TSR Rob Kuntz Recounts The Origins Of D&D

​

In this interesting article from Kotaku, Rob Kuntz relates a history of early TSR that differs somewhat from the narrative we usually hear. It delves into the relationship between Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson (D&D's co-creators) and the actual development of the game, which dates back to Arneson in 1971.

Dungeons & Deceptions: The First D&D Players Push Back On The Legend Of Gary Gygax

Everybody calls Rob Kuntz last, he says. Those who want to know about the history of Dungeons & Dragons start with co-creator Gary Gygax’s kids, one of Gygax’s biographers, or D&D publisher Wizards of the Coast. As they’re wrapping things up, they might get around to dialing up Kuntz, a...

kotaku.com

 

[Azzy]

Really sounds like a lot of people want to downplay Arneson's contribution to the existence of D&D—without the "idea man", the idea wouldn't exist. Great for Gygax of running with the idea and codifying it, but he would have creatyed D&D on his own, either.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

In the end, Gygax was the force behind D&D, responsible for moving out of their basement and into yours. Arneson was a creative guy that had fun but perhaps had trouble putting things together in a an organized fashion. He did not have the vision and drive that Gygax did even if he had some good ideas first!

I believe the mechanics and flavor were much more Gygax. He recognized a great concept when
He saw it (even if he did not use it first) and reworked it into its most recognizable form.

Credit where credit is due...but in academia you don't often cite the guy that dabbled with a good idea if he did not test, write up and publish, jumping through the hoops. Apparently in our hobby there are some parallels.

Well … Arneson didn't just have ideas. He had a game, and he ran it for about two years before showing it to Gygax. That's not dabbling. Arneson absolutely did test his ideas on his own; what he showed to Gygax was the result of two years of testing. You do cite that guy. There would be hell to pay if you didn't.

Furthermore, this is beyond a mere idea, but an idea that came from many years of play and theory behind it. Dave Wesley can and will (dig up the audio of his interview before Gen Con about 10 years ago; it goes above and beyond what Wesley said in the Arneson documentary and is absolutely fascinating) talk for hours about the origins of this idea, and what led him to the Braunstein game. As well as reading Totten, this was a group that played the ideas therein. Arneson applied both the theory and the lessons learned in play (for example, he didn't like rules lawyers complaining about realism, so he set it in a fantasy world), and his players were receptive since they also had the same experiences.

Frankly, the idea that Gygax was that organized with the rules goes against my experience with the rules he penned. It is hard to use OD&D without any prior experience, and rules aren't coherent at all. AD&D is better, but even then, I still read the original Dungeon Masters Guide and still find something new with each reading. Call it a bad combination of bad organization and the purple prose that Gygax so loved.

Finally, a court of law agreed that Arneson did write some of the rules. Some of the items, most notably the magic swords, did make it from Arneson's draft rules to Gygax's final product relatively unchanged, which led to the ruling. You can see further evidence of Arneson actually writing rules in ones that Gygax didn't explain well because he likely didn't use them much (turning undead) or even understand them (% in lair). That wouldn't happen had Arneson only given Gygax an idea, not rules.

 

[Warpiglet]

Well … Arneson didn't just have ideas. He had a game, and he ran it for about two years before showing it to Gygax. That's not dabbling. Arneson absolutely did test his ideas on his own; what he showed to Gygax was the result of two years of testing. You do cite that guy. There would be hell to pay if you didn't.

Furthermore, this is beyond a mere idea, but an idea that came from many years of play and theory behind it. Dave Wesley can and will (dig up the audio of his interview before Gen Con about 10 years ago; it goes above and beyond what Wesley said in the Arneson documentary and is absolutely fascinating) talk for hours about the origins of this idea, and what led him to the Braunstein game. As well as reading Totten, this was a group that played the ideas therein. Arneson applied both the theory and the lessons learned in play (for example, he didn't like rules lawyers complaining about realism, so he set it in a fantasy world), and his players were receptive since they also had the same experiences.

Frankly, the idea that Gygax was that organized with the rules goes against my experience with the rules he penned. It is hard to use OD&D without any prior experience, and rules aren't coherent at all. AD&D is better, but even then, I still read the original Dungeon Masters Guide and still find something new with each reading. Call it a bad combination of bad organization and the purple prose that Gygax so loved.

Finally, a court of law agreed that Arneson did write some of the rules. Some of the items, most notably the magic swords, did make it from Arneson's draft rules to Gygax's final product relatively unchanged, which led to the ruling. You can see further evidence of Arneson actually writing rules in ones that Gygax didn't explain well because he likely didn't use them much (turning undead) or even understand them (% in lair). That wouldn't happen had Arneson only given Gygax an idea, not rules.

Agreed on most points. He got an award by the courts.

But my point stands. He did not publish it or build it up.

And my point stands about how much claim one has on an idea not furthered. Lots of people in academia have good ideas. They have no claim until published.

Finally, gygax DID get it together later on. If Arneson did, it seems like it was after the ship sailed.

Arneson did not get enough credit. He also did not seem to have what it took to make a phenomenon happen beyond his pals.

I think he had original ideas; I think Gygax had the talent.

And as far as original ideas...was it actually Arneson or his associate with braunstein that had the original idea? We don't cite his pal much at all and I don't think any of them got squat.

 

[darjr]

David Wesely certainly does deserve credit for Braunstien and the original genius idea.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Well … Arneson didn't just have ideas. He had a game, and he ran it for about two years before showing it to Gygax. That's not dabbling. Arneson absolutely did test his ideas on his own; what he showed to Gygax was the result of two years of testing. You do cite that guy. There would be hell to pay if you didn't.

Furthermore, this is beyond a mere idea, but an idea that came from many years of play and theory behind it. Dave Wesley can and will (dig up the audio of his interview before Gen Con about 10 years ago; it goes above and beyond what Wesley said in the Arneson documentary and is absolutely fascinating) talk for hours about the origins of this idea, and what led him to the Braunstein game. As well as reading Totten, this was a group that played the ideas therein. Arneson applied both the theory and the lessons learned in play (for example, he didn't like rules lawyers complaining about realism, so he set it in a fantasy world), and his players were receptive since they also had the same experiences.

Frankly, the idea that Gygax was that organized with the rules goes against my experience with the rules he penned. It is hard to use OD&D without any prior experience, and rules aren't coherent at all. AD&D is better, but even then, I still read the original Dungeon Masters Guide and still find something new with each reading. Call it a bad combination of bad organization and the purple prose that Gygax so loved.

Finally, a court of law agreed that Arneson did write some of the rules. Some of the items, most notably the magic swords, did make it from Arneson's draft rules to Gygax's final product relatively unchanged, which led to the ruling. You can see further evidence of Arneson actually writing rules in ones that Gygax didn't explain well because he likely didn't use them much (turning undead) or even understand them (% in lair). That wouldn't happen had Arneson only given Gygax an idea, not rules.

Some of that was what I was getting at, a lot of the refinement of Arneson's concept that we think of as Gygax, was actually the editors: Holmes, Kask, Mentzer et al.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

Agreed on most points. He got an award by the courts.

But my point stands. He did not publish it or build it up.

And my point stands about how much claim one has on an idea not furthered. Lots of people in academia have good ideas. They have no claim until published.

Finally, gygax DID get it together later on. If Arneson did, it seems like it was after the ship sailed.

Arneson did not get enough credit. He also did not seem to have what it took to make a phenomenon happen beyond his pals.

I think he had original ideas; I think Gygax had the talent.

And as far as original ideas...was it actually Arneson or his associate with braunstein that had the original idea? We don't cite his pal much at all and I don't think any of them got squat.

1) If you published a paper and didn’t give at least a byline to someone who created, developed, tested, and sent you draft notes, you’d face an inquiry. In short, Arneson was a factor in publication, and he reviewed drafts from Gygax with publication as the clear goal. In 1973, Gygax clearly treated Arneson as a coauthor, because he was. That Gygax was the corresponding author, to use the academic term, doesn’t make Arneson any less an author.
2) “The talent”? Where? I’m serious here. Gygax was a terrible writer and woefully disorganized. (He does appear to have been more organized than Arneson. That’s not praise.) He wrote an ungodly number of unclear rules in AD&D (weapon length and speed factor, anyone?). What Gygax had was drive and ambition. Those things don’t always get enough credit, but had Arneson and friends not come up with the original idea in the first place, Gygax would have kept writing Civil War minis rules.
3) The Braunstein originator is David Wesley, and I agree, he doesn’t get enough credit. The whole gathering of players in Saint Paul and trying to push the boundaries of wargames is the theoretical basis that this group had leading up to the ideas of role playing games: playing a single person rather than a whole army, and the open-ended goal of the game beyond winning a single battle.
4) According to Kuntz, there was some attempt to keep Arneson from making contributions while at TSR. I hadn’t heard the whole bit about trying to move the company before so I don’t know how true it is (though Arneson was right—there was more available talent in Minneapolis; Milwaukee or especially Chicago, too, for that matter), but his tenure at TSR was short, and unusually unfruitful given that he had co-written D&D and written the Blackmoor supplement before moving. Adventures in Fantasy came afterwards, suggesting that Arneson had some writing in him at the time.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

Some of that was what I was getting at, a lot of the refinement of Arneson's concept that we think of as Gygax, was actually the editors: Holmes, Kask, Mentzer et al.

Oh heavens yes. Especially Tim Kask after the original publication. There’s a long interview with him up on YouTube about that time. Eric Holmes deserves credit for realizing the game was not self-explanatory.

(I’m a little curious who actually edited the original boxed set. Kask isn’t credited at all; no one is listed as editor; and the only folks listed by name are Kuntz and Gygax’s childhood friend Tom Keogh. I think Gygax edited the books himself. It shows.)

To put it another way, the idea from D&D came from a guy whose drive wasn’t all that great and comically disorganized. (I know folks who went to the same high school as Arneson, and I’ll ask them about Dave then next time I see them. Dunno if they interacted with him much.) The guy who did most of the writing was a terrible writer. And everyone involved in TSR was a dreadful businessman. (And businesswoman, for Lorraine Williams.) in retrospect, it’s amazing we’re still playing this.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MNblockhead]

I think a lot of Gygax's--and therefore D&D's--success was due to Gygax's skill at networking and organizing communities around the hobbies he loved. He was doing this for years before D&D. Really, I think that maybe Gen Con had more to do with D&D's success than the quality of the rules themselves. There were others who had quickly grokked the concept of RPGs and came up with their own systems, but Gary built up the network, community, and distribution that allowed D&D to benefit from its first-mover status.

Gary also appeared to be better at presenting and selling his ideas. He was gregarious, was a good public speaker, and represented the game well in nearly all the video and written interviews I've seen. I really can't see Arneson on TV defending D&D on 20/20 during the Satanic panic.

Now, while I've met Gary in person, I've never met Arneson (even though I grew up in Arneson territory), so maybe I'm way off base, but Arneson never struck me as particularly charismatic. From everything I've seen and read, I don't think Arneson could ever have made a success of out D&D without Gary. But that isn't to discount the fact that Gary likely would not have had that eureka moment to give focus to his drive and talents if were not for Arneson.

Later in life, both men seemed have gotten over old wounds and relearned to appreciate one another. I don't find it is fruitful for Kuntz to cut down one in favor of another.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Rather than watch all of the speculation here I decided to join the fray. AMA about those days and the referring article. To start, there are many misconceptions here as based upon published information, but that is not to be wondered at. I'm an open book as I was at DF (11 years) and the PPP forums (6 years??) and at my several blogs and FB page, at convention Q&A's, and in over 200 hours of phone interviews and about 100 hours of documentary sits. -- Rob Kuntz