|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Jun 22, 2020 3:28:31 GMT -6
This question is going about things all wrong. Gary and Dave didn't set out to "invent a roleplaying game". They were wargamers, who were restless inventers and tinkerers who just had to mix Diplomacy, 1:1 scale skirmish wargaming, LotR, REH, HPL et al., and amateur theatre in a big pot and pour out the resultant gooey mixture. What they created wasn't an RPG but a bloated wargame of hyperbolically Wagnerian proportions.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jun 22, 2020 18:03:47 GMT -6
This question is going about things all wrong. Gary and Dave didn't set out to "invent a roleplaying game" ... What they created wasn't an RPG but a bloated wargame of hyperbolically Wagnerian proportions. Kitchen sink fantasy is the best. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jun 22, 2020 20:22:55 GMT -6
I disagree D&D, as originally published, was "bloated." I couldn't agree more. It is almost perfect in its brevity and conciseness. I don't even think it's badly written, it just needed an editor to properly organize it. Everyone needs an editor. |
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Jun 22, 2020 20:53:03 GMT -6
What they created wasn't an RPG but a bloated wargame of hyperbolically Wagnerian proportions. I disagree D&D, as originally published, was "bloated." I'll agree it quickly became that way but in its original form it was simple (if poorly written and edited), direct, and to the point. We are looking at things in hindsight -- not as contemporaneous wargamers who had certain kinds of materials available to them in the late 60s & early 70s. To a wargamer of that age, they would have expressed nothing short of shock at the audacious scope of ODD74: "What?! To play this wargame you need not only the original rules (Chainmail), but also three MORE books?!?! These blokes Arneson and Gygax must be barmy!" A few years later this new wargame would make WRG's 6th edition "Ancients" look like Little Wars. Nowadays, we RPGers are well-conditioned to accept a financially-demanding, chronocidal hobby with monstrously ponderous tomes with steep pricetags apiece, plus the other requisite appertenances (as minis, dice, DM screen, graph paper, etc., etc.). PSA: The preceding post is a mini-Troll. If you are threatened or offended by mini-Trolls proceed to the nearest egress with all possible haste!  |
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Jun 22, 2020 22:11:36 GMT -6
We are looking at things in hindsight -- not as contemporaneous wargamers who had certain kinds of materials available to them in the late 60s & early 70s. No, we're not; or at least I'm not. I was around back then and wargaming. I was poor at it, admittedly, but still a wargamer. Still, I believe I see your point. My wargaming/RPG experience goes no further back than 1980. Consequently, I defer to those with greater seniority. |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jun 23, 2020 5:54:31 GMT -6
This question is going about things all wrong. Gary and Dave didn't set out to "invent a roleplaying game". They were wargamers, who were restless inventers and tinkerers who just had to mix Diplomacy, 1:1 scale skirmish wargaming, LotR, REH, HPL et al., and amateur theatre in a big pot and pour out the resultant gooey mixture. What they created wasn't an RPG but a bloated wargame of hyperbolically Wagnerian proportions. That's exactly why I hypothesized about a game like Pendragon arising along parallel lines with D&D. From reading Playing at the World I really got the vibe of several things that would feed into it: proto-roleplaying happening in Diplomacy, which would fit well with an Arthurian variant; people doing re-enactment like the SCA; and currents within the fantasy literature of the time that would fit in with it. People could be playing a game where each player had an Arthurian knight, based loosely on Le Morte D'Arthur, for months before they put together that it bore fundamental similarities to Dungeons & Dragons. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 23, 2020 6:12:07 GMT -6
This question is going about things all wrong. Gary and Dave didn't set out to "invent a roleplaying game". They were wargamers, who were restless inventers and tinkerers who just had to mix Diplomacy, 1:1 scale skirmish wargaming, LotR, REH, HPL et al., and amateur theatre in a big pot and pour out the resultant gooey mixture. What they created wasn't an RPG but a bloated wargame of hyperbolically Wagnerian proportions. Arneson and Gygax were tinkers and inventors however Arneson knew he had something different and unique and kept at it. From all accounts the Blackmoor campaign "clicked" in a way that the Grand Napoleonic campaign did not. And the addition of campaign play took the vibe of the Brausteins to the next level. Finally in my view its popularity was cemented once Dave started running the Blackmoor dungeons. After the Lake Geneva Blackmoor session Gygax picked on up that difference and uniqueness which inspired him to run the Greyhawk campaign and write D&D. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 23, 2020 7:11:10 GMT -6
By the way, when saying that OD&D is "poorly written" consider a few things:
(1) Most of the folks I met in the 1970's never thought it was poorly written. Most wargamers and miniatures gamers at the time seemed to think it was pretty clear. (Of course, they may not all have interpreted things the same way.) It's only later, when "rules lawyers" try to re-interpret the letter of the game instead of the spirit of the game, that things really seem confusing.
(2) OD&D was always intended to be taught to others, not just read and play. And it was assumed that a person came into OD&D with certain background experiences and knowledge. Much of the time folks would play the game at a convention, then want to own one. It wasn't until Holmes Basic that anyone tried to create a "you're a noob and this is role playing" style of rules set.
(3) We're looking through a 40-year-old lens, and over the decades I'm sure that folks have come up with more clear ways to explain role playing. It shouldn't be a knock on the original because it's always easier to explain things after someone else has given it a try.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 23, 2020 7:29:04 GMT -6
By the way, when saying that OD&D is "poorly written" consider a few things: (1) Most of the folks I met in the 1970's never thought it was poorly written. Most wargamers and miniatures gamers at the time seemed to think it was pretty clear. (Of course, they may not all have interpreted things the same way.) It's only later, when "rules lawyers" try to re-interpret the letter of the game instead of the spirit of the game, that things really seem confusing. (2) OD&D was always intended to be taught to others, not just read and play. And it was assumed that a person came into OD&D with certain background experiences and knowledge. Much of the time folks would play the game at a convention, then want to own one. It wasn't until Holmes Basic that anyone tried to create a "you're a noob and this is role playing" style of rules set. (3) We're looking through a 40-year-old lens, and over the decades I'm sure that folks have come up with more clear ways to explain role playing. It shouldn't be a knock on the original because it's always easier to explain things after someone else has given it a try. OD&D assumes the reader is involved in the miniatures wargaming hobby of the early 70s. Which was a problem when it spread beyond that community. However Gygax and Arneson were expecting it to sell well among the miniature wargamer of the time. It's popularity outside of the community along with the larger boom in wargaming of all kind was unexpected. They can't be blamed for what they couldn't anticipate. And when an opportunity came to cater to the larger audience Gygax and TSR took advantage of it and released the Holmes boxed set. Later still took the massive revision that was released as AD&D. However I do think there was a missed opportunity in that old ideal of "thinking of what you want to play, then make up some rules to play it" fell by the wayside in favor of trying to fix things by "better" rules. However it hard to see an plausible alternative developing when Gygax and TSR were deluged by questions and comments. But with the premise of the OP, this can be avoided irregardless of the book chosen. By writing the book so a complete novice can understand how to play or run a tabletop RPG campaign. And that unlike chess, monopoly the point isn't to play by the rule but use them as a tool to make a fun campaign happen. That it OK that there are gaps because no rulebook can cover everything that players could want to do. When a gap happens here are some basic principles one can use to make a ruling and keep the campaign going. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 23, 2020 10:53:04 GMT -6
My biggest regret is that they had to remove from the game some of the more explicit references to Middle-earth and Barsoom. I wish they could have gotten that sorted out, somehow.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jun 25, 2020 19:42:26 GMT -6
I don’t want to invent role playing games. I want some ample guidelines for setting up medieval fantasy wargames campaigns. If I could influence that, I would have made them write out D&D more like Tony Bath’s Setting Up a Wargames Campaign but adding the skirmish level combat, the emphasis on exploration and the brilliant move to experience points and level as a replacement for troop point buy systems, given the one-to-one correspondence of player to character of skirmish play. That would have been awesome! Fight on! I’m reading, and using Tony Bath’s book right now. Slowly but surely putting together little kingdoms for a near future war game campaign with OD&D tossed in for fun. The concept of a three point alignment became clearer to me after throwing dice, then adding roads, rivers and habitations. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jul 3, 2020 10:21:48 GMT -6
Encounter Critical. Why the f**k not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jul 13, 2020 19:47:50 GMT -6
I don’t want to invent role playing games. I want some ample guidelines for setting up medieval fantasy wargames campaigns. If I could influence that, I would have made them write out D&D more like Tony Bath’s Setting Up a Wargames Campaign but adding the skirmish level combat, the emphasis on exploration and the brilliant move to experience points and level as a replacement for troop point buy systems, given the one-to-one correspondence of player to character of skirmish play. That would have been awesome! Fight on! I’m reading, and using Tony Bath’s book right now. Slowly but surely putting together little kingdoms for a near future war game campaign with OD&D tossed in for fun. The concept of a three point alignment became clearer to me after throwing dice, then adding roads, rivers and habitations. Peg me as another who would have drawn more heavily and explicitly on Bath and/or Charles Grant to create guidelines to run a wargames campaign of limitless scale and scope. I'd probably ground it in historical Imagi-Nations games, but attach Fantasy and Science Fantasy Supplements that were obviously the real reasons for playing. |
|
