Role Playing as Tradition
Atabet1
Like others, I've been disgusted lately with bickering on the newsgroup. I
remember the good days of rec.games.frp.misc (way back in 95) when the
discussion was about the game, not proving someone's debating skill over
another. Anyway, I thought i'd start a new thread to add content.
What I was thinking about is that RPG is still in its infancy. Wide-spread rpg
has only been around since the early 80's. With this knowledge, I thought I
might discuss what RPG would be like in 20 more years when the skill begins to
be passed down to children of life-long gamers. Several interesting questions
arise and I think its important to ponder them because, as current gamers, we
have a responsibility (somewhat) to see that our art is continued. The primary
question that arises in my mind is will gaming always be centered around a
commercial market? There is already a growing trend of homebrewed games as well
as mix and match systems. Experienced gm's often bring the best of what they've
learned into any setting, thus creating an instant hyrbrid system. Gm's in
general usually never use all the rules in the rulebook, mainly because they
were written by writers rather than the people who actually play the game.
These factors, combined with the open forum that is the internet, provide the
basis for the gaming community to move away from commercialism. I'm not saying
that the game industry will disappear, but rather that gaming will become more
of an art that is passed on from one gamer to the next rather than a product
that is bought. I can invision the role of the gamer becoming more like that of
a true storyteller or even bard, who merely involves others within the stories
he tells. Thus, gaming could become a charished skill. Players might view a
talented GM as someone to practice with, someone to gain insight from, and
someone to hone skills with and eventually succeed once those skills are
complete. RPG could almost become a socialy acceptable art. I could almost see
performing arts colleges offering degrees in roleplaying (okay maybe that's
just a *little* far fetched). Comments? Thoughts? (or maybe this posting was
just a load of hog wash)
Cheers,
Matthew
Michael T. Richter
news:19991005141611...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> What I was thinking about is that RPG is still in its infancy.
It is also, paradoxically, wheezing its way to old age.
> Wide-spread rpg has only been around since the early 80's. With
> this knowledge, I thought I might discuss what RPG would be
> like in 20 more years when the skill begins to be passed down to
> children of life-long gamers.
In 20 years I don't expect to see RPGs as we know them to exist as a hobby
except for some die-hards off in the wings (likely self included). They are
pretty much a one-generation phenomenon. You will have some old buggers
(self included) still playing them, but the mainstream will not know
anything about them except as a misnamed class of video games.
> Several interesting questions arise and I think its important to
> ponder them because, as current gamers, we have a responsibility
> (somewhat) to see that our art is continued.
Marxism has a lot to answer for....
"Class consciousness" is a stupid concept at the best of times. To extend
it to cover a hobby is just flat-out ridiculous.
> Gm's in general usually never use all the rules in the rulebook,
> mainly because they were written by writers rather than the
> people who actually play the game.
It is a little-known fact that Jonathon Tweet, Greg Porter, John Tynes,
James Wallis, Wilf Backhaus, Ed Simbalist and a whole host of other RPG
rules writers have never gamed a day in their lives. Not a single one of
them actually played the games they wrote.
> These factors, combined with the open forum that is the internet,
> provide the basis for the gaming community to move away from
> commercialism.
Marxism has a lot to answer for....
> RPG could almost become a socialy acceptable art.
Games in general aren't really a socially acceptable art. Role-playing
games are firmly in the "only dweebs" camp and are headed past the margin
into "only complete nutbars" turf.
--
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
-- Nadia Mizner <nad...@onthenet.com.au> (in private correspondence)
Pagan Art
James Wallis, Wilf Backhaus, Ed Simbalist and a whole host of other RPG
rules writers have never gamed a day in their lives. Not a single one of
them actually played the games they wrote.>>
It's funny what you'll find on the internet. Considering I've gamed with both
John Tynes and John Tweet, I'd say the above statement was a crock. I know
John Tweet played Everway extensively for years, as well as every other game he
ever wrote. John Tynes as well (except maybe for puppetland which was done as
an experiment) .
John Tynes games with the rest of the Pagan boys (of which I'm one)
regularly. The other guys besides Tweet I have no idea of. But please, in the
future, don't speak about what you have no idea about.
-Dennis Detwiller
Art Director/Pagan Publishing
Michael T. Richter
news:19991005155334...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
>> It is a little-known fact that Jonathon Tweet, Greg Porter,
>> John Tynes, James Wallis, Wilf Backhaus, Ed Simbalist and a
>> whole host of other RPG rules writers have never gamed a day
>> in their lives. Not a single one of them actually played the
>> games they wrote.
> It's funny what you'll find on the internet.
It is, indeed, *REALLY* funny what you'll find on the Internet.
> Considering I've gamed with both John Tynes and John Tweet, I'd
> say the above statement was a crock.
Really?! Wow! I had always assumed that game designers never played games.
It is completely counter-intuitive. After all, design is a sobre discipline
with no room for frivolity. Gaming is by its very nature frivolous. It
seemed obvious that there was no room for the two to mix.
> But please, in the future, don't speak about what you have no
> idea about.
Sage advice you'd do very well to follow yourself. Start by looking up the
following words: irony, sarcasm, and sardonicism.
Putz.
Aaron Day
>
> What I was thinking about is that RPG is still in its infancy. Wide-spread rpg
> has only been around since the early 80's. With this knowledge, I thought I
> might discuss what RPG would be like in 20 more years when the skill begins to
> be passed down to children of life-long gamers.
This post makes me wonder. Does anyone have any statistics of the total
sales of the entire RPG industry for the last 15 or so years? Just how
"good" were the good 'ol days?
I suspect that game sales peaked around 1993 but that is just conjecture
on my part.
Aaron
ed
19:53:34 GMT:
><<It is a little-known fact that Jonathon Tweet, Greg Porter, John Tynes,
>James Wallis, Wilf Backhaus, Ed Simbalist and a whole host of other RPG
>rules writers have never gamed a day in their lives. Not a single one of
>them actually played the games they wrote.>>
>
>It's funny what you'll find on the internet. Considering I've gamed with both
>John Tynes and John Tweet, I'd say the above statement was a crock. I know
>John Tweet played Everway extensively for years, as well as every other game he
>ever wrote. John Tynes as well (except maybe for puppetland which was done as
>an experiment) .
> John Tynes games with the rest of the Pagan boys (of which I'm one)
>regularly. The other guys besides Tweet I have no idea of. But please, in the
>future, don't speak about what you have no idea about.
>
>-Dennis Detwiller
>Art Director/Pagan Publishing
Mr. Detwiller.
Mr. Richter was being SARCASTIC to a ridiculous statement previously
made which separated "Games Writers" and "Games Players"
I have actually GMed Wilf Backhaus in a game of C&S Light
ed
Mind you, Ed Simbalist didn't join in ...
--
edh...@equus.demon.co.uk | Dragons Rescued | _////
http://www.equus.demon.co.uk/ | Maidens Slain | o_/o ///
For devilbunnies, Diplomacy, RPGs, | Quests P.O.A. | __\ ///__
Science-Fiction and other stuff | | <*>
Michael T. Richter
news:mFz6N4BcjAE8sH...@4ax.com...
> Mr. Detwiller.
> Mr. Richter was being SARCASTIC to a ridiculous statement previously
> made which separated "Games Writers" and "Games Players"
Shush!! You're giving away the secret!
Mr. Tines
<paga...@aol.com> writes
><<It is a little-known fact that Jonathon Tweet, Greg Porter, John Tynes,
>James Wallis, Wilf Backhaus, Ed Simbalist and a whole host of other RPG
>rules writers have never gamed a day in their lives. Not a single one of
>them actually played the games they wrote.>>
>
>It's funny what you'll find on the internet.
Yes, people blowing their Detect Sarcasm rolls are *everywhere*
-- PGPfingerprint: BC01 5527 B493 7C9B 3C54 D1B7 248C 08BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a08470}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {69c10bcfbca894a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0}
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< http://www.ravnaandtines.com/
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@ravnaandtines.com PGP key on page
Doctor TOC
>
> <<It is a little-known fact that Jonathon Tweet, Greg Porter, John Tynes,
> James Wallis, Wilf Backhaus, Ed Simbalist and a whole host of other RPG
> rules writers have never gamed a day in their lives. Not a single one of
> them actually played the games they wrote.>>
>
> John Tynes and John Tweet, I'd say the above statement was a crock. I know
> John Tweet played Everway extensively for years, as well as every other game he
> ever wrote. John Tynes as well (except maybe for puppetland which was done as
> an experiment) .
> John Tynes games with the rest of the Pagan boys (of which I'm one)
> regularly. The other guys besides Tweet I have no idea of. But please, in the
> future, don't speak about what you have no idea about.
Uh, Dennis? I have a sneaking suspicion that Michael was employing the
mystical art of sarcasm... :-)
Doctor TOC
--
The Reverend Doctor "The Other Chris"
UIN # 4814586
URL: http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/wilhelm/148/
Jason Thompson
: It is a little-known fact that Jonathon Tweet, Greg Porter, John Tynes,
: James Wallis, Wilf Backhaus, Ed Simbalist and a whole host of other RPG
: rules writers have never gamed a day in their lives. Not a single one of
: them actually played the games they wrote.
counter-evidence for any of these other people but it's still a
big ol' generalization.
Jason Thompson
Jason Thompson
: I have a sneaking suspicion that Michael was employing the
: mystical art of sarcasm... :-)
Whoops! Never mind. I didn't have this suspicion quickly enough. ;)
Jason "Gullible" Thompson
ed
05 Oct 1999 20:50:17 GMT:
>ed <edh...@equus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:mFz6N4BcjAE8sH...@4ax.com...
>> Mr. Detwiller.
>> Mr. Richter was being SARCASTIC to a ridiculous statement previously
>> made which separated "Games Writers" and "Games Players"
>
>Shush!! You're giving away the secret!
Michael.
Next time use "irony", that way you'll totally alienate him (assuming
he's American)
ed
Steve Miller
<< Several interesting questions
arise and I think its important to ponder them because, as current gamers, we
have a responsibility (somewhat) to see that our art is continued. >>
Art? What art? It's a pastime... and sooner or later, it's time will have past.
(Tee-hee. :) )
At any rate, I think RPGing is something that parents CAN introduce their kids,
but I don't think it's some sort of duty, nor do I consider it an "art." (Now,
I wish people WOULD introduce their kids to it... I really like what I do for a
living.)
<< The primary
question that arises in my mind is will gaming always be centered around a
commercial market? >>
Define gaming and commercial market. (If you mean what I thnk you do, then
there's no reason it needs to be. In fact, there might even be those who would
claim that it isn't really commercial now.)
<< There is already a growing trend of homebrewed games as well
as mix and match systems. >>
It's been growing since the earliest days of the RPG hobby.
<< Experienced gm's often bring the best of what they've
learned into any setting, thus creating an instant hyrbrid system. >>
Same thing here. Inexperienced GMS, too. We were modifying the 'Star Frontiers'
setting first thing out of the box.Rules tinkering followed but a short time
later. (That's why I didn't buy/play AD&D1. It was written by a guy who didn't
understand the way my friends and I games [see DRAGON #64].
<< Gm's in
general usually never use all the rules in the rulebook, mainly because they
were written by writers rather than the people who actually play the game. >>
Um... this I don't understand. Every good RPG designer and editor I know plays
all sorts of games, including the ones they design for.
Care to clarify the comment?
<< I'm not saying
that the game industry will disappear, but rather that gaming will become more
of an art that is passed on from one gamer to the next rather than a product
that is bought. >>
IMO, the only gamers who haven't been doing this for years are fogies who
believed the drivel in the early DRAGONs about how game rules are sacrosant and
that it's some sort of crime against the game and its designer to change the
rules.
<< I can invision the role of the gamer becoming more like that of
a true storyteller or even bard, who merely involves others within the stories
he tells. Thus, gaming could become a charished skill. Players might view a
talented GM as someone to practice with, someone to gain insight from, and
someone to hone skills with and eventually succeed once those skills are
complete. RPG could almost become a socialy acceptable art. I could almost see
performing arts colleges offering degrees in roleplaying (okay maybe that's
just a *little* far fetched). Comments? Thoughts? (or maybe this posting was
just a load of hog wash) >>
I thought you were serious until I got to the very end here. :)
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind teaching Interactive Storytelling 101... :)
Steve Miller
Writer of Stuff
"I've got way too much class to watch Jerry Springer. Come over here and pull
on my finger."
--"Jerry Springer," Weird Al
PJS
White Wolf gamer!
---
Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere
may be happy.
- H.L. Mencken
Steve Turnbull
'Atabet1' emerged to utter the unforgettable lines...
>
> What I was thinking about is that RPG is still in its infancy. Wide-spread
> rpg has only been around since the early 80's. With this knowledge, I
> thought I might discuss what RPG would be like in 20 more years when the
> skill begins to be passed down to children of life-long gamers.
What world are you in? I started in 1976. My wife and I have 8 year old who
plays -- and we started late with the kids. It is feasible that there are
third generations just starting out.
> Several interesting questions arise and I think its important to ponder
> them because, as current gamers, we have a responsibility (somewhat) to see
> that our art is continued.
Game creation may be an art. Playing isn't, it's just a game.
--
______________________________________________________________________
| |
| Steve Turnbull, Publisher publ...@visions-mag.com |
| |
| Visions Role-Playing Games Web-Mag http://www.visions-mag.com |
| Published by Tau Press http://www.tau-press.com |
| |
| Tau Press, Media House, Adlington Park, Macclesfield, SK10 4NP, UK |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Steve Turnbull
> Atabet1 <ata...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991005141611...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
>
> > Wide-spread rpg has only been around since the early 80's. With this
> > knowledge, I thought I might discuss what RPG would be like in 20 more
> > years when the skill begins to be passed down to children of life-long
> > gamers.
>
> In 20 years I don't expect to see RPGs as we know them to exist as a hobby
> except for some die-hards off in the wings (likely self included). They
> are pretty much a one-generation phenomenon. You will have some old
> buggers (self included) still playing them, but the mainstream will not
> know anything about them except as a misnamed class of video games.
Nope. Personal experience demonstrates this is untrue.
> > Several interesting questions arise and I think its important to ponder
> > them because, as current gamers, we have a responsibility (somewhat) to
> > see that our art is continued.
>
> Marxism has a lot to answer for....
>
> "Class consciousness" is a stupid concept at the best of times. To extend
> it to cover a hobby is just flat-out ridiculous.
Nah, just the idea of it being an art is ridiculous ... although, as I try to
think of something to compare it with the really good players of physical
sports make those into an art. But not mental games.
> > Gm's in general usually never use all the rules in the rulebook,
> > mainly because they were written by writers rather than the
> > people who actually play the game.
>
> It is a little-known fact that Jonathon Tweet, Greg Porter, John Tynes,
> James Wallis, Wilf Backhaus, Ed Simbalist and a whole host of other RPG
> rules writers have never gamed a day in their lives. Not a single one of
> them actually played the games they wrote.
:-) Careful, you'll have some people believing you.
Steve Turnbull
> <<It is a little-known fact that Jonathon Tweet, Greg Porter, John Tynes,
> James Wallis, Wilf Backhaus, Ed Simbalist and a whole host of other RPG
> rules writers have never gamed a day in their lives. Not a single one of
> them actually played the games they wrote.>>
>
> It's funny what you'll find on the internet. Considering I've gamed with
> both John Tynes and John Tweet, I'd say the above statement was a crock. I
> know John Tweet played Everway extensively for years, as well as every
> other game he ever wrote. John Tynes as well (except maybe for puppetland
> which was done as an experiment).
>
> John Tynes games with the rest of the Pagan boys (of which I'm one)
> regularly. The other guys besides Tweet I have no idea of. But please, in
> the future, don't speak about what you have no idea about.
[sigh] Irony is a dead art in some quarters.
Michael T. Richter
news:2db2b34c49...@acornuser.idg.co.uk...
>> It is a little-known fact that Jonathon Tweet, Greg Porter, John
>> Tynes, James Wallis, Wilf Backhaus, Ed Simbalist and a whole host
>> of other RPG rules writers have never gamed a day in their lives.
>> Not a single one of them actually played the games they wrote.
> :-) Careful, you'll have some people believing you.
Well, two so far thought I was serious. That's two more than I expected.
Michael T. Richter
>>> Mr. Detwiller.
>>> Mr. Richter was being SARCASTIC to a ridiculous statement
>>> previously made which separated "Games Writers" and "Games
>>> Players"
>> Shush!! You're giving away the secret!
> Michael.
> Next time use "irony", that way you'll totally alienate him
> (assuming he's American)
Well, sarcasm is actually a subset of irony; or, more accurately, sarcasm
employs irony. But I gave up on just using plain old irony years ago;
shortly after someone launched a largish crusade against me because I said
that it was obviously a good idea to deport anybody who wasn't born in
Canada back to their home countries.
Aaron Day
>
> >This post makes me wonder. Does anyone have any statistics of the total
> >sales of the entire RPG industry for the last 15 or so years? Just how
> >"good" were the good 'ol days?
> >
> >I suspect that game sales peaked around 1993 but that is just conjecture
> >on my part.
>
Hardly. This is when Magic took off and I keep hearing how Magic "killed
RPGs like RPGs kill wargames". I don't believe it, which is why I want
to see real numbers.
Aaron
Jerry Stratton
<m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
>Well, sarcasm is actually a subset of irony; or, more accurately, sarcasm
>employs irony. But I gave up on just using plain old irony years ago;
>shortly after someone launched a largish crusade against me because I said
>that it was obviously a good idea to deport anybody who wasn't born in
>Canada back to their home countries.
Heh. When talking about Usenet to new Internet users, I like to make the
following points:
You can never say something so sarcastic that someone on the net doesn't
believe you meant it.
You can never say something so extremist that someone on the net doesn't
agree with you.
You can never say something so obviously true that someone on the net
doesn't disagree with you.
Corollaries follow:
You can never be so extreme that someone on the net won't consider you a
moderate.
You can never be so moderate that someone on the net doesn't consider you
an extremist.
"Everybody knows that" is not a valid citation.
E.B. White would suffer a nervous breakdown on Usenet.
If you take it personally, so will you.
White Crow
> << Several interesting questions
> arise and I think its important to ponder them because, as current gamers, we
> have a responsibility (somewhat) to see that our art is continued. >>
> Art? What art? It's a pastime... and sooner or later, it's time will have past.
> (Tee-hee. :) )
;) I think that it is the same as any gaming. My parents played tons of
card and board games, and my siblings and I did as well. We still do.
That's the way it goes. If you enjoy doing something, you want to share
it with your kids if it's at all possible. And they'll either get
interested or they won't.
> At any rate, I think RPGing is something that parents CAN introduce their kids,
> but I don't think it's some sort of duty, nor do I consider it an "art." (Now,
> I wish people WOULD introduce their kids to it... I really like what I do for a
> living.)
My son is 7 and is interested. We've done a few little games with him and
other friends (of ours...we hesitate to try and introduce neighborhood
kids to the hobby, what with the rep and all). Slimmed down Ironclaw and
the Sailor Moon RPG have been it so far (my son *loves* Sailor Moon and so
do I, so that plus the easy system works out well).
I don't see it as an "obligation" to my "art" (I don't think of gaming as
art...it's a great leisure time activity, but I don't make claims to art
with it). I see it as an obligation to my son to spend time with him
doing fun things, and an obligation to make sure he turns out as weird as
I am. ;) (Just kidding on that last part (mostly) for the Sarcasm
Impaired. Even if my greatest fear is that he'll grow up to join the
Christian Coalition).
> Define gaming and commercial market. (If you mean what I thnk you do, then
> there's no reason it needs to be. In fact, there might even be those who would
> claim that it isn't really commercial now.)
I certainly hope there's a commerical market 20 years from now.
Otherwise, how will I get new dice? ;)
Seriously, as long as their are gamers buying books, there will be game
companies providing them. Does that make it a commerical hobby? I can't
answer that. However, it is perhaps the *cheapest* of my hobbies. I can
play a game, assuming I buy the main book, for under $40 (including dice,
if need be). I have very few needlepoint projects that I can do for less
than $40 (counting canvas, threads, needles, scroll bars, etc). And a
gaming book has a theoretical infinite return on enjoyment time.
Theoreticlaly, I'll finish any needlepoint piece I start and thus that
will be the end of the hobby part of it.
> << There is already a growing trend of homebrewed games as well
> as mix and match systems. >>
> It's been growing since the earliest days of the RPG hobby.
And there will always be. But many of the homegrown games are designed by
folks who still buy/play/run other rpgs. Or they eventually end up on the
market themselves.
> << Experienced gm's often bring the best of what they've
> learned into any setting, thus creating an instant hyrbrid system. >>
Of course. Everyone brings expectations and unique viewpoints with them
to the gaming table. That changes any game. That doesn't negate any
bought games value.
> << Gm's in
> general usually never use all the rules in the rulebook, mainly because they
> were written by writers rather than the people who actually play the game. >>
This has already gotten sarcasm-bashed, so I'll leave it alone. I think
that the hobby is small enough and the returns for authors small enough
that nobody is going to write for rpgs unless they are already a player/GM
in the first place.
I can't imagine there being writers desperate enough for work that they'd
first discover rpgs, then decide to make money writing them, without ever
being exposed to them.
> << I'm not saying
> that the game industry will disappear, but rather that gaming will become more
> of an art that is passed on from one gamer to the next rather than a product
> that is bought. >>
There will always be bought products. Gaming is already passed from gamer
to gamer. I doubt a significant number of new gamers come to gaming by
deciding one day that they will check out rpgs. I would assume that most
are introduced by people they know who are gamers or they at least *hear*
about gaming from someone and look up the games that person plays.
I learned to play several card games from my parents that I enjoy to this
day. I suppose I could've found Hassenpheffer in the Hoyle book of games
(it's in there, really it is). But it's pretty obscure and I doubt it
would've attracted my attention without knowing a single person who
played.
--
The White Crow
FUDGE Deryni and more: http://www.io.com/~whytcrow/rpg.html
"I hope I never do anything without due thought, even if the thought sometimes
has to shift its feet pretty briskly to keep up with the deed." -- Cadfael
"You must have been very wicked, for your God has sent me to punish you
for your sins." -- Ghenghis Khan
Steve Miller
<< My son is 7 and is interested. We've done a few little games with him and
other friends (of ours...we hesitate to try and introduce neighborhood
kids to the hobby, what with the rep and all). Slimmed down Ironclaw and
the Sailor Moon RPG have been it so far (my son *loves* Sailor Moon and so
do I, so that plus the easy system works out well). >>
I dunno... 'Sailor Moon' seems like the perfect vehicle to introduce newbies to
the hobby. It doesn't have the 'Vampire' or 'D&D' taint of eeeeeevil. Perhaps
invite the parents to play, too? More often than not, it's a complete and total
lack of understanding of what an RPG game is that causes people to have fits.
(Of course, you could just call it an 'adventure game' and perhaps avoid the
whole mess.)
<< I certainly hope there's a commerical market 20 years from now.
Otherwise, how will I get new dice? ;) >>
Me too. It would be great to retire having done nothing but RPG material for
most of my career.
And as far as dice goes... when *I* was young we didn't have no stinkin'
dice... we used chits in a paper cup! ;)
<< Seriously, as long as their are gamers buying books, there will be game
companies providing them. Does that make it a commerical hobby? I can't
answer that. >>
That's why I wondered what definition we were using as 'commercial.' RPGs
haven't been hugely successful since the mid-eighties. Board games (near as I
can tell) have been steady sellers since time immorial, but RPGs rose and fell
rapidly. They plateaued, then in the mid-nineties, they saw another decline...
one that was mirrored in sci-fi and fantasy fiction as well. Currently, sales
seem to be up (and continuing to rise) across the board. If the trend
continues, then maybe we can talk about them being 'commercial,' truly, again.
<< However, it is perhaps the *cheapest* of my hobbies. I can
play a game, assuming I buy the main book, for under $40 (including dice,
if need be). I have very few needlepoint projects that I can do for less
than $40 (counting canvas, threads, needles, scroll bars, etc). And a
gaming book has a theoretical infinite return on enjoyment time. >>
It would be nice if more gamers would keep this in mind when they start
bitching about this book or that book being a 'rip-off.' I got three years of
play out of the TSR adventure 'Saga of the Shadowlord' and I'm STILL using
'Castle Greyhawk' whenever I need some bit of weirdness as a change of pace in
my D&D campaigns.
<< And there will always be. But many of the homegrown games are designed by
folks who still buy/play/run other rpgs. Or they eventually end up on the
market themselves. >>
Yep. (Even if I never did figure out how to con someone into publishing NUELOW
in a commercial format. :) )
<< > << Experienced gm's often bring the best of what they've
> learned into any setting, thus creating an instant hyrbrid system. >>
Point of clarification: I did not write that paragraph. The person who
initiated this thread did. (The same is true for all the rest of the material
you quoted.)
<< Of course. Everyone brings expectations and unique viewpoints with them
to the gaming table. That changes any game. That doesn't negate any
bought games value. >>
Actually, that's one of the charms of an RPG, I think. That's why I
(personally) think that gamers who obsess about 'canon' of game worlds and who
feel they can't advance their personal campaigns unless they have the latest
word from WW or TSR, or who go into coniptions when someone says, 'don't like
the rules? change 'em' are missing out.
<< I think
that the hobby is small enough and the returns for authors small enough
that nobody is going to write for rpgs unless they are already a player/GM
in the first place. >>
Exactly. (That was why I said that some might already consider this field
'non-commercial.' Many (most?) of the publishers are barely above the level of
self-publication vanity presses. Certainly, SFWA finds those who work in this
field beneath their notice.)
<< There will always be bought products. Gaming is already passed from gamer
to gamer. I doubt a significant number of new gamers come to gaming by
deciding one day that they will check out rpgs. I would assume that most
are introduced by people they know who are gamers or they at least *hear*
about gaming from someone and look up the games that person plays. >>
I believe this to be the case also. Which is why I think it such a shame when I
come across older gamers dumping on kids/behaving like snobbish twits rather
than attempting to show them games beyond the Playstation (or Rifts).
Aaron Day
>
> I dunno... 'Sailor Moon' seems like the perfect vehicle to introduce newbies to
> the hobby. It doesn't have the 'Vampire' or 'D&D' taint of eeeeeevil. Perhaps
> invite the parents to play, too? More often than not, it's a complete and total
> lack of understanding of what an RPG game is that causes people to have fits.
> (Of course, you could just call it an 'adventure game' and perhaps avoid the
> whole mess.)
I don't know how much of the "D&D is evil" stuff is still around now
a-days. That stuff seemed to come and go pretty quick. Hell, weren't
they playing D&D in E.T.
> That's why I wondered what definition we were using as 'commercial.' RPGs
> haven't been hugely successful since the mid-eighties. Board games (near as I
> can tell) have been steady sellers since time immorial, but RPGs rose and fell
> rapidly. They plateaued, then in the mid-nineties, they saw another decline...
> one that was mirrored in sci-fi and fantasy fiction as well. Currently, sales
> seem to be up (and continuing to rise) across the board. If the trend
> continues, then maybe we can talk about them being 'commercial,' truly, again.
I'd like to see sales number to support this because up until the late
'80s, RPG were hard to find. I remember having to drive halfway across
town to the closest game store. It wasn't until the 90s or so that you
could get D&D in any bookstore.
As far as being 'commercial'. It seems that RPGs may soon go the way of
computer games. It wasn't long ago that two or three guys could crank
out a successfull computer game, now it requires huge teams of
programmers and artists. Maybe Hasbro's purchase of TSR will usher in
the "professional age" of RPGs.
> << However, it is perhaps the *cheapest* of my hobbies. I can
> play a game, assuming I buy the main book, for under $40 (including dice,
> if need be). I have very few needlepoint projects that I can do for less
> than $40 (counting canvas, threads, needles, scroll bars, etc). And a
> gaming book has a theoretical infinite return on enjoyment time. >>
>
> It would be nice if more gamers would keep this in mind when they start
> bitching about this book or that book being a 'rip-off.' I got three years of
> play out of the TSR adventure 'Saga of the Shadowlord' and I'm STILL using
> 'Castle Greyhawk' whenever I need some bit of weirdness as a change of pace in
> my D&D campaigns.
I will easily pay $40 for a computer game that will give me around 40
hours of enjoyment. Still, that's usually 40 hours of "payoff" without
all the initial work a RPG game requires (I'm the GM)
> << There will always be bought products. Gaming is already passed from gamer
> to gamer. I doubt a significant number of new gamers come to gaming by
> deciding one day that they will check out rpgs. I would assume that most
> are introduced by people they know who are gamers or they at least *hear*
> about gaming from someone and look up the games that person plays. >>
I heard about D&D from my older brother who told me about this game they
played in high school behind the library where you could "do whatever
you wanted".
Aaron
Writer of Nothing
Steve Miller
<< I don't know how much of the "D&D is evil" stuff is still around now
a-days. That stuff seemed to come and go pretty quick. >>
Wrong. It crops up once a year (at least) on CBN... and there are still plenty
of pamphlets available from a number of sources, not to mention web sites run
by fairly large (and even mainstream) Christian groups that bash gaming.
<< Hell, weren't
they playing D&D in E.T. >>
Actually, they weren't. (TSR was dumb and turned down the request from
Speilberg and Co.)
<< I'd like to see sales number to support this because up until the late
'80s, RPG were hard to find. >>
While visiting the U.S. in '83, I saw the D&D Basic Set in Sears (or maybe J.C.
Penny's). When I came back again in '86, I couldn't find RPGs anywhere. It
wasn't until '89 (after I was back in the U.S. on a permanent basis) that I
found American RPGers and thus my first gaming store on American soil. In other
words, my anecdotal evidence is vastly different from your anecdotal evidence.
Aaron Day
>
> Aaron Day wrote:
>
> << I don't know how much of the "D&D is evil" stuff is still around now
> a-days. That stuff seemed to come and go pretty quick. >>
>
> Wrong. It crops up once a year (at least) on CBN... and there are still plenty
> of pamphlets available from a number of sources, not to mention web sites run
> by fairly large (and even mainstream) Christian groups that bash gaming.
It is gone as far as the mainstream media is concerned. I listen to alot
of christian radio and have heard nary a peep. I hear more about wiccas
and holloween. I search the web and only found one site and it was about
D&D's occultic content (what they said was true). Sometimes I think that
some old gamers WANT to be persecuted again because they somehow get a
sense of identity from it.
> << Hell, weren't
> they playing D&D in E.T. >>
>
> Actually, they weren't. (TSR was dumb and turned down the request from
> Speilberg and Co.)
What were they playing then?
Aaron
Aaron Day
>
> << I'd like to see sales number to support this because up until the late
> '80s, RPG were hard to find. >>
>
> While visiting the U.S. in '83, I saw the D&D Basic Set in Sears (or maybe J.C.
> Penny's). When I came back again in '86, I couldn't find RPGs anywhere. It
> wasn't until '89 (after I was back in the U.S. on a permanent basis) that I
> found American RPGers and thus my first gaming store on American soil. In other
> words, my anecdotal evidence is vastly different from your anecdotal evidence.
For a while there the D&D Basic set (and only the basic set) was
considered a "toy" and was available in toy stores and (I guess) in the
toy department of Sears. I got my blue-box set in a toy store. I got my
copy of the Monster Manual in a non-chain toy store in 1979. Back then
you could only find the other stuff in comic shops and hobby stores. One
of the best places in Houston was a teacher supply store, this is where
I bought all my Runequest stuff. During the last 20 years, mainstream
products have become progressively more available but moved from being
sold in toys stores to book stores. I still want to know when and if
game sales "peaked". I can't believe that the peak came during the
eighties.
Aaron
Ross W. Maker
>
> Steve Miller wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Day wrote:
> >
> > << I don't know how much of the "D&D is evil" stuff is still around now
> > a-days. That stuff seemed to come and go pretty quick. >>
> >
> > Wrong. It crops up once a year (at least) on CBN... and there are still plenty
> > of pamphlets available from a number of sources, not to mention web sites run
> > by fairly large (and even mainstream) Christian groups that bash gaming.
>
> It is gone as far as the mainstream media is concerned. I listen to alot
> of christian radio and have heard nary a peep. I hear more about wiccas
> and holloween. I search the web and only found one site and it was about
> D&D's occultic content (what they said was true). Sometimes I think that
> some old gamers WANT to be persecuted again because they somehow get a
> sense of identity from it.
Well, as mainstream a source as the New York Times, the day after the
Columbine High School shootings, was reporting that the shooters were
D&D players. That line was dropped (but, AFAIK, never retracted) when
it didn't pan out, and Doom substituted.
> > << Hell, weren't
> > they playing D&D in E.T. >>
> >
> > Actually, they weren't. (TSR was dumb and turned down the request from
> > Speilberg and Co.)
>
> What were they playing then?
It was recognizably a FRPG, but D&D was never mentioned. Could have
been T&T, or RQ, or C&S, or ...
RWM
Aaron Day
>
> > It is gone as far as the mainstream media is concerned. I listen to alot
> > of christian radio and have heard nary a peep. I hear more about wiccas
> > and holloween. I search the web and only found one site and it was about
> > D&D's occultic content (what they said was true). Sometimes I think that
> > some old gamers WANT to be persecuted again because they somehow get a
> > sense of identity from it.
>
> Well, as mainstream a source as the New York Times, the day after the
> Columbine High School shootings, was reporting that the shooters were
> D&D players. That line was dropped (but, AFAIK, never retracted) when
> it didn't pan out, and Doom substituted.
Yeah, it seems that Doom has replaced D&D as the excuse de jour. Its
funny that they blaimed Doom. If those kids were both rich and serious
gamers, they would have dumped Doom for Q2 a long time ago. Just shows
you have much research the media did. I remember seeing these cheesy
clips from the first level of Doom that they showed at that time. Man,
how lame was that!?
> > > << Hell, weren't
> > > they playing D&D in E.T. >>
> > >
> > > Actually, they weren't. (TSR was dumb and turned down the request from
> > > Speilberg and Co.)
> >
> > What were they playing then?
>
> It was recognizably a FRPG, but D&D was never mentioned. Could have
> been T&T, or RQ, or C&S, or ...
Dang, I'm gonna have to rent that POS just to see.
Aaron
Nick the Lemming
Nick the Lemming
--
In your face Space Coyote!
ICQ 35484641
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
news:K%IK3.465$Ct3...@198.235.216.4...
> ed <edh...@equus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:=oT6N=zNjsKJAScAk...@4ax.com...
> >>> Mr. Detwiller.
> >>> Mr. Richter was being SARCASTIC to a ridiculous statement
> >>> previously made which separated "Games Writers" and "Games
> >>> Players"
>
> >> Shush!! You're giving away the secret!
>
> > Michael.
> > Next time use "irony", that way you'll totally alienate him
> > (assuming he's American)
>
> Well, sarcasm is actually a subset of irony; or, more accurately, sarcasm
> employs irony. But I gave up on just using plain old irony years ago;
> shortly after someone launched a largish crusade against me because I said
> that it was obviously a good idea to deport anybody who wasn't born in
> Canada back to their home countries.
>
Michael T. Richter
news:7tgaeg$2f9$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Can I advise silvery? It's similar to irony, but worth more.
Why did I just *KNOW* someone was going to do the Black Adder schtick here?
John R. Snead
: After hacking through the undergrowth
: 'Michael T. Richter' emerged to utter the unforgettable lines...
:> "Class consciousness" is a stupid concept at the best of times. To extend
:> it to cover a hobby is just flat-out ridiculous.
: Nah, just the idea of it being an art is ridiculous ... although, as I try to
: think of something to compare it with the really good players of physical
: sports make those into an art. But not mental games.
Why? Would you consider theater productions and art, how about
storytelling? If both of those count, then I would definitely agree that
well-run deep games (of which I've been in many) as as much of an art as
any other type of performance. A good game is more like a jazz improv
(or theater improv) session than a play, but it can be art nonetheless.
OTOH, even though I write them for a living I don't consider game books
to be art. Some of the illustrations and story-bits may count, but the
product itself is more like a technical manual than a novel or screen play.
The art is in running the games, the craft is in designing them so that a
GM can easily and smoothly run one.
As to the topic of RPG survival, given that I know active gamers who range
in age from 17-41 I think the hobby has another decade or two at least,
especially since some folks are already raising 2nd generation gamers. (I
recently read a *great* post on one mailing list about how someone who
was running Sailor Moon was recently confronted with a group ranging in
age from 7-11 who all played well and had great fun.)
IMHO, Computer are currently a remarkably poor substitute for face-to-face
play. With the advent of some form of VR this may change completely, but
I don't see anything like this happening for 10-15 years. After that I
think we will be close enough to a Vingean singularity that I'm not betting
about what *anything* is like.
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
WoV
>
> Something I've occasionally wondered: Roleplaying requires no equipment other
> than books, dice, and paper and pencil.
>
> So why wasn't it invented before? They could have been invented at the very
> start of the 20th century, or even earlier (though people might not necessarily
> have had as much leisure time before then). Heck, why aren't archeologists
> digging up copies of ancient Roman tablets describing how to play Sumerians
> and Sorcerors?
I think you probably answered your own question, at least as regards pre
20th century. Organized RPG's , in addition to the thing you mentioned,
require leisure time , technology to support dissemination of the rules,
not to mention some general level of literacy of the potential gaming
public at large.
Not only do they require lesiure time to write (at least initially they
would, absent a marketplace for RPG's ) but a populace with enough
lesiure time to find , read, and play the games.
In the 20th century, there may have been a general lack of leisure time,
since many labor saving electronic devices weren't invented yet. It may
not have been so much of a lack of lesiure time, as a lack of
convergence between leisure time and the economic means to make a
venture such as RPG's financially feasible. For example, people may
have had leisure time in the depression if they didn't have a job, but
they didn't have the means to feed themselves much less worry about an
RPG. This is all a conjecture on my part that I am mostly pulling out
of a grab bag ;-)
Or it just could be a big fluke that no one had thought about it before
:)
I might suggest that it might make an interesting history research topic
for a paper, but if your professors are anything like mine were, I doubt
that it would fly.
I don't doubt some form of roleplay went on in years past, but I doubt
it lacked the formality of what we today call an RPG. As always I would
love to learn if I am wrong on this, as I usually make it a point that I
can go home for the day once I have learned something new ;-)
--
"Never put off 'til tomorrow what you can delegate today"
To contact me remove "N-O~S'P&A`M " from my address
Thraka
> > Mr. Detwiller.
> > Mr. Richter was being SARCASTIC to a ridiculous statement previously
> > made which separated "Games Writers" and "Games Players"
>
> Shush!! You're giving away the secret!
Bah, it's far more amusing to spoil your game than to watch you
tormenting yet another clueless victim! ;)
Thraka
Ken St-Cyr
> But in any case, RPGs as we know them didn't spring full-born from the
> head of Athena; they evolved from wargames (remember what TSR used to
> stand for?).
>
> So where did the modern wargame come from?
There's a web page somewhere that goes into this a little bit. I'd look
up Web-Grognards, or maybe Kriegspiel. From what I remember, the
earliest "modern" wargames were basically chess variants with rules
added for realism (like adding terrain to the board and replacing the
pieces with soldier-types).
Given that wargames have been around so long, you still have to
wonder at the jump from figurines at war to full-blown role-playing.
Maybe it was psychadelic music...
- Ken
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
kens...@cs.pdx.edu "That machine has got to be destroyed"
*bleat* (From Beyond)
World of the Carnelian Coast: http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~kenstcyr/coast.html
Brett Evill
A friend of mine once dissected the content of RPGs into 'representation
systems, resolution systems, and vague waffle about roleplying'. Of
course, one should also add 'background material'.
Along with that friend (his name is Sean Case), I would like to see
these several components better separated. I would also like to see the
descriptive material about RPGs less vague and less waffly. This is
because I think that the invention of writing has given us an admirable
alternative to oral tradition and the passing-down of skills from guru
to chela. In short, I would like to see the arts of gamemastering and
character-play systematised and set down explicitly in writing.
White Wolf made an admirable effort in the relevant sections of first
edition 'Vampire'. There has also been a lot of good work done on
rec.games.frp.advocacy.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Brett Evill
>
> [sigh] Irony is a dead art in some quarters.
>
A friend of mine recently explained at length why irony doesn't work. I
would pass on his explanation, except that I wasn't paying attention.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Brett Evill
>
> Nah, just the idea of it being an art is ridiculous ... although, as I try to
> think of something to compare it with the really good players of physical
> sports make those into an art. But not mental games.
If you ever get a chance, you should read 'Harpo Speaks', which is the
autobiography of Harpo Marx. It is absolutely hilarious.
Harpo Marx was the first American allowed to perform in the USSR (or was
it Russia: I'm not sure) after the [October/November] Revolution. While
he was in rehearsal, the thought he would go and see a Russian show. So
he picked the theatre with longest queues, bribed his way to the head of
the queue, bought a ticket and took a seat in the front row.
An hour later the curtain rose on a stage with a chair, a table, and a
telephone stand. Two men came out. One spoke in Russian. The audience
applauded. The other man sat at the table. The telephone rang. The
standing man answered it, held a brief exchange, and made an
announcenment. There was polite applause. The fellow at the table did
something with something on the table that Harpo couldn't see. After a
pause, he did something else. The standing man made an announcement to
the audience and then spoke into the phone. A pause followed. Then the
standing man made another announcement and the cycle repeated.
This went on and on, and gradually the tension in the theatre grew.
Then, at one announcement, there was loud applause. Harpo got up and
left. He had figured it out. He was watching one side of a telephone
chess game.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Brett Evill
>
> Game creation may be an art. Playing isn't, it's just a game.
That is all too frequently true.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Jerry Stratton
Arromdee) wrote:
>Something I've occasionally wondered: Roleplaying requires no equipment other
>than books, dice, and paper and pencil.
>
>So why wasn't it invented before? They could have been invented at the very
>start of the 20th century, or even earlier (though people might not necessarily
>have had as much leisure time before then). Heck, why aren't archeologists
>digging up copies of ancient Roman tablets describing how to play Sumerians
>and Sorcerors?
It's hell photocopying stone tables, they keep clogging up the rollers.
If I were researching this, I'd look up printing technology (didn't the
underground comix scene hit in the decade before D&D? what was going on in
the wargames culture those days?); board games (how many *themed* board
games were there before the twentieth century? Things like Monopoly as
opposed to things like Checkers); the rise of one-way entertainment
(before the twentieth century, why would you consider adding formal rules
to 'sitting around and telling a story'?)
Fantasy and science fiction fandom. Fandom in general. Why are they
related to gaming?
How abundant *was* writing paper before the twentieth century?
Jerry Stratton
<CFC367EAF1DB038B.CC164157...@lp.airnews.net>,
aa...@cambertx.com wrote:
>Yeah, it seems that Doom has replaced D&D as the excuse de jour. Its
>funny that they blaimed Doom. If those kids were both rich and serious
>gamers, they would have dumped Doom for Q2 a long time ago. Just shows
>you have much research the media did.
I don't think it's a matter of not doing research. I think it's a matter
of actively trying to find sensational, bad things to say.
Look at the colored tires scare in California right now.
I think the best example I've seen of this, however, was in a marijuana
study in the late sixties. You can read the study in the April 1970
_Nature_ (Zinberg & Weil). "The point of the article was that no
personality differences were detectable between people who used marihuana
recreationally and people who did not in the student communities we
studied."
In a tangential paragraph, while discussing the effects of marijuana on
chronic users, the sentence "There were no signs of overt intellectual
deterioration." ran into a typo: the word "no" was left out. Without the
word "no", it is still technically a sentence, but it reads oddly for
English. It contradicted the paragraph it was a part of; it contradicted
the data that applied to it; it contradicted the article as a whole. As a
newspaper reporter, do you (a) realize that there is a typo? (b) call the
researchers for verification (as well as actual numbers)? (c) realize that
it has nothing to do with the article anyway?
No, you run a major story headlined "Daily Pot-Smokers Erode in Intellect,
Researchers Claim" (Washington Post).
This isn't a matter of not doing enough research. Someone had to look
really hard to find that typo.
I don't trust newspapers to deliver anything but comics, and I don't trust
them to do that particularly well.
David Crowe
: Another wild speculation -- perhaps the advent of television was key.
: Previous forms of entertainment required a bit more exercise of imagination
: and active involvement; perhaps it took TV's soporific quality to drive
: some people into saying "argh, I can't take this!" and looking for a way to
: swing the pendulum too far the other way. I'm hesitant to even propose
: this idea, though, because it smacks of the self-congratulatory "gamers are
: the coolest, most imaginative, most respect-worthy people" tripe that goes
: around so often.
Just because people were looking for something different doesn't mean they
were any better as people.
But in any case, RPGs as we know them didn't spring full-born from the
head of Athena; they evolved from wargames (remember what TSR used to
stand for?).
So where did the modern wargame come from?
--
David "No Nickname" Crowe http://www.primenet.com/~jetman
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to find out who this Cubone guy is. Any
cute cartoon animal who wears the skull of one of his defeated enemies as
headwear is my kinda cute cartoon animal.
-Kurt Busiek on Pokemon
Steve Miller
<< It is gone as far as the mainstream media is concerned. >>
It is? I've read Washington Post stories that held up "Dungeons & Dragons-like
games" as a source of corrupting the youth.
But I wasn't talking about the mainstream media.
<< I listen to alot
of christian radio and have heard nary a peep. I hear more about wiccas
and holloween. >>
I listen to conservative talk radio quite a bit... and just last week Michael
Medved had a caller babble on about the eeeevils of 'Pokemon.' She might have
gotten into 'Dungeons & Dragons,' too, but I got out of the car at that point.
<< I search the web and only found one site and it was about
D&D's occultic content (what they said was true). >>
That must mean they were saying that there isn't any. Or were they quoting New
Testament passages out of context?
<< Sometimes I think that
some old gamers WANT to be persecuted again because they somehow get a
sense of identity from it. >>
Seems to me they get more identity from bashing games they don't like.
<< What were they playing then? >>
An RPG. I really don't recall which, but I can assure you that it wasn't D&D.
(I'm talking the props here.)
Bob
> I can understand that ancient peoples didn't have the technology to print
> many copies of a rulebook, but I was mostly wondering about why there weren't,
> say, Victorians playing RPGs. There were certainly tabletop games then. Even
> World War II is far earlier than RPGs really appeared, and at that point there
> were not only wargames, but movie serials, pulp magazines and dime store
> adventure novels, not to mention comic books.
>
> I'm reminded of that SF story where the way to travel faster than light is so
> simple that it's a fluke that nobody's discovered it for hundreds of years.
> These aliens land on the Earth with an FTL drive and flintlock pistols....
> --
> Ken Arromdee / arro...@rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>
One of my favorite SF short stories BTW, "The Road Less Travelled' or
something like that... Gotta love it, teddy bears in space!
In fact, we know that people in those times did engage in the some kind
of role-playing (at least among certain literate educated types). We know
this from many examples contained in the literature from the period. You
have to credit the role of the modern media in spreading the idea so
broadly in the early seventies. What started mostly as a past-time among
college students in northern states (snowed in for much of the winters, I
would expect), became the rage on campuses throughout the US after a
series of news stories on the new phenomenon. From there, it spread to a
broader mass-market that did not exist in Victorian times.
Alea iacta est! -Caesar, 49 BCE
Bob McCann
rmc...@mesastate.edu
Frank Rafaelsen
>OTOH, even though I write them for a living I don't consider game books
>to be art. Some of the illustrations and story-bits may count, but the
>product itself is more like a technical manual than a novel or screen play.
>The art is in running the games, the craft is in designing them so that a
>GM can easily and smoothly run one.
I agree. The difference between a technical manual and a novel is that
while the manual points away from itself a novel presents itself. A
successful manual shifts your focus to the piece of machinery it is
talking about. A successful novel makes you focus on the content of the
novel only. Very much like the difference between a map and a picture. In
the same way a game book is not art since it points away from itself, to
the game (although some games do both, Castle Falkenstein for instance.
But even here it is the novel, not the game, that might be called art).
The game itself, on the other hand, is very much a form of art. But really
this is, in my opinion, to turn it upside down. Rather than debating
wether play can be art one have to realize that play is an essential part
of all art.
--
Frank Rafaelsen
Mark Baker
>I can understand that ancient peoples didn't have the technology to print
>many copies of a rulebook, but I was mostly wondering about why there weren't,
>say, Victorians playing RPGs. There were certainly tabletop games then. Even
>World War II is far earlier than RPGs really appeared, and at that point there
>were not only wargames, but movie serials, pulp magazines and dime store
>adventure novels, not to mention comic books.
>
way it exists today. The Bronte family (three famous lady novelists and
an artist) created their own system and world setting for roleplaying.
--
Mark Baker
Web Pages: http://www.lange.demon.co.uk/Index.html
Robin
ata...@aol.com (Atabet1) wrote:
> we have a responsibility (somewhat) to see that our art is continued.
I also see the possibility of art in RPGs, although my view is more
directed at literature than performing arts (I'm no LARPer).
Storytelling is a form of literature, and impromptu storytelling as a
combined effort by a GM and a number of players is just a new version
of it.
Not all literature is art, just as not everything produced with a brush
is. Neither is an RPG automatically art, but it can be. I should say,
the moment the game grips you, the moment it gives you something and
you experience something, it's art.
That said, I don't know about its future. I will definitely introduce
my children to it should I have any, but I don't think it is going to
be widespread. I think RPGs are a symptom of a changing literary scene
though, one that will abolish the fixed form (i. e. books).
Robin
--
GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources
http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html
robin_...@my-deja.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ville Salo
With this knowledge, I thought I
>might discuss what RPG would be like in 20 more years when the skill begins to
>be passed down to children of life-long gamers.
Well, Mike Pondsmith raised a point in a presentation he gave in
RopeCon here in Finland (BTW Dana, do you have the Q&A audio tapes
uploaded already?) He spoke about how much time and work one has to
use to get in to the happy. In RPGs the time used is pretty long, as
you have to learn the rules and read the book. But with CCGs the
trouble negligible. The same comparation goes with computers and
gameconsoles. (And to think about it also to LARPs which are getting
more popular all the time)
There are two ways out of oblivion, the way I see it. Either we
simplify the games so much that they are easy to start. Or we try to
give out something quite different to CCG and computer games. The
latter would probably result into gaming being a non-mainstream hobby.
It would live just like other non-mainstrean hobbies live.
--
Ville Salo vs...@sci.fi
Please do not send an e-mail copy of your reply to my post.
Aaron Day
>
> But in any case, RPGs as we know them didn't spring full-born from the
> head of Athena; they evolved from wargames (remember what TSR used to
> stand for?).
>
> So where did the modern wargame come from?
Up until the invention of rubber molds, miniature figures were hand made
and very expensive. A kid might have 5 or 10. Hardly enough to fight a
battle. I believe that mini's were necessary to provide the focus from
game to character; they were individually owned and painted by the
owner, thus creating more of a bond with the player than a mere store
bought figure. With the personal attachment to a particular figure comes
the players desire for the figure (i.e. the character) to survive and
thrive.
RPG's first evolved from mini campaign games which placed each player as
the role of king, leading a small personal army.
Aaron
Ross W. Maker
>
> <snip>
> Of course the absence of widespread literacy might have been a factor as
> well. By the time literacy became common, the kinds of fiction necessary
> to inspire what we'd call roleplaying was relatively rare; the myth and
> legend so rich in the classical world had been largely suppressed by the
> Church in western civilization, and while there were still the sagas and
> folklore and of course plays, it was quite a while before adventure stories
> were a whole genre unto themselves -- perhaps not until the Victorian
> period or later, though there were glimpses earlier. In fact, many would
> say the adventure genre and especially its most visible components, science
> fiction and fantasy, are still not all-grown-up.
Excuse me, but the medieval romances were definitely adventure stories.
And clearly, they were commonly known, at least among the literate, or
Cervantes' "Don Quixote" wouldn't have been as widely popular as it was.
RWM
Ross W. Maker
>
> David Crowe wrote:
> >
> > But in any case, RPGs as we know them didn't spring full-born from the
> > head of Athena; they evolved from wargames (remember what TSR used to
> > stand for?).
> >
> > So where did the modern wargame come from?
>
> Up until the invention of rubber molds, miniature figures were hand made
> and very expensive. A kid might have 5 or 10. Hardly enough to fight a
> battle.
Where did you get this idea? Toy soldiers (aka miniature figures) were
common AND inexpensive from the middle of the 19th Century. They were
cast in lead, using steel molds (feasible for a mass-production toy
item). Even Britains, which were the prestige line, were a relative
bargain by modern standards, considering that they were 54s, came
painted, and were often jointed.
> I believe that mini's were necessary to provide the focus from
> game to character; they were individually owned and painted by the
> owner, thus creating more of a bond with the player than a mere store
> bought figure. With the personal attachment to a particular figure comes
> the players desire for the figure (i.e. the character) to survive and
> thrive.
And some people (H. G. Wells, for example) painted medals on individual
figures which performed well in wargames. And "promoted" them by
repainting rank insignia. So this motive existed back before WW1.
RWM
Aaron Day
>
> Aaron Day wrote:
> >
> > David Crowe wrote:
> > >
> > > But in any case, RPGs as we know them didn't spring full-born from the
> > > head of Athena; they evolved from wargames (remember what TSR used to
> > > stand for?).
> > >
> > > So where did the modern wargame come from?
> >
> > Up until the invention of rubber molds, miniature figures were hand made
> > and very expensive. A kid might have 5 or 10. Hardly enough to fight a
> > battle.
>
> Where did you get this idea? Toy soldiers (aka miniature figures) were
> common AND inexpensive from the middle of the 19th Century. They were
> cast in lead, using steel molds (feasible for a mass-production toy
> item). Even Britains, which were the prestige line, were a relative
> bargain by modern standards, considering that they were 54s, came
> painted, and were often jointed.
Not only where they too big to field large battles (except outdoors) but
they were not available in a wide enough variety for multiple era's of
warfare. Most of the toy soldiers made at the that time were for
contemporary armies. Warfare at the time was conducted in large units,
not something conducive for RPGs. The availability of fantasy (monster)
miniatures in the 60's and 70's was the impetus for transitioning from
large battle to small one-on-one fights that RPGs need.
> > I believe that mini's were necessary to provide the focus from
> > game to character; they were individually owned and painted by the
> > owner, thus creating more of a bond with the player than a mere store
> > bought figure. With the personal attachment to a particular figure comes
> > the players desire for the figure (i.e. the character) to survive and
> > thrive.
>
> And some people (H. G. Wells, for example) painted medals on individual
> figures which performed well in wargames. And "promoted" them by
> repainting rank insignia. So this motive existed back before WW1.
True. Do you agree with my premise that assigning individual
characteristics and value to particular soldiers is a key building block
necessary for the evolution from wargame to RPGs?
Aaron
Aaron Day
>
> Aaron Day wrote:
> >
> >
> > Up until the invention of rubber molds, miniature figures were hand made
> > and very expensive. A kid might have 5 or 10. Hardly enough to fight a
> > battle.
>
> written on them. Miniatures are not essential for wargaming.
>
No, but they are essential if the player is to associate a character
with the miniature; an essential step for the transition from wargame to
RPG (which is what this thread is all about)
Aaron
Aaron Day
This makes me wonder if RPG could ever have evolved from freeform to
diceless to rules-light to modern RPGs.
I don't really think so. Since RPGs started as wargames, the trend has
been for more and more freedom by either more thorough rules or by
having only limited rules. Freeform role-playing is the pinnacle of
freedom so I don't think there would be much need or desire for the
thought "Lets make rules so that we can do less, and lets appoint one
player as the god who decides what happens to the rest of us". I just
don't see this happening.
Aaron
Ross W. Maker
>
> "Ross W. Maker" wrote:
> ><snip> Toy soldiers (aka miniature figures) were
> > common AND inexpensive from the middle of the 19th Century.
>
> they were not available in a wide enough variety for multiple era's of
> warfare. Most of the toy soldiers made at the that time were for
> contemporary armies. Warfare at the time was conducted in large units,
> not something conducive for RPGs. The availability of fantasy (monster)
> miniatures in the 60's and 70's was the impetus for transitioning from
> large battle to small one-on-one fights that RPGs need.
German 40mm flats WERE available for multiple periods, including
Napoleonics, Seven Years War, Thirty Years War, Medievals, and
Ancients. And Britains made medieval figures right from the start.
People DID use both sizes for recreational wargaming. H.G. Wells'
"Little Wars" was published in 1911. And Robert Louis Stevenson and his
friends had played miniature wargames as far back as the 1870's.
> Do you agree with my premise that assigning individual
> characteristics and value to particular soldiers is a key building block
> necessary for the evolution from wargame to RPGs?
RPG's need individual characteristics, but wargamers had been doing that
since the 50's at least. Skirmish wargames (where one figure = one man)
are one of the commoner forms. In "Little Wars", Wells is very unclear
about the figure:man ratio, but his battle descriptions show he thought
of the figures as individual soldiers.
RWM
Aaron Day
>
> > Not only where they too big to field large battles (except outdoors) but
> > they were not available in a wide enough variety for multiple era's of
> > warfare. Most of the toy soldiers made at the that time were for
> > contemporary armies. Warfare at the time was conducted in large units,
> > not something conducive for RPGs. The availability of fantasy (monster)
> > miniatures in the 60's and 70's was the impetus for transitioning from
> > large battle to small one-on-one fights that RPGs need.
>
> German 40mm flats WERE available for multiple periods, including
> Napoleonics, Seven Years War, Thirty Years War, Medievals, and
> Ancients. And Britains made medieval figures right from the start.
> People DID use both sizes for recreational wargaming. H.G. Wells'
> "Little Wars" was published in 1911. And Robert Louis Stevenson and his
> friends had played miniature wargames as far back as the 1870's.
Then why /didn't/ anyone invent RPGs at that time? And why did wargaming
gain in popularity in the 50s and 60s?
Aaron (missing your point)
White Crow
> the hobby. It doesn't have the 'Vampire' or 'D&D' taint of eeeeeevil. Perhaps
> invite the parents to play, too? More often than not, it's a complete and total
> lack of understanding of what an RPG game is that causes people to have fits.
> (Of course, you could just call it an 'adventure game' and perhaps avoid the
> whole mess.)
That's true. I have just been a bit wary of alienating the parents of my
son's friends. Can you imagine the therapy sessons? "I never can make
and kep friends. Every time someone's mom comes over, my mom scares her
away!" ;) Ok, it's never been like that, and I've met people at least
familiar with gaming in the weirest places (the owner of my local
scrapbooking store is married to the guy who designed the X-Files ccg.
She actually knew what I was talking about. It was bizarre! ;) )
And Sailor Moon is a great place to start with kids. Or using those
rules, you could make a Pokemon (horrors!) rpg just as easily. Can you
imagine a *better* vehicle to get elementary kids started? All they want
to do is beat people up anyway! (Although my son is rather proud of his
first char ever, who he calls Sailor Boy, a conscript aboard a pirate
vessel who valiently gave his life to save his captain. On purpose.)
> Me too. It would be great to retire having done nothing but RPG material for
> most of my career.
> And as far as dice goes... when *I* was young we didn't have no stinkin'
> dice... we used chits in a paper cup! ;)
Bah! Those don't rattle quite hte same way. Once you try dice, you never
go back. ;)
> It would be nice if more gamers would keep this in mind when they start
> bitching about this book or that book being a 'rip-off.' I got three years of
> play out of the TSR adventure 'Saga of the Shadowlord' and I'm STILL using
> 'Castle Greyhawk' whenever I need some bit of weirdness as a change of pace in
> my D&D campaigns.
There was a thing on RPG.net at one point that showed how an rpg is way
cheaper than going to the movies every week, even with supplements. I
wish all my hobbies were that cheap. I doubt any of them are. Even
buying a paperback novel isn't, really, unless I read that same novel *a
lot*.
> Yep. (Even if I never did figure out how to con someone into publishing NUELOW
> in a commercial format. :) )
They're just unenlightened fools. ;)
> Point of clarification: I did not write that paragraph. The person who
> initiated this thread did. (The same is true for all the rest of the material
> you quoted.)
I know. I am horrible with attributing things properly, since I hate
having 10 lines of who is talking at the top. I try to cut all of that
out so there's no confusion. ;)
> Actually, that's one of the charms of an RPG, I think. That's why I
> (personally) think that gamers who obsess about 'canon' of game worlds and who
> feel they can't advance their personal campaigns unless they have the latest
> word from WW or TSR, or who go into coniptions when someone says, 'don't like
> the rules? change 'em' are missing out.
Definately. I learned to rewrite rpgs when I started DMing ADND way back
when. Most of my players were well experienced with the game, and some
even Dm'ed themselves. So I ended up changing everything just so that
they couldn't use their memorized stats.
After that, I found it fun to use what I've been given and extrapolate.
Tweak here and there, etc. I like to add my own twist to stuff,
especially if there's a chance the other players are familiar with it.
> Exactly. (That was why I said that some might already consider this field
> 'non-commercial.' Many (most?) of the publishers are barely above the level of
> self-publication vanity presses. Certainly, SFWA finds those who work in this
> field beneath their notice.)
;) The line between "amatuer" and "professional" is often pretty slim in
this business. Few people get to do rpg design/writing full-time.
> I believe this to be the case also. Which is why I think it such a shame when I
> come across older gamers dumping on kids/behaving like snobbish twits rather
> than attempting to show them games beyond the Playstation (or Rifts).
Definately! I've seen snobbery being applied even to older gamers who
were new ("we only accept 'experienced' players."). And that's a shame.
I'll take anyone who wants to learn. And train them right. ;)
--
The White Crow
FUDGE Deryni and more: http://www.io.com/~whytcrow/rpg.html
"I hope I never do anything without due thought, even if the thought sometimes
has to shift its feet pretty briskly to keep up with the deed." -- Cadfael
"You must have been very wicked, for your God has sent me to punish you
for your sins." -- Ghenghis Khan
White Crow
> a-days. That stuff seemed to come and go pretty quick. Hell, weren't
> they playing D&D in E.T.
I haven't run into it lately, but I have at various points in time. Makes
one wary. Especially at introducing new kids to the game that are my
son's friends. Although that makes it seem like *I* think something's
wrong with it, but I've had many friends who either couldn't tell their
parents they game or get a lot of flack b/c of it, due to the "satanic"
rumors. One of my players talks about the stuff his mom sends him to try
and "correct" his behaviour.
It's probably just die hards who got onto the "evil rpg" kick way back
when...but still.
> I'd like to see sales number to support this because up until the late
> '80s, RPG were hard to find. I remember having to drive halfway across
> town to the closest game store. It wasn't until the 90s or so that you
> could get D&D in any bookstore.
I dunno. I don't have any info from the industry, but I got almost all of
my ADnD stuff from Waldenbooks and other bookstores from 82-87. Then I
moved somewhere that had a game store. The few occasions when I didn't
get it from the book store in the mid-80s, I'd gone to a far away comic
shop that started carrying the odd rpg book.
> As far as being 'commercial'. It seems that RPGs may soon go the way of
> computer games. It wasn't long ago that two or three guys could crank
> out a successfull computer game, now it requires huge teams of
> programmers and artists. Maybe Hasbro's purchase of TSR will usher in
> the "professional age" of RPGs.
Maybe. Who knows? Although you can still do an rpg with a few people,
given the right few (meaning combination of skills).
> I heard about D&D from my older brother who told me about this game they
> played in high school behind the library where you could "do whatever
> you wanted".
I learned about it from a guy in my neighborhood who was on the chess team
(I was a true geek, even in 7th grade) with me. He found out I read
scifi/fantasy and decided I *had* to play rpgs. Of course, being that for
a long time our gaming group was just us two, I can see why he was so keen
to recruit me. ;)
Ross W. Maker
You postulated that it was the absence of miniatures that kept it from
happening. I was demonstrating that you were mistaken. The elements
you cited as important were there on the wargames side. But the spark
didn't happen. Why? I don't know. That's what this thread is trying
to discover.
RWM
Ken St-Cyr
> Aaron Day wrote:
> > Then why /didn't/ anyone invent RPGs at that time? And why did wargaming
> > gain in popularity in the 50s and 60s?
> >
> You postulated that it was the absence of miniatures that kept it from
> happening. I was demonstrating that you were mistaken. The elements
> you cited as important were there on the wargames side. But the spark
> didn't happen. Why? I don't know. That's what this thread is trying
> to discover.
So we had miniatures. We had pulp fiction and movies. In the 50s and
60s we had the Cold War and the threat of nuclear destruction. The
_Lord of the Rings_ was published in that time as well. Was it the
longing for the good old days that made people want to role-play figures
from the past? Here in America we played "Cowboys and Indians" as
children, and there were army men and GI Joes, but I don't know when
that all started. Maybe it was a generation of folks who grew up
with that stuff and then were introduced to formal rules for
miniatures wargames that made the connection.
Aaron Day
>
> > > German 40mm flats WERE available for multiple periods, including
> > > Napoleonics, Seven Years War, Thirty Years War, Medievals, and
> > > Ancients. And Britains made medieval figures right from the start.
> > > People DID use both sizes for recreational wargaming. H.G. Wells'
> > > "Little Wars" was published in 1911. And Robert Louis Stevenson and his
> > > friends had played miniature wargames as far back as the 1870's.
> >
> > gain in popularity in the 50s and 60s?
> >
> You postulated that it was the absence of miniatures that kept it from
> happening. I was demonstrating that you were mistaken. The elements
> you cited as important were there on the wargames side. But the spark
> didn't happen. Why? I don't know. That's what this thread is trying
> to discover.
It was the absence of cheap miniatures of a wide variety (i.e fantasy)
that prevented the jump from wargames to rpgs. The sixties saw the
widespread use of "hobby" miniatures which could be created and sold by
pretty much anyone. Plus, the use of photocopiers meant that it was
easier than ever for ideas (in the form of new rules) to be printed and
sent around.
I still think that the metal toy soldiers available in the 1800s/early
1900s were pretty expensive but I'll have to research it more.
Aaron
Ross W. Maker
>
> I still think that the metal toy soldiers available in the 1800s/early
> 1900s were pretty expensive but I'll have to research it more.
IIRC, a box of 12 painted Britains 54mm infantry went for 2 shillings
(about 50 cents). Effective minimum wage at the time was about 20 cents
an hour, so that's 2.5 hours work at minimum wage. Or $12.50 today. A
pack of 8 unpainted Foundry 25s goes for $13.00. In 1970, it would be
equivalent to $4.00, which would have gotten you 10 unpainted Jack
Scruby 20s. So, if anything, miniatures were relatively MORE expensive
in the time frame when RPGs got started.
RWM
Fitz
>So where did the modern wargame come from?
The Kriegspiel used as a training aid by the Prussian army in the
latter half of the 19th century was the first widespread, formalised
rule set for wargaming on record. There are earlier instances of
wargaming with model soldiers recorded, but they were highly localised
and their rules have not been preserved.
Mr. Tines
s.net>, Aaron Day <aa...@cambertx.com> writes
>It was the absence of cheap miniatures of a wide variety (i.e fantasy)
>that prevented the jump from wargames to rpgs. The sixties saw the
Tommyrot! Widely available and varied (fantasy) figures followed the
D&D wave by some years. There were essentially no fantasy figures to be
had back in the mid 70s when I started playing D&D; the Minifigs Middle
Earth range (with the one wizard in pointy hat figure, and an orc
figure) was about the limit.
>widespread use of "hobby" miniatures which could be created and sold by
>pretty much anyone. Plus, the use of photocopiers meant that it was
>easier than ever for ideas (in the form of new rules) to be printed and
>sent around.
This I think is sound - the hobby spread as a samiszdat - you couldn't
get the official rules for D&D for love nor money, but a lot of bootleg
xeroxes were floating around.
-- PGPfingerprint: BC01 5527 B493 7C9B 3C54 D1B7 248C 08BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a08470}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {69c10bcfbca894a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0}
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< http://www.ravnaandtines.com/
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@ravnaandtines.com PGP key on page
Frank J. Perricone
> : Another wild speculation -- perhaps the advent of television was key.
> : Previous forms of entertainment required a bit more exercise of imagination
> : and active involvement; perhaps it took TV's soporific quality to drive
> : some people into saying "argh, I can't take this!" and looking for a way to
> : swing the pendulum too far the other way. I'm hesitant to even propose
> : this idea, though, because it smacks of the self-congratulatory "gamers are
> : the coolest, most imaginative, most respect-worthy people" tripe that goes
> : around so often.
>
> Just because people were looking for something different doesn't mean they
> were any better as people.
True, but given how widely accepted is the statement that "TV is terrible
brain-rot-inducing tripe" (generally accepted even by those who watch it
all the time), saying "we're the folks who were driven to other things by
TV" is heading in a dangerous direction. Similarly, there's nothing
inherently better about activeness as opposed to passiveness, as any
Eastern philosopher will tell you, but there's a connotative preference for
being active over being passive, so if I say "we were motivated by the
passivity of TV-watching to find a more active way to participate in the
story" it smells like patting ourselves on the back again.
> But in any case, RPGs as we know them didn't spring full-born from the
> head of Athena; they evolved from wargames (remember what TSR used to
> stand for?).
True, but I considered that to be a false lead. The many folks who came to
RPGing only after White Wolf made a dent with Vampire might just as well
assume that roleplaying derives from the Goth subculture, but I think that
all that happened is Vampire provided a bridge bringing Goth and
roleplaying together. When I think of that and then push back a decade or
two, I think wargaming turning into roleplaying is only true because we've
defined "RPGs as we know them" (your words) that way -- roleplaying existed
as an entertainment pursuit before then, but it wasn't "RPGs as we know
them". By focusing on them, I think you're just changing to a different
question -- why was it that roleplaying and strategics didn't come together
until the 1970s? This is also a good question, but it's not the question
that was being asked.
--
* Frank J. Perricone * hawt...@sover.net * http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn
Prism: http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn/Prism/
Just because we aren't all the same doesn't mean we have nothing in common
Just because we have something in common doesn't mean we're all the same
Aaron Day
>
> >It was the absence of cheap miniatures of a wide variety (i.e fantasy)
> >that prevented the jump from wargames to rpgs. The sixties saw the
>
> Tommyrot! Widely available and varied (fantasy) figures followed the
> D&D wave by some years. There were essentially no fantasy figures to be
> had back in the mid 70s when I started playing D&D; the Minifigs Middle
> Earth range (with the one wizard in pointy hat figure, and an orc
> figure) was about the limit.
Ok, I've pretty much given up this premise. However I have one question:
What mini's did Dave Arneson use when he ran the first D&D game? If no
mini's were available for monsters, why did the rules for the first 5
years or so stress their use? I know they played with plastic toys as I
have a toy Rust Monster and Bullette that I got in the 70's.
> >widespread use of "hobby" miniatures which could be created and sold by
> >pretty much anyone. Plus, the use of photocopiers meant that it was
> >easier than ever for ideas (in the form of new rules) to be printed and
> >sent around.
>
> This I think is sound - the hobby spread as a samiszdat - you couldn't
> get the official rules for D&D for love nor money, but a lot of bootleg
> xeroxes were floating around.
I was thinking more on the lines of spreading new miniature rules
around, thus fueling the desire for more varied and complete rules.
Aaron
Aaron Day
>
> > But in any case, RPGs as we know them didn't spring full-born from the
> > head of Athena; they evolved from wargames (remember what TSR used to
> > stand for?).
>
> True, but I considered that to be a false lead. The many folks who came to
> RPGing only after White Wolf made a dent with Vampire might just as well
> assume that roleplaying derives from the Goth subculture, but I think that
> all that happened is Vampire provided a bridge bringing Goth and
> roleplaying together. When I think of that and then push back a decade or
> two, I think wargaming turning into roleplaying is only true because we've
> defined "RPGs as we know them" (your words) that way -- roleplaying existed
> as an entertainment pursuit before then, but it wasn't "RPGs as we know
> them". By focusing on them, I think you're just changing to a different
> question -- why was it that roleplaying and strategics didn't come together
> until the 1970s? This is also a good question, but it's not the question
> that was being asked.
Your question confuses me. Are you suggesting the Vampire:TM could have
been published if D&D (and other RPGs) had never existed?
If you are trying to distinguish between "role playing" (which has
existed as long as civilization) and "role playing games" (which have
only existed since the 1970's) I also don't see your point. Their is no
sense discussing the origins of the former while the latter
unquestionably evolved from wargames. The points being discussed are
"why" and "was this the only way"
Aaron
Brett Evill
>
> But in any case, RPGs as we know them didn't spring full-born from the
> head of Athena; they evolved from wargames (remember what TSR used to
> stand for?).
>
I have heard that they can trace their roots back to simulations
designed by the Prussian General Staff for testing tactics, at least as
early as 1866.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Brett Evill
>
>
> Up until the invention of rubber molds, miniature figures were hand made
> and very expensive. A kid might have 5 or 10. Hardly enough to fight a
> battle.
The Prussian General Staff used blocks of wood with unit designations
written on them. Miniatures are not essential for wargaming.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Ryan Conner Stoughton
Jerry Stratton wrote:
> board games (how many *themed* board
> games were there before the twentieth century? Things like Monopoly as
> opposed to things like Checkers);
Themed board games may have come before abstract games like checkers. Snakes and
Ladders is a good example - there were lots of games that were just about sin versus
virtue.
Ryan Stoughton
Ryan Conner Stoughton
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Something I've occasionally wondered: Roleplaying requires no equipment other
> than books, dice, and paper and pencil.
>
> So why wasn't it invented before? They could have been invented at the very
> start of the 20th century, or even earlier (though people might not necessarily
> have had as much leisure time before then). Heck, why aren't archeologists
> digging up copies of ancient Roman tablets describing how to play Sumerians
> and Sorcerors?
Thinking about the origins of Chess etc. People in power pretending to be people
in power with more interesting lives, right?
Ryan Stoughton
Brett Evill
>
>
> It was the absence of cheap miniatures of a wide variety (i.e fantasy)
> that prevented the jump from wargames to rpgs.
Have you any evidence for that? Or are we supposed to take it as
revealed knowledge?
Regards,
Brett
Brett Evill
And of course chess was originally had a 'war here in India' theme.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Aaron Pound
Aaron Day wrote:
> "Mr. Tines" wrote:
> However I have one question:
> What mini's did Dave Arneson use when he ran the first D&D game? If no
> mini's were available for monsters, why did the rules for the first 5
> years or so stress their use? I know they played with plastic toys as I
> have a toy Rust Monster and Bullette that I got in the 70's.
It is very possible that they either did not use miniatures or used
representational ones, like dice as figures. I have played in many AD&D
campaigns in which miniatures were never used simply because no one wanted to
take the time or money to get and paint them.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Steve Turnbull
'Ross W. Maker' emerged to utter the unforgettable lines...
> >
> > Then why /didn't/ anyone invent RPGs at that time? And why did wargaming
> > gain in popularity in the 50s and 60s?
> >
>
> You postulated that it was the absence of miniatures that kept it from
> happening. I was demonstrating that you were mistaken. The elements
> you cited as important were there on the wargames side. But the spark
> didn't happen. Why? I don't know. That's what this thread is trying
> to discover.
Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis (but seldom truth)
;)
--
______________________________________________________________________
| |
| Steve Turnbull, Publisher publ...@visions-mag.com |
| |
| Visions Role-Playing Games Web-Mag http://www.visions-mag.com |
| Published by Tau Press http://www.tau-press.com |
| |
| Tau Press, Media House, Adlington Park, Macclesfield, SK10 4NP, UK |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Frank J. Perricone
> Your question confuses me. Are you suggesting the Vampire:TM could have
> been published if D&D (and other RPGs) had never existed?
Literally, no. But *a* game combining roleplaying and Goth culture could
easily have been created even if D&D had never come into existence -- it
would have been a different game, probably devoid of the wargame influence
(represented by using numbers, points, charts, etc.) but it would have
existed. (I suspect it would have been more LARPish and thus resembled the
SCA. In fact, I bet if you look, you'll find that it actually *did* exist
at some point.)
> If you are trying to distinguish between "role playing" (which has
> existed as long as civilization) and "role playing games" (which have
> only existed since the 1970's) I also don't see your point. Their is no
> sense discussing the origins of the former while the latter
> unquestionably evolved from wargames. The points being discussed are
> "why" and "was this the only way"
If that's really the question, then I'm sorry to have distracted, but I
think that's a much less interesting question than the one that I saw in
the words of the actual post that started it.
Now that I know what the question is, it seems pretty simple to me.
Roleplaying, even in game form, existed all along. What we were waiting
for is for wargaming to reach a point where it could cross with it.
Wargaming existed for a long time too, but there were several reasons why
it didn't naturally lead to roleplaying:
* A lot of it was in abstract form, like chess or go, not at all dedicated
to simulating specific encounters.
* Generally getting involved in it was very costly and time-consuming
because of the way figures and maps were done. This limited it to a small
group of people, but more importantly, it meant even those people were
unlikely to get into it unless they were really ready to get into it
wholeheartedly. Thus, the only people doing it were people who really were
interested in what it was -- not those who might like some of the ideas of
it, but ultimately want to take them in a different direction.
Thus, the two factors that made the difference were:
* The wars of the 19th and 20th century were better understood and more
complex, which led wargaming away from abstractions and into a more
simulationist approach. Instead of playing an archetypical war, people
were playing specific wars, specific battles, and eventually, specific
commanders with their specific personalities. This existed earlier, of
course, but it became more prevalent and dovetailed with a drive to more
accuracy.
* Advances in publishing made it practical to produce a complete wargame
someone could buy with pocket money. No need to buy and paint hundreds of
figurines and build a diorama; it all fit in a folder. Suddenly people
could get into wargames as easily as chess, and they did. That meant that
people might otherwise have been turned away by the high cost and effort
could "dabble" in wargames and discover they liked some parts but not
others. Then, they might take the ideas they liked and try structuring
them a different way. Perhaps most important was focusing on individuals
instead of whole armies.
So in the end I think it's mostly the most obvious explanation after all.
It's kinda like how evolution gets over a functionality gap; it waits until
the time is right to find a way to get there by small steps, each of which
makes sense individually.
Mark Baker
>>Roleplaying did exist in Victorian times, though not in the formalised
>>way it exists today. The Bronte family (three famous lady novelists and
>>an artist) created their own system and world setting for roleplaying.
>
From the Concise Encarta online:-
The Brontė children's imaginations transmuted a set of wooden soldiers
into characters in a series of stories they wrote about the imaginary
kingdom of Angria - the property of Charlotte and Branwell - and the
kingdom of Gondal - which belonged to Emily and Anne. A hundred tiny
handwritten volumes (started in 1829) of the chronicles of Angria
survive, but nothing of the Gondal saga (started in 1834), except some
of Emily's poems. The relationship of these stories to the sisters'
later novels is a matter of much interest to scholars.
So much of the material has been lost, but some has survived. I couldn't
find any traces of it on the web doing a quick search. The Bronte museum
in Haworth has a web site, I might try visiting there later: I'd imagine
they're as likely as anybody to have some of the documents (which were
written on postcard sized pieces of paper).
--
Mark Baker
Web Pages: http://www.lange.demon.co.uk/Index.html
Timothy J. Miller
> It is very possible that they either did not use miniatures or used
> representational ones, like dice as figures. I have played in many AD&D
> campaigns in which miniatures were never used simply because no one wanted to
> take the time or money to get and paint them.
I have been known to argue that miniatures can, in some ways,
detract from the game experience.
I won't though.
Scott Barrie
wrote:
>Roleplaying did exist in Victorian times, though not in the formalised
>way it exists today. The Bronte family (three famous lady novelists and
>an artist) created their own system and world setting for roleplaying.
Interesting. Cite?
Scott B. Barrie Physics Grad Student
ICQ: 31902206 Try the free Quest RPG
http://trollsden.physics.uwo.ca/quest.htm
Michael T. Richter
news:7fH9NwImuZLuSPBZDlm01T3L=z...@4ax.com...
>>Roleplaying did exist in Victorian times, though not in the formalised
>>way it exists today. The Bronte family (three famous lady novelists and
>>an artist) created their own system and world setting for roleplaying.
> Interesting. Cite?
My Penguin edition of Wuthering Heights makes mention of this in the
introduction. The "system" was more just story-telling conversations. The
setting, however, was huge and lavish.
--
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
-- Nadia Mizner <nad...@onthenet.com.au> (in private correspondence)
Mark Baker
>>Roleplaying did exist in Victorian times, though not in the formalised
>>way it exists today. The Bronte family (three famous lady novelists and
>>an artist) created their own system and world setting for roleplaying.
>
>Interesting. Cite?
>
LEGENDS OF ANGRIA, 1933 Compiled from the Early Writings of Charlotte,
Emily and Anne Brontė, It was republished in 1971 edited by W. Gérin.
Brontė, Charlotte and Patrick Branwell. The Miscellaneous and
Unpublished Writings of Charlotte and Patrick Branwell Brontė in Two
Volumes. Volume II. Ed. by Thomas J. Wise and John A. Symington. Oxford:
The Shakespeare Head Brontė, 1938.
The Brontė's Web of Childhood by Fannie Ratchford (1941);
If you or your local library has access to http://www.majorauthors.psmed
ia.com/ you'll find a lot of the Angria material is online, but requires
a subscription to access it. psmedia does offer a thirty-day trial if
you can convince your local library.
Steve Miller
<< That's true. I have just been a bit wary of alienating the parents of my
son's friends. >>
Understandable.
<< Can you imagine the therapy sessons? "I never can make
and kep friends. Every time someone's mom comes over, my mom scares her
away!" ;) >>
Actually, sounds like a great topic of Jerry Springer or Jenny Jones... "Help!
My Mother's a Game Geek!" :)
And I just nodded my head a lot at the rest of your comments, so no need for a
series of 'Agreed.' :)
Steve Miller
Writer of Stuff
"I've got way too much class to watch Jerry Springer. Come over here and pull
on my finger."
--"Jerry Springer," Weird Al
Bryan J. Maloney
When doing a web search, note that there is a real-world town called
Gondal, near Ahmedabad, in Bhavnagar, India. The current Maharini runs
her palace as a hotel.
Bryan J. Maloney
<07D4AF5347F58CA6.A1EC456B...@lp.airnews.net>,
aa...@cambertx.com wrote:
> years or so stress their use? I know they played with plastic toys as I
> have a toy Rust Monster and Bullette that I got in the 70's.
If they're what I think, those two critters were actually sold originally
in a package of "dinosaurs". No, they're not any particular dinosaur,
just something that was made cheaply in Asia and sold as a cheap toy.
Bryan J. Maloney
We shouldn't forget the purely play-by-mail games of the 1960s-70s that
mixed politics, warmaking, and some level of roleplay. Wasn't there a
Hyboria-based game that had quite a bit of influence on Gygax?
Aaron Day
Ya know, this thread is starting to look like the "Vampire is just the
culmination of other trends" thread. So much for inovators.
Aaron
SD Anderson
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:15:08 +0100, Mark Baker wrote:
>> Roleplaying did exist in Victorian times, though not in the
>> formalised way it exists today. The Bronte family (three
>> famous lady novelists and an artist) created their own system
>> and world setting for roleplaying.
> Interesting. Cite?
It was closer to an interactive fiction PBM than a game.
Emily Bronte wrote hers as Epic Poetry. If you can dig up an old
DAW book edited by Jessica Amanda Salmonson titled Amazons (sort
of a 'Chicks in Chainmail' without the tongue in cheek)
0-87997-503-2, you can find fragments concerning the death of
Emily's character Augusta.
Jerry Stratton
<hawt...@sover.net> wrote:
>Literally, no. But *a* game combining roleplaying and Goth culture could
>easily have been created even if D&D had never come into existence -- it
>would have been a different game, probably devoid of the wargame influence
>(represented by using numbers, points, charts, etc.) but it would have
>existed. (I suspect it would have been more LARPish and thus resembled the
>SCA. In fact, I bet if you look, you'll find that it actually *did* exist
>at some point.)
A long, long time ago (I can still remember), this conversation came up
either privately or on rec.games.frp. Someone in Germany claimed something
like this (medieval-based, not vampire-based, but closer to roleplaying
than SCA) had predated D&D, in Germany. The title, as I recall, was
"Midgard". Unfortunately, I can't find my notes on this (they may have
been lost when I dumped my Windows computer).
Jerry Stratton
<b.e...@tyndale.apana.snipthis.org.au> wrote:
>And of course chess was originally had a 'war here in India' theme.
Which armies were represented?
Brett Evill
>
> In article <37FD64...@tyndale.apana.snipthis.org.au>, Brett Evill
> <b.e...@tyndale.apana.snipthis.org.au> wrote:
> >And of course chess was originally had a 'war here in India' theme.
>
> Which armies were represented?
I don't know, and I expect that the information is lost in antiquity. I
expect that they were generic armies of the time and place.
I seem to recall reading that pawns represented spearmen, rooks were
chariots, bishops were elephants, and the queen (then a very weak piece)
was the advisor: if not in the original game, at least in a very ancient
one.
Regards,
Brett Evill
SD Anderson
<BECAE00823197667.4FE1762A...@lp.airnews.net>,
aa...@cambertx.com wrote:
> Mark Baker wrote:
> >
> > Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> writes
> > >I can understand that ancient peoples didn't have the technology to print
> > >many copies of a rulebook, but I was mostly wondering about why there weren't,
> > >say, Victorians playing RPGs. There were certainly tabletop games then. Even
> > >World War II is far earlier than RPGs really appeared, and at that point there
> > >were not only wargames, but movie serials, pulp magazines and dime store
> > >adventure novels, not to mention comic books.
> > >
> > Roleplaying did exist in Victorian times, though not in the formalised
> > way it exists today. The Bronte family (three famous lady novelists and
> > an artist) created their own system and world setting for roleplaying.
> >
>
> This makes me wonder if RPG could ever have evolved from freeform to
> diceless to rules-light to modern RPGs.
>
> I don't really think so. Since RPGs started as wargames, the trend has
> been for more and more freedom by either more thorough rules or by
> having only limited rules. Freeform role-playing is the pinnacle of
> freedom so I don't think there would be much need or desire for the
> thought "Lets make rules so that we can do less, and lets appoint one
> player as the god who decides what happens to the rest of us". I just
> don't see this happening.
Emily: "With one swift but brutal swing of my axe, I
bring to close the pitiful book that is your life, and
take your severed cranium as proof of my triumph and
certitude of my reward."
Charlotte: "Not so! I lithely bent low enough that your
ponderously slow blade cut naught but the air over my head
and impaled you through your blackened souless heart."
The Bronte's world appears to be slightly interactive
fiction, making direct confrontation like this unlikely,
but should it have occured, some manner of resolution
might have beeen required, such as dice or cards.
Modern RP gaming didn't spawn from the Bronte sisters. It
could have though.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark Baker
> Modern RP gaming didn't spawn from the Bronte sisters. It
>could have though.
>
now with round-the-table games, but it was certainly a lot closer to
roleplaying than the games of "let's pretend" that most of us played as
children, and which go back thousands of years.
If you were to suggest to the ILF that what they do isn't roleplaying,
and they'll readily disagree with you.... Interactive Literature is not
very different to that of the Brontes, with emphasis on the storytelling
rather than the game mechanics. Live Action can trace its roots back to
re-enactment societies, which existed long before the 1970's, yet it's
still roleplaying.
I just felt the tenor of the thread was suggesting that roleplaying was
invented in the 1970's, which is certainly not true. Roleplaying owes
its roots to games going back centuries.
willre...@my-deja.com
Brett Evill <b.e...@tyndale.apana.snipthis.org.au> wrote:
> Jerry Stratton wrote:
> >
> > In article <37FD64...@tyndale.apana.snipthis.org.au>, Brett
Evill
> > <b.e...@tyndale.apana.snipthis.org.au> wrote:
> > >And of course chess was originally had a 'war here in India' theme.
> >
> > Which armies were represented?
>
> I don't know, and I expect that the information is lost in antiquity.
I
> expect that they were generic armies of the time and place.
>
> I seem to recall reading that pawns represented spearmen, rooks were
> chariots, bishops were elephants, and the queen (then a very weak
piece)
> was the advisor: if not in the original game, at least in a very
ancient
> one.
>
The Queen was known as the advisor or Visier and had the modern King
move, very weak. The original game had an element of luck since you
could only move a piece indicated by a die roll.
The very earliest rules that we have were for a four-sided game with no
partnerships, so there was probably an element of diplomacy involved,
'attack him, don't attack me.' etc, involved. While these are the
earliest rules known, some people think that a four-sided game almost
HAD to descend from a two-sided game. I think that is likely, as well.
--
Bill Reich
Formerly a USCF-rated chessplayer, rating almost microscopic
Aaron Day
>
> SD Anderson <10225...@compuserve.com> writes
> > Modern RP gaming didn't spawn from the Bronte sisters. It
> >could have though.
> >
> I agree that the Bronte sisters didn't roleplay in quite the way we do
> now with round-the-table games, but it was certainly a lot closer to
> roleplaying than the games of "let's pretend" that most of us played as
> children, and which go back thousands of years.
How so? Other than writing down what they did, their actions were little
different than mine when I was a kid.
> If you were to suggest to the ILF that what they do isn't roleplaying,
> and they'll readily disagree with you.... Interactive Literature is not
> very different to that of the Brontes, with emphasis on the storytelling
> rather than the game mechanics. Live Action can trace its roots back to
> re-enactment societies, which existed long before the 1970's, yet it's
> still roleplaying.
>
> I just felt the tenor of the thread was suggesting that roleplaying was
> invented in the 1970's, which is certainly not true. Roleplaying owes
> its roots to games going back centuries.
Role-playing "games" were invented in the 70s. Could what the Bronte
sisters did ever evolve in to a game with rules and a GM? I don't think
so.
Aaron
Ross W. Maker
>
> Aaron Day wrote:
>
> > "Mr. Tines" wrote:
>
> > However I have one question:
> > What mini's did Dave Arneson use when he ran the first D&D game? If no
> > mini's were available for monsters, why did the rules for the first 5
> > have a toy Rust Monster and Bullette that I got in the 70's.
>
> representational ones, like dice as figures. I have played in many AD&D
> campaigns in which miniatures were never used simply because no one wanted to
> take the time or money to get and paint them.
My recollection, as one of DLA's original group, is that we didn't use
miniatures.
RWM
Ross W. Maker
>
> We shouldn't forget the purely play-by-mail games of the 1960s-70s that
> mixed politics, warmaking, and some level of roleplay. Wasn't there a
> Hyboria-based game that had quite a bit of influence on Gygax?
I don't know about EGG, but the "Arneson Gang" was definitely
influenced by the style of the Poastal Diplomacy 'zines. We used a
similar format in our Napoleonic and ACW campaigns from the late '60's
(refereed by DLA). And, though we didn't call it that, we had a lot of
role-playing going on in those. Despatches from the field, government
proclaimations, court reports, even a gossip column. No question that
the path from there to Blackmoor is quite clear.
RWM
Aaron Day
Why were the initial rules seem so mini-centric (using inches instead of
feet/yards for example)? Was this just because of their wargaming
background?
Aaron (started playing in '79. Still feels like a newbie)
Bryan J. Maloney
<F9318AD9ABA77647.2F178A10...@lp.airnews.net>,
aa...@cambertx.com wrote:
> "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
> >
> > We shouldn't forget the purely play-by-mail games of the 1960s-70s that
> > mixed politics, warmaking, and some level of roleplay. Wasn't there a
> > Hyboria-based game that had quite a bit of influence on Gygax?
>
>
> Ya know, this thread is starting to look like the "Vampire is just the
> culmination of other trends" thread. So much for inovators.
Your point being?
Bryan J. Maloney
<rma...@4dintsys.com> wrote:
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> >
> > We shouldn't forget the purely play-by-mail games of the 1960s-70s that
> > mixed politics, warmaking, and some level of roleplay. Wasn't there a
> > Hyboria-based game that had quite a bit of influence on Gygax?
>
> I don't know about EGG, but the "Arneson Gang" was definitely
> influenced by the style of the Poastal Diplomacy 'zines. We used a
> similar format in our Napoleonic and ACW campaigns from the late '60's
> (refereed by DLA). And, though we didn't call it that, we had a lot of
> role-playing going on in those. Despatches from the field, government
> proclaimations, court reports, even a gossip column. No question that
> the path from there to Blackmoor is quite clear.
Sounds a lot like EnGarde! PBeM today.
Ranma Al'Thor
: >>way it exists today. The Bronte family (three famous lady novelists and
: >>an artist) created their own system and world setting for roleplaying.
: >Hmm... has it survived? Is it on the web anywhere?
: From the Concise Encarta online:-
: The Brontė children's imaginations transmuted a set of wooden soldiers
: into characters in a series of stories they wrote about the imaginary
: kingdom of Angria - the property of Charlotte and Branwell - and the
: kingdom of Gondal - which belonged to Emily and Anne. A hundred tiny
: handwritten volumes (started in 1829) of the chronicles of Angria
: survive, but nothing of the Gondal saga (started in 1834), except some
: of Emily's poems. The relationship of these stories to the sisters'
: later novels is a matter of much interest to scholars.
There's a children's novel which I no longer remember the name of in which
the Bronte's soldiers eventually came to life and tried to make sense of
their own existence (they remembered all the stories told by the children
as real, but now found themselves in this strange land of giants). It was
very cool, but I can no longer remember the title...
--
John Walter Biles : MA-History, Ph.D Wannabe at U. Kansas
ra...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
rh...@tass.org http://www.tass.org/~rhea/falcon.html
rh...@maison-otaku.net http://www.maison-otaku.net/~rhea/
KODT, Tales from the Vault II, page 35: (As Bob the guest DM becomes
obsessed...) "Okay, you hear a faint scraping sound coming from behind
you. When you turn to see what it is, you discover a small SHOE BOX is
inching its way towards you."