TheRPGSite

So, I've just finished the first draft of my utterly subjective memoir of my early years in D&D, which I've entitled "We Made Up Some Shit We Thought Would Be Fun."  Soon to be a Kickstarter.

As an honest whore, I believe a free sample is the best way to get customers, so here's a little something that I at least hope may mildly amuse:

```````````````````````````````````````````

GHOULASH THE BALROG AND THE ORCS

   For a while there in the 70s I was seriously obsessed with playing a Balrog.  I had a Balrog character in at least three different campaigns that I can think of, including Greyhawk.  It wasn’t like I wanted to be the “eternal enemy” or wanted to wreak havoc on the lands of Good, or anything like that… mostly, it’s because I thought Balrogs were cool.  Still do, for that matter.  But there was nothing about being a Balrog that precluded me adventuring with other Chaotic, or even Neutral, PCs.

   Now, in Volume One of the Little Brown Books Gary talked about how players could “play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top.”  I had no problem starting as a 1 Hit Die Balrog and slowly gaining abilities and strength according to an XP chart the referee created.

   There are, of course, a variety of ways to incorporate a variety of ideas.  In the LBBs, Balrogs can “immolate” on a 2 d 6 roll of 7 or better, allowing them a second attack.  The way that at least one referee implemented this was to give lower level Balrogs a lesser chance of immolating, requiring a higher die roll than 7.  This had the effect that I wasn’t always able to immolate by choice, which one time had unintended consequences.

   I was playing a Balrog character named “Ghulash.”  Yes, pronounced like the culinary item.  Since in Lord of the Rings the Balrog was associated with the Orcs in Moria, I decided that I wanted an Orc army of my own.  However, I was not content to have Ghulash wait until he was a full grown Big Bad Balrog; oh, no, I wanted an Orc army NOW!  Furthermore, I reasoned, having Orcs as loyal minions meant that I could take them along as extra muscle on adventures, but their subservient natures would ensure that I alone would reap the riches of those adventures.

   The plan was actually working fairly well; Ghulash was somewhere around 4th or 5th level, getting reasonably tough, and had a band of some two dozen Orcs or so.  I was exploring a nearby ruined castle (proverbial D&D dungeon) on an upper level, hoping to find some more Orcs to recruit into my ever-growing army.  My recruitment method was fairly simple; when I found some Orcs, I’d burst into flames and cry, “Behold, Ghulash the Mighty is here!  Serve me!”

   That particular day I was adventuring with some other PCs playing human characters, and it’s a good thing.  We hadn’t wandered too far in the dungeon that day before finding a door.  Motioning my companions to silence, I listened briefly and easily heard Orcish voices conversing in the Black Speech of Mordor (also known as “Chaotic alignment language” in OD&D.)  Hollah!  More minions!

   I crashed through the door, saw it was indeed inhabited by Orcs, and exclaimed my exclamation.  “Roll,” said the referee, and I did… and rolled too low.  Undaunted, I tried again.  “Behold my terrible powerfulness and serve me!”  Once again, the dice played me false, rolling too low a second time.  Onward!  “Look on my works, all ye mighty, and despair!”  Again I failed to roll high enough to burst into flames.

   Then one of the Orcs in the room started to snigger.  Orcs have a really annoying snigger.

   Ghulash ground his teeth in frustration.  Verily, this was not in the script.  Fortunately I was a fast thinker.  “I’m going back out into the hall!” I told the referee.

   Once among my human companions… whom I knew to be experienced dungeon-crawlers and thus equipped as such … I asked if anybody had a flask of oil.  Someone produced one, which I promptly opened and dumped over my head.  I then grabbed a torch from one of my Orcish torchbears and applied it to myself, resulting in Ghulash being covered in flame in a satisfactory manner.  Once again I burst through the door.  “NOW be amazed and obey me!”  There was a smattering of polite applause and the Orcs pledged to join me.  After all, entertainment like that isn’t available just anywhere.

   Did I say “unintended consequences”?  I meant, “hilarious consequences.”

It great that you are doing this. It is nice to read personal accounts from the folks who were involved back then. Give a balance to the exhaustive Playing at the World.

I'm looking forward to reading this.

OG, this rocks and I love the title. Though you may want to check to see if you can use Shit on Kickstarter and eventually Amazon or whether you need to go with Sh*t instead. Your book sounds like great fun.

Of course, you are going to get some queries because your experience as a Balrog is in direct contradiction to Gary's diatribe against non-standard races in the 1e DMG and getting a chance to play non-standard races was a big selling point for both Tunnels & Trolls and Palladium Fantasy which went against what appeared to be Gary's (and thus TSR's) stance.

Did Gary's view change...because of something you did!!!

1)  I'm prepared to Bowdlerize the title in public.

2)

"Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Balrog would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee."

Dungeons & Dragons, Volume 1, "Men and Magic," Page 8.  (TSR, 1974)

I think Gary changed his tune because people didn't want to start as a 1 HD Balrog that immolated on an 11+ for 1d4 additional damage, but as a full fledged 10 HD monster.

Quote from: Spinachcat;689920Did Gary's view change...because of something you did!!!

Eh, I'd figure that the majority of RPG rules evolved in such a fashion.  I know of at least two GURPS rules that are in place because of nonsense my players pulled in the blindtest.

Sounds fun, Old Geezer! Always enjoyed your recollections at the other place! Awesome Balrog play :D

Quote from: Black Vulmea;534459If Old Geezer doesn't write a book about roleplaying games before he dies, it will be a crime against history.

Thank you for averting this disaster, OG.

Well, its certainly likely to be better than pretty well any other book written "About" rpgs thus far, which have all been shit.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;690282Well, its certainly likely to be better than pretty well any other book written "About" rpgs thus far, which have all been shit.

Including Playing at the World?

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;690285Including Playing at the World?

Yeah, I wouldn't put Playing At The World in the "shit book" category either. It certainly provides a great start for explaining the historical context which surrounded the inception of the Dungeons & Dragons game.

Actually, I can't wait to read Playing at the World, not just because Jon bought my map and printed it!

But I'm not pretending any sort of accurate or historical work here; it's a memoir with some fireside musings about where some things came from, like late at night with friends on the second or third glass of Port.

Quote from: Old Geezer;690429. . . it's a memoir with some fireside musings about where some things came from, like late at night with friends on the second or third glass of Port.

Make mine a Colheita, please.

I liked Dicing With Dragons. Played the heck out of the solo adventure in that. Can't recall much else of what it was about though. Don't think it's "history" gave more than a passing mention to anything pre-Holmes.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;690285Including Playing at the World?

I haven't read it yet, but based on some of the people I've seen praising it I have serious doubts about it.

RPGPundit

You could visit the site http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/

I was a little skeptical, and I'm not sure I'd agree with all the interpretations/analysis of the data, but I'm convinced it's a good-faith effort, researched and documented along genuine academic lines.

Quote from: RPGPundit;691170I haven't read it yet, but based on some of the people I've seen praising it I have serious doubts about it.

RPGPundit

I haven't read it, but I've done some research for Jon and talked to him quite a bit in person and electronically.

The only reason I haven't read it is that I didn't want his writing to influence my memories.  I expect that it is probably the most authoritative work on the subject, just based on the research that I know he did.

I mean, Hitler liked Wagner.  That, despite what some say, does not make Wagner's work bad.  There are other reasons one may dislike Wagner with far more legitimacy.  (I like his individual pieces, but I think his works tend towards excessive length, for instance.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;691170I haven't read it yet, but based on some of the people I've seen praising it I have serious doubts about it.

The bottom line is that he backs up what he asserts with primary sources. He has access to original newsletters and manuscripts. Each every section has a footnote and more often than not the footnote is worth reading. I am glad to get the ebook version first as I was flipping back and forth all throughout the book.

My view is this Jon's work hasn't precluded similar works in the future. However he has now set the standard. If somebody tries to contradict what he asserted they are going to have to do what he did, go back to the primary sources, layout them in their book, and go from there.

In short it is the gold standard of RPG History for me.

I don't know if his conclusions are the only possible interpretations. They seem to follow from the material he used. And nothing seems to be excluded from the material he used, something I know about from following the collectors at Acaeum and other forums.

Seriously just buy the damn book and read it. ;)

Quote from: Arminius;691242You could visit the site http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/

I was a little skeptical, and I'm not sure I'd agree with all the interpretations/analysis of the data, but I'm convinced it's a good-faith effort, researched and documented along genuine academic lines.

I'll vouch for it as well. It's certainly worth reading, particularly the early bits.

More than I can say for the OP; hopefully that's just a first draft.

Some constructive criticism for OG:

Don't want to hear about your grandchildren; don't want to hear about your character. To wit, other personalities need to show through your writing, not just your own. Who'd you play with? What were their characters like?

The balrog story is not a good place to start. This is just a bad player's AP report. Fortunately your book doesn't have to be that way.

Quote from: FASERIP;691418I'll vouch for it as well. It's certainly worth reading, particularly the early bits.

More than I can say for the OP; hopefully that's just a first draft.

Some constructive criticism for OG:

Don't want to hear about your grandchildren; don't want to hear about your character. To wit, other personalities need to show through your writing, not just your own. Who'd you play with? What were their characters like?

The balrog story is not a good place to start. This is just a bad player's AP report. Fortunately your book doesn't have to be that way.

Agree with this. I'd like to have more of a sense of the other guys in the room and what it was like to be there.

Quote from: FASERIP;691418More than I can say for the OP; hopefully that's just a first draft.

Some constructive criticism for OG:

Don't want to hear about your grandchildren; don't want to hear about your character. To wit, other personalities need to show through your writing, not just your own. Who'd you play with? What were their characters like?

The balrog story is not a good place to start. This is just a bad player's AP report. Fortunately your book doesn't have to be that way.

Hey FASERIP, fuck off!

If this is how Old Geezer wants to tell his tales and you don't like his style, then don't read them!

I liked the balrog stuff, though I wondered about the play circumstances as well: when that took place, where (in the real world), who was the DM, who were the other players, if Gulash had an impact on play after being played, and so on. The context, in other words.

Question: is the book written and organized in a kind of "stream of consciousness" manner, with subjects lined up as they popped up in your head, Mike, regardless of order, or is it arranged chronologically, or whether that took place in the Twin Cities or Lake Geneva or... ? Quid?

Quote from: jeff37923;691422Hey FASERIP, fuck off!

If this is how Old Geezer wants to tell his tales and you don't like his style, then don't read them!

Since this is pretty obviously a pre-Kickstarter interest gathering thread, I think some feedback would not go amiss.

Yo.

Also, I agree with FASERIP here.

Don't like it, don't buy it.  It's a book of anecdotes and ponderings.

"What it was like to be there?"  We were a bunch of guys in a room.  Just like I've had people want me to talk about "the physical setup of playing with Gary Gygax."

Umm... we were a bunch of guys in a room.  It was a spare bedroom in a big old house.

Also, this happened almost forty fucking years ago.  This little incident is all I remember of this adventure.  For that matter, it's the only thing I remember about playing Ghulash.

Just like the incident of the "Greyhawk Balrog" and 'The Balrog Times.'  I remember nothing else about playing that character, nothing about who else I was playing with that night, and I don't even remember WHY we had to distract a wizard; just that we did.

If you think it's an amusing little anecdote, good on yer.  If you don't, don't buy my book, you won't like it.

Quote from: Benoist;691455I liked the balrog stuff, though I wondered about the play circumstances as well: when that took place,

Almost forty years ago

Quote from: Benoist;691455where (in the real world),

Really?  Seems totally uninteresting to me.  University of Minnesota.

Quote from: Benoist;691455who was the DM,

Somebody you've never heard of; Mike Wollan

Quote from: Benoist;691455who were the other players,

don't remember.  It was almost forty years ago.

Quote from: Benoist;691455if Gulash had an impact on play after being played, and so on.

Whut?

Quote from: Benoist;691455The context, in other words.

The context is "it was forty fucking years ago."

Quote from: Benoist;691455The context, in other words.

I do address this in another chapter.  To reprise (not copy):

We played games.  A lot.  In Lake Geneva there were somewhere around five or six "Greyhawk" games going.  (This was before the name "Dungeons & Dragons" had been thought up.)  We were also playing Boot Hill, Terry Kuntz was playtesting his Robin Hood game, Jim Ward was working on elements of what would later become Metamorphosis Alpha.  We were also miniatures gaming several times a month, playing CHAINMAIL, TRACTICS, Don't give Up the Ship, Napoleonics, Civil War, and other stuff.

When I got to the U of MN, within six months I was reffing D&D at least once a week and playing two to four times a week.  I had at least six friends running campaigns at the U.  This doesn't COUNT Blackmoor, or other campaigns Dave and his group were running.  I played wargames, mostly miniatures, at least once a week as well, ranging from skirmish WW2 to WWI navy to Dave Arneson's Napoleonics campaign to STARGUARD SF miniatures.

We were not "a gang of four who met once a week."  I knew dozens of gamers and we ALL played ALL KINDS OF STUFF ALL THE TIME.

And we didn't keep records.  We had no idea that any of this shit would be something we wanted to talk about forty years later.

What you read is what I remember.  Just like people ask "What was the first D&D adventure you played in like?"  I have no fucking idea; that was the year Richard Nixon was elected to his second term as President, 41 years ago.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691474What you read is what I remember.  Just like people ask "What was the first D&D adventure you played in like?"  I have no fucking idea; that was the year Richard Nixon was elected to his second term as President, 41 years ago.

I understand. I can remember my first D&D adventure vividly (1978 during Jimmy Carter's term). I remember that my friend ran me through the Holmes dungeon, and then I ran him through. I don't remember what happened to his character only what happened to mine.

I don't remember how we got the Holmes set or when D&D/AD&D became the dominant game over playing AH/SPI wargames. I remember getting the Players Handbook, and Dungeon Master Guide.  Reading other kids rulebook at Boy Scout Winter camps in the winter of 78-79.


Thinking that the Monster Manual was a bit of a rip off because there was library book that had virtually the same line up and very similar illos except it was a children book. The Catoblepas for some reason stood out in my mind. The description and illos were close in both books.

I remember more after the summer of 1980 because I can use my collection of Dragon Magazine as a memory aid.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691463Somebody you've never heard of; Mike Wollan

Let's hear more about him.

Quote from: FASERIP;691831Let's hear more about him.

He was a guy I went to college with.  We played D&D together.

I think you want something that doesn't exist, or somebody else's story.  No harm no foul.

I am good with the anecdotes and ponderings, but I also want to know "what it was like to be there" and I do want to know more about the "bunch of guys in a room" because I was not there.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691462Also, this happened almost forty fucking years ago.

Have you picked up any books on writing memoirs? There are memory techniques ghost writers use to help the biography subject remember more details and I am sure autobiographical writers use them as well.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691474We were not "a gang of four who met once a week."  I knew dozens of gamers and we ALL played ALL KINDS OF STUFF ALL THE TIME.

I am interested in hearing about how the crossover of various gameplay affected the development of D&D, or at least, your impression of why D&D took over as the dominant game in your crew's schedule.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691474And we didn't keep records.  We had no idea that any of this shit would be something we wanted to talk about forty years later.

There wasn't a pack rat in your crew? Any chance that any of them (or their kids) still live in the area or belong to a UM alumni group? What about hunting them down via Facebook?

On the OSR forums, every few months, some dude cleans out his mom's attic and finds his disco era D&D scribbles. I wonder if some stuff from your early days may still exist in somebody's basement?

Quote from: Spinachcat;691843I am good with the anecdotes and ponderings, but I also want to know "what it was like to be there"

I truly, honestly, do not know what you mean.

Quote from: Spinachcat;691843I am interested in hearing about how the crossover of various gameplay affected the development of D&D, or at least, your impression of why D&D took over as the dominant game in your crew's schedule.

I'm not sure who you mean by "my crew;" the guys I hung with in Lake Geneva who became TSR, Dave's Blackmoor group, my pals at the U of Minnesota, Phil Barker's Tekumel groups, or the wargamers at the Little Tin Soldier Shop?  If you mean TSR, I do in fact discuss that.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691848I truly, honestly, do not know what you mean.

My girlfriend likes actor autobiographies and often she will have me read a couple choice passages. At their best, I get the feeling of the actor having a drink with me telling me a colorful tale of his past that makes me feel like I was there too. I am less interested in historical accuracy and more interested in the emotions of the memory.

I found Anthony Quinn's autobio to be particularly well written.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691848I'm not sure who you mean by "my crew;" the guys I hung with in Lake Geneva who became TSR, Dave's Blackmoor group, my pals at the U of Minnesota, Phil Barker's Tekumel groups, or the wargamers at the Little Tin Soldier Shop?  If you mean TSR, I do in fact discuss that.

All of the above!!!

You had the luck to be in a certain place at a certain time. And your online posts clearly have a voice behind them. It will be interesting to hear that voice talk about both the people and the games of the time.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691848I truly, honestly, do not know what you mean.

What he means is that all those details which you find trivial and dull and not worth mentioning to people will often be of great interest to those people.

It's better to put in too much details and then whittle it down, than it is to put in too little and leave people going, "but...?"

I'm not much interested either way, but that's a general rule for this kind of writing if you want it to have an audience. If you don't care about an audience then there's not much use in writing at all.

That's the odd thing with details. One man's dull notes is another's favorite tidbit.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;691865If you don't care about an audience then there's not much use in writing at all.

I have to repeat that.

I dunno, having your own book printed is it's own reward. Hence the term 'vanity press' after all ;)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;691865I'm not much interested either way, but that's a general rule for this kind of writing if you want it to have an audience. If you don't care about an audience then there's not much use in writing at all.

Bollocks. There's lots of reasons to write that don't involve catering to an audience, the most important being "for fun".

Quote from: TristramEvans;691963Bollocks. There's lots of reasons to write that don't involve catering to an audience, the most important being "for fun".

Of course, but I think Kyle was addressing people who want to sell their writing.

Fucking christ, the hair-splitting in this place.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;691865What he means is that all those details which you find trivial and dull and not worth mentioning to people will often be of great interest to those people.

It's better to put in too much details and then whittle it down, than it is to put in too little and leave people going, "but...?"

I'm not much interested either way, but that's a general rule for this kind of writing if you want it to have an audience. If you don't care about an audience then there's not much use in writing at all.

Sorry, still not getting it, I must be thick as a brick.

This particular segment is an anecdote about troubles one of my characters had.  I personally find the idea of a low level Balrog failing to immolate and getting so frustrated he pours oil on himself and bops himself with a torch to be freakin' hilarious.  Yes, the other players thought it was funny too, but that's about a sentence, especially since other than the referee, I don't REMEMBER who else was there.

I do have chapters on playing with Dave, and playing with Gary, and playing with Phil Barker, but that's not what this chapter is about.  This chapter is a shaggy dog story that I thought people would find funny.

Quote from: Spinachcat;691862All of the above!!!

You had the luck to be in a certain place at a certain time. And your online posts clearly have a voice behind them. It will be interesting to hear that voice talk about both the people and the games of the time.

Well, NONE of those groups reached a point where "D&D became the dominant game" except for TSR, and there it was simply money.

Which I talk about in another chapter, along with various groups I played with.

I had no idea posting one goofy story would be so controversial.

Quote from: vytzka;691907I dunno, having your own book printed is it's own reward. Hence the term 'vanity press' after all ;)

If I were interested in a masturbatory quest for self aggrandizement I'd write a book about model railroading.

And the answer to the next question is, "Because over the years when I talk about my experiences in the early days of RPGS people say "That's cool, you should write a book" so I did."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;691865What he means is that all those details which you find trivial and dull and not worth mentioning to people will often be of great interest to those people.

It's better to put in too much details and then whittle it down, than it is to put in too little and leave people going, "but...?"

I'm not much interested either way, but that's a general rule for this kind of writing if you want it to have an audience. If you don't care about an audience then there's not much use in writing at all.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691988Sorry, still not getting it, I must be thick as a brick.

This particular segment is an anecdote about troubles one of my characters had.  I personally find the idea of a low level Balrog failing to immolate and getting so frustrated he pours oil on himself and bops himself with a torch to be freakin' hilarious.  Yes, the other players thought it was funny too, but that's about a sentence, especially since other than the referee, I don't REMEMBER who else was there.

I do have chapters on playing with Dave, and playing with Gary, and playing with Phil Barker, but that's not what this chapter is about.  This chapter is a shaggy dog story that I thought people would find funny.

I'm not likely to be interested in your book, so feel free to disregard this if you like, but this is my take.

Your character story is an amusing anecdote.  But what makes it special?  What would be different if GHOULASH was a character in a 4e game that you played last month?  Nothing?  

Then what's the point?  

Characters trying something and failing can make an entertaining story.  They fill up the 'Tales from the Table' in my monthly Knights of the Dinner Table.  But if your story/stories are going to be anything more than that, they have to show more significance to the development of the hobby.  

And if you don't remember what impact they had, it's not going to be very compelling.  

I don't mind reading character stories, but I don't like to get cornered with them - especially if the player in question is talking about how awesome his character is in a wish fulfillment/Monty Haul way.  But even though I don't mind them, I wouldn't pay money specifically so someone could tell me about characters he played...  Not unless there was something 'special' about his stories.  

Put another way, why should I care about your character stories more than, say, Benoist's, or the Traveller's?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;691995Put another way, why should I care about your character stories more than, say, Benoist's, or the Traveller's?

Short answer, the character stories are short interludes I put in here or there for amusement's sake.

The chapter on "Unstated assumptions from CHAINMAIL that carried into D&D" is over four times as long as this story.

I posted this story because it's short and I thought people would find it amusing.  I wasn't expecting a sort of Spanish Inquisition.

Honestly, it seems like most people here have about the same sense of  humor as a compound fracture.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Quote from: Old Geezer;692006Honestly, it seems like most people here have about the same sense of  humor as a compound fracture.

Meh, the internet's mostly a peanut gallery. I wouldn't lose any sleep over criticism from the cheap seats. I wouldn't discard criticism either mind you as long as it's constructive.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691988Sorry, still not getting it, I must be thick as a brick.

I like the shaggy balrog story and my comment was more about what I hope to get from the overall feel of the book, not a critique of this one story.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691989I had no idea posting one goofy story would be so controversial.

Welcome to the interwebs.

But hey, you are launching a Kickstarter and thus you are asking for our money so its not a big surprise that people would have critiques of the rough draft. Kickstarter is particularly built to promote author/audience interaction so there is a built in expectation there will be some level of Spanish Inquisition.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691990If I were interested in a masturbatory quest for self aggrandizement I'd write a book about model railroading.

Make that your next book.

You've already written it, so that's the hard part.  You might as well put it out there - don't let anyone here dissuade you from making an honest effort.  It's probably not going to let you retire to a life of luxury - but stranger things have happened!  

But if you're serious about trying to make it successful, you do want to provide 'reasons to care'.  Your intro post doesn't really explain what your book will be.  From the first post, I assumed it would be a collection of similar stories.  If there's more to it, a bit of explanation would help.

Quote from: Spinachcat;692020I like the shaggy balrog story and my comment was more about what I hope to get from the overall feel of the book, not a critique of this one story.

OOooooh!  Why didn't you say so?  (Okay, I CAN be a bit thick)

Here is a tentative list of chapter titles, order not yet determined.  Copyright me blah blah blah.

INTRODUCTION
GARY AND DAVE
UNSTATED ASSUMPTIONS – D&D AND TRACTICS
GHOULASH THE BALROG AND THE ORCS
MY GREYHAWK BALROG AND WIZARD TIMES
WHY PAY US TO HAVE FUN FOR YOU
GARY LOSES CONTROL OF HIS GAME
UNSTATED ASSUMPTIONS – WARGAMING
UNSTATED ASSUMPTIONS – D&D AND DIPLOMACY
FANTASTIC MEDIEVAL WARGAMES CAMPAIGN
UNSTATED ASSUMPTIONS – D&D AND CHAINMAIL
PLAYER SKILL
GARY incl THE NIGHT WE FED ERNIE TO THE MONSTER and NO KILLING THE PRINCESS
DAVE incl NECROSS THE (HA HA HA!) MAD
DAVE SUTHERLAND
TIM AND THE BALROGS
YRAG, XAGYG, REDNIBLLEPS, AND GRONAN
SETTING ERNIE ON FIRE
THE DJINN, THE BALROG, AND THE PANCAKE OF THREE WISHES
PHIL
UP IN THE AIR, JUNIOR BIRDMEN!
LESSNARD ALONE!
PLAYING IN GREYHAWK AND BLACKMOOR
ONCE THERE WAS A LAND CALLED GREYHAWK inc 99 SIDED RANDOM MONSTER DIE
GARY GYGAX GAME DESIGN
THE LOST END GAME
THE GREATEST UNSTATED ASSUMPTION
THINGS PEOPLE DON'T KNOW
THE WARGAMER'S WORLD
AFTERWORD

Quote from: deadDMwalking;692022You've already written it, so that's the hard part.  You might as well put it out there - don't let anyone here dissuade you from making an honest effort.  It's probably not going to let you retire to a life of luxury - but stranger things have happened!  

But if you're serious about trying to make it successful, you do want to provide 'reasons to care'.  Your intro post doesn't really explain what your book will be.  From the first post, I assumed it would be a collection of similar stories.  If there's more to it, a bit of explanation would help.

Well, the actual kickstarter page will talk a lot more about it.  I've just found in the past that short humorous anecdotes are a good way to get people's attention in a favorable way.

Quote from: Spinachcat;692020Make that your next book.

Actually, I've developed enough skill as a modeler to actually write articles that will probably be accepted by the biggest modeling magazine, which pays not horribly... better than RPG writing, that's for sure.

If I've developed a good technique for modeling the way Chicago and Northwestern grain cars rust over their yellow paint, all I need is a few good pictures and some text.  Digital cameras have made getting decent pictures fairly simple, and I've got a bit of skill with words.  Hell, I carried a 3.96 GPA in seminary, I should hope I can write at least acceptably well.

Quote from: KenHR;691965Fucking christ, the hair-splitting in this place.

How does the hair-splitting here differ from anywhere else?

Quote from: KenHR;691965Of course, but I think Kyle was addressing people who want to sell their writing.

Fucking christ, the hair-splitting in this place.

I happen to believe the best books are written solely for the writer, with no attempts to compromise based on assumption of "what the audience wants". Like Lord of the Rings. I hardly consider that hair-splitting. I think a like-minded audience will find the work if it's of quality, and that an end goal of "appealing to as many people as possible" waters down an individual writer's/game designer's voice,  and results in an inferior product.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;692041How does the hair-splitting here differ from anywhere else?

Here, we split pubes and debate dingleberries...and always keep it classy.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;692041How does the hair-splitting here differ from anywhere else?

Complaining about hair-splitting online IS a bit like standing in the ocean and complaining how wet it is...

The Internet makes pendants of us all

Quote from: TristramEvans;692057Complaining about hair-splitting online IS a bit like standing in the ocean and complaining how wet it is...

The Internet makes pendants of us all

Surely you mean pedants.

Quote from: Old Geezer;689888So, I've just finished the first draft of my utterly subjective memoir of my early years in D&D, which I've entitled "We Made Up Some Shit We Thought Would Be Fun."  Soon to be a Kickstarter.

When are you planning on firing up the Kickstarter?

Quote from: K Peterson;692072When are you planning on firing up the Kickstarter?

Rough guess, "end of year."  I've been talking to Tavis from Autarch for a while now about it because I like they way they've handled their Kickstarters (yes, even Dwimmermount; I think they recovered about as well as anybody could).

We're waiting for 1) me to finish my first draft (done) and 2) Autarch to have their other Kickstarters (DM and Domains of War) finished.

Quote from: Rincewind1;692065Surely you mean pedants.

:D

Gotcha!

Quote from: TristramEvans;692090:D

Gotcha!

By his pendants!  And brother, that hurts!

Quote from: Old Geezer;692084Rough guess, "end of year."  

Be careful about the tax liabilities. There has been some talk of late about tax issues for Kickstarters who get their cash, then can't spend it on production costs before the end of the year and then the Taxman Cometh Most Coldly.

Quote from: Spinachcat;692105Be careful about the tax liabilities. There has been some talk of late about tax issues for Kickstarters who get their cash, then can't spend it on production costs before the end of the year and then the Taxman Cometh Most Coldly.

In the long run you still will pay the same amount of taxes. But going to a accountant or tax professional  will sure the cash flow is smooth. If he working with Autarch they should be able to help with that.

I'm surprised that Autarch would want to act as an intermediary in a Kickstarter again. Not that I'm casting any doubts on you, Old Geezer. Just that I'd expect that the experience they went through earlier this year would make them rather gun-shy.

Quote from: TristramEvans;692045I happen to believe the best books are written solely for the writer, with no attempts to compromise based on assumption of "what the audience wants". Like Lord of the Rings. I hardly consider that hair-splitting. I think a like-minded audience will find the work if it's of quality, and that an end goal of "appealing to as many people as possible" waters down an individual writer's/game designer's voice,  and results in an inferior product.

(Apologies for the late reply)  LotR was written for commercial reasons.  It was also written well (for certain definitions of well) and commented on/critiqued by others during its writing.  You've missed the point of what you were responding to entirely.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;692041How does the hair-splitting here differ from anywhere else?

Hair-splitting is one thing.  Completely missing the point while doing so is another.

Quote from: KenHR;692394(Apologies for the late reply)  LotR was written for commercial reasons.  It was also written well (for certain definitions of well) and commented on/critiqued by others during its writing.  You've missed the point of what you were responding to entirely.

I'm just going to say that if you think LOTR was written for any audience besides Tolkien and his beer buddies, you have not read much about Tolkien yet. The Hobbit was a commercial success, so A&Ubasked Tolkien to write a sequel. 20 years later he handed in a manuscript that the publishers and Tolkien himself were certain was going to lose them money because they couldn't imagine an audience for it.

And no, I havent missed the point. At least not the point I was making - that there are lots of good, if not better, reasons to write for oneself without any intention or thought towards a wider audience.

Girls, girls!  You're ALL pretty!

Quote from: Old Geezer;692500Girls, girls!  You're ALL pretty!

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5xzmd7rgz1qbaj4uo1_400.gif)

Quote from: estar;691406The bottom line is that he backs up what he asserts with primary sources.

The thing is, any historian could tell you that using "primary sources" doesn't mean that much, in the sense that you can start out with just about any argument and then find, manipulate or contextualize the right "primary sources" to appear to back up your claims.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;692708The thing is, any historian could tell you that using "primary sources" doesn't mean that much, in the sense that you can start out with just about any argument and then find, manipulate or contextualize the right "primary sources" to appear to back up your claims.

RPGPundit

Sad but true.

Plus, uh, if you were there, doesn't that make ou a"primary source"?

Playing at the World's merit is largely in that it quotes a huge variety of primary sources, which makes it an excellent resource for future, more focused histories of the game and industry.

The disadvantage is that anybody can use it as a stick to beat an ass.

Quote from: RPGPundit;692708The thing is, any historian could tell you that using "primary sources" doesn't mean that much, in the sense that you can start out with just about any argument and then find, manipulate or contextualize the right "primary sources" to appear to back up your claims.

RPGPundit

Of course when you do history, you choose to cite facts that further your narrative, and your choice of narrative is constrained by what facts you can cite. Primary sources tell you which narratives will work and which won't. Sometimes, finding new sources expands the number of narrative threads available to you; other times it eliminates some threads.

But you're never going to get anywhere near the facts of the early history of RPGs without the primary sources. Even questions of simple historical fact that are quite easily resolved with access to the right letters or fanzines have been the subject of religious wars for decades  - like, say, when Blackmoor started. In that sense, primary sources mean everything, they're the difference between groundless conjecture and an actual grasp of history. Knowing when Blackmoor started, you can of course fit that fact into whatever narrative suits you. But if someone tries to build a narrative based on Blackmoor having started far earlier or later than it did, the primary sources enable us to rule it out.

Quote from: Old Geezer;690429Actually, I can't wait to read Playing at the World, not just because Jon bought my map and printed it!

But I'm not pretending any sort of accurate or historical work here; it's a memoir with some fireside musings about where some things came from, like late at night with friends on the second or third glass of Port.

And I am very much looking forward to backing your Kickstarter and reading your book, Michael. I wish that everyone who was an eyewitness to these events could take the time to do exactly what you have done.

Quote from: increment;692792And I am very much looking forward to backing your Kickstarter and reading your book, Michael. I wish that everyone who was an eyewitness to these events could take the time to do exactly what you have done.

Somewhere you mentioned that you wish you had more "personal" stories, which is one of the things that induced me to write not only my ideas on what I saw evolve, but also amusing anecdotes like this.

I hope you found the tale of Ghulash amusing, at least.

Quote from: Old Geezer;692006I posted this story because it's short and I thought people would find it amusing.

I thought it was amusing, and I'd be interested in reading some more.

I think what people were expecting was something along the lines of:

"By the summer of '05, E&E was exploding in popularity. 10 or 15 of us would regularly get together at the Red Bull Tavern, at the end of Lincolnshire Ave., to play in Dave's campaign. We'd play in this tiny little card room above the bar, after Dave's shift was over. (Okay, the room wasn't that tiny, but with 10 people in there, it felt like it.)

"Being above a bar was sometimes distracting. It was noisy, and the smell of cigarettes and spilled beer was soaked deep into the wood. After a couple of hours of play, your clothes would smell just like it. My roommates thought I was becoming an alcoholic.

"On the plus side, every time Dave said 'okay, you all meet up in a tavern', we knew exactly what it sounded and smelled like."

I'm not saying you should write like that. I liked the story. But I think this is the sort of thing people expect from an autobiographical book. JMHO.

If we'd played anyplace interesting....

We played in rooms at the student union.  They were like any fucking room in any fucking student union in any fucking college I've ever been in.

Also, I personally find that kind of writing rather annoying.

I do talk a bit about that kind of thing when it (in my mind) matters, like Gary saying "if the day comes when I can't wear blue jeans to work, I quit."

Also, as my chapter titles suggest (or at least I hope they do) the book is a lot about my take on how D&D evolved out of wargames, how D&D turned from a wargame into big money, and a few funny stories (mostly about dumb shit I myself have done) for comic relief.

Quote from: Old Geezer;692988Also, I personally find that kind of writing rather annoying.

That's cool. :)

I'm not trying to tell you what to do, I was just trying to explain what the other posters seemed to be asking for.

Like I said, I liked the story as is, and I'd like to read some more.

One book of this sort I recently enjoyed re-reading was Achtung Schweinhund by Harry Pearson. He knows his audience and managed to put in some personal anecdotes as well as give some of the history of wargaming in the UK, with some decent examples of the wargaming mindset that readers could empahise with. I think you really had to be of a certain generation in this country to fully appreciate it but he puts his professional skills to good use use in making sure you identify with his experiences.

Mike's free to write whatever he wants and I'm sure some people will buy it, Ghulash and all. I suppose I'd rather have seen one of the other chapters rather than the one presented, but I assumed that by posting, Mike wanted to solicit feedback, positive or otherwise, that might help move sales from some people to at least a few more. Any feedback that might help the book reach a wider audience would, I'd have thought, been worth noting at least, rather than dismissing it out of hand as irrelevant in a rather angry tone.

Quote from: Old Geezer;692835Somewhere you mentioned that you wish you had more "personal" stories, which is one of the things that induced me to write not only my ideas on what I saw evolve, but also amusing anecdotes like this.

I hope you found the tale of Ghulash amusing, at least.

Very much so! I think it exemplifies the spirit that "anything can be attempted," that players could innovate radically in the course of play to meet their objectives. Before D&D, what sort of game would have, or could have, supported this sort of player initiative?

Quote from: Joshua Ford;693025One book of this sort I recently enjoyed re-reading was Achtung Schweinhund by Harry Pearson. He knows his audience and managed to put in some personal anecdotes as well as give some of the history of wargaming in the UK, with some decent examples of the wargaming mindset that readers could empahise with. I think you really had to be of a certain generation in this country to fully appreciate it but he puts his professional skills to good use use in making sure you identify with his experiences.

Mike's free to write whatever he wants and I'm sure some people will buy it, Ghulash and all. I suppose I'd rather have seen one of the other chapters rather than the one presented, but I assumed that by posting, Mike wanted to solicit feedback, positive or otherwise, that might help move sales from some people to at least a few more. Any feedback that might help the book reach a wider audience would, I'd have thought, been worth noting at least, rather than dismissing it out of hand as irrelevant in a rather angry tone.

If you think that's an angry tone, then in the words of Bruce Banner "you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

I posted this story because it's short.  I'm not going to post a 2500 word chapter on how CHAINMAIL influenced D&D.

And frankly, no, I wasn't really looking for feedback, I was looking to drum up attention.  If you like this, you will like what I've written.  If not, you won't.

Quote from: KenHR;692395Hair-splitting is one thing.  Completely missing the point while doing so is another.

:duh:

Ken, Ken, Ken . . . of all the posters on this site, you are usually the one to get my jokes.

;)

Quote from: increment;692791Of course when you do history, you choose to cite facts that further your narrative, and your choice of narrative is constrained by what facts you can cite. Primary sources tell you which narratives will work and which won't. Sometimes, finding new sources expands the number of narrative threads available to you; other times it eliminates some threads.

In the good old days, we used to look at sources first and then figure out what the "narrative" was the sources were pointing at. We didn't choose to manipulatively put more emphasis on certain facts and less on others in order to further the agenda we had already front-loaded into the study; but rather tried to make sense of all the facts available to figure out what had actually happened. But that's imperialist and patriarchal and all kind of other dirty words in modern historiography because it believes in evil things like "Facts" and "Truth".

QuoteBut you're never going to get anywhere near the facts of the early history of RPGs without the primary sources. Even questions of simple historical fact that are quite easily resolved with access to the right letters or fanzines have been the subject of religious wars for decades  - like, say, when Blackmoor started. In that sense, primary sources mean everything, they're the difference between groundless conjecture and an actual grasp of history. Knowing when Blackmoor started, you can of course fit that fact into whatever narrative suits you. But if someone tries to build a narrative based on Blackmoor having started far earlier or later than it did, the primary sources enable us to rule it out.

Of course, but the point is that depending on how you manipulate this detail of when Blackmoor started, you could use it to claim "see? Arneson was really the most important guy and that plus this plus this plus this all prove that D&D was really a monstrosity that should never have been the way it was and that early roleplayers were actually running Forge-like narrative storygaming!", or conversely "See? Arneson wasn't really as important at all and because of that plus this plus this it proves that D&D was a monstrosity that should never have been the way it was and early roleplayers were actually running Forge-like narrative storygaming!"

See what I did there?

That's why I don't trust post-modern trained-in-relativism think-narrative-comes-first historians these days.    Since they don't believe in actually finding out historical truth (because they don't believe that "truth" is a thing) they are quite willing to twist the narrative into anything that suits them.

Now, I haven't read your book, so I can't judge it specifically.  I was just commenting on when someone else said "he quotes primary sources so he MUST be telling the bible-truth!"
For all I know your work is rigorous and magnificent.  However, since most of the time that I've heard  references to your book it has been when Storygamers have quoted it to try to "prove" some bullshit argument of theirs about how the "real OSR is storygaming" or some other piece of historical revisionism, that doesn't fill me with confidence about your work.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;693321For all I know your work is rigorous and magnificent.  However, since most of the time that I've heard  references to your book it has been when Storygamers have quoted it to try to "prove" some bullshit argument of theirs about how the "real OSR is storygaming" or some other piece of historical revisionism, that doesn't fill me with confidence about your work.

RPGPundit

Pundy, BABY, you know as well as I do that people who want to reach a conclusion will do so quite untrammeled by what their sources really say.

At least read Jon's work before deciding you don't like it.  I've worked with Jon enough to say he's well aware that D&D came out of wargaming.  If some story gamer wants  to say that Free Kriegspiel is a "story game," does that make it so?

I didn't butt into this thread to promote my own work or methods; just to suggest that, although my approach may differ from yours, Michael, nonetheless I really look forward to your project and I encourage everyone to support it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;693321See what I did there?

It sounds like you were horribly abused by some academic in early childhood, for which I must apologize on behalf of scholars everywhere. My own research has no connection to any of the "post modern" ideas that apparently traumatized you. It does not address the question of what story games are or the question of what the OSR is, though it does consider stories and it does try to figure out how people played D&D when it first appeared. If those former questions particularly interest you, I would recommend reading someone else's work.

Quote from: Old Geezer;692988If some story gamer wants  to say that Free Kriegspiel is a "story game," does that make it so?

Of course it does! Who has ever played a game of Free Kriegspiel where the pre-teen maids didn't have sex?

Quote from: Spinachcat;693463Of course it does! Who has ever played a game of Free Kriegspiel where the pre-teen maids didn't have sex?

"I freed my Kriegspiel twice during that game"

Quote from: RPGPundit;693321Now, I haven't read your book, so I can't judge it specifically.  I was just commenting on when someone else said "he quotes primary sources so he MUST be telling the bible-truth!"
For all I know your work is rigorous and magnificent.  However, since most of the time that I've heard  references to your book it has been when Storygamers have quoted it to try to "prove" some bullshit argument of theirs about how the "real OSR is storygaming" or some other piece of historical revisionism, that doesn't fill me with confidence about your work.

Pundit, just get the book and read it dammit. Agree or not by the time you finish it you will find it is worth the time.

My opinion about the book's accuracy is this. For several years I followed and participated in the collector community at the Acaeum (//www.acaeum.com) and its forums (//www.acaeum.com/forum/index.php). It has a fascinating insight into what was available in the earliest days of the hobby.

Regardless of how you feel about their "obession" of collecting one benefit is that they are relentless in digging up rare items that are relevant to the origins of roleplaying. This includes talking about stuff that are very rare or very obscure. All of this was occurring well before Jon's book saw the light of day.

What caused me to respect Jon's book is that he includes all the items that I seen talked about on Acaeum, (and other sites with collectors). And adds some that were not mentioned but otherwise fits in with what I have read about.

So when I say that Jon's book is the standard by other RPG historical works will be judged by I don't make that statement lightly. It is exhaustive in its use of primary sources that are currently known. If you don't believe look at the Acaeum and other sites where collectors hang out yourself. They have a search function on their forum.

Now there are sections where I reserve judgement. And most of those are in his discussion of the origins of various D&D mechanics. Of all the sections in his book that part is the one that feel most like interpretation.

The other major sections, the time period before D&D's release, the history of wargaming, the time period after D&D's release all seem very down to earth and factual. Perhaps too factual as it is very dry reading in parts.

I think there room for a good history of the origins of D&D focusing on the personal drama. It certainly doesn't cover much of the TSR era at the height of D&D's popularity. There always the chance that a rare zine or manuscripts pops up.

Again just read the damn book Pundit.

I agree with the others, Pundit.

I think you do have a point that just taking primary sources of the time instead of trusting people recounting the events 30 years later does not in itself guarantee your work will be unbiased - I think that bias has a funny way to creep its way into anything we're passionate about. So when you're working on something like Playing at the World it must be a constant struggle to keep one's head cool and keep some hopefully neutral perspective while working at unearthing sources, trying to see how they fit in the big picture, whether patterns emerge, etc. I think Jon would agree to this, because he discusses his approach and methodology at the beginning of the book, if memory serves.

Now that doesn't mean that other people won't take your work and project whatever agenda is theirs onto its findings, if any, citing bits and pieces of the corpus selectively in order "prove" whatever they magically had known all along. But that's a function of these people's bias. It doesn't mean Jon's methodology suffered from the same errors of judgment or shared these people's agenda.

Read the damn book, man. You're going to like it.

Again, my comments weren't directly a condemnation of the book, since I have no way of saying what the book's content is itself.  Rather, its a condemnation of how I've seen many people approaching "RPG history".

RPGPundit

I would be interested in RPGPundit's review of Playing at the World.

Doubly interested if he goes apeshit nutball on it.

Quote from: Spinachcat;694200I would be interested in RPGPundit's review of Playing at the World.

Agreed (and yeah I'll probably be getting that book eventually myself!).

Quote from: SpinachcatDoubly interested if he goes apeshit nutball on it.

Hmmm...*rolls Divination check*...ENT THE DIVINER foresees: Pundit will likely not go bugfuck on book. Pundit will likely not go bugfuck on author. Pundit *WILL* likely spend half the review screaming at storygame swine folks using OG's works for their own evil and stupid purposes.

Sounds about right? ;)

These predictions can only be proven or disproven should I ever get a review copy.  I haven't got much interest in spending my own money to get a book 'about' RPGs.

Quote from: RPGPundit;694816These predictions can only be proven or disproven should I ever get a review copy.  I haven't got much interest in spending my own money to get a book 'about' RPGs.

I can see that, absolutely. I Think OG probably should send you one - as far as I can see getting a review on the site is generally a good thing, whether or not the preview is positive - but that'd be up to OG obviously.

Quote from: Old Geezer;693038If you think that's an angry tone, then in the words of Bruce Banner "you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

I posted this story because it's short.  I'm not going to post a 2500 word chapter on how CHAINMAIL influenced D&D.

And frankly, no, I wasn't really looking for feedback, I was looking to drum up attention.  If you like this, you will like what I've written.  If not, you won't.

Oh do fuck off Mike and stop playing the internet tough guy. You know what people are saying.

The Ghulash story could have happened to any one of millions of gamers. It's not particularly amusing and is far too long, even if you consider it short and funny.

Talking first hand about experiences that very few had is what would set your book apart. You may not think it so, but that's what lots of people would appear to be interested in. Either way, you need an editor.

EDIT: Maybe next time you could stick a (+) after the title...

Quote from: Joshua Ford;694852Oh do fuck off Mike and stop playing the internet tough guy. You know what people are saying.

The Ghulash story could have happened to any one of millions of gamers. It's not particularly amusing and is far too long, even if you consider it short and funny.

Talking first hand about experiences that very few had is what would set your book apart. You may not think it so, but that's what lots of people would appear to be interested in. Either way, you need an editor.

EDIT: Maybe next time you could stick a (+) after the title...

* snerk *

Fuck off yourself, and frankly except for you I've had pretty much nothing but good feedback.

Some people won't like it.  Boo hoo.

And double * snerk * for the "internet tough guy" remark.  Pot, kettle, etc.  

Also, I don't recall giving you permission to address my by my given name, sirrah.

Getting an editor is always a good idea. Hopefully that will be one of the points for the Kickstarter. Heck, you can actually use Kickstarter to have people pay you money so they can help you edit the book in some kind of "first look / beta" of the rough draft.

Quote from: Spinachcat;694998Getting an editor is always a good idea. Hopefully that will be one of the points for the Kickstarter. Heck, you can actually use Kickstarter to have people pay you money so they can help you edit the book in some kind of "first look / beta" of the rough draft.

I already have arranged two content editors, mostly to insure that in the year of working on this I haven't repeated myself.  However, I'm not really concerned about my use of written English (there are probably a few typos, but not a lot), and I'm not going to change my writing style or voice.

But my editors will be looking for "You already said this," "buh?" "you are making unstated assumptions here," and "this paragraph appears to have come to English after being translated from German to Akkadian."

Editing is very important, yes. And there's a big difference from a "professional editor" and "my buddy who once took some english courses will give it a once-over".

Quote from: Old GeezerAnd frankly, no, I wasn't really looking for feedback, I was looking to drum up attention.

Then you should have posted it in the "news and adverts" (http://www.therpgsite.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38) subforum, not "Roleplaying Games".

But whichever forum you post it in, if you post something in a discussion forum, then it'll be discussed. Perhaps coming from so long on rpg.net you're not used to actual discussion, but there it is.

Everyone has stories of their favourite character, the 36th level assassin drowlesbianstripperninja who killed Tiamat with a spoon. Nobody gives a shit about that. You've got things to offer no-one else has - your experiences and the people of early D&D. You've got a vein of gold, and you're leaving that in the ground that to drag up in carts the same dross any of us can give the world.

A real editor will tell you that.

Quote from: Old Geezer;695183However, I'm not really concerned about my use of written English (there are probably a few typos, but not a lot), and I'm not going to change my writing style or voice.

A good editor only enhances the author's voice and style. And there are no typos allowed in the age of spellcheck programs. Zero. Nada. None.

Quote from: RPGPundit;695874And there's a big difference from a "professional editor" and "my buddy who once took some english courses will give it a once-over".

My buddy just got some Marvel Origin books written for young readers for his son. They are 90% pics and 10% text for early grade kids, but none of them were edited and its quite horrific to see what a throwaway Marvel considered these books. Typos, grammar mistakes and just general WTF all around.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;695886Everyone has stories of their favourite character, the 36th level assassin drowlesbianstripperninja who killed Tiamat with a spoon. Nobody gives a shit about that.

Sorry Kyle, I would totally read that chapter.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;695886You've got things to offer no-one else has - your experiences and the people of early D&D.

Kyle is right. That's gold.

Quote from: Spinachcat;695891And there are no typos allowed in the age of spellcheck programs. Zero. Nada. None.

They still happen. A spellchecker can detect spelling and grammar mistakes but not context based errors. Human eyes are still needed to detect the correctly spelled word that just doesn't belong where it is.

Quote from: Spinachcat;695891And there are no typos allowed in the age of spellcheck programs. Zero. Nada. None.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;696041They still happen. A spellchecker can detect spelling and grammar mistakes but not context based errors. Human eyes are still needed to detect the correctly spelled word that just doesn't belong where it is.

Spinachcat is not saying that typos don't happen with a spellchecker, but that, in the age of spellcheckers, they are not allowed. The tolerance level for typos has dropped, because we know spellcheckers will catch the obvious ones, leaving the proofreader (not the editor) with a lessened workload.

That's a side point, but the proofreader/editor distinction does bring up something relevant to Michael's project: don't get an editor, just a proofreader. Editors are necessary in professional publishing, but for a self-published book that's basically a combo memoir/essay? Major editing is kind of a detriment to the book, rather than a plus. Just get someone to proof it for grammar, missing words, and errors not caught by the spellchecker (or for cupertinos -- errors introduced by the spellchecker.)

For self-published game materials, an editor is a good idea. But an editor would just get in the way for memoirs.

Editors are important, the only time editing can have an adverse effect is if you use a bad one. Don't use a bad one.

So, did anybody actually look at the list of chapters?  Because I think it answers a lot of people's questions.

And the funny stories are in there because I like telling funny stories and most people seem to find them amusing.  Neener.

Quote from: Spinachcat;695891A good editor only enhances the author's voice and style. And there are no typos allowed in the age of spellcheck programs. Zero. Nada. None.

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

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?

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.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;698188What exactly is a low charcaisma noble?  Is that something from your campaign world?

He misspelled "charmiasma". That's the odor that hangs around would-be alphas. The stink of dominance.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;698188What exactly is a low charcaisma noble?  Is that something from your campaign world?

Low charcaisma nobles are exactly like David Hasselhoff.

No, he misspelled "chelicerae."  His nobles are all arthropods without mandibles.

Quote from: Old Geezer;698367No, he misspelled "chelicerae."  His nobles are all arthropods without mandibles.

My Android keyboard suggests "chat cabana". A Facebook community for nobles only, moderated by @Lola.

I think I have a clearer idea of his game world, now. It's based on Barry Manilow songs.

Quote from: talysman;698375My Android keyboard suggests "chat cabana". A Facebook community for nobles only, moderated by @Lola.

I think I have a clearer idea of his game world, now. It's based on Barry Manilow songs.

Hehe...:D

It's like I am so "devasted"...awesome charcaisma just went into my dictionary.

Quote from: talysman;698375My Android keyboard suggests "chat cabana". A Facebook community for nobles only, moderated by @Lola.

I think I have a clearer idea of his game world, now. It's based on Barry Manilow songs.

Wait...who doesn't base their setting on Manilow?

He is the Greater God of the pantheon.

Well...he does have competetion from The Hoff.

Quote from: Bill;698423Wait...who doesn't base their setting on Manilow?

He is the Greater God of the pantheon.

Well...he does have competetion from The Hoff.

Not Really.

Manilow wrote the songs man. The Hoff can't even sing them.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;698441Not Really.

Manilow wrote the songs man. The Hoff can't even sing them.

The Hoff could be this 1e style demonlord who corrupts Manilow's creations.

Hoff's chest hair could be tentacles or something. Also he'd be served by succubi in tight-fitting red costumes.

Quote from: The Ent;698443The Hoff could be this 1e style demonlord who corrupts Manilow's creations.

Hoff's chest hair could be tentacles or something. Also he'd be served by succubi in tight-fitting red costumes.

Well done! This thread bore some good fruits for the game table! Mission accomplished. :D

Definative Proof that Hoff is at least an arch devil, poissibly a lesser deity.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwcXwAyt40U

Except for us CE half-orc types, it's Cher as our Goddess, kinda like the drow with Lolth, but cooler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9XDdzzp2k

I suppose Liberace is like the Elder God Creator Deity of the pantheon?

Quote from: dragoner;698501Except for us CE half-orc types, it's Cher as our Goddess, kinda like the drow with Lolth, but cooler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9XDdzzp2k

While for us kinda sentimental types, it's Elton John?

Kate Bush is the goddess of the wood elves, while the High Elves worship Bon Jovi. The patron god of the dwarves? Tom Waits

Deathclok should have their own pantheon.

Quote from: Bill;698513Deathclok should have their own pantheon.

The Chaos Gods of Rock N Rule.

And if you get that reference, congratulations, you're old ;)

Ah, the hell of metal, totally lawful - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41PxFzoqULU


Did someone say Bush?

She's CG:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v98/BasilBrush/Blog/kate-bush-babooshka.jpg)

Quote from: TristramEvans;698533The Chaos Gods of Rock N Rule.

And if you get that reference, congratulations, you're old ;)

Mok the Magic man.

I am old.

Quote from: TristramEvans;698510Kate Bush is the goddess of the wood elves, while the High Elves worship Bon Jovi. The patron god of the dwarves? Tom Waits

Kate Bush a goddess of Wood Elves? High Elves methinks. Grey Elves..hmm...Classical or pure Jazz?

If Kate Bush is high Elves, then the goddess of Grey Elves has to be Tori Amos




Hmmm, seems like Bowie should be in there too, but that might be just a little too on the nose....

Maybe she is queen of the Hobbits.

Quote from: TristramEvans;698635If Kate Bush is high Elves, then the goddess of Grey Elves has to be Tori Amos




Hmmm, seems like Bowie should be in there too, but that might be just a little too on the nose....

Now we're cookin' with gas.:)

Quote from: TristramEvans;698635Hmmm, seems like Bowie should be in there too, but that might be just a little too on the nose....

Bowie is the king of goblins.

Quote from: TristramEvans;698635Hmmm, seems like Bowie should be in there too, but that might be just a little too on the nose....

Goblin King, obviously.

(http://www.themoviescene.co.uk/reviews/_img/476-2.jpg)

Quote from: jadrax;698661Bowie is the king of goblins.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;698665Goblin King, obviously.

Yes, hence the "On the nose" part. Though I think I prefer Bowie as the leader of a secret organization of retired rockstars that use thier vast fortunes and flair for the dramatic to stage an elaborate game of super villains vs duper scientists in conjunction with an elite-but-outdated wing of the US Military.

As for Halflings, I nominate Cyndi Lauper and Elvis Costello as patron dirties. MEWa

Quote from: jadrax;698661Bowie is the king of goblins.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;698665Goblin King, obviously.

Yes, hence the "On the nose" part. Though I think I prefer Bowie as the leader of a secret organization of retired rockstars that use thier vast fortunes and flair for the dramatic to stage an elaborate game of super villains vs superscientists in conjunction with an elite-but-outdated wing of the US Military.

As for Halflings, I nominate Cyndi Lauper and Elvis Costello as patron dieties

Quote from: The Ent;689991Sounds fun, Old Geezer! Always enjoyed your recollections at the other place! Awesome Balrog play :D

Yes! This book is gonna be awesome.

Quote from: Spinachcat;691843I am good with the anecdotes and ponderings, but I also want to know "what it was like to be there" and I do want to know more about the "bunch of guys in a room" because I was not there.

Have you picked up any books on writing memoirs? There are memory techniques ghost writers use to help the biography subject remember more details and I am sure autobiographical writers use them as well.

Well, fuck me bloody.

I've gotten feedback from all four of my editors, and they ALL pretty much agree with what SC and several other people here have said.

EVERYBODY wants to know who Mike Wollan was(the guy who was the referee for Ghulash).

I guess I'm gonna have to take SC's advice and get some books on writing memoirs, cuz all I got is "Ummm... this guy I went to college with?"  I don't even remember his major... hell, I'm not sure I ever KNEW his major.

Just like one of the Lake Geneva gamers was Bill Corey.  But I never, EVER saw Bill OUTSIDE a game, so I LITERALLY know NOTHING about him other than "He was a guy I played games with."

I obviously have much work to do!

(http://i47.tinypic.com/120tnqt.gif)

As other's have said, you player anecdotes are just like any other and hence largely worthless. No-one wants to hear about your character; they want to hear about what it was like back then, the people, the personalities and even what happened to some of them.  The less stories about your PCs the better, it just comes across as self indulgent.

I'm thrilled that you have involved editors because a good one can really improve your story, and there is a fascinating story in there and the timing is right for bringing it to the public.

Actually, there is one reason I disagree that the anecdotes are worthless.  There is a segment of the RPG hobby which is SO FUCKING SERIOUS ABOUT THEIR ELFGAMES.  I consider a Balrog named 'Ghulash' to be a useful anodyne.

Further, for every person saying 'your anecdotes are boring just like everybody else's,' I get five to ten people saying 'your stories are great, they make me laugh.'

The whole point of playing this game is to produce anecdotes that you can talk about years later. My older brother still talks about how his monk got killed by Asmodeus back in 1980.

Quote from: Old Geezer;746656Further, for every person saying 'your anecdotes are boring just like everybody else's,' I get five to ten people saying 'your stories are great, they make me laugh.'

Do they also say "You should write more of them! Many, many more of them! But you should read some books on how to write memoirs first, and research the details of everything and everyone you mention, and then rewrite what you've written!"?

And then, after you've slowly shuffled off with your walking frame, do they look at one another with relief and say "Hopefully that'll keep the senile old codger busy for another few months."?

Quote from: aspiringlich;746658The whole point of playing this game is to produce anecdotes that you can talk about years later. My older brother still talks about how his monk got killed by Asmodeus back in 1980.

Anecdotes are great to share with the people who were there. For most others they are boring. At the Cons I attended in my youth I remember one of the rules of the con was 'No Anecdotes'. As soon as someone tried to talk about one of their characters they would be shouted down with cries of No Anecdotes! 'twas both fun and instructive.

Anecdotes are the meat of a memoir. So in terms of Geezer's book, they are part and parcel of it.

Anyone saying any differently is basically loading up their 'take an easy pot-shot at Old Geezer' catapult.

Quote from: Fiasco;746725Anecdotes are great to share with the people who were there. For most others they are boring. At the Cons I attended in my youth I remember one of the rules of the con was 'No Anecdotes'. As soon as someone tried to talk about one of their characters they would be shouted down with cries of No Anecdotes! 'twas both fun and instructive.

I wasn't there at my brother's gaming table (I was only 6 or 7 at the time), but I still love hearing stories about what went on. You might find that sort of thing boring, but I don't, so I hope OG shares the wealth.

Quote from: Fiasco;746725Anecdotes are great to share with the people who were there. For most others they are boring. At the Cons I attended in my youth I remember one of the rules of the con was 'No Anecdotes'. As soon as someone tried to talk about one of their characters they would be shouted down with cries of No Anecdotes! 'twas both fun and instructive.

Sounds like bullshit to me.

I love hearing people talk to me about their games and characters. That's what they invest their time and imagination in, and I'll be damned if as a game designer I wouldn't pay attention to what they're saying to me when they explain about that time the village got attacked by orcs and they had a sword of sharpness and it was so cool etc etc.

It's not the *point* of the game to generate these anecdotes, but it's the way people after the adventure communicate their enjoyment of the game to other gamers they think will actually understand the place their coming from and why this is so cool.

YES, some people can be really heavy with this and don't get a clue when to stop and take a deep breath to let other people speak. Some people are socially retarded, that's a fact. True. But for God's sakes, fuck the "no anecdotes, ahh those dirty gamers with their bullshit stories blah blah blah". That's just another way of pretending to be above it all and hating on gamers for being gamers, IMO.

Quote from: Old Geezer;746656Actually, there is one reason I disagree that the anecdotes are worthless.  There is a segment of the RPG hobby which is SO FUCKING SERIOUS ABOUT THEIR ELFGAMES.  I consider a Balrog named 'Ghulash' to be a useful anodyne.

Further, for every person saying 'your anecdotes are boring just like everybody else's,' I get five to ten people saying 'your stories are great, they make me laugh.'

I agree completely ith both poinnts.  The only caveat would be to focus on the anecdotes that show how things were done, where ideas came from, why things were done the way they were. Which, I believe, is your major goal, so I'm not worried here.

One thing about describing the people involved: when people say they want to know who Mike Wollan or Bill Corey are, they probably mean "in relation to the hobby." Did they contribute anything to the rules, write articles for zines? Did they go on to publish anything we might know, or even something obscure? Are they still active, to your knowledge? Maybe a little of how you met them, and some sketchy details of their non-gaming bio, just to give a sense of what kind of people were playing back then. I donn't think anyone really cares where and when they were born, date of marriage, number of children, income, or life story. That really doesn't tell us about them as GAMERS.

Quote from: talysman;746759One thing about describing the people involved: when people say they want to know who Mike Wollan or Bill Corey are, they probably mean "in relation to the hobby." Did they contribute anything to the rules, write articles for zines? Did they go on to publish anything we might know, or even something obscure? Are they still active, to your knowledge? Maybe a little of how you met them, and some sketchy details of their non-gaming bio, just to give a sense of what kind of people were playing back then. I donn't think anyone really cares where and when they were born, date of marriage, number of children, income, or life story. That really doesn't tell us about them as GAMERS.

Well, the thing is that in the case of both these guys, the answers are pretty much "no" to all the above.

"Zaphod's just this guy, you know?"

But a little bit about how we met and what games they played, yeah, I could do that.

Quote from: talysman;746759I agree completely ith both poinnts.  The only caveat would be to focus on the anecdotes that show how things were done, where ideas came from, why things were done the way they were. Which, I believe, is your major goal, so I'm not worried here.

The point of 'humorous anecdotes' is to be funny.  If you look at the chapter titles, there aren't really many of those.  I spend a lot more time talking about where ideas came from and why we did what we did, but threw in a few funny stories.

I personally think the idea of a young Balrog pouring oil on himself and hitting himself on the head with a torch because he can't immolate is hilarious, just like I think the idea of a flying vampire getting hit by another vampire, being drained two levels, and turning into a mummy 1000' up in the air is hilarious.

"DO you mean to tell me undead that get drained turn into other undead?"
"Only if it's funny!"

Quote from: Benoist;746751YES, some people can be really heavy with this and don't get a clue when to stop and take a deep breath to let other people speak. Some people are socially retarded, that's a fact. True. But for God's sakes, fuck the "no anecdotes, ahh those dirty gamers with their bullshit stories blah blah blah". That's just another way of pretending to be above it all and hating on gamers for being gamers, IMO.

Partly true, but also true that a funny story about a character goes over better.  I included the Ghulash story because I think it's funny.  The story (if I had one) of Ghulash killing some monsters and getting some treasure isn't funny so I didn't include it.

To some extent, "funny" is subjective.  On the other hand, after 59 years of telling funny stories, no few of which were greeted with Sad Trombone, I trust my own sense of what is and isn't funny more than I trust anybody else's.  This goes times a bazillion on the Internet, where there is a significant number of people with the same remarkable sense of humor as Mustrum Ridcully.

Quote from: One Horse Town;746726Anecdotes are the meat of a memoir. So in terms of Geezer's book, they are part and parcel of it.

Anyone saying any differently is basically loading up their 'take an easy pot-shot at Old Geezer' catapult.

Or has the sense of humor of a wire coat hanger.

I'm sure there are people who don't find the idea of a young Balrog getting so frustrated he uses a torch and oil to immolate funny.

That's their character defect, not mine.

Quote from: One Horse Town;746726Anecdotes are the meat of a memoir. So in terms of Geezer's book, they are part and parcel of it.

Anyone saying any differently is basically loading up their 'take an easy pot-shot at Old Geezer' catapult.

Anecdotes of your experiences playing at the dawn of D&D absolutely. That is why we are buying the book. Anecdotes about a character you played back in the dawn of the hobby not so much.

Quote from: Fiasco;746794Anecdotes of your experiences playing at the dawn of D&D absolutely. That is why we are buying the book. Anecdotes about a character you played back in the dawn of the hobby not so much.

Unless that character went on to be a famous Iconic PC from Greyhawk or something, yes.

Quote from: Fiasco;746794Anecdotes of your experiences playing at the dawn of D&D absolutely. That is why we are buying the book. Anecdotes about a character you played back in the dawn of the hobby not so much.

I dunno.  It gives insight into how the game was played "back then", which I find pretty damn interesting.

Quote from: Old Geezer;746778I'm sure there are people who don't find the idea of a young Balrog getting so frustrated he uses a torch and oil to immolate funny.

That's their character defect, not mine.

Are you sure about that? Because...

(http://mattcrossman.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/our_large1.gif)

Digging this old thread up because I had to post the below link somewhere.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;691990If I were interested in a masturbatory quest for self aggrandizement I'd write a book about model railroading.

A guy kept a massive collection in a two-floor house with full-time staff to look after it, sworn to secrecy.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-28/rare-model-train-collection-donated-ipswich-museum/8100116

I wonder if we'll ever see the gamer equivalent of this? One of those freaky cunts from the acaeum.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;937417Digging this old thread up because I had to post the below link somewhere.



A guy kept a massive collection in a two-floor house with full-time staff to look after it, sworn to secrecy.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-28/rare-model-train-collection-donated-ipswich-museum/8100116

I wonder if we'll ever see the gamer equivalent of this? One of those freaky cunts from the acaeum.

I know somebody who has an entire warehouse full of model engines, all the expensive brass ones that range from about $500 to $2000 US.  He buys them, opens the box to look at them once, and puts them in his warehouse.

Different strokes and all, I guess.

Are you still writing your book? For the record, the parts that interested me most out of the table of contents were all the "unstated assumption" chapters.

And I echo sentiments to find out more details, since it's like when you tell your friends a story about something that happened to you. You generally set the stage for what's going on, spelling out all the details, getting them into the same mood you were, making it as if they were there. Since the culture of D&D is so different today, it's like taking a trip back through time to a different place, rather than just hearing about a character's adventure. Though that's good too. But the parts that stand out are the parts associated with the time period.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;937465Are you still writing your book? For the record, the parts that interested me most out of the table of contents were all the "unstated assumption" chapters.

I wouldn't say the most, but those sure rank highly in my estimate, too:).

I've temporarily lost enthusiasm for the project.  I hope to regain it some time.  A lot of it is due to being in a sucky situation in the rest of my life, part of it is that writing is easy but editing is hard... I've got something like 33 only loosely related chunks of text and now comes the hard part of making them a coherent whole.

But Chirine's thread has shook loose a whole bunch more memories so that's nice.

I'm glad I took Tavis' advice not to start the Kickstarter till it's done, though.  At least nobody has any claim on me.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937532I've temporarily lost enthusiasm for the project.  I hope to regain it some time.  A lot of it is due to being in a sucky situation in the rest of my life, part of it is that writing is easy but editing is hard... I've got something like 33 only loosely related chunks of text and now comes the hard part of making them a coherent whole.

....

OK, I will bite, what would be wrong about editing 33 vaguely related chunks of text into some essays and publishing it as a book of autobiographical essays on the subject.  I think that could be very interesting.

Reaching back to this:  

QuoteThis particular segment is an anecdote about troubles one of my characters had. I personally find the idea of a low level Balrog failing to immolate and getting so frustrated he pours oil on himself and bops himself with a torch to be freakin' hilarious. Yes, the other players thought it was funny too,

I read this as the thread reactivated, and found it sufficiently funny that I plan to borrow it when I referee one of my games some time to provide some comic relief.  I already have an entreprenurial orc who has conned the player characters out of a magical bear that, ahem, 'generates' silver coins; this would be a perfect addition.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937532I've temporarily lost enthusiasm for the project.  I hope to regain it some time.  A lot of it is due to being in a sucky situation in the rest of my life, part of it is that writing is easy but editing is hard... I've got something like 33 only loosely related chunks of text and now comes the hard part of making them a coherent whole.

But Chirine's thread has shook loose a whole bunch more memories so that's nice.

I'm glad I took Tavis' advice not to start the Kickstarter till it's done, though.  At least nobody has any claim on me.

Ah, my General; I didn't know that this thread even existed until I came home from work today and saw it.

Read through the whole thing, and laughed until the tears poured off my face and onto the keyboard. You're getting almost the exact same reactions I've gotten with my own little effort ("To Serve The Petal Throne", 127,000 words at the moment) with almost the dead same quotes from people. I've also had the same issues with my writing rubbed in my face, what with being told that an account of yours and my adventures with some of our friends in a cramped little basement room is BADWRONGFUN and I need to provide information on the smelly little cheroots Phil used to set himself on fire with, or the colors of Dave Arneson's plaid shirt.

I've said the same thing you have; neither of us is writing our versions of Jon's book. You're telling about your time Back In The Beginning with Gary, Dave, and Phil - and a few others of us as well. (I can grill Wollan for information, by the way, when I see him Saturday; I usually give him a ride home.) I'm telling stories about some dickweed in a funny hat who gets into all sorts of nasty scrapes, along with some soldier guy he knows and their friend the Killer Princess. (And some others, too.) Nothing more serious, and nothing less.

Write your book the way you want to write it. Like Somebody said, "no gaming is better then bad gaming". People will like it and/or hate it no matter what you write.

And, having expressed my encouragement: I showed you mine; wanna show me yours? :)

And I understand the pause in the work, too; I'm in the same boat, with the Missus having just had a new biopsy. Take your time; write when you can, as you can, and we'll be here when you're ready.

Courage, my General. We've both had worse happen and still survived.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;937417Digging this old thread up because I had to post the below link somewhere.



A guy kept a massive collection in a two-floor house with full-time staff to look after it, sworn to secrecy.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-28/rare-model-train-collection-donated-ipswich-museum/8100116

I wonder if we'll ever see the gamer equivalent of this? One of those freaky cunts from the acaeum.

Try my Photobucket page, and look at the photos of my game room. :)

God willing, I'll be here when your book is ready for prime time OG. In the meantime, I placed an order for Playing at the World and that should keep me busy until then.

Quote from: TristramEvans;698673Yes, hence the "On the nose" part. Though I think I prefer Bowie as the leader of a secret organization of retired rockstars that use thier vast fortunes and flair for the dramatic to stage an elaborate game of super villains vs duper scientists in conjunction with an elite-but-outdated wing of the US Military.

As for Halflings, I nominate Cyndi Lauper and Elvis Costello as patron dirties. MEWa

No, that spot belongs to Prince.  Maybe Axl Rose.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937532I've temporarily lost enthusiasm for the project.  I hope to regain it some time.  A lot of it is due to being in a sucky situation in the rest of my life, part of it is that writing is easy but editing is hard... I've got something like 33 only loosely related chunks of text and now comes the hard part of making them a coherent whole.

But Chirine's thread has shook loose a whole bunch more memories so that's nice.

I'm glad I took Tavis' advice not to start the Kickstarter till it's done, though.  At least nobody has any claim on me.

I'm sorry to hear about the problems, Glorious General!
(And, I'm not going to lie, I'm also sorry to hear about them leading to the book being late. But at least I can say it's not only that!)

I'd also ask the same question as wombat1. What's the issue with publishing 33 essays on your time back in Lake Geneva? People are doing that:).

And a story is what you get after the session is over, may I remind you;). You don't need to massage your story to make it fit someone's preconceived notions.

Here's another chapter you might find amusing, Chirine.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

UNSTATED ASSUMPTIONS – D&D AND TRACTICS

Another one of the games we played a lot was TRACICS, a WW2 miniatures wargame. Wargamers being wargamers, WW2 wargames means tanks. And much like CHAINMAIL influenced D&D and how we played it, TRACTICS also influenced how we played D&D.

If you do any research at all on armored combat, one thing you find out very quickly is how limited visibility is inside a tank. From the first World War One experiments right up until today, observation has been extremely important to tanks. It’s not surprising that wargames based on tanks would have rules about observation. Virtually every WW2 game I’ve ever played uses some sort of observation rule, whether it’s dummy markers, or dice rolls to spot, or a variety of other methods. What TRACTICS uses is an “observation path.”

In TRACTICS, a single vehicle can observe a path 4” wide, from the center of the vehicle to the edge of the board. Anything in that path is seen, unless it is behind trees, behind a hill, or similarly concealed. This may sound like a lot. We played TRACTICS on a 5 by 8 foot table, though. Go measure out a 5 by 8 foot area, pick a random spot, and measure a 4” path. You’ll see that a LOT of area is NOT being observed.

You can only shoot at what you see, and the other side can only shoot at you if they see you. It doesn’t take much to figure out how vital observation is in this sort of game, and that is exactly the case; learning where to look to anticipate enemy units, how to look with various units to maximize coverage, and how to take advantage of concealment, were major portions of the play of the game.

This carried over into D&D in a couple of ways. First, we were used to being very careful about where we were looking, and specifying it exactly. Even though we weren’t limited to a 4” wide path, we assumed that observation was important. Possibly the most famous instance of this is Terry Kuntz, who, every time he stepped through an opening, would announce “I look up and down and all around.” Opening a door and then saying “We look around before we enter” was second nature. If you just went blundering in, you deserved whatever happened to you. (Note that this is not the same as the referee saying “You didn’t say that you were looking specifically for a black dragon on top of a pile of gold, so you didn’t see it and it kills you.” The technical term for that is “the referee is an asshole.”)

The other major effect that TRACTICS had on us was that “you can’t anticipate everything.” When you only have a 4” wide path to observe on a 40 square foot board, there WILL be areas that are not under observation. Sometimes, the first clue you would have that there were enemy forces around is when your lead tank blew up. Not only that, but unless one of the surviving units was observing the right place, you had no guarantee of seeing the enemy even after they opened fire. Nothing like spending two or three turns of frantic scrambling as your tanks are getting picked off, trying to figure out where the HELL the enemy is!

Also, one thing you learn about tank combat is that armor does not make you invulnerable. It increases the difficulty of the enemy destroying a unit, but no matter what vehicle you have – yes, even a Tiger II or Jagdtiger – if the enemy wants it destroyed badly enough, they will destroy it. So when we were down in the dungeon, the notion that, for instance, poison could kill you no matter what didn’t seem out of line to us. Nothing was certain; everything carried some modicum of risk.

This meant that in D&D we had a certain bit of fatalism in our attitude. There were precautions you could take, and nobody wanted to die by being a dolt – like Goose says in “Top Gun,” “The Department of Defense regrets to inform you that your sons have been killed because they were stupid.” But ultimately we knew that, no matter how careful we were, no matter what precautions we took, there was always a chance that the first clue we would have that there was something dangerous would be the referee’s words of “Roll a saving throw.”

Sometimes, you don’t know the enemy is there until the lead unit dies.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937626Sometimes, you don’t know the enemy is there until the lead unit dies.

In Squad Leader, to form a scout a squad must first pass a morale check. That's right there is why.

Chirine and Gronan; you both ought to combine both of your books into one!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937626Here's another chapter you might find amusing, Chirine.

UNSTATED ASSUMPTIONS – D&D AND TRACTICS.

Yes; this. Interestingly, I had almost this exact same exposition with the D&D group I played with. They were discussing the 'marching order' - although they didn't use that particular term - and I spoke up and suggested that we have a couple of people hang back as a rearguard to both keep a lookout for anything and to provide the rest of the party with some warning if we got jumped from the rear. I also - since it was my idea - volunteered to be one of the 'trailers'. The players hadn't , I gathered, thought a lot about this concept, and I pointed out that by keeping the rest of the party under observation - what we used to call 'traveling overwatch', actually - the party would also have a reserve to meet any attack from the front; there was some concern expressed that the trailers wouldn't get any action or XP from the game session.

So, of course, while the party is dealing with a nasty surprise to the front, we got jumped from the rear by a couple of much higher-level orcs. I got killed, and the player with me badly wounded, but the rest of the party had been keeping their us under observation and came thundering back down the passage to rescue us. It all worked fine; one player asked me how I felt about it, and I pointed out that while I was dead, the rest of the party was alive and able to carry me out of the dungeon.

There were a lot of very thoughtful looks, after all this...

So, yes; there is risk, but it can be minimized by things like 'observation'.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;937771there was some concern expressed that the trailers wouldn't get any action or XP from the game session.

Jesus Wept.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;937771It all worked fine; one player asked me how I felt about it, and I pointed out that while I was dead, the rest of the party was alive and able to carry me out of the dungeon.

There were a lot of very thoughtful looks, after all this...

While I guess it is gratifying to see the lightbulb go on...that is tempered by the realization that you had to tell people they were in the dark and that light was the solution.

It's to be expected. Most games, whether board games like monopoly or computer games like Civilization or Call of Duty, have the player as Lone Warrior. Unless you've played chess or some wargame, or had experience in the military or a team sport, you just won't have the concept of specialists working together, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, and so on.

A related issue is players having no concept of unit cohesion and morale. In computer games like Fallout 4 or the old Command & Conquer, everyone fights to the last man. This is related to the software limitations etc, plus people like to shoot and blow shit up. Nothing wrong with that, except that the player comes in thinking of killing the enemy rather than defeating him.

This also ties in with computer games having people be automatically enemy - they just start shooting at whoever goes past. Mindless killers have no morale, and you can't reason or bargain with them, you just have to kill them.

"Kill them all!" requires less tactical savvy than "defeat them." So the emphasis turns to dealing shitloads of damage rather than other stuff.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937626This carried over into D&D in a couple of ways. First, we were used to being very careful about where we were looking, and specifying it exactly. Even though we weren't limited to a 4" wide path, we assumed that observation was important. Possibly the most famous instance of this is Terry Kuntz, who, every time he stepped through an opening, would announce "I look up and down and all around."

If a player did that at my table... well I probably couldn't keep from laughing. Are we to assume that the characters are willfully not observant until the player declares it?  What else do they have to declare? It sounds like the kind of

QuoteOpening a door and then saying "We look around before we enter" was second nature. If you just went blundering in, you deserved whatever happened to you. (Note that this is not the same as the referee saying "You didn't say that you were looking specifically for a black dragon on top of a pile of gold, so you didn't see it and it kills you." The technical term for that is "the referee is an asshole.")

thing you bring up here. There are better ways to judge perception and observation than requiring some rote "I look at things" statement every time there's a scene change.

PBEM Diplomacy is good practice for that aspect of D&D. My favorite strategy is to goad people into quitting out of despair which is as close as you can get to a morale check in multiplayer gaming.

Quote from: Daztur;937812PBEM Diplomacy is good practice for that aspect of D&D. My favorite strategy is to goad people into quitting out of despair which is as close as you can get to a morale check in multiplayer gaming.

I once won a campaign by making the enemy player in charge fail a morale check.

We were playing a long term campaign using Avalon Hill's "Starship Troopers" for tactical combat.  We had done everything we needed to do except take the spaceport.  So, I decided to stop mucking about and drop my entire force on the spacecraft -- an entire COMPANY of Mobile Infantry.  (minus 2 squads total worth of KIA and wounded inactive.)

The referee told the player when the first ship arrived in orbit and started firing capsules from all tubes.  For the next three or four turns more ships arrived, all pooting capsules like crazy.  Once all the Terran ships were up there (we had long ago destroyed his space defenses) all shooting capsules, the Skinny commander looked at me with an expression of utter horror and said "Good Lord! You're dropping the entire company!"

The Skinnies surrendered before my commander had blown his capsule.

Quote from: Daztur;937812My favorite strategy is to goad people into quitting out of despair which is as close as you can get to a morale check in multiplayer gaming.

You sound like a fun guy to game with.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;937837You sound like a fun guy to game with.

Hey. It's Diplomacy. I'm a mushy carebear by Diplomacy standards. I barely ever stab people (on average maybe slightly less than one abject betrayal per game?), but when I stab I want to make sure I really draw blood.

In Diplomacy a determined and intelligent and player with a good position can take FOREVER to grind down if you're hitting them 2 v 1. Diplomacy works pretty damn well at modeling WW I fronts. Hitting them 3 v 1 so they quit immediately makes things so much easier.

I loved both the immolation failure story and the Tractics comparison. This is gold. A few thoughts...

Quote from: chirine ba kal;937581You're getting almost the exact same reactions I've gotten with my own little effort ("To Serve The Petal Throne", 127,000 words at the moment) with almost the dead same quotes from people. I've also had the same issues with my writing rubbed in my face, what with being told that an account of yours and my adventures with some of our friends in a cramped little basement room is BADWRONGFUN and I need to provide information on the smelly little cheroots Phil used to set himself on fire with, or the colors of Dave Arneson's plaid shirt.

I think there's a desire for there to be a Big Secret Truth (TM) to the creation of D&D (and EPT) and people want to be in on the secret. I think the idea that it was mere mortals taking existing game knowledge and making something 'we thought would be fun' is anticlimactic. Just like people keep pouring through the Silmarillion/Pottermore trying to find something that will enhance their enjoyment of LotR/Harry Potter.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;937795It's to be expected. Most games, whether board games like monopoly or computer games like Civilization or Call of Duty, have...

Quote from: Ratman_tf;937797If a player did that at my table... well I probably couldn't keep from laughing. Are we to assume that the characters are willfully not observant until the player declares it?  What else do they have to declare? It sounds like the kind of...
thing you bring up here. There are better ways to judge perception and observation than requiring some rote "I look at things" statement every time there's a scene change.

I think these two are related. People, in general, adapt to the game that they realize they are playing. I've met a few truly stupid people playing wargames and TTRPGs, but not many, and even fewer natural geniuses (or geniuses at the games, if they are geniuses in the rest of their lives, that's their business). It's much more about personal experience. If the game makes all moving sprites on the screen enemies you have to kill, it's not stupidity that makes people not try diplomacy, it's playing into the expectations of what kind of game they are playing. Take people used to that and start them playing dungeon crawls where they can do things other than fight things they meet (to the death) and where they have to declare when they are carefully looking for danger, and they will mess it up until they learn the new parameters of the new game.

I rarely declare that my character is looking up, down, and around when going through a door, but I do specify "okay, we're going to be moving through these rooms slowly and carefully, looking for traps and creatures hiding, etc., because we know this area is occupied, and we know they know we are coming." So kinda presetting the expectation that my character is looking around and being more careful than when, I don't know, chasing down a corridor after an enemy I can't let inform his reinforcements.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937626Here's another chapter you might find amusing, Chirine....
 It’s not surprising that wargames based on tanks would have rules about observation. Virtually every WW2 game I’ve ever played uses some sort of observation rule, whether it’s dummy markers, or dice rolls to spot, or a variety of other methods. What TRACTICS uses is an “observation path.”...

I've never actually read the Tractics rules. Given that this is set up on a sand-table where you personally can see the tanks behind hills and off to the sides where your tank can't see, is there a mechanism for not being able to act on information that your tanks don't have?

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;937585God willing, I'll be here when your book is ready for prime time OG. In the meantime, I placed an order for Playing at the World and that should keep me busy until then.

It's a good read. I think Pundy's concern from the beginning of the thread turned out not to be the case. It certainly helped fill in the gaps for me about what was the state of gaming (and the publications that were occurring, etc.) at the time that Chainmail/D&D was being devised.

While I am sure there are folks looking for the secret sauce of the origins of D&D, I think these antedotes and stories are invaluable for bringing out the human side of how D&D was developed. That this is what most are looking for. Prior to the early 2000s what we had was a pretty sanitized view now a much more complete and more human picture is emerging. And to me that is what interesting.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;937869I rarely declare that my character is looking up, down, and around when going through a door, but I do specify "okay, we're going to be moving through these rooms slowly and carefully, looking for traps and creatures hiding, etc., because we know this area is occupied, and we know they know we are coming." So kinda presetting the expectation that my character is looking around and being more careful than when, I don't know, chasing down a corridor after an enemy I can't let inform his reinforcements.

Yeah. general declarations by situation are understandable. I do assume that every character is being as perceptive as the situation warrants. And sometimes there are tradeoffs, like sprinting after someone or slowing down and checking things out. A character really couldn't do both in that case.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;937869I've never actually read the Tractics rules. Given that this is set up on a sand-table where you personally can see the tanks behind hills and off to the sides where your tank can't see, is there a mechanism for not being able to act on information that your tanks don't have?

I haven't revised this chapter yet, and you're the second person to ask.

In TRACTICS there is ALWAYS a referee.  He either marks movement on the map or puts the minis on and takes them off again until spotted.  Only once a miniature is spotted is it left on the table for the other team to see.

Fiddly, yes, but EXTREMELY effective.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937927I haven't revised this chapter yet, and you're the second person to ask.

In TRACTICS there is ALWAYS a referee.  He either marks movement on the map or puts the minis on and takes them off again until spotted.  Only once a miniature is spotted is it left on the table for the other team to see.

Fiddly, yes, but EXTREMELY effective.

Which was why you kept your eyeballs peeled and looked around a lot; we normally indicated to the GM who was looking where, and the guy seeing the opposition would be able to get on his radio to blab to everybody else that there was a Tiger under the Pink Tree Of Death (which see) and then we'd deal with it. Which also, if I may make an aside, is why early war scenarios with the scarcity of radios made for some pretty exciting games - see also my misadventures with my little tank, a Pz. I with no radio and a pair of colored flags to let my boys know that the damn British had bought some new-fangled Yankee tank with a honking big gun on it. (I knew this from the size of the shell bursts landing around me, thank you.)

We ported this over into Tekumel, playing with Phil; we assumed, as anyone would from a reading of EPT, that everything was out to get us and we needed to be on our guard accordingly.

Looks like approximately 32 chapters, of which 8 will be humorous stories.

Not a bad ratio to my mind.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937927In TRACTICS there is ALWAYS a referee.  He either marks movement on the map or puts the minis on and takes them off again until spotted.  Only once a miniature is spotted is it left on the table for the other team to see.

Shit, this brings back a memory of not paying close attention to just how many cavalry formations moved out of sight behind a hill in a Napoleonics battle - I thought it was a screening force, and when they appeared on the edge of the battlefield in something like brigade strength, there wasn't a gawdamn thing I could go except watch them roll up my flank like an old newspaper and beat me over the head with it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937927I haven't revised this chapter yet, and you're the second person to ask.

In TRACTICS there is ALWAYS a referee.  He either marks movement on the map or puts the minis on and takes them off again until spotted.  Only once a miniature is spotted is it left on the table for the other team to see.

Fiddly, yes, but EXTREMELY effective.

I knew it was something along those lines. Perhaps when this sees print, a two-sentence description of Tractics could go in a little box at the beginning of the chapter to head off these questions.

Looking forward to seeing more.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938357Shit, this brings back a memory of not paying close attention to just how many cavalry formations moved out of sight behind a hill in a Napoleonics battle - I thought it was a screening force, and when they appeared on the edge of the battlefield in something like brigade strength, there wasn't a gawdamn thing I could go except watch them roll up my flank like an old newspaper and beat me over the head with it.

It's a pisser, innit?

Seems more and more modern wargamers are unaware that older wargames had referees.

Quote from: Omega;938458Seems more and more modern wargamers are unaware that older wargames had referees.

This. A million fucking times. The historical ignorance in gaming about gaming is astounding.

This tempts me to write a revisionist history of wargaming that explains how Games Workshop invented table top wargaming and miniatures and Wizards of the Coast created D&D from whole cloth and Lord of the Rings was a derivative of Warhammer which ripped off Warcraft.

Quote from: David Johansen;938465This tempts me to write a revisionist history of wargaming that explains how Games Workshop invented table top wargaming and miniatures and Wizards of the Coast created D&D from whole cloth and Lord of the Rings was a derivative of Warhammer which ripped off Warcraft.

Reminds me of the appalling moment where someone on the Buck Rogers serial forum accused Buck Rogers of ripping off Star Wars opening narrative crawl... Someone else was accusing Micro Man of ripping off Transformers... (insert your god/goddess/Great-Old-One here) wept.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938402It's a pisser, innit?

It was a lesson learned, to be sure.

Quote from: Omega;938458Seems more and more modern wargamers are unaware that older wargames had referees.

How much "older" are you talking?  I got into Avalon Hill and SPI hex-and-chit games in the late 70s and very few of those had referees.  I remember refereed play as being an optional rule in a few of them, but it was never presented as the standard method in any of the ones I saw.

Meant the idea in general. Not that it was prevalent or the norm. Though used to see it fairly often at conventions way back.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;938462This. A million fucking times. The historical ignorance in gaming about gaming is astounding.

It's hardly surprising. Not being a wargamer, I'm not a good example, but I only knew it happened (not for Tractics specifically) from Playing at the World, which is a wargaming history only as it pertains to its' main subject. Baring having someone familiar with the 'way things were' in their FLGS telling them, I don't know where the avenue of learning would be.

History of Wargaming (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=history+of+wargaming)

On a more serious note look up books by Tony Bath (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Tony+Bath&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3ATony+Bath) or Donald Featherstone (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=donald+featherstone&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Adonald+featherstone).

HG Well Little Wars (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3691), and Fletcher Pratt's Naval Wargaming (https://www.amazon.com/Fletcher-Pratts-Wargame-Wargaming-1900-1945/dp/1447518551/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483538354&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Fletcher+Pratt+navel+wargame) are also recommended.

Sure, but what is the incentive structure to do so?
Let's say I am a 14 year old who just started wargaming. For the sake of argument, I didn't learn from a parent who might know this stuff, but instead picked it up because my friends played. Now I'm rolling dice at my FLGS playing some modern wargame (probably Warhammer). What leads me to say, "I wonder what this game evolved from?"

I know how it happens for RPGs (or at least how I got interested). There's a large online community which compares older and newer games (both editions of the 'same game' and between games). That got me interested in pre-BECMI D&D and the history of how the game developed. Is there (and I'm honestly asking, because I don't know) any similar cultural structure that would make a newer wargamer want to investigate what came before, such that they would discover things like whether there were refereed wargames at a given time?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;938515Sure, but what is the incentive structure to do so?

The incentive to not be this asshat, maybe?

(http://i567.photobucket.com/albums/ss115/Black_Vulmea/think_logically_zpst84uqtm3.png)

The curious will follow path of the true mongoose (https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/359486-rikki-tikki-tavi), and the incurious will wallow in their ignorance like the pigs in shit they are.

Yeah, I'm not really thinking about the occasional douche who has no knowledge of something, but still feels the need to prattle on about it like an expert. I'm thinking of the general individual involved in wargaming (the 'man on the street' of this instance). What's their motivation to find out what 'wargaming product X, released in year Y' was like?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;938515Sure, but what is the incentive structure to do so?
Let's say I am a 14 year old who just started wargaming. For the sake of argument, I didn't learn from a parent who might know this stuff, but instead picked it up because my friends played. Now I'm rolling dice at my FLGS playing some modern wargame (probably Warhammer). What leads me to say, "I wonder what this game evolved from?"

Granted internet coverage isn't 100% but for most the answer to any question is a search away.  If there is a problem is that they lack the context to ask the right question to get the answer they want. But for your specific point my flippant answer still stands.

What game did wargaming evolve from. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+game+did+wargames+evolved+from)

I seen this in action with my both of sons one born in the late 1990s and the other in the middle of the 2000s. Not specifically for wargaming but for other obscure topics related to their interests. Since the debut of smartphones and tablets is a trivial thing to do for many. And for most they just need to remember to look when they get home. For the few that have no personal access to the internet, there is the public library.

This is assuming you live in the United States.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;938515I know how it happens for RPGs (or at least how I got interested). There's a large online community which compares older and newer games (both editions of the 'same game' and between games). That got me interested in pre-BECMI D&D and the history of how the game developed. Is there (and I'm honestly asking, because I don't know) any similar cultural structure that would make a newer wargamer want to investigate what came before, such that they would discover things like whether there were refereed wargames at a given time?

Your fallacy is assuming that your life experience with gaming is typical. It isn't. Nobody is "typical". It is a diverse hobby. Wargaming likewise is a diverse hobby. What wargaming "is" depends on the circumstances just like what RPGs are is dependent on circumstance. I dealt with enough different group of tabletop gamers to know that I don't know everything there is about either hobby. That there are pockets doing things that I am 100% not aware of. That what I experience is not representative of what the majority of hobbyist experience.

What I do know that that a larger social force, the Internet, has made the answer to your question straightforward. Just use the internet to do research. It will either lead you to the answer or to the people that know the answer. Niches of narrow interests will require more extensive searching but the steps are the same.

So the question whether the "culture" of a hobby foster introspection about its past is irrelevant. What matters is the willingness of the individual to seek the answer. There may not be an authority on the past of a hobby. In which case you will have to do original research. Which is harder but again the ongoing development of the Internet makes this way easier than if you were to do this in 1977, 1987 or 1997.

How we know so much about the past of RPG is in part due to two things. The willingness of Gygax, Arneson, and other to participate on forums telling stories of back in the day and answering question. And the community that grew around D&D collection at the Acaeum. The former generated the raw interest, the latter provided the foundation to do research on primary documents like with Jon Peterson's Playing at the World.

Wargaming likewise has the History of Wargaming group and the efforts of various groups to reprint Featherstone's, and Bath's works. And as a side bonus, since the origins of RPGs is so wrapped up in the origins of miniature wargaming, stuff done with one helps with learning about the other.

Quote from: estar;938527What I do know that that a larger social force, the Internet, has made the answer to your question straightforward. Just use the internet to do research. It will either lead you to the answer or to the people that know the answer. Niches of narrow interests will require more extensive searching but the steps are the same.

So the question whether the "culture" of a hobby foster introspection about its past is irrelevant. What matters is the willingness of the individual to seek the answer. There may not be an authority on the past of a hobby. In which case you will have to do original research. Which is harder but again the ongoing development of the Internet makes this way easier than if you were to do this in 1977, 1987 or 1997.

I guess I haven't explained myself well. You've shown how answering the question for oneself has become quite easy. What I'm trying to establish is what would make someone decide that they wanted to answer said question for themselves.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;938528I guess I haven't explained myself well. You've shown how answering the question for oneself has become quite easy. What I'm trying to establish is what would make someone decide that they wanted to answer said question for themselves.

Exactly. Why, and who cares?

If you're playing chess (as in the funny but not relevant comic), it's more like why would you expect or need to research ancient Indonesian stone throwing games that might be a precursor

Quote from: Willie the Duck;938528I guess I haven't explained myself well. You've shown how answering the question for oneself has become quite easy. What I'm trying to establish is what would make someone decide that they wanted to answer said question for themselves.

It simple, individual temperament or opportunity.

Opportunity is where the "culture" of the group comes into play by the virtue of people talking about the history of their hobby. There is no great mystery about this in either RPGs, Wargaming, Marble Collecting, or whatever.

In this forum you got people aware of the history of RPGs and to a lesser extend wargaming. So there is a good chance that a causal gamer browsing the post will learn something about the history of either. More likely RPGs than Wargames.

But if opportunity doesn't exist then it solely based on the temperament. The willingness of the individual to take the the time to ask the question and do the search. Most people don't give a fuck and just play. For those who care, the answers are a click away.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;938528I guess I haven't explained myself well. You've shown how answering the question for oneself has become quite easy. What I'm trying to establish is what would make someone decide that they wanted to answer said question for themselves.

Some people will play Monopoly for 60 years, win or lose randomly and never really delve into how to play the game.
Other people will have a set play for every roll of the die for every location.
Others will ask themselves...why a shoe?..and look it up and find a list of all the retired Monopoly pieces over the years.

Well, that's an argument for why it isn't astounding that there are some who don't know this stuff, along with why there are some who do.

I'm not sure I had a deeper meaning to my question, but I was wondering if there was a specific introspective movement within wargaming folk, in the same way that the OSR movement kinda kindled an interest in early TTRPG history (which caused all these Playing at the World and Designers and Dragons type books to come out).

History of Wargaming (http://www.wargaming.co/)

Quote from: Willie the Duck;938545Well, that's an argument for why it isn't astounding that there are some who don't know this stuff, along with why there are some who do.

I'm not sure I had a deeper meaning to my question, but I was wondering if there was a specific introspective movement within wargaming folk, in the same way that the OSR movement kinda kindled an interest in early TTRPG history (which caused all these Playing at the World and Designers and Dragons type books to come out).

I'm not a big wargamer (even though I've done some "real wargaming" ie. some 15mm and Hex and Chit back in the day) but I think for the RPG scene it was more a case of...

• The originals and the second generation hitting their retirement or mid-life crisis years.
• The Newer versions of D&D being in 3e's case, different design methodology mechanically and in 4e's case outright hostility to earlier versions.
• WotC, as part of their forced shift to 4e, making all previous versions unavailable, really drawing their line in the sand.
• The OGL making the old stuff legal to publish again (with some paint).
• The rise of Social Media.
• The death of the hobby's best-known Founder.
• The creation of new school gaming design movements and sites like The Forge that were dismissive, hostile, and most of all, simply incorrect about earlier forms of gaming, bullshit that still persists today like the "Punishment Play" idiocy.

Throw all that together, hit blend, and you get a whole lot of people saying "Wait a minute, I know all this "common wisdom" about the old days are horseshit because that's not what I experienced, so why don't we say what really went on?" and others saying "Umm, these people are starting to die off, the origins of the hobby, without which, a huge chunk of the Billion-dollar gaming industry simply would not exist, are about to fade from living history.  It might be time to start writing shit down."

Wargamers I think are a little different in that it's not a case of being interested in a living history that is soon to be lost, or a playstyle under reactionary attack, but more a general love of history itself and the way that a historical wargame can bring understanding of that history...provided you have proper application of mechanics.  So there is interest in those mechanics, how they evolved, why they were instituted or why they were dropped.  The "Why's" matter.

Quote from: nDervish;938485How much "older" are you talking?  I got into Avalon Hill and SPI hex-and-chit games in the late 70s and very few of those had referees.  I remember refereed play as being an optional rule in a few of them, but it was never presented as the standard method in any of the ones I saw.

Many miniatures wargames assume a referee, even today.  You are right that "board games," as we called them then, do not.

I can't wait to read your book, Gronan. Sounds like it would be interested.

I've always been fascinated with the early days of RPG's and their history.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;938528I guess I haven't explained myself well. You've shown how answering the question for oneself has become quite easy. What I'm trying to establish is what would make someone decide that they wanted to answer said question for themselves.

An interest in their hobby. People who are heavily involved in something should know and love the roots and history of it - it'll make them better at it. For example, in my gym I tell them why they're called "barbells" despite not ringing, how and why iron plates and then bumper plates were invented, when and why drugs came into it, and so on. Someone who just goes to BodyPump occasionally doesn't need to know all that, but someone who comes and lifts seriously with a plan for 1-2hr 3 times a week should. Learning about that history makes you a part of it, and makes it more likely you'll still be doing this thing 10 years from now.

It makes it a more enriching experience to know the roots and history of your hobby or work, and helps you understand some of the things that, on the face of it, are a bit weird. I don't think you need to go to the Talmudic levels of guys like James M, or peruse original Blackmoor manuscripts (ie Arneson's scribbled and disorganised DM notes), but you should know a bit about it all.

All tribal cultures share history by oral story-telling. All family gatherings have the elders tell the youngsters about their own history. And you can't get six guys in a pub and put a few drinks in them without someone, as Springsteen put it, telling boring old stories of glory days. Telling stories is important. It's why we play roleplaying games.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;938565Telling stories is important. It's why we play roleplaying games.

Two minute minor for overly-broad generalizations.

Quote from: estar;938513History of Wargaming (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=history+of+wargaming)

On a more serious note look up books by Tony Bath (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Tony+Bath&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3ATony+Bath) or Donald Featherstone (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=donald+featherstone&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Adonald+featherstone).

HG Well Little Wars (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3691), and Fletcher Pratt's Naval Wargaming (https://www.amazon.com/Fletcher-Pratts-Wargame-Wargaming-1900-1945/dp/1447518551/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483538354&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Fletcher+Pratt+navel+wargame) are also recommended.

Oddly enough I do not recall Palmers "Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming" mentioning referees at all?

Quote from: Omega;938571Oddly enough I do not recall Palmers "Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming" mentioning referees at all?

See post 216.