|
Post by derv on Jun 28, 2018 17:28:47 GMT -6
Well, you probably came across this already. Maybe it won't really be useful. I'll share the link to the Internet Archive anyway. If it doesn't open up to it, page 18 is the relevant article.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 28, 2018 19:33:11 GMT -6
Well, you probably came across this already. Maybe it won't really be useful. I'll share the link to the Internet Archive anyway. If it doesn't open up to it, page 18 is the relevant article. Yes, absolutely. I am familiar with it. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Jun 30, 2018 5:48:51 GMT -6
I think the campaign angle could be informative. What the original players would have been referring to when talking about a "campaign" is more specifically a "map campaign". There are are few types of map campaigns and methods of putting them together. But, this is what would have been understood and why there are references to designing a world (setting). This is the sort of campaign Bath outlines. It makes sense of why the OS board is under Recommended Equipment. As you mentioned, there are other types of campaigns. You mentioned narrative. This form revolves around a story arc. They can be historical or fictional. There are also map-less campaigns and simple campaigns that string together individual battles. These can be organized in a few different manners. All these methods are used by wargamers. So, in terms of what was "in the air" at the time that D&D was being developed, one would be hard-pressed to do better than to read Playing at the World (of course). I don't recall seeing any references to a narrative campaign in the early books, but I have Morschauser's 1962 How to Play War Games in Miniature in front of me as I type, and its chapter on "Map and Table" describes both a photo-Bath map campaign, and a simple campaign made by scoring points for a series of historically recreated battles. Featherstone's seminal War Games, also from 1962, has an 11-page chapter on "Organizing a Campaign" with several approaches to map campaigns described. (Some of these were finally revealed to the general public in 1970, with the publication of Featherstone's book War Game Campaigns.) A lot of that material was probably published in The War Gamer's Digest, but I don't know how widely that circulated, other than that it was known to Gary. C.S. Grant's recent (2008) book The War Game Companion includes reprints of some early WGD (also around 1962) articles on the Grant family campaigns. Anyway, insofar as I have a point, it would be that Bath's book, while much more detailed than any of the sources I've mentioned, is definitely in the same realm of work as these earlier sources. My story arc as a D&D player is probably posted here somewhere, but, in short, I got started with a hard cover book and a heap of Airfix stuff in 1971. I read Morschauser (though I didn't own it until later), and therefore was exposed to the idea of stringing table top battles into a continuing operation almost from the beginning. I've mentioned that the first time I ran across D&D was through a 1974 article called "Swords and Sorcery in Wargaming", and that, by the time I got D&D for my birthday in 1976, I already had Chainmail and a small collection of the Minifigs "Mythical Earth" figures, the first actual fantasy range produced. By 1976, of course, fantasy figures were popping up all over the place, so I missed out on the "putting wings on your plastic dinosaur" phase of early fantasy wargaming. I was also playing various Avalon Hill and SPI games. I don't recall any particular issues with decoding the overall intention of D&D; draw a map, describe the scene to players, throw some 20 sided dice (we never tried the Chainmail linkages, although we marked it for future consideration when we might someday have enough miniatures) and carry on. I had that Strategic Review with the D&D FAQ within a month or two, so I didn't have to struggle over initiative rules, and quickly figured out how the Vancian magic was supposed to work.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 30, 2018 10:24:05 GMT -6
So, in terms of what was "in the air" at the time that D&D was being developed, one would be hard-pressed to do better than to read Playing at the World (of course). I don't recall seeing any references to a narrative campaign in the early books, but I have Morschauser's 1962 How to Play War Games in Miniature in front of me as I type, and its chapter on "Map and Table" describes both a photo-Bath map campaign, and a simple campaign made by scoring points for a series of historically recreated battles. Featherstone's seminal War Games, also from 1962, has an 11-page chapter on "Organizing a Campaign" with several approaches to map campaigns described. (Some of these were finally revealed to the general public in 1970, with the publication of Featherstone's book War Game Campaigns.) A lot of that material was probably published in The War Gamer's Digest, but I don't know how widely that circulated, other than that it was known to Gary. C.S. Grant's recent (2008) book The War Game Companion includes reprints of some early WGD (also around 1962) articles on the Grant family campaigns. Anyway, insofar as I have a point, it would be that Bath's book, while much more detailed than any of the sources I've mentioned, is definitely in the same realm of work as these earlier sources. My story arc as a D&D player is probably posted here somewhere, but, in short, I got started with a hard cover book and a heap of Airfix stuff in 1971. I read Morschauser (though I didn't own it until later), and therefore was exposed to the idea of stringing table top battles into a continuing operation almost from the beginning. I've mentioned that the first time I ran across D&D was through a 1974 article called "Swords and Sorcery in Wargaming", and that, by the time I got D&D for my birthday in 1976, I already had Chainmail and a small collection of the Minifigs "Mythical Earth" figures, the first actual fantasy range produced. By 1976, of course, fantasy figures were popping up all over the place, so I missed out on the "putting wings on your plastic dinosaur" phase of early fantasy wargaming. I was also playing various Avalon Hill and SPI games. I don't recall any particular issues with decoding the overall intention of D&D; draw a map, describe the scene to players, throw some 20 sided dice (we never tried the Chainmail linkages, although we marked it for future consideration when we might someday have enough miniatures) and carry on. I had that Strategic Review with the D&D FAQ within a month or two, so I didn't have to struggle over initiative rules, and quickly figured out how the Vancian magic was supposed to work. Maybe my comment was misunderstood. From the angle of clarifying the original game to those who might otherwise overlook it or dismiss it tetramorph has posted a primary outline of possible video subjects to be covered. One of those is the "wargame campaign". I agree with you that at the time the rules were written Gygax was discussing setting up a map campaign. Content was expanded to include such things as dungeon exploration (see my link above). Yet, the term "campaign" has taken on different meanings to modern readers- including wargamers. Among modern RPG's I would say the narrative format is the dominant understanding of the term. Though, a strung together set of separate adventures devoid of a larger setting might be a close runner up. I think this was an outcome of the introduction of modules to the hobby and the eventual publication of novels based on others adventures. It's arguable. One should recognize that even Osprey has come to utilize the Narrative Campaign with their rules. So, I am not limiting my comments to non-wargamers. Honestly, I think the idea of moving across a map is lost on many when talking about RPG's. Instead it is a matter of point A and point B; who cares about the boring stuff in between, so it doesn't really matter where point A or B is on a map beyond it being a nice visual for the GM. I haven't personally run into the idea of a map campaign much outside of OSR talk on the subject. I realize there are published settings. I'm not convinced they are used in the original sense of a map campaign. Beyond that, I would think it would be worth talking about how much minutia a GM was expected to include in a map campaign- "simplicity or tremendous complexity". Anyway, it sounds like tetramorph is leaning more towards an interview type approach for his project.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Jun 30, 2018 14:26:16 GMT -6
I will reply at somewhat greater length when I’m using a real keyboard. In wargaming, since you mention Osprey, you would consider something like Frostgrave to have a “narrative” form, since no campaign maps are involved? My club has a Ghost Archipelago camapign running this year...At home I am dabbling with a solo map campaign for fantasy armies using Hordes of the Things, somewhat similar to the campaign Chicagowiz has been podcasting about.
I don’t disagree with you, by the way; I just haven’t been involved with too many new school campaigns. Most of what I’ve done the last few years has been OD&D or classic Traveller, which is also pretty map based, at least at the ship movement level.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 30, 2018 16:24:21 GMT -6
I will reply at somewhat greater length when I’m using a real keyboard. In wargaming, since you mention Osprey, you would consider something like Frostgrave to have a “narrative” form, since no campaign maps are involved? Yes, I would consider a Frostgrave's campaign to fall under "narrative". That's not to say the rules could not lend themselves to other methods. The rules seem pretty adaptable. And a narrative campaign does not have to be map-less. A map-less campaign is another animal all together. I think the primary factor with a narrative campaign is that they are heavily story driven. It was probably GW that most popularized this approach which turned out to be very marketable. Others have followed their success. BTW, Osprey has already begun publishing novels based on Frostgrave- "Tales of the Frozen City" and "Second Chances". I'd be interested in hearing more of your POV rsdean . I'm not sure if this discussion is helpful to tetramorph or derailing? I'd be happy to carry it else where if he would prefer. *I moved this part of the discussion down to the OD&D Study folder.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 1, 2018 12:18:26 GMT -6
I did not perceive this to be a derailing of the thread.
But I see that you've moved this to another thread so I'll join that conversation too.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 1, 2018 13:41:20 GMT -6
I didn't want to take the discussion in a direction that would lose focus of your objective. Definitely join the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 21, 2018 15:38:17 GMT -6
UPDATE: for folks interested, I've just dictated as many of my thoughts as I could remember on all this into an audio file. It is approximately 2 hours and 5 minutes long.
I am going to send it off for transcription.
I'll then give it one good edit. I hope to half the length, but, more likely I will shave off ⅓ or ¼.
Then I'll share the document with those interested in order to get input towards a final script.
And then on to the next step.
Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 4, 2019 12:35:37 GMT -6
UPDATE: Well, I've got a script waiting for me to edit collecting dust. I do have a sabbatical coming up, so I may be able to work on it. I just want to build my campaign and help out my players with rules more than this project. But here is some fruit that has been born of my working on this project: a recent post on my blog about trying to understand original D&D. It was inspired by the reddit group on "odnd" that I discovered thanks to you guys. campaigns-playable.blogspot.com/2019/07/understanding-original-dungeons-dragons.htmlI attempt to make sense of the difference between understanding the LBBs in their wargame hobby context vs. comparing them to future RPG consumer products. Hope it helps further the conversation. Let me know what you think. Fight on!
|
|