OD&D Evidence Chainmail Had Material from Dave Arneson

Status
Not open for further replies.

increment

Explorer
One sentence would do.
Instead of one sentence, here's two:

Because we got off on the wrong foot long before this thread, I will not be induced to post sources that support or refute your thesis here, despite your generosity in posting receipts, nor am I really inclined to bump this thread with my responses.

If for whatever reason you want to engage with me on this, let's talk sometime and see if we can fix the above--at a con, over Skype, whatever--happy to talk to someone who's engaged with this material.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mwittig

Explorer
Most else of what I'd say here has already been said.
nor am I really inclined to bump this thread with my responses.
Innuendos, Jon, but never a direct refutation. I will purchase $200 of Rob Kuntz’s new Red Book line and distribute it to the folks in this thread for free if you will simply state, directly, that you do not believe that there is any material from Arneson in the Fantasy Supplement of Chainmail.
 

Well I am honored by the offer! I do hope that everyone invests in my works because they stand on their own as good designs, just like scholarship should stand on its own merits here or elsewhere. As I have no dog in this race other than interest in a final outcome which is, as yet, unforeseen, I will return to last minute Turkey dinner remains to pick those bones instead...
 

mwittig

Explorer
If the analysis at the top of this thread is correct, then a number of conclusions should be able to be drawn from it and supported with evidence.

One of the conclusions drawn from the analysis that has been examined in this thread so far is that Arneson’s Blackmoor campaign must predate Chainmail. The March 1971 issue of International Wargamer had no Chainmail ad, while the April issue did; this indicated that Chainmail was available no earlier than April of 1971. The letter describing Blackmoor and the map of Blackmoor, both dating to March of 1971, indicated that Arneson’s campaign had already been in progress for some time prior to the publication of Chainmail. This was corroborated by original Blackmoor player Greg Svenson’s story, The First Dungeon Adventure, which recounts the first dungeon adventure that he says occurred during his Christmas break from 1970-71. Svenson’s dating was corroborated by a second original Blackmoor player. Although Svenson’s dating has been viewed as erroneous by historians because it would indicate that Blackmoor predated Chainmail, the analysis at the top of this thread indicates that Svenson’s (and his corroborator’s) dating has been correct all along.

Another conclusion that can be drawn from the analysis is that Arneson drew from Patt’s article, “Rules for Middle Earth”; this, in turn, suggests that it was Arneson that had given Patt's article to Gygax. As Lowkey13 pointed out, though, a conflicting theory for how Gygax had gotten the Patt article has already been proposed:
So a little understanding is required to understand my skepticism. Start here:
That's a quick guide showing that Patt is likely the inspiration for Chainmail. Notably Peterson found evidence that Perren read the Courier (the magazine that Patt's contribution was published in) as he has a letter published in the very next magazine.
Lets take a look at what Peterson wrote:
The Fantasy Supplement that Gary Gygax and Jeff Perren tacked on to the end of Chainmail inspired Dave Arneson as he created the Blackmoor setting, and formed the basis for the original set of monsters and spells underlying Dungeons & Dragons.
[…]
If these rules were so obscure it took me this long to find them, how do we know for sure that the authors of Chainmail saw them, and saw them during the time Chainmail was in development? Because they subscribed to that newsletter and even contributed to it. Handily, the very issue of the Courier carrying these fantasy rules also contains an article by S. Manganiello on “French Uniforms of the Seven Years War” which, in the following issue of the Courier, Jeff Perren attacks in a letter. This proves that at least one of the two authors of Chainmail received and studied the very issue of the Courier containing these fantasy rules at the time, and surely could have shared it with his co-designer. Although these rules came out not long before Chainmail, we know from Gygax’s own account that the Fantasy Supplement was a last-minute addition to Chainmail: he later called it an “afterthought.”
[…]
Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that Gary had a singular gift for streamlining, augmenting and popularizing rules originally devised by others: certainly we wouldn’t say that Patt’s original rules could have inspired Blackmoor, and thus Dungeons & Dragons, without Gary’s magic touch and the elaboration we find in the Chainmail Fantasy Supplement.
Peterson’s find seems to suggest that Perren provided Gygax with Patt’s article. However, I interviewed Perren, and, contrary to what was stated in the quote above, Perren said that he had nothing to do with the Fantasy Supplement. This is not surprising, as Gygax himself suggested multiple times that Perren did not coauthor the Fantasy Supplement. Additionally, although Perren did subscribe to The Courier and even recalled seeing Patt’s article, he didn’t recall giving it to Gygax. In fact, he didn't know how Gygax had gotten the idea to do the Fantasy Supplement.

With the prevailing theory of how Gygax had gotten hold of Patt’s rules seemingly debunked, we next turn to the analysis at the top of this thread to see what it indicates. It indicates a number of things:

1) Arneson drew from Patt’s article (since Arneson included the obscure creature name “Anti-Hero” from Patt’s article)

2) Gygax drew from Patt’s article (since Gygax included the obscure creature names “Anti-Hero” and “Tree” from Patt’s article)

3) Arneson drew from Patt’s article directly, because Arneson’s material predates Gygax’s Fantasy Supplement (therefore, Arneson could not have drawn from Patt’s article via Gygax’s Fantasy Supplement)

4) Gygax drew from Patt’s article directly, because Gygax’s Fantasy Supplement includes an obscure creature name, the “Tree” creature, while Arneson’s material did not.

5) Arneson drew from Patt’s article first; Gygax then drew material from both Arneson’s material and Patt’s article directly, indicating that Gygax had both Arneson’s material and Patt’s material in front of him when he typed up the Fantasy Supplement.

The analysis at the top of this thread therefore indicates the following chain:

Patt—Arneson—Gygax

But, at the time Patt lived in New England and Arneson lived in Minnesota. Additionally, while Patt’s rules were demonstrated at the Miniature Figure Collectors of America convention in Philadelphia, the convention was only one day long. It therefore seems highly unlikely that Arneson traveled to Philadelphia from Minnesota to attend a one-day convention. Yet, the analysis above indicates that Arneson drew directly from Patt’s material. So, how did he get it?

It turns out that one of Arneson’s friends, prominent wargamer and miniatures painter Duke Seifried, did attend the MFCA convention. In fact, not only did Duke Seifried attend the MFCA convention, but he even played in the demonstration game of “Rules for Middle Earth” that Patt’s club, the New England Wargamers Association (NEWA) put on during the convention. Although Seifried passed away in 2018, one of Seifried’s other friends recalls:
I didn’t attend the MFCA convention that year, but I have a definite memory of Duke Seifried calling me afterwards and telling me he had just “played Lord of the Rings”! Even by Duke standards he was excited!
Another of Seifried’s friends even recalled the exact same chain indicated by the analysis above:
Duke's absolute surety that that game [NEWA’s Middle Earth demonstration] put the bee in Arneson's—and through him, Gygax's—bonnet carries a lot of weight with me.

So, with Seifried inserted, the chain indicated by the analysis at the top of this thread is:

Patt—Seifried—Arneson—Gygax

Seifried was the Executive Vice President of TSR in its heyday and was apparently one Gygax’s top supporters while he was there (see Shannon Appelcline’s book, Designer’s & Dragons). Yet, Seifried attended the Blackmoor Studios Dedication to Dave Arneson at Full Sail University in 2011, where he had this to say about Arneson:
While others played a part in the explosion of this idea, make no mistake—Dave Arneson was the creator of fantasy role-playing.
You can see him deliver that statement with conviction here:


Just as in the case earlier in the thread with which came first, Blackmoor or Chainmail, we again see that a conclusion drawn from the analysis at the top of this thread is supported by the evidence.

It appears that Seifried told Arneson about NEWA's display, and Arneson then developed his fantasy rules for Blackmoor, drawing from Patt's article in the process. Arneson then sent Gygax his material along with a copy of Patt's rules. Gygax then drew from both Arneson material (apparently including earlier versions of the Fantasy Reference Table, the Fantasy Combat Table, and the creature descriptions), as well as Patt's article, in typing up the Fantasy Supplement. This is appears to be the reason why Gygax called the Fantasy Supplement an "afterthought" during an early interview, as its development was much quicker than if Gygax had started from scratch.

(If anyone knows where Gygax made that "afterthought" comment, a citation for it would be appreciated.)
 



There should be no partisanship in true scholarship from either side. Forwarded POVs should be refuted rather than emotionally rejected or ignored. I for one am now tending to want to see the OP's original position proven or disproven. I am non-partisan, But. The weight of disengagement and seeming partisanship is making me reflect as to WHY? That is the scientific route that must be maintained in my view, that and that alone. Who, What, Where, When, WHY, and How?
 


In the famous last words of Giordano Bruno who as a scientist and philosopher was condemned to death by the partisan church for his daring to research into what they termed heresy:

"Perhaps you pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it!"

There are no scared cows in scholarship.
 

In the famous last words of Giordano Bruno who as a scientist and philosopher was condemned to death by the partisan church for his daring to research into what they termed heresy:

"Perhaps you pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it!"

There are no scared cows in scholarship.
Only incredibly tasty ones (oddly these cows are shaped like all members of the animal kingdom and are of the "well earned knowledge" flavor. A delicacy) all of which MUST be dissected.

For the record i also am unsure which premise is tge correct one. Ive been watching this thread with interest because i didnt realize there was such contention. Ive been wondering which premise wouod end up being the correct one and i hope the investigation continues. I like gygax and arneson both. But i also wanna know what is true.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top