|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 6, 2019 15:43:30 GMT -6
I'm sure that I have posted stuff like this before, but reading Gronan's review of "Dave Arneson's True Genius" encouraged me to buy the book, and since the book came in yesterday and I read the whole thing last night (a mighty feat for me nowadays, I just don't read like I used to) I have been inspired to think more about the philosophy of the game. So thanks to Rob Kuntz for writing it and to Michael for giving me the impetus to finally buy and read the thing. My short review of the book: (1) It’s not long enough. I would love to read much more about this stuff. Also, it’s sort of a teaser for a bigger book that Rob hasn’t finished yet. I’m not sure how I feel about that. (2) Rob's book should be required reading for anyone who posts on this board. (3) It gets me thinking about the old days a lot, and inspired me to write a very long post. Apologies in advance for those who bother to read the rest of my ramblings. Here we go… My feeling about Dungeons & Dragons (and RPG’s in general) is that there are a couple of clear changes in the game that totally influence how a person sees the game. Chronologically, they are: (1) Did you start to play before or after the invention of AD&D? (2) Did you start to play before or after the invention of 3E? The second change was when WotC took over and created 3E. Games written from 2000-2019 seem to have several things in common. They tend to be thicker and more complex, and try to combat that by writing “how to” sections in the rules. These include how to play, how to represent dice types, how to be a GM, and so on. They are clearly designed for balance and fairness in play. The year 2000 is where I think most of us would divide “old school” from “new school” in style. The first change is more subtle, and happened with the creation of AD&D. As a person who learned OD&D and played for years before AD&D was created, I learned the game with a certain style and philosophy. It has to do with freedom to create versus the need to codify and follow others, and it caused a rift of sorts in my high school gaming group at the time. Some of us wanted something more open, others wanted to “master” the rules, and I was often frustrated when the action ground to a halt because someone wanted to look up some rule seen somewhere. I had only a small anecdotal experience with this because I was just one guy in one gaming group, but Rob’s book gives a much more in-depth look from the perspective of a guy who was there when TSR was going through its own growing pains. Folks talk about “Arnesonian” gaming versus “Gygaxian” and I’m not entirely certain what they mean, but I think that Rob’s book gives me a better perspective and it’s nice to realize that my intuitive sense of the game seems to match his quite a bit. Rob’s book gives quite a few quotes from Strategic Review, Dragon, and Alarums & Excursions where there would appear to be a clear point where Gary’s own philosophy of the game transformed somewhat, and the heart of this seems to be in the OD&D to AD&D metamorphosis. I’m not here to bash Gary, and certainly not in a forum where he cannot defend himself. I had many discussions with Gary on various message boards over time, and value the fact that he was so open and willing to talk to a fan. I think he was a fantastic game designer and I have a huge collection of stuff he was written, both articles and game products. What I had never quite put together in my head is the marketing side of the industry, and why Gary’s model was so important to TSR and why Dave’s was not. And how this would have caused friction within the brain trust that was TSR, whereby certain designers were encouraged to be prolific while others were encouraged to be scarce. All of that was above my “pay grade” at the time and I’m not significantly more connected now so I have to take Rob’s word for it. The TSR notion of supplying rules and then modules matched to those rules was a good one from a marketing perspective because I find myself often browsing the shelves of my local game store and buying product that I’ll never use, but product that looks interesting and fun to read. Again, I experienced a lot of this evolution as it happened but I don’t think that I ever quite understood what I was experiencing in the moment. It was a gradual thing with slow changes happening over time instead of some sudden paradigm shift where you woke up one day and the world was different. (Well, 3E and 4E were both sort of like that, but not so much the OD&D to AD&D transition, or AD&D to 2E.) Looking back over my 45 years of gaming, it’s staggering to realize that almost half of that time was in the “new school” era of 3E and beyond. Since this happened nearly 20 years ago, it’s no surprise that vast numbers of role players have no real notion as to what gaming was like before the great upheaval and can’t be blamed for not knowing because they are simply playing the game as it has been presented to them. So going back to “what is OD&D?” I feel that it’s a game better experienced than read about. OD&D is hard to explain, because it’s as much an idea as it is a set of rules. OD&D is a philosophy. After 40+ years of immersion in the game, OD&D is almost a religion. When I play 5E in the game store I have fun, but it’s not OD&D. Talk to Michael Mornard. Talk to Jeff Berry. Talk to Bob Meyer. Talk to Greg Svenson. Talk to Jim Ward. All of these guys will tell you stories of the olden days where Dave knew the rules and everyone else sort of figured things out as they played. 5E players today all seem to have the Monster Manual memorized, but the OD&D philosophy is such that anything could be new and different from the last time you encountered it, and if you made assumptions that things were static you would probably be dead. I’m not sure how to explain that to today’s players —you pretty much have to put them into a game and let things happen. Some of them will be disgusted when their characters die in some “unfair” way, but others will hopefully see the light and understand that gaming isn’t always the way they were taught that it would be. And when Gronan says that they “just made stuff up” I think that newer gamers can’t fathom exactly what this means, because in the old days there had been no attempt to codify every situation BEFORE it was encountered but instead created a rule AS IT WAS NEEDED. The game wasn’t about knowing all of the rules, but instead was about reacting to situations. I’m not sure where this post is going, because I think I have a vague feeling rather than a definite goal. I know that when I read OD&D rulebooks, or Dave’s FFC rules, or even the Palace of the Vampire Queen, I get a certain feeling which is more than just nostalgia. Rob Kuntz’s book has given me a similar feeling, and I thank him for writing it.
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Feb 6, 2019 17:40:07 GMT -6
I too have picked up Rob Kuntz's book based on the review (thanks). I played OD&D and Metamorphosis Alpha for a short time before the AD&D Player's Handbook came out. Back then we had this idea each GM had his own world within which to set the games he or she ran. It was understood that when I played in that GM's world, I would play by a different set of house rules and on the spot house rulings. In "my world" . . . [this is how this is going to work]. From my own experience, I cannot say that the play style changed much when AD&D started to come out. We were using the books for the statistical information, but still played like it was OD&D, if that makes sense. Also, for what it's worth, when I ran modules, I would make changes as I saw fit, sometimes on the fly. So sometimes I ran adventures of my own creation, and sometimes I used a module. But when I did, I would make the module my own. . .
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 6, 2019 18:24:12 GMT -6
Gronan's review of "Dave Arneson's True Genius" Hey, buddy, could you spare a link?
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 6, 2019 18:49:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by increment on Feb 6, 2019 18:56:29 GMT -6
The TSR notion of supplying rules and then modules matched to those rules was a good one from a marketing perspective because I find myself often browsing the shelves of my local game store and buying product that I’ll never use, but product that looks interesting and fun to read. It's certainly true that there was an abrupt about-face from Gygax personally as the market matured, but this is why I wouldn't judge him too harshly for it. There was a demand for pre-packaged and deterministic adventures, and TSR was more reacting to it than anything else. It seemed to emerge from multiple directions: from people like Bob Blake and the MDG selling modules derived from tournaments, to the mini-adventures in every issue of the Dungeoneer, to gamebooks published by Flying Buffalo, to standalone products coming out of Wee Warriors. People liked them, and wanted more of them. TSR jumped in with the G and D series modules as a sort of trial balloon, and once it became clear that there was a serious market for this sort of thing, everyone who could publish modules did - even Arneson. It doesn't sound you like felt it stifled your creativity; probably most people, like you, bought them because they looked interesting and fun to read.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 19:25:13 GMT -6
As I said in my review, I don't know if I could have resisted the siren call of huge mucking wads of cash.
Gary wrote "why have us do any more of your imagining for you" and then was astounded when people begged him to take their money for doing exactly that.
|
|
tec97
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 157
|
Post by tec97 on Feb 6, 2019 23:53:52 GMT -6
I've taken the plunge and ordered this book as well! Thanks for the commentary folks - it's much appreciated!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 7, 2019 5:35:27 GMT -6
The TSR notion of supplying rules and then modules matched to those rules was a good one from a marketing perspective because I find myself often browsing the shelves of my local game store and buying product that I’ll never use, but product that looks interesting and fun to read. It's certainly true that there was an abrupt about-face from Gygax personally as the market matured, but this is why I wouldn't judge him too harshly for it. I agree with you 100% here, and I hope that my initial essay reflects that I'm not out to bash Gary in the least. I'm just starting to understand more. Don't get me wrong -- if I had helped to create a phenomenon and someone offered to throw cash my way because of it, it's very possible that I would have taken the cash and done the happy dance. I'd heard that when TSR and Judges Guild first got underway that TSR didn't really think that Judges Guild was a big deal, then when they saw the quantity of product being produced TSR wanted a slice of the pie. I guess it's all part of the same thing. TSR probably looked at the market and said, "you making up your own stuff makes us no money, but us selling you standardized modules does" and followed that path. We'll never know how the game world would have looked today had those decisions in the 1970's been different, but it's fun to speculate.
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Feb 7, 2019 8:46:16 GMT -6
It's certainly true that there was an abrupt about-face from Gygax personally as the market matured, but this is why I wouldn't judge him too harshly for it. I agree with you 100% here, and I hope that my initial essay reflects that I'm not out to bash Gary in the least. I'm just starting to understand more. Don't get me wrong -- if I had helped to create a phenomenon and someone offered to throw cash my way because of it, it's very possible that I would have taken the cash and done the happy dance. I'd heard that when TSR and Judges Guild first got underway that TSR didn't really think that Judges Guild was a big deal, then when they saw the quantity of product being produced TSR wanted a slice of the pie. I guess it's all part of the same thing. TSR probably looked at the market and said, "you making up your own stuff makes us no money, but us selling you standardized modules does" and followed that path. We'll never know how the game world would have looked today had those decisions in the 1970's been different, but it's fun to speculate. The purity of the idea certainly meets the reality of an under employed man with a large family to support. It's not even close, the money was going to win hands down. On the other hand there was far worse things he could have done to make a living then marketing modules for eager young consumers. -Mike
|
|
muddy
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 158
|
Post by muddy on Feb 7, 2019 9:54:08 GMT -6
I've been thinking about this post for a bit now, and think it was this - "The game wasn’t about knowing all of the rules, but instead was about reacting to situations." - and this "each GM had his own world within which to set the games he or she ran. It was understood that when I played in that GM's world, I would play by a different set of house rules". But it wasn't just about different rules. The whole thing was exploration of the unknown, of a world the DM created. Rules provided a framework for resolving combat situations and class advancement, etc - but the game was about exploration of an unknown world. I always told my players that the monster manual was no more than rumors and hearsay. If they said anything out of character like "why is this goblin still standing after taking 12 pts damage?" They knew the response in advance "you don't know do you?" and there were never complaints about fairness. I think Micheal is getting at a similar point in the thread about mapping a dungeon - making mapping hard was a way to keep players off balance and add tension to the game. "We're already beaten down and something scary is approaching from behind. Do we confront it or stop mapping to move more quickly?
Maybe different rules for different campaigns was a consequence of how the game was played, not its defining feature.
I've also been thinking about the relationship to wargaming, and not sure what to think. Early days D&D involved wargamers who were loosening things up but kept the wargamer mentality - we could lose/die if we aren't careful. Newer gamers seem to be roleplaying, with the formality of war games. I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Feb 7, 2019 10:29:08 GMT -6
As I said in my review, I don't know if I could have resisted the siren call of huge mucking wads of cash. The only thing in your review I'd push back on, gently (and now that people have all gone and bought the book), is the bit where you say: "Derive" is a pretty strong word, but the case that Korns was an influence on all this looks pretty good from where I'm sitting. We've gone over this on this board at length, so just to summarize: 1. Arneson said back in the 1970s that Korns was an influence on role-playing in the Twin Cities 2. We have several data points that people in the Twin Cities and Lake Geneva knew Korns by 1971 3. When D&D came out, one of the earliest reviews, one from a wargamer, noted it reminded him of Korns 4. If you know the adventure transcript in D&D, and you see the one in Korns, you kind of agree with 3If you want to exclude Korns as an influence on D&D, you aren't just rejecting the opinion of "experts," you are rejecting Arneson's own account of how this all came together. And that Napoleonic Simulation Campaign, which to all appearances was an immediate precursor to the structure of the Blackmoor campaign, happened to use both Diplomacy rules and Strategos rules. Things tend to have precursors; everything is a mash-up. Even Arneson felt the invention of modern gaming was not the act of a lone gunman, it was a conspiracy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 11:01:14 GMT -6
Jon, have you read DATG? Because that's the context for what I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Feb 7, 2019 11:05:33 GMT -6
Jon, have you read DATG? Because that's the context for what I'm saying. I have, and when it came out, I recall that on another board I walked through some of the precursor examples with Rob. But my point here isn't specific to anyone's analysis, it's a general point about the history, one that is just responding to your review's pushback against those "experts."
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Feb 7, 2019 12:23:24 GMT -6
I wonder where B/X fits in to all this? Would it be considered a continuation/sequel of OD&D, a parallel codification alongside AD&D, or something completely different?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 13:54:30 GMT -6
Jon, have you read DATG? Because that's the context for what I'm saying. I have, and when it came out, I recall that on another board I walked through some of the precursor examples with Rob. But my point here isn't specific to anyone's analysis, it's a general point about the history, one that is just responding to your review's pushback against those "experts." My pushback is rooted in spending too much time in the idiot section of the internet. A nonzero number of people insist that ANY game where you play a single figure is an RPG, inlcuding FITS and all my gladiatorial combat games. This idea is nonsense. Also, the conceptual system of Blackmoor is nothing like Korns, Strategos N, or any other wargame. This is also discussed at length. I still stand by my statement based on the importance of the conceptual over the mechanical. "You can attempt anything" meant VASTLY different things in Stragegos N from what it meant in Blackmoor. Context is all. I have played all those games, and Blackmoor was instantly and obviously vastly different. But I fear falling down a rabbit hole here.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Feb 7, 2019 14:15:17 GMT -6
I still stand by my statement based on the importance of the conceptual over the mechanical. "You can attempt anything" meant VASTLY different things in Stragegos N from what it meant in Blackmoor. Context is all. I have played all those games, and Blackmoor was instantly and obviously vastly different. No need to chase rabbits, no one here is saying D&D wasn't different than its precursors - but it can still be influenced by them. Like I said, "derive" is probably too strong, but discounting any influence would be too strong in the other direction, at least if we go by how Arneson described things.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 7, 2019 16:54:59 GMT -6
Rules provided a framework for resolving combat situations and class advancement, etc - but the game was about exploration of an unknown world. I always told my players that the monster manual was no more than rumors and hearsay. If they said anything out of character like "why is this goblin still standing after taking 12 pts damage?" They knew the response in advance "you don't know do you?" and there were never complaints about fairness. I think Micheal is getting at a similar point in the thread about mapping a dungeon - making mapping hard was a way to keep players off balance and add tension to the game. Exactly, and this is much better when a person actually experiences it rather than having someone try to tell them about it. When I run OD&D I have several monster books handy (usually the 2E Monsterous Manual, C&C's M&T, OD&D Monsters & Treasures, the Rules Cyclopedia, etc.) and will often grab one at random when I need a monster. Why should all orcs (or whatever) be exactly the same? This time they come from one book, next time another. There's no reason that the players need to know AC, hit points, or whatever. They fight and discover as they go.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 7, 2019 17:13:45 GMT -6
I wonder where B/X fits in to all this? Would it be considered a continuation/sequel of OD&D, a parallel codification alongside AD&D, or something completely different? Well, my feeling is that B/X is sort of parallel to AD&D. Both came from the same source material (OD&D) but evolved in slightly different directions. B/X isn't as "encyclopedic" in nature, but I think that it's philosophy is sort of similar in that they are after the "make it up as you go" layer but before the "here is a giganto pile of rules" layer. I imagine that where each person puts B/X would depend upon their own experiences and how they view the layers of the game. Here's my thought, just created off the top of my head as I type.... Layer Zero = Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign, currently kept alive by Jerry Berry and Bob Meyer and a couple of others. Layer One = Gary's original Greyhawk campaign, which I assume was rooted in OD&D as Gary structured it. This would (I would think) be the era of the LBB and the supplements. Layer Two = Evolution of the game into AD&D (eventually 2E) and later Holmes Basic (eventually B/X and BECMI and RC). The game continues to grow in bulk Layer Three = Evolution of the game into 3E/4E. Much standardization, heavy emphasis on rules mastery. Layer Four = Restructure of the game into 5E. Attempt to streamline to somewhere comparable to Layer Two. So, my thinking is that going back to Layer Zero is really hard for most folks to conceptualize. I started in Layer One and feel like I have a general intuitive feel on how Layer Zero might have been, but I cannot be certain as I wasn't there. I can only experience Layer Zero through stories of the older guys, and I hope someday to experience it first-hand at GaryCon or some other similar venue. (The closest I've come was to play Metamorphosis Alpha with Jim Ward, and it was an amazing experience. My character actually lived, and Jim autographed the character sheet for me.) I assume that most posters here began in Layer One or maybe Layer Two, which would be the "old school" vibe that most of us can relate to, but it's possible that some posters came into gaming in Layer Three or Layer Four and they have the same challenge that I have in going back a layer when they try to conceptualize OD&D. The good thing is that there are a lot more folks who have played in Layer One, so there are quite a few more resources to help one pick up on the philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 7, 2019 17:27:44 GMT -6
...the importance of the conceptual over the mechanical. "You can attempt anything" … Okay, so I know that I've just taken a couple of thoughts out of context, but I had a discussion with my sister a few months ago and I think it's relevant here. (1) One thing that she dislikes about RPGs with a skill list is that she feels like it becomes a "can't do" list instead. Players look at their skills and see low numbers and decide not to try things because the numbers tell them they can't do things. The reverse, of course, would be a game where if you have an idea you can try it. That's one thing I like about OD&D compared to games such as RuneQuest. (2) One of her favorite campaigns that I ran years ago was one where I provided players with a spell list but no description of what the spells could do. This was mostly a novice group and when a player would ask what a spell did I would reply with, "what do you think it does?" This baffled the players a little at first, but once they got in the spirit of using their imaginations it was fun to see what they tried to do with magic. Again, the idea that characters can be creative and try stuff is one which I think has been lost over time. The "what does the rulebook say" philosophy has overtaken the creative side of the game for many players.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 7, 2019 17:36:14 GMT -6
"Derive" is a pretty strong word, but the case that Korns was an influence on all this looks pretty good from where I'm sitting. I'd say that only with some hesitation and qualification. Influence can be cast in many ways, and in this case would be quite difficult to gauge, however it is conceptualized. A person can recognize a similarity between things and import experience from one into another - that kind of "influence" seems natural with those Blackmoor players who had also played Korns, including Gygax, apparently. However, Korns being influential as a source model of play is an intangible of unclear degree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 17:45:52 GMT -6
To some degree, we are all influenced by everything that ever happened to us. Speaking of rabbit holes.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Feb 7, 2019 17:59:40 GMT -6
Again, just in this thread to say that regarding the influence of Korns on the development of role playing in the Twin Cities, Arneson seemed to think it was enough to be worth mentioning, and there are sufficient data historical data points for that not to look anomalous to us in retrospect. What his bar was for determining influence I can't say - probably, it's all a rich tapestry.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 7, 2019 18:29:15 GMT -6
"Influence" may simply have been a matter of timing. At the time of Blackmoor's inception, these were the games that they were exposed to and playing- the one's that immediately come to mind as affecting how they were coming to game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 19:58:44 GMT -6
It's an interesting question, to be sure. Korns really doesn't play much different from FITS except for the hidden movement aspect using a referee. But that's also seen in TRACTICS, among other places; hidden movement goes way back in wargames.
As I've said elsewhere, the best analogy may be to think of a huge cauldron that all kinds of stuff got thrown in, and bits and pieces fished out at various times.
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Feb 7, 2019 20:24:31 GMT -6
Layer Zero = Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign, currently kept alive by Jerry Berry and Bob Meyer and a couple of others. Layer One = Gary's original Greyhawk campaign, which I assume was rooted in OD&D as Gary structured it. This would (I would think) be the era of the LBB and the supplements. Layer Two = Evolution of the game into AD&D (eventually 2E) and later Holmes Basic (eventually B/X and BECMI and RC). The game continues to grow in bulk Layer Three = Evolution of the game into 3E/4E. Much standardization, heavy emphasis on rules mastery. Layer Four = Restructure of the game into 5E. Attempt to streamline to somewhere comparable to Layer Two. I started in Layer Two (Moldvay/Cook, into AD&D), but after maturing as a person and a gamer, gained interest in Layer One. One hope I have is to use Layer Four as a vehicle to recreate Layer's One and Two. I'm just not sure it's doable.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 7, 2019 20:46:36 GMT -6
Layer Zero = Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign, currently kept alive by Jerry Berry and Bob Meyer and a couple of others. Layer One = Gary's original Greyhawk campaign, which I assume was rooted in OD&D as Gary structured it. This would (I would think) be the era of the LBB and the supplements. Layer Two = Evolution of the game into AD&D (eventually 2E) and later Holmes Basic (eventually B/X and BECMI and RC). The game continues to grow in bulk Layer Three = Evolution of the game into 3E/4E. Much standardization, heavy emphasis on rules mastery. Layer Four = Restructure of the game into 5E. Attempt to streamline to somewhere comparable to Layer Two. I started in Layer Two (Moldvay/Cook, into AD&D), but after maturing as a person and a gamer, gained interest in Layer One. One hope I have is to use Layer Four as a vehicle to recreate Layer's One and Two. I'm just not sure it's doable. You bring up an excellent point. A noob might pick up any of these levels quickly, as that would be the style the gamer was introduced to when they learned to play RPGs. I suspect that the longer a person plays in one level, the harder it would be to move to levels farther on the spectrum. Not an insult on the person, understand, but it's probably hard to let go of whatever style you grew to love in order to experience a different style. I've talked to plenty of 3E gamers who are convinced that 3E is the best game ever created, and for them they might be right. Not a slam on them, but a byproduct of how they learned to play. Same with a lot of "story game" folks who are often bewildered by a more traditional D&D-style play, just as I am often bewildered by a story game. (Someday I will figure out FATE. Everyone says it's not hard, but it's possible that my gaming brain isn't wired that way. Same goes with Sorcerer, which seems like an awesome game but I just can't make it work in my brain.)
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Feb 7, 2019 23:21:37 GMT -6
On the subject of trying anything: I once ran a game where part of the adventure involved the possibility of sneaking into the camp of an enemy army at night. At first, the players would not attempt such a thing because they looked down at their character sheets and looked for the stealth-type abilities, and so forth. They decided after looking at their character sheets that they would not attempt such a thing. However, as I explained later, all I really needed was for them to describe "how" they would go about sneaking into the camp. A reasonable plan would be given a fair chance of success . . . regardless of what their character sheets said . . .
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 8, 2019 8:41:30 GMT -6
Someday I will figure out FATE. Everyone says it's not hard, but it's possible that my gaming brain isn't wired that way. Same goes with Sorcerer, which seems like an awesome game but I just can't make it work in my brain. I tried to grok Fate and only got partly there. The deal with story games is that the focus is not playing a character interacting with a setting with a human referee adjudicating but rather on collaborative storytelling using the mechanics of the game. The difference is while you have a character sheet in front of you (player) or the setting/adventure (referee) you are expected to metagame using the game mechanics in favor of a collaborative narrative. In theory the game mechanics provide a structure to do this that more concrete than say a how-to writers guide. The issue is in trying to translate the mechanics into descriptions of action, character, or world. Some get it and some don't. And it not the same kind of "thing" as Dave Arneson, Gary Gygax, and other do with tabletop RPGs. Doesn't mean it isn't fun it just that the focus is on something different.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 8, 2019 8:48:46 GMT -6
As I've said elsewhere, the best analogy may be to think of a huge cauldron that all kinds of stuff got thrown in, and bits and pieces fished out at various times. Ut seems to me it evolved over time even in the context of Blackmoor. Based on the various accounts the Blackmoor campaign was more of a follow up and mash up of the Grand Napoleonic Campaign and the Braustein. Like Brausteins players played individual character, like the Grand Napoleonic Campaign there was a immediate wargame type conflict that was being dealt with with the main difference it was done at the viewpoint of playing individual characters rather than nations. However over time it got more and more freeform. When the Blackmoor Dungeon started to be explored the original focus was ignored to the point were the baddies were able to "win" and take over Castle Blackmoor. After that all the accounts unequivocally painted Blackmoor as a tabletop roleplaying campaign that people today would recognize.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 8, 2019 8:56:28 GMT -6
Having read the book a few weeks after it was released I have several strong opinions about "Dave Arneson's True Genius"
1) That the main thesis is cluttered by the use jargon from General system theory. It doesn't make his point clear and requires anybody not familiar general system theory to spend a lot of time looking material up.
2) Yet Rob Kuntz does have a point that worth taking the time to understand.
3) Outside of the use of jargon, his thesis is presented with considerable bias based on, his negative experience working at TSR, his opinion on the treatment of Dave Arneson and most of the people from the Twin Cities, and his later involvement in publishing his RPG writings.
4) However it does add a perspective to the early days of the hobby that gives a fuller picture of what was happening.
|
|