You have GOT to be kidding me.

[Umbran]

Even setting that aside, why in the hell aren't things like that just plain on tap at WotC? Why? I mean, when they were "saving" D&D back in 1999, during all of that shredding and pulping did nobody say "Hey maybe we should keep a couple of these books around"?

Consider the nature of the business before the 1980s. It wasn't a major corporation that kept an eye towards history and archiving its own works, now was it? It was small-time stuff.

I would not be surprised if many of the copies of older books they kept around were personal copies that left when the personnel left. Stories suggest rather strongly that upper management of TSR near the end wasn't exactly worried about keeping a library for reference.

And, since that time, it is unclear that they'd have seen a need to refer to the oldest works.

 

[maddman75]

As for the current one, maybe they could have stated what they meant better? I am surprised though they don't have copies of the entire normal product catalog from TSR through WotC in some form, even if just a scan when a paper copy might be hard to come by.

D&D predates scanners.

 

[jgerman]

D&D predates scanners.

No it doesn't, it came about two decades after the first scanner was invented in 1957. Drum scanners were marketed in the 70s, possibly before. If they were interested in archiving there were a number of methods available even when D&D first became available.


In any event, that Ampersand article seems like a silly thing to get irritated about.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Edit: Of note, I don't think anything in the current article is worth a complaint however. Presumably they're talking about the absolute earliest, goes for on Ebay sort of books - that I can see reasons for

Presumably you're talking about Original D&D - that's as far back as can be gone. Original D&D can be had from RPGNow or DrivethruRPG for $pennies.

It doesn't, or shouldn't, matter when this may have appeared in some TSR document. What matters is where it appeared to gamers, and that "where" is in incredibly easy-to-access sources. THat they don't have them, refuse to use them, or whatever that's just...man, I just don't know.

 

[Fifth Element]

THat they don't have them, refuse to use them, or whatever that's just...man, I just don't know.

I don't know either. Maybe the thread would make more sense if we did know?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't know either. Maybe the thread would make more sense if we did know?

I know.

It's an excuse for people who want to be mad at WotC to be mad at WotC.

 

[Mercurius]

Grognard Rage!

Sweet.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm not exactly suprised. Its nothing to get upset about. Its all a matter of perspective. Years from now, the current 4E fans will get upset because someone will write an article and won't be able to remember the first time the phrase "exception based design" was used.

 

[Mistwell]

Presumably you're talking about Original D&D - that's as far back as can be gone. Original D&D can be had from RPGNow or DrivethruRPG for .

It doesn't, or shouldn't, matter when this may have appeared in some TSR document. What matters is where it appeared to gamers, and that "where" is in incredibly easy-to-access sources. THat they don't have them, refuse to use them, or whatever that's just...man, I just don't know.

Look, you want to rant about stupid stuff? Fine, I'll give you one.

The article asks people to write them if they know of an earlier reference. Have you found an earlier reference and written them?

The article says they do not have a COMPLETE set going back to the 70s. Do you have a COMPLETE set going back to the 70s (and I do not mean just some common ODD stuff, I mean a COMPLETE set, all variations, all volume numbers, etc.)?

Do you know ANYONE who has a truly COMPLETE set?

It's not an "incredibly easy-to-access source". It's not that they "refuse to use them". It's that they did use them, came up with an answer, and they do not have a 100% complete set back to the 70s. You have taken that information, changed the information to suit your personal rant, and then proceeded to rant about that strawman for a few posts now.

So, it's time to back your rant up. Have you found an earlier source, which you claimed was incredibly easy to access? If so, have you written them? If a complete set going back to the 70s is easily found, then do you have it? And again, I do not mean do you have most of it, I mean do you have ALL of it?

If not, then why do you feel it is OK to hold other people to a standard you will not hold yourself to?

 

[Neil Bishop]

This is a very odd thing to get all up in arms about. (snip)

Yes this is a bit weird.

Perhaps the OP is feigning rage for the amusement factor?