Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9133528" data-attributes="member: 8461">With the caveat that it's been several years now since I read the book, I think that particular work of Kuntz's is presented in a way that makes it very easy to discount, for several reasons.The first is that Kuntz himself has a writing style that often comes across as being somewhat stilted in presentation. In sharp contrast to Gary Gygax's notable (though I think overstated by the community) use of purple prose, Kuntz has a tendency to write in a way that feels almost robotic, and it doesn't help to draw the reader in. He's absolutely capable of telling a compelling tale (as several of his more recent publications attest to), but this isn't the book to look to for examples of that.It doesn't help that when he does reference historical events in Dave Arneson's True Genius, there's an aggrieved undertone toward Gary Gygax, which (to my estimation) has a (very mild) prejudicial effect with regard to his talking up the degree of credit that Arneson deserves. This is odd, not because Kuntz hasn't expressed similar sentiments elsewhere (he has), but because there are just as many (if not more) instances where he presents a much more fraternal attitude toward Gygax. Though now that I think about it, I suppose that's not too unusual; as they say, "no one hits my brother except me."The third strike against the book is that it gets deep into theories of system design. Not game systems, but systems in general. These parts of the book read like a Ph.D. thesis with regard to various aspects of open vs. closed systems, input/output methods, structural presentations, etc. I know I've butchered this, both because of how long it's been since I've read the book and because this part is particularly arcane, but make no mistake: it is arcane, and that's off-putting to a lot of readers.Moreover, the takeaway from the aforementioned section is that the original, 1974 version of Dungeons & Dragons was unique in that it combined elements of open and closed systems, whereas AD&D 1E had moved to an entirely closed system (and which became the basis for every iteration of the game going forward). Leaving aside how Kuntz associates this loss of the unique open/closed dynamic to the loss of Arneson from the design process, this seems almost designed to tick off everyone who isn't an OD&D grognard. I say "almost" because I'm certain that wasn't the intent, but even so it comes across as prime fodder for edition warring (albeit between OD&D and 1E).The sad thing is that I think the book does have some genuine insights to offer. If you can work your way through the verbiage and manage to grok the stuff about systems design, there are (to my mind) valuable ideas about the very abstract notions that form the root of tabletop RPGs. But getting there is a lot of work, arguably more than it should be, and that's a shame since it means that the book's message will ultimately be lost.</blockquote>

Verification