|
Post by derv on Feb 24, 2019 17:43:12 GMT -6
it appears Dave's "D&D" (and I use quotes because he called it Blackmoor) was less about defining the experience with rules and more about defining the experience with the imagination, his and his players. You make an important point. Rob uses the term "conceptual interface" to describe the dynamics that are occurring between a ref and the players. It is a game that occurs primarily in the mind. Consequently, I think this is why the game is so often conflated with narrative. Reading a book or listening to a story involves a similar conceptual interface of imagination. You picture a story unfolding in your mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2019 23:30:23 GMT -6
Does a campaign mature like wine? Who is considering that question? The GM likely struggles with overarching coherency concerns, which the players never confront. Yes. Mine certainly has, especially in light of how people are reacting to and immersing themselves in the campaign setting and enjoying sitting down to a campaign with four decades of backstory to explore - exploring both the temporal world as well as the physical world that they are living in. Tonight's game session was a very good example of that, with two people who had never played in Tekumel before - and in one case, very little RPG experience at all - diving right in and doing a great job of role-playing and having fun doing it. (I'm gonna need a bigger basement.) I've never had a struggle with coherency, but that's something that I'll leave for Gronan to comment on. Me, I think I just happen to have a good memory. Oh, and 'the set of rules'? Empire of the Petal Throne, Swords and Glory, D&D Fifth Edition, and Bethorm. Each player has used the game system that they are the most comfortable with, and I go with that. Like that Arneson fellow did, and that Barker fellow did as well. Phil's "Perfected RPG Rules" distilled Dave's RPG style into a 3" x 5" index card, and they still hold up after all these years.
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on Feb 25, 2019 1:01:49 GMT -6
It's a gas to be traveling to the CSIO - a rare vintage indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 25, 2019 4:44:54 GMT -6
Phil's "Perfected RPG Rules" distilled Dave's RPG style into a 3" x 5" index card, and they still hold up after all these years. Tell me more about this.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Feb 25, 2019 9:47:21 GMT -6
It's a gas to be traveling to the CSIO - a rare vintage indeed. Did you post this in the wrong thread? On the other hand, this is an interesting place for that remark to have landed... The above remark is a good reminder of what it is that makes an RPG fun. My game is run using the OD&D rules as a basis, but what's exciting to the players is not so much the rules, but what they will explore. Of course the CSIO of my Wilderlands will be different from Robert's but a player can still be excited to visit either of our CSIOs because they want to experience something inspired by source material published over 40 years ago. The fact that it is published just gives a shortcut to the players and the GM getting on the same page. That's the same with published rules, they are just an aid to get on the same page. "Here are some characteristics of Magic Users that you can count on unless I have said otherwise." Of course the descriptions of the spells are not absolutely complete no matter the game system, so the GM always has room to take a players action with the spell and adjudicate a result, though if a rule set proscribes too much it may be harder to find the space for GM interpretation, though as an RPG, there is always room for that. Frank
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 23:20:30 GMT -6
Phil's "Perfected RPG Rules" distilled Dave's RPG style into a 3" x 5" index card, and they still hold up after all these years. Tell me more about this. All right, then... Prof. M. A. R. Barker's Perfected RPG Rules, As Used In His Campaign For Over A Decade:1. You roll D%. 2. I roll D%. 3. If I roll higher then you, my view of reality prevails. 4. If you roll higher then I do, your view of reality prevails. 5. If we're close, we negotiate. ( Phil liked percentile dice. Dave liked three six-siders. Use what you and your players like. I've run Barsoom with Hershey's Kisses as the random number generators - they are binary objects, remember - but that game crashed to a halt tas the players gobbled up the random number generators.) Chirine ba Kal's Corollary:It's all about probability curves. I run the probability curves in my head as the game session rolls along, in line with Gronan's "The dice do not lie." Yes, the game has rules, which are fixed and immutable; I cannot change them or influence them, as that would be - as we considered it - cheating. ( See also the IJN 'fixing the rules' in their pre-Midway wargames. They cheated, and they lost four carriers and a heap of a lot of people as a result.) I know how the world-setting works; generally, then players do not, and finding out the shape of reality is a big part of the fun. Phil knew, from his studies and experience, what would likely happen when somebody did something. He was a 'simulationist' shading into a 'narrativist', as his meta-campaign rolled on over our heads. In my experience ( which I'm sure somebody will be happy to correct me on) Dave and Gary were also 'simulationists' shading into 'gamists', with Dave being more of the former and Gary being more of the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 26, 2019 11:38:04 GMT -6
Fantastic. You explained something like this when we exchanged e-mails a while back but I guess I didn't realize that this was Barker's in origin. Nice!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 14:57:34 GMT -6
Those who are mathematically skilled -- which, to be honest, ol' Phil wasn't -- realize that the "you roll dice, I roll dice" is basically a 50/50 chance of success.
This was mitigated by the situation. The Referee, as "Jerry" alluded to above, is intimately familiar with the setting. If I am Ye Mighty Warrior attempting to knock out a mere first level guard, a failure on my part will be less severe than if I were a mere first level goober deciding to stick a stone knife into Prince Eselne and failing.
When high level people fail, the result is complication, not death. Preferably comic complication, like when Han Solo is sneaking up behind the Imperial Biker Scout and steps on a twig.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 26, 2019 20:12:59 GMT -6
Apparently Marc Miller used 2d6 under stat a lot with skill representing what people were really good at. Seem to be a general trend among older game referees.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 22:55:48 GMT -6
Fantastic. You explained something like this when we exchanged e-mails a while back but I guess I didn't realize that this was Barker's in origin. Nice! Happy to help.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 22:57:01 GMT -6
Those who are mathematically skilled -- which, to be honest, ol' Phil wasn't -- realize that the "you roll dice, I roll dice" is basically a 50/50 chance of success. This was mitigated by the situation. The Referee, as "Jerry" alluded to above, is intimately familiar with the setting. If I am Ye Mighty Warrior attempting to knock out a mere first level guard, a failure on my part will be less severe than if I were a mere first level goober deciding to stick a stone knife into Prince Eselne and failing. When high level people fail, the result is complication, not death. Preferably comic complication, like when Han Solo is sneaking up behind the Imperial Biker Scout and steps on a twig. This. Seems to work just fine, if the screams of glee and terror that I usually get are any indication.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 22:58:22 GMT -6
Apparently Marc Miller used 2d6 under stat a lot with skill representing what people were really good at. Seem to be a general trend among older game referees. Interesting! I didn't know that. Phil liked to use this - the 2D6 - for spell effect rolls. 'Doomkill', in EPT has one of these.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 27, 2019 5:11:53 GMT -6
Apparently Marc Miller used 2d6 under stat a lot with skill representing what people were really good at. Seem to be a general trend among older game referees. I used to do the same thing for OD&D for my stat checks, except that it was 3d6 since OD&D's stats are on a different scale than Traveller's.
|
|
muddy
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 158
|
Post by muddy on Feb 27, 2019 7:38:25 GMT -6
Apparently Marc Miller used 2d6 under stat a lot with skill representing what people were really good at. Seem to be a general trend among older game referees. I used to do the same thing for OD&D for my stat checks, except that it was 3d6 since OD&D's stats are on a different scale than Traveller's. I did it as well, but with a d20. I was young and mathematical difference never occurred to me.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 27, 2019 8:24:54 GMT -6
The downside to very simple resolution system is that you need to be knowledgeable about the setting or genre to make it work.
For example I don't much about Escrima, a Philippine Martial Art. However GURPS Martial Arts lays it out tersely on page 155 including how to adjudicate it using the GURPS rules either realistically or more cinematic
I could do some reading and would probably benefit from it however keeping in mind all the books on Escrima would not be oriented towards what a referee needs for a tabletop roleplaying campaign. You would to tease out the relevant points in order to decide on how to making ruling for a character that known s Escrima.
One may ask why bother to make such a distinction? Just rolls some dice and say it makes it happen. It may be important if the campaign is set in the Philippines and many players in the game have some of knowledge of Escrima and other elements of Philippine culture and history. Enjoyment will somewhat hinge on getting details or the campaign will seem "off" to the player to the players.
Just as D&D combat seem "off" to be bunch of gamers involved in the SCA which led in part to Runequest.
Rules are another way of informing the players as to how the setting works as well as highlighting the detail that are important to the enjoyment of the campaign.
There is no "right" way of doing this. But for the mechanics that Barker, Miller, and Arneson used it seems that it works best if the referee has a good command of the material. Otherwise a more detailed set of rule may work out better as it explicitly clarifies various elements of the setting.
To be clear my view is that no matter how detailed, no set of rules can completely define a setting or everything that possible to do within it as a character. At some point a referee will have to make a ruling based on how the setting works.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 23:25:53 GMT -6
Agreed! One of Phil / Dave / Gary's mantras was that the GM had to know the material to be able to run a game that had the kind of fast and furious pace that kept players on their toes and the action moving along.
I think your points are all accurate, and a good statement of what I saw and heard back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Feb 28, 2019 13:29:21 GMT -6
It's a gas to be traveling to the CSIO - a rare vintage indeed. Did you post this in the wrong thread? On the other hand, this is an interesting place for that remark to have landed... The above remark is a good reminder of what it is that makes an RPG fun. My game is run using the OD&D rules as a basis, but what's exciting to the players is not so much the rules, but what they will explore. Of course the CSIO of my Wilderlands will be different from Robert's but a player can still be excited to visit either of our CSIOs because they want to experience something inspired by source material published over 40 years ago. The fact that it is published just gives a shortcut to the players and the GM getting on the same page. That's the same with published rules, they are just an aid to get on the same page. "Here are some characteristics of Magic Users that you can count on unless I have said otherwise." Of course the descriptions of the spells are not absolutely complete no matter the game system, so the GM always has room to take a players action with the spell and adjudicate a result, though if a rule set proscribes too much it may be harder to find the space for GM interpretation, though as an RPG, there is always room for that. Frank As one of Frank's players, I can agree with this. I don't really care what rules system we are using. I am just interested in exploring CSIO as a player. I DMed it way back in the day but have forgotten most of it. As for game systems, this tells me what I need to know: Orofer 1/1/1 Elf F/MU/Thf HP:4 AC:7 Sword, Lt Crossbow, Sleep I let the DM handle the rest
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 1, 2019 19:38:36 GMT -6
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. Some times I think people are grasping what Rob is talking about in his book, but then the conversation seems to drift back into the same old paradigms. My feeling is that if you want people to understand how it was to game back in the day we should stop talking in terms of rule sets, OD&D included. Talk about it as a genre of play instead. As I mentioned earlier, Rob's book identified the core of Arneson's RPG concept. He calls it the "architecture". If you want, it can be boiled down to the conceptual interface between a ref and the players (the dialogue of creating a fantasy where both take part). This is what ALL rpg's have in common. Since they all share this, they are all open to adding, reducing, and modifying their rules (what Rob refers to as sub-systems). This is why, in your example, you could take an "old school" rule for combat and infuse it into your 5e game. People fail to recognize this or they don't care to understand this because of the commercialization of the game. Rob tied this into how TSR marketed D&D, starting with AD&D. He brushed over the market pressures from consumers that were already occurring after the publication of OD&D. These pressures are sometimes characterized as the " one true way". They can also be characterized as " convenience"- the marketers crack pipe. People want and are sold ready made "convenience". I don't put any moral value or judgment on any of the rule sets people choose to use. To me, that is nonsensical. Use whatever system you like and are comfortable with. They all share the same architecture anyway. But, if you want people to understand Arneson's intent and to experience what Arneson did you are going to have to throw them all out, start with the core concept, and build onto it through real time play (Ongoing applied design & ongoing systemization). What do you want to be? Where do you want to go? What do you want to do? Through this process the rules are tacked on or rulings are made (these are the "how"). As rules are tacked on, you are creating parameters for the game you are playing. They will be needed to run a campaign. Now I might have a little more expansive idea of what "rules" encompass than others. In my mind the primary mechanics (sub systems) are: -Character Generation -Character Progression (Advancement) -Combat Resolution -Movement -Random Adjudication- this covers a wide swath of actions (such as searching, picking locks, breaking down doors, etc.) but generally utilize a common or similar based mechanic. -Natural Law- these are accepted norms of the environment in which the game occurs. They do not usually have individualized mechanics, though they could, but they do have effects on adjudication involving the other sub systems. Think of any of the sciences that govern every day living. These rules are all important for running a game. It's just not important how you decide to resolve them- adopt or develop any sub system you like. But a GM will have to know how to resolve them. For me there is no attaboy for simplicity or complexity, loose or BTB, open or closed. The game lends itself to all of the above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 21:10:29 GMT -6
The downside to very simple resolution system is that you need to be knowledgeable about the setting or genre to make it work. This is true, except I don't know if it's a "downside." Part of what I hope to accomplish with the "Free Kriegsspiel Renaissance" is to get people thinking in terms of settings rather than rules, and how to teach all concerned to explore and solidify a new setting even if the referee hasn't decided it all yet.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 2, 2019 13:11:30 GMT -6
This is true, except I don't know if it's a "downside." If you are person who don't know much about a particular subject or genre a well designed set of rules that has some detail coupled with a good explanation of the setting or genre can get a novice up to speed more quickly. The point of the detail of the rules to highlight specific points that need to adjudicated. Part of what I hope to accomplish with the "Free Kriegsspiel Renaissance" is to get people thinking in terms of settings rather than rules, and how to teach all concerned to explore and solidify a new setting even if the referee hasn't decided it all yet. I am for thinking about the setting first. But now you got me thinking. What if like GURPS there is a series of setting/genre books but unlike GURPS it oriented towards a "Free Kriegspiel" approach. If you are interested in Rome, here some things that help for a tabletop roleplaying campaign. Along with some recommendation on some good material to read.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 2, 2019 16:28:15 GMT -6
it can be boiled down to the conceptual interface between a ref and the players (the dialogue of creating a fantasy where both take part). If anyone cares: there are a few (three?) figures attempting to illustrate this concept on pages 4 and 5 of this topic a while back. In my mind the primary mechanics (sub systems) are: -Character Generation -Character Progression (Advancement) -Combat Resolution -Movement -Random Adjudication- this covers a wide swath of actions (such as searching, picking locks, breaking down doors, etc.) but generally utilize a common or similar based mechanic. -Natural Law- these are accepted norms of the environment in which the game occurs. They do not usually have individualized mechanics, though they could, but they do have effects on adjudication involving the other sub systems. Think of any of the sciences that govern every day living. Another key sub-system for me is: the distribution of monsters and treasure. This sub-system creates the whole balance between risk and reward in the game. We see this balance altered through the editions of D&D (by "fiddling" this particular sub-system).
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 2, 2019 16:43:37 GMT -6
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. Great observation Finarvyn. Kinda related is that systems can be "black box" or "white box". Black box systems are opaque, as in: you have no idea how a black box works; you can only learn anything about it by interacting with it and observing what happens. I get the idea that this was more how Arneson ran it; players didn't necessarily know the game rules, but they got to poke things and see what happened. White box systems are transparent, as in: you know precisely how a white box ticks. You can predict what it will do in any circumstance without bothering to interact with it, because you know how it works. This is what we get when the players know all the rules in advance. Perhaps it's even fair to suggest that later editions of D&D are trending toward "white box perfection"? Specifically, when the game mechanics are increasingly known to players (via printed rules) they no longer need to learn about the game world primarily by interacting with it. Instead, they can learn about the game world by reading rules that describe how it "should" work and then confirm their understanding of how the rules work through play. Interacting with the game world is relegated to a secondary activity...
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 3, 2019 7:26:32 GMT -6
Another key sub-system for me is: the distribution of monsters and treasure. This sub-system creates the whole balance between risk and reward in the game. We see this balance altered through the editions of D&D (by "fiddling" this particular sub-system). I guess I kinda lump this in with character progression in my way of thinking. It's definitely it's own sub system though. 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. Great observation Finarvyn. Kinda related is that systems can be "black box" or "white box". Black box systems are opaque, as in: you have no idea how a black box works; you can only learn anything about it by interacting with it and observing what happens. I get the idea that this was more how Arneson ran it; players didn't necessarily know the game rules, but they got to poke things and see what happened. White box systems are transparent, as in: you know precisely how a white box ticks. You can predict what it will do in any circumstance without bothering to interact with it, because you know how it works. This is what we get when the players know all the rules in advance. Perhaps it's even fair to suggest that later editions of D&D are trending toward "white box perfection"? Specifically, when the game mechanics are increasingly known to players (via printed rules) they no longer need to learn about the game world primarily by interacting with it. Instead, they can learn about the game world by reading rules that describe how it "should" work and then confirm their understanding of how the rules work through play. Interacting with the game world is relegated to a secondary activity... This is very interesting. I remember when you brought this up before and I understand Fin's observation. I still wrestle a bit with it's applicability to RPG's. As Fin illustrated with his 5e game, the platform still remains an open design. It seems to be a lack of awareness or willful ignorance that keeps people from using the game in this way. Possibly the perception of "balance" has something to do with this? Rob K. is right in pointing to how the game is marketed. But, in my mind, this is only partly correct. It also boils down to perceptions. If we step away from the current RPG environment and it's advent with OD&D, these ideas (creating rules as they are needed and black box systems) can still be found in other games. It's particularly relevant when discussing Korns or Braunstein. The reason these two games remain closed systems or what Rob refers to as containing "open variability" may largely be the same as with the current RPG designs- perception. These game designs are bound because the new paradigm was not yet created. They remain a product that had not yet evolved even though we can point to various elements that we now identify with RPG's (largely their sub systems). Yet, we could very easily infuse the new concept forwarded by Arneson into either. There is nothing stopping a person from now running Korns as an open design. It just did not make a lot of sense for the scope of the game at the time. And, in fact, this is what may have happened with Braunstein. The game evolved. It needed Arneson's design break through.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 3, 2019 14:08:36 GMT -6
Specifically, when the game mechanics are increasingly known to players (via printed rules) they no longer need to learn about the game world primarily by interacting with it. Instead, they can learn about the game world by reading rules that describe how it "should" work and then confirm their understanding of how the rules work through play. Interacting with the game world is relegated to a secondary activity... One doesn't follow the other. The desire to creatively interact with a setting is separate than one's knowledge of how the setting works. There hasn't been a set of RPG rules written that tells you what going on in the Village of Kensla that being plagued by a demon wolf. If you want to succeed in resolving the mystery of the demon wolf, whether one is using free kriegspiel, OD&D, GURPS, D&D 3.0, D&D 5.0, or my own Majestic Fantasy rules*, you are going to have to interact with the game world.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Mar 3, 2019 19:20:13 GMT -6
If we step away from the current RPG environment and it's advent with OD&D, these ideas (creating rules as they are needed and black box systems) can still be found in other games. It's particularly relevant when discussing Korns or Braunstein. The reason these two games remain closed systems or what Rob refers to as containing "open variability" may largely be the same as with the current RPG designs- perception. These game designs are bound because the new paradigm was not yet created. They remain a product that had not yet evolved even though we can point to various elements that we now identify with RPG's (largely their sub systems). Yet, we could very easily infuse the new concept forwarded by Arneson into either. There is nothing stopping a person from now running Korns as an open design. It just did not make a lot of sense for the scope of the game at the time. And, in fact, this is what may have happened with Braunstein. The game evolved. It needed Arneson's design break through. I guess this is where the argument for identifying the "breakthrough" in D&D always loses me. Part of where I stumble is I feel like the argument tends to circle around an apples to oranges comparison between rulesets and game sessions. Korns was a ruleset, it was a book, a fixed text, whereas Braunstein and Blackmoor were not, they were a collection of game sessions that took place at particular times that some people played in. Ways that people play in refereed hobby games had not been "closed" in any meaningful sense for a long time, the referee had long since seized the prerogative to improvise rules - this is indeed the essence of the 19th century "free Kriegsspiel" concept. It was a reaction against the closed, "rigid Kriegsspiel" rules that forbid this sort of improvisation and restricted rulemaking to what the designer committed to a fixed ruleset. The wargaming community was doomed to replay this dispute, and set the slider in different places between those extremes, throughout the 20th century. We can read lots of stories about people supposedly committed to rigid Kriegsspiel improvising, and people committed to free Kriegsspiel consulting charts in practice. In play, around the table, you did what worked. So has it always been when it comes to running game sessions. If you want to make a product out of the way that some people are running game sessions, you have to turn it into a book, into a fixed text. You can write a very closed ruleset, and arguably AD&D was trying to be that. But Korns is an extreme example of how you write a ruleset in a way that specifies that the referee has complete latitude to improvise rules and decide events. Lots of other rulesets before OD&D also specified that principle to varying degrees (Midgard, Tony Bath's stuff, etc), and the "guidelines" language in OD&D isn't really a significant departure from those - which is why its text says, "as with any other miniatures rules," the job of campaign referees to design their own campaign. It is kind of important that OD&D doesn't instead say: "hey, I know this is a new idea, but this rulebook here only exists to inspire you in designing things for yourself." Any self-aware designer knew that in practice, the people sitting around the table did what worked. So what is it exactly that we think this new paradigm added? What is the conceptual breakthrough in Blackmoor that isn't explained by the fact that it was, well, just some game sessions and not a ruleset?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 3, 2019 20:50:20 GMT -6
So what is it exactly that we think this new paradigm added? What is the conceptual breakthrough in Blackmoor that isn't explained by the fact that it was, well, just some game sessions and not a ruleset? I wrestle with much the same question. I can say that I find myself disagreeing with many easily drawn conclusions and reconsidering my own positions in relation to Rob's theories. Yet, looking back at the thread that Ways linked to I see I have not altered my opinions that much. It seems to me that Arneson unchained the games objectives from any preconceived scenario expectations by means of the conceptual interface. In doing so, he relegated the rules to a secondary consideration- one that could be modified to suit the needs of the new environment that is constantly unfolding and achieved through inquiry. The scenario no longer dictated a players objectives and options. The conceptual interface now became part of the creative process of development, not merely a means of determining and adjudicating actions.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 4, 2019 7:53:02 GMT -6
So what is it exactly that we think this new paradigm added? What is the conceptual breakthrough in Blackmoor that isn't explained by the fact that it was, well, just some game sessions and not a ruleset? I don't get it the distinction being drawn either. If we magically were able to witness what Dave Arneson was doing and wrote a detailed account including his musing and thoughts on why he was doing what he was doing? It doesn't make it any more closed or opened if it was written up. The only issue I see is that the traditional attitude have for games. That games are played by the rules, and if you don't follow the rules of the game then you are cheating or at the least playing it "wrong". Ways that people play in refereed hobby games had not been "closed" in any meaningful sense for a long time, the referee had long since seized the prerogative to improvise rules - this is indeed the essence of the 19th century "free Kriegsspiel" concept. It was a reaction against the closed, "rigid Kriegsspiel" rules that forbid this sort of improvisation and restricted rulemaking to what the designer committed to a fixed ruleset. The wargaming community was doomed to replay this dispute, and set the slider in different places between those extremes, throughout the 20th century. We can read lots of stories about people supposedly committed to rigid Kriegsspiel improvising, and people committed to free Kriegsspiel consulting charts in practice. In play, around the table, you did what worked. So has it always been when it comes to running game sessions. However doesn't this hold true only for the miniature wargaming culture of the early 70s? Which was also a niche of a larger ongoing expansion of wargaming. The larger public was exposed to wargaming through the efforts of Avalon Hill and later SPI via games while far more flexible and sophisticated than common board games still carried the expectation that one played them by the enclosed rules. The issue I see that Dungeons & Dragon rapidly spread beyond the boundaries of the subculture that spawned to a larger public that didn't know or follow what that subculture was doing. This created a tension between people's traditional attitude towards rules of a game and the freeform improvisation that D&D embodies. A side effect of this was TSR being "spammed" by endless rules questions. Along with having to make many arbitrary decisions in order to conduct and run D&D tournaments in order for all the participants to be treated fairly. A laudable goal but one that made the experience more like "rigid Kriegsspiel" than "free Kriegspiel". To recap without a full explanation of the subculture (as it applies to D&D) within the 3 LBB of OD&D, tabletop roleplaying immediately ran into three things: 1) People trying to reconcile what they were taught about board games to the advice that was there and the structure of D&D. 2) People spamming TSR with endless rule questions which effected their decisions on the type and kind of products they released as follow up to D&D. 3) The popularity of D&D tournaments and the practical demands of running a fair tournament. Because these issues were in the public view in the form of the type of articles found in zines/magazine, and in the shared experience of gaming conventions. The affected what other gaming companies did with their RPGs either in a desire to do TSR one better, or to avoid what they view as a mistake not be repeated. These are still an issue that the hobby and industry grapples with. It more nuanced now because the increased diversity of the hobby which now includes the efforts of people like yourself and groups like thsi one who have documentation how the hobby was prior to the existence of D&D. So what does it all mean in terms of moving forwad in the hobby? The argument of open and closed places too much burden on the written rules. To me the greatest source of these issues is the inadequate explanation of the "free kriegspiel" nature of D&D. Gygax tried but it wasn't sufficient as evidenced by the result when the rules got into the hands of individuals outside of the miniature wargaming community of the early 70s. I long been curious about what happened within the miniature wargaming community. What would be useful to read is how people within the subculture used D&D in the first few years. I feel that it is considerably less documented. My hunch is that people within the community used D&D in different ways far closer to the sentiments of those I been debating and Rob Kuntz. I further submit if my hunch is correct then the solution is not to focus on rules and supplements. But to focus on teaching people to be better referees. Write works and advice that makes tabletop roleplaying more like "free kriegspiel" than "rigid kriegspiel" irregardless of the rules being used to adjudicate with. I submit that any discussion of rules are a distraction. That they are irrelevant to the issue of open and close. This includes the form in which they take whether they are are comments and notes like Dave Arneson used or formal publication that Gygax wound up doing. That the issue solely about how a referee conducts their campaign. Something that exist independently of the rules one uses for a campaign.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Mar 4, 2019 9:47:32 GMT -6
However doesn't this hold true only for the miniature wargaming culture of the early 70s? Which was also a niche of a larger ongoing expansion of wargaming. Sure, board games were solidly on the "rigid" side, but the overlap in the wargaming traditions was pretty substantial: contemporary polling suggests at least a quarter of board wargamers also played miniature wargames, maybe up to 40%. When they polled for preference between the two at GenCon in 1974, the result was that 50% preferred minis, 30% board wargames, the rest undecided. And if you read S&T (which everyone pretty much did), you'd be able to read articles about the "free" vs. "rigid" issue, and about how in the former "the umpire would make up the rules and apply them as they went along and the players would have the freedom to attempt things that might or might not be allowed by the umpire." That's from the July 1972 S&T - it was an idea that was out there at the time. I don't think D&D had to get people over too much of a hurdle to grasp it. I submit that any discussion of rules are a distraction. That they are irrelevant to the issue of open and close. This includes the form in which they take whether they are are comments and notes like Dave Arneson used or formal publication that Gygax wound up doing. That the issue solely about how a referee conducts their campaign. Something that exist independently of the rules one uses for a campaign. I do think that Arneson was more interested in running campaigns than in publishing rulesets, and that Gygax really put the energy into turning the way people were playing into a product. But a product needs to have some rules in it. Like if they had created D&D as a product without rules for combat, experience, monsters, spells, or treasure, I'm not sure it would have captured the imagination of the world. Even if they are just guidelines, they still form a rough outline that people can build on. My point above was that we shouldn't mistake the fact that campaigns aren't rigidly bound to rules for some kind of design principle - it was more of a reality that people who published rulesets had to embrace and design around.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 4, 2019 10:57:02 GMT -6
Sure, board games were solidly on the "rigid" side, but the overlap in the wargaming traditions was pretty substantial: contemporary polling suggests at least a quarter of board wargamers also played miniature wargames, maybe up to 40%. When they polled for preference between the two at GenCon in 1974, the result was that 50% preferred minis, 30% board wargames, the rest undecided. And if you read S&T (which everyone pretty much did), you'd be able to read articles about the "free" vs. "rigid" issue, and about how in the former "the umpire would make up the rules and apply them as they went along and the players would have the freedom to attempt things that might or might not be allowed by the umpire." That's from the July 1972 S&T - it was an idea that was out there at the time. I don't think D&D had to get people over too much of a hurdle to grasp it. While interesting , a Gencon poll in 1974 is about as relevant to the issue I am raising as polling everybody who participate in a tabletop roleplaying forum in 2019. It is poll of those most interested and connected within the hobby. Let look at the question a different way. When was the subculture changed so where most people were learning from published material instead of word of mouth? What kind of business were Avalon Hill and SPI were doing by 1974? What were the paths by which one learn or obtained D&D. Particular interesting would be charting this over the decade. I realize that the initial release of D&D was to the hobby and spread through word of mouth within the hobby. But at some point between then and 1977 when a junior high student, me, obtained a copy of Holmes D&D for Christmas in a rural town in NW PA of 12,000 it spread beyond the hobby that existed 1974 to people, like me, whose only connection to wargaming was through the things published by Avalon Hill, SPI, etc and could be found on the shelves of a local game store. I do think that Arneson was more interested in running campaigns than in publishing rulesets, and that Gygax really put the energy into turning the way people were playing into a product. I concur But a product needs to have some rules in it. Like if they had created D&D as a product without rules for combat, experience, monsters, spells, or treasure, I apologized for the lack of clarity. I am not suggesting we omit rules. Only that if the goal to promote a "free kriegspeil" style of play or open design that the rules need to be accompanies by better commentary that what was found in OD&D. Gygax did write good advice but given what happened afterwards I feel a fuller section devoted this would have done a lot of good. For a modern example something like Finch's Old School Primer without the snarky comments. I'm not sure it would have captured the imagination of the world. To be clear I am not saying that Gygax ought to have realized this. My points are for us today on what to do going forward. Even if they are just guidelines, they still form a rough outline that people can build on. My point above was that we shouldn't mistake the fact that campaigns aren't rigidly bound to rules for some kind of design principle - it was more of a reality that people who published rulesets had to embrace and design around. I agree with the first sentence but I am not following the rest of the paragraph. Keep in mind I am not saying to do anything different other than add a far more extensive section of "How to run a tabletop roleplaying campaign." Revolving around the idea of Where I find your work and the work of others doing research into the history of the hobby useful that it is instructive on how Arneson, Gygax did what they did and what factors they consider. Hope that clarifies where I am coming from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2019 12:04:25 GMT -6
I will TELL you the difference.
Strategos N was about Napoleonic battles. Korns was about World War 2. Braunstien have every player objectives.
Blackmoor was about anything you wanted.
The difference to me is so obvious I can't even explain it. It feels like trying to explain why two points make a line.
At some point, if "everyone who was there instantly recognised this as something new despite having played all these other games" isn't good enough for you, well, not my problem.
|
|