|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jan 26, 2016 10:16:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 26, 2016 10:33:07 GMT -5
This is fantastic news!
Oh, happy day!
Now that the text is officially available and at a reasonable price (basically $3.33 for all anybody ever really needed of a "DMG," "PH," and "MM," respectively!) then I hope our particular niche of the hobby shall grow.,
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jan 26, 2016 11:57:36 GMT -5
In order to do that, we're gonna have to have access to a 1st to 5th print.
I got a set of 6th prints, but only one reference to Balrog remains, and a couple of hobbit words here and there. Halfling is the dominant term.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 27, 2016 5:25:33 GMT -5
In order to do that, we're gonna have to have access to a 1st to 5th print. One does not simply walk into Mordor. I believe the 1st-4th prints are identical, the 5th is re-typeset with some textual alterations, the 6th-7th are identical but are de-Tolkiened, and the 8th (2013) is re-typeset again and further purged. If that is true, then the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th prints bear comparison. Assuming you have the necessary prints of D&D you could set out to do the following: a) Scan each of the booklets of a print to get them as PDFs files. To do this with a high end scanner, you will need to take the staples out of your collectible booklets in order to run the pages thru a document feeder. This will be scary. Then you'll find that you can't get your precious booklets to go back together exactly they way they started out. This will be gloomy. b) Once you have your PDF files, you can use an OCR engine to recognise the text in the PDFs as text rather than an image. There are lots of OCR engines out there, and many of them are terrible at recognising obsolete typefaces from the 70s. Some of them are better. Once you have done this for, say, each booklet of the 4th and 5th prints, then you will be in a position to do the following: c) Export each booklet as a plain text file, d) Correct the hundreds of OCR errors in your files by painstakingly, line by line, word by word, comparing the original to the digital copy. This will require weeks or perhaps even months of piece by piece for just one booklet. Having done all of the above for at least two prints of one booklet, you will be able to use some text comparison software to automagically identify differences between them. Once again, there are many such pieces of software to trial, and most of them are not up to it. Fortunately, there are also some good ones. Immediately you will realise that changes to the typesetting between prints means that practically every line is altered between two prints. So then you will need to: e) Remove all line breaks and page breaks in your plain text files, so that the actual text in one print will line up with the same text in another print for comparison. Finally, your text-comparison software will identify a bunch of meaningful differences! But that is not all... f) For every difference that is identified, you must verify the content of the two originals (again!) to be sure that the difference is actually real and is not just an error you've introduced along the way. And then at last you will have your comparison between, say, the 4th and 5th prints of Men & Magic. Hooray! Having taken, perhaps, 6 months on the prelude to the grander endeavor you'll be all fired up to repeat the above for the other two booklets of the 4th and 5th prints! Having then done that, you'll be ready to drive right into comparing the 4th print to the 6th print, and then to the 8th (2013) print. For completeness, you might then want to compare the 5th print to the 6th and 8th prints, and then the 6th print to the 8th. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jan 27, 2016 8:24:45 GMT -5
]One does not simply walk into Mordor. Indeed! Anyone win the lottery lately so that a team can be hired to work full time on this? I didn't think so. However, all is not lost. I have heard that that someone has converted a 5th print to text files and if that is so then one only needs a fifth print and start the line by line check which as waysoftheearth points out still may take months. I also think that over on our brother forum at least two of the books from the 6th print have had someone go through them and list every typo (hundreds) that they could find and that would also be a big help. The new 2013 pdfs now for sale are very clean and all of the text can be copy-pasted in a text file. So as a guess about 10% percent of the work is already done.  Impossible task, no, monstrously huge, yes! Something that would require a committed and skilled team, yea. And while a fan copy of the major differences only might be something that could be published for free. A complete annotated version (how sweet would that be) would (I assume) not be. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 28, 2016 3:24:53 GMT -5
I have heard that that someone has converted a 5th print to text files and ... I also think that over on our brother forum at least two of the books from the 6th print have had someone go through them and list every typo (hundreds) that they could find and that would also be a big help. What ridiculous fool would bother? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jan 28, 2016 4:14:52 GMT -5
Arrgh. Reading that link, WoE, only a little gives me a head-ache. I am so very glad that we NEVER used Chainmail for the playtests, post-D&D play, etc. and that the ALTERNATE combat system was actually the one used, sculpted to be used and promoted to the public. It was the MAIN system, but Gary sold it as the alternative one to bridge miniature wargamers (especially of CM) to a new concept (fixed game to complex and mutable game). The rest of it must have been nightmarish while undoing all of EGG's many errors, and in all categories. You have my sympathy and admiration. EGG let those playtesting the game, or others who did not, read copies of the MS (myself included of course) but he disliked editorial control (to the end of his days) even when it made sense (such as copy editing compared to content editing, both of which sometimes collided due to poorly constructed sentences). |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jan 28, 2016 12:48:58 GMT -5
Rob--
this (your comments) has been quoted over at ODD74; to which I had to...naturally...toss up my own 2c on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jan 28, 2016 14:26:08 GMT -5
Truth can't be outed, it can only be complained about.  |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jan 28, 2016 14:29:13 GMT -5
OOps. My eyesight is getting worse. Quoted not outed. My above statement still stands, just not in relation to the ODD Board post...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jan 28, 2016 14:52:06 GMT -5
Rob-- this (your comments) has been quoted over at ODD74; to which I had to...naturally...toss up my own 2c on the matter. Where at ODD74? |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jan 28, 2016 15:10:21 GMT -5
In the Chain Mail section under "CHAIN MAIL&ODD by ROB KUNTZ"
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jan 28, 2016 15:13:11 GMT -5
In the Chain Mail section under "CHAIN MAIL &ROB KUNTZ" Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jan 28, 2016 16:44:41 GMT -5
Rob-- this (your comments) has been quoted over at ODD74; to which I had to...naturally...toss up my own 2c on the matter. I had a look and quite honestly, and even though I respect FIN, he's off base and wrong in many things stated there. Let's clarify history a bit. First my own to clear the statement that I am "biased". I remind folks that I was the lead playtester for the game, I am thanked in the credits twice (once by name and one other as being part of the LGTSA, it's president). So, let's put superficial hyperbole behind us for now and address this fact: There were no miniatures used in the game's playtests; Chainmail was not used. Ask Ernie Gygax, Michael Mornard, Terry Kuntz, John Bobek, Bill Corey, James Ward (later), or anyone still surviving from the LGTSA/IFW who experienced the playtests. It just did not occur. This is not bias. It's a fact. Now Arneson's group certainly used the Chainmail combat matrix for the first few sessions of Blackmoor, BUT, it was soon after abandoned by Dave for a granular hit point system which was in use way before he and David Megarry visited with us in 1972 to reveal the "RPG" concept. Thus the use of miniatures WAS NOT present in that initial preview of Blackmoor, nor was it present in Dave's notes as other than a trailing influence from Chainmail, a residual having to do mostly with reworked mechanics. I read Dave's Notes/MS and it revealed formulas that he used out of sight within his group and in that first session we played in. I also played again, with Gary, in Blackmoor at the Dungeon Hobby shop in 1975 and: No miniatures, no Chainmail. I do not appreciate being termed something without having been bestowed the courtesy of explaining my position, first. It's alright to challenge statements, but I consider broad-brushing them aside in this case by descending to a personal level--and one that is no where apparent from the historians for D&D whom I am in intimate and constant contact with and whom would concur with my statements as well--to be quite odd to say the least. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jan 28, 2016 19:49:56 GMT -5
 I didn't know, exactly, what all the hubbub was about. So, is there some kind of movement claiming that Mr. G. and Mr. A. used miniatures and the CM M-t-M combat rules when running their campaigns back in years -1 to 1+? Is that all the fuss? Or, is there some kind of confusion by some between the play testing by the aforementioned, and the early gaming groups trying to conduct the original rules; that they may (or may not) have been using miniatures and the CM M-t-M combat matrix, as may be interpreted in the provided literature published? I can certainly imagine neophyte gamers trying to run OD&D doing exactly that! But, personally, I wouldn't suggest that that's what the authors intended for the users of their game to be doing; despite what can be read in the materials. So perhaps, therein lies some of all this confusion of the past. I know I'm totally confused, myself! 
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jan 29, 2016 2:32:25 GMT -5
Well it's no secret that Gary was attempting to bridge Chainamil players to the new form AND claiming more of a part in the origination of the RPG concept while doing so. It states right on the covers that these could be used with miniatures, but we never did that. It was also strange, in hindsight , then, and from the LGTSA members who all bought or were given a free copy of the game, that Gary referred (in print) to the whole system that we had used for over a year of playtests as "alternate". This reference was used specifically for print as we had never-ever heard it referred to during or after the playtests as other than what we were playing it as, which would be, if one were to backwards refer to it, as being just the system. So one must remember that the confusion does not start now, it was confusing to CM players who made that leap then. Sure some stayed to play the game as Gary had intended with this strategy, but others were upset and exited for having been "lured." But enough of that. Histories of this sort will not be sorted out on Internet boards, no matter the intent or enthusiasm behind such. Too many presumptive attitudes, to much access to forward these. This type of poorly put forward fact-finding and assertions would not occurr at such a rate that it does these days without the medium of the internet, which ultimately and in many cases such as this one, confuses matters just as much (if not more) than it helps to clarify same.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jan 29, 2016 3:24:57 GMT -5
Got it.
I think that's indeed the issue some body is having--that od&d refers back to CM, but for reasons they never understood.
Well, it's now gotten late for me, and off to bed I trot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2016 9:25:23 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just dense , but I don't understand what any of this has to do with running a modern day game of D&D. It's a big pseudo-intellectual 'peeing' [EDIT] contest on who is more right than the other - excluding Mr. Kuntz, who was actually there as both player and DM and obviously knows - or perhaps, best remembers - better than any of the forum participants. But what difference does what guys '100 years ago' did make on your game? Was their way of playing the ONE TRUE WAY to play - is that what we're looking for here? This is why I stopped getting involved in discussion at the other place. Some vocal fanatics of this game want to turn it into some kind of academic project rather than just play the 'darn' [EDIT] game the way it best suits them. Now this garbage is spilling over here. I'd just skip the thread, but then what's to stop it from happening again in the next three or so threads. It's a virus, I tell you.
Side thought: The truth is found in a post on this forum comparing D&D to a religion. Religion often times brings out the worst in people, arguing over this point or that, instead of embracing the whole as a blessing. So maybe D&D is a religion ...  What I really like about this particular forum is the abundance of creativity and imagination that folks share from their games. So what if I switch to Chainmail rules for large or skirmish engagements in my D&D game. So what if I wanna use Man to Man combat as the primary combat mechanic in my game? So what if you add 5th edition house rules to your OD&D game? By design, no two OD&D games should be anything alike anyway. Sigh ... Get off my lawn ... |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jan 29, 2016 13:27:56 GMT -5
Jim--
after much scrutinizing of the matter it seems to me to all boil down to this: whatever you do...do it. The whole point of the OD&D "rules" was to provide an example (apparently used by the author's in their own unique variation), and from that product, you could use any, all or none of it and go create your own thing, in your own campaign, and do things your own way.
Too many folks nowadays are hung up on the 180 degree turn AD&D took philosophically to this. It perplexed everyone to death. And with each added edition, this rules-are-god notion just got more and more out of hand. Today, in some versions it takes 20 minutes just to create a freaking character.
And, now that I think about it, this might very well be the source of some of it: gamers coming from rules-heavy versions are trying to rules-play OD&D. And, as I understand it (from Rob), rules is not the reason to/purpose of playing OD&D. (I am not speaking for Rob; just my impression.)
But, as you say, enough of all this.
Let's get back to creative-sharing, which I enjoy being a part of, and a member of this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jan 29, 2016 15:31:17 GMT -5
What I really like about this particular forum is the abundance of creativity and imagination that folks share from their games. So what if I switch to Chainmail rules for large or skirmish engagements in my D&D game. So what if I wanna use Man to Man combat as the primary combat mechanic in my game? So what if you add 5th edition house rules to your OD&D game? By design, no two OD&D games should be anything alike anyway. But, as you say, enough of all this. Let's get back to creative-sharing, which I enjoy being a part of, and a member of this forum. I concur, lets leave the arguments to those who cater to them, that is not what this forum is for. I do not at the moment have much in the way of extra physical energy or mental energy beyond running my own campaign and day to day life. I have a lot of things I would like to post on here, if I can get back to that level of energy. Those of you who do have some extra energy please direct it to creativity and imagination.  IME if you approach the game like a child playing make believe you won't go wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Jan 29, 2016 17:17:27 GMT -5
Rob-- this (your comments) has been quoted over at ODD74; to which I had to...naturally...toss up my own 2c on the matter. I had a look and quite honestly, and even though I respect FIN, he's off base and wrong in many things stated there. Let's clarify history a bit. First my own to clear the statement that I am "biased". <snip.> I do not appreciate being termed something without having been bestowed the courtesy of explaining my position, first. Hey, Rob -- sorry if my posts on OD&D Discussion came off as offensive. I didn't mean "biased" in a bad way, only in that we are all viewing things through a certain lens and that gives us each a slightly different perspective on something. While you were lead playtester for Gary's campaign, I haven't seen any claims that you were in on Dave's Blackmoor before Gary got into the picture and so your statement needs to be viewed with the notion that your experiences follow Gary's game and not Dave's. Some posters seem to be of the viewpoint that everyone did everything the same at the beginning, but Dave and Gary had some very different ideas about OD&D and they weren't always on the same page on things. My own experiences in gaming clearly bias my own view on these matters as well. I know what my group did in '75 but at the time I had no connection to either the Twin Cities or Lake Geneva campaigns, so I'm biased by what I read in Strategic Review and what we did when we played. I certainly wasn't trying to challenge your expertise in the realm of the Lake Geneva campaigns! The guys that I revere the most (other than Gary and Dave) are you, Mike Mornard, and Greg Svenson. When you guys speak, I pay attention! |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jan 29, 2016 17:29:02 GMT -5
I had a look and quite honestly, and even though I respect FIN, he's off base and wrong in many things stated there. Let's clarify history a bit. First my own to clear the statement that I am "biased". <snip.> I do not appreciate being termed something without having been bestowed the courtesy of explaining my position, first. Hey, Rob -- sorry if my posts on OD&D Discussion came off as offensive. I didn't mean "biased" in a bad way, only in that we are all viewing things through a certain lens and that gives us each a slightly different perspective on something. While you were lead playtester for Gary's campaign, I haven't seen any claims that you were in on Dave's Blackmoor before Gary got into the picture and so your statement needs to be viewed with the notion that your experiences follow Gary's game and not Dave's. Some posters seem to be of the viewpoint that everyone did everything the same at the beginning, but Dave and Gary had some very different ideas about OD&D and they weren't always on the same page on things. I certainly wasn't trying to challenge your expertise in the realm of the Lake Geneva campaigns! The guys that I revere the most (other than Gary and Dave) are you, Mike Mornard, and Greg Svenson. When you guys speak, I pay attention! Well Thanks Fin for that clarification. It's a give with one hand and take with the other, type, in some ways, but I accept it with this caveat: I am very familiar with how Dave played--played with him twice--read his notes and MSS, developed the Blackmoor Supplement, talked with him over the phone and in person many times, worked with him, have talked with Dave Megarry and Wesley, and I am a designer to boot, one of the few surviving from those days, and am actually 150,000 words into a book which is being dedicated to Dave Arneson and the MMSA; AND have been interviewed for a Blackmoor Documentary as well as six 10 hour sits for D&D docs, etc, etc, etc. So let's not too carelessly confine me to a silver bubble of "Lake Geneva Campaigns" alone, ok? Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jan 29, 2016 17:47:48 GMT -5
Oh I hope to hear more on this, Rob.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jan 29, 2016 17:56:06 GMT -5
And, now that I think about it, this might very well be the source of some of it: gamers coming from rules-heavy versions are trying to rules-play OD&D. And, as I understand it (from Rob), rules is not the reason to/purpose of playing OD&D. (I am not speaking for Rob; just my impression.) Yep, but according to Dave Arneson that has always been the case: "Rules Lawyers are the enemy." From one of his many interviews. We even had them BitD, It's a very restricted and limiting mindset, not like an inquiring scientist, no, but more like an accountant that "adds it all up". But it's a linear mindset (b'cuz linearity is about "adding it all up"); and what Arneson was promoting was granularity and mutability. Thus we arrive at both open and closed mindsets AND systems... |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jan 29, 2016 17:59:32 GMT -5
Oh I hope to hear more on this, Rob. You will , but I've already said too much... |
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Jan 30, 2016 7:09:26 GMT -5
I haven't seen any claims that you were in on Dave's Blackmoor before Gary got into the picture and so your statement needs to be viewed with the notion that your experiences follow Gary's game and not Dave's. I am very familiar with how Dave played--played with him twice--read his notes and MSS, developed the Blackmoor Supplement, talked with him over the phone and in person many times, worked with him, have talked with Dave Megarry and Wesley, and I am a designer to boot, one of the few surviving from those days, and am actually 150,000 words into a book which is being dedicated to Dave Arneson and the MMSA; AND have been interviewed for a Blackmoor Documentary as well as six 10 hour sits for D&D docs, etc, etc, etc. Well, darn. This is a piece of the puzzle that doesn't quite fit where I thought it fit. I'm going to have to go back, re-examine a few things, and see better how your info fits with Greg's and the FFC. Just when I thought I had it all figured out, too... Glad to hear that a book on Dave and the MMSA is underway. This is a slice of gaming history that I think has been overlooked for far too long. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jan 30, 2016 10:12:17 GMT -5
I can assure you that few have "it" figured out. This discussion is an example of that. What is being figured out becomes of prime importance in adjudging the past, and I guarantee you that this discussion, likewise, is in the least favorable position to place as #1 in that category as well.
To clarify "Glad to hear that a book on Dave and the MMSA is underway.": The book is being dedicated to Dave and the MMSA, as originally stated up thread.
Cheers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2016 15:42:09 GMT -5
I started playing in Blackmoor in September of 1973. BEFORE publication of the LBB.
Dave was NOT using CHAINMAIL at that time.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 31, 2016 18:44:31 GMT -5
@gronanofsimmerya, welcome!
How would you describe the connection between CM and original D&D?
I mean historically. Not logically or game-mechanically.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2016 22:06:49 GMT -5
@gronanofsimmerya , welcome! How would you describe the connection between CM and original D&D? I mean historically. Not logically or game-mechanically. "Not nearly as complicated as most people seem to want to make it." Also, you should ask Rob, not me. He knows about a thousand times more about this than I do. |
|
