|
Post by Cedgewick on Jul 20, 2017 9:33:27 GMT -5
We now know, thanks to the Secrets of Blackmoor folks and Daniel Boggs's blog, that Dave Arneson was running his Napoleonic campaign prior to 1970, medieval Braunsteins in 1970-71, and Blackmoor by 1971. Gygax wasn't introduced to Blackmoor and role-playing games until the end of 1972, when he started collaborating with Arneson. In the 30th anniversary timeline, we read: In the current timeline, we read: Something seems wrong with going from Arneson being the discoverer of roleplaying to "Arneson uses Chainmail as rules for his Blackmoor Fantasy Campaign," in addition to the fact that we see a lot of mentions of ancillary activity from Gygax, yet no mention of Wesely's Braunsteins, Arneson's Napoleonic campaign, or Arneson's medieval Braunsteins. I would also question the failure to mention Rob Kuntz in the founding of LGTSA. What do you think? Full disclosure: Jon Peterson, whom I have criticized in the past, is responsible for the new timeline. Also, particularly timely is Daniel Bogg's blog today about the notion of Blackmoor as a Chainmail campaign. Here's the beginning of the official D&D 30th anniverary timeline: Here's the beginning of the current D&D timeline:
|
|
|
Post by bravewolf on Jul 20, 2017 11:23:09 GMT -5
We now know, thanks to the Secrets of Blackmoor folks and Daniel Boggs's blog, that Dave Arneson was running his Napoleonic campaign prior to 1970, medieval Braunsteins in 1970-71, and Blackmoor by 1971. Gygax wasn't introduced to Blackmoor and role-playing games until the end of 1972, when he started collaborating with Arneson. In the 30th anniversary timeline, we read: In the current timeline, we read: Something seems wrong with going from Arneson being the discoverer of roleplaying to "Arneson uses Chainmail as rules for his Blackmoor Fantasy Campaign," in addition to the fact that we see a lot of mentions of ancillary activity from Gygax, yet no mention of Wesely's Braunsteins, Arneson's Napoleonic campaign, or Arneson's medieval Braunsteins. I would also question the failure to mention Rob Kuntz in the founding of LGTSA. What do you think? Full disclosure: Jon Peterson, whom I have criticized in the past, is responsible for the new timeline. Also, particularly timely is Daniel Bogg's blog today about the notion of Blackmoor as a Chainmail campaign. Here's the beginning of the official D&D 30th anniverary timeline: Here's the beginning of the current D&D timeline: Agreed. The timeline is inadequate as it stands now.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Jul 20, 2017 11:25:26 GMT -5
There are a number of explainable problems with the "official" WotC Timeline. First and foremost is that WotC is bound by the lies that TSR told, here I am referring to Arneson being forced to sue TSR and all that entailed. Another is that WotC would never want to imply that the Braunsteins or any other game have anything to do with D&D for fear that someone might sue them even at this late date for royalties. In other words, WotC has a vested interest in minimizing Arneson and exalting Gygax, so the chances of seeing an accurate timeline from WotC are non-existent, it is not in their corporate interest to worry about the truth. All they did here was double down on the long standing corporate lies, which is only to be expected.
Following the links it says that Jon Peterson worked with WotC to create that timeline and since it was posted on their site they would have the final decision on what was in the timeline and that was in 2014. Now if Jon Peterson created a new timeline based on everything he now knows and it minimized Arneson, that we could lay entirely at his feet. The one produced with WotC, IMO not so much.
The Daniel Boggs blog post is an exciting analysis and permeated with the ring of truth. He, I think we can safely say, is only concerned about the truth.
|
|
|
Post by bravewolf on Jul 20, 2017 11:36:37 GMT -5
Is anybody constructing a new timeline beyond RPG forums & the blogosphere?
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Jul 20, 2017 12:12:06 GMT -5
Easily found is this timeline Timeline of RPGs which is self-described as An incomplete, extremely work-in-progress timeline of significant RPGs and developments in the hobby, as well as developments in related hobbies that had an influence on roleplaying games. (last modified on 3 January 2017) Just looking at the time period 1912 to 1974 you can see a number of things that are highly pertinent that the "official" timeline omits. Of particular interest is 1967 and 1971. Here is another timeline that says it draws heavily on Jon Peterson's Playing at the World, which would imply that is not their only source. You will note a number of things that are left out of the "official" timeline. Also of some relevance 1a. A Brief History of Wargaming and interesting thoughts on this page also 1d. Role-playing Wargames. This link appears to have some good information mixed with a lot of inaccurate items. This link has an enlightening view of Dave Arneson the player.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Jul 20, 2017 12:13:13 GMT -5
Is anybody constructing a new timeline beyond RPG forums & the blogosphere? I am also curious to know if anyone that has access to the most complete information is doing this.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 20, 2017 16:43:22 GMT -5
It's a Gygax timeline. There is no doubt of that.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 20, 2017 16:51:19 GMT -5
"Arneson uses Chainmail as rules for his Blackmoor fantasy campaign situated in the Great Kingdom, including forays into a dungeon of monsters and treasure."
That passage seems problematic to me. Maybe:
"Arneson uses [some] Chainmail as [combat] rules for his [open] Blackmoor fantasy campaign situated in the Great Kingdom, including forays into a dungeon of monsters and treasure."
EDIT: Or, if CM must be mentioned for some reason:
"Arneson uses adapts [components of] Chainmail['s Fantasy Supplement] as rules for [use in] his Blackmoor fantasy campaign situated in the Great Kingdom, including forays into a dungeon of monsters and treasure."
Or, more pointed:
"Arneson [invents] uses Chainmail as rules for his Blackmoor fantasy campaign situated in the Great Kingdom, including forays into a dungeon of monsters and treasure."
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 20, 2017 16:54:01 GMT -5
"Arneson's discovery of roleplaying and Gygax's ability to create the rules whereby others could learn the game combine to create a new genre: the roleplaying game (RPG)."
That's actually surprisingly even-handed. Due credit to whomever wrote that for the 30th anniv.
EDIT: Although, it should read: "Arneson's discovery of roleplaying and [along with his and] Gygax's ability to [co]create the rules whereby others could learn the game combine to create a new genre: the roleplaying game (RPG)."
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jul 20, 2017 20:45:24 GMT -5
Cedgewick stated: "Something seems wrong with going from Arneson being the discoverer of roleplaying to "Arneson uses Chainmail as rules for his Blackmoor Fantasy Campaign," ...
So, Jon edits the timeline history at WotC's behest and essentially redacts history as previously deriving from primary knowledge sustained and maintained by the company as far back as TSR; and as based upon what? He is not the Emperor-Sage of D&D history, his PATW infers a lot but concludes nothing. It would appear to me that history is being rewritten. We all knew that Arneson created role playing (the conceptual component). It was NO WHERE apparent in any game in Lake Geneva prior to Arneson's visit and our playing in 1972.
This really heats me up. I am now considering how this must be publicly addressed.
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jul 20, 2017 21:08:08 GMT -5
Cedgewick stated: "Something seems wrong with going from Arneson being the discoverer of roleplaying to "Arneson uses Chainmail as rules for his Blackmoor Fantasy Campaign," ... So, Jon edits the timeline history at WotC's behest... Actually, according to his blog above, it was Jon that pestered Mike Mearls at some dinner after a panel to change the timeline:
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 20, 2017 21:46:44 GMT -5
This really heats me up. I am now considering how this must be publicly addressed. Rob, if you have any clout over there at WotC, I think this deserves being publicly addressed. It's debatable whether CM rules were even used, and you have convinced me the rules wouldn't matter anyway.
|
|
|
Post by limeodyssey on Aug 24, 2017 20:40:46 GMT -5
Another elision that I have personally discovered, and it relates to the mercantilism of TSR, is that between 1970 and 1979 there was considerable traffic to and from the west coast gamers. This means it is not an Arneson-Gygax axis at all, it is a radiation from Weseley and Arneson, then from Arneson on his own, to people primed and ready from their own previous parallel futzing around to embrace a new paradigm, which is what Arneson was really advancing, wittingly or not.
I have been speaking with survivors of the west coast first wave for my own research purposes, and there are (now most likely lost forever but never say never) several more extremely early variants of "D&D", from the west coast, and emanating from four weekends where west coast gamers learned Arnesonian game play, took it and ran with it, to the point of developing their own photostat etc. rules pages. It was collaborative and inclusive.
To me it is beginning to look like a Xerox Park -> forks to two mercantilist iterations (Apple and IBM) type scenario where Dave Arneson and his "missionaries" were teaching a more freeform / Jeet Kune Do* approach. This could never have been commercial since it doesn't bind you to replicable systems and RULES RULES RULES as much as it is teaching a philosophy of live action freeform acting and negotiating, where the "quantum field" of the game "collapses" to a determined state during wargame type battles, almost as though they're cut scenes in a computer game.
The original DUNGEON! game came out of this milieu and it is obvious in its original incarnation a lot more was going on off the board than on the board half the time.
Interesting stuff.
I began chasing down one of the two legendary originators of the thief / rogue type class but unfortunately he's already passed away, god rest him, but people who gamed with him or who were part of the second generation from his shop gaming group remember bits and pieces vividly.
In my opinion roleplaying games should neither be trivialised as a mere "hobby" considering their impact on popular culture and computing, neither should "D&D" be allowed to be subsumed by TSR / WOTC / HASBRO at the expense of a vast collection of first generation gamers, whose "way" was equally valid before the first set of AD&D books began the canon vs heresy type mind set.
We all go along to get along, even though some of us know perfectly clearly that at law the OGL 1.0a is rubbish and the trademark claims are in some cases spurious or breached by other use -= Alex P. Kidd in Miracle World for example has "Eye Tyrants, also called Beholders" in it, and that's a decades-old video game =-, however even going along to get along there should be limits to how much of a liberty is taken. Particularly, for me at least, when it comes to the people who actually created the crux of it.
Later generations of gamers will probably never know, but the original game sessions and groups resolved battles, what we call saving throws and what we call skill checks or special abilities in all sorts of ways, in some cases more like theater sports. Also there were many instances of people using peculiar dice, or cardboard chits in a jar, or colored sticks, or runestones, or decks of cards, etc. to resolve random "rolls". Lots of board games were used as the "map" for an OD&D session. And on the west coast the SCA very heavily overlapped with local professional science fiction (and later what came to be called fantasy) authors as well as OD&D.
The main line of pseudohistory maintained by Hasbro is such that, like Disney's obnoxious appropriation of European culture and myth, the objective truth of the evolution of roleplaying is in danger of going down the memory hole in favor of a corporatist brand management press release.
Arneson has become the "Bill Finger" or "Jack Kirby" of roleplaying and that is nothing short of outrageous.
*Jeet Kune Do: "absorb what is useful, disregard what is useless." -Bruce Lee
/rant
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Aug 25, 2017 7:08:47 GMT -5
Thank you limeodyssey for a great post, have an Exalt. This is truly outrageous and absolutely true! Not obscure for us older folks. Good advice for anything.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 5, 2017 4:43:34 GMT -5
It seems to me that Arnesons contributions have always been downplayed by TSR/ Wiz of coast. It is not likely this info will be passed on to the next gen of gaming. Keep the torch burning for him as long as we can. We know the truth and unfortunately that is all we can do.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Sept 8, 2017 5:42:36 GMT -5
It seems to me that Arnesons contributions have always been downplayed by TSR/ Wiz of coast. It is not likely this info will be passed on to the next gen of gaming. Keep the torch burning for him as long as we can. We know the truth and unfortunately that is all we can do. I think that you are correct in this, but this is true in most historical situations. The "last man standing" typically gets to write the history books and as events get farther away fewer folks remember how things happened. I constantly encounter folks who believe that 1E was actually the first and original version of D&D, and they are stunned to discover that I have these little pamphlet-sized OD&D books. (And in that sense TSR killed a part of its own history by its numbering system, as folks who discover 1E often don't think to look farther back to see if there is a 0E. I mean, who would think to do that if you didn't already know about it, right?)
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 8, 2017 7:08:19 GMT -5
If you think about it Dave was the founding father of RPGs and Gary was the founding father of D&D. Even thou I ended up running 1e for 20+ years , it is a heavily flawed system. I think we all would be better off with more love given to 0e and at the same time bringing some of the modern concepts in. Hell, even 4e has a couple of great ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 8, 2017 7:12:55 GMT -5
If you think about it Dave was the founding father of RPGs and Gary was the founding father of D&D. Even thou I ended up running 1e for 20+ years , it is a heavily flawed system. I think we all would be better off with more love given to 0e and at the same time bringing some of the modern concepts in. Hell, even 4e has a couple of great ideas. I know nothing of 4E and haven't seen the books, I would be OK with another thread about concepts in 4E that might be useful in an OD&D game.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 8, 2017 7:15:25 GMT -5
If you think about it Dave was the founding father of RPGs and Gary was the founding father of D&D. Even thou I ended up running 1e for 20+ years , it is a heavily flawed system. I think we all would be better off with more love given to 0e and at the same time bringing some of the modern concepts in. Hell, even 4e has a couple of great ideas. I know nothing of 4E and haven't seen the books, I would be OK with another thread about concepts in 4E that might be useful in an OD&D game. I'll write it up!
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 17, 2017 1:18:19 GMT -5
Dave invented the role-playing player in the Braunsteins. When we play RPGs as players, we are walking in his footsteps.
Dave invented the Dungeon Master in the FFC. There were judges before him but he was the first guy doing what we now do as DMs.
Gary took those ideas and popularized them. He organized them and hyped them. So without Gary, Daves genius would have been a local phenomenon.
Although the corellation is not perfect, I definitely see Dave as Jack Kirby and Gary as Stan Lee. Kirby was a genius at making things. Stan was a genius at marketing them, and as the company man, he is rewarded by being the face of Marvel comics. (Incidentally, Tony Bath is the Wil Eisner here.)
I think there is no D&D without both of them together - but the more substantive contributions come from Dave. Writing him out of the origin celebration of the hobby is a sin. Not just a crime, but a real sin.
I recently met Kevin Blume's daughter. I want to invite Kevin and Brian to get back involved with this hobby. They are undoubtedly rich sources of knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by limeodyssey on Sept 17, 2017 4:42:18 GMT -5
Having invoked Kirby Komparisons in this thread I feel the urge to point out that via the west coast gamers Arnesonian RPG style had been taken up by luminaries such as Jack Vance, and it would have risen on its own to at least the niche popularity of the SCA. I theorize that after that point it's too unpredictable to tell how it would have gone, but with the west coast scifi crowd pushing it Arnesonian RPG would have gone as mainstream as Star Trek in the 1970s. Imagine the same convention type behavior but with a thousand flowers blooming instead of the Papacy vs Cathars type vibe that evolved.
I guess what I'm saying is that Dave Arneson had a considerable body of loyalists a lot longer than people imagined, and although he was unpersoned, he was never deliberately targeted as was Kirby. Absent that active character assassination and denigration of his work Arneson RPG would have eventually thrived. The proof of that is how it has re-emerged. A lot of the OSR spirit strikes me as being a definite rejection of the endless iterations of $D&D and the desire to recapture the sense of wonder that Arneson definitely always brought.
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Sept 19, 2017 11:33:30 GMT -5
I want to invite Kevin and Brian to get back involved with this hobby. They are undoubtedly rich sources of knowledge. I would sure love to ask them what they thought they were doing when they put over 100 members of their family on the bloated TSR payroll and how they helped Loraine Williams take over the company and run it into bankruptcy. They should write a book, The Sordid History of How We Destroyed TSR - The Inside Story.There is a reason they are never seen. or heard from. They wouldn't like the questions they would get.
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Sept 19, 2017 11:48:14 GMT -5
Having invoked Kirby Komparisons in this thread I feel the urge to point out that via the west coast gamers Arnesonian RPG style had been taken up by luminaries such as Jack Vance, and it would have risen on its own to at least the niche popularity of the SCA. I theorize that after that point it's too unpredictable to tell how it would have gone, but with the west coast scifi crowd pushing it Arnesonian RPG would have gone as mainstream as Star Trek in the 1970s. Imagine the same convention type behavior but with a thousand flowers blooming instead of the Papacy vs Cathars type vibe that evolved. I guess what I'm saying is that Dave Arneson had a considerable body of loyalists a lot longer than people imagined, and although he was unpersoned, he was never deliberately targeted as was Kirby. Absent that active character assassination and denigration of his work Arneson RPG would have eventually thrived. The proof of that is how it has re-emerged. A lot of the OSR spirit strikes me as being a definite rejection of the endless iterations of $D&D and the desire to recapture the sense of wonder that Arneson definitely always brought. Eventually someone may recapture that sense of wonder. There are lots of people trying and hopefully someone will eventually make the leap.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Sept 19, 2017 12:58:30 GMT -5
Some have. Some haven't. Most try.
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 19, 2017 13:03:54 GMT -5
If there are lots of people unhappy with them, then there must be a lot of commentary on their relationship with the hobby. Does anyone know where I can start researching that history? I'll ask Jon Peterson of course. Where else?
|
|
|
Post by limeodyssey on Sept 19, 2017 13:42:50 GMT -5
If there are lots of people unhappy with them, then there must be a lot of commentary on their relationship with the hobby. Does anyone know where I can start researching that history? I'll ask Jon Peterson of course. Where else? Always start with primary source documents. In this case, corporate filings. I've also personally found over 20 surviving witnesses to the area of roleplaying history of interest to me. Just because they were a "mere player" at the time or a family member of one of the originators doesn't make them less viable as a source of direct information. For example the co-equal west coast gamers who pretty much opted out of D&D the moment it Gygaxized were part of a tradition going back to the early 60s and were already "roleplaying" using a chinese inspired game by 1967. It was steam engine time as Charles Fort put it, and Dave Arneson got there first, but just as Weseley is the prime mover that caused Arnesonian RPG, the west coast already had its own parallel which the Arnesonian RPG overwhelmed due to its clearer vision. Likewise for what you want to research, if you start with corporate documents, develop an accurate timeline of legal / corporate events, you have a rock solid basis for then going back to look at what may have motivated apparently random steps in the development of D&D and general gaming orthodoxy.
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Sept 25, 2017 6:53:26 GMT -5
Some have. Some haven't. Most try. Who are the ones who have in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Sept 25, 2017 6:55:37 GMT -5
If there are lots of people unhappy with them, then there must be a lot of commentary on their relationship with the hobby. Does anyone know where I can start researching that history? I'll ask Jon Peterson of course. Where else? Always start with primary source documents. In this case, corporate filings. I've also personally found over 20 surviving witnesses to the area of roleplaying history of interest to me. Just because they were a "mere player" at the time or a family member of one of the originators doesn't make them less viable as a source of direct information. For example the co-equal west coast gamers who pretty much opted out of D&D the moment it Gygaxized were part of a tradition going back to the early 60s and were already "roleplaying" using a chinese inspired game by 1967. It was steam engine time as Charles Fort put it, and Dave Arneson got there first, but just as Weseley is the prime mover that caused Arnesonian RPG, the west coast already had its own parallel which the Arnesonian RPG overwhelmed due to its clearer vision. Likewise for what you want to research, if you start with corporate documents, develop an accurate timeline of legal / corporate events, you have a rock solid basis for then going back to look at what may have motivated apparently random steps in the development of D&D and general gaming orthodoxy. Can you tell us more about the west-coast gamers and the '60's? Who are you? Do you have any books in the arena? Your forum name duplicates a game system (video game??) and so it is useless to try to Google you to see if you have a presence on any other RPG forum.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Sept 25, 2017 13:32:57 GMT -5
Some have. Some haven't. Most try. Who are the ones who have in your opinion? As indicated, it's merely my opinion - and just off the top of my head - and this includes only those of whom I have knowledge: Liz Danforth, Mark Thornton, Roy Cram, Rob Kuntz, Marc Millar, the Keith Brothers, Jeff Dee, Ann Dupuis, and a great many of the people with whom I have gamed. Darned few at rolegaming conventions, oddly enough. The problem with the top of my head, is that it gets cold up there.
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Sept 25, 2017 16:20:27 GMT -5
Who are the ones who have in your opinion? As indicated, it's merely my opinion - and just off the top of my head - and this includes only those of whom I have knowledge: Liz Danforth, Mark Thornton, Roy Cram, Rob Kuntz, Marc Millar, the Keith Brothers, Jeff Dee, Ann Dupuis, and a great many of the people with whom I have gamed. Darned few at rolegaming conventions, oddly enough. The problem with the top of my head, is that it gets cold up there. You are naming old school people who all predate the OSR and all of whom AFAIK are not OSR. I was asking who among the OSR folks do you consider to have captured the original spirit of the game. Not those who helped establish the spirit of the game. I am not surprised that you don't see many of these people at conventions, those are dominated by the status quo, not that you won't see real old school people there, but they are not the majority.
|
|