|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 20, 2021 8:36:29 GMT -6
So I finished the books. Boy 1985 was a shirtshow and like the rest of the book the story is nuanced. 1985 was the year of Ambush at Sheridan Spring and Gygax losing control of the company. Takeaways- Gygax ignored opportunities to take control although each situation was nuanced. Telling is the fact he felt he could buy out enough of the Blume shares to take control when he became aware of the takeover attempt. But couldn't be bother to do it early in the year when it was offered.
- Lorriane Williams came off better than I expected. Basically even if Gygax took control, the banks were breathing down TSR's neck. Lorraine William seemed to be primarily motivated to knock TSR away from it path to bankruptcy. And that she was working with a team of outsiders trying to get TSR out of the hole it was buried in.
- If there a villain in the story it is the Blume. Whatever Gygax excesses did, it was dwarfed by what the Blumes did. Ultimately the debt and the shirt show it causes was a legacy of their action. Gygax didn't always help the situation. But it was clear whatever his faults were Gygax was ultimately not interested in running a multi-million dollar corporation. He was basically a creative type and that where he was happiest.
So did Arneson and Gygax get to speak for themselves?I browsed through the list of sources organized by chapter and I have to say yes. The caveat is that there is obviously more material to be unearthed. Which to his credit Jon Peterson talks about. I was left with the impression he felt this work will be superseded by other in the coming years as more material is available. The main source of criticism is relying exclusively on written source and not incorporating oral sources. The sources are littered with material taken from personal letters from Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. I didn't do exact count but it is enough that I think any criticism that it doesn't include oral sources it unwarranted. Personal letters are about as close we are going to get to a unvarnished account from either gentlemen as opposed to recollections made decades later. But again there going to have to be another book because eventually there will be more letters and materials unearthed written by the two to others or perhaps their own notes. When that happen then the picture painted by Game Wizards will have to be revised. Jon Peterson did a great job with this. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Oct 20, 2021 8:48:34 GMT -6
The main source of criticism is relying exclusively on written source and not incorporating oral sources. The sources are littered with material taken from personal letters from Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. I didn't do exact count but it is enough that I think any criticism that it doesn't include oral sources it unwarranted. Personal letters are about as close we are going to get to a unvarnished account from either gentlemen as opposed to recollections made decades later. Recollections by sources who were present at specific events are no less reliable than a documented source, sometimes more reliable and sometimes less reliable. Reliability depends on each individual source. The point is that they still count as primary sources. Better get them while you still can. |
|
|
|
Post by Otto Harkaman on Oct 20, 2021 8:56:26 GMT -6
Jon Peterson did a great job with this. Really enjoying, up to the $300 idea |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 20, 2021 9:33:24 GMT -6
Recollections by sources who were present at specific events are no less reliable than a documented source, sometimes more reliable and sometimes less reliable. Reliability depends on each individual source. The point is that they still count as primary sources. Better get them while you still can. [/quote] But when one contradicts the other which do you go with? That was the issue, the written sources didn't support the details of the oral sources. And when you browse the list of sources for each chapter it obvious it not a case of "This one letter EXPLAINS EVERYTHING!" There are letters after letters, article after article, court cases, corporate reports, notes, and so on. That build up a picture that are at odds with oral account. To refute what Jon did or paint a different picture would have to go through all the different oral accounts and build up a similar mass of evidence. And last because of the use of letter and other personal communications there obviously more to be found. At this point I don't think the basic timeline will change. However I do think stuff like when Gygax stepped away in the early 80s will become clearer and that will change how one views later events by painting a fuller pictures. For example did anybody know that Dave Arneson wound not getting paid all his royalties for Don't Give up the Ship and then learning about it? Knowing that now, doesn't make his actions after the release of D&D a little more understandable as he getting out of college and he was already screwed once by being in the game business. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Oct 20, 2021 13:02:06 GMT -6
Recollections by sources who were present at specific events are no less reliable than a documented source, sometimes more reliable and sometimes less reliable. Reliability depends on each individual source. The point is that they still count as primary sources. Better get them while you still can. “But when one contradicts the other which do you go with? That was the issue, the written sources didn't support the details of the oral sources. And when you browse the list of sources for each chapter it obvious it not a case of "This one letter EXPLAINS EVERYTHING!" There are letters after letters, article after article, court cases, corporate reports, notes, and so on. That build up a picture that are at odds with oral account.” Exactly, as a retired trial attorney and adjunct law professor I can agree that the documents often do not support the oral testimony. However documents have their own credibility issues. Snippets of documents can be taken out of context. Even the authors of a particular document can be biased. And sometimes a cited source can be misinterpreted. Judges, Lawyers, Historians and Scholars are human, and therefore make mistakes. Eyewitnesses also make mistakes. Those who create documents also make errors. Trying to reconstruct the past is often like trying to describe the internal layout of a mansion after looking through the keyholes. which way do you go? That depends on your own judgment. Sometimes we just have to accept the fact that we may never know the complete truth about a particular incident. ultimately my point is that it would be prudent to get as many of the oral accounts as possible before they are lost forever. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 20, 2021 13:46:15 GMT -6
So it sounds like the problem isn't Jon relying on written documents exclusively. It whether the written document he chose are credible or not. Whether he used all the relevant information found in those documents. Sounds like a good project for another historian to do.
As far as preserving oral histories that always a worthy goal but I don't see that being relevant to this project which seek to document a specific sequence of events.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Oct 20, 2021 18:32:56 GMT -6
I still do not understand the author’s desire to cite from and draw conclusions from only one type of evidence, to the exclusion of other relevant living sources. But hey, it isn’t my book. I am thoroughly enjoying the book and don’t have a dog in anybody’s fight.
Soooo
I would like to see more of the actual documents relied upon for the factual assertions. For example, I would like to see the September 1975 “transfer of assets” from the Tactical Studies Rules Partnership to TSR Hobbies, Inc. The only citations in either of Peterson’s books that support the existence of such a document do not cite the document itself, but are instead footnote references to a Minnesota Civil Case Number. This document would be interesting to me personally because I love reading about intellectual property law. A transfer of IP assets from the mid 70s would be a fascinating read, especially when the subject of transfer is my favorite game!
|
|
|
|
Post by increment on Oct 20, 2021 20:10:12 GMT -6
I still do not understand the author’s desire to cite from and draw conclusions from only one type of evidence, to the exclusion of other relevant living sources. But hey, it isn’t my book. I am thoroughly enjoying the book and don’t have a dog in anybody’s fight. I might suggest a distinction between what I cite in GW and what I draw conclusions or broader narrative from. The cites in the back of GW are (almost exclusively) references to places where a very narrow data point derives from - a quotation, a date, a sales number, that sort of thing. I don't cite things other than that. That does not mean I didn't talk to a lot of people about a lot of points that influenced the general narrative flow, in ways that don't get cites because they aren't supporting some specific claim in the body text. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Oct 20, 2021 20:26:26 GMT -6
I still do not understand the author’s desire to cite from and draw conclusions from only one type of evidence, to the exclusion of other relevant living sources. But hey, it isn’t my book. I am thoroughly enjoying the book and don’t have a dog in anybody’s fight. I might suggest a distinction between what I cite in GW and what I draw conclusions or broader narrative from. The cites in the back of GW are (almost exclusively) references to places where a very narrow data point derives from - a quotation, a date, a sales number, that sort of thing. I don't cite things other than that. That does not mean I didn't talk to a lot of people about a lot of points that influenced the general narrative flow, in ways that don't get cites because they aren't supporting some specific claim in the body text. Your narrative has a nice flow to it. I think it’s a terrific read. Were you able to obtain a copy of the 1975 document that transferred the Partnership assets? I would love to examine it. |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Oct 20, 2021 20:41:59 GMT -6
Your narrative has a nice flow to it. I think it’s a terrific read. Were you able to obtain a copy of the 1975 document that transferred the Partnership assets? I would love to examine it. This post will have to stand in for (quite) a number of similar requests I'm getting - I am going to share further more scans of things that fill in more of the GW story, but it's really going to be guided by the topics that I think require some further explication or cover gaps that I cut from the original ms (which was, as I've intimated, waaayyy longer before MIT talked me off that ledge). More on that particular topic is not currently in my plans - sorry to be a hater. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Oct 20, 2021 21:37:20 GMT -6
Your narrative has a nice flow to it. I think it’s a terrific read. Were you able to obtain a copy of the 1975 document that transferred the Partnership assets? I would love to examine it. This post will have to stand in for (quite) a number of similar requests I'm getting - I am going to share further more scans of things that fill in more of the GW story, but it's really going to be guided by the topics that I think require some further explication or cover gaps that I cut from the original ms (which was, as I've intimated, waaayyy longer before MIT talked me off that ledge). More on that particular topic is not currently in my plans - sorry to be a hater. Not a problem. It’s cool. Every once in a while I get a crazy obsession about an oddball topic like this one. Looking forward to your upcoming work. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Oct 23, 2021 7:51:27 GMT -6
The main source of criticism is relying exclusively on written source and not incorporating oral sources. The sources are littered with material taken from personal letters from Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. I didn't do exact count but it is enough that I think any criticism that it doesn't include oral sources it unwarranted. Personal letters are about as close we are going to get to a unvarnished account from either gentlemen as opposed to recollections made decades later. This post is not a criticism of the book. I like the book. The author is free to choose any source desired. However, the alleged exclusion of contemporary primary oral sources raises an issue about historical documentation in general. Recollections by sources who were present at specific events may be 1) no less reliable than a written source, 2) sometimes more reliable and 3) sometimes less reliable. Reliability varies depending on each individual source and those who judge the source. The point is that the living sources still count as primary sources. But they won’t be around forever. And so I repeat that it is “best to get them while we still can.” |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Oct 23, 2021 15:59:04 GMT -6
In the Sources and Acknowledgements, Jon lists at least 25 people who helped make the book possible through "interviews and conversations", and these are all people who were there at the time (Ward, Schick, Cook, Ernie Gygax, etc).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2021 16:17:41 GMT -6
I always get a bit sad when I read about Brian Blume. He was a gamer once. He was one of us. He understood this stuff. Lorraine Williams is easy to vilify but her role was logical and we've all met someone in her position if we're in a big company. Brian's name makes me think of the crying Native American from the old littering commercial, except he's sadly contemplating an old Boot Hill box.
Anyway, started my deep dive into this volume. I recently read Elusive Shift for the second time and will likely go over this one twice as well. People often review the prose as dry or academic but I find them very readable. Maybe it's my interest in the subject matter. I hope this genre of tabletop history books continues to grow and that more original material from private collections becomes available as time goes by. I could read a thousand versions of this story and time period and still find it fascinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 23, 2021 17:34:46 GMT -6
I was a little bummed that GW had info about Snyder's "Mutant" rules and TSR's "Gamma World" but I can't recall any mention of James Ward's Metamorphosis Alpha game. Since MA is one of my all-time favorite RPGs, I would have liked to see something about how it fit into the timeline. (Rules are similar to OD&D in many ways, much like Empire of the Petal Throne, and it just seemed like something that might have been discussed.) I would like to see more of the actual documents relied upon for the factual assertions. In the past I think this has been a problem as Jon has had access to stuff without permission to reprint. This drives us all a little crazy sometimes, but I trust Jon and if he says he can't share it I assume he can't. His blog is full of neat stuff, however, and a lot of cool stuff pops up there. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Oct 23, 2021 18:05:12 GMT -6
I haven't finished but so far I'm impressed with his sourcing and treatment. First off, even though the text itself doesn't directly quote from interview, nevertheless the oral history component is still very much present: after all, the vast majority of his 'data points', as he likes to call them, were only made possible because of extensive interviewing and the oral leads he uncovered.
Ditto to wishing there was more of just about everything, but I imagine that will come in time, by him or someone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Otto Harkaman on Oct 23, 2021 18:22:39 GMT -6
I guess I am about half way through, lots to take in, very absorbing.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Oct 23, 2021 20:32:57 GMT -6
In the Sources and Acknowledgements, Jon lists at least 25 people who helped make the book possible through "interviews and conversations", and these are all people who were there at the time (Ward, Schick, Cook, Ernie Gygax, etc). As these interviews are not published anywhere, they should at least be cited as personal communications in the text. APA provides a simple citation method for scholarly writing. So I am a little confused. Is this supposed to be a scholarly work or not? |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Oct 23, 2021 21:07:54 GMT -6
So I am a little confused. Is this supposed to be a scholarly work or not? The citations in GW comply with the editorial standards of MIT Press, and the text went through their conventional blind peer review process. If you feel their standards are insufficiently rigorous, that is of course your prerogative. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Oct 23, 2021 21:37:20 GMT -6
Oral history and legal testimony seem like they ought to be the same thing and maintain the same methods and ethics, but really they are quite different. As someone who does blind peer reviewing for academic history publications, all I can say is that I'm happy and content with Jon's familiarity with and ethical use of the standard methodologies.
Of course there are quite a few things I would like to have seen in the book, which I think would have made it stronger and more thorough, but I completely understand the reasons for them not being there. Nor does it really matter, because a proper history book never pretends to be a verdict, but only a point of communication; this one raises awareness of certain documents and analytical methods that can be applied to those documents, and as that is digested then the conversation will carry forward in one way or another, people will release further documents or not, speak up or not, and then something new will be written that is indebted to this work but ultimately replace it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Oct 24, 2021 4:09:48 GMT -6
So I am a little confused. Is this supposed to be a scholarly work or not? The citations in GW comply with the editorial standards of MIT Press, and the text went through their conventional blind peer review process. If you feel their standards are insufficiently rigorous, that is of course your prerogative. Yes, but who cares about MIT Press? The most important thing is whether or not the citations in my own future book will comply with the rigorous editorial standards of Joe Manganiello. Lol. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2021 6:36:58 GMT -6
The citations in GW comply with the editorial standards of MIT Press, and the text went through their conventional blind peer review process. If you feel their standards are insufficiently rigorous, that is of course your prerogative. Yes, but who cares about MIT Press? The most important thing is whether or not the citations in my own future book will comply with the rigorous editorial standards of Joe Manganiello. Lol. Ae you willing to pledge your soul to Vecna? |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Oct 24, 2021 7:25:01 GMT -6
Yes, but who cares about MIT Press? The most important thing is whether or not the citations in my own future book will comply with the rigorous editorial standards of Joe Manganiello. Lol. Ae you willing to pledge your soul to Vecna? |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 24, 2021 8:17:59 GMT -6
Oral history and legal testimony seem like they ought to be the same thing and maintain the same methods and ethics, but really they are quite different. As someone who does blind peer reviewing for academic history publications, all I can say is that I'm happy and content with Jon's familiarity with and ethical use of the standard methodologies. Of course there are quite a few things I would like to have seen in the book, which I think would have made it stronger and more thorough, but I completely understand the reasons for them not being there. Nor does it really matter, because a proper history book never pretends to be a verdict, but only a point of communication; this one raises awareness of certain documents and analytical methods that can be applied to those documents, and as that is digested then the conversation will carry forward in one way or another, people will release further documents or not, speak up or not, and then something new will be written that is indebted to this work but ultimately replace it. I too am impressed with Jon's commitment to certain self imposed standards. It imbues integrity. To your second part, interesting how the understanding of history on any subject and its "truth" often falls to those who have had the last word. Sometimes this is an unfolding as more information materializes. Sometimes it's a forgetting of what has already been established. |
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Dec 19, 2021 8:45:19 GMT -6
I was a little bummed that GW had info about Snyder's "Mutant" rules and TSR's "Gamma World" but I can't recall any mention of James Ward's Metamorphosis Alpha game. Since MA is one of my all-time favorite RPGs, I would have liked to see something about how it fit into the timeline. (Rules are similar to OD&D in many ways, much like Empire of the Petal Throne, and it just seemed like something that might have been discussed.) I know I am jumping into this a little late, but I got myself the book as a non-Christmas present, and finished reading it yesterday. My guess is that increment didn’t have anything to say about MA (also a favorite of mine, btw) because it’s royalties weren’t in dispute, or otherwise didn’t have any play in his main thread about the business aspects. I did wonder abotu the Snider rules, though; I loved Star Empires at the time (unplayable though it may be), and was intrigued by the hint that the third book, had it ever come out, would have had roleplaying rules? Perhaps I was reading too much into that. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 19, 2021 10:36:32 GMT -6
I did wonder about the Snider rules, though; I loved Star Empires at the time (unplayable though it may be), and was intrigued by the hint that the third book, had it ever come out, would have had roleplaying rules? Perhaps I was reading too much into that. No, that's pretty much what I had heard at the time, and what some of the Twin City gamers have repeated over the decades. The third game was supposed to be an RPG, but when TSR came up with Star Frontiers there was no point (in their minds) to publishing both. I think that neither Star Probe or Star Empires was that big a seller, so they figured the third one wouldn't sell that well, either.  |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jul 1, 2022 10:51:22 GMT -6
I ended up picking through this again as I slowly peruse the supplements for nighttime reading.
The thing that hung me up this time was the sad and unfortunate schism between TSR and Heritage so early on. At this point there's probably no way to know exactly how that happened, what was said and who goaded whom, but on paper it certainly reads like Oden simply felt threatened that TSR was striking deals with more than just his own casting business. Very sad, because it's fully understandable why Gygax & Blume would want to pad their network with as many firms as possible at that point, and it sounds like this was all still before the general negativity between TSR and its direct competitors—like maybe the actions of Heritage helped to establish that trend in the first place. Who knows, maybe Oden actually did call Gygax up in friendly inquiry and Gary just went into Diplomacy stab mode as a precaution.
It does highlight how similar all of these gaming companies were, though. I'm sure the nastier parts of TSR's history could be repeated for a great many of the other companies in the 70s. Outside of AH and SPI all were still basically startups, always in danger of that one bad project that could sink the whole ship and bankrupt the owners. From that perspective, it's a lot easier to see why the whole landscape reads like dogs fighting over scraps rather than hobbyists living the dream together. Sad, and maybe avoidable in hindsight, but then again maybe not.
|
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jul 1, 2022 13:56:02 GMT -6
Just to be clear, the issue was that as of June 1976, TSR gave an exclusive license to MiniFigs (of NY and the UK) for the "privilege of utilizing the game Dungeons & Dragons, in connection with the manufacture, sale and distribution of miniature figures." And TSR got royalties from that licesnse. They were playing favorites, in other words - MiniFigs could produce D&D-branded figures, and other firms, including Heritage, could not. Heritage thereafter sued TSR because they felt their paid advertisements for fantasy minis in The Dragon were being intentionally sidelined in favor of a vendor who would paid a licensing fee to TSR. The agreement with MiniFigs was in the works for a long time, at least since 1975. I'd presume TSR felt they got the best deal there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jul 1, 2022 15:01:58 GMT -6
Thanks for the clarification. I guess the detail that struck me this time is the lack of any mention over whether those fears about being sidelined were justified. There's probably no evidence to say, since my guess is that Heritage ad space and retail deals would have diminished anyway, due to how strong and swift Heritage's reaction seems to have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jul 1, 2022 20:07:40 GMT -6
Probably the most salient evidence to the specific issue of the Dragon ads is to look for the Heritage ads in the first six issues of Dragon, and then the lack thereof in subsequent issues. There was lots of other miscellaneous drama wrapped up in their dispute with TSR, but that's at least one that leaves a pretty obvious paper trail. Tim Kask would say that Dragon simply oversold ads for those issues after #6, and that there were policies that governed how they granted priority, but it's a pretty murky matter.
|
|
