I love Arneson, I really do.  I think Blackmoor was brilliant, and I recognize that he had an important role on the creation of D&D.

However, I think that there are a lot of people out there who have a "love" of Dave Arneson that it would be polite to call "Exaggerated" (and impolite but perhaps honest to call "fake").  They like to point out how unappreciated Arneson was in relation to Gygax, how the latter somehow "stole" credit that wasn't his fair due, how influential Arneson was, etc.

I notice that a lot of people who are allegedly Arneson fans in public will, in other discourses, actually demonstrate that they aren't D&D fans at all, so one would have to wonder about that.  Let's see, you hate D&D, you hate Gary Gygax, but you LOVE Dave Arneson? It wouldn't be that your love of Arneson is just bullshit meant to give what seems like justifiable argument for calling Gary Gygax a poopyhead?

And let's look at the facts too: There's no question that Arneson had a certain influence, but D&D was Gary's game.  Gygax was more than anything "inspired" by some of the influence of Arneson, rather than collaborated with him, by pretty much all accounts.  It was Gygax who actually wrote the damn rules, and turned something that Arneson wsa just goofing off with into an actual system.  It was also Gygax who then marketed and sold that system and turned it into a multi-million dollar idea, who brought D&D to the world. And Gygax was the one by far more instrumental of the two to the later development of the game for all of the 70s and the first half of the 80s.

So yeah, its because I myself love Dave Arneson that it profoundly pisses me off to see manipulative Swine using his name as a pawn in their efforts to try to smear the memory of Gary Gygax.

RPGPundit

The reverse is also true, that there are people who have a passion for EGG's work that will somehow have an axe to grind with Dave Arneson. Part of it is trying to justify some ways of gaming, part of it is getting into real life fights that really, we would do best to allow to lay to rest once and for all.

I don't think there are any sides to choose in which one has to like one of those two and hate on the other. It is true, however, that they had different ways to look at the game, and I think the game itself benefitted from their different approaches at the time of its conception at least. Beyond that, I think it's to each their own.

Pundit when you say you love Blackmoor are you talking about the campaign world or Supplement I: Blackmoor?

I realize that they're largely coterminous but not entirely, and I want a clarification before I say anything else.

With that said: Dave was a member of the local Historical Miniatures Gaming Society here in the Orlando area (as well as a game design teacher at Full Sail).  I met Mr. Arneson back in 2004; he seemed like a nice enough fellow.  He ribbed me about my running an AD&D game at one of the HMGS cons (I'd billed it as "Original AD&D" and he rolled by my table and said "Oh it said 'Original AD&D', I thought I'd come over and found you playing the wrong game.")

But that's neither here nor there.  I have heard many shaggy dog stories to the effect that Dave invented the whole thing and Gary in a snit stole it all and slapped his name on it then proceeded to shut Dave out, and there are of course two sides to every story so I imagine there are people who firmly believe that to be true and accordingly greatly dislike Gary and will disparage him at any turn.  I have also heard from Tim Kask (and if you go over to Dragonsfoot.org and ask he'll repeat it, it is no secret) that Arneson did little more than offer vague ideas and mean-spirited grousing along with bundles of unrelated and nearly unusable notes while at TSR rather than something that could be turned into playable products, and Kask basically wrote Blackmoor.

Regardless, if there was a "Dave V. Gary" Donnybrook ongoing over the years between them, they sure as hell hid it.  In fact, TSR (under Gary) re-hired Arneson to produce, on spec, the DA series of modules for Basic D&D.  Gary left before the completion, and Williams with the shadow administration of the Blumes declined to continue the series.  Gary's attitude was always one of professional courtesy and politeness whenever they met, so I'm told.

Ultimately, I don't have any strong feelings either way.  Until I get a videotaped confession of Gary proclaiming his intent to steal Dave's work or a signed affidavit that Arneson was a lazy boor, I harbor no feelings regarding the brou-ha-ha.

Quote from: Benoist;434626The reverse is also true, that there are people who have a passion for EGG's work that will somehow have an axe to grind with Dave Arneson. Part of it is trying to justify some ways of gaming, part of it is getting into real life fights that really, we would do best to allow to lay to rest once and for all.

This seems far far less common to me. Unless (correctly) pointing out that their's was not in fact a "lennon-mccartney" style relationship is somehow "having an axe to grind".

RPGPundit

I mean the campaign setting, though I have nothing in particular against "supplement I".

RPGPundit

They obviously had their respective strengths and weaknesses -- Arneson's boundless creativity sometimes bordering on the incomprehensible, EGG's great skill in capturing the roleplaying game concept in comprehensible systems (and sub-systems) sometimes delving into pedantry, and the pompous venom of "Dragon editorial Gary". They had different creative approaches, which jointly made the game what it is.

Of the two, EGG wrote a lot while Dave barely anything. So, the former is maligned on the basis of his available work (and very often on his most ingenious design decisions - classes, levels, hit points and the memorisation system), while in the case of the latter, we see a lot more projection - wishful thinking and also condemnation. Both can be and have been used as proxies in various game-related flame wars. Yeah, I have seen WW-fan/forgies/whoever use their fantasy of Arneson as a proxy to attack "traditional gaming", but then I have also seen a Story Games thread use Lorraine Williams as a hopeful example of progress in gaming. Not too relevant.

As for me, I'm interested in learning more about Brian Blume's vision of the game. I like Eldritch Wizardry quite a lot, which he co-authored, so who knows where he might have taken D&D. Maybe in pretty exciting directions with lots of demons, devils, and naked chicks lounging on altars.

Quote from: Melan;434672Yeah, I have seen WW-fan/forgies/whoever use their fantasy of Arneson as a proxy to attack "traditional gaming", but then I have also seen a Story Games thread use Lorraine Williams as a hopeful example of progress in gaming.

Oh my God. What the fuck is this? :banghead:

I don't understand how either Gygax or Arneson are put on pedestals. Yes, they gave us roleplaying, and that is awesome. However, they are not gods and made just as many mistakes as they did achievements.

Also, how the hell can anyone hold up Lorraine Williams as a good thing?

Quote from: RPGPundit;434665I mean the campaign setting, though I have nothing in particular against "supplement I".

RPGPundit

Aside from 'who created what' or 'who influenced what' debate......


At GenCon as a person I and other fans had more interaction with Arneson than we did with Gygax.
 
Dave Arneson was generally a friendly guy and easy to get along with. Back when I was doing the charity jail there he often would put his kids and grandkids in the jail and shoot the breeze with us.

 All around nice guy.

I only saw Gygax twice in those 10 plus years - and one of times is the elevator moment that I already related in other threads.


- Ed C.

I'm sure that "Arneson-love" for some is "Gygax-hate" -- and vice versa. However, I suspect these people are in the minority.

I interacted with both Gary and Dave online and liked them both. I never much liked "Corporate Gary/Dragon Editorial Gary" but the real Gary was okay as was the real Dave. No hate for either here.

Quote from: RPGPundit;434665I mean the campaign setting, though I have nothing in particular against "supplement I".

RPGPundit

Okay.  I ask because Tim Kask will straight up tell you he wrote Supplement I, not Arneson.

In addition to endorsing Melan's summary & interpretation, I'll point out that much of the "who really did what" is sealed up in documents that are subject to a legal gag. The only Arneson partisans (or Gygax partisans for that matter) who interest me are the ones with first-hand experience, like Svenny and Robert the Bald over at K&K. On the other hand I don't have much time for fanciful attempts to write Gygax out of D&D such as Dragons at Dawn, which I hereby dub the Piltdown Man of the OSR.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;434734On the other hand I don't have much time for fanciful attempts to write Gygax out of D&D such as Dragons at Dawn, which I hereby dub the Piltdown Man of the OSR.

Wait what the hell now?

There may be Arneson Love and Gygax hate but I have to be honest, I don't really care about either of them.

Neither of them really matter to me.  I play the games I enjoy, I dont care about the people behind the games.

Quote from: thedungeondelverOkay. I ask because Tim Kask will straight up tell you he wrote Supplement I, not Arneson.

He sure didn't write Temple of the Frog, which really makes Supplement II. It is actually a very good and very open-ended scenario (okay, the first dungeon level strains disbelief with ~1000 soldiers housed in a few small barrack rooms... scale that down and it is gold, solid gold).

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;434734On the other hand I don't have much time for fanciful attempts to write Gygax out of D&D such as Dragons at Dawn, which I hereby dub the Piltdown Man of the OSR.

Apt! :cool: