Quote from: Spinachcat;692105Be careful about the tax liabilities. There has been some talk of late about tax issues for Kickstarters who get their cash, then can't spend it on production costs before the end of the year and then the Taxman Cometh Most Coldly.

In the long run you still will pay the same amount of taxes. But going to a accountant or tax professional  will sure the cash flow is smooth. If he working with Autarch they should be able to help with that.

I'm surprised that Autarch would want to act as an intermediary in a Kickstarter again. Not that I'm casting any doubts on you, Old Geezer. Just that I'd expect that the experience they went through earlier this year would make them rather gun-shy.

Quote from: TristramEvans;692045I happen to believe the best books are written solely for the writer, with no attempts to compromise based on assumption of "what the audience wants". Like Lord of the Rings. I hardly consider that hair-splitting. I think a like-minded audience will find the work if it's of quality, and that an end goal of "appealing to as many people as possible" waters down an individual writer's/game designer's voice,  and results in an inferior product.

(Apologies for the late reply)  LotR was written for commercial reasons.  It was also written well (for certain definitions of well) and commented on/critiqued by others during its writing.  You've missed the point of what you were responding to entirely.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;692041How does the hair-splitting here differ from anywhere else?

Hair-splitting is one thing.  Completely missing the point while doing so is another.

Quote from: KenHR;692394(Apologies for the late reply)  LotR was written for commercial reasons.  It was also written well (for certain definitions of well) and commented on/critiqued by others during its writing.  You've missed the point of what you were responding to entirely.

I'm just going to say that if you think LOTR was written for any audience besides Tolkien and his beer buddies, you have not read much about Tolkien yet. The Hobbit was a commercial success, so A&Ubasked Tolkien to write a sequel. 20 years later he handed in a manuscript that the publishers and Tolkien himself were certain was going to lose them money because they couldn't imagine an audience for it.

And no, I havent missed the point. At least not the point I was making - that there are lots of good, if not better, reasons to write for oneself without any intention or thought towards a wider audience.

Girls, girls!  You're ALL pretty!

Quote from: Old Geezer;692500Girls, girls!  You're ALL pretty!

Quote from: estar;691406The bottom line is that he backs up what he asserts with primary sources.

The thing is, any historian could tell you that using "primary sources" doesn't mean that much, in the sense that you can start out with just about any argument and then find, manipulate or contextualize the right "primary sources" to appear to back up your claims.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;692708The thing is, any historian could tell you that using "primary sources" doesn't mean that much, in the sense that you can start out with just about any argument and then find, manipulate or contextualize the right "primary sources" to appear to back up your claims.

RPGPundit

Sad but true.

Plus, uh, if you were there, doesn't that make ou a"primary source"?

Playing at the World's merit is largely in that it quotes a huge variety of primary sources, which makes it an excellent resource for future, more focused histories of the game and industry.

The disadvantage is that anybody can use it as a stick to beat an ass.

Quote from: RPGPundit;692708The thing is, any historian could tell you that using "primary sources" doesn't mean that much, in the sense that you can start out with just about any argument and then find, manipulate or contextualize the right "primary sources" to appear to back up your claims.

RPGPundit

Of course when you do history, you choose to cite facts that further your narrative, and your choice of narrative is constrained by what facts you can cite. Primary sources tell you which narratives will work and which won't. Sometimes, finding new sources expands the number of narrative threads available to you; other times it eliminates some threads.

But you're never going to get anywhere near the facts of the early history of RPGs without the primary sources. Even questions of simple historical fact that are quite easily resolved with access to the right letters or fanzines have been the subject of religious wars for decades  - like, say, when Blackmoor started. In that sense, primary sources mean everything, they're the difference between groundless conjecture and an actual grasp of history. Knowing when Blackmoor started, you can of course fit that fact into whatever narrative suits you. But if someone tries to build a narrative based on Blackmoor having started far earlier or later than it did, the primary sources enable us to rule it out.

Quote from: Old Geezer;690429Actually, I can't wait to read Playing at the World, not just because Jon bought my map and printed it!

But I'm not pretending any sort of accurate or historical work here; it's a memoir with some fireside musings about where some things came from, like late at night with friends on the second or third glass of Port.

And I am very much looking forward to backing your Kickstarter and reading your book, Michael. I wish that everyone who was an eyewitness to these events could take the time to do exactly what you have done.

Quote from: increment;692792And I am very much looking forward to backing your Kickstarter and reading your book, Michael. I wish that everyone who was an eyewitness to these events could take the time to do exactly what you have done.

Somewhere you mentioned that you wish you had more "personal" stories, which is one of the things that induced me to write not only my ideas on what I saw evolve, but also amusing anecdotes like this.

I hope you found the tale of Ghulash amusing, at least.

Quote from: Old Geezer;692006I posted this story because it's short and I thought people would find it amusing.

I thought it was amusing, and I'd be interested in reading some more.

I think what people were expecting was something along the lines of:

"By the summer of '05, E&E was exploding in popularity. 10 or 15 of us would regularly get together at the Red Bull Tavern, at the end of Lincolnshire Ave., to play in Dave's campaign. We'd play in this tiny little card room above the bar, after Dave's shift was over. (Okay, the room wasn't that tiny, but with 10 people in there, it felt like it.)

"Being above a bar was sometimes distracting. It was noisy, and the smell of cigarettes and spilled beer was soaked deep into the wood. After a couple of hours of play, your clothes would smell just like it. My roommates thought I was becoming an alcoholic.

"On the plus side, every time Dave said 'okay, you all meet up in a tavern', we knew exactly what it sounded and smelled like."

I'm not saying you should write like that. I liked the story. But I think this is the sort of thing people expect from an autobiographical book. JMHO.