Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668511Which is what a majority of these arguments come down to. It also is not mother may I because the player making the 'save' is appealing to his fellow players, not the DM.

You can keep denying it but it won't make it go away.

It doesn't matter if the decision belongs to the DM or the group as a whole. Its still resoulution via the fiat of a deciding authority vs the game mechanics saying you succeed at X.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;668524It doesn't matter if the decision belongs to the DM or the group as a whole. Its still resoulution via the fiat of a deciding authority vs the game mechanics saying you succeed at X.

It does matter. He also made players tell a story during a session. I've seen that used as an argument for story gaming, why shift the goal posts.

You'll note that nowhere did Arneson's way of running a game of whatever he was running (it wasn't D&D) end up as part of the actual rules of D&D.  Hmm... I wonder why that would be?

Quote from: RPGPundit;668538You'll note that nowhere did Arneson's way of running a game of whatever he was running (it wasn't D&D) end up as part of the actual rules of D&D.  Hmm... I wonder why that would be?

It was D&D and probably the same reason why Gary Gygax's affinity for hiding behind a filing cabinet didn't end up in the rules. Personal taste, which is to say Arneson liked to story game, it's not new and has been in rpgs since birth.

Quote from: RPGPundit;668538You'll note that nowhere did Arneson's way of running a game of whatever he was running (it wasn't D&D) end up as part of the actual rules of D&D.  Hmm... I wonder why that would be?

Arneson was known to experiment. He was kind of an idea guy. The rules of his game at that time at least were not set in stone, and changed from session to session. It was very much inspired by his previous experiences with Braunstein games, running the Napoleonic game, Diplomacy variants and so on. From all the accounts I could read and listen to from people who were there at the time, it sounds like there was an organic, emergent quality to it all. This was a time where the ideas were brewing, not only Dave's mind you, but Gary's also, as his article on Chromatic Dragons preceding the game shows, and all around them two also, ideas which in the end would be distilled to take the shape of the OD&D framework (which was intended as a starting point, not an end. The notion that OD&D was envisioned as a game where procedures had to be followed with a RAW approach is dumb, on its face, to anyone who has any idea what the miniatures wargaming hobby was like at this time, in particular, and anyone who has any idea what the OD&D rules and their relationship - or lack thereof - to the Chainmail rules looks and was like, or it should appear as such, in any case).

I actually agree that the misunderstanding that role playing games should somehow replicate stories like the Lord of the Ring's goes back at the very inception of the hobby. Rob Kuntz's article explaining how the D&D framework is not intended to produce such results in the columns of The Dragon some time later shows that clearly. And how could it be any other way? LOTR and fantasy war gaming were a big part of D&D's starting DNA after all. It was only natural for people who wanted to replicate the Battle of the Five Armies "realistically, just as it appears in The Hobbit!" to then bitch about how magic users didn't replicate Gandalf "right", or ... how the game didn't replicate the narrative of the Lord of the Rings "accurately".

But reinterpreting Dave Arneson's (nice misspelling of the name, by the way) words retroactively to interpret him saying he agreed with Ron Edwards' "narrative agenda" bullshit and all that jazz? That's priceless. Honestly.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668542It was D&D and probably the same reason why Gary Gygax's affinity for hiding behind a filing cabinet didn't end up in the rules. Personal taste, which is to say Arneson liked to story game, it's not new and has been in rpgs since birth.

Dig a little more and check out Braunstein then get back to us. Please explain to us how open ended rules, intended to allow players the freedom to perform any action concerns itself in any way with "the narrative".

Quote from: Benoist;668546But reinterpreting Dave Arneson's (nice misspelling of the name, by the way) words retroactively to interpret him saying he agreed with Ron Edwards' "narrative agenda" bullshit and all that jazz? That's priceless. Honestly.

Oh, like how you reinterpreting my words to say that I was saying Arneson had anything to do with Edwards? That's your hard on. Arneson liked to story-game, it's not new. The end.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;668547Dig a little more and check out Braunstein then get back to us. Please explain to us how open ended rules, intended to allow players the freedom to perform any action concerns itself in any way with "the narrative".

I don't have to. It's pretty well documented. Read Benoist post. I find the implication because it's "organic" and not "codified" that it's somehow less of a story-gaming spirit to be laughable.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668548Oh, like how you reinterpreting my words to say that I was saying Arneson had anything to do with Edwards? That's your hard on. Arneson liked to story-game, it's not new. The end.

Look. It's not my fault if you don't understand the relationship between (1) what you construe as "story" here and where story games actually come from, and (2) Ron Edwards, the Forge, and GNS theory. What I wrote would actually make sense if you knew.

Quote from: Benoist;668551Look. It's not my fault if you don't understand the relationship between (1) what you construe as "story" here and where story games actually come from, and (2) Ron Edwards, the Forge, and GNS theory. What I wrote would actually make sense if you knew.

No but it's your fault for (1) thinking your connotations are correct above all else and (2) that Ron Edwards etc were onto something new.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668552No but it's your fault for (1) thinking your connotations are correct above all else and (2) that Ron Edwards etc were onto something new.

Your position is just pathetically inaccurate for anyone who cares to think for a second. Just see there.

Quote from: Benoist;668561Your position is just pathetically inaccurate for anyone who cares to think for a second. Just see there.

and yet you have provided proof yourself that this phenomena has been around since Rob Kuntz addressed it.

You can interpret things anyway you want but it's still just an interpretation. The only thing is, you're claiming yours to be supreme which is an exercise in stupidity. But hey, as long as you got your echo-chamber right.

You should have warned me you were reading in diagonal: I wouldn't have bothered answering to you then. That partially explains how you'd come to the conclusion that there's no significant difference between Arneson and Edwards. You should try harder.

I know some words may seem big and everything, but come on, I know you can do it.

Til then, ciao bello!

Quote from: Benoist;668567You should have warned me you were reading in diagonal: I wouldn't have bothered answering to you then. That partially explains how you'd come to the conclusion that there's no significant difference between Arneson and Edwards. You should try harder.

I know some words may seem big and everything, but come on, I know you can do it.

Til then, ciao bello!

Oh yes. This is where you put words in my mouth and run away like a girl. The spirit in which "story-games" "started" has pre-dated Edwards, even the GNS theory pre-dated Edwards. That is not the same as "Arneson and Edwards are the same". As I said, that's your hard on.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668542It was D&D and probably the same reason why Gary Gygax's affinity for hiding behind a filing cabinet didn't end up in the rules.

I would pay cash money for an edition of D&D that required this as part of the core rules.