Chapters and Authors in Jeffro Johnson's Appendix N

[oakesspalding]

Well, I'm going to take up Finarvyn 's invitation and start in.

I just put up a blog post: Jeffro Johnson on Margaret St. Clair

I found this to be one of the most fascinating chapters in the book for a number of reasons: St. Clair is not very well known, and I hadn't read her. As a Wiccan, pacifist and sometime devotee of nudist colonies (along with her husband) she was one of the more interesting and unique pulp writers. Johnson credits one of her two most well-known novels, Sign of the Labrys, as a literary antecedent of the megadungeon. Here's an excerpt:

"The archetypal Gygaxian dungeon really does have a literary antecedent, and it’s here in this book [Sign of the Labrys]. Each level has a different theme, from living areas for survivors of the apocalypse to scientists and their unusual wandering monster creations, and on to the VIP level, where everyone is doped up on euph pills. Exploration is a key part of the plot as the lower levels are only connected by secret passages. At the same time—just like in the best dungeon designs—there is also more than one way to get from one level to the next and sometimes ways to bypass levels entirely. Finally, the action of the novel is focused on exactly the sort of thing that consumes the bulk of so many game sessions to this day: a battle within a dungeon by two rival factions."

[Deleted]

I'm astounded. I don't know whether to react with anger or bewilderment. But you could not have picked a better paragraph to explain why Appendix N, and the study thereof, is complete crap. [And in this case, a word significantly stronger than "crap" is required]

[oakesspalding]

May 30, 2017 10:08:52 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

I'm astounded. I don't know whether to react with anger or bewilderment. But you could not have picked a better paragraph to explain why Appendix N, and the study thereof, is complete crap. [And in this case, a word significantly stronger than "crap" is required]

I know I shouldn't ask, but why do you say that?

[Deleted]

May 30, 2017 10:08:52 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

I'm astounded. I don't know whether to react with anger or bewilderment. But you could not have picked a better paragraph to explain why Appendix N, and the study thereof, is complete crap. [And in this case, a word significantly stronger than "crap" is required]

This is the only author that I have read nothing of, and not this book so I am looking forward to reading it based on those comments by the OP. Obviously Appendix N is relevant only to Gygax and his inspirations for the way he did things and none of these have anything to do with Arneson and how he originally did things, unless we would find out that some of these were part of his influences, so when I read anything about Appendix N, I come into it with the prior knowledge that we are only talking about Gygax. I would note that when I started playing in 1975 I was about half of the age of Gygax at that point in time I had read about 60% of Appendix N and those influenced my game a lot, as did the movies that I had seen (re: influences reported for Arneson) "The Blob" for example.

So I am not understanding your reaction? Have you read the book in question? And why do you say what you say? I am usually on board with a lot of what you post, so I would like to understand where you are coming from.

[Finarvyn]

Thanks, oakesspalding for getting the ball rolling again. Hopefully this time folks will play nice.

May 30, 2017 10:15:17 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

May 30, 2017 10:08:52 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

I'm astounded. I don't know whether to react with anger or bewilderment. But you could not have picked a better paragraph to explain why Appendix N, and the study thereof, is complete crap. [And in this case, a word significantly stronger than "crap" is required]

I know I shouldn't ask, but why do you say that?

I'm puzzled as well. Appendix N is supposed to be a list of inspirations by one of the original authors of the game, and as such a study of the list would seem to me to have a lot of merit.

Hedgehobbit, if you are going to make such a broad and negative comment you should at least back it up with something.

[oakesspalding]

I'm not trying to put @hedgehobbit on the spot (well, mostly not). but I assume the objection is that the alleged links or influences are just coincidences.

I have a feeling that debate or argument on that point is fruitless, but just to stake out my view.

1. Gygax claimed they were influences.

2. The original list in The Dragon contained only 21 names, including Margaret St. Clair. Since St. Clair was a sort of 2nd tier author (in terms of recognition), there were many other equivalent authors (hundreds?) that Gygax could have chosen instead.

3. The ONLY place that a quasi-megadungeon appears in the writings of the Appendix N authors is in Sign of the Labrys. (As the blogger David, quoted by Jeffro, notes, Moria doesn't really count.)

4. I don't think a megadungeon was a standard fantasy trope in 1974. We might assume it is from our post-D&D perspective, but I see no evidence that it was.

Does this make a knockdown case? No. But I think it makes a reasonable or plausible one. And it's certainly miles away from "crap."

[Deleted]

I would say that the fact of whether the alleged links or influences are real or not is not even relevant to the value of the book. IMO this book is a gold mine summary of a few of the ideas found in each of these hard to get your hands on books and therefore of great value to DIY gamers. I personally in reading the book, came across dozens of ideas that I have used and was reminded of where those ideas came from (in some cases books I read under the age of ten and then used the ideas when I discovered OD&D in college). I also was reminded of ideas that I did not use, but now with the memory jog may use in the future. I have also been inspired to go back and re-read some of these and other books that are not on this list. As far as we know Arneson came up with the dungeon without reference to this book that the OP mentions, and maybe Gygax was inspired by this book with his take on dungeons, but whether he was or not, it is still of value to us to know what is there and perhaps to read the book and gain some inspiration ourselves from it. When we read anything my take is to read it for what it offers and not to see what it doesn't offer.

[oakesspalding]

May 30, 2017 11:01:23 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

I would say that the fact of whether the alleged links or influences are real or not is not even relevant to the value of the book. IMO this book is a gold mine summary of a few of the ideas found in each of these hard to get your hands on books and therefore of great value to DIY gamers. I personally in reading the book, came across dozens of ideas that I have used and was reminded of where those ideas came from (in some cases books I read under the age of ten and then used the ideas when I discovered OD&D in college). I also was reminded of ideas that I did not use, but now with the memory jog may use in the future. I have also been inspired to go back and re-read some of these and other books that are not on this list. As far as we know Arneson came up with the dungeon without reference to this book that the OP mentions, and maybe Gygax was inspired by this book with his take on dungeons, but whether he was or not, it is still of value to us to know what is there and perhaps to read the book and gain some inspiration ourselves from it. When we read anything my take is to read it for what it offers and not to see what it doesn't offer.

I think that's right.

I don't know very much about the overlap between Appendix N and what Arneson might or might not have read. And I have no idea whether that information is accessible, even in principle.

I also don't know very much about Arneson's earlier pre-Gygax conception of a dungeon/megadungeon, other than a few anecdotes. I assume that some of what we have access to like the First Fantasy campaign dungeon, as it was published, makes use of ideas that came out of the Gygax-Arenson collaboration. Perhaps some of that is in Kuntz?

[Deleted]

May 30, 2017 11:09:04 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

May 30, 2017 11:01:23 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

I would say that the fact of whether the alleged links or influences are real or not is not even relevant to the value of the book. IMO this book is a gold mine summary of a few of the ideas found in each of these hard to get your hands on books and therefore of great value to DIY gamers. I personally in reading the book, came across dozens of ideas that I have used and was reminded of where those ideas came from (in some cases books I read under the age of ten and then used the ideas when I discovered OD&D in college). I also was reminded of ideas that I did not use, but now with the memory jog may use in the future. I have also been inspired to go back and re-read some of these and other books that are not on this list. As far as we know Arneson came up with the dungeon without reference to this book that the OP mentions, and maybe Gygax was inspired by this book with his take on dungeons, but whether he was or not, it is still of value to us to know what is there and perhaps to read the book and gain some inspiration ourselves from it. When we read anything my take is to read it for what it offers and not to see what it doesn't offer.

I think that's right.

I don't know very much about the overlap between Appendix N and what Arneson might or might not have read. And I have no idea whether that information is accessible, even in principle.

I also don't know very much about Arneson's earlier pre-Gygax conception of a dungeon/megadungeon, other than a few anecdotes. I assume that some of what we have access to like the First Fantasy campaign dungeon, as it was published, makes use of ideas that came out of the Gygax-Arenson collaboration. Perhaps some of that is in Kuntz?

I am not clear on whether or not the FFC dungeon is the original dungeon or not. My impression is that it is the original dungeon but havard and @rafael would both be more knowledgeable about that than I am. As for Kuntz, I think that kind of information in regard mainly to Arneson, may be in his forth coming books that are still being written. You may want to ask him about that.

[tetramorph]

oakesspalding, et al., Finarvyn had us make a new thread to discuss the content and closed the old thread.

I'd like to encourage us to just discuss content without engaging in meta-discussion. That just picks up the old thread and starts it up again.

If there are trolls out there, and there might be, I've found that disengaging from trolls makes them get bored and go away.

I'm not saying this either to support or berate the book. I am saying this so that we can talk about the content we found interesting in an unencumbered way.

[Deleted]

May 30, 2017 10:38:58 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Hedgehobbit, if you are going to make such a broad and negative comment you should at least back it up with something.

I had to step away from this forum because this thread made me so angry.

The "literary antecedent" of the "Gygaxian dungeon" is Dave Arneson. This isn't even up for debate. The original 1972 prototype of the Dungeon! board game still exists. Pictures of it are all over the internet. And just about everything attributed to Sign of the Labrys is present there: multiple levels, secret passages, themed levels, etc. We have a first hand account of the original dungeon expedition so we know how exploration worked in that game (and it's little changed from today) and we even know the leaders of the various faction involved in the Blackmoor dungeon. Lastly are Dave's own words about what inspired him to create the dungeon in the first place (and it ain't this book!). Dave introduced Gary to his D&D concept through the Dungeon board game. There is nothing leftover that needs explaining.

I don't hold it against Jeffro Johnson for not knowing this. 99% of D&D players don't know the story of D&D and are just repeating the common myths. But HERE!?! Where the actual originators have posted? I can't understand why we aren't collectively trying to debunk these obvious errors before they make it too far into the mainstream. How many people are going to read this book and end up thinking that Gygax invented the mega-dungeon?

May 30, 2017 10:49:26 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

3. The ONLY place that a quasi-megadungeon appears in the writings of the Appendix N authors is in Sign of the Labrys. (As the blogger David, quoted by Jeffro, notes, Moria doesn't really count.)

Why doesn't Moria count? That seems awfully convenient.

[Deleted]

May 30, 2017 14:24:29 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

If there are trolls out there, and there might be, I've found that disengaging from trolls makes them get bored and go away.

You might as well just permaban me now.

[tetramorph]

@hedgehobbit, why not help us understand things like this in a friendly manner?

Where is all the anger coming from?

I love to learn these things and I am thankful for your penultimate post.

I would love some links, if you have any, that could expand my knowledge about these things.

Perhaps you are not aware that your posts come across as being filled with animosity and superiority.

I love learning from you. Teach me.

I just don't enjoy engaging with angry people. And when you come across that way, I disengage.

Best of luck!

[oakesspalding]

May 31, 2017 12:23:13 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Why doesn't Moria count? That seems awfully convenient.

Well, Jeffro was quoting DmDavid on that. But I think his point is a fair one. If Moria was a "megadungeon", it would have to rank as about the most boring megadungeon (in terms of D&D play) ever.

Or not.

But if not, then aren't you conceding that one of the books on Appendix N (Lord of the Rings not Sign of the Labrys) influenced Gygax and D&D?

And, obviously, to claim that St. Clair's quirky book may have influenced Gygax's conception of the megadungeon is not to argue that Moria was not also, so to speak, on his mind. But I think it's certainly interesting to show how St. Clair's vision is in many ways closer, on this subject, at least, than Tolkien's. Why isn't that interesting?

[oakesspalding]

I guess the argument seems to be that Gygax got everything (or virtually everything) from Arneson. If that's true, then I suppose, since Gygax doesn't count, then nothing he read counts (unless it was also read by Arneson). While some pushback on the movement (intentional or otherwise) to ease Arneson out of getting any credit for anything is certainly justified, going to an extreme on it seems...extreme.

[tetramorph]

May 31, 2017 12:52:48 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

I guess the argument seems to be that Gygax got everything (or virtually everything) from Arneson. If that's true, then I suppose, since Gygax doesn't count, then nothing he read counts (unless it was also read by Arneson). While some pushback on the movement (intentional or otherwise) to ease Arneson out of getting any credit for anything is certainly justified, going to an extreme on it seems...extreme.

If Gygax got everything from Arneson, did Arneson reinvent the entire pulp sci fi and fantasy scene that his game engaged straight out of his True Genius head?

If Gygax got everything from Arneson, maybe he got what would become the Appendix N list from him as well.

Nobody creates ex nihilo but God.

[cadriel]

I think @hedgehobbit is exactly right here, and it's why I am skeptical of people sitting down and reading Appendix N to divine how it influenced D&D. Saying that Gary Gygax got the megadungeon idea from The Sign of the Labrys is provably wrong, because Gygax got the idea from Dave Arneson.

A book that doesn't discuss Tarnsman of Gor isn't a literary history of D&D; it is at best a book about Gary Gygax's personal favorites.

As far as influence goes, this is what Dave Arneson thought (source):

“As far as books go, fantasy books, science fiction/fantasy books that inspired me, we’re talking about Poul Anderson, Robert Heinlein, and a lot of the other authors, like the author of the Horse Clans series. (Robert Adams) Gary Seems to have listed every book he’s ever read in his bibliography, and I’ll be blunt, I don’t think I’ve read a lot of those books. Although, after having read a few thousand books, I really can’t remember which ones I’ve read anymore… So a lot of it is, Yes, I was inspired by…; but where does the inspiration stop and the game design begin? I mean, you’ve got to make changes. You’ve got to do variations. You can be influenced by something you read and don’t even remember reading, because you want to include “oh here is something neat I can incorporate into my world.”

[Deleted]

May 31, 2017 12:23:13 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

The "literary antecedent" of the "Gygaxian dungeon" is Dave Arneson. This isn't even up for debate. The original 1972 prototype of the Dungeon! board game still exists. Pictures of it are all over the internet. And just about everything attributed to Sign of the Labrys is present there: multiple levels, secret passages, themed levels, etc. We have a first hand account of the original dungeon expedition so we know how exploration worked in that game (and it's little changed from today) and we even know the leaders of the various faction involved in the Blackmoor dungeon. Lastly are Dave's own words about what inspired him to create the dungeon in the first place (and it ain't this book!). Dave introduced Gary to his D&D concept through the Dungeon board game. There is nothing leftover that needs explaining.

No one is disputing any of this; however, the Sign of the Labrys was published in 1963 and at some point Gygax says he read it and used it for inspiration for his dungeon. That does not contradict anything you have said. Yes, Dave introduced Gary to his concepts and Gygax used things that he read to flesh it out when Dave went home. Those does not in any way discount anything that Dave did, it only informs what Gygax did after Dave showed him Blackmoor. That is it in a nutshell, nothing more and nothing less. This book is not discounting anything Dave Arneson did. That I think is the misunderstanding that is going on. At least that is how I read the book from cover to cover. I would love to see a similar book about Dave Arneson and it would be about him and not about Gygax. Both informative and useful.

[Finarvyn]

May 31, 2017 12:27:26 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

May 30, 2017 14:24:29 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

If there are trolls out there, and there might be, I've found that disengaging from trolls makes them get bored and go away.

You might as well just permaban me now.

I don't like banning folks from this place. It's not my style, and it's a last resort when posters just won't play well with others. I'm hoping that this thread doesn't lead to bans, but having locked two threads in the past week (probably the only threads I've had to lock in nearly a year) I have to confess to being tired of folks acting like savages instead of politely discussing OD&D. If this sort of attitude continues, I'll have to resort to lowering the hammer and I really don't want to do that.

In addition, I still don't understand all of the anger here and I really have no idea why some folks are frothing at the mouth over this topic. Here's how I see it:

1. Arneson was the inventor of D&D and he shared with Gygax, who wrote most of the text of the rules.

2. Arneson was inspired by things. Gygax was inspired by things. Appendix N is a list of what fiction Gygax said inspired him.

3. This thread is a discussion about a book. The focus of the book is the fiction that made up Gary's Appendix N list. The author of the book has even appeared to add discussion if folks are so inclined.

Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen any claim that this book is a "history" of D&D but instead seems to be more like one person's reaction to reading the same books that inspired Gygax. Some have said that it is s book that could be read alongside Jon Peterson's history of D&D, but I don't recall anyone saying that this book is a researched document to rival Jon's. It just seems that much of the anger thrown around in this thread is misplaced because I see a lot of passionate defense for claims that I just haven't seen made.

Maybe I need to go back to re-read the thread?

[Deleted]

I think some of the substantive criticism in this thread has merit to a degree.

The title of the book seems to be the root of the problem; the criticism that a book focusing on Appendix N cannot provide a complete "literary history" of D&D (no matter how loosely that term is understood) because Appendix N omits one of the founders and his literary influences from the history seems reasonable. (I'm taking for granted that the critics are accurate in terms of the details; the respective roles that Gygax and Arneson played in the game's creation is not a topic I know much about independently.)

But I don't think that meritorious criticism really supports the degree of the criticism made by @hedgehobbit: "Appendix N, and the study thereof, is complete crap."

The more moderate criticism made by cadriel -- "I am skeptical of people sitting down and reading Appendix N to divine how it influenced D&D. Saying that Gary Gygax got the megadungeon idea from The Sign of the Labrys is provably wrong, because Gygax got the idea from Dave Arneson." -- seems much more defensible. But that criticism also seems sidestepped easily enough. Just acknowledge the origin of the megadungeon and St. Claire's possible influence on Gygax's continued thinking on megadungeons.

[oakesspalding]

"I find Jeffro's ideas fairly repulsive. For instance, bashing Star Wars on the grounds that it is not sexist enough (as he does in his paean to A Princess of Mars) is the kind of thing that would make me throw the book violently if it were in print. It makes me feel unseemly for liking the adventure literature that I like."

"He complains that Princess Leia wasn't in a metal bikini until Return of the Jedi, and that a better space princess would have worn nothing but skimpy outfits like Dejah Thoris. I have a daughter to raise, I can't put up with that stuff, man."

May 31, 2017 13:39:05 GMT -6 cadriel said:

A book that doesn't discuss Tarnsman of Gor isn't a literary history of D&D; it is at best a book about Gary Gygax's personal favorites.

This is glorious.

[naleax]

I haven't read Jethro's book. But I just wanted to add this link to an article written by Gary Gygax in regards to Jack Vance and how that author influenced him. Many of you might have already seen this article. But it is substantial evidence regarding the influence of Vance's fiction on various parts of D&D.

www.dyingearth.com/files/GARY%20GYGAX%20JACK%20VANCE.pdf

[cadriel]

May 31, 2017 22:02:14 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

"I find Jeffro's ideas fairly repulsive. For instance, bashing Star Wars on the grounds that it is not sexist enough (as he does in his paean to A Princess of Mars) is the kind of thing that would make me throw the book violently if it were in print. It makes me feel unseemly for liking the adventure literature that I like."

"He complains that Princess Leia wasn't in a metal bikini until Return of the Jedi, and that a better space princess would have worn nothing but skimpy outfits like Dejah Thoris. I have a daughter to raise, I can't put up with that stuff, man."

May 31, 2017 13:39:05 GMT -6 cadriel said:

A book that doesn't discuss Tarnsman of Gor isn't a literary history of D&D; it is at best a book about Gary Gygax's personal favorites.

This is glorious.

I never said I liked the Gor novels, but their influence on D&D is significant and shouldn't be papered over just because the novels get really heavy on the squick factor.

[oakesspalding]

Jun 1, 2017 12:50:52 GMT -6 cadriel said:

I never said I liked the Gor novels, but their influence on D&D is significant and shouldn't be papered over just because the novels get really heavy on the squick factor.

As someone commented in another forum:

"There sure were a lot of pleasure slaves, giant bird riding warriors, alien insect overlords, lizard-riding nomads, and friendly intelligent giant spiders in D&D from that incredible Gor influence, huh?"

But putting that aside, Gor was not on Appendix N (thank God). The whole point of Jeffro's book, Appendix N was to analyze the books and authors in, wait for it...Appendix N.

Neither Jeffro, nor anyone, would deny or have denied that Arneson was (obviously) hugely influential - in one sense he came up with the whole idea of role-playing in the first place. And there are, no doubt, books that he read, and other books that Gygax read but didn't include on Appendix N that had some influence on this or that.

And then there is the influence from cheesy monster movies and Japanese action figures and all the rest of it.

SO WHAT? Everyone accepts that. If your objection is merely to the subtitle, "A Literary History of D&D," then okay. But with respect, why do you think you keep needing to say it? I got it the first time you said it.

As for me, I happen to think it's a fine subtitle. And I suspect most people, outside of a small minority, would agree. Is it in some sense a simplification or over-simplification? Sure. Good subtitles often do that. But if the claim is that Jeffro is trying to pull something over on everyone - by slyly including that atrociously misleading subtitle - in the service of the great pro-Gygax, anti-Arneson conspiracy or whatever, that's just loony.

And, of course, it's only a subtitle. The actual title is "Appendix N."

[oakesspalding]

I should say, too, even though discussing Gor is sort of beside the point when talking about Jeffro's book, it's arguably mildly interesting to ask how much Gor influenced D&D.

I think the answer is, on the main, not so much. Why do I say that? Well, among other things, there's a difference between influencing Arneson and influencing D&D.

Consider: Arneson said that he was influenced by Gor (I guess). But equally importantly, there are all sorts of Gor things in the First Fantasy Campaign, published by Judges Guild - a sort of compilation of Arneson's Blackmoor notes. There are female slaves (three varieties), slave trainers, tarn trainers and so on. Clearly, Arneson was very much influenced by Gor.

But guess what? All of those elements were taken out when it became time to write and publish D&D. Or to put it another way, D&D was intentionally purged of Gor influences. I assume that decision was made by Gygax, but it doesn't really matter. The point is, it was done.

Should it have been done? Well, I'm sure it disappointed Gor fans. On the other hand, to me, it's fairly obvious that you just don't want that Gore stuff in a quasi-mainstream game. But again, all that is beside the point. Gor was taken out. If it did influence D&D, it did so only at second-remove - by perhaps first helping to get Arenson excited or motivated or inspired to sketch out a detailed swords and sorcery campaign world. But it seems that that was the end of it.

[Deleted]

Is any Gor-related influence evident in the Blackmoor supplement?

[oakesspalding]

Jun 1, 2017 14:23:26 GMT -6 @dungeonmonkey said:

Is any Gor-related influence evident in the Blackmoor supplement?

Is the world of Gore overrun by endless varieties of aquatic creatures?

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2017 14:07:34 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

I should say, too, even though discussing Gor is sort of beside the point when talking about Jeffro's book, it's arguably mildly interesting to ask how much Gor influenced D&D.

I think the answer is, on the main, not so much. Why do I say that? Well, among other things, there's a difference between influencing Arneson and influencing D&D.

Consider: Arneson said that he was influenced by Gor (I guess). But equally importantly, there are all sorts of Gor things in the First Fantasy Campaign, published by Judges Guild - a sort of compilation of Arneson's Blackmoor notes. There are female slaves (three varieties), slave trainers, tarn trainers and so on. Clearly, Arneson was very much influenced by Gor.

But guess what? All of those elements were taken out when it became time to write and publish D&D. Or to put it another way, D&D was intentionally purged of Gor influences. I assume that decision was made by Gygax, but it doesn't really matter. The point is, it was done.

Should it have been done? Well, I'm sure it disappointed Gor fans. On the other hand, to me, it's fairly obvious that you just don't want that Gore stuff in a quasi-mainstream game. But again, all that is beside the point. Gor was taken out. If it did influence D&D, it did so only at second-remove - by perhaps first helping to get Arenson excited or motivated or inspired to sketch out a detailed swords and sorcery campaign world. But it seems that that was the end of it.

IIRC I read the first four Gor books in college and then lost interest as I could see the direction it was heading. There was quite a bit of the stuff in the first few books worth taking for your game. Somewhere buried in the bottom of a box I might still have some notes.

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2017 14:23:26 GMT -6 @dungeonmonkey said:

Is any Gor-related influence evident in the Blackmoor supplement?

Not that I can think of. Only a small amount of the stuff in the Blackmoor supplement is from Arneson. Most of his materials were alternate ways of doing things and Kask as the editor discarded them because they were not compatible with each other(i.e. alternate ways) and so we lost out on a fascinating look into the mind of Arneson.

[oakesspalding]

Jun 1, 2017 14:25:51 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

Jun 1, 2017 14:23:26 GMT -6 @dungeonmonkey said:

Is any Gor-related influence evident in the Blackmoor supplement?

Is the world of Gore overrun by endless varieties of aquatic creatures?

In the little brown books plus the three supplements, the only mention of slaves or slavery in the context of human slaves being held by human masters is, wait for it...in Blackmoor.

There are six mentions of slaves in The Temple of the Frog adventure. The Brothers need slaves and trade slaves for some reason or another.

Also, in the section on diseases, there's a brief mention of the effect of diseases on slaves (it's a bit different from the effect of diseases on soldiers).

I think we have a match.

I'm not trying to make any kind moral or anti-Arneson point here, but is seems like, for the purposes of gaming, Arneson was "into" slavery (Gor influence?), while Gygax was not.