It's simple, KenHR.

R.J.K. made one straightforward proposition. However senseless the rationale, the 'argument' either by some stretch addresses the subject or it's just thoroughly pointless threadcrapping.

The former seems far more likely than the latter, doesn't it?

So you can't find a cite or you're a mindreader.

Maybe you're RJK.

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.  
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.

I think that assuming some meaning to Aos's ramblings is not too generous. I think it might be unreasonable to dismiss his and misterguignol's rantings about "hero worship" and "cock sucking" as being motivated by sheer love of acting like pinheaded assholes. I think it more reasonable to assume that they actually hold some opinion that they imagine to have been disagreed with, and so are acting at least with such a semblance of logic as I suggested.

I admit that the alternative explanation becomes increasingly plausible.

The two conclusions are hardly mutually exclusive, Phillip. I'm surprised at your weak mindedness.
Is it hard to focus through the tears?

Quote from: Aos;445827The two conclusions are hardly mutually exclusive, Phillip. I'm surprised at your weak mindedness.
Is it hard to focus through the tears?

Hah, "hard to focus through the tears"!  And here I thought he was having trouble reading that actual thread, what with having to look around Kuntz's balls to see the monitor.

If you read the 1e DMG and Gygax's early writings, his devotion to One-Wayism is very clear. His "do whatever, have fun" attitude is a post-TSR development.

And I don't blame him.

There aren't multiple playstyles to boardgames or wargames.  Gary & TSR was breaking new ground and RPGs were popping up around them and threatening TSR's dominance.   T&T, RuneQuest, Traveller, Arduin were big dogs and quick on their heels came CoC, Champions and many others.

Throw in the Tolkein lawsuits and its no surprise Dragon would post an editorial about how "D&D =/= LotR"

I just enjoyed pointing out the "designer knows best" aspect because the OSR nostalgia about how "TSR was a wonderland of happy bunnies" and how "rules lawyering was a 3e invention" always needs a swift kick in the crotch.

But I love the word "excommunicate"...it speaks volumes.

Quote from: Age of Fable;445714Of 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.

Awesome!

Quote from: Phillip;445787Therefore, 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.

You seem to be treating the original article with more seriousness than it deserves. I don't think anyone here doubts that D&D was intended to be more than a Tolkien emulator. D&D content rips off over a dozen authors.
 
But that doesn't change the fact that Kuntz wasted a page of rambling self congratulation. But really, Dragon letters and editorials were often a source of grim amusement that I generally skipped.

Quote from: Spinachcat;446029If you read the 1e DMG and Gygax's early writings, his devotion to One-Wayism is very clear. His "do whatever, have fun" attitude is a post-TSR development.

And I don't blame him.

Agreed on both counts.  

QuoteI just enjoyed pointing out the "designer knows best" aspect because the OSR nostalgia about how "TSR was a wonderland of happy bunnies" and how "rules lawyering was a 3e invention" always needs a swift kick in the crotch.

Part of the reason I moved away from the OSR.  It ended up being just a D&D nostalgia group, when there were so many games back then that were innovative and just plain fun.  Concentrating solely on fantasy, and the D&D version of same in particular is highly limiting.

QuoteAwesome!

While somewhat misleading, I also find that quote humorous.  I would say the principle play style was heavily influenced by Tolkien, but there are countless nuances and mechanics very much derived from other sources.

Quote from: Nicephorus;446036You seem to be treating the original article with more seriousness than it deserves. I don't think anyone here doubts that D&D was intended to be more than a Tolkien emulator. D&D content rips off over a dozen authors.
 
But that doesn't change the fact that Kuntz wasted a page of rambling self congratulation. But really, Dragon letters and editorials were often a source of grim amusement that I generally skipped.

I can find nothing contentious in these statements.

The most charitable interpretation of these rants (of which there were many coming out of TSR in the '70s) is that they should be interpreted as, "Tolkien is a major influence, but only one of several major fantasy influences on the game." But they just could never figure out how to say that in a way that wasn't a massive over-reaction in contradiction with self-evident reality.

The most rational explanation is that they got sued for using Tolkien-isms and had a vested interest in distancing the game from Tolkien and/or a strong bias against Tolkien from that point forward.

With that being said, Kuntz' essay here seems more rational than most.

I do find it interesting that he draws a dividing line between "telling a story" and the "D&D game style" (with the latter featuring a continuous world).

Quote from: Spinachcat;446029If you read the 1e DMG and Gygax's early writings, his devotion to One-Wayism is very clear. His "do whatever, have fun" attitude is a post-TSR development.

Nope. It predated, as well as postdated, the AD&D era.

Moreover, Gygax's actual OTW was but faint next to that of the acolytes, the new wave of D&Ders, who willfully or carelessly cherry picked and misread certain passages. Their attitudes were most tiresome -- and rightly sent packing with a chapter-and-verse quote from their very 'scriptures'. Ignorance tends to produce its own comeuppance.

However, you take the prize for nasty bull-headedness with your blatant insistence on turning Mr. K.'s very plain meaning absolutely upside down and backwards.

There is not one bit of OTW here, only a pointing out that the Tolkien fanatics' OTW is a dead letter. Elves in D&D, at least as designed and published by Mr. Gygax and his friends, are not going to be the Master Race, immortal and powerful far beyond the capabilities of all other game pieces apart from the Maiar and Valar.

The perennial cry from one group of partisans or another that they are being 'oppressed' by not getting to dictate to everyone else that D&D is something other than what it has been is high hypocrisy. It is on par with the claims of religious fundamentalists to be 'persecuted' by any state less than their theocracy.

Do as you will in your own game. Publish your own game, if you like! Maybe it will prove more popular. Then you can respond as seems meet to you to people who complain that it's not exactly like D&D, or Harry Potter, or 15th Century Burgundy, or whatever hobby-horses they may be riding.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;446079I do find it interesting that he draws a dividing line between "telling a story" and the "D&D game style" (with the latter featuring a continuous world).

That is a fair point for many books - it's all about the protagonists so there isn't much room for a game.  But LOTR has more outside of the characters than most settings.

For that matter, you are welcome to play Chivalry & Sorcery, which Fantasy Games Unlimited had published the year before.

In C&S, Elves are Just Better than Numenoreans, and the latter are superior to the common races of Men, and the noblesse de race are superior to the peasantry.

The enthusiasts who really got no relief were those who disagreed not only with the game designers but apparently with Tolkien himself on the humbleness of Hobbits.

Although Halflings have since been made the potential equals of hulking Conan, I do not think the game has yet been published in which they are the most super-powered type.