Armchair Gamer's Flavors of D&D

[Neonchameleon]

And, like so many of these posts, mischaracterize the "old days".

Just to put matters into perspective, Mike Mornard (Old Geezer on RPG.net) was part of this conversation. He joined Dave Arneson's Blackmoor in 1971 and is the only person known to have been part of both Arneson's campaign and Gygax's (and M.A.R. Barker's). The really old days were being represented by someone who was (a) there and (b) happy with the characterisation in so far as this sort of broad brush is meaningful.

 

[TerraDave]

Just to put matters into perspective, Mike Mornard (Old Geezer on RPG.net) was part of this conversation. He joined Dave Arneson's Blackmoor in 1971 and is the only person known to have been part of both Arneson's campaign and Gygax's (and M.A.R. Barker's). The really old days were being represented by someone who was (a) there and (b) happy with the characterisation in so far as this sort of broad brush is meaningful.

Yes, he says he likes the titles....His own posts confirm the limits of these sorts of buckets, especially in terms of how things were actually played in the early days.

 

[Obryn]

Just to put matters into perspective, Mike Mornard (Old Geezer on RPG.net) was part of this conversation. He joined Dave Arneson's Blackmoor in 1971 and is the only person known to have been part of both Arneson's campaign and Gygax's (and M.A.R. Barker's). The really old days were being represented by someone who was (a) there and (b) happy with the characterisation in so far as this sort of broad brush is meaningful.

"Gygaxian Naturalism is neither Gygaxian nor natural. Discuss! "

 

[Balesir]

Yes, he says he likes the titles....His own posts confirm the limits of these sorts of buckets, especially in terms of how things were actually played in the early days.

So, is your objection that the categories don't comprehensively sum up everything about any specific game in play? Because, if so, that doesn't seem to be a serious objection. After all, movies are categorised as things like "thriller", "action movie" and "romance" quite usefully, and yet those classifications seldom cover every element that a specific film touches upon. Categorisations and classifications are intended to say something about the things that they classify, not everything. Saying everything would require a much longer and more convoluted script...

 

[TerraDave]

So, is your objection that the categories don't comprehensively sum up everything about any specific game in play? Because, if so, that doesn't seem to be a serious objection. After all, movies are categorised as things like "thriller", "action movie" and "romance" quite usefully, and yet those classifications seldom cover every element that a specific film touches upon. Categorisations and classifications are intended to say something about the things that they classify, not everything. Saying everything would require a much longer and more convoluted script...

I don't think I am saying that.

I am saying that they are arbitrary and potentially misleading. I don't think there are really knight and knave games as distinct from dungeon and demon games in the same way there are action movies versus comedies.

 

[Balesir]

I don't think I am saying that.

I am saying that they are arbitrary and potentially misleading. I don't think there are really knight and knave games as distinct from dungeon and demon games in the same way there are action movies versus comedies.

OK, but the two words that spring to my mind are "Indiana Jones"...