tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post1699402976512260433..comments2024-02-16T22:05:32.773+02:00Comments on LotFP: RPG: Examining Role-Playing Mastery by Gary Gygax, Part IIIJimLotFPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-69820838686300885272009-01-03T11:03:00.000+02:002009-01-03T11:03:00.000+02:00>>Huh??? You are mixing two things (empiric ...>>Huh??? You are mixing two things (empiric thruth & what YOU consider to be morally acceptable) which don't belong together.<BR/><BR/>There is no empirical truth in a matter such as this.<BR/><BR/>>>Gygax talks about the *importance* of history as one possible way of "mastering" the hobby (whatever the heck this means).<BR/><BR/>Actually, Gygax was wont to making absolute proclamations ("YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT" sound familiar?) and this book (which this series of posts comments on, but hardly replaces or fully explains... you need to read the book to get Gygax's full views on the subject) suggests a thorough approach to mastery. It isn't "There is this way or this way or this way," but rather, "This AND this AND this AND this are necessary for mastery."<BR/><BR/>>>If he had to say "the only way" (like you did), then I would have cried foul, since I have plenty of experiences, which *clearly* disprove such an absolute statement.<BR/><BR/>... which only works if we agree that you are A- a "master," and B- using the term the same way Gygax does. Participating in, enjoying, and being good at RPGs is not by itself "mastery" in the way Gygax uses the term in the book.<BR/><BR/>As far as Braunstein... I've read up on it, and can certainly accept its contribution into the stew that RPGs emerged from... but calling it an RPG in and of itself isn't something I'm prepared to do. Everything I've heard about it is that it was more of a LARP (which I consider a related, but fundamentally different hobby than tabletop role-playing, which should be understood is what I mean by "RPG" when I use the term) and certainly wasn't ever intended as an ongoing game.JimLotFPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-28493652864064224802009-01-03T01:01:00.000+02:002009-01-03T01:01:00.000+02:00Great and wise stuff from the Master of the Game. ...Great and wise stuff from the Master of the Game. Thanks for posting this, James! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-23282298386926116832009-01-03T00:15:00.000+02:002009-01-03T00:15:00.000+02:00"Historical understanding of the hobby, and n..."Historical understanding of the hobby, and not just superior play, are necessary for Role-Playing Mastery, according to Gygax. This sort of thing is awesome because to argue against it is to champion the idea that mastery and ignorance is a perfectly acceptable state of affairs."<BR/>Huh???<BR/>You are mixing two things (empiric thruth & what YOU consider to be morally acceptable) which don't belong together.<BR/><BR/>Let's take a look at the original statement, shall we:<BR/>"In a search for mastery of role-playing, it is important to understand why this occurred."<BR/><BR/>Gygax talks about the *importance* of history as one possible way of "mastering" the hobby (whatever the heck this means).<BR/>If he had to say "the only way" (like you did), then I would have cried foul, since I have plenty of experiences, which *clearly* disprove such an absolute statement.<BR/><BR/>The entire RPG-hobby is based on the assumption, that to improve your roleplaying-skills, you needn't have a fucking clue what you are doing (read the original Braunstein APs for prove of this).<BR/>Anyone claims otherwise isn't talking about the RPG-hobby, but rather about a *very specific* branch of RPG-theory (the branch which tries to impose a normative view of what roleplaying should be like, rather then a descriptive one), which is a very dangerous thing to forget.<BR/><BR/>In short: what you wrote, is not very different from the average RPGnet post about GNS.alexandrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09456056647313914311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-33589715973122842622009-01-02T19:02:00.000+02:002009-01-02T19:02:00.000+02:00I just wanted to give a bit of thanks for sharing ...I just wanted to give a bit of thanks for sharing your examination of this book. It is always good to know the perspective of one of the originators of the hobby.<BR/><BR/>Looking forward to reading about the rest of the book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com