As someone trained as an academic historian, want to say, don't put yourself down! You're questioning the sources and the narratives quite competently, and your videos have been gold for those of us interested in the history of the game!
I really appreciate that! Thank you for the positivity and for watching and commenting. I really appreciate it! And, thanks for your support of the channel. Cheers!
I was going to say, regardless of how rigorous his research is by academic standards, the fact that he uses primary sources for information rather than randos on the internet puts him in a much higher category than the large majority of people talking about the history of D&D on the internet.
@@willydstyle Primary verbal sources - however not primary "written" sources". I think Daddy Rolled a 1 does a great job -- but hard to separate a lot of conjecture without examining written evidence, like he said people forget, people are hazy on dates, and some people even have agendas. The History bible for TTRPGs is "Playing at the World" which IMO is the definitive reference. Where Daddy rolled a 1 I think adds value is making this information consumable.
Oh, thank you for For making that the video of the game that we played I think that was really great. I’ve been waiting for somebody to do that I was there were just a couple of things that I thought I should clear up for you just because you have seem to have an interest in the history number one I was talking about two different things. The meeting that took place at Gary’s basement had nothing to do with exactly this game, we set up the castle crusade society. That was just Gary and Dave and I when we went back to the cities Dave wanted to make a game for the castle crusade society, but he also wanted to experiment with the arm experiment with the role-playing ass from the brownstone type of phone, and so he called me on the telephone and asked if I would have a game at my house at my parents house and soul add that game Arneson came with his notebook and which he had written down rules which he had gotten from somewhere which I think probably were the ones that Kevin showed you And the rules that each person that he had invited I could play no he didn’t just do it. He invited people and more people came and so he would add in rules as the game was being played so what you have there is one of the added rolls and the one of the bandit which he added in later and I’ve kind of jury rigged, the Role by using things from his other players that he married so each player had different objectives and I think you are you made reference to that so I hope this is gonna make any sense because the the iPad is not doing everything I wanted but hopefully I’ll give you some information. The castle that was used in that game was my castle. I had this copy of this, this air fixed castle and I used it because that’s what I had the buildings that I used were mine And the figures were mine all that stuff was used in my basement for the game that David plan to play and solve that’s the only thing I like I will. I thought you might want to think on that I don’t just know that this is what we did we were using what we had that’s why I tried before I’ll reproduce my battles or my running of that battle the same way as we had done 40 or 50 years ago.
Thank you Professor! I mentioned your most recent video specially when I (finally) get to the discussion on Armor Class. I dug a little deeper and found some new info!
Eh, as a academic historian, let me let you in on a little secret: *Alot* of the work we do nowadays is googling! Granted it’s of primary sources, but being able to use the net and search engines to find information is a very important skill and it’s not really something people are taught to do. Every thing you say about people wanting the simple, straightforward answer vs the truth which is complex, nuanced, and illusive is right on the money and something historians grapple with all the time. Honestly, it’s something a lot of otherwise well educated people (often with doctorates and book deals!) don’t seem to understand, so take heart that you’ve got them beat! Love your D&D history videos, they are really some of the best research into some of these topics I’ve seen! Kudos for seeking out the people we still have with us and getting their stories down. Oral history is a super valuable and important resource for the future.
Thank you so much for this comment. I truly appreciate it! It means a lot to get your perspective on the whole "research" aspect of my videos. Thanks so much for watching and taking the time to comment, and for your support of the channel!
The way you described Gary and the controversy around who created what,made me immediately think of Stan Lee. I feel like there are a lot of parallels there.
That makes sense - a couple other people have made a similar Stan Lee / Jack Kirby comparison before, and I can see that. Thank you so much for watching and commenting!
It feels like they both contributed a lot. The real issue comes down to Gary Gygax getting ALL the credit for a long period of time. The thing that I think separated this situation from Lee, is that Lee is a proven thief who stole credit. Gary, on the other hand, had a mystique that built around him. It could be media, or legal, or Gary himself that did this.
This is an incredibly important video. Speaking as someone who was completely ignorant of the history of D&D, I think you've really delved into something that most people have really glossed over.
Nice video Martin! So dating, I like how you characterize it. however October 1970 is about as far back as you could go with it. Wesely played no Blackmoor before he left for the Army in October, and Bill Hoyt left for a job at Ellesworth College later that same month. Bill believes the pre-Blackmoor medieval wargame took place in October between those two events. I think i heard you say Gygax played in this game? That is definitely not correct. I would personally also add David Megarry to your important people list for the influence Dungeon! had on D&D's design. the concept of level advancement is also present in Strategos N, not just FitS. On the Civil War Ironclads game - we know exactly what it was - Arneson's re-edit of the Walter Gurney Green rules. There's a couple posts on my blog about it. :) O
Thanks again for your updates. Yes, when I played the Medieval Braunstein game with Bill Hoyt that he ran at DaveCon last month, I misunderstood him saying that Gary was there. He came into the comments in that video to correct that he was speaking about the creation of the Castles & Crusades Society, not that specific game he ran. There was so much going on and I was a bit "star struck" meeting and playing games with Dave Wesely, Mike Carr, Bill, and Dave Megarry, so it was difficult to play, engage, "be in the moment" and take notes at the same time, so I got a few details wrong despite trying to write everything down. When I asked the folks about the Naval Game that Dave used as inspiration for some of the mechanics in Blackmoor, I was told it was a game he had created himself but it was never published. I will check out the posts on your blog for more details. And yes, definitely agree about Dave Megarry. I've mentioned him quite a few times on the blog but haven't gotten specific. I will attempt to correct that in a future video. Thanks!
In the classic age of sail (17th to19th centuries), the largest ship of the line (literally a line of ball ship) was a "first rate" with 3 decks and 100 plus guns. A second rate was a three decker with under 100 guns, a third rate was a two decker with 64 to 80 guns and so on and so down to sixth rates (small frigates) and "unrated" ships (brigs, sloops etc. with about 10-20 guns). The lower number was the most powerful ship. These were wooden sail powered war ships. The larger ships carried more guns, and more powerful guns, and had thicker hulls as well. A lower number = tougher makes sense from that context.
This is really helpful! I asked multiple times and the explanation I was given was that Dave Arneson had created his own game, as he was really into naval ships and we do have documentation that he'd catalogued every type of ship that was in existence up until that time, but nobody could give me a specific game or any other context for descending armor class other than to say "it came from naval wargames." Thank you very much for sharing this. And thank you for watching and commnenting.
@@microcomet I never claimed Dave invented it. If you watched the video I specifically said Dave said he got it from an old naval wargame but I couldn't find any source on the name of the game he was influenced by. I appreciate you commenting but would especially appreciate if you don't put words in my mouth, as in your claim in another comment that I said Dave invented role-playing. When you have a chance to watch the video, you'll notice that I never said that. Cheers, and thanks again for your interest.
@@daddyrolleda1 Sorry to have to mention "Playing at the World" again😂According, to Peterson -- Gygax and Arneson collaborated on sea battle rules that were later published as "Don't Give Up the Ship" (1971). Yes, Dave may have been influenced by something prior -- but yes hard to prove that without written evidence, and that this game was never published. Something that almost no-one ever mentions is that ascending or descending AC is pretty important -- back in those days because Gygax and Arneson came from wargaming roots they always used "tables" (from wargaming) -- when you use tables -- whether AC descends or ascends is completely irrelevant (you just need to know how to use the table) -- it's only later when they wanted to get rid of the tables -- that they realized that in a roll-over-system -- that ascending AC is slightly more intuitive.
I'm really very sorry that I offended you with my comments, as that was definitely not my intent. I try to curate a very nice and friendly community here, and I apologize if I misread your comments. The two that stuck out to me were comments that it was "dumb" or "stupid" to claim that Dave Arneson "invented role-playing" and the one that he "invented saving throws." As those were posted in the comments on my video, I hope you can understand that I read them to mean that you were stating I had made those claims in my video, so I was a bit confused since I didn't say that, which led me to believe that you may not have watched the video before commenting (which is very common here on UA-cam when people look at the thumbnail and read the video title, and then assume what I am talking about). In any event, I saw from one of your deleted comments that you were involved with the Minnesota gaming community very early on, and it would be nice to have your point-of-view given your experiences during that time, but I definitely understand if this is not the community for you. My apologies again for misunderstanding your comments.
@microcomet It's totally okay. I wasn't upset with you at all, but more at the situation for thinking I had offended you inadvertently. But it's all good. I do really appreciate you taking the time to reply back, and I sincerely hope your day today is better. I've definitely been there and taken my bad mood out on other people without realizing it. We're only human. I very much look forward to continuing to chat with you and see you share your viewpoints on this history, and once again I hope your day is better today. Sending you my best. Cheers!
Watching this and other similar posts put into perspective my first D&D games where the DM was using the earliest D&D rules , speed factors , AC -1 , weapon length etc , only realised all these years later where these things all came from , I thought our DM created it all. Thank you so much for enlightening me and bringing back those great memories.
I am so glad you found my video and that it helped you with your understanding of the early days of the hobby. Thank you so much for watching and commenting!
I'm so glad to hear that! I hope you enjoy the video and that it's helpful for your retrospective project. Are you going to publish it on a blog or a book or elsewhere?
I can save you some work - Jon Peterson wrote "Playing at the World" -- a beast of a book -- but Jon examined tons of primary "written" sources - and "verbal" sources -- much more credence being put on written sources. I think Daddy rolled a 1 is familiar if familiar with Playing at the World -- if not -- highly recommended!! Playing at the World talks about Braunstein and Siege of Bodenberg -- I am glad though that more people are being made aware of "Braunstein" -- Dave Megarry does deserve some of the credit!!
@@daddyrolleda1 A UA-cam series, since a lot of what I'm gathering would be directly cited from other books, it would feel wrong to publish it. Besides, I want to try a UA-cam career.
Great to see Mike Carr coming up in this conversation. We had a great talk about the influence of FitS on both the character advancement and aerial combat rules in OD&D. He also signed my PHB. Nice fellow!
Anyone interested in the history of this should check out Jon Peterson’s books. Arneson’s greatest contribution to gaming seems to be the concept of the dungeon adventure. As far as I know, there’s no obvious predecessor, and it’s very different than the open environments used in previous war games and strategy games.
Yes, his books are good reading for the history of the game, as well as others like Shannon Applecline's Designers and Dragons, Lawrence Schick's Heroic Worlds, and even WotC's Art and Arcana (my favorite WotC book, by far). But yes, Peterson's are perhaps the most "scholarly" of the bunch, and even then there are some things he either doesn't/didn't have access to and/or he makes conjectures (such as wondering if the Dalluhn Manuscript was created by a person from Duluth) that are reasonable given the information has on hand, but not always entirely accurate. Thank you for watching and commenting!
oh let me add, Duane Jenkins was the one who wanted to be a vampire and eventually got his wish - long after the start of the game and long after the introduction of the priest btw. Dave Fant played the baron of Blackmoor but had to leave the game and Arneson eventually turned that character into sir Fang. Fant never played as sir Fang though as he had long since left the game due to his job.
Thanks, Daniel. Kevin had corrected me on that as well. I should've checked my notes before speaking spontaneously about that, because I believe in a previous video I had gotten it correct. One day I may make a "super-cut" revised video in which I made all the corrections and update I've learned over the years!
Thanks for the video! I appreciate your humble approach to both the research and the information you share. Too often I see folks asserting things where the information clearly is not as certain as is presented. As an early 70s wargamer who added D&D to my gaming rotation right after it was published and attended my first GenCon in 1975, my own early gaming memories are sometimes hazy or colored by nostalgia, I have no doubt. Keep up the great work!
Thanks a ton, Mark. I really appreciate your support of me and my channel. I'm really glad you enjoyed the video. And even though you and I chatted about jazz earlier this week, I tried to change it up!
I really appreciate your openness and integrity regarding the limits of knowledge at this point. You make an important point with such respect for everyone involved.
I'm so glad to hear that! It's a much more complicated and nuanced topic than folks really think about, as our minds want there to be a very tidy transition from Braunstein to Blackmoor to D&D but it's more convoluted than that.
There is nothing black and white about any of this. Honestly, far more people involved than will ever get recognized. Excellent work, Martin. Love ❤️ and blessings good sir.
Thank you so much! I'm glad you enjoyed the video, and also that you understand the difficult (folly, perhaps?) of trying to make definitive claims about this topic! Always glad to see you in the comments. Cheers!
There is a lot of grey in this. Whenever you start dealing with non-written information you run into grey. I do appreciate Daddy rolled a 1 highlighting that there is grey -- when things aren't written down, people forget dates, people misremember things, and some people even have agendas. This whole topic is complicated because there are many people that are either Pro-Gygax or Pro-Arneson -- so like all history there is bias based on your view. Almost no-one is fully neutral. I for one do claim full neutrality. I think they are both masters -- and they both deserve full credit for "jointly" creating Dungeons & Dragons. Thank you so MUCH Gary and Dave -- you are giants!!! I do like more UA-camrs like Daddy Rolled a 1 -- shedding more awareness about Dave Megary's "Braunstein" and hope to see more videos on Henry Bodenstedt's "Siege of Bodenberg" (1966). Yes -- Dave and Gary did not invent all this stuff on their own -- many fine people came before them -- and there is even over 150+ years of "Kriegspeile" (wargaming) that helped build the foundation for D&D. Thanks Dave Megary!!
Even bringing up the concept that first person accounts, recounted decades later, can’t really be considered primary source material is a huge step up from a lot of channels, sir. Good job. And I really would love to see a library/museum of what primary source materials we DO have from the history TTRPGs - all the way until today - come into being.
Thank you so much! Yes, I know there are some libraries that have attempted to create repositories of published stuff, but a research library where one would review related documents/drafts/letters/etc. would be amazing.
They are, by definition, primary sources. The difference is that, even when contemporary, primary sources are not definitive; you can't take them at face value, because the people living through the events don't, and can't, see the whole story. Even assuming they're interested in their best attempts at an objective version of what happened, which they often are not.
Well no, it still a primary source, just not as reliable. Eye witnesses don't morph into secondary sources over time. Primary, secondary, etc. are terms of relation, not value judgements on accuracy.
25 minutes into it and I’m already loving it. And thanks for skirting around certain subjects. got to the tail end and so I’m updating my notes and comments. The battle which was the Roman army invading England was David Megarry as the Druitt with the phaser. And it was Pete Gaylord charging in with his war elephants who was really surprised and yeah, they had an argument after that. But it was funny. . there was one other player who did become a vampire. I think before Dwayne Jenkins and his sir Fang sounds similar to David Fant in name. David Fant would be a good person to interview if you get the chance. I have yet to really get to sit down with him yet myself. Nice guy otherwise lives in Michigan. But yeah, Dwayne Jenkins worked late at night and David Arneson would read or narrate. What was the day before episode of dark shadows. There is some humor there as well because apparently occasionally miss a episode and make it up. He is narration was sometimes even better than the episode that actually aired. This is relayed to me as secondary story, but it’s a good indication of Arnesen’s ability to narrate.
Really informative, very glad I watched this. I've heard of Chainmail, Blackmoor and Barons of Braunstein, but I really like how you get into exactly what ideas were developed while those games were being played and how they ended up in D&D. Surprised I hadn't heard of Dawn Patrol before now. You've really got an impressive wealth of knowledge about this hobby.
Great stuff! I only want to correct a side point. Dark Shadows was an afternoon soap opera with humans and monsters including the vampire Barnabas Collins in typical soap opera situations with each other. Sure it was a modern horror, but a very particular type. It did okay, but didn't appeal to the housewives who watched soaps. They already had their soaps in its time slot. It came on after school, so lots of teens watched it, but it couldn't last because its audience didn't have enough spending money to appeal to advertisers.
I had a feeling I had that reference incorrect when I was saying it, but interesting when you get a chance to watch my video on the Cleric class, Gary made that same mistake and I even pointed out in my video about Almace and how that explanation didn't make sense. I just didn't remember it when making this video. Thanks for the reminder, and for watching and commenting!
@@LordCandyDishYes! Thank you! I had that mentioned in another video I did on Clerics but I couldn't come up with the name off the top of my head in this one. Thanks again!
Another home run, man. I do agree with you, I feel with this modern digital age everyone forgets their was a time when people weren't filming or otherwise recording every aspect of a project or their life so that's why we just can't 100% be for sure on everything all the time from pre internet days. Lol But this definitely gave me some new perspective on a few things. Also I remembered while watching this that on my first deer hunting trip, I went on at 19, I met a guy that used to game with arneson(not part of the blackmoor bunch, though) he had a few stories he would tell me about playing with him but I barely knew Dave was at the time so I almost forgot about that because it's been almost 8 year's since then, I can only imagine nearly 60 year. Lol But definitely can't wait for your kick starter. I definitely would like that for my 1e and ose collection
Oh wow -- thank you so much for this great comment! What a small world that your friend gamef with Arneson! To your point about photographic evidence, it reminds me a little about this comedian bit I've seen in which he discusses how people our parents' age had really unique and great pictures to share, whereas when the people growing up now are sharing pictures either their grandkids, it'll be things like, "That's a picture of my breakfast, and that picture is a pair of shoes I thought about buying..." Thank you for your support of my Kickstarter! I really appreciate it!!!
@daddyrolleda1 ya, definitely. You, greyhawkgrognard, and page 121 are probably my favorite rpg content creators here on UA-cam, and I really appreciate the work you all do for the hobby to keep it going.
We don't need video -- but back then there was even a huge lack of written evidence -- yes people did not know that they were creating ideas for the greatest TTRPG game ever published -- they didn't know they were helping create something new -- something mind-shattering -- that they were making history -- so sadly not much written down.
It's nice to see Dave Arneson finally get the recognition he deserves these last several years. My understanding is Dave invented D&D, Gygax 'edited' the original rules. This was proved in the final court case - with some of the original players submitting material evidence to support this. I spoke with Pete Gaylord several times about this in the 1970's when I was active in the gaming community that met at his house every Saturday.
Re the Naval Wargames bit: I also have a copy of Don’t Give Up The Ship, which interestingly included rules for steam tugs that presumably would have been the basis for the unpublished ironclads rules. That would take a lot of the complexity out of DGUTS which has a ton of sailing and wind rules, though those rules I imagine would have carried over as optional rules perhaps. I think probably Arneson was trying to revise the armor class to correspond better with the historical “rating” system of sailing warships, which had “First Rates” as the biggest and best ships in the fleet. Since Naval wargamers would probably already know this it would help streamline the concept, and the idea of “first rate” being best outside of a naval context probably influenced the reuse of the rules. Also, brining the class of ships in line with the rating system would probably have helped fix the problem of DGUTS: it was really hard to add new ships into the game without a lot of cumbersome calculations. If the ships were instead simply rated using the same system as their historical counterparts, one might merely need to know the rating of the historical ship, per historical documents.
It might also have been that the system was revised because as in real life the existence of ironclads threw it all into disarray. In which case, like knights, the quality of your armor starts to matter a great deal, and again you use the existing rating systems and the mindset of the players to help communicate the abstraction simply.
33:25 I've heard that the armour class came from "Jane's Fighting Ships" being used as reference documents for Naval Wargames, which rated armour as 1st class, 2nd class etc. But good point about not having a clearly specific one to use. (Also great video!|)
Thank you very much for watching and commenting, and for this extra information. I've heard of Jane's Fithgint Ships before but no one was able to bring his up when I was chatting with them about the descending armor class. This is really great context! I appreciate it.
Yes, I remember! I seem to recall that some limited changes were being made in the late 2E era, but I wasn't playing D&D at this point so that's mostly based on memory, not actual play. I'd need to dig out my Complete Priest's Handbook, as I seem to recall that it had exceptions made for using a weapon favored by the cleric's deity. In any event, thank you so much for watching and commenting! I really appreciate it!
@@daddyrolleda1 Yeah, once they added 'deity weapons' those were added to clerics' proficiencies in 2nd. I want to say I first saw them in a 2nd edition Greyhawk sourcebook, which predated the _Complete $CLASS Handbook_ series, but I don't even know if I still have the book to check.
I think that is very possible. All that was mentioned at the convention was that they came from previous wargames, but I wasn't able to nail down the exact game/title. Thanks for adding this note. I appreciate it!
Great stuff. Thanks for your hard work. I would love to see you breakdown the history of the fall of TSR and the start of WoTC. That phase of the history doesn’t seem to get much attention. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone talk about the uproar that change brought on. Your thoughts, feelings, and experiences from that transition And/Or On the topic of the overall changes in D&D over the last 40-50 years. Thanks again Love what you play, play what you love BECMI Forever! Long Live King Elmore!!
Thank you so much for watching and for your comment! I can certainly add that to the list. I chat frequently with Bill (William) Connors, who was at TSR during that period (he designed a lot of Ravenloft stuff for 2E, among other things). I'd also like to point you to a book called "Slaying the Dragon" by Ben Riggs which was just released last year and covers a lot of the time period you're asking about. I do like the idea of the changes in D&D over the past 5+ decades! That could be a whole series!
@@daddyrolleda1 Thanks for the fast response. I am familiar with Mr Riggs book. I know he did a lot of work putting it together and talking to people. A fine work but you and I actually lived it. That’s the voice I don’t hear out there. I think you have the experience to do the topic justice.
I really appreciate the confidence in me, and the positivity! I do remember that time well (like when my Dragon magazine stopped showing up in the mail!). I can certainly add it to the list of potential future topics!
@@jeremydurdil556 The channel sfdebris has done a (continuing) series on the history of _D&D_ that... hmm. Not sure that he's quite gotten his two histories (of _D&D_ and WotC) up to the point where they merge. He's definitely gotten as far as Gygax's ouster at TSR and the early years of _Magic: The Gathering._
That's awesome! Thanks for checking back! I *try* to publish one video a week, although they won't always be D&D history. I think my next video might be DM Advice as there is a pretty vocal contingent of my followers who like those, but definitely the history videos have the most supporters. I hope you enjoy the video!
We had fantasy skirmish wargaming with hit points in the UK in the early 1970s. We never made the leap to each player controlling one figure (or one leader figure plus a few followers).
Yes, from what I understand, Tony Bath's Hyboria debuted around 1957, so I suspect that also had an impact on a variety of other games with fantasy elements on that side of the pond.
@@daddyrolleda1 Bath's Hyboria is essentially a Play by Mail game in which the PCs are rulers of nations. What we were doing (for me late 1974, but I know others were earlier) was small scale skirmish gaming in which one figure represented one individual. We used the Minifigs Mythical Earth figures.
Oh that's very cool! Were these rules you were all "making up" (I don't mean that in a bad way - I just mean, were you creating rules specifically for your games) or were these published (and widely available) rules?
@@daddyrolleda1 As wargamers we played a lot of Ancients and American Civil War. I don't remember much of the ACW but for Ancients we used Wargames Research Group rules (probably 3rd Edition in 1974). We tried the Fantasy Supplement, but hated it. As far as I know the fantasy rules we used were homebrew. Tabletop battles were Good vs Evil with an inevitable LoTR vibe given the figures we were using. "Armies" consisted of small units of regular troops interspersed with Personality Figures, some of which acted as "Generals". Our wargame underpinnings left us so focused on the units that we never grasped the potential of the Personality Figures. DnD arrived for us in the fall of 1976.
I think with regards to the armor class and tallships thing, he's talking about rating. For instance a first rate ship of the line would have 100 or more guns and be the largest of ships with a thicker hull. A third rate would have 64-80 guns and be a smaller ship. So lower numbers in the British Navy's rating system are better? Still it seems like a strange rationale.
I use to buy at yard sales and estate sales all the time. I have found all sorts of interesting bits and pieces of roleplaying games and other games. Some I have identified and others I am still clueless about. There will never be definitive answers for everything. We all know that most of the early gamers were a bunch of stoners and their memories will be somewhat fuzzy on a lot of things.
I had begun working on this when he posted that video on his Patreon and my first thought was, "Darn - I can't publish this now!" but after watching his, I decided mine was different enough as I tried to dig a little deeper into some of the things were were told at the convention. I hope you enjoy the rest of the video!
@@daddyrolleda1 Yes, glad you did!! -- everything gets repeated so -- if someone beats you to it -- they didn't really beat you to it -- if you know what I mean. These days it's hard to even think of a TTRPG game that hasn't been reviewed at least once on UA-cam! 😂For the longest time I could never find a review on the Hercules & Xena RPG (Published by West End in 1998), but check that has been reviewed 🙂(although a very lame review IMO), and Bushido (by FGU 1981) but Bushido has since been reviewed twice. DragonQuest has been done several times now, and just saw a really good one of DQ (actually for once actually learned something new as the reviewer was extremely well versed on DW). And by now you can find 10+ reviews each on games like Top Secret, Star Frontiers, Gamma World, etc. No one is first anymore (except that rare one person who is) -- but I'd much rather have 10 reviews on a game -- than 1. So yes -- keep up the good work!!
It’s funny that never how much people argue about the details, the high level story stays the same: Gary brought war-gaming and Dave brought roleplaying. Yes it’s oversimplified, but it’s also more or less correct.
Yes -- you can't really separate the two -- both master's in their own right. I kind of dislike all this conjecture on what Dave did and what Gary did they were both "Masters of the Game". Hats off to both of them. Also - alot of people "conveniently" forget as per "Playing at the "World" that Gary played "Siege of Bodenberg" in 1968 at GenCon I, Gary authored wargames as early as 1968 with "Little Big Horn", Jeff Perren drafted 4 pages of rules that would later become Chainmail in pre-1970, Perrin & Gygax published an expanded set of these pre-Chainmail rules in Paunzerfaust fanzine (April 1970), and then in Domesday #5 (July 1970). Gary met Dave Arneson at GenCon II (1969). Arneson was very familiar with the Domesday pre-Chainmail rules. Arneson and Gygax even collaborated on naval ship rules that would ultimately become "Don't Give Up the Ship" which was ultimately published in 1971. -- I can go on and on with what has been written -- but yeah -- it's not so simple -- and those that want to convey that Arneson and Megary just showed up in late 1972 and showed Gygax the rules to Blackmoor are telling a slightly one-sided tale. The written evidence suggests Arneson and Gygax were both giants-- and BOTH deserve the distinction of being the Fathers of D&D -- the first ever -- published TTRPG!! I also am glad that Braunstein and Seige of Bodenberg are getting so much more attention -- really glad for Dave Megary! Yes -- I really disklike the pro-Arneson or the pro-Gygax camps -- they were both greats!!
@@quantus5875 And don't forget Dave Wesely! As I articulate in my video, you don't get D&D without all three of them.i said that last time, too, in my previous video, that if you remove any of the three of them, we don't get D&D! 😀
@@daddyrolleda1 I do give Dave Wesley a ton of credit -- and Henry Bodenstart with the "Siege of Bodenberg". Glad people like you are raising awareness of Braunstein -- but in the end the creators of D&D -- are Arneson and Gygax. Yes -- ideas from Wesely (sorry sometimes I say Megary when I mean Wesely) and Henry Bodenstart. And then you'd have to give the creator of Stratego credit and also Jeff Perren for pre-Chainmail, oh and the creator of Diplomacy. oh and many, many others that played Kriegspeil for 150+ years prior. 😂 Yes, D&D was not created in a vacumm but the two names on the OD&D rule booklets are Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Interesting video. FYI that's the colorized map I made at the very beginning of your video! I often give people a hard time for using items from The Fellowship of the Thing without attribution, but you were kind enough not to cut it off on the page of CoTT notices I made. I assume no ill will was meant. I have run across many youtube videos where lots of watermarked material is being used and Secrets of Blackmoor is not credited at all. Some even clone stamp the attribution off of the document in photoshop. All I ever ask is an attribution for the source. I agree with you on the dating issue. I have found nothing that will support an earlier date than what is in the campaign overview with world map, along with the CoTT notices. I am inclined to think that Arneson began the RPG around xmas of 1970. Greg Svenson has always asserted that his first Blackmoor game was on xmas break of 1970/71. I suspect the war game portion of Blackmoor begins around September of 1970. A bigger problem is the whole Chainmail theory. Arneson did use bits and pieces for a while. Yet, we can predate Blackmoor as an RPG to at least a month before Chainmail was published. Of course we both seem to be of a mind it was much earlier. The bias within the historian community to favor Gygax is always quite interesting. Whenever Arneson makes a claim his assertions are doubted. But in the instance of Chainmail being used in Arneson's games even briefly, then it is assumed he used it exclusively and from the very beginning; never mind Leonard Patt's Fantasy Game having been published before then. Peterson has a good blog post on the Leonard Patt system and how Gygax plagiarized it all for Chainmail. Thus in this instance people try to tell me Arneson had a pre-publication copy of chainmail - but they do it without an ounce of evidence. It is just as likely he had Leonard Patt's system. And we have enough evidence of Arneson having done medieval battles long before chainmail with the set of papers called the Medieval Battle Notes which I think have to come from the late 1960's. Pint being, Arneson had a system for running medievals long before Chainmail is published. All of this makes the CM arguments very inconclusive. There may be a lot of old sources for Hit Points. It is well documented that the Twin Cities gamers played a lot of Fletcher Pratt's Naval Wargame. It is dice-less and uses hit points for damage. So that concept can be attributed at least that far back to about 1937. Worth noting, Strategos - A has hit points in it, and it is from 1969. That was discovered by M. Wittig. The XP story is complicated. Mike likes to to tell that story. I'm pretty sure FITS did not have experience in early editions. It was published later in a magazine. I'd have to look up a date, but I am pretty sure a later addition than D&D. There are mentions of troop experience within Strategos games. It may be possible to attribute XP to Wesely's Strategos when Arneson was doing nappy campaign games. Troops go up in rank if they win combats during a battle. Like the problem with dating items and events, these ideas for rules are floating around in that time in many places and are hard to trace back conclusively. Dan Boggs found some rules which are Blackmoor derived, the Snider Variant. Those rules are interesting because Snider states that while he is using his own system for man to man combat, massed combat should use the Blackmoor massed combat system. I do not believe the Twin Cities gamers ever used Chainmail in their group's battles and are more likely to have used a Strategos variant. This again points to the bias toward Chainmail. The Twin Cities gamers had their own house rules in their Strategos variants, N, A, C, and RT. Even DGUTS is a Strategos variant. Interestingly, the dates in history books for the use of Strategos are stated as the publication date for Strategos - N, yet the variants on N appear in COTT as early as 1969. Last year while at Arnecon, Ken fletcher gave us a box full of xeroxed very early material that our research group had never seen before. All of it is difficult to date. One can go with the assumed timelines and thus say it is all from 1971 and on, but I am still not so sure. We're publishing all of it in a new book, Blackmoor Foundations. If you would like a review copy get a hold of me on twitter, or on the Secrets of Blackmoor Facebook page. More than glad to send you one so you can see these new items. Much of the stuff is so new that we really do not want to apply really strict assertions on what it all is. It is being made available in such a rapid manner that anyone interested in RPG history will be able to use it and cite it in future research. I will be very curious to see what others discover within the collection. Griff
Thank you so much for watching and for sharing your thoughts and providing additional context and/or corrections. I really appreciate it! I'll try to get back to each comment specifically but firstly wanted to apologize for missing the attribution on the map. I have shown things from "Secrets of Blackmoor" before in some of my other videos and properly credited them each time (at least, I think - if missed, it was unintentional) and I've also mentioned quite a few times in my videos that folks should watch the documentary and put links to it in my show notes! I'm a big fan and I contributed to the crowd-funding for it and own it on Blu-Ray. And thank you so much for your offer of the review copy of Blackmoor Foundations! That is amazing! I saw your note on Twitter and replied back to you, but I'll try contacting you on Facebook as well. (Also, it's been quite a while but you and I have chatted before in the comments on my blog! But that was years ago!)
Yeah, for a lawsuit, the claimed 1971 start date was likely just the earliest date they had really solid proof for that they could submit as evidence and their lawyer(s) could make a strong case from. For a legal claim like that, it matters much more how strong a case can be made, and getting the *actual* historically-correct start date is very much a secondary concern -- you really just want to go with the date that you have the most solid proof of that still supports your claim, so the other side's lawyers can't really dispute it or raise much doubt about it.
Thank you! This is the point I was trying to make, and I'm glad you understand the difference and why the legal claim of the date does not necessarily mean it is the *true* date. Thanks for watching and commenting. I appreciate it!
Yep -- it's the earliest date that can be proven. Although @daddyrolleda1 - Not sure why a date before 1971 is important? It's documented -- that Perren's 4-page pre-Chainmail rules were published in the Paunzerfeist fanzine #5 (April 1970) and then slightly expanded by Perrin and Gygax in The Domesday Book #5 (July 1970), and also documented by Jon Peterson that Arneson was aware of and used these rules -- how much -- who knows? But to look at a date earlier than April 1970 -- that would try to defeat the pre-Chainmail influence is difficult -- and then you'd actually have to have a copy of Arneson's notes -- and then even if you did -- because they were never published -- how could you even set an authoritative date, for what was written and when. I think conjecturing and getting verbal information is interesting -- I thought this was a very nice video and very interesting -- nice to play arm chair historians -- but it's the written evidence that proves things -- fanzines, magazines, old manuscripts, published games, and to some extent correspondence. Verbal evidence is good -- but lots of "maybe" and "probably" go with verbal evidence. WoTC claims that this month with their new book -- they will publish some correspondence that has never been seen before -- but I think most of this info has already been seen and documented by Jon Peterson -- so yes -- will be interesting if any new written information comes to light. btw: This new WoTC book is being -- written by Jon Peterson.
The more I learn about where this hobby came from, the more I think “role playing game” is a really flawed term. We’re stuck with it now but I do prefer thinking of many of them as “adventure games”. D&D might be a Fantasy Adventure Game while Call of Cthulhu might be a Lovecraftian Adventure Game or whatever. I say these because in both these games and many like them, the degree to which you are actually “roleplaying” is more dependent upon the table, the player preferences, and so on than with the games themselves. You can play many games that are now called “RPGs” while doing very little “role playing” at all and similarly you can play a board game like Clue with as much as Roleplaying as you wish. As another related note, I’ve been very recently playing a Civil War Naval Game (Iron and Oak), you could very well call it a war game but I think like many ancient fossil it seriously muddies the waters as to what counts as what and here are some examples: In Iron and Oak there are different “types” of ships like ships of the line, ironclads, and monitors and all have some specific rules attached to them. You could even say they are different “classes” of ship. In Iron and Oak you use a wide variety of dice, d8s, d10s, d12s, d6 and so on. In this game you often roll a small pool of dice, looking for which comes up with the highest number. A ship with a fire rating of d10,d6 is more likely to do damage than a ship just rolling a d8 upon firing with both a higher possible maximum and higher average minimum result. In Iron and Oak ships can receive a number of “hits’ before being sunk, in addition to the risk of suffering critical damage that hinders various elements of the ships fighting capability (something I wish more ‘RPGs’ did and many of them do). In Iron and Oak if you’re playing a campaign game a ship’s crew can get better battle to battle. They might be a green LEVEL crew, an average LEVEL crew, or a crack LEVEL crew. I’ll also say that playing the same ship from battle to battle you can get quite attached to those little buggers, they have names, they have a history in the game, they’ve made a difference. So when John, Bob, and Wendy sit down to play Iron and Oak and they’ve each decided to take a single ship in a campaign with another player acting as the neutral arbiter and “opposition” (a totally valid way to play), despite playing a “war game” is it all that different than if they sat down to 5e? I dunno but the more I learn about both genres of game, the less I think they are all that distinct and the more I think they continue to subtly intermingle and impact each other 50 years since they supposedly split.
You and me both! Yeah, it's pretty sad that Gygax and Arneson had a falling out -- but both are giant heroes in my book. But yeah -- so much bias from both ends -- why can't we just acknowledge the greatness of both of them -- and thank them for what they did!!
It strikes me that "roleplaying" is a better term for what the Braunstein/Blackmoor groups was doing than what we consider roleplaying these days. Do you have any knowledge about how that particular term came about?
Before being adopted by the gaming community (which seems to have happened very quickly to describe these tyupes of games, as early as 1975 or 1976) it was a term used in a variety of situations including probably most common in Psychology and also various training exercises for a variety of skills/occupations including medical and educational. One specific example I heard is that roleplay is used often in improvisational theater, with a specific exercise being that of a vendor claiming to sell a product and a customer asking for various different forms of said product, only to be told by the vendor that the product is not available. Both the Cheese Shop and the Book Seller skits from Monty Python are examples of this, as they were originally supposedly both improv performances where the vendor had to stay on his or her toes to come up with plausible, yet funny, reasons as to why the item wasn't available. It's been suggested to me that it's this latter type of improvisational exercise (in general, not these Monty Python skits specifically) that are related to the terms adoption for the new style of "wargames" like Braunstein, Blackmoor, and D&D.
Also conjecture from what I've read (can't remember the source but probably Peterson or Applecline) -- usually credits "Judge's Guild" for applying -- or first using the term to D&D. Role playing and role-playing games existed before D&D (like Braunstein -- although Braunstein was never officially published) -- but term was never applied in writing to D&D until around 1 or 2 years after its release. Another source -- can't remember where -- credits Ken St. Andre from T&T for using the term first -- so a bit of disagreement on when the term was first used for TTRPGs.
I have heard both of those claims as well as an issue of "Alarums and Excursions" as being the first time the term is used. But I *think* the St. Andre claim for T&T holds the most weight given what we know at the moment, but of course that may change when/if new information comes to light.
@@daddyrolleda1 Yes -- you're right. I'd forgotten about the A&E claim!! 🙂 - yes -- I've heard that one as well -- but agree I think the Ken St. Andre claim is probably the strongest one. Although does it really matter? It's not like anyone is going to get any money -- by claiming to be the first. 😂 And Ken would still be the first -- as "officially" applying the term to D&D -- IMO it doesn't count if someone said it -- wrote it in a notebook - which they then threw in the closet and then later claimed they were the first. There is a lot to be said about being the first to "publish" something or even announce it in some kind of written form to the public.
@@daddyrolleda1 btw: I am curious about your statement of "if" new information comes to light. If information is available -- why would people withhold it? Doesn't make sense. WoTC claims that they are going to publish some never before seen correspondence in their new history book -- which is supposed to come out this month -- but yeah -- kind of weird that WoTC decided never to publish this info before -- now I see it as they want to help justify selling a $99 MSRP book. 😂
I'm hoping to clear something up; apologies if I sound like a jerk: A zero-sum game is what results from one player winning (+1), while the other loses (-1), with the net sum being equal to zero (1-1=0). Most competitive games are 'zero-sum' unless there's a tie. 'Non-zero-sum' games describe scenarios where there can be more than one winner, or loser ( 38:12 ), and the game can even be cooperative, rather than competitive. It seems to me that you actually mean 'non-zero-sum' when you are saying 'zero-sum'. If everyone can be the winner, I'd describe that as a ' net positive'.
You are absolutely correct! That's what I get for not writing out actual scripts but instead relying on a few bullet points and a faulty memory. You'll also notice that a few times in the video I said "Braunstein" when I meant "Blackmoor." Thanks for the correction and I will try to work it into a future video to clear that up. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@daddyrolleda1 No worries. And I frequently get Dave Weseley mixed up with Dave Megary (too many Daves!!) -- and probably half the time spell Dave Wesely's name wrong. 😂
Spelling it incorrectly is I think pretty common. I was sadly mispronouncing both his and Megarry's last names for the longest time. Makes me wish UA-cam let you edit a video after it has been published!
Imagine if the drinking age was lower then 21? But also young people can often times be annoying and younger DMs don't always have the life experience to DM because they don't always have the experience to ajudicate a resolution to a problem.
Don't sell yourself short Martin. Many "academics" don't go as far as you and the key difference is you're objectively recording (documenting) your experiences and information for posterity. You don't need a degree to be a great musician.
I really appreciate you saying that! I think a key element is to not approach the topic with a pre-conceived notion or thinking that "someone is getting too much credit." I appreciate your comment and support. Thank you!
@@daddyrolleda1 Just a recommendation -- I'm not sure why you don't credit or mention "Playing at the World"? -- love your videos -- but whenever I see your videos -- I'm like -- yep already read that in "Playing at the World" 🙂. I actually think you will get more credibility by mentioning "Playing at the World". Btw other You Tubers like Questing Beast and Professor Dungeon Master -- always mention "Playing at the World". Questing Beast -- I think even takes great pride at saying he read it -- as he should -- yeah -- that was a beast of a book.😂 I have it as an e-book, but I think it's like a 900+ page physical book -- yeah took me a while to read it, and some of the chapters were pretty dry. Chapters 1, 3, and 5 were excellent -- 2 and 4 were super dry. Hope I don't sound harsh -- love your videos - I've said this before I think some of your stories like going to play Braunstein at DaveCon are very interesting -- but would be great to mention the master TTRPG historian himself, Jon Peterson. Really do think it would give you a lot more credibility -- and Jon has some much "written" evidence -- it's a beautiful source of TTRPG history.
Thanks for your comment(s) and support of the channel. I did mention Jon Peterson a few times in this video and have also mentioned him and his work(s) before here on the channel. I'm familiar with his works and he's done a lot to help bring a lot of this information to light and to get people interested in the topic. In fact, I've used screen-grabs of many of the things he has shown on his channel (with attribution). Like any of us, Jon is looking at the documentation he has available and any interviews and first-hand information he can get, which is great, and he was one of the first to do so, so he's definitely one source among many to consider, at least to me. But at this point, given what I have been exposed to from the folks I have spoken to and some documentation I have been allowed to see (which isn't available for public consumption yet), I'm a little skittish to point to any one single person as being "the authority" of these kinds of topics, as new information is being discovered all the time. I hope that makes sense. I truly thank you for your support and for taking time to share your thoughts here in the comments. Cheers!
@@daddyrolleda1 Thanks for your response. Yeah, sorry if I haven't noticed you mentioning Peterson. Not sure how familiar you are with his book "Playing at the World" -- but that book is insane -- what Peterson did is amazing -- he's looked at so many written artifacts to include fanzines and correspondence and interviewed almost everyone in the TTRPG industry first hand -- the other historian that is incredible is Shannon Applecline -- who is a little more on the history of TTRPG companies and their products -- almost everything on the Internet (to include Wikipedia) from what I have seen is usually based on either Peterson's or Applecline's work, like a lot of information on The Acaeum is based on Applecline's work. I think you are aware that WoTC is about to publish a giant history book on OD&D this month -- and guess who it is written by -- Jon Peterson -- and it is supposed to include some correspondence that supposedly has never been seen by the public before from WotC's archives. It's supposed to MSRP for $99 so a little painful... will probably watch some reviews before I decide to purchase it or not. Yeah, sorry - as you can tell - I'm a big Peterson fan (and I get kind of irritated when I know he's already written about something in nauseating detail and he's not credited). I really like it when I see Professor Dungeon Master and Questing Beast praise his book and list it as one of their primary sources for many things re: TTRPG history. Gives them IMO a ton of credibility. Yes, "Playing at the World" -- that book is a beast -- but it's amazing -- and so is Shannon Applecline's Designer's & Dragon's series-- fantastic!!. All the Braunstein stuff (which has gotten a little trendy right now -- I think it's just because of DaveCon) is not new -- it's in "Playing at the World" - Peterson even spends like 10+ pages on Totten's Stratego (mostly talking about the referee innovation that comes from Stratego) and on Diplomacy - and Diplomacy's influence on TTRPGs. -- I for one am glad you and other UA-camrs are covering it -- yes -- the only problem with Peterson is "Playing at the World" is not something most people want to read -- some of the chapters are a real slog. How many people want to read over 100 pages of information on Kreigspeil? So, the way I see it UA-camrs like you are bringing this goodness to a larger audience and in a much more digestible form. So, thanks for your hard work!!
This is as pro dave as you can logically get that doesnt mean its not correct but you can see as detail arguments that gary did all the work the truth is we will never know , who did what. So you can pick a side on faith, or recognise dave was a nice guy that had lots of ideas, but without gary the sum total for his work would be a few sheets of paper in a garage some where.
As someone trained as an academic historian, want to say, don't put yourself down! You're questioning the sources and the narratives quite competently, and your videos have been gold for those of us interested in the history of the game!
I really appreciate that! Thank you for the positivity and for watching and commenting. I really appreciate it! And, thanks for your support of the channel. Cheers!
I completely agree with you. I started this game way back in 1981. And some of this history is absolutely new to me and I love it.
Glad to hear. Thank you!
I was going to say, regardless of how rigorous his research is by academic standards, the fact that he uses primary sources for information rather than randos on the internet puts him in a much higher category than the large majority of people talking about the history of D&D on the internet.
@@willydstyle Primary verbal sources - however not primary "written" sources". I think Daddy Rolled a 1 does a great job -- but hard to separate a lot of conjecture without examining written evidence, like he said people forget, people are hazy on dates, and some people even have agendas. The History bible for TTRPGs is "Playing at the World" which IMO is the definitive reference. Where Daddy rolled a 1 I think adds value is making this information consumable.
Oh, thank you for For making that the video of the game that we played I think that was really great. I’ve been waiting for somebody to do that I was there were just a couple of things that I thought I should clear up for you just because you have seem to have an interest in the history number one I was talking about two different things. The meeting that took place at Gary’s basement had nothing to do with exactly this game, we set up the castle crusade society. That was just Gary and Dave and I when we went back to the cities Dave wanted to make a game for the castle crusade society, but he also wanted to experiment with the arm experiment with the role-playing ass from the brownstone type of phone, and so he called me on the telephone and asked if I would have a game at my house at my parents house and soul add that game Arneson came with his notebook and which he had written down rules which he had gotten from somewhere which I think probably were the ones that Kevin showed you And the rules that each person that he had invited I could play no he didn’t just do it. He invited people and more people came and so he would add in rules as the game was being played so what you have there is one of the added rolls and the one of the bandit which he added in later and I’ve kind of jury rigged, the Role by using things from his other players that he married so each player had different objectives and I think you are you made reference to that so I hope this is gonna make any sense because the the iPad is not doing everything I wanted but hopefully I’ll give you some information. The castle that was used in that game was my castle. I had this copy of this, this air fixed castle and I used it because that’s what I had the buildings that I used were mine And the figures were mine all that stuff was used in my basement for the game that David plan to play and solve that’s the only thing I like I will. I thought you might want to think on that I don’t just know that this is what we did we were using what we had that’s why I tried before I’ll reproduce my battles or my running of that battle the same way as we had done 40 or 50 years ago.
Morgan Ironwolf 0:20! Love this video!
Thank you Professor! I mentioned your most recent video specially when I (finally) get to the discussion on Armor Class. I dug a little deeper and found some new info!
only missing Duchess and Candella... sigh...
Really loving these 'lore afore the lore' series on D&D and its "support beams". Thanks!
Eh, as a academic historian, let me let you in on a little secret:
*Alot* of the work we do nowadays is googling! Granted it’s of primary sources, but being able to use the net and search engines to find information is a very important skill and it’s not really something people are taught to do.
Every thing you say about people wanting the simple, straightforward answer vs the truth which is complex, nuanced, and illusive is right on the money and something historians grapple with all the time. Honestly, it’s something a lot of otherwise well educated people (often with doctorates and book deals!) don’t seem to understand, so take heart that you’ve got them beat!
Love your D&D history videos, they are really some of the best research into some of these topics I’ve seen!
Kudos for seeking out the people we still have with us and getting their stories down. Oral history is a super valuable and important resource for the future.
Thank you so much for this comment. I truly appreciate it! It means a lot to get your perspective on the whole "research" aspect of my videos.
Thanks so much for watching and taking the time to comment, and for your support of the channel!
The way you described Gary and the controversy around who created what,made me immediately think of Stan Lee. I feel like there are a lot of parallels there.
That makes sense - a couple other people have made a similar Stan Lee / Jack Kirby comparison before, and I can see that.
Thank you so much for watching and commenting!
It feels like they both contributed a lot. The real issue comes down to Gary Gygax getting ALL the credit for a long period of time.
The thing that I think separated this situation from Lee, is that Lee is a proven thief who stole credit. Gary, on the other hand, had a mystique that built around him. It could be media, or legal, or Gary himself that did this.
@@daddyrolleda1that's unfair to jack he produced lots of stuff that stan lee had no connection with.
I feel like I have attended a graduate level class in D&D history after listening to your podcast. Invaluable information. Thank you, sir.
That is a very nice comment. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much! Cheers!
This is an incredibly important video. Speaking as someone who was completely ignorant of the history of D&D, I think you've really delved into something that most people have really glossed over.
I am so glad you found the video enjoyable, interesting, and informational! Thank you so much for watching and commenting!
A nuanced approach to a fascinating subject!
Thank you! I appreciate you saying that, and I also thank you for watching and commenting.
Nice video Martin! So dating, I like how you characterize it. however October 1970 is about as far back as you could go with it. Wesely played no Blackmoor before he left for the Army in October, and Bill Hoyt left for a job at Ellesworth College later that same month. Bill believes the pre-Blackmoor medieval wargame took place in October between those two events. I think i heard you say Gygax played in this game? That is definitely not correct. I would personally also add David Megarry to your important people list for the influence Dungeon! had on D&D's design. the concept of level advancement is also present in Strategos N, not just FitS. On the Civil War Ironclads game - we know exactly what it was - Arneson's re-edit of the Walter Gurney Green rules. There's a couple posts on my blog about it. :) O
Thanks again for your updates. Yes, when I played the Medieval Braunstein game with Bill Hoyt that he ran at DaveCon last month, I misunderstood him saying that Gary was there. He came into the comments in that video to correct that he was speaking about the creation of the Castles & Crusades Society, not that specific game he ran. There was so much going on and I was a bit "star struck" meeting and playing games with Dave Wesely, Mike Carr, Bill, and Dave Megarry, so it was difficult to play, engage, "be in the moment" and take notes at the same time, so I got a few details wrong despite trying to write everything down.
When I asked the folks about the Naval Game that Dave used as inspiration for some of the mechanics in Blackmoor, I was told it was a game he had created himself but it was never published. I will check out the posts on your blog for more details.
And yes, definitely agree about Dave Megarry. I've mentioned him quite a few times on the blog but haven't gotten specific. I will attempt to correct that in a future video.
Thanks!
In the classic age of sail (17th to19th centuries), the largest ship of the line (literally a line of ball ship) was a "first rate" with 3 decks and 100 plus guns. A second rate was a three decker with under 100 guns, a third rate was a two decker with 64 to 80 guns and so on and so down to sixth rates (small frigates) and "unrated" ships (brigs, sloops etc. with about 10-20 guns). The lower number was the most powerful ship. These were wooden sail powered war ships. The larger ships carried more guns, and more powerful guns, and had thicker hulls as well. A lower number = tougher makes sense from that context.
This is really helpful! I asked multiple times and the explanation I was given was that Dave Arneson had created his own game, as he was really into naval ships and we do have documentation that he'd catalogued every type of ship that was in existence up until that time, but nobody could give me a specific game or any other context for descending armor class other than to say "it came from naval wargames." Thank you very much for sharing this.
And thank you for watching and commnenting.
@@microcomet I never claimed Dave invented it. If you watched the video I specifically said Dave said he got it from an old naval wargame but I couldn't find any source on the name of the game he was influenced by.
I appreciate you commenting but would especially appreciate if you don't put words in my mouth, as in your claim in another comment that I said Dave invented role-playing. When you have a chance to watch the video, you'll notice that I never said that.
Cheers, and thanks again for your interest.
@@daddyrolleda1 Sorry to have to mention "Playing at the World" again😂According, to Peterson -- Gygax and Arneson collaborated on sea battle rules that were later published as "Don't Give Up the Ship" (1971). Yes, Dave may have been influenced by something prior -- but yes hard to prove that without written evidence, and that this game was never published.
Something that almost no-one ever mentions is that ascending or descending AC is pretty important -- back in those days because Gygax and Arneson came from wargaming roots they always used "tables" (from wargaming) -- when you use tables -- whether AC descends or ascends is completely irrelevant (you just need to know how to use the table) -- it's only later when they wanted to get rid of the tables -- that they realized that in a roll-over-system -- that ascending AC is slightly more intuitive.
I'm really very sorry that I offended you with my comments, as that was definitely not my intent. I try to curate a very nice and friendly community here, and I apologize if I misread your comments. The two that stuck out to me were comments that it was "dumb" or "stupid" to claim that Dave Arneson "invented role-playing" and the one that he "invented saving throws." As those were posted in the comments on my video, I hope you can understand that I read them to mean that you were stating I had made those claims in my video, so I was a bit confused since I didn't say that, which led me to believe that you may not have watched the video before commenting (which is very common here on UA-cam when people look at the thumbnail and read the video title, and then assume what I am talking about).
In any event, I saw from one of your deleted comments that you were involved with the Minnesota gaming community very early on, and it would be nice to have your point-of-view given your experiences during that time, but I definitely understand if this is not the community for you.
My apologies again for misunderstanding your comments.
@microcomet It's totally okay. I wasn't upset with you at all, but more at the situation for thinking I had offended you inadvertently. But it's all good. I do really appreciate you taking the time to reply back, and I sincerely hope your day today is better. I've definitely been there and taken my bad mood out on other people without realizing it. We're only human. I very much look forward to continuing to chat with you and see you share your viewpoints on this history, and once again I hope your day is better today. Sending you my best. Cheers!
Watching this and other similar posts put into perspective my first D&D games where the DM was using the earliest D&D rules , speed factors , AC -1 , weapon length etc , only realised all these years later where these things all came from , I thought our DM created it all. Thank you so much for enlightening me and bringing back those great memories.
I am so glad you found my video and that it helped you with your understanding of the early days of the hobby. Thank you so much for watching and commenting!
Thanks for the great video and shedding light on the origins of the machanics and creators. 👍
Thank you very much for watching and commenting! I'm so glad you found it interesting and informative. Cheers!
This video did not disappoint, there was somethings that were new to me for sure and confirmed a few other things
I'm really glad to hear that! Thank you so much for letting me know. Cheers!
THANK YOU!
I'm still taking notes for a D&D retrospective, and this information will be invaluable
I'm so glad to hear that! I hope you enjoy the video and that it's helpful for your retrospective project. Are you going to publish it on a blog or a book or elsewhere?
I can save you some work - Jon Peterson wrote "Playing at the World" -- a beast of a book -- but Jon examined tons of primary "written" sources - and "verbal" sources -- much more credence being put on written sources. I think Daddy rolled a 1 is familiar if familiar with Playing at the World -- if not -- highly recommended!! Playing at the World talks about Braunstein and Siege of Bodenberg -- I am glad though that more people are being made aware of "Braunstein" -- Dave Megarry does deserve some of the credit!!
@@quantus5875 yes he has mentioned that book, and fortunately my library has a copy
@@daddyrolleda1 A UA-cam series, since a lot of what I'm gathering would be directly cited from other books, it would feel wrong to publish it. Besides, I want to try a UA-cam career.
OMG!!! Dave Arneson Artifacts!!! Yes please! Great video as always, thanks for doing these. :)
I'm glad you enjoyed it - thanks for watching and commenting!
Great video and presentation. Many thanks for all the leg work you have done. This is excellent history to be shared for the nerd community at large.
I really appreciate you saying that! Thank you so much for watching, and for taking a minute to write this nice comment. It means a lot. Cheers.
You have a great channel. Keep at it. Your subs will go up as you have quality content.
@@anon_laughing_man Thank you very much for the encouragement!
Great to see Mike Carr coming up in this conversation. We had a great talk about the influence of FitS on both the character advancement and aerial combat rules in OD&D. He also signed my PHB. Nice fellow!
Yes, he was so nice! I had a really lovely chat with him.
I wish I'd had the forethought to bring some of my old games to have these folks sign!
One of my favorite D&D modules is B1, wish he had written more...
I am excited for this topic as this is something I've looked into a lot myself
I'm so glad to hear that! I hope you enjoy the video!
Anyone interested in the history of this should check out Jon Peterson’s books. Arneson’s greatest contribution to gaming seems to be the concept of the dungeon adventure. As far as I know, there’s no obvious predecessor, and it’s very different than the open environments used in previous war games and strategy games.
Yes, his books are good reading for the history of the game, as well as others like Shannon Applecline's Designers and Dragons, Lawrence Schick's Heroic Worlds, and even WotC's Art and Arcana (my favorite WotC book, by far). But yes, Peterson's are perhaps the most "scholarly" of the bunch, and even then there are some things he either doesn't/didn't have access to and/or he makes conjectures (such as wondering if the Dalluhn Manuscript was created by a person from Duluth) that are reasonable given the information has on hand, but not always entirely accurate.
Thank you for watching and commenting!
Conan books had hero go into dungeons?
oh let me add, Duane Jenkins was the one who wanted to be a vampire and eventually got his wish - long after the start of the game and long after the introduction of the priest btw. Dave Fant played the baron of Blackmoor but had to leave the game and Arneson eventually turned that character into sir Fang. Fant never played as sir Fang though as he had long since left the game due to his job.
Thanks, Daniel. Kevin had corrected me on that as well. I should've checked my notes before speaking spontaneously about that, because I believe in a previous video I had gotten it correct. One day I may make a "super-cut" revised video in which I made all the corrections and update I've learned over the years!
Thanks for the video! I appreciate your humble approach to both the research and the information you share. Too often I see folks asserting things where the information clearly is not as certain as is presented. As an early 70s wargamer who added D&D to my gaming rotation right after it was published and attended my first GenCon in 1975, my own early gaming memories are sometimes hazy or colored by nostalgia, I have no doubt. Keep up the great work!
Thanks a ton, Mark. I really appreciate your support of me and my channel. I'm really glad you enjoyed the video. And even though you and I chatted about jazz earlier this week, I tried to change it up!
@@daddyrolleda1 Plenty of future videos can circle back around to jazz. 🙂
I really appreciate your openness and integrity regarding the limits of knowledge at this point. You make an important point with such respect for everyone involved.
I'm so glad to hear that! It's a much more complicated and nuanced topic than folks really think about, as our minds want there to be a very tidy transition from Braunstein to Blackmoor to D&D but it's more convoluted than that.
@@daddyrolleda1 Yeah. It's really fascinating to hear about it in this manner. It also brings a human touch to the history.
There is nothing black and white about any of this. Honestly, far more people involved than will ever get recognized. Excellent work, Martin. Love ❤️ and blessings good sir.
Thank you so much! I'm glad you enjoyed the video, and also that you understand the difficult (folly, perhaps?) of trying to make definitive claims about this topic! Always glad to see you in the comments. Cheers!
There is a lot of grey in this. Whenever you start dealing with non-written information you run into grey. I do appreciate Daddy rolled a 1 highlighting that there is grey -- when things aren't written down, people forget dates, people misremember things, and some people even have agendas. This whole topic is complicated because there are many people that are either Pro-Gygax or Pro-Arneson -- so like all history there is bias based on your view. Almost no-one is fully neutral. I for one do claim full neutrality. I think they are both masters -- and they both deserve full credit for "jointly" creating Dungeons & Dragons. Thank you so MUCH Gary and Dave -- you are giants!!!
I do like more UA-camrs like Daddy Rolled a 1 -- shedding more awareness about Dave Megary's "Braunstein" and hope to see more videos on Henry Bodenstedt's "Siege of Bodenberg" (1966). Yes -- Dave and Gary did not invent all this stuff on their own -- many fine people came before them -- and there is even over 150+ years of "Kriegspeile" (wargaming) that helped build the foundation for D&D. Thanks Dave Megary!!
Even bringing up the concept that first person accounts, recounted decades later, can’t really be considered primary source material is a huge step up from a lot of channels, sir. Good job.
And I really would love to see a library/museum of what primary source materials we DO have from the history TTRPGs - all the way until today - come into being.
Thank you so much!
Yes, I know there are some libraries that have attempted to create repositories of published stuff, but a research library where one would review related documents/drafts/letters/etc. would be amazing.
They are, by definition, primary sources. The difference is that, even when contemporary, primary sources are not definitive; you can't take them at face value, because the people living through the events don't, and can't, see the whole story. Even assuming they're interested in their best attempts at an objective version of what happened, which they often are not.
Well no, it still a primary source, just not as reliable. Eye witnesses don't morph into secondary sources over time. Primary, secondary, etc. are terms of relation, not value judgements on accuracy.
@@danielboggs2013 thank you!
@@danielboggs2013 that was not clear enough. Thanks for helping me understand better!
25 minutes into it and I’m already loving it. And thanks for skirting around certain subjects.
got to the tail end and so I’m updating my notes and comments. The battle which was the Roman army invading England was David Megarry as the Druitt with the phaser. And it was Pete Gaylord charging in with his war elephants who was really surprised and yeah, they had an argument after that. But it was funny. .
there was one other player who did become a vampire. I think before Dwayne Jenkins and his sir Fang sounds similar to David Fant in name.
David Fant would be a good person to interview if you get the chance. I have yet to really get to sit down with him yet myself. Nice guy otherwise lives in Michigan.
But yeah, Dwayne Jenkins worked late at night and David Arneson would read or narrate. What was the day before episode of dark shadows. There is some humor there as well because apparently occasionally miss a episode and make it up. He is narration was sometimes even better than the episode that actually aired. This is relayed to me as secondary story, but it’s a good indication of Arnesen’s ability to narrate.
I am so glad to hear that! Thank you for watching and for your support. Cheers, Kevin!
Really informative, very glad I watched this. I've heard of Chainmail, Blackmoor and Barons of Braunstein, but I really like how you get into exactly what ideas were developed while those games were being played and how they ended up in D&D. Surprised I hadn't heard of Dawn Patrol before now. You've really got an impressive wealth of knowledge about this hobby.
I'm learning so much from your videos, thank you.
I'm so glad to hear that! Thank you very much for watching and commenting, and for your support of the channel. Cheers!
Great stuff! I only want to correct a side point. Dark Shadows was an afternoon soap opera with humans and monsters including the vampire Barnabas Collins in typical soap opera situations with each other. Sure it was a modern horror, but a very particular type. It did okay, but didn't appeal to the housewives who watched soaps. They already had their soaps in its time slot. It came on after school, so lots of teens watched it, but it couldn't last because its audience didn't have enough spending money to appeal to advertisers.
Great video! Endlessly fascinated by the way Arneson ran his games, how freeform, and player-focused they seemed to be.
51:19 Bishop Turpin has a sword, "Almace."
I had a feeling I had that reference incorrect when I was saying it, but interesting when you get a chance to watch my video on the Cleric class, Gary made that same mistake and I even pointed out in my video about Almace and how that explanation didn't make sense. I just didn't remember it when making this video. Thanks for the reminder, and for watching and commenting!
It's Bishop Odo of Bayeux.
@@LordCandyDishYes! Thank you! I had that mentioned in another video I did on Clerics but I couldn't come up with the name off the top of my head in this one. Thanks again!
Another home run, man. I do agree with you, I feel with this modern digital age everyone forgets their was a time when people weren't filming or otherwise recording every aspect of a project or their life so that's why we just can't 100% be for sure on everything all the time from pre internet days. Lol
But this definitely gave me some new perspective on a few things. Also I remembered while watching this that on my first deer hunting trip, I went on at 19, I met a guy that used to game with arneson(not part of the blackmoor bunch, though) he had a few stories he would tell me about playing with him but I barely knew Dave was at the time so I almost forgot about that because it's been almost 8 year's since then, I can only imagine nearly 60 year. Lol
But definitely can't wait for your kick starter. I definitely would like that for my 1e and ose collection
Oh wow -- thank you so much for this great comment! What a small world that your friend gamef with Arneson!
To your point about photographic evidence, it reminds me a little about this comedian bit I've seen in which he discusses how people our parents' age had really unique and great pictures to share, whereas when the people growing up now are sharing pictures either their grandkids, it'll be things like, "That's a picture of my breakfast, and that picture is a pair of shoes I thought about buying..."
Thank you for your support of my Kickstarter! I really appreciate it!!!
@daddyrolleda1 ya, definitely. You, greyhawkgrognard, and page 121 are probably my favorite rpg content creators here on UA-cam, and I really appreciate the work you all do for the hobby to keep it going.
We don't need video -- but back then there was even a huge lack of written evidence -- yes people did not know that they were creating ideas for the greatest TTRPG game ever published -- they didn't know they were helping create something new -- something mind-shattering -- that they were making history -- so sadly not much written down.
@kuriboh635 Thank you so much for saying this. I really appreciate it! And thank you very much for your support of the channel. Cheers!
My understanding of the AC from the naval game is that a high armor class ship was bigger and therefore more powerful, but also easier to hit.
Hits points is the ability to no get mortal wound.
Armor Classe is a saving thrown for combat.
Saving Throws this for not get suck automatically.
It's nice to see Dave Arneson finally get the recognition he deserves these last several years. My understanding is Dave invented D&D, Gygax 'edited' the original rules. This was proved in the final court case - with some of the original players submitting material evidence to support this. I spoke with Pete Gaylord several times about this in the 1970's when I was active in the gaming community that met at his house every Saturday.
Re the Naval Wargames bit: I also have a copy of Don’t Give Up The Ship, which interestingly included rules for steam tugs that presumably would have been the basis for the unpublished ironclads rules. That would take a lot of the complexity out of DGUTS which has a ton of sailing and wind rules, though those rules I imagine would have carried over as optional rules perhaps. I think probably Arneson was trying to revise the armor class to correspond better with the historical “rating” system of sailing warships, which had “First Rates” as the biggest and best ships in the fleet. Since Naval wargamers would probably already know this it would help streamline the concept, and the idea of “first rate” being best outside of a naval context probably influenced the reuse of the rules. Also, brining the class of ships in line with the rating system would probably have helped fix the problem of DGUTS: it was really hard to add new ships into the game without a lot of cumbersome calculations. If the ships were instead simply rated using the same system as their historical counterparts, one might merely need to know the rating of the historical ship, per historical documents.
It might also have been that the system was revised because as in real life the existence of ironclads threw it all into disarray. In which case, like knights, the quality of your armor starts to matter a great deal, and again you use the existing rating systems and the mindset of the players to help communicate the abstraction simply.
33:25
I've heard that the armour class came from "Jane's Fighting Ships" being used as reference documents for Naval Wargames, which rated armour as 1st class, 2nd class etc.
But good point about not having a clearly specific one to use.
(Also great video!|)
Thank you very much for watching and commenting, and for this extra information. I've heard of Jane's Fithgint Ships before but no one was able to bring his up when I was chatting with them about the descending armor class. This is really great context! I appreciate it.
Cleric blunt weapon limit goes through 2e. 3e clerics getting all simple weapons (granted they are mostly blunt,.,) was a shock way back when,
Yes, I remember! I seem to recall that some limited changes were being made in the late 2E era, but I wasn't playing D&D at this point so that's mostly based on memory, not actual play. I'd need to dig out my Complete Priest's Handbook, as I seem to recall that it had exceptions made for using a weapon favored by the cleric's deity.
In any event, thank you so much for watching and commenting! I really appreciate it!
@@daddyrolleda1 Yeah, once they added 'deity weapons' those were added to clerics' proficiencies in 2nd. I want to say I first saw them in a 2nd edition Greyhawk sourcebook, which predated the _Complete $CLASS Handbook_ series, but I don't even know if I still have the book to check.
My understanding has long been that saving throws specifically come out of various types of uncontested defensive rolls in Kriegspiel.
I think that is very possible. All that was mentioned at the convention was that they came from previous wargames, but I wasn't able to nail down the exact game/title. Thanks for adding this note. I appreciate it!
Great stuff. Thanks for your hard work.
I would love to see you breakdown the history of the fall of TSR and the start of WoTC. That phase of the history doesn’t seem to get much attention. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone talk about the uproar that change brought on.
Your thoughts, feelings, and experiences from that transition
And/Or
On the topic of the overall changes in D&D over the last 40-50 years.
Thanks again
Love what you play, play what you love
BECMI Forever!
Long Live King Elmore!!
Thank you so much for watching and for your comment!
I can certainly add that to the list. I chat frequently with Bill (William) Connors, who was at TSR during that period (he designed a lot of Ravenloft stuff for 2E, among other things). I'd also like to point you to a book called "Slaying the Dragon" by Ben Riggs which was just released last year and covers a lot of the time period you're asking about.
I do like the idea of the changes in D&D over the past 5+ decades! That could be a whole series!
@@daddyrolleda1 Thanks for the fast response. I am familiar with Mr Riggs book. I know he did a lot of work putting it together and talking to people. A fine work but you and I actually lived it. That’s the voice I don’t hear out there. I think you have the experience to do the topic justice.
I really appreciate the confidence in me, and the positivity! I do remember that time well (like when my Dragon magazine stopped showing up in the mail!). I can certainly add it to the list of potential future topics!
@@jeremydurdil556 The channel sfdebris has done a (continuing) series on the history of _D&D_ that... hmm. Not sure that he's quite gotten his two histories (of _D&D_ and WotC) up to the point where they merge. He's definitely gotten as far as Gygax's ouster at TSR and the early years of _Magic: The Gathering._
Excellent. Was just looking to see if you’d dropped another history lesson.
That's awesome! Thanks for checking back! I *try* to publish one video a week, although they won't always be D&D history. I think my next video might be DM Advice as there is a pretty vocal contingent of my followers who like those, but definitely the history videos have the most supporters.
I hope you enjoy the video!
Lol I’m also eagerly awaiting another campaign video with DM advice
I am really happy to hear that!
Thanks
You're welcome! Thank you for watching and commenting!
We had fantasy skirmish wargaming with hit points in the UK in the early 1970s. We never made the leap to each player controlling one figure (or one leader figure plus a few followers).
Yes, from what I understand, Tony Bath's Hyboria debuted around 1957, so I suspect that also had an impact on a variety of other games with fantasy elements on that side of the pond.
@@daddyrolleda1 Bath's Hyboria is essentially a Play by Mail game in which the PCs are rulers of nations. What we were doing (for me late 1974, but I know others were earlier) was small scale skirmish gaming in which one figure represented one individual. We used the Minifigs Mythical Earth figures.
Oh that's very cool! Were these rules you were all "making up" (I don't mean that in a bad way - I just mean, were you creating rules specifically for your games) or were these published (and widely available) rules?
@@daddyrolleda1 As wargamers we played a lot of Ancients and American Civil War. I don't remember much of the ACW but for Ancients we used Wargames Research Group rules (probably 3rd Edition in 1974). We tried the Fantasy Supplement, but hated it. As far as I know the fantasy rules we used were homebrew. Tabletop battles were Good vs Evil with an inevitable LoTR vibe given the figures we were using. "Armies" consisted of small units of regular troops interspersed with Personality Figures, some of which acted as "Generals". Our wargame underpinnings left us so focused on the units that we never grasped the potential of the Personality Figures. DnD arrived for us in the fall of 1976.
Perfect timing. I've been wondering this myself.
Excellent! I hope you enjoy it.
I'm excited for that kickstarter!
I am so glad to hear that! Thank you so much for your support. Cheers!
I think with regards to the armor class and tallships thing, he's talking about rating. For instance a first rate ship of the line would have 100 or more guns and be the largest of ships with a thicker hull. A third rate would have 64-80 guns and be a smaller ship. So lower numbers in the British Navy's rating system are better? Still it seems like a strange rationale.
I use to buy at yard sales and estate sales all the time. I have found all sorts of interesting bits and pieces of roleplaying games and other games. Some I have identified and others I am still clueless about.
There will never be definitive answers for everything. We all know that most of the early gamers were a bunch of stoners and their memories will be somewhat fuzzy on a lot of things.
I LOVE ALL OF DADDY ROLLED A 1'S VIDEOS
Thank you so much for your support! I truly appreciate it!
yeah I caught Professor DM's video yesterday on some of these. Interesting background for sure!!
I had begun working on this when he posted that video on his Patreon and my first thought was, "Darn - I can't publish this now!" but after watching his, I decided mine was different enough as I tried to dig a little deeper into some of the things were were told at the convention.
I hope you enjoy the rest of the video!
@@daddyrolleda1 good call that you did. Enjoying this as much as I did his.
I'm so glad to hear that! Thank you you very much for sharing. Cheers!
@@daddyrolleda1 Yes, glad you did!! -- everything gets repeated so -- if someone beats you to it -- they didn't really beat you to it -- if you know what I mean. These days it's hard to even think of a TTRPG game that hasn't been reviewed at least once on UA-cam! 😂For the longest time I could never find a review on the Hercules & Xena RPG (Published by West End in 1998), but check that has been reviewed 🙂(although a very lame review IMO), and Bushido (by FGU 1981) but Bushido has since been reviewed twice. DragonQuest has been done several times now, and just saw a really good one of DQ (actually for once actually learned something new as the reviewer was extremely well versed on DW). And by now you can find 10+ reviews each on games like Top Secret, Star Frontiers, Gamma World, etc. No one is first anymore (except that rare one person who is) -- but I'd much rather have 10 reviews on a game -- than 1. So yes -- keep up the good work!!
It’s funny that never how much people argue about the details, the high level story stays the same: Gary brought war-gaming and Dave brought roleplaying. Yes it’s oversimplified, but it’s also more or less correct.
In very broad terms, I agree with this!
Yes -- you can't really separate the two -- both master's in their own right. I kind of dislike all this conjecture on what Dave did and what Gary did they were both "Masters of the Game". Hats off to both of them.
Also - alot of people "conveniently" forget as per "Playing at the "World" that Gary played "Siege of Bodenberg" in 1968 at GenCon I, Gary authored wargames as early as 1968 with "Little Big Horn", Jeff Perren drafted 4 pages of rules that would later become Chainmail in pre-1970, Perrin & Gygax published an expanded set of these pre-Chainmail rules in Paunzerfaust fanzine (April 1970), and then in Domesday #5 (July 1970). Gary met Dave Arneson at GenCon II (1969). Arneson was very familiar with the Domesday pre-Chainmail rules. Arneson and Gygax even collaborated on naval ship rules that would ultimately become "Don't Give Up the Ship" which was ultimately published in 1971. -- I can go on and on with what has been written -- but yeah -- it's not so simple -- and those that want to convey that Arneson and Megary just showed up in late 1972 and showed Gygax the rules to Blackmoor are telling a slightly one-sided tale.
The written evidence suggests Arneson and Gygax were both giants-- and BOTH deserve the distinction of being the Fathers of D&D -- the first ever -- published TTRPG!! I also am glad that Braunstein and Seige of Bodenberg are getting so much more attention -- really glad for Dave Megary!
Yes -- I really disklike the pro-Arneson or the pro-Gygax camps -- they were both greats!!
@@quantus5875 And don't forget Dave Wesely! As I articulate in my video, you don't get D&D without all three of them.i said that last time, too, in my previous video, that if you remove any of the three of them, we don't get D&D! 😀
@@daddyrolleda1 I do give Dave Wesley a ton of credit -- and Henry Bodenstart with the "Siege of Bodenberg". Glad people like you are raising awareness of Braunstein -- but in the end the creators of D&D -- are Arneson and Gygax. Yes -- ideas from Wesely (sorry sometimes I say Megary when I mean Wesely) and Henry Bodenstart. And then you'd have to give the creator of Stratego credit and also Jeff Perren for pre-Chainmail, oh and the creator of Diplomacy. oh and many, many others that played Kriegspeil for 150+ years prior. 😂 Yes, D&D was not created in a vacumm but the two names on the OD&D rule booklets are Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
btw: Keep getting these two Dave's mixed up -- hats off to both of them!! -- but I meant Dave Weseley!
Interesting video.
FYI that's the colorized map I made at the very beginning of your video!
I often give people a hard time for using items from The Fellowship of the Thing without attribution, but you were kind enough not to cut it off on the page of CoTT notices I made. I assume no ill will was meant. I have run across many youtube videos where lots of watermarked material is being used and Secrets of Blackmoor is not credited at all. Some even clone stamp the attribution off of the document in photoshop. All I ever ask is an attribution for the source.
I agree with you on the dating issue. I have found nothing that will support an earlier date than what is in the campaign overview with world map, along with the CoTT notices. I am inclined to think that Arneson began the RPG around xmas of 1970.
Greg Svenson has always asserted that his first Blackmoor game was on xmas break of 1970/71. I suspect the war game portion of Blackmoor begins around September of 1970.
A bigger problem is the whole Chainmail theory. Arneson did use bits and pieces for a while. Yet, we can predate Blackmoor as an RPG to at least a month before Chainmail was published. Of course we both seem to be of a mind it was much earlier.
The bias within the historian community to favor Gygax is always quite interesting. Whenever Arneson makes a claim his assertions are doubted. But in the instance of Chainmail being used in Arneson's games even briefly, then it is assumed he used it exclusively and from the very beginning; never mind Leonard Patt's Fantasy Game having been published before then. Peterson has a good blog post on the Leonard Patt system and how Gygax plagiarized it all for Chainmail. Thus in this instance people try to tell me Arneson had a pre-publication copy of chainmail - but they do it without an ounce of evidence. It is just as likely he had Leonard Patt's system. And we have enough evidence of Arneson having done medieval battles long before chainmail with the set of papers called the Medieval Battle Notes which I think have to come from the late 1960's. Pint being, Arneson had a system for running medievals long before Chainmail is published. All of this makes the CM arguments very inconclusive.
There may be a lot of old sources for Hit Points. It is well documented that the Twin Cities gamers played a lot of Fletcher Pratt's Naval Wargame. It is dice-less and uses hit points for damage. So that concept can be attributed at least that far back to about 1937. Worth noting, Strategos - A has hit points in it, and it is from 1969. That was discovered by M. Wittig.
The XP story is complicated. Mike likes to to tell that story. I'm pretty sure FITS did not have experience in early editions. It was published later in a magazine. I'd have to look up a date, but I am pretty sure a later addition than D&D. There are mentions of troop experience within Strategos games. It may be possible to attribute XP to Wesely's Strategos when Arneson was doing nappy campaign games. Troops go up in rank if they win combats during a battle. Like the problem with dating items and events, these ideas for rules are floating around in that time in many places and are hard to trace back conclusively.
Dan Boggs found some rules which are Blackmoor derived, the Snider Variant. Those rules are interesting because Snider states that while he is using his own system for man to man combat, massed combat should use the Blackmoor massed combat system. I do not believe the Twin Cities gamers ever used Chainmail in their group's battles and are more likely to have used a Strategos variant.
This again points to the bias toward Chainmail. The Twin Cities gamers had their own house rules in their Strategos variants, N, A, C, and RT. Even DGUTS is a Strategos variant. Interestingly, the dates in history books for the use of Strategos are stated as the publication date for Strategos - N, yet the variants on N appear in COTT as early as 1969.
Last year while at Arnecon, Ken fletcher gave us a box full of xeroxed very early material that our research group had never seen before. All of it is difficult to date. One can go with the assumed timelines and thus say it is all from 1971 and on, but I am still not so sure.
We're publishing all of it in a new book, Blackmoor Foundations. If you would like a review copy get a hold of me on twitter, or on the Secrets of Blackmoor Facebook page. More than glad to send you one so you can see these new items. Much of the stuff is so new that we really do not want to apply really strict assertions on what it all is. It is being made available in such a rapid manner that anyone interested in RPG history will be able to use it and cite it in future research. I will be very curious to see what others discover within the collection.
Griff
Thank you so much for watching and for sharing your thoughts and providing additional context and/or corrections. I really appreciate it!
I'll try to get back to each comment specifically but firstly wanted to apologize for missing the attribution on the map. I have shown things from "Secrets of Blackmoor" before in some of my other videos and properly credited them each time (at least, I think - if missed, it was unintentional) and I've also mentioned quite a few times in my videos that folks should watch the documentary and put links to it in my show notes! I'm a big fan and I contributed to the crowd-funding for it and own it on Blu-Ray.
And thank you so much for your offer of the review copy of Blackmoor Foundations! That is amazing! I saw your note on Twitter and replied back to you, but I'll try contacting you on Facebook as well.
(Also, it's been quite a while but you and I have chatted before in the comments on my blog! But that was years ago!)
Very well done!!❤
Thank you so much! I really appreciate that! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Man, these videos are so interesting!
I really appreciate you saying that. Thanks so much for your continued support. Cheers!
Yeah, for a lawsuit, the claimed 1971 start date was likely just the earliest date they had really solid proof for that they could submit as evidence and their lawyer(s) could make a strong case from.
For a legal claim like that, it matters much more how strong a case can be made, and getting the *actual* historically-correct start date is very much a secondary concern -- you really just want to go with the date that you have the most solid proof of that still supports your claim, so the other side's lawyers can't really dispute it or raise much doubt about it.
Thank you! This is the point I was trying to make, and I'm glad you understand the difference and why the legal claim of the date does not necessarily mean it is the *true* date.
Thanks for watching and commenting. I appreciate it!
Yep -- it's the earliest date that can be proven. Although @daddyrolleda1 - Not sure why a date before 1971 is important? It's documented -- that Perren's 4-page pre-Chainmail rules were published in the Paunzerfeist fanzine #5 (April 1970) and then slightly expanded by Perrin and Gygax in The Domesday Book #5 (July 1970), and also documented by Jon Peterson that Arneson was aware of and used these rules -- how much -- who knows? But to look at a date earlier than April 1970 -- that would try to defeat the pre-Chainmail influence is difficult -- and then you'd actually have to have a copy of Arneson's notes -- and then even if you did -- because they were never published -- how could you even set an authoritative date, for what was written and when.
I think conjecturing and getting verbal information is interesting -- I thought this was a very nice video and very interesting -- nice to play arm chair historians -- but it's the written evidence that proves things -- fanzines, magazines, old manuscripts, published games, and to some extent correspondence. Verbal evidence is good -- but lots of "maybe" and "probably" go with verbal evidence.
WoTC claims that this month with their new book -- they will publish some correspondence that has never been seen before -- but I think most of this info has already been seen and documented by Jon Peterson -- so yes -- will be interesting if any new written information comes to light. btw: This new WoTC book is being -- written by Jon Peterson.
Thanks!
Thank you so much for your support!
The more I learn about where this hobby came from, the more I think “role playing game” is a really flawed term. We’re stuck with it now but I do prefer thinking of many of them as “adventure games”. D&D might be a Fantasy Adventure Game while Call of Cthulhu might be a Lovecraftian Adventure Game or whatever. I say these because in both these games and many like them, the degree to which you are actually “roleplaying” is more dependent upon the table, the player preferences, and so on than with the games themselves. You can play many games that are now called “RPGs” while doing very little “role playing” at all and similarly you can play a board game like Clue with as much as Roleplaying as you wish.
As another related note, I’ve been very recently playing a Civil War Naval Game (Iron and Oak), you could very well call it a war game but I think like many ancient fossil it seriously muddies the waters as to what counts as what and here are some examples:
In Iron and Oak there are different “types” of ships like ships of the line, ironclads, and monitors and all have some specific rules attached to them. You could even say they are different “classes” of ship.
In Iron and Oak you use a wide variety of dice, d8s, d10s, d12s, d6 and so on. In this game you often roll a small pool of dice, looking for which comes up with the highest number. A ship with a fire rating of d10,d6 is more likely to do damage than a ship just rolling a d8 upon firing with both a higher possible maximum and higher average minimum result.
In Iron and Oak ships can receive a number of “hits’ before being sunk, in addition to the risk of suffering critical damage that hinders various elements of the ships fighting capability (something I wish more ‘RPGs’ did and many of them do).
In Iron and Oak if you’re playing a campaign game a ship’s crew can get better battle to battle. They might be a green LEVEL crew, an average LEVEL crew, or a crack LEVEL crew.
I’ll also say that playing the same ship from battle to battle you can get quite attached to those little buggers, they have names, they have a history in the game, they’ve made a difference. So when John, Bob, and Wendy sit down to play Iron and Oak and they’ve each decided to take a single ship in a campaign with another player acting as the neutral arbiter and “opposition” (a totally valid way to play), despite playing a “war game” is it all that different than if they sat down to 5e? I dunno but the more I learn about both genres of game, the less I think they are all that distinct and the more I think they continue to subtly intermingle and impact each other 50 years since they supposedly split.
Sven, son of Greg.
I'm glad you don't have a dog in this fight... Could lead to some expensive vet bills!
😁
You and me both! Yeah, it's pretty sad that Gygax and Arneson had a falling out -- but both are giant heroes in my book. But yeah -- so much bias from both ends -- why can't we just acknowledge the greatness of both of them -- and thank them for what they did!!
It strikes me that "roleplaying" is a better term for what the Braunstein/Blackmoor groups was doing than what we consider roleplaying these days. Do you have any knowledge about how that particular term came about?
Before being adopted by the gaming community (which seems to have happened very quickly to describe these tyupes of games, as early as 1975 or 1976) it was a term used in a variety of situations including probably most common in Psychology and also various training exercises for a variety of skills/occupations including medical and educational.
One specific example I heard is that roleplay is used often in improvisational theater, with a specific exercise being that of a vendor claiming to sell a product and a customer asking for various different forms of said product, only to be told by the vendor that the product is not available. Both the Cheese Shop and the Book Seller skits from Monty Python are examples of this, as they were originally supposedly both improv performances where the vendor had to stay on his or her toes to come up with plausible, yet funny, reasons as to why the item wasn't available. It's been suggested to me that it's this latter type of improvisational exercise (in general, not these Monty Python skits specifically) that are related to the terms adoption for the new style of "wargames" like Braunstein, Blackmoor, and D&D.
Also conjecture from what I've read (can't remember the source but probably Peterson or Applecline) -- usually credits "Judge's Guild" for applying -- or first using the term to D&D. Role playing and role-playing games existed before D&D (like Braunstein -- although Braunstein was never officially published) -- but term was never applied in writing to D&D until around 1 or 2 years after its release. Another source -- can't remember where -- credits Ken St. Andre from T&T for using the term first -- so a bit of disagreement on when the term was first used for TTRPGs.
I have heard both of those claims as well as an issue of "Alarums and Excursions" as being the first time the term is used. But I *think* the St. Andre claim for T&T holds the most weight given what we know at the moment, but of course that may change when/if new information comes to light.
@@daddyrolleda1 Yes -- you're right. I'd forgotten about the A&E claim!! 🙂 - yes -- I've heard that one as well -- but agree I think the Ken St. Andre claim is probably the strongest one. Although does it really matter? It's not like anyone is going to get any money -- by claiming to be the first. 😂 And Ken would still be the first -- as "officially" applying the term to D&D -- IMO it doesn't count if someone said it -- wrote it in a notebook - which they then threw in the closet and then later claimed they were the first. There is a lot to be said about being the first to "publish" something or even announce it in some kind of written form to the public.
@@daddyrolleda1 btw: I am curious about your statement of "if" new information comes to light. If information is available -- why would people withhold it? Doesn't make sense.
WoTC claims that they are going to publish some never before seen correspondence in their new history book -- which is supposed to come out this month -- but yeah -- kind of weird that WoTC decided never to publish this info before -- now I see it as they want to help justify selling a $99 MSRP book. 😂
I'm hoping to clear something up; apologies if I sound like a jerk: A zero-sum game is what results from one player winning (+1), while the other loses (-1), with the net sum being equal to zero (1-1=0). Most competitive games are 'zero-sum' unless there's a tie. 'Non-zero-sum' games describe scenarios where there can be more than one winner, or loser ( 38:12 ), and the game can even be cooperative, rather than competitive. It seems to me that you actually mean 'non-zero-sum' when you are saying 'zero-sum'. If everyone can be the winner, I'd describe that as a ' net positive'.
You are absolutely correct! That's what I get for not writing out actual scripts but instead relying on a few bullet points and a faulty memory. You'll also notice that a few times in the video I said "Braunstein" when I meant "Blackmoor."
Thanks for the correction and I will try to work it into a future video to clear that up.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@daddyrolleda1 It's a really interesting topic; I'm fascinated by Blackmoor
@@daddyrolleda1 No worries. And I frequently get Dave Weseley mixed up with Dave Megary (too many Daves!!) -- and probably half the time spell Dave Wesely's name wrong. 😂
Spelling it incorrectly is I think pretty common. I was sadly mispronouncing both his and Megarry's last names for the longest time. Makes me wish UA-cam let you edit a video after it has been published!
Imagine if the drinking age was lower then 21? But also young people can often times be annoying and younger DMs don't always have the life experience to DM because they don't always have the experience to ajudicate a resolution to a problem.
+10 points: another great band mention for The Strokes.
Ha! Glad you liked it! I've been trying to mix it up a little. Thanks for watching the bonus content!
Don't sell yourself short Martin. Many "academics" don't go as far as you and the key difference is you're objectively recording (documenting) your experiences and information for posterity. You don't need a degree to be a great musician.
I really appreciate you saying that!
I think a key element is to not approach the topic with a pre-conceived notion or thinking that "someone is getting too much credit."
I appreciate your comment and support. Thank you!
@@daddyrolleda1 Just a recommendation -- I'm not sure why you don't credit or mention "Playing at the World"? -- love your videos -- but whenever I see your videos -- I'm like -- yep already read that in "Playing at the World" 🙂. I actually think you will get more credibility by mentioning "Playing at the World". Btw other You Tubers like Questing Beast and Professor Dungeon Master -- always mention "Playing at the World". Questing Beast -- I think even takes great pride at saying he read it -- as he should -- yeah -- that was a beast of a book.😂 I have it as an e-book, but I think it's like a 900+ page physical book -- yeah took me a while to read it, and some of the chapters were pretty dry. Chapters 1, 3, and 5 were excellent -- 2 and 4 were super dry. Hope I don't sound harsh -- love your videos - I've said this before I think some of your stories like going to play Braunstein at DaveCon are very interesting -- but would be great to mention the master TTRPG historian himself, Jon Peterson. Really do think it would give you a lot more credibility -- and Jon has some much "written" evidence -- it's a beautiful source of TTRPG history.
Thanks for your comment(s) and support of the channel. I did mention Jon Peterson a few times in this video and have also mentioned him and his work(s) before here on the channel. I'm familiar with his works and he's done a lot to help bring a lot of this information to light and to get people interested in the topic. In fact, I've used screen-grabs of many of the things he has shown on his channel (with attribution).
Like any of us, Jon is looking at the documentation he has available and any interviews and first-hand information he can get, which is great, and he was one of the first to do so, so he's definitely one source among many to consider, at least to me. But at this point, given what I have been exposed to from the folks I have spoken to and some documentation I have been allowed to see (which isn't available for public consumption yet), I'm a little skittish to point to any one single person as being "the authority" of these kinds of topics, as new information is being discovered all the time.
I hope that makes sense. I truly thank you for your support and for taking time to share your thoughts here in the comments. Cheers!
@@daddyrolleda1 Thanks for your response. Yeah, sorry if I haven't noticed you mentioning Peterson. Not sure how familiar you are with his book "Playing at the World" -- but that book is insane -- what Peterson did is amazing -- he's looked at so many written artifacts to include fanzines and correspondence and interviewed almost everyone in the TTRPG industry first hand -- the other historian that is incredible is Shannon Applecline -- who is a little more on the history of TTRPG companies and their products -- almost everything on the Internet (to include Wikipedia) from what I have seen is usually based on either Peterson's or Applecline's work, like a lot of information on The Acaeum is based on Applecline's work. I think you are aware that WoTC is about to publish a giant history book on OD&D this month -- and guess who it is written by -- Jon Peterson -- and it is supposed to include some correspondence that supposedly has never been seen by the public before from WotC's archives. It's supposed to MSRP for $99 so a little painful... will probably watch some reviews before I decide to purchase it or not.
Yeah, sorry - as you can tell - I'm a big Peterson fan (and I get kind of irritated when I know he's already written about something in nauseating detail and he's not credited). I really like it when I see Professor Dungeon Master and Questing Beast praise his book and list it as one of their primary sources for many things re: TTRPG history. Gives them IMO a ton of credibility. Yes, "Playing at the World" -- that book is a beast -- but it's amazing -- and so is Shannon Applecline's Designer's & Dragon's series-- fantastic!!. All the Braunstein stuff (which has gotten a little trendy right now -- I think it's just because of DaveCon) is not new -- it's in "Playing at the World" - Peterson even spends like 10+ pages on Totten's Stratego (mostly talking about the referee innovation that comes from Stratego) and on Diplomacy - and Diplomacy's influence on TTRPGs. -- I for one am glad you and other UA-camrs are covering it -- yes -- the only problem with Peterson is "Playing at the World" is not something most people want to read -- some of the chapters are a real slog. How many people want to read over 100 pages of information on Kreigspeil? So, the way I see it UA-camrs like you are bringing this goodness to a larger audience and in a much more digestible form. So, thanks for your hard work!!
DnD boomers, man. Could have ruined the game before it started. ?;- ) Also, grats to your friend on the 90 days.
Yeah, just goes to show that there have been bullies from the beginning!
This is as pro dave as you can logically get that doesnt mean its not correct but you can see as detail arguments that gary did all the work the truth is we will never know , who did what.
So you can pick a side on faith, or recognise dave was a nice guy that had lots of ideas, but without gary the sum total for his work would be a few sheets of paper in a garage some where.
you really need to stop over explaining... 5 minutes on bitters? calm the heck down