gonyaulax
Level 3 Conjurer
I still miss the 1970s . . . @:^/
Posts: 81 
|
Post by gonyaulax on Sept 20, 2020 13:57:15 GMT -6
I'm just surfing around today, catching up on topics and threads, and I took a moment to dwell upon the image in the OD&D Discussion banner above.
Cool banner: 13 books - a very good statement of what a lot of people consider OD&D to be. Let's see . . . there is:
Chainmail - original Guidon Games edition
Chainmail - 3rd edition, TSR
D&D Book I, Men & Magic - first printing
D&D Book I, Men & Magic - fourth printing
D&D Book II, Monsters & Treasure
D&D Book III, The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures
Supplement I, Greyhawk
Supplement II, Blackmoor
Supplement III, Eldritch Wizardry
Supplement IV, Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes
Swords & Spells Miniatures Rules
D&D Basic Set by J. Eric Holmes - 1st thru 7th printing (called "Blue Box" whether or not multicolored or monochrome blue covers)
Fine.
So here's my "duh" moment (hey, I'm 63 - I'm just getting started on my dementia, OK?): What book is pictured in the third space? I can't recognize the cover.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 20, 2020 14:44:44 GMT -6
|
|
gonyaulax
Level 3 Conjurer
I still miss the 1970s . . . @:^/
Posts: 81
|
Post by gonyaulax on Sept 20, 2020 15:32:45 GMT -6
I dunno . . .
I've read Jon's book and I've just searched his blog and I haven't seen an image that looks like the one above.
And since those rules were never written down (or even nailed down - Dave was notoriously secretive), what is that an image of in the third slot of the heading?
Anybody else? Fin? Jon?
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 20, 2020 16:14:42 GMT -6
Search the Pre D&D sub forum and you'll find discussion about BTPBD and the Dalluhn Manuscript. They're the same thing. It was produced/copied by Mark Bufkin. I'm not sure what they're being called now that the source has been discovered.
They're not really Dave's draft. Though there are similarities to Monards early copy that would be Gygax's draft.
|
|
gonyaulax
Level 3 Conjurer
I still miss the 1970s . . . @:^/
Posts: 81
|
Post by gonyaulax on Sept 20, 2020 19:01:14 GMT -6
Thanks, Thomden, for going back and posting the picture of the cover. I finally found that picture, along with other illustrations from "Beyond This Point Be Dragons" at linkI also found (in the pre-OD&D subforum) the link to the pdf of the analysis done by Daniel Boggs (and formatted by Finarvyn) which concludes that this manuscript is by Dave Arneson, derived from earlier collaborations between him and Gygax, but which was finished too late to have its changes incorporated into the 1st printing of OD&D. If true, that would make this an "alternate, proto-OD&D version". Positioning it between Chainmail and the first printing of OD&D is entirely appropriate. I guess I'm just out of date. I had heard about the Dalluhn manuscript (which I guess this is), but failed to keep up with latter discoveries and discussions. I had never heard of "Beyond This Point Be Dragons" or "the BTPBD manuscript" and certainly did not recognize the artwork. Thanks, all. So the list would be: Chainmail - original Guidon Games edition Chainmail - 3rd edition, TSR Beyond This Point Be Dragons - proto-OD&D, unpublishedD&D Book I, Men & Magic - first printing D&D Book I, Men & Magic - fourth printing D&D Book II, Monsters & Treasure D&D Book III, The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures Supplement I, Greyhawk Supplement II, Blackmoor Supplement III, Eldritch Wizardry Supplement IV, Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes Swords & Spells Miniatures Rules D&D Basic Set by J. Eric Holmes - 1st thru 7th printing (called "Blue Box" whether or not multicolored or monochrome blue covers) |
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Sept 20, 2020 22:17:38 GMT -6
I also found (in the pre-OD&D subforum) the link to the pdf of the analysis done by Daniel Boggs (and formatted by Finarvyn) which concludes that this manuscript is by Dave Arneson, derived from earlier collaborations between him and Gygax, but which was finished too late to have its changes incorporated into the 1st printing of OD&D. I haven't seen that PDF, but that might be outdated information. The way I remember the current story is that Mark Bufkin had the actual manuscript from Gary and/or Dave, and wanted to make his own copy, so he typed it up, making a few changes here and there to suit his tastes (such as converting certain rolls into % rolls). It was probably in one of the posts at the Hidden in Shadows blog, maybe here? boggswood.blogspot.com/2018/03/secrets-of-not-dalluhn-manuscript.html
BTW, if you subscribe to Boggs's Patreon, you can get access to a scanned PDF of BTPBD.
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Sept 20, 2020 23:17:55 GMT -6
How much does one have to donate to get this PDF?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2020 0:47:11 GMT -6
Yeah, what tdenmark and Fin have said: Not to reopen the entire "Gary Invented Everything Renarration" debate again, but it has long been confirmed that Arneson did, in fact, have "notes that equaled a full game ruleset". BTPBD is one piece of evidence. But other documents, for all I know, seem to confirm that. Generally, please don't discard the weight of the late-70s, early-80s lawsuits between Arneson, Gygax, and TSR, as well as the nature of the early-2000s agreement between Arneson and Hasbro/WotC: Arneson had a reason and a motivation to keep a low profile on the matter, if only because it was part of a settlement that was quite profitable to him. The "Gygax Invented Everything Renarration" started mainly as part of the promotion of the doomed "Castle Zagyg" project. Before that, word is that one would even see Arneson and Gygax together at some conventions, and the like. This absurd game of "sure, HE brought the ball, but we played in MY yard" was one of the plainly stupid things I've ever seen anybody do in this business, and, in my opinion, remains a disservice to the roleplaying community, up to this day. Now, Daniel Boggs - aldarron - is a member here. Maybe he wants to chime in? |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Sept 21, 2020 7:29:41 GMT -6
I also found (in the pre-OD&D subforum) the link to the pdf of the analysis done by Daniel Boggs (and formatted by Finarvyn) which concludes that this manuscript is by Dave Arneson, derived from earlier collaborations between him and Gygax, but which was finished too late to have its changes incorporated into the 1st printing of OD&D. I haven't seen that PDF, but that might be outdated information. The way I remember the current story is that Mark Bufkin had the actual manuscript from Gary and/or Dave, and wanted to make his own copy, so he typed it up, making a few changes here and there to suit his tastes (such as converting certain rolls into % rolls). It was probably in one of the posts at the Hidden in Shadows blog, maybe here? boggswood.blogspot.com/2018/03/secrets-of-not-dalluhn-manuscript.htmlBTW, if you subscribe to Boggs's Patreon, you can get access to a scanned PDF of BTPBD.
This is where increment posted about his discovery that Mark Bufkin produced (edited/wrote/published) the Dalluhn/BTPBD manuscript: playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-dalluhn-manuscript-and-contax.htmlIn that post he show various ways that the text of Dalluhn obviously derived from prior D&D texts, particularly the "Guidon D&D" draft; the draft Gygax prepared for submission to Guidon. We have a thread all about the Guidon D&D draft here: odd74.proboards.com/thread/12475/guidon-draft |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 21, 2020 8:16:30 GMT -6
don't discard the weight of the late-70s, early-80s lawsuits between Arneson, Gygax, and TSR No doubt all parties involved were incentivized to diminish Arneson's contributions and exaggerate Gygax's once the suit was settled. Still, without Gygax's objectivities combined with Arneson's abstractions would D&D have came out so great. What used to be called left brained/right brained, now simply analytical and abstract thought. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 21, 2020 8:19:55 GMT -6
BTW, if you subscribe to Boggs's Patreon, you can get access to a scanned PDF of BTPBD.
Which tier? I checked his Patreon, but it isn't clear or even mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 21, 2020 11:38:46 GMT -6
This started off as a short reply, then grew significantly.  Part of what makes this sort of discussion difficult is that knowledge seems to come in jumps rather than gradually, and depending upon where you are compared to the jump you see things one way or another. The original essay that Dan wrote (and I reformatted for a PDF) was excellent for the information at the time. It was well researched, made some excellent speculation and guesses about certain topics, and then suddenly became somewhat obsolete when new information surfaced. I wouldn't say that that makes Dan's musings totally irrelevant, but they weren't "cutting edge" any more, either. And to make things worse, it's often hard to place these sorts of speculations and discoveries into a proper chronology, so when surfing the web and looking for historical information it's a real chore to know what is current and what has been passed by. Dan's blog, for example, is a great read but I want to read if chronologically forward except that one almost needs to read it backward in order to get the most recent stuff. He doesn't delete the old material, which is good, but it can be confusing if you only see the older musings and not the most recent. Another case would be looking at various editions of Chainmail and noting the addition of spells as time passed. At the time there was belief that Blackmoor "rose out of Chainmail" and the thought was that if one could look at the Chaimnail evolution, and perhaps trace back into the Domesday Book where a pre-Chainmail rules set was supposed to reside (I have never seen it) then one would have a good look at the evolution of OD&D. Then with time we learned that Dave based his games more on Totten's Strategos book and that any Chainmail evolution might give Gary insight but not Dave insight. Viewpoints changed, but in my heart I still feel like Chainmail ought to have been the right answer even if it wasn't. (My physics students have this same problem, where their intuition says one thing and Newton said another and they trust their gut more than Newton.) So often we get trapped in what we "know" instead of what was accurate. The Secrets of Blackmoor video is highly recommended for more background here. Adding to this is the fact that sometimes documents which were created simultaneously may be revealed at totally different times. I can't keep track of all of the early versions out there, but the BTPBD manuscript and Gronan's version seem not to be identical (I have not seen Gronan's version) but I think that they are supposed to trace back to the same source. I'm sure that's frustrating for the experts who actually get to see everything, and I know it's rough for those of us who have only seen bits and pieces. In the "Why DON'T we know exactly what Dave's rules looked like?" thread Dan tries to talk through some of the problems with determining a sequence of events, particularly when the people involved didn't always date things. Christopher Tolkien did an excellent job of managing his father's manuscripts in the History of Middle-earth series of books. I wish that someone could do the same for the various pre-D&D variant manuscripts out there. Imagine a hardback book with "manuscript A" and "manuscript B" and the like, all typed and arranged chronologically and with commentary so that the layman could thumb through to see how things changed and evolved over time. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to turn to a chapter of rules for Braunstein and another chapter of evolution of the rules, or whatever? Sadly, the best we can do at the moment is read Jon's book (which is probably obsolete in some places as well) and Dan's blog and hope that whatever stuff we find on the interwebs is as up-to-date as possible. -------------------- EDIT By the way, I used to consider myself an "expert" on this stuff but have found myself to be left in the dust compared to folks who devote a lot more time and energy. I feel like I have a general sense as to what happened and when, but but the number of resources out there that I haven't had the privilege of viewing is huge and I can't always keep them straight. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 21, 2020 12:38:23 GMT -6
Jon's book is certainly obsolete in places, but it was also more an attempt to establish the broader context in which D&D happened, rather than something laser-focused on the evolutionary path demonstrated by drafts that, as far as I knew back in the late 2000s, simply hadn't survived.
I'd add that in our prior discussions about these matters here, we seem to have bumped against the limits within which productive discussions can transpire in a forum like this. The more detailed our discussions got, the more acrimonious they were, for a variety of reasons. Debating the respective influence of Chainmail vs. the free Kriegsspiel tradition in establishing the path to D&D turned out to be an immensely controversial and frustrating discussion for everyone involved, so, at the end of the day, we just stopped having it -- at least here, anyway. The reality is that they both mattered, and a lot of other things mattered too.
To the question of which progression belongs in the banner, I'd probably substitute in the cover of GD&D there if it were me, but it's not particularly distinctive and might just induce more puzzlement than what's there now. And well, 3rd ed spiral Chainmail came out after D&D (and imported some of D&D's stuff), so I probably wouldn't put it before D&D. I'd probably put the FFC somewhere... I can see arguments for a few different places, but probably I'd put it with Holmes Basic, at the time that the public at large actually saw it.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Sept 21, 2020 13:02:56 GMT -6
How much does one have to donate to get this PDF? $1 Hmm, no, what I'm thinking of was a lot more recent than this.
"Mystery Solved, Mystery Deepens" has the bit about percentiles that I was thinking of.
Which tier? I checked his Patreon, but it isn't clear or even mentioned. Any tier. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 21, 2020 13:48:02 GMT -6
I used to consider myself an "expert" on this stuff but have found myself to be left in the dust compared to folks who devote a lot more time and energy. My initial excitement at discovering this field of research was quickly eclipsed by the enormity and detail of the subject. I like reading it and how it informs decisions in my own games, but I realized I will never get anything 100% right, because it isn't possible, no matter how careful you are. It is remarkably similar to the scholarship around the New Testament, with its own heretics and true believers, endlessly fascinating. |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 21, 2020 14:50:59 GMT -6
Finarvyn, Now that someone's mentioned it; I also think a few books could be removed from the odd74 banner to make room for First Fantasy Campaign. It's basically the campaign sourcebook of od&d, if there ever was one. I wouldn't put it at the back, though. I'd put it right after Chainmail.
|
|
yesmar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Fool, my spell book is written in Erlang!
Posts: 217
|
Post by yesmar on Sept 21, 2020 15:03:05 GMT -6
We should definitely reference FFC in the banner here. It is an important work. It has influenced me since the 80s and continues to do so. I know I am not alone in these thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 21, 2020 15:05:40 GMT -6
Finarvyn, Now that someone's mentioned it; I also think a few books could be removed from the odd74 banner to make room for First Fantasy Campaign. It's basically the campaign sourcebook of od&d, if there ever was one. I like out banner. I had one that I had created years ago, but it wasn't anywhere as cool as the one we have now. I'm not sure that there was a master plan of what goes in or not, and I'm pretty sure there was no discussion or debate about it. I didn't do the graphic and at the moment I'm having a brain cramp and can't recall who did, so trying to change or edit probably won't happen unless someone else volunteers to make such a graphic. I think that the BTPBD is a great representation cover for pre-OD&D (or at-the-time-OD&D or whatever the scholars decide to classify the thing) because it is distinctive. I'd sort of like to see FFC added in there as well because it's one of my favorite OD&D-era books and I probably would have left Holmes Basic off just because I never really played it, but, again, I took what was offered and was grateful for the upgrade over my poor efforts. I guess part of the issue with a banner revision is then we get into the discussion/argument abut what is "canon" and what is not. What about Arduin? Or the Wee Warriors modules? Or early Judges Guild stuff? The two Men & Magic books are the same except for the cover, so why have both? I think the debate would just get messy and detract from what we are trying to accomplish, which is to discuss the original game. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Sept 21, 2020 15:24:19 GMT -6
I didn't do the graphic and at the moment I'm having a brain cramp and can't recall who did, so trying to change or edit probably won't happen unless someone else volunteers to make such a graphic. I couldn't remember either, but I just searched and found it was by verhaden in 2017. I think he deserves more credit for this, so I just pulled the posts about it out of the original thread (which was about the banner disappearing) and made a new sticky thread in the General forum: OD&D Discussion Forum Banner by verhaden |
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Sept 21, 2020 17:08:31 GMT -6
I think that the BTPBD is a great representation cover for pre-OD&D (or at-the-time-OD&D or whatever the scholars decide to classify the thing) because it is distinctive. I'd sort of like to see FFC added in there as well because it's one of my favorite OD&D-era books and I probably would have left Holmes Basic off just because I never really played it, but, again, I took what was offered and was grateful for the upgrade over my poor efforts. Yeah, I don't know how I feel about BTPBD on there...very important in a historical sense, but not a commercial product like the rest of them are. FFC would fit a lot better, but really I don't think it's that big of a deal. It's just something nice to look at, and if you put too much thought into it, you run into the slippery slope of "should B/X be on there? RC? BECMI? Modules? The new Tomb of Horrors? Etc??" |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 21, 2020 17:36:19 GMT -6
I like the banner.
|
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Sept 21, 2020 20:09:37 GMT -6
I didn't do the graphic and at the moment I'm having a brain cramp and can't recall who did, so trying to change or edit probably won't happen unless someone else volunteers to make such a graphic. I couldn't remember either, but I just searched and found it was by verhaden in 2017. I think he deserves more credit for this, so I just pulled the posts about it out of the original thread (which was about the banner disappearing) and made a new sticky thread in the General forum: OD&D Discussion Forum Banner by verhadenI don't know if I still have the *.psd, but if you guys wanted something different I'm game. |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 21, 2020 20:51:47 GMT -6
?!
Wait a minute; we're not getting rid of Holmes! That's my favorite one!
why couldn't I keep my big mouth shut?.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 22, 2020 2:31:14 GMT -6
Finarvyn, Now that someone's mentioned it; I also think a few books could be removed from the odd74 banner to make room for First Fantasy Campaign. Please don't get rid of the Holmes cover. It is the perfect cap to OD&D. The extra Chainmail and extra Men & Magic cover could be removed to make room for First Fantasy Campaign. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 3:04:03 GMT -6
Just a suggestion - don't "politicize" the cover, please. It's fine as it is, and it looks great, as it is. Whatever changes verhaden agrees to make, the aesthetics should be the deciding factor, not "whether the message is on point". If we keep this banner real, and in relation to what people are actually playing - where are the more popular retroclones, or where's the Red Box, for example? Should the DCC RPG be included? Should my personal favorite, "Beyond the Wall"?  Not a tremendously fruitful debate, I'm afraid. |
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 22, 2020 7:12:04 GMT -6
This started off as a short reply, then grew significantly. Another case would be looking at various editions of Chainmail and noting the addition of spells as time passed. At the time there was belief that Blackmoor "rose out of Chainmail" and the thought was that if one could look at the Chaimnail evolution, and perhaps trace back into the Domesday Book where a pre-Chainmail rules set was supposed to reside (I have never seen it) then one would have a good look at the evolution of OD&D. Then with time we learned that Dave based his games more on Totten's Strategos book and that any Chainmail evolution might give Gary insight but not Dave insight. Viewpoints changed, but in my heart I still feel like Chainmail ought to have been the right answer even if it wasn't. (My physics students have this same problem, where their intuition says one thing and Newton said another and they trust their gut more than Newton.) So often we get trapped in what we "know" instead of what was accurate. The Secrets of Blackmoor video is highly recommended for more background here. So, I just watch the Secrets of Blackmoor a couple of weeks ago. I could be mistaken, but I thought that the main take-away regarding Totten was that reading it inspired the Twin Cities group to use referees heavily in their Napoleonic games, and that was part of the inspiration soup for the first Braunstein game. I didn’t think that they were asserting that a Strategos variant was being used for medieval combat. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 22, 2020 19:27:53 GMT -6
How they played their Napoleonics influenced how they would approach these later games, for sure. And they did develop a variant for ancients- Strategos A. Yet, it seemed to me that Wesely's Braunstein was more of a reaction to their traditional rules centric Napoleonic campaigns. It's unclear whether Stategos was used at all in any meaningful way in running Braunstein or during Blackmoor's development.
My take away is that they were already infusing their wargames with elements we now associate with roleplaying. For the TC crowd this would have been Strategos rather than Chainmail. Therefore, the logical progression is that Strategos was the primary influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Sept 22, 2020 19:44:48 GMT -6
Who said anything about getting rid of Holmes!?!? o__o I can't see that happening, far too much love for it around here. The extra Chainmail and extra Men & Magic cover could be removed to make room for First Fantasy Campaign. We wouldn't have to get rid of anything, there's plenty of room for more, though I do admit that two Chainmails seems a bit much. I think that "extra Men & Magic cover" is supposed to be the cover from the actual box, and then the three booklet covers after it. (hmm, now that I look closer, maybe not, the box cover is "wizard in the doorway" EDIT: actually it looks like some boxes did have that "horseback" cover for the box, but it does look like it says "& Magic" on the banner one) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 20:54:11 GMT -6
How they played their Napoleonics influenced how they would approach these later games, for sure. And they did develop a variant for ancients- Strategos A. Yet, it seemed to me that Wesely's Braunstein was more of a reaction to their traditional rules centric Napoleonic campaigns. It's unclear whether Stategos was used at all in any meaningful way in running Braunstein or during Blackmoor's development. My take away is that they were already infusing their wargames with elements we now associate with roleplaying. For the TC crowd this would have been Strategos rather than Chainmail. Therefore, the logical progression is that Strategos was the primary influence. I think increment and, in all modesty, myself posted something with respect to this, a few years ago: Basically, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" - but we still have to respect this "absence of evidence" as part of the general circumstances. That there seem to be parallels and even likenesses between Strategos and early D&D-ish games does not necessarily force the supposed causal relation after which Strategos was the "direct model" for D&D-ish games. It seems somewhat likely, sure - but so far it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, let alone that it could be considered a given. I liked that the movie included Wesely, but I think presenting the influence of Strategos as a fact rather than as a theory was a mistake on their behalf. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 22, 2020 21:34:29 GMT -6
As I said above, I think we've established that trying to resolve these matters in a forum like this leads to more heat than light.
|
|
Not a tremendously fruitful debate, I'm afraid. 