I wonder if Lawrence Schick would mind if I asked him about this? I wonder if he’s ever weighed in?More insider information regarding the topic from a couple of weeks ago. Bill willingham gives his take.
Although, I don’t know how I feel with the realization that my favorite edition only exists because it was meant to screw Dave out of royalties…And now I really really want to see those master rules.
![]()
The D&D War
An insider's account of the secret history of the attempt to scam Dave Arneson out of his due royalties.billwillingham.substack.com
Thanks for that - it was an interesting read, and not something I'd ever been aware of before. It shows how creativity can arise from the strangest situations.More insider information regarding the topic from a couple of weeks ago. Bill willingham gives his take.
Although, I don’t know how I feel with the realization that my favorite edition only exists because it was meant to screw Dave out of royalties…And now I really really want to see those master rules.
![]()
The D&D War
An insider's account of the secret history of the attempt to scam Dave Arneson out of his due royalties.billwillingham.substack.com
Their names are on the books!
Probably not the 3.5 books, though.
If you’re interested in the 3e-development era, you could look into the history of EN World. The archived pre-3e articles and interviews from Eric Noah’s site would be a good place to start.
There’s plenty of other good stuff to be found in the “Features” section of EN World, too. Like the archived Q&A threads with Gary Gygax, for instance.
Gygax was no businessman. If he was, Arneson would have gotten zero credit and no royalties. Instead, he got credit and TSR got lawsuits. If Gygax were a businessman, I'd say Arneson was underappreciated. Instead, I have a very different take. Overrated? No, and this coming from the once young man who fell in love with all things Blackmoor (playing an Assassin and later a Monk in D&D from the very beginning). I don't think it's controversial to say, "An Arneson is rated precisely how he means to." Which is to say, as the co-creator of D&D. Dave Arneson was not a prolific writer, or even an average volume writer. In the early days of D&D he wasn't cranking out products like Gary and company. I still have a stack of original print modules and Arneson's name is only on a few. If you want understand the D&Differences between Gygax and Arneson then look at their modules. If you look at Keep on the Borderlands, and then compare it to Temple of the Frog you will see two very different styles of D&D. The Keep is designed for tactical play: tips on monster strategies, tactics, and playstyle while never delving into the roleplay of NPCs. Temple of the Frog delves into local history and the convoluted happenings surrounding the Temple. Today, we tend to see a LOT both in our modules allowing us as DMs to choose was is best for our group. So let's be real here, modules helped create D&D as much as, and in some ways more than, the rule books; and that doesn't look good for Dave.
Unlike so many other campaign settings, Greyhawk was built from the actual campaigns of DMs that later became modules. There are several campaigns of DMs turned entire module series: L-Series (Lendore Isles; Lakofka passed away last year), R-Series (Lost Oeridian lands of Greyhawk), T-Series (Temple of Elemental Evil, or Gygax's campaign with Kuntz's Lord Robilar), and so on. It was a world that was played in first, and then later designed to be explore by everyone else. Dave Arneson's campaign world, as compelling as it is, was barely published. Campaign super modules like The Temple of Elemental Evil completely changed the way everyone plays RPGs and designs their home campaigns forever. The Village of Hommlet changed the way DMs build their quaint little towns or even think about them. Ravenloft changed the way modules themselves are written by professionals, baking intrigue and randomness into the design so it can be played over and over again with different outcomes. Mind you, I'm not even getting into the later 2e modules that improved on what we learned during 1e era and have stood the test of time only to inform us on the games we play today. But where is Dave Arneson's Blackmoor in all of this?
View attachment 145833
And the only prescription is more Blackmoor!
Dave Arneson's D-Series is a unique blend of sci-fi tantasy that was a welcome break from the standard folklore (Tolkenism, Orientalism, Paganism, et al), but it was never fully realized. Like Gygax's later T-Series, Arneson was creating a sandbox, a very clumsy, dirty sandbox built in a swamp. This is where I suspect Dave Arneson wasn't invested in RPGs. He had amazing creativity, but poor execution of his ideas in publication. The modules Dave Arneson created are just disorganized. Often they lack good descriptions, don't reuse language to reinforce themes, and lack sound structure. Each of the module reads like a DM's campaign notes, which I suspect that's what they are. If someone told me to take one of my campaigns and publish it, you'd probably get something like the D-Series and I'd get the stink-eye from today's editors. For me, this tells me a lot about what was happening in those days before the split, who was doing what, and how invested they were in D&D. I wanted more modules about Blackmoor, especially something grandiose like a Temple of Elemental Evil for Blackmoor, but it appears Dave wanted out long before he officially left.
Jonathan Tweet and Monte Cook are both big industry names, who have a wide assortment of influential products both before and after their work in 3e D&D. They have shown up a fair amount in discussions on these forums, including a popular Jonathan Tweet article talking about the 3e design of the Cleric and Monte Cook's Planebreaker Kickstarter within the past few days. Do their names come up? Yep. And I know that you've been using terms coined by them quite a bit in your discussion. Does "LFQW" / "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard" ring any bells? Monte Cook coined that.And, even more than Arneson, the names of Monte Cook (who I've heard of as "very important RPG designer" but never knew he had a connect to 3E) and Johnathan Tweet (never heard of him before) seem to get lost to the wayside.
So, are they overrated for their contributions to the game? To my perspective, no, not at all, because their contributions to the game seem to hardly ever come up, except in the context of Gygax. And maybe that is the truth. Maybe Gygax truly did all the heavy lifting and there are facts that need to come to light to show the true state of the game and how it was changed over the years and who was responsible for what. I always, 100% advocate for the truth, but thinking about how little I've seen these people talked about, I can't say they are overrated yet.
Thanks for that - it was an interesting read, and not something I'd ever been aware of before. It shows how creativity can arise from the strangest situations.
On the issue of royalties, I made up my mind when I got to the bit in the Game Wizards where Dave Arneson successfully sued for royalties for Monster Manual II, when it was an accepted fact that he hadn't contributed one word towards it. It seems wrong to me that someone can come up with an idea, do very little to turn that idea into a successful product, and then accept royalties for every subsequent product anyone else ever makes for it.
If I was running TSR at the time, I too would have tried to get out of paying 2.5% (I think) of sales income from all future D&D products they made to that person, forever. Of course, a similar argument also applies to Gary Gygax's royalties, but TSR weren't in a position to cut him out (until, of course, they were).
A friend of mine was due to go on holiday to Switzerland a few years ago. He was looking for things to do in the Geneva region, and told me he'd found out there was D&D convention called GaryCon taking place there and he was thinking of going to it. He's been playing D&D for 40 years, so I looked at him in disbelief. The conversation went something like this.I would assume their names are in the books, but if you don't have the books, or you got them early enough that reading the legal information page wasn't normal... that information can pass you by.
Jonathan Tweet and Monte Cook are both big industry names, who have a wide assortment of influential products both before and after their work in 3e D&D. They have shown up a fair amount in discussions on these forums, including a popular Jonathan Tweet article talking about the 3e design of the Cleric and Monte Cook's Planebreaker Kickstarter within the past few days. Do their names come up? Yep. And I know that you've been using terms coined by them quite a bit in your discussion. Does "LFQW" / "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard" ring any bells? Monte Cook coined that.
I honestly have no idea how one could participate in this forum for as long as you have and not know who they are. It's almost astounding. Flabergasted even. Like I'm gonna have to take a short walk as I process this.
![]()
Don't forget the B/X Expert-Set, which he is also tesponsible for.Talking about credit, Zeb Cook designed 2nd edition, and he was almost as influential in 1st edition. Arguably he influenced D&D for longer than Arneson or Gygax.
Monte Cook arguably gets more credit for 3e than his co-contributors (i.e., Skip Williams, Jonathan Tweet), but a big part of that has to do with him being forthright about the behind-the-scenes design decisions of 3.0 and his public backlash against 3.5. (In short, 3.5 D&D was an intentional WotC cash-grab, with 3.0 being designed to test and prepare for 3.5.)I didn't know he coined that phrase.
Like I said, I've seen Monte's name, just never directly tied to DnD 3E. That could be entirely on me. I own that, I own the shame. But, I think it also helps to demonstrate that when talking about "does this person get too much credit" that very very rarely is that the case. It is far more often that people get too little credit and recognition by a wide audience, while only a small hardcore group knows the full story and might be giving them too much credit.
I think part of the reason we don’t talk so much about the developers of 3e as historical figures (within the industry) is that they’re pretty much all still creating things in the industry. They are of course an important part of the history, but it doesn’t feel like history yet. To some of us, at least.I didn't know he coined that phrase.
Like I said, I've seen Monte's name, just never directly tied to DnD 3E. That could be entirely on me. I own that, I own the shame. But, I think it also helps to demonstrate that when talking about "does this person get too much credit" that very very rarely is that the case. It is far more often that people get too little credit and recognition by a wide audience, while only a small hardcore group knows the full story and might be giving them too much credit.
STOP EXPOSING ME!There are many people who are great at spitballing idea and running games that just aren't good at sitting down and writing them.
What?Talking about credit, Zeb Cook designed 2nd edition, and he was almost as influential in 1st edition. Arguably he influenced D&D for longer than Arneson or Gygax.