Greyhawk Reference Sheets
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 21, 2
Author

User avatar

Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 1214
Joined: Mar 08, 2003
Last Visit: Feb 26, 2021
Location: Close to GenCon

Post Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 3:09 pm 
 

From Tim Kask:

After being hired by TSR as the first full-time employee, as opposed to Gary and Brian, owners, my first assignment was Blackmoor, the supp. following GH. As I did not start until Sept of 75, these could have been something printed up for DMs to run Con adventures before I got there. I had some like them, but who knows where I picked them up?

The con adventure I played in, and was therefore my intro to D&D, ended with our group being encased in some sort of Lucite/plastic and being lasered into bits by Deus ex Machina. I have no personal recollection of any of the speculative encounters. As I remember, there was no one scenario, or series, at the 75 GenCon. None of the others that I eavesdropped on bore any resemblance to mine. Someone might have taken it upon themselves to copy some tables and charts on their own initaitive, and share them out. What you might be seeing is just some things that happened in one Dm's adventure.

It was for GenCon 76 and Origins in Ann Arbor that we began doing satndardized, canned adventures, selling each round after it complteted. The fact that there may be a rogue word could somply reflect that someone copied a printers galley or a paste-up galley, and not a final form. As Con Dms, we did lots of shortcuts to make the game go faster, and to level the playing field as much as the vagaries of RP will allow. (One group breezes through a challenge and confounds the rest.) It was that mindset that led to the DM Screen.

Thanks to Mr. Kask for this information.

  


Active Collector

Posts: 53
Joined: May 27, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2006
Location: OD&D and OAD&D DM somewhere north of Columbus OH

Post Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:36 am 
 

Any update available on this item?

  


Active Collector

Posts: 53
Joined: May 27, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2006
Location: OD&D and OAD&D DM somewhere north of Columbus OH

Post Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:25 am 
 

Just wondering if anymore info was available.

  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Post Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:58 pm 
 

Llaurenela wrote:Just wondering if anymore info was available.

Thanks for the nudge, Llaurenela.

Having now seen these (well, 2 of 3), IRL, I'm sticking with my comments on the previous page re. being a cut-and-paste job from the T1st plates. One of the "(Addition)" phrases remains, too.

As to precisely when, who and why, my previous guesses remain as such... If all copies discovered have staple holes too, will be interesting.
And having checked further with several other woodgrain & early GH owners, definitely no indication that they were a "regular production" in the conventional sense.

JM-02c, anyhow :)

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 210
Joined: Nov 20, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 25, 2018
Location: Northeast

Post Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:42 pm 
 

Having just received Tim Kask's copy of these reference sheets, Tim's recollection from his letter of provenance suggests "These Greyhawk reference sheets are to the best of my recollection from my original box from the first set that I bought in 1974, prior to my employment by TSR.  I bought this at GenCon...."

This may help narrow some of the possibilities.  I can say these sheets match the description and scans above.  We might be able to get any additional thoughts on these from Tim.

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector

Posts: 3155
Joined: Nov 21, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 05, 2016
Location: UK

Post Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:29 am 
 

Well, we've still got 1975 GenCon on as one of the options (6th post down) for the first (or early) appearance of the sheets, which would be about right if the plate dismantling theory tallies.
Date doesn't work quiet so well with the core OD&D books are normally in that type of box, although I had noted that Mike <improv> also has a third print in the same.

Surely should have been 1974 for Tim, though, if 'before' TSR; so makes more sense that the sheets were added later with GH? :?

thx, Jeff.

  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 622
Joined: Apr 01, 2017
Last Visit: Jan 02, 2021
Location: Missouri

Post Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:40 am 
 

May need to apologize for reviving such an old Post but I thought some discussion could be useful on this since another one has come to market.

I was wondering if anyone thought since this one was found in a 5th Print Box Set with a 5th Print Greyhawk that a hole may have been blown through the theory of how the GH Reference Sheets were offered originally (with purchase of a 2nd/3rd Box Set and a 1st Print GH Supplement)

I think a clue is that 3 out of 4 of the Supplements have an identifying mark (W-3) written on them, but not the Sheets (not the 5th Print GH Supplement either which hurts the theory I'm trying to bring here). In my original club, one of the longest running DMs in the group had completely worn out her DMG (I wasn't aware of printings back then but it was a pre Revised Edition Print) so the group bought her a Revised Print which she was thrilled to get since it was updated. Where did her old one go, it was given away.

I look at this, especially since the books are in relatively good shape and the GH Ref Sheets are definitely well used, that the Box Set was the Second Set of the person and maybe the GH Supplement too. So I figure that the theory on how the GH Ref Sheets were distributed should be considered intact. Or at least, I wouldn't consider this too heavily against any other theory made before its appearance.

IMHO

** eBay auction listing blocked.  Please enable cookies in your browser for this site and for eBay! **


  

User avatar

Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor
Valuation Board

Posts: 1092
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 23, 2021
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Post Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:30 am 
 

Mister Yuk wrote in Greyhawk Reference Sheets:May need to apologize for reviving such an old Post but I thought some discussion could be useful on this since another one has come to market.

I was wondering if anyone thought since this one was found in a 5th Print Box Set with a 5th Print Greyhawk that a hole may have been blown through the theory of how the GH Reference Sheets were offered originally (with purchase of a 2nd/3rd Box Set and a 1st Print GH Supplement)

I think a clue is that 3 out of 4 of the Supplements have an identifying mark (W-3) written on them, but not the Sheets (not the 5th Print GH Supplement either which hurts the theory I'm trying to bring here). In my original club, one of the longest running DMs in the group had completely worn out her DMG (I wasn't aware of printings back then but it was a pre Revised Edition Print) so the group bought her a Revised Print which she was thrilled to get since it was updated. Where did her old one go, it was given away.

I look at this, especially since the books are in relatively good shape and the GH Ref Sheets are definitely well used, that the Box Set was the Second Set of the person and maybe the GH Supplement too. So I figure that the theory on how the GH Ref Sheets were distributed should be considered intact. Or at least, I wouldn't consider this too heavily against any other theory made before its appearance.

IMHO

** eBay auction listing blocked.  Please enable cookies in your browser for this site and for eBay! **



Absent factual evidence about the books and the sheets, it's basically all theory and conjecture.  The possibilities are endless how this material came together.  Information from the original "avid gamer" owner may not even solve that issue (he/she may have received it all as one lot, belonged to the spouse, etc).  At Gary Con last year Tim Kask mentioned that game sets were often "cobbled" together with leftovers from previous printings.  I'm interested if anyone is able to verify these as actual Greyhawk Reference Sheets.



 WWW  


Verbose Collector

Posts: 1630
Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 26, 2021

Post Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:59 am 
 

They certainly look legitimate to me. I own Tim Kask's set and one from my brother-in-law that was never folded.


Shrink is not a condition

  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 622
Joined: Apr 01, 2017
Last Visit: Jan 02, 2021
Location: Missouri

Post Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 2:23 pm 
 

muaddib5 wrote in Greyhawk Reference Sheets:
Absent factual evidence about the books and the sheets, it's basically all theory and conjecture.  The possibilities are endless how this material came together.  Information from the original "avid gamer" owner may not even solve that issue (he/she may have received it all as one lot, belonged to the spouse, etc).  At Gary Con last year Tim Kask mentioned that game sets were often "cobbled" together with leftovers from previous printings.  I'm interested if anyone is able to verify these as actual Greyhawk Reference Sheets.


I think theories are important, most (if not all) ideas started out as theories to later be proven because the theory gave a path to better look for the "proof". I'll state my point again that I think this example is of limited value towards proof. I think that if one of us could talk to the "avid gamer", it could be helpful. Or it might not be, he/she might not remember exactly how they got them.
I stated this in the post on the recent Character Record Sheets that became available. The best way to determine authenticity would be to have the questionable piece alongside a known authentic one, with your knowledge and a loupe compare every possible detail of the two. My opinion of what I can see on this - the wear in the fold and how the fold is, the notes and mark outs look consistent with gaming use. Those notes and mark outs really look correct to me. The staple position is slightly different from the known example on here and due to the staple being missing, that is one thing that won't be available for comparison. I'd be comfortable with this one - that doesn't mean you have to take my opinion on this though. As collectors, we all have to individually come up with our own level of comfort that something we plan to buy and/or collect is what it is supposed to be. I've butted heads plenty of times with Dealers and supposed experts in other fields of collecting over the years.

  

User avatar

Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor
Valuation Board

Posts: 1092
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 23, 2021
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Post Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:09 pm 
 

stratochamp wrote in Greyhawk Reference Sheets:They certainly look legitimate to me. I own Tim Kask's set and one from my brother-in-law that was never folded.


Best Mr. Burns impression, "Excellent."



 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 622
Joined: Apr 01, 2017
Last Visit: Jan 02, 2021
Location: Missouri

Post Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:43 pm 
 

** eBay auction listing blocked.  Please enable cookies in your browser for this site and for eBay! **

Not a bad price for them. Right in the middle of The Acaeum's pricing.

  


Verbose Collector

Posts: 1630
Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 26, 2021

Post Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:54 pm 
 

One of our esteemed members has scored some very rare items lately, congratulations!


Shrink is not a condition

  
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 21, 2