Tabletopocalypse Now - GMS' thoughts about the decline in the hobby

[prosfilaes]

RPGs came out of the make believe games children naturally intuit

Granting that that's true in a sense, so what? The fact that ox head soup comes out of the human habit of eating doesn't tell you whether or not it's still being cooked.

I mentioned mountaneering- but really you can expand my idea to encompass any form of exploration. Let's not belabor the point by trying to niggle on the details.

But I think the details are relevant here. Things we presume are immortal aren't. Hobbies do appear and disappear.

Even if the industry side of these hobbies were to vanish without a trace, the hobbies would persist. And eventually the industry would come back anyway, to fill the needs of these hobbyists.

I don't see how you're supporting this. And I don't see it as a meaningful question; hobby industries are filled with hobbyists trying to make a buck in the field they love. If they're gone, the hobby is gone. If the hobby is there, they're there.

 

[jaerdaph]

Get your chess our of my RPG!!! ;-)

Chessex

Ahh - now it all makes sense and comes full circle!





Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Conway Twitty...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og1QRtcWdEY]YouTube - conway twitty - hello darling[/ame]

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Or you could, you know, accept that maybe another person has different standards than you for what qualifies as "the same" and not get all hyperbolic and start insinuating they are dishonest.

Just sayin'.

I have no problem with people having a different position than mine; that isn't my issue.

My issue is he made a statement about chess having no major changes for 1000 years, and was challenged in it.

When he cited the wiki to support his position, I pointed out it mentioned that "major changes" occurred precisely as late as I had said when I corrected him. His appeal to authority expressly supports my timeline, but he keeps going as if it didn't.

IOW, he's not just disagreeing with me, he's disagreeing with the source he's citing to support his claim. It's bad scholarship and bad form at the very least- if not intentionally dishonest- to continue to assert a position your own sources contradict.

Had he cited a second source that actually supported his timeline by presenting a different timeline, I wouldn't have reacted as I did. Instead, we get a second wiki about the rules of chess' precursor, which is as not even as similar to Western chess as Five Card Stud is to Texas Hold 'Em.

I'm sorry if you think I've overreacted, but I don't think so.

 

[pawsplay]

I have one counterexample to this assertion.

Personally I am one of those "mythical" tabletop gamers who is not involved in MMOs, trading card games, miniature wargaming, or board games.

A-ha! So you're the one destroying the tabletop industry!

 

[pawsplay]

Plus, as someone else already pointed out, whatever game you're thinking of as "Chess" isn't the only popular game being played today that has been ultimately derived from that 1000+ year old game you're citing as the Dawn of Chess. And that's ignoring the thousands of fairy chess variants which are constantly being churned out by Chess enthusiasts every year.

Perhaps he will next claim that chess is the same as shogi.

 

[pawsplay]

D&D comes from fantasy wargaming, which was influenced by the Braunstein type scenario, which came from historical wargaming. Historical wargaming derives from a type of amusement/education/training in which cadets (or bored members of the upper crust) were given command of imaginary armies. The participants would move the miniatures around and a referee or teacher would adjudicate the success of these strategies. Historical wargames fused the strategy game with formalized rules similar to boardgames.

In some cases, these games were formalized into having limited moves, formalizing the game into a logically based, more abstract game, that would teach strategic principles. Or, perhaps, existing principles of boardgame design were adapted to the idea of a wargame. One of these games is chaturanga, the ancestor of chess.

Thus, D&D and chess are ultimately descendents of the same type of game. If one wishes to argue that chess has been unchanged for one thousand years, one must contend with the idea that two thousand years ago, chess and D&D were the same thing.

 

[Umbran]

Thus, D&D and chess are ultimately descendents of the same type of game. If one wishes to argue that chess has been unchanged for one thousand years, one must contend with the idea that two thousand years ago, chess and D&D were the same thing.

And, that modern birds are still dinosaurs.

Interestingly, in some venues, this assertion is held as entirely true. In other venues, it's crazy talk. Go figure.

 

[jonesy]

D&D comes from fantasy wargaming, which was influenced by the Braunstein type scenario, which came from historical wargaming. Historical wargaming derives from a type of amusement/education/training in which cadets (or bored members of the upper crust) were given command of imaginary armies...

Not to downplay your comparison of D&D to chess, but D&D came from actual wargaming with actual units. There was simulation of historical scenarios, sometimes. Here's the source himself telling the story:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/294250-interview-david-wesely-inventor-rpgs.html

 

[pawsplay]

Not to downplay your comparison of D&D to chess, but D&D came from actual wargaming with actual units. There was simulation of historical scenarios, sometimes. Here's the source himself telling the story:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/294250-interview-david-wesely-inventor-rpgs.html

The Braunstein scenario was created by David Wesely. As I noted, the Braunstein scenario came about from historical wargaming, which I believe is what you are describing as actual wargaming with actual units. What do you believe we are in disagreement about?

 

[jonesy]

The Braunstein scenario was created by David Wesely. As I noted, the Braunstein scenario came about from historical wargaming, which I believe is what you are describing as actual wargaming with actual units. What do you believe we are in disagreement about?

I'm not convinced we are.

Well, I think it was the part about 'fantasy wargaming'.

Edit: diaglo is going to come over any minute now and hit me over the head with a copy of Chainmail, isn't he?

Edit to edit: actually, I have no idea what my point was supposed to be. My train of thought steamed right into a mountain.