Quote from: two_fishes;434898Holy shit, people still care about this? The OP should have gone a little more like:

"Apparently there are still people out there who have strong opinions about the Gygax/Arneson dispute. It was more than 30 years ago. Grow up. Get over it. That's what principal figures in the dispute did, before they died. There are real problems in the world far more worthy of your ire. Jesus, what is wrong with you people?"

But, but... if we act in a rational and thoughtful manner all the time, what's left for the Pundit to do?

The tobacco-addled pendejo is all about pointless polemics and hyperbole. He had nothing to rage about ('tis a season of slim pickings; he's been resorting to the old standby of rehashing RPGnet threads here for at least a couple of days now), so he went into the Big Box of Nerdrage and fished this out.

Now he's got the "storygamers love Lorraine Williams" thing which I'm sure he'll beat to death. That link probably made his day, or week even. More proof that the Swine are out to destroy the hobby! :rolleyes:

To me, the Gygax/Arneson thing is a pretty close mirror of the Lee/Kirby thing.  

In both cases, two guys a long time ago collaborated together and created something revolutionary then had a big falling out.

In both cases, the feud was so long ago and went on for so long that the people themselves can't really remember with any accuracy who contributed what.

In both cases, the people involved never again showed the same kind of greatness, giving critics a way to question who of the two was the stronger contributor.

Personally, I think in both cases it showed that the whole was far greater than its parts and that "choosing a side" seems rather silly (particularly in this case, where both guys are dead).

Benoist, Estar, we talked a bit about DaD on Sett's site in relation to the defects of antiquarianism. Here I'll just say:

Where do facts leave off and reconstruction begin?
Did the even the facts (specific practices documented) get used at the same time, or is this an anachronistic cobbling of oddities?
Does the author seriously grapple with the living, evolving, improvisational nature of GMing (Arneson's black notebook where he jotted his rulings and precedents)?

In short: I'm skeptical of the historical value. So I also question the impulse to manufacture a "purely Arnesonian" D&D.

Quote from: two_fishes;434898Holy shit, people still care about this? The OP should have gone a little more like:

"Apparently there are still people out there who have strong opinions about the Gygax/Arneson dispute. It was more than 30 years ago. Grow up. Get over it. That's what principal figures in the dispute did, before they died. There are real problems in the world far more worthy of your ire. Jesus, what is wrong with you people?"

And there, gentlemen, is the voice of someone who despises everything to do with D&D.  At least I'll give him credit for straightforward and honest threadcrapping rather than some pathetic attempt at defending those D&D-haters that use Arneson as a convenient pawn for their Gygax-hateon.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;434974And there, gentlemen, is the voice of someone who despises everything to do with D&D.  At least I'll give him credit for straightforward and honest threadcrapping rather than some pathetic attempt at defending those D&D-haters that use Arneson as a convenient pawn for their Gygax-hateon.

RPGPundit

I don't think that's what he meant at all.

WTF?  Who put the wacky tobaccy in Pundy's pipe?

Does anyone have a link to this Dragons at Dawn?  Sounds like an interesting read.

I was lucky enough to game with Dave Arneson once and chat with him for a an hour or so afterward.  Based on that meeting, I am pretty sure that Kask isn't lying.  Embellishing maybe, but not outright lying.

Dave was clearly an ideas dude.  He ran his game so loosely, so focused on atmosphere and roleplay and every question about "why wasn't THIS or THAT in the books?" was answered with a shrug and "It was for the GM to discover for himself" or some such hippie mantra.  Dice weren't mechanics.  They were tarot cards.

It is a great shame Dave did not write more. Its a shame he did not share his thoughts beyond his game table.  Most especially his thoughts on being a DM.  Those could have done the hobby a world of good.

I regret not interviewing him a second time.  Dumb mistake.

Quote from: Spinachcat;434990Does anyone have a link to this Dragons at Dawn?  Sounds like an interesting read.

Here on Lulu. There's a link to the PDF equivalent (for sale like eight bucks)  in the comments section.

A guy who used to game with us played some OD&D with Arneson & other folks at Sci-Fi City here in Orlando.  He (Wayne) related a story where a lighting bolt was cast at the party and saving throws were called for; Wayne was the first 'round the table to be asked to make his save and Arneson said "What do you do to save yourself?"

Dumbstruck, Wayne just sort of stammered for a moment and Arneson cackled with glee and said "No saving throw!  Next!"

Quote from: thedungeondelver;434993A guy who used to game with us played some OD&D with Arneson & other folks at Sci-Fi City here in Orlando.  He (Wayne) related a story where a lighting bolt was cast at the party and saving throws were called for; Wayne was the first 'round the table to be asked to make his save and Arneson said "What do you do to save yourself?"

Dumbstruck, Wayne just sort of stammered for a moment and Arneson cackled with glee and said "No saving throw!  Next!"

That's awesome. Direct connection between the application of some "rule" or lack thereof and what the guys actually imagine/"do" in the game. I love games like this. It takes a gifted GM to work properly, and a strong trust on the players' parts, too, but when it works, man.. does it work great.

Quote from: Benoist;434994That's awesome. Direct connection between the application of some "rule" or lack thereof and what the guys actually imagine/"do" in the game. I love games like this. It takes a gifted GM to work properly, and a strong trust on the players' parts, too, but when it works, man.. does it work great.

I think it depends on the group, and you should definitely feel them out/coach them if it's not a play style they're used to.  I told my group long ago that "we search the room" or "I look for traps" ain't gonna cut it.

Saving throws...eh...I always looked on instances like that as "favor of the gods" more than "I have to actively do something to not die" but I tell you what if someone came across with an idea as cool as Grey Mouser's use of a copper wire to ground himself and deflect a death spell I'd probably stand up and cheer.

Quote from: two_fishes;434898"Apparently there are still people out there who have strong opinions about the Gygax/Arneson dispute. It was more than 30 years ago. Grow up. Get over it. That's what principal figures in the dispute did, before they died. There are real problems in the world far more worthy of your ire. Jesus, what is wrong with you people?"

Quote from: RPGPundit;434974And there, gentlemen, is the voice of someone who despises everything to do with D&D.  At least I'll give him credit for straightforward and honest threadcrapping rather than some pathetic attempt at defending those D&D-haters that use Arneson as a convenient pawn for their Gygax-hateon.

Quote from: Spinachcat;434990WTF?  Who put the wacky tobaccy in Pundy's pipe?

Yeah, no shit. Let me just put this one on the record. I think D&D is great. I'm in a 4e game and it's great. If someone in the area started up an old-school Labrynth Lord or OSRIC game, I'd be all over it. On the other hand, being a retarded fanboy over decades-old grievances--greivances which the principle parties themselves have long since gotten over, not to mention that the principle parties have since died--I think that is fucking infantile.

Quote from: Benoist;434994That's awesome. Direct connection between the application of some "rule" or lack thereof and what the guys actually imagine/"do" in the game. I love games like this. It takes a gifted GM to work properly, and a strong trust on the players' parts, too, but when it works, man.. does it work great.

I agree, but the way it was implemented in the example was asshattery, because the players would have no way of knowing that's how the game was being played. I hate "gotcha!" bullshit like that. That's not a matter of being old school, it's a matter of trying to be "clever" when in fact one is being a douchebag. Maybe the player could have jumped across the table and said "here's how I save myself, by breaking the DM's nose!"

Quote from: two_fishes;435060being a retarded fanboy over decades-old grievances--greivances which the principle parties themselves have long since gotten over, not to mention that the principle parties have since died--I think that is fucking infantile.

Sure, no sense nursing old grievances about Gygax vs Arneson. But I'll admit to a curiosity about their legal settlement and so on. I'd just like from a historical POV to uncover the truth.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;435066I agree, but the way it was implemented in the example was asshattery, because the players would have no way of knowing that's how the game was being played. I hate "gotcha!" bullshit like that. That's not a matter of being old school, it's a matter of trying to be "clever" when in fact one is being a douchebag. Maybe the player could have jumped across the table and said "here's how I save myself, by breaking the DM's nose!"

I'd reply: "Who's taking the game too seriously, now?"

Quote from: thedungeondelver;434993Wayne was the first 'round the table to be asked to make his save and Arneson said "What do you do to save yourself?"

At the game I played with Dave, he did this "what do you do" for saves and it was awesome, however he did explain it pre-game possibly because one of the players specifically asked "how do you run D&D differently than in the books?" and Dave talked about his thoughts on saves.

It's a really rocking thing to add to your game.