Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;445656Hadn't heard the Fogerty/Creedence story before - crazy!

It's the reason Fogerty quit playing CCR songs in concert and refused to take part in the reunion.

QuoteAlso I can't help but think, that Sol/Saul Zaentz is a very D&D arch-villian name. I'm sure there must be a crazy wizard named Zaentz out there somewhere.

Fogerty put out a song called "Zaentz Can't Dance (But He'll Steal Your Money)". Zaentz sued and the title was changed to "Vance Can't Dance". It wasn't until he sold the rights to CCR's music that Fogerty started playing it again.

QuoteWe also hope that those people will respect the way we play for we think that the designers know best.

Here that everyone? The game designers know best!

QuoteThat is left to separate judges - but in doing so they excommunicate themselves from the actual D&D system.

Excommunicate?  

So Ken St. Andre is the Martin Luther of RPGs?

Quote from: Spinachcat;445697Here that everyone? The game designers know best!

All these guys waffled so much back and forth on this kind of shit that they should be ashamed. "It's your game to play the way you want to play it, except you should play it our way."  It is like the fucking perfect example of the baby boomer love/hate relationship with authority.  My sincerest thanks for the game, you wishy washy fucking hippies.

Quote from: Spinachcat;445697Here that everyone? The game designers know best!

My experience suggests that, as a general rule -- and particularly when it comes to Kuntz and Gygax regarding their game -- the designers do indeed know their own minds rather better than people trying to second-guess them.

If Luke Crane has something to say about The Burning Wheel, or Professor Barker about Empire of the Petal Throne, or even Ron Edwards (who seems less well informed on much about which he holds forth) about Sorcerer, then I reckon it is worth paying attention to.

QuoteExcommunicate?  

So Ken St. Andre is the Martin Luther of RPGs?

T&T may in some ways be closer "in spirit" to Greyhawk and Kalibruhn, Blackmoor and Aquaria, Hargrave's Arduin and Greenwood's Forgotten Realms, than are some later generations of D&D. However, the differences in detail make communication with T&T (or Runequest or The Fantasy Trip, etc.) difficult in many of the same ways as communication with "4e".

The basic problem with Middle-Earth is the same as the problem with Gor or Darkover or Tshai, or any particular fictional world. Even many commercial "D&D settings" can be problematic to the extent that they insist on separating themselves from what is common to D&D. This is ameliorated mainly by their being in the first place derivative from D&D, which the work of Tolkien and other literary fantasists was not.

Quote from: Spinachcat;445697Here that everyone? The game designers know best!

Petty bullshit then, petty bullshit now.

Quote from: Melan;445708Petty bullshit then, petty bullshit now.

Indeed. I'd also submit that anyone who is playing OD&D perforce becomes a co-designer.  There's no way to get through your first few sessions without making up some rules of your own.
Also, although I draw much of my influence from the same places EGG  and co did- the emphasis is different. Hiero's Journey, one of those rare exceptions in which humans are not dominant, casts a much larger shadow over my setting than Conan or Lotr.
Furthermore, I honestly can't really understand exactly what he is trying to say in the paragraph the quote is pulled from. It almost seems like double speak to me.

Of course it's not based on Lord the Rings. It's a general system for any fantasy where dwarves, elves and halflings form a fellowship and go to some mines to fight orcs, trolls and dragons.

Quote from: Aos;445711Furthermore, I honestly can't really understand exactly what he is trying to say in the paragraph the quote is pulled from. It almost seems like double speak to me.

I think it's important to replace the quote in the actual context of the period, when different games were popping all over the place, that whatever D&D was was still very much discussed, and argued, that AD&D was just around, conceived as the standard of advanced play in the middle of it all, and that Dragon was pretty much the epicenter of the feedback TSR was getting. The idea of the paragraph here is IMO that indeed people can run their campaigns however they want, and that some different (conflicting) perspectives about the game are bound to exist, but that there was indeed an intent behind D&D as it was, and that this intent was not to emulate LOTR. The chatter about how D&D was not emulating Tolkien right had become enough of a recurring theme to become a dividing line between the aficionados, and thus, it deserved an answer from the creators of the game, and they basically argue their POV there, claiming they know best what the intent of the game is, and what the game needs now.

I almost think that the more likely complaint today would be that Tolkien got Elves or Wizards or whatever 'wrong'. It very nearly could be necessary to point out that the Prof. did not write his epic as a fictionalization of TSR's game (or World of Warcraft, or what have you), and so people should be ill advised to expect such fidelity.

Quote from: Benoist;445717I think it's important to replace the quote in the actual context of the period, when different games were popping all over the place, that whatever D&D was was still very much discussed, and argued, that AD&D was just around, conceived as the standard of advanced play in the middle of it all, and that Dragon was pretty much the epicenter of the feedback TSR was getting. The idea of the paragraph here is IMO that indeed people can run their campaigns however they want, and that some different (conflicting) perspectives about the game are bound to exist, but that there was indeed an intent behind D&D as it was, and that this intent was not to emulate LOTR. The chatter about how D&D was not emulating Tolkien right had become enough of a recurring theme to become a dividing line between the aficionados, and thus, it deserved an answer from the creators of the game, and they basically argue their POV there, claiming they know best what the intent of the game is, and what the game needs now.

I am well aware of the context. Read the second sentence of the third paragraph; it is completely nonsensical. Don't read what you think he's trying to say- read the actual words.

Quote from: Aos;445728I am well aware of the context. Read the second sentence of the third paragraph; it is completely nonsensical. Don't read what you think he's trying to say- read the actual words.

RJK writing something whose content is functionally nonsensical?  No way!

Quote from: KenHR;445730RJK writing something whose content is functionally nonsensical?  No way!

Read it out loud for extra confusion. It really merits a LOL Wut?

Quote from: Aos;445728I am well aware of the context. Read the second sentence of the third paragraph; it is completely nonsensical. Don't read what you think he's trying to say- read the actual words.

You mean the "way we play at TSR" versus "the way we intended the game to be played?" Yeah. That sentence doesn't make any sense. I'm sure he meant the way the game was intended versus non-TSR aficionados' varying expectations. But what can I say? I strive to understand the meaning, instead of reading the words on the surface. Call that professional bias.

Quote from: Benoist;445735You mean the "way we play at TSR" versus "the way we intended the game to be played?" Yeah. That sentence doesn't make any sense. I'm sure he meant the way the game was intended versus non-TSR aficionados' varying expectations. But what can I say? I strive to understand the meaning, instead of reading the words on the surface. Call that professional bias.

I think assuming any meaning at all to such ramblings is being over generous. I also don't think that it is unreasonable to dismiss the entire rant based upon the presenters inability to make himself clear.  
My respect for RJK dropped quite a bit last year after he posted an obscenity laden Kask rant on his blog and then chastised people for using obscenities in the comments. Knowing that he is capable of such hypocrisy (intentional or not) compels me to examine anything he writes with that in mind.  Also, I find him a to be a bit patronizing.

Perhaps Aos has never posted a construction that got slightly mixed up between brain and keyboard. I know that I am in no position to cast such a stone at Mr. Kuntz. In any case, it serves no purpose other than what stone-throwing tends to serve.