Agent Cooper wrote:I'm admittedly a rank amateur compared with all of you scholars of the game. Having admitted that, I agree with the assessment that the fact that there is artwork at all makes the play test or rough draft version theory suspect. Why bother with art for a proto-type version?Also, Gary Gygax's word on the matter, along with Dave Arneson's demurral, are both pretty convincing. Yes, it was a long time ago. But if this alleged play test version was done by either one of them, or by anyone associated with them, before OD&D was released I have to believe that Mr. Gygax or Mr. Arneson, THE original creators of the game, would surely have remembered that very clearly. With what evidence there is right now I would go along with the theory that a very dedicated fan created this.
Pipswich wrote:Now that was worth reading. And, some notable sleuthing to catch the typeface variance for the pagination. I can't wait to see more! Although, I think the artwork issue is a red herring, as I noted in my previous post. The issue remains, who, when and how to prove, if indeed Gygax and Arneson both disowned the manuscript.When we start relying upon might, future, may, possibly... we can start substituting before, during, after, parallel and create our own fiction. I think my issue is with the extensive use of might, maybe, possibly, etc. Textual evidence is unreliable at best. Even if the typeface is from the same exact typewriter.. AND. then the physical evidence suggests it is from the same typewritter.... the physical evidence may not yield a before, during or after conclusion.I can't wait to see more of the evidence though. This is great!Pipswich
Pipswich wrote:I must have missed the assertion that Arneson believed this to be pre D&D. That opens the matter up quite a bit, but if he didn't produce it and Gygax didn't produce it... or remember it... why would it be a playtest for d&d? Who would have produced a playtest that neither of them remembered?
Zenopus wrote:Jon, the characters section on Elves and Dwarves in the Dallhun Manuscript you posted above has more detail (commentary) than the respective sections in Men & Magic in OD&D. Isn't this the opposite of your argument with regard to the Sample Dungeon, where you argued the additional lines in OD&D pointed to a later date?
Pipswich wrote:I reread you response to FF.What you report is not exactly a credible assertion. It's an either/or assertion of the form. Either A or B, when A = maybe and B = False (refuted by Gygax) We are left with A = Maybe Or B = True (Gygax misremembered or lied). Further, I agree with FF's suggestion that had Arneson gone to all the trouble to produce that as "my draft", he would dern well remember and argued his case while alive.That suggests B = False from both primary authors. I am left with Either A or B = A (weak maybe) or B (strong False) as an invalid assertion from Arneson. And, no matter how much any of us may like any particular "improvement" that you note in that section... there is no reason to presume someone didn't revise the system and reintegrate what they had encountered previously. Granted that probably narrows the list of prospective authors down to the early group of gamers who knew Gygax and Arneson... but it does not drop it down to just the two of them, nor does it justify a pre-publication assertion. Granted I don't have the manuscript to examine, but this argument looks like it may be confusing "terminus a quo" with "teminus ante quem".Pipswich
sauromatian wrote:What about all those bootlegs floating around in 1974-75? I seem to recall the claim that none have surfaced, but have any? Seems like they would be prime comparison material.The scribble-shading resembles that of Ken Simpson, whose illustrations were added to the 1980 edition of First Fantasy Campaign. What was he doing in the early days?
increment wrote: I don't think I've actually seen the additional illustrations in the 1980 version, though.
sauromatian wrote:increment wrote: I don't think I've actually seen the additional illustrations in the 1980 version, though.And I haven't seen the early edition. Anyone out there have both the 96- & 64-page versions of Arneson's JG First Fantasy Campaign?
Haunted wrote:What a fascinating discussion! I have been trying to follow this here, as well as on your blog and the OD&D discussion board. I know you are not done sharing all of your analysis yet (indeed we get a new nugget almost daily on the blog!), but am I mistaken that the evidence you've explicitly presented so far seems to be tilting (at least to my reading) more towards a prepublication working (collaborative) manuscript than towards a playtest document?
deimos3428 wrote:Conclusion:It is clear that the creator(s) of Dalluhn had seen either OD&D or a play-test copy thereof. (And of course Chainmail.) It is also clear that one or more different actor(s) are involved. It is my personal feeling that the Dalluhn manuscript itself is *not* a playtest copy, but that it was based on a playtest copy + chainmail. I also believe it predates production OD&D entirely.
However this does not suggest that Dalluhn is ancestral to OD&D, and it is imperative not to think linearly. It seems that somebody took an earlier play-test copy and customized it (simplifying, correcting and embellishing in places) to their liking, thus diverging somewhat from what would eventually become OD&D. OD&D would *likewise* simplify, correct, and embellish on that earlier form. Thus we see odd Gygaxian terms like "hedge" being reused and reworded by Dalluhn's author, and Gygax himself quite probably rewriting/expanding the playtest copy's passage with his own flare for OD&D. It's clear that the word "hedge", about as Gygaxian a usage as you'll find, was found within the playtest copy but the wording on that copy is unknown as we don't have that beast. (Having worked on my own games/campaign settings for several years, I can attest that you go through many iterations of editing/scrapping/rewriting your own text!)
Dalluhn preserves some features of a common ancestor, and OD&D preserves some other features from that same ancestor. What they share, it would be fairly reasonable to assume was within their common ancestor. (Though extremely rarely, even this is not the case.) What they do not share, it is not reasonable to assume was present in the previous document without further information. Either version may be the original, or perhaps neither one. Consider the obvious case of 1E and Holmes Basic. Neither is the ancestor or descendant of the other; both preserve some elements of OD&D and embellish others.While Increment has stated that he does not believe it to be a fork, taxonomically that's exactly where I'd place it. This placement best explains both additions *and* omissions between the documents, while eliminating the concept of OD&D "reverting" Dalluhn's additions/omissions. Placing Dalluhn as transitionally before OD&D does not explain things quite so well; placing it after OD&D is somewhat absurd IMHO.
Who created it? I have no idea, but it does not appear to be Gygax. In my opinion, it was someone very close to Gygax/Arneson if not in direct collaboration, and not merely a "fan". Perhaps even Arneson, but that would require more research.