Mannahnin
Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
B2 exists to put Mike Carr's share (for his B1) of the Basic set money into Gygax's pocket, right?
TSR How Appealing! Is the nuTSR Appeal Bananas?
- Thread starter Snarf Zagyg
- Start date
Gus L
Explorer
Alternatively ... B1 exists to make Arneson feel bad about how his royalties for Basic cut into his friend Mike Carr's money....
At least this is a story I've heard, it's hard to say if these are true - only that pushing Arneson out and cutting off his royalties seemed to be important to Gygax and TSR at some point and for some time.
It's ... more complicated than that.
I think that the issue was well-covered in Game Wizards, and it's what lead to the creation of this thread:
D&D General - Dave Arneson: Is He Underrated, or Overrated?
Welcome to the second in an occasional series: Snarf Presents Hawt Taek Thursdays. The first was a reevaluation of Lorraine Williams, which was not controversial at all, so I thought I'd do something equally banal. Again, if you read my review of Jon Peterson's new book, Game Wizards, you...
www.enworld.org
The long and the short of it is this-
I think that there was a traditional narrative for "most people." Which is basically that Gygax was the "alpha and omega."
Then, there was the backlash to that narrative. Which was "Gygax sucked, and Arneson was the brilliant one."
As I note, I think that because of the backlash, most people (who actually follow this stuff) are very aware of Gygax's many faults, but unless you've been keeping up recently, you aren't as aware that Arneson ... wasn't exactly innocent in all of this.
Like all things, it's messy and complicated, and not reducible to a simple Manichean perspective.
Since I know you've read Game Wizards, I'm sure you can appreciate this.
Mike Carr was so thoroughly screwed, so many times, by TSR, that I'm not sure that this it would be in the Top 30 grievances he had.
Two words- Kevin Blume.
Two more words- Purchasing Department.
So, I should say two things. First, yeah, Carr got screwed. After Egbert, the sales of Holmes Basic exploded and Carr was making bank. So it's hardly surprising that Gygax was like, "Ima make a module! And include it instead! Woot!"
The reason that this is both a correct explanation but also not a complete explanation (just a partial one, because, duh, obviously Gygax was going to get those sweet royalties) is because there was also a shift in philosophy re: modules. Even though B2 seems "incomplete" to modern readers, it is much more complete than B1. B1 is the example of what they originally were thinking- sketch out some great ideas, and then the DM would fill in the rest! In other words, give the DM the bare bones of a starter, because DMs were going to make their own adventures and this was teaching them how to do that. As they realized that, no, they could make bank off of modules and adventures, this quickly changed. I don't think they wanted to provide that type of "learning template." This is why B2 is more complete than B1 (albeit ... I mean ... you could of named some people in the Keep, amirite?).
Bonus fun fact- one of the reasons people would be confused by a few things in B2 when they received it with Moldvay was because that B2 (and B1) were written for OD&D, not Moldvay Basic.
Gus L
Explorer
Of course it's more complex - and yes Game Wizards has interesting things in it. I don't intend to reduce things to a simple Gygax Good/Arneson Bad, but think it's definately worth looking at some of the developments in D&D, and especially the shift towards AD&D, tournament play, and Gygax's self-promotion.
This last part is a place where I'd say that Gygax deserves the bad reputation he's developed since the 1990's - the birth of D&D was a collective effort, and Gygax's tireless efforts to make it all about Gary Gygax are something that's hidden a lot of great things. That isn't to say Arneson was great. I spent a bit of time around him in the late 80's and he was certainly trying to build his brand and prosecute his beefs with Gygax/TSR as well.
The myth making around both figures is a bit much and personally I like to twit them both a bit when I can.
In general, I agree that the early TSR era presented some solidification of a play style and efforts to control the direction and nature of RPGs. The changes in tone from the OD&D intros, such as Blackmoor, or even Eldritch Wizardry, to that of the PHB are telling here.
There's also the issue that B1 is frankly an inferior adventure as it's "fill in the blanks" method ends up breaking down the coherence and internal logic of the dungeon. Likewise the place is extremely low on treasure, and despite some lovely touches it is a much less interesting and fun adventure then B2 (despite B2's flaws). I don't know though how much B2 succeeds at stamping the Gygaxian style - I'd suggest it fails in significant ways, largely because the sort of wargaming Lake Geneva style, while it remains somewhat stronger in the AD&D line (largely thanks to tournament modules) fails to take root in B/X, and with BECMI and B5 one sees the "Trad" style of more story-focused and often heavy-handed design starting to take over. This though may be at least partially the result of other outside forces beyond TSR's internal direction, but it's interesting and visible in all the ways D&D has evolved since BECMI.
I bothered to look into this.
Apparently, there have been Erie issues in the past with the anti-SLAPP law,* so New York amended it to allow for it as a cause of action (a counter-claim).
In addition, given that there were statement on a matter of public concern made in a public forum that are at issue, this would arguably fall within the ambit of NY's amended anti-SLAPP law. See, e.g., Aristocrat Plastic Surgery, P.C. v. Silva, 206 A.D.3d 26, 32 (1st Dep’t 2022) (negative comment on yelp is a matter of public concern in a public forum, and NY's amended anti-SLAPP law would apply().
In short, given what we know, there is a decent chance that LaNasa's quixotic behavior could expose him to damages and attorney's fees pursuant to the anti-SLAPP law.
(Disclaimer- I am not offering any specific advice, and I have merely looked briefly into the issue and offering an uninformed opinion based on a brief perusal of the authorities.)
*Seriously, you don't want an Erie discussion, Suffice to say that certain federal courts in New York have held that you can't use NY's anti-SLAPP procedure, but you can use the new counterclaim. See Exec. Park Partners LLC v. Benicci Inc., 2023 WL 3739093 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2023) (holding that you can't use anti-SLAPP motion under NY Law); but see Max v. Lissner, 2023 WL 2346365 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2023) (you can assert it as a claim).
Gus L
Explorer
It looks to me like NY's "new-new" anti-SLAPP is still getting tested right now... though the Trump v. Trump case from 2023 suggests that the courts are ready to use it fairly effectively. The plaintiff here and/or his attorney may not have realized that NY Anti-SLAPP finally had teeth, because it's been rather busted for years, but it does very much seem like a case where it would be appropriate and well worth a try.
Of course collection may still be difficult...though cutting the case off to stem one's own fees is never a bad move.
Then there's always the treacherous waters of Anti-SLAPPing the Anti-SLAPP... which I know at least once has then been Anti-SLAPPed itself. Not sure how NY handles that, though since a few of the cases expanding the Anti-SLAPP law of late have been motions against counter-claims as themselves, so presumably the courts are definitely a public forum under the statute. I don't see why you couldn't Anti-SLAPP the Anti-SLAPP motion ... in turn to be Anti-SLAPPed... perhaps in infinite regression like a hall of mirrors that only show pettifoggery.
I find Erie an interesting framework for discussion of D&D procedure and RAW vs. table culture... But no, one does not.
Similar Threads
