I am merely an interested bystander, I shall leave the quibbling over rules to others.  A good manager knows how to delegate.

Clearly you and Pundit began by taking the position that it was unacceptable to suggest that D&D 3.x owed its characteristics to any game other than its immediate brand predecessors.

You were then confronted with good solid arguments that suggested that D&D 3.x owed some of its characteristics to the likes of Ars Mag and amid foot-shuffling, bluster and second guessing you have quietly moved your ground to the completely unverifiable position that D&D owes MOST of its characteristics to its brand predecessors.

QuoteClearly you and Pundit began by taking the position that it was unacceptable to suggest that D&D 3.x owed its characteristics to any game other than its immediate brand predecessors.

Not true.

QuoteYou were then confronted with good solid arguments that suggested that D&D 3.x owed some of its characteristics to the likes of Ars Mag and amid foot-shuffling, bluster and second guessing you have quietly moved your ground to the completely unverifiable position that D&D owes MOST of its characteristics to its brand predecessors.

Not true.

Go see yourself, starting post:

QuoteNow I bought me the Rules Cyclopedia.
And what do I read?

Five Foot Steps, Ten second turns, battlemat based movement, clearly designed combat round, sane initiative rules, general and usable attribute bonuses, balancing all the way!

Wow, RC truly is way more like D&D 3.5 than I ever thought.

emphasis mine.

QuoteI am merely an interested bystander, I shall leave the quibbling over rules to others.  A good manager knows how to delegate.

Feel ignored for the rest of the thread.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalWas that an earthquake I heard? because it sounds to me like someone just shifted their ground  The old Pundit shuffle...

  How exactly would one even begin to determine what a game's main influences are.  Is it a majority?  51% or just a greater percentage than the other games? like say 33.7% to the RC and 32.4% to Runequest?

  What does that even mean?

Simple: that most of what makes the game identifiable and enjoyable by gamers comes from D&D itself or the original creativity of the authors (which may be a place where it overlaps with some of those authors' previous experiences).

I'm saying that easily 80+% of D&D 3.0's rules and material come directly from earlier versions of D&D.  And that the rest of it comes not as much from "ars magica" or "Rolemaster" as it does from Jonathan Tweet or Monte Cook.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI am merely an interested bystander, I shall leave the quibbling over rules to others.  A good manager knows how to delegate.

Clearly you and Pundit began by taking the position that it was unacceptable to suggest that D&D 3.x owed its characteristics to any game other than its immediate brand predecessors.

You were then confronted with good solid arguments that suggested that D&D 3.x owed some of its characteristics to the likes of Ars Mag and amid foot-shuffling, bluster and second guessing you have quietly moved your ground to the completely unverifiable position that D&D owes MOST of its characteristics to its brand predecessors.

I would suggest that the "Unverifiable" position is yours.

Its pretty fucking easy to verify the influence of earlier versions of D&D on D&D 3.x. The default has to be that if a given element of the system was in the earlier edition, it is certainly from that influence.
What I mean is: you look at the fact that D&D 3.0 has six attributes, the same six attributes that you see in AD&D 2e, In AD&D 1e, In RC D&D, and in OD&D. Its pretty safe to assume that these six attributes thus came from D&D, and not, say, Runequest.

Likewise, you can see that said attributes range in value from 3-18, and each attribute has a modifier. Again, this is something that appears in EVERY SINGLE OLDER VERSION OF D&D.  Again, you can pretty safely assume that D&D was the "influence" for this mechanic being there.

There are races, with each race giving specific modifiers. You see this in AD&D 1e and 2e. Again, you can assume those come from there.
You have classes, classes that with the sole exception of the Sorcerer appear in multiple previous editions of the D&D game.
You have hit points, and armor class. Again, this comes from D&D.
You have the combat system where you have to beat the armor class, then roll damage based on weapon type that is subtracted from hit points. Though they got rid of Thac0, you can still basically see that its the same as in any older version of D&D.
The memorization system of spells, again, is present in all previous editions of D&D.

Levels and bonuses by levels.
Saving throws.
Magic items, including particular recognizeable ones.
The basic concept of experience points.
The division of the books between the PHB, DMG and MM, just like in AD&D 1e and 2e.
Hell, like I mentioned before, the 3e DMG is designed in a way that is specifically an homage to Gygax's 1e DMG.

So all of these things are blatantly clear "influences".

Far more blatantly clear than saying "you have a skill + bonus vs. DC, therefore D&D MUST actually be LesserKnownGame in disguise!!".
Virtually all of the tiny mechanics and details that are used to argue the influence of game x or game y are in fact so common in this day and  age that they could theoretically indicate the influence of any of dozens of games, and probably just came out of Tweet & Cook's common sense and general experience more than anything else, more than any specific system.

RPGPundit

QuoteVirtually all of the tiny mechanics and details that are used to argue the influence of game x or game y are in fact so common in this day and age that they could theoretically indicate the influence of any of dozens of games, and probably just came out of Tweet & Cook's common sense and general experience more than anything else, more than any specific system.

Or from th RC!:pundit:

Quote from: RPGPunditI would suggest that the "Unverifiable" position is yours.

Its pretty fucking easy to verify the influence of earlier versions of D&D on D&D 3.x. The default has to be that if a given element of the system was in the earlier edition, it is certainly from that influence.

-SNIP-

So all of these things are blatantly clear "influences".

Far more blatantly clear than saying "you have a skill + bonus vs. DC, therefore D&D MUST actually be LesserKnownGame in disguise!!".
Virtually all of the tiny mechanics and details that are used to argue the influence of game x or game y are in fact so common in this day and  age that they could theoretically indicate the influence of any of dozens of games, and probably just came out of Tweet & Cook's common sense and general experience more than anything else, more than any specific system.

RPGPundit

Good summary of the continuity pundit. Nobody could credibly argue with that lot. I can't really go with your last paragraph though. Why?

First, and as ever: just who is saying "D&D MUST actually be LesserKnownGame in disguise!!"? Again I say that your anti-Swine agenda is irrelevant to this thread.

Also, the issue of "all of the tiny mechanics and details" is not just down to "Tweet & Cook's common sense and general experience", because that is just D&D3. There is also the matter of the RC, where Settembrini started this thread. The issues of influence from other games would've been clearer then- for reasons that I don't need to rehash, even if they aren't as self-evident as what parts of D&D have been carried forward through all editions.

I would suspect that the design team that invented D&D 3.0/D20 had referred back to all previous editions of D&D for inspiration; and certainly RC D&D would have been a part of that. I think that, given the gist of how 3rd edition is put together, 1st edition AD&D was a more direct influence than RC D&D, but since all of those versions were a part of the same fundamental heritage, its kind of difficult to say what mechanic came from where.

I think we can all agree that the Rules Cyclopedia did contain some innovative system concepts that were ahead of their time, some of which came to fruition in 3.x D&D, regardless of whether they were directly taken out of the RC or not.

RPGPundit

Now we come to the (not so) final part in this multipart post.

-----

After getting fired by TSR Gary muddled around for awhile, then got hired by a pair of gents who said they wanted to produce RPG material. Their new company was called New Infinities, and they started off by producing D&D supplements without permission from TSR. As a matter of fact, Gygax's first product for them was a combination Egyptian adventure/sourcebook.

As it turns out, NI made Gary the face of the company. They also drew on the money Gary made from the sale of his stock options in TSR. It wasn't long before Gygax, the people he brought to the company with him, and the RPG hobby as a whole came to see New Infinities as untrustworthy. The final straw was the game Cyborg Commando, which Gary once told me was a mishmash illustrating the old adage, "Too many cooks spoil the broth."

FYI, while CC has three official designers, according to Gary she had more like 8, and everybody just had to put their two cents in.

Anyway, by the time CC came out NI was in arrears to her creditors, being sued by TSR (a suit the rest of the industry supported), and there were rumors of criminal action against the owners of the company. So the pair did what you'd expect such exemplars of moral probity to do, and fled. Gary Gygax took it upon himself to get things straightened out as best he could. A decision which cost him much of his reputation, his fortune, and impacted his health. The whole affair also cost him a number of good friends.

So after matters had been taken care of he pretty much dropped out of sight. He had his life to get back together, and a new RPG he had started working on while at New Infinities.

Meanwhile AD&D 2e was starting to fragment. Contradictory mechanics and rules, a plethora of settings, and non-D&D RPGs that did not perform as well as it was hoped they'd do. Not even the AD&D 2e based version of the Buck Rogers RPG. Something needed to be done.

In short, AD&D needed to be redone. To be revitalized. Rules rewritten, mechanics consolidated and simplified. TSR also needed to focus on a single AD&D setting, putting others aside. TSR at this point in time needed organized leadership with a clear vision. They had Lorraine Wiliams.

Back when he was still with TSR former Dragon editor Roger Moore once noted that while the Spelljammer setting was still in development, word came down from management that the line was being cancelled. But, they were to continue development, and that those SJ products already underway were to be completed and published. It was at that time that the Spelljammer crew decided to include such things as Giant Space Hamsters. It was their way of telling people, "This setting is fucked."

This is illustrative of the Williams' TSR modus operandi. Somebody would present a "Neat Idea", the TSR board of directors, at Williams' direction, would approve the project. The project would get developed either most of the way or even all the way, and Lorraine would change her mind. TSR was also in the habit of literally flooding the market with product, before they even knew there really was a sustainable market for it. This is what hurt Dark Sun and Planescape, among a number of other lines.

TSR simply didn't know what they were doing. There was no vision, there was no direction. TSR was letting a thousand flowers bloom, and the great majority were diseased skunk weeds.

While all this was going on, TSR had civil actions going. Actions against her by her printer for back bills, and actions by Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax for copyright violations. At the same time TSR had copyright suits going against Mayfair Games for the Role-Aids line, and against Game Designer's Workshop and Omega-Helios for Dangerous Journeys: Mythus. Which is where Gary, as RPG designer, re-enters the picture.

When last we saw Col. Pladoh he was recovering from the New Infinities fiasco, having a feud with James Ward (they've since patched things up), and working on a new game. As I understand it, it was supposed to be a fantasy game at first. But after talks with Steve Jackson at Steve Jackson games regarding Evil Stevie publishing it on Gary's behalf, he decided to make the core system universal, and make the first module a near future horror RPG.

He farmed that around with no success, until he met Frank Chadwick of GDW.

GDW already had a near future horror game, Lester Smith's Dark Conspiracy. Unfortunately, DC wasn't selling. Not well enough to compensate for GDW's own errors. Chadwick needed something that would sell, and sell well enough to bring GDW out of the doldrums.

It was at this time that the crew at GDW started work on a universal GDW system. One Traveller: The New Era, Dark Conspiracy and Cadillacs and Dinosaurs ended up using in their final incarnation. Then along came Gary and his new horror RPG.

DC and C&D were dropped. Lester getting the rights to DC back so he could get it published somewhere else. Work started on developing Gary's game and preparing it for publication. Which is where the computer game company JVC comes into the picture.

And that is where I find I need to extend this to a fourth part. I'd forgotten there was all this crap to write about.

Anyway, up next: Dangerous Journeys: Mythus, TSR sues Gary Gygax for publishing a roleplaying game, and The Dille Family Trust pulls the plug.

Quote from: mythusmageMeanwhile AD&D 2e was starting to fragment. Contradictory mechanics and rules, a plethora of settings, and non-D&D RPGs that did not perform as well as it was hoped they'd do. Not even the AD&D 2e based version of the Buck Rogers RPG. Something needed to be done.

You forgot to mention that the Buck Rogers game (actually games) that TSR published only existed because Lorraine Williams was the heiress to the Buck Rogers copyright, and it was a blatant way to syphon off royalties.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalNobody has said anything of the kind.  Not on here and not in that article by "Big" Ron Edwards (and I'm going to keep calling him that until it catches on god damn it!).

You know, this idea amuses me. I don't normally have any reason to mention Big Ron, but if I find myself needing to, I will indeed consider your idea.:cool:

Quote from: mythusmageNow we come to the (not so) final part in this multipart post.

I have really been enjoying reading through these, would it be ok for someone to put them together as a series of blog posts or articles so as to save them for easy reading on the site?  They are too good to be left as separate posts in a thread. (imho at least, I find gaming history to be interesting)

Quote from: cnath.rmYou know, this idea amuses me. I don't normally have any reason to mention Big Ron, but if I find myself needing to, I will indeed consider your idea.:cool:

Yay!  One of us! One of us!  

It strikes me as quite fitting partly because the term is funny and partly because it's the nickname of Ron Atkinson a former Football manager and commentator whose career ended because of his tendency to keep putting his foot in it (a characteristic that Big Ron Edwards seems to be picking up in his old age).

Ron Atkinson's worse than Edwards though because he said into a live mic that a football player was a "lazy thick fucking nigger" and when given a chance to return to TV proceeded to make jokes about how ugly Chinese women are and how those Chinese people really could learn a thing or two about birth-control.

Not that Edwards is a racist but I find the similarity quite amusing.

Quote from: RPGPunditGee Balbinus, why don't you show us the original link to that quote so we can see it in context?

Note that EVEN in the selected piece you quoted, Tweet explicitly points out that the other designers ALREADY had the basic core mechanic determined, and that it happened to match what he had in mind from Ars magica.

RPGPundit

I did indeed note that, my point was stuff goes back and forth, not that DnD has no influence or that AM is the only influence.

As for the link, http://www.historias.interativas.nom.br/historias/textos/tweet.htm

I didn't quote it as nothing else seemed relevant but have fun.

Other than that, I really can't be arsed to continue with this so I'll bow out.  Though many thanks to JRients for the Traveller correction, I had no idea about that and it's interesting to learn.

Quote from: BalbinusAs for the link, http://www.historias.interativas.nom.br/historias/textos/tweet.htm

That looks like an excerpt from the same interveiw I linked upthread.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThat looks like an excerpt from the same interveiw I linked upthread.

In all honesty, I think I missed your post or inadvertently skipped over it.

I think this thread has been of great enlightenment to me and others. Even moreso due to a (somewhat constructed) controversy around a double sided misunderstanding arising from things people read into the utterings of others that weren`t there. Conflict lets us see things and arguments more clearly. Thank's for everyones participation so far.

I'd like to know, when specific rules were brought into the BD&D game line, and how people actually played. I`ve heard several accounts of people who played BD&D and used AD&D as a rules-quarry. Can anybody counter or support this?