Gary Gygax did Not Invent Role Playing or D&D - He Only Published It.

[Number 6]

I hope it's long enough after GG's death to be able to talk truth about him. Still, I expect a lot of flame mail from Gygax Worshippers for this one. (They're worse than Scientologist.) Please, feel free to disagree with me, but only if you have a good argument, not a knee-jerk "How dare he dis St. Gygax the Perfect!" reaction.

Ok, here's what happened. Jeff Perren invented a miniature war game system. GG took these rules (with Perren's permission) and made a supplement for fantasy combat and released it as Chainmail. Dave Arneson, meanwhile, invented a new thing called a Role Playing Game. He used Chainmail rules as a basis for the combat system. He told GG about this, and Gygax said it was OK, and even helped him improve on the system. Mostly, he invented a lot of the spells and the monsters and play tested the game. So, Gygax was a contributor to the game, not the inventor. If you don't believe me, check Wikipedia.

Later, Gygax said he wanted to publish D&D. Arneson said it was OK, but Arneson was broke, so GG raised all the money and published it himself. He deserves a room in the RP Hall of Fame for this, publishing the first RP game. But, he put himself down as co-author instead of contributor; he even put his name in front of Arneson's. Arneson didn't get a penny.

Next he came out with Advanced D&D. Arneson's name wasn't even on the cover; Gygax claimed that, since it was Advanced, it was a whole new game and Arneson didn't deserve credit.

Also, Gygax was a jerk. Other than stealing the game, there are some other things that ol' GG pulled.

First edition had hobbits, balrogs, and other Tolkien stuff. He used this without permission, but the Tolkein family didn't make a fuss. Then, he threatened another game company (Iron Crown) for using Hobbits and Balrogs, claiming they were his property. This P.O.'d the Tolkeins so much, that they banned him from any copyrighted stuff, and AD&D had Halflings and Balors instead. Later, he pulled the same stunt with the word "Nazi".

Gygax was a war game designer, not a role playing designer. Even though it was supposedly a role playing game, D&D first edition had little-to-no role playing in it. D&D and AD&D never told us how to role play or that we were supposed to role play, other than a short note that we would go by the name of our character on page 5 of the blue book version. (I don't have the brown cover version, anyone can read through them and check for me). Instead, he taught us that RPing was just kicking in doors, killing things, and collecting treasure. All the books were devoted to combat, treasure, traps, and monsters. All adventures started with a bunch of people meeting in a tavern because he never told us how to form a party or make plot hooks. The example of play showed a bunch of players kicking in a door and killing monsters. The whole first generation of role players were taught to play it like a war game. Most still do. I didn't realize, myself, that there was more to it than collecting treasure until some friends introduced me to Traveller and RuneQuest.

Even though the game had a lot of flaws and downright stupid rules in it (which give Dave Burlew fodder for his strip), he refused to update or change the game in any way. In fact, he was famous for ripping into gamers and publishers for suggesting improvements. They didn't correct any of the stupid rules until long after GG had been driven out of TSR.

GG would often not show up to conventions; instead he would send his little brother. Little Brother was a nice guy, but people payed the money to see him, not his brother. He still insisted on being paid, though.

GG was a sadistic GM. He came up with improbable and intricate ways to kill of players. Look at some of the monsters in the Fiend Folio and traps in the Tomb of Horrors.

[TheCountAlucard]

Err, just a minor point... Dave Burlew?

[Number 6]

Err, just a minor point... Dave Burlew?

I stand corrected. I had Dave Arneson on the brain and called everyone Dave. What are you doing Dave? Daisy daisyyyy....

[arguskos]

If you don't believe me, check Wikipedia.

Ok, not saying your wrong or anything, but.... in college, and high school even, the prevailing opinion is that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for information. If you'd like to make a point about historical events, please, for the love of all that is holy and wonderful, don't use Wikipedia. Use reliable, non-free-to-all sources. Just saying.

On topic, all I can say is... MEH. I don't honestly care if Gygax invented it, stole it, whatever. He WAS very involved, and he WAS a major player in the development of the early game, so, I give him credit. Also, Arneson was a major player in the development too, so, he gets credit in my mind. It sucks that Gygax ripped him off, and that Gygax was a **** both to fans and personally, but it's in the past. Why care now?

Lastly, the man is DEAD. Let's try to show a little respect for those that died, mmkay? No need to trash his already pretty poor image now that he kicked it. Let Gygax, and the issue of D&D's authorship, rest in it's well-deserved grave.

-argus

[Covered In Bees]

Lastly, the man is DEAD. Let's try to show a little respect for those that died, mmkay?

I guess you're right. That King George III was one fine, upstanding dude! Elizabeth Bathory? Well, we know what she did, but we couldn't speak ill of the dead!

(PROTIP: dead people don't have feelings to hurt.)

[Number 6]

Reply to Arguskos, for once Wikipedia is right. There are a lot of more dependable sources that prove I'm right; I only quoted Wiki because it's the easiest to find.

[Matthew]

Er, what's the point in this thread? None of the above is particularly revelatory, it's all fairly well known stuff (even if a good deal of it is being misconstrued here) and available to read on Wikipedia (by your own admission) if anybody is interested. Sounds to me like you are just looking for a poop throwing match.

[ufo]

Ok, not saying your wrong or anything, but.... in college, and high school even, the prevailing opinion is that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for information. If you'd like to make a point about historical events, please, for the love of all that is holy and wonderful, don't use Wikipedia. Use reliable, non-free-to-all sources. Just saying.

Couldn't I write a book saying that Stalin was born in China and was raised with a tribe of sharks, and that he is half-horse half-man?

Generally, I dont see that as a viable argument that Wikipedia is a bad source.

[Number 6]

I want Arneson to get the credit he deserves.

Er, what's the point in this thread? None of the above is particularly revelatory, it's all fairly well known stuff (even if a good deal of it is being misconstrued here) and available to read on Wikipedia (by your own admission) if anybody is interested. Sounds to me like you are just looking for a poop throwing match.

[Chronicled]

Couldn't I write a book saying that Stalin was born in China and was raised with a tribe of sharks, and that he is half-horse half-man?

That would actually explain a lot.

[Greg]

D&D and AD&D never told us how to role play or that we were supposed to role play

Isn't that up to individual GM's/players? Being told how to roleplay seems kind of redundant.

As I understand it, the rules are there to be used around rule 0.

[nagora]

If you don't believe me, check Wikipedia.

"Wikiquote rule": once someone quotes Wikipedia in their post they have given up all claim to authority - even over their own opinions - and are therefore out of the discussion, which may freely continue without them.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

"Wikiquote rule": once someone quotes Wikipedia in their post they have given up all claim to authority - even over their own opinions - and are therefore out of the discussion, which may freely continue without them.

The OP did mention that there were other sources.

[Matthew]

I want Arneson to get the credit he deserves.

He already gets credited as the co-designer of Dungeons & Dragons; what more is needed?

[nagora]

I want Arneson to get the credit he deserves.

Everyone who cares already knows, and they probably have a better idea than you. For instance, what were the changes EGG made to Arneson's game that we now take for granted as part of D&D even in 4e?

[Jayngfet]

Isn't all of this well known and public knowledge and has been for years?

[Matthew]

Isn't all of this well known and public knowledge and has been for years?

Yes it is (though usually not characterised in quite so one sided terms).

[Tengu_temp]

Gygax was a war game designer, not a role playing designer. Even though it was supposedly a role playing game, D&D first edition had little-to-no role playing in it. D&D and AD&D never told us how to role play or that we were supposed to role play, other than a short note that we would go by the name of our character on page 5 of the blue book version. (I don't have the brown cover version, anyone can read through them and check for me). Instead, he taught us that RPing was just kicking in doors, killing things, and collecting treasure. All the books were devoted to combat, treasure, traps, and monsters. All adventures started with a bunch of people meeting in a tavern because he never told us how to form a party or make plot hooks. The example of play showed a bunch of players kicking in a door and killing monsters. The whole first generation of role players were taught to play it like a war game. Most still do. I didn't realize, myself, that there was more to it than collecting treasure until some friends introduced me to Traveller and RuneQuest.

<snip>

GG was a sadistic GM. He came up with improbable and intricate ways to kill of players. Look at some of the monsters in the Fiend Folio and traps in the Tomb of Horrors.

And these two points are why Gygaxian is used to describe a DMing style that consists only of HNS and the DM working against the players, not with them.

[Fostire]

Ok, not saying your wrong or anything, but.... in college, and high school even, the prevailing opinion is that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for information. If you'd like to make a point about historical events, please, for the love of all that is holy and wonderful, don't use Wikipedia. Use reliable, non-free-to-all sources. Just saying.

I was going to point out the exact same thing. On the reliability scale i put wikipedia one step above "google it", and "google it" one step above "a friend told me"
PS: i'm not saying that wikipedia is incorrect, just that i wouldn't bet my life on it.

[Matthew]

And these two points are why Gygaxian is used to describe a DMing style that consists only of HNS and the DM working against the players, not with them.

And yet the advice in the DMG runs entirely contrary to those assumptions. It's a merry go round.

[nagora]

Gygax was a war game designer, not a role playing designer. Even though it was supposedly a role playing game, D&D first edition had little-to-no role playing in it.

I disagree.

D&D and AD&D never told us how to role play or that we were supposed to role play, other than a short note that we would go by the name of our character on page 5 of the blue book version. (I don't have the brown cover version, anyone can read through them and check for me). Instead, he taught us that RPing was just kicking in doors, killing things, and collecting treasure.

Not so for AD&D, and OD&D certainly had expanded well beyond that before AD&D hit the streets.

All the books were devoted to combat, treasure, traps, and monsters.

Simply, factually wrong. 1e DMG has a lot dealing with out-of-combat development of a character's place in society, as well as what form that society might take. There's almost nothing in the standard AD&D books about traps.

All adventures started with a bunch of people meeting in a tavern because he never told us how to form a party or make plot hooks.

Also wrong.

The example of play showed a bunch of players kicking in a door and killing monsters.

An example somewhere might have.

The whole first generation of role players were taught to play it like a war game.

I wasn't and it was very, very clear from the off that it was not a wargame. Indeed, the battlefield rules were the last expansion for OD&D.

Most still do. I didn't realize, myself, that there was more to it than collecting treasure until some friends introduced me to Traveller and RuneQuest.

That's your problem.

Even though the game had a lot of flaws and downright stupid rules in it he refused to update or change the game in any way.

Strange, I have a pile of updates from EGG that are about a foot thick and all published by TSR.

In fact, he was famous for ripping into gamers and publishers for suggesting improvements. They didn't correct any of the stupid rules until long after GG had been driven out of TSR.

He was over-zealous on the notion of keeping the core rules clear to allow tournament play.

GG would often not show up to conventions; instead he would send his little brother. Little Brother was a nice guy, but people payed the money to see him, not his brother. He still insisted on being paid, though.

And Dave Arneson charges kids $5 for an autograph; is he evil too?

GG was a sadistic GM. He came up with improbable and intricate ways to kill of players. Look at some of the monsters in the Fiend Folio and traps in the Tomb of Horrors.

EGG gave players the rope; by and large they could choose whether or not to hang themselves. I've never seen a Gygax module that killed careful players without hope of survival, or anything like it - including ToH.

Also, Fiend Folio was mostly non-Gygax work, as you would know if you looked at the credits in the back.

Gee, do you WRITE for Wikipedia?

[expirement10K14]

The reason wikipedia is frowned upon is that anyone can edit it, and it isn't that reliable at all.

Although what you say is true, it is one sided. I did a research paper on gygax, and he edited Arneson's work, and Arneson wasn't involved after the first game. If you look, AD&D changed quite a bit, and as Arneson wasn't involved he doesn't really deserve credit for its creation.

[Matthew]

I wasn't and it was very, very clear from the off that it was not a wargame. Indeed, the battlefield rules were the last expansion for OD&D.

As I recall, OD&D was marketed as "Swords & Sorcery Wargaming with Paper and Pencil and Miniatures", but that was before a clear division was established between "Roleplaying Games and War Games". Lest we become too enamoured of Arneson's own 'roleplaying' skills, let's recall the report in Strategic Review #3 of his ongoing game:

Dave (The Fiend) Arneson relates the following: “We had an interesting game this weekend in preparation for the great SUPER-NAZI confrontation. A band of heroes went through the ol’ teleporter, and after mucking around awhile (robbery, kidnapping, murder, rape, etc.) the locals sent the police and army after them. (The Germans thought it was guerrilla activity.) The army finally found the farm they were using as a camp and moved in to search it. While thus busily employed the heroes returned from a foray and ambushed them. It was The Great Svenny, Marty the Elf, Richard the Hairy, and 5 berserkers against 26 soldiers with 2 cars, 2 trucks, 4 light mg’s, 2 motars (60 mm), and the usual bevy of small arms. Marty the Elf and 2 berserkers were killed, while the tropps lost 7 KIA and 1 wounded before fleeing — good thing too, for shortly thereafter the remainder of the heroes’ force arrived, 3 magical types and another 12 berserkers! The Nazis will certainly be back in strength, and this will result in a big battle . . . ” The LGTSA fought a somewhat similar action in May, and the German patrol managed to save about one-third of its force. However, a panzerfaust certainly takes a troll out in a hurry, and had the Krauts been alert they might have done pretty well. The surviving veterans of such a fantastic confrontation would prove to be stout competition for dungeon adventurers and friends. Such mixing of historical periods with D&D makes for some interesting game situations. If readers are sufficiently interested we will eventually put out some detailed information as to how we manage to belod such widely varying periods — but not too soon, for we are still working bugs out of the systems.

Uh huh.

[kentma57]

First of all, the role-playing aspect of the game is(usually) up to the DM with the mechanics provided by the system(like I don't know a war-game).

Secondly, most people who care know that D&D was not created by one person alone and has significantly change under the influence of hundreds(if you don't count players who right in) of people over the years.

Thrid, if you wanted to talk about Jeff Perren's or Dave Arneson's contribution to the system why didn't you call the thread "Why I feal that Jeff Perren and Dave Arneson are under credited for the creation of role-playing games."?(apart from the length)

Forth, why did you bring what you though of EGG's personality? I could be the meanest person in the world but does that change the quality of my argument?

Fifth, why even bring this up EGG(rest his soul) is dead and Dave Arneson moved on(why don't you) founded his own succesful RPG company and then retired. Will bringing this up make your games more fun, are you trying to make EGG(rest his soul) guilty or will dicrediting someone that Dave Arneson worked with for many years make him happy?

To close I see no benefit to this argument and I feel that it should be put to rest as soon as posible.

ps:

Spoiler

Show

Generally, I don't see that as a viable argument that Wikipedia is a bad source.

While I will not argue that wikipedia can be a valuable source of knowledge. The reason Wikipedia can be a problem is that when someone presents an argument and sites wikipedia they can edit what ever page they are discussing to favor their views(or an oponent could change it to favor their views). I certainly do not mean to imply that "Number 6" would do this, but I have had people do this to me before and I must point out the flaw in referencing wikipedia during an argument.

pps: If I was to harsh, I apologize(a bit) but my point still stands.

[Tsadrin]

First edition had hobbits, balrogs, and other Tolkien stuff. He used this without permission, but the Tolkein family didn't make a fuss. Then, he threatened another game company (Iron Crown) for using Hobbits and Balrogs, claiming they were his property. This P.O.'d the Tolkeins so much, that they banned him from any copyrighted stuff, and AD&D had Halflings and Balors instead. Later, he pulled the same stunt with the word "Nazi".

I'm not going to comment much about anything else you wrote. But this I'm going to call you out on. You're full of **** and you should know it. TSR was told by Tolkien Enterprises to cease and desist years before ICE was even a glimmer in Pete Fenlon's eye. It was in 1977 that TSR removed references to hobbits, ents, balrogs, nazgul, and Tolkien himself from the D&D rules. ICE wasn't formed until 1980 and it wasn't until 1982 that they approached Tolkien Enterprises. (Who gave them the license because "according to Tolkien Enterprises, the reason was simple: no one else had ever asked.")*

*http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhist...history8.phtml

As for your lack of understanding of what it was like in the early years of gaming you might want to actually talk to Dave Arneson. He lives and teaches in Flordia. He's quite an interesting fellow and very approachable. I have a good idea of what it was like in those early days at TSR. I gamed with Tom Moldvay on occasion after he moved back to Akron. When RPGs became less about role-playing and more about narrative story-telling a lot of the old school gamers faded away.

While D&D may be the first game I picked up and learned it was Traveller and In The Labyrinth that I played more of in the early 80's. There was never a gaming guild/club or convention I went to in those days that people didn't appreciate the industry that was created by TSR. RPGs would not exist in the form they do today if it wasn't for Gygax and his partner, Don Kaye ponying up the money to print a few hundred copies of three little brown books (which according to certain testimony the first actual copy sold was to Greg Stafford of Chaosium fame*. Runequest never would have been anything more than a board game if it wasn't for Gary)

*http://www.weareallus.com/chaosium/t...deversold.html

[FoE]

AD&D never told us how to role play or that we were supposed to role play, other than a short note that we would go by the name of our character on page 5 of the blue book version. (I don't have the brown cover version, anyone can read through them and check for me). Instead, he taught us that RPing was just kicking in doors, killing things, and collecting treasure. All the books were devoted to combat, treasure, traps, and monsters. All adventures started with a bunch of people meeting in a tavern because he never told us how to form a party or make plot hooks. The example of play showed a bunch of players kicking in a door and killing monsters. The whole first generation of role players were taught to play it like a war game.

All you've spouted is a collection of half-truths coloured to fit your interpretation of the game. I cut my teeth on AD&D, I grew up playing it and I still own the manuals. I can testify that this is in no way a reflection of the true reality of the game. Role-playing was very much a part of it.

[Conners]

Yes it is (though usually not characterised in quite so one sided terms).

I wouldn't state it as, "Well-known," many people are interested only in the game, and not of the history of how it was created. I found this thread rather helpful, and I'm curious if Rich realizes this (considering Roy gave GG all the credit in thanking him for DnD).

[kentma57]

...considering Roy gave GG all the credit in thanking him for DnD...

Well, what else do you tell a guy like him just after he dies? "Thanks for creating half of such a great game."

[Matthew]

I wouldn't state it as, "Well-known," many people are interested only in the game, and not of the history of how it was created. I found this thread rather helpful, and I'm curious if Rich realizes this (considering Roy gave GG all the credit in thanking him for DnD).

It is well known, in the sense that it is freely available to anybody who is interested enough to want to know. It is not well known in the sense that 1066 was the date of the Battle of Hastings [i.e. not every child in Britain (and probably America) is told this at school], but it's probably as well known as something like 31 BC was the date of the Battle of Actium. There are many things I don't know that I would consider well known (mainly pop culture stuff that I pay no attention to).

That said, I strongly urge you to investigate the facts for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I have no doubt that Rich Burlew knows that more than one person were responsible for D&D, but he is also no doubt aware that the majority of it was indeed Gygax's work.

[LibraryOgre]

Next he came out with Advanced D&D. Arneson's name wasn't even on the cover; Gygax claimed that, since it was Advanced, it was a whole new game and Arneson didn't deserve credit.

You're right, it wasn't on the cover. However, he is mentioned in the preface of the DMG.

GG was a sadistic GM. He came up with improbable and intricate ways to kill of players. Look at some of the monsters in the Fiend Folio and traps in the Tomb of Horrors.

Interesting to note: The Fiend Folio is largely creatures created in Britain, and submitted to the British branch of TSR. The Tomb of Horrors (S-4) is specifically a high-level tournament dungeon; it's designed for elimination. That it is not a normal dungeon is denoted by the "S" in the code.

As for not doing anything regarding role-playing... well, I must be hallucinating his note on page 3 of T-1, where he tells DMs to play the NPCs with wit and flair. Of course, while I can't speak for your copy of the blue books, my Mentzer-era D&D books (1983; by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson) includes a "What is role-playing?" section on page 2 instructs you to think of yourself as an actor.

His notorious desire for DMs to beat their characters is best exemplified in this quote from B-2, "The Keep on the Borderlands", where he says "... the DM must be fair. He cannot be 'out to get the players', nor should he or she be on their side all the time." Regular player-killer, there. Wanted all their heads on pikes.

I don't pretend Gary was a saint. However, your attempt to demonize him is flimsy and in poor taste.