|
Post by tetramorph on Oct 13, 2018 12:50:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by stonetoflesh on Oct 22, 2018 9:33:53 GMT -6
I hope the death of G+ prompts more blog entries. I've followed your blog for quite some time, and always find it thought-provoking and entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Oct 22, 2018 10:08:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 22, 2019 9:19:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 27, 2019 16:06:23 GMT -6
Here is a recent post on elves in the Perilous Realms: campaigns-playable.blogspot.com/2019/06/elves-of-perilous-realms.htmlIt is a part of my attempt to make a tasty vanilla fantasy setting that weaves together and allows room for as much of the traditional legendaria and fantasy literature as possible. And very trope-a-licious. Which I like. Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 4, 2019 12:27:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jul 4, 2019 15:54:03 GMT -6
That should be: Remember, for quite some time Gygax simply could not understand why any fellow-hobby-ist would want to buy a "Dungeon Masters Kit," or "module.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 5, 2019 8:47:17 GMT -6
I don't often follow blogs, tetramorph, but I enjoyed your most recent entry and may have to poke around a bit more to see what I can find there. I do think that folks who come from a RPG background see OD&D very differently from those who came from a wargames and miniatures background, and that's hard to say without sounding snobbish. Folks nowadays are used to rules sets which are complete and intended to be RPGs, whereas as you noted the original rules were more like guidelines to folks who already had an idea of what this game was all about. Nice essay!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 5, 2019 9:32:15 GMT -6
Finarvyn , thanks. That means a lot. Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 5, 2019 9:34:45 GMT -6
Here is my next post in this series on understanding original D&D -- especially coming up from wargaming instead of back from RPGing. In this post, I imagine the LBBs being written in a more colloquial way -- making clear that this is a hobby communication between fellow amateurs (in the good sense of the word: folks who do something for the love of it). campaigns-playable.blogspot.com/2019/07/setting-up-medieval-fantasy-wargames.htmlAgain, I hope it helps the conversation and I look forward to your thoughts. Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jul 6, 2019 12:21:40 GMT -6
Very good. I wasn't sold on your argument that editions are not editions, but this new post on what a "how to play" essay would have read like in 1974 -- now that's useful to me!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 6, 2019 12:32:49 GMT -6
Very good. I wasn't sold on your argument that editions are not editions, but this new post on what a "how to play" essay would have read like in 1974 -- now that's useful to me! Thanks! I am more interested in making the point that what have come to be called "editions" feel like house-rules to me. And that, in a sense, the LBBs aren't an "edition," because they are not an attempt at a complete RPG ruleset like the later "editions" are. But this is just a helpful way for me to try to understand things as they developed historically. I'm not trying to make a stronger argument than that (I hope). How would you say it or differ?
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on Jul 6, 2019 21:46:12 GMT -6
Wall of verbiage - mu or illusionist spell? I like it.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 7, 2019 2:19:55 GMT -6
Very good. I wasn't sold on your argument that editions are not editions, but this new post on what a "how to play" essay would have read like in 1974 -- now that's useful to me! Agreed. I had a good time reading it and imagining it as a "rulebook" (with appropriate tables and sections added) that one might have read back in the day. Highly evokative of the spirit of OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 9, 2019 13:07:53 GMT -6
Let me begin by saying this. I've played at your table, and your campaign would have felt right at home in those early days of not only D&D but RPGs as a game genre. --- My conclusion to this wall of verbiage? I think you're doing a fine job of it, Nate. Your game plays like a 1970's OD&D campaign, this coming from a fellow who was around in those days and playing the heck out of the game. Keep up the good work! Thanks, Piper. That means a lot. Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Nov 5, 2019 12:38:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Dec 29, 2019 17:08:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 7, 2020 12:20:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 22, 2020 19:36:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 28, 2020 11:38:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 28, 2020 14:15:40 GMT -6
Very nice series you've started tetramorph. Can I suggest an idea for you to mull over before your next post? It has to do with how wargamers perceive games. Think in terms of probabilities instead of mechanisms for arriving at solutions (likelihood vs method). There are a number of concepts that can be drawn from this in the development of D&D.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 5, 2020 9:13:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 5, 2020 9:15:51 GMT -6
Very nice series you've started tetramorph . Can I suggest an idea for you to mull over before your next post? It has to do with how wargamers perceive games. Think in terms of probabilities instead of mechanisms for arriving at solutions (likelihood vs method). There are a number of concepts that can be drawn from this in the development of D&D. This is a really good and helpful point. Most of what I am going to say I've already written at this point. I am just posting episodically to slow things down a bit in terms of publication. But I can see myself addressing this at some point. What concepts do you draw from this, with regards to the development of D&D?
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 5, 2020 9:33:11 GMT -6
BTW, coffee, I see that you commented on one of my posts recently. I believe due to the shutting down of Google+, I can no longer comment on my own blog -- or any blogger blog for that matter. (Yay!) So I just wanted to thank you, here.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 5, 2020 15:38:41 GMT -6
What concepts do you draw from this, with regards to the development of D&D? It would have fit in nicely with your current post. You can't have Free Kriegsspiel with out first having Rigid Kriegsspiel. It's often expressed that wargamers, and especially those who referee, are historically minded. Just as frequently it goes without saying that these same persons are at least mutually, if not more so, mathematically inclined. So, a few concepts- role of the referee, what it means to roleplay, playability vs. realism, rule lawyers, fairness, what a ruling is and how it's made, what is the role of the dice (or chits, or cards, or coin). And a theoretical hobby horse to boot- does it matter whether you roll 3d6 in order? Why or why not?
|
|
|
Post by Piper on Jul 5, 2020 18:46:46 GMT -6
It would have fit in nicely with your current post. You can't have Free Kriegsspiel with out first having Rigid Kriegsspiel. Historically that was indeed the case. But now that both exist and have existed as entities? I disagree with your basic premise as stated, seeing free and rigid kriespiel as a duality rather than "this, then that" sort of setup. YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 5, 2020 20:16:42 GMT -6
Since we are talking in terms of a development of ideas, yes, historically "this than that". Free Kriegsspiel was a reaction or response to what preceded. When Wesley first came to understand the role of the referee it had a direct impact on what the TC group would mean by "roleplay".
"Sgt. LePue is going to take a Company of Foot Grenadiers to the nearby woods to chop down timber so they can construct some type of ford over the river."
Two possibilities: 1. It's not in the rules, so it's not permissible. 2. Even though it's not a rule, it makes sense and I will allow it. Or, even though it's not in the rules it doesn't make sense and I won't allow it in this situation.
So, the second addresses the question of whether it is plausible. The question of how probable the undertaking might be is still in need of an answer.
As far as what now exists, I would not categorize it as duality. I would consider games to generally fall along a spectrum. The hobby as a whole tends to swing like a pendulum in it's desire for realism or playability, as well as how that is defined and accomplished.
edit: it's worth adding, since it is often glossed over, that in the late 1800's- early 1900's you start to see what is sometimes referred to as "semi-rigid kriegsspiel". These presented somewhat of a mixed approach between the methods of Reiswitz and Vernois.
|
|
|
Post by Piper on Jul 5, 2020 22:37:23 GMT -6
Got it. I still disagree, but I do appreciate reading your thoughts on the matter. Take care!
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 6, 2020 0:16:16 GMT -6
BTW, coffee, I see that you commented on one of my posts recently. I believe due to the shutting down of Google+, I can no longer comment on my own blog -- or any blogger blog for that matter. (Yay!) So I just wanted to thank you, here. Well then I'll comment here. I just read the latest part, and I liked that one, too! I very much enjoy the historical slant you're taking in this series and I look forward to the rest of it!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 6, 2020 15:22:14 GMT -6
Got it. I still disagree, but I do appreciate reading your thoughts on the matter. Take care! Hey, it's all good. Everyone's open to having their own views. My line of reasoning is that plausibility is a historical question- one of precedents. Probability is a mathematical question- one of outcomes. Both can be hard baked into the rules and/or a function of the referee.
|
|