|
|
Post by Zenopus on Oct 12, 2021 20:01:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 13, 2021 6:53:25 GMT -6
Mine came in yesterday as well. Frantically reading instead of getting work done.  |
|
|
|
Post by mrmanowar on Oct 13, 2021 21:39:23 GMT -6
My three copies came in yesterday and I finished the book today. Can't wait to see Jon at Gamehole and ask further queries/clarifications. Highly recommended reading. The same goes for all he does.
|
|
|
|
Post by increment on Oct 14, 2021 7:28:08 GMT -6
I understand I am giving a seminar at GameHole on Saturday night: www.gameholecon.com/events/event/14481... though really, most people should be happily gaming at that hour. I mean, if there are questions about the book, I'd be happy to discuss them here as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 14, 2021 8:57:50 GMT -6
My three copies came in yesterday ... Three copies?  I barely have time to read one. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 14, 2021 11:40:21 GMT -6
... though really, most people should be happily gaming at that hour. I mean, if there are questions about the book, I'd be happy to discuss them here as well. Not a question but a comment, I think it would really benefit the hobby if permission could secured to release Dave's Article on the Roots of Dungeon & Dragons so people can read it in entirety. Bonus points if permission could be secured for Gygax's article from Dragon #7 as well. I just read the section of your book where you commented that even with the animosity between the two. The two articles mostly complement each other rather than just be opposing viewpoints of the same event. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 14, 2021 11:44:06 GMT -6
I mean, if there are questions about the book, I'd be happy to discuss them here as well. So far I am enjoying it a lot and it looking very solid as far as using the source material. Everyone you describe comes off as people with various strengths and weakness. I think the book is going to annoy all sides on the debate about the origins of D&D and the start of TSR by painting a nuanced picture. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Oct 14, 2021 13:07:53 GMT -6
I think the book is going to annoy all sides on the debate about the origins of D&D and the start of TSR by painting a nuanced picture. People who have "sides" in a debate like this don't tend to have much appetite for nuance; it's too attractive to read nuance as an attack on your side. I imagine Dragon #7 is widely available on the Internet; I'm not aware that's true of FGU's Wargaming #4 (where the "Roots" would ultimately be published), though it seems to be available on eBay. From the GW perspective, the historical significance of those two articles is that they mark the beginning of an era of propaganda pieces in the Gygax-Arneson feud. The historical light they shed is more on how the origins of D&D were spun than on those origins themselves. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2021 17:35:04 GMT -6
Ordered my copy. I've read your other books twice apiece so I'm really looking forward to this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 14, 2021 17:41:01 GMT -6
Hmm. I have a copy of FGU's Wargaming #4 but it's been a long time since I read it. Guess I will have to go back and reread.
|
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Oct 14, 2021 18:10:52 GMT -6
Still need to finish The Elusive Shift, but buying this anyway so I don't have to worry about finding a copy in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by boggit on Oct 15, 2021 12:51:00 GMT -6
I am about halfway through. Great read so far, increment! Definitely interesting to learn more about the sort of disputes only hinted at in Playing at the World. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 15, 2021 14:23:26 GMT -6
Definitely interesting to learn more about the sort of disputes only hinted at in Playing at the World. But at the same time I don't see a any real bias toward or away from any of the major players. Seems like the story is told from a very neutral perspective, which is tough in this time where everyone seems to want to pick sides. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Oct 15, 2021 16:44:13 GMT -6
Just picked up a copy at Barnes & Noble. I also noticed that it's available through all the major ebook services, which is a great move.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Oct 15, 2021 17:12:08 GMT -6
I'm up to 1975 now! The first Origins approaches. I'm very much enjoying it. The amount of correspondence that survived to enable the telling of this story is jaw-dropping. One tidbit I don't recall hearing before (or have forgotten) is that "an area of the "Great Kingdom" campaign world" contained Barsoomian creatures - the ones that appeared in the U&WA tables. increment: was this an area shown on one of the maps? |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Oct 15, 2021 18:58:04 GMT -6
Alright, alright, I was going to wait until I finished the current books on my to read shelf, but y'all convinced me so I bought the kindle version and am diving in today.
|
|
|
|
Post by increment on Oct 15, 2021 20:09:49 GMT -6
One tidbit I don't recall hearing before (or have forgotten) is that "an area of the "Great Kingdom" campaign world" contained Barsoomian creatures - the ones that appeared in the U&WA tables. increment : was this an area shown on one of the maps? It survives in a piece of the 1973 correspondence between Gygax and Arneson - just a passing mention from Gygax that "Keoland has Martian beasts, so we'll ride thoats and fight banths + apts." |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Oct 15, 2021 21:45:10 GMT -6
increment, I've only had a chance so far to read the sources section and skim the rest, but it leads me to a question: You handle a great deal of unpublished primary sources that include private correspondence, paper scraps and internal memos, and at first glance quite a lot of it seems new to the general public; perhaps even the single largest unveiling of new sources in TSR history. Also, for understandable reasons you've already talked about before, many of these seem to go uncredited in terms of who ultimately provided the source. I have no reason to be incredulous about their veracity or the ethics of using those sources without traceable attribution, but I assume you'll be having to field those questions from naysayers soon (if you haven't already!). How much QDE and diplomatic analysis has gone into these documents? How difficult on average is it to prove their provenance?
|
|
|
|
Post by increment on Oct 15, 2021 23:29:25 GMT -6
How difficult on average is it to prove their provenance? I don't mean to be flippant about a serious question, but my assessment of authenticity is really just based on my own judgment and experience working with these materials. There's no red team review of those assessments built into my process, and I don't pretend to any particular training in forensics or anything. All I have going for me is a sense of what coheres with everything else I've seen from a diversity of sources. There are a few people, both from back in the day and among contemporary collectors, whom I work with on areas where I have questions, but at the end of the day, if I have doubts about something I'll pass over it in silence. Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't think I really engage with material in contexts where the provenance is dubious. Which isn't to say there aren't a lot of things I've seen that I'm not certain what they are -- I just don't write about those things. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Oct 15, 2021 23:48:02 GMT -6
How difficult on average is it to prove their provenance? I don't mean to be flippant about a serious question, but my assessment of authenticity is really just based on my own judgment and experience working with these materials. There's no red team review of those assessments built into my process, and I don't pretend to any particular training in forensics or anything. All I have going for me is a sense of what coheres with everything else I've seen from a diversity of sources. There are a few people, both from back in the day and among contemporary collectors, whom I work with on areas where I have questions, but at the end of the day, if I have doubts about something I'll pass over it in silence. Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't think I really engage with material in contexts where the provenance is dubious. Which isn't to say there aren't a lot of things I've seen that I'm not certain what they are -- I just don't write about those things. Which is all perfectly reasonable, I think. In all, the "palaeographer's eye" that we refer to in earlier historical research is really no different from your method: when you've seen thousands of documents, you develop an intangible insight into their features that can't really be explained beyond much more than, "I can just tell." It takes me to another question—or just an idle comment, really. Considering the nature of these documents, I imagine that for every item you've included there are probably several more that may or may not prove relevant, if only you could tell what and from when/where it is you're looking at. (And probably a handful you suspect or know exist but haven't been able to find or get permission to view.) |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Oct 16, 2021 7:05:42 GMT -6
I'm sure the documents I've been able to work with only scratch the surface of what has survived, of both things I know I haven't seen as well as "unknown unknowns." The trick, when you're in that position, is to try really hard not to color outside the lines, outside the cluster of data points that hang together, veering into that risky realm of supposition. When I did PatW, I thought I was trying hard, but in retrospect, I was pretty credulous - or maybe more generously, I didn't have access to enough material to steer myself away from folklore. I feel like I'm more exacting about that now, but it's an iterative process, I imagine - years from now I'll look back at GW and be like, "I can't believe I let myself say that."
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Oct 16, 2021 12:21:53 GMT -6
One tidbit I don't recall hearing before (or have forgotten) is that "an area of the "Great Kingdom" campaign world" contained Barsoomian creatures - the ones that appeared in the U&WA tables. increment : was this an area shown on one of the maps? It survives in a piece of the 1973 correspondence between Gygax and Arneson - just a passing mention from Gygax that "Keoland has Martian beasts, so we'll ride thoats and fight banths + apts." Thanks! That is intriguing. Previously, I had the impression that the OD&D Vol 3 table "Optional Arid Plains" - the one with the Barsoomian critters - was inspired primarily by running games in Barsoom itself ( accesible via Castle Greyhawk) rather than in part of the lands of the Great Kingdom (which later developed into the World of Greyhawk). The idea of using Mars per se is reinforced in that booklet by the "Desert (Mars)" subtable for Men, and the mention of Mars in the section "Other Worlds" ("Some areas of land could be gates into other worlds, dimensions, times, or whatever. Mars is given in these rules, but...") And I wouldn't have guessed Keoland as a home to Barsoomian fauna based on its later description in the World of Greyhawk folio, but it does fit better with the description in Quag Keep, where the "plains of Koeland" [sic, spelled Keoland elsewhere] are a largely empty and dry place, broken only by tributaries of a great river (geography which generally matches the "Megarry" version of the Great Kingdom map). The party in the story crosses "long dry patches" between the rivers, which causes problems for the lizardman in the party. "Arid Plains" certainly fits how Keoland is described there. On the Great Kingdom map, Keoland also runs up to the mountains bordering the Sea of Dust, another obviously dry area. |
|
|
|
Post by boggit on Oct 18, 2021 7:10:35 GMT -6
Hey increment (and/or others): in the book it is mentioned that Dave Arneson ran the D&D tournament during Origins ’76 (I remember the year correctly, right?) Is there any info available anywhere regarding which scenario he ran? |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 18, 2021 7:21:19 GMT -6
I'm sure the documents I've been able to work with only scratch the surface of what has survived, of both things I know I haven't seen as well as "unknown unknowns." The trick, when you're in that position, is to try really hard not to color outside the lines, outside the cluster of data points that hang together, veering into that risky realm of supposition. When I did PatW, I thought I was trying hard, but in retrospect, I was pretty credulous - or maybe more generously, I didn't have access to enough material to steer myself away from folklore. I feel like I'm more exacting about that now, but it's an iterative process, I imagine - years from now I'll look back at GW and be like, "I can't believe I let myself say that." A tangent question, has the documentation situation over what notes Dave had when he ran Blackmoor pre-D&D improved any? |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 18, 2021 7:24:31 GMT -6
So I am up to 1982 in the book. Basically folks being out of their league business wise. Spiced with occasionally doing the shirtty thing with a dash of nepotism. And sadly Gygax and Arneson both getting sidetracked creatively. Gygax as a result of dealing with the business of TSR and Arneson never quite getting it together himself but it looks like he managed help some folks get their projects in print.
A simplistic overview but over all I am pretty impressed with the details @jon Peterson unearthed and put together. Like Playing at the World, I think the book so far provide a definitive structure on which future efforts will have to address. Even if further details shed new light on what covered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Oct 18, 2021 8:04:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by boggit on Oct 18, 2021 8:42:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by boggit on Oct 19, 2021 9:32:05 GMT -6
For some reason, the fact that both Gary and Dave were so lacking both as captains of industry, as is made painfully obvious by increment s book, and as game designers (after all, neither one of them ever wrote or developed another game even close to the success of D&D), makes me like them even more. First and foremost, they were gamers. |
|
muddy
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 159 
|
Post by muddy on Oct 19, 2021 9:58:36 GMT -6
Any similar info on the '75 Con in Baltimore? |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Oct 19, 2021 12:20:56 GMT -6
|
|
I barely have time to read one.
