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

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Hello Rob, tha ks for joining in! I consider myself really lucky to be able to engage in a discussion with the old guard (also on facebook people like Ward, Mentzer etc) thanks to the internet.

My question would be "Do you feel like the Kotaku article misrepresented you in any way, or omitted any statements that you feel should have been included?"

Okay. Just got back from the kitchen whereat I had some watermelon prepared by the Mrs.

Technically, no. But I felt that it was slanted and the tone was off, sculpted; and later learned that Cecilia is not pro-Gygax. Now I am not passing on my quotes because of that. Yes. Gary, IMO, was jealous. He was also jealous of MAR Barker's EPT, and I have my own personal face-to-face observations for that as Gary and I copy-edited it before print. Also that first Blackmoor session we experienced in Nov 1972 (which I wrote about in Wargames #1 by FGU, "History of D&D: Past, Present and Future) could not have happened without a system already in place (which had been constructed by Arneson 1 1/2 years previously and was still being iterated (as an infinite system) by him and his group. You cannot play a full game from village, to castle to outdoor in Blackmoor--which is what the 4 of us did that night--without a system, whether verbally transmitted (as with PLAY by example) and/or partially retained as reminders (as in Arneson's notes of what he was already using as rule guideposts or as concrete go-to rules) which were then constantly being amended and changed per Arenson's complex way of ordering, constraining and disseminating information. This is, in fact, what we found out in the playtests from our end--the exact same way of ordering, rejecting information, or using it in some other applied manner, the same way that Arneson grew his rules, Gary with his preferred mechanics grew D&D.

I have always felt, from day one, that Gary was not very appreciative of what Arneson had done as a designer, and there were two, in retrospect, indicators of that starting the very day after that session in Nov 1972. Note that I am more neutral regarding that; If asked I give my impressions and information. If I had had an axe to grind I would had been doing that for years beforehand, but I am not going to shy away from the truth as I know or perceive of them if I am asked a question. Frankness in this case is being misread as brazenness.

Please follow up for clarification on anything I have raised here, including why I hold some positions as "truths".

 

[Parmandur]

Okay. Just got back from the kitchen whereat I had some watermelon prepared by the Mrs.

Technically, no. But I felt that it was slanted and the tone was off, sculpted; and later learned that Cecilia is not pro-Gygax. Now I am not passing on my quotes because of that. Yes. Gary, IMO, was jealous. He was also jealous of MAR Barker's EPT, and I have my own personal face-to-face observations for that as Gary and I copy-edited it before print. Also that first Blackmoor session we experienced in Nov 1972 (which I wrote about in Wargames #1 by FGU, "History of D&D: Past, Present and Future) could not have happened without a system already in place (which had been constructed by Arneson 1 1/2 years previously and was still being iterated (as an infinite system) by him and his group. You cannot play a full game from village, to castle to outdoor in Blackmoor--which is what the 4 of us did that night--without a system, whether verbally transmitted (as with PLAY by example) and/or partially retained as reminders (as in Arneson's notes of what he was already using as rule guideposts or as concrete go-to rules) which were then constantly being amended and changed per Arenson's complex way of ordering, constraining and disseminating information. This is, in fact, what we found out in the playtests from our end--the exact same way of ordering, rejecting information, or using it in some other applied manner, the same way that Arneson grew his rules, Gary with his preferred mechanics grew D&D.

I have always felt, from day one, that Gary was not very appreciative of what Arneson had done as a designer, and there were two, in retrospect, indicators of that starting the very day after that session in Nov 1972. Note that I am more neutral regarding that; If asked I give my impressions and information. If I had had an axe to grind I would had been doing that for years beforehand, but I am not going to shy away from the truth as I know or perceive of them if I am asked a question. Frankness in this case is being misread as brazenness.

Please follow up for clarification on anything I have raised here, including why I hold some positions as "truths".

Thanl you for chipping in, Mr. Kuntz. I'm curious about the argument about moving TSR to St. Paul: are there any other details or contextual factors behind the blow up that you can share?

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Thanl you for chipping in, Mr. Kuntz. I'm curious about the argument about moving TSR to St. Paul: are there any other details or contextual factors behind the blow up that you can share?

Well the idea of moving to MN was the Minnesota group's angle, but note that would not have been possible without first securing Melvin Blume as the third director and then forcing the vote from the dynamical growth angle. So it was a two-stager. Melvin Blume WAS the issue with Gary, as he had Brian pretty much fan-boyed and invested at that point. Besides, Brian Blume had already invested in everything for the Williams and Marshall street location and was living there as well, was on the way to purchasing the TSR Van (or had already done so), had hired many people, etc., so the immediate move was not practical or even possible at that time. The bigger issue is that Arneson was hired as "Research Director" and not as a designer. He operated out of his apartment on Cook and Wisconsin street and was rarely seen around the office for there was no office space for him there. What was RD? Sourcing talent and games from the Minnesota group, such as MAR Barker's stuff and Snider's Star Probe, et al. But Arneson wanted to DESIGN (so did I, that is what Gary had groomed me for, what I had latched onto and had greatly applied myself to), especially a game and seminal concept that he had either helped to originate and/or had originated. Gary was not for that and essentially moth-balled him.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've heard often (not just in this thread, but over the years) that Gary should get most of the credit because Dave really didn't contribute much beyond the idea. Putting aside how I think that's not really accurate, I think more importantly it's because he wasn't allowed to contribute much, and went underappreciated. How long would you stay at a job where someone else took credit for your ideas and then didn't allow you to be part of the larger project once it took off?

 

[reelo]

It's really fascinating to read all this. I'm mostly a BX fan, so that's early 80s and somewhat of an outlier (as compared to OD&D and AD&D) Also, it makes me less invested in the whole Gygax/Arneson debate. I'm not taking anyone's side, therefore. If only Tom Moldvay were still alive to tell his tale...

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Hey Rob- wanted to follow up on this! So I've noticed that there can be disparate opinions about the past, especially when you compare notes between, say, what Gygax, Arneson, Kask, you, Ward, Sutherland, Carr and other have said at different times (and how, sometimes, we find out things that people haven't talked about- like the whole influence Patt may have had on Chainmail).

Given the fallibility of memory, why do you hold some positions as "truths," and what are those positions?

Ah. I hear the echoes of Jon Peterson in your sentences, Memory is not the only thing that can be fallible, btw. If even and honest one can state, "I do not recall." So it comes down to character; and character is often more fallible than memory in humans. In D&D's case--as positioned by Peterson--documents MUST be the guiding post of this, but documents and the history made from their information can and will be skewed, and they were in Gary's and Arneson's case, and many times over due to Gary having overt control of the ongoing narrative. Even if you can check them with another document that is not always the case and one can gloss and omit as well, as the researcher is also capable of being fallible. So, the more one constrains the sources for examination, the potential for a skewed result grows proportionately.

As for the "antecedents" of the RPG form constructed by Arneson (which would be the thrust of a pro-Gygax or pro-Wesely route through either Chainmail or Braunstein, respectively); and this would then allow for the entourage of speculation concerning types such as Patt then being lifted wholesale to Chainmail, Totten to Braunstein, et al. thus--SEEMINGLY--setting up a sequential and lineal track; I have debunked both routes with the science of systems, design theory and play theory (re, via my linked essays in DATG)--all of which had been omitted until DATG for linguistic theory alone (i.e., for the collection and examination of documents, on the main). That we are examining a new game category type that has no antecedent in historical models based on my now 8 years of research, is, at present, the only relevant (although provisional) note in my view as based on a holistic and inclusive approach comprising ALL FOUR research categories possible for this subject, which must include the science of systems, etc. To date, my posits have not been refuted (in fact they are supported by two scientists that I have approached, one in Europe and one in the USA), btw; rather I was attacked for having to draw some comparisons in the conflict between Gary and Arneson along the way (as noted up thread).

 

[Rob Kuntz]

It's really fascinating to read all this. I'm mostly a BX fan, so that's early 80s and somewhat of an outlier (as compared to OD&D and AD&D) Also, it makes me less invested in the whole Gygax/Arneson debate. I'm not taking anyone's side, therefore. If only Tom Moldvay were still alive to tell his tale...

Yep. I'd be fascinated too if I didn't have to do all the typing... Bad humor aside I am pleased to serve.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

You chaps have been very welcoming and I thank you for your engagement and friendliness. Perhaps Morrus might consider giving me a sub-forum here for Q&A's. I don't get many questions on my FB page (an interface that drives me crazy but is needed). Maybe you could suggest it to him and to get my e-mail from my account information to contact me. It wouldn't be like Master Gygax's bitd before his passing, but it would be something embracing it, all that was good and exciting from those days.

May you never get caught in a dead end by an iron golem!

RJK

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*