When you say (s)he did a good job of researching and tracking down little known facts, are those facts, or are they stuff the author made up to make him/herself look good? And can you or even the author prove them to be so?

Are these things facts because he/she/it wrote them in a book, and for no other reason?

mbassoc2003 wrote:When you say (s)he did a good job of researching and tracking down little known facts, are those facts, or are they stuff the author made up to make him/herself look good? And can you or even the author prove them to be so?

Shannon apparently listed his "human shields" (erm, "fact checkers") which didn't exactly get a smile here... Having said that, it's still very useful IMO to have someone do to the legwork and produce such a voluminous baseline document.
It's probably as much the fault of others if they take that as "100% gospel truth" from end to end - simply not possible, of course - and use the book for self-perpetuating Wikipedia citations, etc.

Still haven't purchased a copy, but I'm 100% certain a narrative history is preferred to the nausea-inducing attempt to impose scientific analysis upon the subject in Tresca's cack-handed manner. Hardly started reading that one (page 6) before the "Gaming Media Richness Hierarchy" appeared, showing that he understood neither the subject nor its history, and that his book was liable to be no more than a blatant display of personal (tt)RPG splitist, supremacist views.

mbassoc2003 wrote:Are these things facts because he/she/it wrote them in a book, and for no other reason?

Mhmm... that does happen rather too often, I know. Guess we'll have to blame Gary and co. for muddying the waters so much in the past, too?

If Shannon had been honest and said, "This happenned at this point in time, and then this hapenned, and I am making the supposition that it is as a result of a meeting that occurred here, or as a result of this action by such an such.", that would be the truth. Instead, Shannon has chosen to lie and say, "This is fact, Fuck you!". That's my issue with this sort of bullshit research and self glorification.

mbassoc2003 wrote:If Shannon had been honest and said, "This happenned at this point in time, and then this hapenned, and I am making the supposition that it is as a result of a meeting that occurred here, or as a result of this action by such an such.", that would be the truth. Instead, Shannon has chosen to lie and say, "This is fact, Fuck you!". That's my issue with this sort of bullshit research and self glorification.

You've read the book?

That is an interesting citiation from Tresca, Faro.

I was unaware of his work.  Merely the idea of an "evolution" of fantasy  role-playing games is irritating, since it presumes from the beginning that there has been a traceable development and improvement in games.  I think there is some merit to that point of view, but other gamers with just as much experience and knowledge can (and have) scoffed at that idea.

I get tired of writers who treat role-playing games as a psychological phenomenon.  It is a sociological phenomenon...no doubt...but psychological?  No.  I have not seen an examination of the RPG subculture that has not taken a snide and/or arrogant position from the start.  Tresca starts by claiming himself as a solid source, which is not a good way to start either a history or a psychological evaluation.

The only positive example I've seen of a mass media treatment of any iteration of role-playing games was the movie Darkon, which followed the live action role-players in that game through both their gaming and personal lives...which both confirmed and refuted gamer stereotypes.

I think books and articles like those Applecline has produced are important just because of their historical value.  Without interviews, quotes and anecdotes, history gets lost.  

I haven't read Applecline's book yet so I cannot evaluate his sources and point of view.  (I know only one of his sources: Our interview of Greg Stafford on this website.  That interview was filled with excellent inside facts, but also statements that represented Stafford's point of view and the limits of personal memory.)

Is Applecline a historian or a feature journalist?  What were his standards for including or excluding information?  To what extent has he contrasted the points of view of different speakers?  What were his standards for evaluating different sources?  Until I know those things, all I really know about Applecline's work is the electronic price.

Those are the words I would expect from a careful historian.