TheRPGSite

The people who hate the OSR are claiming Gygax was a money-grubbing grifter because of something he wrote into the rules of the game.
#dnd #ttrpg #osr

Rule 0 is foundational within most ttrpgs, and for good reason. Homebrew, adjudication of edge cases, creating differentiated new monsters, adapting the rules to fit a different setting or premise, making consistent rulings as needed to flesh out unforeseen scenarios, and pretty much any degree of rules flexibility or customization at all relies on it being in play to some extent. It's sad but not surprising that they'd go after Gygax on this, though, given the cultish devotion to RAW as interpreted by their leader and not a table's GM/group.

I don't think many people will be stupid enough to listen to their take, however, and those within that community who do will effectively self-sabotage their games, which is perhaps the silver lining.

As a separate thing, everybody with a hatred for the OSR seems to love to hate on Gygax. The left especially, calling him all sorts of things despite a lack of any tangible evidence that I have seen posted about him as a person, as opposed to their interpretation of his products. Now the alt-right(?) seems like it's planning on joining in on that.

I think this does connect to the whole identitarian mindset, in the sense of ethnic clientelism and identity politics/pandering being something those core demographics seem to like seeing. I don't think Gygax was the racist/misogynist/whatever-the-fuck that either group now wants him to be. So they try to either nitpick his work for evidence of wrongdoing (left), personality flaws (alt-right), or nitpick it for evidence that confirms the view of him they want desperately to be true, but which in all likelihood isn't.

For a while there, Jeffro's cult used to worship Gygax, until some people pointed out that Jeffro's own ideas were contradicted by Gygax. From that moment on, his place in the cult pantheon started to plummet, to the point that now they think he was just a greedy guy who wanted to make money and thus encouraged people to disagree with Jeffro 40+ years before anyone knew who Jeffro was.

I'm very curious about his "cult of RAW" thing.

The DMG 1e, RAW, supports:
- Ignoring random encounters if PCs do not "deserve".
- Ignoring dice rolls altogether, with parsimony.
- Saving PCs from death (unconsciousness or maiming instead) if they had bad luck.

Also encourages/suggests/implies:

- A big, epic metaplot for all campaigns.
- First few levels being for newbies only.
- Dealing with NPCs should be irritating. ;)

Is that what they are preaching? Or should we rule 0 the parts of AD&D we don't like?

And Gygax didn't play RAW AFAICT, kept creating new games and rules to the end...

The PREFACE says:

PREFACE

What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee. As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game, this work is written as one Dungeon Master equal to another. Pronouncements there may be, but they are not from "on high" as respects your game. Dictums are given for the sake of the game only, for if ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is to survive and grow, it must have some degree of uniformity, a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign within the whole.

Then he mentions some boundaries (nearly "non-existing" in some cases), so is hard to interpret this is any extreme way - it doesn't preach RW at all costs nor does it say you can do whatever you want.

Quote from: KindaMeh on December 01, 2023, 05:17:08 PM
I don't think many people will be stupid enough to listen to their take, however, and those within that community who do will effectively self-sabotage their games, which is perhaps the silver lining.

You sorely underestimate just how virulent this mental disease is.

50 years from now we will still be hearing some moron quoting how "Gygax was a Gwifter!" same as there are a decade plus later idiots quoting Gygax was a racist and misogynist and all that. Moreso because the hatemongers at 4chan and Something Awful and other hate sites keep spreading the lies and egging people on.

Quote from: Omega on December 02, 2023, 10:33:10 AM

Quote from: KindaMeh on December 01, 2023, 05:17:08 PM
I don't think many people will be stupid enough to listen to their take, however, and those within that community who do will effectively self-sabotage their games, which is perhaps the silver lining.

You sorely underestimate just how virulent this mental disease is.

50 years from now we will still be hearing some moron quoting how "Gygax was a Gwifter!" same as there are a decade plus later idiots quoting Gygax was a racist and misogynist and all that. Moreso because the hatemongers at 4chan and Something Awful and other hate sites keep spreading the lies and egging people on.

Hey, we aren't hate mongers.  We just help people learn new features of their iPhones.

Now if the black guys on 4chan want to LARP and give each other a hard time, who are we to say what's acceptable in their culture.

I have never heard of this Jeffro idiot and am thankful for that. I sometimes wonder if I have missed anything important over the years never having had any social media accounts, and then I hear about this and realize the answer is no.

Sounds like a classic case of projection.

Grifter has joined the long and ever-growing list of terms that have lost all meaning from misuse and overuse.  It just means person I don't like.  That's why they can never explain exactly what the grift is. 

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 01, 2023, 07:32:44 PM40+ years before anyone knew who Jeffro was.

I still don't know who Jeffro is. If watching your video is going to inform me, then I'm afraid I'll have to pass.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 03, 2023, 02:47:09 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 01, 2023, 07:32:44 PM40+ years before anyone knew who Jeffro was.

I still don't know who Jeffro is. If watching your video is going to inform me, then I'm afraid I'll have to pass.

Well, I can't quite blame you.

I actually thought most of the OSR hated Gygax, which is why they don't like 1e in favor of the purer Arnesonian 0e or the non-Gygax B/X or Holmes.

Quote from: JeremyR on December 03, 2023, 07:48:05 PM
I actually thought most of the OSR hated Gygax, which is why they don't like 1e in favor of the purer Arnesonian 0e or the non-Gygax B/X or Holmes.

Huh? Just because something wasn't written in pure Gygaxian prose doesn't mean he had no influence. Gygax approved both Holmes and B/X. It isn't like they were produced behind his back or anything. The first edition published without his hand in it was 2nd edition. I wouldn't say the OSR population as a whole hate Gygax at all. The reason many in the OSR gravitate to games based more on B/X or OD&D is that they realize that AD&D, while being a tremendous reference work (especially at the time), was not written for sustained campaign play. It was created for tournament play as a D&D standard to use for those tournaments, and as a reference work for DMs to use parts of as they pleased. Some people do actually use AD&D to run campaigns and it is certainly possible. Gary's own table was a lot more loosey goosey than AD&D. A lot of DMs simply cobble together bits of whatever work best for their campaign and that is how it should be.

Gygax was a money-driven man, and we're all better off for it.  He took other people's ideas and made them marketable.  That, and that above all else, is what he contributed to the hobby.  Did he "invent" D&D?  Almost certainly not.  There are a lot of prior art examples.  But, he did invent making money off of D&D, and that's necessary for a thing to survive in the marketplace.

As mentioned on the YouTube discussion, Dave felt Gary wrote that book to screw him out of royalties and sued Gary in 79.  They settled out of court, so Gary was never vindicated of this charge.  Make of that what you will.

He's no god.  He was greedy.  He took and used other people's ideas without much modification.  He did design work to make these weird things fit together.  We benefited from what he did and can be grateful.  All these can be true at the same time.

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 03, 2023, 01:13:25 AM
Grifter has joined the long and ever-growing list of terms that have lost all meaning from misuse and overuse.  It just means person I don't like.  That's why they can never explain exactly what the grift is.

The grift is promising REAL MAGIC and hooking up with Ms. Frost, but instead we get fat dudes stealing our Cheetos and big ass text books full of words no one can pronounce. Total scam.

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 01, 2023, 07:32:44 PM
For a while there, Jeffro's cult used to worship Gygax, until some people pointed out that Jeffro's own ideas were contradicted by Gygax. From that moment on, his place in the cult pantheon started to plummet, to the point that now they think he was just a greedy guy who wanted to make money and thus encouraged people to disagree with Jeffro 40+ years before anyone knew who Jeffro was.

Man I don't really follow twitter much, and what little I do is not reading up on these dudes.

All this being said, I'm gonna say that there's one thing I am curious about.


Initiative

Famously, AD&D 1e initiative is generally not played by-the-book.  It's certainly possible to do so (ADDICT.pdf has the way), but somehow I suspect that is not what they are doing.

In practice, AD&D 1e initiative was always rule 0- it was always a houserule at best.  Years later, when Gygax answered questions, he was pretty consistent about describing an initiative system he used- and it had relatively little in common with the mish-mash in the PHB and DMG.  My normal sense has been, there are several "real" ways to play, all of them in conflict with the actual written rules.

But maybe- just maybe- whatever initiative system the BrOSR has come up with should be considered the real one.  It has several claims going for it- their group only plays their custom version of AD&D 1e (a matter of religious imperative, apparently).  It has like a, kind of a, a pope right?  So within their own context whatever he says is divinely inspired.  It has to be playtested, and it's probably kinda fair (almost everyone's initiative systems are at least kinda fair).  Since the "real" initiative system (as in, by the book) exists and is awful and is ADDICT.pdf, this one will have the advantage of "most people using it" (democracy, baby!), and is likely not absolutely terrible.

So I need to see that at some point.  Assuredly, it should go down in the list of AD&D 1e lists of "how people actually run initiative".

Quote from: Brad on December 04, 2023, 07:04:37 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 03, 2023, 01:13:25 AM
Grifter has joined the long and ever-growing list of terms that have lost all meaning from misuse and overuse.  It just means person I don't like.  That's why they can never explain exactly what the grift is.

The grift is promising REAL MAGIC and hooking up with Ms. Frost, but instead we get fat dudes stealing our Cheetos and big ass text books full of words no one can pronounce. Total scam.

(https://i.imgur.com/tfDYgAf.jpg)

Jack Chick was the one who promised real magic though.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZFFaP4e.jpg)

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 04, 2023, 09:40:47 PM

Quote from: Brad on December 04, 2023, 07:04:37 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 03, 2023, 01:13:25 AM
Grifter has joined the long and ever-growing list of terms that have lost all meaning from misuse and overuse.  It just means person I don't like.  That's why they can never explain exactly what the grift is.

The grift is promising REAL MAGIC and hooking up with Ms. Frost, but instead we get fat dudes stealing our Cheetos and big ass text books full of words no one can pronounce. Total scam.

Jack Chick was the one who promised real magic though.

Are you ready to learn the REAL magic Debbie?  ;D

Quote from: Venka on December 04, 2023, 08:45:27 PMSince the "real" initiative system (as in, by the book) exists and is awful and is ADDICT.pdf, this one will have the advantage of "most people using it" (democracy, baby!), and is likely not absolutely terrible.

ADDICT is NOT the real initiative system by the book. It asserts some rules without citation, and there's at least one citation I know of off the top of my head that if you actually follow it, you see the book very clearly says something different than what ADDICT says.

The real initiative system is a lot easier than ADDICT. The issue is that 1E is a game was actually meant to be played. Not discussed. Not analyzed. Not theorized about. You do any of those three latter things, it muddies the waters. Not because 1E's initiative is confusing. The confusion is an artifact of the approach you use to understand it. If you take the correct approach, actually playing, it's super easy.

The basic system is just each side rolls d6, highest goes first. Everybody who's even pretended to read the books knows that much. And if that's all you ever do, it works just fine. At least until some chucklehead at the table complains after losing initiative, "But I have this big long spear, and he's got a puny dagger. I should be able to at least try to jab him before he's even close enough to attack." And that's something the nitty gritty rules address.

It addresses these sorts of objections through exceptions. Which is something that is seemingly anathema to modern RPG theory wankers. But the benefit is, you can start with just the basic rule which everyone knows and add the exceptions later, one at a time, as needed. So you learn the system in smaller, bite-size pieces and avoid bloat by only adding what you need. You don't have to figure it out in advance or discuss it at session zero. It emerges from actual play.

Is what's in the book what Gary used? No. Because what emerges as important in play is going to vary. That's the whole point, which is very easy to understand when you just play the game. It's only confusing when gamers have this weird need to understand the game a priori.

There is a note in the book about how weapon speed and Dexterity (for melee) might figure more prominently if you're doing a duel or some other type of situation that would call for this sort of thing. It's just a seed of an idea included, and it was never developed in the rules as written. But from what I've heard about how Gary does things, it may very well have developed out of that seed.

There are a few seeds like that in the game. Just to throw out another example, there's a note in the PHB under encumbrance that hints at there having been an idea on the table where base weight allowance would be somehow correlated to the character's body weight rather than fixed. I've seen some jerk offs point to that as an example of a contradiction in the rules when it's clearly just the seed of an idea begging for a house rule.

Quote from: Lunamancer on December 05, 2023, 12:42:22 AM
ADDICT is NOT the real initiative system by the book.

Sure it is.

QuoteIt asserts some rules without citation, and there's at least one citation I know of off the top of my head that if you actually follow it, you see the book very clearly says something different than what ADDICT says.

I doubt it.  This may be about the casting starting at 0 or whatever, but there's examples that ADDICT based this off of.  You can still find the old dragonsfoot threads where ADDICT evolved.

QuoteNot because 1E's initiative is confusing. The confusion is an artifact of the approach you use to understand it. If you take the correct approach, actually playing, it's super easy.

Wait, are you ONE of them?  This is an argument from received knowledge basically.  "You ignore the parts that aren't REAL, see, just ignore the parts about weapon length and speed factor...."

I know if I was gonna run AD&D 1e for friends, I'd write down exactly how I planned to run initiative, and if someone didn't like it before the game started I'd ask what they thought it needed and make changes, and if someone didn't like after the game started I'd tell them tough titties.  But at no point would I be busy pretending that I had the one true initiative.

QuoteIt addresses these sorts of objections through exceptions. Which is something that is seemingly anathema to modern RPG theory wankers. But the benefit is, you can start with just the basic rule which everyone knows and add the exceptions later, one at a time, as needed. So you learn the system in smaller, bite-size pieces and avoid bloat by only adding what you need. You don't have to figure it out in advance or discuss it at session zero. It emerges from actual play.

On the one hand, I actually don't agree and I don't run games that way.  On the other hand, I don't feel your method is incorrect or anything.  I just know if I pulled out a dagger against The Accursed Blacksmith who has some incredibly slow weapon, hoping we'd tie on initiative so I could get like triple attack combo on him, I'd be pretty mad if that didn't work (the multiattack is in the book)- given that I'd be finding that out at that very second and not before.  If my DM thought that whole section was munchkin bullshit I wouldn't be mad until I had fully committed to the actual action, got the 1/6 chance of the flurry of stabs, and found out I got robbed.  That's why I'd want to know it ahead of time.

Anyway, since you are all about this topic (I think I've seen you make some wild AD&D 1e claims), it's possible that you might have read what the BrOSR guys have written on initiative.  Unless they sound like you with the emerges-from-play response, which would also answer my question (though not as satisfactorily to me personally, obviously, but the world does not exist primarily to satisfy me).

So do you know?  Do these guys, when they aren't getting Pundit's twitter shut down for hammer memes, have an official initiative system, a One True Interpretation?

QuoteThere is a note in the book about how weapon speed and Dexterity (for melee) might figure more prominently if you're doing a duel or some other type of situation that would call for this sort of thing. It's just a seed of an idea included, and it was never developed in the rules as written. But from what I've heard about how Gary does things, it may very well have developed out of that seed.

Gary kept evolving the initiative system. If someone has put together how he played it in, say, 2005 or something (and given his posts on the topic on dragonsfoot, such a document may exist), I'd definitely love to save that next to ADDICT.pdf in my AD&D 1e folder.  I'd probably tend towards that if hypothetically my own players wanted to play AD&D 1e (two mentioned the idea and the rest of the table laughed instead, but opinions can change), because it would be, if not by-the-book, at least informed by the top expert whose goal was to run good games, not write rules documents in a legally clear way.

It's just the age old iconoclasts hating on the past as a means to power to feel alive and relevant.  ::) They weren't cool the last 10 thousand years they've been doing this, they still aren't cool now. For all the current and future purgers of the impure and vanities, "You're still a disappointment to your parents and should get over your witchhunter punk selves."  8)

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 04, 2023, 09:40:47 PM

Quote from: Brad on December 04, 2023, 07:04:37 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 03, 2023, 01:13:25 AM
Grifter has joined the long and ever-growing list of terms that have lost all meaning from misuse and overuse.  It just means person I don't like.  That's why they can never explain exactly what the grift is.

The grift is promising REAL MAGIC and hooking up with Ms. Frost, but instead we get fat dudes stealing our Cheetos and big ass text books full of words no one can pronounce. Total scam.

(Images snipped)

That's hilarious.

On a side note, can confirm playing RPGs will help with basic math skills as well as a decent grounding in statistics and probability (I actually used some of the concepts in a safety meeting to explain why people should follow processes and wear protective gear).

Quote from: JeremyR on December 03, 2023, 07:48:05 PM
I actually thought most of the OSR hated Gygax, which is why they don't like 1e in favor of the purer Arnesonian 0e or the non-Gygax B/X or Holmes.

I think it's more likely the case that Gygax simply wasn't a good game designer, so the games someone else had a direct hand in designing were simply a better starting point.

Quote from: migo on December 05, 2023, 08:50:39 AM
I think it's more likely the case that Gygax simply wasn't a good game designer, so the games someone else had a direct hand in designing were simply a better starting point.

I always push back against these ideas when I see them:

1) Gygax made D&D.  (He assembled it.)

2) Gygax made D&D alone.  (Many people deserve credit.)

3) Gygax was a diety/saint/monster.  (He was a man.)

Uh oh, several posts about AD&D initiative already...how much longer until gun control and/or Hitler are brought up?

RE: Gygax not being a good game designer...AD&D is like five billion times better than any of the bullshit being published today because it was and is an actual game that was played by real people over many years. D&D before 2nd edition AD&D, as a whole, has more playtesting than probably all other RPGs in existence combined, and I doubt most of the games being published now have ever been playtested beyond a couple dudes in a white room wearing gloves and lab coats. It's pure theory vs. pragmatic reality. Sure AD&D doesn't SEEM well designed, but that's because anyone making that statement is just "reading rules" and not actually playing anything. If I were to plop down the complete rules of baseball and asked you to read it, you would come away with all sorts of conclusions that have nothing to do with how baseball is played in reality, and you might even assume it's a terribly designed game that makes no sense, completely ignoring literally 150 years of rules refinements and millions of real games. So, whatever?

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
Uh oh, several posts about AD&D initiative already...how much longer until gun control and/or Hitler are brought up?

RE: Gygax not being a good game designer...AD&D is like five billion times better than any of the bullshit being published today because it was and is an actual game that was played by real people over many years. D&D before 2nd edition AD&D, as a whole, has more playtesting than probably all other RPGs in existence combined, and I doubt most of the games being published now have ever been playtested beyond a couple dudes in a white room wearing gloves and lab coats. It's pure theory vs. pragmatic reality. Sure AD&D doesn't SEEM well designed, but that's because anyone making that statement is just "reading rules" and not actually playing anything. If I were to plop down the complete rules of baseball and asked you to read it, you would come away with all sorts of conclusions that have nothing to do with how baseball is played in reality, and you might even assume it's a terribly designed game that makes no sense, completely ignoring literally 150 years of rules refinements and millions of real games. So, whatever?

As far as core mechanics go, B/X is simply better than AD&D. There's a lot of stuff in AD&D that is a mess, and requires work-arounds. B/X you can do 3d6 in order and have it work more or less. 3d6 in order for AD&D is only for masochists. If you're going to do a fork of D&D, B/X is the best place to start. Not AD&D.

Now AD&D has some stuff that makes it a preferable choice to B/X, but that isn't due to the fundamental mechanics, it's due to options. Put similar options onto B/X, and B/X will be a better system.

At its core level, something like Spears of the Dawn is far better than AD&D.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 04, 2023, 04:54:32 PM
Gygax was a money-driven man, and we're all better off for it.  He took other people's ideas and made them marketable.  That, and that above all else, is what he contributed to the hobby.  Did he "invent" D&D?  Almost certainly not.  There are a lot of prior art examples.  But, he did invent making money off of D&D, and that's necessary for a thing to survive in the marketplace.

As mentioned on the YouTube discussion, Dave felt Gary wrote that book to screw him out of royalties and sued Gary in 79.  They settled out of court, so Gary was never vindicated of this charge.  Make of that what you will.

He's no god.  He was greedy.  He took and used other people's ideas without much modification.  He did design work to make these weird things fit together.  We benefited from what he did and can be grateful.  All these can be true at the same time.

You can make those arguments, sure, but that wasn't the argument the BroSR was making; they're claiming that he supported Rule 0 as a "cash grab". Which is just moronic.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
Uh oh, several posts about AD&D initiative already...how much longer until gun control and/or Hitler are brought up?

I haven't seen the old Godwin forfiet in a while.  Neat to see it still lives.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
AD&D is like five billion times better than any of the bullshit being published today because it was and is an actual game that was played by real people over many years.

Is your standard for excellence ten-plus years old, non-imaginary, and played by 10 or more people, then?  Seems like a low bar, but okay.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
D&D before 2nd edition AD&D, as a whole, has more playtesting than probably all other RPGs in existence combined, and I doubt most of the games being published now have ever been playtested beyond a couple dudes in a white room wearing gloves and lab coats.

A quick Google will show you 'thank you for testing' credits on scores of games, so your doubt isn't completely sane.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
It's pure theory vs. pragmatic reality. Sure AD&D doesn't SEEM well designed, but that's because anyone making that statement is just "reading rules" and not actually playing anything.

Wow a Godwin AND a True Scotsman in the same post?  Do you genuinely believe nobody is playing games other than AD&D?  You're trolling, right?  Right?

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
If I were to plop down the complete rules of baseball and asked you to read it, you would come away with all sorts of conclusions that have nothing to do with how baseball is played in reality, and you might even assume it's a terribly designed game that makes no sense, completely ignoring literally 150 years of rules refinements and millions of real games. So, whatever?

In point of fact, baseball is definitely a poorly designed roleplaying game.

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 05, 2023, 09:39:03 AM
You can make those arguments, sure, but that wasn't the argument the BroSR was making; they're claiming that he supported Rule 0 as a "cash grab". Which is just moronic.

Your video was well made and your point came across clearly.

It's just that the premise you are refuting is too dumb to engage with, and if anything you give it MORE credence by not simply laughing at it.  It's just not a thing a serious person can believe, IMO.

Taking Dave's name off the books, THAT was a cash grab.

WotC changing Rule 0 in their newest newbie materials, THAT is a topic for discussion.

But whatever this Bro-SR person has to say isn't worth much time.

HTF can A.D.D.I.C.T.  be the initiative RAW from AD&D1e when it uses shit extraneous to it that was published about a decade latter?

Now, that someone thinks it makes a good job of explaining it is one thing, but claiming it's RAW?

Hey, don't strawman me!  Terms matter in this kind of thing.  I never claimed ADDICT.pdf was "rules as written".  I said it has the way to play it by-the-book.  Obviously one cannot provide new rules-as-written decades after the fact, but that was never my claim (nor anyone's I don't think?).  ADDICT.pdf goes through all the various exceptions, with a lot of citations, and goes through the examples. It then provides a guide to actually play AD&D 1e initiative by-the-book.

I don't think anyone claims this is necessarily advisable, but it does iron out all of the "what about this?" scenarios that come up when trying to parse the wacky special cases.

Quote from: Venka on December 05, 2023, 11:47:36 AM
Hey, don't strawman me!  Terms matter in this kind of thing.  I never claimed ADDICT.pdf was "rules as written".  I said it has the way to play it by-the-book.  Obviously one cannot provide new rules-as-written decades after the fact, but that was never my claim (nor anyone's I don't think?).  ADDICT.pdf goes through all the various exceptions, with a lot of citations, and goes through the examples. It then provides a guide to actually play AD&D 1e initiative by-the-book.

I don't think anyone claims this is necessarily advisable, but it does iron out all of the "what about this?" scenarios that come up when trying to parse the wacky special cases.

So, to you "play-it-by-the-book" means something different from RAW?

Care to define what does "play-it-by-the-book" mean and how does ADDICT.pdf providing a guide to actually play AD&D 1e initiative by-the-book isn't claiming it's to play RAW.

Sources & Citations in ADDICT.pdf that AREN'T AD&D1e but ARE way older:
Leigh L. Krehmeyer, "Surprise!", DRAGON®, May 1988: 74
Brian Blume et al., The Rogues Gallery (U.S.A.: TSR Games, 1980), 47.
Robert J. Kuntz with Douglas J. Behringer, "Robilar Remembered: Lord Robilar & Co.," The Oerth Journal 7 (June 1998): 41-43
Gary Gygax, Official Advanced Dungeons & Dragons® Unearthed Arcana (U.S.A.: TSR, Inc., 1985), 18.
Lenard Lakofka, The Secret of Bone Hill (U.S.A.: TSR Hobbies, Inc., 1981), 27-28.
Lakofka, The Secret of Bone Hill, 14.
Lenard Lakofka, "Leomund's Life," The Oerth Journal 10 (July 1999): 78-84

And more.

Well, Unearthed Arcana is a rulebook, right?  Actually a couple of them arguably are.  And the other sources also purport to tell you how to run it by the book, and not be new things entirely, correct?

Edit:  If your point is that there's multiple by-the-book ways to run it, of which ADDICT.pdf has captured the final (and majority-of-system-lifetime) version one, then that's an interesting point but probably not one I would think to care about.

Quote from: Venka on December 05, 2023, 02:16:29 PM
Well, Unearthed Arcana is a rulebook, right?  Actually a couple of them arguably are.  And the other sources also purport to tell you how to run it by the book, and not be new things entirely, correct?

So I need to buy and USE all of those in order to play AD&D1e "By-The-Book"?

Even the ones published about a decade latter?

Doesn't sound like playing by the book since I need many OTHER books/Articles some of them published about a decade latter.

Which means that (by your own words) I would have to buy AD&D1e, put it on a shelf until all of those books/articles were published then buy them and percolate them in order to play AD&D1e (If not wait till 2006 for ADDICT.pdf to be published too).

So it's not  "By-The-Book" but "By-The-Books/Articles/etc".

I mean, yes, you would need to wait for AD&D 1e to be ruleset-complete in order to play the final version of it.  Does AD&D 1e have ninjas?  I would say yes, because they are right there in Oriental Adventures.  You might say no because they aren't in the PHB.

If your point is that ADDICT uses the full and complete ruleset, and that there may be a different by-the-book version using just the 1970s books, well, that's a good point.  As for the other sources, I think that would be on a case-by-case basis; for instance, if someone a couple years later is explaining how it works by the book, and there's no contradiction, then I would make the case that such a source is valid for the hypothetical 1970s-only ruleset, as it is offering the correct interpretation of the original, and does not constitute a change.

Anyway, the reason I brought up initiative is because I believe the BrOSR Pope might have endorsed an official version, and I'm eager to add it to my folder, as it represents a new and valid religion in this sphere.  I could see a future where their interpretation becomes the most common amongst actual AD&D 1e players, as, after all, most players in the OSR actually want either near-clones or inspireds-by moreso than running AD&D 1e.  Would you happen to know?

Optional content, published a decade latter CAN'T be a part of "The Complete Ruleset", because it's OPTIONAL.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 05, 2023, 03:15:10 PM
Optional content, published a decade latter CAN'T be a part of "The Complete Ruleset", because it's OPTIONAL.

Ok well it sounds like you don't know the answer to my question and have instead invented a technicality wherein "complete" means "the inclusion of things I say, but not things I do not say; and certainly not everything", which is, I believe, not a useful definition.  I believe that the complete AD&D 1e ruleset is what you get once you add together all the books released under AD&D 1e.  As far as what the differences between "complete" AD&D 1e's initiative (as compiled in ADDICT.pdf, more or less) and "original" AD&D 1e, that would, I hope, be another thread entirely.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 05, 2023, 09:46:35 AM

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
Uh oh, several posts about AD&D initiative already...how much longer until gun control and/or Hitler are brought up?

I haven't seen the old Godwin forfiet in a while.  Neat to see it still lives.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
AD&D is like five billion times better than any of the bullshit being published today because it was and is an actual game that was played by real people over many years.

Is your standard for excellence ten-plus years old, non-imaginary, and played by 10 or more people, then?  Seems like a low bar, but okay.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
D&D before 2nd edition AD&D, as a whole, has more playtesting than probably all other RPGs in existence combined, and I doubt most of the games being published now have ever been playtested beyond a couple dudes in a white room wearing gloves and lab coats.

A quick Google will show you 'thank you for testing' credits on scores of games, so your doubt isn't completely sane.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
It's pure theory vs. pragmatic reality. Sure AD&D doesn't SEEM well designed, but that's because anyone making that statement is just "reading rules" and not actually playing anything.

Wow a Godwin AND a True Scotsman in the same post?  Do you genuinely believe nobody is playing games other than AD&D?  You're trolling, right?  Right?

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
If I were to plop down the complete rules of baseball and asked you to read it, you would come away with all sorts of conclusions that have nothing to do with how baseball is played in reality, and you might even assume it's a terribly designed game that makes no sense, completely ignoring literally 150 years of rules refinements and millions of real games. So, whatever?

In point of fact, baseball is definitely a poorly designed roleplaying game.

Jesus...how many fucking autists are on this board?

And no offense to GeekyBugle who is self-admittedly autistic but realizes it and makes some attempt to understand hyperbole and nuance.

Quote from: Venka on December 05, 2023, 02:45:22 PM

Anyway, the reason I brought up initiative is because I believe the BrOSR Pope might have endorsed an official version, and I'm eager to add it to my folder, as it represents a new and valid religion in this sphere.  I could see a future where their interpretation becomes the most common amongst actual AD&D 1e players, as, after all, most players in the OSR actually want either near-clones or inspireds-by moreso than running AD&D 1e.  Would you happen to know?

Hadn't seen the question, sorry.

I've blocked most of the BrOSR on the twatter, because they are a bunch of anti-semites (the ones I've blocked), so no, I don't have a clue as to what they're preaching about initiative.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 04:19:03 PM

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 05, 2023, 09:46:35 AM

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
Uh oh, several posts about AD&D initiative already...how much longer until gun control and/or Hitler are brought up?

I haven't seen the old Godwin forfiet in a while.  Neat to see it still lives.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
AD&D is like five billion times better than any of the bullshit being published today because it was and is an actual game that was played by real people over many years.

Is your standard for excellence ten-plus years old, non-imaginary, and played by 10 or more people, then?  Seems like a low bar, but okay.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
D&D before 2nd edition AD&D, as a whole, has more playtesting than probably all other RPGs in existence combined, and I doubt most of the games being published now have ever been playtested beyond a couple dudes in a white room wearing gloves and lab coats.

A quick Google will show you 'thank you for testing' credits on scores of games, so your doubt isn't completely sane.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
It's pure theory vs. pragmatic reality. Sure AD&D doesn't SEEM well designed, but that's because anyone making that statement is just "reading rules" and not actually playing anything.

Wow a Godwin AND a True Scotsman in the same post?  Do you genuinely believe nobody is playing games other than AD&D?  You're trolling, right?  Right?

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:16:39 AM
If I were to plop down the complete rules of baseball and asked you to read it, you would come away with all sorts of conclusions that have nothing to do with how baseball is played in reality, and you might even assume it's a terribly designed game that makes no sense, completely ignoring literally 150 years of rules refinements and millions of real games. So, whatever?

In point of fact, baseball is definitely a poorly designed roleplaying game.

Jesus...how many fucking autists are on this board?

And no offense to GeekyBugle who is self-admittedly autistic but realizes it and makes some attempt to understand hyperbole and nuance.

Plenty by the looks of it, no surprize there I think autists were always over-represented in the hobby.

Can't offend me by calling me what I obviously are. Yes, sarcasm, hyperbole, nuance are hard to grasp, even more so in writting, especially from people I haven't interacted much.

After a while it gets easier, once I know (if given the chance since I tend to go hard) the person and their style of writting I'm more able to detect when it's either of those, but never a 100%.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 05, 2023, 04:49:15 PM
I've blocked most of the BrOSR on the twatter, because they are a bunch of anti-semites (the ones I've blocked), so no, I don't have a clue as to what they're preaching about initiative.

Yea fair enough.  I have a whole other theory there- that when someone wants to lead a group, they'll say something that binds them generally irrevocably to that group, so that their genuineness can't be doubted.  I think this is why whatshisface posted a few of those memes, without mounting any sustained intellectual or religious defense of the implied position- simply doing it is enough to break him away from normalcy.  And of course many of his followers have such things as core values, and this will make them more loyal.

I don't claim to believe such an action is a deliberate one of self service- I just think that such a self-branding event is often present whenever looking at any group that has their own little pile of shibboleths.

And yea, I'm not curious enough to try to crawl into the BrOSR sphincter to look around either.

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 04:19:03 PM
Jesus...how many fucking autists are on this board?

And no offense to GeekyBugle who is self-admittedly autistic but realizes it and makes some attempt to understand hyperbole and nuance.

Casually labeling someone as autistic as an argument tactic demonstrates a deep, deep lack of understanding of autism.  This is a condition that affects 1 in 36 children in the U.S. and those families bear significant burdens with little, if any, social support.

Maybe next time you just argue better instead?  We've known since at least the 90s that it's not difficult to avoid referencing the Nazis during an argument.  There are entire YouTube series on framing, argument construction, and fallacies.  Give it maybe an hour and see if it helps?

Quote from: Venka on December 05, 2023, 04:54:45 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 05, 2023, 04:49:15 PM
I've blocked most of the BrOSR on the twatter, because they are a bunch of anti-semites (the ones I've blocked), so no, I don't have a clue as to what they're preaching about initiative.

Yea fair enough.  I have a whole other theory there- that when someone wants to lead a group, they'll say something that binds them generally irrevocably to that group, so that their genuineness can't be doubted.  I think this is why whatshisface posted a few of those memes, without mounting any sustained intellectual or religious defense of the implied position- simply doing it is enough to break him away from normalcy.  And of course many of his followers have such things as core values, and this will make them more loyal.

I don't claim to believe such an action is a deliberate one of self service- I just think that such a self-branding event is often present whenever looking at any group that has their own little pile of shibboleths.

And yea, I'm not curious enough to try to crawl into the BrOSR sphincter to look around either.

From what little I saw before I knew Jeffro was an anti-semite and many of his followers too. You're not missing much. His main claim is to play RAW then proceeds to vomit a bunch of shit that isn't RAW.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 05, 2023, 05:21:24 PM

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 04:19:03 PM
Jesus...how many fucking autists are on this board?

And no offense to GeekyBugle who is self-admittedly autistic but realizes it and makes some attempt to understand hyperbole and nuance.

Casually labeling someone as autistic as an argument tactic demonstrates a deep, deep lack of understanding of autism.  This is a condition that affects 1 in 36 children in the U.S. and those families bear significant burdens with little, if any, social support.

Maybe next time you just argue better instead?  We've known since at least the 90s that it's not difficult to avoid referencing the Nazis during an argument.  There are entire YouTube series on framing, argument construction, and fallacies.  Give it maybe an hour and see if it helps?

There are several of us that are on the spectrum here and we struggle with nuance.  Many of us carry deep shame for the trouble we have caused other by simply not understanding.  Us making jokes about autism isn't about downplaying the cost and struggles it brings but about recognizing our own weaknesses, reaffirming our shared experience, and reminding each other that we can step back a moment to adjust our perspectives.  Ridiculing a child for behavior that they really can't control is shitty but nudging a couple of adults who've hijacked the conversation into a little self reflection is perfectly fine.

Please don't be offended on our behalf.  It undermines us and our efforts to find social equilibrium. 

Quote from: BadApple on December 05, 2023, 06:23:11 PM
Please don't be offended on our behalf.  It undermines us and our efforts to find social equilibrium.

I'm not doing anything on your behalf.  I'm an advocate for this topic on account of the harm the government inflicted on my family.  As an aside, if anyone needs to go to war with the US Public School System, I may be able to help, just ask.

I mean, you're on an internet forum.  Someone who argues the same thing and is overly persistent and emotional is a "faggot", someone who says something another person thinks is dumb is a "retard", and someone who is overly technical and goes into great detail to prove a point is an "autist".  If someone instead takes their "autistic" rant up to incredible rhetoric, they are "sperging out" (this is based on Aspergers).

People who generally avoid the first two will still use the third because, even though it's a slur based on an immutable characteristic, it's not meant (or usually taken) in a universally negative fashion.

You are, of course, well within your rights to find the term used in this fashion offensive, even if the poster may not have meant it in such a fashion.  It's still basically being used as a slur, obviously.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 05, 2023, 05:21:24 PM

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 04:19:03 PM
Jesus...how many fucking autists are on this board?

And no offense to GeekyBugle who is self-admittedly autistic but realizes it and makes some attempt to understand hyperbole and nuance.

Casually labeling someone as autistic as an argument tactic demonstrates a deep, deep lack of understanding of autism.  This is a condition that affects 1 in 36 children in the U.S. and those families bear significant burdens with little, if any, social support.

Maybe next time you just argue better instead?  We've known since at least the 90s that it's not difficult to avoid referencing the Nazis during an argument.  There are entire YouTube series on framing, argument construction, and fallacies.  Give it maybe an hour and see if it helps?

Do you extend your ring finger and pinky when you drink from a tea cup, or just the pinky?

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:19:36 PM
Do you extend your ring finger and pinky when you drink from a tea cup, or just the pinky?

When dealing with you, seems I'd only need the middle.

Quote from: Venka on December 05, 2023, 04:00:29 AM
I doubt it.

I really don't care. I've had this conversation too many times with ADDICT adherents, one by one pointing out the assertions without citations, citations that don't match what's claimed, and cases that were completely missed by ADDICT. And it doesn't go anywhere. Not once has any of them ever had any sort of counter argument at all. Just name-calling and denial.

The most recent case was with a player in DM Prata's group. And his responses went from, "You have no idea what you're talking about," to "Nuh uh" to "Obviously you don't know how to read," to "I'm traveling and don't have my books with me at the moment." By the way, this was several months ago, and I still haven't heard back on this. I hope he made it safely back home to his books.

As far as I'm concerned, this is 100% settled. ADDICT, while being mostly accurate, does have serious errors and is not a reliable authority on 1E RAW initiative, and nobody has disputed that with any substance at all. So I'm not here to argue it with you. The debate was already over on this. I'm just letting you know what is. If you prefer to not believe what's true, that's your choice. For anyone out there who is actually honest and demands proof, the ADDICT and the 1E manuals are out there, and everyone is free to check for themselves without anyone trying to tell them what to think.

QuoteThis may be about the casting starting at 0 or whatever,

It's not at all.

Quotebut there's examples that ADDICT based this off of.  You can still find the old dragonsfoot threads where ADDICT evolved.

Is that the thread where practically the very day after DM Prata had this all figured out, then one answer from Gary to one of his questions had him saying (paraphrasing) "Yesterday, I thought I understood initiative, now I have no idea."?

Another one of my all-time favorites on DF is the proof that missile attacks are at 30x rate during surprise in which the email from Gary that supposedly proves it has Gary saying (paraphrasing) "That's possible but unlikely."

It is hilarious what you can find following the breadcrumb trail of things the hivemind holds as true and sacred. But you actually have to put in the effort to check.

QuoteWait, are you ONE of them? This is an argument from received knowledge basically.

Learning from actually doing is the exact polar opposite to this. On the spectrum in between, talking about it on internet forums and believing some dude just because he's got citations even though you've never actually bothered to check for yourself is a good 80% of the way to argument from received knowledge.

QuoteI just know if I pulled out a dagger against The Accursed Blacksmith who has some incredibly slow weapon, hoping we'd tie on initiative so I could get like triple attack combo on him, I'd be pretty mad if that didn't work (the multiattack is in the book)- given that I'd be finding that out at that very second and not before.  If my DM thought that whole section was munchkin bullshit I wouldn't be mad until I had fully committed to the actual action, got the 1/6 chance of the flurry of stabs, and found out I got robbed.  That's why I'd want to know it ahead of time.

That's really interesting. Off-loading the obvious criticisms, getting mad over a game, using out of character knowledge, and the fact that the rules as written say the DM gets to make this call so it's not possible to form a consistent argument from RAW against it, there's a really big problem with what you're saying here even if I accept your premises.

How do you know the weapon the blacksmith is using actually is slow enough to entitle you 3 attacks with a dagger on tied initiative? I mean, can you actually list out all the possible weapons that would allow you to do that? For the sake of expediency, I'll save you the trouble. Only one weapon has a weapon speed high enough for a dagger to get a triple attack on a tied initiative. That would be the awl pike. And by the rules, the awl pike is useless when not used in conjunction with other pikemen.

There is literally no way in the scenario you describe that the triple attack rule would ever be applicable according to the very rules you cite. This is not a "Ha ha, I proved you wrong on this minor detail." If this rule is so important to you that you freely announce you'll get mad if you committed to the act, got tied initiative, and didn't get 3 attacks, I really have to ask why didn't you know this? Surely if you're ever going to consider using the dagger rather than your sword, you HAVE to know what situations that would be advantageous in. An actual player who really cares about this stuff can't not know. But you somehow didn't.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 05, 2023, 09:02:55 AM

I always push back against these ideas when I see them:

1) Gygax made D&D.  (He assembled it.)

Actually according to others there at the time. Gygax combined his ideas and Arnesons oft sketchy notes and filled in the blanks to get OD&D.

This is actually not uncommon in board gaming for example.

Quote from: Omega on December 06, 2023, 04:56:19 AM
Actually according to others there at the time. Gygax combined his ideas and Arnesons oft sketchy notes and filled in the blanks to get OD&D.

This is actually not uncommon in board gaming for example.

No, look, there's a difference between making a car and merely assembling it. If you MAKE A CAR it means you literally have to smelt the iron and pour it into moulds and cool it to form an engine block. Assembling a car means you use a crate 350 SBC and just jam it into an old Nova that you pieced together from the junkyard. You didn't MAKE anything, you just took existing parts and assembled it into a car then sold it! The guy who created an engine but had no marketing skills nor any ability to sell the engine alone is the real creator! You owe him everything!

Taking a bunch of ideas and forming a coherent game from them is just as much "making" as coming up with an idea yourself. Further, Arneson was just doing a new form of Braunstein, wasn't he? Further, by all accounts he fucking sucked as a writer, so there was zero way he could have ever published D&D, much less wrote it in the first place.

Quote from: Brad on December 06, 2023, 05:00:59 AM

Quote from: Omega on December 06, 2023, 04:56:19 AM
Actually according to others there at the time. Gygax combined his ideas and Arnesons oft sketchy notes and filled in the blanks to get OD&D.

This is actually not uncommon in board gaming for example.

No, look, there's a difference between making a car and merely assembling it. If you MAKE A CAR it means you literally have to smelt the iron and pour it into moulds and cool it to form an engine block. Assembling a car means you use a crate 350 SBC and just jam it into an old Nova that you pieced together from the junkyard. You didn't MAKE anything, you just took existing parts and assembled it into a car then sold it! The guy who created an engine but had no marketing skills nor any ability to sell the engine alone is the real creator! You owe him everything!

Taking a bunch of ideas and forming a coherent game from them is just as much "making" as coming up with an idea yourself. Further, Arneson was just doing a new form of Braunstein, wasn't he? Further, by all accounts he fucking sucked as a writer, so there was zero way he could have ever published D&D, much less wrote it in the first place.

If this is your definition, then no one makes a car.  A smelting foundry smelts the iron, a casting foundry casts the engine block casting, a machine shop machines the casting into an engine block, and assembly plant assembles the engine, and an auto factory assembles the final car.  At least three different companies were involved in this described process.  Who built the car?

Multiple people had inputs in creating D&D, no honest person disputes this.  It didn't just get drawn from the ether of ideas by one person.  But just like a Ford Bronco, who gets the credit for building it?  Gary Gygax gets credit because he's the one who codified it and made all the different pieces fit together. 

If there was a Microsoft stealing Windows moment, then history needs to to corrected.  Otherwise, Gary gets the crown and everyone else gets a silver.

Quote from: Omega on December 06, 2023, 04:56:19 AM
Actually according to others there at the time. Gygax combined his ideas and Arnesons oft sketchy notes and filled in the blanks to get OD&D.

This is actually not uncommon in board gaming for example.

They weren't all his ideas.  Hit points and armor class came from a naval combat game, for example.

But yes, very common to crib ideas in gaming, even today.  Though attitudes on giving credit have changed, I think.

Quote from: BadApple on December 06, 2023, 06:49:41 AM
If there was a Microsoft stealing Windows moment, then history needs to to corrected.  Otherwise, Gary gets the crown and everyone else gets a silver.

I don't think it's plagiarism, nor have I heard it characterized that way.

I think it's more of a 'Xerox invented the mouse' moment.  Most of the GUIs we all rely on today wouldn't exist without that idea.  Would touchscreens have evolved independently?  Probably.  The concept of touching the screen is far more natural.  But they didn't.  They all started out as mouse replacements because the mouse is integral to UI design.  So Xerox's idea deserves a LOT of credit for modern UI.  They seldom ever get that credit though.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 06, 2023, 08:06:07 AM

Quote from: BadApple on December 06, 2023, 06:49:41 AM
If there was a Microsoft stealing Windows moment, then history needs to to corrected.  Otherwise, Gary gets the crown and everyone else gets a silver.

I don't think it's plagiarism, nor have I heard it characterized that way.

I think it's more of a 'Xerox invented the mouse' moment.  Most of the GUIs we all rely on today wouldn't exist without that idea.  Would touchscreens have evolved independently?  Probably.  The concept of touching the screen is far more natural.  But they didn't.  They all started out as mouse replacements because the mouse is integral to UI design.  So Xerox's idea deserves a LOT of credit for modern UI.  They seldom ever get that credit though.

Apple brought the mouse to the public and Microsoft brought the GUI to the public so they will forever be known for these things. 

To follow through with the allegory, Gary Gygax is the one who brought role playing to the public.  He also made technical contributions to D&D  and he understood how various ideas that were going to work together.

If it were me, I'd be less worried about credit and more interested in my cut of royalties.

Quote from: BadApple on December 06, 2023, 09:02:51 AM
If it were me, I'd be less worried about credit and more interested in my cut of royalties.

That depends very much on the context of the conversation.

In this original case, take Rule Zero.  Was that even Gary's idea?  Was he actually authoritative on it?  It matters if you're trying to use an Appeal to Authority - which, by the way, is not always a fallacy, particularly when the source is the actual authority.

I think probably he was authoritative, but the fact that he contradicts himself in a place or two does leave room for doubt.  Pundits video resolves that (rules for tournament play, etc) well enough for me, but I wouldn't dispute other opinions on the matter.  There's probably zero surviving evidence you can trust anyway.

Creators tend to be like this, by the way.  George Lucas has told a huge number of self-serving half-truths about his creative process over the years, taking credit for a lot of stuff that other people actually did.  Honestly Martha Lucas is probably the true reason we have a Star Wars franchise at all.  But I digress.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 06, 2023, 09:23:32 AM

Quote from: BadApple on December 06, 2023, 09:02:51 AM
If it were me, I'd be less worried about credit and more interested in my cut of royalties.

That depends very much on the context of the conversation.

In this original case, take Rule Zero.  Was that even Gary's idea?  Was he actually authoritative on it?  It matters if you're trying to use an Appeal to Authority - which, by the way, is not always a fallacy, particularly when the source is the actual authority.

I think probably he was authoritative, but the fact that he contradicts himself in a place or two does leave room for doubt.  Pundits video resolves that (rules for tournament play, etc) well enough for me, but I wouldn't dispute other opinions on the matter.  There's probably zero surviving evidence you can trust anyway.

Creators tend to be like this, by the way.  George Lucas has told a huge number of self-serving half-truths about his creative process over the years, taking credit for a lot of stuff that other people actually did.  Honestly Martha Lucas is probably the true reason we have a Star Wars franchise at all.  But I digress.

The whole rules for tournament play about AD&D are are actually in the DMG. There is a whole explanatory section on needing standardized rules for competitive play and that in campaign play things could be very different depending on the desires of the participants.

Quote from: Brad on December 06, 2023, 05:00:59 AM

Quote from: Omega on December 06, 2023, 04:56:19 AM
Actually according to others there at the time. Gygax combined his ideas and Arnesons oft sketchy notes and filled in the blanks to get OD&D.

This is actually not uncommon in board gaming for example.

No, look, there's a difference between making a car and merely assembling it. If you MAKE A CAR it means you literally have to smelt the iron and pour it into moulds and cool it to form an engine block. Assembling a car means you use a crate 350 SBC and just jam it into an old Nova that you pieced together from the junkyard. You didn't MAKE anything, you just took existing parts and assembled it into a car then sold it! The guy who created an engine but had no marketing skills nor any ability to sell the engine alone is the real creator! You owe him everything!

Taking a bunch of ideas and forming a coherent game from them is just as much "making" as coming up with an idea yourself. Further, Arneson was just doing a new form of Braunstein, wasn't he? Further, by all accounts he fucking sucked as a writer, so there was zero way he could have ever published D&D, much less wrote it in the first place.

This negates all inventions but a few like the simple machines (screw, inclined plane, etc), since EVERYTHING builds on stuff others made.

Take the Car, who invented the combustion engine? It builds on several other inventions that precede it.
The Wheel? No car company EVER invented that.
And so on and so forth with EVERY single thing that was used to build the first automobiles, so no one invented the automobile.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 06, 2023, 01:59:57 PM
This negates all inventions but a few like the simple machines (screw, inclined plane, etc), since EVERYTHING builds on stuff others made.

Yes and no.  D&D wasn't an innovation in the way you're implying.  It's more of a unique type of car.  They took parts from a Ford, a Chevy, a Volkswagen, etc, and used a welder to put them together.  The first iteration was pretty janky.  They improved it one version at a time, with varying degrees of success.

But make no mistake, some of those rules were just wholesale lifts from other things.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 06, 2023, 02:42:21 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 06, 2023, 01:59:57 PM
This negates all inventions but a few like the simple machines (screw, inclined plane, etc), since EVERYTHING builds on stuff others made.

Yes and no.  D&D wasn't an innovation in the way you're implying.  It's more of a unique type of car.  They took parts from a Ford, a Chevy, a Volkswagen, etc, and used a welder to put them together.  The first iteration was pretty janky.  They improved it one version at a time, with varying degrees of success.

But make no mistake, some of those rules were just wholesale lifts from other things.

Wasn't an innovation you say?

So you could go buy a roleplaying game BEFORE D&D existed?

Yes, we all know from where HP & ST come from, we all know they (Arneson & Gygax) lifted other rules/mechanics from elsewhere.

But they put them together in a unique way, there wasn't ANYTHING like it before, so what if they pfiltered wargaming rules? They used those rules in a different AND innovative way, they also made up new rules or ways the old ones were to be used.

The same is true for EVERY other wargame back then and now, so are you saying that the first person to take the wargames from the military use into an entertainment one didn't contribute anything? Even if that person lifted wholecloth the rules he innovated, he creatted a NEW game OUTSIDE of it's military use.

What about the first person to stop using those rules to emmulate historical battles? Didn't contribute anything? The first one to addapt the game to Sci-Fi, Fantasy... Still contributed nothing?

Like I said: EVERY invention builds upon past inventions, with very few and rare exceptions.

So Arneson & Gygax took past inventions, changed them assembled the parts they wanted together and introduced NEW things not present in wargames (roleplaying), but you say that's not an invention... Okay.

Oh, before anyone accuses me of sperging out (again XD ) I'm out of this argument because I don't think you can be convinced of anything and I haven't seen any evidence or argument to change my mind either.

Gygax gets a lot of shit he doesn't deserve.

I will say this however, I like OD&D Gyax more than AD&D Gyax, and I count them as different people, clever in their own rights, but AD&D was in fact trying to sell a product, and was pandering more to convention play.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 06, 2023, 05:13:00 PM
Wasn't an innovation you say?

So you could go buy a roleplaying game BEFORE D&D existed?

I've already said that assembling and selling it was the innovation.  But that's hardly a genius idea.  It takes business savvy which is probably rare among Wisconsin war game nerds in the 70s.  But not exactly an innovation, per se, depending on what your standard for "creative" is.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 06, 2023, 05:13:00 PM
They used those rules in a different AND innovative way, they also made up new rules or ways the old ones were to be used.

Yep, I've said all that, too.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 06, 2023, 05:13:00 PM
The same is true for EVERY other wargame back then and now, so are you saying that the first person to take the wargames from the military use into an entertainment one didn't contribute anything? Even if that person lifted wholecloth the rules he innovated, he creatted a NEW game OUTSIDE of it's military use.

Incidentally, that happened as early as the 1800s.  Probably earlier.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 06, 2023, 05:13:00 PM
Didn't contribute anything? ... Still contributed nothing?

This isn't an all-or-nothing issue, as hopefully would be clear of any plain reading of what I'm saying.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 06, 2023, 05:13:00 PM
So Arneson & Gygax took past inventions, changed them assembled the parts they wanted together and introduced NEW things not present in wargames (roleplaying), but you say that's not an invention... Okay.

Note how that reply opens with "Yes and no".  It's something, yes.  Is it enough?  Maybe.  For example is it patentable?  Probably not, because I doubt it meets the New and Novel standard. 

My greatest gratitude comes from the bravado required to take all these things other people did and sell them on the open market.  Had that not happened the hobby would have taken a very different shape.  Hell, the world itself would largely be different.  The business activity is significant.

The game design activity, though?  Maybe.  Probably not.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 06, 2023, 05:13:00 PM
Oh, before anyone accuses me of sperging out (again XD ) I'm out of this argument because I don't think you can be convinced of anything and I haven't seen any evidence or argument to change my mind either.

Inaccurate ad hominem.  I love, love, LOVE being shown that I'm incorrect.  It's how we learn.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 06, 2023, 06:48:21 PM
Note how that reply opens with "Yes and no".  It's something, yes.  Is it enough?  Maybe.  For example is it patentable?  Probably not, because I doubt it meets the New and Novel standard. 

Speaking as someone with 10 patents and a lot of experience with the issue, I'm quite certain that that it meets with the new and novel standard.  Everything "new" is assembled and modified from existing things.  Taking the opposite view leads to absurdities like saying that no one invented the automobile because it uses wheels, which were probably invented by a caveman.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 07, 2023, 05:05:57 AM
Speaking as someone with 10 patents and a lot of experience with the issue, I'm quite certain that that it meets with the new and novel standard.  Everything "new" is assembled and modified from existing things.  Taking the opposite view leads to absurdities like saying that no one invented the automobile because it uses wheels, which were probably invented by a caveman.

You're probably right, but there surely is some limit.  I can't take the SRD word for word, strap it to Settlers of Catan and call that new, can I?

I mean if I can, hold my beer.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 07, 2023, 05:05:57 AM

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 06, 2023, 06:48:21 PM
Note how that reply opens with "Yes and no".  It's something, yes.  Is it enough?  Maybe.  For example is it patentable?  Probably not, because I doubt it meets the New and Novel standard.

Speaking as someone with 10 patents and a lot of experience with the issue, I'm quite certain that that it meets with the new and novel standard.  Everything "new" is assembled and modified from existing things.  Taking the opposite view leads to absurdities like saying that no one invented the automobile because it uses wheels, which were probably invented by a caveman.

I'm not sure everyone is talking about the same thing.

David Wesely started running his Braunstein games in 1969, using wargame rules but where each player had a role and there was a referee adjudicating what happened when different players each took their actions. Could Wesely have patented his Braunstein games? Would that have interfered with Arneson and later Gygax developing their own RPGs?

Arneson played in Wesely's Braunstein games and then later ran his own Braunstein-style games in the fantasy setting of Blackmoor that he created. He and David Megarry then talked to Gygax about writing up publishable rules for anyone to play Braunstein games in a fantasy setting.

Given that people like Wesely were already playing RPGs using wargame rules, I don't think that it should count as a patentable invention of Gygax. There are D&D-specific innovations that he created. (I don't remember how advancement worked in Wesely's games, but I suspect it was quite different from D&D.)

Quote from: jhkim on December 07, 2023, 01:33:49 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on December 07, 2023, 05:05:57 AM

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 06, 2023, 06:48:21 PM
Note how that reply opens with "Yes and no".  It's something, yes.  Is it enough?  Maybe.  For example is it patentable?  Probably not, because I doubt it meets the New and Novel standard.

Speaking as someone with 10 patents and a lot of experience with the issue, I'm quite certain that that it meets with the new and novel standard.  Everything "new" is assembled and modified from existing things.  Taking the opposite view leads to absurdities like saying that no one invented the automobile because it uses wheels, which were probably invented by a caveman.

I'm not sure everyone is talking about the same thing.

David Wesely started running his Braunstein games in 1969, using wargame rules but where each player had a role and there was a referee adjudicating what happened when different players each took their actions. Could Wesely have patented his Braunstein games? Would that have interfered with Arneson and later Gygax developing their own RPGs?

Arneson played in Wesely's Braunstein games and then later ran his own Braunstein-style games in the fantasy setting of Blackmoor that he created. He and David Megarry then talked to Gygax about writing up publishable rules for anyone to play Braunstein games in a fantasy setting.

Given that people like Wesely were already playing RPGs using wargame rules, I don't think that it should count as a patentable invention of Gygax. There are D&D-specific innovations that he created. (I don't remember how advancement worked in Wesely's games, but I suspect it was quite different from D&D.)

I was commenting more on applying ideas from the patent world, as that's something I'm familiar with.  There's a great big grey area between "new and novel," and "obvious to a practitioner of the art," and I've spent years and many tens of thousands of dollars arguing with patent examiners over this issue.

It really comes down to the details and one's subjective view on what is new versus what is derivative.  I'm not familiar with that bit of RPG history, but based on what I've read in this thread it sounds like Gary's work was more of a new synthesis than a simple derivative of prior work.  If I researched the full story I might think differently, but that's more work than I care to do unless I'm getting paid for it.

Quote from: Brad on December 06, 2023, 05:00:59 AM

Quote from: Omega on December 06, 2023, 04:56:19 AM
Actually according to others there at the time. Gygax combined his ideas and Arnesons oft sketchy notes and filled in the blanks to get OD&D.

This is actually not uncommon in board gaming for example.

No, look, there's a difference between making a car and merely assembling it. If you MAKE A CAR it means you literally have to smelt the iron and pour it into moulds and cool it to form an engine block. Assembling a car means you use a crate 350 SBC and just jam it into an old Nova that you pieced together from the junkyard. You didn't MAKE anything, you just took existing parts and assembled it into a car then sold it! The guy who created an engine but had no marketing skills nor any ability to sell the engine alone is the real creator! You owe him everything!

Taking a bunch of ideas and forming a coherent game from them is just as much "making" as coming up with an idea yourself. Further, Arneson was just doing a new form of Braunstein, wasn't he? Further, by all accounts he fucking sucked as a writer, so there was zero way he could have ever published D&D, much less wrote it in the first place.

uhhh... the fuck?

Thats pretty much what I meant. Its standard practice in gaming. Someone sends in a submission and the publisher hammers that into something that can actually be played because half the time it just wont work as it is.

Quote from: Omega on December 07, 2023, 09:12:56 PM

uhhh... the fuck?

Thats pretty much what I meant. Its standard practice in gaming. Someone sends in a submission and the publisher hammers that into something that can actually be played because half the time it just wont work as it is.

Is there consent implied when you send an item to your publisher that's not present when you take someone else's ideas without their knowledge?

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 07, 2023, 09:45:59 PM

Quote from: Omega on December 07, 2023, 09:12:56 PM

uhhh... the fuck?

Thats pretty much what I meant. Its standard practice in gaming. Someone sends in a submission and the publisher hammers that into something that can actually be played because half the time it just wont work as it is.

Is there consent implied when you send an item to your publisher that's not present when you take someone else's ideas without their knowledge?

Ideas can't be copyrighted, mechanics can't be patented (it's mostly settled law).

So, did ERB plagiarize Otis Adelbert Kline when he published Pirates of Venus?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 07, 2023, 10:26:44 PM
Ideas can't be copyrighted, mechanics can't be patented (it's mostly settled law).

The patent example was to bring some objective measure of 'enough creativity' into the conversation.  The exact, current layout of the law isn't relevant, especially when there are international issues in play.

But...

That word 'mostly' is pretty key.

Code can be both copy written and parented, and the law is pretty muddy on what constitutes code.  Checkers (or whatever game the court had in mind) was held to be too obvious, but RPGs are more complex.  Google shows me cases as recent as 2016 and 2018.  I disagree that this is comfortably settled.

And even if it were didn't SCOTUS rather famously overturn one of its other decisions recently?

WotC holds a patent on a game mechanic.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 07, 2023, 10:26:44 PM
So, did ERB plagiarize Otis Adelbert Kline when he published Pirates of Venus?

That's not the right context.  I'd frame it as:

"So, did ERB create the stranger in a strange land genre, or did Otis Adelbert Kline when he published Pirates of Venus, or did someone else?"

It's not about who can win a lawsuit to me.  It's about what type of credit is appropriate.

"All the credit" is clearly not.

And again it gets to the original point about the rule zero inconsistency.  Was that a cash grab?  No.  But it's certainly possible that one expression is Gary's and the contradictory one was lifted from someone else.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 07, 2023, 10:26:44 PM

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 07, 2023, 09:45:59 PM

Quote from: Omega on December 07, 2023, 09:12:56 PM

uhhh... the fuck?

Thats pretty much what I meant. Its standard practice in gaming. Someone sends in a submission and the publisher hammers that into something that can actually be played because half the time it just wont work as it is.

Is there consent implied when you send an item to your publisher that's not present when you take someone else's ideas without their knowledge?

Ideas can't be copyrighted, mechanics can't be patented (it's mostly settled law).

So, did ERB plagiarize Otis Adelbert Kline when he published Pirates of Venus?

Of course he did! ;) This is indisputable.

Now for a serious bit - thanks for mentioning this dude. I never heard of him until now. Time to do some reading. :)

Quote from: Jason Coplen on December 08, 2023, 09:38:34 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 07, 2023, 10:26:44 PM

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 07, 2023, 09:45:59 PM

Quote from: Omega on December 07, 2023, 09:12:56 PM

uhhh... the fuck?

Thats pretty much what I meant. Its standard practice in gaming. Someone sends in a submission and the publisher hammers that into something that can actually be played because half the time it just wont work as it is.

Is there consent implied when you send an item to your publisher that's not present when you take someone else's ideas without their knowledge?

Ideas can't be copyrighted, mechanics can't be patented (it's mostly settled law).

So, did ERB plagiarize Otis Adelbert Kline when he published Pirates of Venus?

Of course he did! ;) This is indisputable.

Now for a serious bit - thanks for mentioning this dude. I never heard of him until now. Time to do some reading. :)

His stuff is on the public domain, you can find it for free on project guttenberg dot au

Quote from: Omega on December 07, 2023, 09:12:56 PM

Quote from: Brad on December 06, 2023, 05:00:59 AM

Quote from: Omega on December 06, 2023, 04:56:19 AM
Actually according to others there at the time. Gygax combined his ideas and Arnesons oft sketchy notes and filled in the blanks to get OD&D.

This is actually not uncommon in board gaming for example.

No, look, there's a difference between making a car and merely assembling it. If you MAKE A CAR it means you literally have to smelt the iron and pour it into moulds and cool it to form an engine block. Assembling a car means you use a crate 350 SBC and just jam it into an old Nova that you pieced together from the junkyard. You didn't MAKE anything, you just took existing parts and assembled it into a car then sold it! The guy who created an engine but had no marketing skills nor any ability to sell the engine alone is the real creator! You owe him everything!

Taking a bunch of ideas and forming a coherent game from them is just as much "making" as coming up with an idea yourself. Further, Arneson was just doing a new form of Braunstein, wasn't he? Further, by all accounts he fucking sucked as a writer, so there was zero way he could have ever published D&D, much less wrote it in the first place.

uhhh... the fuck?

Thats pretty much what I meant. Its standard practice in gaming. Someone sends in a submission and the publisher hammers that into something that can actually be played because half the time it just wont work as it is.

Of course that's what you meant, I was mocking the individuals who think what you said was wrong.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 07, 2023, 09:45:59 PM

Quote from: Omega on December 07, 2023, 09:12:56 PM

uhhh... the fuck?

Thats pretty much what I meant. Its standard practice in gaming. Someone sends in a submission and the publisher hammers that into something that can actually be played because half the time it just wont work as it is.

Is there consent implied when you send an item to your publisher that's not present when you take someone else's ideas without their knowledge?

What does that have to do with Gygax doing the heavy lifting for Arneson?

Quote from: Omega on December 08, 2023, 11:49:59 PM
What does that have to do with Gygax doing the heavy lifting for Arneson?

Just typical revisionist history that seems to be prevalent whenever Gygax is brought up now. "He stole everything from Arneson!" Yeah, okay, then explain Arneson literally being second author of D&D, even though he wrote about two pages of (from what I have heard relayed by people who were there) incomprehensible gibberish. Gygax took an idea that is almost impossible to understand without seeing it in play and did a good first attempt. But alas, he started a company that eventually made a lot of money, so he's an evil bastard per Marxists.

Quote from: Brad on December 09, 2023, 10:29:02 AM

Quote from: Omega on December 08, 2023, 11:49:59 PM
What does that have to do with Gygax doing the heavy lifting for Arneson?

Just typical revisionist history that seems to be prevalent whenever Gygax is brought up now.

I'm sorry who is a Marxist making that claim, exactly?

And it isn't as revisionist, as it is a.reducto ad absurdum.  There are more than two people who deserve credit.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 09, 2023, 12:14:56 PM

Quote from: Brad on December 09, 2023, 10:29:02 AM

Quote from: Omega on December 08, 2023, 11:49:59 PM
What does that have to do with Gygax doing the heavy lifting for Arneson?

Just typical revisionist history that seems to be prevalent whenever Gygax is brought up now.

I'm sorry who is a Marxist making that claim, exactly?

And it isn't as revisionist, as it is a.reducto ad absurdum.  There are more than two people who deserve credit.

Rob Kuntz should legitimately be second author, not Arneson, and yet Gygax left out Kuntz and out Arneson instead as a gesture of goodwill. Further, the janitor at the movie studio is part of a production, but the writer/director/producer are the ones actually making a film. Not every delivery boy with sandwiches needs to have their name in the closing credits.

Quote from: Brad on December 09, 2023, 02:33:38 PM
Not every delivery boy with sandwiches needs to have their name in the closing credits.

Someone not credited created hit points and armor class.  That's a hell of a sandwich, still in use today.

I wish the parting of ways, had been more amicable; between Gygax and Arneson.  Arneson was talented, and imaginative; and perhaps someone else in his group could have eventually helped him share his gaming ideas, with the rest of the world?  But, Gygax got the ball rolling.  He created a tremendous amount, beyond what Arneson created. 

This debate can't be won.  It just "is".  It took both of them, to give us what they gave us.

Quote from: Jam The MF on December 09, 2023, 06:49:28 PM
I wish the parting of ways, had been more amicable; between Gygax and Arneson.  Arneson was talented, and imaginative; and perhaps someone else in his group could have eventually helped him share his gaming ideas, with the rest of the world?  But, Gygax got the ball rolling.  He created a tremendous amount, beyond what Arneson created. 

This debate can't be won.  It just "is".  It took both of them, to give us what they gave us.

I'd add at least David Wesely into the mix, since his Braunstein games were well-regarded and run as the inspiration. They were fully RPGs in that each player had an individual character, but it was in a Napoleonic setting rather than fantasy. Arneson was played in some of these and was clearly inspired by them when he ran his Blackmoor games.

From what I understand, Arneson's Braunstein-style games set in Blackmoor were very popular and fun for the people playing, but he was a terrible writer and wasn't any good at writing up what he was doing. So it wasn't that his design was unworkable, just that he wasn't good at documenting it.

I'm sure that David Wesely had inspirations and support as well.

Quote from: Brad on December 09, 2023, 02:33:38 PM

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 09, 2023, 12:14:56 PM

Quote from: Brad on December 09, 2023, 10:29:02 AM

Quote from: Omega on December 08, 2023, 11:49:59 PM
What does that have to do with Gygax doing the heavy lifting for Arneson?

Just typical revisionist history that seems to be prevalent whenever Gygax is brought up now.

I'm sorry who is a Marxist making that claim, exactly?

And it isn't as revisionist, as it is a.reducto ad absurdum.  There are more than two people who deserve credit.

Rob Kuntz should legitimately be second author, not Arneson, and yet Gygax left out Kuntz and out Arneson instead as a gesture of goodwill. Further, the janitor at the movie studio is part of a production, but the writer/director/producer are the ones actually making a film. Not every delivery boy with sandwiches needs to have their name in the closing credits.

Just an off topic... But carering services used to get credited in movies for a while. Not sure if anyone still does though. Used to notice it during the 70s and 80s.

Quote from: jhkim on December 09, 2023, 07:25:24 PM

Quote from: Jam The MF on December 09, 2023, 06:49:28 PM
I wish the parting of ways, had been more amicable; between Gygax and Arneson.  Arneson was talented, and imaginative; and perhaps someone else in his group could have eventually helped him share his gaming ideas, with the rest of the world?  But, Gygax got the ball rolling.  He created a tremendous amount, beyond what Arneson created. 

This debate can't be won.  It just "is".  It took both of them, to give us what they gave us.

I'd add at least David Wesely into the mix, since his Braunstein games were well-regarded and run as the inspiration. They were fully RPGs in that each player had an individual character, but it was in a Napoleonic setting rather than fantasy. Arneson was played in some of these and was clearly inspired by them when he ran his Blackmoor games.

From what I understand, Arneson's Braunstein-style games set in Blackmoor were very popular and fun for the people playing, but he was a terrible writer and wasn't any good at writing up what he was doing. So it wasn't that his design was unworkable, just that he wasn't good at documenting it.

I'm sure that David Wesely had inspirations and support as well.

Sometimes I wonder if these forums are functioning correctly.  You've made this point twice now and it gets zero acknowledgement.  It is intellectually dishonest to ignore points you can't refute if you ask me.