harami2000 wrote:Paul; why did you advertise the Mystic Rules, thus? ...I'm almost certain you've just stripped out the third page from the back of the first installment of Steve's "Cupric Text" (for $ reasons) and left Mike with one page TOTALLY out of any context.
stormber wrote:Your posts take the tone that I am engaged in some sort of nefarious chicanery. That is the furthest notion from truth. I brought this material to the collecting community as a collectable, that's it. Steve and I decided that whatever happened to the materials happened. He invested much of his time in it and has since moved on to other pursuits.
stormber wrote:Remember, this stuff is still his intellectual property, regardless of whom may have the physical artifacts.
harami2000 wrote:stormber wrote:Remember, this stuff is still his intellectual property, regardless of whom may have the physical artifacts.With regards the Cupric Text material, Steve's cover note states "Unless otherwise noted all material herein may be used by anyone for any purpose".
improvstone wrote:harami2000 wrote:With regards the Cupric Text material, Steve's cover note states "Unless otherwise noted all material herein may be used by anyone for any purpose".Paul, both your comments and Steve's own words seem to contradict each other. So, rather then discussing on this forum could you please PM me Steve's contact details. I would like to have a chat with Steve directly with regard to IP prior to persuing the development of the Manual further.David, please note that even though I have been quiet I have still been listening (just very disappointed with the amount of noise on this forum recently). As I stated awhile ago I am undertaking an assessment of the material prior to any decision to publish. You should go a bit easier on Paul. I don't believe he intended any malace. Just to add some controversy ... after viewing the material I believe one of the biggest reasons for the manual not being published was NOT Gary leaving TSR but rather Gary's procrastination with regard to its publication.All, to date the interest I have received on this forum with regard to releasing the Manual has been minimal (A big thanks to those who did say they wanted one). A greater show of hands (please) would help convice me that this is a viable venture.
harami2000 wrote:With regards the Cupric Text material, Steve's cover note states "Unless otherwise noted all material herein may be used by anyone for any purpose".
FoulFoot wrote:I would think most of us here would be up for buying a copy. Though I wouldn't think it'd be a factor in whether it's published or not -- if it's going to be a professionally-made hardback manual cranked out on a commercial press, we're talking thousands of copies. Maybe 10,000 as a minimum order. So I'd think that it's a much bigger business decision than just a few dozen orders from The Acaeum. Now, if we're talking about a PDF release or something on that scope, that's a whole different story.
mbassoc2003 wrote:There are editorial notes and corrections made to City of the Revenaunt, deletion of 'house rules', recommendations that 'passage comments be moved to the back of the module', and other errata.
mbassoc2003 wrote:I am trying to determine whether the manuscript was playtested and amended with notes (late '78 early '79 from discussion on another board with Steve), and then edited/reviewed by Gary (or another editor) for comment on meeting Dungeons & Dragons module publication criteria (possible during 1980?).
mbassoc2003 wrote:Steve said that he used it in his campaigns quite a lot, and that he DM'd it himself as a tournament late in '78 and during '79.
mbassoc2003 wrote:This module would appear to have been developed for Steve's own campaign universe (and house rules/gameplay style)
mbassoc2003 wrote:....and at some point in this manuscript's history, it has been thoroughly edited with a view to being published as a D&D module (and by someone with good spelling and grammer).
mbassoc2003 wrote:At what point I do not know, but it would seem to have occurred after play-testing, as some editorial comments refer to playtest notes.
mbassoc2003 wrote:The date of 'possibly 1980' was a blind stab in the dark by me.
mbassoc2003 wrote:I would like to know more about the life of this module though, and I suspect only Steve has the answers.
harami2000 wrote:You keep saying "module"... That's kinda like saying "orange spine" in the context of the Planes material! (Although you have slightly more justification, perhaps).
harami2000 wrote:Well, would you have put in a high bid if you knew it was nothing to do with Gary Gygax at all?
mbassoc2003 wrote:How would you refer to the content or the manuscript? Suggestions?
mbassoc2003 wrote:I think I would have paid what I paid for the manuscript regardless of whether Gary was involved in it's development or editing.
mbassoc2003 wrote:It is tied directly to the development of Steve's concepts of the Planes of Existance, and if I had had the opportunity to snipe on that auction, the end price would have been higher.
mbassoc2003 wrote:Besides, unless Mayfair have the original squirrelled away somewhere, or Paul took photocopies, this manuscript is unique. I think the odds are in my favour.
mbassoc2003 wrote:.... Maybe I wouldn't have won though. Mike gets what Mike wants.
improvstone wrote:Not always ... still working on the world peace thing ....
harami2000 wrote:"Scenario" sounds fine to me. Is generic enough to cover campaign scenario or adventure scenario. (Later used/revised/reworked for tourney play(?).... but am still looking for firm evidence that you've got both "old" and "new" material in there beyond the 1977 Cupric Text extract).
harami2000 wrote:*g*. OK. Suffice to say you'd've had much tougher competition, then...
harami2000 wrote:Don't know whether Mayfair ever received a copy of this in the first place. (Also don't know whether Steve got his stuff back from them; and if so, would have thought all of it must have come back given the tone of his letter!).
ElaikasesMaster of the Marsh wrote:Hmm, some of the notes are mine, I'm not sure who else played with that one (Gary did see it at one time, I don't know if he commented on it -- I did not realize I had that copy until Paul sold it -- all for the better, but that left me not quite as ready to comment on it).Spelling corrections would be an editor's work, not mine and if they are consistent with Gary's handwriting, could well be his.Gary has always spelled much better than I have (though I'm learning, finally).