|
Post by GRWelsh on Mar 12, 2024 12:51:08 GMT -5
Today I was thinking of Blackmoor, not just as a setting, but as a game. I was thinking about what Rob Kuntz meant with his essay on Debunking the Chainmail/Braunstein "Derivation" Claims in his book DAVE ARNESON'S TRUE GENIUS (2017), and my understanding is that Blackmoor cannot be looked at as merely a derivation of either the CHAINMAIL Fantasy Supplement or a Braunstein. It was something new and different. It was influenced by each of those games, but wasn't just a modification or tweak. It wasn't merely the next logical step of either of those games since it has some conceptual breakthroughs that made it unique. I know even Arneson himself referred to his game as a 'medieval Braunstein' early on, but that may have simply been because Arneson didn't realize how special, unique and ground-breaking this game was that he created. The initial or early scenarios may have indeed been 'merely' medieval Braunsteins, not straying from the template Dave Wesley had established, or at least not very far. But they soon grew into something quite different, for example with the action continuing from one session to another, players able to keep playing the same character over and over, and with experience points and level progression introduced. That made it an ongoing affair rather than a one-shot game with a winner declared by the referee at the end -- so, it was distinctly different than a Braunstein. Duane Jenkins' Brownstone game shouldn't be dismissed as contributing to this evolution, either, since it introduced recurring player characters from one session to another, and neither should Mike Carr's FIGHT IN THE SKIES, which allowed fighter pilots to improve after surviving if used again in a later game session. There is an interesting thread on the OD&D boards here: odd74.proboards.com/thread/12437/dave-arnesons-blackmoor-campaign-startA decent thought experiment might be that if you could go back in time, and play games, what is the earliest point when you could say "yes, this is recognizably D&D"? Even if the terminology and mechanics are different, what is essentially the fantasy role playing game with all of the elements that you consider core to D&D? Of course 1974 D&D as published was that. And EGG's Greyhawk campaign of 1973 and perhaps even late 1972 was that. But what about Blackmoor from even earlier? Another way to ask this is: what are the elements one considers sufficient to fulfill the definition of the fantasy role-playing game we recognize as D&D (not just the name, but the gaming experience)? Having played both the CHAINMAIL Fantasy Supplement and two Braunsteins, my opinion is that they don't fit the definition. The former, while having many of the elements that became included in D&D, was still fundamentally a table top wargame for miniatures. Braunstein was a role-playing game but each scenario was a one-shot gaming session with the winner declared at the end by the referee, and no formal mechanics. So, I wouldn't call either of those "A D&D game by any other name..."
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Mar 12, 2024 23:27:48 GMT -5
Its interesting that lack of something creates something. I recall the lack of simplicity made us revise rules for the Marvel games with simple dice rolls. Plus that Gamma crap would have been dead in 4 games if I didn't borrow from other games and fill in gaps. I also recall people being more creative when I was young with play in general. People's homes would be determinative of rules giving rise to the term house rules. I recall reading my family the actual Monopoly rules in the early 80's and it being an eye opening moment. I also recall prior to Trivial Pursuit there was a made up family game of "questions" that was completely freeform and everyone had energy for then when TP came out it buried and destroyed it making the enthusiasts lapse with inclusion of "weaker" players who depended on the cards.
Sometimes, I look at Gary's stuff and get a clawing feeling to straight up illustrate and adapt the newer material. Then I recall my wariness of being shut down by the fanatics (All too real less than 2 years ago with the bizarre attack, claiming erroneously that I didn't sign a non-disclosure agreement for Castle Zagyg with Troll Lord Games at the behest of Gary, for no reason except perhaps just to keep me away from the Gary properties. Hey, it worked. Don't care.). The Arneson and Gygax legacy has never reached their potentials. Gary's offspring are doing things that I don't really seem to "grok grok" what exactly it is supposed to be. Are they all making "fundraiser Silmarillion" modules? I don't get it.
Arneson seems to have an exuberant camp like Gary but doesn't seem to have any offspring to carry on product even nominally. I recall Kuntz being excited to see Arneson but in retrospect, knowing what I know now that he never gave a flying shit about my POV, maybe Dave was just an opportunity for him. I don't think Rob ever knew his own personal value instead just wanted a quick solution for everything. Looking at the DA series by Dave is frustrating. That should have been his moment but maybe all TSR was rush jobs. Can any of that be salvaged?
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Mar 13, 2024 9:37:11 GMT -5
I was just recently discussing with my sister how when we were young the solution to boredom was creativity. We learned to never whine to our parents about being bored on the long summer days. We knew the response would be "If you don't have anything to do, I'll give you something to do!" So, it was always "find other kids" and play a game or invent rules if you didn't have enough players, or if you were by yourself get out the crayons and construction paper and tape and make something. We were discussing this because we feel like kids today are missing out on something important. Ironically, my sister and I don't feel like *we* missed out by not having smart phones, streaming services, the internet, etc. (i.e., the power to never be bored, yet without any earned achievement). Being bored, and learning how to overcome that, is an important prompt to creativity.
The DA modules deserve an analysis by someone more knowledgeable on the topic than I. My impression was they were an example of misguided good will: "Let's give Dave Arneson the slick, corporate TSR presentation he always deserved!" He did deserve it! But was the end product a good representation of the Blackmoor campaign? It always seemed to me not to be the case, since it was shoehorned into the world of Mystara three thousand years in the past, and Dave Arneson isn't even credited as the author of the fourth module in the series.
Going back to original Blackmoor (1970-72?), my impression is that the main difference between it and D&D (1974) is lack of structure and formalized rules in Blackmoor. Most of it was notes and whatever was in Dave Arneson's head. It relied on the referee to make judgment calls and stay consistent with those rulings over time. What pops out to me as an example is Dave Wesely (player) complaining to Dave Arneson (referee) about the rules about fighting a troll changing from one game session to another. Blackmoor was a dynamic, playtesting crucible, but it wasn't formalized.
As Bob Meyer said in SECRETS OF BLACKMOOR when acting as referee for Blackmoor: "I didn't give them any rules. The rules were different. They were here" (he pointed to his temple) "just like David had done. You know, that's an inspiration. David was an inspiration in just about anything he did."
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Mar 13, 2024 13:18:00 GMT -5
I found a fairly in depth review of the first module, DA1 ADVENTURES IN BLACKMOOR (1986), and it dives into some of the complexities of how it came about, what it is about, problems, etc. My take on it is that it was a missed opportunity. www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOAn3KAWXgoThere are reviews for the other modules in the series, too: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FESqhEqZxucwww.youtube.com/watch?v=r1EcAnfeV0gwww.youtube.com/watch?v=dPqlJ62tKRQI never played or DMed this adventure series, so I really don't want to bash it. But from the sidelines and based on what I've read, it looks like they tried to do something weird, different and epic, instead of simply focusing on what Blackmoor was originally and why it was fun. The FIRST FANTASY CAMPAIGN (1977) published by Judges Guild captured that better, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Mar 13, 2024 22:49:38 GMT -5
Yeah, he is spot on with CITY OF THE GODS from page 17: Link to a site that has 2 mile long ship map:
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Mar 13, 2024 22:52:56 GMT -5
He was still at TSR running the city of the gods over 10 years priorly. You would think that it would have more than 5 pages of random encounters with robots.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Mar 14, 2024 8:45:46 GMT -5
That may be a recurring theme that we've often heard: Dave Arneson was a great game master but not a good writer. So, there could have been this incredibly detailed and creative campaign that wasn't reflected in the actual game notes he kept. And when another writer tried to collaborate with him to get it published, it just didn't come across as the original Blackmoor gaming experience.
One of the comments in the review of D4 THE DUCHY OF TEN stood out to me: "I can't help but feel the intent of these modules [was to] shoe horn a campaign setting into Dungeons & Dragons. And I find every reason to believe that it was done as a way of stealthily doing it because approval was not met."
That seems very plausible to me as the Known World Gazetteers and Forgotten Realms were being rolled out and promoted just as the DA modules series was cancelled.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Mar 14, 2024 10:47:27 GMT -5
I believe my original reaction was due to map size but then I felt I was being too critical it festered the more it sat. Taking off the soft-handed filter and forcefully getting back into the zeitgeist of what I thought of Arneson at the time of DA, my whole run-in with the Arneson event at a New Milford, Connecticut game store (Now long gone, wish I knew how to recover the name of that store.) in 1984 soured me out hearing the anti-TSR sentiment pre-Buck Rogers kind of gelled him in my mind, as an anti-hobby just-another-knock-off-to-waste-money-on. If my totally estranged brother wasn't buying all the what-I-Thought-of-as-at-the-time as "Mentzer shitstain D&D ripping off kids" then I would never have seen the DA series. "Arneson" became just more ammo towards the antagonistic relationship that I had with my brother... "Playing asshole D&D!", etc., etc.. And TSR getting progressively worse didn't help me love Arneson. Its hard to love him still but I'm trying.. The problem with Arneson love, is like I said, the pitfalls of Gygax love. That is sooner or later someone is going to humiliate or threaten you on the internet. I'm not even talking about the latest Troll Lords nut but what about Gary's sycophantic co-writers? Remember how if you even mentioned Gary's name he would show up sounding like the inflated text in some of Gary's LA efforts? I recall Arneson having a guy in tow when I saw him in person and I kind of imagined him as a similar entity. So if you did any kind of Arneson retrospective there might be some of that negative energy from the Gygaxian sycophants.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Mar 18, 2024 19:19:41 GMT -5
From Dave Arneson's fanzine, CORNER OF THE TABLE TOP:
In the SECRETS OF BLACKMOOR documentary, Bob Meyer claimed to be the first character who died in Blackmoor because he didn't know better than to stand and fight a troll. He thought it wasn't right that a hero should die so easily, and then wouldn't play in that game again for a long time. The above quote was shown as he was describing this event, implying it occurred then.
|
|