|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Aug 27, 2019 20:40:33 GMT -5
Here is an article that I ran onto, titled Dungeons & Deceptions: The First D&D Players Push Back On The Legend Of Gary Gygax by Cecilia D'Anastasio. I do not know much about her beyond the name and that a few people really hate her. I think the article is pretty good, although it does have a few editing mistakes, like mixing up the names two books by Rob Kuntz - confusing the published one and the unpublished one. As not unexpected, the Church of Gygax™ and its EHP are having a hissy fit about this article, which is what they always do when anyone says, "You know this was not the sole creation of Gary Gygax!" Out come the flaming torches and pitchforks.
|
|
|
Post by secretsofblackmoor on Aug 28, 2019 12:42:48 GMT -5
I have this hunch that Cecilia will not be getting invited to the next GaryCon.
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Aug 28, 2019 20:42:41 GMT -5
I read the article and all the comments (as of a few minutes ago) and I was struck by the repeated comments of people claiming that there is no one out there claiming that D&D is all Gygax and deifying the man and yet there is a forum dedicated to that claim, a forum that prides itself on being Gygaxian, that denigrates Arneson on a regular basis and that claims "AD&D is the real game" and that "OD&D is just a rough draft beta test." That forum and the fictional history of D&D that they promote is specifically the reason that articles such as this one are needed and the Secrets of Blackmoor DVDs are needed. That forum follows the WotC party line in trying to erase Arneson from the history of RPGs and of D&D, even though it is his game engine that they use and profit from. There is also a lot of hate for Rob Kuntz in those comments by the same people that hate Arneson, telling the truth does tend to make one unpopular!
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Aug 28, 2019 21:15:41 GMT -5
A quote from the article linked above This it does, people are losing their minds all over the place.
Another quote from the article linked above
Anyone who has read a lot of the Up on a Soapbox column by Gygax from Dragon Magazine should have no doubt in their minds that this statement is true. This statement is IMO completely in character for Gygax.
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Aug 31, 2019 13:45:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Aug 31, 2019 23:49:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Sept 11, 2019 19:28:43 GMT -5
This article is catching a lot of flack all over the place, but I don't really see what all the fuss is about. This thread at Enworld is titled Rob Kuntz Recounts The Origins Of D&D which implies a much bigger role in the article by robkuntz than is really the case. Rob joins the conversation on page 5 and it is up to 13 pages currently.
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 7, 2019 16:41:18 GMT -5
1968: Westly invents a game of alliances and the player takes on a role within the context of that game.
19??: Player Arneson changes the game by declaring a hostile action against the character of another player. Westly allows it.
19??: Arneson develops a Braunstien that can leave the village and is a free-form role-playing game.
1971: Arneson runs Blackmoor applying the principals of Free-Form RPGing.
1972: Gygax plays Blackmoor.
None of this is new. What isn't mentioned is that Gygax didn't invent Chainmail either. I have nothing against Gary Gygax, he created, was a steward too, and contributed a ton of content. I highly doubt if any of these forums would be here without Gygax doing what he did. Gary always gets this shady image in discussions of this nature because Gary was a shady character. Was he jealous of the Arneson Manuscript? I don't think that anybody can prove that. We all know how convenient it was for that manuscript to disappear like it did, but in my own house I throw things away, not because I'm jealous, simply because I sat it down on the wrong pile of papers. There were no backups or copies ever made, which sucks but it is what it is. All of this other stuff can be proven.
I am sure that free-form role-playing games had been invented dozens of times throughout the ages, it is such a simple idea. Gygax was the first person to sell rules and systems which were available commercially.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 8, 2019 16:39:29 GMT -5
1968: Westly invents a game of alliances and the player takes on a role within the context of that game. 19??: Player Arneson changes the game by declaring a hostile action against the character of another player. Westly allows it. 19??: Arneson develops a Braunstien that can leave the village and is a free-form role-playing game. 1971: Arneson runs Blackmoor applying the principals of Free-Form RPGing. 1972: Gygax plays Blackmoor.
None of this is new. What isn't mentioned is that Gygax didn't invent Chainmail either. I have nothing against Gary Gygax, he created, was a steward too, and contributed a ton of content. I highly doubt if any of these forums would be here without Gygax doing what he did. Gary always gets this shady image in discussions of this nature because Gary was a shady character. Was he jealous of the Arneson Manuscript? I don't think that anybody can prove that. We all know how convenient it was for that manuscript to disappear like it did, but in my own house I throw things away, not because I'm jealous, simply because I sat it down on the wrong pile of papers. There were no backups or copies ever made, which sucks but it is what it is. All of this other stuff can be proven.
I am sure that free-form role-playing games had been invented dozens of times throughout the ages, it is such a simple idea. Gygax was the first person to sell rules and systems which were available commercially. I would guess that Gygax still had documents from Arneson until Lorraine Williams locked him out of his office and refused him access to his personal property .
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Apr 2, 2022 0:04:30 GMT -5
A good article! Useful for me not only for certain details, but also because it helps me to see the GG-centric story that has never really been a part of my personal D&D lore.
Back in the 90s, I heard from someone who had played probably since the...early-mid-80s?...that "D&D was invented by these two guys, then Gygax bought it from them and sold it and got rich." I wonder now what that was a version of. Folk memory of Arneson and Kuntz? Arneson and...?
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Apr 2, 2022 9:30:40 GMT -5
A good article! Useful for me not only for certain details, but also because it helps me to see the GG-centric story that has never really been a part of my personal D&D lore. Back in the 90s, I heard from someone who had played probably since the...early-mid-80s?...that "D&D was invented by these two guys, then Gygax bought it from them and sold it and got rich." I wonder now what that was a version of. Folk memory of Arneson and Kuntz? Arneson and...? People come unglued when Saint Gygax is portrayed as not being a Saint. Gygax was just like 100% of everyone else, when you look deep into anyone there is the good, the bad and the ugly. That is part and parcel of being human. On the other hand there is one book out there which tells details of some of the personal failings of Gygax that no one needed to know.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Apr 2, 2022 9:44:07 GMT -5
A good article! Useful for me not only for certain details, but also because it helps me to see the GG-centric story that has never really been a part of my personal D&D lore. Back in the 90s, I heard from someone who had played probably since the...early-mid-80s?...that "D&D was invented by these two guys, then Gygax bought it from them and sold it and got rich." I wonder now what that was a version of. Folk memory of Arneson and Kuntz? Arneson and...? People come unglued when Saint Gygax is portrayed as not being a Saint. Gygax was just like 100% of everyone else, when you look deep into anyone there is the good, the bad and the ugly. That is part and parcel of being human. On the other hand there is one book out there which tells details of some of the personal failings of Gygax that no one needed to know. I cannot understand this desire, neither in gaming history nor in any other part of life. Having to have anyone whose work you admire be perfect, or the other side, condemning the work or activities of anyone who ever did anything objectionable. I am inclined to judge everything piecemeal, and that is not the "in" way of doing things right now. Like Melville, we don't read the guy's works because he was good at being a pleasant person all the time, we read them because the works are entertaining. Someone who is good at being pleasant all the time will be pleasant to be around, but that doesn't mean that their writing is good. Why can't people just be good at some things and not good at others? Very strange to me.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Apr 2, 2022 9:51:33 GMT -5
People come unglued when Saint Gygax is portrayed as not being a Saint. Gygax was just like 100% of everyone else, when you look deep into anyone there is the good, the bad and the ugly. That is part and parcel of being human. On the other hand there is one book out there which tells details of some of the personal failings of Gygax that no one needed to know. I cannot understand this desire, neither in gaming history nor in any other part of life. Having to have anyone whose work you admire be perfect, or the other side, condemning the work or activities of anyone who ever did anything objectionable. I am inclined to judge everything piecemeal, and that is not the "in" way of doing things right now. Like Melville, we don't read the guy's works because he was good at being a pleasant person all the time, we read them because the works are entertaining. Someone who is good at being pleasant all the time will be pleasant to be around, but that doesn't mean that their writing is good. Why can't people just be good at some things and not good at others? Very strange to me. This whole attitude now that if any author ever did or said anything that someone considers morally objectionable, then you have to not read any of their books and they need to be canceled is just too much. I personally am offended by quite a few peoples personal lives and beliefs, but I still read their books, watch their movies and listen to their music. I dislike Tom Cruise as a person for example, but greatly enjoy his movies.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Apr 2, 2022 9:58:50 GMT -5
I cannot understand this desire, neither in gaming history nor in any other part of life. Having to have anyone whose work you admire be perfect, or the other side, condemning the work or activities of anyone who ever did anything objectionable. I am inclined to judge everything piecemeal, and that is not the "in" way of doing things right now. Like Melville, we don't read the guy's works because he was good at being a pleasant person all the time, we read them because the works are entertaining. Someone who is good at being pleasant all the time will be pleasant to be around, but that doesn't mean that their writing is good. Why can't people just be good at some things and not good at others? Very strange to me. This whole attitude now that if any author ever did or said anything that someone considers morally objectionable, then you have to not read any of their books and they need to be canceled is just too much. I personally am offended by quite a few peoples personal lives and beliefs, but I still read their books, watch their movies and listen to their music. I dislike Tom Cruise as a person for example, but greatly enjoy his movies. Tom Cruise is a good example for me, too. I can't think of anything I know about him as a public figure that I like, but I have liked some of his movies, especially from the 80s, even things I did not at all expect to like. It would be understandable if we were talking about Hitler or someone whose entire personality was overshadowed by their association with extreme evil. Like if Hitler had been a good painter and someone said "This is just too much for me, I can't evaluate this without thinking of everything he's associated with." Or Stalin's poetry or something. But the way some would have it these days, stepping out of line in any way turns anyone into Hitler. It's nuts.
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Apr 2, 2022 10:56:59 GMT -5
That article was a GREAT read! It makes me want to watch Secrets of Blackmoor and read Dave Arnesons' True Genius even more. A few thoughts follow.
I know the forums mentioned earlier in this thread. One of the main reasons I don't frequent that site is it seemed to take a nasty turn years ago. Some of the posters were saying absolutely rude comments to others and them some of the old gaming "professionals" sure didn't act too professional about certain subjects. One poster, a certain former editor of Dragon Magazine that thinks mighty high-ly (spelled that way due to his constant blathering about the devil's lettuce) of any contributions he may have made over the years, made me stop reading his posts because they were just full of vitriol. He (Tim Kask) is obviously jealous of Arneson.
I've always enjoyed reading posts by Kuntz. He always comes across as knowledgeable and consistent in his recollections.
I have to agree about Tom Cruise. He is definitely as crazy as a Rainbow Trout in a car wash, but he does seem to make movies I like; Top Gun, Days of Thunder, and the Mission: Impossible movies to name a few.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Apr 2, 2022 12:27:11 GMT -5
That article was a GREAT read! It makes me want to watch Secrets of Blackmoor and read Dave Arnesons' True Genius even more. A few thoughts follow. I know the forums mentioned earlier in this thread. One of the main reasons I don't frequent that site is it seemed to take a nasty turn years ago. Some of the posters were saying absolutely rude comments to others and them some of the old gaming "professionals" sure didn't act too professional about certain subjects. One poster, a certain former editor of Dragon Magazine that thinks mighty high-ly (spelled that way due to his constant blathering about the devil's lettuce) of any contributions he may have made over the years, made me stop reading his posts because they were just full of vitriol. He ( Tim Kask) is obviously jealous of Arneson. I've always enjoyed reading posts by Kuntz. He always comes across as knowledgeable and consistent in his recollections. I have to agree about Tom Cruise. He is definitely as crazy as a Rainbow Trout in a car wash, but he does seem to make movies I like; Top Gun, Days of Thunder, and the Mission: Impossible movies to name a few. For all the flack that Kuntz gets, he is IMO a more reliable commentator than almost anyone else from that era of the TSR crew. IMO the Arneson group of old timers are also reliable commentators. That former editor is IMO somewhat less than competent as an editor of rule books, he may have been fine for a magazine, but for a rule book he IMO lacked vision. I think I mentioned elsewhere is that I recently read what purports to be a direct quote from Gygax saying his best work is taking other peoples stuff and revising it. I read that and was like, "Yeah, so much for this or that was his sole creation."
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Apr 2, 2022 13:01:23 GMT -5
I think I mentioned elsewhere is that I recently read what purports to be a direct quote from Gygax saying his best work is taking other peoples stuff and revising it. I read that and was like, "Yeah, so much for this or that was his sole creation." There's something about people (or at least many of us) that makes us really want to attribute everything good to a specific person. I don't know if it's misplaced religious feeling or what. When people like a classic author, sometimes they get crazed for the idea that this author came up with everything out of whole cloth. Artists, musicians. "NO ONE wrote a story before Leo Tolstoy" "Roy Orbison was the first man EVER to sing" "Einstein INVENTED mathematics" This is a touch of exaggeration, but I think you know what I mean. If it's your private way of holding information, okay, I'm sure I'm as guilty as anyone of distortions, but this stuff where you feel compelled to attack people online...I don't know, it strikes me as pretty juvenile. Like it's something adults should grow out of (but I have seen this with many adults, not just gamers).
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Apr 2, 2022 13:56:19 GMT -5
That article was a GREAT read! It makes me want to watch Secrets of Blackmoor and read Dave Arnesons' True Genius even more. A few thoughts follow. I know the forums mentioned earlier in this thread. One of the main reasons I don't frequent that site is it seemed to take a nasty turn years ago. Some of the posters were saying absolutely rude comments to others and them some of the old gaming "professionals" sure didn't act too professional about certain subjects. One poster, a certain former editor of Dragon Magazine that thinks mighty high-ly (spelled that way due to his constant blathering about the devil's lettuce) of any contributions he may have made over the years, made me stop reading his posts because they were just full of vitriol. He ( Tim Kask) is obviously jealous of Arneson. I've always enjoyed reading posts by Kuntz. He always comes across as knowledgeable and consistent in his recollections. I have to agree about Tom Cruise. He is definitely as crazy as a Rainbow Trout in a car wash, but he does seem to make movies I like; Top Gun, Days of Thunder, and the Mission: Impossible movies to name a few. For all the flack that Kuntz gets, he is IMO a more reliable commentator than almost anyone else from that era of the TSR crew. IMO the Arneson group of old timers are also reliable commentators. That former editor is IMO somewhat less than competent as an editor of rule books, he may have been fine for a magazine, but for a rule book he IMO lacked vision. I think I mentioned elsewhere is that I recently read what purports to be a direct quote from Gygax saying his best work is taking other peoples stuff and revising it. I read that and was like, "Yeah, so much for this or that was his sole creation." I completely agree with you about Kuntz and the Arneson old timers. That former editor has a TSR Q&A on youtube from a convention years ago. He explains about the submission piles he had for Dragon magazine, and I think it is worth mentioning. In a nutshell, he says he had 3 piles - (1) Pretty much use as is, (2) Minor editing would bring these into the 1 slot, and (3) articles that needed more work. I'm pretty sure that the #2 pile was the largest stack followed by the #1 and these were a stockpile of submissions. The first 30 issues or so of Dragon seem to be held in the greatest esteem. If you take his statements and remember that the fan base at that time included many college-age young men that most likely had been playing wargames before D&D and it all starts coming together. These young men had been doing research papers for various classes and many of them were also into history (includes warfare) and they find out there's an official magazine that publishes articles in support of their hobby...who wouldn't jump at the chance to combine their hobby and their school research skills for a fun activity? I propose that the editor was in the right place at the right time with adequate magazine editing skills to make it happen. NOTHING more. The Perilous Dreamer I remember that and it sounds reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Apr 2, 2022 13:59:15 GMT -5
I think I mentioned elsewhere is that I recently read what purports to be a direct quote from Gygax saying his best work is taking other peoples stuff and revising it. I read that and was like, "Yeah, so much for this or that was his sole creation." There's something about people (or at least many of us) that makes us really want to attribute everything good to a specific person. I don't know if it's misplaced religious feeling or what. When people like a classic author, sometimes they get crazed for the idea that this author came up with everything out of whole cloth. Artists, musicians. "NO ONE wrote a story before Leo Tolstoy" "Roy Orbison was the first man EVER to sing" "Einstein INVENTED mathematics" This is a touch of exaggeration, but I think you know what I mean. If it's your private way of holding information, okay, I'm sure I'm as guilty as anyone of distortions, but this stuff where you feel compelled to attack people online...I don't know, it strikes me as pretty juvenile. Like it's something adults should grow out of (but I have seen this with many adults, not just gamers). hengest I think that your statements are fair and (unfortunately) true. It happens way too much.
|
|