Elliot Wilen ([info]ewilen) wrote,
@ 2007-09-24 14:12:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:immersion wargaming

Update on Totten and "Dungeon Master Zero"
This is a followup on my earlier notes on Braunstein and the roots of RPGs.

I had some sour comments about Rob MacDougal's article over at theRPGsite.

One thing that Rob probably gets wrong, and certainly doesn't demonstrate adequately, is the "specialness" of Totten in the RPG lineage. I.e., there's nothing there which shows Totten was much different from any other teacher of Kriegsspiel concepts, either "free" or "rigid". He may have been the first American to bring them over from the Prussians, and he may have been the direct source for other American military wargame developers (such as Farrand Sayre), but Rob doesn't make the case. Instead he talks up Totten's eccentricities and connects them tenuously to modern geek personality traits. In the process, the nature of the "referee" in wargaming--in terms of responsibilities and prerogatives--is relegated to a side-note that obscures both the nature of the game and the radical changes (in responsibilities and prerogatives) that only occurred after D&D hit a mass audience.

So in regard to the role of Totten in Kriegsspiel development and transmission, it was interesting to find this article.
In the United States, Army Major William R. Livermore introduced his The American Kriegsspiel, A Game for Practicing the Art of War on a Topographical Map in 1882. The game was complex and similar to Reisswitz' system, but did attempt to cut down on the paperwork involved by the introduction of several training aid type devices. At the same time Lieutenant Charles A. L. Totten introduced a game entitled Strategos: A Series of American Games of War. Totten's game was as complex as Livermore's, but he appealed to the amateur through the inclusion of a simplified, basic set of rules.

Neither was wargaming neglected by the US Navy, thanks to the efforts of William McCarty Little. [Goes on to talk about the development of wargaming at the Naval War College up to the turn of the century.]

Regarding Livermore, you can find more on Google by searching on his last name along with "Kriegsspiel". Perhaps most interesting is an overview of the history of American wargaming which he delivered in his own words at M.I.T. circa 1889.

BTW, I don't know what source gave Rob a date of 1871 for Totten's original publication; everywhere I look, including both antiquarian booksellers and university libraries, I see a date of 1880.

The message here is that while Weseley happened to use Totten as his vector for transmission of Kriegsspiel methods into a hobby context, I do not see anything to particularly distinguish Totten from Reisswitz or Livermore in terms of the nature of the game he developed, and thus Totten's personal eccentricities have, in my opinion, little bearing on the intellectual lineage of the practices that eventually produced RPGs. What should be emphasized, instead, is the nature of the referee or "umpire" who ran both the military games and Weseley's. In Livermore's words:
When the position of the blocks indicate that the hostile troops are within sight and range of each other, they are supposed to open fire, if the players desire it, and in this case it becomes the umpire's duty to decide the result upon the basis of experience. The rules of the game explain to him how to estimate the loss from this fire [...] Since the time of Von Reisswitz the game has been much modified ; and the different forms which it has assumed may be classeed in three groups. [...]

The third form is employed when an officer of much experience can be found to take the position of umpire ; one who from long familiarity with the Minor Kriegsspiel [the second type, essentially, a detailed skirmish wargame with rigid rules], and from practice in leading troops in action, can form a correct judgment of the possibility or results of any movement, without the necessity of making any calculations or referring to any rules.
In other words, the role of the umpire was to act as an "expert simulation" by guesstimating results from the interaction of the players' initiatives. To a wargamer this is probably obvious, but in the RPG context it seems it must be emphasized: the innovation of the umpire or referee was not that he could tell a story, but that he could substitute for complex rules in representing an external reality against and through which the players would act.


(Post a new comment)

Map Maneuvers and Tactical Rides
[info]ewilen
2007-09-24 10:53 pm UTC (link)
I think my copy of this book is slightly later than the one depicted. I strongly recommend it to anyone who wants to see some honest-to-god roleplaying, circa 1908, in a US Army. The back-and-forth between GM ("Director") and players, although fairly focused on a military mission, would be immediately recognizable to modern RPGers.

(Reply to this)


[info]robotnik
2007-09-25 02:03 pm UTC (link)
Elliot: Thanks for your comments, and the additional links & info on William Livermore.

First, you are right that the 1871 date for Strategos is wrong. My source for that was, and I know I should know better, the Wikipedia article on Dave Wesely. It did seem very dubious to me that Totten would have published Strategos while still a student at West Point. I'll correct that now - this is the nice thing about writing on the web, and having well-informed critics.

I don't actually disagree with anything else you say here except perhaps your reading of my intent. I don't think I do assert any unique place or primacy to Totten in my post, other than repeating Dave Wesely's statement (to which I was pointed by you, after all) that he got the idea for Braunstein's impartial referee from Totten and Strategos. I think I'm pretty clear that Totten was only adopting the Prussian wargame (I josh about that subtitle, "The American Art of War"), that wargames often had referees well before Wesely or Totten, and that any references to "the first dungeon master?" are meant to be anachronistic or ironic.

Yes, I do talk up Totten's eccentricities. They were, in a nutshell, the reason for my post. One of my historical interests is in oddball characters from American history, especially the late 19th century. So I was delighted to learn that this character with a walk-on role in the development of my beloved hobby was such a classic Gilded Age crank. If you're reconstructing the intellectual lineage of gaming, maybe his eccentricities don't seem germane to your goals. But they're interesting to me, and that's really the only threshold they had to meet to find their way onto my weblog.

I don't entirely understand your last criticism (that I obscured the nature of the referee and the radical changes that occurred after D&D hit a mass audience). I am aware of the distinctions between "rigid" and "free/open" wargames, if that's what you're referring to, but I didn't get into them in that piece. And the post really wasn't about post-1980 developments in gaming, so I don't quite see how they are germane.

Based on the RPGsite thread you linked to here, which I hadn't seen, and your comments in that thread about my own posts on those old Forge threads, I think you and I probably see the 1980s-90s (Dragonlance-era) shift in RPG scenario design in similar ways. But that really wasn't what the Totten post was about. So I'd love to hear how you think they relate.

Anyway. I hope this doesn't sound defensive. It's not meant to be. I'm indebted to you for the original link to Wesely, and I thank you (and Settembrini, and everybody else at TheRPGSite) for discussing and critiquing what I wrote and pointing people to it. I'm glad people are reconstructing this history. And I wish I'd gotten similar interest from quarters like Story Games and The Forge. I just think maybe you are criticizing me here for not writing the piece on RPG history that you would like to write. To which I say: write it! I would love to read it.

cheers,
Rob

ps The third post in my series, spinning off the third book Wesely mentioned (Boulding's Conflict and Defense) in the same way the first two spun off Totten's Strategos and RAND's Compleat Strategyst, will get written eventually - but real life and the new school year have intervened.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]ewilen
2007-09-25 06:46 pm UTC (link)
Hi, Rob. You're absolutely right--I was mainly bellyaching about the emphasis of your article, not the conclusions you made in it. Still, I'd say that emphasis has a way of suggesting conclusions that aren't intended. Whether anyone else saw what I did--and I have to admit some real defensiveness on my part, because I feel that I'm struggling against a story of the development of roleplaying that comes out of ignorance and bias--of course I don't know. I'd just say that it's easy to mistake a history of "walk-on personalities" as suggesting a history of ideas. I.e., "Totten had a dungeon-master-like personality, which gives us insight into the seeds of RPGing." Going on to talk about RAND in your next article also gives the impression that you're reconstructing an intellectual lineage, rather than taking one for granted and then hanging character portraits off of it.

No, I'm not referring to free vs. open wargames. What my cryptic comment was about was the change from viewing the DM/GM/referee as a neutral arbiter (even though, at the same time, deviser of situations and occasional player of opposition), which I believe is what Weseley/Arneson/Gygax and many others with a wargaming background understood to be the natural order of things--and well facilitated by the rules of D&D and similar games as written--to viewing the GM as a storyteller who would guide the plot, or at least operate on a sort of aesthetic feedback system, controlling the buildup and release of tension, ratifying player actions by improvisationally nullifying/revising elements of the rules & setting.

As John Morrow wrote in comments to my earlier LJ entry, it's likely that the latter viewpoint was represented even before 1980--you can see it partly represented in Blacow's "Aspects of Adventure Gaming", and even more in how people recall Blacow's own GMing. Blacow's four "types" don't quite map to other breakdowns--he seems to combine what would later be called "world based" and "story based" gaming under a single category. But from what I've read (sorry, can't find links right now), he tended more on the "story based" end of the spectrum. If so I'm sure he wasn't alone, and therefore "Dragonlance" was just an early commercial expression of an existing gaming philosophy.

However, in my opinion, this philosophy was alien to the wargaming ethos in which the original RPGs had developed, while the "world based" approach was a natural philosophical extension. It would be like grafting an apple tree onto pine tree roots; if the upper portion of the tree is the "game system" consisting of a certain set of mechanical rules including distribution of authority, and the roots of the tree are a set of motives guiding play--well, to strain the analogy, it's no wonder that the fruit ends up tasting like turpentine. But at the same this was going on, people were playing either in a "world based" fashion or working out informal expectations and distributions of authority under the mask of the formal rules--and often they had a great time.

It's for these reasons that I am highly suspicious of the idea (not present in your article, but found in Ron Edwards' writings on the early history of RPGs) that "Narrativism" was (a) an equally valid approach to D&D as written, and (b) that it was betrayed or suppressed in the 1980s.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]r_earley_clark
2007-09-25 04:07 pm UTC (link)
A nifty project to be sure, and desperately needed.

Interestingly, some of the stuff you're looking at Rob, from the same time period ( the other Un-game stuff, for example) also continues to exist in a sort of parallel evolution track. I ran across a book of "childrens' co-operative games" a year or so ago that had very similar things.

I look forward to seeing more of this article as it develops.

As a side note, I'm also pleased to see you talking about game development in a way that takes into account broader events and the back-and-forth of ideas, something that seems missed by other histories tracing the development of games.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…