TSR Rob Kuntz Recounts The Origins Of D&D

Alzrius · Sep 6, 2019

Rob, to follow up, can you contextualize the part about Arneson "never having been allowed near design since his arrival" with what we know about the development of Supplement II: Blackmoor?

I ask because the typical understanding was that Arneson was given that supplement to design, and turned in "a bushel basket of scrap papers" that went through two editors (Brian Blume and Tim Kask) before it reached a state fit for publication. Likewise, Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign book (Judges Guild, 1977) has been described as being "largely comprised of the raw notes Arneson was using to run his campaign. Very little effort is made in the way of explanation, and the notes are also frequently (and frustratingly!) incomplete."

What that all seems to describe is that Arneson was given a chance to design, and proved to not be very good at it, at least in terms of producing materials meant to be sold commercially. Does that not match with your experiences back then?

Rob Kuntz · Sep 7, 2019

Alzrius said:
Rob, to follow up, can you contextualize the part about Arneson "never having been allowed near design since his arrival" with what we know about the development of Supplement II: Blackmoor?

I ask because the typical understanding was that Arneson was given that supplement to design, and turned in "a bushel basket of scrap papers" that went through two editors (Brian Blume and Tim Kask) before it reached a state fit for publication. Likewise, Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign book (Judges Guild, 1977) has been described as being "largely comprised of the raw notes Arneson was using to run his campaign. Very little effort is made in the way of explanation, and the notes are also frequently (and frustratingly!) incomplete."

What that all seems to describe is that Arneson was given a chance to design, and proved to not be very good at it, at least in terms of producing materials meant to be sold commercially. Does that not match with your experiences back then?

Well, his system Mechanics were different than Gary's OD&D mechanics. Recall, if you have followed, that upon seeing his notes in late '72, those that I read as well, that Gary said that they had to be rewritten. What that turned out as is actually Gary applying his preferred mechanics and changing up some of Dave's as well. That split the two into separate mechanical realms, kinda like the difference between AD&D and 3E mechanics today.

Arneson was admittedly a poor typist. He was not bad at generating and organizing ideas--he created the architecture and implemented his own mechanics to play the Blackmoor RPG for 1.5 years and then demo it for us. But he was not a final finisher. However, back to the "pile" of notes, of course with two separate system mechanic views they would appear to be incongruous as the published form was set in stone and orbiting Gary's building mechanics, so many of Arneson's original ways and design attitudes were not compatible with that now budding direction. As such they would not make sense, but asking Arneson about them would have, and to my knowledge that was not done, Tim Kask just considered most of it garbage and used what was there that he would not otherwise follow up on with Arneson to ascertain their previous uses by Arneson,

Arneson was not hired, btw, as a designer. His official title was "Research Director". What this meant as described is that he was supposed to continue sourcing games and talent, especially from the Minnesota pool. So, perhaps Gary did not see him as a finisher; I am waiting on some old correspondence which might shed some light on that and his previous dealings with Dave (via Don't Give Up The Ship, Arneson, Gygax and Carr, Guidon Games). Might he have fit into a role as a growing designer, a finisher, if he had been promoted as such rather than closeted to non-design duties? Hard to tell. Probably a lot of ideas, some rough, some needing editing, but considering the leaps he had attained already, perhaps not a bad bet rather than having one's obvious talent neutered considering all of that, especially by an editor who appears today to have had a bias against Arneson, as well.

darjr · Sep 7, 2019

I think there was and is so much from the game that can only be transmitted via playing or by example. I lament the things and styles that were lost because that kind of recording of game play just wasn’t done at the time. From Arneson and Gygax.

Rob Kuntz · Sep 7, 2019

darjr said:
I think there was and is so much from the game that can only be transmitted via playing or by example. I lament the things and styles that were lost because that kind of recording of game play just wasn’t done at the time. From Arneson and Gygax.

OK. Now follow me here. Not meant to offend but to offer/seek perspective. First sentence (condensed): 'Only so much can be learned by example'. Second sentence (condensed): 'Too bad we don't have preserved examples' (and only from Arneson Gygax, as an aside). Contradiction? You tell me, I'm open to being clarified. Besides there is an assumption attached to this (perhaps many in fact), that the concept existed in a box of Arneson's or Gygax's head alone (some inexplicable and unreachable fount perhaps). Note that David Megarry and Greg Svenson (veterans of the Minnesota group still live and who to this day can "example" the same play they first engendered (i.e., examples of play were not done in front of a mirror by Dave, but as play is normally done, in interchange with others, starting at point A and then proceeding to adduce what that means and could be expanded upon by both sides as a continuation of those interchanges)). The same holds true for the LGTSA. Gary, myself, Terry Kuntz and Ernie Gygax were all present at the same time when Arneson and Megarry transmitted the concept to all of us in Nov. 1972. I still play essentially/basically (in the Open sense) the way we played then and during the playtests afterwards of the D&D game. Thus the seminal examples of play you are lamenting about disappearing, fortunately (as I and others are not dead yet), still exist (but don't tell some RPG historians the latter, they wont believe you because it has not been documented yet).

Next, and this gets longer than I can fully cover here (it is covered at length in my book Dave Arneson's True Genius). I will call it THE BIG ASSUMPTION for this re-rendering. AD&D's philosophy is not, according to my experiences and my research, a mere progression of OD&D's expression like OD&D was a progression/extenuation/emulation of Arneson's conceptual break through. It was a redaction in many ways of OD&D's initial working organization and implementation of an open philosophy. Thus we have two different design philosophies and thus the views and languages used in accessing and describing each. Therein lies a HUGE minefield of assumptions if one does not approach that subject from a measured systems viewpoint.

So in essence, what I am alluding to is which "style" as you mention, for in my estimation under the Open system there were thousands (difference) whereas under its contraction these started to become wizened down (sameness).

reelo · Sep 7, 2019

Excuse my ignorance, Rob, but what game system, current or historical, would most closely resemble Arneson's way of playing, or with the least Gygaxian influence?

Rob Kuntz · Sep 7, 2019

reelo said:
Excuse my ignorance, Rob, but what game system, current or historical, would most closely resemble Arneson's way of playing, or with the least Gygaxian influence?

No one's truly ignorant, I'm not implying that at all. But provisional science (including my research and assertions resulting therefrom) can be challenged in the light of facts, proofs, etc. It's whether one remains open (neutral scholarly approach) to discourse like myself and others have. Thanks for the question with that in mind.

Today's main (i.e., established market dominating ones) RPG systems are based and refined from the second system (the redaction of OD&D) and mainly for mass promulgation market purposes. I am not speaking upon this other than as a neutral observer of fact due to the constrained models resulting from repetitive feedback of both applied systems and as noted over time. People fall where they may within the length or width of their knowledge which in turn informs their proclivities. I am just just differentiating between the choices and their resulting and long term/short term impacts on play and design, and thus the market dynamics associated with these and the perception (or lack thereof) of the RPG philosophy as a holistic subject. I have no dog in the race other than this.

Parmandur · Sep 7, 2019

Rob Kuntz said:
OK. Now follow me here. Not meant to offend but to offer/seek perspective. First sentence (condensed): 'Only so much can be learned by example'. Second sentence (condensed): 'Too bad we don't have preserved examples' (and only from Arneson Gygax, as an aside). Contradiction? You tell me, I'm open to being clarified. Besides there is an assumption attached to this (perhaps many in fact), that the concept existed in a box of Arneson's or Gygax's head alone (some inexplicable and unreachable fount perhaps). Note that David Megarry and Greg Svenson (veterans of the Minnesota group still live and who to this day can "example" the same play they first engendered (i.e., examples of play were not done in front of a mirror by Dave, but as play is normally done, in interchange with others, starting at point A and then proceeding to adduce what that means and could be expanded upon by both sides as a continuation of those interchanges)). The same holds true for the LGTSA. Gary, myself, Terry Kuntz and Ernie Gygax were all present at the same time when Arneson and Megarry transmitted the concept to all of us in Nov. 1972. I still play essentially/basically (in the Open sense) the way we played then and during the playtests afterwards of the D&D game. Thus the seminal examples of play you are lamenting about disappearing, fortunately (as I and others are not dead yet), still exist (but don't tell some RPG historians the latter, they wont believe you because it has not been documented yet).

Next, and this gets longer than I can fully cover here (it is covered at length in my book Dave Arneson's True Genius). I will call it THE BIG ASSUMPTION for this re-rendering. AD&D's philosophy is not, according to my experiences and my research, a mere progression of OD&D's expression like OD&D was a progression/extenuation/emulation of Arneson's conceptual break through. It was a redaction in many ways of OD&D's initial working organization and implementation of an open philosophy. Thus we have two different design philosophies and thus the views and languages used in accessing and describing each. Therein lies a HUGE minefield of assumptions if one does not approach that subject from a measured systems viewpoint.

So in essence, what I am alluding to is which "style" as you mention, for in my estimation under the Open system there were thousands (difference) whereas under its contraction these started to become wizened down (sameness).

Luke Gygax is out there playing in live streaming games: OG folks like yourself might do well to give that a shot for posterity.

Alzrius · Sep 7, 2019

Rob Kuntz said:
Today's main (i.e., established market dominating ones) RPG systems are based and refined from the second system (the redaction of OD&D) and mainly for mass promulgation market purposes. I am not speaking upon this other than as a neutral observer of fact due to the constrained models resulting from repetitive feedback of both applied systems and as noted over time.

Would you say that the "supplement treadmill" (which, I would tentatively propose, includes published adventures) that seems to be ubiquitous today is an example of this? Presuming I'm recalling what you wrote in Dave Arneson's True Genius correctly, that seems like an outgrowth of closed systems in general, whereby they're essentially limited in what they allow the users to do save only for when new exception-based expansions are released.

If that's the case, is there any special consideration that should be given to supplements I-IV for OD&D, since that was an open/closed system? I've seen it noted how if you used all of those supplements (particularly, I believe, supplements I and III), OD&D became much more like AD&D 1E; if we hold that to be true, how would you characterize the use of those supplements with OD&D?

darjr · Sep 7, 2019

No offense taken.

What I mean is there is a quality to game play that can get lost when folks try and write things down. Live, recorded play is what I’m after, really. I’d love it if you recorded some, or would.

Also would you publish Greyhawk material if WotC were to open it up in DMsGuild?