TSR Rob Kuntz Recounts The Origins Of D&D

​

In this interesting article from Kotaku, Rob Kuntz relates a history of early TSR that differs somewhat from the narrative we usually hear. It delves into the relationship between Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson (D&D's co-creators) and the actual development of the game, which dates back to Arneson in 1971.

Dungeons & Deceptions: The First D&D Players Push Back On The Legend Of Gary Gygax

Everybody calls Rob Kuntz last, he says. Those who want to know about the history of Dungeons & Dragons start with co-creator Gary Gygax’s kids, one of Gygax’s biographers, or D&D publisher Wizards of the Coast. As they’re wrapping things up, they might get around to dialing up Kuntz, a...

kotaku.com

 

[Sacrosanct]

I’ve forgotten how you guys mispronounce it. Is it “jag-waa”?

jag-wire

 

[Morrus]

jag-wire

That just makes my brain hurt.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That just makes my brain hurt.

We have a lot of regional differences as well (The US is a big place). For example, my mom pronounces "wash" as "warsh" and "creek" as "crick".

I probably watch more British TV than I do American TV (seriously, IT Crowd, Cuckoo, Man Down, Detectorists, Sherlock, etc are better than most American shows), so I often slip British words for things. Like bonnet and boot instead of hood and trunk. Or biscuits. Or chips. Throws people off when that happens lol.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

That just makes my brain hurt.

There's an invisible w, like the invisible f in your lieutenant.

 

[Morrus]

There's an invisible w, like the invisible f in your lieutenant.

Fair.

 

[Parmandur]

That just makes my brain hurt.

To be fair, the American pronunciation is closer to the Portugesse/Tupi originsal /ʒa.ˈɡwaɹ/

 

[Lanefan]

As for the "antecedents" of the RPG form constructed by Arneson (which would be the thrust of a pro-Gygax or pro-Wesely route through either Chainmail or Braunstein, respectively); and this would then allow for the entourage of speculation concerning types such as Patt then being lifted wholesale to Chainmail, Totten to Braunstein, et al. thus--SEEMINGLY--setting up a sequential and lineal track; I have debunked both routes with the science of systems, design theory and play theory (re, via my linked essays in DATG)--all of which had been omitted until DATG for linguistic theory alone (i.e., for the collection and examination of documents, on the main). That we are examining a new game category type that has no antecedent in historical models based on my now 8 years of research, is, at present, the only relevant (although provisional) note in my view as based on a holistic and inclusive approach comprising ALL FOUR research categories possible for this subject, which must include the science of systems, etc. To date, my posits have not been refuted (in fact they are supported by two scientists that I have approached, one in Europe and one in the USA), btw; rather I was attacked for having to draw some comparisons in the conflict between Gary and Arneson along the way (as noted up thread).

This leaves me utterly confused, so I'll just ask:

In your view/memory, what is the sequentiality (if any) between wargames, Braunstein, Chainmail, D&D, and the various key people connected thereto? What, in other words, led to what; and what if anything was an outlier?

Wesely, for example, claimed he "taught Arneson how to play [RPGs]" while setting up for a Braunstein game some 15+ years ago that I was in. True? Untrue? Partly true?

Thanks!

 

[Azzy]

But that's just because the British add unnecessary "u"s to everything.

I think we can blame the French for all that.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*