Quote from: honeydipperdavid on March 27, 2023, 01:13:19 PM

Quote from: Brad on March 27, 2023, 01:09:47 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on March 27, 2023, 12:35:03 PM
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/473/759/2148159/

So what? The court thought Arneson deserved royalties because he came up with most of the original concept? I never disputed that whatsoever, I SPECIFICALLY STATED Gygax was the one who developed that concept into an industry. This would be like if some dude originally drew Mickey Mouse on a napkin then Disney turned him into a cartoon and trillion dollar company, but you want to insist they did the same amount of work because, you know, reasons. Yeah, original dude might get some royalties, but so what? Royalties in no way imply the amount of work put into a product. Take a look at the record industry...musicians showing up at a label with pretty much everything done and some "producer" gets massive royalties because he flipped a switch and turned on the microphones. There are a lot more Colonel Parkers than Phil Spectors...to extend the music analogy, Arneson shows up to the studio with the idea of a concept album, Gygax played all the instruments, recorded it, produced the albums, and setup distribution and sales. You're gonna probably get royalties from the court in that instance, but the reality is you didn't "design" shit.

To each their own, I'll go with the court case and TSR and WOTC take that lists Arneson and Gygax as co-creators of D&D and you can do whatever you want to do.

Go read the various histories of Arneson and Gygax. This has all been hashed out fairly well. The lawsuit went off on the written contracts between them, not on an analysis of Arneson's notes versus Gary's typing or interpretations, etc. The whole notes vs typing thing underlay those contracts, and was part of the background—and in legalese would have been discussed as to whether there was "consideration" for the written contracts.

No one can really say—and Jon Peterson makes this point—where Arneson's notes begin and end, what was Gary's own ideas, and what was the fruit of the frequent conversations *between* Arneson and Gary. People always forget that these two had ample correspondence and live conversations, and simply reducing the debate to notes versus typing is not accurate.

One last point—this one legal opinion people keep posting links to is NOT, I repeat NOT, a determination on the royalty rights. It is a court opinion on Gary's attempt to dismiss the case that was originally filed in Minnesota federal court on the grounds that Gary could not be sued there, and the court denied this motion on the grounds that Gary had enough "contacts" with the state of Minnesota to be sued there. It is NOT an opinion on the merits of the case.

doubled

Dude I get the point, gygax could type and organize into a book and arneson built the actual game that people played.  Gygax copied it, and he could type, welcome to the white box.  Next for Advanced D&D, Gygax wasn't able to come up with enough new concepts in the game that TSR had to pay royalties to Arneson.  Whereas WotC was able to come up with a new game where Gygax and Arneson lost royalty claims.  It doesn't mean Gygax didn't contribute anything creatively to D&D, it means D&D wasn't created solely by Gygax, it was Gygax and Arneson.

You didn't convince me in the least.  The vast majority of people consider Arneson and Gygax as creators of D&D.  You can believe whatever you want bless your heart.  I believe what I read, what I see, legal case, and historical record over you.  I'm sorry you are not an authoritative source.  Your opinion stinks and I doubt any one would use it as a footnote on this issue.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on March 27, 2023, 02:19:57 PM
Dude I get the point, gygax could type and organize into a book and arneson built the actual game that people played.  Gygax copied it, and he could type, welcome to the white box.  Next for Advanced D&D, Gygax wasn't able to come up with enough new concepts in the game that TSR had to pay royalties to Arneson.  Whereas WotC was able to come up with a new game where Gygax and Arneson lost royalty claims.  It doesn't mean Gygax didn't contribute anything creatively to D&D, it means D&D wasn't created solely by Gygax, it was Gygax and Arneson.

You didn't convince me in the least.  The vast majority of people consider Arneson and Gygax as creators of D&D.  You can believe whatever you want bless your heart.  I believe what I read, what I see, legal case, and historical record over you.  I'm sorry you are not an authoritative source.  Your opinion stinks and I doubt any one would use it as a footnote on this issue.

Who are you speaking/referring to? The earlier posters you were debating or my last post, or both? You say "your opinion stinks" but isn't clear at all which poster you are referring to, or which statement of opinion you are referring to.

I know my opinion is based on having read everything by Jon Peterson, as well as hearing him on about four or five different interviews, reading Ben Riggs book, and reading the biography of Gygax and the multi-volume history of tabletop rpgs. I also actually read the legal opinion that keeps getting linked to, and as a lawyer of 25 years I can read such opinions with at least a little competence and authority.

Again, I have stated two different things—(1) that the record is confused on just how to apportion credit between Arneson and Gygax, an opinion voiced by Peterson and most everyone else; and (2) that the lawsuit was based on the contracts (referred to in the legal opinion as "royalty agreements") between Gygax/TSR and Arneson, not on the underlying facts themselves of sorting out who was responsible for what. If you read  the opinion, or have read Peterson's work on this, the second opinion is incontrovertible. People obviously have differing opinions on the first issue.

That Reddit thread gave me brain damage. People arguing based on 2nd and 3rd hand info. Hearsay is not admissible in court for a reason.

As for arguing over who created more of D&D, Arneson or Gygax? I can't imagine a bigger waste of time. We wouldn't have D&D without both of them. We would certainly have TTRPGs, since it was in the air at the time, but the history would be vastly different.

Quote from: GamerforHire on March 27, 2023, 02:56:53 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on March 27, 2023, 02:19:57 PM
Dude I get the point, gygax could type and organize into a book and arneson built the actual game that people played.  Gygax copied it, and he could type, welcome to the white box.  Next for Advanced D&D, Gygax wasn't able to come up with enough new concepts in the game that TSR had to pay royalties to Arneson.  Whereas WotC was able to come up with a new game where Gygax and Arneson lost royalty claims.  It doesn't mean Gygax didn't contribute anything creatively to D&D, it means D&D wasn't created solely by Gygax, it was Gygax and Arneson.

You didn't convince me in the least.  The vast majority of people consider Arneson and Gygax as creators of D&D.  You can believe whatever you want bless your heart.  I believe what I read, what I see, legal case, and historical record over you.  I'm sorry you are not an authoritative source.  Your opinion stinks and I doubt any one would use it as a footnote on this issue.

Who are you speaking/referring to? The earlier posters you were debating or my last post, or both? You say "your opinion stinks" but isn't clear at all which poster you are referring to, or which statement of opinion you are referring to.

I know my opinion is based on having read everything by Jon Peterson, as well as hearing him on about four or five different interviews, reading Ben Riggs book, and reading the biography of Gygax and the multi-volume history of tabletop rpgs. I also actually read the legal opinion that keeps getting linked to, and as a lawyer of 25 years I can read such opinions with at least a little competence and authority.

Again, I have stated two different things—(1) that the record is confused on just how to apportion credit between Arneson and Gygax, an opinion voiced by Peterson and most everyone else; and (2) that the lawsuit was based on the contracts (referred to in the legal opinion as "royalty agreements") between Gygax/TSR and Arneson, not on the underlying facts themselves of sorting out who was responsible for what. If you read  the opinion, or have read Peterson's work on this, the second opinion is incontrovertible. People obviously have differing opinions on the first issue.

its not you the other guy, the quoting on this site ain't great man.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on March 27, 2023, 02:19:57 PM
You didn't convince me in the least.

So?

QuoteThe vast majority of people consider Arneson and Gygax as creators of D&D.

Did I dispute this? At all? You have poor reading comprehension skills if you believe so.

QuoteYou can believe whatever you want bless your heart.  I believe what I read, what I see, legal case, and historical record over you.  I'm sorry you are not an authoritative source.  Your opinion stinks and I doubt any one would use it as a footnote on this issue.

Except it bears out based on all the evidence, not purely a single court case that granted royalties. You SURE You really shouldn't just be posting over on reddit?

EDIT: I actually had to go back and re-read all your replies...I think you have fucking brain damage. You're trying to argue that Gygax didn't do anything but type up Arneson's notes, I guess? I don't even know.

Arneson adapted Chainmail from Gygax and created a brand new genre called RPG.  Yes/No?

Gygax took Arnesons game, typed it out and added some of his own stuff to make the White Box. Yes/No?

Without Arneson there is no D&D, do you understand that?  What Gygax would have been doing is putting out wargame material for Guidon Games, do you understand that Yes/No?

The plurality of content for the White Box was Arneson, for the first Basic Edition one could argue how much was Gygax and how much Arneson that Holmes used, however giving it a split is more than likely the outcome Yes/No?

QuoteIt doesn't mean Gygax didn't contribute anything creatively to D&D, it means D&D wasn't created solely by Gygax, it was Gygax and Arneson.

The thing here on this thread, you just want to argue.  What's wrong today, you get fired, mom kick you out of the home or you just want to be a miserable cur.  I never said Gygax didn't contribute to D&D, I said quite clearly and concisely that both Gygax and Arneson are the creators of D&D.

Quote from: Venka on March 27, 2023, 12:48:44 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 27, 2023, 10:13:05 AM
The "nits make lice" and "slaughter converts after conversion" statements on dragonsfoot are disturbing.

I don't find them disturbing at all.  So I wouldn't say the are objectively disturbing- Gygax obviously didn't think so either.  Certainly, some might be disturbed by them, but to make that as an objective statement?  I strongly disagree.

Greetings!

"KILL THEM ALL. LET GOD SORT THEM OUT!"

All the crying pussies. Shrieking about Gygax talking about stuff. Gygax was right! There's nothing disturbing about anything that Gygax said. Some people have difficulties separating a game from reality, apparently. *Laughing*

I agree Venka!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I have a bunch of thoughts on this.

Gygax had the ability to take ideas from other people and make them into useful products. He did it with Chainmail. He did it with Alexander the Great. He did it with Dungeons & Dragons. I think he did it with Boot Hill. Probably many others. He could look at an idea and think, "yeah, it's a start but I can make it better." That's not an easy thing to do, particularly when you are creating something that no one else has created before.

Arneson had the idea, but it was also based on previous ideas he saw from David Wesely. He took a collaborative experience and put some structure to it and made a campaign out of it. And played it for a year or more before Gygax even heard of it. But Arneson could never really develop it. I understand that because I have yellow pads full of cool ideas or scenarios I have run but nothing developed into a marketable product. Arneson wasn't into promotion, but Gygax was.

Gygax took the things he improved and told folks about it. He wrote articles for magazines. He engaged in discussion about the things he worked on and tried to generate enthusiasm. He organized conventions and groups of people to channel their energies into support of products he liked. Gygax was a natural promoter.

It frustrates me that we spend so much time arguing about who made what. Arneson gave Gygax pages of notes, probably mostly tables and stuff which wasn't really fleshed out but was complete enough for him to run his campaign. Gygax wanted something that could be sold to folks who had never experienced Arneson in action, so he connected the dots and added mechanics where needed and made the product something which could be sold to others. D&D would never have happened without the collaboration of the two. How much did Arneson contribute? Dunno, but some sources say 18 or more pages, which (considering the layout of the OD&D books) might have been between a quarter to a half of the original product. How much did Gygax contribute? Dunno, but probably the rest of the product, although playtesting with others like Rob Kuntz were happening and we'll never know how much they might have contributed as well.

Collaboration is like that. Look at the history of science and you'll see lots of Laws named after individuals, but if you dig deep you find that great scientists often corresponded and gave each other ideas but the credit was ultimately assigned to one of them. Beyond a certain point, the "who did what" argument is pointless because we'll never really get to the answer because most of the folks involved have already passed. We will never really know. Court documents don't really answer the question, either. We know that Gygax shared credit for OD&D, then tried not to share credit for AD&D. In his mind, at least, there was enough of a difference in the games (or the contribution) to merit a change. I'm no lawyer, but I understand that court rulings often come down to proof and not "right" versus "wrong" in an issue.

I know that a lot of my opinions from the 1970's were based on (and biased by) statements made by Gygax because he had Dragon and he had TSR and he wrote stuff. Arneson did an occasional interview but otherwise said little. Bottom line is that neither gentleman is with us to advance his own cause or answer questions. I don't see that us arguing about it will gain anything because each side can only advance their cause by bashing the other side, and instead of arriving at an answer we just circle the same questions again and again. And none of us were actually there.

Quote from: finarvyn on March 27, 2023, 04:26:45 PM
He could look at an idea and think, "yeah, it's a start but I can make it better." That's not an easy thing to do, particularly when you are creating something that no one else has created before.

Not Cyborg Commando.  There was no Wizard spell that could fix that 

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on March 27, 2023, 04:17:26 PM
Arneson adapted Chainmail from Gygax and created a brand new genre called RPG.  Yes/No?

Gygax took Arnesons game, typed it out and added some of his own stuff to make the White Box. Yes/No?

Without Arneson there is no D&D, do you understand that?  What Gygax would have been doing is putting out wargame material for Guidon Games, do you understand that Yes/No?

The plurality of content for the White Box was Arneson, for the first Basic Edition one could argue how much was Gygax and how much Arneson that Holmes used, however giving it a split is more than likely the outcome Yes/No?

QuoteIt doesn't mean Gygax didn't contribute anything creatively to D&D, it means D&D wasn't created solely by Gygax, it was Gygax and Arneson.

The thing here on this thread, you just want to argue.  What's wrong today, you get fired, mom kick you out of the home or you just want to be a miserable cur.  I never said Gygax didn't contribute to D&D, I said quite clearly and concisely that both Gygax and Arneson are the creators of D&D.

Okay, I think you're actually retarded. Carry on.

Quote from: GhostNinja on March 27, 2023, 04:52:10 PM
Not Cyborg Commando.  There was no Wizard spell that could fix that 

I got a copy of that out of curiosity...how it got published is beyond me. I guess name recognition goes a long way.

Quote from: Brad on March 27, 2023, 05:54:44 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on March 27, 2023, 04:17:26 PM
Arneson adapted Chainmail from Gygax and created a brand new genre called RPG.  Yes/No?

Gygax took Arnesons game, typed it out and added some of his own stuff to make the White Box. Yes/No?

Without Arneson there is no D&D, do you understand that?  What Gygax would have been doing is putting out wargame material for Guidon Games, do you understand that Yes/No?

The plurality of content for the White Box was Arneson, for the first Basic Edition one could argue how much was Gygax and how much Arneson that Holmes used, however giving it a split is more than likely the outcome Yes/No?

QuoteIt doesn't mean Gygax didn't contribute anything creatively to D&D, it means D&D wasn't created solely by Gygax, it was Gygax and Arneson.

The thing here on this thread, you just want to argue.  What's wrong today, you get fired, mom kick you out of the home or you just want to be a miserable cur.  I never said Gygax didn't contribute to D&D, I said quite clearly and concisely that both Gygax and Arneson are the creators of D&D.

Okay, I think you're actually retarded. Carry on.

Quote from: GhostNinja on March 27, 2023, 04:52:10 PM
Not Cyborg Commando.  There was no Wizard spell that could fix that 

I got a copy of that out of curiosity...how it got published is beyond me. I guess name recognition goes a long way.

Well son you don't have reading comprehension, I'm done with you.

Quote from: finarvyn on March 27, 2023, 04:26:45 PM
I have a bunch of thoughts on this.

Crazy talk! Crazy! 

Jokes aside, these accusations from the OP are all old as dirt, as you know. Any informed, rational assessment of them dispels them, but some people just aren't interested. Anyway, hope you are well, Fin. Take care!

This all reminds me of the "Stan Lee was a hack that stole everything from Jack Kirby" horseshit that's become popular with midwits for the last decade or two.

Kirby was a talented guy, but he was a blue collar guy, always taking the short money. Yeah Lee over-worked Kirby and paid him peanuts, but historically that's how publishing houses treated writers and artists. Famous writers like Lovecraft and Howard cranked out stories just to make rent. Kirby was also famous for taking cash in hand over royalties.

What did Lee do? He built a brand. The guy was a relentless promoter, and turned Marvel in to a respected company, with T.V. deals and character recognition.

Stripping Gygax from the legacy of D&D because he allegedly did the same to Arneson makes zero sense, and is only suggested by cultural wreckers that want to tear down every pillar of Western civilization, no matter how minor. If Gygax was an Inuit Lesbian who'd swiped 99% of D&D from Arneson, these same types would fight tooth and claw to prop up said legacy.

TLDR: people can be shitty, and still do amazing things, worthy of recognition.