|
Post by grognardgamer on Feb 11, 2013 11:35:40 GMT -6
Hail & Exalt! Our first conversation with Rob is now up: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGQ_IICAWkIThis is an ongoing series, and we'll expand upon topics in the future. Do contribute to the comments section of the video with any questions as we'll be running Q&A's at some point in dedicated slots in conjunction with the other discussions. All of our videos to date can be found here: www.youtube.com/user/GrognardGamesEnjoy, and thank you for watching - it's been enlightening to see and hear the voice behind so many interviews and books, and I hope you guys find the same. Remember to hit the 'subscribe' button so that future episodes are easier to access Martin & The GG Team
|
|
|
Post by owlorbs on Feb 11, 2013 16:12:51 GMT -6
Well done. Looking forward to the next one.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Feb 11, 2013 22:24:58 GMT -6
Good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Hans E Magnusson on Feb 12, 2013 5:40:02 GMT -6
Really great
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Feb 12, 2013 6:20:42 GMT -6
Yes, a great conversation. I look forward to the next installment.
|
|
|
Post by legopaidi on Feb 13, 2013 13:04:31 GMT -6
Loved every second of it! cheers!
|
|
|
Post by jasonzavoda on Feb 13, 2013 14:50:15 GMT -6
Excellent! This is great stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 13, 2013 17:28:49 GMT -6
Way to go, guys. Took a really nice thread and started dumping on it. I wish folks wouldn't argue over petty stuff.
Locked at the moment, until I can decide if I should just delete a few posts or what. Okay. The "grognard" discussion has been extracted and is now its own thread. Hopefully folks will play nice there, but this thread is now ready to continue Kuntz conversations...
|
|
|
Post by kent on Feb 14, 2013 6:38:48 GMT -6
As a matter of principle I am reposting unedited my observations on the video here leaving aside the matter of pronunciation which arose from the video but has its own thread now.
==
The interview was interesting, Kuntz being an old timer has much more to say of substance than any of the osr interviewees Ive seen.
If you want to make this a classic interview series you have to do two things in my view,
1. Interrupt Kuntz when he starts waffling with a comment or question. He repeats himself unnecessarily.
2. Either get him to talk about his 'open model' for gaming with clear articulation or tell him not to mention it at all. It is always dull listening to someone hyping material they are working on while refusing to divulge details yet skating coyly around the topic at great length.
Kuntz jokingly said he would he would have to kill you if you found out some details of his upcoming book and yet proceeded to beat around the bush with irritating inarticulacy about those same concepts. Either he talks about the thing or he doesn't.
Overall though, good interview and Kuntz is potentially very interesting.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Feb 14, 2013 22:19:42 GMT -6
Every item that you cover, Kent, has been answered by either myself or Martin. Your narcissistic need to push your views in light of the facts is not only a waste of time but is ultimately boorish.
This does not take away from your interspersed, level-heacded statements, but is just a reminder that yours is but limited to one alone; and so far, a very distant one, especially when you will not address the truth of the matter as is now readily apparent.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 14, 2013 23:10:50 GMT -6
I think anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language and a background in any kind of gaming should have no problem grasping the distinction between an open and a closed model in the context of this discussion of D&D's origins. I found the discussion to be quite interesting and look forward to hearing more of it.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Feb 14, 2013 23:33:37 GMT -6
Thank you, Jmccann, for the nod. It's refreshing to see comments on YouTube that point to the same conclusions, as well. The whole video was not aimed at the expression of the concept and just took that direction. But now that there's been some interest in the matter of modeled experiences I will expand upon that topic when Martin prods me to do so. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Feb 15, 2013 6:32:48 GMT -6
I was thinking about the GG interview. Some of GG's conversation with you, Rob, interestingly overlapped with one I had with you on the phone a few months ago, which led me to thinking about D&D and a more open model game play. It led me to wonder why you elect to run AD&D over OD&D, as the more "advanced" system clearly delineates more whereas the "original" presents a more open model for task resolution and general game play. Ehhh, I had more to say, but my kid has an appointment . . . be back later! EDIT: My, how a flat tire can change all early morning plans. Now then, where was I . . . So, even when adjudicating a D&D game with a more open concept of resolutions in mind, I can see the appeal of still using AD&D for its many thematic components -- the many character classes, racial options, the monsters, the rich flavor of it all. Feel free to decline answering the following question, as I know you are keeping your card hand close to your chest at this time, but I was wondering this: If you were to use AD&D as the basis for a more open ended model of game play and task resolution systems, what are some of the iconic systems or subsystems you'd toss out the window first, and what would you consider essential to maintaing the "D&D feel?" For example, would "Vancian" magic, the so-called fire-and-forget spell casting system be considered too closed of a system? Cheers, Jeff T.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Feb 15, 2013 8:41:12 GMT -6
Hiyo Jeff!
This would be a very long response if I were to answer it all, and especially for the last part, which would evolve into a discussion on full fledge design and by way of extrapolating existing parts, which in the latter case is possible but not desirable, IMO, as a designer.
To your first question, why I choose AD&D. There are several secondary reasons for this and a primary: As you noted, there is more detail, or elements, to play with; the system was played the most during TSR's heyday and I can attract more people in that way to experience my out-of-the-box play; and, the primary, I use it mostly as a prop in achieving that end. Notwithstanding the pre 3rd edition mechanical system used to adjudicate combat, saves, etc.--the raw input-output ranges--play is what matters, so the mechanical system tends to become less important over its duration in time as play evolves through generative ideas flowing from it which can be manipulated pretty quickly with a simple mechanic/math set. This is not true with more and more complex mechanical systems. Simple = more expansion; complex sets contract imaginative experiences thus the ability to transform play within them; and this last point is best noted in the many post-2nd edition games (IMProfO, the latter bunch are not "iterations," but newly developed, closed game systems with the DandD name attached).
The rest, especially the last paragraph, will have to wait for my book. The OFC is not a "How To" methodology, however. It is a discovery path; and as such I would not be personally inclined to use pre-existing models as a basis for generating new conceptual ranges from these. The great thing about individual design is that someone might just do that anyway and thus be able to create an "incremental" model therefrom. And if I were to do so the first part I'd start with would be the spells, and as I had begun doing previously in 1976 as a complete restatement of them.
No more flat tires!
Rob
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Feb 15, 2013 8:48:57 GMT -6
Rob, I have long shared your assessment of the post-2nd ed. versions of AD&D, but have never expressed it so eloquently. I guess we're going to have to see if Exalts can go over 100 on here...
~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Feb 15, 2013 9:08:19 GMT -6
Thanks. Very thoughtful response, as always. Cheers, Jeff T.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Feb 17, 2013 9:30:33 GMT -6
Thanks for the exalt, Scott! And you are welcome, Ghul.
Part 2 of the series interview will likely take place early next week and will be posted sometime thereafter. If anyone has any pointed questions, please subscribe to the GG channel and post them at any of the interview parts, as Martin and I will be collecting these for a special Q&A broadcast. Much easier, in fact, than writing responses at message boards; and due to that I am considering getting an AMA channel some where and as suggested by another.
Edit: I am also looking into software that might be able to translate the interviews into transcripts.
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Feb 18, 2013 14:36:43 GMT -6
I caught the video on Thursday night while working in CA last week---good stuff, Rob, and I'm glad to see that you and Martin have got these video interviews up and running! Can't wait to hear the next one
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Feb 18, 2013 19:11:45 GMT -6
Hi Gro. Must feel good to be back home from CA, huh?
More to come, quite more than we at first expected, in fact.
Give a call sometime!
Rob
|
|
benoist
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
OD&D, AD&D, AS&SH
Posts: 346
|
Post by benoist on Feb 20, 2013 15:59:17 GMT -6
It was a very cool talk so far. I enjoyed the content and ideas thoroughly. Food for thought, as usual, Rob.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Feb 21, 2013 13:32:21 GMT -6
Thanks, Ben. If you have questions about the parts, and at any time, just post these in the comments and they will be answered after we've collected a fair amount of them. This will inform both of us of what particles need more expanding and/or other topics to pursue, of course.
Cheers!
Rob
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Feb 23, 2013 12:37:55 GMT -6
Update on the continued interviews: Martin was sick for several days, then out of town working and then to a wedding, etc. This has delayed the process as all real world, non-hobbyist, things will sometimes do. We intend to pick up with the next part next week. Then there will be a slight delay thereafter due to Garycon being right around the corner.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Mar 12, 2013 13:55:42 GMT -6
Mini-update on the vids. I received a communication from Martin today and he is in the midst of a major job change/flux. This will no doubt slow the rate of the video releases and they will pick up when he is settled enough to continue with them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2013 5:31:50 GMT -6
Hi Again Rob, from South Africa. I listened with great interest to your conversation with Martin and found it fascinating. I also agree with what I see as your sentiments regarding closed vs. open game systems. My question is one that goes to the cold realities of game design. Is an open system commercially viable? In simple terms, open systems employ less regulation by a rule system, and therefore less rules, leading to more imaginative input, and a better experience. As gamers most people seem to want exactly this, but is it sustainable as a business model?
My concern is that, a single set of game rules that open up massive vistas of possible play experience, means one book for a group of 6-8 players for more than five years. How does one sustain this system commercially without cheating and producing more products to "assist" players with their imagination. Isn't this why Gary's "Why have us do your imagining for you?", eventually gave way to a slew of adventure modules and splat books.
Sorry to come across negative but I'm an genuinely interested in this issue.
PS: Thanks for your insights and the history you provided in the video and on these boards
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Mar 13, 2013 8:20:10 GMT -6
Hello Torgradio. My response will cover the surface of your very pointed questions, only, as getting more specific is being left for the two books I am currently writing on the subject. The first should be available by year's end; and I am currently in the process of sourcing overseas and American publishers for a concurrent release: "The Rise & Fall of the Open Model in RPGs." The second, which I have taken many thousands of words of notes for and drawn, to date, upwards of 30 diagrams for, will detail convergent models used in open form RPG and explain the broad-base utilization of the concept itself as a free system and discovery path. The latter might in fact be divided into two works, one smaller, the other dealing with the many models themselves.
Is this commercially viable? Though this is not the main thrust of the concept itself, it can meld with industry if guided properly. It is ironic that you ask this, so please think again. TSR Rules was catapulted from a <than $4,000 (inv) basement concern to multi-million dollar status in 3-4 years using this model. Where are they now for having used the closed model for the remaining part of their years? Their greatest ratio for investment<>growth occurred under this model during these early years and is no where matched afterwards.
How does one not cheat at anything? By having a solid philosophical and moral goal, of course.
Cheers!
ROBERT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2013 14:30:32 GMT -6
Hi Rob. Thanks for the thoughtful response as always. I didn't mean to trespass on the details of what you have in the publication pipeline. I certainly look forward to reading what you publish, however many works you bring out.
My concern about business viability comes only from my desire that good games get published and to the public as broadly as possible. I recognise that this most often happens when publishers achieve commercial success from those games.
Cheers
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Mar 13, 2013 15:03:06 GMT -6
Hey Torgradio. No problem at all. There are many game markets: card, family, miniatures, wargame, electronic (with inclusive age ranges), RPG, computer, parlor, old games (children's), educational games, etc. All of them use a multiplicity of models and forms. All of them have been viable over their runs in gaming history. But the simple ones and those that are transformational (i.e., not "simplistic" or "disposable") have always been those that have withstood the test of time. Thank you for being supportive of my endeavors! Robert
|
|
|
Post by MormonYoYoMan on Dec 27, 2013 15:45:32 GMT -6
Has this video review been taken down on YouTube? I seem unable to access it. Of course, that could be because I'm an idiot.
*jeep! & God Bless! --Grandpa Chet (aka Tzhett, the MormonYoYoMan, and Bandalore. Sheesh! Too Many Hobbies!)
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Dec 29, 2013 21:44:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 30, 2013 6:52:21 GMT -6
Sadly, Rob hasn't posted here since last May. Hope he finds time to come back soon.
|
|