[Fred's World] Discussion of the Dates of the Campaign

[Deleted]

Your dates are way off; CHAINMAIL didn't even exist in 1968, and it was 1972 not 1971. I suggest Jon Peterson's "Playing at the World" if you want to be accurate. Fred's world needs to be told about, but it needs to be told about accurately.

[kuthayn]

I genericized the language so that we remain focused on Fred's World and not the dates in particular. I am happy to accept accurate specifics from someone more on the know that I. It was as I understood it and not meant to be canon on other products.

[jmccann]

I think if you are not going to check the dates you should leave them out. I went to the facebook page and saw more errors than the ones Michael points out upthread.

[kuthayn]

Which dates? Like Gencon 4 Gronan says was in 1972 yet wiki says was in 1971? That seems verified to me.

oddwiring.com/projects/FredsWorld/images/GenConDates.jpg

Again though, this is as I understood it and not an attempt to be the arbiter (see rules lawyer) of the truth. There are enough people out there to do that, present company seemingly included.

Not a single comment on Fred's World, just concerns over the dates. Some of the material was written by Fred in 1987 and is provided verbatim, and is not going to be changed no matter how inaccurate it is historically.

Now, if you don't like the Fred's World material I am all ears, but it would be nice if we could even get to the materials.

Date changes to anything I have written I am always game for. I do not pretend to know it all.

-Glenn
[aka Kuthayn]

[Deleted]

Dave Arneson showed Blackmoor to Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz in 1972, not 1971. Which GenCon it is is irrelevant. And Rob Kuntz hangs around on this board.

I PLAYED with Fred, I don't need you to tell me about Fred's World. But I don't want to see you spreading crap about it.

And I repeat myself, get "Playing at the World" by Jon Peterson to tie all the dates down. He's done the research.

[Finarvyn]

Tough crowd. :-)

Seriously, once we can get some of the dates worked out correctly, I think this information will be really good stuff. I like the stories of the old days.

[Deleted]

I like stories of the old days too, and I liked Fred. But getting such well publicized dates down correctly is not difficult, nor is it too much to ask. Further, starting off with incorrect statements taints any further works.

[kuthayn]

Well, enjoy it for what it is then. If you deem it crap so be it. That is hardly constructive or useful in any sense. If you have something constructive to add I am all ears. I find your moral outrage baffling. I spent 10 years playing in Fred's World and wanted to share his work with others because I think it is something special. I am grateful to all the early players and creators for giving us such a wonderful medium to play in regardless of what year it was created, codified, copy written, dreamed up or who gets credit for which pieces.

-Glenn

[Deleted]

"Hardly constructive or useful in any sense."

So, accuracy about basic dates is of no concern to you. In other words, elementary research and basic writing techniques don't matter to you.

Got it.

And this is not "moral outrage," this is "disgust at appallingly bad writing." That kind of sloppy crap is inexcusable when the correct information is so easily available.

[derv]

I like that you're attempting to give some attention to another early campaign setting. It looks a little gonzo at first glance. Do you feel this campaign been overlooked? I've honestly never heard a thing about it.

I'm sure there are stories about those who gamed in the setting and the adventures they had. Maybe they could share some of these stories (yourself included). I'd actually like to hear a little more about your relationship with Funk and about Funk, himself, as the guy who started this campaign. There's nothing like firsthand accounts for gaining interest in things like this.

So @gronanofsimmerya, you said you played with Funk. What do you remember?

[kuthayn]

I am reading the book you suggested, but if you could grasp that my attempt here is to share Fred's materials, however flawed, perhaps we could move this forward. If not, feel free to disregard this altogether. It feels like a forest/trees conversation and all you can see are the references to the origins of D&D (which I never claimed to have accurate or care about) and not the campaign setting (which I do care about) that I am attempting to share with other still running OD&D campaigns. Have you anything positive to contribute? I am sorry having the dates wrong is so aggravating, and I will address them in the context of the work as I get to those parts, but I am putting this out there as a memorial to Fred. If you dislike me, Fred, the campaign, or any of it, that is fine but I am remain baffled by the level of your vehemence and sheer snarkiness over it.

[Finarvyn]

Glenn -- keep those stories coming in your original thread. This thread can be used for folks to offer suggestions as to the dates of various events for historical accuracy purposes. Feel free to edit any of your story posts to update for any dates agreed upon in this thread.

[Deleted]

Having spent some time reading Fred's document in pdf form, it looks like the date errors stem from quoting Fred, who of course is not with us. I, for one, would not go back and edit the original document, other than perhaps by footnotes with corrections of factual errors. I am not concerned about it, since Fred did not write a commercial product for sale, he was just sharing his campaign. A book or article claiming to provide historical accuracy that people should look to for that purpose is another matter. You mention Playing at the World, it and the books before and after have a much higher bar to reach, than someone's campaign write up.

I look forward to more about Fred's World!

[Deleted]

Okay, let me publicly apologize. I didn't realize that the dates were a direct quotation from Fred. That changes everything. I swore for years that Dave showed D&D to Gary in 1971 myself, but that's not the case. Memory is faulty, but of course you should quote your source.

Yes, please, quote Fred's words exactly. But just as Perilous Dreamer said, simply note in the forward that this is the case and briefly summarize the errors.

[kuthayn]

Thank you. That I can easily do.

I am awaiting receipt of a new memorial image from Lou Frank (who drew the original Fred's World artwork) for the back cover before I finalize the 1989 Memorial Edition of Fred's World.

Edits will continue to be made until then and footnotes seem appropriate, so I will make those edits as well.

Thank you all for the direction and assistance.

-Glenn
[aka Kuthayn]

[Hawklord]

Reading through the Fred's World: The First Edition Collection, I have two points to bring up:

The first paragraph talks about when Chainmail was first published, but soon "lost its luster." Then states,

A new and more rewarding experience was needed; and so TSR, in its infinite wisdom, decided to increase sales by publishing a fantasy supplement to Chainmail.

TSR didn't even exist when Chainmail was first published. Guidon Gamse published the 1st and 2nd editions of the game and the Fantasy Supplement was always part of the game. Need more info? http://https://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/chainmail.html

My second point is this tidbit -

Jan 31, 2017 10:54:36 GMT -6 kuthayn said:

the original basic set of Dungeons and Dragons (published in 1972 by TSR).

Or, as quoted in Fred's words directly from the Fred's World document,

Mostly through the efforts put forth by this group what we know today as basic Dungeons and Dragons (published in 1972 by TSR) was brought forth into existence.

Of course, the original D&D boxed set was first published in 1974 and was never called the "basic" set. The first basic rules set for D&D was published in 1977.

Yes, you should absolutely quote Fred directly but you will need a lot of footnotes to correct some information that is objectionably incorrect. There may be more, but I've only read through the second paragraph.

Tony

P.S. The term is spelled "lo and behold," not "low and behold."

P.P.S. I hope I can speak for the folks here in saying we just want to help you make this document as good as it can be. It's great to see this get to a wider audience.

[Deleted]

Feb 2, 2017 19:32:40 GMT -6 Hawklord said:

P.P.S. I hope I can speak for the folks here in saying we just want to help you make this document as good as it can be. It's great to see this get to a wider audience.

kuthayn, just imagine that this statement implicitly precedes all of the suggestions for corrections. When people start making corrections to a 28 year old document whose author has passed on, an author who like many just wanted to share his campaign; it can unintentionally come off as harsh. I have faith that the folks here truly do not intend it that way. One thing I think should always be taken into account is who was the author, who was the intended audience and what was the purpose. The purpose was not a history of D&D, it was to share his campaign. He may even have thought much of what is being commented on was correct and it is easy to make memory errors on things that are not part of your focus or purpose.

I really appreciate Glenn sharing this and hope everyone will remember that factual correctness while important is not the most important thing in this particular case. Sharing Fred's unique world is the important thing IMO.

If any of us were to publish a document of this length about our own home-brew campaign, I would hope that we would not be judged by the same standard a full time writer of books of history is judged by. Especially if it is given away vs being sold for $30 or $40.

[Deleted]

Feb 2, 2017 19:32:40 GMT -6 Hawklord said:

P.P.S. I hope I can speak for the folks here in saying we just want to help you make this document as good as it can be. It's great to see this get to a wider audience.

Yeah. Honestly, we're a bunch of kittens compared to most of the rest of the internet.

[kuthayn]

Updates were made today to Fred's forward/dedication page. The individual page appears below, and the Pre-Release version online has also been updated.

oddwiring.com/projects/FredsWorld/Circa1989/Footnotes.pdf

I hope this is a good step forward in making the memorial version of Fred's World both more accurate and complete.

Please bring all issues to my attention.

And Gronan, I would love to hear any anecdotes you have about Fred or his world. Thank you all.

-Glenn
[aka Kuthayn]

[Deleted]

A typo I just noticed, "suck" should be "such", see the bold print in the quote.

i
A few words from Fred

In roleplaying under this system, many different worlds have arisen suck as Blackmoor, Greyhawk and even Fred’s World.

[kuthayn]

Doh! I really such at this.

-Glenn
[aka Kuthayn]

[Deleted]

I personally find footnotes distracting; my personal suggestion would be in the Forward to touch on the issue of uncertainty in dates, and then put all the corrections in an appendix by chapter.

My opinion, YMMThingummy

[Deleted]

I agree with Gronnie; especially with a *primary source* as this one, footnotes would end up distracting from the actual content. You want people to look at the content, first, and not necessarily at the outer frame. - Especially in this case, the great asset you have with the project is its authenticity. Cleaning it up too much would feel kind of distracting from that authenticity, in my opinion.

Maybe user increment might want to help you out with the research for an introduction?

[kuthayn]

I would not presume to go that far, but it is a cool suggestion. I am just getting into chapter two of "Playing at the World" as it is. I have decided to add a foreward of my own prior to the collected materials and an appendix of corrections at the end based on comments in this thread. Thanks again.

-Glenn
[aka Kuthayn]

[MormonYoYoMan]

I yam the only person in the world who prefers footnotes, and lots of them. Endnotes are nastybad things, ptui! Forwords, I frequently read them after the first dozen chapters.

[kuthayn]

While I am not generally a big believer is doing things by consensus I do not presume to know the ins and outs of publishing and one can only take so much of reading the Chicago manual of style or MLA before giving at least a few thoughts on how it would have to be easier to learn how to tie a hangman's noose. I added a foreward of my own to the materials and a short appendix to the back covering current identified corrections. This is still not the final version of the materials, but we are getting close now. All additional observations and comments are welcome.

The current pre-release document has been updated and here is a convenient link to it.

Pre-Release of Fred's World Memorial Collection

-Glenn
[aka Kuthayn]

[increment]

Feb 4, 2017 16:35:46 GMT -6 @rafael said:

Maybe user increment might want to help you out with the research for an introduction?

In general, I'm content to put out the information that I think is consistent with the evidence as I see it and to let others do the same, or do whatever else they think is appropriate. We all do the best we can with the evidence we've seen, and we are all sorting it out as we go along.

I do extend a blanket invitation to anyone working on this history who thinks their work could benefit from my review; I'm easy to find.

[kuthayn]

Thank you for the gracious offer. If you have the time to review the materials I have prepared I remain open to implementing corrections in any manner that enhances the accuracy of the final product. In addition to posting here I will make this request directly of you in a request. Thanks again.

-Glenn
[aka Kuthayn]

[jmccann]

I also did not realize the dates were part of a quotation. I think having the correct dates present whether in footnotes or endnotes, and making it clear what is a direct quotation as you have done is very useful.

[aldarron]

Feb 2, 2017 19:32:40 GMT -6 Hawklord said:

Reading through the Fred's World: The First Edition Collection, I have two points to bring up:

The first paragraph talks about when Chainmail was first published, but soon "lost its luster." Then states,

A new and more rewarding experience was needed; and so TSR, in its infinite wisdom, decided to increase sales by publishing a fantasy supplement to Chainmail.

TSR didn't even exist when Chainmail was first published. Guidon Gamse published the 1st and 2nd editions of the game and the Fantasy Supplement was always part of the game. Need more info? http://https://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/chainmail.html

My second point is this tidbit -

Jan 31, 2017 10:54:36 GMT -6 kuthayn said:

the original basic set of Dungeons and Dragons (published in 1972 by TSR).

Or, as quoted in Fred's words directly from the Fred's World document,

Mostly through the efforts put forth by this group what we know today as basic Dungeons and Dragons (published in 1972 by TSR) was brought forth into existence.

Of course, the original D&D boxed set was first published in 1974 and was never called the "basic" set. The first basic rules set for D&D was published in 1977.

Yes, you should absolutely quote Fred directly but you will need a lot of footnotes to correct some information that is objectionably incorrect. There may be more, but I've only read through the second paragraph.

Tony

P.S. The term is spelled "lo and behold," not "low and behold."

P.P.S. I hope I can speak for the folks here in saying we just want to help you make this document as good as it can be. It's great to see this get to a wider audience.

<sigh> I'm all for footnotes (it's a good idea) but this level of scrutiny regarding the historical accuracy of what Fred wrote from memory in a brief introduction in the late 80's is simply not appropriate to include within the document. Nothing he wrote should be ever be changed or marked up with all kinds of corrections. Misremembered history is a historical artifact itself, firstly, and secondly it's not appropriate to tear apart a dead author's writing within the pages of his own work, especially since the exact accuracy of these details are hardly germane to the body of the work. The point of Fred's World is the gaming word of Freds World. A mere note saying something along the lines of "The exact years and certain details as remembered by Mr Funk's are not considered to be completely accurate by game historians." should be sufficient.