insights into Arneson's dicing?

[Deleted]

Hey Dan,

Kudos on Dragons at Dawn. It's a fascinating, thought-provoking reconstruction. I can't wait to give it a shot.
In running it as true to "Arneson's basement" as possible I'd benefit from any insight you might have into the following:

. Did Dave Arneson roll his dice out in the open, wargame style, or secretly, behind a screen?
. Did he fudge die rolls?
. What did he think about flukey character deaths and the mortality of player characters in general?

Thanks,

Paul

[aldarron]

Apr 21, 2010 8:04:58 GMT -6 @paulczege said:

Hey Dan,

Kudos on Dragons at Dawn. It's a fascinating, thought-provoking reconstruction. I can't wait to give it a shot.
In running it as true to "Arneson's basement" as possible I'd benefit from any insight you might have into the following:

. Did Dave Arneson roll his dice out in the open, wargame style, or secretly, behind a screen?
. Did he fudge die rolls?
. What did he think about flukey character deaths and the mortality of player characters in general?

Thanks,

Paul

Thanks much!
Dice - that would be a good question to pose to some of the original players. I am fairly sure he rolled behind the screen. He also never told players exactly what number they needed.

Fudge - Almost certainly, I would bet my life on it. "story" came first in Arnesons games.

Character death - I think it was about average. It does seem that some characters were given a "lucky break", but others were killed or turned into monsters so I don't think Arneson was afraid to let low level characters be killed. On the other hand he remarked (I think in an interview) that "You can't keep a good character down" in reference to a character who had been killed but was then played again later. Possibly the character was ressurected or else they just decided to ignore the death.

[kesher]

Hey, Paul---good to see you around here!

Good questions to add to the swiftly growing knowledge-base around this game...

[Deleted]

Hey Kesher, ltns.

So, are any of Dave's early players active on the odd74 forums?

Paul

[calithena]

Greg Svenson posts here sometimes. I think there were one or two others. Anyone know?

Paul, in Fight On! #2 there is an article about the first run in Blackmoor, which is actually taken from Greg's website (so you could find it on-line without buying the mag if you don't have it already). A LOT of PCs died in that game...so I'm wondering if perhaps the emergence of 'story' in Arneson's games wasn't a more gradual thing.

This relates to a side discussion about emergent story I have no time for with pasta boiling over on the stove.

But, also this cryptic quotation from Mike Mornard might be worth investigating: "Dave always used miniatures; Gary never did." That's not getting it backwards. Now, always and never are surely too strong - Dave didn't bring the minis into the basement for the immersive scene in the darkness for instance - but it's an interesting thing to put in the mix.

[aldarron]

Apr 21, 2010 14:12:29 GMT -6 @paulczege said:

Hey Kesher, ltns.

So, are any of Dave's early players active on the odd74 forums?

Paul

Currently Gregg Svenson and Victor Raymond seem to be the only active ones, although Bob Meyer and Mike Mornard do both have posts here. There is also Jeff Berry on the Comeback Inn forum.

[tavis]

Hi Paul,

1) Player's perspectives on Arneson's games are available from con reports on 1976 and 2006, which give some background beyond the excellent assemblage of quotes in D@D.

2) My sense is that secrecy was an important part of Arneson's method, based on his famous line (which I am badly paraphrasing here) "don't ask me what you need to hit, roll and I'll tell you what happens" and the discussion in the comments at Havard's blog.

Unfortunately I bet that secrecy about what goes on behind the screen (which I think is also part of why Dan's reconstruction job was so difficult) would also prevent an answer to questions of fudging. I'd be interested to hear if his players report rolls in the open, but if no one knows what they refer to (or even if high or low is good) fudging is kind of a non-issue!

One perspective I can contribute comes from that same Gen Con seminar I mentioned at Havard's blog above. The idea of a referee evolved out of a wargaming group that he and Wesely were part of where the rules were a Prussian kriegspiel that was hugely complex and badly-translated enough that the players would argue endlessly about every interpretation. Eventually the two Daves decided that arguing was just what these guys liked to do, and started a new group. Having only the referee know the rules meant both that only one person had to master them, and that there was no scope for rules-lawyering.

Arneson said that this didn't stop people from simulation-lawyering; one of the things that made the Blackmoor fantasy campaign attractive compared to its Napoleonic predecessor was that no one would complain that the dragon breath used in this period couldn't possibly fire at this range during wet weather!

[calithena]

Apr 21, 2010 21:39:21 GMT -6 tavis said:

Arneson said that this didn't stop people from simulation-lawyering; one of the things that made the Blackmoor fantasy campaign attractive compared to its Napoleonic predecessor was that no one would complain that the dragon breath used in this period couldn't possibly fire at this range during wet weather!

Really interesting, Tavis.

This observation offers the possibility of an actual answer to the question "why were the first RPGs fantasy games?" When you think about the rules-reaction to D&D, which except for T&T almost always pushed in the direction of higher levels of simulation, it's clear that this is or at least was a basic part of how people/wargamers thought at the time. Things have to be realistic! Fantasy breaks that connection just a little bit.

I don't think that's the whole thing - there was also just a huge hunger for the fantasy genre in general when D&D came out, it wasn't ubiquitous like it is today at all when I was a kid, and D&D helped satisfy that - but I like this thought as an additional factor.

[Deleted]

Hey Tavis,

Apr 21, 2010 21:39:21 GMT -6 tavis said:

1) Player's perspectives on Arneson's games are available from con reports on 1976 and 2006, which give some background beyond the excellent assemblage of quotes in D@D.

Interesting that Dave isn't using a screen in this photo linked from that 2006 convention report.

Paul