https://www.rpg.net/columns/advanced-de ... ns49.phtml

Personally I think Appelcline is too hard on Rob Kuntz book. It is the first time I hear the terms Arneson Maximalism and Arneson Minimalism. While it is hard to disagree that the truth is somewhere between maximalism and minimalism, I am not sure that Appelcline has found that exact balance either. But I think this topic is complicated because this deals with the highly subjective question of what D&D is.

-Havard

Personally, I think Appelcline is too soft on Rob Kuntz book. I have played and DMed a whole couple of modules written and/or designed by Kuntz, and I think I'm generally predisposed to like the man. - But all that said, this book does worse things to my SAN stats than singing that song from the Naturom Demonto. I appreciate the general sentiment of the book, and I reckon that RJK endorsing Arneson this way is important, but the text itself, argument by argument, is just not convincing. It would need more work, more time spent with it, and, frankly, way less pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

EDIT: Not looking to make a terribly controversial statement; my opinion on this one has been known for a while, I think. Generally, happy to see RJK continuing to contribute to the RPG scene. I just wish he had thought this one over. The same text, considerably more lo-fi and less convoluted, and probably a few years more down the line could have been awesome. As it was, though - madness.

I think that Appelcline does nail one key point -- Kuntz' book is hard to read. I think there are some good points to the book but they are sometimes hidden by complex language. In Rob's defense, however, I spent some time talking to him at GaryCon one year and I feel like he talks that way and this isn't something he dreamed up just for a book. I enjoyed listening to some of Rob's stories and wish he would fill a book with those. 8)

I've been on a D&D history kick recently and I tried revisiting Rob Kuntz' book this week and it was even worse than I remembered it being when I first read it. Like, I actually regret buying it now when I compare it to all the other books about D&D history that are on the market these days and are, you know, actually readable.

I think Applecline's review is very fair, all things considered.

You could distill Kuntz' thesis to 5-10 pages, and I think Applecline is correct that a decent chunk of that thesis is mostly wrong. But, ugh, I have a philosophy degree, I'm used to reading purposely hard-to-understand academic gobblygook, and this book HURT to read.