Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2012 11:54:02 GMT -6
Jon, I owe you an apology or at least regrets.
I was sent a release to sign to allow you to use my partial Greyhawk map. I read it and did not completely understand it. Unfortunately, between final papers, graduation, lack of funds, and moving twice, I never did get a chance to sit down with somebody competent.
I'm sorry I couldn't get my act together. It had nothing to do with you or your project, it's just that I won't sign a document I don't understand.
When we bought our house I thought the closing agent was going to spontaneously combust. She has scheduled half an hour and it took over three hours because I read ever piece of paper they wanted me to sign.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Aug 13, 2012 12:22:08 GMT -6
No need for an apology. I really can't speak for my lawyers and clearances people, or why they let me use some things and not others (let me tell you, this was like a year of my life working that out), but that image was eventually cleared for the book, and it's in there. I really wanted to use an authentic map of the era as an example of player-drawn dungeon maps rather than just scrawling something myself. Hard to do better than a Greyhawk map.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 13, 2012 12:27:20 GMT -6
but that image was eventually cleared for the book, For my own information what is the process for a piece like the Greyhawk map or the Grand Kingdom map to be cleared? I noticed that some pieces had permissions printed in the front section and others didn't.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Aug 13, 2012 12:35:20 GMT -6
but that image was eventually cleared for the book, For my own information what is the process for a piece like the Greyhawk map or the Grand Kingdom map to be cleared? I noticed that some pieces had permissions printed in the front section and others didn't. At the risk of giving a very unhelpful answer, I'd say the process is that you have a lawyer and a professional clearances person do this for you. This is not something that I feel qualified to answer myself, and I get the sense this is not a thing you want to dabble in as an amateur. There are lots of factors relating to copyright law, to fair use, to tons of other things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2012 13:38:36 GMT -6
Jon,
I'm really, really glad. It wasn't that I didn't like the idea, believe me, it's just I didn't fully understand some of the clauses in the release and didn't get a chance to talk to a pro. You mentioned how complicated that is. I was just nervous that somehow I could wind up promising to not talk about this adventure!
Again, this is **NOT** about you and your work specifically, but my dear departed Grandfather telling me over and over "Never sign ANYTHING you don't understand."
I am delighted beyond measure that you were able to use that bit of map, and I am delighted beyond measure that sometime somebody scanned Gary's "The Magician's Ring" writeup about that very adventure and it's available on line.
Last time I saw Rob Kuntz we talked about this, in fact. I was a little grumpy after that adventure (I was sixteen and not good at laughing at myself). Rob reminded me that when I saw him at school that next Monday, I said, "You guys were right, that is really pretty funny."
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Aug 13, 2012 21:19:04 GMT -6
Had I known you were looking for other Greyhawk maps, Jon, I'm sure we could have worked something out with Rob for the levels I have. Something to consider for the next edition: a peek behind the DM's map, as well as Mike's example of the players' maps
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Aug 15, 2012 18:50:31 GMT -6
My copy arrived today and I've hardly put it down (well, in between running after kids and wife).
This is exemplary, sober, even handed research. There's a lot to talk about, think about, and expand upon. There's a ton of info, and not much to quibble with. I'm sure I'll have a few complaints, for example, I think Jon reads too much into CHAINMAIL, seeing foreshadowings and influences that are best explained through other currents, but this is a fairly trivial and the wealth of information allows one to see those other possibilities.
Without doubt, this book will be the starting point for any serious discussion of the origin of our hobby.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 15, 2012 20:05:36 GMT -6
I'm about ready to pull the trigger on the Kindle version, but I'm wondering if: A. It has a fully hyper-linked ToC, and B. If the K-version has footnotes as well, or were they reformatted into linked back-of-the-book notes? I still love real books enough that I have to weigh these details carefully... I'm freaking excited to start reading...
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 15, 2012 21:43:02 GMT -6
I'm about ready to pull the trigger on the Kindle version, but I'm wondering if: A. It has a fully hyper-linked ToC, and B. If the K-version has footnotes as well, or were they reformatted into linked back-of-the-book notes? I still love real books enough that I have to weigh these details carefully... I'm freaking excited to start reading... I do read some kinds of books on kindle - mostly novels or plays I don't care much about and don't care to keep. Non-fiction books I plan to keep I always buy in their physical form. I like to be able to have multiple bookmarks, postits and hold the book open to several pages while flipping back and forth. Just try that with a kindle book! Count this as a vote for the p-book!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2012 6:32:50 GMT -6
I'm about ready to pull the trigger on the Kindle version, but I'm wondering if: A. It has a fully hyper-linked ToC, and B. If the K-version has footnotes as well, or were they reformatted into linked back-of-the-book notes? A. Yes. B. Linked back-of-the-book notes. With a book with this many footnotes, many of which are pretty interesting, this is kind of a drawback. It also breaks the "sync to farthest page" read feature of the Kindle. Otherwise the Kindle version is perfectly fine, including images. I just finished the book in that format.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 16, 2012 7:02:34 GMT -6
I'm about ready to pull the trigger on the Kindle version, but I'm wondering if: A. It has a fully hyper-linked ToC, and B. If the K-version has footnotes as well, or were they reformatted into linked back-of-the-book notes? I still love real books enough that I have to weigh these details carefully... I'm freaking excited to start reading. .. A) Yes B) The foot notes are doubly linked. You can click on the number, read the footnote, and click on the number again and go back. This works better using touch where I can use the finger rather than the cursor switch of the various e-ink kindles.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 16, 2012 8:13:18 GMT -6
Awesome. Thanks, guys!
I actually like that note structure on the Kindle, and I've got a Kindle Fire, so I don't have to worry about the cursor switch (which I think would drive me crazy...)
|
|
paulg
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by paulg on Aug 16, 2012 9:17:14 GMT -6
My copy arrived today and I've hardly put it down (well, in between running after kids and wife). This is exemplary, sober, even handed research. There's a lot to talk about, think about, and expand upon. There's a ton of info, and not much to quibble with. I'm sure I'll have a few complaints, for example, I think Jon reads too much into CHAINMAIL, seeing foreshadowings and influences that are best explained through other currents, but this is a fairly trivial and the wealth of information allows one to see those other possibilities. Without doubt, this book will be the starting point for any serious discussion of the origin of our hobby. I'm imagine Jon would appreciate you posting this as a review on Amazon.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Aug 16, 2012 12:28:41 GMT -6
Good idea Paul, will do, but want to write up something more extensive for the blog.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Aug 16, 2012 12:50:45 GMT -6
........ 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. In that spirit ..... “Given that Arneson….. had only an inspirational influence over the production of the original three booklets… “ page 573;footnote 165 Well, this is demonstrably inaccurate. I suppose, if there is one general criticism of what I feel is a truly outstanding book, it is that Jon has taken to heart a little too uncritically the version of events regarding the writing process of D&D most enshrined in popular knowledge. The documents themselves belie it. I’ve gone through a lot of this in the history section of the BTPbD analysis paper (download here: odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=dragonsatdawn&action=display&thread=7199&page=1 ) but to recap a bit: The 3lbb’s, and presumably manuscript C contains material found in draft form in the FFC, and contains several pieces of credited artwork from Arneson which is nearly certain to have not been included in Manuscript A, and is therefore itself evidence of collaborative communication between authors. In particular there is the castle construction drawing in 1st print 3lbb’s, which is undeniably Arnesons, with his handwriting all over it. Arguably, much of the correspondence material is undateable, and so could have been sent to Gygax in the weeks before he produced Manuscript B (leaving aside for the moment that the same material is also absent from BTPbD), but the magic swords ”Matrix” section in the FFC, clinches the continuing collaboration issue. As discussed in the BTPbD analysis paper, and various web posts I’ve left over the years, the complexity and unorthodox rule variations in “Matrix”, and use in places of identical or near identical wording, unquestionably pegs it as the draft from which the same magic swords section of the 3lbb’s was edited - a section that comprises 3 pages. But more to the point, the FFC Matrix section dates itself by “Roll appropriate number of die on Spell table in Magic section of rules” (1977:69). Therefore there must have been a rules manuscript in existence. Therefore the FFC Matrix section must terminus post quem manuscript B. However we know the terminus ante quem must be before 1st print D&D because of this statement under HOLY SWORDS “If the roll indicates no spell (i.e. such as a 5 on a level 4 curate spell…” (1977:70) Since there are 6 level 4 cleric (“curate”) spells in 1st print D&D the example can only be understood to refer to a rules manuscript with less than 5 level 4 cleric spells. As it happens, BTPbD has only 4 level 4 cleric spells, and given that BTPbD was a revision of B, it is probable that the “Magic section of rules”, referred to a Magic section of Manuscript B. In summary, even subsequent to Gygax Manuscript B, Arneson did in fact continue to supply rules and information which Gygax edited into Dungeond & Dragons. Arneson’s role in the creation of D&D was not limited to running a one shot game and mailing a single packet of jumbled notes. There was, at least early on in the process an involved level of contribution. Moving from fact to the realm of informed speculation, we could also consider the contribution derived from the contents of Manuscript A itself. I doubt it exists any longer, but, as recalled by Rob Kuntz, its contents resembled the rules of Strategos N. In other words it contained charts and formula, which is exactly what we would expect from Arneson. Among them was almost certainly the wilderness encounter tables, the evasion table, the “alternate” combat system, the turn undead table, “ability scores” experience tables, treasure tables and equipment lists and probably the prime requisite experience adjustment table. There was almost certainly very little that Gygax didn’t use or rework. Given the approximate page length of Manuscript B at 50 pages and assuming the most conservative page count of Manuscript A at 16 pages, we should expect about 1/3 (16/50) of the content of Manuscript B to have derived directly from that of Manuscript A. (For more of my thoughts on some of Arneson’s rules contributions to D&D, see this post boggswood.blogspot.com/2012/02/contibutions-from-other-guy-dave.html ) None of this is to take anything away from Arneson’s complaint, which Jon has done an excellent job of detailing as never before, that there was a “breakdown in communication”. My contention is that this breakdown occurred sometime around the production of Manuscript C. The inclusion in 1st print (and very probably in C) of the Arneson correspondence material allows no other explanation. I seriously wonder if Arneson ever saw manuscript C, given the existence and obscurity of BtPbD, and I suspect that Dave was unaware of Gygax’s intent to publish until it was a fiat accompli.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Aug 16, 2012 17:57:23 GMT -6
�Given that Arneson�.. had only an inspirational influence over the production of the original three booklets� � page 573;footnote 165 Well, this is demonstrably inaccurate. I suppose, if there is one general criticism of what I feel is a truly outstanding book, it is that Jon has taken to heart a little too uncritically the version of events regarding the writing process of D&D most enshrined in popular knowledge. The documents themselves belie it. "It was very much a case of me providing various ideas and concepts but not having any say on many aspects as to how they were used." - Arneson I get "inspirational" from remarks like that. If that was indeed inaccurate, it was Arneson's view of the situation, anyway. I built the account in the book from the evidence that I had seen at the time, which did not include BTPbD. I certainly had no initial bias as to who had created what. I do continue to think that Chainmail exerted a great influence on the eventual design of OD&D, and I certainly agree that some material Arneson wrote, including the rules for castles and swords, ended up in OD&D. I suspect the collaboration was not a three-way handshake of manuscripts, though, but a much less organized and probably more frequent exchange of notes and ideas through the post and over the telephone. Trying to assign hard lengths or percentages or what have you to these contributions seems to me a very speculative exercise. Gygax held the pen at the last, and Arneson was unhappy with the results, with a specific set of grievances. For reasons that nothing about BTPbD would convince me to abandon, I do maintain that the origins of armor class, hit points and level are clearly visible in Chainmail. I wish Arneson hadn't claimed otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Aug 16, 2012 19:43:52 GMT -6
I have to side with Jon on the question of Arneson's input into OD&D. Trying to derive authorship from purely hypothetical working drafts is an exercise in speculation and tells us nothing about the origin of the game. There is a great deal of bias and side-taking in this, as the attribution of the game's origins are a live and hotly contested question.
The criterion Jon set forth for Playing at the World was broadly correct: don't rely on reminisces or anything published after 1980, and take anything after 1976 with a grain of salt. Anything else is just going to wind up being tendentious.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Aug 16, 2012 20:13:10 GMT -6
I think regardless of the exact nature of the invention of critical system elements, the important thing is that Arneson did not seem to have the drive to author a rule set and publish it. Without the work of Gygax, Blackmoor would have been just one more Hyborian campaign, or Dip campaign, or Braunstein campaign without a broad, culture-changing impact. It was Gygax's drive, vision and so on that resulted in the culture-changing game of OD&D.
I am still reading the book so I can't comment on whether or not I think increment's treatment of Arneson is fair.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Aug 16, 2012 21:33:28 GMT -6
The preview has me hooked, Jon. Looks like a great, informative book. I'm glad something like this was finally written.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Aug 16, 2012 22:44:38 GMT -6
...... I do continue to think that Chainmail exerted a great influence on the eventual design of OD&D, and I certainly agree that some material Arneson wrote, including the rules for castles and swords, ended up in OD&D. I suspect the collaboration was not a three-way handshake of manuscripts, though, but a much less organized and probably more frequent exchange of notes and ideas through the post and over the telephone. Trying to assign hard lengths or percentages or what have you to these contributions seems to me a very speculative exercise. Gygax held the pen at the last, and Arneson was unhappy with the results, with a specific set of grievances. Completely agree. ....... I do maintain that the origins of armor class, hit points and level are clearly visible in Chainmail. I wish Arneson hadn't claimed otherwise. Heh, funny you should mention that, in that I was debating whether to comment on that too. I can see the argument, but semantic similarities aside, would argue the use of those terms in D&D is very conceptually and operationally different from their analogs in CM or other wargames of the era. <shrug> In the end it's probably more a matter of viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 17, 2012 9:32:07 GMT -6
I want to get this in paperback, but the price is high. Any hints on how to get it at a discount? Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 17, 2012 10:31:01 GMT -6
Get an Amazon credit card, which gives 3% back on Amazon purchases. Buy other stuff on discount for a few months, and then use your credit towards this book. It'd be like shifting part of the discount on other purchases to this book. I saved $6 this way. (Also, IIRC you get $30 credit just for signing up for the card, so you could use that towards the book right away).
But spending $35 for this book, which has so much info and will serve as a great reference tool, is certainly worth the price.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2012 10:40:48 GMT -6
When discussing the whole "Arneson contribution or Gygax contribution" issue one would do well to remember the nature of the whole process, which was numerous people threw a sh*tload of ideas onto Gary's desk, and I speculate at some time he and Don Kaye said, "f**k it, let's publish." I base this on the fact that we were talking about stuff that ended up in Greyhawk months before the LBB went to press.
There was a large amount of "put ideas into a barrel and stir vigorously." And it's true Dave never liked hit points, he told Victor Raymond and I so in as many words.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 17, 2012 11:09:39 GMT -6
[W]e were talking about stuff that ended up in Greyhawk months before the LBB went to press. Very interesting!
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Sept 23, 2012 12:59:42 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. I finished up Playing at the World last month on a long weekend in a cabin in the woods (I was very glad to have such a meaty book to read -- I spent a lot of pleasant time in a hammock reading). I have been going through Perla's account and taking notes on the two books. After I finish this I will post the result on my gaming blog (which I am working on in Blogspot but which is not public yet). To summarize briefly: The topics which are covered in both books are covered much more thoroughly in Peterson's book than in Perla's. The historical account of the development of wargames from the earliest times up to the mid-war period in Peterson's book is much more thorough and carefully sourced than that in Perla's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2012 21:10:05 GMT -6
I’ll join the chorus of positive reviews here – Playing at the World is the best history of early D&D that I have read. Although the author covers a lot of ground, make no mistake about it: this book is all about early D&D.
I think what makes this book best in its class is the author’s usage of sources: he privileges contemporary sources, “preferably printed within a year or so of the events in question,” as opposed to relying on interviews, often done years after the fact.
Definitely recommended if you are interested in the history of early D&D.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Nov 24, 2012 11:45:31 GMT -6
Thanks for all the positive sentiments!
|
|
|
Post by havard on Dec 5, 2012 16:09:23 GMT -6
�Given that Arneson�.. had only an inspirational influence over the production of the original three booklets� � page 573;footnote 165 Well, this is demonstrably inaccurate. I suppose, if there is one general criticism of what I feel is a truly outstanding book, it is that Jon has taken to heart a little too uncritically the version of events regarding the writing process of D&D most enshrined in popular knowledge. The documents themselves belie it. "It was very much a case of me providing various ideas and concepts but not having any say on many aspects as to how they were used." - Arneson I get "inspirational" from remarks like that. If that was indeed inaccurate, it was Arneson's view of the situation, anyway. I built the account in the book from the evidence that I had seen at the time, which did not include BTPbD. I certainly had no initial bias as to who had created what. I do continue to think that Chainmail exerted a great influence on the eventual design of OD&D, and I certainly agree that some material Arneson wrote, including the rules for castles and swords, ended up in OD&D. I suspect the collaboration was not a three-way handshake of manuscripts, though, but a much less organized and probably more frequent exchange of notes and ideas through the post and over the telephone. Trying to assign hard lengths or percentages or what have you to these contributions seems to me a very speculative exercise. Gygax held the pen at the last, and Arneson was unhappy with the results, with a specific set of grievances. For reasons that nothing about BTPbD would convince me to abandon, I do maintain that the origins of armor class, hit points and level are clearly visible in Chainmail. I wish Arneson hadn't claimed otherwise. I think that the focus on individual rules can lead to loosing perspective here. D&D is clearly a dramatically different game from Chainmail. Inspirational input or not, something happened on the way from a miniatures skirmish game to the first Roleplaying Game. Regardless of the specific rules, the Blackmoor Game was very close to what we today consider a Fantasy Roleplaying Game, something that in the modern understanding of the term had not existed before (in spite of Braunstein and similar variants). So while Arneson may have been unhappy about specific rules and how they were presented, the overarching game concepts developed during the Blackmoor campaign seem to have been incorporated. -Havard
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Aug 20, 2014 9:16:04 GMT -6
Well I caved in and bought a copy after browsing an, erm, electronic version ... like Apple says, it's free marketing! And it certainly worked in my case. But I refuse to read it before I finish my semester prep. There's just no time. d**n you, book, stop looking at me!!
|
|
|
Post by battlebrotherbob on Aug 20, 2014 14:31:54 GMT -6
It is worth the time. I bought a copy for my kindle. Then I bought a dead tree version. I like it that much.
|
|