I love Arneson, I really do. I think Blackmoor was brilliant, and I recognize that he had an important role on the creation of D&D.
However, I think that there are a lot of people out there who have a "love" of Dave Arneson that it would be polite to call "Exaggerated" (and impolite but perhaps honest to call "fake"). They like to point out how unappreciated Arneson was in relation to Gygax, how the latter somehow "stole" credit that wasn't his fair due, how influential Arneson was, etc.
I notice that a lot of people who are allegedly Arneson fans in public will, in other discourses, actually demonstrate that they aren't D&D fans at all, so one would have to wonder about that. Let's see, you hate D&D, you hate Gary Gygax, but you LOVE Dave Arneson? It wouldn't be that your love of Arneson is just bullshit meant to give what seems like justifiable argument for calling Gary Gygax a poopyhead?
And let's look at the facts too: There's no question that Arneson had a certain influence, but D&D was Gary's game. Gygax was more than anything "inspired" by some of the influence of Arneson, rather than collaborated with him, by pretty much all accounts. It was Gygax who actually wrote the damn rules, and turned something that Arneson wsa just goofing off with into an actual system. It was also Gygax who then marketed and sold that system and turned it into a multi-million dollar idea, who brought D&D to the world. And Gygax was the one by far more instrumental of the two to the later development of the game for all of the 70s and the first half of the 80s.
So yeah, its because I myself love Dave Arneson that it profoundly pisses me off to see manipulative Swine using his name as a pawn in their efforts to try to smear the memory of Gary Gygax.
RPGPundit
The reverse is also true, that there are people who have a passion for EGG's work that will somehow have an axe to grind with Dave Arneson. Part of it is trying to justify some ways of gaming, part of it is getting into real life fights that really, we would do best to allow to lay to rest once and for all.
I don't think there are any sides to choose in which one has to like one of those two and hate on the other. It is true, however, that they had different ways to look at the game, and I think the game itself benefitted from their different approaches at the time of its conception at least. Beyond that, I think it's to each their own.
Pundit when you say you love Blackmoor are you talking about the campaign world or Supplement I: Blackmoor?
I realize that they're largely coterminous but not entirely, and I want a clarification before I say anything else.
With that said: Dave was a member of the local Historical Miniatures Gaming Society here in the Orlando area (as well as a game design teacher at Full Sail). I met Mr. Arneson back in 2004; he seemed like a nice enough fellow. He ribbed me about my running an AD&D game at one of the HMGS cons (I'd billed it as "Original AD&D" and he rolled by my table and said "Oh it said 'Original AD&D', I thought I'd come over and found you playing the wrong game.")
But that's neither here nor there. I have heard many shaggy dog stories to the effect that Dave invented the whole thing and Gary in a snit stole it all and slapped his name on it then proceeded to shut Dave out, and there are of course two sides to every story so I imagine there are people who firmly believe that to be true and accordingly greatly dislike Gary and will disparage him at any turn. I have also heard from Tim Kask (and if you go over to Dragonsfoot.org and ask he'll repeat it, it is no secret) that Arneson did little more than offer vague ideas and mean-spirited grousing along with bundles of unrelated and nearly unusable notes while at TSR rather than something that could be turned into playable products, and Kask basically wrote Blackmoor.
Regardless, if there was a "Dave V. Gary" Donnybrook ongoing over the years between them, they sure as hell hid it. In fact, TSR (under Gary) re-hired Arneson to produce, on spec, the DA series of modules for Basic D&D. Gary left before the completion, and Williams with the shadow administration of the Blumes declined to continue the series. Gary's attitude was always one of professional courtesy and politeness whenever they met, so I'm told.
Ultimately, I don't have any strong feelings either way. Until I get a videotaped confession of Gary proclaiming his intent to steal Dave's work or a signed affidavit that Arneson was a lazy boor, I harbor no feelings regarding the brou-ha-ha.
Quote from: Benoist;434626The reverse is also true, that there are people who have a passion for EGG's work that will somehow have an axe to grind with Dave Arneson. Part of it is trying to justify some ways of gaming, part of it is getting into real life fights that really, we would do best to allow to lay to rest once and for all.
This seems far far less common to me. Unless (correctly) pointing out that their's was not in fact a "lennon-mccartney" style relationship is somehow "having an axe to grind".
RPGPundit
I mean the campaign setting, though I have nothing in particular against "supplement I".
RPGPundit
They obviously had their respective strengths and weaknesses -- Arneson's boundless creativity sometimes bordering on the incomprehensible, EGG's great skill in capturing the roleplaying game concept in comprehensible systems (and sub-systems) sometimes delving into pedantry, and the pompous venom of "Dragon editorial Gary". They had different creative approaches, which jointly made the game what it is.
Of the two, EGG wrote a lot while Dave barely anything. So, the former is maligned on the basis of his available work (and very often on his most ingenious design decisions - classes, levels, hit points and the memorisation system), while in the case of the latter, we see a lot more projection - wishful thinking and also condemnation. Both can be and have been used as proxies in various game-related flame wars. Yeah, I have seen WW-fan/forgies/whoever use their fantasy of Arneson as a proxy to attack "traditional gaming", but then I have also seen a Story Games thread use Lorraine Williams as a hopeful example of progress in gaming (http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=2435). Not too relevant.
As for me, I'm interested in learning more about Brian Blume's vision of the game. I like Eldritch Wizardry quite a lot, which he co-authored, so who knows where he might have taken D&D. Maybe in pretty exciting directions with lots of demons, devils, and naked chicks lounging on altars. ;)
Quote from: Melan;434672Yeah, I have seen WW-fan/forgies/whoever use their fantasy of Arneson as a proxy to attack "traditional gaming", but then I have also seen a Story Games thread use Lorraine Williams as a hopeful example of progress in gaming (http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=2435).
Oh my God. What the fuck is this? :banghead:
I don't understand how either Gygax or Arneson are put on pedestals. Yes, they gave us roleplaying, and that is awesome. However, they are not gods and made just as many mistakes as they did achievements.
Also, how the hell can anyone hold up Lorraine Williams as a good thing?
Quote from: RPGPundit;434665I mean the campaign setting, though I have nothing in particular against "supplement I".
RPGPundit
Aside from 'who created what' or 'who influenced what' debate......
At GenCon as a person I and other fans had more interaction with Arneson than we did with Gygax.
Dave Arneson was generally a friendly guy and easy to get along with. Back when I was doing the charity jail there he often would put his kids and grandkids in the jail and shoot the breeze with us.
All around nice guy.
I only saw Gygax twice in those 10 plus years - and one of times is the elevator moment that I already related in other threads.
- Ed C.
I'm sure that "Arneson-love" for some is "Gygax-hate" -- and vice versa. However, I suspect these people are in the minority.
I interacted with both Gary and Dave online and liked them both. I never much liked "Corporate Gary/Dragon Editorial Gary" but the real Gary was okay as was the real Dave. No hate for either here.
Quote from: RPGPundit;434665I mean the campaign setting, though I have nothing in particular against "supplement I".
RPGPundit
Okay. I ask because Tim Kask will straight up tell you he wrote Supplement I, not Arneson.
In addition to endorsing Melan's summary & interpretation, I'll point out that much of the "who really did what" is sealed up in documents that are subject to a legal gag. The only Arneson partisans (or Gygax partisans for that matter) who interest me are the ones with first-hand experience, like Svenny and Robert the Bald over at K&K. On the other hand I don't have much time for fanciful attempts to write Gygax out of D&D such as Dragons at Dawn, which I hereby dub the Piltdown Man of the OSR.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;434734On the other hand I don't have much time for fanciful attempts to write Gygax out of D&D such as Dragons at Dawn, which I hereby dub the Piltdown Man of the OSR.
Wait what the hell now?
There may be Arneson Love and Gygax hate but I have to be honest, I don't really care about either of them.
Neither of them really matter to me. I play the games I enjoy, I dont care about the people behind the games.
Quote from: thedungeondelverOkay. I ask because Tim Kask will straight up tell you he wrote Supplement I, not Arneson.
He sure didn't write Temple of the Frog, which really makes Supplement
II. It is actually a very good and very open-ended scenario (okay, the first dungeon level strains disbelief with ~1000 soldiers housed in a few small barrack rooms... scale that down and it is gold, solid gold).
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;434734On the other hand I don't have much time for fanciful attempts to write Gygax out of D&D such as Dragons at Dawn, which I hereby dub the Piltdown Man of the OSR.
Apt! :cool:
Quote from: Benoist;434679Oh my God. What the fuck is this? :banghead:
Every time I click on a link to Story Games, a piece of my soul dies.
Quote from: Melan;434672Yeah, I have seen WW-fan/forgies/whoever use their fantasy of Arneson as a proxy to attack "traditional gaming", but then I have also seen a Story Games thread use Lorraine Williams as a hopeful example of progress in gaming (http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=2435). Not too relevant.
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;434813Every time I click on a link to Story Games, a piece of my soul dies.
Please, do not be such drama queens :D A bit later on the thread AndyK says:
QuoteLorraine Williams is the crooked cement Soviet war monument in front of a landfill of thousands of tons of Dragon Dice. Innovative or Not, because of her terrible people and business management skills, attributing her to anything in the RPG world is the equivalent of wiping a booger on it.
She might have been the Small Press DIY Gaming God-figure in terms of shared goals, but we'll never know; her ineptitude when working with other people, and numbers, have cast her into her role as the Boogyman of RPG History.
So it's not a universal opinion of story-gamers or something.
Quote from: danbuter;434681Also, how the hell can anyone hold up Lorraine Williams as a good thing?
Well, if you don't like D&D she came closer to killing it than any of the competitors. (self parody there incidentally...)
Quote from: Melan;434803He sure didn't write Temple of the Frog, which really makes Supplement II. It is actually a very good and very open-ended scenario (okay, the first dungeon level strains disbelief with ~1000 soldiers housed in a few small barrack rooms... scale that down and it is gold, solid gold).
Yes, TotF is very, very good.
So good that now that you remind me of it I may well incorporate it into my ongoing AD&D campaign, thank you.
Anyway, that's Kask's side of the story, and with Dave having passed on...well it's anyone's guess.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;434734I don't have much time for fanciful attempts to write Gygax out of D&D such as Dragons at Dawn, which I hereby dub the Piltdown Man of the OSR.
Dragons at Dawn is an attempt to recreate the game Arneson refereed and "writing Gygax out" is irrelevant to that goal.
As for the OP, both Gygax and Arneson are integral to the creation of roleplaying games. It obvious from first hand accounts that Dungeons & Dragon itself was mostly the work of Gygax and his leadership is the foundation of the hobby and industry we have to day.
Gygax is also the more prolific writer but thanks to the rise of the internet and the 3.0 boom Dave Arneson now has quite of bit of material out there that many enjoy.
One can prefer Arneson material over Gygax's and vice versa and it is a matter of taste.
Quote from: Melan;434672Of the two, EGG wrote a lot while Dave barely anything. So, the former is maligned on the basis of his available work (and very often on his most ingenious design decisions - classes, levels, hit points and the memorisation system), while in the case of the latter, we see a lot more projection - wishful thinking and also condemnation. Both can be and have been used as proxies in various game-related flame wars. Yeah, I have seen WW-fan/forgies/whoever use their fantasy of Arneson as a proxy to attack "traditional gaming", but then I have also seen a Story Games thread use Lorraine Williams as a hopeful example of progress in gaming (http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=2435). Not too relevant.
Jesus fucking Christ.
RPGPundit
Quote from: danbuter;434681I don't understand how either Gygax or Arneson are put on pedestals. Yes, they gave us roleplaying, and that is awesome. However, they are not gods and made just as many mistakes as they did achievements.
Also, how the hell can anyone hold up Lorraine Williams as a good thing?
Its not that hard when you think about it. Lorraine Williams despised RPGs and RPG gamers alike. Storygame Swine despise RPGs and RPG gamers alike.
They actually make a point, there is a tremendous commonality. Williams wanted to destroy RPGs and replace them with a line of party games (as mentioned in the horrific link), and that's essentially what Storygames Swine want too. She was an early heroine and exemplar for the whole Storygames movement, representative of the utter contempt in which they hold regular RPGs.
RPGPundit
Quote from: thedungeondelver;434720Okay. I ask because Tim Kask will straight up tell you he wrote Supplement I, not Arneson.
Yes, he also might be lying.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Imperator;434818Please, do not be such drama queens :D A bit later on the thread AndyK says:
So it's not a universal opinion of story-gamers or something.
Yes it is. Notice that AndyK is NOT saying that Williams did not share the same goal as Storygame Swine have, only that she failed in her execution because she wasn't good enough at telling lies or manipulating others. He's not upset at her reasoning, only at her incompetence.
He hates her the way communists hate Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. Its not that they don't believe in what they believed in, they just feel unhappy that those atrocities and failures can now be used against them to make it more difficult for "the cause".
RPGPundit
Also, Steve Marsh wrote all the sea monsters for Blackmoor, with a small amount of tinkering from Gary.
QuoteShe was an early heroine and exemplar for the whole Storygames movement, representative of the utter contempt in which they hold regular RPGs.
I really love the reasoing of why she was an unsing heroine:
Point 1) She was a woman.
Point 2) Underpants...
WTF?
Quote from: RPGPundit;434869Yes, he also might be lying.
RPGPundit
Oh I'm not promulgating it as gospel; that's just his word on it.
This is his side of the story:
QuoteThe Basket, or,
You Want me to make what out of that?
In Sept of 1975, I became the first full time employee of TSR (which was Tactical Studies Rules at the time). I joined Gary and Brian Blume (owners) on the payroll at the princely sum of $100 per week; this was what each of us drew. They, however, had some royalties to look forward to. Rob and Terry Kuntz were part-timers; even if I remembered what they got paid, which I don't, it would not be kosher for me to tell. Rob also had royalties coming in for GH. That year, I would guesstimate that we did a little over $100K, most of which was selling other people's product. We sold a lot of MiniFigs back then.
Our work area was a "table" made from a sheet of plywood in Gary's basement; we worked around the furnace and oil tank in near Stygian darkness. (Well, not quite that dark, but it was always a bit of shock on the pupils when we came up.)
After a couple of weeks filling orders, assembling D&D boxed sets, talking about Strategic Review plans, etc., I got a rude surprise one morning.
(Now I realize how young some of you reading this are. Many of you have never seen clothes baskets made of anything but plastic or seen apples sold in anything but cardboard containers. However, in the murky distant past, there were baskets called "bushel baskets". They actually held a bushel of dry stuff like apples or wheat or oats or stuff like that. There were also half-bushel baskets, baskets that would hold a peck and some that held 1.5 or even two bushels. I admit that I was always a bit hazy on these exact sizes and volumes; at my house growing up they were referred to as baskets, small baskets, big baskets, etc. It is what Moms used for laundry and everyone used to throw stuff in, if you had the luxury of having extras. They were made of thin slats of wood loosely woven together.)
Upon going into work that fateful morning I was greeted by the grinning visages of Brian and Gary, looking like siblings from the same litter of Cheshire cats. Sensing that something was up, and that it undoubtedly involved me, and that furthermore, I might not be thrilled about it, I got ready to fill that day's orders. At that point, I was handed one of the aforementioned baskets, filled with what I mistook to be orders. Seldom have I been so wrong. Over the sound of Brian nearly chortling to death, Gary informed me that they were now going to find out just how well I could edit. The basket contained what was destined to become Supplement II of D&D: Blackmoor
Sifting through about 50 odd sheets of mostly handwritten material and charts, I asked for clarification. Again I was informed that what I held in my hands was the next supplement to D&D.
Supplements: A word about supplements is in order here, as they were explained to me and came to be.
The first three books laid the groundwork for playing the game. They are all I used from GenCon '74 until GC 75' when I picked up GH.
Supplements did what the name implied: i.e., add more stuff; they also clarified and corrected inconsistencies and contradictions. (They also made a few contradictions and clouded a few things, too, but that's another story.) You have to remember that D&D was a growing, evolving entity and it was through the supplements that this occurred. With the metamorphosis into Basic and Advanced, the first stage of growth was completed.
I was told that they wanted a manuscript ready to go to the printer in about 6 weeks or so, IIRC. Naive fool that I was, I said sure. I did have to empty the basket that day because Gary's wife needed it for laundry, so I stacked all the papers and stuffed them into one of those expanding folders with the ties at the top. I took it home that night and let it sit for about a week. Hey, we had other stuff going on, like a SR issue at the printer.
So here I am, next week, and I sit down to go through the file. Uh oh, something seems to be amiss. I tried sorting the stuff; I re-sorted the stuff. I cataloged, alphabetized, prioritized and sanitized—all to no avail. This was a file folder full of repetitions, contradictions, duplications and complications. But not a supplement. I found three different versions of one idea, and two different approaches to another that are at odds with each other, as well as previously published guidelines. After two evenings of trying to make heads or tales of anything at all, I went to Gary and told him something to the effect that I couldn't make heads or tails of the whole mess. And he replied something to the effect that it just needed some editing. About this time, I realized I was in deep dung.
In journalism school and classes they teach that editing is the collecting, preparing, and arranging of materials for publication, or, the revising or correcting, of a manuscript. Well, there was damned little to revise or correct as the preparing and arranging had yet to happen. What I had was some ideas, more like notes, on how to do various things. Problem was, several of them contradicted themselves and each other; a good many were not developed. I am sure that they must have meant something to Dave, but only he knew what. When I made an effort to get clarifications and explanations, I got none, or worse, what I got in response to my questions were responses that intimated that I must be mentally deficient if I couldn't understand them. Finally I said to hell with that and threw most of the crap away, determined to start over and do it my way.
Another thing that supplements did was try to counter some of the foolishness that was going on in the fanzines. They would make some preposterous proposal, and we would give the public the "company line" on how to do something.
In Blackmoor, we supplied something entirely new; a concrete example of how to construct a major edifice in a campaign. I refer, of course, to the Temple of the Frog. TotF was Dave's creation. All I did was legitimate editing; I made it read better and looked out for inconsistencies such as any DM might make in something like that.
TotF was the only part of BM that was Dave's alone. In fact, if the whole of the book were analyzed, Dave wrote the TotF segment, and I wrote about 65 or 70% of the rest. Gary, Brian and Rob, and Terry, too, contributed the rest. Some of the ideas might have been Dave's, but the execution, expansion and explanation were ours. (I am confident that Gary will back me up on this. Rob was a great help to me on this because he was very handy to bounce ideas off of, and a good sport about it. I was afraid of going to Gary too much for fear he would think he had hired a boob or incompetent.)
So BM got published with Dave's name on it and I wrote an intro. I had no problem with this. I was an employee and got a salary for editing. Royalties went to authors. In retrospect, I should have held out for a portion of the royalties. I'm perfectly cool with it, don't misunderstand. That hindsight thing is a bitch.
BM was a great learning experience for me. What I learned on it would serve me in good stead in future supplements. (Except for psionic combat. I LOVED psionic combat and had great fun devising it with all of its tables and charts. Apparently I was in the tiny minority. I guess mental combat was too esoteric for most D&Ders; not enough of them shared my fondness for the Dr. Strange Marvel comics and Mindflayers. God, I loved Mindflayers; they were all ovr my dungens. I just loved the idea of turning an annoying PC into a gibbering idiot.. Oh well, live and learn...)
-again, I have no dog in the fight, that's just what Kask's said on the matter.
Of course according to Tim Kask fans of AD&D are borderline retarded ripe-sucks who need their hands held through every combat and campaign and the AD&D hardbacks were created by Gary - and him - as a cynical move to try and rip off as many people as possible.
Needless to say, I don't pay a lot of credence to that theory.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;434734On the other hand I don't have much time for fanciful attempts to write Gygax out of D&D such as Dragons at Dawn, which I hereby dub the Piltdown Man of the OSR.
Wait. How is writing a game about the rules Dave used at his game table prior to D&D somehow interpreted to mean it attempts to write EGG completely out of D&D? It's like saying that making a clone of OD&D somehow is an attempt to write AD&D out of D&D history. Unless I'm misunderstanding the comment?
Holy 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?"
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?"
QFT.
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? :D
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. (http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/dragons-at-dawn/14317335) 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.
(http://batmancomic.info/gen/20110125105021_4d3f1b6d4db8f.jpg)
I enjoy the 1974 D&D rules quite a lot. I met both Dave and Gary (seperately) a couple of times and exchanged posts with them on message boards. Both seemed to be quite nice gentlemen and really enjoyed discussing gaming.
While I suppose Arneson-love could represent Gygax-hate, for me I liked both men and appreciate what they gave to us as a hobby.
Bottom line is that some will find that kind of GMing fun for a variety of reasons (because it's immersive, because what you say you do is directly applied to the game's reality, etc), while others won't find it fun because it lacks structure, relies on DM's direct interpretation (fiat) etc.
I don't mind this sort of thing, if it's a teaching moment, not a constant occurrence. In other words, this happens to me once, I adapt, and then I'm trying to have fun with it. If I feel like I'm just being screwed for the DM's enjoyment over and over again, then this just becomes plain bad DMing. I quit the table and move on.
Quote from: The_Shadow;435071Sure, 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.
I suspect that the truth isn't as cool as one might think.
Dave had a concept, Gary wrote most of the rules, each contributed parts to a whole. Much of the settlement probably occured because Gary was part-owner of the company and Dave owned nothing, but they shared certain rights to the product. Once D&D split into AD&D and BD&D they had to agree how much of each was "owned" by each and what profits (if any) went which way. Then they agreed not to speak of it again. I'll bet there aren't any hidden surprises we can't easily guess.
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 know of both of the people concerned and I gotta tell you it's a funny (and sick) mental image.
Quote from: finarvyn;435137I suspect that the truth isn't as cool as one might think.
Dave had a concept, Gary wrote most of the rules, each contributed parts to a whole. Much of the settlement probably occured because Gary was part-owner of the company and Dave owned nothing, but they shared certain rights to the product. Once D&D split into AD&D and BD&D they had to agree how much of each was "owned" by each and what profits (if any) went which way. Then they agreed not to speak of it again. I'll bet there aren't any hidden surprises we can't easily guess.
That's because you haven't considered how they divided the "Trap collection". It was, surprisingly the most contentious of all. Some would have thought that the huge colletion of gonzo high-tech items would be the contentious one, but no, Arneson got to keep all of those. In exchange, Gary got all the Harlots.
RPGPundit
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!"
"You thought I said 'you encounter a white dwarf'? I mean WIGHT dwarf! You done level drained, bitch!"
If I recall correctly, this was actually an example in an old
Dragon magazine.