Designers & Dragons

I'm not yet half way through this book, but had to make some comments before I forget them.

I really like this book, and it's obvious a lot of work went into it, but there's one major failing: the lack of citations.

This lack limits the usefulness of the book when it comes to any academic use, but more importantly it hampers independent analysis where either facts or conclusions are questionable.

So far I've run into two areas where my own personal experience contradicts what the author has to say. One is in facts. In the review of Palladium it states that Erick Wujcik developed Revised Recon from a miniatures game. That's simply untrue. I have the original Recon game, and it was always an RPG. Basic research shows that the publisher was even named "Role Playing Games, Inc.," and was a nominee for "Best Roleplaying Game" in the 1982 H.G. Wells awards.

If this little tidbit had been cited I could know where the author got his false information from and thus better evaluate other areas where questions might arise.

The second area where my experience contradicts the author is less clear cut, and I admit that my own experience may be in error. This is where they discuss the failure of 4th Edition GURPS to be as successful as previous editions. The author blames a variety of reasons, but fails to mention the one that customers actually expressed in my presence when 4th was released: many of the customers for their products prior to 4th edition didn't actually play GURPS. They bought the well-written genre and historical supplements for use with other systems.

The decision to no longer produce softcover supplements in the $20 to $25 price range is what caused these customers to leave, not e-publishing.

Admittedly my information was from my personal experience, but covers my time as a GURPS consumer from the late 80s to the mid 00s as well as conversations with gamers in two states, including the Bay Area of California (a rather large gaming market) and a store owner in that latter area.

That's the point though, I know where my information comes from, but due to the lack of citations, I don't know where the information in the book comes from, so it's harder for me to evaluate its reliability.

I should point out that I had to stop and comment on these negative points because the rest of the book is awesome and I didn't want to forget about these as I got further into what are some very interesting histories of the companies involved in RPGs. I still thoroughly recommend this book based on what I've read so far.

Edit: now that I'm finished, I will re-iterate that I really enjoyed this book, and look forward to checking out further updates by the author online.

It's a sometimes maddening book as I read about business people with no interest in gaming screwing over some of my favorite games and companies of the past, but it's good to have a better picture of the history of this hobby I love. Even if it is somewhat depressing at times.

The problems I mentioned before remain the major problems I found with the book, although there were a few other minor errors to be found, for instance the book states that the Classic Battletech Miniatures Rules from FanPro were the first time that Battletech had moved away from its hex grid maps, yet earlier rules compilations from FASA had included optional rules for playing Battletech as a more traditional miniatures game without a hex grid.

That's really just nitpicking though, and the only real issue I have is the general lack of citations. Fortunately, there is an included bibliography which I will probably spend some more time going through at some point.