Gygax has said that the monk was based off a Blume concept, possibly even rough draft (can't remember offhand).  Blume was big into the kung-fu shows of the mid-70s and thus the class reflects those shows.

Quote from: EOTB;1117718Gygax has said that the monk was based off a Blume concept, possibly even rough draft (can't remember offhand).  Blume was big into the kung-fu shows of the mid-70s and thus the class reflects those shows.

If we're crediting people for writing the stuff a class is based on, what about the Aero Hobbies guys out of Santa Monica, CA (Gary Switzer) who submitted the Thief class to Gygax?

I'm sure if they'd owned 1/3 of TSR at one time they'd have been recognized.  It's not purely meritorious.

But if D&D "recognized" everyone who contributed ideas, even written ones that ended up largely used, then people would be complaining about the wasted page count.  Submitting ideas to someone else to be popularized is to likely lose credit for the idea.  Just the way the world works in most instances.  Something that idea-contributors hate, but the fact remains.

You'd basically need likely only 2 lines to include the people who came up with various classes that are still in the game.  Gray Switzer for the Thief, Joe Fischer for the Ranger, Peter Aronson for the schools of magic having its own class (the Illusionist), Doug Schwegman for the Bard.

And then George taking and Tim Mesford for the Anti-Paladin, which sort of resurfaced in 3e as the Blackguard (and in Pathfinder)

And then, and then, and then.

And then people who contribute stuff other than classes will say "why not recognize my contribution too?"

They're recognizing past owners who contributed.  Look, it's just the way the world works.   Even if you get your name in, it's essentially meaningless.  Note that this was in response to someone saying "why is this person even listed?".  Nobody reads the fine print.  99.999999% of people are going to assume that whoever's name is printed biggest on the front "contributed" 100% of the ideas in it, and that presumed credit for an idea to the wrong person, even where the right person is listed in tiny print, is likely going to be even more psychically painful to someone who cares about accreditation than not being credited on the work at all.  

No one cares who contributed an idea.   I say this as someone who has contributed, and am content with simply seeing it included.

Quote from: EOTB;1117739And then, and then, and then.

And then people who contribute stuff other than classes will say "why not recognize my contribution too?"

They're recognizing past owners who contributed.  Look, it's just the way the world works.   Even if you get your name in, it's essentially meaningless.  Note that this was in response to someone saying "why is this person even listed?".  Nobody reads the fine print.  99.999999% of people are going to assume that whoever's name is printed biggest on the front "contributed" 100% of the ideas in it, and that presumed credit for an idea to the wrong person, even where the right person is listed in tiny print, is likely going to be even more psychically painful to someone who cares about accreditation than not being credited on the work at all.  

No one cares who contributed an idea.   I say this as someone who has contributed, and am content with simply seeing it included.

Greetings!

All very true, EOTB. Good stuff. I'm also reminded of a related tangent, that merely coming up with say, "Idea X" does not mean that such an idea is well-written, well-detailed, and appropriately prepared for commercial use and presentation.

I have for example numerous wonderful ideas jotted down in my own game campaign. Taking such an idea and writing it up for a commercial presentation, however, is an entirely different matter. I've reminded some of my friends when having discussions, there's many reasons why not everyone is an "author". Some of them blithely believe that "Well, I have good ideas in my campaign! I should get a book published!" Ahh, well.

There is also some absurdity to crediting everyone that has somehow contributed an "idea." How about the salient contributors that added something "else" to make the original idea work? You can go on and on with this, you know?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I think the new D&D credits (the ones after "with") come from the fact that those were the authors of the supplements that came after the main set, and all of that was put into the core of the rules thereafter.   For instance, Blume was included since he was a co-author of Eldritch Wizardry.  

However, you are seeing more credit being given for minor contributions nowadays.  Publishers have been better at crediting the original writers for any monster contribution.  Heck, Gary himself started crediting spells and monsters to their creators in Lejendary Adventures.  

And it's not just games--if you look at the credits to a Marvel Movie, they are now sure to credit (with special thanks), all the writers who wrote stories or developed characters that were touched upon in the story or plot.  

There might be a legal reason for this--and it doesn't make them co-contributors or allow them to claim ownership, copyright or royalties, etc.  But I think the trend is now to attribute as accurately as possible these types of things.

Quote from: JRT;1117744However, you are seeing more credit being given for minor contributions nowadays.

Compare the 1-2' credits as the opening of movies fifty years ago vs the 8-12' of credits after a movie today.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1117745Compare the 1-2' credits as the opening of movies fifty years ago vs the 8-12' of credits after a movie today.

Well, presumably it' s better if more people have worked on it, ...yeah?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1117745Compare the 1-2' credits as the opening of movies fifty years ago vs the 8-12' of credits after a movie today.

Actually the credits for movies have been fairly broad even not long after the start. But very YMMV as some were very spartan and others were not. I think they got a shorter during wartime with rationing and supply limits. But even so alot of old movies put at least a little effort into crediting people. By the 60s and 70s the credits were getting longer and started getting moved more often to the end of the movie as things like the gaffer, boom operator and best boy and even catering got credited.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1117545If you are interested, I now hang out at RPGPub.

I no longer post at theRPGSite because I'm sick and tired of "SJWS and/or StoryGamers are ruining the hobby" screeds.  Over at RPGPub we actually talk about fun.

Just like I have disassociated myself from Star Wars fandom because Star Wars fandom is now all about how much they hate Star Wars.

I wondered about your absence. I'll have to check out RPGPub.

Quote from: Omega;1117762Actually the credits for movies have been fairly broad even not long after the start. But very YMMV as some were very spartan and others were not. I think they got a shorter during wartime with rationing and supply limits. But even so alot of old movies put at least a little effort into crediting people. By the 60s and 70s the credits were getting longer and started getting moved more often to the end of the movie as things like the gaffer, boom operator and best boy and even catering got credited.

Once Upon a Time, movie credits did not ever list the accountants, caterers, drivers, gofers, etc. That time is long gone.

Quote from: Omega;1117762Actually the credits for movies have been fairly broad even not long after the start. But very YMMV as some were very spartan and others were not. I think they got a shorter during wartime with rationing and supply limits. But even so alot of old movies put at least a little effort into crediting people. By the 60s and 70s the credits were getting longer and started getting moved more often to the end of the movie as things like the gaffer, boom operator and best boy and even catering got credited.

Star Wars apparently started the trend of credits at the end; Lucas was fined for omitting the director's name in the opening credits and simply paid the fine.

Certainly there are a lot more credits than there used to be; but I think that is partly a lot more people involved (the number of names under the many special effects companies is staggering). In the very early days even the main actors were not credited.

Eventually the entire movie will be credits, with the actual content interspersed or credits within the scenes like product placement.

Quote from: rawma;1117700I've run a lot of games at game stores and at conventions, and I've had almost no issues with disruptive players.

100% agree! I've run games at conventions for almost four decades and I've had only a handful of asshats show up to the table. The majority gamers at cons just want to have fun.

And the more specific and clear you make your game pitch for the convention site & booklet, the better table you will usually get because people self-select themselves in or out. AKA, if you are running a game about courtly intrigue with heavy roleplay and little or no combat, say that up front so you get people who want that experience and not people who really prefer to play something else. Bait and switch is crap for everyone.

As far back as the 1914s actors were being credited, least the main ones. But some I've seen from the 20s did not. I think that in some cases the credits were actually on stage cards or pamphlets handed out. Hence why they werent on screen. And the musician wasnt credited because well. Hes that guy sitting over there at the piano in the theater providing the music. :cool:

As for games. Really depends on the company. One will credit everyone and their cousin twice removed. And another you have to pry the info of who designed it from their cold dead hands.