Not indie but relevant anyway.
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-tangled-cultural-roots-of-dungeons-dragons
Not indie but relevant anyway.
Not indie but relevant anyway.
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-tangled-cultural-roots-of-dungeons-dragons
1. “D. & D.” Really, New Yorker?
2. It took a me a while to realize that this is actually a book review, not a column about D&D’s cultural roots.
3. Pulling’s son was not “D. & D.-obsessed”.
Yeah, “D. & D.” was weird.
I have not heard good things about this book.
To be clear: I’m not advocating for the book in any way. Just pointing to an article that may be of interest.
Mostly it reminds me I own but have not yet read Playing at the World.
Nobody ever accused the New Yorker of having a typical style guide…
Casey G. read it! I had to read a second time after 6 months or so to dwell on the bits I missed the first time round.
I’m wondering if the pushback — I’m seeing it over on the Facebook as well — has to do with the book saying untrue things, or unkind things. Honestly I don’t know! And I’m not especially fixated on historic personalities. Just curious. I know how gamers can be.
I want to say I’ve heard it is very weak in comparison with Peterson’s book.
“Very weak” still doesn’t really address if this one is untrue or unkind.
A review from a source that actually knows stuff about RPGs would be nice.