You know, I was being graceful, but then you had to do that. So, you asked.
1. The reason the original article on Kotaku (and, presumably, the upcoming documentary) are attracting some attention is because they are using your quotes. It does sound like you're being a little self-aggrandizing (you are quoted, paraphrased, as saying "Everything (other people) know about the creation of the tabletop role-playing game is, in (Kuntz's) opinion, sorely mistaken or flat-out wrong."). Or how about "(r)egardless, Kuntz describes himself as the first 'dungeon master.'" Or "(Gygax) was jealous. Just stone-cold jealous."
A1. INLINE: It's flat out wrong because many to this day think that Arneson was an idea man and had no functioning system, but yet Gary's quotes that Arneson provided a "prototype" and that He and Arneson did things differently with their respective systems (source: A&E #2) and that "Arneson had as much to do with it [D&D]" as he did (source: A&E #2) refutes that WILD assertion. The first DM quote references the day after we played in Blackmoor and Gary called me to come over (15 minutes after the two Daves had left to return to the Twin Cities) and inspect the concept as a story making apparatus. I DMed gary as he moved a chit across blank hex paper he provided and I drew in what he saw as terrain, etc and described the surround--two maps total, the maps are still extant, scanned and available on my El Raja Key Archive. We went through two sessions of about 1 hour each of him moving about and me describing things and naming them (as the DUN FOREST) and he gave up on using Dave's concept as a story making device.
My impression is that Gary was jealous. He was also jealous of MAR Barker's Tekumel and I have good reasons for stating that as well, and that POV is shared by others of that time who dealt between the two.
2. Now, you have a lot of first-hand experience! But are you saying, now, that all the other people (like Gygax) agree with your current characterizations? That Gygax was just stone-cold jealous, for instance?
2A: No. Gary would never have admitted that he was jealous. Would you? It was my impression from two separate instances pre-TSR. They remain my opinion yet what I believe considering the instances that generated the thought both times.
3. Or how do you square your recent descriptions of Arneson at TSR and how he left with what Kask said, and with what Peterson reported based on conteporaneous documents (for instance)?
3A: Well. Kask worked at the main building; Arneson worked off site. If Arneson stormed out and Kask says he was there and saw it happen, then Arneson stormed out of shipping where he had been moved to. Ernie recalls Arneson being in shipping and no longer offsite at his apt as Research Director. Besides that, we have Arneson's and Megarry's recollections of events as well and that he was in shipping.
4. And how can you claim experience in one thing (the experience at being at the table) to then say that you fully understood the two years before you met Arneson?
4A: Not understanding this. I met Dave in 1969 and he and I corresponded and would call each other in 1971-1972 in playing in his Nappy Campaign and in running the Domesday Book. He became Steward when Gary quit and I was still KING and editor, thne, with my brother's and Arneson's help. I published his article "Facts about Blackmoor" in DB 13, 1972, 5 months prior to our run through the Blackmoor adventure.
A lot of this is complicated. A lot of this suffers from people with agendas, and differing memories, and hurt that can still linger. I can understand that, just like I respect you for the seminal role you played in my favorite game (it's not Gygax and Arneson, it's Gygax and Arneson and Kuntz and Kask and Ward and so many artists and so many many others ...), and I love to hear what you have to say!
But it doesn't mean that I uncritically accept you theories. Just like I didn't accept it when Gygax said that Tolkien had little to no influence on D&D. Or failed to mention where Chainmail came from.
kotaku.com
