Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9276482" data-attributes="member: 6799660">I would agree. Certainly once we start battling over more, less, or certainly what admixture. One person can provide very little, but that part was crucial. Records can indicate one person can be the one that hits pay dirt, but how much of the ground they excavated may be unknown. The amount left unknown is sufficient to broaden the error bars to be a huge portion of the total. Most importantly, collaborations are, well, collaborations. The people involved are working together, off each other, and with (or sometimes against, in spite of, or to spite) each other. The whole thing is a frustrating mess even if the whole process is recorded on film, or the like, much less the patchwork narrative we're left with from the primary sources. + all other posts about Supplement II.I don't see it that way. I think activities before publication of initial D&D and actions taken afterwards are separate data points. If Dave had chosen to pursue the rest of his history major and become a historian/teacher/whatnot or been hit by a falling meteor or otherwise left the industry completely after contributing what he had* to the original D&D game, that wouldn't retroactively take away from that initial contribution. *which we can debate, but as I indicated above strong conclusions are IMO much harder.I think it unflinchingly obvious that Dave's career at producing D&D -once it was D&D- was a clear failure to launch (with recent publications clarifying a lot it being Dave-action-generated). However, Dave's major contribution to the game took place before this fraught working arrangement was initiated. Gary simply went on to do more after that initial point, whereas Dave crashed and burned.</blockquote>

Verification