|
The first games to deal with this idea were the Braunsteins, by a guy named David Wesley who was into the miniature wargaming crowd. The first one was called Braunstein because that's where it was set, a village in the Napoleonic Wars, and the idea was everyone had a single unit with some specific goal- like, a spy sent to poison the water supply, or a scout reconning forces, etc. The rules were kinda incomplete so the players improvised a lot, and the next time he ran this Wesley tried to codify things more but people didn't like that as much, so in future iterations he sorta played with how detailed the rules were and how much the players could improv, etc. He also did like different settings and such. All of this was in the late sixties in the Twin Cities area, near where Gygax and Arneson were and I know that at least one of them played in these. D&D was the first *commercially published* role playing game, taking the idea of the Braunsteins and mixing it with the medieval/fantasy rules Gygax and Arneson had made for Chainmail, and coming up with the dungeon-crawl structure.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:Ah, dozens of new posts, must be an update! My secret confession is that I love alignment chat, not because it ever goes well but because if it goes on long enough it always reveals some bizarre personal ideas someone has about morality Are brothels chaotic neutral? Would they be lawful evil in Nevada? Is over-tipping a bad waiter chaotic or lawful? Is stealing Hitler's wallet neutral evil or chaotic good?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Are brothels chaotic neutral? Would they be lawful evil in Nevada? Is over-tipping a bad waiter chaotic or lawful? Is stealing Hitler's wallet neutral evil or chaotic good? Depends.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
A deep dive into the roots of table top roleplaying games that just doesn't go GYGAX would be incredibly interesting. I'd imagine it's just a continuing evolution of things. Board games are literally ancient history. Spinning a narrative into a board game is hardly unheard of. Like, Chess technically has a narrative backdrop of a war between two nations, with the pieces powers proverbially symbolic of what they would mean to that nation. Like, the Queen is the most powerfully due to political maneuvering or some other historic explanation, least what I gather from wikipedia. Like, the succession of Chess > Wargaming > Chainmail > D&D is pretty clear. No one makes up anything entirely out of nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
oobey posted:Is this a reference? It feels like a reference. Mind if I ask what it is? It's a boss in final fantasy 14, the VA has some good lines when the boss uses certain moves and it's very hammy and fun YOUR PRESENCE ONLY DEEPENS MY SOLITUDE
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:The first games to deal with this idea were the Braunsteins, by a guy named David Wesley who was into the miniature wargaming crowd. The first one was called Braunstein because that's where it was set, a village in the Napoleonic Wars, and the idea was everyone had a single unit with some specific goal- like, a spy sent to poison the water supply, or a scout reconning forces, etc. The rules were kinda incomplete so the players improvised a lot, and the next time he ran this Wesley tried to codify things more but people didn't like that as much, so in future iterations he sorta played with how detailed the rules were and how much the players could improv, etc. He also did like different settings and such. All of this was in the late sixties in the Twin Cities area, near where Gygax and Arneson were and I know that at least one of them played in these. drat that sounds really cool
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:A deep dive into the roots of table top roleplaying games that just doesn't go GYGAX would be incredibly interesting. I forget most of my chess history, but I remember that the queen was originally the vizier and it was a pretty overt statement on who actually runs a country and its military.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Shugojin posted:It's a boss in final fantasy 14, the VA has some good lines when the boss uses certain moves and it's very hammy and fun Ah, neat. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:I forget most of my chess history, but I remember that the queen was originally the vizier and it was a pretty overt statement on who actually runs a country and its military. The Vizier wasn't nearly as strong a piece as the modern Queen, however.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:The Vizier wasn't nearly as strong a piece as the modern Queen, however. At some point the game was modified by a king who was horny for a harem full of trans concubines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
As I understand it the queen being powerful is a relatively modern idea - the modern version once being a variant known as Mad Queen Chess, which caught on just because it was more fun. The original queen had the same movement rules as the king. There's political meaning behind chess but it got so ossified as a game that most of the rules are more like gameplay patches. Such as pawns being able to move two spaces on the first move, which is just to allow you to get through the setup phase more quickly (and the En Passant rule is a straight up rule patch to cover cases where the double-move would actually materially change the tactics).
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
Gynovore posted:Exactly. Wargames existed, but having only one person and having it be "you" was a completely new idea. That isn't the whole system, though. I literally said he was the first to make a TTRPG... but he didn't invent the entire game out of wholecloth. Stats, grids, miniatures... they all existed already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:That isn't the whole system, though. I literally said he was the first to make a TTRPG... but he didn't invent the entire game out of wholecloth. Stats, grids, miniatures... they all existed already. I mean yeah but nothing is really invented out of whole cloth? Almost everything is just some kind of refinement or building on what came before with a new twist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:That isn't the whole system, though. I literally said he was the first to make a TTRPG... but he didn't invent the entire game out of wholecloth. Stats, grids, miniatures... they all existed already. Yeah ok. I suppose you could say he made up the roleplaying bit, although one could also say that the Athenians invented that a few thousand years ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Ah, dozens of new posts, must be an update! I enjoyed alignment chat this time around. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
Zore posted:I mean yeah but nothing is really invented out of whole cloth? Almost everything is just some kind of refinement or building on what came before with a new twist. Well then maybe you shouldn't claim people invented entire genres out of nothing
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 00:16
|
|
|
Well, now i've remembered that the Dragonlance Adventures 1st edition AD&D sourcebook had a whole thing for alignment changes I don't remember anything beyond that chart existing though
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 02:38
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:A deep dive into the roots of table top roleplaying games that just doesn't go GYGAX would be incredibly interesting. I've always had an interest in this sort of thing, just seeing where and when certain ideas originated and what they were originally used for, how certain ideas evolved over time and what was just flat out dropped along the way. Some parts of 1st Edition are so different it borders on surreal; there was no distinction between class or race, unless you were human in which case you could be all of either fighter, mage or thief. Also they were just straight-up ripping off names from LotR until the Tolken estate caught wind and told them to knock it the gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 03:15
|
|
|
MechanicalTomPetty posted:Some parts of 1st Edition are so different it borders on surreal; there was no distinction between class or race, unless you were human in which case you could be all of either fighter, mage or thief. This makes perfect sense from a wargaming perspective tbh. To our modern knowledge of D&D it's strange, but in wargames you usually have different types of units of the "Race Class" template, like Ork Blasta or w/e
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 04:36
|
|
|
a kitten posted:Well, now i've remembered that the Dragonlance Adventures 1st edition AD&D sourcebook had a whole thing for alignment changes “DMs should use this chart to keep track of each player character’s alignment…” kill me now
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 11:55
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:At some point the game was modified by a king who was horny for a harem full of trans concubines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 14:36
|
|
|
a kitten posted:Well, now i've remembered that the Dragonlance Adventures 1st edition AD&D sourcebook had a whole thing for alignment changes lmao a character cannot be moderately good or evil, you must either be a baby eater, a saint, or somewhere exactly between those two. If your character is just kind of a dick or inconsistently charitable, there will be penalties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 14:48
|
|
|
Worth noting that alignment was a big deal in Dragonlance, to the point where its treated more like some kind of physical law than an abstract concept. Just as an example, there's an order of wizards that's color-coded based on how good (white), evil (black) or neutral (red?) they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
I'm incredibly bright red, just the most annoying wishy washy motherfucker there is. I could both-sides a sunrise. False equivalency? Not false when I'm around. People call me Malcolm because I'm never not in the drat middle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
Yeah but there aren’t any pink wizards. You’re one of the three.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
MechanicalTomPetty posted:Worth noting that alignment was a big deal in Dragonlance, to the point where its treated more like some kind of physical law than an abstract concept. Just as an example, there's an order of wizards that's color-coded based on how good (white), evil (black) or neutral (red?) they are. The Wizarding Orders in Dragonlance were divided according to alignment to reflect the alignment of their patron deities (in Krynn there's three moon god's who are each a god of arcane magic and represent a different part of the alignment spectrum); White Robes (good aligned, their god is Solinari), Red Robes (neutral aligned, Lunitari), Black Robes (evil aligned, or as they prefer to say, 'lacking moral restraint' and not evil per se, their god is Nuitari). They're basically like the Hogwarts Houses but instead of a sorting hat its a lethal test of character that tests both whether your worthy of wielding magic but also which order you belong to. Due to all the various times magic is hunted down as aberrant they're careful who they let in and even the Black Robes are careful that any evil leaning experiments is done carefully and out of the public eye or else that member is persona non grata and cut loose. And all three orders have equal representation in the Conclave of Wizards, the Black Robes in particular can even end up as the High Wizard (I forget the name of the title specifically) and previous the head of the White Robes and previous High Wizard was best friends with the Leader of the Black Robes. Basically the ideals and priorities of the their gods is also represented in their membership, the most morally uptight White Robe will generally side with the most evil Black Robe if magic/the orders are threatened by an outsider or outside force. They're like colleagues at an exclusive law school. Not that white robes won't try to keep a leash on members of the other orders in the name of keeping magic safe but only when doing so won't present a weakness to outside forces to exploit. The three gods of magic (who are also Krynn's three moons) are siblings and they prioritize their sibling bond and common interest in Magic over the squabbles of the other gods. In a way its a more interesting system because it treats alignment as if it were politics, no fighting at thanksgiving dinner, everyone has a space that is theirs, etc. Alignment in Krynn is a bit interesting because it presents a sort of idea of balance, no one is ever totally good or totally evil and any time good, neutrality or evil dominates becomes just as bad as when the other side is winning. Like in the history of the setting the last time "Good" was 'winning' they formed a genocidal empire so bad the gods chucked a mountain at them. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Sep 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Like in the history of the setting the last time "Good" was 'winning' they formed a genocidal empire so bad the gods chucked a mountain at them. I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here, but I'd argue that maybe that setting's definition of "good" is flawed in some capacity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 16:31
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here, but I'd argue that maybe that setting's definition of "good" is flawed in some capacity. I mean, considering the gods chucked a mountain at them, yes we're not supposed to consider them to be "good" anymore. They were the resulting status quo after the forces of "good" banished Queen Takhisis/Tiamat from the mortal realm when she tried to invade the world and were tasked with keep evil from returning. My post doesn't capture the full nuance but from a narrative/writing perspective you're supposed to consider it as a exercise in "the road to hell is paved by good intentions/the longer you stare into the abyss the abyss will come to stare at you" on one hand and a "once you consider yourselves the epitome of all that is good, everyone else starts to be lacking in what is good" on the other. Like at one point they're even raiding/starting to invade the Elven Kingdoms as they were starting to be viewed by the Kingpriest as not being the right kind of good and thus apostate. It's unclear to me from my vague memory as to precisely when the Kingpriest crossed a line and started getting biblical warnings to knock it off, but iirc it's been going on for a while with the warnings increasing in severity and frequency until the last moments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
Every word someone spends to try to justify alignment kills a baby dragon. Now to debate the alignment of alignment debates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
what color is the baby dragon
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 17:17
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here, but I'd argue that maybe that setting's definition of "good" is flawed in some capacity. Good and evil as presented in early D&D were absolutely divorced from morality, partly on account of being defined by 80s grognards but also partly by design.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Good and evil as presented in early D&D were absolutely divorced from morality, partly on account of being defined by 80s grognards but also partly by design. Yeah, and if the vertical axis had used literally any other pair of words instead of the ones specifically used for morality, alignment debates wouldn't have become nearly as much of a joke. "Is killing baby goblins more Spiritual or more Materialist?" doesn't quite get the old flame-wars running the same way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I mean, considering the gods chucked a mountain at them, yes we're not supposed to consider them to be "good" anymore. They were the resulting status quo after the forces of "good" banished Queen Takhisis/Tiamat from the mortal realm when she tried to invade the world and were tasked with keep evil from returning. As I recall, the line that was crossed was the Kingpriest saying "Hey, *I* should be a God! Make me a God, fellow Gods!". I'm sure that's just a coincidence, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Good and evil as presented in early D&D were absolutely divorced from morality, partly on account of being defined by 80s grognards but also partly by design. Gygax is on record as saying the game's core loop (go to dungeons, kill their denizens, take their things) was inspired as much by Manifest Destiny American colonisation narratives as by Tolkien, and also that he considers orcs analogous to Native Americans and killing either to be a Lawful Good act. So yeah, the whole alignment system is rotten at the core.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
MechanicalTomPetty posted:I've always had an interest in this sort of thing, just seeing where and when certain ideas originated and what they were originally used for, how certain ideas evolved over time and what was just flat out dropped along the way. Race-as-class works well with the "you can be anything, so long as it starts weak and becomes stronger" ethos that some of the creators of early D&D had as DMs. If you want to be a vampire or a miniature dragon, then it makes sense that your character's progression as they gain levels would focus on their vampire/dragon powers, as opposed to just having some minor racial powers from the start that get overshadowed by class powers as they gain levels like in some later editions. That said, race-as-class feels kind of bizarre for the standard Tolkien races (elves, dwarves, halflings) that actually made it into the rulebooks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:Gygax is on record as saying the game's core loop (go to dungeons, kill their denizens, take their things) was inspired as much by Manifest Destiny American colonisation narratives as by Tolkien, and also that he considers orcs analogous to Native Americans and killing either to be a Lawful Good act. So yeah, the whole alignment system is rotten at the core. Wait. He WHAT?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
EimiYoshikawa posted:As I recall, the line that was crossed was the Kingpriest saying "Hey, *I* should be a God! Make me a God, fellow Gods!". That was the moment that got the mountain thrown at him but the warnings had been going on for years prior to that, the gods knew where he was heading.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
navyjack posted:Wait. He WHAT? Gygax had some absolutely monstrous opinions. I'm not familiar with the Orc/Native American thing but he was fond of the expression that 'nits make lice' as a reason it was considered a good act to murder orc/goblin/etc children
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
navyjack posted:Wait. He WHAT? Gary Gygax 2005 posted:Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
I also disagree with Gygax' definition of "good," if that needed clarification, in part because I take issue with genocide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 18:31
|
|