Monday, July 14, 2025

If a Game Falls in the Forest

In discussing the possibility of roleplaying games being invented in another era, I soon found myself thinking more and more about the actual history of the hobby, particularly its beginnings. That’s because every so often, someone unearths an obscure set of notes or recalls the private campaign of a long-forgotten hobbyist and claims that roleplaying games were created before Dungeons & Dragons, sometimes long before. According to these accounts, Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson merely popularized the form, while others were its “true” inventors.

I understand the impulse. Recorded history often overlooks lesser-known figures and it's right to acknowledge the contributions of pioneers who laid the groundwork for later developments. That said, I have difficulty crediting anyone as the “father” of a hobby unless he shared his creation in a way that made it accessible, intelligible, and, most importantly, replicable by people outside his immediate circle.

This may seem a narrow definition of invention, but I believe it’s essential, especially in the case of roleplaying games. A private amusement, even if it includes characters, rules, and imaginative scenarios, does not a new hobby make. Countless clever diversions have lived and died in obscurity, forgotten or never known at all. If no one beyond its creators can play, understand, or build upon it, then its significance is limited at best. To put it bluntly, if a roleplaying game existed in, say, 1958 but was never published, never disseminated, and never expanded beyond its original group, it may as well have never existed.

To put it somewhat flippantly, this is the creative equivalent of the old philosophical question, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" Did a roleplaying game “exist” in any meaningful way before D&D if no one else could participate in or reproduce it? My answer is: not really.

To invent something isn’t simply to stumble upon a novel idea. It’s to realize that idea in such a way that others can use, learn from, and transform it. That’s the true achievement of Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, an achievement no one else can claim. They didn’t just play a new kind of game. They wrote down its rules, organized them, and, however clumsily at first, published them so that others could do the same. No one else had done that before. Here, I think we must be honest: it was Gygax who did the lion’s share of this work. Arneson brought his imaginative brilliance and the experience of his Blackmoor campaign, without which roleplaying games as we now know them would have been impossible, but it was Gygax who hammered the concept into something others could use and got it into print.

With Gygax's efforts in this respect, Dungeons & Dragons would probably never have been published. Instead, we might still be sifting through the remnants of the Twin Cities wargaming scene, piecing together anecdotes about some curious experiment in fantasy miniatures Arneson and his friends played in the early '70s. Because of Gygax, we got three little brown books that any reasonably curious teenager could pick up, read, and use as a blueprint to build worlds of his own. That’s invention in the fullest sense.

None of this is to diminish the role of earlier innovators like Dave Wesely, creator of Braunstein, or others whose names have been lost to time. They’re worthy of celebration. Each, in his own way, added ideas to a growing stew of influences out of which roleplaying coalesced. However, none of these predecessors synthesized those ideas into a coherent, replicable form, let alone shared them widely. They didn’t transmit the concept.

I think that's a distinction that matters. Creativity is common; invention is rare.

The history of games is full of apocrypha and alternate claimants. Perhaps someone did play something like D&D in the 1940s. Maybe there’s a letter buried in an archive describing a fantasy parlor game with a referee and evolving characters. If so, that’s fascinating, but it’s not the same as creating the roleplaying game as we know it today.

Invention isn’t about who got there first. It’s about who made it possible for others to follow.

31 comments:

  1. How dare you deny the fact that MAR Barker invented RPGs in the 40s or the 50s but was just _too sophisticated and ahead of the times_????? /sarc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Careful, you start that stuff and next thing you know you'll have St. Andre in here insisting T&T was published before EPT. :)

      Delete
    2. I'm OK with that. And while I think the Tekumel superfans aren't very talkative these days, if they rocked up for a deathmatch against St. Andre I'd make popcorn. For everyone!

      Delete
    3. I love Tekumel, but Gygax and Arneson made EPT possible.

      Delete
  2. Agree 100%

    In the absence of Arneson and Gygax, I suspected what we would have gotten is something that would have been part of the wargaming boom.

    A series of "social" wargames lumped in with games like Diplomacy. Along with wargames that featured the antics of individual characters in the scenario like SPI's Freedom in the Galaxy, War of the Ring, and Swords & Sorcery.

    That this would have led to wargame "series" with a strong and compelling fictional background like Warhammer (Fantasy or 40k) and Battletech.

    Some of it may have been even campaign oriented however it would far more oriented to the scenario than what we currently experience in the tabletop roleplaying hobby.

    Oh and something like Megarry's Dungeon! or Talisman would also seen the light of day as their premise work well as a wargame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Finally I think the key development that led to Blackmoor becoming the first tabletop roleplaying game is Dave Arneson's willingness to say "yes" to the various ideas his players came up with. (Within reason).

      From various interviews and anecdotes to me it was obvious that Dave Arneson was much more comfortable as a neutral referee adjudicating a Braustein's like campaign between competing groups of players.

      However it also obvious that he cared about his players having fun so was willing to go along with the campaign's shift in focus to exploring the Blackmoor dungeons and adventuring in general.

      This set the stage for the Lake Geneva demo and everything that followed.

      Absent that willingness, what may have resulted instead is a series of scenario oriented social wargaming based on Diplomacy and Braustein. Probably with Gygax or one of the other more ambitious Upper Midwest gamers spearheading the effort.

      Delete
    2. there really wasn't any wargaming boom. less than a 1000 players, nationwide

      Delete
    3. You are off by a least an order of magnitudes. GDW alone was producing print runs in thousands and Avalon Hill and SPI in the tens of thousands for individual titles.

      https://www.designers-and-dragons.com/2017/04/06/the-gdw-production-records-part-one-an-overview/

      Delete
    4. Here's some numbers for SPI: https://www.spigames.net/spi_by_the_numbers_ch10.htm

      Delete
    5. Also a quick skim of Playing at the World suggests the IFW hit at least 250 members. Gencon II 250 attendees. Those can't possibly represent more than 25% of the hobby to have "less than 1000 players nationwide".

      Also considering that in the 1970s, I patronized at least 5 stores with a significant war gaming presence, or the fact that in 5th grade, someone formed a war games club in our town (Concord MA) to play Avalon Hill games. 1000 players nationwide just seems way to few to justify all that.

      Delete
  3. Jim Hodges---
    My heyday in D&D was the mid-Reagan years, and then I lost track of what was going on. Recently I have been listening to podcasts and YouTube videos and acquainting myself with some of the campaign settings of 2e and 3e eras, places I'd never heard of, worlds developed by designers whose names meant nothing to me, but oddly enough this past weekend as I was listening to some YT-er called Otto dissert on Ravenloft and Dark Sun, it occurred to me to think of all the unsung and unheralded talents whose creativity went into those now long ago settings, and then today I read your column and I find myself thinking about creators all over again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you planning on getting back in to the hobby? Whats your strategy for finding a group?

      Delete
    2. Jim Hodges---
      More of a fond remembrance combined with an exploration of what I used to play and what I missed than a real leap back in. Though maybe I'll see if some of the new generation in the family grow into it. Looking good with one so far, but he's still a little young. I've always been one to enjoy reading about the game and its classes and settings roughly as much as I have actually playing it, though I did invest lots of hours back in the day DM-ing and playing.
      If you're getting back in, I wish you much fun and happy adventuring!

      Delete
    3. Don’t give up because of age! I started my daughter at 3 by adding dice to the recreation of the Barbie at Swan Lake movie and my stepson at 4 starting out as a monk very similar to the dojo where he was doing his martial arts. What they loved was the story and howling at me when the dice produced a different result than the movie/day’s events. That first campaign lasted 10 years and ballooned into 15 neighborhood kids playing AD&D.

      Delete
  4. Thank you for this! I struggle with some of the opinions people take on the other side of your points. It really is HARD and impressive to actual get pen to paper when hammering out rules to ANY game.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You do realize that if you replace the word "invention" with "discovery" you just made the case for a traditional celebration of Columbus Day even though the Vikings and Skraelings got here first? Ok by me, just worth noting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It had been continuously inhabited for some 40.000 years already, I believe.

      Delete
    2. I don’t think anyone disagrees that the Columbian Exchange (which still gets Chris’s name) was era-defining. The objections to Columbus Day are more that Columbus himself was a nasty piece of work even by his era’s standards, and that his actions paved the way for a genocide. Since the survivors’ descendants still live among us, honoring the dude that kicked that whole thing off seems in bad taste, and many prefer to substitute a celebration of indigenous Americans themselves (who may not have gotten back to the rest of Eurasia about the whole “couple of other continents” thing, but did develop into numerous nations like the human settlers of every other continent before them. They weren’t a one and done expedition that never led to anything.

      Delete
    3. You beat me to the Columbus - Viking comparison. Sure, the Norse actually discovered the New World a few centuries before Columbus, but their settlements didn’t last and nothing came of it.
      Columbus’ discovery, however, changed the world.
      So, does it matter what some Danes or Norwegians in a row boat did 300 years earlier?

      Delete
  6. Can't really be the father of anything if you have no descendants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a matter of limited scope. Eventually, all of everyone's descendants will be gone too.

      Delete
    2. No, but you can be an uncle or aunt and give it to the cousins.

      Delete
  7. Not to disparage the accomplishments of the founders of this hobby, but whoever created the first role-playing game invented the role-playing game regardless of how popular it was or whether it was known at all. Gygax and Arneson may have invented the hobby, but if someone created a role-playing game before they did, that person is the actual inventor of the role-playing game itself. Anyone who was ignored or erased still deserves due credit for being the first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First off, we can only give credit if we know the person.

      Otherwise, we could just decide not to credit anyone with invention because "probably someone had the idea earlier."

      Second, before we credit anyone else, we need to see evidence that they actually created a complete framework for an RPG.

      Western Gunfight sounds like a serious contender, but everything I've read about it always feels like it's missing something from what D&D does. I also wonder about timelines, and especially timelines based on people's recollections. It's easy, after being exposed to D&D to take something that was an "almost" RPG and take the final steps, and then because those final steps seemed small, think that was the way you did it all along.

      So in the end, I choose to give credit to the game that not only had whatever was necessary, but that it also successfully communicated the ideas to people in a way that launched a hobby.

      Delete
    2. “Popularized” is a useful and pretty much incontrovertible term for when “invented” doesn’t seem quite right. But I can still totally see a work about the invention of RPGs devoting the bulk of its time to Arneson and Gygax, mentioning any precursors in sidebars as interesting trivia that unfortunately didn’t spread their game beyond their own circle.

      Delete
    3. @Frank, what do you think Western Gunfight missed? I haven’t seen it firsthand but it sounds spot on, even published and promoted to the extent that Gygax was interested and it also had some influence on WHFRP. It just didn’t catch on like D&D did. Probably not definitively answerable, but I do wonder what the important differences were.

      Delete
    4. I've not seen it, but the descriptions of play don't quite sound like an RPG to me. It doesn't feel like it was quite to the same level of "you can do anything."

      But I don't think it's actually possible to discern because it is very close, and any recollection is tainted by exposure to D&D.

      And maybe I'm just biased...

      Delete
    5. John Curry has published a version in his History of Wargaming project.

      http://www.wargaming.co/recreation/details/westerngunfight.htm

      It’s what Don Featherstone called “individual wargaming”: there’s story, scenario design and characters but it’s certainly on a different track.


      Delete
  8. This is where I am thoroughly enjoying finally being able to read Peterson's Playing at the World now that it's back in print (and in legible format, not just the faint scan available for checkout via Internet Archive). He does as good a job as anyone could, I think, of sifting through the roots and branches.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It took commercialization of the concept for it to spread far and wide. Gygax’s dire financial straight at the time were a huge motivation to make the game a success.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This discussion reminds me of discussions in the academic research world. Something can only be credited to a person if a publication is made, i.e. the idea/invention/proof/experiment is made public to the world, and can be referenced. But there is an important assumption here: in an academic paper, one is also supposed to mention "previous work", i.e. referencing the work that came before and upon which your work was built.

    The latter is often ignored in games publishing. It would be good if game designers would acknowledge previous games or ideas or experiments on which the current publication is based. But probably for commercial and IP reasons this is rare and even discouraged.

    Nevertheless, it's still interesting to retrace the lineage of ideas. Where exactly did an idea come from? Retracing that lineage does not diminish the contributions made by the "inventors", but can put them in a better perspective and increase our understanding.

    ReplyDelete