LOTR and D&D (by Robert J. Kuntz)

crkrueger · March 13, 2011, 02:13:13 PM

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.

It could be non-TSR, it could also be just as he said it. I'm sure at that time, they had a lot of people playing games at TSR, and with, as you pointed out, "What is D&D?" being a central discussion over there, I can see people hashing this out and having different viewpoints in the company. Taken in this light, I think the article makes even more sense.

Aos · March 13, 2011, 02:18:06 PM

Quote from: Phillip;445749Perhaps 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.

Well thrown, sir.

Actually, Phillip, when I initially brought it up, I was hoping that someone could actually explain it to me- but after rereading it several times, I lost hope.
I apologize for interfering with your hero worship. However, after reading several of your posts on this forum, I must say that, as far as i can tell you are no stranger to stone throwing. I am impressed that you have now decided to step up your game and add hypocrisy to your play book. Bravo.
P.S. Fuck you.

KenHR · March 13, 2011, 02:37:02 PM

Quote from: Phillip;445749Perhaps 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.

Comparisons between posts on a forum or blog or a rough draft of a paper/article/whatever and an article that was actually published in a print magazine (speaking to the editorial puissance of Tim Kask) are kind of specious, dontcha think?

Benoist · March 13, 2011, 02:50:33 PM

Quote from: Aos;445741I 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.

I don't think that particular screw-up makes the overall point of the column moot or particularly unclear: that the D&D game was not conceived as a Middle-earth emulator, but a mix of different influences that is its own thing.

Quote from: Aos;445741My 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.

Well, RJK didn't post Kask's rant himself, though. What he did was allow Tim Kask to use his blog as a forum. So, while you certainly can ask yourself why he did provide such a forum for Tim Kask to express his ideas at all, I think it's another thing entirely to go after RJK for Kask's writing.

Aos · March 13, 2011, 03:02:46 PM

Quote from: Benoist;445770Well, RJK didn't post Kask's rant himself, though. What he did was allow Tim Kask to use his blog as a forum. So, while you certainly can ask yourself why he did provide such a forum for Tim Kask to express his ideas at all, I think it's another thing entirely to go after RJK for Kask's writing.

I didn't go after him for what Kask wrote. He priovided a forum for it, and that's fine too; however, if RJK had strong feelings against obscenity, he should have exercised them with consistency- in the intial post, as well as in the comments to the same.

You know I respect you man, but we've been down this road before. I think you are far more willing to give slack to guys who have anything to do with the production of old school product than I am. I think they should be held to the same standards as everyone else.

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with your viewpoint on such stuff, I just think it should be an explicit part of the conversation.

Benoist · March 13, 2011, 03:07:27 PM

Quote from: Aos;445775I didn't go after him for what Kask wrote. He priovided a forum for it, and that's fine too; however, if RJK had strong feelings against obscenity, he should have exercised them with consistency- in the intial post, as well as in the comments to the same.

I think he's giving more of a pass to Kask whom he knows well and has known for decades, rather than other people commenting on his column. I understand the feeling, just like I understand why you'd call it an hypocritical move.

Quote from: Aos;445775You know I respect you man, but we've been down this road before. I think you are far more willing to give slack to guys who have anything to do with the production of old school product than I am. I think they should be held to the same standards as everyone else.

Same thing for me. I respect you as well, and I understand where you're coming from on this. And yes, I have my own bias. I can't really refute that.

Benoist · March 13, 2011, 03:10:59 PM

Quote from: CRKrueger;445755It could be non-TSR, it could also be just as he said it. I'm sure at that time, they had a lot of people playing games at TSR, and with, as you pointed out, "What is D&D?" being a central discussion over there, I can see people hashing this out and having different viewpoints in the company. Taken in this light, I think the article makes even more sense.

That would make sense. I hadn't thought about it. It'd be interesting to ask the question on DF or whatnot.

Aos · March 13, 2011, 03:14:04 PM

Quote from: CRKrueger;445755It could be non-TSR, it could also be just as he said it. I'm sure at that time, they had a lot of people playing games at TSR, and with, as you pointed out, "What is D&D?" being a central discussion over there, I can see people hashing this out and having different viewpoints in the company. Taken in this light, I think the article makes even more sense.

I think this is a definite possibility.

Phillip · March 13, 2011, 03:37:43 PM

I love your logic, guys.

R.J.K. not only messed up one sentence but -- decades later, in some other context -- was an apparent hypocrite about obscenity (which is not at all the matter at hand).

Therefore, D&D must be by intent a Tolkien game, as opposed to a fantasy game exhibiting influences from Tolkien's works among others. Where the designers departed from the Tolkien model, it was obviously an error, no matter what else they may claim.

It's amazing that you expect your 'argument' to get any response but ridicule.

Aos · March 13, 2011, 03:40:30 PM

That's not my argument, Phillip. We're just having a conversation; it wanders where it will. Feel free however, to engage in ridicule; it is always welcome, especially if it's actually amusing.

Your weeping is delicious by the way, please don't stop.

misterguignol · March 13, 2011, 03:48:20 PM

Quote from: Phillip;445787I love your logic, guys.

R.J.K. not only messed up one sentence but -- decades later, in some other context -- was an apparent hypocrite about obscenity (which is not at all the matter at hand).

Therefore, D&D must be by intent a Tolkien game, as opposed to a fantasy game exhibiting influences from Tolkien's works among others. Where the designers departed from the Tolkien model, it was obviously an error, no matter what else they may claim.

It's amazing that you expect your 'argument' to get any response but ridicule.

Is there anyone who worked at TSR during the 80s whose cock you wouldn't suck?

Aos · March 13, 2011, 04:06:26 PM

I feel a text wall coming on.

Phillip · March 13, 2011, 04:08:07 PM

Misterguignol demonstrates yet again the triumph of the Will to Ignorance and the demagogic power of imitating the cunning rhetoric of Butthead.

Aos · March 13, 2011, 04:10:45 PM

So your answer is no?

KenHR · March 13, 2011, 04:16:27 PM

Quote from: Phillip;445787I love your logic, guys.

R.J.K. not only messed up one sentence but -- decades later, in some other context -- was an apparent hypocrite about obscenity (which is not at all the matter at hand).

Therefore, D&D must be by intent a Tolkien game, as opposed to a fantasy game exhibiting influences from Tolkien's works among others. Where the designers departed from the Tolkien model, it was obviously an error, no matter what else they may claim.

It's amazing that you expect your 'argument' to get any response but ridicule.

Who said this in this thread? As the weenies on RPGnet are so fond of saying, "cite, please."