Quote from: Aldarron;471164Eliot, history itself is a reconstruction.  The retro clones are all reconstructive projects.  Dragons at Dawn does not even claim to be a retro clone and is in fact specifically promoted as a retro tribute. I get that you personally are not interested in reconstructive projects

Incorrect! I am very interested in reconstructive projects. I'm not interested in people confusing reconstruction for fact, and any scholarly reconstruction to be worthy of the name must distinguish the two. As I have not read your game beyond the preview on Lulu, I can't comment beyond that and the promotional images and text.

QuoteReconstructions have no authenticity by definition and no such claim was ever made or implied, quite the opposite in fact, and I suggest you shouldn't read more into what is written than what is actually written.

You may believe that writing "First Fantasy System" as an obscure reference, and using language such as "entirely consistent", etc., carry no implication or promise of authenticity. I think otherwise, but I'm glad to see your disclaimers here.

BTW, is original D&D inconsistent with Arneson's methodology? How? I mean in the broad sense. For example I believe some of his original players can attest that Arneson used 2d6 for attributes while OD&D used 3d6, but if we aren't worried about ephemeral details, if the whole point is a process of play--then I don't see how it matters.

On the other hand if the goal is to really work out the details, then I think it's obvious that we'd want those details either to be supported by reliable sources, or to have the reasoning behind their reconstruction laid bare.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;471192BTW, is original D&D inconsistent with Arneson's methodology? How? I mean in the broad sense. For example I believe some of his original players can attest that Arneson used 2d6 for attributes while OD&D used 3d6, but if we aren't worried about ephemeral details, if the whole point is a process of play--then I don't see how it matters.

3LBB OD&D play is "mostly" consistent with Arnesons play, but not entirely so, and the "not entirely" part gives a very different feel to the game.  From the players perspective the biggest noticeable difference may be magic.  Magic in early Blackmoor was alchemical, and later, Arneson introduced a spell point system and Elfin song magic which was further fleshed out in Adventures in Fantasy.  Both systems had significant failure rates built in. Player involvement also played a greater role in determining magic effects.  For example, a player attempting song magic could actually sing a spell and have the other players at the table grade its effectiveness.

Other important differences, though less noticeable to players, is the series of modifiers for level difference, size difference and other possible factors prior to the combat roll, followed by a saving throw against recieving any damage.  There was also the use of multiple d6 for damage  and shared damage ( a version of which Arnesons friend Barker worked into his EPT rules) and what is now known as the "cleve" rule (I'm told - I'm not very familiar with post TSR D&D) wherein a fighters attack would continue after slaying an opponent.  The great Svenny, for example, habitually slayed scores of orcs in a single attact round.

Another aspect of Arnesonian D&D was the fluid nature of stats.  Unlike greyhawkian D&D where stats were pretty much always the same, Arneson treated stats (or values as he referred to them) as averages to be altered according to circumstance - so a monster in its lair might have triple values - meaning 3 times the hit points, damage dice, and +3 to saving throws, whereas in some other circumstance, that same monster might be reduced to 1/2 values.

So there are a number of things along these lines that are qualitative, not just quantitative, distinguishing variances from "standard" OD&D, and Dragons at Dawn provides methods for engaging in that kind of play.  As mentioned it is a "toolkit" game and any part of it can replace or complement the same subject in OD&D or vice versa and that kind of mix and match is encouraged as an "Arnesonian" feature as well.

A lot of the comments I've gotten have been about using this section or that section of D@D in an OD&D game, and that design philosophy is especially emphasized in Supplement I.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;471192On the other hand if the goal is to really work out the details, then I think it's obvious that we'd want those details either to be supported by reliable sources, or to have the reasoning behind their reconstruction laid bare.

As mentioned, basic support statements are provided in the Dragons at Dawn rulebook.  However, when producing the book, of course, a design decision had to be made.  I could have written a 200 or more page essay on Arnesonian fantasy gaming in the '70's interspersed with interpretave rules.  Such a product would no doubt be of a highly specialized interest, very expensive, and very difficult or unwieldy for use in game play.    The alternative was to write a handy affordable 60 page book focusing on play.  I'm sure that's what most people, including me, were looking for.  At the same time, I requested, both in the book and online, that anyone looking for more detailed information on the sources and supporting references start a converstaion on the Dragons at Dawn subforum or contact me via email or regular post.  I've put up some documentation on the subforum and a fair few posters have asked some cogent questions along these lines but I frankly wish there was more because I love to discuss this stuff.  Unfortunetly there are only 3 or 4 others who seem that interested in the research discussions.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;471041Or about playing old games they like, instead of newer games they don't like.

Although a few people do seem to be more advocating a movement than a style of gaming.

Except this isn't an "old game".  

RPGPundit

If it had been written by a historian, I might have bought it, but then I appear to be one of the 4 or 5 people in that target audience.

As it looks now, the archeologic guesswork is too prominent in it: "We found these shards upon another shard under this old Tell near Basra. Clearly, Sumerians had a strong core-periphery spatial organization scheme. Ur-capitalist accumulation sucked the marrow out of the peripheral cities."

QuoteThe alternative was to write a handy affordable 60 page book focusing  on play.  I'm sure that's what most people, including me, were looking  for.

This is a very baffling sentence. Your relationship to Erkenntnis (is there really no english word for that? ;aybe insight plus revelation plus knowledge plus gnosis) is alien to me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;471558Except this isn't an "old game".  

RPGPundit

Good point.

From what he posts, he seems to want to A) make money and B) Make a game reasonably close to the way Arneson would rule. I haven't seen anything specifically hipster in his posts, but I might have missed it.

Quote from: Settembrini;471568If it had been written by a historian, I might have bought it, but then I appear to be one of the 4 or 5 people in that target audience.

I notice he's planning a "study of Dave Arnesons 1973 D&D draft", not sure why he didn't mention it here. (Source.)

Also I just noticed that Dragons at Dawn is now available through iBooks, for a smidgen less than the PDF.

Still not entirely convinced, but the main thing keeping me from buying the thing, is just an effort to avoid acquiring more stuff. Even electronic stuff.

I AM greatly thankful for the work itself and the DF-thread. It is truly amazing. Thanky you. I am just not paying for the very least interesting part of the research.

Daniel states he's putting out Champions of Zed as a free PDF:

http://boggswood.blogspot.com/2011/07/zero-edition-dungeoneering-beginning.html

Quote from: Settembrini;471568If it had been written by a historian, I might have bought it, but then I appear to be one of the 4 or 5 people in that target audience.

As it looks now, the archeologic guesswork is too prominent in it: "We found these shards upon another shard under this old Tell near Basra. Clearly, Sumerians had a strong core-periphery spatial organization scheme. Ur-capitalist accumulation sucked the marrow out of the peripheral cities."
 

Historian?...  Well, if you want your guess work masked under a nice little just so story...  

Not a big fan of the Marxist theories behind core periphery theory myself.  

Seriously Sett, if you are interested in early Blackmoor play, come on over to the discussion forums as a new perspective is always welcome.

Quote from: Aldarron;471738Not a big fan of the Marxist theories behind core periphery theory myself.  

But alas, as you know better than me, it is alive and kicking in Mesopotamian archeology!