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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rob Kuntz" data-source="post: 7801539" data-attributes="member: 7015759">Ah.  I hear the echoes of Jon Peterson in your sentences,  Memory is not the only thing that can be fallible, btw.  If even and honest one can state, "I do not recall."  So it comes down to character; and character is often more fallible than memory in humans.  In D&D's case--as positioned by Peterson--documents MUST be the guiding post of this, but documents and the history made from their information can and will be skewed, and they were in Gary's and Arneson's case, and many times over due to Gary having overt control of the ongoing narrative.  Even if you can check them with another document that is not always the case and one can gloss and omit as well, as the researcher is also capable of being fallible.  So, the more one constrains the sources for examination, the potential for a skewed result grows proportionately.As for the "antecedents" of the RPG form constructed by Arneson (which would be the thrust of a pro-Gygax or pro-Wesely route through either Chainmail or Braunstein, respectively); and this would then allow for the entourage of speculation concerning types such as Patt then being lifted wholesale to Chainmail, Totten to Braunstein, et al. thus--SEEMINGLY--setting up a sequential and lineal track; I have debunked both routes with the science of systems, design theory and play theory (re, via my linked essays in DATG)--all of which had been omitted until DATG for linguistic theory alone (i.e., for the collection and examination of documents, on the main).  That we are examining a new game category type that has no antecedent in historical models based on my now 8 years of research, is, at present, the only relevant (although provisional) note in my view as based on a holistic and inclusive approach comprising ALL FOUR research categories possible for this subject, which must include the science of systems, etc.  To date, my posits have not been refuted (in fact they are supported by two scientists that I have approached, one in Europe and one in the USA), btw; rather I was attacked for having to draw some comparisons in the conflict between Gary and Arneson along the way (as noted up thread).</blockquote>

Verification