Feedback Regarding My First Draft Annotations (So Far)

Questions Arising So Far With Regard To Annotated OD&D

Regarding dungeon master as a game term, was Tunnels & Trolls published before Supplement II: Blackmoor? 

We asked Ken (St. Andre, T&T's author) who stated it was. Of course, this is the author's recollection so naturally I digged down further.

• Blackmoor 1st Printing: September 1975 (The Acaeum)
• Tunnels & Trolls 1st Printing: June 1975 (frontispiece to that work)

Further, T&T had a "soft" release after it was typed up by St. Andre in April '75. So, either way, T&T beat Supplement II by a couple of months.

Why did you use archaic to describe the grammatical usage of men?

While many, myself included, use "man" to indicate humanity in the greater sense and not sex? This usage has fallen out of the mainstream and is no longer being taught in public schools. Archaic as a word selection may arguably have been a reach, though we still feel it is a good choice, but other terms sounded even harsher to our ears.

Further, we could not assume everyone reading these posts (and later, book or PDF perhaps) would be familiar with this usage; or if that usage would easily come to mind.

Why don't you go into more detail about the Tolkien Estate and the cease and desist letter? 

Primarily because most of what we know is contained in that statement! The Tolkien IP was under the control of Tolkien Enterprises (renamed Middle Earth Enterprises) which were divisions of Saul Zaentz Company (Berkeley CA). This company was very aggressive when it came to protecting the Tolkien IP. Tolkien Enterprises sent a cease and desist letter to TSR over the latter's boardgame "Battle of Five Armies." This resulted in TSR pulling the boardgame from print and expunging most of the specific LotR references from D&D. Apparently, this was enough to mollify Zaentz. This extra detail seemed superfluous to me, so I didn't include it in the annotation.

On a side note? Tracy Hickman (co-author of Dragonlance) once confirmed to me in private conversation the kender in the Dragonlance novels existed, in part, so that work wouldn't include hobbits/halflings.

Why did The scope need not be restricted to the medieval lead to This seemed a promise for various published settings for D&D that might stretch from the prehistoric to the imagined future? 

Because that's what went through my head when I read it in 1975! Boot Hill came out in 1975, and Supplement II contained underwater encounters. So it seemed to me other campaign settings would be "in the works" so to speak.

Regarding input by Simon (WaysoftheEarth). 

We have the highest regard for Simon and certainly appreciate the information he posted. His attention to detail is phenomenal. But, we have always been told "write the book you want to read." That level of detail, while interesting to many, fails to engage our attention as a reader. We found our provided information of Forward versus the finally corrected to Foreword as interesting. The afterward/afterword trivia will get mention when the work comes to that point in the text (and provide a nice cap to the work in our opinion). Changes in typeface, font, caps, etc., such as Simon cited? We feel that, while interesting, this is outside the scope of our work. De gustibus non est disputandum and so on.

This is not to say our editorial outlook will not change over the course of this first draft!

The hardest part is deciding where to stop!

Indeed, and this figures into the previous question. How much information is too much? An exhaustive reference is often a tough read. We are attempting to be informative while hitting points of interest, without getting bogged down in detail. Time will tell if we are successful.

Introductions to the 3 books. 

Suggested by friend and bible scholar Tetramorph. We like this idea and will add it to the text. We're merely waiting to see how the main body of work shapes up before writing introductory material (which will include a look at the rules and our work as well).