What do you think?
Rate this book
Dave Arneson's True Genius
Three essays forming a monograph serving as a precursor to the author's planned book A New Ethos In Game Design: The Paradigm Shift Originated by Dungeons & Dragons.
69 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2017
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
May 9, 2017
Warning: if you don’t like to think, don’t read this book. This book stimulates intense thought.
Rob Kuntz was ushered at an early age into Gary Gygax’s inner circle of friends because of his precocious intellect. That intellect is on full display in this book. More subtly on display, however, is Mr. Kuntz’s unarguable bravery in tackling the firmly-entrenched Gygaxian narrative of Dungeons & Dragon’s creation. In fact, to my knowledge this is the first time anyone in the 43 year history of the game has dared to challenge that narrative in a published work, despite the persistent whispers in various corners of the industry of its fallacy. But what better man to do it than Kuntz, who was at the table with Gary Gygax when Arneson first unveiled his revolutionary new game system?
The book is arranged in the form of three essays. Yes, they are difficult to parse—but those who stick it out will be richly rewarded with many nuggets of thinking that are refreshingly deeper than the superficial coverage the topic of game design typically receives. Not surprisingly, those readers (or reviewers) looking to skim quickly through this unassuming little book and make sense out of it are understandably left perplexed, with a natural inclination to lash out. But how can one expect to absorb the teachings of a master with four decades of design experience without the requisite input of time and effort?
The first essay deals with the unique system qualities of Arneson’s creation, Blackmoor, which Arneson conceived of and developed more than a year prior to revealing it to Gygax. Here Kuntz’s genuine excitement and respect for what Arneson achieved is readily apparent, as he reveals 26 distinct leaps in game design that he has identified from Arneson’s work. Most notably is Arneson’s genius in merging two seemingly disparate concepts: the open system of play as exemplified by children imagining together, and the closed system of play as exemplified by a typical board game. Kuntz then moves on to demonstrate, through analysis of Gygax’s own shifting statements as well as through recounting several key events, how TSR abandoned a basic tenet of Arneson’s philosophy: that of the gamemaster as the absolute creator of his own highly individualized game. In its place, Gygax instituted a new and far less creative role for the gamemaster as simply the administrator of standardized and structured rules (AD&D and the boxed sets of increasing complexity), premade game worlds (Greyhawk and Mystara) and even premade adventures (modules). Kuntz points out that Gygax instituted this shift at TSR to further monetize Arneson’s concept while privately adhering to Arneson’s original philosophy at his own gaming table.
The second essay is the most abstract, deep, and challenging of the three, delving into Arneson’s system of systems thought process. Arneson would iteratively intuit his way toward a goal, testing each iteration of the design to determine where it stood at present relative to the goal. Arneson imposed no constraints (such as deadlines) on his searches; his Blackmoor game was in a constant state of flux as he iterated it over the span of years. Kuntz points out that Arneson’s thinking was absolutely divorced from market concerns. By contrast, today’s game designers (perhaps due to deadlines, budgets, and directives handed down from on high) regularly duplicate the basic form and functions of an existing game to produce a new iteration that conceptually is not fundamentally new. In other words, they start from and work within the rigid confines of a template, whereas Arneson’s thought process was devoid of any such base structure. The unstructured, unconstrained nature of Arneson’s continual experimenting resulted in the dramatic design leaps he achieved (as enumerated in the previous essay) and culminated with the development of what Kuntz terms the concept of the RPG engine. Kuntz notes that the conceptual model Arneson developed is comprised of two interdependent components, the conceptual interface (a gamemaster determining the result of each action taken by the characters as directed by the players, but without constraining these actions in any way) and the mechanical apparatus (the game mechanics). Kuntz tells us that the game mechanics can only represent what the conceptual interface decides is in need of representing. Thus, the game mechanics must always be subservient to the conceptual interface if the system is to evolve in real time (allowing existing concepts to change, resulting in changes to the game mechanics, and new concepts to be added along with new game mechanics to represent them), a highly desirable trait of Arneson’s original system. This leads directly to the refutation of Gygax’s claim that Dungeons & Dragons was derived from his miniatures wargame Chainmail, which is a system consisting purely of game mechanics and which therefore critically lacks a conceptual interface to drive evolution of the game in real time.
The third and final essay further refutes Gygax’s claim that Dungeons & Dragons descended from Chainmail, or from David Wesely’s Braunstein game for that matter, by using comparative analysis. Such an approach is refreshingly scientific compared to other methods, relying solely on comparing the system qualities of the two games to determine if any fundamental traits observed in the child game are also exhibited in the supposed parent game. The approach is akin to DNA analysis, which revolutionized the field of forensics. Of particular note is the absolute lack of reliance of the method on anything external to the two games themselves (old documents, correspondence between the game designers, old memories, etc…) Kuntz first defines parentage as requiring that the supposed parent game have at least 50% of the fundamental traits (i.e., the DNA) of the child game. Kuntz then runs down the list of the 26 leaps in game design that Arneson achieved (as enumerated in the first essay), which he takes as the fundamental traits of both Blackmoor and D&D, and asks the question of each, “does Chainmail or Braunstein exhibit this?” Of the 26 traits, Kuntz finds that 19 are entirely absent from Chainmail, 5 are present in a limited sense, and only 2 are definitely present but still somewhat limited in scope compared to D&D. Similarly with regard to Braunstein, Kuntz finds that 17 are entirely absent, 7 are present in a limited sense, and only 2 are definitely present but again still somewhat limited compared to D&D. Since both games possess only approximately 8% of the 26 fundamental traits of D&D, a far cry from the 50% required for parentage, Kuntz asserts that D&D did not derive from either of them. Instead, they should be considered merely as influences on D&D, just as many other games of the time were.
If, by now, the reader of this review gets the sense that I have summarized all of the thoughts and topics contained in this 69 page book, I can assure you that I have not. But given the superficial nature of the other reviews that I’ve seen for this book, I thought it necessary to provide you a taste of the thought-provoking richness Kuntz offers should you dare to read his book—if you are brave enough to do so, good luck and enjoy the adventure!
Rob Kuntz was ushered at an early age into Gary Gygax’s inner circle of friends because of his precocious intellect. That intellect is on full display in this book. More subtly on display, however, is Mr. Kuntz’s unarguable bravery in tackling the firmly-entrenched Gygaxian narrative of Dungeons & Dragon’s creation. In fact, to my knowledge this is the first time anyone in the 43 year history of the game has dared to challenge that narrative in a published work, despite the persistent whispers in various corners of the industry of its fallacy. But what better man to do it than Kuntz, who was at the table with Gary Gygax when Arneson first unveiled his revolutionary new game system?
The book is arranged in the form of three essays. Yes, they are difficult to parse—but those who stick it out will be richly rewarded with many nuggets of thinking that are refreshingly deeper than the superficial coverage the topic of game design typically receives. Not surprisingly, those readers (or reviewers) looking to skim quickly through this unassuming little book and make sense out of it are understandably left perplexed, with a natural inclination to lash out. But how can one expect to absorb the teachings of a master with four decades of design experience without the requisite input of time and effort?
The first essay deals with the unique system qualities of Arneson’s creation, Blackmoor, which Arneson conceived of and developed more than a year prior to revealing it to Gygax. Here Kuntz’s genuine excitement and respect for what Arneson achieved is readily apparent, as he reveals 26 distinct leaps in game design that he has identified from Arneson’s work. Most notably is Arneson’s genius in merging two seemingly disparate concepts: the open system of play as exemplified by children imagining together, and the closed system of play as exemplified by a typical board game. Kuntz then moves on to demonstrate, through analysis of Gygax’s own shifting statements as well as through recounting several key events, how TSR abandoned a basic tenet of Arneson’s philosophy: that of the gamemaster as the absolute creator of his own highly individualized game. In its place, Gygax instituted a new and far less creative role for the gamemaster as simply the administrator of standardized and structured rules (AD&D and the boxed sets of increasing complexity), premade game worlds (Greyhawk and Mystara) and even premade adventures (modules). Kuntz points out that Gygax instituted this shift at TSR to further monetize Arneson’s concept while privately adhering to Arneson’s original philosophy at his own gaming table.
The second essay is the most abstract, deep, and challenging of the three, delving into Arneson’s system of systems thought process. Arneson would iteratively intuit his way toward a goal, testing each iteration of the design to determine where it stood at present relative to the goal. Arneson imposed no constraints (such as deadlines) on his searches; his Blackmoor game was in a constant state of flux as he iterated it over the span of years. Kuntz points out that Arneson’s thinking was absolutely divorced from market concerns. By contrast, today’s game designers (perhaps due to deadlines, budgets, and directives handed down from on high) regularly duplicate the basic form and functions of an existing game to produce a new iteration that conceptually is not fundamentally new. In other words, they start from and work within the rigid confines of a template, whereas Arneson’s thought process was devoid of any such base structure. The unstructured, unconstrained nature of Arneson’s continual experimenting resulted in the dramatic design leaps he achieved (as enumerated in the previous essay) and culminated with the development of what Kuntz terms the concept of the RPG engine. Kuntz notes that the conceptual model Arneson developed is comprised of two interdependent components, the conceptual interface (a gamemaster determining the result of each action taken by the characters as directed by the players, but without constraining these actions in any way) and the mechanical apparatus (the game mechanics). Kuntz tells us that the game mechanics can only represent what the conceptual interface decides is in need of representing. Thus, the game mechanics must always be subservient to the conceptual interface if the system is to evolve in real time (allowing existing concepts to change, resulting in changes to the game mechanics, and new concepts to be added along with new game mechanics to represent them), a highly desirable trait of Arneson’s original system. This leads directly to the refutation of Gygax’s claim that Dungeons & Dragons was derived from his miniatures wargame Chainmail, which is a system consisting purely of game mechanics and which therefore critically lacks a conceptual interface to drive evolution of the game in real time.
The third and final essay further refutes Gygax’s claim that Dungeons & Dragons descended from Chainmail, or from David Wesely’s Braunstein game for that matter, by using comparative analysis. Such an approach is refreshingly scientific compared to other methods, relying solely on comparing the system qualities of the two games to determine if any fundamental traits observed in the child game are also exhibited in the supposed parent game. The approach is akin to DNA analysis, which revolutionized the field of forensics. Of particular note is the absolute lack of reliance of the method on anything external to the two games themselves (old documents, correspondence between the game designers, old memories, etc…) Kuntz first defines parentage as requiring that the supposed parent game have at least 50% of the fundamental traits (i.e., the DNA) of the child game. Kuntz then runs down the list of the 26 leaps in game design that Arneson achieved (as enumerated in the first essay), which he takes as the fundamental traits of both Blackmoor and D&D, and asks the question of each, “does Chainmail or Braunstein exhibit this?” Of the 26 traits, Kuntz finds that 19 are entirely absent from Chainmail, 5 are present in a limited sense, and only 2 are definitely present but still somewhat limited in scope compared to D&D. Similarly with regard to Braunstein, Kuntz finds that 17 are entirely absent, 7 are present in a limited sense, and only 2 are definitely present but again still somewhat limited compared to D&D. Since both games possess only approximately 8% of the 26 fundamental traits of D&D, a far cry from the 50% required for parentage, Kuntz asserts that D&D did not derive from either of them. Instead, they should be considered merely as influences on D&D, just as many other games of the time were.
If, by now, the reader of this review gets the sense that I have summarized all of the thoughts and topics contained in this 69 page book, I can assure you that I have not. But given the superficial nature of the other reviews that I’ve seen for this book, I thought it necessary to provide you a taste of the thought-provoking richness Kuntz offers should you dare to read his book—if you are brave enough to do so, good luck and enjoy the adventure!
April 18, 2017
Let me preface this by saying that I might not have fully understood the points the author was trying to make, but that in itself says a lot about the book. The text is full of jargon and unnecessarily florid writing that makes getting into it difficult.
What I think is being said is that TSR stripped Arneson's work of its true meaning in AD&D, and that RPGs have never recovered; and that his work is not just a derivation of Chainmail/Braunstein.
For the first point I have to say that the author seems to have a number of mistaken assumptions. The first is that somehow by Gary Gygax changing his tune from 'make the rules your own' to 'you should follow the rules' that people automatically obeyed Gary Gygax and stopped adapting the rules to their own games. That's simply not the case, and as someone who has been playing RPGs since around 1981, I don't think it was ever the case.
There's also an assumption from the author that companies publishing adventures implied that people should only play published adventures. This was never a thing for any RPG company, not even TSR at its most imperious. Not every GM is prepared to create every adventure from scratch. Some want a little help, and published adventures derived largely from that demand.
The author rips into WotC for 3rd Edition, and seems to allude to Pathfinder, but seems utterly unaware of the indy games movement which has been doing exactly what he says has been missing from RPGs since AD&D for a couple of decades now. The only RPGs the author ever actually mentions are OD&D, AD&D, 3rd Edition D&D and En Garde (an obscure proto-RPG from the mid 70s), and it's not entirely clear how aware he is of the rest of what's out there.
As for the second point, I can't quite tell if this book is a response to Playing at the World, or if the author has even read it. That book shows how D&D is obviously related to both Chainmail and Braunstein. That is not the same as saying that D&D is simply those games with some minor changes. D&D made some true conceptual leaps that had never been made before, which is something I've never seen seriously denied. The author seems to be attacking a position that no actual scholars of RPG history hold.
What I think is being said is that TSR stripped Arneson's work of its true meaning in AD&D, and that RPGs have never recovered; and that his work is not just a derivation of Chainmail/Braunstein.
For the first point I have to say that the author seems to have a number of mistaken assumptions. The first is that somehow by Gary Gygax changing his tune from 'make the rules your own' to 'you should follow the rules' that people automatically obeyed Gary Gygax and stopped adapting the rules to their own games. That's simply not the case, and as someone who has been playing RPGs since around 1981, I don't think it was ever the case.
There's also an assumption from the author that companies publishing adventures implied that people should only play published adventures. This was never a thing for any RPG company, not even TSR at its most imperious. Not every GM is prepared to create every adventure from scratch. Some want a little help, and published adventures derived largely from that demand.
The author rips into WotC for 3rd Edition, and seems to allude to Pathfinder, but seems utterly unaware of the indy games movement which has been doing exactly what he says has been missing from RPGs since AD&D for a couple of decades now. The only RPGs the author ever actually mentions are OD&D, AD&D, 3rd Edition D&D and En Garde (an obscure proto-RPG from the mid 70s), and it's not entirely clear how aware he is of the rest of what's out there.
As for the second point, I can't quite tell if this book is a response to Playing at the World, or if the author has even read it. That book shows how D&D is obviously related to both Chainmail and Braunstein. That is not the same as saying that D&D is simply those games with some minor changes. D&D made some true conceptual leaps that had never been made before, which is something I've never seen seriously denied. The author seems to be attacking a position that no actual scholars of RPG history hold.
May 3, 2021
PULLQUOTE: "I will begin with the cognitive yield by Arneson through juxtaposing it with Simon's views as quoted above; and as these yields were initially promoted as a synergistic whole by TSR. Therefore I aim to expose the growth on both sides of the issue, cognitively & monetary, at its most dynamic stage of linkage when the two, now exclusive, ideas had not yet become separated."
==
An almost unreadable attempt to analyze the design of Dave Arneson and pretty much deify it.
The problem with the analysis is that it's full of made-up terms, often redefinitions of existing words, which horribly obfuscates whatever Kuntz was trying to say. Beyond that it meanders and doesn't substantiate any of its points. A few interesting nuggets are entirely buried.
Beyond that, Kuntz engages in pretty horrible Dave Arneson Maximilism, suggesting that Arneson was the only creative force in D&D, that everything before him was just the slightest inspiration for his huge cognitive leap that skipped past 2000 years of game design and that everything afterward just messed up his innovative game. When Gygax was in charge of TSR, he pretended Arneson wasn't involved with the game, which sucks, but the Arnesonian Revisionism that has bubbled up in certain corners of famdom since the death of Arneson and Gygax is just as bad.
With Kuntz as an author, someone who was there to see a lot of the origin of roleplaying, I really, really wanted this book to be better. But the Arneson Maximalism was a real kick in the gut.
(PS: Note that as of this writing all the 5-star reviews are by reviewers with one review at this site. They're what I called "drive-by reviewers" who show up to review a single book by a friend or favored author. They're a problem in collective choice systems like reviews that needs to be better accounted for. I had to write code to resolve that exact issue at an online review site I designed.)
==
An almost unreadable attempt to analyze the design of Dave Arneson and pretty much deify it.
The problem with the analysis is that it's full of made-up terms, often redefinitions of existing words, which horribly obfuscates whatever Kuntz was trying to say. Beyond that it meanders and doesn't substantiate any of its points. A few interesting nuggets are entirely buried.
Beyond that, Kuntz engages in pretty horrible Dave Arneson Maximilism, suggesting that Arneson was the only creative force in D&D, that everything before him was just the slightest inspiration for his huge cognitive leap that skipped past 2000 years of game design and that everything afterward just messed up his innovative game. When Gygax was in charge of TSR, he pretended Arneson wasn't involved with the game, which sucks, but the Arnesonian Revisionism that has bubbled up in certain corners of famdom since the death of Arneson and Gygax is just as bad.
With Kuntz as an author, someone who was there to see a lot of the origin of roleplaying, I really, really wanted this book to be better. But the Arneson Maximalism was a real kick in the gut.
(PS: Note that as of this writing all the 5-star reviews are by reviewers with one review at this site. They're what I called "drive-by reviewers" who show up to review a single book by a friend or favored author. They're a problem in collective choice systems like reviews that needs to be better accounted for. I had to write code to resolve that exact issue at an online review site I designed.)
May 13, 2017
Dave Arneson was the creator of the Blackmoor roleplaying game, it was fully realized before Gary Gygax ever saw it or played in it. Greyhawk was the second campaign world and Blackmoor was the first by at least a year and a half. Dave Arneson was not a writer and Gary Gygax was, so Dungeons & Dragons is Blackmoor with some of Arneson's sub-systems aka mechanics replaced with Gygax's sub-systems aka mechanics. The overriding architecture of the Fantasy Roleplaying Game System is entirely the creation of Dave Arneson. You could create games with a nearly infinite number of differing mechanics/sub-systems and still use the identical architecture for the main system. Dungeons & Dragons is only one of a nearly infinite array of different games that could be created with the open game architecture that Dave Arneson invented from a range of influences and is a unique creation.
These things are established as fact with the publication of this book and proves the lie of the false canard that has been pushed as the narrative for years by those who claim to be the only possessors of the truth. The thing is though none of these alleged experts where there at the beginning, none of them. Get the book and read it, you will be glad you did.
Although the books is geared for those interested in design and history, it is of value IMO to anyone who has an interest in how did it all really start.
https://www.threelinestudio.com/store...
These things are established as fact with the publication of this book and proves the lie of the false canard that has been pushed as the narrative for years by those who claim to be the only possessors of the truth. The thing is though none of these alleged experts where there at the beginning, none of them. Get the book and read it, you will be glad you did.
Although the books is geared for those interested in design and history, it is of value IMO to anyone who has an interest in how did it all really start.
https://www.threelinestudio.com/store...
May 12, 2017
OK, this is my third attempt to add a review. :)
I do have a few thoughts about "Dave Arneson's True Genius" by robkuntz. I received my copy promptly after ordering and have now read it several times in and around all the real life health issues with my wife. I found it to be an enjoyable and informative read. It confirmed many things that I long believed to be true. It also made me think about a lot of things. It also gave me more insight into things I never knew or suspected and it also presented corrections for long held statements by others in the community who lack any first hand knowledge. Right now it is hard to gather my thoughts into any orderly arrangement for presentation.
Bitd when I started playing OD&D in 1975 the 3LBBs stated clearly that the authors were Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, in the "Forward" it clearly states that Dave Arneson developed and created ideas for a exciting and more complex game and eventually at some later date Gygax was introduced to it. So we understood from the beginning that Dave Arneson created the game that eventually became D&D. We also understood that Gary Gygax was the one who was the primary writer of the written word that we held in our hands. We assumed based on the evidence of the document itself, that Arneson had created the game and that to some extent what we were playing was the Gygax interpretation of what Arneson created.
Reading this book it became clear what we long believed was indeed true, the concept (conceptual engine) of D&D was all Arneson, but the mechanics used in D&D were largely the preferences of Gygax. Meaning of course what we always suspected was true and that Arneson must have used mechanics to some degree (perhaps more than we understand) that were quite a bit different from the D&D we played. In the FFC (First Fantasy Campaign) we get a glimpse of differing mechanics and in AiF (Adventures in Fantasy), both by Arneson, we get further glimpses of some of the directions that Arneson went. Arneson likely tried and discard or tried and developed and extended thousands of ideas throughout his life that would have filled up dozens of idea supplements that we would all like to mine and sift. Shame that there were not many Blackmoor Grimoires as there were Arduin Grimoires - no censorship by some unimaginative editor, just print it all.
As the book confirms, Arneson never had a cut and dried - frozen in amber game. I have read elsewhere about Gygax receiving notes from Arneson and having trouble working with them (Arneson carried so much of the game in his head and unfortunately was not great at recording things as they changed). This must have been the point that Gygax started inserting his own mechanics (we can speculate that email might have reduced the degree to which this happened had it been around, but we will never know). Although not part of this book, we also know from Tim Kask’s own writing that he received a "basket" of Arneson's notes and because they had a lot of different ways of doing things that were not compatible, instead of printing it all as rule alternates and giving us all a glimpse of how mutable the system and sub-systems were, he pretty much threw most of it out and filled the Blackmoor supplement out with things that were not Arneson's. We now have a view into knowing that much the same thing must have happened with OD&D. It makes one wonder if we are missing 10-12 pages (or more) of alternate rules direct from Arneson in OD&D itself.
I always wondered why Arneson had reportedly quit TSR bitd, so it was sad to learn that Gygax had marginalized Arneson's input from the moment that Arneson moved to Lake Geneva and then ultimately forced him out. Sad, but unfortunately understandable. What was really odd was the treatment of Rob himself. Here is a guy who was mentored and befriended by Gygax, was made a Co-DM of Greyhawk and contributed ideas to OD&D, was co-author of two of the four supplements and contributed to the others and yet Gygax consigned him to shipping and order fulfillment instead of in the design and creation end of things. Makes you wonder what was going on it Gygax's head at the time.
It puts the lie to long held and long championed claims and proclamations by those who were not there and yet they claim to be the keepers (and gatekeepers) of the old school style of play. But none of what they preach is the way that Arneson played or reffed and is not what Arneson first unveiled for Gary, Rob and a few others. In addition, Gygax never even played the way these people falsely claim is the correct way to play.
This book should be an eyeopener to all and I have only scratched the surface. You really need to read it, because I can only tell you how it is impacting me and your deserve to experience it firsthand.
I do have a few thoughts about "Dave Arneson's True Genius" by robkuntz. I received my copy promptly after ordering and have now read it several times in and around all the real life health issues with my wife. I found it to be an enjoyable and informative read. It confirmed many things that I long believed to be true. It also made me think about a lot of things. It also gave me more insight into things I never knew or suspected and it also presented corrections for long held statements by others in the community who lack any first hand knowledge. Right now it is hard to gather my thoughts into any orderly arrangement for presentation.
Bitd when I started playing OD&D in 1975 the 3LBBs stated clearly that the authors were Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, in the "Forward" it clearly states that Dave Arneson developed and created ideas for a exciting and more complex game and eventually at some later date Gygax was introduced to it. So we understood from the beginning that Dave Arneson created the game that eventually became D&D. We also understood that Gary Gygax was the one who was the primary writer of the written word that we held in our hands. We assumed based on the evidence of the document itself, that Arneson had created the game and that to some extent what we were playing was the Gygax interpretation of what Arneson created.
Reading this book it became clear what we long believed was indeed true, the concept (conceptual engine) of D&D was all Arneson, but the mechanics used in D&D were largely the preferences of Gygax. Meaning of course what we always suspected was true and that Arneson must have used mechanics to some degree (perhaps more than we understand) that were quite a bit different from the D&D we played. In the FFC (First Fantasy Campaign) we get a glimpse of differing mechanics and in AiF (Adventures in Fantasy), both by Arneson, we get further glimpses of some of the directions that Arneson went. Arneson likely tried and discard or tried and developed and extended thousands of ideas throughout his life that would have filled up dozens of idea supplements that we would all like to mine and sift. Shame that there were not many Blackmoor Grimoires as there were Arduin Grimoires - no censorship by some unimaginative editor, just print it all.
As the book confirms, Arneson never had a cut and dried - frozen in amber game. I have read elsewhere about Gygax receiving notes from Arneson and having trouble working with them (Arneson carried so much of the game in his head and unfortunately was not great at recording things as they changed). This must have been the point that Gygax started inserting his own mechanics (we can speculate that email might have reduced the degree to which this happened had it been around, but we will never know). Although not part of this book, we also know from Tim Kask’s own writing that he received a "basket" of Arneson's notes and because they had a lot of different ways of doing things that were not compatible, instead of printing it all as rule alternates and giving us all a glimpse of how mutable the system and sub-systems were, he pretty much threw most of it out and filled the Blackmoor supplement out with things that were not Arneson's. We now have a view into knowing that much the same thing must have happened with OD&D. It makes one wonder if we are missing 10-12 pages (or more) of alternate rules direct from Arneson in OD&D itself.
I always wondered why Arneson had reportedly quit TSR bitd, so it was sad to learn that Gygax had marginalized Arneson's input from the moment that Arneson moved to Lake Geneva and then ultimately forced him out. Sad, but unfortunately understandable. What was really odd was the treatment of Rob himself. Here is a guy who was mentored and befriended by Gygax, was made a Co-DM of Greyhawk and contributed ideas to OD&D, was co-author of two of the four supplements and contributed to the others and yet Gygax consigned him to shipping and order fulfillment instead of in the design and creation end of things. Makes you wonder what was going on it Gygax's head at the time.
It puts the lie to long held and long championed claims and proclamations by those who were not there and yet they claim to be the keepers (and gatekeepers) of the old school style of play. But none of what they preach is the way that Arneson played or reffed and is not what Arneson first unveiled for Gary, Rob and a few others. In addition, Gygax never even played the way these people falsely claim is the correct way to play.
This book should be an eyeopener to all and I have only scratched the surface. You really need to read it, because I can only tell you how it is impacting me and your deserve to experience it firsthand.
April 27, 2017
This monograph doesn't seem to have point to it at all. It essentially states that Dave Arneson's True Genius was simply the use of improvisation and experimentation when it came to roleplaying. Other than that this book seems to be wholly empty of much other than a claim that OD&D evolved directly from Arneson's Blackmoor and is not connected to the Chainmail and Braunstein games. For this claim the author only presents a single bit of evidence which he presents as proof which is his take on systems analysis. To hang a refutation on this single finger-hold seems a bit precarious. The author also seemed to hold back vital information and clarifying points for his upcoming book A New Ethos in Game Design for which it suffers. The book also uses too much jargon everywhere. In fact, it seems to use it as filler where the information is lacking or being withheld leading to paragraph-salad where a clear sentence would do. I just can't recommend this book to anyone.
July 24, 2023
A short but overly technical (and I mean really technical) defense of Dave Arneson's original vision for D&D.
I think history is coming around to giving Dave Arneson much more credit for the creation of the RPG system. Gary Gygax contributed with fleshing the system out, adding rules and making it into the D&D we know currently.
This book is short, only 72 pages in my edition. He argues that the modules published by TSR were too constricting and essentially closed the door of creativity for GMs and ultimately players as well. His arguments are that RPGs allow for unlimited creativity but as TSR became more successful its published materials locked the D&D community into a single style of play which was antithetical to the spirit of the original rules by Arneson and Gygax. It's hard to not infer that the author blames both Gygax and others at TSR, and eventually Wizards of the Coast, for putting greed before creativity and betraying Dave Arneson by offering what Kuntz sees as only one way to play the game.
I agree with Kuntz on several points. 1) Dave Arneson deserves much more credit for his contributions. 2) Gary Gygax isn't a saint (no one is) and the corporate machinations behind the scenes at TSR were bad for most everyone. 3) RPGs offer unlimited opportunities for players to create and enjoy any type of world they want.
I don't agree with Kuntz that publishing adventures and rules restricts players and hurts the game. There are many arguments and detractors of the way Wizards of the Coast run the D&D brand, myself included. However nothing exists and has ever existed that has stopped GMs and players from changing the rules as they see fit. GMs have not been forced to buy any supplements or adventures and if they do they're free to change them in any way they want. There may be GMs out there who demand that players adhere to every written rule published by a company and dogmatically follow all adventures as written but I've never met one.
I was hoping this short book would concentrate more on history and the events of the early RPG scene especially Dave Arneson's specific contributions. It's an interesting read though and does offer points to consider if you're interested in game theory, RPG design and as Mr. Kuntz describes Open vs Closed game systems.
I think history is coming around to giving Dave Arneson much more credit for the creation of the RPG system. Gary Gygax contributed with fleshing the system out, adding rules and making it into the D&D we know currently.
This book is short, only 72 pages in my edition. He argues that the modules published by TSR were too constricting and essentially closed the door of creativity for GMs and ultimately players as well. His arguments are that RPGs allow for unlimited creativity but as TSR became more successful its published materials locked the D&D community into a single style of play which was antithetical to the spirit of the original rules by Arneson and Gygax. It's hard to not infer that the author blames both Gygax and others at TSR, and eventually Wizards of the Coast, for putting greed before creativity and betraying Dave Arneson by offering what Kuntz sees as only one way to play the game.
I agree with Kuntz on several points. 1) Dave Arneson deserves much more credit for his contributions. 2) Gary Gygax isn't a saint (no one is) and the corporate machinations behind the scenes at TSR were bad for most everyone. 3) RPGs offer unlimited opportunities for players to create and enjoy any type of world they want.
I don't agree with Kuntz that publishing adventures and rules restricts players and hurts the game. There are many arguments and detractors of the way Wizards of the Coast run the D&D brand, myself included. However nothing exists and has ever existed that has stopped GMs and players from changing the rules as they see fit. GMs have not been forced to buy any supplements or adventures and if they do they're free to change them in any way they want. There may be GMs out there who demand that players adhere to every written rule published by a company and dogmatically follow all adventures as written but I've never met one.
I was hoping this short book would concentrate more on history and the events of the early RPG scene especially Dave Arneson's specific contributions. It's an interesting read though and does offer points to consider if you're interested in game theory, RPG design and as Mr. Kuntz describes Open vs Closed game systems.
May 2, 2023
This is a difficult review to write because I have respect for Kuntz. As a primary source of information about the earliest days of our hobby I fear writing anything that might discourage one from adding to the knowledge we have and I respect that writing a book is difficult and it involves pouring your heart out. Though I did not enjoy this book, I am glad I bought it and I will always be willing to buy any book from such a close primary source and I hope they continue to come forward, despite maybe not having a professional writing background.
Still I need to review this book by the same standard I always use. So with that said:
Dave Arneson's genius I fully agree with, but not due to this book. I found the writing to be insecure, using a lot of words to not say anything of real substance.
The book has nothing concrete to add. Maybe a small thing here and there, but no more than a paragraph or two really.
Instead it felt like the book was trying to sell the upcoming book. Which is a wasted opportunity and ironically may instead turn people off of the future book. Oddly enough, the snippets from the upcoming book that he included was written with considerably more skill.
Still I need to review this book by the same standard I always use. So with that said:
Dave Arneson's genius I fully agree with, but not due to this book. I found the writing to be insecure, using a lot of words to not say anything of real substance.
The book has nothing concrete to add. Maybe a small thing here and there, but no more than a paragraph or two really.
Instead it felt like the book was trying to sell the upcoming book. Which is a wasted opportunity and ironically may instead turn people off of the future book. Oddly enough, the snippets from the upcoming book that he included was written with considerably more skill.
Read
July 31, 2020I think Kuntz is autistic or something
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews