D&D General Dave Arneson: Is He Underrated, or Overrated?

I remember thinking Monte Cook was the greatest man alive when 3rd Ed came out. I even bought his World of Darkness D20…. Yeah…
I had the same reaction to Invisible Suns -- 'really excited, this guy is so renowned and the premise of this is so exciti...<starts reading, and then playing>... okay, who edited and playtested this?!' Still one of the best ideas guys in gaming today.
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.

Don't forget the B/X Expert-Set, which he is also tesponsible for.
Please remember poor Tom Moldvay. He and Dr. J. Eric Holmes both kept something of a lower profile than the Gary, Dave, Zeb (admittedly mostly in computer games these past 25 years or so) or the WotC-era guys, and sometimes I think they get lost in the shuffle (excepting that 'B/X' is alternately known as 'Moldvay-Cook').

Well, I do know of one (in)famous case of a fantasy writer being someone's professor, but it's a little OT (spoilered to avoid thread derail)...

The Gor guy was a philosophy professor at CUNY Queens. He retired, but you can still find his RateMyProfessors ratings.
For that matter, a people a few years younger than me at U of MN could have studied linguistics and south Asian studies under MAR Barker(someone else who needs the Jon Peterson treatment).
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Considering Basic D&D outsold both 1e and 2e combined, I'd say that the people that put those various sets together are definitely an example of "underrated."

Please remember poor Tom Moldvay. He and Dr. J. Eric Holmes both kept something of a lower profile than the Gary, Dave, Zeb (admittedly mostly in computer games these past 25 years or so) or the WotC-era guys, and sometimes I think they get lost in the shuffle (excepting that 'B/X' is alternately known as 'Moldvay-Cook').

I would love to see an examination of Tekumel's creation, its earliest days, and how the fans interfaced with such an alien and detailed fantasy world.

For that matter, a people a few years younger than me at U of MN could have studied linguistics and south Asian studies under MAR Barker(someone else who needs the Jon Peterson treatment).
 



I’ve only just stumbled across this old thread but thought it worth adding my tuppence worth of understanding.

DA was running Blackmoor as a distant adjunct to GG’s Chainmail fantasy campaign (though with the addition of the Strategos ‘active referee’). GG had heard interesting stories about the Blackmoor group’s activities (probably the ‘skirmish level’ exploration of the dungeons below the ransacked castle) and invited DA to visit and elaborate on them. David Megarry accompanied DA because he wanted to see whether GG could help produce a boardgame he had developed inspired by the Blackmoor explorations – Dungeon!

GA was very taken with Dungeon! but realised that it could take some time to get the finances together to put it into commercial production. DA’s campaign was a little more difficult to explain, given that the players’ roles covered the strategic, tactical and individual level conflicts (along with the Strategos mind set) and he didn’t have the necessary range of participants with him to demonstrate the full scope of it, so he led GA through the essence of the dungeon exploration experience. GA saw potential in replicating this experience commercially.

However, GA alighted upon the idea that by stripping out the wider Blackmoor campaign he could potentially produce a ruleset that would replicate the Dungeon! game but with a much reduced, upfront production cost. By removing the exploring characters’ relationship with the surrounding world (the Blackmoor characters were, in part, seeking loot to bolster their nations military treasuries) GA created the game of murder hobos with a rule system, rather a system to encourage meaningful rulings, that restricted the active participation of the DM.

One can see why DA was less than fully enamoured with GA’s ‘product’ and recognise the value of exploring the development history of roleplaying to appreciate the approaches abandoned in the name of commerce that could foster a more engaging relationship around the table.
 

Game Wizards gives you the idea that Arneson was a great 'idea guy', but really lacked the drive to write and finish products... the book has numerous stories of his failures to finish up stuff. EGG, for all his faults, at least had the drive to complete products....
 

It would have been interesting to see what might have been produced if Arneson had had access to a half decent 'ghost writer' who could have helped him collate and organise his thoughts into a meaningful treatise on creating and running games.

Credit to Gygax for producing a product that could sell. Its just unfortunate that it baked in a rules-focused, murder hobos approach as the industry standard for decades.
 


Parmandur

Book-Friend
Having actually listene to Game Wizards now...Arneson comes across pretty terribly, when the story is told neutrally and from period documents on all sides. For all of gygaxes considerable flaws, I can understand why he lost patience with all of Arneson's behavior.
 


aia_2

Custom title
I think that quote is key. But it points directly to the view that Arneson invented D&D and Gygax published it. Gary never would have invented D&D on his own. Dave never would have published D&D on his own. There’s a clear line between creator and publisher or popularizer. I’m glad both were involved because I got to grow up playing these games, but it’s fairly clear one man created the thing itself...while the other put it out into the world.

Sticking to what are the reported facts, Arneson had the vision of the new model, Gygax wrote it down...
Both are creators, none would have done the game alone. Then if we need to appoint one name only as the "true" creator, this is an opinion and it is subjective according to the info available, his own idea and his mindset...
It is like talking of an artist and an engineer: the artist provides fantasy, ideas and the "emotional" part... The engineer prodides the structure, the plan and its deplyoment...
It is up to everyone decide who (if one only has to be appointed) is the creator...
My opinion is towards Arneson because i am kind of "romantic" and i do see in his part the most valuable contribution.
 



overgeeked

B/X Known World
Sticking to what are the reported facts, Arneson had the vision of the new model, Gygax wrote it down...
Both are creators, none would have done the game alone. Then if we need to appoint one name only as the "true" creator, this is an opinion and it is subjective according to the info available, his own idea and his mindset...
It is like talking of an artist and an engineer: the artist provides fantasy, ideas and the "emotional" part... The engineer prodides the structure, the plan and its deplyoment...
It is up to everyone decide who (if one only has to be appointed) is the creator...
My opinion is towards Arneson because i am kind of "romantic" and i do see in his part the most valuable contribution.
Read the history of the game. Arneson created Blackmoor. Gygax played in a game of it. Gygax asked Arneson for his notes. Arneson wrote it all out and sent those to Gygax. Gygax took those notes, changed them, then published them. Arneson was famously unhappy with the changes Gygax made without consulting Arneson. So even your first line is ahistorical.
 


Warpiglet-7

Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
IMO, the same should be said for Gygax as well.

But, perhaps it is my distaste for celebrity and the idolization of others. I think they are both far too idolized. Credit where credit is due, but I'm more interested in today.
Most of us end up being our own biggest problem. We are all flawed and have the most to do with our own choices.

While I do think idolizing people is often silly, I have found some current trends an overreaction.

Gygax was flawed but his vision has shaped a huge portion of geek entertainment to the present. It’s a huge footprint. Video games, rpgs and more…

So he had periods where he got crazy with the Cheez whiz…doesn’t change it for me.
 

Most of us end up being our own biggest problem. We are all flawed and have the most to do with our own choices.
Absolutely. And I think this is the biggest reason behind my distaste for idolizing others.
While I do think idolizing people is often silly, I have found some current trends an overreaction.
Not sure what you mean here. But even as a teen 4 decades ago I did not idolize celebrities. I remember meeting Mickie Mantle as a kid. Did not leave an impression on me. Other 'celebrities' have had the same, lack of, response from me. It's just who I am.
 

Warpiglet-7

Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
Absolutely. And I think this is the biggest reason behind my distaste for idolizing others.

Not sure what you mean here. But even as a teen 4 decades ago I did not idolize celebrities. I remember meeting Mickie Mantle as a kid. Did not leave an impression on me. Other 'celebrities' have had the same, lack of, response from me. It's just who I am.
Honestly how I have been to an extent. If I met a famous actor I would say hi and say “love your movies keep it up” and move on. Or more likely leave them
The hell alone if they were minding their business!

What I mean is the current trend of finding a flaw in someone’s history and over focusing on it to the point of ignoring the good they are doing or undervaluing their contribution.

Others may have another take and that is fine. I just don’t like throwing out the baby with the bath water. We are all broken in my view.

Learning someone hurt others or were filled with hate is very disappointing though but for me that is different than the normal screw ups
 

el-remmen

Moderator Emeritus
This didn't age well over the past year.

/Googles M.A.R. Barker. . .

OH. . . NO. . .


disappointed harry potter GIF
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top