|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 19, 2017 12:11:01 GMT -6
Sorry to reply so late to your post, but I needed to find the time to write a response commensurate with its breadth... The OP's chart makes many assertions. Even the first line that omits guts as being possibly equivalent to strength is a very big assertion. (for those just tuning in, he is referring to the character sheet table. The first column is the Spanish Royals character sheet that @secretsofblackmoor shared with everyone, which has a "guts" attribute but not a "strength" attribute, while the three later character sheets all have Strength and Courage attributes, but not guts) Unless we are given a reason to believe otherwise, I think the best assumption we can make about what individual words mean must come from the dictionary. In this case, of the two most popular dictionaries, Merriam-Webster lists "fortitude and stamina in coping with what alarms, repels, or discourages : COURAGE, PLUCK" as one of its definitions, and Oxford lists "Personal courage and determination; toughness of character." Both dictionaries have no definitions for Guts mentioning strength. Therefore, with definitions specifically mentioning courage but not strength, I assumed guts mapped to courage. To further support this assumption, I note that the Napoleonic game from which this character sheet appears to be from was concerned more about politics than combat, particularly so with regard to a royal family. Therefore, given this context, I again assert that courage fits better than strength. What if it is the source for two attributes? We just don't know with any certainty. Changing the order in which the attributes appear, to what is used in OD&D, merely confuses things. I chose this order because I was most interested in the lineage of the ability scores that appear in OD&D. Ability scores like Woodcraft and Riding didn't appear in OD&D, and thus they were placed below the set of rows that try to identify the lineage of the OD&D abilities from the earliest character sheet (that of the Spanish royals) to the latest (OD&D). We are more inclined to agree with those who foster the idea that attributes were created based on how much they were used and needed. In the case of Wisdom, Gary's style seems to be one of adjusting things so as to create an all encompassing system. Gygax seemed most comfortable working from templates. In many instances we see Gygax partnering up with someone to expand their preexisting work. You see this in his expansion of the original war game rules from Perren which was expanded in several stages to Chainmail. We also see it with Don't Give Up the Ship, which itself was primarily the work of Arneson. It is also evident in light of Patt's Rules for Middle Earth (which Jon unearthed, to his credit) where we see that Gygax used Patt's Fire Ball as a template in creating Lightning Bolt. When comparing OD&D to Beyond This Point Be Dragons manuscript, (another treasure @secretsofblackmoor was generous enough to share with us) we note that the spells and monsters missing from BTPBD that appear in OD&D are likely yet further Gygaxian expansion. Arneson strikes me as quite the opposite, however; he seemed quite happy to strike out in entirely new directions without any preexisting structure in place, with only a vision of what game play he was seeking to implement. It is not surprising, then, that Arneson's work seems relatively unstructured in comparison to Gygax's. Based on what we've heard from Blackmoor players, the mixture of Attribute/Skill Parameters WAS used during game play. We're inclined to think that the use of these values came on fairly early as well, Royal Spanish attributes support this theory. Certainly if Arneson created attributes for the Spanish Royals, he was including them as a game mechanism to be used. We will defer on whether the type of play was role playing, or not; the point is that if the rule is created. then it is likely Arneson would have used it, so it is more than probable that Arneson had a much different idea about the function of attributes in his game as opposed to Gygax's final edit for D&D. I agree with this. Arneson was very utilitarian; he wanted a particular game play functionality, therefore he designed a system to give it to him. Frequently he saw potential for improvement in his own designs and would therefore hit the drawing board again. His campaign has been described as in a state of constant flux. We see this in his combat system, which clearly had at least three phases, and likely many more. Odd thought, but we don't recall if anyone mentioned dice averages: The possible reason for switching to 3d6 is most likely so as to even out the curve for attributes. We don't know if this is the WHY for using 3d6, but it would make sense. You get less characters with 3's than you get with 2's. While everyone desires a high attribute, no one wants lots of 2's. I too am beginning to believe that Arneson initiated 3d6 ability scores. If only Jon would show us the character sheet recopied from Blackmoor to D&D! (sigh) Odd fact: And of course "Dexterity" is the Thieves attribute! Yet, they are not invented by either Gary or Dave until later on. (Megarry plays a thief from the get-go, but it is interpretted differently.) Gary Shweitzer and his group in California invent them, and then they are adopted by Gygax who wrote the rules as published in gaming fanzines. (GPGPNL July, 74) Daniel Wagner created the Thief class, Gary Switzer spilled the beans to Gygax over the phone. Daniel posted on these forums here. You can read the other bits of the story on wikipedia. We would like to note that regarding the Spanish Royals, it would be nice to see a citation: Secrets of Blackmoor, Dan Boggs 2017. You cite Jon peterson as you should, but not us.  We found it. We passed it to Dan to see his ideas on it. We published on our FaceBook as he published on his blog on the very same day.  And yes, web citations are valid now. My apologizes for that, I put the table of character sheets together quickly and didn't think to cite where they all came from. Here's a tip: add a signature to your profile with a link to your website and facebook pages, so that they appear on all your posts. Take a look at Jon's to see what I mean. A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BTPBD: As to the BTPBD manuscript. It is likely we know more about it's Origins and Patrimony than anyone on else. It's amusing how it is supposed to be some kind of secret. Yet we've recieved copies from numerous people over the years now. Perhaps it's time to simply get it out there to more researchers; since it is simply out there already. Feel free to email us, if you need a copy "For Research Purposes" at: secretsofblackmoor@gmail.com This sharing falls under "fair use" and does not breach any copyrights. We see no issue with doing so. It is a sad state of affairs that most do not share scans of documents in order to help the research community. This has been such a wonderful gift to the Blackmoor and D&D communities! Thank you so much for setting such a wonderful example for everyone! If everyone shared like this, our understanding of the beginnings of Dungeons & Dragons would not only be greatly accelerated, but likely much more correct as well. |
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251 
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jun 19, 2017 13:05:25 GMT -6
You'uns: I'm always a bit puzzled when I see you use this antiquated spelling. Being yinzer born and bread myself, I can assure you that yuins or yinz are more common modern spellings. Yuins is more Appalachian highlands (Pa, Md, WV) whereas Yinz is more 'burgher. Just an FYI. ok sorry i spelled worng |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 14:36:02 GMT -6
A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BTPBD: As to the BTPBD manuscript. It is likely we know more about it's Origins and Patrimony than anyone on else. It's amusing how it is supposed to be some kind of secret. Yet we've recieved copies from numerous people over the years now. Perhaps it's time to simply get it out there to more researchers; since it is simply out there already. Feel free to email us, if you need a copy "For Research Purposes" at: secretsofblackmoor@gmail.com This sharing falls under "fair use" and does not breach any copyrights. We see no issue with doing so. It is a sad state of affairs that most do not share scans of documents in order to help the research community. This has been such a wonderful gift to the Blackmoor and D&D communities! Thank you so much for setting such a wonderful example for everyone! If everyone shared like this, our understanding of the beginnings of Dungeons & Dragons would not only be greatly accelerated, but likely much more correct as well. We have the carbon masters for COTT. Our masters are scanned at very high res, so difficult to share easily. We're talking some at 1250 dpi so we can zoom them on screen. BIG FILES! Any special requests on here for a specific page or two, we'd be glad to reduce and share. The whole enchilada will have to wait. We really are working a lot. Per usual Email: secretsofblackmoor@gmail.com |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 15:49:30 GMT -6
Yes, I do, but all your brains would explode if I told you. All of you good folks would have had conniption fits watching my games yesterday at the Free RPG Day event at the FLGS, where I was running my games just like I learned from Dave, all those years ago (with a big helping from Gary and Phil along the way, of course) at Coffman Union. I can guarantee that mine will not, please start a new thread and share some a lot of them. If other brains explode that is not my problem.   If I may, I'd like to suggest that there's the 'Questioning Chirine ba Kal' thread on this forum. As I have indicated on the RPGsite version, I will try to answer all questions as best and as honestly as I can. I will also direct people to sources materials on the web or in print, insomuch as I know where they can be found. The thread here cross-references to the RPGsite ones, should one be inclined to wade through 650 pages of wide-ranging discussions. (I'm genuinely surprised Pundit tolerates me, to be honest.) One caveat: I am not able to answer detailed questions about game mechanics in D&D. I never played D&D until about three months ago, when I was invited to play in a 5E campaign. My experience is limited to playing something called 'Blackmoor' with Dave, something called 'Greyhawk' with Gary, and something called 'Tekumel' with Phil. I can tell you about game play and world-settings, and how we played at Coffman back in the day, but I'm not au fait with anything other then the wood-grain boxed edition of D&D; sorry! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 16:00:13 GMT -6
chinrie i dont' know you'uns so pleese dont think i disrespect, and i don't post to this thred becasue everybody yells at me when i talk. But if you'uns know some thing of use to gamers? share it and pay no never mind to the grumpuses. some of us'ns listen when you'uns talk - like me! No disrespect taken, sir! As to who I am, I'm known as Chirine ba Kal, my PC for over a dozen years in Prof. Barker's Tekumel campaign. I knew and gamed with Dave Arneson, starting in 1975, and was hired by him to be the 'Vice President for Tekumel Affairs' at his company, Adventure Games. He'd also send me down to Lake Geneva for the TSR stockholder meetings, where I got to know Gary; he was kind enough to run Greyhawk for me. I have been in the hobby for some forty years now, as well as the industry - I'm a founding member of GAMA. I started gaming with the Professor in early '76, and I became the unofficial archivist for Tekumel; I have everything that the Professor and we - the original Thursday Night Group - created for his games and his world. I am, supposedly, "the greatest living authority on Tekumel"; me, I think I just have a good memory and a basement full of stuff I can reference. (Photos on my blog and on my Photobucket page.) I'm happy to answer questions; I work better in a Q & A format. If I may, I'd suggest the 'Questioning Chirine ba Kal' thread on this forum for this. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 19, 2017 16:14:56 GMT -6
In an attempt to get the thread back on track, I want to summarize what I view as the most promising lead toward answering the question posed by this thread. Jon Peterson, author of Playing at the World, stated: I have seen a transitional character sheet that suggests that neither Wisdom nor Dexterity mapped cleanly to Cunning. When asked about it, Peterson said: I was thinking of a sheet that apparently shows a character that was ported from ICSHA to SIWCDCh (so, perhaps an early 1974 sheet). The W and D scores both show ranges rather than numbers, and have question marks next to them, as if they were tentative assignments, whereas the other four abilities are given as firm values. The emphasis in the above quote was added by me; this is, I believe, the key clue to understanding the transitional character sheet. the way the ranges are structured Dex is higher. Wis average, Dex above average. And to be clear as well, the transitional character sheet I mentioned doesn't have an ICSHA "side" or show ICSHA values, it is a SIWCDCh sheet - it is just clear from the context that the character was a port from an ICSHA character, and we might infer the fuzziness about Wisdom and Dexterity resulted from that. Jon stated that his understanding of this transitional character sheet as follows: Theory #1This document is not conclusive evidence of anything in particular, but you might infer that the person doing the porting didn't know to convert Cunning into either Wisdom or Dexterity, so they kind of left those two up in the air. Going on what Jon has told us, I have proposed the following explanation for the transitional character sheet: Theory #2I suggest that there isn't one transitional character sheet, but two: a first character sheet for a Blackmoor character (with essentially the identical stats on Gaylord's Blackmoor character sheet), and a second character sheet for the same character, but recopied to D&D (presumably during the D&D playtest). This is the context that Jon mentioned. The first character sheet for the Blackmoor character has the following stats on it according to Jon Peterson: Intelligence Cunning Strength Health Appearance The second character sheet for the D&D version of the same character has the following stats on it: Strength Intelligence Wisdom Constitution Dexterity Charisma So we have here 5 Blackmoor stats becoming 6 D&D stats. Additionally, we have neither Wisdom nor Dexterity on the Blackmoor stats, and they are suddenly appear together, at the same time on the D&D stats. I propose that one of them (I suspect it was Gygax) split Cunning into its two component meanings. Recall the first definition I gave for Cunning from the 1913 dictionary: Merriam-Webster (1913):1. Knowledge; art; skill; dexterity. Let my right hand forget her cunning. - Ps. cxxxvii. 5. A carpenter's desert Stands more in cunning than in power. - Chapman. 2. The faculty or act of using stratagem to accomplish a purpose; fraudulent skill or dexterity; deceit; craft. Discourage cunning in a child; cunning is the ape of wisdom. - Locke. We take cunning for a sinister or crooked wisdom. -Bacon There is both a Dexterity aspect to Cunning and a Wisdom aspect to Cunning. Someone (probably Gygax), realizing this, may have split Cunning into two separate scores, providing a prime requisite for the Cleric via Wisdom. The number ranges on the character sheet are tentative because the player hadn't yet decided which of the two he wanted to have as the higher ability. If you give us the number for Cunning and the two number ranges, perhaps some relationship will be apparent. It would really help to have the numerical values for Cunning and the two ranges. The player may have been asked to distribute points between Wisdom and Dexterity. For example, each of the new scores of Dexterity and Wisdom could have started as a roll. The player was then asked to distribute additional points between the new Wisdom and Dexterity scores as he saw fit. Let me give an example of some stats (I made them up because we haven't been given the numerical values) and show why I think that Cunning was split into Dexterity and Wisdom based on the number ranges for Dexterity and Wisdom on the transitional character sheet(s): Intelligence Cunning 15 Strength Health Appearance which became: Strength Intelligence Wisdom 8-12? Constitution Dexterity 12-16? Charisma what the player might have been told to do during the conversion process was 1) roll 2d6 for Dexterity and Wisdom, and 2) to distribute for example 4 points between Wisdom and Dexterity as they saw fit when the split happened. So, the player could have chosen: Wisdom 8 Dexterity 16 or Wisdom 9 Dexterity 15 or Wisdom 10 Dexterity 14 or Wisdom 11 Dexterity 13 or Wisdom 12 Dexerity 12 At the time the player recopied the character sheet to D&D, he hadn't decided how he was going to do the split, these being new rules after all. Therefore, he put the possible range with a question mark for each. Also, Increment speaking about averages instead of actual numbers suggests that the first character sheet, which appears to be a Blackmoor character sheet, has ability scores indicative of 3d6 stats. As these character sheet(s) could be the crucial clue to showing that Cunning was split into Wisdom and Dexterity, as well as possibly revealing 3d6 stats in Blackmoor, isn't anyone besides me interested in seeing a scan of them? Jon seems to have hinted that there is some truth to theory #2: Could be, for all I know. While it may be that someone forked Cunning into Wisdom and Dexterity at some point, However, this is a lead we can no longer pursue, as Jon doesn't want to share the scans of the transitional character sheet(s) with us: isn't anyone besides me interested in seeing a scan of them? In cases where I think it's important to share scans to make my point, I do - like I recently did in that thread on the Spanish Royal Family, say. I don't see that need in this instance. If anyone has any other theories, I would be happy to include them in this post. Does anyone have another set of transitional character sheet(s) that we could analyze? Perhaps someone that played in the original Blackmoor campaign? If anyone has any leads outside this forum, I would be happy to run them down. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 19, 2017 16:28:50 GMT -6
I knew and gamed with Dave Arneson, starting in 1975 Hello Chirine, Would you have any leads on a set of transitional character sheets per the above for a character from Blackmoor copied over to a D&D character sheet, perhaps during the play test? It sounds like it was before your time, but given how close you started playing relative to the play test, perhaps you could name an individual that you think might have such a sheet? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 16:45:33 GMT -6
Reading through some recent posts and there is this constant desire for linearity. You can impose linearity through your pink glasses, but be acreful as the linearity may simply be your own construct. Worth noting that before 1972 Arneson is exploring a lot of things, he takes care of all character sheets, so most don't even get to keep theirs. He could simply let older ones go till they got killed off. After 72, you have two playtest sites going at different speeds and in different directions. While one would assume some form of merging, it's just as likely not. But we seem to have some documents we'll have to wait for publication on to see.  Oh and, Hi Chirine, We're still looking forward to a trip into the depths of Jakalla. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 21:18:13 GMT -6
I would say that Charisma combines not just looks, but courage, credibility and leadership all into one. So, just like Gary wrote 44 years ago, then. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 21:20:23 GMT -6
Reading all of this made me look up a few things that I still have. My character Robert the Bald dates back to the first year of Blackmoor. The character sheet lists the following: Strength 9 Intelligence 16 Wisdom 14 Constitution 11 Dexterity 14 Charisma 14 There is no mention of cunning. This could have been something that other classes like clerics or thieves had; I do not remember having a PC in either of those classes. Our characters were very personalized in the beginning, we were continually coming up with new ideas that Arneson would work into the game. I do remember that the above characteristics could affect our actions and actions against us by opponents( or non player characters). Just saying (for what it is worth). Fie! This is the Internet! Just because you were there and have written proof doesn't mean that the Internet Knowitalls don't know better than you! (The above post may contain irony, sarcasm, or flatulence.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 21:25:20 GMT -6
Meanwhile, an elephant is still warm and mushy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 19, 2017 21:36:47 GMT -6
Fie! This is the Internet! Just because you were there and have written proof doesn't mean that the Internet Knowitalls don't know better than you! Gronan, did you catch this part? I am taking this from a Blackmoor Campaign Character Record Sheet that is dated 1/1/2000 (signed and dated by David Arneson). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 21:58:45 GMT -6
I would say that Charisma combines not just looks, but courage, credibility and leadership all into one. So, just like Gary wrote 44 years ago, then. Yeah, and the way I have always run it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 22:00:01 GMT -6
Meanwhile, an elephant is still warm and mushy. After its encounter with an ancient dragon! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 0:43:28 GMT -6
Reading all of this made me look up a few things that I still have. My character Robert the Bald dates back to the first year of Blackmoor. The character sheet lists the following: Strength 9 Intelligence 16 Wisdom 14 Constitution 11 Dexterity 14 Charisma 14 There is no mention of cunning. This could have been something that other classes like clerics or thieves had; I do not remember having a PC in either of those classes. Our characters were very personalized in the beginning, we were continually coming up with new ideas that Arneson would work into the game. I do remember that the above characteristics could affect our actions and actions against us by opponents( or non player characters). Just saying (for what it is worth). Cedgewick, While you contemplate the trail of abilities, you may want to read what Robert has said here just one more time. He's saying that it is possible he did not need that attribute because his character did not need it. It is entirely possible that in early Blackmoor each Charatcer sheet was different. Just an odd thought. And again "I do remember that the above characteristics could affect our actions and actions against us by opponents( or non player characters). Just saying (for what it is worth)." The above quote points to a much different perspective on attributes than what is seen in OD&D; as attributes were used directly in game play. We emailed Greg Svenson and he corroborated this fact for us. Stats are for using, not for decoration. So it would appear you have two problems. The system is drastically evolving away from Arneson's design ideas toward Gary's Prime Requisite concept and Classes. The function of the attributes seems to be getting diluted as you progress past 1972. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jun 20, 2017 6:22:17 GMT -6
Jon stated that his understanding of this transitional character sheet as follows: To sum up what I was trying to say: What intrigued me about Dan's suggestion was that we should read the corrections on the back of the Wizard Gaylord sheet as "upgrading" the character to a new system that uses both 3d6 and Cunning - but just for the ICSHA attributes. I mean, we've always inferred from the the placement on the sheet and the difference in writing implements that Cunning was added as a latecomer, and that Brains, Looks, Health and Strength are among the "classic" Blackmoor attributes. But following on Dan's suggestion, maybe the moment of those corrections was the time when effectively the game left the other attributes behind, and focused in on ICSHA. I don't think it's clear exactly what that time was, or if that decision would have been made by Arneson, or if it came Gygax and Arneson's period of active collaboration toward a game. One explanation is that by this point D&D drafts were already in circulation, and the upgrades to the Wizard Gaylord sheet reflect making the sheet ICSHA-compliant. D&D drafts did pare abilities down to just five but maybe Pete didn't feel like crossing out the old attributes, or maybe they were still be used in some fashion in Blackmoor (yes, I do think attributes were used, I'm just not so sure about exactly how). Whenever Cunning was introduced, it had become the prime requisite for Clerics before Wisdom entered the game's vocabulary. So when the transition from ICSHA to SIWCDCh happened, there is an important sense in which Wisdom served the purpose in the written system that Cunning had formerly served - in so far as it really didn't ostensibly do much other than serve as a prime requisite. But I still don't think we can entirely rule out how, in a more subjective sense, Cunning and Wisdom aren't the same thing, and that might lead someone to put a question mark next to the value for it on a sheet when converting from ICSHA to SIWCDCh. Dexterity was new then too. Might some people have thought that Dexterity had some relationship to Cunning? If we can argue it, they could at the time too. These ability names reflect pretty amorphous concepts; this was no doubt a messy process. The presence of two question marks on a sheet could just mean "I don't know if Cunning and Wisdom are really the same thing, so I'm just going to put a question mark - and also, there's this new Dex stat and I don't know what to put for that." Or it could mean something else. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 20, 2017 7:59:41 GMT -6
Jon, what is the reason why you won't at least give us the numerical values for the stats, including the number ranges for Dexterity and Wisdom?
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jun 20, 2017 12:26:31 GMT -6
Just curious,
Who are we thinking came up with Ability Scores and Saving Throws as categories? Gary? Dave? Maybe earlier existing wargame designs?
I mean, Ability Scores are really different than the To Hit tables. Each are aggregates of many subscores in the game. And these subscores do appear related to an encompassing ability: maybe an emergent property of the design? Shift the Ability Score and we shift all the subscores beneath.
Saving Throws are categories too, but they are only related by the numerical progression for the target numbers. As Classes and Monsters increase in level/HD their scores progress uniquely by one of five categories. These progressions matter more for what category we put saves in than any kind of theme.
This all may not matter in identifying Cunning, but maybe you all can dig into designer intent, if we can determine who can up with the above? Is it from someone who even conceived of Ability Scores as existing? Was it used as an ability? a save? a category like Race is? A game resource? Perhaps by cutting away what those with direct experience know isn't the design, you can get closer to what Cunning may be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 16:20:47 GMT -6
[snipped] Oh and, Hi Chirine, We're still looking forward to a trip into the depths of Jakalla. Schedule it. I'm around... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 16:25:50 GMT -6
I knew and gamed with Dave Arneson, starting in 1975 Hello Chirine, Would you have any leads on a set of transitional character sheets per the above for a character from Blackmoor copied over to a D&D character sheet, perhaps during the play test? It sounds like it was before your time, but given how close you started playing relative to the play test, perhaps you could name an individual that you think might have such a sheet? Any of the original Blackmoor guys might still have something like this, but such materials have been getting bought up a pretty good clip; they are hot items, I gather. Several of the original players post here - Hi, Bob! - and you could try Havard's Blackmoor forum; the Blackmoor guys do not have much of an Internet presence. And sadly, most of my good friends in that group have passed away. No idea what's happening with their papers and such, sorry; I'm not in those loops. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 19:36:22 GMT -6
...and count yourself lucky!!!
An elephant is warm and mushy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 19:37:06 GMT -6
Never has so little information been so overinflated so severely by so many!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 4:54:53 GMT -6
Hello Chirine, Would you have any leads on a set of transitional character sheets per the above for a character from Blackmoor copied over to a D&D character sheet, perhaps during the play test? It sounds like it was before your time, but given how close you started playing relative to the play test, perhaps you could name an individual that you think might have such a sheet? Any of the original Blackmoor guys might still have something like this, but such materials have been getting bought up a pretty good clip; they are hot items, I gather. Several of the original players post here - Hi, Bob! - and you could try Havard's Blackmoor forum; the Blackmoor guys do not have much of an Internet presence. And sadly, most of my good friends in that group have passed away. No idea what's happening with their papers and such, sorry; I'm not in those loops. Well, we have located some. We don't own them and they are already written about by Dan Boggs. We liked Dan's work and felt his background in the sciences, and approach to his work, was in line with our beliefs; which is why we give him early access to things. A long rant about artifacts follows, sorry if we have hijacked a discussion. Since going public with our project we've likely revealed more documents than anyone this year. Some of it is just fun, but as in the case of the things Megarry has shared or Royal Family, some are a real find. We've been sending out emails to original players and asking on it since it supports some interview comments that we weren't sure about. One source now says that the generals in the campaigns had stat sheets too. They would likely be similar to SR with the added bonus of some kind of leadership rating for battles. Troops are the same. It should be noted that in Arneson's campaigns he used experience for troops and leaders; this likely impacts characters later on. Ragarding what we share, all we want is that a citation of source be visible and that the item not be altered, or in the case of detail shots, that both original and detail be shown for context. Chopping out segments can actually ruin the document's meaning and intepretation. As with many sciences, the early years consist of people trying to gather objects to themselves, so as to gather status and power to themselves. Paleontology during it's infancy in Colorado was like that, with self proclaimed scientists running about and laying claim to sites as well as laying claim to finds. It also involved all the expected public thrashings through the media and such. (Like we've contributed to here. ) Probably half of the early work was a complete mess and people ended up assembling bones into fantasy monsters. I bet it took years to untangle it all. Ultimately it is a sad state of afffairs when what is decribed as research is actually damaging to research. In the beinning we were no better about this, but time and thought has changed our views. We try to glean what is worth sharing as we have thousands of document scans. We also do not own most of the material we've found. So a limitation for us is asking the owners if we can publish now, rather than in the film. Another problem is self published works like Wesely's Strategos-N variation. He is still alive and he does own copyright on it. These we are glad to share to researchers, but we cannot place them into the public domain for open distribution. Just to list a few: S-N; S-RT; S-A; need to double check on S-C; DGUTS master playtest draft carbons and numerous copies. Another problem for us, is that we had planned to release collections in book form. We do not plan to make money off of these books; we would either turn the money's back to the estates, or donate to charity. If we release all the COTTs on our site, does this devalue a later printing, do we care? Our experience is very different as well. Most of our sources are glad to just give us stuff they have. In some cases they loan things to us. People see value in loaning us artifacts because they get value by being used in our film as well. We are not of the collector breed. We don't get sweaty palms at the thought of having a game collection we can roll around in like Scrooge Mcduck. Our bigger concern is finding the proper museum to get our collection into for future research. Our goal is to see this kind of research attain credibility as an endeavor, rather than a hobby. An odd thought that transpired while 1st joining this group was the need for a peer reviewed journal. Self published books with no peer review are just that. Probably the greatest goal to work toward as a group, is to create some kind of organization for this. Perhaps the hardest part is figuring out how to use the acronym Grognard for its name. The entire premise of research implies a dialogue. We have entered a discussion and someone coming in late should be allowed, or even given, ways to catch up with everyone. The mere fact that most likely few people can actually pore through and read COTT has become a real issue for us. This should have been made public ages ago. There should also be a catalog, so that people can compare who has what. Ours is sloppilly hand written, but it does help. AS keepers of the master copies, it seems like we should get to work on this. Going back to the documents we've revealed. We try to do some kind of quick write up of what we're seeing. If you use the item in an article, please argue for or against what we think we see. This will begin to create the dialogue that we need so dearly. It's basic stuff you learn in college english classes on how to write research papers. A hundred years from now, others will be reading our commentary and needing some bread crumbs to know about the what and why. A common experience with secret never to be revealed documents goes kind of like this: I have this thing, but I will only show it to you if you agree with my interpetation of it. This is not dialogue. As far as things that are not ephemera. We have some special items. Some we own simply because we felt that if the collection was parted out, it would lose meaning. Dan Nicholson's WWII ships in 1/1200 scale are an example of non critical artifacts; they sure would look great in a museum case some day. Other items that we're holding off revealing until we release our film -- these are scoops. We fully understand someone wanting to not reveal one or two special items for this same reason. It helps sales of the product if it is, a book, or film, or whatever. And then there are the articles with personal information. MMSA member lists with phones and addresses are a good example of this. We posted an already known about event-flyer not long ago, but we removed all traces of phone numbers. If we had used it in a book it might be different, but the idea of some goon calling all the numbers was a concern. We do live in a volatile world. One should consider that as surely as we are examining all of these D&D items, there will come a time when someone will be examining us: our processes, writings, discussions, even our behaviour. We will be judged. People will write papers about this time and politely ridicule, or praise. |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jun 21, 2017 5:19:55 GMT -6
So ... I know that we're pretty far into this whole discussion, and I don't think most of it is worth theorizing over. But I want to clarify something since the people who know / knew the pre-publication versions of D&D are here.
1. Wisdom in 1974 OD&D is the Prime Requisite for Clerics. From what I understand, Cunning was the Prime Requisite for Clerics in pre-publication D&D.
2. Wisdom in 1974 OD&D is listed as working similarly to Intelligence, presumably inasmuch as it would "affect referees’ decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken." Was Cunning or any other stat described in a similar way?
3. Dexterity in 1974 OD&D gives a bonus or penalty to hit with ranged attacks (depending on its value). Was there any stat in the pre-publication versions that did this before Dexterity appeared (including Cunning)?
4. Dexterity in 1974 OD&D is described as determining "speed with actions such as firing first, getting off a spell, etc." Is there any stat that does this in pre-publication D&D (including Cunning)?
These are the concrete things that are true about Wisdom and Dexterity. So the question I'd have is: how many of 1, 2, 3, and 4 describe Cunning in the pre-publication D&D? If 3 and 4 don't describe Cunning, then its relationship to Dexterity would be at best a minor curiosity about pre-publication play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 6:13:57 GMT -6
Who are we thinking came up with Ability Scores and Saving Throws as categories? All of the saving throw categories, except wands, come directly from Chainmail as special monster attacks. For example, save vs poison is in the write up for spiders. Save vs wands is a derivative table, being just another table+1. Wands did not exist in Chainmail. This doesn't tell us much, but Dave certainly could have been using them behind the screen as they were available to him. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jun 21, 2017 8:25:28 GMT -6
So ... I know that we're pretty far into this whole discussion, and I don't think most of it is worth theorizing over. Probably true, but, some people find value in the exercise. I learned something cool from it, though, not sure if it was ultimately worth the abuse. Not really, no. No. Though there were assumptions borrowed from 2nd ed Chainmail along these lines, there's no ability that influences plays into it. Probably right. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 10:19:25 GMT -6
At least in Greyhawk, the stats were Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Dexterity, Charisma by autumn of 1972, so Cunning was nowhere to be found.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 10:23:47 GMT -6
Mornard's Nasty Personal Attack "Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack, you are a pisshead. I admire Jon's patience in even interacting with you, because I won't any more. You are a rampaging butthole."; well, it was just too much. Oh, boo hoo hoo. Here's a crying towel while you clutch your pearls. Considering the abuse you then proceed to heap on Jon Peterson, you're also a rampaging hypocrite. Also, I refuse to take seriously anybody who uses an alias of "Secrets of Blackmoor." OOOooo! Spooky! and SECRET! If you're nine years old. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 11:42:00 GMT -6
At least in Greyhawk, the stats were Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Dexterity, Charisma by autumn of 1972, so Cunning was nowhere to be found. Good info. With the Exception of Rob Kuntz and Tim Kask, none of the Lake Geneva people would do an interview with us. It is too bad you refused to do one with us, as it would have given us a more complete perspective on Gary and Lake Geneva. The lack of metarial from Lake Gevena has cuased us to focus more and Arneson and his group and skim, or not even include Gary Gygax and his bunch since we can't make any claims of knowing much about what they were doing, or what they did. Our focus is limited to the role playing component of the game, and how Dave Arneson created Modern Role Playing via Blackmoor. It's interesting how everyone in Lake Geneva seems to know an aweful lot about everything, yet what Tim Kask describes is that Gary kept his cards very close to his chest. We couldn't get either Rob or Tim to be too specific in some areas of recollection, since memory fades a bit. Based on these detailed statements it sounds like you may have been more closely affiliated with Gary, We'd love to email you about it so as to have more background on the time you were there and what was going on with the playtest as well as the design. It would give us something to use, so as to not entirely ignore Gary Gygax. When we were out in the Twin Cities last time, we came across a small hoard of letters in Arneson's estate regarding your employment at Adventure Games/Tekumel Games and all the stuff that happened there. We'd love to talk about that in order to get a clearer pitcure of what was going on in this time as well. It's intereating that some of the Twin Cities guys went to LG to work at TSR and you went to the Twin Cites area and ended up at Adventure Games. All of your experiences are unique and we'd love to get them all on record. Thanks, Super SCARY! 9 year olds of Secrets of Blackmoor. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 12:20:26 GMT -6
At least in Greyhawk, the stats were Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Dexterity, Charisma by autumn of 1972, so Cunning was nowhere to be found. Good info. With the Exception of Rob Kuntz and Tim Kask, none of the Lake Geneva people would do an interview with us. It is too bad you refused to do one with us, as it would have given us a more complete perspective on Gary and Lake Geneva. .... when the hell did you ask me? I don't recall refusing to interview with anybody. Considering I've already been interviewed for three documentaries and once by the BBC (as well as David Ewalt). Hell, I love the sound of my own voice. Now, if it was at a convention I may not have had the time, but that's not the same as refusing. So, confess. When did I refuse? |
|
We found it. We passed it to Dan to see his ideas on it. We published on our FaceBook as he published on his blog on the very same day. 
And yes, web citations are valid now.
