TSR The Dueling Essays of Arneson & Gygax

A recent article and documentary about Dave Arneson's involvement in Dungeons & Dragons shares a different perspective on the game's creation, with a particular emphasis on Rob Kuntz's testimony. Some of it contradicts what Gary Gygax positioned as D&D's origins. Fortunately we can read what both designers thoughts in their very own words -- published in the same book.

Alzrius pointed out that both Arneson and Gygax contributed essays to Lawrence Schick's Heroic Worlds. What's startling is how their essays contradict each other just pages apart.

Heroic Worlds, published in 1991, was an attempt to catalog every tabletop role-playing games publication. It was a massive undertaking that was possible only because of the limited scope of the hobby. Thanks to electronic publishing, the Open Game License, and the Internet, tabletop gaming products have exploded -- DriveThruRPG has over 30,000 products alone -- making it impossible to produce a book of this scope ever again. It also provides a snapshot in time of the thoughts of various game designers, including Steve Jackon, Jennell Jaquays, Tom Moldavy, Sandy Petersen, Ken St. Andre, Michael Stackpole, Greg Stafford, Erick Wujcik and more.

Arneson kicks off the D&D controversy on page 131:

My first set of miniatures rules was for fighting out battles with sailing ships. This led me to meet several people, including Gary Gygax, at an early GenCon. These people later participated in a historical campaign I refereed. When I began refereeing what later became D&D in Minnesota, I mentioned it to them. They were interested, and when some of us went down to visit we all played this strange game...the lads in Lake Geneva got turned on to it. Tactical Studies Rules, a Lake Geneva-based game company, was already publishing historical rules and was willing to do D&D.

Gygax follows up on the origins of D&D in a short one-page essay on the very next page:

In the late 1960s a club called the Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Association met weekly at my home for military/naval miniatures gaming. From this activity sprang Chainmail. The D&D game was drawn from its rules, and that is indisputable. Chainmail was the progenitor of D&D, but the child grew to excel its parent.

This point is disputed by RPG archivist, Paul Stromberg, in the Kotaku article, "Dungeons & Deceptions: The First D&D Players Push Back On The Legend Of Gary Gygax":

“People think that Blackmoor arose from Chainmail, and thus Chainmail gave rise to Dungeons & Dragons. That is not correct,” said Stormberg, the RPG historian. While Chainmail, amongst other things, was an influence on Blackmoor, Arneson’s game was “entirely new,” he said. “It’s a game entirely unlike Chainmail. It’s like saying a Rodin uses red and a Picasso uses red so they’re the same style of painting.”

This perspective is shared by Arneson himself in his first essay:

Contrary to rumor, the players and I were all quite in control of our mental processes when D&D was designed. I also hasten to point out hat the Chainmail connection was the use of the Combat Matrix and nothing more. Find a first-edition Chainmail and compare it to a first-edition Original D&D someday and you will see that for yourself: not a hit point, character class, level, or armor class, much less any role-playing aspects in Chainmail.

Arneson's perspective on the game industry comes through in the other essays scattered throughout the book. Here's his version of how Blackmoor came about:

I originally began with a simple dungeon and expanded it into several dungeons loosely organized as a campaign. The rules were not really an organized set, more notes on what I had earlier. Today people expect a lot more detail, coherency, organization, and story.

Here's Arneson's thoughts on writing a scenario:

When I design a scenario, sometimes the plot or situation will come from books I read, and sometimes it just pops into my head...Changes are made, and then the work is sent off to be butchered--er, ah, edited, I mean...The original Blackmoor supplement included what was the very first published scenario. My intention was that it would serve as a guideline for other GMs to design their own. Instead, it spawn an entire "service" industry. Oh, well...

And finally here's what Arneson thought of the game industry:

My serious advice to the would-be role-playing-game author will sound cruel and heartless, and most will be offended and not listen. To would be game designers I say: seek useful employment in another field...play your own house rules with your friends and associates; it will be less painful and far more fun. (On the other hand, frankly, I wouldn't have listened to an old fogey like me.)

Gygax's thoughts on the subject of D&D are well-known; Arneson's less so, and Heroic Worlds is a trove of his perspective on tabletop gaming and publishing, undoubtedly informed by his legal tussles with TSR. The difference between Arenson and Gygax's approach to gaming is starkly illustrated in their essays. And yet, despite their long and sometimes antagonistic history, Gygax ends his essay on a hopeful note:

Dave Arneson and I have spoken frequently since the time we devised D&D. We don't plan to collaborate on another game, but just maybe one day he'll decide to combine talents again.

Did Gygax mean "we'll" instead of "he'll"? Gygax ends the essay with our only answer: Who knows?

 

[AriochQ]

Ugh! Another book I now need to read to quench my thirst for early D&D history!

We actually just interviewed Griff Morgan, who co-created Secrets of Blackmoor, on my podcast (The Grognards, found under the LAG Radio Network) and I am finding the arguments that Arneson deserves far more credit than he currently receives to be pretty convincing. I was pretty firmly in the 50/50 camp, but I am thinking Gary less impact pre-1974 than I had assumed.

 

[Alzrius]

Thanks for the shout-out, talien! As a reference, I mentioned before that none other than Shannon Appelcline (author of Designers & Dragons) takes the position that Chainmail was fundamental to the development of D&D, and refers to those who believe otherwise as "Chainmail denialists." You can find the actual quote from him on that in his review of Dr. J. Eric Holmes' book, Fantasy Role-Playing Games:

Fantasy Role Playing Games isn't a history book, but Holmes does devote a chapter to the topic, and it's pretty much what we know today: Gary Gygax published Chainmail (1971), which Dave Arneson used to run his Blackmoor game. Arneson then brought the idea back to Gygax who began running Greyhawk adventures. TSR published their work as Dungeons & Dragons (1974). None of this is new, but it's nice to see the same story that we know told just several years after the fact — especially given the 21st century advent of Chainmail denialists, who insist that Chainmail either wasn't used or wasn't important to the creation of D&D.

(There's a post on Appelcline's Facebook page where he uses that label again, and he and Stormberg get into a minor debate over it, but I can't find it now.)

 

[Reynard]

I am curious what is driving the current trend to attempt to strip Gygax of his legacy. It seems mean spirited at best, and outright vindictive at worst. As far as I know, no one has ever suggested Arneson was not half of the team that ultimately developed the earliest version of D&D, but it seems like people want to elevate Arneson at the expense of Gygax.

 

[SMHWorlds]

I am curious what is driving the current trend to attempt to strip Gygax of his legacy. It seems mean spirited at best, and outright vindictive at worst. As far as I know, no one has ever suggested Arneson was not half of the team that ultimately developed the earliest version of D&D, but it seems like people want to elevate Arneson at the expense of Gygax.

I have never met any of the people involved, so I cannot give a personal anecdote. I do think that Gygax tends to get more credit even though Arneson was equally important to the creation of the game. And we as fans have a hard time giving credit to more than one person, because that might change how we perceive our games.

However, I think it is clear that Gygax was the catalyst who turned the potential of D&D and rpgs in general, into the kinetic phenomena that it is. Not alone, for sure, and I suspect the way he put himself forward as the primary expert likely rubbed people the wrong way. But his role cannot be denied. There should be room to give DA a little more credit, without setting EGG in shadow.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Ugh! Another book I now need to read to quench my thirst for early D&D history!

We actually just interviewed Griff Morgan, who co-created Secrets of Blackmoor, on my podcast (The Grognards, found under the LAG Radio Network) and I am finding the arguments that Arneson deserves far more credit than he currently receives to be pretty convincing. I was pretty firmly in the 50/50 camp, but I am thinking Gary less impact pre-1974 than I had assumed.

It's a great book. Lots of great essays plus wonderful snippets on early RPG products.

As far as Arneson/Gygax, I think Arneson must be given credit for creating the idea of roleplaying, but Gygax must be given credit for editing and publishing it and making the game we all know and play possible. I doubt we'd have D&D without them both, but Arneson must be given credit for the original idea.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I am curious what is driving the current trend to attempt to strip Gygax of his legacy. It seems mean spirited at best, and outright vindictive at worst. As far as I know, no one has ever suggested Arneson was not half of the team that ultimately developed the earliest version of D&D, but it seems like people want to elevate Arneson at the expense of Gygax.

I don't know that it's stripping him of his legacy, but it is a bit like Lennon/McCartney. Gygax was important and even responsible for D&D as we have it today, but Arneson was the original creator of "roleplaying" as we know it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Garthanos]

Ugh! Another book I now need to read to quench my thirst for early D&D history!

Have you read any of the early Alarum and Excursions APA (zine)
contributing names included.

• Wilf K. Backhaus
• Greg Costikyan
• John M. Ford
• E. Gary Gygax
• David A. Hargrave
• Rob Heinsoo
• John Eric Holmes
• Robin Laws
• Stephen R. Marsh
• Phil McGregor
• Dave Nalle
• Mark Rein·Hagen
• John T. Sapienza, Jr.
• Edward E. Simbalist
• Jonathan Tweet
• Erick Wujcik
• John Nephew
• Spike Y Jones
• Doc Cross
• Scott Bennie
• Ken Rolston
• Nicole Lindroos
• Terry K. Amthor
• Wes Ives

 

[Jer]

I am curious what is driving the current trend to attempt to strip Gygax of his legacy. It seems mean spirited at best, and outright vindictive at worst. As far as I know, no one has ever suggested Arneson was not half of the team that ultimately developed the earliest version of D&D, but it seems like people want to elevate Arneson at the expense of Gygax.

I actually don't get this read at all. First because in the popular culture at large that knows of D&D, Gary Gygax created D&D. It's only those of us who have been around for a long time or who like to dive into the history of the field who may have even heard of Dave Arneson. Given how much the game has grown in recent years there are a whole lot more people who don't know the history at all, so stories introducing that history to the new generation are going to happen. And boosting Arneson is of course going to come at the expense of Gygax in these narratives because of the ugly falling out they had, the lawsuits over Arneson's compensation for D&D after they fell out, and the fact that as I said in the popular culture Gygax's name is so synonymous with the creation of the game that his status can only be driven downward by making other people's stories public to a wider audience.

It reminds me of when Jack Kirby really started to get recognized for his role in creating Marvel's comics. It came at a big expense to Stan Lee for exactly the same sets of reasons - outside of the hardcore Kirby fans, Lee had been the guy who got all of the credit for being the architect of the Marvel universe, he and Kirby had a pretty dramatic falling out, and Lee was the one who was the boss so he and his people got to create the narrative. When Kirby started getting boosted again in the 90s and people were trying to set the record straight, it came at Stan Lee's expense because he had long been getting all of the credit for what was really a shared creative endeavor - reevaluating the contributions of both creators of course was going to lead to a loss of esteem for Lee because he went from "sole creator" in the eyes of the public to "shared creator who took sole credit for decades" - not a great place to be.

Eventually it will shake out, as it mostly has with Lee and Kirby among those who know comics history (though even that still remains contentious).