The Darkest D&D Scandal Gets Worse 

So there has since been an update to this! I encourage everyone to check out the statements from both Anne at DIY & Dragons and Justin on the Alexandrian! There's been some clarifications, dialogue and softening of language in the updates, but it doesn't look like anything materially has changed, and my conclusions are still the same: reverting the term used to "Jacquaysing" makes the most sense, given the circumstances imo Here's the updates: DIY & Dragons: diyanddragons.blogspot.com/2024/01/an-update-on-jaquaysing.html The Alexandiran: thealexandrian.net/wordpress/50588/site-news/a-second-historical-note-on-xandering-the-dungeon

I mean....name the chapter "Dynamic Dungeons" and reference Jaquays' contribution. No need to name it after yourself.

Jennell's funeral was only around 12 hours ago, so this may be a bit raw for me. I wasn't aware of the name change from "Jaquaying" to "Xandering" until today. I did know Jennell had asked repeatedly for an "s" to be added to the new verb, to match her name, Jennell Jaquays. That's something we had talked about. That's something Jennell expressed publicly too. Also, her surname is pronounced Jake-ways, if anyone is interested. I have noted some people writing that Dave Arneson had non-linear dungeons in his Blackmoor campaign, and I don't doubt that. Justin Alexander wasn't studying Dave Arneson's dungeon design though. Justin was studying Jennell's work, and there's no doubt he admired it. I give Justin credit for eventually changing his blog post upon her request to use the name Jennell. Something that Judge's Guild were unable to do, using her dead name to post their connection to her work when Jennell passed away. This was intentional bigotry on their part. They also deleted messages on their Facebook page and blocked anyone who tried to correct their egregious error. How righteous is that? (Sarcasm inferred here). Jennell Jaquays will always be with those who loved her, and her work will be loved by those who encounter it. Justin did a good thing by coining the term "Jaquaying(sic) the Dungeon." He was showing respect for one of the pioneers of a hobby we all love. A fitting tribute. As Jennell won't die in our hearts, "Jaquaysing the Dungeon" will live on also. Rewriting his blog post and changing messages to match the new chapter title in his book has obviously upset a lot of people. It struck a nerve with me also. Give Justin some credit though, for addressing the concerns from the community and responding as best he could. Justin has also put a link up for donating to her family’s memorial fund, is contributing to the Jaquays Memorial Game Jam, and is making a recurring donation to Trans Lifeline in her honor. I wish Justin success with his new book. If there's a reprint, maybe Justin will rename the chapter "Jaquaysing the Dungeon" in honor of Jennell? Jennell was also an advocate for mental health. So, think of that before you direct too much vitriol at Justin. We don't need bigotry or hate in this hobby. My heart goes out to Becky, and the Heineman and Jaquays families in their time of grieving.

It's weird that there are people in this comment section going "Not illegal though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" as if that was ever the point

This is the first I'm hearing that Jaquay had passed from Guillain-Barre, I had it when I was a kid and, ironically, it was during my years long recovery that I discovered fantasy novels, comic books, and role playing games as a coping mechanism and her work was definitely a part of my early gaming experiences.

That Dark Tower Module is AMAZING not talked about enough. She had a beautiful and creative mind, we were lucky to have her.

Neither of them invented the concept. The dungeons and sewers underneath the original City State of the Invincible Overlord, first published in 1976 were filled with ways to skip multiple levels and had multiple entrances. Must Judges Guild products featured non-linear aspects like this well before Jaquays worked for them. In the Holmes Beginner D&D boxed set the rule book included a section about running a game as the dungeon master and how to build dungeons. This included a side view of a dungeon with three different ways to get in by entering different levels and multiple side levels that lead to different paths to a city in the middle of a subterranean lake (well before the Underdark was a thing). Everyone I played with who created their own dungeon crawls, created non-linear dungeons. Linear dungeons are a product of published adventures that have to fit within a small page count, although this was not always the case. Some award winning dungeons published in the Dragon magazine weren't. The Fell Pass, if I remember the name correctly, was short, but no necessarily linear. Neither of them invented the concept, but both of them are among the most recognizable proponents of the non-linear adventure. Jaquaysing? Xandering? I wouldn't use either term.

Ok, so even IF we accept that he changed the name to mitigate the risk, why in the everloving hell did he rename it after HIMSELF?! That's where the douchines slides in.

For me, I feel all three of his reasons were blame shifting. "It wasn't my fault, she asked me to fix it." (No, she asked you to correctly spell her name) "It's not my doing, some people think using her name is bigoted." (Riiiight, he changed it becuase a small group of people got offended) "Oh, my publisher has was afraid of legal stuff, and THEY asked my to change it." (The term was not copyrighted, thus a basely fear) The cherry on top was him altering history. If ANY of the 'reasons' he gave were true, then altering the past would be unnecessary. You only change the past to cover up something you're doing in the present that you are ashamed of doing. Additionally the narcissism of replacing the term with his own name. Way to 'honor' the person you claimed as inspiration, Justin. It's a scummy thing to do (whether Jennell had recently pasted or was still alive), but morality isn't legality. So, the only thing you can do is be displeased with his behavior about what he did. Though it would go a VERY long way in cleansing how peple feel about things if he'd change the original posts back to normal. (With one exception: spelling her name correctly) (Jaquaysing the Dungeon) It would really be a shame to tarnish the large body of his good works with this one poor moment of disrespect.

He very clearly does take credit in his 'historical' post: "To be really clear here: I wrote the article. I invented the word (both the old one and the new one). I created the categories of techniques and level connectors. It’s my work."

It is worth noting that Justin cknowledges Jennell Jaquays as a dungeon design expert in his book's acknowledgments “Jennell Jaquays is the ultimate guru when it comes to xandering the dungeon.” Over a decade ago, Justin's blog post introduced and even coined the term "Jaquaying a dungeon," spotlighting Jennell’s pivotal role in shaping our design philosophy. Without that blog post, would we ever even know or acknowledge this design philosphy? While the name has been changed, she is still reconginzed, awknowledged, and referenced multiple times in the article. He did not attempt to erase her name or credit. It’s unfortunate that their groundbreaking contributions have been overshadowed by a dispute over names. This was talked about and posted about last year in November. The new blog post about it in January is just fanning the flames again. Rather than dwelling on this controversy, it’s important to recognize and celebrate the lasting influence of both Jennell and Justin in our community. Sad days.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you suggest at 17:20 - if this was actually request from his publisher, he should have used a generic term. Naming it after HIMSELF comes across as very arrogant whatever his intentions were.

When I first heard the term "Xandering a dungeon," my gut reaction was that it felt incredibly egotistical and self-aggrandizing, and I wasn't yet aware of the backstory. Now, it feels so, so much worse. Even if we take his explanations at face value, taking a concept that someone else came up with and that you initially named after them, and renaming it after yourself is wrong. In this case, with the originator of the idea freshly dead, it's completely effed up. The fact that he couldn't see that speaks volumes, and none of it is good.

"Older dungeons like Keep on the Shadowfell . . ." Lol, "older dungeons."

I accept the fact that he recognized and did a good job of explaining the concept of Jaquaysian dungeon design; recognizing what made her style unique and explaining it is original work. That said, just because he was the one who coined the original term, doesn't make it acceptable to later (possibly in a fit of pique after having her complain about the term being spelled wrong) re-name it after himself, regardless of what his publisher may or may not have wanted.

All he would have to have done, is start the chapter with a note explaining where the term Jaquaysing the Dungeon came from and identifying Jannell as the inspiration.

"Darkest D&D Scandal" - oh sweet summer child.

I have mixed feelings on this issue. First off, I was not very familiar with Janelle Jaquays, despite being a TTRPGer from that time. There were a lot of folks doing all kinds of things in the TTRPG space back then, so it's not surprising. You have to remember this was before the internet, and popularity and fame were the publisher's prerogative, not the author's/creator's. Even from my first dungeon that I created, the notion of making it non-linear was kind of a no-brainer to me. Sure, there were plenty of published modules with linear dungeons, but there were also a lot of non-linear ones, so I don't think this is too big of an innovation. It was, at best, an obvious incremental improvement in dungeon design. On the other hand, I don't doubt for a minute her creativity or her contributions to the game spaces she worked in, and she deserves to be remembered for them. I also am not big on idol worship, which is sorta what naming a thing after someone is. Sure, put her down in the history books at least as one of the first people who popularized and implemented NLD design, but don't name it after her. Seems kinda cheeky to me also that this dude (who I also don't know much about) went down the same route by naming it after himself. Just call it what it is, talk about why it is important, and move on. Naming it after yourself (or anybody else, really) comes off as startlingly egoist and, to me, adds no real value to the treatment of the subject. Now, it's all a bunch of drama and an internet shitstorm with idol-worshiping fans on both sides clashing over a non-issue. To them I say: just go back to playing the game.

Nah, I think the publisher is just a fall guy. He could have easily brought it up himself, and the publisher could have been "Oh yeah, that's a good idea, since that author isn't working with us." His claim that the publishers wanted him to do it could be completely true while still being something he caused to happen in the first place. This is just not the kind of solution that would have been thought of unless Justin Alexander really wanted to slap his name on it. It's probably not about erasing Jennell exactly, but I do think he wanted to take her place. Otherwise it would have been called something completely innocuous like diversifying a dungeon. People are flawed. It's okay to love someone's work and also admit that they may not always have the same moral compass as you. Someone can create amazing works on their own and still be jealous of someone else's accomplishments. I think him being the original person to coin the term actually caused some of this. He thinks he created the hype so he could easily feel like he has a type of ownership over the whole thing. And to be completely macabre, maybe he thought she wasn't going to be using it anymore so why shouldn't he?

Important bit of context: Jennell Jaquays is in fact mentioned in the "Acknowledgments" section of the book, so it's kinda hard to call it plagiarism, as that implies that no credit was given; and that is putting aside the fact that his blogpost is an essay that is an analysis of, among others, her work, so calling it a rip off is about as valid as saying that a critic is plagiarizing a movie they wrote about. Also, about the claims that Alexandrian took advantage of Jennell's unfortunate passing and illness - the text of the book would have been finalised loooong before any of it has happened, you can't make sweeping changes like that last minute, it's not how the editorial process works. While I do agree that the replacement name of choice is not the most fortunate one, especially in context, this whole thing is ridiculously blown out of proportion.

I read Alexander's book and I was VERY taken aback to see NO REFERNCE to Jaquays at all (EDIT:... In the relevant section of the book. It does appear in the Acknowledgments, as others have pointed out.)

Swedish Bellman jokes is a very very deep cut! Also hilarious.

Man coined a term. The man decided to change the term he coined. That's his purview.

He's Chaotic Neutral, so it's just what his character would do...

Seems vanishingly unlikely to me that a publisher would ask for the made-up word describing an obvious, well established, non-protectable aspect of game design be changed to another made-up word.

It was ignorant as hell for him to use his own name as a replacement given that it looks like hubris at best. It's like me walking into a bookstore and writing my name in gold Sharpie over Tolkien's on every copy of The Hobbit and not expecting to at least get kicked out.

Thank you for bringing my attention to an artist who greatly contributed to my favorite hobby. She deserves to be remembered.

lol Dave Arneson invented non linear dungeons with Blackmore

I'm afraid that my biggest takeaway from this was "people really love their drama don't they".

note about dungon design, a linier dungon is not a problem, the problem is that you need to justify the layout of a dungeon by the necessity that the organisation that built it needed it to fill

I’m sorry, when is it called either of those things? I’ve been playing and DMing and designing my own dungeons for 40 years and have never heard either of those terms. How about non-linear dungeons?

Alexander didn't create non-linear dungeons, but I do think he's created one of the best analyses of what a non-linear dungeon is, what it looks like, how to make one, and how to use non-linear aspects to make dungeons better.

I think the response is overblown thanks to Ms. Jaquays' untimely passing. I feel that he has the right to coin it after himself since while Jaquays pioneered the technique, I don't know that she ever wrote any guidelines on it for the public. Presumably Alexander just noticed that her dungeon design was very good abs took it upon himself to pick apart why, and probably pulled in ideas from other places as well. That said, I understand why everyone is upset, and I can certainly empathize. It's complicated and messy for sure.

I think the issue is naming it after himself, that's a big ego move and does erase her contributions even if that wasn't the intention. If it was a request from his publisher he should have made it a more generic mechanics focused term instead. He can handwave all he wants but that choices shows his true colors.

I've seen it mentioned in a few comments below that this was commonly done in previous editions. I move that "Jaquaying" a dungeon be renamed to "designing" a dungeon as it appears to be the way you are intended to do it.

It's ironic that the actual reason was to avoid legal issues, and now a massive backlash has happened instead. Of course, he could have simply used a generic term and then said, "I didn't come up with this idea. This amazing woman did."

People should read his explanation tho, for real. Based on my reading, I don't see that he had any ill intent in mind. And he did promote the gofundme in that same article. Even in the original article's updated version, he makes it clear that it came from her. And publishers can be very picky about potential legal issues, no doubt. Try to be fair-minded at the least. I'm sure the "slandering" article didn't even try. Don't be so judgy, internet!

Justin Alexander wrote another update just yesterday in which he is addressing the issue again and it's well worth reading.

the last two weeks have been wild for TTRPGS first the article about harassement, than the possibility of tencent acquiering D&D and this now, well...... i hope this is the end

I'm curious to know if she's listed anywhere in the book as a "special thanks" or "in memory of" section. If not, no, he just wanted to steal her work and claim it as his own.

The only scandal in D&D / Wargaming is how little discourse is streaming & the lack of long form content.

I saw you on a Pathfinder play through, and was completely bedazzled! I am now subscribed. Great work.

The Stalin reference is apt and funny as hell. Though, I think it was a dumb idea to change the word. Oddly, I'd never heard of Jaquays or her dungeons until she passed. It's odd because I've been playing since the 80's. I've also never needed to de-linear-ize my dungeons. Why? Because I'm a Tolkien fan. There was more than one way into Lonely Mountain and more than one way to cross the Misty Mountains. I create the world and locations, but my players decide how to interact with those.

I honestly do not see why he couldn't have just asked her to use the term? Like getting permission to use a term after her name mitigates the risk, and that seems like it came up during the writing and publication process which was before she got sick....

A large amount of vitriol against Justin I think comes from the way he responded, both past and present, to various issues regarding Jennell (including leaving her deadname in an article for years after she had come out, never updating the term to include the S but then changing it overnight to his name, his tweets and articles to defend the change to "xandering" etc.) An honest mistake borne from misunderstanding is one thing, being condescending and doubling down is another.

JaquaySing the dungeon. It isn't that hard. However, Justin adds a lot more to his design than just Jaquaysing it. And in all fronts he often notes literary, movie etc sources from which he has distilled the ideas. He did more of that on the blog and apparently is getting legal advise to do otherwise now, and not just for Jaquays. It is what it is. Lawyers gonna lawyer. He has provided a decade of great advise to the community. He has earned a book deal and I am glad to have it on my shelf. The big news with respect to Jaquays should be (again) that TSR in fact had a very diverse group for the time and talented people excelled regardless of background or other factors.

That tom hanks movie was a work of *pure* fiction, it was not really about James Dallas Egbert III's disappearance. He had severe issues & really needed professional help (is psychologist) or even protection before his breakdown. The story is tragic & somewhat interesting but pretty much take the tropes of abusive beauty pageant obsessed parents pushing their kids too far in those & apply them to pushing their kid to grind school the point where he was enrolled in college at age 16.

He published a 2nd historical note yesterday that clarifies some of what you have here.

I like that discourse uses, "swell". As the legal representative for the estate of Mr Twirly-whirly, I must take exception to the suggestion of linking his name to multi-route dungeons.

Synopsis: Darkest drama is that Justin gives a detailed explanation as to why the name of a term changed and from whom. Its not nefarious and isn’t really drama.

Very good video. Coincidently got my copy in the mail yesterday! It has a heading with the word "Xandering" in the creating dungeons section of the book, but it does not have any headings that I can see that say "Xandering the Dungeon" and I definitely don't say Jaquaysing in any of the headings.

He is outright erasing her contributions. Period. Just because he cites her work in the article doesn't absolve him for dishonestly changing the name to include him and exclude her. The idea his publisher asked him to o it for legal reasons is outright absurd. If she is the one that pioneered the method then she gets the credit. Period. By changing the name he states he pioneered it. He did not. He is guilty an the fact that she just recently passed away to help drive home the crime is all the more sweet. She asked him to correct the mistake, he did not. He stole her work and not only is he paying for it, she is indirectly helping. Total scumbag.

Hmmm 1979 Gary Gygax Wrote a module B2 Keep on the Border Lands That had multiple entrances to it with access to different levels and lots of traps. I'm not so sure she invented it, that style of dungeon creation. However she did make some really good stuff. Though I could and probably am wrong LOL.

There's a pretty significant Author's Note at the beginning of the Xandering is Slandering article, that apparently wasn't there when this video was coming together. I think anyone who's getting up in arms about it all needs to take a good look at the most current releases of the articles before working themselves up too much.

What a terrible look. It's just as you say, if he had named the concept "Twirly-whirling the dungeon" instead of crossing over someone's name and writing his own, then no one would have batted an eye. Did he had to add his own name over a thing everyone else knows he himself didn't invent? He should go back on this and say "Yea, that was a bad lapse in judgment. Sorry everyone!" and move on.

Wait... older dungeons like... keep on the shadowfell? I've never felt so old

I never heard of this woman until last month. And my friends and I were building our own "non-linear" dungeons in the late 70s as middle-schoolers. We didn't call them "non-linear". They were just our dungeons and we never thought anything of it. 🤔 This is absurd. 😳

This is the kind of thing that sounds exactly on brand for publishers. They look at worst case scenerio's regarding their products and eliminate them. Not always a good thing, not always a bad thing, but it is a consistant behavior.

Thanks for making a video on this. The timing of her death Will always tarnish his stuff now. Farewell Jennell. ~Brian

The idea of a 'non-linear' dungeon did not get 'invented' by that woman. That module was published in 1979 and 1980, and both are great dungeons, but in fact the idea of a 'non-linear' adventure or dungeon go back to the start of how the concepts of rpg's begin so that solving a problem can have multiple solutions or approaches. most GM's as the early 70s rolled by started with a single piece of graphpaper and might have had a single entrance, but often there are multiple splits in the path so you can choose 'left or right' 'straight or through that door over there', Plus you have to keep in mind the homebrewed is where many actually ideas are generated, and not in published modules. To attribute this idea to a single person is a stretch and really it is an innovation, but 1976 has a module by Gary Gygax run at conventions, like Expedition to Barrier Peak and Tomb of Horors, which sure got published maybe in 1978 but was worked out and the ideas were already seeded in gaming groups, which were centered at convention play for larger sized groups. I think all this seem making a mountain out of molehill and maybe someone, if they really were playing back in that day were that person, perhaps in a homebrew who generated the idea. I personally have come up with ideas you have have seen in gaming, then had conversations with real game designers at TSR and low and behold those ideas found their way into the actual game as art or game mechanics. Yup, I really did that, because they were attractive or solid ideas, that a real need was perceived and the ideas were implemented. For example, ever play Marvel Super Hero rpg and wonder why there are levels above Unearthly but below (and above) Class 1000. I made a case why the game NEEDS levels, and soon after Shift X, Y, and Z were inserted into the FASARIP chart, and Class 3000, and Class 5000 In the end, all I care about is the game was improved and we got a better MSH game. Then we have Vampire 3e Revised. It was like White Wolf sat in on our games and took our house rules and made them official, like how to do Initiative quicker. Most good and streamlined play rules often come from homebrew play groups, and designers gather up the best and implement them. That is simply two examples, but there are a few more. Yet, had I been a gamer back in 1974 I could have made the leap of introducing multiple entrances to a dungeon. In fact, I made one in 1977. I had two ways to get in and kept it all on a single page. It is simply a case of fitting an imaginative or creative urge as you design a dungeon. I remember also thinking I want rooms that are not square. I wanted to do hexes and squares and I am sure I was not the first to put that on Graph paper, because it is a rather obvious idea and most likely many gamers did that when they designed their first dungeons. What really mattered was coming up with concepts of what you wanted to put in the dungeon, and yes you went to conventions and 'found' ideas you liked and incorporated or 'copied' that idea into your own game/dungeon designs, and modified them as you were inspired. That is not a bad thing.

Runequest fans fondly remember Jacquays for her co-authorship of 1981's Griffin Mountain together with Greg Stafford and Rudy Kraft. Thank you for flagging up her contributions to gaming. I hope that Jacquaysian becomes the preferred term going forward.

I can’t believe I have a copy of that module, I’ll have to take a look

That’s interesting. I learned it as non-linear design. It dovetails nicely with the decision-tree format for creating the adventure in general. It’s nice to know the history of who did it first, but it isn’t plagiarism. I would question putting a name to it beyond the descriptive phrase that I was taught. It’s like level-based spellcasting being called Vancian after Jack Vance or skill-based spellcasting being called by Loren Wiseman’s name. It requires knowing the name of the person who created it in order to know what it is. It looks like he tried to tip his hat to the pioneer and his publisher pointed out that he might owe her some sort of royalties in addition to that credit. Switching his name for hers maintains the flow of the title. You might also notice that he left the A off of his name as a subtle apology for leaving the S off of her name in the original title. I don’t see a scandal.

It took till the 1970’s to come up with the idea of more than one door to enter or exit a location?? Odd my house has two doors and it’s 400 years old!

I guess it will depend on whether it gets changed back or not - as this will be a reflection on his motivation and whether 'this was a mistake" in his part.

I haven't read his boom, but cite your sources. He could have countered his publisher and said I'm going to honor her and keeping the term "Jaquaysing"

I've come to really anticipate your uploads after only three weeks of watching you, keep up the good work 🎉

Good work. Fair and level headed video on a difficult topic

This was not the gaming scandal I was expecting. When can we hear what you've found out regarding the Weisman Medium article?

My gosh, I've never seen a community that's so eager to eat itself over slights real or imagined than the OSR community (look at the never-released but still archived article The Worst People You Have Never Met and attached sound files that have recently been discovered). Don't these people have anything better to do than get outraged over minutiae? Is Justin Alexander now going to get the same treatment as Zak Smith received?

Can we start referring to his site as the Jaquasian? But on a serious note, I don't think there was malice in the name change, but it was very short sighted. The term should have been neutral, not his own name 🤦‍♂️

The one thing that i still dont understand, eho actually coined the term, because it sounds that due to the mispelling that he actually coined the term and is therefore the author and owner of the term so if he recoins the term as the creator of it he has the right and is more in line with what his editor requested and the fact that the term didnt come from her, the question regarding honouring her is a weird one to me as i only knew of her because of the alexandrian, so technically she would be unknown tonme if it wasnt for that article, and i think that trying to boil all of her work dow n to a single idea is also in as poor taste, she contributed more to the game and world than just multi route dungeoning, which technically isbjust nerdifying military breach and hostage strategies by the way, but there is much much more she contributed to that needs yo be honoured and remembered!

I have Alexander's book, and reading it without knowing about any of this, I actually tripped over the term "xandering". He uses it as if it was a well-known term and it makes the whole section annoying and confusing to read. I had to re-read it several times, thinking to myself "am I missing something that he doesn't just call this non-linear dungeon design?" Simply calling it "non-linear dungeons" and acknowledging Jaquays clearly would have been the right thing, both morally and also for the quality of the text. I think both "Jaquaysing" and "Xandering" are stupid terms, but on top of that, naming the latter after himself is in very poor taste. That said, the allegations that Alexander is trying to "erase" Jaquays sound like an overreaction triggered by seeing the world through an intersectional lens. In the "Acknowledgements" section Alexander writes "*Jennel Jaquays is the ultimate guru when it comes to xandering the dungeon*." Her name is the third name mentioned after Gary Gygax and Frank Mentzer in the acknowledgements. That's not how you erase someone from history.

I see several commenters arguing that the technique should not have been named for one person in the first place because it seems the same idea was invented independently several times, including according to some by themselves who say to have never heard of Jennell Jaquays before. But even if we accept that position, can we still agree how ridiculous a move it is for Justin to sell this design method to the next generations of DMs as Xandering now? Justin Alexander was BORN on December 4, 1979. This means that several of the modules considered exemplary of this design style, including the Caverns of Thracia which is mentioned in this video, were already published in print before he was even born, let alone contributing to any theory of dungeon design.

"Ja-kays" was how *she* said it, btw. Just to clear it up for everyone.

This was considered the biggest controversy in the gaming community? Huh, thought it was something else.

Thank you for covering this. I was not aware of this controversy and am rather disheartened as I too found The Alexandrian to be an excellent resource. If you fancy more despair, I would actually be very interested if you could do a video giving your opinion on the recent Medium article titled "The Worst People You Have Never Met, or, What I Learned During A Four Year Academic Study of Online Harassment In The Dungeons & Dragons Community" as its a pretty horrific deep dive into some appalling behaviour by some pretty established names.

The excuse that his publisher asked him to change the term because of legal risk is highly suspect to me, someone who has worked in book publishing for decades. I don’t see how that would have happened.

I am very skeptical to the idea that he felt like he had to change the term to something putting him in focus. It's important to remember, many people have such a fixation to be remembered and seen up to that any chance they get to do so, they will take it, even if it isn't their own work. And if he really wanted to honor her and still was somehow pressured to change the term, he could've based the name on something she liked, or on a core aspect of the design idea.

Children will sometimes recognize a (good or bad) trait someone has and refer to that trait with the person's name. We don't usually do this as adults because it oversimplifies who they are and fits them into a very small niche. It's not bad for a single conversation but you wouldn't want to coin it as a general term. People identify with their names and can be quite reasonably touchy about what you do with it. So yes, the best route would have been not using a name at all. But it's really hard to erase someone's legacy while crediting their work, don't you think?

I think Goodman Games is going to re-release The Caverns of Thracia for DCC “soon”. If anyone wants to double check that, I believe it was posted in an update for The Dark Tower Kickstarter campaign.

tbf her not being grateful for being a verb and being petty about the name, kinda gives him all the right to change it. especially when he coined it in the first place. Inventions are never named after the one who invented them, but by the one who was first to recognize the significance of the invention. rightfully so.

Couldn't they just say, non-linear dungeon exploration?

Taking an established term and then renaming it after yourself is narcissistic. No way to get around that, I am afraid. Also, have a Bellman joke. Once a policeman was walking down the street in the city, and he saw Bellman jumping up and down a manhole cover shouting "47! 47! 47!" The policeman was confused by this, walked up to Bellman, and asked "What are you doing?" "I am playing 47! Wanna try?" Bellman replies back. The policeman is hesitant. "Come on, it's fun! All you do is jump up and down on a manhole cover and shout 47!" The policeman was unsure, but Bellman convinced him to give it a try. So, the policeman stood on the manhole cover, and jumped a bit. "47, 47, 47..." "No! No! No! Louder! Jump higher!" And so the police man jumped a bit higher and said "47, 47, 47". "High! Louder!" Bellman encouraged, and the policeman was jumping as high as he could, yelling at the top of his longs "47! 47! 47!" And then as the policeman was jumping as high as he could, Bellman grabbed the manhole cover to the side, and the policeman fell down the hole. Then Bellman put the manhole cover back, got on it, and started jumping and yelling "48! 48! 48!"

That's in all a very OSR like discussion. 1979 the non-linear approach wasn't that innovative outside D&D. To bring it in a perspective, at the same time RQ Apple Lane and Snape Pipe Hallow were published. Jennell Jaquays helped in developing the mechanics with others, but especially introduced D&D player to it. And Justin Alexander came a few decades too late to the party.

I have read some of the blog posts by Alexandrian. Some are very good. For example, the ones about node location design and managing clues in a mystery. Yet, everything else I did not find useful. Thus, I stopped reading the blog years ago. I will probably buy hi's new book to finally have a definitive opinion on how useful hi's content is for me.

Note: Justin and Anne have both posted updates. Seems most of the accusations were wrong, or misinterpreted.

🕊️ Rest in heavenly peace Jennell Jaquays 🕊️ Thank you for the fond, fun memories in Age of Empires and DnD, and for making games better forever.

The "publisher made me do it" excuse would be a lot more convincing if he hadn't gone back and re-written the history of the term on his blog. That is erasure. Just say "I'm calling it something else in this book for legal reasons" and let the historical record speak for itself.

What's the deal Discourse. RU-vid keeps unsubbing me

I never even knew building dungeons like that was even credited to someone and i've been playing TTRPGs since the 80's. Must've been an American thing. You live and learn.

Any hole is a goal only works if there are multiple holes.

I have a sneaking suspicion that a publisher suggesting "legal trouble" is code for "we would have difficulty creating predatory lawsuits against other authors", not "we might be risking lawsuits against ourselves".

I think the article is probably a bit over-zealous, but you and several other commenters have made completely valid points: Don't rename something named for someone else to now be named after yourself. That can ONLY look bad, even if you were 100% sincere (which seems very unlikely. There has to be at least some level of selfishness involved in wanting to name something after yourself). While I don't think he's a complete narcissistic grave robber... he's definitely not acting in good faith either.

its in bad taste, especially as he didnt need to use his own damn name, gosh. why is he surprised by the reactions than? for legal issue: simple solution - an asterisk behind referring to a note in the beginning that the name was changed to avoid legal issues. even more so it sounds that he or the publisher forced the publishing without trying to attain the okay to use term (which seems planned originally), especially with the "bad" timing for such. still, doing the note-asterisk method and using a more neutral term for it would have avoided absolutely everything. if he felt like to still honour her name, maybe he could have dedicated the book to her (i think thats legally okay)

If the publisher wanted to change the name... should have just changed it to 'non-linear dungeon design' with note in the first paragraph of that being explained mentioning that "this is the system created by Jaquays".

I think that Jaquays is clearly a hero to The Alexandrian. He made a mistake in renaming the technique after himself.

American Psycho reference was perfect.

You cannot plagiarize game systems. It is not legally possible. I think it is a bit... You know, a bit. But at the same time, it is not like he basically lifted entire chapters from other authors. The publisher justification makes a lot of sense. Probably the publisher was thinking that if the idea is not conveyed accurately could leave them liable or something US Law silly. Edit: forgot to add but instead of inserting himself he could've just called the chapter nonlinear dungeon design. That would've made it better imho. And the self insert reeks of "smelling own farts for too long" syndrome.

Delinearizing. There. Done. That would avoid the drama of slapping one's own name on a thing.