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?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Yaarel]

Arneson v. Gygax, 473 F. Supp. 759 (D. Minn. 1979)

Arneson v. Gygax, 473 F. Supp. 759 (D. Minn. 1979) case opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

law.justia.com

1979 Arneson v Gygax and TSR

'
Facts

Plaintiff alleges that since mid-1977 amounts less than those required by the royalty agreement have been paid to him. Plaintiff further claims that defendants Gygax and TSR Hobbies ... have tortiously interfered with the royalty agreement by developing and marketing ... games or game rules ... "copied in substantial part and wholly derived" from "Dungeons and Dragons," and have defeated his right to the notoriety of authorship by falsely representing such games and playing aids to be solely authored by defendant Gygax.'

...

During 1973 and 1974 plaintiff and defendant Gygax in his individual capacity collaborated on the authorship of "Dungeons and Dragons." There was extensive correspondence between them by phone and mail during this time. The game was first marketed in January 1974. The written contract was executed in April 1975. Defendant Gygax signed in Wisconsin and he was named as co-author.

...

In 1977 TSR Hobbies, Inc. began marketing "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Players Handbook" and in 1978 "Dungeons and Dragons, Monster Manual," under the sole authorship of Gary Gygax. ... No royalties were paid to plaintiff for sales of these works.

'



Presumably, the lawyers of Arneson presented evidence of this "extensive correspondence between them by phone and mail", so as to establish it as one of the facts. This would include the transcripts of the Arneson campaign and the game designs by Arneson.

The people involved who say the judge saw these transcripts are likely telling the truth.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I am disappointed at @lowkey13 devolving the discussion.

And I"m disappointed in you for refusing to answer my question. I guess we're all just disappointed today.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Arneson v. Gygax, 473 F. Supp. 759 (D. Minn. 1979)

Arneson v. Gygax, 473 F. Supp. 759 (D. Minn. 1979) case opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

law.justia.com

1979 Arneson v Gygax and TSR

'
Facts

Plaintiff alleges that since mid-1977 amounts less than those required by the royalty agreement have been paid to him. Plaintiff further claims that defendants Gygax and TSR Hobbies ... have tortiously interfered with the royalty agreement by developing and marketing ... games or game rules ... "copied in substantial part and wholly derived" from "Dungeons and Dragons," and have defeated his right to the notoriety of authorship by falsely representing such games and playing aids to be solely authored by defendant Gygax.'

...

During 1973 and 1974 plaintiff and defendant Gygax in his individual capacity collaborated on the authorship of "Dungeons and Dragons." There was extensive correspondence between them by phone and mail during this time. The game was first marketed in January 1974. The written contract was executed in April 1975. Defendant Gygax signed in Wisconsin and he was named as co-author.

...

In 1977 TSR Hobbies, Inc. began marketing "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Players Handbook" and in 1978 "Dungeons and Dragons, Monster Manual," under the sole authorship of Gary Gygax. ... No royalties were paid to plaintiff for sales of these works.

'



Presumably, the lawyers of Arneson presented evidence of this "extensive correspondence between them by phone and mail", so as to establish it as one of the facts. This would include the transcripts of the Arneson campaign and the game designs by Arneson.

The people involved who say the judge saw these transcripts are likely telling the truth.

Yaarel you are making yourself look very silly.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

This thread is gold!

 

[Harzel]

So if anyone is curious, this is what happened in the lawsuit.

Arneson v. Gygax et al. was filed in state court in Minnesota on February 12, 1979, and removed to federal court a month later on the basis of diversity of citizenship (that's a fancy term for the Plaintiff and Defendant live in different states). The Defendants were Gygax (of course) and TSR.

There were four counts brought; (1) breach of contract (royalty agreement), (2) conversion (taking the rights of Plaintiff to receive royalties), and two counts alleging a form of defamation for failing to properly credit Arneson in the PHB and MM.

The primary issue before the Court was whether the federal court in Minnesota had "personal jursidiction" over Gygax. In other words, was there enough of a connection between the state of Minnesota and Gary Gygax that the court jurisdiction? In a decision that I already cited to, the Court stated that it did have personal jurisdiction over Gygax. See Arneson v. Gygax, et al. 473 F. Supp. 759 (D. Minn. 1979). That was on July 25, 1979.

This is mere procedural fighting; in effect, this meant that the case would continue in this forum. There was no dispute, or adjudication, over ownership. Now, we know that in terms of discovery, Defendants' counsel filed for (and received) an extension of time to respond to discovery on July 12, 1979.

From that time on, the parties fought and settled in March 1981. There was no trial, no summary judgment, no court decision on the merits on the issue.

The full terms of the settlement, AFAIK, are not known other than Arneson getting a royalty right of 2.5% (instead of 5%) on core AD&D books. The PHB, MM, and DMG. This meant that he did not receive royalties on collateral materials (such as modules, campaign settings, non-core books).

An interesting question came up with the publication of the MM2 in 1985 (is it core, or a new book) which resulted in another suit, btw.

Looking back at the original legal wrangling, IMO (and without being versed in the legal climates of the 70s or Minnesota state law) Arneson three additional claims (the tort claims) were ... not good. These are the types of extra claims that (IMO) you often see added on- "It's not just a contract claim, I have tort claims too!" It's days like this that make me pine for the economic loss rule.

If you're really that curious about the "historical documents" Yaarel, why not look at them? Hint- the Judge's papers are available. He was no Judge Friendly, but he was still a well-known jurist.

Anyway, it really goes down to construing that clause in the royalty contract, and splitting the baby saved both parties the uncertainty of a trial.

Not that it is particular to this post, but you seem to be doing an especially poor job pursing the desideratum expressed in your self-selected title/motto (or if it is more of an admonition, following it). Just sayin'....

 

[Reynard]

On the upside this thread has reminded me to finally read Playing at the World.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*