Knights & Knaves Alehouse

T. Foster wrote:I'm still not convinced this isn't a bootleg/ripoff. In all of those A:B text comparisons the BTPBD text reads like an informal paraphrase/summary of the D&D text. The use of "chop" for attack is more compelling, but not necessarily definitive - we know this document was produced by someone in the Twin Cities (since it was found in the collection of M.A.R. Barker) - couldn't it have just been someone familiar with that bit of Arnesonian terminology, perhaps at a couple places removed, rather than Arneson himself? The fact that this document appears (from what little we've seen of its actual contents...) to be so close to the published D&D set, except for the less-formal language and use of percentages instead of die-ranges, makes it seem less likely to me that this is some Arneson ur-D&D draft, because from everything we've heard from pretty much everyone who was there at the time (and seen from products like FFC) Arneson's game wasn't nearly as close to D&D-as-published as this document seems to be.

I get the sneaking suspicion the author has an agenda here to "prove" that Arneson really created D&D and all Gygax did was rephrase his work into flowerier prose (and then claim credit for all of it), when, at least on the basis of the evidence presented so far, it seems every bit as likely that what we're actually looking at is just what Gygax claimed it was - that someone who had access to a D&D set and a typewriter decided to create, effectively, history's very first retro-clone

The last two sections of my analysis are up, and I think for the most part deal with the question of situating of BTPBD in context.

I'm not sure which author you are refering to in your post. Initially, I thought you meant the BTPBD author, but perhaps you are suggesting I have an agenda to prove "all Gygax did was rephrase his work into flowerier prose". Just to be clear, I do indeed have an agenda. It's simple. I want to know how D&D developed; who did what and why. I recognize that any research that gives any credit for any part of D&D to anyone other than Mr Gygax, is going to be unwelcome to some (not saying you personally, but there are definetly some folks like that), but I'm an archaeologist, not a psychologist and thus far less concerned with how data affects people emotionally, than I am with turning data into accurate narrative.

Anyway, you might well think differently after reading the last two entries.

It may be worthwhile to compare this document, conceptually, to the Tome of Mid-Kimia text. (For some background see Shannon Appelcline's post @ http://www.rpg.net/columns/designers-an ... ns13.phtml as well as the Midkimia Press web site @ http://www.midkemia.com/who_we_are.html). That booklet was published after D&D in 1975, but it's basically a house rules document that repositions OD&D within the context of how it was played in SoCal/Caltech---how they adjusted it/fixed it/hacked it/wanted their OD&D games to run. It's very pretty similar in style and tone to the flickr pictures posted up-thread, and although it's definitely not a pre-D&D mss., the kinds of clarifications and changes being made in the "Mid-Kimia" version of the OD&D rules may be suggestive of the other kinds of changes that early players of proto-OD&D may have been contemplating.

The information is very interesting, the possibilities are cool to think about, and the subject is certainly worth further investigation. It's certainly possible that the manuscript is what you conclude it to be.

But the entries erode their own credibility through overstated conclusions and a failure to acquiesce to the possibility of other conclusions in the summary. What you boldly refer to as "proof" is merely evidence. Interesting and weighty evidence, certainly, but not proof.

Guy Fullerton wrote:The information is very interesting, the possibilities are cool to think about, and the subject is certainly worth further investigation. It's certainly possible that the manuscript is what you conclude it to be.

But the entries erode their own credibility through overstated conclusions and a failure to acquiesce to the possibility of other conclusions in the summary. What you boldly refer to as "proof" is merely evidence. Interesting and weighty evidence, certainly, but not proof.

I have to agree, 100%. I do find that the two latter posts added considerable evidence to the case you are trying to build, Aldarron. And the evidence is, in the end, compelling. But I wouldn't call it proof either.

In a nutshell, do I understand Dan’s thesis aright, that this is “Arneson’s Manuscript D” which does, in fact, POST-date “Gygax’s Manuscript C” (which = OD&D)?

Aldarron wrote:The last two sections of my analysis are up, and I think for the most part deal with the question of situating of BTPBD in context.

I'm not sure which author you are refering to in your post. Initially, I thought you meant the BTPBD author, but perhaps you are suggesting I have an agenda to prove "all Gygax did was rephrase his work into flowerier prose". Just to be clear, I do indeed have an agenda. It's simple. I want to know how D&D developed; who did what and why. I recognize that any research that gives any credit for any part of D&D to anyone other than Mr Gygax, is going to be unwelcome to some (not saying you personally, but there are definetly some folks like that), but I'm an archaeologist, not a psychologist and thus far less concerned with how data affects people emotionally, than I am with turning data into accurate narrative.

Anyway, you might well think differently after reading the last two entries.

Yeah, by "the author" I did mean you. And yeah, the additional detail provided in your last two parts does clarify things and make me more supportive your conclusion (as well as your conclusion not being what I initially suspected it was going to be): that this manuscript represents some sort of parallel development on Arneson's end of the same development Gygax was doing on his end from the proto-D&D manuscript to what was eventually published, and that Gygax likely never saw this actual manuscript (or only saw it after he'd already done his own version and therefore decided not to use it). The A:B text comparisons still look to me like the manuscript-author is mostly paraphrasing Gygax's D&D text, but the missing spells and monsters make it less likely that the manuscript-author was working from a copy of the released product and more likely that he was working from an incomplete early draft version.

The (likely unanswerable given our current evidence - i.e. no known copy of the actual "Manuscript B") question then becomes how much of what's in this manuscript that differs from what's in D&D-as-published represents the manuscript-author's additions/changes and what represents things that were in "Manuscript B" but got subsequently edited out or changed on Gygax's end. The "new" spells and monsters seem pretty clearly the former, but the "instant kill" rule (which, as described, conforms to the Chainmail Man-to-Man Combat table) looks more like the latter. The differences in the combat and saving throw tables, however, are less certain either way.

Guy Fullerton wrote:The information is very interesting, the possibilities are cool to think about, and the subject is certainly worth further investigation. It's certainly possible that the manuscript is what you conclude it to be.

But the entries erode their own credibility through overstated conclusions and a failure to acquiesce to the possibility of other conclusions in the summary. What you boldly refer to as "proof" is merely evidence. Interesting and weighty evidence, certainly, but not proof.

Truly interesting comment but too brief to be useful. Revisions are of course posible on my end. You may be using a more narrow definition of proof than I am. In the social sciences, nothing is ever absolute.

If you see other reasonably valid possibilities it would be useful to state them. Obviously I can't think of everything. What cannot be ruled out is that a close associate of Arneson's worked on the document, but given the history of the minnesota group, this isn't likely to have happened without Arneson being involved, and none of the gentleman involved have ever indicated to me or in any availble record (I gave extensive references for a reason) that they were ever involved with actual work on the rules.

If you are suggesting that someone outside of Dave's circle prepared the manuscript that is virtually impossible. It would mean that Arneson then plagarized this mystery outsider when preparing the FFC., to the point of copying style, lists, and mechanics.

T. Foster wrote: The (likely unanswerable given our current evidence - i.e. no known copy of the actual "Manuscript B") question then becomes how much of what's in this manuscript that differs from what's in D&D-as-published represents the manuscript-author's additions/changes and what represents things that were in "Manuscript B" but got subsequently edited out or changed on Gygax's end. The "new" spells and monsters seem pretty clearly the former, but the "instant kill" rule (which, as described, conforms to the Chainmail Man-to-Man Combat table) looks more like the latter. The differences in the combat and saving throw tables, however, are less certain either way.

Yeah, that's definetly a difficulty. Part of my motivation for writing the study is the hope that it will shake loose more information. I think there may well be a "manuscript B" out there still. Gary mailed a couple dozen of them to IFW members. Otherwise it's a matter of best guesses based on FFC content, style, and interviews. We know that Arneson made a lot of the encounter tables and so forth for Blackmoor originally, for example, and we know via Kuntz that tables, charts and formulas made up a good portion of Manuscript A, but we don't know much beyond that. So, as you say, there's no way to know for sure who put that instant kill phase in the combat rules. That's interesting in another way though in that the projectile table has two rows, with the second row being the instant kill TN.

Falconer wrote:In a nutshell, do I understand Dan’s thesis aright, that this is “Arneson’s Manuscript D” which does, in fact, POST-date “Gygax’s Manuscript C” (which = OD&D)?

I think it both pre and post dates, or rather was prepared simultaneous with Manuscript C. There is another possibility, but it's less likely. It is possible that it predates Manuscript C, but was then set aside when Arneson learned of Manuscript C, and then presumably he began work on a "manuscript E" working off of Gygax C.

That is less likely because his BTPBD material presumably then should have come to Gygax's attention in plenty of time for inclusion in the 1st print. It would mean that Arneson didn't bother to share his new spells or other changes, but instead started a whole new draft. Possible but I think it less likely. There's also the question of why Barker had BTPBD if it were not Arneson's last draft. So if Arneson ever did have a "Manuscript E" it would seem to have never been anywhere near completion.

My suspicion - and this is total speculation on my part - is that Arneson made a copy of BTPBD and gave it to Barker while Barker was writing EPT. I haven't seen anything in EPT to indicate he might have used BTPBD, but that would be my guess as to why he had it.

Aldarron wrote:Truly interesting comment but too brief to be useful. Revisions are of course posible on my end. You may be using a more narrow definition of proof than I am. In the social sciences, nothing is ever absolute.

I can't say I'm familiar with a (social sciences specific?) definition of prove/proof where the terms are referring to evidence only. And perhaps you really do think it's possible that the document was authored by someone other than Arneson.

But these kinds of statements:
"That, Ladies and Gentleman, is proof. No one else uses the word chop for attacks"
"we are left with the inescapable conclusion that Dave Arneson wrote and illustrated Beyond this Point be Dragons"
"it is further proof that Dave Arneson must have been the author of BTPBD"
"[Arneson], meanwhile, had been carefully preparing his own revision, a revision now made moot by the game having already been published. This alternative manuscript, titled "Beyond This Point Be Dragons" was then lost and forgotten." (from the Kickstarter)

... certainly don't make it sound like you're leaving the possibility open to other authorial conclusions.

Also, a note regarding the "chop" assertion. There are a few notable instances other authors using "chop" used as an analog for "attack":
Jim Ward's articles in The Dragon #12 (p. 12), #16 (p. 17), and #21 (p. 27).
Rob Kuntz's original notes that eventually got published as part of Bottle City: "Helm of Full Hit Die: chops dealt out when worn = full chop"

(I also noted this on your blog.)

If you see other reasonably valid possibilities it would be useful to state them. Obviously I can't think of everything. What cannot be ruled out is that a close associate of Arneson's worked on the document, but given the history of the minnesota group, this isn't likely to have happened without Arneson being involved, and none of the gentleman involved have ever indicated to me or in any availble record (I gave extensive references for a reason) that they were ever involved with actual work on the rules.

If you are suggesting that someone outside of Dave's circle prepared the manuscript that is virtually impossible. It would mean that Arneson then plagarized this mystery outsider when preparing the FFC., to the point of copying style, lists, and mechanics.

What about the possibility that you allude to in the first article, but don't follow-up on: BTPBD could have been made (written/plagiarized) after FFC had been released. You show various bits of evidence that suggest where BTPBD might slot between the relevant D&D drafts, assuming it arose during that time; but IIRC you don't show any evidence that it *did* arise during that time.

Guy Fullerton wrote: .... And perhaps you really do think it's possible that the document was authored by someone other than Arneson.

But these kinds of statements:
"That, Ladies and Gentleman, is proof. No one else uses the word chop for attacks"
"we are left with the inescapable conclusion that Dave Arneson wrote and illustrated Beyond this Point be Dragons"
"it is further proof that Dave Arneson must have been the author of BTPBD"
"[Arneson], meanwhile, had been carefully preparing his own revision, a revision now made moot by the game having already been published. This alternative manuscript, titled "Beyond This Point Be Dragons" was then lost and forgotten." (from the Kickstarter)

... certainly don't make it sound like you're leaving the possibility open to other authorial conclusions.

That's essentially correct. The only other possibility is that someone in Arneson's circle jointly prepared BTPBD under Arneson's direction using the material that later shows up in the FFC. The repeated direct connections with the FFC is the smoking gun, so to speak. The most likely candidate would be Ross Maker, since Richard Snider was never credited with having worked on any D&D material prior to FFC, and that is something that is almost certain to have been mentioned given his subsequent career. Ross Maker has never said anything about it either, but he is hard to get ahold of. Greg Svenson, the other Blackmoor DM, was not involved with creating any ruleset.

Also, see my reply on the webpost for some additional clarification.

Guy Fullerton wrote: What about the possibility that you allude to in the first article, but don't follow-up on: BTPBD could have been made (written/plagiarized) after FFC had been released. You show various bits of evidence that suggest where BTPBD might slot between the relevant D&D drafts, assuming it arose during that time; but IIRC you don't show any evidence that it *did* arise during that time.

Sometimes I fail to spell out what I think is obvious I suppose. BTPBD cannot post date the 3lbb's because of what it lacks. It's is not reasonable to assume 4 of the most popular monsters including yellow mold and gelatenous cube, 40 of the spells, numerous rules and sections, entire spell levels, magic items and so forth would be gutted from the 3lbb game, and then some new info added, including examples of rules and information only found in the FFC and Adventures in Fantasy, but nothing from Greyhawk or any later TSR product, only to create a unlabeled anonymous typewritten 58+ page manuscript which MAR Barker then bothered to obtain a copy of.

I have a bridge I'd like to sell to anyone who thinks that likely.

Aldarron wrote:Sometimes I fail to spell out what I think is obvious I suppose. BTPBD cannot post date the 3lbb's because of what it lacks. It's is not reasonable to assume 4 of the most popular monsters including yellow mold and gelatenous cube, 40 of the spells, numerous rules and sections, entire spell levels, magic items and so forth would be gutted from the 3lbb game, and then some new info added, including examples of rules and information only found in the FFC and Adventures in Fantasy, but nothing from Greyhawk or any later TSR product, only to create a unlabeled anonymous typewritten 58+ page manuscript which MAR Barker then bothered to obtain a copy of.

I have a bridge I'd like to sell to anyone who thinks that likely.

That's not a truly objective, academic remark to make. The fact that might seem "unlikely" to you doesn't mean it isn't what happened for reasons we do not know, or that might have escaped your scrutiny one way or the other. If you proclaim to use academic analysis and rigor in your study of the document, then you ought to leave open the possibility that it is possibly, though unlikely, what might have happened in the first place.

There is no hard proof that the document actually predates the 3 lbbs and FFC.

Aldarron wrote:Sometimes I fail to spell out what I think is obvious I suppose. BTPBD cannot post date the 3lbb's because of what it lacks. It's is not reasonable to assume 4 of the most popular monsters including yellow mold and gelatenous cube, 40 of the spells, numerous rules and sections, entire spell levels, magic items and so forth would be gutted from the 3lbb game, and then some new info added, including examples of rules and information only found in the FFC and Adventures in Fantasy, but nothing from Greyhawk or any later TSR product, only to create a unlabeled anonymous typewritten 58+ page manuscript which MAR Barker then bothered to obtain a copy of.

Many of those details are not (IIRC) present in any of your articles. If they form the basis for the foundational parts of your conclusion, those details ought to be included in the articles.

I have a bridge I'd like to sell to anyone who thinks that likely.

Although the specific details vary, what you describe above is not unlike some of the retro-clones produced in the last 6 years. In fact, what you describe is not unlike the Holmes or Moldvay editions of Basic D&D!


Tangent: It feels like, on the one hand, you're looking for peer feedback on what amounts to a draft. (That is, not a final dissertation.) But on the other hand, it seems like some of the constructive feedback from various venues is being casually dismissed, such as if you feel the research and writing is finished. I think most/all of the feedback is being given in good faith by people who are not against your ultimate conclusion.

Benoist wrote:

Aldarron wrote:Sometimes I fail to spell out what I think is obvious I suppose. BTPBD cannot post date the 3lbb's because of what it lacks. It's is not reasonable to assume 4 of the most popular monsters including yellow mold and gelatenous cube, 40 of the spells, numerous rules and sections, entire spell levels, magic items and so forth would be gutted from the 3lbb game, and then some new info added, including examples of rules and information only found in the FFC and Adventures in Fantasy, but nothing from Greyhawk or any later TSR product, only to create a unlabeled anonymous typewritten 58+ page manuscript which MAR Barker then bothered to obtain a copy of.

I have a bridge I'd like to sell to anyone who thinks that likely.

That's not a truly objective, academic remark to make. The fact that might seem "unlikely" to you doesn't mean it isn't what happened for reasons we do not know, or that might have escaped your scrutiny one way or the other. If you proclaim to use academic analysis and rigor in your study of the document, then you ought to leave open the possibility that it is possibly, though unlikely, what might have happened in the first place.

There is no hard proof that the document actually predates the 3 lbbs and FFC.

I disagree, if we (meaning archaeologists) spent our time chasing all the wild and outlandish "possible" theories that get put out there we would be overwhelmed. For example, suppose you said Stonehenge was built by aliens. I could marshal all sorts of evidence about the people who lived there, and were buried there. I could point to apparent construction techniques and stages of construction. But I simply could not prove that no spacealiens were involved in its construction.

There is nothing in BTPBD from any gaming product whatsoever beyond those Dave Arneson is associated with, and it is further missing a good portion of the content and rules of the 3lbb. By 1978, which is the earliest a post FFC influenced document could be written, there were of course scads of gaming material. Even AD&D was coming out. So you would have to imagine, someone rewriting the 3lbb's post '78 by guting them, removing monsters and levels, taking away well established game terminology (dexterity, Player Character, Non Player Character, etc), adding in some original material and, for inexplicable reasons they also add a smattering of very obscure references from only the earliest material preserved in the FFC and nowhere else. That, to my mind, is the equivalent range of likelihood as space aliens building stonehenge.

Guy Fullerton wrote:

Aldarron wrote:Sometimes I fail to spell out what I think is obvious I suppose. BTPBD cannot post date the 3lbb's because of what it lacks. It's is not reasonable to assume 4 of the most popular monsters including yellow mold and gelatenous cube, 40 of the spells, numerous rules and sections, entire spell levels, magic items and so forth would be gutted from the 3lbb game, and then some new info added, including examples of rules and information only found in the FFC and Adventures in Fantasy, but nothing from Greyhawk or any later TSR product, only to create a unlabeled anonymous typewritten 58+ page manuscript which MAR Barker then bothered to obtain a copy of.

Many of those details are not (IIRC) present in any of your articles. If they form the basis for the foundational parts of your conclusion, those details ought to be included in the articles.]

All of those details except the last two (nothing from greyhawk, and 58 pages) are indeed present in the article. I wasn't expecting to need to establish any more strongly than I did that it couldn't post date the FFC. I was more concerned with establishing whether it could post date manuscript C.

Guy Fullerton wrote: Tangent: It feels like, on the one hand, you're looking for peer feedback on what amounts to a draft. (That is, not a final dissertation.) But on the other hand, it seems like some of the constructive feedback from various venues is being casually dismissed, such as if you feel the research and writing is finished. I think most/all of the feedback is being given in good faith by people who are not against your ultimate conclusion.

[/quote]

Feedback is nice but not something I was seeking. Still, all your comments are appreciated and helping to clean up and strengthen the article for sure.