Very interesting with 30+ years hindsight. This is Arnold Hendrick's review of the original D&D game:
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline/1972-1979/dd.gif)
Quote[T]he other discouraging factor is price. These booklets are roughly comparable to "The Courier" in physical quality, but at $3.50 each are priced rather high. Worse, all three are necessary.
Gee, that all sounds familiar, doesn't it? ;)
I have the original books. The comments about the graphic presentation are very funny. I don't understand why "play in person is usually impossible". It seems to be based on the players not being allowed to see the maps. I guess this is evidence for dating the invention of cardboard screens.
Very interesting. Thanks Benoist.
Quote from: Gordon Horne;336752I have the original books. The comments about the graphic presentation are very funny. I don't understand why "play in person is usually impossible". It seems to be based on the players not being allowed to see the maps. I guess this is evidence for dating the invention of cardboard screens.
I think he's imagining a table with the whole dungeon or wilderness set up, and the characters moving through it.
Quote from: Age of Fable;336753I think he's imagining a table with the whole dungeon or wilderness set up, and the characters moving through it.
Funny that was how I first tried D&D when I was ten. With no idea how to play I drew an entire dungeon out on sheets of 2cm square graph paper and we played on that the next time I did one I used blank paper to cover up the bits the players hadn't seen yet. Was a bit awkward :)
Oh, wow. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Change a few of the names, drop the complaints related specifically to terrain, and IMO it could be talking about any edition up to 3.5! "Interesting, but needs some tightening up" is about how I'd put it. Insert random comments about multiclassing, grappling rules, how crappy the fighter class is, and how they could all be improved, etc. here.
I recall this when it came out.
The reviewer clearly did not grasp the concept of FtF play; he was a wargamer trying to grasp RPGs (as a wargamer who added RPGs as a hobby, I understandthe initial confusion).
Remember that when this was written LotR was a obscure set of books; the core idea of RPGs (a group of PCs of incompatable backgrounds operateing together towards a vague or implausible goal for reasons which are seldom explained) was not widely understood outside the hobby.
His comments about rules is very understandable-in war games, all rules are set in stone, and there is no interpetation; scenarios are likewise. RPG rules, especially back then, but still true today, and exceedingly vague, and the GM power to alter rules is completely unprecedented in wargaming terms.
Have to agree with everything in the review except the 4th paragraph and last sentence.
OD&D was immensely confusing on first read and the constant reference to Chainmail, a book I could not find anywhere where I grew up, made it maddening. It was only after playing a game and being shown the "alternative" combat procedure did it make sense.
I first found the lack of tight rules chaotic and amateurish, just compare a chit & hex wargame of the same period, then I groked that the rules were simply guidelines to guide those fantasy adventures read about in books, you negotiated with the DM about the chance of success of whatever hairbrained idea you came up with, and it was a beautiful thing.
I agree that for its day the art and layout were not bad, certainly not as bad as the 'zines (the mimeographed ones) of the day.
Quote from: OneTinSoldier;336766Remember that when this was written LotR was a obscure set of books;
You might not have heard of it at the time, but
The Lord of the Rings was far from obscure at the time the above review was written. It was first published in 1954 and 1955. It received the International Fantasy Award in 1957. It sold well in hardback, and got good to excellent reviews in The
Sunday Telegraph, the
Sunday Times, and the
New York Herald. The reviewers at the
New York Times and
The New Republic didn't like it, with
The New Republic writing it was anemic and lacking in fibre. Ace produced an unauthorized paperback edition in the early 60s with authorized editions following soon after. The book became a campus sensation in the 60s and early 70s, well before the above review of OD&D was written. The second edition was published in 1966 and reached the No. 1 spot on the New York Times paperback best seller list. (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/30/books/paperbacks-1966-the-lord-of-the-rings.html)
Wikipedia on the book. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings)
Quote from: Gordon Horne;336776You might not have heard of it at the time, but The Lord of the Rings was far from obscure at the time the above review was written. It was first published in 1954 and 1955. It received the International Fantasy Award in 1957. It sold well in hardback, and got good to excellent reviews in The Sunday Telegraph, the Sunday Times, and the New York Herald. The reviewers at the New York Times and The New Republic didn't like it, with The New Republic writing it was anemic and lacking in fibre. Ace produced an unauthorized paperback edition in the early 60s with authorized editions following soon after. The book became a campus sensation in the 60s and early 70s, well before the above review of OD&D was written. The second edition was published in 1966 and reached the No. 1 spot on the New York Times paperback best seller list. (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/30/books/paperbacks-1966-the-lord-of-the-rings.html)
Wikipedia on the book. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings)
Yes, I read it long before I encountered RPGs.
However, #1 in 1966 meant not a lot in the late '70s. In both high school and college, despite being part of a nation-wide literary society, I encountered very few people who had actually read it. It received very little interest in any of the wargamer clubs I belonged to.
Quote from: OneTinSoldier;336780Yes, I read it long before I encountered RPGs.
However, #1 in 1966 meant not a lot in the late '70s. In both high school and college, despite being part of a nation-wide literary society, I encountered very few people who had actually read it. It received very little interest in any of the wargamer clubs I belonged to.
FRODO LIVES! Man. Don't you remeber the graffitti? LOTR was pretty big in the hippy crowd I recall, Led Zepplin's references to it certainly made it better known amongst the same.
Quote from: Xanther;336783FRODO LIVES! Man. Don't you remeber the graffitti? LOTR was pretty big in the hippy crowd I recall, Led Zepplin's references to it certainly made it better known amongst the same.
Yeah. I'm guessing it depends on the sort of circles one would have frequented at the time.
Quote from: OneTinSoldier;336780However, #1 in 1966 meant not a lot in the late '70s. In both high school and college, despite being part of a nation-wide literary society, I encountered very few people who had actually read it. It received very little interest in any of the wargamer clubs I belonged to.
Possibly, however your personal experiences also mean not a lot. You want something closer to the late 70s? A random sample:
Printings in 1965, 1967, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979 (25th Anniversary Collection), 1984, 1985 (http://www.tolkienshop.com/index1.html)
Lord of the Rings calendars for 1973 to 1979 (http://www.collecttolkien.com/Calendars1970s.htm)
Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings (1975) (http://www.ulike.net/Guide_to_the_Names_in_The_Lord_of_the_Rings)
The Hobbit TV animated film (1977) (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/The_Hobbit_(1977_film))
A scathing communist review from 1977 (http://www.arellanes.com/archives/000441.html)
Understanding Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings (1977) (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Tolkien-Rings-William-Ready/dp/044688782X)
1978 Ralph Bakshi film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film))
1979 National Public Radio adaptation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1979_radio_series))
1980 Rankin/Bass film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_the_King_(1980_movie))
1981 BBC Radio adaptation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1981_radio_series))
Not bad for an obscure book your friends hadn't read.
Quote from: Gordon Horne;336788Possibly, however your personal experiences also mean not a lot. You want something closer to the late 70s? A random sample:...The Hobbit TV animated film (1977)
Excellent google-fu; that's what got me to read the book. I remember seeing that. Liking it, reading the Hobbit then LOTR, all in the same year I got introduced to D&D. Then finally understanding what Led Zepplin was singing about.
Quote from: Xanther;336791Excellent google-fu; that's what got me to read the book. I remember seeing that. Liking it, reading the Hobbit then LOTR, all in the same year I got introduced to D&D. Then finally understanding what Led Zepplin was singing about.
Wow. Can you explain it to me? What Led Zepplin was singing about. :D
I was listening to Yes: Relayer the other day. I think i was just a pretentious poser when i claimed to understand it as a teen.
Quote from: Gordon Horne;336788A scathing communist review from 1977 (http://www.arellanes.com/archives/000441.html)
Jesus. This made me laugh! :D
Quote from: Gordon Horne;336788Possibly, however your personal experiences also mean not a lot. You want something closer to the late 70s? A random sample:
Printings in 1965, 1967, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979 (25th Anniversary Collection), 1984, 1985 (http://www.tolkienshop.com/index1.html)
Lord of the Rings calendars for 1973 to 1979 (http://www.collecttolkien.com/Calendars1970s.htm)
Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings (1975) (http://www.ulike.net/Guide_to_the_Names_in_The_Lord_of_the_Rings)
The Hobbit TV animated film (1977) (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/The_Hobbit_(1977_film))
A scathing communist review from 1977 (http://www.arellanes.com/archives/000441.html)
Understanding Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings (1977) (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Tolkien-Rings-William-Ready/dp/044688782X)
1978 Ralph Bakshi film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film))
1979 National Public Radio adaptation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1979_radio_series))
1980 Rankin/Bass film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_the_King_(1980_movie))
1981 BBC Radio adaptation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1981_radio_series))
Not bad for an obscure book your friends hadn't read.
My friends had-the literary groups I belonged to hadn't.
I don't know what point you're trying to make; mine is that IME, at the time of the review in question, LotR did not have the cultural position it had today, or even after the initial animation film in 1980. It certainly was not common in wargamer circles, which is what the review was written for.
Obviously, your experiences of this time period are different from mine.
Or you weren't an adult in this period, and are just dredgeing up references of varying applicability from a free on-line source. :D
Just FYI-about half your reference post-date the review.
Quote from: XantherFRODO LIVES! Man. Don't you remeber the graffitti? LOTR was pretty big in the hippy crowd I recall, Led Zepplin's references to it certainly made it better known amongst the same.
Bumper stickers-graffitti wasn't common where I grew up. But sure, then as now you had your genre enthusists. The hippy scene had pretty well moved on by the time this review came out.
Quote from: Gordon Horne;336794Wow. Can you explain it to me? What Led Zepplin was singing about. :D
I was listening to Yes: Relayer the other day. I think i was just a pretentious poser when i claimed to understand it as a teen.
Love Relayer.
It was the line "gollum and the evil one snuck up and slipped away with her"
I had no idea what gollum meant so figured they must be saying, "gone with the evil one who snuck up and slipped away with her"
I still to this day don't know if this line is an allegory for something else.
That was a fun read.
I knew of D&D long before I ever got a chance to play... probably because of my addiction to miniatures and comics.
Dungeon was the game I was really wanting to play, because of the box cover... but I had no clue what the relation was between it and D&D.
Quote from: OneTinSoldier;336798My friends had-the literary groups I belonged to hadn't.
I don't know what point you're trying to make; mine is that IME, at the time of the review in question, LotR did not have the cultural position it had today, or even after the initial animation film in 1980. It certainly was not common in wargamer circles, which is what the review was written for.
My sole point is that your original statement
Quote from: OneTinSoldier;336766Remember that when this was written LotR was a obscure set of books; the core idea of RPGs (a group of PCs of incompatable backgrounds operateing together towards a vague or implausible goal for reasons which are seldom explained) was not widely understood outside the hobby.
is bullshit.
Quote from: OneTinSoldier;336798Obviously, your experiences of this time period are different from mine.
Or you weren't an adult in this period, and are just dredgeing up references of varying applicability from a free on-line source. :D
Just FYI-about half your reference post-date the review.
Bumper stickers-graffitti wasn't common where I grew up. But sure, then as now you had your genre enthusists. The hippy scene had pretty well moved on by the time this review came out.
What do my experiences matter? My personal experiences are just as inconsequential as yours. They mean nothing in the question of whether
The Lord of the Rings was an obscure set of books. For the record, i read
The Lord of the Rings in the summer of '78 or'79 when i was 10 or 11. I found a well thumbed copy on my cousin's bookshelf and read it over a weekend. I later knew many people, most older than me, who had read it. I think at least three of the teachers in my elementary school had read it. I remember because they were surprised a kid my age had read it. For my Grade 7 graduation prize i was given Manguel's & Guadalupi's
Dictionary of Imaginary Places.
But my personal experiences are as irrelevant as yours. We are both insignificant motes. Other than "this guy i knew had never heard of it," what are your criteria for declaring
The Lord of the Rings an obscure set of books?
1966 is too early. 1981 is too late. What date is acceptable to you? 1974, the presumed review date? (That's not the late '70s, by the way, and the hippies were still around; waning, but still around.) By my estimation, a book that is reprinted nearly every year for a decade around the review date is not obscure. There were at least three editions published in 1974—a single-volume hardback, a three-volume hardback, and a three-volume paperback. Both three-volume editions had multiple printings. The 1973 single-volume paperback had at least 13 printings. Publishers do not put out yearly calendars—and sell enough to justify a calendar next year—for obscure books. Several separate companies do not invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in separate radio and film adaptations of obscure books.
The Hobbit and
The Lord of the Rings were on English Lit reading lists. Look, Hobbit and Lord of the Rings wargames from 1975 (http://www.tolkiencollector.be/miscellanea/games/battleof5armieslore.htm) and 1977 (http://www.tolkiencollector.be/miscellanea/games/battleoftheringwww.htm). One of which did well enough to be reissued (http://www.tolkiencollector.be/miscellanea/games/battleof5armiestsr.htm) by another company with better production values.
The Lord of the Rings is generally credited with kick starting the modern fantasy genre. It is also generally credited with strongly influencing—both on its own and with the healthy fantasy genre it lead—the development of RPGs in general and Chainmail and Dungeons and Dragons in particular.
I think any of that trumps "this guy i knew had never heard of it".
Even accepting your implied claim that knowledge of
The Lord of the Rings was limited to genre enthusiasts, that's a helluva larger group than OneTinSoldier, his friends, fellow wargamers, and some literary geeks he knew.
That's a fascinating bit o' history right there.
I wonder if the review writer had second thoughts about the game a few years later.
QuoteIn general, the concept and imagination involved is stunning. However, much more work, refinement, and especially regulation and simplification is necessary before the game is manageable.
I wonder if Ol' Arnold is playing DnD4E these days. ;)
Quote from: Gordon Horne;336825I wonder if Ol' Arnold is playing DnD4E these days. ;)
Nah, he's still playing Napoleonics and telling everyone who'll listen that nothing's gonna come of that rpg stuff.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgamedesigner/693
Arnold Hendrick is a game designer who has spent over 20 years designing computer games and over 10 years designing wargames mostly for SPI. He also ran the company Heritage Miniatures in the 1980s.
And here is his current blog (http://mmotidbits.com/).
QuoteWho is this Arnold Hendrick guy?
I am a 25-year veteran of the computer game industry with design and/or producer credits on over 20 titles. While game design is my love, game production became my business. I understand and sympathize with the design dreamer in all of us. However, when it comes to business, it is necessary that professionalism, rationality and logic triumph.
My academic training is in history. I view events, people and products through an historical lens. I like to analyze and see patterns, yet remain sensitive to the “quirks of fate” (i.e., dumb luck). A lifelong gamer, I played wargames and RPGs before computer games existed. I play games to this very day, generally MMOs (I pride myself on a playing knowledge of most major and random minor MMOGs) and the new “social networking” games.
I am detailed-oriented and a compulsive organizer. This has regularly moved me from my original love, game design, into game production. In the past, like many inexperienced “executives” in the industry, I caused and endured a lot of crunch time. After some particularly painful projects in the mid 90s I began to seek “a better way.” I learned CMM at Carnegie-Mellon and the PMBOK from PMI. I studied project management and got my PMP certification. I have tried many processes, from structured waterfalls with UML to the current darling, Scrum (I am also a CSM – Certified Scrum Master).
From a resume standpoint, I began in computer games as a “designer” for Coleco in 1983, then in 1985 became the first non-programming game designer at MicroProse, where I stayed 10 years. This is generally considered the “glory” years of MicroProse, where luminaries such as Sid Meier created Civilization (the game, of course). After a few more years at a successor company (Interactive Magic, later iEN), I moved from solo console/PC games into MMOs. I joined Kesmai in 1998 as producer of their Air Warrior product line. When EA closed Kesmai in 2001, I became part of its struggling successor company Castle Hill Studios. Most recently from 2005-2009 I detoured into “serious” MMOs and virtual worlds at Forterra Systems. Government contracts and platform-oriented development provided entirely new insights into software project management.
Wide experience in game development is very useful. Much can be learned by experiencing the entire development cycle of initial concept to running the live team of an aging product. It is enlightening to see games go from initial design to gold and beyond. I have iterated on project management practices many, many times. I have gone through over two dozen game projects from start to finish, and another dozen or two that faltered along the way. Unlike many others, I still love working on games.
As of June 2009 I’m between jobs and “available.” Know someone who needs a veteran game producer?
Current RW Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact Email: ajhendrick@aol.com, with a cc suggested to arnoldjhendrick@gmail.com.
Quote from: Gordon Horne;336788Possibly, however your personal experiences also mean not a lot. You want something closer to the late 70s? A random sample:
Printings in 1965, 1967, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979 (25th Anniversary Collection), 1984, 1985 (http://www.tolkienshop.com/index1.html)
Lord of the Rings calendars for 1973 to 1979 (http://www.collecttolkien.com/Calendars1970s.htm)
Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings (1975) (http://www.ulike.net/Guide_to_the_Names_in_The_Lord_of_the_Rings)
The Hobbit TV animated film (1977) (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/The_Hobbit_(1977_film))
A scathing communist review from 1977 (http://www.arellanes.com/archives/000441.html)
Understanding Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings (1977) (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Tolkien-Rings-William-Ready/dp/044688782X)
1978 Ralph Bakshi film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film))
1979 National Public Radio adaptation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1979_radio_series))
1980 Rankin/Bass film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_the_King_(1980_movie))
1981 BBC Radio adaptation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1981_radio_series))
Not bad for an obscure book your friends hadn't read.
Poor guy makes one daft comment ... :)
My mum made me read the hobbit when I was 8 (77). She had read the LoR about 20 times and had a 3 volume hardback edition from '61 and she was an economics lecturer not a hippy. I only have one of those books now but its the RotK with the full appendicies. I have to admit I didn't read LotR until after the Bakshi movie. Obscure .....
Hendrick was one of the authors of the RPG Swordbearer (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=1749). Swordbearer is an awsome game, IMO. It had the great idea of removing the bean counting from fantasy gaming by creating a Social Status system where a player didn't have to track coins. Also, the magic system was unique and innovative. Characters were broadly classed by their Activity Sphere, but were defined by the skill system. There were some cool races as well. I always loved the idea of harvesting the organs of slain foes to power magic use, LOL.
Quote from: Mistwell;336832Arnold Hendrick is a game designer who has spent over 20 years designing computer games and over 10 years designing wargames mostly for SPI. He also ran the company Heritage Miniatures in the 1980s.
Well. Not 4e, but close enough. :D
Quote from: Drohem;336878Hendrick was one of the authors of the RPG Swordbearer (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=1749). Swordbearer is an awsome game, IMO. It had the great idea of removing the bean counting from fantasy gaming by creating a Social Status system where a player didn't have to track coins. Also, the magic system was unique and innovative. Characters were broadly classed by their Activity Sphere, but were defined by the skill system. There were some cool races as well. I always loved the idea of harvesting the organs of slain foes to power magic use, LOL.
Really?
Huh. Same name. Well he certainly wrapped his mind around RPGs. Swordbearer was innovative in many ways. It didn't reduce the burden on the GM, but the combat system certainly reflects refinement and regulation over OD&D. Simplification i'm not sure about; clarification, yes.
Hey Benoist, who is that guy in your avatar?
I didn't know the French had a Colonel Sanders. ;)
Quote from: PaladinCA;336898Hey Benoist, who is that guy in your avatar?
I didn't know the French had a Colonel Sanders. ;)
LOL! This is Igor Urnst, the Commissar of Ptolus.
What with the Ptolus Retard/Ptard and all... ;)
Well, the guy made some sensible points :) He was wrong in some things but well, that's the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
Gary Gygax's toys-thrown-out-of-the-pram response to this is also worth reading.
Where can we read that?
I seem to recall another early review, possibly from a British minis magazine. If I find it, I'll link here.
QuoteThe scope is just too grand, while the referee is expected to do too much in relation to the players.
So true. So very true.
Quote from: pawsplay;337137So true. So very true.
Eh, I can do either way. Sometimes I want one person to be totally in charge, and other times I want to share the workload. And not always to the same degree, either. You've got your games like Buffy and FATE at one end of the spectrum(the end closest to "trad" games), games like Primetime Adventures somewhere in the middle, and games like Mythic and Capes at the opposite end(equally-shared narrative control). Something for everyone . . . or lots of somethings for me, depending on how one looks at it.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;337006Where can we read that?
Here (http://dl138.merp.com/arc/zines/DragonMagazineArchives/Strv103.pdf).
Gratzie Hairfoot! :)
Quote from: Hairfoot;337235Here (http://dl138.merp.com/arc/zines/DragonMagazineArchives/Strv103.pdf).
Thanks Hairfoot. Another interesting read.
So the contrary opinion (presumably favourable toward D&D) was written by the president of Heritage Models, which as Heritage USA would publish Dennis Sustare's and Arnold Hendrick's Swordbearer ten years later.
The early days of our hobby were certainly incestuous, weren't they?
Actually, there's a fair bit of that going on these days, too.
Now, does anyone have a disinterested third party review of one of Hendrick's efforts from The Strategic Review?
Quote from: Gordon Horne;336788Possibly, however your personal experiences also mean not a lot. You want something closer to the late 70s? A random sample:
Printings in 1965, 1967, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979 (25th Anniversary Collection), 1984, 1985 (http://www.tolkienshop.com/index1.html)
Lord of the Rings calendars for 1973 to 1979 (http://www.collecttolkien.com/Calendars1970s.htm)
Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings (1975) (http://www.ulike.net/Guide_to_the_Names_in_The_Lord_of_the_Rings)
The Hobbit TV animated film (1977) (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/The_Hobbit_(1977_film))
A scathing communist review from 1977 (http://www.arellanes.com/archives/000441.html)
Understanding Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings (1977) (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Tolkien-Rings-William-Ready/dp/044688782X)
1978 Ralph Bakshi film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film))
1979 National Public Radio adaptation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1979_radio_series))
1980 Rankin/Bass film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_the_King_(1980_movie))
1981 BBC Radio adaptation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1981_radio_series))
Not bad for an obscure book your friends hadn't read.
thanks a lot, especially for the humorous socialist critique. Gonna post this around.
Quote from: Hairfoot;337235Here (http://dl138.merp.com/arc/zines/DragonMagazineArchives/Strv103.pdf).
"
Possibly in light of TSR's success in publishing miniatures rules and games, Mr. Hendrick has decided to begin peddling a line of his own creations. If these creations are as well-thought out as his "reviews", as learned and clever, they will be rare products indeed."
The irony dripping from it all made me laugh my ass off. Thanks for that. :D
I thought it would have been far less tactful.
RPGPundit
Writing was more tactful in the days when you had to type it up on a big clunky old mechanical typewriter, pass it by an editor, then mimeograph or photocopy it, before putting it by hand in 1,000 envelopes and posting it off... compared to "type, then hit submit/send."
Plus Gygax, as Old Geezer said, was never one to use 2 words where 150 would do.
That was an interesting newsletter. I liked,
"In #1 we mentioned a "Conan" line to be released by Miniature Figurines, Ltd, but it is not yet available — quite. The new range will actually be called "Swords & Sorcery", with over 125 figures initially and they look good. Although they are not "officially" to be for games based on the Conan series, many of these figures will be ideal for such usage."
In light of subsequent dramas over "compatible with AD&D" and some people's more recent indignation over retro-clones... :) Filing the serial numbers off, and doing so quite openly, is as old as the hobby itself.
And just this month there has been more drama around a Conan game.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
I suppose one should note that history proved Gary right and this other guy practically no one has ever heard of wrong.
RPGPundit
Yes, but this outbreak of dignityphobia isn't why.
Quote from: Gordon Horne;337328And just this month there has been more drama around a Conan game.
Wonder if Mongoose will be producing any further d20 Conan supplement books, after this public airing of dirty laundry and throwing the Conan trademark owners under the bus in the process.
If they believe the Conan license won't be renewed next year, there's very little incentive for them to produce any new stuff. Maybe if they have an almost complete supplement book in the pipeline, that may possibly be published.
Quote from: RPGPundit;337388I suppose one should note that history proved Gary right and this other guy practically no one has ever heard of wrong.
That's not saying much, since if he had written an absolutely glowing review, he would have been forgotten just as well.
Yeah, maybe so, but it would mean we wouldn't be making fun of him here.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;337555Yeah, maybe so, but it would mean we wouldn't be making fun of him here.
RPGPundit
So you're saying he did the right thing, ensuring his review would be remembered and discussed for decades :)
I have considered that angle, yes.
RPGPundit