Marv, I agree 100% with your admin comment. That’s all I’m going to say.
So do I, 100%. Falconer, you needn't be so defensive against imagined injuries. While I'm sure that some will jump to very dark conclusions about Gygax's veracity and intent, I've gone to some lengths in each case where there was an apparent contradiction to fact in what Gary said or did, (or Arneson, for that matter) to supply a reasonable and sensible explanation, such as in the instance regarding the scans of BTPBD Gary was sent, I really doubt he ever saw the manuscript before then. I do think it was Dave's last revision, and I don't think he bothered to mail it to Gygax or give copies to anybody once he learned of the impending print run of the 3lbbs. It's my opinion, and opinion only, that Dave made a photocopy of it to give to Barker when he was working on EPT. I think Barker said "Thank you very much", put it in a pile and forgot about it.
I followed the above policy of "assume no guile was intended" without exception. Even in the case of Gygax's statements on the page counts of the various drafts, I argued that these could be shrugged off as misrembering or simple exaggeration in the case of the Dragon article in which he doubles them. Everybody is guilty of that sort of thing so it's not meant as any sort of condemnation to point it out.
However, it is also no particular secret that Gygax cast himself in a lead role in most of his RPG writings. Placing emphasis, for whatever reasons, on one's own role and view, doesn't make one a liar or hustler necessarily, but is a point of view that needs to be acknowledged when assesing the claims of others who may have been involved, particularly in light of the lawsuits and so forth. That is the light in which I read ""His contributions were ideas, nothing more. Dave can't design his way out of a paper bag." (via Kusner in http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/news/2008/03/ff_gygax?currentPage=all That's not a lie, it is an opinion, and an unfortunate one in my view, which I take with a grain of salt and put down to circumstance. This statement, and a couple others like it, are what I was reffering to in my post regarding the mistaken image of Arneson that many have absorbed. I don't think statements like that are a particularly fair assesment, free of the baggage of the conflict that occured between the two.
Re: BTPBD Analysis Paper « Reply #32 on Sept 10, 2012, 8:21pm »
I've spent the past couple of weeks in a pretty deep correspondence with Dan about this very interesting document. I've had the opportunity to inspect the original as well as a scan of it in some detail. I've made my own internal assessment of its contents relative to other resources I've seen, and reviewed Dan's arguments in depth. Ultimately, I can't agree with Dan's claim, as he puts it, that:
"Through tracing 3 primary lines of evidence – handwriting, writing style, and rule variations – we are left with the inescapable conclusion that Dave Arneson wrote and illustrated Beyond this Point be Dragons."
There are at least three reasons why it seems very unlikely that Arneson controlled the contents of this document:
1) It doesn't reflect the ideas that Arneson complained Dungeons & Dragons was missing. We know them, in part, from a 1974 letter he sent which I quote in my book. For example, Arneson's preferred system would have a very different way of treating hit points, where your hit points would be determined at character creation but would not increase as you go up in level; instead of increasing hit points, we would in Arneson's system see more mechanisms like saving throws to improve your ability to survive combat as you advance. Those are not present in "Beyond This Point Be Dragons." We similarly do not see a reagant-based magic system similar to Arneson's. While there are some elements here that do reflect Arneson's original system - gaining experience from casting spells is a prominent one - we should expect to see some of these, because there are of course lots of things in OD&D that derive from Arneson, like dungeons and clerics and experience. The absence of the specific things that Arneson complained that he would have done differently in D&D, however, makes it unlikely that this document could be taken as Arneson's edit correcting Gygax's system, as Dan has argued. Why produce an edit at all, if you're not going to fix the things that matter?
2) The editorial quality of the manuscript is not consistent with Arneson's work. As captivated as we are by Arneson's ideas, we have to concede he was not very skilled with a typewriter. I can also produce a 1974 letter in which Dave explains that he discontinued Corner of the Table until he "can get someone who can type and spell." I put up a post on my blog (http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/20....manuscript.html) to illustrate the sorts of manuscripts that Arneson generated during his prior collaboration with Gygax on Don't Give Up the Ship. I believe this collaboration is the best analogy we have to the creative process for D&D, as it played out between Gygax and Arneson only two years earlier. The original manuscript texts generated by Arneson show a lack of editorial rigor, numerous errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar, and terse, often inscrutable rules. We can see how Gygax reformatted and edited these ideas in transitional manuscripts, and ultimately compare both to the finished DGUTS pamphlet. In so doing we see a blueprint for the collaboration that created D&D, but Arneson's contributions to it look very dissimilar to the "Beyond this Point be Dragons" document, which has a relatively high level of layout, design and editorial discipline. This would quite an outlier in Arneson's production of the era.
3) This document is so well designed and organized, in fact, that it clearly was not intended to serve as just a point of correspondence between two collaborators, as Dan has argued. It contains numerous consistent internal references, careful organization, typesetting and illustration. It uses block type from a print shop for transition pages - this was the early 1970s, there were no word processors and producing finished copy was extremely labor-intensive. You don't tend to see those qualities in a document when authors are sharing drafts just among themselves. In short, this document was clearly created for broader distribution, most likely as a playtesting copy of the game. There is historical evidence that playtesting copies were distributed among the LGTSA and MMSA, as well as a few other individuals. Dan has provided some citations that suggest Arneson had produced an independent "final draft version" of the rules, and he believes this document must be it. For the reasons discussed above in (2), however, it seems unlikely that Arneson meant a document of this length and sophistication; it seems far more rational in a collaboration to send edits than to send complete, fully-illustrated counterproposals. It is also not "final" in the sense that there are later contributions from Arneson that became a part of OD&D but are not evinced in "Beyond this Point be Dragons." Although the D&D collecting community has for some time been looking for playtesting copies of D&D, none have been found to date. I would say we didn't even know what we were looking for. Seeing this document, I have a new appreciation for how something can hide in plain sight.
Much of my assessment of the document is based on resources I have (e.g., the DGUTS manuscripts shown in my blog posts, or the Arneson letters I refer to) that were not available to the community at the time that Dan produced his analysis. As such, I think this is a case where Dan lacked the evidence he would have needed to see the difficulties I'm now raising. In the absence of the necessary resources, Dan relied on some more subjective arguments, related to things like handwriting and style, which I do not find conclusive. For example, while neither Dan nor I perform forensic handwriting analysis professionally, I believe it's obvious from some qualities of the document that at least two hands were involved in lettering its illustrations (you can see my own analysis here: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-BQoMq....ing-final2.jp g). Dan's analysis of handwriting in the FFC also seems to confuse Arneson's hand with Bledsaw's a bit. I furthermore think the stylistic analysis relies on too few contemporary samples of Arneson's writing, and especially lacks access to his unedited rules style, which we would expect to see in a manuscript he produced in his collaboration with Gygax.
HOWEVER, all that said, this document is nonetheless an extremely important find. The evidence I see suggests this would be a mid-1973 playtesting edition of Dungeons & Dragons; there are plenty of internal correspondences in the document to both Chainmail and OD&D that readily support its position in an evolutionary chain between them. We can learn a phenomenal amount about the evolution of the game by studying the relationship between this manuscript and the eventual published version of the game. I will be putting up a number of posts about on this on my blog, starting with this one (which focuses on internal evidence that this predates OD&D): http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/20....f-dungeons.html
I think Dan deserves a huge amount of credit for recognizing this as a transitional manuscript. Honestly, I probably would not have taken the time to study it closely enough to realize that this was true if it hadn't been for Dan's tenacity in arguing for its early date. While I can't agree with the rest of his analysis, for discerning that this did indeed contain pre-D&D elements, my hat is off to him.
Finarvyn Administrator Dungeon Master member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 4,674 Location: Near Chicago Karma: 178
Re: BTPBD Analysis Paper « Reply #33 on Sept 11, 2012, 5:36am »
Well, it's an interesting find either way.
1. Thanks for chiming in, Jon. You have a unique perspective thanks to your exhaustive research for your book, and your expertise is highly valued here. Dan had me pretty convinced and I'm going to have to ponder things in light of your post above.
2. To parrot Jon's praise of Dan, I think that Dan's analysis is outstanding given the facts that were out there to draw from. If it should prove that Dan's analysis is inaccurate, it's not due to sloppy research or hasty conclusions.
Either way, it is an interesting doccument and I hope that someday we find out for certain where it originated and for what campaign.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
Re: BTPBD Analysis Paper « Reply #34 on Sept 11, 2012, 7:56am »
I almost hate to chime in here, but what if *both* of our learned scholars are right? Both present very good cases for their ideas on this manuscript, but I don't see that they are incompatible ones. My instant take on the manuscript, when I saw the scans, was that it was a pre-publication playtest edition; I also felt that it was something that Dave had done, given the artwork and some indicators in the text. It looks and feels like a very typical fan publication of the time, and I think I might need to remind people that most of the 'game industry' of that time and place looked like this; 'professional' printing wasn't affordable for anyone, which is why getting 'published' was such a bit deal.
(Anybody else remember when TSR's Art Department was a plywood sheet on top of the display cabinet in The Dungeon Hobby Shop? One had to ask Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Trampier to lift up the entire Art Department when one wanted to buy any of the miniatures in the display case... )
From where I'm sitting, I think both Dan and Jon are zeroing in on just what this manuscript is. Both have very good points, and very good information, but I think there's there's still something missing:
Why did Prof. Barker have this? And why was it in a box with his manuscript notes for what became the 'green cover' playtest version of what later became EPT?
As the Professor's archivist, I think I need to have a look through his letter files for you both; my impression, from the materials that I've read so far, indicate a much stronger level of cooperation and association between Dave and Phil then we know about. My gut is telling me that we might find more information in those letters about this, as having known all three of the major players in this I can't shake the feeling that we're missing something...
Why did Prof. Barker have this? And why was it in a box with his manuscript notes for what became the 'green cover' playtest version of what later became EPT?
Very good questions. Too bad we can't ask Barker directly. Seems like the creator of this has to have had some direct connections to Arneson and Barker and maybe other of the era.
I agree with Jeff that it seems like we're missing some key clue here, and when we figure it out it will probably be a face-palm "of course" moment.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
I almost hate to chime in here, but what if *both* of our learned scholars are right?
[snip]
Why did Prof. Barker have this? And why was it in a box with his manuscript notes for what became the 'green cover' playtest version of what later became EPT?
As the Professor's archivist, I think I need to have a look through his letter files for you both; my impression, from the materials that I've read so far, indicate a much stronger level of cooperation and association between Dave and Phil then we know about. My gut is telling me that we might find more information in those letters about this, as having known all three of the major players in this I can't shake the feeling that we're missing something...
yours, chirine (jeff)
To be clear, I don't know exactly who made this - I can only speak for what I see in its contents relative to other texts of the era. It may be that Dan and I both onto something, in some sense. I think this document reflects a midpoint in the collaboration between Gary and Dave, but beyond that, I haven't ruled out a lot of possibilities as to how it was produced. Its production values argue for broad distribution, which argues for a playtesting copy (or requires some other, extraordinary explanation). But there are pieces of the puzzle we are missing. The fact that the apparent title page doesn't list authors makes me suspect we don't even have the intended title page. And as you say, we're missing an explanation for how this got into Prof. Barker's box, no matter who made it.
So far, the easy assumtion has been that this was either in the possession of one of the Twin Cities players who introduced Barker to D&D, and he acquired/photocopied it out of his own interest in the game, or perhaps it was shown to Barker specifically because it shows alternative systems that weren't included in OD&D. That much said, the early Barker EPT draft along side this uses terminology that reflects OD&D more than this document, from what I've seen (I know I need to look a bit harder).
But if you do turn up a letter or something that explains this, that would be really welcome, yeah.
Falconer Level 9 Sorcerer Cleric of OD&D member is offline
OD&D, Middle-earth, Star Trek TOS
Joined: Sept 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,340 Location: Chicago, IL Karma: 51
Re: BTPBD Analysis Paper « Reply #37 on Sept 11, 2012, 3:24pm »
The main controversy seems to be based on the question of whether:
1. OD&D and BTPBD are based on a common draft, 2. BTPBD is based on OD&D, or 3. OD&D is based on BTPBD
Obviously BTPBD shows Arnesonianisms, which could be because:
1. Arneson himself Arnesonisized it, 2. one of Arneson’s players Arnesonisized it, or 3. it is more Arnesonian simply because it predates OD&D’s final, less-Arnesonian state
A man may do both. For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day! —J.R.R. Tolkien
Re: BTPBD Analysis Paper « Reply #38 on Sept 11, 2012, 4:24pm »
I think your description of the solution space there is about right. If anything, my points above were that some of the reasons that were being offered to suggest that BTPBD is very Arnesonian don't look plausible to me. It doesn't seem any more Arnesonian than I would expect a document to be, from the midpoint of collaboration between Gygax and Arneson.
Joined: Jan 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 42 Location: American Midwest Karma: 2
Re: BTPBD Analysis Paper « Reply #39 on Sept 11, 2012, 6:00pm »
I have nothing to add except to say that I find this _absolutely fascinating_: As a mystery, as a history, as a behind-the-curtain view of game design, and as a human intrest story.
Thanks very much to Mr. Boggs, Mr. Peterson, and Chirine for sharing this.
I have nothing to add except to say that I find this _absolutely fascinating_: As a mystery, as a history, as a behind-the-curtain view of game design, and as a human intrest story.
Thanks very much to Mr. Boggs, Mr. Peterson, and Chirine for sharing this.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
Re: BTPBD Analysis Paper « Reply #41 on Sept 13, 2012, 9:23am »
I have a theory but I can't prove or disprove it. One thing I noticed is that the artwork is either whole page drawing on unnumbered pages or drawn in the whitespace at the end of a section. It also seems that the person who did the artwork was different from the person who drew the sample map.
What if this is an original playtest version but that the playtest document was produced without art and someone simply doodled in the whitespace and added full page title sheets for his own use?
This would explain why both Gary and Dave didn't recognize it. Why TSR didn't use the artwork in OD&D and why the Prof. had this in his possession. Perhaps one of Mr. Barker's players was the one who decorated it for him.
Anyway, if the full page art was added after the fact, then the page numbering should not included them. On the Playing at the World blog, Jon posted a photo of the document binder. On page 6 there is a picture of an Ogre and Ghoul. The next page is the title sheet for the Underworld section. Can anyone tell me what the page number is on the first page of text of the Underworld section. If it is 7 then the page numbering doesn't include the title sheets which would be consistent with those sheets being added after the fact.
« Last Edit: Sept 13, 2012, 9:25am by hedgehobbit »
I have a theory but I can't prove or disprove it. One thing I noticed is that the artwork is either whole page drawing on unnumbered pages or drawn in the whitespace at the end of a section. It also seems that the person who did the artwork was different from the person who drew the sample map.
What if this is an original playtest version but that the playtest document was produced without art and someone simply doodled in the whitespace and added full page title sheets for his own use?
This would explain why both Gary and Dave didn't recognize it. Why TSR didn't use the artwork in OD&D and why the Prof. had this in his possession. Perhaps one of Mr. Barker's players was the one who decorated it for him.
Anyway, if the full page art was added after the fact, then the page numbering should not included them. On the Playing at the World blog, Jon posted a photo of the document binder. On page 6 there is a picture of an Ogre and Ghoul. The next page is the title sheet for the Underworld section. Can anyone tell me what the page number is on the first page of text of the Underworld section. If it is 7 then the page numbering doesn't include the title sheets which would be consistent with those sheets being added after the fact.
This document is being discussed in a few different places now, and it's hard for me to remember exactly what is being said where, so forgive me if anything here is redundant. But yes, some of your core insight here agrees with my own analysis. I have pointed out elsewhere that the four section divider pages in the document (of which "The Underworld" is one) are unnumbered, but the pagination continues as if they were (the page that follows the Underworld is actually 10, because the page with the Ogre and Ghoul is 8, not 6, though the number is unclear without a high-rez scan). There are also pagination gaps (e.g. skipping from 16 to 18) at two (or arguably three) other section breaks, which suggests that more section divider pages were planned and not yet created, or perhaps just lost.
Obviously the hand that drew the figural artwork is a different hand from the one that did the maps, yes (I have a scan above in this thread, if I'm not mistaken, on the handwriting that shows this). Intriguingly, I've also pointed out that the page numbering was done by a different typewriter than the actual body text. To me that further suggests division of labor, multiple parties imperfectly collaborating.
As for "doodling in the whitespace," I think the artwork is a bit beyond that. I think it was prepared intentionally by a third party and planned by the editor of this document. The pagination gaps for the section dividers suggest as much. Exactly who saw it, and when, could go a long way towards explaining why some people don't recognize this, sure. Also, do note that Arneson believed this to be an early manuscript, even if he wasn't entirely sure who made it. That too makes more sense when this is a communal product and not the work of some single person.
« Last Edit: Sept 13, 2012, 12:30pm by increment »
Re: BTPBD Analysis Paper « Reply #44 on Sept 26, 2012, 4:31am »
Reading the analysis, I'd love to see the original. I agree it's probably a spur - and as likely typed for Dave by someone in his group, or typed carefully by Dave after some minor spelling editing by someone else.
I'll note also it's typed on a manual typewriter - the uneven lines of text (esp. the 'o') are a dead giveaway.
Lots of the excepts show an uneven typing pressure. This, also, isn't uncommon for Dave, from what I've seen.
I would hazard that it's quite possibly not so much draft "D" of D&D as a spur off in reaction to 1st print, and being draft b++ revised for separate printing.
It looks, from what's available, like it's ready for optical typesetting from the get go. And optical typesetting for both foil-lithographic offset and mimeographic printing was extremely common.
I want to see it full text, tho...
edit: I'll note that selectrics and other electric typewrites were readily available in 70-74... but expensive. $200-$400. A manual could be had for $25... And professor Barker is noted as using a selectric for the drafts of EPT... a moving typeball typewriter that does not produce type this uneven except by being used while someone rocked the paper...
So more evidence of poor college student type authorship.
Also note the caligraphic font on the illos at the chapter frontispieces. They appear to be photoreproduced from original ink with transfer lettering. I've used that very letter set in my youth on a school paper title... http://www.flickr.com/photos/53171413@N06/4906454312/in/photostream/
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6614pf.JPG "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://blackmoor.mystara.us/img/55.png "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wmRZ0oFN84k/T7VZkxFVuUI/AAAAAAAAAAc/n_E_Zk830vQ/s170/%2521cover-2-front-ss.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/finarvyn/avatar.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
)![[avatar]](http://mux.net/~ulmo/ThorinII.jpg "[avatar]")
![[icq]](http://images.proboards.com/icq.gif "[icq]")
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/msn.gif "[msn]")