OD&D Evidence Chainmail Had Material from Dave Arneson

[Bardic Dave]

.

 

[zenopus]

One thing that the analysis doesn't appear to address is that Arneson in FFC actually says that his first "Magic Swords" matrix used powers "taken right from" Chainmail:

Prior to setting up Blackmoor I spent a considerable effort in setting up an entire family of Magical swords. The swords, indeed comprise most of the early magical artifacts. A small table was prepared and the Swords' characteristics set up on cards.
Later on a new Table was formulated and used for generating Swords in other Castles. After the 3rd year there were four other Castles in the Blackmoor campaign and I had at least three myself, so more uniform rules were needed. The magical items at the end of Chapter II was, again, the first attempt to set up such a matrix. The nature and the powers of the Spells and Swords were taken right from the available copies of Chainmail, which served as the basis for all our combat.

(emphasis added)

So right here we have Arneson saying he set up his first Swords matrix "prior to setting up Blackmoor", and that he was using Chainmail while working on it.

 

[mwittig]

So right here we have Arneson saying he set up his first Swords matrix "prior to setting up Blackmoor", and that was using Chainmail while working on it.

I have had this discussion before with other researchers. Note that there are actually two paragraphs; in the first paragraph, Arneson tells us about the original table of the Magic Swords material. The second paragraph talks about the "new Table" that he did later in implementing "more uniform rules" suitable for other campaigns run by other people (who could then buy Chainmail and refer to it).

Prior to setting up Blackmoor I spent a considerable effort in setting up an entire family of Magical swords. The swords, indeed comprise most of the early magical artifacts. A small table was prepared and the Swords' characteristics set up on cards.

Later on a new Table was formulated and used for generating Swords in other Castles. After the 3rd year there were four other Castles in the Blackmoor campaign and I had at least three myself, so more uniform rules were needed. The magical items at the end of Chapter II was, again, the first attempt to set up such a matrix. The nature and the powers of the Spells and Swords were taken right from the available copies of Chainmail, which served as the basis for all our combat.

 

[mwittig]

You know that it's in the interest of the applicant to choose the latest reasonable date, right?

Lowkey, is this true? It would certainly seem to defy logic.

 

[CleverNickName]

I read the headline, and clicked on this article thinking it would be about scientists finding Dave's DNA in a suit of armor at a museum somewhere.
So. Disappointed.

 

[Bardic Dave]

Lowkey, is this true? It would certainly seem to defy logic.

I guess you didn't read lowkey's explanation that closely, because this was explained. The incentive for choosing a later date is that your copyright expires later, which was particularly relevant back then when copyrights only lasted a maximum of 56 years. Read lowkey's post again.

 

[mwittig]

I guess you didn't read lowkey's explanation that closely, because this was explained. The incentive for choosing a later date is that your copyright expires later, which was particularly relevant back then when copyrights only lasted a maximum of 56 years. Read lowkey's post again.

I find it difficult to believe that Lowry wrote May instead of March to extend the 56 year copyright term of a game booklet by 2 months--that's far from a certainty.

5. There is a mountain of anecdotal evidence from contemporaneous sources that puts the publication date at March 1971. That's a bunch of evidence against your assertion.

The only "evidence" that I have seen is that everyone seems to use the same March 1971 date without explanation or citation. As I stated above, I believe that dating stems from a 2006 forum post that also offers no explanation or citation. I have yet to see a post in this thread that offers any evidence substantiating that date, despite the so-called "mountain" of evidence.

 

[Mistwell]

Those scans don't look made up to me.

You're being a jerk. That was not the sum of what he said, and you're taking it out of context like if you feel you "win" an argument here that somehow is "evidence" of your point. It's not. Stop being a jerk to your peers. Have a conversation and listen to what they're saying. Talk less, and listen more. Or don't, and have your work mocked and ridiculed and then ignored by your peers. Which does not accomplish your goal.

 

[Bardic Dave]

I find it difficult to believe that Lowry wrote May instead of March to extend the 56 year copyright term of a game booklet by 2 months--that's far from a certainty.

The only "evidence" that I have seen is that everyone seems to use the same March 1971 date without explanation or citation. As I stated above, I believe that dating stems from a 2006 forum post that also offers no explanation or citation. I have yet to see a post in this thread that offers any evidence substantiating that date, despite the so-called "mountain" of evidence.

You misunderstand. I'm not arguing in favour of a particular date. I don't need to do that. I'm merely trying to show you that your date is "far from a certainty" and doesn't deserve the degree of confidence you've placed in it.

You seem to understand that even though it's common practice to stretch the truth in your client's favour on a copyright application, that doesn't provide sufficient basis for me to assert that March 1971 is the correct date (which—in case it isn't clear—I did not do, because it wasn't relevant to my point). So how about you apply a little bit of that healthy scepticism to your own position?

I think you misinterpret this argument as an ideological struggle about the true history of D&D. It's not. It's a conversation about whether or not your research is good enough to make the claims you're making.

 

[zenopus]

I have had this discussion before with other researchers. Note that there are actually two paragraphs; in the first paragraph, Arneson tells us about the original table of the Magic Swords material. The second paragraph talks about the "new Table" that he did later in implementing "more uniform rules" suitable for other campaigns run by other people (who could then buy Chainmail and refer to it).

Prior to setting up Blackmoor I spent a considerable effort in setting up an entire family of Magical swords. The swords, indeed comprise most of the early magical artifacts. A small table was prepared and the Swords' characteristics set up on cards.

Later on a new Table was formulated and used for generating Swords in other Castles. After the 3rd year there were four other Castles in the Blackmoor campaign and I had at least three myself, so more uniform rules were needed. The magical items at the end of Chapter II was, again, the first attempt to set up such a matrix. The nature and the powers of the Spells and Swords were taken right from the available copies of Chainmail, which served as the basis for all our combat.

In my opinion he's switched back to talking about the first matrix in the last two sentences of the second paragraph. Why else would he say "was, again, the first attempt"? He's referring back to the first attempt he described in the first paragraph. Furthermore, the second matrix presented in FFC is clearly much more complicated and includes stuff from D&D like X-Ray Vision and Polymorph. How could this more complicated table be his "first attempt" to set up such a matrix?

Even if was he referring to the second matrix at the end of paragraph two, it would just mean that one was his "first attempt" (thus predating the first matrix) and yet still includes material taken from Chainmail. In either case, he says his "first attempt" included material drawn from Chainmail.