|
Post by murquhart72 on Sept 2, 2019 15:29:05 GMT -6
I read the article and found nothing wrong with it. Pretty much matched how I figured things went (more or less) with the beginning of role playing and D&D gaming. My personal experiences with Gary Gygax and what I've read of Dave Arneson sync up rather well with the piece in question. Good thing these men aren't worshiped at patron saints or anything, imagine the opposing (yet identical) faiths and jihads we'd have then!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 4, 2019 15:58:11 GMT -6
I now feel like...no, I know we just unwittingly participated in a dog and pony show.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 8:12:50 GMT -6
I probably shouldn't comment on this, given that I'll surely keep some sort of relationship with the movie crew outside of any forum drama, but - yeah. I don't know what this was, either: PR from hell, or someone's screws going loose? Two things should be noted: First, that the movie plainly wouldn't have been made without some of the people whose primary online community is OD&D'74. Second, that, after all the bewildering ragefest, the poster in question is still active at the RPG Site, where the comments are more, well, let's-call-it "critical" than they ever were here. Given that, there, nobody is being bothered by our former poster to raaah-raaah-rageban everyone who says something that is not some sort of unhinged praise, I'm going to assume that the quarrel here wasn't that serious, after all. So, all this drama is quite weird. Was this about "looking how far you could go" before the team here decided to disavow that person? Was this against me, or against the other members of our staff, on a personal level? Was this a real dispute, or was this an attempt at a publicity stunt? And if so, did it work? - Truth is, to me, personally, this has stopped making any sort of difference. Two lessons can be learned here, folks, in a strange symmetry to the above: - There is a difference between "effective" and "efficient" marketing. "Effective" marketing is when people pay attention. "Efficient" marketing is when people get interested in what you do. Yes, in medieval times, "The burning of bridges" was certainly considered "effective"; but anyone could do that. "Efficiency" is what's needed to build bridges - or, more abstractly, to connect different points. If those connections are supposed to survive past the public's momentary attention, that is. - To make everyone understand why one approach makes sense, and the other does not: Everyone who has not seen the movie yet, please, quietly, and for yourselves, count three things in your mind that the movie is about that are not immediately related to its title. If you remember the title, that is. - Like, who is interviewed, what general questions are answered, to what conclusion the movie comes with regards to some of the questions that we have discussed here.
- Not that I'd enjoy belittling the people who did what I consider a landmark project for the whole oldschool scene, but if you make a movie featuring an interview series with about thirty really interesting people, yet then focus your marketing mostly on what you think you have to say, then something is likely off. - Steven Spielberg didn't film "Jaws", and then make the rounds giving speeches to his audience about how he felt about sharks. It wasn't why the audience was interested in his product, and he knew that. And, to illustrate why Spielberg was a good marketeer, and the former poster was plainly not - everyone, same exercise as above: How is the movie even related to the Kotaku article, and why? Which conclusions from the article are connected to talking points made in the movie?
And, lo and behold, the "cold turkey" that we all will experience after pondering those questions is - that, even if the answer to any of those questions had been given, it has long since been superseded by all sorts of sideshows, positive and negative ones. If I would simply have said to you, "the movie is great", then that would perhaps have carried way more weight for all of you, because that message would have come free of other distractions. - Which is what is really needed here, to ensure this movie is not the end, but the beginning of something: Less annoying sideshow acts, and more focus on what everybody is actually inclined to care about.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 7, 2019 9:11:28 GMT -6
I think most on this board would applaud the effort of SoB bringing the documentary to completion. People are very interested in hearing the POV of the TC crew. Throwing Rob K's voice into the milieu seems to change the whole vibe for some reason. And these sort of marketing tactics do, whether we like it or not, affect perceived credibility.
I should also say that I have not watched the movie primarily because I have not heard any balanced reason to watch it in the form of a review. If the Kotaku article is somehow a reflection of what I'm likely to see, I'll probably pass. It bothers me that there seems to be a lot of support for the film (less any Arneson vs Gygax theme) and no real comments on it's content. Many want it to succeed and want to hear the TC story. Perhaps the lack of reviews is because people do not want to negatively impact the project? Perhaps there is disappointment.
|
|
|
Post by havard on Sept 7, 2019 9:34:01 GMT -6
I think most on this board would applaud the effort of SoB bringing the documentary to completion. People are very interested in hearing the POV of the LG crew. Throwing Rob K's voice into the milieu seems to change the whole vibe for some reason. And these sort of marketing tactics do, whether we like it or not, affect perceived credibility. I should also say that I have not watched the movie primarily because I have not heard any balanced reason to watch it in the form of a review. If the Kotaku article is somehow a reflection of what I'm likely to see, I'll probably pass. It bothers me that there seems to be a lot of support for the film (less any Arneson vs Gygax theme) and no real comments on it's content. Many want it to succeed and want to hear the LG story. Perhaps the lack of reviews is because people do not want to negatively impact the project? Perhaps there is disappointment. I don't know if you would consider me a balanced voice on this matter as I have spent the last 15 years running websites and blogs about Dave Arneson and Blackmoor. My name is also mentioned in the credits of the SoB documentary, although I was never paid for any services by them and had to back the KS same as everyone else to watch it. While perhaps not a masterpiece, I think this documentary is infinitely more balanced than the Kotaku article. The documentary's strength is that it allows the Minnesota Gamers to tell their story. About the games they played, about their friendships and about Dave Arneson. They are planning this as a trilogy, so Blackmoor doesn't get as much attention as I would have liked in this first installment, but it is still worth watching IMO. Except for a few minor cases, they don't really talk much about Gary Gygax. I feel a bit sorry for Rob K here. My impression is that he is a man of passion and I fear that he was lead to say things that he regretted later. This article may even end up having some negative consequences for him personally. -Havard
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 7, 2019 12:18:30 GMT -6
I don't know if you would consider me a balanced voice on this matter as I have spent the last 15 years running websites and blogs about Dave Arneson and Blackmoor. My name is also mentioned in the credits of the SoB documentary, although I was never paid for any services by them and had to back the KS same as everyone else to watch it. I was more alluding to independent reviews that tend to pop up in the community, but I would consider your opinion of the film to have value. Balance on the other hand has a lot to do with honesty with what is being expressed. This is often left up to the reader to discern and can easily be influenced. I have no reason to think otherwise in your case and appreciate your summary.
|
|
Vargold
Newly-Registered User
Posts: 2
|
Post by Vargold on Sept 7, 2019 19:46:33 GMT -6
I did a little blog post in response to my viewing of the documentary: vargold.blogspot.com/2019/09/secrets-of-blackmoor-film.htmlI can expand on those remarks in relation to the Kotaku article: Havard is dead on when he says that the doc is "infinitely more balanced." There is a smidge of Arneson vs. Gygax in the opening sequence, but it vanishes after that. The bulk of the film is letting people from the Twin Cities scene talk about their experiences, and everyone comes across as very charming indeed. I have no trouble recommending the film.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 23:56:11 GMT -6
Exactly. But the movie is not the problem. - The director making the rounds trying to "win the internet" is. And don't underestimate this: This will have consequences.
On the short term, it's already doing what in English, I think, is referred to as "clouding the message" - instead of talking about the movie's actual content, the only substantial attention the movie seems to get is when we talk about it in the context of damage control. Basically, we already only use it as a footnote to contextualize other events.
And on the long term, things might get nasty: The movie was largely ignored by the big websites and news outlets of the gaming industry; the Kickstarter didn't even get mentioned in ENWorld's regular crowdfunding newsletter, and so on. (At least as far as I'm aware.) Unless something fundamental changes for the project, it will likely continue being mostly disregarded; the same way the movie has not received any big-media coverage except for that passing mention in the Kotaku article.
So, barring that the crowdfunding campaign came together by people creating nothing short of social media fireworks, I'm inclined to believe that the lion's share of the funding came from what I've in the past referred to as the "Dragonsfoot Family". So, now, as I said, to be making the rounds offending those people to the point of you becoming unwelcome in their communities - well, that's a rather unconventional move.
Now, understand me well, here: I'm not saying, "tee-hee, wait for the payback, not a very nice person". But I'm saying "good luck trying to promote the sequels through the doors you yourself have closed".
And that's not cool. That's not what this should be about, at all. I had been looking forward to discuss the actual movie; yet, until now, all we got is this completely unnecessary drama nuts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 0:56:42 GMT -6
In this context it should be noted that, after spending some time offline, or at some strange troll dens, RJK is back posting on a legit board: In the wake of the responses to the Kotaku article, Kuntz has joined EnWorld, which I think is a good thing. www.enworld.org/threads/rob-kuntz-recounts-the-origins-of-d-d.666966/page-5As to his general role in these historical debates, I personally have no opinion - mostly, because I haven't really followed the conversation surrounding him. Not gonna lie, if he ever had me, he lost me with the book about systems theory that, to me, read like the Necronomicon. - I don't think he's a TIM, though, only that he suffers from a certain over-engagement in talks related to the topic. But he does the right thing in stepping forward and defining his future role in this.
|
|
|
Post by rredmond on Sept 8, 2019 12:35:49 GMT -6
He is really engaged over there! Wow that's great. Talked about how what he said was cherry picked for the article. That could be the author and/or her editor though. Thanks for the pointer Rafe!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 8, 2019 15:57:54 GMT -6
I think that the bad thing is that there are two different events happening -- video and article -- and folks keep "crossing the streams" and mixing things from one to the other. Whether the article was pro-Gary, pro-Dave, neutral, whatever … that has no bearing on the stance of the video. And vice versa. Yet, I feel like there is pushback between the two for some reason. Even here, where we had one thread that got mixed with both events and required a separation into two threads. I wish the two events had happened with some time in between so that they weren't associated with each other. Bad luck, IMO.
Or, the conspiracy theory part of my brain says, the article was carefully timed to play off of the release of the video. Hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Sept 8, 2019 22:05:07 GMT -6
Honestly I feel a bit sorry for Griff. It feels like he's got something he really loves, but he can't control his emotions or his writing well enough to avoid making horrible drama like this. He's not alone in that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2019 23:23:31 GMT -6
THe ripple effect created by the Kotaku piece is quite remarkable: www.enworld.org/threads/the-beginning-1968-and-meeting-gary-gygax-and-the-gygax-family.667636/So, RJK will be getting his own monthly column at ENWorld now, it seems. This is pretty cool, if only because Kuntz is clearly looking forward to telling the definite version of his perspective on D&D's origins. - Not gonna lie to you, I'm already rolling my eyes at the inevitable drama. But I DO appreciate the free publicity this brings to places like ours.
|
|
|
Post by mrmanowar on Sept 28, 2019 22:16:20 GMT -6
You know, I backed the first two D&D documentaries. Both of which got involved in court litigation. I backed Secrets of Blackmoor, I backed various film docs and so far apart from the cuts and such of SoB the ONLY one I've seen is the Eye of the Beholder. It saddens me to see personalities and egos get in the way of products being produced. I hope I get my 2 disk SoB. I hope I get my Dreams from the Basement or whatever that one was called. I would like to see the first two eventually see release, but sadly, I see a replay of the same types of egos and sides taking nonsense getting in the way of these. When we see the old TSR litigation and court stuff and we thought the hatchet was buried when Peter Adkison seemed to have paid off things when he owned WoTC it seems the followers of either side have resurrected a fight we thought was over. Who loses? Us, the fans and supporters who would love to see the product. I've met most if not all of the people involved including Rob before he moved. The only two I haven't met are Gary and Dave. I had a chance to meet Gary when I was going to an Ozzfest in Alpine Valley WI in the early 2000's. We ate at a restaurant in Lake Geneva and I was the ONLY one who wanted to go stop at Gary's house and I was voted down as all the rest of the metalhead crew with me didn't want to visit a fellow gamer. In the meantime, I applaud all that's coming out now, but hate this infighting (that may be too strong a word) or bickering.
I would just like to sit down and have a beer and conversation, not only about the past, but what everyone is doing now! I started my young daughters playing a mix of OD&D and 1E when they were 6 and 5 respectively. They took to the game right away. I had them write their character sheets from scratch just like I did about 30 years ago. If the Kotaku piece added to the history, I'm glad to read it. If Rob gets a say, I'll read it, but I would like it too if he cast "Raise Dead" on his account here to add details. I love reading about how people did their campaigns and ran adventures.
In some ways, I wish people would treat online sites and forums like this as an inn of sorts where various people from differing backgrounds can exchange stories and game tips so we all can have beneficial experiences from it. I truly appreciate this site and it's openness in that regard. I'm lifting a big horn of ale to you all and the insight you provide! Keep up the great work Fin, Rafe, Grogod, Zenopus and other contributors!
|
|
|
Post by rredmond on Sept 29, 2019 8:43:36 GMT -6
As a daddy of four daughters, of which even the 8yo has played, and a fan of these forums, mrmanowar just became my favorite poster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 20:32:09 GMT -6
I left this thread open despite all the earlier vitriol precisely because I feel it's important to observe the general situation, and also, as a community, to get over these kinds of hickups. Now, I'm not calling upon the rest of you to sort of engaging in some strange "virtue-signaling" when I'm saying that posts like the one by mrmanowar are what I had hoped we would get. My personal opinion on the whole matter of "D&D's history as a business" is what I already wrote earlier in this thread: Any conversation that doesn't emphasize what a freaking trainwreck it was, and that nobody of the people involved should really have had anything to do with running what today would simply be called a "messy startup" is just plainly missing the point. Now, that, of course, doesn't mean that the history behind the game shouldn't be debated, and debated thoroughly: But as long as it is done under the premise of looking for the party "that was right", in contrast to the other involved parties "that were wrong", it's going to go nowhere. To keep things clear, that doesn't mean that I shy away from such debates: In my opinion, Arneson is more important for the hobby than Gygax. It has been my honor to share some of the considerations that brought me to this conclusion with the movie makers, and with others. - But that, in turn, doesn't mean that I think that a generally negative assessment of his character, as done in a whole series of recent publications, is in any way an indicator for what his contributions to the hobby may have been worth. Now, let's also not sugar-code that a lot of the "Gygax v Arneson" rhetorics - and the well-deserved backlash they're receiving now - do stem from Gygax' own healthy dose of stupidity: Trying to sell "Castle Zagyg", a project that would turn out to be, for the most part, vaporware, or to be written by ghostwriters, as "teh" real thing, was a mistake. Trying to sell it as his literary legacy was a mistake. Trying to sell it with the help of the GIERs and the TIMs of the hobby was a mistake. Troll Lord Games looking at this and not immediately intervening was a mistake. Allowing Tim Kask to refer to the dying Dave Arneson as a "toad" was a mistake. - And a number of mistakes like these, they will cost you your reputation. Which is pretty much what has happened since, to everyone involved in that shameful affair. And for the hobby, that's very sad. Because that kind of damage to the community is very, very hard to repair. - So, the first step has to be, at least, to protect the community from suffering more damage. ...And that's what we here at OD&D'74 are working to do, I'd say.
|
|