|
Post by grodog on Aug 3, 2012 23:50:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 4, 2012 4:48:44 GMT -6
Has anyone actually had a chance to read this? I'm really interested, but (1) 700 pages is a lot to read, and (2) $35 is a lot to spend if it turns out only to have a small section on OD&D.
The only two reviews on Amazon are by friends of the author.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 4, 2012 7:47:48 GMT -6
I have a hard copy on order from Amazon that is supposed to arrive in a week. Might take a while to finish it (720 pages!) but I will post some impressions when I get it.
I bought the book based on the strength of the author's writing in several Acaeum posts, his blog, and the Amazon "Look Inside" preview, which shows shows 100+ pages (of the Kindle version), including the entire Table of Contents. It looks like the content breaks down like this:
Chapter 1: 1964-1974 - The immediate Midwest predecessors to D&D, such as Castle & Crusade society, Chainmail, Blackmoor, etc Chapter 2: History of fantasy literature - basically, a chapter on Appendix N books Chapter 3: History of game rules - covers wargaming from the 18th century forward through D&D Chapter 4: History of playing roles in games Chapter 5: "Dawn of Role-Playing" 1974-1977
|
|
|
Post by increment on Aug 4, 2012 21:56:52 GMT -6
The book also has an epilogue which covers the way that RPGs made the leap to computers, as well as a few other topics.
Chapters One and Five are a straight-up history of the creation and reception of OD&D, respectively. In Five I also discuss variants and competitors as they arose.
I'd say that Chapter Two is about half Appendix N and half explaining how and why those books stimulated D&D, exactly. One interesting thing about the fantasy literature singled out by OD&D is that it wasn't just about fantastic worlds, but most often about mundane people temporarily visiting them. I spend a lot of time talking about the relationship of that narrative arc to what we do when we play D&D.
Chapter Three starts off with a long and detailed history that covers wargaming from chess variants of the 18th century to the hobby community of the 1950s. The second part of the chapter then shows how the basic system elements of D&D (dice, secret maps, hit points, armor class, experience, etc) all emerged from those wargames, with an especial concentration on how Chainmail and Blackmoor used these ideas.
Chapter Four is largely about precursors to RPGs. It covers many of the early systems and communities that included role-playing elements before D&D: things like Coventry, Hyboria, Midgard, the SCA and Diplomacy fandom. This is pretty much the only Chapter that isn't "about" D&D as such, though you still see Gygax and Arneson poking around in there. This chapter also focuses on science-fiction fandom, and explains the influence of that community on games of the 60s and 70s.
And in fairness, while one of the Amazon reviewers is an old friend of mine, the other had certainly never heard of me before he held an advance copy of my book in his hands.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 4, 2012 22:45:10 GMT -6
I am into the 2nd chapter now having gotten it for my kindle. So far I have to say it is a fantastic read and going to be the standard by which other RPG histories will be judged by. Mainly because, Jon Peterson, the author, documents just about every statement by referencing original documents or through interviews of participants.
If there is a downside to the book, it would have to be the fact is an academic work not written as a popular history. It only a downside because some people don't enjoy that style of writing.
Also for your Blackmoor and Greyhawk fans it has a copy of the Great Kingdom map that appeared in Doomsday #9. And surprisingly it doesn't look like a redrawn map of North America and a lot like a proto Flaness.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 5, 2012 5:31:27 GMT -6
Welcome to the boards, Jon. I have placed an order for the book. It sounds fantastic! And in fairness, while one of the Amazon reviewers is an old friend of mine, the other had certainly never heard of me before he held an advance copy of my book in his hands. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were stuffing the ballot box. Just curious if anyone who posts here had read it yet, and what they thought of it.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 5, 2012 12:09:07 GMT -6
This sounds awesome! The kindle version will soon be mine...
|
|
|
Post by planetalgol on Aug 5, 2012 15:49:24 GMT -6
Also for your Blackmoor and Greyhawk fans it has a copy of the Great Kingdom map that appeared in Doomsday #9. And surprisingly it doesn't look like a redrawn map of North America and a lot like a proto Flaness. I'll repost what I said on K&K re this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2012 16:12:04 GMT -6
This sounds awesome! The kindle version will soon be mine... I had not thought to check for a kindle edition, thanks (and exalt) for the reminder!
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Aug 5, 2012 21:21:37 GMT -6
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were stuffing the ballot box. Just curious if anyone who posts here had read it yet, and what they thought of it. I've been reading the Kindle preview, and it's quite good thus far, Marv: dig in yourself and check it out. You can read the Kindle preview on the actual Amazon page even if you don't have a Kindle, and can also download the Kindle PC application for free and read it there too: see www.amazon.com/dp/0615642047/ and click on the picture I only hope that the images in the book for the maps and such are quite a bit bigger than what I see in the Kindle preview, since they're pretty small (I can't make out any detail on the DB#9 map, for example).
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 6, 2012 5:28:33 GMT -6
I did go and read part of the Blackmoor section. I like what I saw, and I can't decide if I want to read it now or wait for the book. I kind of hate to spoil the surprise by reading ahead, although I'm pretty sure I'll skip ahead and read Blackmoor first anyway when my copy arrives.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 6, 2012 6:23:01 GMT -6
I only hope that the images in the book for the maps and such are quite a bit bigger than what I see in the Kindle preview, since they're pretty small (I can't make out any detail on the DB#9 map, for example). Yes the maps and other images enlarged on the kindle, ipad and PC by clicking (touching) them. I was able to retrieve it out of my iPad at a much higher rez.
|
|
|
Post by havard on Aug 6, 2012 13:35:17 GMT -6
Also for your Blackmoor and Greyhawk fans it has a copy of the Great Kingdom map that appeared in Doomsday #9. This is going to be *very* interesting. My paperback copy is also on the way. Especially interested in the Blackmoor/Arneson bits ofcourse! -Havard
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2012 16:09:52 GMT -6
Far out. I'm going to have to get this... AFTER I write "We made up some shirt we thought would be fun," which is my memoir of gaming 1972 - 1980.
It'll be interesting to compare historical documentation against "this is what happened when I was a sixteen year old kid hanging around with Gary Gygax, as best as I can remember forty years later."
|
|
|
Post by increment on Aug 6, 2012 16:24:27 GMT -6
And to be totally clear, Mike, I think both memory and history have their place and both yield valuable results. I love 40 Years of Gen Con, but I think it serves a really different purpose than an anthology of documentary evidence.
From the times I had the opportunity to speak with Dave Arneson, he frequently answered my "why?" questions with "we were kids, we made something up and it worked." Somehow that came across as far more believable than some other detailed accounts I heard from other sources.
If I may say so, I think you get a pretty good plug in Playing at the World.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 7, 2012 9:31:34 GMT -6
From the times I had the opportunity to speak with Dave Arneson, he frequently answered my "why?" questions with "we were kids, we made something up and it worked." Somehow that came across as far more believable than some other detailed accounts I heard from other sources. For RPGs, moreso than other games, is why developing your game through actual play leads to good results. Doesn't mean that upfront design doesn't have its place but the dynamic natures of RPGs places a premium on what actually works at the table.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2012 19:10:51 GMT -6
Far out. I'm going to have to get this... AFTER I write "We made up some nuts we thought would be fun," which is my memoir of gaming 1972 - 1980. It'll be interesting to compare historical documentation against "this is what happened when I was a sixteen year old kid hanging around with Gary Gygax, as best as I can remember forty years later." "Made up some nuts?" Oh, CROM! The actual title will be "Made up some $h*t we thought would be fun." But not Bowdlerized.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2012 19:13:50 GMT -6
And to be totally clear, Mike, I think both memory and history have their place and both yield valuable results. I love 40 Years of Gen Con, but I think it serves a really different purpose than an anthology of documentary evidence. From the times I had the opportunity to speak with Dave Arneson, he frequently answered my "why?" questions with "we were kids, we made something up and it worked." Somehow that came across as far more believable than some other detailed accounts I heard from other sources. If I may say so, I think you get a pretty good plug in Playing at the World. Well, I'd buy it anyway. ;D I'm interested in how things happened BEFORE that day in 1972 when Rob Kuntz said to Don Kaye and me, "Gary's got this cool new game called Greyhawk. You're a bunch of guys exploring an old abandoned wizard's castle full of monsters and treasure and stuff." And yes, we were kids making stuff up. Rob was "king" of the Castle and Crusade Society when he was 15, and Joe Fisher was 17 or 18 when he wrote up the Ranger for an early issue of Dragon. And as far as the "other detailed account," that which is not understood gets mythologized.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 9, 2012 5:19:19 GMT -6
Got it in the mail yesterday and am around 50 pages (plus long intro) into the book. Wow. This is a fantastic read, although a textbook-y one. Best thing I've read in a long time, academic wise.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 9, 2012 5:39:26 GMT -6
This is a fantastic read, although a textbook-y one. Agreed. It's like a published PhD dissertation. But that's a good thing! My copy from Amazon arrived in excellent condition yesterday, and before bed I read various topics of interest. I was to see a few pages on the Holmes Basic set with some info I didn't know about previously.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 9, 2012 9:59:33 GMT -6
This is probably fodder for a new thread, but reading this book is bringing back some awesome memories for me. Not exactly following the events of the book, understand, since (so far) they were about 5 years ahead of my time, but this book is getting me to remember what it was like to be a teenaged gamer at the early end of a hobby. I'm in the process now of trying to remember which year was my first GenCon, when certain things in my gaming life happened. Playing wargames with little cardboard counters instead of plastic minis. Playing Chainmail on an actual sand table instead of discussing a "sandbox" campaign. The first time I got to see a copy of the OD&D rules and decipher the rules. Making up dungeon mazes and playing before we had even finished reading the rulebook, then laughing later on when we realized how badly we messed up some stuff. Making my first megadungeon, before we'd ever heard the term used. Getting copies of the Strategic Review and realizing that others (older kids) were also playing and making up their own rules, too. Joining the local college RPG club even though we were only in high school. Reading about the early groups self-publishing rules reminds me that in many ways we are in a second Renaissance of the hobby, where (thanks to the 3E OGL) folks can create something cool and share with others. I keep thinking about the clean, crisp look of OD&D, First Fantasy Campaign, and other books of the 1970's. For me, nice easy-to-read font on white paper with simple B&W drawings is to me really a lot of what gaming is all about. And rules that look like I could have written them, not something slick and hardback with awesome art that I could never have done. Anyway, I'm loving this book.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Aug 9, 2012 10:10:49 GMT -6
Some of my friends did jokingly refer to the book as my dissertation as I worked on it, but I think I'd have a hard time finding an advisor willing to sponsor this work at any reputable history department. Maybe in a few years.
I would not be surprised to see my book cited in an academic study here and there, though.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 10, 2012 5:13:56 GMT -6
I think I'd have a hard time finding an advisor willing to sponsor this work at any reputable history department. That's a sad commentary on the world of education. (And I'm an educator.) Seems to me that if a person has a passion for a topic, and if there is enough background information for research, that any topic should be fair game. Why not a study of a 40-year-old genesis of a hobby? It's not like there wasn't enough source material to fill the book up with footnotes and quotes and other legit research...
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 11, 2012 21:41:00 GMT -6
I purchased the book shortly after reading about it here on these boards, and soon downloaded and read through the Kindle sample. I am well into the second chapter of the paperback and am very much enjoying the book. I had skipped around a bit while reading the sample to get to what I thought were the "good bits", but after inattentively reading through the sample I went back and read the whole thing from the beginning carefully while waiting for the paperback to be delivered. I am glad that footnotes are used so that they can easily be read. I usually skip most footnotes and read through endnotes all at once after finishing a book read for entertainment, but in this case the footnotes are riveting and I am glad to have them to read.
I have found a small number of typos and there are a few points made so far that I would dispute, but overall I am finding the book to be a terrific read. It is well researched and very entertaining (well, it should be very entertaining to anyone on these boards I think if not to the general public). It will definitely sit comfortably next to Perla's and Dunnigan's books as one of the very few worthwhile books written on wargaming.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Aug 11, 2012 23:43:25 GMT -6
After you read the third chapter, I'd be interested to know if you still feel like you need Perla on your shelf. I did aim pretty explicitly to render the historical account in his book (and its sources, really) obsolete. So far most of the reaction to the book has understandably been about the RPG coverage, but I'm hoping that the huge amount of wargaming research I did won't be totally overshadowed.
Thanks for the warm feedback!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 12, 2012 7:13:14 GMT -6
I usually skip most footnotes and read through endnotes all at once after finishing a book read for entertainment, but in this case the footnotes are riveting and I am glad to have them to read. I'm that way, too. I typically find that footnotes are too distracting, as I lose the focus of the passage when I go to the footnotes. But in this case the footnotes are often quite fascinating. I't slowing down my reading somewhat, but makes the experience better. I have found a small number of typos and there are a few points made so far that I would dispute, but overall I am finding the book to be a terrific read. Sounds like there should be more threads started on this. 1. Jon would probably appreciate a thread that contains typos in case he wants to update his master file or in case there is a second printing of the book. 2. Individual points to dispute or discuss would make some good threads as well. If we get enough of them I might open a sub-board somewhere to contain them all.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 12, 2012 11:48:06 GMT -6
After you read the third chapter, I'd be interested to know if you still feel like you need Perla on your shelf. I did aim pretty explicitly to render the historical account in his book (and its sources, really) obsolete. Interesting. I am looking forward to it. I'll have to reread Perla too. So far most of the reaction to the book has understandably been about the RPG coverage, but I'm hoping that the huge amount of wargaming research I did won't be totally overshadowed. I have always been a wargamer first and a role-player second (I currently play wargames and have a group I meet infrequently with, but have not managed to find a group for playing D&D that has a schedule convenient for me) so I am more interested in the wargame aspect of the book than most I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 12, 2012 12:09:27 GMT -6
Sounds like there should be more threads started on this. 1. Jon would probably appreciate a thread that contains typos in case he wants to update his master file or in case there is a second printing of the book. 2. Individual points to dispute or discuss would make some good threads as well. If we get enough of them I might open a sub-board somewhere to contain them all. I think having some threads for this is a very good idea. They could go under "OD&D Study", or they could go under the General board, since it does touch on wargaming and as well as fiction and movies. I think it might be best to use the General heading because the threads might get less attention under the lower-traffic Study board.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 12, 2012 12:10:42 GMT -6
One more thing - exalt to increment!
|
|
|
Post by increment on Aug 12, 2012 12:12:04 GMT -6
1. Jon would probably appreciate a thread that contains typos in case he wants to update his master file or in case there is a second printing of the book. 2. Individual points to dispute or discuss would make some good threads as well. If we get enough of them I might open a sub-board somewhere to contain them all. Well, to be honest, I'm more interested in points of substantial disagreement than in typos. With any work of this size and complexity, there are sure to be errors, both editorial errors and gaffes in the research. If there are historical points that are actually wrong, I definitely want to know that. If I ever do a later edition I'm sure I'll be much more concerned about the latter errors than the former. I do hope that the release of this book will encourage research and tease out more sources that I didn't have the opportunity to see. Especially in the age of the Internet, a book can't be the last word - but I'll think I succeeded if the overall narrative and the big ideas stick, for a while, and if I manage to convince fans of games to be more skeptical and demand more documentary evidence before they accept a version of events.
|
|