TSR The Dueling Essays of Arneson & Gygax

A recent article and documentary about Dave Arneson's involvement in Dungeons & Dragons shares a different perspective on the game's creation, with a particular emphasis on Rob Kuntz's testimony. Some of it contradicts what Gary Gygax positioned as D&D's origins. Fortunately we can read what both designers thoughts in their very own words -- published in the same book.

Alzrius pointed out that both Arneson and Gygax contributed essays to Lawrence Schick's Heroic Worlds. What's startling is how their essays contradict each other just pages apart.

Heroic Worlds, published in 1991, was an attempt to catalog every tabletop role-playing games publication. It was a massive undertaking that was possible only because of the limited scope of the hobby. Thanks to electronic publishing, the Open Game License, and the Internet, tabletop gaming products have exploded -- DriveThruRPG has over 30,000 products alone -- making it impossible to produce a book of this scope ever again. It also provides a snapshot in time of the thoughts of various game designers, including Steve Jackon, Jennell Jaquays, Tom Moldavy, Sandy Petersen, Ken St. Andre, Michael Stackpole, Greg Stafford, Erick Wujcik and more.

Arneson kicks off the D&D controversy on page 131:

My first set of miniatures rules was for fighting out battles with sailing ships. This led me to meet several people, including Gary Gygax, at an early GenCon. These people later participated in a historical campaign I refereed. When I began refereeing what later became D&D in Minnesota, I mentioned it to them. They were interested, and when some of us went down to visit we all played this strange game...the lads in Lake Geneva got turned on to it. Tactical Studies Rules, a Lake Geneva-based game company, was already publishing historical rules and was willing to do D&D.

Gygax follows up on the origins of D&D in a short one-page essay on the very next page:

In the late 1960s a club called the Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Association met weekly at my home for military/naval miniatures gaming. From this activity sprang Chainmail. The D&D game was drawn from its rules, and that is indisputable. Chainmail was the progenitor of D&D, but the child grew to excel its parent.

This point is disputed by RPG archivist, Paul Stromberg, in the Kotaku article, "Dungeons & Deceptions: The First D&D Players Push Back On The Legend Of Gary Gygax":

“People think that Blackmoor arose from Chainmail, and thus Chainmail gave rise to Dungeons & Dragons. That is not correct,” said Stormberg, the RPG historian. While Chainmail, amongst other things, was an influence on Blackmoor, Arneson’s game was “entirely new,” he said. “It’s a game entirely unlike Chainmail. It’s like saying a Rodin uses red and a Picasso uses red so they’re the same style of painting.”

This perspective is shared by Arneson himself in his first essay:

Contrary to rumor, the players and I were all quite in control of our mental processes when D&D was designed. I also hasten to point out hat the Chainmail connection was the use of the Combat Matrix and nothing more. Find a first-edition Chainmail and compare it to a first-edition Original D&D someday and you will see that for yourself: not a hit point, character class, level, or armor class, much less any role-playing aspects in Chainmail.

Arneson's perspective on the game industry comes through in the other essays scattered throughout the book. Here's his version of how Blackmoor came about:

I originally began with a simple dungeon and expanded it into several dungeons loosely organized as a campaign. The rules were not really an organized set, more notes on what I had earlier. Today people expect a lot more detail, coherency, organization, and story.

Here's Arneson's thoughts on writing a scenario:

When I design a scenario, sometimes the plot or situation will come from books I read, and sometimes it just pops into my head...Changes are made, and then the work is sent off to be butchered--er, ah, edited, I mean...The original Blackmoor supplement included what was the very first published scenario. My intention was that it would serve as a guideline for other GMs to design their own. Instead, it spawn an entire "service" industry. Oh, well...

And finally here's what Arneson thought of the game industry:

My serious advice to the would-be role-playing-game author will sound cruel and heartless, and most will be offended and not listen. To would be game designers I say: seek useful employment in another field...play your own house rules with your friends and associates; it will be less painful and far more fun. (On the other hand, frankly, I wouldn't have listened to an old fogey like me.)

Gygax's thoughts on the subject of D&D are well-known; Arneson's less so, and Heroic Worlds is a trove of his perspective on tabletop gaming and publishing, undoubtedly informed by his legal tussles with TSR. The difference between Arenson and Gygax's approach to gaming is starkly illustrated in their essays. And yet, despite their long and sometimes antagonistic history, Gygax ends his essay on a hopeful note:

Dave Arneson and I have spoken frequently since the time we devised D&D. We don't plan to collaborate on another game, but just maybe one day he'll decide to combine talents again.

Did Gygax mean "we'll" instead of "he'll"? Gygax ends the essay with our only answer: Who knows?

 

[Sacrosanct]

They settled out of court because the claim by Arneson was strong.

If it were strong, why did he settle?

Settling out of court means there was no concrete ruling. People settle out of court all the time for many reasons, not always because the plantiff has a strong case.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[jayoungr]

"In due course the news reached my ears, and THE RESULT is [Dungeons & Dragons] what you have in your hands at this moment."

This is Gygax himself talking. Gygax himself admits that Dungeons & Dragons is the ‘result’ of the campaign that Arneson and his group are playing.

I don't have the full context, but just from what's quoted above, I read that rather differently. Dungeons & Dragons is the result of Gygax hearing about Arneson's campaign, which presumably led to them putting their heads together and working on what became D&D--not the direct result of the campaign with no intervening steps.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So Gary Switzer, not Gary Gygax, is to blame for the Thief?

...I suppose EGG is to blame for putting it in Greyhawk, and every subsequent custodian of the IP for not re-combining it with the hero.

(I'm sorry, I really liked hearing "hero or wizard" instead of 'Fighter or Magic-User,' in the context of Arneson and his buddy demo'ing that first TTRPG to Gary &c.)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Yaarel]

It seems to me that if Gary said or wrote something you want to hear, you're using that as infallible evidence for your argument, and if he doesn't say or write what you want, you call him a liar and a thief (no pun intended), and anyone disagreeing with you as a worshipper of Gary.

The confirmation bias is strong in you, I'll give you that.

In academics, it is called the criterion of embarrassment.

Gygax is demonstrably unwilling to credit others for things he steals.

When he himself admits the rules for Dungeons & Dragons come from Arneson, the evidence of this statement is probably true.

 

[Yaarel]

If it were strong, why did he settle?

Settling out of court means there was no concrete ruling. People settle out of court all the time for many reasons, not always because the plantiff has a strong case.

Because court cases are expensive and normal people cant really afford it.

I suspect both Arneson and Gygax wanted to resolve the dispute as soon as possible.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In academics, it is called the criterion of embarrassment.

Gygax is demonstrably unwilling to credit others for things he steals.

When he himself admits the rules for Dungeons & Dragons come from Arneson, the evidence of this statement is probably true.

You still aren't seeing the inherent contraction in your argument. Nor did you answer my question. If Gary is "demonstrably unwilling to credit others", then it seems odd that he'd credit Dave in the forward, and then credit Gary Switzer for the thief class in 1974. Why are you holding one up as a foundation of your argument, and then completely dismissing the other (and going on character assassination at that)?

So I'll ask again. If Gary was willing to credit Dave in the forward, why would he not only not credit him for the thief class, but credit Gary Switzer instead? The actual evidence is that Gary was more than willing to give credit for that class to someone else. So why Gary S and not Dave?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Yaarel]

You realize that you have now stated that the court made a ruling (that it didn't), that there was evidence in front of the court (that there wasn't) and that now you are just guessing why the parties might have settled?

Why are you arguing this? It's clearly not something you've looked into.

I said, the case went before a judge. The lawyers brought these transcripts to the judge.

They settled the case out of court. This often happens in lawsuits and saves everyone time and money.