"Arnesonian" vs "Gygaxian" ?

[Revylokesh]

With those two terms cropping up regularly, as someone not old enough to have played during the 80s and certainly not during the 70s, I'm wondering how they are actually defined.
What is "Arnesonian" gameplay?
What is "Gygaxian" gameplay?

Now I really don't want this to turn into an argument about which is better, or superior, I'm merely trying to grasp what each term describes.
Which games (versions of (A)D&D or clones) would be considered one or the other?

Thank you for helping me understanding this better....

[Vile Traveller]

I'd like to know, too. I only understand "Holmesian".

[scalydemon]

Most often I see the term Gygaxian in relation to prose/writing. ie. written in high Gygaxian.

Haven't heard the term Arnesonian used much so don't know on that

[Finarvyn]

I won't claim to be an expert by any means but I can say what comes to my mind when I hear those terms, and how I have thought of them for decades. My feeling is that Arnesonian tends to be more on-the-fly while Gygaxian tends to be more codified. If you read about the history of the origin of the game, Dave seems to have created a lot of game mechanics in play as needed and kept notes mostly to maintain consistency, whereas Gary had the desire to build standardized rules sets in order to encourage consistency from one campaign to the next.

When I think of "Arnesonian" I think of the original Blackmoor campaign and the First Fantasy Campaign book published through Judges' Guild. I think that OD&D tended to capture the spirit of Arnesonian gaming, if not the exact "letter of the law." Some folks point to the "Adventures in Fantasy" RPG as being an Arneson thing and insight as to Dave's early games, but I've heard that it was mechanically more a Richard Snyder creation and true "Arnesonian" rules might look more like the Weseley Braunstein games.

When I think about "Gygaxian" the AD&D rules sets come to mind, although the actual text of OD&D was mostly penned by Gary. My understanding is that if Gary had been in charge of TSR when 2E came out that it would probably have been more complex than what we got.

[DungeonDevil]

My theory (note emphasis): "Arnesonian" may be less codification, and more based on spur-of-the-moment Referee adjudication (a la Free Kriegsspiel), whereas "Gygaxian" (as previously noted), is a reference to verbose, highly-codified rules with a certain stylistic flair (e.g. antithesis of weal, milieu, etc.).

If you're new to the hobby and wondering about those terms being thrown about, don't pay them any heed. Just play the way you and your mates like, and don't bother with the sectarianism of us old farts.

If you are interested in getting into the mindset of those who fathered the hobby, learn more military history and do some wargaming of Ancients/Mediaevals/Renaissance, play a dash of Diplomacy and Bob's your uncle!

EDIT: Fin pretty much nailed it, so my comments are redundant....

[Revylokesh]

Thank you. Pretty much what I figured.
I'm not new to the hobby (been playing (A)D&D since the late 90s) but I used to play "current edition" (2nd and then 3rd) and after a hiatus of several years (*cough* 4th *cough*) and trying 5th, I have begun going back to the early days via clones and originals (BX and 1st, mainly) because that sort of playstyle is much more appealing to me.
Trying to wrap my head around what motivated people like Gygax, Arneson, and then Holmes, Moldvay, Cook, and Mentzer to write the rules the way they did is part of the fun of tumbling down the rabbit-hole.

Now, as someone who really has a penchant for BX, would it be right to assume that this version (being rules-light) is more Arnesonian in spirit than Gygaxian?

[Starbeard]

Yes and no. Basic is comparatively rules light next to Advanced, but it does embrace the idea of universal rulings, and players these days especially are apt to take these rules to heart. Just try to convince someone running BX to let you play a halfling cleric and see what happens.

Plus, BX is largely 'Original D&D, 2nd Edition'—cleaned up and revised to bring it more in line with the design philosophies established by Advanced. So, in that way you can describe it as a restatement of OD&D through the lens of lessons 'learned' from AD&D.

However, even AD&D tells you to make up your own game; and Basic is stripped down enough to make it even easier to do that, since many things that regularly come up in play aren't defined at all.

[delta]

I fear that I may start being a broken record, but here's a counter-argument: The stuff that Arneson wrote in FFC, and his contributions to OD&D (naval and aerial rules in Vol-3, hit locations and hit-points-by-body-part and relative height modifiers in Sup-II) are arguably way more dense with mechanical crunch than other parts of D&D. On the other hand, Gygax wrote a lot in AD&D and at times poked fun at people trying to use some parts of it, saying he didn't do so.

So the line about who was more rules-free at the table seems incredibly hazy. Perhaps a thing that could be said is Gygax simply got more sentences on paper and pushed the marketing harder. And Arneson kept cycling back to naval wargames more often. :-D

Anyway, B/X is a great and well-considered ruleset. Among the best things is it just being a version with text written by someone (perhaps more careful editorially and more test-driven) other than either of those guys.

[eotb]

When I think of Gygaxian, I think of the common experience. Yes, he also built out rules to a much greater degree, but it wasn't for its own sake - he wanted a game that people would recognize from one table to another.

In a purely Arnesonian world, you wouldn't have G1-3 that everyone's played; you would have Dave Megarry telling everyone about the great giant adventure he participated in, and the basic elements of that, with encouragement from Dave to you to go and do likewise. I think DA valued ideas over specific implementation; inspiration over translation. Rob K. is essentially now channeling what I see Arnesonian spirit with his repudiation of modules and such, and extolling pure free-form creativity.

Gygaxian is much more clear because it's what AD&D was in the core books (less so as other writers and minds played in that sandbox - I don't consider mid-80s modules very "Gygaxian").

But here's the practical difference. In a true Arnesonian world, those who can grok it instinctively and run with an idea, turning it into color, would be uplifted, freed from any expectations brought to their tables by players because that would be mostly gone. But the DMs who depend on purchased creative content to implement as opposed to spin wholecloth - those DMs wouldn't be playing D&D. Anymore than I would have great art on my wall if I had to draw it all myself.

Each approach is better than the other for certain types. Each is pushed by its champions because it fits them best. And each DM should consider which one works for them, and thank fate they both met each other.

[Finarvyn]

Aug 27, 2019 22:33:55 GMT -6 delta said:

I fear that I may start being a broken record, but here's a counter-argument: The stuff that Arneson wrote in FFC, and his contributions to OD&D (naval and aerial rules in Vol-3, hit locations and hit-points-by-body-part and relative height modifiers in Sup-II) are arguably way more dense with mechanical crunch than other parts of D&D.

An excellent point, and it certainly says that Arneson could craft detailed rules when he wanted them. My impression is that much of this came into play during combat (naval or land-based) or in time in-between adventures (a lot of the FFC stuff) but during actual adventure play things worked fast and furious. All of the stories of Greg or Bob or Jeff seem to confirm that Dave's style of play was quite dramatic and low-rules, but it's the wargame/miniatures/campaign parts that appear to have the most crunch to it. I never got to be a part of Dave's campaign, but I did get to play in a session with him one year at Milwaukee GameFest (was that its name?) and he never seemed to look at a rulebook once.

Same sort of thing with Jim Ward. Played in a game of MA with him at GaryCon one year and never got a hint of a rulebook. Heck, once gameplay started I hardly ever had to look at my character sheet. (I survived the game, too, which is apparently a rare thing. Jim signed my character sheet. )

[Finarvyn]

Aug 27, 2019 15:19:36 GMT -6 Revylokesh said:

Now, as someone who really has a penchant for BX, would it be right to assume that this version (being rules-light) is more Arnesonian in spirit than Gygaxian?

I agree with Starbeard on this. As B/X is derived from OD&D it is more rules-lite than some of the other editions, but it's still pretty codified and derives much from Gygaxian prose. Gray area, but I would put more of Gary in it than Dave.

[delta]

Aug 28, 2019 4:35:29 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Aug 27, 2019 22:33:55 GMT -6 delta said:

I fear that I may start being a broken record, but here's a counter-argument: The stuff that Arneson wrote in FFC, and his contributions to OD&D (naval and aerial rules in Vol-3, hit locations and hit-points-by-body-part and relative height modifiers in Sup-II) are arguably way more dense with mechanical crunch than other parts of D&D.

An excellent point, and it certainly says that Arneson could craft detailed rules when he wanted them. My impression is that much of this came into play during combat (naval or land-based) or in time in-between adventures (a lot of the FFC stuff) but during actual adventure play things worked fast and furious. All of the stories of Greg or Bob or Jeff seem to confirm that Dave's style of play was quite dramatic and low-rules, but it's the wargame/miniatures/campaign parts that appear to have the most crunch to it. I never got to be a part of Dave's campaign, but I did get to play in a session with him one year at Milwaukee GameFest (was that its name?) and he never seemed to look at a rulebook once.

Same sort of thing with Jim Ward. Played in a game of MA with him at GaryCon one year and never got a hint of a rulebook. Heck, once gameplay started I hardly ever had to look at my character sheet. (I survived the game, too, which is apparently a rare thing. Jim signed my character sheet. )

That's great that you got to play with those guys! :-D

That kind of action is right in the pocket of what I would expect, and hope for. I played at a 27-person table last year with Bill Webb and likewise, he never looked at a rulebook (well, I guess once to see the powers of an aboleth, and at adventure-end to roll treasure). Likewise, my personal goal as DM is also no book-lookups, and most game sessions I don't either. But my goal is to have rules short enough to memorize, whereas my impression of Arneson is that he wrote rules aspirationally and perhaps never actually used them (or I guess in the FCC preface he says the body-hit rules were only used against big monsters in boss fights).

But my point is that, without ever having played with him, did Gygax do the exact same thing (ignore written rules in-game)? I'm guessing yes.

[DungeonDevil]

Aug 27, 2019 15:19:36 GMT -6 Revylokesh said:

Now, as someone who really has a penchant for BX, would it be right to assume that this version (being rules-light) is more Arnesonian in spirit than Gygaxian?

The genetic lineage of BX is Holmesian --> Moldvayese/Cookian.

[delta]

Aug 28, 2019 10:16:48 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

Aug 27, 2019 15:19:36 GMT -6 Revylokesh said:

Now, as someone who really has a penchant for BX, would it be right to assume that this version (being rules-light) is more Arnesonian in spirit than Gygaxian?

The genetic lineage of BX is Holmesian --> Moldvayese/Cookian.

And on that point, Zenopus would likely remind us that Gygax personally edited and added text to the Holmes edition.

[DungeonDevil]

Aug 28, 2019 23:20:10 GMT -6 delta said:

Aug 28, 2019 10:16:48 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

The genetic lineage of BX is Holmesian --> Moldvayese/Cookian.

And on that point, Zenopus would likely remind us that Gygax personally edited and added text to the Holmes edition.

Revised DNA sequence: {Gygax/Holmes}ian --> Moldvayese/Cookian.

Gyholgaxmesian --> Moldcookvayian

[Finarvyn]

Aug 28, 2019 9:17:13 GMT -6 delta said:

[That's great that you got to play with those guys! :-D

And I wish I had been able to play more. My limited action is nothing compared to guys like Svenny and Gronan and Chirine who can spin real tales. I got to play with these guys after newer editions had come out and thus biased the experience. I would have loved to play those same games a decade or two earlier.

Also got to play Amber Dicless with Erick Wujcik at the Chicago ConClave one year. I've been pretty lucky.

[grodog]

Playing Amber with Wujcik would have been cool! I still have a pad of "From the Desk of a Lord of Chaos" scratch paper from Phage Press' swag at the time they only had Amber out, which is a fun memento, but not a fun memory of gaming

Allan.

[Finarvyn]

Aug 29, 2019 19:07:49 GMT -6 grodog said:

Playing Amber with Wujcik would have been cool!

Yeah, it was really fun. I got to play a session of Amber and play in one of his "experimental" games involving a time machine. He was really a master at running this stuff. Also, a potential session got cancelled for some reason so I had a block of time to just sit and talk with him for several hours. Amazing to pick his brain.

Aug 29, 2019 19:07:49 GMT -6 grodog said:

I still have a pad of "From the Desk of a Lord of Chaos" scratch paper from Phage Press' swag at the time they only had Amber out, which is a fun memento, but not a fun memory of gaming

Oooo, I'm jealous. I never got one of those. I have the rulebooks, a full run of Amberzines, the Amber Trump deck, a couple of the t-shirts, but never a pad like that.

[tetramorph]

I get the feeling that the difference, if discernible at all, is more of vibe than something concrete you could point to.

The vibe I get is this:

Gygax: detail, rules, dungeon.
Arneson: abstract, rulings, wilderness.

Not that they don’t both have all of these. It is more like poles of the same continuum.

So Gygaxian shows up in the TSR modules.

Arnesonian shows up, I believe, in the Judges Guild approach.

It is no mystery that I prefer Judges Guild. I don’t think it is a coincidence that I thus prefer original to Advanced rules. I would call that Arnesonian only to the limited degree that it still reflects a less fully developed Gygax codification that shows up by the time we move to Advanced.

I prefer demon haunted lands studded with ruins, dungeons and lairs to “mega dungeons.” I see this as part of the general drift that leads me back to original and may get me labeled “arnesonian.”

[havard]

I am not sure the style of the two D&D creators was that different. In 1971, they were different for sure, but as they worked together on D&D, I do think that they developed a common style together. Arneson's group combined ruler characters and explorer characters so there would always be the element of politics/wargaming lurking in the background. Exploration would happen in dungeons and wilderness. There would always be a lot of roleplaying. Arneson's campaign, at least based on the FFC, appears to have involved a lot of humor and is often described as gonzo. While the TSR modules were often written with tournament play in mind, Arneson mainly designed adventures to have fun with his friends and would throw in all kinds of weird things if it seemed like it would make his players have a good time. I would also say that Experimentation is an important aspect of Dave's style. Trying things that had not been done before seems to always have been a big part of his games.

-Havard

[Deleted]

Didn't I write a presonse to this thread, already?

Basically, the distinction I'm personally making, having played - and dearly loved - a lot of Gygaxian Greyhawk and Arnesonian Blackmoor, is this one:

Arneson - mainly influenced by Poul Anderson, Fred Saberhagen, and A. E, van Vogt. Plays worldbuilding games with dungeons in them.

Gygax - mainly influenced by REH, Fritz Leiber, and Jack Vance. Plays dungeon games with added worldbuilding.


Now, both gaming styles fit into the same system. What I've later seen and read of Arneson's "Fantasy Game" is compatible with my group's adventures in Hommlet. Compatible, but far from the same, for most of the time. AD&D and "Adventures in Fantasy" evidently come from the same base, but one is not like the other. - So, the general assertion that an Arneson AD&D would have looked differently than the one Gygax went on to do alone, not a problem. Arneson, as havard writes, put his emphasis on a completely different kind of game than Gygax, the same way, that, to this day, home campaigns are different than RPGA/DMsG games. - Personally, I like when elements of both Gygaxian and Arnesonian gaming philosophy meet: That's why I remain such a fan for the adventures that Jennell Jacquays wrote, back in the day. Those have the strengths of both design styles, but without any of their weaknesses.

[jeffb]

I'm not sure-


I just know that when I was younger, things that were "pure Dave" I never gelled with. His rules variations in Blackmoor were immediately ignored (things like hit locations). FFC had a few bits I found fun, but overall un-inspiring. Adventures in Fantasy was godawful- I remember being so excited when I saw that box at my FLGS- similar in my excitement for the boxed Arduin Trilogy. Unlike Arduin, AiF was a huge letdown. Later on in years I picked up Adventures in Blackmoor- same vibe as FFC for me. Had to sift through a bunch of "eh".

Gary's stuff on the other hand hooked me every single time. didn't matter if was a FtSS article in Dragon, to a module. He was much better able to present his ideas and capture the imagination. No contest. Not that I loved everything stylistically- but I read it the whole way through.

I'm sure Dave was far better "at the table" than his writing/products demonstrated.

[Deleted]

Every DM is different. Even if you try to copy a style you likely can't. This term seems made up.

It's more fodder for the old Gygax vs. Arneson drama. 

Something people often overlook is: who was the first DM.

Arneson created the play method and is the first DM since he also invented dungeons. Gary had to travel to the twin cities to learn how to DM an RPG by watching Arneson, or how else would he have done it? Rob Kuntz implies this when he says they tried to reproduce what Arneson showed them after the first night's demo, but couldn't.

As far as one or the other I can't put a finger on any specific thing they do differently. Look in FFC and the dungeon key is lists of room numbers with monsters and treasures on each line. No detailed module like descriptions. Not long ago I saw a photo of Gary reviewing his Greyhawk notes. Close examination of the sheets revealed that his dungeon was keyed the exact same way. When I was a kid I had a card file with a numbered card for each dungeon room, but it was the same thing. The interesting rooms were just a simple mental reference note and it got played on the fly because I knew my dungeon by heart.

In looking through Greg Svenson's Tonisborg Dungeon from '73 it too is just lists, but he adds memos like BR for bedroom, or LAB, or CRYPT. Yet if you spend time with it you see relationships between rooms that reveal that Greg knew what was going on down there. The first level has 2 adjacent rooms. One has evil priests, the one next door has wights in it. It seems obvious he designed this as a really tough area where the monsters in both rooms will come and attack you. Another level has a room with wyverns in it. Same thing, not far away is a room with a wizard who has a scroll of control dragons. The two rooms are meant to be one encounter. I run the wizard as a good guy when I run it.

Comparing AD&D modules to Gary's play style is not a realistic measuring stick if the photo I describe is any indicator of his true style. Arneson created the first module with Blackmoor's, Temple of the Frog. Some of you may disagree, but it has everything there. Background story, main bad guy, maps, room descriptions. It's not all fluffy and nice, but no one had ever made one yet. It is being invented in that module, then people come along and add polish.

I doubt Arneson needed all those notes to run his game he could hold it in his head. A D&D game is nothing compared to running a napoleonic campaign with a huge number of players in it.

The fully described dungeon is something that came about because of a need for sellable product. People then assumed this was how the great Dm's did it, but I don't think so based on the evidence I've seen.

Again, I have no clue about this DM style issue. It seems like some made up fan-boy thing.

Ask yourself: how many gamers actually sat at a table with both Gygax and Arneson and can style their game after them?

Feel free to disagree.

[Starbeard]

Sept 1, 2019 1:33:05 GMT -6 @secretsofblackmoor said:

Comparing AD&D modules to Gary's play style is not a realistic measuring stick if the photo I describe is any indicator of his true style. Arneson created the first module with Blackmoor's, Temple of the Frog. Some of you may disagree, but it has everything there. Background story, main bad guy, maps, room descriptions. It's not all fluffy and nice, but no one had ever made one yet. It is being invented in that module, then people come along and add polish.

I'm picking this out because it bears repeating (although I can't qualify the statement that Temple of the Frog is the first module; that's certainly the received wisdom, but I personally don't know enough about what floated around in the earliest zine culture to know if other people might have passed around dungeons before that; regardless, I'm sure it was the first professionally published and distributed, and not just some bootleg thing available to those attending gatherings or otherwise in the know, and so might as well be called the original).

At any rate, by all accounts, none of Gygax's modules actually resemble the full reality of his home games, in content, scope or presentation. Arneson's legacy is trickier because by comparison so little of his adventure work saw publication, but from what I've read it seems that this is just as true for him as well.

The weird, wonky rules in the Blackmoor supplement seem to slip into finer minutiae than even AD&D's love of pole arms, but apparently most of that supplement was edited, sometimes severely, by several other contributors off of Arneson's rough notes. Of course, that doesn't mean that Arneson shied away from complicated tables and algorithms. I'm sure Arneson used his two brains—his play-brain that he used to enjoy himself at the table, and his ponder-brain that he used to brainstorm rules ideas—just like Gygax, any other game designer, and even the rest of us; while everybody uses both brains all the time, nobody really feels fully obligated to let one lead the other in its own territory.

So anyway, just because Arneson or Gygax may have written rules a certain way at a certain time, that doesn't mean that they felt compelled to play that way any, some or all of the time; and conversely, just because they played a certain way doesn't mean they always played that way, or that their interest in designing rules always mirrored their favourite way to play—or that the way they must have written rules for other people using the same style and priorities as when they wrote rules off the cuff for their own personal reference.

[Deleted]

Starbeard, I completely agree.

One person I know who played with all three of the great ones, Arneson, Gygax, and Barker, describes a difference in all their play styles. Maybe Chirine will come comment some here.


My question really relates to how the heck you as a gamer are going to restrict yourself to some pre determined set of rules. it's just not possible and if it is, you are straight jacketing your own ref'ing.

[Deleted]

No, he will not; he's already addressed this topic in a number of posts on this and other forums, and sees no need to repeat himself over and over again. He's also a little preoccupied, as his daughter has miscarried and lost the child; things are a little busy, right now.

[havard]

Aug 31, 2019 9:08:25 GMT -6 jeffb said:

I'm sure Dave was far better "at the table" than his writing/products demonstrated.

In the preface to Supplement II: Blackmoor (1975), Gary Gygax writes:

"Although he is a man of many talents, who has authored many historic rules sets and games (which TSR will publish periodically), Dave is also the innovator if the 'dungeon adventure' concept, creator of ghastly creatures and inscrutable dungeonmaster par excellence."

And a bit further down:

"I cannot recommend him higher than simply saying that I would rather play in his campaign than any other".

I'm sorry to hear that the two published books written by Dave that you have read weren't to your liking. I think it is fair though to point out that while Gary may have been a better writer, he also had the full support of co-authors, editors and all of TSR behind most of his works, while most of Dave's writing is his alone or when working with Richard Snider on AiF, they were also trying to build their own publishing company at the same time.

I think it should also be noted that most of Dave's published works were written before he turned 25.

Ultimately though, it is a shame that most threads about Dave and Gary seem to develop into a discussion about who is your favorite. I suppose the "VS." in the heading for this topic doesn't help, but I thought the intent of the OP was simply to identify whether the two D&D Co-Creators had different styles of gaming, perhaps so that both styles could serve as an inspiration.

The real difficulty with this is what most of their concepts have either become identified as the "core of D&D" and the rest have been discarded as "things we don't do anymore".

I think this is where Old Shool fans really are doing a great job though of digging up ideas that someone and some point discarded, but that might deserve another look.

With Dave Arneson in particular, many of his ideas weren't even discarded as such since he was never able to introduce them to the general D&D audiences on account of not being with TSR.


-Havard

[jeffb]

Sept 2, 2019 3:09:46 GMT -6 havard said:

I suppose the "VS." in the heading for this topic doesn't help, but I thought the intent of the OP was simply to identify whether the two D&D Co-Creators had different styles of gaming, perhaps so that both styles could serve as an inspiration.

-Havard

Its not a dig, or a "Gary vs. Dave" thing but an observation on the styles you mention above. It's a "Dave vs. Jeff" and "Gary Vs. Jeff". All I know of Dave's "style" is from his published works- so my answer was "no" based on that-The majority of his published work never inspired me.


Since day one everyone was running games in very different styles- Gary, Dave, MARB, Marc Miller, Dave Hargrave, Ken St. Andre, Steve Perrin, Jacquays, Bledsaw, and all of us posting here. Since day one I used the game engine to play in a very different manner than Gary or Dave or others of the time did, or I'd wager the majority still do on this forum. Some of those early folks, based on what they wrote inspired me, some did not. Ken St. Andre was very young, and wrote and published his first edition himself without any editors or a company to back him and develop-Just his gaming buddies. Future "printings/editions" from FBI were not much different But Ken inspired me nonetheless. None of those works from the 70's were very pretty or well edited or developed. Arduin was a nightmare to sift through, but yikes what substance (and I didn't like all of it then, and still don't).