important. I would avoid the word simulate, and I wouldn't compare the D&D world to those literary settings, except to show that D&D took elements from all of them. D&D doesn't simulate any of these very well, because it's really a pot full of all of them. Why even bother? It's not important that Gygax decided to say that characters would tend to find secret doors on a 2-in-6 chance, just that when players asked to search for hollow spaces and hidden latches in walls, Gygax decided on a chance of success and threw the dice, and this is what he did for just about everything.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 19, 2018 16:12:43 GMT -6
Stormcrow, right as always. My point is the same as yours. Chainmail was a set of wargames rules. There could be others. Others could simply be invented. My point was just this: there wasn't much to guide campaigns in Chainmail. D&D was about guiding campaigns. And, yes, the big innovation is the 1:1 scale. Yes. D&D mixed a bunch of stuff together. Yes. It was to give you ideas to put your own together (no modules). Yes. My point was just that, like wargames that could either "simulate," or hypothesize, D&D would allow you to "simulate" a known fantasy setting, or make up your own hypothetical one. I'm not suggesting we go into the things at the level of finding secret doors. I mean things like how to run the campaign; things like baronies, clerical followers, wizard research (and costs, perhaps?). Right now I am still brainstorming at a fairly large scale.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 19, 2018 19:43:51 GMT -6
Does it mean: wargame campaign = RPG campaign and/or RPG campaign = wargame campaign (are they interchangeable? were they interchangeable to original players?) or wargame campaign includes RPG (elements of roleplaying within a miniatures game) or RPG campaign includes elements of a wargame (because of how it developed) Good question. I guess I'd like to work it out through discussion. Gut reaction: they are not simply interchangeable. Chainmail Fantasy Supplement"..we are including a brief set of rules which will allow the medieval miniatures wargamer to add a new facet to his hobby, and either refight the epic struggles related by JRR Tolkien, Robert E. Howard, and other fantasy writers; or you can design your own 'world' and conduct fantastic campaigns and conflicts based on it." Forward to Dungeons & Dragons"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." "It is relatively simple to set up a fantasy campaign, and better still it will cost almost nothing." I actually prefer the places where Gygax drops the references to "medieval" and "miniatures". I think it gets closer to the real appeal of D&D- Fantasy. In Chainmail you were offered the chance to refight epic battles found in the worlds created by authors of fantasy. D&D was offering more. It was offering people the chance of taking on the roles of the main characters within these worlds. Not just fighting interconnected conflicts on a grand map, but actually interacting with the environment of the setting, where your character could have real effects on future games.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 21, 2018 16:30:13 GMT -6
tetramorph , I think you should continue on with this angle of a wargame campaign. It would make a catchy video in my opinion. Of course Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and the Wilderlands could be mentioned and various maps spanned over. I asked your opinion on what "OD&D as a wargame campaign" meant. I think the idea of a wargame campaign might convey different things to people. I tend to look at it as the first option- that they are interchangeable. Introduction"As with any other set of miniature rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity." And as Gygax said in the above quote- they can be simple or complex.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 22, 2018 12:29:32 GMT -6
derv, thanks for the encouragement. I'm not really sure what to do next. I was just dreaming. This is so far out of my field, I'm not sure how to make it materialize. Maybe I could set up some interviews with folks at the next NTRPGCon? Something like that. In terms of the wargames campaign, I think the difference is more in vibe or ethos than anything else. What I mean is this: The word "campaign," grabbed from wargaming, continued to be applied to role playing games that developed a significantly different style or ethos. Campaign came to mean something like: story-line or narrative-arc. By reminding folks that the game came from a wargaming hobby, we are showing how role-play had a different vibe or ethos before there were "RPGs." I'm sure I could do a better job explaining this. But that is what I've got right now. The other big difference, for me, is the self-referentiality of later D&D and RPGs as opposed to (original) D&Ds emphasis on developing your own hypothetical campaign, etc. clownboss, what do you think of the conversation so far? And, given your expertise, what could/would be the next steps towards making something like this materialize. Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 22, 2018 18:32:29 GMT -6
It sounds like you have something in mind. You just need to formulate it a little more.
Since you're talking about video, maybe you could try putting together a story board on just one of your points, like "what is a wargame campaign", and segue into another point, like "a game of exploration and discovery". A story board would help you visualize your outline. I'm talking basic thumbnail sketches with a few notes attached.
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Jun 23, 2018 3:13:05 GMT -6
I've been just sporadically following this conversation on-and-off and frankly I don't know what the current talk is about. All I know is I want the videos to be encyclopediac and follow chronology first, and the rulebooks second, basically, and explain the surrounding culture of the time only once it's necessary. I haven't given throught to chapters. If I were to make it, they would basically be:
1. Base Chainmail rules 2. Distinctions between historical factions - pulling from the history books Gary liked 3. Examples of play and how Chainmail fits within the narrative of wargaming history 4. Fantasy supplement in Chainmail - the precursor of D&D 5. D&D Vol 1 6. D&D Vol 2 7. D&D Vol 3, all three peppered with plenty of annecdotes from Arneson's and Gary's campaigns to illustrate how the rules were implemented. Monsters will also have explanations within a cultural context. e.g. what are Orcs, how did Tolkien create them, how big was Tolkien in the 60s and 70s? 8. Later developments and D&D post-publication, public reception, you could leave space for supplements and third parties if you wish to make future episodes
Just like in every narrative production, you just need a script written in Word or whatever else, and one savvy editor(usually the same person) to read from it, understand the subject matter, and pull material(what we like to call the images and video feeds pertaining to the subject) from everywhere. If you're outsourcing the script and material to an editor who has no clue about the subject matter, you need to give pedantic leads and additional explanations to the editor through the script, or else both of you are going to have a hard time. What I'm saying is basically, the more people you distribute work duties to, the less they share the grand "mindspace".
And you need someone with a relatively good voice and sound equipment to record narration and explanations.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 23, 2018 11:52:11 GMT -6
I've been just sporadically following this conversation on-and-off and frankly I don't know what the current talk is about. All I know is I want the videos to be encyclopediac and follow chronology first, and the rulebooks second, basically, and explain the surrounding culture of the time only once it's necessary. I haven't given throught to chapters. . . . Just like in every narrative production, you just need a script written in Word or whatever else, and one savvy editor(usually the same person) to read from it, understand the subject matter, and pull material(what we like to call the images and video feeds pertaining to the subject) from everywhere. If you're outsourcing the script and material to an editor who has no clue about the subject matter, you need to give pedantic leads and additional explanations to the editor through the script, or else both of you are going to have a hard time. What I'm saying is basically, the more people you distribute work duties to, the less they share the grand "mindspace". And you need someone with a relatively good voice and sound equipment to record narration and explanations. Thanks for the helpful reply. I will start brainstorming a script, with the hopes of sharing something with folks who are interested by, say, the end of summer. I don't need to outsource the script. But I may need to outsource the material, seeing as how I don't really know how copyright and fair use work with all that. I can worry about a voice actor closer to when it is time to put the thing together. I'm sorry you've not been following the conversation so much recently. I think one big point of difference between your suggested outline and the direction I'll probably go is that I would not put as much weight on the role of Chainmail as you would. I would side with those who would put Chainmail on the more accidental rather than necessary side of the origins of D&D. It really could have been any medieval rule set. And from what I understand it seems that Arneson jumped off in his own direction entirely. Also, I am going to go for logical chunks (wargame, campaign, medieval, fantasy, scale, etc.), rather than chronological development, per se (although they are not unrelated).
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 27, 2018 18:50:56 GMT -6
tetramorph, not sure if you're still considering this project? I think the campaign angle could be informative. What the original players would have been referring to when talking about a "campaign" is more specifically a "map campaign". There are are few types of map campaigns and methods of putting them together. But, this is what would have been understood and why there are references to designing a world (setting). This is the sort of campaign Bath outlines. It makes sense of why the OS board is under Recommended Equipment. As you mentioned, there are other types of campaigns. You mentioned narrative. This form revolves around a story arc. They can be historical or fictional. There are also map-less campaigns and simple campaigns that string together individual battles. These can be organized in a few different manners. All these methods are used by wargamers.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 28, 2018 16:40:40 GMT -6
Yes, derv, I do still intend to work on this. I've got to figure out when I am going to have some free time to do so! I have some actions coming up. I am going to dictate into an audiophile as per my above outline. Then I'll send it out to a service to render it text. Then I will clean up the text. Then I will share the text. Then I'll edit as per the community's suggestions. Then I'll start worrying about the video side of it once I've got an acceptable script. Thanks for the support. Fight on!
|
|