D&D General When D&D Co-Creator Dave Arneson Asked WotC For A Job!

Back in 1997, after WotC had purchased the failing TSR (and D&D), and just prior to the launch of D&D 3E, Dave Arneson -- who co-created D&D in the 1970s along with Gary Gygax -- wrote to WotC president Peter Adkison asking to be put in charge of TSR.

Ben Riggs -- author of Slaying the Dragon -- discovered Arneson's letter to Adkison while researching his history of D&D.

Newly Discovered Letters Reveal D&D's Co-Creator Asked to be put in Charge of D&D in 1997 and it Did Not Go Well — Ben Riggs

While writing my book, Slaying the Dragon , I discovered a number of fascinating historical documents hidden from public view until now. Over the coming months, I’m going to be sharing some of these captivating documents with you. The first is a 1997 letter from D&D co-creator Dave Ar

www.writerbenriggs.com

The letter was full of typos -- Arneson even got Adkison's name wrong! According to Riggs, Adkison did not reply, and Arneson wrote to him a second time.

 

[taosecurity]

This was one of the most painful things I ever read. Like, how could he have read this over and thought it was a good idea to send in this state??

I agree. A fair number of people are not capable of recognizing that their communication skills are lacking. Authors who recognize that they need help work with editors. Others just produce substandard offerings.

 

[Alzrius]

To quote something I found very helpful recently:

Dude, I've known u for ten seconds & enjoyed none of them. I'm not taking homework assignments from you.

I've now corrected you twice on your error. If you wish to educate yourself, it's not hard. It's not my job to teach you how the law works, or how to find the materials to educate yourself, or why you might want to avoid aggressively attacking people when you're wrong.

(For everyone else, it's around p. 200 and cites the source.)

Here's a link to the Google Books preview for those interested.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Arneson was finishing up his history degree at the University of Minnesota when MAR Barker became chair of the Department of South Asian studies. They likely bonded over history and fantasy literature. I don't know how close the two were. I don't know if MAR Barker would have been comfortable sharing his neo-nazi sympathies with the son of decorated WWII marine who actually fought actual Nazis. Unless evidence surfaces to show that Arneson was aware of MAR Barker's support for neo-nazism and looked the other way, I'm not willing to tar and feather him postmortem.

To be clear, I agree with this, but they were closer. Arneson was a regular in MAR Barker's gaming circle in the 70s, and one of his long-running and favorite experiences as a player was in a Barker Tekumel campaign; so much so that Barker named a recurring character in his Tekumel novels after Arneson's character. But there is no reason to think Arneson knew any more than the thousands of other people who knew, or played with, Barker over the years.

I was thinking more about how my thoughts vis-a-vis Barker have changed since the initial shock. When the announcement first came out, and for some time thereafter, I kind of assumed that he was this Jekyll/Hyde character, with the Hyde part coming out when no one was watching. Of course, that is rarely true in real life ... and it wasn't true with Barker. Over the last few months, we have seen that people have uncovered that it wasn't exactly ... hidden. That there were whispers about Barker prior to this. And I've been reflecting on how, in wargaming culture, for various reasons, it's probably a little easier to "hide in plain sight." I think that @MGibster touched on this. But it's the usual- fetishization for tactics, or so-called "superweapons," or the aesthetics, or the love of alternate history (it's hard to do much with alternate history with the Allies, after all). Something I think is probably worthy of discussion, but would generate far more heat than light.

 

[Retreater]

But it's the usual- fetishization for tactics, or so-called "superweapons," or the aesthetics, or the love of alternate history (it's hard to do much with alternate history with the Allies, after all). Something I think is probably worthy of discussion, but would generate far more heat than light.

I was just talking to my nephew about this yesterday. He was asking me how I had become friends with someone who has ended up with some rather extreme and unfortunate opinions - which has led to me cutting ties with him.
It became like Obi-Wan telling the story of Anakin Skywalker's turn to the Dark Side. And recounting the story I did feel a true sense of loss for what my friend used to be.
And in that discussion with my nephew, we talked about my friend's love of history, alternate and revisionist history, the tactical genius of certain groups and leaders. We met through wargames, miniatures, and RPGs, and that hobby certainly fueled his very disturbed worldview.
I do think it's something that should be discussed in our hobby and something that we all need to come to terms with - especially as new generations are discovering the hobby. But the topic is verboten on these boards.

 

[humble minion]

(it's hard to do much with alternate history with the Allies, after all).

Off-topic, but my favourite out-there alternate WWII history: in 1940 the BEF gets cut off before Dunkirk and surrenders en masse. With the heart torn out of the british army, Churchill is forced to rely much more on Imperial troops. By far the biggest pool of manpower in the British Empire is India. Hundreds of thousands of Indian troops arrive in Britain to help ward off invasion. In 1942, before Americans arrive in the UK in large numbers, resentment over the callous and ineffective handling of the Bengal famine leads these troops to mutiny - successfully, as the majority of available British troops are fighting in the North African theatre. 1943 arrives. Britain is now a colony of India.

 

[Nikosandros]

The ideas that interest in WWII wargames and history can make someone a pro-nazi it really wild to me. Back in my wargaming days, I played German forces plenty of time at the tactical, operational and strategic levels. I've read books by Guderian and Von Manstein. I've always been a nazi hater. The same is true of all the people that were in gaming circle.

 

[Umbran]

Nice. Did your mom say this to you after you tried to write her a birthday card?

Mod Note:
And if I asked if your mom taught you those manners? You'd probably not like it.

We require a higher level of basic respect than you are showing here. Please refrain from insulting people.

You are done in this discussion.

 

[MGibster]

The ideas that interest in WWII wargames and history can make someone a pro-nazi it really wild to me. Back in my wargaming days, I played German forces plenty of time at the tactical, operational and strategic levels. I've read books by Guderian and Von Manstein. I've always been a nazi hater. The same is true of all the people that were in gaming circle.

When I was a graduate student, people would find out one of my areas of research was prohibition and they would assume I was a teetotaler myself. It was bizarre going to social situations where the alcohol was flowing and nobody would offer me a drink for fear of offending me. I also had a friend who was a graduate student in anthropology studying white supremacist. She was frequently told she shouldn't be studying "those people" or shockingly asked why she would study them.

 

[Retreater]

The ideas that interest in WWII wargames and history can make someone a pro-nazi it really wild to me. Back in my wargaming days, I played German forces plenty of time at the tactical, operational and strategic levels. I've read books by Guderian and Von Manstein. I've always been a nazi hater. The same is true of all the people that were in gaming circle.

Certainly not everyone who loves wargames and history gets attracted to harmful ideologies. But some do. Just like in my part of the country not everyone who participates in a Civil War reenactment on the side of the Confederacy has those beliefs. But some do.
What comes first - the chicken or the egg? Do some of these hobbies attract people with problematic ideologies? Do they encourage people to develop more of these thoughts?
And if I'm going to play a game of Axis & Allies, someone has to play Axis, and it could be me. Without that side, it's just Allies & Allies, which isn't a great wargame.
But when a guy (like my former friend) gets excited to play Germany every time, showing much respect for their tactics, etc., that's when there are red flags (for me).

 

[billd91]

The ideas that interest in WWII wargames and history can make someone a pro-nazi it really wild to me. Back in my wargaming days, I played German forces plenty of time at the tactical, operational and strategic levels. I've read books by Guderian and Von Manstein. I've always been a nazi hater. The same is true of all the people that were in gaming circle.

A lot of people gloss over the moral implications of the German war machine when looking at it, playing it via war games, or even being fascinated/impressed by some aspects of it - like the training of officers that valued taking initiative, etc. Because it was very good at what it was designed to do - it's just that a significant portion of what it was designed to do was in service of a racist, colonialist government bent on carving out living space from points east by obliterating most of the resident population. And the fact that it did so enthusiastically until the Soviets stopped them doesn't exactly help. That aspect is typically not recognized in the wargamer fascination.

And you've also got the people writing their memoirs about it, like Guderian and von Manstein who downplayed their own moral culpability. A lot of wargamers will kind of worship their tactical and strategic skills, completely ignoring the fact that the Wehrmacht was responsible for deliberately starving millions of Soviet prisoners to death - either on the orders of guys like that or through their administration of orders from higher up.

So... yeah. I can see how someone might get the impression that WWII wargames enable players to be a bit too Nazi friendly. Not directly friendly with the politics and racism, but also not too questioning since that gets in the way of a good wargame, or a good discussion about how important the close coordination of air support and concentrated ground assault was in the annals of tactical warfare, etc. It's kind of hard to wax on about the coolness of dive bombers clearing the way for tank assaults when they had been so busy murdering Polish civilians - so that kind of gets not included.