OD&D Evidence Chainmail Had Material from Dave Arneson

[Hriston]

I find the prospect intriguing that Dave Arneson and his Blackmoor campaign may have played a contributory role in the development of the Fantasy Supplement. It certainly goes against the received narrative, but I, for one, hope this research continues and sheds some light on the game’s murky beginnings.

 

[Bardic Dave]

I find the prospect intriguing that Dave Arneson and his Blackmoor campaign may have played a contributory role in the development of the Fantasy Supplement. It certainly goes against the received narrative, but I, for one, hope this research continues and sheds some light on the game’s murky beginnings.

I agree. It is an intriguing proposition. And that's all if will be until someone puts it to the test with actual academic rigour. Flawed research never serves to illuminate, only to add to the murk.

 

[Hriston]

I agree. It is an intriguing proposition. And that's all if will be until someone puts it to the test with actual academic rigour. Flawed research never serves to illuminate, only to add to the murk.

Well. I think that “connecting the dots”, if maybe that’s something we can call it, can serve to point in the direction of further research that can lead to a true discovery. It would be great if there was airtight evidence, like original notes by Arneson that were datable somehow. This research can indicate that’s something to look for, but if the notes don’t exist, then perhaps conjecture is all there is. I enjoy hearing about it regardless because it certainly doesn’t seem impossible.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bardic Dave]

Well. I think that “connecting the dots”, if maybe that’s something we can call it, can serve to point in the direction of further research that can lead to a true discovery. It would be great if there was airtight evidence, like original notes by Arneson that were datable somehow. This research can indicate that’s something to look for, but if the notes don’t exist, then perhaps conjecture is all there is. I enjoy hearing about it regardless because it certainly doesn’t seem impossible.

If his post were just idle speculation and conjecture, then I would absolutely agree with you. Instead, the OP presents his "conclusions" as actual "evidence" of a significant claim, when they are nothing of the sort. It's all just mostly baseless conjecture shrouded with pseudo-academic jargon, arrived at through fundamentally flawed methods and sketchy logic.

It's the OP's seemingly intellectually dishonest approach that really chafes me, coupled with his apparent inability to acknowledge the serious flaws in his methods and a total unwillingness to refine his process.

There was a way to do this that didn't so badly misstate the significance of what the OP observed with his Venn diagram. There was a more modest post that could have been written, that didn't so badly overreach, that acknowledged the gaps and flaws in his argument, that invited further research and speculation. That's a post I would have welcomed.

EDIT: to directly address your point, what we've been trying to show him is that he has not, in fact, "connected the dots". We aren't criticizing him for his inability to present irrefutable first-hand evidence of his assertions; we're criticizing him for claiming to have done something he has not done.

 

[David Howery]

well, I have no idea just who all did what in developing the D&D game, but... I do have that 'First Fantasy Campaign' JG book by Arneson, and if that is an example of his writing... it's probably a good thing that Gygax took over...

 

[mwittig]

Not given your explanations, no.

I hate to rain on your parade, again, but I was the one who DM'd you to point out why you shouldn't rely on the copyright notice and explained why.

I thought that was settled. Lets take a look at what you said:

Next, and this is crucial, the whole paper relies on a publication date for Chainmail from the copyright application. (Article at 2) to place the publication date at May 15, 1971. Personally, I don't think relying on a single copyright form is good evidence, but it doesn't matter.

And lets look at my response:

I've since rewritten the article, and part of that rewrite was to remove the copyright application because it wasn't needed for the analysis.

Wouldn't you agree that your statement that "the whole paper relies on a publication date for Chainmail from the copyright application" turned out to be false? Because if it were true that "the whole paper relies" on it, I would not have been able to remove it.

You continue to miss the forest for the trees; you are not acting as a scholar, but as an advocate.

Every scholar must advocate for their own research, otherwise his or her research will never be of use to anyone.

You can't simply discard all evidence you don't like (which is A LOT!) and simply cherrypick one or two things, out of context, that support you.

The evidence I think you are referring to that I have discarded are the conflicting statements made by the two coauthors of Dungeons and Dragons regarding the early days.

As I have stated, Arneson at some times said he started with Chainmail and at other times said he did not.
Gygax claimed Arneson started with Chainmail, yet Gygax had no basis for speaking about when Arneson used Chainmail; their collaboration on D&D did not start until November of 1972, and as I showed above, Arneson published an announcement from his game in April of 1971. Given these conditions, I do not see a problem with discarding their statements and looking for other evidence.

But to reiterate-
1. You ignore the evidence of what every ... single ... person .... has said, including the principles.

Who was there to witness what Arneson may have sent to Gygax? It likely would have been by mail.

2. Your textual analysis isn't a textual analysis, and it isn't really an analysis, either.

You are entitled to your opinion, but stating such doesn't add much to the discussion.

3. You ignore any and all dates that matter, and, worse, don't seem to understand why getting these dates for your analysis matters.

What are the dates that matter? My second analysis above was based on dates. If you want to discuss dates, explain why the March 1971 date for the publication of Chainmail is more valid than the May 1971 date from the copyright application. I showed all my work above in trying to track it down; do you know how the March, 1971 date was arrived at?

I'm sorry, but this is terrible. You understand that you've now had multiple people explain this to you; first kindly, then with increasing exasperation, and now ...

I think the problem is that attacks are being directed at me instead of coherent arguments that provide evidence refuting the analysis that I have presented.

It's not worth it. You aren't going to listen. Please, for the love of all that is holy, take this to someone who you will listen to, because you are doing yourself a great disservice. You have entered the "flat earth" level of discourse.

I'm sure Aristotle encountered some resistance of the kind I am experiencing here when he proclaimed the Earth was round, so maybe I'm on the right track.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bardic Dave]

I think the problem is that attacks are being directed at me instead of coherent arguments that provide evidence refuting the analysis that I have presented.
...
I'm sure Aristotle encountered some resistance of the kind I am experiencing here when he proclaimed the Earth was round, so maybe I'm on the right track.

I think it's true that the level of discourse has at times gotten a little heated/personal, but you're wrong to say that all the attacks have been directed at you and not at your arguments. There have been plenty of cogent criticisms advanced that you have decided to ignore, sidestep, or weakly address with less than satisfactory "logic". One of the problems is that you draw connections and make inferences that are extremely weak, but you proclaim them to be strong for reasons that you don't articulate very well. You seem to not understand why these connections are weak, even when it's explained to you, and you don't seem to want to do anything to address those criticisms.

And sorry, your Aristotle comparison is silly. People who defy the status quo are challenged whether they're right or wrong, and most of the time they are wrong. Not only that, the people who are criticizing you mostly aren't doing so for ideological reasons—I would be ecstatic if you could show something new and groundbreaking about our hobby's history, and Arneson's contributions to D&D probably do deserve more recognition.

I think your article is bad because your research methods and logical analysis are bad, not because there's anything inherently wrong with exploring the idea that Arneson might have contributed to Chainmail.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*