Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 22:30:32 GMT -6
I hear you; I had plainly overread your earlier post, or I wouldn't have tagged you.
That said, I don't think discussions like that are necessarily beyond saving. I also think it's important not to allow plain misinformation to gain some mouth-to-mouth traction.
"GIER" (Gary Invented Everything Renarration) should not be replaced by a "KÄSE" (German word for "cheese") narrative: "Kriegsspiel Änd Strategos just Evolved" is not how the game was invented, either, and people should be aware of that if we're discussing these things.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 23, 2020 3:45:41 GMT -6
How they played their Napoleonics influenced how they would approach these later games, for sure. And they did develop a variant for ancients- Strategos A. Yet, it seemed to me that Wesely's Braunstein was more of a reaction to their traditional rules centric Napoleonic campaigns. It's unclear whether Stategos was used at all in any meaningful way in running Braunstein or during Blackmoor's development. . I haven’t picked up on Strategos-A along the way. Interesting... |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 23, 2020 19:39:44 GMT -6
That there seem to be parallels and even likenesses between Strategos and early D&D-ish games does not necessarily force the supposed causal relation after which Strategos was the "direct model" for D&D-ish games. It seems somewhat likely, sure - but so far it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, let alone that it could be considered a given. I liked that the movie included Wesely, but I think presenting the influence of Strategos as a fact rather than as a theory was a mistake on their behalf. It doesn't seem like there is any question that the TC group was invested in Strategos. That the film suggests they were pretty loosey-goosey in how they played, essentially allowing things to happen that were not explicitly expressed in the rules, and how this mimics their approach to roleplay later on, I see no reason to debate. The causal relationship of wargaming to Braunstein is solely rooted within this group. And, well, we can all agree that Arneson started running his own Brausteins and what this led to. All of this is easily accepted. These are generalities. All of my comments above are generalities. What people have a harder time with is the specifics and who can be credited with them. I'm not sure what I think about this whole heat and light analogy. Can I say that it feels a little pretentious without offending anyone? I understand the point of it. But I see no reason to keep people in the dark about the existence of certain things or to not be honest about how these shape peoples arguments. It was in the spirit of shedding some light on rsdeans question that I brought up Strategos A. It seemed pertinent. I hope that my assessment of SOB is not mistaken as suggesting that I think Chainmail played no part. That is not the case. Right now, I don't think anyone is forwarding an entirely accurate narrative in that regard. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 23, 2020 23:01:36 GMT -6
I'm not sure what I think about this whole heat and light analogy. Can I say that it feels a little pretentious without offending anyone? I understand the point of it. But I see no reason to keep people in the dark about the existence of certain things or to not be honest about how these shape peoples arguments. Well, it won't offend me anyway. I was speaking to why, from my perspective, discussion about the nitty gritty of pre-D&D history more or less died out here. It just seemed to make people frustrated without actually moving us towards any sort of consensus. But more to your point, my views about the early years are shaped by sources that are not publicly available, and I certainly learned that alluding to sources like that without producing them is counterproductive - it just creates animus. I used to do a lot of excited blog posts of the form "hey, something that we didn't know existed actually exists," but the response to those pretty quickly trended to, "you are a terrible person for having that and not posting a scan of it." (Years now since I convinced WotC to release the complete 1982 D&D radio show, I still get people berating me because I initially blogged a non-complete version of it to help convince WotC there was interest.) This caused pretty serious friction here in the past. I am trying to navigate all that a bit better these days, but it has certainly changed the way I talk about history in casual environments like this one. I am in the game history racket because I enjoy doing the research and finding connections, and the connections I find ultimately become the things I write about. That's why I go to the trouble of unearthing sources, and while I don't want to make that sound harder than it is, it's an investment of time and resources that I wouldn't make if I weren't writing about this stuff. My happy medium now is that I am just way more selective in how I share information about those sources, and hopefully not coming across as chanting, "I know something you don't know" over and over again. In the fullness of time, all of these sources will come to light. In the meantime, there just will be disputes and speculations that are not going to get resolved in a forum like this. I think I've made my views known here about some of the more expansive arguments with regards to Strategos. I don't think it would really serve much of a purpose to relitigate them endlessly. |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 24, 2020 0:00:51 GMT -6
Can someone clear up, as it relates to the lineage of Dungeons & Dragons(1974):
When we talk about Strategos, are we discussing Totten's line about letting commanders "attempt anything" e.g., engineering works and foolish maneuvers?
Or, when we talk about Strategos, are we referencing the actual Twin Cities rules set that Arneson played when there was a table battle, during the postal game (the Napoleonic game written up in Corner of the Tabletop)?
Because, Totten's idea of a referee (that precursor to the modern dungeonmaster), while it may not be an original one, in 1960's gaming; is still the current best candidate for exposing Arneson, through David Wesely, to the FREE-free-really-free-Kriegspiel that we know, today, as tabletop roleplaying.
On the other hand, if we're talking about the table rules that Dave Wesely wrote up for Napoleonic era and were expanded upon for Ancients period (among others), well I have seen these. They bare little mechanical resemblance to either Chainmail or Dungeons & Dragons. Wesely never resorted to playing these Strategos rules during any of his four Braunstein sessions.
I'm confused with this conversation, because the form of the game and the content of the game are both being referred to as "Strategos".
|
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 24, 2020 8:04:02 GMT -6
When we talk about Strategos, are we discussing Totten's line about letting commanders "attempt anything" e.g., engineering works and foolish maneuvers? Or, when we talk about Strategos, are we referencing the actual Twin Cities rules set that Arneson played when there was a table battle, during the postal game (the Napoleonic game written up in Corner of the Tabletop)? Sorry, when I say "more expansive arguments with regards to Strategos," I do not mean the referee-driven, attempt-anything philosophy. That is the "not-at-all expansive" view of Strategos, which (I hope anyway) is generally accepted. I mean: On the other hand, if we're talking about the table rules that Dave Wesely wrote up for Napoleonic era and were expanded upon for Ancients period (among others), well I have seen these. They bare little mechanical resemblance to either Chainmail or Dungeons & Dragons. Wesely never resorted to playing these Strategos rules during any of his four Braunstein sessions. ... that stuff. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 9:15:49 GMT -6
It doesn't seem like there is any question that the TC group was invested in Strategos. That the film suggests they were pretty loosey-goosey in how they played, essentially allowing things to happen that were not explicitly expressed in the rules, and how this mimics their approach to roleplay later on, I see no reason to debate. The causal relationship of wargaming to Braunstein is solely rooted within this group. And, well, we can all agree that Arneson started running his own Brausteins and what this led to. All of this is easily accepted. These are generalities. All of my comments above are generalities. What people have a harder time with is the specifics and who can be credited with them. That's correct, yeah - in a general sense. "Before they invented 'The Fantasy Game' (Arneson's Proto-D&D), the members of the St Pauls group played a lot of games based on and inspired by Strategos." That's the general consensus, and that's what the people from back in the day notably have stated themselves. However, there's the distinction that might well seem a bit nitpicky, but really isn't: "Was Strategos a source for 'The Fantasy Game', or was it part of the pool of general knowledge that Arneson, Wesely, and the others relied upon?" - And that second question has not been answered yet, as far I as I know. There are a few hypotheses concerning the issue, sure, but the matter has not yet been decided. This is not a statement related to the role of "Chainmail", or to the role of *anything*, really - it's just that the evidence so far is insufficient to formulate a verdict. Personally, I see this as a good sign, as this seems that the easy questions concerning the history of the hobby are already solved: Everything that comes now will be a more interesting puzzle, and more exciting to investigate. That said - and, sorry, that's also the reason why I'm kind of overexplaining - like captainjapan, I'm a bit confused because the form of the game and the content of the game are both being referred to as "Strategos". |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 24, 2020 9:59:04 GMT -6
"Was Strategos a source for 'The Fantasy Game', or was it part of the pool of general knowledge that Arneson, Wesely, and the others relied upon?" - And that second question has not been answered yet, as far I as I know. There are a few hypotheses concerning the issue, sure, but the matter has not yet been decided. I think it hasn't been decided because the former is not a falsifiable hypothesis. There's no piece of evidence anyone could turn up that would conclusively prove that Strategos (in one of its variants) was never used as a system for Blackmoor. Even if we had direct testimony from a Twin Cities insider that it wasn't, maybe that guy just wasn't there the day or week they used it. It is the lack of falsifiability of the hypothesis that makes it linger, but also, to me, what makes it irrelevant. Sure, some revelation could come to light that would lead us to suspect it is true, at which time, happy to discuss it - until then, I at least am treating it the same way as the infinite other unfalsifiable hypotheses any of us could dream up for what a group of gamers might have done in 1971. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 12:10:35 GMT -6
I think it hasn't been decided because the former is not a falsifiable hypothesis. I don't want to make a fool of myself talking about stuff that I don't really know, and haven't followed in a few years, either - but isn't the key problem mainly that there are no conclusive notes both from Wesely's Braunstein campaign, as well as from the first three to six months of Arneson's Blackmoor campaign? Like, I recall from somewhere that Arneson even wrote his own Strategos variant, or something - just so many years before the start of the Snider-Funk-Svenson campaign that it probably didn't play much a role for the game. But since everyone involved has essentially stated that the campaign was fairly fluid in the beginning, and that the rules were worked out within the group as the game went on, some folks insisting on the supposed linearity between Strategos, other games, and "The Fantasy Game" has always seemed pretty absurd to me. The same goes for the thematic aspects of Blackmoor, as a setting, by the way: There are Elves and Hobbits there because people wanted to play Elves and Hobbits, not because Arneson had aspired to, whatever, "scholarly adapt" Tolkien or Poul Anderson. The first major baddie was a vampire because its player was into "Dark Shadows", and Arneson wanted to compliment his friend.  No biggie, really, and no source of controversy, one would think. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Sept 24, 2020 13:09:49 GMT -6
Here was my suggestion: I didn’t want to nitpick, since overall it’s a great header; but, as long as verhaden is open to suggestions, I would prefer to see more immediate descendants of OD&D. Something like this: Chainmail, M&M, M&T, U&WA, FFC, Warriors of Mars, EPT, Greyhawk, Guide to the City State, The Spartan #9 [featuring Warlock], Arduin Grimoire Vol. I, and All the World’s Monsters Vol 2 [featuring the Perrin Conventions]. To me that would better represent the hobby as centered on OD&D itself, rather than a rehearsal of the canonical “road to AD&D,” as it were (though Greyhawk still stands in for that direction). Perhaps the S&W White Box could be last, to honor Marv and to represent the OSR/retroclone movement. IIRC the blue/wintery Mullen cover was his favorite. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 24, 2020 17:46:57 GMT -6
I used to do a lot of excited blog posts of the form "hey, something that we didn't know existed actually exists," but the response to those pretty quickly trended to, "you are a terrible person for having that and not posting a scan of it." I certainly respect that you have maintained your principles of research, especially in regards to primary testimony. It always seemed to me that it was more your "colleagues" that were pressuring you to compromise in this regard. It appeared to be the same people that wanted you to release material to the public rather then us overly zealous gamers at odd74. So, I feel it's a shame that you need to be so guarded. Be that as it may, in my opinion a little healthy speculation can sometimes challenge academics in a positive way. I never considered those sort of discussions fruitless. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 24, 2020 18:05:10 GMT -6
That said - and, sorry, that's also the reason why I'm kind of overexplaining - like captainjapan, I'm a bit confused because the form of the game and the content of the game are both being referred to as "Strategos" Speaking for myself, it's sometimes because there is overlap between the two. I mean, beyond the whole free kriegsspiel aspect, did the manner of establishing odds to resolve conflicts come into play, for instance? Sorry, I feel like I have derailed this thread. I really have no strong feelings or input about the banner on the forum. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 24, 2020 19:11:36 GMT -6
isn't the key problem mainly that there are no conclusive notes both from Wesely's Braunstein campaign, as well as from the first three to six months of Arneson's Blackmoor campaign? Well, evidence supporting the Strategos-Blackmoor conjecture might survive in places like that, and yes, the scarcity of such notes certainly limits the areas we can search for evidence. But my point was more that no matter how much evidence we recover from that period, there could always be just one more piece of paper we haven't found that just might deliver the smoking gun for some use of Strategos in Blackmoor, however fleeting. That's what makes the hypothesis not falsifiable, and why it kind of lingers, despite the fact there isn't (to my knowledge anyway) substantial justification to pursue it as a line of argument - like there would be, had Arneson ever mentioned "We used Strategos rules in Blackmoor" at any of the points in history when he would have had considerable incentive to do so. That he does not seem to have recalled that weighs pretty heavily, I think, against these arguments. As I've observed before, this conjecture seems to be part of a cluster of arguments that strive to distance Blackmoor from Chainmail; Arneson did, over the course of many years, increasingly belittle Chainmail's influence over Blackmoor, and since nature abhors a vacuum, why not fill that presumed vacuum of influence with Strategos? The people who held the strong version of that view aren't on this board anymore, I don't think, which is probably another reason why discussion about these matters largely died down here... |
|
|
|
Post by mrmanowar on Sept 24, 2020 19:59:05 GMT -6
I appreciate all this commentary on Blackmoor/Strategos/D&D. It's a lot of fun to read as well as insightful. It also shows human character as we see either Gygax's or Arneson's reactions and published interviews and columns on the topic and how they vacillated from one position to another. As to Jon's point of knowing things we as a collective audience may not know, well; there's the impetus for a second edition of PatW or some similar thing. I can wait. I'll read it all. Although the primary figures have passed on, the secondary and tertiary figures of this history have not and as such they will have stories, notes, anecdotes, etc. I think we are fortunate we have what we have regarding evidence of the chronology as well as history and biography of all involved. When I think of the respective families, these notes and such aren't merely historical documents of a specific time frame of what happened in a given gaming session but also a familial (in some cases) or friend's token/memorial of the respective people who worked on this as well as an insight of what they were thinking when they wrote. I can definitely see the reasoning behind not sharing certain things aside from copyright stuff. I'm truly appreciative of all that's written and all knowledge that gets disseminated to us. There are certain things that I never had any insight of (like Strategos until Dave Wesely and I had a long talk over a couple of beers). Sifting through everything and then making a coherent timeline requires time and resources and I'm glad that we have that.
On another note, Jon; sorry we didn't/can't continue the drinks/conversation stuff either at Gary Con or Gamehole Con 2020 due to that crazy Covid-19, but keep up the great work. We'll have to make do in the future!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2020 3:38:28 GMT -6
Well, evidence supporting the Strategos-Blackmoor conjecture might survive in places like that, and yes, the scarcity of such notes certainly limits the areas we can search for evidence. But my point was more that no matter how much evidence we recover from that period, there could always be just one more piece of paper we haven't found that just might deliver the smoking gun for some use of Strategos in Blackmoor, however fleeting. That's what makes the hypothesis not falsifiable, and why it kind of lingers, despite the fact there isn't (to my knowledge anyway) substantial justification to pursue it as a line of argument - like there would be, had Arneson ever mentioned "We used Strategos rules in Blackmoor" at any of the points in history when he would have had considerable incentive to do so. That he does not seem to have recalled that weighs pretty heavily, I think, against these arguments. As I've observed before, this conjecture seems to be part of a cluster of arguments that strive to distance Blackmoor from Chainmail; Arneson did, over the course of many years, increasingly belittle Chainmail's influence over Blackmoor, and since nature abhors a vacuum, why not fill that presumed vacuum of influence with Strategos? The people who held the strong version of that view aren't on this board anymore, I don't think, which is probably another reason why discussion about these matters largely died down here... I like the way you're framing this; now, I'm not sure this is so much a matter concerning Chainmal, as that the discussion has had the side effect of rising the value of items not currently under any corporate copyright lock. By exaggerating the roles of Strategos and similar games, people also create a new market for them - and for themselves. Now, I'm not writing this to crap on David Wesely: I'd be delighted if he decided whatever of his old notes might remain. But I think I speak for a whole lot of fans and readers when I say, I won't back the next Kickstarter that will surely come along where some random dude promises his audience that inevitable "commented version of 'Strategos' for the modern DM", or whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Sept 26, 2020 6:11:35 GMT -6
I wonder if the real reason for why many of these questions that keep being asked might not be directly related to Dave Arneson's core game design philosophy when it came to creating Blackmoor. IMHO The core elements of Blackmoor were: Roleplaying Focus on a single character Character advancement through Campaign Play Dungeon and Wilderness Exploration The Dungeon Master Concept Now, where questions arise is what combat rules Dave used etc. We know that these rules changed and evolved over time. If we take Dave Arneson's words at face value, he did use Chainmail for one or two sessions, but then ditched most of it. Some speculate that he used Modern War in Miniature ("Korns") or a variant of Strategos due to these being mechanics Dave's groups would be familiar with and that were associated with Braunstein and the Napoleonics they also played so frequently. But if those were used, why didn't Dave Arneson write anything more about it? Why was he so vague about the rules? Some attribute that to Dave being a lousy game designer. But he wasn't. What Dave was, was a man with a very specific vision of what he wanted Blackmoor to accomplish. This is explained very well in Playing At The World and other sources. Dave wanted to create the experience he had when playing Braunstein. But he also wanted to take that experience several steps further as he wanted to get away from rules arguments, historical fact arguments and anything that could detract from the experience he wanted to create. He selected a fantasy setting so that anything would be possible. Complete creative freedom for both players and the DM. And of course he gradually developed this game to include all the core elements I list above. All these elements were a result of his very specific vision. This is also why it is not unbelievable that Dave could easily ditch the Chainmail mechanics and replace them with something else. He could also include a Hit Point-like mechanic when one of his players complained about the game being too deadly. Blackmoor always had game mechanical rules because Dave and his players did care about consistency. Its not that the rules didn't matter. It is just that they were explicitly secondary to the gaming experience he was working towards. And of course, it is this vision that made D&D into a revolutionary new genre starting game rather than just a new edition of Chainmail. This is the very reason why Gary Gygax knew that he had to bring Dave on board. And why Gary had no problem putting Dave's name on the cover of OD&D even if Gary felt that he had done "all the work". -Havard |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 26, 2020 7:02:07 GMT -6
I like the way you're framing this; now, I'm not sure this is so much a matter concerning Chainmal, as that the discussion has had the side effect of rising the value of items not currently under any corporate copyright lock. By exaggerating the roles of Strategos and similar games, people also create a new market for them - and for themselves.
Or possibly how it actually happened doesn't paint as complimentary a picture. No one likes talking about the ugly red headed step child. People want to be on the "right side" of history and protect their reputations. Some things may not come out until a generation has all passed and time has gone by. There are a lot of ideas being interjected into the narrative that are sometimes easier to accept than the alternative. Whether people like to recognize it or not, the role of Chainmail is a center stage argument that has not completely been resolved. The opposing camps of opinions and view points, the litigations, and the dissolutions are all part of the history that are not pleasant to talk about. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 26, 2020 7:41:50 GMT -6
Some attribute that to Dave being a lousy game designer. But he wasn't. Have you read Adventures in Fantasy? |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 26, 2020 8:34:36 GMT -6
If we take Dave Arneson's words at face value, he did use Chainmail for one or two sessions, but then ditched most of it. When I used the words "over the course of many years" above, I was alluding to the fact that Arneson's statements about Chainmail changed over time, as he entered into a dispute with Gygax over money and ultimately legacy. Before the dispute really got started, when Arneson was writing the FFC, he could casually call Chainmail "the basis of all our combat." Once there was a dispute underway, he would still say "Actual combat used the Chainmail system," but he now qualified that by adding that variants like "hit dice, hit location, armor type/protection and weapon classes were instituted." He argued it was those additions that distinguished Blackmoor combat from baseline Chainmail. It was only much later that Arneson started suggesting that Chainmail was immediately discarded. The question is, how well do any of these statements reflect the state of affairs in, say, 1972? So I don't think it is so straightforward to take Arneson's words at face value. He said a lot of things over time that were not consistent, which unfortunately means any of us can cherry-pick Arneson quotes to suit the needs of our arguments. As a general principle, I tend to prefer earlier statements to later ones, and if what came between earlier and later is an acrimonious lawsuit, I think it is somewhat reckless to do otherwise. This is a a pretty good example of what I mean about areas we're not able to reach consensus. I'm not saying anything above I haven't said here before. Is there some reason why we should take Arneson's later statements about ditching Chainmail at face value, but treat earlier statements that Blackmoor used Chainmail to resolve combat as problematic? I'm not being facetious, I'm generally curious why this is not an area where we can get on the same page. Some speculate that he used Modern War in Miniature ("Korns") or a variant of Strategos due to these being mechanics Dave's groups would be familiar with and that were associated with Braunstein and the Napoleonics they also played so frequently. I'm not aware anyone has proposed that Blackmoor used Korns's rules for a combat system. The Korns bit is more about the paths through which free Kriegsspiel principles, and in particular a direct first-person conversation with the referee, descended to the Twin Cities. And the person who led me to think that was Arneson, when he said that Korns was a factor in the evolution of Twin Cities role playing, along with the Braunsteins and Diplomacy and so on. Though again, I feel like this an another area where taking what Arneson stated in the 1970s at "face value" is controversial. [That much said, the path to "hit location" in Blackmoor might have passed through what became the Bio One booklet on the way to the system preserved in the Blackmoor supplement, and originally, Bio One was written as a Korns supplement, so maybe there are more indirect conduits we shouldn't rule out entirely there.] |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Sept 26, 2020 8:39:56 GMT -6
Some attribute that to Dave being a lousy game designer. But he wasn't. Have you read Adventures in Fantasy? Yep. This is the classic argument thrown around as "proof" that Dave wasn't a very good designer. But instead of looking at what Dave wasn't able to accomplish, I would challenge you to also look at what Dave did accomplish. How did he manage to inspire so many people and draw them into a completely new form of gaming? What was it he was doing that made Gary Gygax think: I would really love to work with this man again (after Don't Think the Ship) to create D&D which Gary was convinced would blow people's minds? -Havard |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Sept 26, 2020 9:41:53 GMT -6
If we take Dave Arneson's words at face value, he did use Chainmail for one or two sessions, but then ditched most of it. When I used the words "over the course of many years" above, I was alluding to the fact that Arneson's statements about Chainmail changed over time, as he entered into a dispute with Gygax over money and ultimately legacy. Before the dispute really got started, when Arneson was writing the FFC, he could casually call Chainmail "the basis of all our combat." Once there was a dispute underway, he would still say "Actual combat used the Chainmail system," but he now qualified that by adding that variants like "hit dice, hit location, armor type/protection and weapon classes were instituted." He argued it was those additions that distinguished Blackmoor combat from baseline Chainmail. It was only much later that Arneson started suggesting that Chainmail was immediately discarded. The question is, how well do any of these statements reflect the state of affairs in, say, 1972? So I don't think it is so straightforward to take Arneson's words at face value. He said a lot of things over time that were not consistent, which unfortunately means any of us can cherry-pick Arneson quotes to suit the needs of our arguments. As a general principle, I tend to prefer earlier statements to later ones, and if what came between earlier and later is an acrimonious lawsuit, I think it is somewhat reckless to do otherwise. I agree that it is problematic to take every statement by Dave Arneson at face value. As you say, he can be inconsistent at times and both failing to remember details and motives linked to the lawsuit etc could have influenced his statements. But this is true for any histocial source. Gygax, TSR etc should be scrutinized with a similar critical light. At the same time my training as a historian has taught me never to completely ignore statements by any primary source as there could be some truth even in a misleading statement. So while In am not saying we should take Arneson's statements at face value, I am also saying that we should not ignore them. This is a a pretty good example of what I mean about areas we're not able to reach consensus. I'm not saying anything above I haven't said here before. Is there some reason why we should take Arneson's later statements about ditching Chainmail at face value, but treat earlier statements that Blackmoor used Chainmail to resolve combat as problematic? I'm not being facetious, I'm generally curious why this is not an area where we can get on the same page. I think there are several other nuances worth exploring here. Arneson called Blackmoor a Braunstein game when introducing it to his Twin Cities players. He called it a Chainmail game when writing to Gary about it. So to some extent the statements need to be read in the context of Dave referring to the game in one way or the other to connect with whoever he was talking to. It also seems clear that some elements of Chainmail (unit names, spells etc) were kept even after Dave himself said he dropped the rules. Could "dropped" mean he very quickly made modifications to the rules? Or replaced the core mechanics? As you say it will be difficult to get everyone on the same page, but I see you as someone who is genuinely interested in learning the truth of what happened. And if while some will always be stuck in their trenches, perhaps those of us who share this intellectual honesty can at least move towards exploring the complex nuances of how the game evolved? But my main point is that while it might be impossible to know how the rules worked from one setting to the next. We know that Blackmoor evolved over time. But many of the core elements I listed in my previous post remained more or less consistent. And to me, these are the things really worth exploring since they were the ideas that revolutionized the hobby. That is what I talked about in my Chainmail Fallacy article back in 2016. Some speculate that he used Modern War in Miniature ("Korns") or a variant of Strategos due to these being mechanics Dave's groups would be familiar with and that were associated with Braunstein and the Napoleonics they also played so frequently. increment said: (quote tag fixed here --- Zenopus)I honestly haven't looked much into Korns and how it might be linked to Blackmoor (or not), but Dave's players have mentioned it in conversation with me enough times that I felt it might be worth mentioning it here. Dave and his players clearly borrowed indeas and mechanics from a wide range of wargames and board games they were familiar with. I didn't know about the connection to the Hit Location rules. That is really interesting -Havard |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 26, 2020 10:28:04 GMT -6
At the same time my training as a historian has taught me never to completely ignore statements by any primary source as there could be some truth even in a misleading statement. So while In am not saying we should take Arneson's statements at face value, I am also saying that we should not ignore them. And my point is that the context of statements should determine how we weigh their biases or lack thereof. Later statements in general have a problematic context in this case. Arneson called Blackmoor a Braunstein game when introducing it to his Twin Cities players. He called it a Chainmail game when writing to Gary about it. In the FFC, when Arneson called Chainmail "the basis of all our combat," the source of the initial monsters in the Blackmoor dungeon, the place the powers of the magic swords were derived from, who was he talking to? But my main point is that while it might be impossible to know how the rules worked from one setting to the next. We know that Blackmoor evolved over time. But many of the core elements I listed in my previous post remained more or less consistent. And to me, these are the things really worth exploring since they were the ideas that revolutionized the hobby. That is what I talked about in my Chainmail Fallacy article back in 2016. If I may take exception to the first paragraph of your post there, I think is very relevant to this discussion that someone did in fact belittle Blackmoor as "variant Chainmail" - that would be Gygax, in a 1977 Dragon article. That article provoked Arneson to belittle Chainmail in retaliation, and things just escalated from there on both sides. The question of "well, if Blackmoor didn't really use Chainmail, what did it use?" was born of that tit-for-tat exchange, as far as I can tell. |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Sept 26, 2020 10:57:06 GMT -6
At the same time my training as a historian has taught me never to completely ignore statements by any primary source as there could be some truth even in a misleading statement. So while In am not saying we should take Arneson's statements at face value, I am also saying that we should not ignore them. And my point is that the context of statements should determine how we weigh their biases or lack thereof. Later statements in general have a problematic context in this case. Well, I don't disagree with you here. I think the extent of any disagreement is just the exact weighing of biases, skewed memories etc. So we are not that far from reaching that consensus on this field IMO. In the FFC, when Arneson called Chainmail "the basis of all our combat," the source of the initial monsters in the Blackmoor dungeon, the place the powers of the magic swords were derived from, who was he talking to? It depends on what context that part of the FFC was written. Many section of that book do appear to have been prepared for publication in the Domesday Book or D&D Supplement II. But I am not saying we should ignore this either. But my main point is that while it might be impossible to know how the rules worked from one setting to the next. We know that Blackmoor evolved over time. But many of the core elements I listed in my previous post remained more or less consistent. And to me, these are the things really worth exploring since they were the ideas that revolutionized the hobby. That is what I talked about in my Chainmail Fallacy article back in 2016. increment wrote: (quote tag fixed here --- Zenopus)My article was mainly a response to various claims made on Internet forums at the time, but I am sure they were influenced by the Dragon article. While it would be interesting to look more closely into this exchange between Dave and Gary, we also have the opportunity to compare Chainmail and D&D. What I think is very important for this discussion forward is that we examine our understanding of the following: 1) What is the essence of D&D? 2) How does that differ from Chainmail? While this is entering territory of some subjectivity, I think it is pretty clear that Chainmail never had the potential of revolutionizing the gaming industry the way D&D did. So my point in that Chainmail article and in this thread, is that Dave might have changed the combat rule multiple times during the Blackmoor campaign with his players never feeling like the core of the game was altered. This is because the combat rules were secondary and the primary focus of the game were the elements I listed above, which again was what Gary needed to turn his own ideas into such an amazing game that D&D turned out to be. As long as we keep studying D&D as just a war game with a few twists*, I think we are missing some very important parts of the creation of this hobby. *=I am also considering whether Gary and Dave both might actually have believed this especially in the early years before realizing what they had actually created. -Havard |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 26, 2020 12:37:34 GMT -6
While it would be interesting to look more closely into this exchange between Dave and Gary, we also have the opportunity to compare Chainmail and D&D. I think that's a separate matter. The exchange between Gary and Dave was meant to illustrate how we collectively ended up without much hope of consensus, given that we can't even rely on the consistency of the eyewitnesses closest to all of these matters. It was not meant to litigate the respective importance of either of their contributions to D&D, but instead to show how they later belittled one another's contributions in a way that kicked up so much dust that even the things that seem - to me anyway - like they should admit of some resolution instead just kind of languish in people agreeing to disagree. And just to this point: In the FFC, when Arneson called Chainmail "the basis of all our combat," the source of the initial monsters in the Blackmoor dungeon, the place the powers of the magic swords were derived from, who was he talking to? It depends on what context that part of the FFC was written. Many section of that book do appear to have been prepared for publication in the Domesday Book or D&D Supplement II. But I am not saying we should ignore this either. My reading anyway of those quotes is that they were created by Arneson editorially as he was stitching together material for the Judges Guild - they were not fragments of his original notes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2020 15:18:45 GMT -6
My reading anyway of those quotes is that they were created by Arneson editorially as he was stitching together material for the Judges Guild - they were not fragments of his original notes. I don't know the actual textual history of the FFC, but I share the impression that the rules-related notes from the FFC appear related to the Snider-Funk-Svenson campaign that ended in 1974. Much of the fluff described in the FFC relates, as far as I understand it, to Arneson's post-TSR campaign, but all the tables and rules considerations are older, or, rather, dealing with content that wasn't (as much) part of the later games. Or possibly how it actually happened doesn't paint as complimentary a picture. No one likes talking about the ugly red headed step child. People want to be on the "right side" of history and protect their reputations. Some things may not come out until a generation has all passed and time has gone by. I'm not sure - who's the stepchild here? The real problem with the Strategos angle is that some loudmouths have made it part of their usual "holier than thou" campaigns. That's very convenient since the book(s) cannot be found all too easily, these days. So, people bumping their chests on social media about how "true" their game supposedly is to the roots of the hobby has become a bit of an annoyance. It's about virtue signaling, and it's about "read my blog"-type of posturing. I wish we could do without that kind of drama. Whether people like to recognize it or not, the role of Chainmail is a center stage argument that has not completely been resolved. I have to disagree. "Not completely resolved" suggests that the matter is still the subject of debate, and it simply isn't. The issue has been extensively investigated, and the results of those investigations couldn't be more unequivocal in how it tends to minimize the role of Chainmail. It's like saying that Shakespeare could have been an influence on Tolkien because Tolkien surely, at some point, had read his plays. That, too, might never be explicitly disproved; but that doesn't mean it's true. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 26, 2020 17:14:58 GMT -6
I have to disagree. "Not completely resolved" suggests that the matter is still the subject of debate, and it simply isn't. The issue has been extensively investigated, and the results of those investigations couldn't be more unequivocal in how it tends to minimize the role of Chainmail. It's like saying that Shakespeare could have been an influence on Tolkien because Tolkien surely, at some point, had read his plays. That, too, might never be explicitly disproved; but that doesn't mean it's true. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the variant Chainmail D&D claim. Though, I believe Chainmails role is now often understated. This is why Strategos is problematic as an alternative source for resolving combat. What was the alternative before the whole Strategos theory? Basically Arneson altering and expanding of Chainmail. The LBB's and Dalluhn seem to support the later. As for being open to debate, Havard and increments discussion seems to suggest otherwise and is touching on some of what I allude to. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 26, 2020 17:24:28 GMT -6
The real problem with the Strategos angle is that some loudmouths have made it part of their usual "holier than thou" campaigns. That's very convenient since the book(s) cannot be found all too easily, these days. I own a copy of Strategos and I have to say that I think the book is a real yawner. To me the book is sort of, "blah, blah, blah" and a few fractions are thrown in. I had sort of expected to find some combat tables and charts that look like the old CRT on Avalon Hill and/or SPI wargames, or maybe some man-to-man tables like in Chainmail, but overall I don't see anything at all like that. I will confess that I haven't read the whole thing but to me it's astounding that anyone would plow through this book and say, "hey, I can make a Braunstein out of this!" much less take the book and make an intuitive leap into the world of role playing. Honestly, it's a lot like reading a textbook, IMO. The book is around 170 pages, so what I can see is someone looking at Strategos and thinking, "well, if I could trim this down to 20 pages or so I might be able to work with it," and perhaps that is why we have Strategos-N and Strategos-A and other stuff that Wesely and Arneson did. I can't imagine handing a novice gamer a copy of Strategos and telling them that this is the bible for the Twin Cities gamers. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 26, 2020 18:26:27 GMT -6
Yes, I was treating Chainmail, and Blackmoor, and OD&D, and Braunsteins, and Strategos(es), as all being distinct things, and trying to speak to a Strategos-Blackmoor question, and very pointedly not to a Chainmail-D&D question. But with this number of variables and adjacencies, it's tough to keep them straight. To me, some are apples and some are oranges, and comparisons between them don't always work.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 26, 2020 20:08:34 GMT -6
Have you read Adventures in Fantasy? Yep. This is the classic argument thrown around as "proof" that Dave wasn't a very good designer. But instead of looking at what Dave wasn't able to accomplish, I would challenge you to also look at what Dave did accomplish. How did he manage to inspire so many people and draw them into a completely new form of gaming? What was it he was doing that made Gary Gygax think: I would really love to work with this man again (after Don't Think the Ship) to create D&D which Gary was convinced would blow people's minds? -Havard I'm not talking about Gary. Any criticism of Dave is always met with "yeah. well Gary sux" comments. A far more tired argument than the proof positive of how poorly done AIF is. As I have stated plenty of times, I am mostly unimpressed with all of Dave's published works that I own or used to own- AIF, FFC, AIB, and his contributions to supp II (barring TotF). I also had some d20 books but unsure how much/if any of that was his work. I think Dave was a great "idea guy" and I believe he was amazing at the table and I would have loved to play in a game of his. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2020 1:19:13 GMT -6
I own a copy of Strategos and I have to say that I think the book is a real yawner. To me the book is sort of, "blah, blah, blah" and a few fractions are thrown in. I had sort of expected to find some combat tables and charts that look like the old CRT on Avalon Hill and/or SPI wargames, or maybe some man-to-man tables like in Chainmail, but overall I don't see anything at all like that. I will confess that I haven't read the whole thing but to me it's astounding that anyone would plow through this book and say, "hey, I can make a Braunstein out of this!" much less take the book and make an intuitive leap into the world of role playing. Honestly, it's a lot like reading a textbook, IMO. The book is around 170 pages, so what I can see is someone looking at Strategos and thinking, "well, if I could trim this down to 20 pages or so I might be able to work with it," and perhaps that is why we have Strategos-N and Strategos-A and other stuff that Wesely and Arneson did. I can't imagine handing a novice gamer a copy of Strategos and telling them that this is the bible for the Twin Cities gamers. I actually saw a copy of Strategos in the flesh a couple of years ago - and, without having had the time to read it completely, I think I can confidently say that I share your opinion. My personal guess is that it's probably not the content of Strategos that was interesting to Wesely, but the format: For reasons not immediately related to D&D, I know my way a bit around wargaming and pre-1950s wargaming. Compared to the encyclopedias that people were apparently required to read to create proper simulations back in the day, Strategos seems casual. Without having been able to dwell longer on the matter, my personal gut feeling would be that Wesely probably liked Strategos because it broke things down to a level that people could reasonably worth with on a hobbyist base. Now, before people start to tear and feather me - the main problem that classic wargaming had was not the respective rulesets, but the ambition to recreate historical scenarios to the iota. Especially Napoleonic wargaming required folks to do quasi-scientific research if you wanted to play on a certain level of sophistication, from what I understand. David G. Chandler's "The Campaigns of Napoleon" was considered introductory reading, mind you: This dwarfs any modern splatbook craze we might have observed over the last few years. - So, the idea of having a short, explain-it-all manual that you could build on instead of having to get a year-long education on it first. Perhaps Strategos was about the social dynamics of the game than about the actual rules content. You know, about it being accessible to new players, about it being available in English, and so on. The same qualities that we like in our D&D, to this day. |
|
No biggie, really, and no source of controversy, one would think. 
