|
Post by Malchor on Oct 21, 2018 9:41:13 GMT -6
Hopefully, this is the right place to ask this. We all know Michael F. Korns wrote Modern War in Miniature, published in 1966 by M & J Independent Research Co., of Lawrence, Kansas. We know of the importance of Korns' game, but not much else about him or M&J. Who was Michael F. Korns? Was Korns part of any particular gaming circles? How popular and widely distributed was this rule set from 1966-1971? Who was M & J Independent Research Co.? Was it Korns' own company to self-publishing company? Did M & J Independent Research publish anything else? Perhaps increment can answer? Lastly, has anyone invited John Curry of the History of Wargaming Project to join these boards?
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Oct 21, 2018 15:11:02 GMT -6
Found the following, not sure if this is the same Michael Korns, but also in Kansas: Classified for instructions to build a Ray Gun in the back of: Fantastic, August 1964: archive.org/details/Fantastic_v13n08_1964-08/page/n127?q=michael+KornsAmazing Stories July 1964 archive.org/details/Amazing_Stories_v38n07_1964-07/page/n127?q=michael+KornsFantastic, July 1964: archive.org/details/Fantastic_v13n07_1964-07/page/n127?q=michael+KornsAmazing Stories, August 1964: archive.org/details/Amazing_Stories_v38n08_1964-08_aMouse/page/n127?q=michael+KornsThere is a mention of Modern War in Miniature in Strategy & Tactics, Nov 1967, Vol 1 No 9, page 8, under Club Listings. And again in a reader letter from Paul M. Kacsmar, July/Aug 1968, Vol II, No 4, page 31, Post Box
|
|
|
Post by increment on Oct 21, 2018 22:44:53 GMT -6
What I know about Korns is largely recorded in a fat footnote in PatW, pg310, which covers his introduction to the wargaming community, his reception, and so on. There are scattered in TTT and a few other sources some indication of who he might have gamed with, but if I had anything to add to it now, it would largely be about the SUTC version of the game he published through his Limpex imprint in 1971. You might also be interested in the anecdotes recorded by "Nedzed" here: theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=184214&page=3Incidentally, the connection of McHugh's use of the 2d6 tables for percentile usage to Korns, and McHugh's mention of d20s, is covered on PatW pg315. It was my privilege to bring some of the original Japanese Standards Association d20s to the Gen Con 50 museum last year.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Oct 22, 2018 18:20:14 GMT -6
You might also be interested in the anecdotes recorded by "Nedzed" here: theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=184214&page=3Incidentally, the connection of McHugh's use of the 2d6 tables for percentile usage to Korns, and McHugh's mention of d20s, is covered on PatW pg315. It was my privilege to bring some of the original Japanese Standards Association d20s to the Gen Con 50 museum last year. Thanks for the link and page references. Looks like Korns is still a man of mystery in PatW. PatW, p. 315, footnote 188. I suppose Graham is Featherstone's source for suggesting 100 numbered cards in Advanced War Games, page 166. It should be noted that Carr's version of the 2d6 percentile table is not the same as Korns. Korns uses a mix of 2d6 and 1d6—much like Totten's in Table K—while Carr uses only 2d6. McHugh's table on probability table on A-3 is also different and uses 2d6. All three can be found here docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s5AsYX843bN5lmbtF-0lzw3M8PNkTwBmcD8znf4l-RM/edit?usp=sharingSaveSave
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Oct 22, 2018 19:51:43 GMT -6
A few things to add. Modern War in Miniature is included in the 1971 The Last Whole Earth Catalog, page 385, "Suggested and reviewed by Leota Korns." Leota Korns was an author, best known for Somewhere Out in the West: We'll Build a Sweet Little Nest. She wrote six short stories, a play, and two novels. Leota lived in Kansas City and married Richard Francis Korns. Leota passed in 2015, survived by her son Michael F. Korns. Michael F. Korns was 21 in 1966 when Modern War in Miniature was published. According to Nedzed in the thread that increment pointed out, Korns worked for the army at Fort Leavenworthin and in the early '70s lived in Mountain View, CA working in the civilian sector. Nedzed also gamed with Korns as GM, and says, Korns considered his game to be a "simulation game." Byte Magazine in 1984, page 104, had an article called "Reason and the Software Bus" by Michael F. Korns, while Korns was in California.
|
|
bravewolf
Level 4 Theurgist
I don't care what Howard says.
Posts: 109
|
Post by bravewolf on Nov 27, 2018 23:55:28 GMT -6
What I know about Korns is largely recorded in a fat footnote in PatW, pg310, which covers his introduction to the wargaming community, his reception, and so on. There are scattered in TTT and a few other sources some indication of who he might have gamed with, but if I had anything to add to it now, it would largely be about the SUTC version of the game he published through his Limpex imprint in 1971. You might also be interested in the anecdotes recorded by "Nedzed" here: theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=184214&page=3Incidentally, the connection of McHugh's use of the 2d6 tables for percentile usage to Korns, and McHugh's mention of d20s, is covered on PatW pg315. It was my privilege to bring some of the original Japanese Standards Association d20s to the Gen Con 50 museum last year. Good find regarding the Nedzed anecdotes. Malchor , if you haven't already read it, John Curry has a book out that treats Korns's wargaming rules: More Wargaming Pioneers: Ancient and World War II Battle and Skirmish Rules by Tony Bath, Lionel Tarr and Michael Korns: Early Wargames Vol. 4 22 March 2013, by John Curry, Tony Bath, Lionel Tarr and Michael Korns. I have not read this book but recently read an onside report by Curry in The Nugget 264 (pp. 19-20). In the report, Curry appears to cite verbatim one of the Zuparko anecdotes that increment cited above. This issue of The Nugget was published in September 2013, a few months after Curry's book. Maybe Curry squirreled additional biographical information away in his chapter on Korns?
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 4, 2018 7:47:21 GMT -6
The Nedzed recollections are interesting for a few reasons:
- Korns was/is a software engineer, including AI and an “intelligent agent” for investing. Curious if there is any connection to Mike Carr’s futures investing? Either way Korns was clearly adept in math and statistics.
- Korns worked at Fort Leavenworth. This is interesting for three reasons. First, unless I am mistaken, Fort Leavenworth was/is the US Army’s main wargaming center
—the Army’s counterpart to Newport for the Navy. Second that would incidicate Korns at least had access to many resources, and sites as much in this rules—but he also would be in the right place to be exposed to Pol-Mil style wargames, which includes role-play. And lastly, David Wesley was stationed there, but so far no indication they ever met and Wesley was already turned onto pol-mil via a book Compleat Strategist by the Rand Corp. which also advocated role-play in pol-mil wargames.
- From these play reports, much like Mike Monard’s, it seems role-play aspects in the rules were not used in actual play. Are there play reports or accounts to of people actually using this before say 1971 outside of the Twin Cities?
One other point on Pol-Mil and military wargame professionals, they do not use man to man conflict simulations as they see it as becoming too much like chess. At least that is Peter Perla’s view.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 4, 2018 16:20:03 GMT -6
Nedzed also gamed with Korns as GM, and says, Korns considered his game to be a "simulation game." Korns number one rule was "simulate reality". He was focused on the battlefield psychology of the individual soldier. He achieved these types of stressors through short 2 second turn sequences, hidden movement, "reaction time", and lethality. This results in a game that puts the player into the role of the soldier that is making sudden responsive decisions to the environment being described.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Dec 4, 2018 16:50:14 GMT -6
From these play reports, much like Mike Monard’s, it seems role-play aspects in the rules were not used in actual play. Are there play reports or accounts to of people actually using this before say 1971 outside of the Twin Cities? I don't think I'm aware off the top of my head of play reports that show people using Korns this way; most people just mention "I'm using Korns" and talk at a high level about what is going on with their game without really getting into how it happens. But we do have some indications though that people other than Arneson thought about Korns that way. Why else would the famous 1974 Arnold Hendrick review of OD&D read: Whether that means "role playing" to you is, well, a matter of how broadly you want to understand role playing.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 4, 2018 17:08:19 GMT -6
But we do have some indications though that people other than Arneson thought about Korns that way. Why else would the famous 1974 Arnold Hendrick review of OD&D read: Whether that means "role playing" to you is, well, a matter of how broadly you want to understand role playing. Hendrick’s description of D&D leans heavy on the tactical and does not mention role-play in the comparison to Korns nor discription of play. A review that sees D&D as a one to one scale tactical games and draws a comparison to Korns based on that does not make Korns an RPG. If Hendrick is lacking the concept of an RPG, our definition is moot. I was thinking of Wesley who in retrospect sees some potential for RPG qualities in Korn. How did Arneson see Korns?
|
|
|
Post by increment on Dec 4, 2018 17:45:23 GMT -6
A review that sees D&D as a one to one scale tactical games and draws a comparison to Korns based on that does not make Korns an RPG. I don't think the properties Hendrick details sound much like a "one-to-one scale tactical game". He is talking about players's lack of information about the world and system, their relaying proposed actions to the referee, and hearing back responses of what happened from the referee so they can decide what to do next. That is what reminds him of Korns in D&D. Which early systems we do and do not consider RPGs is a very charged, and usually counterproductive, discussion. No one at the time Hendrick wrote those words was saying D&D was an RPG. Plenty of people used the D&D rules to run things we'd probably deem wargames, years after Hendrick wrote that. You could also use the D&D rules to role play, and the dialog loop with the referee powers that role playing. Surely that's why Arneson listed Korns in the pre-fantasy role playing he saw, in retrospect, in the Twin Cities:
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 4, 2018 20:52:58 GMT -6
I don't think the properties Hendrick details sound much like a "one-to-one scale tactical game". He is talking about players's lack of information about the world and system, their relaying proposed actions to the referee, and hearing back responses of what happened from the referee so they can decide what to do next. That is what reminds him of Korns in D&D. Which early systems we do and do not consider RPGs is a very charged, and usually counterproductive, discussion. No one at the time Hendrick wrote those words was saying D&D was an RPG. Plenty of people used the D&D rules to run things we'd probably deem wargames, years after Hendrick wrote that. You could also use the D&D rules to role play, and the dialog loop with the referee powers that role playing. Surely that's why Arneson listed Korns in the pre-fantasy role playing he saw, in retrospect, in the Twin Cities: Stop right there pardner. You seem to be both agreeing and arguing at the same time and your position is unclear to me. Let's step back: - I said, "From these play reports, much like Mike Monard’s, it seems role-play aspects in the rules were not used in actual play." And asked, "Are there play reports or accounts of people actually using this before say 1971 outside of the Twin Cities?" (I removed a stray "to" in the preceding sentence). And to clarify, I was not saying the Twin Cities gamers did or did not play Korns with a role-play aspects, but excluded the Twin Cities gamers because of their habit of adding a layer of role-play would muddy the waters if they were included.
- You seemed to agree, saying you had not seen anyone specifically talk about playing Korns that way, but rather just saying they played Korns.
- You then brought up the Hendrick review of OD&D as an example of someone who "thought about Korns that way." "That way" in the context of a reply includes "role-play aspects."
- I pointed out Hendrick was not making the case there are "role-play aspects," but was comparing other aspects of the interaction of GM and players as his point of similarity. And that comparing the two in one way does make them similar on others (in this case role-play).
- I went on to make the point that if Hendrick does not have a concept of role-play, then our definition does not matter.
- In fact, if you go back, you will see I did not define anything as being or not being an RPGs. Rather I ask about if other people did or point out others not defining Korns, as well as Hendrick not defining D&D as role-play.
- You seem to be making multiple and opposing arguments at once: a. our definition of what was and was not role-play is in flux (See the second half of 5, above); b. "No one at the time Hendrick wrote those words was saying D&D was an RPG" (See the first half of 5, above); c. that considering which early systems we do and do not RPGs is a very charged; d. yet, brought up Hendrick as an example of someone who "thought about Korns that way," as in having "role-play aspects."
Can you clarify why you brought up Hendrick?
Can you clarify how you see Korns?
That may help me understand what you are saying.
To be clear, I have no interest in arguing RPG theory or endless debate.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Dec 5, 2018 17:12:39 GMT -6
Stop right there pardner. You seem to be both agreeing and arguing at the same time and your position is unclear to me. That's probably an indication that I am not coloring exactly within the lines I infer you are drawing. I am not sure what you mean by the "role-play aspects" of Korns if not the way that, as derv put it, his dialog and limited information "results in a game that puts the player into the role of the soldier." My invocation of Hendrick was intended to substantiate that at least someone, at the time D&D came out, thought that Korns was played the way the dialog example in the first few pages of "Modern War in Miniature" would encourage. I don't have much appetite for trying to define RPGs either, but Hendrick's account would seem to push back on the claim that the role-play aspects of the Korns rules were not used in actual play. If that isn't the role-play aspect of Korns, what is?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 5, 2018 18:34:59 GMT -6
I honestly don’t know how you can play Korns any other way than roleplay. But, I imagine it does depend on what that term implies to the individual. Specifically, the scope of Korns game is different than D&D. It’s focus is not exploration, it's combat. It most certainly is a war game. But, it’s a war game that achieves it’s goals through playing the role of a soldier. The only person manipulating figures on a sand table and who has access to it's visual presentation is the referee. Some of the parallels to how D&D is run are interesting to consider.
“War gaming involves a special kind of imagination. One must be able to place oneself in the position of the soldier on the field in order to become interested in the game and, at the same time, one must be able to separate reality from make-believe...” MWiM p.5
“These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination…..will not be likely to find Dungeons & Dragons to their taste. “ M&M p.3
“Before they begin, players must decide what role they will play in the campaign, human or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user.” M&M p.6
THE GAME: TO PLAY OR NOT TO PLAY (MWiM p. 9-10)
Player: I’m picking up my sub machine gun and my grenades and I’m running over to the ditch beside the bridge. I want to keep looking for the American in the houses while I’m running.
Judge: There he is again! He just stuck his head around the corner of that white building about 30 meters in front of you. Here, he’s looking around again.
P: Am I in the ditch now?
J: Yes, you’ve been here about 2 seconds now.
P: Alright then, I’m firing my Schmeisser at him in a long bursts.
J: There is a sub-machine gun firing on the board.
J: Your Schmeisser is kicking chunks out of the edge of the building all around him...It’s hard to say whether you hit him or whether he pulled his head back.
J: An M-1 has fired on the board.
J: That rifle round has hit you in the side. It knocked you a little farther into the ditch; you’re bleeding from the mouth too.
J: You can see who did it now. The American is on your left about 12 meters away running at you with his bayonet.
P: Can I still move?
J: Yes, but you are almost unconscious.
P: I’m turning around and firing the rest of my Schmeisser’s clip into him.
J: There is a Schmeisser firing on the board.
J: He’s coming up fast. Your bullets are jerking around in an arc towards him as you turn. Seven meters, four meters, one meter. I’m afraid you’re dead.
EXAMPLE OF THE REFEREE MODERATING A DUNGEON EXPEDITION (U&WA p.12-14)
CAL: Ignore the door and proceed along the corridor southeastwards.
REF: 10’, 20’, 30’, 40’, 50’. Four way: Northwest, northeast, south, and southwest- the south passage is 20’ wide.
CAL: Go south.
REF: 10’-70’: passage continues, doors east and west.
CAL: Listen at the east door.
REF: You hear shuffling.
C: Two of us will throw our weight against the door to open it. All will be ready for combat.
R: The door opens! You can’t be surprised but the monsters- you see half a dozen gnolls- can be (Here a check for surprise is made, melee conducted, and so on).
C: Okay what does the room look like- we’re examining the walls, ceiling, floor, and contents of the room itself.
R: The room is a truncated pyramid…….The rom contains the bodies of the gnolls, a pile of refuse in the north corner of the west wall, and two trunks along the wall opposite the one which sounds hollow.
“With appropriate variations for ability to detect and/or see what is around them, the adventure will continue in this manner until the party leaves the dungeon or, are killed therein.”
“There is only one rule to our war game: simulate reality. The statistics and tables are designed to help the player in this task. When they get in the way, if they ever should, then you should discard them. In the same vein the procedures which you have just witnessed is only our method for applying these statistics. Our methods achieve a certain amount of realism, but if you feel that you have a procedure that better simulates reality than ours, then you must use it.” MWiM p.18-19
“We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!” U&WA p.36
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 9, 2018 20:45:56 GMT -6
I honestly don’t know how you can play Korns any other way than roleplay. But, I imagine it does depend on what that term implies to the individual. Specifically, the scope of Korns game is different than D&D. It’s focus is not exploration, it's combat. It most certainly is a war game. But, it’s a war game that achieves it’s goals through playing the role of a soldier. The only person manipulating figures on a sand table and who has access to it's visual presentation is the referee. Some of the parallels to how D&D is run are interesting to consider. I don't know, I have not played Korns. Mike Mornard has and seemed to argue they didn't play it that way. The wargaming club near my home had some guys running a WWII skirmish game (I forget the ruleset) and they didn't see it as an RPG, but a 1:1 skirmish wargame. At the end of the dialog example between a judge and player, Korns says, "The above is a not-too-exceptional conversation between a judge and two opposing players during a war game." That said, my question was if anyone back in the 66–74 thought of Korns as being an RPG or if that view was mostly in retrospect. The Twin Cities guys who played it tend to just say they played Korns, which Wesley who says he did not play says he sees something of an RPG in the game. Now I will say I do see some potential parallels between Modern War in Miniature and OD&D, as well as parallels between Korns' background or source material and Wesley's. The one thing I do not see in Modern War in Miniature is one player/one man, there is only mention of a player playing a side. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 9, 2018 22:15:39 GMT -6
I don't know, I have not played Korns. Mike Mornard has and seemed to argue they didn't play it that way. That's most likely because Michael probably viewed it as a double blind strategic wargame. Double blind systems had been around well before Korns. The method was meant to introduce the experience of the Fog of War. The players still moved around figures or chits in such games. Sometimes the players were separated by a board or curtain. They just didn't know the enemies positions. No, you are definitely playing one player/one man. You generally play a leader of some sort who can give orders to the men under your command. They will respond in different ways based on the judges determination. Korns calls them "fictitious soldiers". Think NPC's. It is usually small unit actions, but Korns does not specify this. Regardless, what you know is limited to what you can see, hear, or is communicated to you on the battlefield. If your character is KIA, you're dead- game over. I should add, don't take my word for it. Go find a couple buddies and try playing the game. I reduced the complexities of Korns calculations into a simplified d20 system of tables that were taken from Korns SUTC mechanics and called it "Colonels of Korns". It was meant to replicate the play experience without an insistence on simulated results. In other words, close enough.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 10, 2018 5:38:16 GMT -6
That's most likely because Michael probably viewed it as a double blind strategic wargame. Double blind systems had been around well before Korns. The method was meant to introduce the experience of the Fog of War. The players still moved around figures or chits in such games. Sometimes the players were separated by a board or curtain. They just didn't know the enemies positions. Maybe. We could ask him. Mike mentioned Tractics. Was this really common in recreational minis wargaming or an ideal? Was it even common in recreational board wargaming? (outside of the Twin Cities gamers) No, you are definitely playing one player/one man. You generally play a leader of some sort who can give orders to the men under your command. They will respond in different ways based on the judges determination. Korns calls them "fictitious soldiers". Think NPC's. It is usually small unit actions, but Korns does not specify this. Regardless, what you know is limited to what you can see, hear, or is communicated to you on the battlefield. If your character is KIA, you're dead- game over. Wait a second there. 1:1 as in one man per figure vs. one army (or even group of 1:1 men:figures with one commander vs. one player per character or figure (which is one man). In nearly all recreational wargames you "generally play a leader of some sort who can give orders to the men under your command."
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 10, 2018 16:37:34 GMT -6
Maybe. We could ask him. Mike mentioned Tractics. Was this really common in recreational minis wargaming or an ideal? Was it even common in recreational board wargaming? (outside of the Twin Cities gamers) Sure. Ask Mike. I'm speculating. Was what common in recreational minis? Double blind methods? Well, have you ever played Battleship? It was first produced by MB in 1967. But, it's origins go back to at least the 1930's and perhaps earlier. Not sure what your question is here. Uh, "nearly all". Couldn't tell you. Haven't looked at it that closely. I'm inclined not to agree since you are not qualifying the statement. Are you asking about a specific time period or are we talking about all recreational war games? Maybe you could pose this one to the historian on the board.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Dec 11, 2018 7:54:24 GMT -6
No, you are definitely playing one player/one man. You generally play a leader of some sort who can give orders to the men under your command. They will respond in different ways based on the judges determination. Korns calls them "fictitious soldiers". Think NPC's. It is usually small unit actions, but Korns does not specify this. Regardless, what you know is limited to what you can see, hear, or is communicated to you on the battlefield. If your character is KIA, you're dead- game over. I also have read Korns and while you are playing a side from the perspective of a unit commander the focus is controlling a armed force to achieve some victory condition in a limited scenario. More so the example of play is not from the perspective of a commander but from a single individual within the unit. Korns has the players shifting viewpoints and scale depending on the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 11, 2018 13:13:07 GMT -6
More so the example of play is not from the perspective of a commander but from a single individual within the unit. Korns has the players shifting viewpoints and scale depending on the circumstances. First, I will point out there is another thread talking about Korns where a discussion of what it is might better fit. But hell, I give, here goes. Isn't the context of the second image that this is what the GM is doing, without the players seeing? That is what I got from reading the rules. The GM is working with maps first, then when zooming in. The players are still blind-ish, working from the maps provided to them and based on the description. In a sense, this is what Korns may have seen or helped facilitate in some way at Fort Leavenworth if he was involved in their military wargaming activities. That's the thing with Korns, he has a unique context due to working there. Much like Wesley has a unique context in his adoption of Totten and concepts from RAND Corp.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Dec 11, 2018 14:44:53 GMT -6
Isn't the context of the second image that this is what the GM is doing, without the players seeing? That is what I got from reading the rules. The GM is working with maps first, then when zooming in. The players are still blind-ish, working from the maps provided to them and based on the description. In a sense, this is what Korns may have seen or helped facilitate in some way at Fort Leavenworth if he was involved in their military wargaming activities. Sort of. Think about it. If one follows Korn's direction then the players will have their own map as if they were there as the commander. The only map with the true situation will be in the hands of the referee. From the players point of view they give the order and the referee does some time tracking. Then a point is reached where there an encounter or something that needs to be resolved on the sandbox. Then everybody moves over to the sandbox and the players will be aware of which area of the larger map is being covered. The encounter is resolved and the players mark up their own maps in whatever way they need to keep track of what they know. And the way I read it during the encounter using the sandbox the players playing various individuals representing their forces. Which may or many not be them as the commander. And there advice how to maintain the realism and fog of war while using the sandbox. Such individuals could be a guy with a support weapon as the example of play illustrates. In any case the point of the whole exercise I as I read it is a system to emulate the choices and fog of war as if you were really in a World War 2 battle. And the overall point is to achieve a set of victory condition. This could happen in a tabletop roleplaying campaign but generally only from the immediate point of view of the character. The expectation is there that the player is free to abandon or change the immediate situation towards whatever new goal they think best for their character. Including abandoning the battle to go haring off to find the lost gold of Tolosa. To me it is obvious Korns is an important stepping down on the path to Blackmoor. But like Braustein the game is still very much a wargame. Albeit a very sophisticated wargame incorporating the friction and fog of war.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 11, 2018 15:18:29 GMT -6
To me it is obvious Korns is an important stepping down on the path to Blackmoor. But like Braustein the game is still very much a wargame. Albeit a very sophisticated wargame incorporating the friction and fog of war. I think we are mostly in agreement. Stepping stone or parallel? Wesley says he did not know about Korns when he came up with Braustein. I know some of the Blackmoor players did play Korns, but who and when is a question. And even then does it matter to ask. If it was parallel, then does Korns really matter to Braustein or Blackmoor? It is cool, it is cool for some of the same reasons Braustein and Blackmoor are cool. But, was it just there or did it have an actual impact? I which way I lean, but I'm still taking in information.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 11, 2018 21:54:30 GMT -6
I also have read Korns and while you are playing a side from the perspective of a unit commander the focus is controlling a armed force to achieve some victory condition in a limited scenario. yes, go on. Uh, no. What you fail to appreciate is that the rules are written for the referee alone. In Korns game the referee will be adjudicating everything in an effort to "simulate reality". When you read through his examples you will find the phrase over and over, "the judge" does this or that. When you read in caps, "THERE IS A SUB MACHINE GUN FIRING ON THE BOARD", that is because the players can hear it. Below you have explained fairly well what I meant by a double-blind strategic war game. It isn't how Korns is really played. At no time do the players approach or have part in what takes place on the sand table where all actions are resolved. Players have topo maps, like an actual officer would have in the field, where they can record any of their troops and any known enemy troops dispositions. Think about why Korns goes into such detail about the psychological effects of battle on a soldier and how this is calculated. Also, remember how short a turn is (2 seconds) where these actions and reactions occur. Yes, Korns is a war game. It's a war game that requires role play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 2:14:04 GMT -6
I also have read Korns and while you are playing a side from the perspective of a unit commander the focus is controlling a armed force to achieve some victory condition in a limited scenario. yes, go on. Uh, no. What you fail to appreciate is that the rules are written for the referee alone. In Korns game the referee will be adjudicating everything in an effort to "simulate reality". When you read through his examples you will find the phrase over and over, "the judge" does this or that. When you read in caps, "THERE IS A SUB MACHINE GUN FIRING ON THE BOARD", that is because the players can hear it. Below you have explained fairly well what I meant by a double-blind strategic war game. It isn't how Korns is really played. At no time do the players approach or have part in what takes place on the sand table where all actions are resolved. Players have topo maps, like an actual officer would have in the field, where they can record any of their troops and any known enemy troops dispositions. Think about why Korns goes into such detail about the psychological effects of battle on a soldier and how this is calculated. Also, remember how short a turn is (2 seconds) where these actions and reactions occur. Yes, Korns is a war game. It's a war game that requires role play. and everything you said could also be said about the Prussian Kriegsspiel 140 years before Korns and every military training game since. So by your argument Von Reisswitz is the true father of rpgs. And if you wish to argue keep in mind it have the 1824 rules I’ve been running for over 20 years. Other 19th century wargames rules including Strategos which Daved Wesely used for his Braunstein game. Any thing you say I can pull at least 5 examples that was used before Korn Moderator's Note: fixed bbcode quote formatting
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 12, 2018 6:32:57 GMT -6
So by your argument Von Reisswitz is the true father of rpgs. Okay. Did I say I was somehow trying to prove who the father of roleplaying was. Does this conversation threaten you in some way? If Korns is the same as all these other games, why was it played? Because it's nifty and comes in a nice book format that Grandma could give you for Christmas. I'm not about to entertain an effort of proving that Korns is not like something else. Prove to me how Korns is like these other games. Have you played Korns?
|
|
|
Post by increment on Dec 12, 2018 10:44:51 GMT -6
If Korns is the same as all these other games, why was it played? Well, I'm not sure that's right question necessarily. Of course there were wargames that used a dialog interface before Korns, going back to Verdy du Vernois, and it seems likely enough that Korns knew about them through Sayre or some similar source. And if we accept written orders in place of spoken statements, then sure, you would say the basic interface followed the process documented in Reiswitz (1824). Reiswitz basically created the role of the referee as we understand it, with the explicit aim to create a game in which "the player has the same sort of uncertainty over results as he would have in the field." I'm not sure the trail really goes back any farther than that. But I agree it's not a particularly helpful exercise to try to decide who among the various candidates was the true father of RPGs. This was a movement that played out in fits and starts, and was still playing out after the release of D&D. A lot of people moved the ball forward in different ways. Korns provided a stripped-down spin on these ideas at a time when not a lot of people in the hobby wargaming community were talking about them, and it captured some people's imaginations.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 12, 2018 16:35:10 GMT -6
Korns provided a stripped-down spin on these ideas at a time when not a lot of people in the hobby wargaming community were talking about them, and it captured some people's imaginations. "these ideas"? What ideas are you speaking of Jon? Careful, you don't want to give it a name. I have to admit that I sometimes grow tired of having to decipher peoples motives on these boards. Would some be happy if I denied that Korns and Braunstein involve role play. Would that be an accurate statement if I said it? Does it matter that Arneson and Wesely have said otherwise. Here's what I think about it. If your motive is to prove that Korns had influence on the Twin Cities ideas of role play, even though they have told you they didn't play it that way, what I have to say is moot. No further conversation is needed. If your motive is to define the elements of role play in Korns as D&D, that role play can only be understood as D&D, because a group of goobers picked that name out of a hat, what I have to say is moot. No further discussion is required because it's not the POV I'm coming from. If your motive is to try and connect the dots to the ideas of role play in Korns and the militaries use of role play during this same period, do some more research. I'm not doing it for you. You might even find some documentation on this forum, if you look. If your motive is to try to understand how Korns was intended to be played and it doesn't offend you that I call it role play, because that's what it is, I'm in. Or better yet, play the game and form your own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Dec 12, 2018 18:59:57 GMT -6
My motivation is the same as usual, to figure out how we should understand Korns's historical place in a tradition of practices that informed what people later called role-playing games. I want to hone in on a placement for him that is not too big, and not too small, but just right. That's why I think it's relevant that we can show earlier people using a dialog similar to his - while acknowledging that the immediacy of his two-second turns is differentiating. And it's why I think it's relevant that when D&D came out, it reminded people of Korns. If your motive is to prove that Korns had influence on the Twin Cities ideas of role play, even though they have told you they didn't play it that way, what I have to say is moot. A bit up in this thread, I quoted Dave Arneson (from Different Worlds #3, in 1979), who is apparently saying that Korns did influence the Twin Cities idea of role play. Just to run the same quote again again: I am just trying to show the roots of that "established tradition." Korns isn't the alpha or the omega, he's a strand in a web of influences. (As an aside, if you look at an MMSA flyer from the mid-1970s, you'll see Korns hiding in the bushes to the upper right.)
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 12, 2018 21:11:15 GMT -6
(As an aside, if you look at an MMSA flyer from the mid-1970s, you'll see Korns hiding in the bushes to the upper right.) d**n it I'm going to sidetrack this thread myself now—with intent this time. I spy something with iron sides at the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 12, 2018 21:11:16 GMT -6
My motivation is the same as usual....I am just trying to show the roots of that "established tradition." Korns isn't the alpha or the omega, he's a strand in a web of influences. "established tradition". ha-ha, you're a riot. You really don't want to commit yourself do you. My little list of motives wasn't strictly pointed at you Jon. I was using others conjecture to express my own view. It's open to anyone to consider whether it reflects them in some way. I thought it would be a nice way of preventing other people from going off on a drunken sailors tangent in assuming my motives. Are you sure Korns didn't develop his game in a bubble? <I'm being facetious> I won't be going down your rabbit hole. You know my thoughts on Reiswitz. I'm surprised someone else would choose to mention it again. They must have read your book.
|
|