Noble Houses of Ten

[Havard]

It is interesting that all source material describe 9 major houses of the Duchy of Ten.

The clear implication is that the Ran of Ah Foo is the 10th Baron. The question then becomes: Did Ran drive off the original 10th Baron? Or was there some part of Ran that makes him a descendant of the 10th baronial family from the beginning?

If the former, what happened to the original 10th Baron and his family?

-Havard

[Yaztromo]

the Ran should probably not be a "house"

I'm aligned on this. Too strange a character to be a "house" and in general I expect the Ten to be Unwanted from Thonia, while I don't think that Ran fits with them.

[Havard]

the Ran should probably not be a "house"

I'm aligned on this. Too strange a character to be a "house" and in general I expect the Ten to be Unwanted from Thonia, while I don't think that Ran fits with them.

From what I understand the Ran of Ah Foo basically took over the Duchy of Ten in Arneson's campaign. Calling it a "house" might be misleading, but I still think he would have been the 10th Baron at some point. It is possible that he displaced another house in doing so though and the name Duchy of Ten probably predates The Ran. Do we know when Ran fled from the Egg of Coot?

-Havard

[aldarron]

the Ran should probably not be a "house"

I'm aligned on this. Too strange a character to be a "house" and in general I expect the Ten to be Unwanted from Thonia, while I don't think that Ran fits with them.

From what I understand the Ran of Ah Foo basically took over the Duchy of Ten in Arneson's campaign. Calling it a "house" might be misleading, but I still think he would have been the 10th Baron at some point. It is possible that he displaced another house in doing so though and the name Duchy of Ten probably predates The Ran. Do we know when Ran fled from the Egg of Coot?

-Havard

Yeah, the Ran of Ah Foo splitting from the Egg is all just backstory Arneson spun based on the meta events of his disagreement with Randy Hoffa and Greg Scott. In the original campaign, Ten was a barony taken over by Foo. Some player might have played Foo's forces in battle, but he was never anybody's regular character. There are hints that the other Barons of Ten were the descendants of pirates and bandits (for example in the d20 timeline) - that stuff in the DA series about the "unwanted" seems to have been made up by Ritchie. Arneson never endorsed that storyline.

[Yaztromo]

There are hints that the other Barons of Ten were the descendants of pirates and bandits (for example in the d20 timeline) - that stuff in the DA series about the "unwanted" seems to have been made up by Ritchie. Arneson never endorsed that storyline.

Zeitgeist campaign goes along DA4 approach on this point... Arneson never endorsed that, too?

[Havard]

The d20 timeline actually talks about the Ten Heroes fighting against the Thonians.

I think there was mention of the "unwanted" in Garbage Pits of Despair?

I think most of this is just a matter of perspective. The Thonians might see them as unwanted, bandits etc, while they themselves like to see themselves as nobles?

Migration routes from Thonia into Blackmoor, but also further onwards to the Duchy of Ten and the Duchy of the Peaks seem to be an important theme though. We are seeing a gradual expansion of Thonia/The Great Kingdom into the North all the way untill Uther's rebellion. Slaver trains and crusaders travelling this way are also part of this picture.

A side note: I think the pirate bit might be a specific reference to Robinsport and the coastal cities. We don't know how much of this was developed by Dave, but it might tie into the background of various sea battles from his campaign?

Yaz: Arneson was unhappy with some things in DA4. His main beef was that he was not sent this module for approval. We don't know exactly what he would have done differently, but my impression is that it had to do less with the setting itself, and more with the development of the overarching plot. DA4 ignores the story about the Ran of Ah' Foo completely, but instead brings the Afridhi invasion closer.

We can only speculate, but I think Dave would have preferred to have both the Duchy of Ten and the Afridhi as two separate enemies for Blackmoor. It is interesting that the Afridhi choose to attack Blackmoor via the Neck. Hanford seems like a more viable invasion route if they already control the Duchy of Ten?

-Havard

[aldarron]

There are hints that the other Barons of Ten were the descendants of pirates and bandits (for example in the d20 timeline) - that stuff in the DA series about the "unwanted" seems to have been made up by Ritchie. Arneson never endorsed that storyline.

Zeitgeist campaign goes along DA4 approach on this point... Arneson never endorsed that, too?

I don't believe so. ZG followed some of the DA 4 material for very practical (and understandable) reasons, which of course Arneson agreed with, but when asked about the D&D DA product line he took credit for contributing to DA 1-3, but basically disavowed DA 4 Duchy of Ten. (can find the interviews if you need but feeling lazy at the moment). I'm paraphrasing here, but at one point he said the ZG group planned to handle it "much better". In the end they decided not to change it much for practical reasons, but it does show what Arneson would rather have done.

And, in fact, if you look at the ZG material, while they do generally follow the DA4 storyline, there is a bit of nudging in a direction closer to Arneson's original vision while not making it totally unpalatable to DA4 fans. They recast the unwanted as pirates/rebels and call their fight against Thonia "The Pirates Rebellion"

If you go back and consider only Ten references in the FFC or in Garbage Pits, it's a very different world from the DA 4 Ten, and frankly the unwnated story line doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me - if there were such escapees, how could they possibly settle down as renegade farmers in a monster infested northern wilderness already home to bandits, Pictish wildmen, pirates and nomads who are themselves active slavers. Kinda like going from the frying pan into the fire. Further, the storyline seems to ignore the fact that Ten lies between the Duchy of Blackmoor and the Duchy of the Peeks. It also seems to totally ignore the existence of the Southlands - which would have been both closer and much more attractive as an area for these "unwanted" escapees from Thonia to go to. So I cry foul on the whole storyline.

[Yaztromo]

Thank you very much for the explanation! I will try and find some time to go through the detail of DA4 and Zeitgeist material

[Havard]

There are hints that the other Barons of Ten were the descendants of pirates and bandits (for example in the d20 timeline) - that stuff in the DA series about the "unwanted" seems to have been made up by Ritchie. Arneson never endorsed that storyline.

Zeitgeist campaign goes along DA4 approach on this point... Arneson never endorsed that, too?

I don't believe so. ZG followed some of the DA 4 material for very practical (and understandable) reasons, which of course Arneson agreed with, but when asked about the D&D DA product line he took credit for contributing to DA 1-3, but basically disavowed DA 4 Duchy of Ten. (can find the interviews if you need but feeling lazy at the moment). I'm paraphrasing here, but at one point he said the ZG group planned to handle it "much better". In the end they decided not to change it much for practical reasons, but it does show what Arneson would rather have done.

And, in fact, if you look at the ZG material, while they do generally follow the DA4 storyline, there is a bit of nudging in a direction closer to Arneson's original vision while not making it totally unpalatable to DA4 fans. They recast the unwanted as pirates/rebels and call their fight against Thonia "The Pirates Rebellion"

If you go back and consider only Ten references in the FFC or in Garbage Pits, it's a very different world from the DA 4 Ten, and frankly the unwnated story line doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me - if there were such escapees, how could they possibly settle down as renegade farmers in a monster infested northern wilderness already home to bandits, Pictish wildmen, pirates and nomads who are themselves active slavers. Kinda like going from the frying pan into the fire. Further, the storyline seems to ignore the fact that Ten lies between the Duchy of Blackmoor and the Duchy of the Peeks. It also seems to totally ignore the existence of the Southlands - which would have been both closer and much more attractive as an area for these "unwanted" escapees from Thonia to go to. So I cry foul on the whole storyline.

Well this is all speculation, so your theories are as good as mine. However, personally I would not be so quick to dismiss everything in DA4 as exclusively Ritchie's.

A few things to consider.

At one point after leaving TSR, Dave Arneson shopped around for the idea of publishing as many as 12 modules set in Blackmoor. Mayfair Games was considered as a publisher. I'm assuming that copyright issues was the real reason why he ended up publishing them through TSR since so many elements of Blackmoor IP had been tied to them since the publication of Supplement II.

We know that Frank Mentzer auctioned away a huge document called the "Chronicles of Thonia" a few years ago. The author of the document was most likely David Ritchie. I assume this was based on Dave Arneson's draft for the '12 modules' he had shown the people at Mayfair Games earlier. I also think The Chronicles of Thonia were the basis for the 4 DA modules as well as the never published DA5.

I don't think Arneson sent Ritchie drafts for 3 modules. I think he sent him a huge single document that Ritchie reworked into 5 planned modules. Because of this I am fairly certain that some of the material in DA4 is from Dave's notes.


Now, the DA modules share a basic structure:
1) Introduction about how to send characters back in time from the Known World (Mystara) to Blackmoor.
2) Setting info, adventure hooks etc (This is typically scattered around in each booklet)
3) The main adventure
4) NPC Section (I think DA2 omits this one)

Item 1 is likely always by Ritchie possibly with some input from Arneson (Great Rain of Fire could be his?).

In DA4 specifically, I think the majority of the module is from Ritchie, but I still think setting information in the module (item 2) comes from Arneson. The module credits Deborah Ritchie for fleshing out the Afridhi, but we know they were created by Arneson, including the Toska Rusa character. Dave Arneson did probably not intend for the Afridhi to have occupied Ten, but probably other information about the families (Baron Hubal?) and towns (Starmorgan, Port Dacoit, Robinsport) as well as the Barrier Swamp comes from Arneson. The Well of Souls etc could come from either author really.


Again this is speculation, but I think Arneson's disappointment with DA4 has to do with:
1) The fact that TSR did not send him a draft for approval before publishing
2) Afridhi occupying Ten
3) DA4 completely leaving out Ran of Ah' Foo



Another question is whether this matters. While I like talking about what Dave's vision for Blackmoor was, I am perfectly happy to include all published material for Blackmoor when developing my campaign


-Havard

[aldarron]

Well this is all speculation, so your theories are as good as mine. However, personally I would not be so quick to dismiss everything in DA4 as exclusively Ritchie's.

A few things to consider.

At one point after leaving TSR, Dave Arneson shopped around for the idea of publishing as many as 12 modules set in Blackmoor. Mayfair Games was considered as a publisher. I'm assuming that copyright issues was the real reason why he ended up publishing them through TSR since so many elements of Blackmoor IP had been tied to them since the publication of Supplement II.

We know that Frank Mentzer auctioned away a huge document called the "Chronicles of Thonia" a few years ago. The author of the document was most likely David Ritchie. I assume this was based on Dave Arneson's draft for the '12 modules' he had shown the people at Mayfair Games earlier. I also think The Chronicles of Thonia were the basis for the 4 DA modules as well as the never published DA5.

I don't think Arneson sent Ritchie drafts for 3 modules. I think he sent him a huge single document that Ritchie reworked into 5 planned modules. Because of this I am fairly certain that some of the material in DA4 is from Dave's notes.

Good thoughts Havard. Well I would agree that there is very likely at least some of Arneson's material in DA4, and regardless, your theory of Arneson sending one mss in that was retyped as the Chronicles of Thonia seems like it could well be the case. I like that idea.

Now, the DA modules share a basic structure:
1) Introduction about how to send characters back in time from the Known World (Mystara) to Blackmoor.
2) Setting info, adventure hooks etc (This is typically scattered around in each booklet)
3) The main adventure
4) NPC Section (I think DA2 omits this one)

Item 1 is likely always by Ritchie possibly with some input from Arneson (Great Rain of Fire could be his?).

In DA4 specifically, I think the majority of the module is from Ritchie, but I still think setting information in the module (item 2) comes from Arneson. The module credits Deborah Ritchie for fleshing out the Afridhi, but we know they were created by Arneson, including the Toska Rusa character. Dave Arneson did probably not intend for the Afridhi to have occupied Ten, but probably other information about the families (Baron Hubal?) and towns (Starmorgan, Port Dacoit, Robinsport) as well as the Barrier Swamp comes from Arneson. The Well of Souls etc could come from either author really.

I'd have to disagree with you on the setting information, adventure hooks etc. Actually, this is the sort of stuff I would expect to come from TSR/Ritchie, especially if they chopped up a master document from Arneson. That certainly is the case with DA1.

Well of Souls? I dunno, but I bet that was from Arneson. Kinda sounds like his "Doomsday Rod".

Again this is speculation, but I think Arneson's disappointment with DA4 has to do with:
1) The fact that TSR did not send him a draft for approval before publishing
2) Afridhi occupying Ten
3) DA4 completely leaving out Ran of Ah' Foo

Actually I'd disagree with #2. It's nothing certain, of course, but Garbage Pits of Despair hints at the Afridi in control of Ten. The leaders there are referred to as Sartraps and they are big time slave dealers.

Honestly, what I think Arneson objected to was the whole unwanted storyline. The "unwanted" story set up this grand and noble narrative for an area that was supposed to be little more than a hotbed of baddies and slavers. It made Ten into a kind of sympathic and tragic democratic society that made Blackmoor seem quite pedantic and backward by comparison. And yes, it did also toss the Ran and his great dragon breeding complex out the window.

Another question is whether this matters. While I like talking about what Dave's vision for Blackmoor was, I am perfectly happy to include all published material for Blackmoor when developing my campaign

-Havard

Okie doke. To me the issue is replacing the authors vision with something else. I'm not really cool with that, when the author objects to the result.