Hello. New to Blackmoor.

[aldarron]

Really, what we need are timelines with footnotes. After all, at this point it's a scholarly activity and not just some guy doing a timeline for a homebrewed campaign.

Ross already made a timeline with footnotes. I was actually shocked when I first saw that, as very few fan works are so meticulous. Aldarron may criticize said timeline, but other than a few minor nitpicks, I see no reason to discard it as it stands.

Ross footnotes are a chief source of dissapointent for me in that they only cover about 1/4 to 1/3 of what he has listed, include a mystery source who may or may not have played with Arneson, and draw on Aardy De Varques very inaccurate "history" of D&D. So, Fin, if you look at the timeline I have posted on the boards here you will see I placed the references directly in the text to make it easy and provided a reference for every single listing so there would be no "where the heck did that come from?" for anyone who is interested.

I am not even sure something like that would solve anything, since the disagreements are more about which sources to include than its actual contents.

I'm not enough of a Blackmoor scholar to be able to pick up on some of the minutia errors and for me it would require a lot of reading just to get "up to speed" (even if my memory was strong enough for me to retain all of the data) so maybe that helps to explain why I lilke the older stuff better. Less to know!

To be honest, there is no need for anyone to know all this. A 3E DM would be equally happy to just pick up the 3E DAB CS and learn what's found within it. Why would be bother about whether Robert I was named after Rob Kuntz? These are academic discussions that can be interesting, but I am also worried that they could drive people away from participating on these boards.

-Havard

Yep, completely agreed. Prolly most gamers won't need a timeline at all or can make up their own or will cherry pick to suit. Blackmoor is definetly a play it as you like it setting.