How to address this slight?

[perdustin]

As I expect all of you know, Wizards of the Coast intends to reprint (briefly) the three core books of 1E AD&D. This, of course, is welcome news. Unfortunately, WotC's announcements strongly imply that Gary Gygax is the sole creator of Dungeons & Dragons. In fact, the solicitation document (www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/Sales/Solicitations/2012_04_17_dd_1stED_Solicitation_en_US.pdf) says "Gary Gygax, creator of Dungeons & Dragons," not 'Advanced Dungeons & Dragons' but 'Dungeons & Dragons.'

This is incorrect and -- I feel -- inappropriate.

Havard wrote about this on his blog (blackmoormystara.blogspot.com/2012/01/wotc-fails-to-credit-d-co-creator.html) and I have written about it on mine (thoulsparadise.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-happened-to-co-creator.html).

I would like your input regarding what, if anything, should be done about this. Do you even care?

This isn't about discrediting Gary, this is about crediting Dave.

[crusssdaddy]

I say nothing needs to be done. The reprints are of three books that bear GG's name, alone, on their covers. Some (probably minuscule) portion of the proceeds is going toward the GG statue which will feature GG, alone, staring wistfully into the distance, or rolling a d20, or perched sinisterly behind a DM screen.

Yes, the announcement language is not precise. I think we're all used to WotC's clumsiness at this point, right?

[Falconer]

We haven’t even had an official press release, yet. The problem with explaining about Dave Arneson is that then you have to explain the difference between the “Original” and “First Edition,” and how Gary is the “co-creator” of former but the “author” of the latter. It gets too long and confusing for a brief blurb. Obviously they want to blur the lines and keep it simple. Honestly, I think it takes a lot of wind out of your sails by framing it as a Gygax Memorial. You can’t begrudge Gygax that.

IMO, the most interesting direction to take this topic is to muse on what WOULD be an appropriate reprint for an Arneson Memorial. AiF was Arneson’s answer to AD&D. Does AiF deserve a fresh look? Honestly, the ultimate Arneson Memorial reprint would be the OCE + FFC, with the latter reformatted into a few digest-sized saddle-stitched books to go with the LBBs.

[jmccann]

If there was a slight it was done by Gygax back in the late 70s. Part of the motivation of putting out AD&D was to cut Arneson out of royalties. It is not WOTC slighting Arneson.

[murquhart72]

May have been an issue if Dave actually co-created D&D, but he just gave inspiration and ideas. Pretty much all the D&D stuff (especially the 3 hardcovers in question) were solely on Gary. Dave's name was only there at the beginning as more or less a favor

[aldarron]

Jan 25, 2012 11:14:51 GMT -6 murquhart72 said:

May have been an issue if Dave actually co-created D&D, but he just gave inspiration and ideas. Pretty much all the D&D stuff (especially the 3 hardcovers in question) were solely on Gary. Dave's name was only there at the beginning as more or less a favor

You're kidding, right?

Anyway, the Wotc wording was a bit clumsy but par for the course. I wouldn't sweat it. There are those of us who are working on getting Dave's work more widely known.

[murquhart72]

Oh I'm not saying he had no influence or wasn't important to D&D's early days, but his contributions (even to the Blackmoor supplement) were ancillary at best. At any rate, they're reprinting AD&D harcovers (TOTAL Gary, for a reason) specifically to raise some $$$ for his memorial fund (and yeah, themselves). If Dave's estate want to erect a statue of him, let some company do a reprint of The First Fantasy Campaign.
I'm not trying to disrespect Dave or his fans, but he and Gary were never partners, Dave never actually wrote anything for D&D and the two rarely even saw each other IRL, let alone gamed or designed together. They aren't joined at the hip is all I'm saying.

[perdustin]

Thanks for replying. It seems that I am tilting at windmills. Regardless, I would like to clarify my position on a few things. (This might be confused with “venting.” Admittedly, the difference is subtle.)

I’m happy that Gygax is getting a memorial; I’m fine with some (or all) the proceeds from these reprints going towards that memorial. Does Arneson deserve a memorial? Perhaps, but that’s not WotC’s responsibility. This isn’t about memorial envy; this is about denying credit where credit is due.

Yes, Gygax wrote the three books at issue, but the original lack of recognition of Arneson regarding the inspiration/foundation of these books proved to be contentious. Through litigation, Arneson eventually prevailed. You want to say Gygax is the author? That’s fine by me. You want to say Gygax is the creator of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons? I’m fine with that too. You want to say Gygax is the creator of Dungeons & Dragons (like the solicitation document says)? That’s wrong.

I don’t think it’s necessary to have mentioned Arneson, but presenting Gygax as the sole creator is inaccurate. The WotC documents promulgate false information. Whether or not the documents are ‘official press releases’ is immaterial; these are documents that WotC made available to the public. They are statements made by WotC. In my opinion, the term “co-creator” is neither too long nor confusing.

If WotC repeats a slight “done by Gygax back in the late 70s,” it is still a slight. The fact that someone else did it first does not absolve WotC of guilt. We shouldn’t have to get “used to WotC’s clumsiness.” WotC is not a handful of people working out of someone’s garage; it is the subsidiary of a major corporation. They have accountability.

I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree about the definition of “creating.” I consider ‘providing inspiration and ideas without which the game would not exist’ part of (if not endemic to) the creative process.

[murquhart72]

It's hard too in that nobody uses "Advanced" these days (at least at WotC). They just call it Dungeons & Dragons which, as was stated more than once in The Dragon "is a completely different game" than Advanced Dungeons & Dragons... Even though they're both pretty much the same. Muddy stuff.
Maybe they just want something simpler than "D&D as created by Gary Gygax with inspiration and some help from Don Kaye, Dave Arneson as well as further assistance from Rob Kuntz, Dave Cook, etc., etc., ad nauseum..."
I dunno, just hope I'm not ruffling too many feathers...

[Deleted]

I don't think it really matters. It's a commercial project by a company that happens to own the rights to the game. They aren't history writers so the purpose of press releases is marketing to sell the product, not inform people about the development of the game. Both Gary and Dave are dead so neither will suffer from a slight or gain from the praise. Let their heirs fight for their family legacy. It's really none of my business.

[Mushgnome]

I wrote a lot of these marketing "blurbs" when I worked in publishing. It is a 30-second exercise in regurgitating keywords so the shopper knows what they are buying, not a research paper.

[Falconer]

I’ve always been somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of Dungeons & Dragons being a thing that was “created” or “invented,” anyway. No, Dungeons & Dragons was “co-authored”!

[perdustin]

Thanks everybody. I genuinely appreciate your responses.

[harami2000]

Jan 25, 2012 12:41:35 GMT -6 murquhart72 said:

Oh I'm not saying he had no influence or wasn't important to D&D's early days, but his contributions (even to the Blackmoor supplement) were ancillary at best.

IMO such a statement overstates the "importance" of specific rules (and even then, those were generally founded on game mechanics from Dave & co.) over that of the game form. The latter was the fundamental killer feature of D&D vs. any of the other games used for "roleplaying" prior to 1974 and it didn't come from Gary. Admittedly Dave was going nowhere fast by himself, but that's by-the-by.

Jan 24, 2012 19:38:36 GMT -6 perdustin said:

This isn't about discrediting Gary, this is about crediting Dave.

*nods*
As expected, that went over the collected heads when I was waving the same flag elsewhere last week; q.v. www.acaeum.com/forum/post-191134.html&highlight=#191134

[Finarvyn]

Jan 24, 2012 23:25:34 GMT -6 Falconer said:

IMO, the most interesting direction to take this topic is to muse on what WOULD be an appropriate reprint for an Arneson Memorial. AiF was Arneson’s answer to AD&D. Does AiF deserve a fresh look? Honestly, the ultimate Arneson Memorial reprint would be the OCE + FFC, with the latter reformatted into a few digest-sized saddle-stitched books to go with the LBBs.

I'd vote for the First Fantasy Campaign as a reprint homage to Dave's campaign and contribution to OD&D.

While I agree that AiF was Dave's "answer" to AD&D, it never made much of a splash in the gaming world and I think that a reprint of AiF would interest only a few select people. First Fantasy Campaign has a much wider potential audience comprised of anyone who has played in a Blackmoor campaign of any edition.

Just my two coppers.

[busman]

I dunno. I've long held in my heart that Dave was the originator of the D&D concept, but working in a creative field, I can understand and sympathize with the truth that ideas are pretty thin, really, it's the execution of a good idea where things matter. And yes, Dave put the spark in Gary's head, but arguably Gary put the spark in Dave's head before that.

At the end of the day, this board wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this argument about a slight if it wasn't for Gary. Gary took the idea that Dave had working and made it work for everyone (D&D). Then he took that and made it again (AD&D) and made it REALLY work for everyone.

How much different is Dave from the guy that ran Braunstein that inspired Dave other than Dave sent his pages of "stuff' to Gary? And who inspired the Braunstein guy?

I think getting up in arms about this is more of the same divisiveness that has plagued this hobby for a long time.

WotC is reprinting the game that really made RPGs into the phenomenon that they became, whether it's a bone for the old codgers, a grab for quick cash, a troll for the appetite for old material, or a even some post-mortem free swing absolved from DA now that he's passed, it's good for the hobby. And we're all ambassadors for the hobby and we should all rally around it, celebrate it, and find ways to engage and encourage Hasbro to do more of it.

[harami2000]

Jan 25, 2012 20:03:43 GMT -6 busman said:

How much different is Dave from the guy that ran Braunstein that inspired Dave other than Dave sent his pages of "stuff' to Gary? And who inspired the Braunstein guy?

Totten is a rather dry read, IMHO.

Dave could "win" one of Wesely's games by competing against the other players whereas in his own games the concept of a (generally) collaborative adventuring party in the context on an ongoing campaign came to the fore. And add fantasy into the mix, of course.
Both Wesely (unknowingly, to begin with) and Arneson were running "roleplaying" games but the current mainstream definition leans so strongly on the player dynamics which D&D-like games take that many other "roleplaying" games are not even recognised as such, especially those that are more than "one sided".

Jan 25, 2012 20:03:43 GMT -6 busman said:

I think getting up in arms about this is more of the same divisiveness that has plagued this hobby for a long time.

90-odd percent of gamers couldn't care less, I suspect.

Some of the rest of us wouldn't mind a somewhat more balanced approach to the "history" and recognition for/utilization of wider-ranging "roleplaying game" concepts rather than just those that are shackled to D&D's gaming paradigm. 02c, anyhow. ^^

Jan 25, 2012 20:03:43 GMT -6 busman said:

WotC is reprinting the game that really made RPGs into the phenomenon that they became... And we're all ambassadors for the hobby and we should all rally around it, celebrate it, and find ways to engage and encourage Hasbro to do more of it.

+1; and well said, thank you.

[Falconer]

Great post, busman!

[Zenopus]

I agree it's an error. The original product is "Gygax & Arneson" - formally they should both be indicated as creators. Perdustin, have you tried contacting WOTC?

However, Gygax did coin the name "Dungeons & Dragons" - the game wouldn't have been called that without him, and would've been different. I could see an argument for Arneson as the creator of fantasy role-playing games, and Gygax as the creator of "Dungeons & Dragons" the product.

[aldarron]

Jan 25, 2012 20:03:43 GMT -6 busman said:

How much different is Dave from the guy that ran Braunstein that inspired Dave other than Dave sent his pages of "stuff' to Gary? And who inspired the Braunstein guy?

Some relevant discussion here www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=42820

The main difference between a Braunstien game and a Blackmoor game - aside from the fantasy aspect - was recurring characters from adventure to adventure. In a Braunstein you play a new character each game.

[aldarron]

Working backwards through your post...

Jan 25, 2012 12:41:35 GMT -6 murquhart72 said:

If Dave's estate want to erect a statue of him, let some company do a reprint of The First Fantasy Campaign.

I'm sure a reprint will be done at some point, but the funds won't go to a statue. Dave Arneson already has a memorial blackmoormystara.blogspot.com/2011/04/blackmoor-studios-at-full-sail.html

Jan 25, 2012 12:41:35 GMT -6 murquhart72 said:

I'm not trying to disrespect Dave or his fans, but he and Gary were never partners, Dave never actually wrote anything for D&D and the two rarely even saw each other IRL, let alone gamed or designed together. They aren't joined at the hip is all I'm saying.

They were indeed partners. To begin with, D&D was their second game collaboration. They had already published Don't Give Up the Ship together. Arneson was also involved with the Domesday letters and he owned stock in TSR from the start (so did Dave Wesely and Dave Megarry). Dave also lived in Lake Geneva and worked for TSR for most of 1976, but, joined at the hip?; no they were not.

Jan 25, 2012 12:41:35 GMT -6 murquhart72 said:

Oh I'm not saying he had no influence or wasn't important to D&D's early days, but his contributions (even to the Blackmoor supplement) were ancillary at best.

<shrug> Ancillary I suppose depends on your interests. I can't give you a complete list, because there are some things in D&D we don't know who "invented". However, these are some of the things we know originated with Dave and were sent in to Gary to produce D&D:

Hit Dice
Hit Points
Variable Damage
Character Levels
Experience Points
5 of the six Character Abilities (Gygax added Dexterity)
The Cleric
Spell/magic levels 1-5
Turn Undead table
Money, coins, economic and prices
Equipment tables
Rules for Hirelings cost and upkeep
All the Wilderness encounter tables
All the Underworld encounter tables
Movement Tables
Treasure Tables (except the underworld distribution of treasure table)
Wilderness Evasion and Pursuit
Castle Construction
Magic Sword creation

One could also point to several of the Iconic monsters (Black pudding), spells, magic items, and saving throw categories, but at this point its not always clear whose is whose.

Supplement II

These sections were authored by Arneson with only very light editing by Tim Kask:

Hit Location
Weapon Length
Temple of the Frog
Diseases
All monsters between Merman and Plesiosaurus, and very probably also Giant Shark to Portuguese Man of War

These sections were authored by Arneson with significant editing by Kask:

Assasin
Sage

These sections were written by Steve Marsh:

All the monsters between Aquatic Elves and Masher.
Lycanthropy

Monk was written by Brian Blume with editing by Kask (some claim has been made that there was an Arneson prototype for this, but there is virtually no evidence of such).

That leaves the section on undersea adventures and Magic items. Contributions by Marsh are certainly present here as may be any of the others mentioned above. discussed here odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=blackmoor&action=display&thread=4406

In terms of percent of page count, at minimum, Arneson wrote about 75% of Supplement II.

[Deleted]

Jan 25, 2012 12:41:35 GMT -6 murquhart72 said:

I'm not trying to disrespect Dave or his fans, but he and Gary were never partners, Dave never actually wrote anything for D&D and the two rarely even saw each other IRL, let alone gamed or designed together.

That statement is so completely, totally, utterly, and ubelievably wrong that the light from right will not reach it until five eternities after the heat death of the universe.

I was THERE. You were not.

Not only did Dave and Gary send chunks of working manuscript to each other BEFORE publication, Dave worked for TSR down in Lake Geneva for some years after publication. I know Rob Kuntz frequents these boards and he can give even more details on the design meetings for D&D.

Crom's hairy nutsack. If you don't know what you're talking about, DON'T TALK.

[Harbinger]

Of course WotC knows Arneson is a co-author, they've said so in every rulebook since 3.0.

These books are marketed for the nostalgia factor. WotC has stated publicly that they are attempting to 'unite the tribes' under a single umbrella of D&D rules. Part of this plan needs to get the attention of lapsed players and grognards who played AD&D at its peak. I think republishing these books is the perfect way to get the attention of all these old gamers, and then entice them with a 5e that 'plays just like you remember it'.

At the time these people were playing, Arneson's name had been wiped off the books and Gary was the face and voice of D&D. As far as the audience is concerned, Gary is the creator of D&D.

Note - my personal views differ. Without Arneson we wouldn't have D&D rules; without Gary the D&D rules would never have been codified. To this day, I love mining Arneson's stuff for things that got left out or changed.

I plan to buy these books even though I don't need them. I want WotC to know that there is a market out there for the older D&D play styles. The better these books sell, the more likely other material will show up. I'm holding out hope for a module compilation, and OD&D. And yes, I will continue to play retro-clone rules.

[Falconer]

Dan Boggs, you are a treasure.

Yesterday I noticed that, in OA, Gary Gygax states that the original Monk was “inspired by Brian Blume and the book series called The Destroyer.” Since he was Blume’s referee, would it be fair to say that Gary had a hand in this writeup? Or any other part of Sup. II? I seem to recall Tim giving Gary a lot of credit for Sup. II when he (Tim) first came on the OSR scene.

[tavis]

Sorry to come late to this discussion, guys!

Neither the findings of courts of law nor WotC policy established by Peter Adkison at the point of acquiring D&D nor the testimonial of those who were there (well said Gronan!) nor any reasonable examination of the available history support anything other than giving Gary and Dave equal credit for co-authorship of Dungeons & Dragons. (AD&D is another, more complicated matter but as has been said, no attempt was made to make that distinction).

I've done what I can to set things straight before and after this announcement, but ultimately it's not in any of our hands.

What we can talk about is how best to raise awareness of Dave's essential role, and what we can do to honor his contributions and pass the torch forward. I'm eager to work on making that happen.

[harami2000]

Jan 26, 2012 8:08:04 GMT -6 aldarron said:

The main difference between a Braunstien game and a Blackmoor game - aside from the fantasy aspect - was recurring characters from adventure to adventure. In a Braunstein you play a new character each game.

A difference between the two, yes, albeit recurring characters within an ongoing "roleplaying" campaign were nothing new by that timeframe.

"Primarily" competitive vs. collaborative does count as a major difference in my books, given the manner in which the D&D-centric definition of "roleplaying game" eventually came to the fore. (Despite D&D "as published" ending up overkilling the collaborative and almost throwing out what might be deemed the "roleplaying experience" with its play example).

[aldarron]

Jan 26, 2012 12:31:34 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Dan Boggs, you are a treasure.

Yesterday I noticed that, in OA, Gary Gygax states that the original Monk was “inspired by Brian Blume and the book series called The Destroyer.” Since he was Blume’s referee, would it be fair to say that Gary had a hand in this writeup? Or any other part of Sup. II? I seem to recall Tim giving Gary a lot of credit for Sup. II when he (Tim) first came on the OSR scene.

Thanks much Phil. I don't know but given the timeframe, I don't think the monk saw much play before the supplement. The Assasin was reworked from Arnesons version and I doubt if the published version was playtested at all. The impression I get from Tim Kask is that he was encouraged to iron out the supplement as he felt best, without a lot of input (handholding) from Gary. So I think Gary probably didn't have much direct input into the Monk character.

But I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the mystery stuff, like the underwater adventures writeup, magic items, and maybe some of the monsters had material from Gary in there.

In terms of the credit issue, I think you may be recalling something Steve Marsh said instead of Tim Kask, but Steve was a freelance writer and not yet a TSR employee at the time Supp II was prepared and wouldn't have really known who wrote what beyond his own submission.

[Deleted]

Jan 26, 2012 12:31:34 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Dan Boggs, you are a treasure.

Yesterday I noticed that, in OA, Gary Gygax states that the original Monk was “inspired by Brian Blume and the book series called The Destroyer.” Since he was Blume’s referee, would it be fair to say that Gary had a hand in this writeup? Or any other part of Sup. II? I seem to recall Tim giving Gary a lot of credit for Sup. II when he (Tim) first came on the OSR scene.

Interesting. I also know at about the same time, Jim Ward had "Chaotic Kung Fu Fighters" in his dungeon. I assumed that that's where the Monk got started. Fancy that.

And yes, when Jim rolled some in a random encounter, he started singing.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhUkGIsKvn0

[Aplus]

Jan 26, 2012 22:50:42 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Jan 26, 2012 12:31:34 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Dan Boggs, you are a treasure.

Yesterday I noticed that, in OA, Gary Gygax states that the original Monk was “inspired by Brian Blume and the book series called The Destroyer.” Since he was Blume’s referee, would it be fair to say that Gary had a hand in this writeup? Or any other part of Sup. II? I seem to recall Tim giving Gary a lot of credit for Sup. II when he (Tim) first came on the OSR scene.

Interesting. I also know at about the same time, Jim Ward had "Chaotic Kung Fu Fighters" in his dungeon. I assumed that that's where the Monk got started. Fancy that.

And yes, when Jim rolled some in a random encounter, he started singing.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhUkGIsKvn0

Jim Ward is a stallion among colts.

[aldarron]

Jan 26, 2012 22:50:42 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Interesting. I also know at about the same time, Jim Ward had "Chaotic Kung Fu Fighters" in his dungeon. I assumed that that's where the Monk got started. Fancy that.

I remember you mentioning that before Mike. It could well be where the character got started; wouldn't surprise me If Brian Blume was basically trying to codify and define in rules the kind of character Jim was roleplaying.