Pipswich wrote:Keep up the great work and don't wander away from Acaeum. I think you are a breath of fresh air around here and causing more serious academic discussion about the games origins than I have ever seen. I am sure many of us envy your access and ability to spend so much time with original materials! I, for one, don't intend to hold that against you though, even if your theory about the origins of the DalM doesn't pan out in the long run. The point of research and discourse is not to be right, but to participate in the discussion that advances knowledge. Kudos to you!
aia wrote:Hey all, maybe i lost this detail in the whole discussion, but during the weekend i read an interesting article by Dave Arneson about the "early days"... i'd reccomend to have a look at it for it is perfect for this topic: in it even the playtest rules are mentioned...If you want to read it, pls check Different Worlds #3!ciaooo
Agent Cooper wrote:Aia,Do you know if that article is available online someplace?
aia wrote:Agent Cooper wrote:Aia,Do you know if that article is available online someplace?no, i dont know... but if youre not in hurry i can scan it and send it to you...
Chainmail to handle the combat at first. A system of magic based on ANIMAL-type, VEGETABLE-type or MINERAL-type with a hodge-podge of spells, populating the Dungeon fairly logically. (Orcs and minions on one level, etc), Magical Artifacts, Encounter Tables when the adventurers wanted to go off after bigger and better things, and so on. Is it any wonder I burned myself out! When stuff didn't work out, different things were tried, Greg Svenson, Pete Gaylord, John Snider and others began refereeing. Finally, a trip to Wisconsin and the first out of state adventure in Blackmoor, followed by screams of "we gotta have the rules!!!" Another trip, more correspondence, long distance calls (gads -- the expense!), rules were actually written down (but closely guarded by the referee and subject to change without notice if things got out of hand). And on and on…...So by word of mouth, correspondence and phone calls, it grew and grew. There was no planned growth because the growth was not forseen, the clamour for more rules was not met when material was assembled and then published to meet the demand. There was no time to wait on matters, money would not have remained available as others planned similar projects and so we struck while the iron was hot. And also, the rules suffered from the fact that they were hastily put together, in fact, my final draft version was never used because of various deadlines that had been set. But, good lord, the demand and the interest was astounding, you had to be there to believe it or not believe it!
Keith the Thief wrote: It reminds me of the work Bart Ehrman has done on early Christian manuscripts, a large part of which involves determining which manuscripts can be authentically attributed to a given historical figure (Peter, Thomas, Mary Magdelene), and which are pseudopegragphia. While I doubt you'd be able to get Dr. Ehrman to weigh in on this, have you considered trying to find a subject matter expert on manuscripts to help? (Miskatonic has a good department in this field.)
bclarkie wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D:And while I fully respect your hard work on this Jon(as well as on your book & blog), your research as it stands on this "manuscript", it is rife with confirmation bias.That's not to say that your conclusion is wrong, only that you haven't come close to proving this is really a pre-D&D manuscript.
increment wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D:Given that I initially dismissed this as preposterous, as I'm sure grodog would be happy to attest, confirmation bias probably isn't the source of any errors here. I stood nothing to gain from this being authentic, as it was thrust into my hands right after I had just published a book with a narrative that would be impacted by the authenticity of this document. If anything, I stood more to gain from adhering to my initial judgment that this was nonsense.
the method I've used throughout my work (in my book and in analyzing this manuscript) is blind to late testimony precisely because it yields these kinds of discrepancies
I think there is another possibility in Gygax's dismissal, namely, that he scanned some of the document and didn't review enough to recognize what it was
I'm surprised you react so incredulously to Arneson's honest uncertainty; over many decades I think many certainties can fade.
Early sources suggested that some of kind preliminary draft was circulated; as Gygax in 1977 remembered, "we began serious play-testing in Lake Geneva, while copies were sent to the Twin Cities and to several other groups for comment."
increment wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D:I do understand that people who haven't studied this document, and haven't studied the other early materials I refer to in connection with it, are unlikely to be persuaded by any textual argument. If I were hearing about this second hand, I'd surely be skeptical myself - and well, I was, back in the day.
increment wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D: I do however believe that I've produced a few points of evidence that show, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this document preserves system elements that predate D&D (and no, this thread is not where that analysis is presented). The elemental control devices passage is probably the simplest to grasp (2.bp.blogspot.com/-CDgUWe3En1c/UWhF5m0w ... bitK-s.jpg).
increment wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D: Even if this manuscript had never come to light, the disparity between the elemental control devices listed in the D&D elementals text and those listed among the D&D magic items would have hinted at the variants considered during the design of the game. When a manuscript appears that fits that bill, well, we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
increment wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D: A textual analysis can't prove when something was typed or when its illustrations were drawn. And any individual point of evidence can only show that a particular passage, like that elementals passage, predated the published version of the game. When you have enough pieces of evidence spread pervasively throughout the document, though, the alternative explanations become less likely. In my estimation, and again given my experience with early documents associated with the game, the other explanations for this document are far less plausible than the one I've presented.
increment wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D: While I respect that many people simply want to reserve judgment on this, I feel obliged to advocate for this document publicly, and not to allow it slip between the cracks, because we just don't have anything else like it.
increment wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D: The process of investigating this continually turns up more data about 1973, otherwise a dark ages in our understanding of the history, and more about the abiding connections between Chainmail, Blackmoor and D&D. I'm not expecting everyone to take the journey with me, but for me, it's been very rewarding.
increment wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D:The process of investigating this continually turns up more data about 1973, otherwise a dark ages in our understanding of the history...
bclarkie wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D:<snip>On top of that, your endeavor is based at initially in part on the notion that:Early sources suggested that some of kind preliminary draft was circulated; as Gygax in 1977 remembered, "we began serious play-testing in Lake Geneva, while copies were sent to the Twin Cities and to several other groups for comment."So you're at least relying on some "eyewitness testimony", which has it's issues as you note, although in the case of this last quote much closer to the time the game was produced and thus maybe more reliable.
bclarkie wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D:<snip>increment wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D: I do however believe that I've produced a few points of evidence that show, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this document preserves system elements that predate D&D (and no, this thread is not where that analysis is presented). The elemental control devices passage is probably the simplest to grasp (2.bp.blogspot.com/-CDgUWe3En1c/UWhF5m0w ... bitK-s.jpg).But this(and other examples like it) do not actually indicate anything other than the fact that whoever produced this work, had access to works that predate OD&D. Due to the fact that could be a wide variety of people, many of which would have no connection to the design of the game, that's not enough to prove that this is an early OD&D manuscript.<snip>increment wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D: A textual analysis can't prove when something was typed or when its illustrations were drawn. And any individual point of evidence can only show that a particular passage, like that elementals passage, predated the published version of the game. When you have enough pieces of evidence spread pervasively throughout the document, though, the alternative explanations become less likely. In my estimation, and again given my experience with early documents associated with the game, the other explanations for this document are far less plausible than the one I've presented. But realistically, they're not less likely amongst those who had access to the same documentation as the producer of this work(legit or not-legit). To note, comparing textual similarities/inconsistencies should be an important part of this research, it by itself is not nearly enough to stand on its own with nailing down a whole host of other variables to be considered.
increment wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D:Although I did quote Gygax on this point upstairs in this thread, I wouldn't say it's on the basis of testimony alone that I believe some kind of pre-publication version of the game circulated. It seems like a safe bet because we have pre-publication versions of other games of theirs from the era, it is widely attested by parties in both communities from basically the earliest date (as early as 1975).
increment wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D: The conclusions that I reached, I came to because I was asked to try to identify this document, and to my own satisfaction, I did. I record those conclusions and talk about them because, as I said before, it drives good research into 1973, and we need more of that. I think my conclusions are narrow ones: saying merely that this document preserves pre-D&D system is largely consistent with your skepticism, as I read it. I really do try to avoid making rash or reckless claims, but I'm comfortable with my narrow conclusions even though I freely admit there are many things about this document that we don't know now, and may never know.
increment wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D:I don't hear you challenging the contention that this document preserves some pre-D&D state, so the question is just how much.
increment wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D:Where I have to agree with you is that we could never rule out on the basis of textual evidence alone that someone other than Gygax or Arneson could have re-typed pre-publication material, preserving 99% of it, perhaps introducing minor variations in phrasing or system intentionally or by accident as they went through it. But that wouldn't make this any less a pre-publication edition of D&D to me, anyway - the FFC preserves many of Arneson's pre-publication original notes, verbatim, and they aren't any less his original notes because he shipped them to the JG who (mercifully) edited them for publication some years after D&D came out. Back in the day, many of Gygax and Arneson's pre-publication drafts were ultimately typed up or edited by others, and those parties introduced such small variations routinely. I don't think it's very unlikely that someone in Gygax or Arneson's circles typed up this document.
bclarkie wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D:2) More importantly, truth be told, without any other sort of non-published supporting documentation as a specific guideline and a basis of what to look for, I don't find it particularly compelling. The reason for this is that anyone who has/had access to the existing published material at the time could have done this.
bclarkie wrote in 1973 Pre-publication Edition of D&D: To me, without some sort of true physical tie in, one that was not published, thereby allowing anyone not involved in the actual process of the creation of OD&D to have the ability to create this document, it's still way too early to proclaim anything definitively about this document. To be honest, that breakthrough may never come, but that's not a good reason to rush to a final judgment either.
