"D&D Supplement II: Blackmoor": TSR, 1975.

[aldarron]

Thanks for posting this here Dan!

You mention that some of the information in the Sahuagin entry (Rules stuff) could be a result of Arnesonian ideas being mixed in. Do you think that it is possible that some of the description/background information on the same monster could also be from Arneson? The reason why I ask is because it reads very much like a setting section more than a monster description...

Thoughts?

-Havard

I do think so. If you look at the monsters that are unquestionably Steve Marsh's alone, you don't get as much of that background/story detail. Some of them are really brief. (Morkoth, Ixitxachtil, Locath etc.) The Sahaugin story does sound like Blackmoor material but I can't point out anything that is really strongly related to Arneson's style of writing, as opposed to Kask, in the description. My sense of the supplement in general, based on the text and because it was Kasks first job, and based on Kasks comments regarding how he thought poorly of the Assasin and Monk characters but put them in anyway because Gary insisted that he should do it because it was Dave's supplement and that's what he wanted, that Tim made a sincere effort to incorporate as much of Arnesons material and "voice" as he could, as long as it seemed compatible with Gygax's Greyhawk. So I think there are stray bits and pieces of Arneson material peppered in the stuff by Marsh and others and whether Kask or Marsh, or Arneson wrote some bit of "fluff" I think its fair to say it was generally in keeping with Dave's ideas and endorsed by him, since he never expressed any real disagreement with it. The one bit of fluff I wonder most about is the intro to ToTF, since it disagrees in several particulars with Steve Rochefords version, I think Kask may have had a hand in expanding the background there but I'm just speculating at this point.

[Havard]

I do think so. If you look at the monsters that are unquestionably Steve Marsh's alone, you don't get as much of that background/story detail. Some of them are really brief. (Morkoth, Ixitxachtil, Locath etc.) The Sahaugin story does sound like Blackmoor material but I can't point out anything that is really strongly related to Arneson's style of writing, as opposed to Kask, in the description. My sense of the supplement in general, based on the text and because it was Kasks first job, and based on Kasks comments regarding how he thought poorly of the Assasin and Monk characters but put them in anyway because Gary insisted that he should do it because it was Dave's supplement and that's what he wanted, that Tim made a sincere effort to incorporate as much of Arnesons material and "voice" as he could, as long as it seemed compatible with Gygax's Greyhawk. So I think there are stray bits and pieces of Arneson material peppered in the stuff by Marsh and others and whether Kask or Marsh, or Arneson wrote some bit of "fluff" I think its fair to say it was generally in keeping with Dave's ideas and endorsed by him, since he never expressed any real disagreement with it. The one bit of fluff I wonder most about is the intro to ToTF, since it disagrees in several particulars with Steve Rochefords version, I think Kask may have had a hand in expanding the background there but I'm just speculating at this point.

Cool, I was hoping that would be the case. Ripvanwormer posted some pretty interesting theories linking some elements from the DoCBM and the Sahuagin background and this makes that even more appropriate, the general assumption being that these were Arneson's ideas.

-Havard

[Havard]

Supplement II was recently discussed in a Save or Die Podcast. More on this here.

[Havard]

The question of differences between various printings came up at the OD&D Forum:

Having just purchased a copy of Dave's supplement today on eBay(with the lizardman logo ) I was curious about the printing history of this item.
The information at Acaeum is pretty sparse regarding BM regarding changes with each printing. First printing is given as 9/75, which is also the month that the old GK logo was put away and the LM adopted. Did any Blackmoor prints carry the GK logo? Anyone know how many were printed that year?

Does anyone know anything about this?

-Havard

[Havard]

And it's back in print!


-Havard