WotC Class History Article: Blackmoor References

[Havard]

WotC has just published this article by Shannon Applecine covering the origin of various D&D Classes. Overall, the article seems to draw lines from Chainmail to D&D with very few references to the Blackmoor group: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/feature ... -histories

Regarding the Cleric though, Applecine states:

As a wargame, Chainmail (1971) didn’t include any options for healing. D&D’s third core class, the cleric, thus didn’t appear until the release of OD&D (1974) itself. Mike Carr says that it may have originated in Dave Arneson’s Blackmoor campaign, where he played Bishop Carr, a vampire-fighting clergyman.

When I interviewed Carr a few years back, his memories on the exact details of the Blackmoor campaign were hazy. But several people have confirmed Cleric type characters in the Blackmoor Campaign.

As usual, we see the gaming historians being very reluctant to give the Blackmoor Campaign much credit for anything. I can understand the reluctance to trust non written sources, but I think they should realize that by constantly questioning the sources we have on the Blackmoor group and at the same time not questioning the sources we have on early TSR/Gygax they are subtly continuing early TSR's effort to undermine Dave's involvement in the creation of D&D. This would be very unfortunate from a historian's point of view.

Otherwise it is an interesting article though, and I think it shows how much people are interested in the history of roleplaying games.

-Havard

[Vile]

The article is also reluctant to credit Gary Switzer's group with the invention of the thief - in fact, the text has a distinctly censored look, as if a whole sentence had been removed.

It's all legalese, no doubt. Accreditation means money.

[aldarron]

Not at all surprising considering who wrote it. That's total garbage. Someone with an account there should call him out on it.

[Havard]

Not at all surprising considering who wrote it. That's total garbage. Someone with an account there should call him out on it.

The author is Shannon Applecine who also wrote a multi volume book on gaming history right? I recall the first book in his series also had similar problems with its Arneson references (lack of credit), but I am surprised that you would be so harsh in your criticism Aldarron?

I have an account at Wizards.com, so I might post something there about it.

What do you think of Vile's suggestions that the article might be sensored? I have seen that mentioned elsewhere as well.

-Havard

[Vile]

I'm basing my theory on these two sentences:

Rogues have one of the more interesting histories among the D&D classes. Gygax liked the concept, creating his own thief for Great Plains Game Players Newsletter #9 (June 1974).

There's clearly something missing - Gygax liked what concept, exactly? Looks very consistent with later editing of the text. So I'm not so sure Applecline is to blame, necessarily. Imagine the mess that could result (for WotC) if they credited Switzer and crew with the thief, no matter how obliquely? It's not a matter of whether Switzer would sue, which I doubt, but the modern corporate world is highly risk-averse when it comes to this sort of thing.

I just want to point out that I'm only speculating, by the way!

[aldarron]

Not at all surprising considering who wrote it. That's total garbage. Someone with an account there should call him out on it.

The author is Shannon Applecine who also wrote a multi volume book on gaming history right? I recall the first book in his series also had similar problems with its Arneson references (lack of credit), but I am surprised that you would be so harsh in your criticism Aldarron?

I have an account at Wizards.com, so I might post something there about it.

What do you think of Vile's suggestions that the article might be sensored? I have seen that mentioned elsewhere as well.

-Havard

I have a low tolerance for poor research by those claiming to write "histories". Yeah, this is the same fellow who published an expensive book with Wesely's name consistently spelled wrong, along with other errors or misleading statements - and that was just in the sample. Editing by Wotc may indeed have something to do witht he thief, but not that vague garbage about the Cleric.