OD&D Evidence Chainmail Had Material from Dave Arneson

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[mwittig]

"it’s at least conceivable that his many mentions of using “Chainmail” for early sessions of Blackmoor were in reference to the pre-Fantasy Supplement versions of Chainmail. "

Sure, it's at least conceivable. If, of course, you didn't understand that he talked about it for decades. And that there was litigation. And that, somehow, he never, ever, ever brought this up. Or Gygax. Or anyone.

"The medieval rules, CHAINMAIL (Gygax and Perren) were published in Domesday Book prior to publication by Guidon Games." -Gary Gygax, “Gary Gygax on Dungeons & Dragons: Origins of the Game" (1977)

 

[Umbran]

"The medieval rules, CHAINMAIL (Gygax and Perren) were published in Domesday Book prior to publication by Guidon Games." -Gary Gygax, “Gary Gygax on Dungeons & Dragons: Origins of the Game" (1977)

That's fine. You still mistake, "It is conceivable," for, "this is evidence that...". Even if you have what might be a plausible story - plausible stories are not evidence.

There's this phenomenon called "confirmation bias". You might want to look into it.

I happen to like Mr. Kuntz's point - Arneson's great contribution is not anywhere in the details of the combat rules. It is in, "Hey, wait a minute... we can actually pretend to be individual elves and hobbits and things, pretend to be fantasy people! I can be friggin' Aragorn if I want to!"

Tidbits of the combat rules are, in fact, insignificant by comparison to that leap. '

What would help us understand this conversation is, why are you so heck-bent on proving the provenance of minor combat resolution details that have since be replaced several times over? The thing that hasn't been replaced is the meaningful bit, isn't it?

 

[Hriston]

Does it really? Having a conversation about these issues is kind of like whack-a-mole, which is the same feeling I get when there are discussions about flat earth, or sovereign citizens.

But let's play your game. Here's what you said again-

"it’s at least conceivable that his many mentions of using “Chainmail” for early sessions of Blackmoor were in reference to the pre-Fantasy Supplement versions of Chainmail. "

Sure, it's at least conceivable. If, of course, you didn't understand that he talked about it for decades. And that there was litigation. And that, somehow, he never, ever, ever brought this up. Or Gygax. Or anyone.

And if you ignore the context of the quote- that he was talking about adding additional monsters to the matrix; which only makes sense (looking at Chainmail) if he's talking about the matrix with monsters in it. Which is the fantasy one. Or, for that matter, if you ignore all the other quotes from him. But, again, whatever. This whole thread is pointless.

Sure. It's conceivable. If you choose to ignore all the evidence that doesn't agree with you.

I wouldn’t know. I don’t take part in those discussions.

I’m not familiar with the years of evidence to which you’ve alluded. Maybe if it were compiled and posted somewhere?

And I’m not ignoring the context of the quote. He’s talking about the transition from a “sudden death” matrix-based system, which is characteristic of Chainmail with or without the Fantasy Combat Table, to the d20 vs AC/hit point system. He seems to give two reasons for this: 1) his players didn’t like their characters getting killed based on a single roll (thus hit points), and 2) a matrix was an inadequate format for the display and reference of the variety of monsters he was rapidly adding to his group’s game.

I think it was described elsewhere that he tried to build such a matrix, which proved unwieldy, but it’s unclear, at least from this quote, whether he did so by adding to the Fantasy Combat Table from the published Chainmail, or by constructing his own matrix in imitation of those found outside of the Fantasy Supplement, in which case the Fantasy Combat Table could be a snapshot of that effort before it became unworkable.

Also, when he actually mentions the Fantasy Supplement in the second paragraph, it’s as if he’s bringing up a topic he hadn’t yet addressed, so I don’t think this is all as clear cut as you’re making it out to be, but I’m open to listening to further evidence if you want to continue the conversation.

 

[mwittig]

why are you so heck-bent on proving the provenance of minor combat resolution details that have since be replaced several times over?

There’s a bigger question at stake here, and that is what is the actual origin of Dungeons & Dragons? Gary Gygax claimed that it started with Chainmail’s Fantasy Supplement:

“In case you don't know the history of D&D, it all began with the fantasy rules in Chainmail. Dave A. took those rules and changed them into a prototype of what is now D&D.” -Gygax in 1975

From the Chainmail fantasy rules [Arneson] drew ideas for a far more complex and exciting game, and thus began a campaign which still thrives as of this writing! -Gygax in Dungeons & Dragons (1974)

According to Gygax, D&D all started with the Fantasy Supplement of Chainmail. Jon Peterson repeated Gygax’s narrative in Playing at the World:

The earliest account of the history of Dungeons & Dragons also ranks among the briefest. Gary Gygax included it in a letter to Alarums & Excursions in July 1975, only sixteen months after the first sales of the game, and it reads as follows:

In case you don't know the history of D&D, it all began with the fantasy rules of Chainmail.
[...]
Chainmail, a miniature wargame Gygax released in 1971, focused on simulating the medieval period but also included a small appendix detailing a fantasy setting, one largely derived from the works of Tolkien. Dave Arneson used the Chainmail rules as the basis for his seminal Blackmoor fantasy game [...]

The analysis at the top of this thread indicates that this generally accepted causality is likely backwards. It wasn’t Chainmail’s Fantasy Supplement that led to Blackmoor, but rather Blackmoor that led to the Chainmail’s Fantasy Supplement; this, in turn, means that the actual origin of Dungeons & Dragons was not Chainmail, but Arneson's Blackmoor campaign.

Take a look at the last few days of what's been discussed-- note the difficulty Peterson was having with producing any tangible evidence indicating that Chainmail and its Fantasy Supplement predates Arneson's March 1971 letter about Blackmoor. Peterson resorted to arguing that the letter was not actually talking about Blackmoor, but that theory seems untenable when the letter and map are compared against known Blackmoor material-- Arneson is clearly talking about Blackmoor and the map is clearly a map of Blackmoor. And, it seems clear that even though the letter may date to March, what is contained in the letter likely dates still earlier. Not surprisingly, we find evidence supporting this; Greg Svenson's story, The First Dungeon Adventure, tells of the first dungeon adventure occurring during the holiday season from 1970 to 71, and that story (along with the dating) was corroborated by another original Blackmoor player. While Peterson was dismissive of Svenson's dating in Playing at the World because Svenson didn't set his story to paper until 2006, we're now seeing that Svenson (and his corroborator) were likely right all along.

So, its really not about some minor combat resolution details, but rather the actual origin of the hobby that we all enjoy.

 

[increment]

note the difficulty Peterson was having with producing any tangible evidence indicating that Chainmail and its Fantasy Supplement predates Arneson's March 1971 letter about Blackmoor. Peterson resorted to arguing that the letter was not actually talking about Blackmoor, but that theory seems untenable when the letter and map are compared against known Blackmoor material

Um, I was not trying to produce any tangible evidence that the publication of Chainmail preceded the "Northern Marches" description letter. Why would I? We all knew that Blackmoor emerged out of Arneson's area of the C&CS game, which this letter describes, and we knew the C&CS game preceded the publication of Chainmail. All you are picking at, as far as I can tell, is at which point in time we should start calling Arneson's area of the C&CS game "Blackmoor". PatW deemed it was that March-April time, when that cool stuff with "medieval Braunsteins" seems to have started. Since the "Northern Marches" description does not mention Blackmoor, and for all we know the town had not yet acquired that name or any of its other features at that time, it seems kind of odd to hold it up as evidence we should think otherwise. If you want to compare the letter and map against known Blackmoor material, let's start with where Williamsfort, or Swampwood, is mentioned in like the FFC.

Maybe the map is a "proto-Blackmoor artifact" or something, but that doesn't readily imply anything about the relationship of Chainmail to Blackmoor either way, as far as I can tell.

 

[Umbran]

There’s a bigger question at stake here, and that is what is the actual origin of Dungeons & Dragons?

No. That's not bigger. I grant that the concept of playing the role was Arneson's. THAT is the origin of the hobby. Without that, Dungeons and Dragons is just an early form of Warhammer, anothe rin a line of games that already existed.

So, if you want to prove that the hobby started with Arneson, you already have that. The rest really is quibbling over exactly which rules bit came from whom. That's minutiae.

 

[Yaarel]

There’s a bigger question at stake here, and that is what is the actual origin of Dungeons & Dragons? Gary Gygax claimed that it started with Chainmail’s Fantasy Supplement.
...
The analysis at the top of this thread indicates that this generally accepted causality is likely backwards. It wasn’t Chainmail’s Fantasy Supplement that led to Blackmoor, but rather Blackmoor that led to the Chainmail’s Fantasy Supplement; this, in turn, means that the actual origin of Dungeons & Dragons was not Chainmail, but Arneson's Blackmoor campaign.

If Arneson only used Chainmail for a month, before abandoning Chainmail, it seems unlikely to be important for the origin of D&D.

By contrast, Gygax seems to exaggerate the importance of Chainmail because of a motive of self-promotion (which in business is often necessary).



The impression is.

Arneson was already working on a formative Blackmoor, even before 1971. Chainmail was one of many ideas that Arneson playtested while in the process of developing this game. Chainmail seems tangential to the origins of D&D.




That said. I find the evidence of literary dependence described in the first post to be notable and requiring explanation.

 

[mwittig]

Um, I was not trying to produce any tangible evidence that the publication of Chainmail preceded the "Northern Marches" description letter. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?

 

[Rob Kuntz]

No. That's not bigger. I grant that the concept of playing the role was Arneson's. THAT is the origin of the hobby. Without that, Dungeons and Dragons is just an early form of Warhammer, anothe rin a line of games that already existed.

So, if you want to prove that the hobby started with Arneson, you already have that. The rest really is quibbling over exactly which rules bit came from whom. That's minutiae.

Well it goes deeper than that, in fact. According to my ten years of research, and as examined and corroborated now by several scientists familiar with systems, the system that Arneson created in order to further ALL of the game processes that interact with one another/are interdependent on each other, etc, and that can evolve as the players evolve (simultaneous synergy) and that, as a whole new system, is the complete opposite of those game/play systems preceding Blackmoor's advent--IOW every game that existed beforehand in recorded history when one seriously references game theory and play theory data and models. IOW, the "game" (and I use that term sparingly and with a little trepidation and for good reasons) as created and forwarded had no antecedent; and thus the system contrived for implementing it had (as is logical as the game itself cannot function without a system) none as well. Within the broader picture of Game and Play design history, Arneson broke many glass roofs, and not just by incorporating the RP element, but also by intuitively, in his genius, by manifesting a new system never before created, engaged or understood.