Quote from: soviet;696065Don't use a bad one.

Same advice goes when choosing proctologists.

Quote from: Old Geezer;696255So, did anybody actually look at the list of chapters?

Hell yeah.

It looks good, but the more "eyewitness account" of how Gygax vs. Arneson ran games and thus, how today's GMs may or may not benefit from such techniques is something that many RPG fans will enjoy.

You are one of the few people who can actually write about that instead of just the conjecture based on snippets from people who games with one or both of the Founders at various cons.

I certainly want more than a nostalgia trip. That's okay and worth a read, but a book that gives me new insights as a Old School GM that add to the fun at my game table is really worth the money.

Quote from: JRR;696469Eye halve a spelling chequer.

Yes you do. And that's why proof readers are important, but I read a lot of books reprinted from the pulp era and I swear I find more typos in modern books.

And typos are a buzzword on reviews that signal many negative things (no editing, poor writing, lack of care, just in it for the buck, etc) even if its just an innocent typo.

Quote from: Spinachcat;696525And typos are a buzzword on reviews that signal many negative things (no editing, poor writing, lack of care, just in it for the buck, etc) even if its just an innocent typo.

I agree with this. There seems to be a sort of couldn't care less thing going on the internet but anyone who expects to get paid for their writing had better write it right, right!

Quote from: Spinachcat;696525It looks good, but the more "eyewitness account" of how Gygax vs. Arneson ran games and thus, how today's GMs may or may not benefit from such techniques is something that many RPG fans will enjoy.

Thanks for the interesting feedback.

My chapters on "playing with" are mostly memories about what it FELT LIKE to play in Greyhawk and Blackmoor.

Based on this thought, though, I think I'll throw in a chapter on "But what did they DO??!?"  I'm fairly sure that I can come up with a fairly interesting discussion of the more nuts and bolts part of their gaming style.  Though a good bit of that is baked into the "unstated assumptions" chapters.  Yes, a game about WW2 miniatures (TRACTICS) really DID influence how we played D&D.

Quote from: The Traveller;696574I agree with this. There seems to be a sort of couldn't care less thing going on the internet but anyone who expects to get paid for their writing had better write it right, right!

Well, yeah.  Though I do find it amusing that "Proofreading is necessary" turns into three or four pages.

Quote from: Old Geezer;696675My chapters on "playing with" are mostly memories about what it FELT LIKE to play in Greyhawk and Blackmoor.

Which is really important, because while the rest of us may have played in Greyhawk and Blackmoor via the published materials, it will be very interesting to hear how the creators presented their own setting.

It will also be interesting to hear how their settings evolved/changed over time you played with them, both pre- and post- publication of the TSR setting materials.

Quote from: Old Geezer;696675Based on this thought, though, I think I'll throw in a chapter on "But what did they DO??!?"  I'm fairly sure that I can come up with a fairly interesting discussion of the more nuts and bolts part of their gaming style.

Kickass!

There are DMs in the OSR who really would love to emulate Gygax / Arneson to the Nth degree and those chapters will be great for them.

I see myself as less fanatical, but gaming once with Dave Arneson was a real eye-opener and the lessons I learned in our game and the grilling Q&A afterward have been influential in how I run OD&D now.

Your long term play with both of the founders (and other TSR DMs I imagine) should be a treasure trove of interesting "nuts & bolts" that never found their way into AD&D materials.

Quote from: Old Geezer;696675Though a good bit of that is baked into the "unstated assumptions" chapters.  Yes, a game about WW2 miniatures (TRACTICS) really DID influence how we played D&D.

Very cool. We often assume that D&D's minis roots come from Chainmail, but how Chainmail was born and what influenced it will be very interesting.

Also, did you know Don Kaye?

I imagine you are going to talk about the Blumes. Your ground zero perspective will be interesting.

Quote from: Spinachcat;697395Very cool. We often assume that D&D's minis roots come from Chainmail, but how Chainmail was born and what influenced it will be very interesting.

Also, did you know Don Kaye?

I imagine you are going to talk about the Blumes. Your ground zero perspective will be interesting.

i)  Not so much what influenced CHAINMAIL but what influenced us as PLAYERS.

ii)  Yeah.  We played a lot of Boot Hill together, but he mostly played solo with Gary.  I didn't know him really well.

iii)  I knew Brian a bit and only met Kevin once, and didn't interact with them much.

Quote from: Spinachcat;697395I see myself as less fanatical, but gaming once with Dave Arneson was a real eye-opener and the lessons I learned in our game and the grilling Q&A afterward have been influential in how I run OD&D now.

Would you mind elaborating on this?

Here's my original RPG.net forum post from 2006
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?286043-Dave-Arneson-Blackmoor-and-Me!

I cleaned it up a bit for Fight On! Issue 2
http://www.fightonmagazine.com/FOMag_Issue002.php

Thanks, that's pretty interesting.

Quote from: Spinachcat;697498Here's my original RPG.net forum post from 2006
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?286043-Dave-Arneson-Blackmoor-and-Me!

I cleaned it up a bit for Fight On! Issue 2
http://www.fightonmagazine.com/FOMag_Issue002.php

I love the idea of the character with the highest charisma being the party caller.  Sure makes CHA a powerful statistic.

I have nothing to add other than I am happy that OG decided to first create this thread and second is periodically participating here.

Quote from: Votan;697751I love the idea of the character with the highest charisma being the party caller.  Sure makes CHA a powerful statistic.

I don't mind a 'party caller' when it makes sense within the game.

But I dislike it when a high charisma peasant speaks for a low charcaisma noble. Sometimes the lower charisma character would be the only rational choice.

Otherwise its a metagame thing.

Quote from: Bill;697938I don't mind a 'party caller' when it makes sense within the game.

But I dislike it when a high charisma peasant speaks for a low charcaisma noble. Sometimes the lower charisma character would be the only rational choice.

Otherwise its a metagame thing.

True.  But then in a world where noble birth is what people look at in a Leader I would argue that CHA and social status are pretty correlated.  Might explain why Paladins have a 17+ CHA.

Quote from: Votan;698104True.  But then in a world where noble birth is what people look at in a Leader I would argue that CHA and social status are pretty correlated.  Might explain why Paladins have a 17+ CHA.

I think my point is the Cha value by itself is not always going to make someone the leader. It may make therm capable as leader, but does not ensure they are the leader.

A millitary officer could be the worst leader ever with crap charisma, moron, the works. Still can have high rank and order people to stand on their head.

Quote from: Bill;697938I don't mind a 'party caller' when it makes sense within the game.

But I dislike it when a high charisma peasant speaks for a low charcaisma noble. Sometimes the lower charisma character would be the only rational choice.

Otherwise its a metagame thing.

What exactly is a low charcaisma noble?  Is that something from your campaign world?