I had my Gygax phase, even played a game in his old Center St house at Garycon years back, but after watching the Blackmoor doc, it's clear that Dave is criminally under appreciated. Kudos to those addressing that injustice!
I'm a simple man, I see a Blackmoor video and I click (no joke, I didn't catch this was a Joy of Wargaming video to a split second I clicked on it). As much shit as I give D&D (at lest modern D&D, OD&D played with the way it was meant as a expansion to Chainmail is a very different, and better, beast), Blackmoor has always been more my style. It's actually a very different game then D&D, your HP pool didn't go up but you would reroll your HP before battles (representing the fact that some days we're not at our peak while other days we're just unstoppable), armor class was an armor save, your ability to dodge and avoid damage went up with levels not HP, it was 2d6 roll under and had skills and so on. And it was more science fantasy (one of the characters found a suit of power armor and a cyborg horse and there were laser and particle beam L shaped "staffs" that if you read their descriptions were clearly rifles... so for me, it's a yes please!) mike with some Hammer Horror vibs, so much more up my ally (I'm a Vampire Hunter D fan and that's the vib I get from the setting). So yeah, I do not mind if you dive more into this topic. As for who did what, I think it's safe to give Anderson the credit on inventing the concept of table top RPGs. Yeah, it was an organic evolution of what came before hand but if we go down the kinda-sorta route then nobody invented anything. Sure, there were things kinda sorta like a smart phone as far back as the 90's but if you actually look into them... they were only smartphone like in the most abstract sense of the term. It wasn't until Steve Jobs rolled out the Iphone did someone had the foresight to get all the elements to gel. He didn't whole cloth invent every feature, but that doesn't matter. No one before figured how to get them all into one package and to work in a way anyone can us. Same thing with Blackmoor. Everything in it came from ideas that were in common use in one way or another. It just took his genius to gel them all together into something that worked. That's how thing re made int he real world, that's how realy people get shit done. They don't hand forgue every part and only pull from their own head. That's stupid. They look at what works and go, "How do I make it better." and if they don't have the skill to build it, the find the right person to. So yeah, I think it's safe to give Dave this crown. Now for D&D.... that I'm going to give to Gary. Yeah, Dave inspried him and helped out with it but as I explained above, they are very different games. After Dave showed Gary Blackmoor, Gary ran his own version of it called Greyhawk which used the basic idea but ran with it's own rules based off off what Gary liked. So Grayhawk had as much to do with Blackmoor in terms of rules and feel as much as D&D and, say, Rolemaster have to do with each other. They're both RPG's and that's it. Of course D&D also wasn't 100% Greyhawk but Gary taking his and Dave's (but mostly his) ideas and trying to make something would make sense to people who weren't mad lad game developing geniuses. Just my take away on the topic.
Mr. Wargaming, great video as always. Off topic question, I remember you recommending a channel that was using the Solo Wargaming Guide to play an ancients campaign, but can't remember what channel that is, do you? I've tried checking the video descriptions from your solo campaigns to no avail. Thanks and keep up the great work!
Imagine if the game that Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax were playing together never reached our hands? During that time, People were publishing work using typewriters. Dave Arneson did not know how to type on a typewriter, let alone create a decent layout for the material. Without having Gygax as a primary contributor, this game might have never left the cutting room floor. Without Gygax, we might have had to wait for Griff Morgan to bring the game to us 50 years later.
Very nice. Always. Very informative your videos. I spent the morning kit bashing some old figures that had missing weapons from their hands...fun. 1st time
"EGG of Coot" was a shot at Greg Scott. Has nothing to do with Gygax. This is well documented. Scott had mocked fantasy gamers in some 'zines. Thanks for sharing this. Now I wants it.
Especially given that the EGG of Coot was a thing well before D&D was even an idea in Dave's or Gary's heads. Though to be fair, after their failing out he did use if to take shots at Gary so this probably why so many people think it's always been about him.
@@TheRyujinLP The First Fantasy Campaign version of the Egg of Coot is clearly a shot at Gygax, even if the Egg’s origin was Greg Scott. To be fair, Gygax was using anagrams of Arneson for bad guys in his early modules, so they both gave as good as they got against each other.
@@elliotvernon7971 Yeah, that's probably why people thought it was always about him since that's probably the first time most people outside of the Twin Cities and Lake Geneva area ever heard of the Egg (any one else get the mental image of a medieval Dr. Robotnik whenever they come across talks about the Egg of Coot or is this just me?)
I think my favorite part is where you discuss how people can explore RPGs on their own terms. Seems a lot of people do not realize that when you buy the rules the game is yours to do with as you please. There is no right or wrong.
You cheeky boy. I see what you did there, even if you don't. You make a big leap from generalities to specifics. Arneson's brilliance came when he set aside a game that didn't work for him and made one of his own, not in claiming that his own work was really just Gary's work.
@@TheJoyofWargaming his leap occurs long before Gary see's it. It is also very distinct from Wesely's game. Braunstein is so much different a play style from Blackmoor.
I'll probably get slammed for asking but why can't the game be both a Wargame and an RPG regardless of its origin? As you have shown, it can be used to work a 4x campaign (explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate) with elements of role-play and it can also be used for a straight-up RPG (i.e. A DM running a group through a single or multi-adventure campaign). Calling out different groups because they enjoy a different way of playing the game seems as divisive (well, not as divisive) as those who try to shoe-horn the game into the specific (and problematic) narratives that plague the game world today. Thanks for the review! Looks like a great book.
@@toddcarlson5324 There is a lot to this, but here are a few scattered observations: 1. Wargames and RPGs are closely intertwined. But modern RPG's focus on narrative over game play introduces a massive confounding factor, particularly when you try to shove the square peg of story into the round hole of gameplay. 2. The taxonomy and language matter if we are to have productive conversations. 3. You can judge the effectiveness of methods without judging the value of a method's practitioner. 4. You can judge analysts who insist on using the wrong methods, and snake oil salesmen who promise remedies that simply don't work.
There are fundamental differences between Arneson's creation of RPG and Wesely's version of RPG, along with everything that comes before that. Arneson tricks players into feeling they are not competing against another player, the referee. Thus although players play against the referee, the players think they are playing against the monsters.
Dave Arneson is definitely not "the" guy who invented RPG's. It seems clear from the various histories that RPG's existed in various forms before Dave or Gary started playing.
Arneson created profound changes within his design that may not be obvious to the uninitiated. If you talk to serious game theoreticians and they will agree Arneson created something that had never existed before.
@@griffithmorgan4966 I first played D&D in 1977. I know Dave was instrumental but I will never believe that ONE person "invented" RPGs. There were a number of people who contributed in minor and major ways.
@@cpmf2112 It is very complicated. Yet, after over a decade of deep research my only conclusion is that Dave Arneson made a monumental conceptual leap. Your mileage may vary.
@@griffithmorgan4966 I agree, it is complicated, too much so for me to say that one singular person invented the entire concept by himself with no input from others. I think the complex history demonstrates that was not the case and that a number of people contributed ideas over time, but you can track your own mileage as you wish.
Игры
I had my Gygax phase, even played a game in his old Center St house at Garycon years back, but after watching the Blackmoor doc, it's clear that Dave is criminally under appreciated. Kudos to those addressing that injustice!
Thank you so much for the flip thru. I don't mind you going backwards and forwards. I am now going to put this on my wishlist.
I'm a simple man, I see a Blackmoor video and I click (no joke, I didn't catch this was a Joy of Wargaming video to a split second I clicked on it). As much shit as I give D&D (at lest modern D&D, OD&D played with the way it was meant as a expansion to Chainmail is a very different, and better, beast), Blackmoor has always been more my style. It's actually a very different game then D&D, your HP pool didn't go up but you would reroll your HP before battles (representing the fact that some days we're not at our peak while other days we're just unstoppable), armor class was an armor save, your ability to dodge and avoid damage went up with levels not HP, it was 2d6 roll under and had skills and so on. And it was more science fantasy (one of the characters found a suit of power armor and a cyborg horse and there were laser and particle beam L shaped "staffs" that if you read their descriptions were clearly rifles... so for me, it's a yes please!) mike with some Hammer Horror vibs, so much more up my ally (I'm a Vampire Hunter D fan and that's the vib I get from the setting). So yeah, I do not mind if you dive more into this topic.
As for who did what, I think it's safe to give Anderson the credit on inventing the concept of table top RPGs. Yeah, it was an organic evolution of what came before hand but if we go down the kinda-sorta route then nobody invented anything. Sure, there were things kinda sorta like a smart phone as far back as the 90's but if you actually look into them... they were only smartphone like in the most abstract sense of the term. It wasn't until Steve Jobs rolled out the Iphone did someone had the foresight to get all the elements to gel. He didn't whole cloth invent every feature, but that doesn't matter. No one before figured how to get them all into one package and to work in a way anyone can us. Same thing with Blackmoor. Everything in it came from ideas that were in common use in one way or another. It just took his genius to gel them all together into something that worked. That's how thing re made int he real world, that's how realy people get shit done. They don't hand forgue every part and only pull from their own head. That's stupid. They look at what works and go, "How do I make it better." and if they don't have the skill to build it, the find the right person to. So yeah, I think it's safe to give Dave this crown.
Now for D&D.... that I'm going to give to Gary. Yeah, Dave inspried him and helped out with it but as I explained above, they are very different games. After Dave showed Gary Blackmoor, Gary ran his own version of it called Greyhawk which used the basic idea but ran with it's own rules based off off what Gary liked. So Grayhawk had as much to do with Blackmoor in terms of rules and feel as much as D&D and, say, Rolemaster have to do with each other. They're both RPG's and that's it. Of course D&D also wasn't 100% Greyhawk but Gary taking his and Dave's (but mostly his) ideas and trying to make something would make sense to people who weren't mad lad game developing geniuses.
Just my take away on the topic.
I wish someone made a video about the Egg of Coot. It sounds intriguing.
The first Wizard was played by a fellow named Gaylord? Some things can only happen one way. It's fated.
I remember the cool Blackmoor video!
Mr. Wargaming, great video as always. Off topic question, I remember you recommending a channel that was using the Solo Wargaming Guide to play an ancients campaign, but can't remember what channel that is, do you? I've tried checking the video descriptions from your solo campaigns to no avail. Thanks and keep up the great work!
Thanks for doing the Review brother. The EGG of Coot theory should now be circulated.
Nice, I was gonna buy this when it was released
Imagine if the game that Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax were playing together never reached our hands? During that time, People were publishing work using typewriters. Dave Arneson did not know how to type on a typewriter, let alone create a decent layout for the material. Without having Gygax as a primary contributor, this game might have never left the cutting room floor. Without Gygax, we might have had to wait for Griff Morgan to bring the game to us 50 years later.
Very nice. Always. Very informative your videos. I spent the morning kit bashing some old figures that had missing weapons from their hands...fun. 1st time
Cool!
"EGG of Coot" was a shot at Greg Scott. Has nothing to do with Gygax. This is well documented. Scott had mocked fantasy gamers in some 'zines.
Thanks for sharing this. Now I wants it.
I'm glad to finally have an answer to this. It's a really bizarre name without the context.
Especially given that the EGG of Coot was a thing well before D&D was even an idea in Dave's or Gary's heads. Though to be fair, after their failing out he did use if to take shots at Gary so this probably why so many people think it's always been about him.
@@jasonjacobson1157 Thank you!
@@TheRyujinLP The First Fantasy Campaign version of the Egg of Coot is clearly a shot at Gygax, even if the Egg’s origin was Greg Scott. To be fair, Gygax was using anagrams of Arneson for bad guys in his early modules, so they both gave as good as they got against each other.
@@elliotvernon7971 Yeah, that's probably why people thought it was always about him since that's probably the first time most people outside of the Twin Cities and Lake Geneva area ever heard of the Egg (any one else get the mental image of a medieval Dr. Robotnik whenever they come across talks about the Egg of Coot or is this just me?)
just ordered it, $30 uk postage well worth it!
I don't see this as a big controversy. Arneson is largely responsible for the genre, Gygax made it happen.
I think my favorite part is where you discuss how people can explore RPGs on their own terms.
Seems a lot of people do not realize that when you buy the rules the game is yours to do with as you please.
There is no right or wrong.
You cheeky boy. I see what you did there, even if you don't.
You make a big leap from generalities to specifics.
Arneson's brilliance came when he set aside a game that didn't work for him and made one of his own, not in claiming that his own work was really just Gary's work.
@@TheJoyofWargaming his leap occurs long before Gary see's it. It is also very distinct from Wesely's game.
Braunstein is so much different a play style from Blackmoor.
We already have isakai in English: fish out of water.
I'll probably get slammed for asking but why can't the game be both a Wargame and an RPG regardless of its origin? As you have shown, it can be used to work a 4x campaign (explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate) with elements of role-play and it can also be used for a straight-up RPG (i.e. A DM running a group through a single or multi-adventure campaign). Calling out different groups because they enjoy a different way of playing the game seems as divisive (well, not as divisive) as those who try to shoe-horn the game into the specific (and problematic) narratives that plague the game world today. Thanks for the review! Looks like a great book.
@@toddcarlson5324 There is a lot to this, but here are a few scattered observations:
1. Wargames and RPGs are closely intertwined. But modern RPG's focus on narrative over game play introduces a massive confounding factor, particularly when you try to shove the square peg of story into the round hole of gameplay.
2. The taxonomy and language matter if we are to have productive conversations.
3. You can judge the effectiveness of methods without judging the value of a method's practitioner.
4. You can judge analysts who insist on using the wrong methods, and snake oil salesmen who promise remedies that simply don't work.
There are fundamental differences between Arneson's creation of RPG and Wesely's version of RPG, along with everything that comes before that.
Arneson tricks players into feeling they are not competing against another player, the referee. Thus although players play against the referee, the players think they are playing against the monsters.
Dave Arneson is definitely not "the" guy who invented RPG's. It seems clear from the various histories that RPG's existed in various forms before Dave or Gary started playing.
@@cpmf2112 It all hinges on what you mean by "RPG", doesn't it?
Arneson created profound changes within his design that may not be obvious to the uninitiated.
If you talk to serious game theoreticians and they will agree Arneson created something that had never existed before.
@@griffithmorgan4966 I first played D&D in 1977. I know Dave was instrumental but I will never believe that ONE person "invented" RPGs. There were a number of people who contributed in minor and major ways.
@@cpmf2112 It is very complicated.
Yet, after over a decade of deep research my only conclusion is that Dave Arneson made a monumental conceptual leap.
Your mileage may vary.
@@griffithmorgan4966 I agree, it is complicated, too much so for me to say that one singular person invented the entire concept by himself with no input from others. I think the complex history demonstrates that was not the case and that a number of people contributed ideas over time, but you can track your own mileage as you wish.