OD&D Evidence Chainmail Had Material from Dave Arneson

[Mistwell]

The tone of this is not that of a rigorous analyzer. It's that of an advocate.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bardic Dave]

Recall what Arneson said:
“First Fantasy Campaign, which I did for Judges Guild, is literally my original campaign notes without any plots or real organization.” [11]

The analysis above appears to confirm Arneson’s statement by demonstrating that the creatures listed in the Magic Swords section, which Arneson said predated Blackmoor (see above for the quote) logically fit only before Gygax’s Fantasy Supplement, not after (Cases A and B demonstrate the logical inconsistencies that occur when the Fantasy Supplement is assumed to precede the Magic Swords material). While the Magic Sword text was not published until 1977 with the rest of Arnesons original campaign notes, this analysis does show that it dates no later than just prior to the publication of The Fantasy Supplement with Chainmail in approximately the first half of 1971. One could argue that Arneson prepared the Magic Swords material in 1977, but that would require that Arneson anticipated that someone would run this exact analysis later and that he very carefully chose the creature names in the Magic Swords material to trick it, but the chance of this is realistically negligible.

Sorry, but I have to reject that argument as tautological. You claim that you can use the 1977 text as the basis for your analysis because of your cherry-picked Arneson quote (from 1991, no less), and you can be sure the Arneson quote must be the literal truth because of your infallible analysis. Do you not see why that's problematic?

If you're going to use that Arneson quote as the basis for your analysis, then you have to start addressing the plethora of other Arneson quotes that contradict your thesis. One marketing blurb isn't going to cut it.

I say this as someone who doesn't have a horse in this race. I don't have an opinion or a preference about whether Gygax or Arneson was the "true" father of D&D. I am interested in the history of our hobby, however. I was curious to read your analysis, but I remain unconvinced as I find your argument lacking in rigour and logical consistency.

 

[Bardic Dave]

Just wanted to zero in on something else you said:

One could argue that Arneson prepared the Magic Swords material in 1977, but that would require that Arneson anticipated that someone would run this exact analysis later and that he very carefully chose the creature names in the Magic Swords material to trick it, but the chance of this is realistically negligible.

Really? You can't think of any other possible reason that Arneson might have revised, edited, restructured, rewritten, added material to, etc. his rough notes prior to publication other than to cunningly foil future analysts? Really? ...really?

 

[Umbran]

Let me give an example of how it is possible to establish the order of which a set of events occurred without knowing the exact dates of individual events.
...
Knowing the context of the three events is that they are all part of the process of Karen feeding her dog

Have you ever heard of "assuming the conclusion"? Because, that's at work here.

With Karen feeding the dog, you have extra information outside of the data that tells you the order of events - dogs literally cannot be fed from closed bags. You can assume that because you live in a physical reality.

But, your textual analysis is talking about a life history of information, without any real physical constraint.

Ask yourself, does it really make sense...

Stop. Right there. That's not a proof. That's an opinion. "I think it makes sense that..." is not evidence.

As we'll see, sure, it can make sense...

...that Arneson would have copied a bunch of creature names from Chainmail, but made a special effort to exclude the creature names that were unique to Chainmail? Why didn’t he copy down the unique creatures Lycanthrope, Roc, and True Troll, since he had apparently copied down Elemental, Ghoul, Giant, Goblin, and so on? Why would he copy down Werebear and Werewolf, but change their spelling to the non-standard spellings “Were bear” and “Were wolf”? Neither of these actions make any sense and suggest that the assumed order is wrong.

You seem to be assuming "copied", as if "ripping off the entirety verbatim" is the only mode for one author to borrow from another.

You should also allow for "influenced by". As in, Arneson is exposed to a text, and then, at a later time, assembles his own text, without directly referring to the original. From what we know of Arneson from Kuntz writing on this site, he preferred actual play to writing things down, kept a lot of things in personal notes, and kept much of his game in his head. So, between any document Arneson read, and then anything he wrote for publication, there's probably a space of him thinking about designing, and using in play.

The final thing he wrote, then, had gone through processing. He likely wasn't literally looking at the text of things that influenced him as he wrote - he'd instead likely collected things into his own set of notes, in his own writing style.

This leaves a lot of space for differences. For example, in his own play, if he'd used werewolves and werebears, and never used the lycanthrope or roc... he just didn't care about them and left them out.

With that, any number of textual differences make sense, no matter which direction influence went!

Textual analysis usually needs large amounts of data before it becomes convincing. You really need to get into establishing the verbal habits of each author over significant bodies of work. You then take aberrations or changes from their usual habits as evidence of borrowing.

For example, say Arneson always used "werewolf" in early writings. Then, Patt comes along using "were wolf". And after some moment where they likely intersected, Arneson starts using "were wolf" too - you then might take it that Patt influenced Arneson.

One off lists? There are too many plausible reasons for differences for them to be convincing.

 

[mwittig]

Have you ever heard of "assuming the conclusion"? Because, that's at work here.

With Karen feeding the dog, you have extra information outside of the data that tells you the order of events - dogs literally cannot be fed from closed bags. You can assume that because you live in a physical reality.

But, your textual analysis is talking about a life history of information, without any real physical constraint.

While there is no physical constraint, there is the constraint of acting rationally. In cases A and B, Arneson would appear to have acted irrationally, while in case C, it appears that Gygax and Arneson acted rationally.

"Ask yourself, does it really make sense that Arneson would have copied a bunch of creature names from Chainmail, but made a special effort to exclude the creature names that were unique to Chainmail? Why didn’t he copy down the unique creatures Lycanthrope, Roc, and True Troll, since he had apparently copied down Elemental, Ghoul, Giant, Goblin, and so on? Why would he copy down Werebear and Werewolf, but change their spelling to the non-standard spellings “Were bear” and “Were wolf”? Neither of these actions make any sense and suggest that the assumed order is wrong."

Stop. Right there. That's not a proof. That's an opinion. "I think it makes sense that..." is not evidence.

I laid out three cases. Two of the cases required irrational behavior, while the third is consistent with rational behavior. How is that not evidence?

You seem to be assuming "copied", as if "ripping off the entirety verbatim" is the only mode for one author to borrow from another.

You should also allow for "influenced by". As in, Arneson is exposed to a text, and then, at a later time, assembles his own text, without directly referring to the original.

Take a look at the Venn diagram in Figure 3. Fifteen of the creature names appear in both Arneson's list and in Chainmails, verbatim (other than differences in character spacing and Arneson specifying his wizard was "evil"), including three obscure creature names: Anti-Hero, Elemental and Werebear. Note that nine of the creature names, including two of the three obscure creature names, appear within both Arneson's list and Chainmail's, but not Patt's. This indicates direct copying was almost certainly going on between Arneson's list and Chainmail, while the analysis shows--assuming rational behavior-- that the direction appears to have been from Arneson's material to Chainmail.

From what we know of Arneson from Kuntz writing on this site, he preferred actual play to writing things down, kept a lot of things in personal notes, and kept much of his game in his head. So, between any document Arneson read, and then anything he wrote for publication, there's probably a space of him thinking about designing, and using in play.

The final thing he wrote, then, had gone through processing. He likely wasn't literally looking at the text of things that influenced him as he wrote - he'd instead likely collected things into his own set of notes, in his own writing style.

This leaves a lot of space for differences. For example, in his own play, if he'd used werewolves and werebears, and never used the lycanthrope or roc... he just didn't care about them and left them out.

Your example of Arneson choosing to use werewolves and werebears and not to use lycanthrope would be rational behavior. However, look what I said about Case B:
Taking a look at the first and second columns now, you’ll note that Arneson appears to have removed the Werewolf and Werebear in favor of the term “Lycanthrope”. Then, supposedly, at the same time he eliminated all of the creatures unique to Chainmail, he added back the Werewolf and Werebear, eliminated the term “Lycanthrope” that he had previously added, and changed the spelling of Werewolf and Werebear to the non-standard spellings “Were Wolf” and “Were Bear.”

I would argue that this is not rational behavior, suggesting that the assumed order of Case B is incorrect.

With that, any number of textual differences make sense, no matter which direction influence went!

Textual analysis usually needs large amounts of data before it becomes convincing. You really need to get into establishing the verbal habits of each author over significant bodies of work. You then take aberrations or changes from their usual habits as evidence of borrowing.

For example, say Arneson always used "werewolf" in early writings. Then, Patt comes along using "were wolf". And after some moment where they likely intersected, Arneson starts using "were wolf" too - you then might take it that Patt influenced Arneson.

One off lists? There are too many plausible reasons for differences for them to be convincing.

This isn't standard textual analysis because of the need to distinguish between rational and irrational behavior rather than processing large amounts of text in search of anomalies. If the behaviors were more subtly rational or irrational, the results would not be as meaningful; but in these three cases above (A, B, and C), however, the behaviors are clearly irrational (A and B) and clearly rational (C). Therefore, the result of the analysis appears valid.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[mwittig]

Woah.

Okay-

[lots of Arneson quotes about using Chainmail]

Arneson certainly said that he used Chainmail and the Fantasy Supplement. However, in some quotes Arneson suggested that Blackmoor preceded Chainmail--the same thing Gygax suggested in the quote at the beginning of the article. Was there no combat in Blackmoor prior to Chainmail? Their testimonies are inconsistent and therefore, like in most court cases, other evidence is required to get to the truth of the matter. The article above, I believe, provides that evidence. I will provide some more evidence of the more conventional sort that will perhaps convince some people to take a second look at the above analysis.

Here we have the April 1971 issue of Arneson's newsletter, Corner of the Table. Note that Arneson talks about the March general meeting, and near the end of the clip mentions that a resolution will be presented at the April general meeting.

At the end of the newsletter, Arneson announces that there will be a "medieval Braunstein" on April 17th (though the year is a typo; it should read 1971 and not 1970, as is apparent from other dates in the newsletter) Note that Arneson mentions that it features mythical creatures and a poker game under the Troll's bridge; clearly, at the time when Arneson typed up the newsletter, he was already using fantasy. Note also that he makes no statement indicating that this is the first such game:

Now take a look at the copyright application of Chainmail and note the date that Don Lowry, the publisher, stated that Chainmail was first "placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed":

Keep in mind that unlike the other portions of Chainmail, the Fantasy Supplement was not published in the Domesday Book prior to appearing the Chainmail booklet, so Chainmail's publication date is also the publication date of the Fantasy Supplement, and Gygax said repeatedly, "it all began with the fantasy rules in Chainmail."

Now some may argue that the copyright application is incorrect, but what is the basis to make that claim, or to believe other dates over this documented one? Wikipedia claims "First edition Chainmail saw print in March 1971." But note, there is no citation for that statement. Similarly, in the book you mentioned earlier, Peterson's Playing at the World, he states on page 40:

Guidon's debut miniatures game, Chainmail (March 1971), considerably expanded the LGTSA miniatures rules by Gygax and Perren published in Domesday Book #5.

Again, no citation or explanation for that dating. From what I can tell, these references to March 1971 stem from a 2006 post on the D&D collector's site The Acaeum:

Yet again, no citation or explanation for that dating.

Note that Arneson appears to have written the above issue of Corner of the Table in March of 1971, as he states under the "March General Meeting" headline, "This month's meeting was held at [...]"

So it appears that, according to the generally accepted history of Dungeons & Dragons and this unsupported March 1971 dating for Chainmail, Arneson got a copy of Chainmail the moment it was published, developed Blackmoor and his Troll Bridge scenario within days, and sent out an announcement for this apparently first game of Blackmoor before the end of March-- all happening two months prior to when the publisher claimed--in 1971--that Chainmail had actually been published.

Page 42 of Playing at the World states "Gygax reported that the addition of these fantasy rules to Chainmail was 'an afterthought,' [WGN:#110) [...]" I cannot verify that because I was not able to find any statement from Gygax in Wargamers Newsletter issue #110 after searching the entire issue, so perhaps that citation is wrong. Assuming that Gygax did make that statement somewhere, it would support the analysis above, and particularly the suggestion that Arneson sent material to Gygax including an earlier version of the Fantasy Combat Table, the Fantasy Reference Table, and so on-- this would have allowed Gygax to have quickly edited and expanded Arneson's material into the Fantasy Supplement toward the end of Chainmail's development. As I point out in the article above in the Cross-checking section, several of the players of Arneson's game say that they were playing a fantasy role-playing game during the Christmas holiday from '70-'71, which meant that Arneson would have had plenty of time to send his material off to Gygax and have it incorporated as an "afterthought" into Chainmail prior to publication in March (if you believe that date) or May.

Hopefully this will give some folks a reason to take a second look at the article above.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bardic Dave]

So it appears that, according to the generally accepted history of Dungeons & Dragons and this unsupported March 1971 dating for Chainmail, Arneson got a copy of Chainmail the moment it was published, developed Blackmoor and his Troll Bridge scenario within days, and sent out an announcement for this apparently first game of Blackmoor before the end of March-- all happening two months prior to when the publisher claimed--in 1971--that Chainmail had actually been published.

Even if you could conclusively prove that Arneson used other rules for combat before adopting Chainmail (and that seems like a fairly reasonable proposition), you still would have done very little to advance your thesis.

The important question is not whether Chainmail was the first set of combat rules Arneson ever used in his home games, it's whether Chainmail is partially copied from Arneson's work. You haven't demonstrated much of substance with respect to either question, and the fact that you're confused about the distinction between these two questions really impugns your work.

I am very frustrated with what appears to be your heavy bias and how it influences your conclusions. You don't appear to be concerned with uncovering the truth no matter what that truth might be. You really do appear to be advancing an agenda. You don't seem to grasp the concepts of impartiality and ethics in research. Your research methods are dubious and so your conclusions must be rejected.

I just want to repeat myself here: I don't have a strong opinion about whether or not Gygax or Arneson is the true father of D&D. If I had to express my personal opinion, I'd probably boil it down to "Arneson is the creative mind behind the concept, and Gygax is the one who ran with it" but that's a gross oversimplification. I bring this up so that you can see my personal beliefs don't make me inherently hostile to your conclusions. If you could actually show what you claim to be able to show, I would be very receptive.

My personal views aside, your research should embrace or at least acknowledge the possibility that your hypothesis might be wrong; you should be trying to falsify your ideas to show that they can stand up to scrutiny. However, you're doing just the opposite. You're being extremely selective in your sources, you're giving every piece of information you've elected to use a particular spin that advances your desired outcome, and you are making inferences and deductions that rely on assumptions that only make sense if you beg the question.

The idea that Patt's material might have been a source of inspiration for Arneson independent of its association with Chainmail is interesting. That's as far as I can go along with you, however. The sheer number of blatant errors you commit in extrapolating from that one simple proposal to get to "Chainmail is partially copied from Arneson" is alarming. Your article is, simply put, not good.