Versimilitude wrote:Hi,the illustrations look like more than one hand.Cheers,KAL
SimperingToad wrote:I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility of being a fan-made work. The text resembles something that comes off the standard typrwriter; monospace font, left justified, right-ragged. The other fonts are easily done via press-type (basically rub-on transfers) or each letter being set by hand from a series of tabs (I don't recall the name of this); in either case, it might mean the person involved had access to publishing material like I did when I was in High School working on the school newspaper.With regards to illustrating a fan-made work, I used to do this sometimes when making my own adventures back in the early '80s, so I don't see it as being highly unusual. Merely very absorbed in doing a project 'properly.' :DSomeone's take on 'how-it-should-be', maybe intended to be sent to Gary/Dave for consideration, but never done?
increment wrote:No one is really providing an alternative explanation for the points about the rules I raised on my blog (which, again, are only examples among many others) - skeptical discussion here to date has just been about the pictures and the production quality. To argue that this is a 'how-it-should-be,' you need to argue from the rules, not from the pictures. Explaining the examples I provided would be a good start.
No one is really providing an alternative explanation for the points about the rules I raised on my blog
darkseraphim wrote:increment wrote:No one is really providing an alternative explanation for the points about the rules I raised on my blog (which, again, are only examples among many others) - skeptical discussion here to date has just been about the pictures and the production quality. To argue that this is a 'how-it-should-be,' you need to argue from the rules, not from the pictures. Explaining the examples I provided would be a good start.Well, I don't see how we can make any theoretical contributions or do any research without (a) a copy of the manuscript and/or (b) a report from Phil Barker's archivist on his EPT development box contents. We're really not in any position yet to refute or agree to anything, because there is no basis on which to form an objective opinion of the material at hand.Because the material is not at hand.Unless I'm missing something, we (the non-Jon, non-Paul, non-Jeff, non-Dan "we") have a couple scanned pages and some scanned artwork, correct? Isn't the next step, given that sparsity, simply to see what Jeff comes up with?
red_bus wrote:(4) it looks like in some places it is more extensive than the 1st print rules, and in some places less extensive. It will be hard to argue from that position that it predates the rules or was drafted at the same time (or slightly later). Because: - Where it is more extensive, that can be both an argument for being: (a) a homemade player-copy where the author has added in more information to his homebrew version, or (b) being a test version that had the information dropped from the final rules.- Where it is less extensive, that can also be both an argument for being: (a) a homemade player-copy that omitted information, or (b) a test version, where the extra information was added to the final rules.Without someone who was there at the time laying claim to this as a test version, or finding another test version to compare it to, I worry we will go round & round with speculation ...although that would be fun too :D
increment wrote:Also a quick aside: I hope, even if I'm not winning any quick converts here, that people at find the general argument interesting and would like to see more here about the sorts of posts I've put up. If that isn't the case, do let me know (privately if you like) and I'll stop reflecting this material here.