tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post4608258452742386987..comments2024-03-18T20:22:06.331-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: The Hobby and the IndustryJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-15869083860805951472009-04-19T14:02:00.000-04:002009-04-19T14:02:00.000-04:00Fair enough; I think this sort of debate is better...Fair enough; I think this sort of debate is better suited to a larger forum in any case. As I say, though, it is not that I disagree with the sentiments, I am just wary of the tendency to segregate these individuals into philosophical boxes, especially <I>post mortem</I>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-12748982538481553932009-04-19T13:22:00.000-04:002009-04-19T13:22:00.000-04:00Matthew,
I feel like we're going around in circle...Matthew,<br /><br />I feel like we're going around in circles here, so I'm just going to bow out of this conversation for now. Others are welcome to continue it, of course, but I'm pretty sure I don't have anything useful to add to what I've already said.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-84582274304697414242009-04-19T12:19:00.000-04:002009-04-19T12:19:00.000-04:00"Firstly, I don't see anyone, least of all myself,..."Firstly, I don't see anyone, least of all myself, trying to paint Gary as the bad guy and Dave as the good guy in the epic battle for the soul of the hobby."<br /><br />I don't believe I said that you did. Indeed, you picked up my comments which were directed to preceding discussion, not the other way around.<br /><br />"Secondly, while it's true there's a relative paucity of direct quotes from Arneson compared to Gygax, we do have enough quotes over a large enough period of time that I think it's possible to get a good sense of his overall philosophy. It's not as if Dave was a hermit for the last 30 years or kept his opinions to himself."<br /><br />Indeed not, but I am not suggesting that is the case. I am saying, however, that the evidence is unbalanced. Whether we can thus get a "good sense" of his philosophy towards RPGs is up for debate.<br /><br />"Much like Dave Hargrave, there's a lot that Arneson espoused that I don't much care for. But I think they both provided useful counterpoints to the mass market commoditized philosophy TSR eventually adopted. I don't think that's merely a rhetorical convenience and I certainly don't intend it as something so facile as that."<br /><br />Rhetorical convenience does not have to be facile; indeed, it can be useful without necessarily being a true representation of the views of the participants. As with Gygax, blurbs from Hargrave and Arneson are almost always interesting and frequently useful, but I think taht generalising them to the level of philosophy is hazardous, and runs the risk of stereotyping the individuals.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-19152356122856716442009-04-19T11:21:00.000-04:002009-04-19T11:21:00.000-04:00The stability of views we may perceive in Arneson,...<I>The stability of views we may perceive in Arneson, contrasted with an instability in Gygax smacks to me of rhetoric convenience</I>I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point. Firstly, I don't see anyone, least of all myself, trying to paint Gary as the bad guy and Dave as the good guy in the epic battle for the soul of the hobby. Secondly, while it's true there's a relative paucity of direct quotes from Arneson compared to Gygax, we do have enough quotes over a large enough period of time that I think it's possible to get a good sense of his overall philosophy. It's not as if Dave was a hermit for the last 30 years or kept his opinions to himself. <br /><br />Much like Dave Hargrave, there's a lot that Arneson espoused that I don't much care for. But I think they both provided useful counterpoints to the mass market commoditized philosophy TSR eventually adopted. I don't think that's merely a rhetorical convenience and I certainly don't intend it as something so facile as that.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-90768874677994328082009-04-19T10:46:00.000-04:002009-04-19T10:46:00.000-04:00"Doesn't this logic then suggest that it's impossi..."Doesn't this logic then suggest that it's impossible to make any kinds of analyses that aren't simply constructions? I can't imagine that's what you mean, because it would prevent anyone's being able to examine the words and actions of historical personages in a meaningful way."<br /><br />Of course not, but there is a disconnect between the constructions we create and the people we purport to represent the views of. That does not mean that the constructions are useless, it just means we ought to recognise them for what they are, especially when we use them.<br /><br />In the case of Arneson and Gygax, we have a much greater sum of evidence from which to evaluate the views of the latter, and we can perceive (or think we may) a shift in his views over the years, not to mention that we have half a hundred different lenses to view him through. It is almost like the difference between Caesar and Vercingetrix (I exaggerate, I know).<br /><br />However, the point remains the same. The stability of views we may perceive in Arneson, contrasted with an instability in Gygax smacks to me of rhetoric convenience, and strikes me as more to do the disproportionate amount of evidence we have available to us than a true evaluation of their relative views.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-48253141474571027822009-04-19T10:25:00.000-04:002009-04-19T10:25:00.000-04:00That being the case, we are now in the process of ...<I>That being the case, we are now in the process of moving away from the real people and turning them into debate elements.</I><BR><BR>Doesn't this logic then suggest that it's impossible to make any kinds of analyses that aren't simply constructions? I can't imagine that's what you mean, because it would prevent anyone's being able to examine the words and actions of historical personages in a meaningful way.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-33813736087915043302009-04-19T10:18:00.000-04:002009-04-19T10:18:00.000-04:00"I don't really see anyone putting forward differe..."I don't really see anyone putting forward differences that weren't apparent even before their deaths. I'm a pretty strong Gygax partisan, but that doesn't make me unable to recognize that there things Gary did when he was in charge that were detrimental to the hobby side of the equation. That he undertook them without malice or any perception of what they'd bring doesn't make them ex post facto exaggerations."<br /><br />Well, I would say that now you are exaggerating my objection. ;)<br /><br />Gygax certainly made business decision meant to drive the company, and that is undeniable. That these were simultaneously more detrimental to the hobby than beneficial is a debatable issue, but even assuming that such is the case, I am not seeing a difference here between Gygax and Arneson, so much as a difference between the Gygax and Arneson we are holding up for examination.<br /><br />To put it another way, your own Gygax partisanship is itself a construction, as are all of our perceptions of these two personalities. That being the case, we are now in the process of moving away from the real people and turning them into debate elements.<br /><br />To be clear, I have no issue with your actual post, I just think it is a self evident truth recognised by the majority of parties involved in the industry.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-33226910486529636272009-04-19T09:48:00.000-04:002009-04-19T09:48:00.000-04:00There seems to be a great rush of late to construc...<I>There seems to be a great rush of late to construct these personalities in the wake of their deaths, and I find it quite worrisome.</I>I don't really see anyone putting forward differences that weren't apparent even before their deaths. I'm a pretty strong Gygax partisan, but that doesn't make me unable to recognize that there things Gary did when he was in charge that were detrimental to the hobby side of the equation. That he undertook them without malice or any perception of what they'd bring doesn't make them <I>ex post facto</I> exaggerations.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-62160665699400210482009-04-19T09:42:00.000-04:002009-04-19T09:42:00.000-04:00"I think the thing to bear in mind is that, far mo..."I think the thing to bear in mind is that, far more than Dave, Gary's perspective on the hobby and its relationship to the industry changed over time. That's not to say his views were necessarily inconsistent or lacking in nuance -- though they often could be -- but I don't think much is gained by downplaying the very real differences in their styles and preferences, because they did exist and were, in some cases, quite significant."<br /><br />Maybe so, but the obverse is also true, which is to say I do not think anything is gained from exaggerating the differences. As we have noted here before, the real trick with Gygax is recognising that he had multiple faces, and that these were synonymous, rather than successive.<br /><br />We are also much more familiar with Gygax than Arneson, so we see one from a greater distance than the other, and this helps to obscure the details. There seems to be a great rush of late to construct these personalities in the wake of their deaths, and I find it quite worrisome.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-30671902209022592992009-04-18T14:57:00.000-04:002009-04-18T14:57:00.000-04:00Dice can be a crutch. But they're also indispensib...<I>Dice can be a crutch. But they're also indispensible.</I><BR><BR>Yep. This is another one of those seeming contradictions that many people just can't get beyond, but, for me, it's an important element of the Old Ways and one I need to be reminded of from time to time, lest I fall into bad habits.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-53012418277352074492009-04-18T14:54:00.000-04:002009-04-18T14:54:00.000-04:00Everything I’ve read about Dave, however, makes me...<I>Everything I’ve read about Dave, however, makes me think that this quote really reflects a fairly constant attitude of his towards the game. One which I’d hazard to say is more free-form than most of us are comfortable with.</I><BR><BR>That's my feeling as well, on both points. I'm not sure I could stomach a purely "Arnesonian" RPG campaign, but I think the approach Dave seems to have preferred is an important counterpoint to tendencies many of us give into far too often. Like Dave Hargrave, whose approach is also not quite my cup of tea, Dave Arneson was a much needed "loyal opposition" that I personally find very attractive right now.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-3466890897404874402009-04-18T14:51:00.000-04:002009-04-18T14:51:00.000-04:00I think there is a strong impulse in retrospect to...<I>I think there is a strong impulse in retrospect to differentiate Gygax and Arneson philosophically, but I think doing so runs the risk of stereotyping both of them. I imagine Gygax to be saying much the same thing when he remarked that "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."</I><BR><BR>I think the thing to bear in mind is that, far more than Dave, Gary's perspective on the hobby and its relationship to the industry changed over time. That's not to say his views were necessarily inconsistent or lacking in nuance -- though they often could be -- but I don't think much is gained by downplaying the very real differences in their styles and preferences, because they did exist and were, in some cases, quite significant.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-81376911242117996012009-04-18T14:46:00.000-04:002009-04-18T14:46:00.000-04:00I think the Internet has really highlighted this r...<I>I think the Internet has really highlighted this reality. Enthusiasts are willing to share their own "splat" content for free, or close to it, so what is the relevance of $30 expansions? A gamer doesn't really need more than one core rulebook or dice set per decade, and that doesn't seem like a basis for a sustainable business. For that matter you can get decent core rules for free from the Internet, too.</I><BR><BR>I think this is absolutely correct and it's the real challenge facing the RPG industry today. It's also why I increasingly think that there's a split in the hobby between those who approach gaming as a DIY activity and those who see it as another form of mass-produced consumer entertainment.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-63948072660261764602009-04-18T13:26:00.000-04:002009-04-18T13:26:00.000-04:00In the past, when my game was failing and my GMing...In the past, when my game was failing and my GMing sucked, I bought more stuff. I collected rule books like they were comics and fetishized dice. When I focused too much on the material aspect my game was all style and no substance. My table looked great but nothing was happening.<br /><br />My guess is that Arneson was talking about this kind of thing. Ive scaled back. I need good gamers and good ideas. I like simple dice, a composition book, and the Labyrinth Lord rules. Everything else ...Xenotouristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168777607101938122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-86681739299569042882009-04-18T12:04:00.000-04:002009-04-18T12:04:00.000-04:00Matthew James Stanham said...
"I think there is a...Matthew James Stanham said...<br /><br />"I think there is a strong impulse in retrospect to differentiate Gygax and Arneson philosophically, but I think doing so runs the risk of stereotyping both of them."<br /><br />You are absolutely right, and I definitely don't want to do that. As I said, we should be careful about reading too much into various quotes, and anyway, I think there is way too much energy placed into trying to figure out how Arneson or Gygax played so we can replicate it...we should be just playing the way we like, because I think we all can agree that's what they would want anyway.<br /><br />In addition, note that Gary ran a game for many years, even up until his death, so there is little need to speculate how he played when we can simply ask those who were in his group!Dan of Earthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957424338566461756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-9830351384133287162009-04-18T09:46:00.000-04:002009-04-18T09:46:00.000-04:00Another way of looking at Dave's comment might be ...Another way of looking at Dave's comment might be to see it as a reminder to the DM: When you are in the middle of a session (or planning for a session) be prepared to ditch the rules or the dice or the maps to do something cool that otherwise wouldn't quite work. <br /><br />It *could* be seen as a version of the 4e mantra "Say yes" -- and don't just say yes to your players, but to yourself as DM.Michellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09989288928313815012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-39163714594468352742009-04-18T02:15:00.000-04:002009-04-18T02:15:00.000-04:00James, if I might combine your last two blogs for ...James, if I might combine your last two blogs for moment.<br /><br />Dear Paizo:<br /><br />Please make a simple, short Pathfinder Basic game. Give it away on your website. (Sell printed copies too, of course.) <br /><br />Then the sell pdf's and books featuring enhancements, monsters, settings, and adventures. <br /><br />License out the property for books and toys, maybe TV and movies later. <br /><br />Profit? Might happen, given the quality of your material. <br /><br />I know this is your basic business plan with 3e/Pathfinder, but it's not going to happen with that rules set as is. It doesn't have any appeal beyond 3e grognards. Simplify the rules and encourage DIY. <br /><br />Expand the hobby.jdh417https://www.blogger.com/profile/14541882649762424101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-42904825726052281002009-04-18T01:18:00.000-04:002009-04-18T01:18:00.000-04:00Dice are interesting. I insist upon them... I won'...Dice are interesting. I insist upon them... I won't play this "diceless" nonsense.<br /><br />But I don't like the "roll for everything" school, either. "Roll to see it." No, how about I just tell you where I look?<br /><br />I've actually seen people tell the GM "I say something impressive." "Well, what do you say?" "I don't know. I'll just roll my Charisma." That's the wrong approach! I don't mind saying that's wrong. In fact, I know of a player of a tactician character who actually told the GM to come up with a good plan for him, because his character is a tactical genius but he's not!<br /><br />That's where dice aren't needed. Tell me what you do. Tell me what you say. Then something logical will happen.<br /><br />So Dave was right. Dice can be a crutch. But they're also indispensible.Korgothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04683370654357044679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-23459969439261638562009-04-18T00:06:00.000-04:002009-04-18T00:06:00.000-04:00"I don't think either of them wavered on ..."I don't think either of them wavered on their shared preference for rules-light systems."<br /><br />Dangerous Journeys, and to a lesser degree Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Lejendary Adventure, and Cyborg Commando, suggest otherwise.<br /><br />(That said, I am a huge Gygax fan and something of a partisan of his side in the 'credit wars'. But I couldn't let that pass unremarked...)Calithenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14783899060873651832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-38596200770217008022009-04-17T23:33:00.000-04:002009-04-17T23:33:00.000-04:00Don’t get me wrong. I’m not looking to “philosophi...Don’t get me wrong. I’m not looking to “philosophically differentiate” Dave and Gary. I too immediately thought of Gary’s quote.<br /><br />And I think Dan certainly tried to minimize the distinction he was making. “...may have leaned a little more...”<br /><br />Everything I’ve read about Dave, however, makes me think that this quote really reflects a fairly constant attitude of his towards the game. One which I’d hazard to say is more free-form than most of us are comfortable with.<br /><br />I’m very tempted to say—in the theme of the title of this post—that Dave was the father of the hobby while Gary was the father of the industry.<br /><br />Which wouldn’t be meant to disparage either of them or to ignore the large imperfections of any such generalization. It wouldn’t be meant to suggest more of a difference between them than there was. Or to suggest that they both didn’t make significant contributions in both areas.<br /><br />In any case, I think we are enriched by the differences they certainly did have—as Mike Mornard said: Arneson always used figures; Gary never did—however small or great.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733274876782876659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-74773498604779744292009-04-17T21:35:00.000-04:002009-04-17T21:35:00.000-04:00I think there is a strong impulse in retrospect to...I think there is a strong impulse in retrospect to differentiate Gygax and Arneson philosophically, but I think doing so runs the risk of stereotyping both of them. I imagine Gygax to be saying much the same thing when he remarked that "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."<br /><br />I always took that to mean pretty much the same as the above Arneson quote.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-47207486680676004412009-04-17T19:28:00.000-04:002009-04-17T19:28:00.000-04:00Huh -- the part of the quote that jumped out at me...Huh -- the part of the quote that jumped out at me was "but the market does." I interpreted that to mean that the game itself only calls for some rules upfront and an ongoing investment of creativity, and packaging rules and creativity as marketable products is artificial and not strictly necessary.<br /><br />I think the Internet has really highlighted this reality. Enthusiasts are willing to share their own "splat" content for free, or close to it, so what is the relevance of $30 expansions? A gamer doesn't really need more than one core rulebook or dice set per decade, and that doesn't seem like a basis for a sustainable business. For that matter you can get decent core rules for free from the Internet, too.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13315715886823365629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-73722016434043329802009-04-17T19:05:00.000-04:002009-04-17T19:05:00.000-04:00Well as my grade school swim instructor would yell...Well as my grade school swim instructor would yell at the top of her lungs: keep your head in the water and KICK!Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07997164906328234122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-69232984593197483962009-04-17T18:59:00.000-04:002009-04-17T18:59:00.000-04:00Quite true and Jeff is right: safe is boring, that...Quite true and Jeff is right: safe is boring, that is where the sheep are.<br /><br />Diving into the storm and testing the waters is what pushes life (and dicussion) forward.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-75100942638547572802009-04-17T18:48:00.000-04:002009-04-17T18:48:00.000-04:00@James That's pretty much what it is. You stick it...@James That's pretty much what it is. You stick it out there and I can guarantee somebody will either step on it or be offended.<br /><br />Meh, it is what it is. What can you do? You can't please everyone. I certainly think you make sufficient effort to try and be conscientious without sacrificing the blog to either being meely-mouthed or caustic.<br /><br />I wouldn't worry about it. Water off a duck's back and all that.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02269727660667017348noreply@blogger.com