Laying the Foundations, Pt. 2

Because I have several more chronology posts in the works, I want to make a few quick comments about dates and dating, if only because certain folks may wish to call me on this or that citation as I continue. The more precise and accurate we can be in assigning dates, the better it is for students of D&D's (and TSR's) history and the hobby's evolution. Good research and a sound understanding rely on all possible precision.

Even so, for several interrelated reasons, I'm not going to over-worry the dates given here. First, I'm not a D&D connoisseur, so I've neither the expertise nor the desire to distinguish, for example, between the "True First" and First printings of the 1e D&D Basic Set (AKA "Holmes Basic"). Authorities agree that the rules were first available in Jul 1977 at Origins III, and given my task here, no greater granularity is required. Indeed, more precision adds nothing but unnecessary complexity and potential for confusion.

Second, B/Xarcana isn't a definitive source for the dates and dating of physical D&D products or even a primary history of TSR and its production schedules. I've done my legwork, of course, and take primary research seriously, but this blog is focused on something else entirely -- contextualizing and engaging with B/X D&D as a rhetorical object, a game whose value is enhanced by multilayered rhetorical analysis.

Third, no one seems certain about dates in some cases. To take one instance: Did copies of B/X D&D ship at the extreme end of 1980 (per the "© 1980" on early boxes and rulebooks) or not until Jan 1981 (per the books' title pages)? The Acaeum posits that while some B/X D&D boxes and rulebooks may have a 1980 copyright, initial sets are indeed Jan 1981 printings. Tome of Treasures assumes the same. Some commentators and players instead choose to assign 1980 to B/X D&D -- Shannon Appelcline, among others, routinely does so in his excellent "Designers & Dragons" column.

While knowing for certain would undoubtedly be helpful, there's little to be done at this point but to fall back on the standard that academics use when citing any printed source, which is to use the title page, not other clues that, however "obvious," remain up in the air. Thus, unless and until more reliable (and verifiable) information comes to light, I'll continue to refer to both Moldvay Basic and Cook-Marsh Expert as being Jan 1981 products. Likewise, any other items with similarly murky production histories.

All of that said, I'll almost certainly make a factual error from time to time, and in those cases I hope readers will see fit to set me straight. I certainly don't want to propagate misinformation if it can at all be helped; it serves no one well to have incorrect data posted here -- especially in an era of instant Web searches, when bad information can spread like wildfire.

D&D: 1970-76

I'll be posting a rough timeline soon, providing an easy way to visualize the chronological skeleton this blog will flesh out over coming months. That post will grow as additional details, hyperlinks, etc. are added and eventually serve (I hope) as an extended outline/overview of my work here. For now, though, I want simply to illustrate my reasoning for grouping events as I have.

Narrative histories, chronologies, and timelines assume a specific logic or theory of how and why events unfold in a certain way. "Bias" of that sort is an inevitable part of re/presenting history and is only an issue when we fail to foreground it as clearly as possible. The key is to validate the operative (i.e. informing) principle in such a way that others can accept its utility, even if they themselves would re/present and, therefore, explain events differently.

With the events surrounding Basic-Expert D&D's lifespan (1981-83), my approach is to conceive of a series of waves, with intervening transitional periods, that represent the game's cumulative momentum as it gained traction in both the marketplace and the culture at large. Other models can and do apply to the same history, but I'm confident a brief review of dates and developments will prove my approach workable for present purposes. [1] I'll leave it to readers to determine any wider value it may have.

Transitional Period A (1970-71)

Jeff Perren, Gary Gygax, and others begin presenting various simulation rules (medieval miniatures, jousting, etc.) in the Castle & Crusade Society's Domesday Book -- issues 5-7 are of particular importance. All things being equal, those first articles represent the formal movement from 1960s-style wargaming toward what would become D&D-style roleplaying. The two approaches are not disjunctive, but they're sufficiently different to merit juxtaposition.

1ST Wave (1971-76)

In Aug 1971, Gygax and Perren publish Chainmail Rules for Medieval Miniatures through Don Lowry's Guidon Games. Contrary to some reports, the "Fantasy Supplement" that partly inspires Dave Arneson's Black Moor (later Blackmoor) campaign is present in the first edition.

As the rules circulate, additions and changes appear in Domesday Book and International Wargamer in late 1971 and early 1972. Those modifications are incorporated into the 2e Chainmail Rules in Jul 1972.

That same month, Arneson's "Facts About Black Moor" appears in Domesday Book #13, providing the first published account and map of his home campaign. (Gygax's Greyhawk campaign is also developing.) In late autumn 1972, Gygax and Arneson begin collaboration on what will become the 1974 Dungeons & Dragons set (OD&D) -- first published by Gygax, Don Kaye, and Brian Blume's Tactical Studies Rules (later TSR Hobbies, Inc.). [2]

Reports from Gygax and others indicate that, as news of the game spreads, the first 2,000 copies of D&D sell out in about seventeen months. Kaye suffers a fatal heart attack on Jan 31, 1975, but TSR continues to publish games, including top-selling D&D. [3] The company also launches its Strategic Review newsletter with a cover date of Spr 1975 -- issue 2 (Sum 1975) includes an "in memoriam" for Kaye.

Between Feb 1975 and Jul 1976, four supplements as well as miniatures rules are published for D&D, simultaneously expanding and retrofitting the game system. Additional material is also appearing in Strategic Review. [4]

• Supplement I: Greyhawk (Feb 1975)

• Supplement II: Blackmoor (Sep 1975)

• Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry (Apr 1976)

• Supplement IV: Gods, Demi-gods & Heroes (Jul 1976)

• Swords & Spells (Jul 1976)

Chainmail 3e is released by TSR in early 1975 -- the later Jul 1975 printing would sport a slick silver cover and plastic-spiral binding. In Dec 1975, D&D's first product redesign is implemented, with the OD&D box shifting from tan and woodgrain to all white. [5]

TO BE CONTINUED . . .

Notes

[1] I'll present additional details as I move into more granular analyses of specific products, trends, etc. See also, among others, The Acaeum, Tome of Treasures, Jon Peterson's Playing at the World (Unreason P, 2012), and David Ewalt's forthcoming Of Dice and Men (Scribner, 2013).

[2] Original D&D relied, in part, on Avalon Hill's Outdoor Survival (1972) as well as Chainmail. Those dependencies, not to mention the later 1975-76 supplements, illustrate how central tinkering ("homebrewing") was to the game's early evolution.

[3] Other first-wave TSR RPGs include Warriors of Mars (1974), Boot Hill (1e, 1975), and Metamorphosis Alpha (1e, 1976).

[4] Beyond Gygax and Arneson, early designers/editors include Blume, Timothy Kask, Robert Kuntz, Steve Marsh, and James Ward. Among the artists are Greg Bell, Gary Kwapisz, Tracy Lesch, and David Sutherland.

[5] Such changes in trade dress figure as prominent signposts for tracking D&D's continuing development and success and will play a central role in my analyses.

Laying the Foundations, Pt. 1

As I noted last time, any number of blogs, discussion threads, etc. focus at least occasionally on B/X D&D. Sooner or later, most of them provide an extended outline or other read-through of the two 1981 rulebooks, typically centered on the system's mechanics and other rules bits. Less often (but equally important), world-building or other campaign-related snippets are highlighted as well. And for those of us interested in Moldvay-Cook-Marsh, every detail of that sort is valuable in some way, shape, or form.

My intent with B/Xarcana differs a bit, both in method and in goals, not because I dislike what's been done previously but because I think my contributions, such as they are, are more likely to benefit the community in other ways. A read-through of sorts will eventually appear here, but because I have a Ph.D. in rhetoric, I'm much more interested in patterns and connections -- whether mechanical, verbal, or thematic -- and what they tell us about the 1981 edition's distinctive vision and milieu.

Context is everything when it comes to rhetoric, so the foundations I'll be laying involve the situation at TSR (and in the hobby at large) in the years leading up to the rules' release, not simply what's found within the rulebooks or B- and X-series modules of the time. I'll be constructing a specific timeline, attending to the people working for the company before, during, and after the period in question (1981-83), and doing a host of other things that may at first seem irrelevant to B/X D&D per se.

All of which takes time, of course, so many of the posts here will serve as an ongoing record of my preparation, research, and thinking, not simply reports on the end results. Those who don't have an interest in painstaking noodling are welcome to pop in now and then to see where things stand, but I'm fully aware that my plan isn't everyone's cup of tea and don't expect every visitor to show limitless patience in the weeks and months to come. 

THE HAUNTED KEEP side view (Erol Otus)

Results are what most people care about, and rightly so, and when those results start to take shape, I'll clearly mark the entries that provide them. Whether you read everything posted here or only pop in from time to time, I want to say up front that I appreciate your making the effort to do so. I'll do everything I can to ensure your time is well spent and, as important, this blog enhances your appreciation for B/X D&D.

Welcome to B/Xarcana

The 1981 Basic-Expert (B/X) rules for Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) aren't the most renowned version of the game, but a quick Google search will show that they're still being vigorously discussed, debated, and played. Rather than rehash what's already been said and done, I want to construct (what I hope is) a compelling framework for assessing those rules, one that captures their core identity and unique place in the game's 39-year history.

Marketed for just over two years (Jan 1981 to May 1983), B/X D&D was undoubtedly a placeholder, capitalizing on the momentum provided by the 1977 Basic rules edited by J. Eric Holmes while buying time for Frank Mentzer's massive overhaul of the entire BD&D system. Indeed, when compared with those two editions, there seems at first blush little to recommend the 1981 rules at all.

Moreover, although David "Zeb" Cook would go on to be the lead designer for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) 2e, the creators behind B/X D&D were the proverbial "lesser lights" of the industry. Rightly or wrongly, Tom Moldvay, Steve Marsh, and Jean Wells don't hold the same esteem as Holmes or Mentzer, and Cook has his own legion of critics among those older players who still resent the changes made in AD&D2.

Yet the 1981 edition reached deep into the pool of potential roleplayers, including 9-year-old me, and turned masses of them into aficionados -- many of whom still play the game, maintain the countless webpages now devoted to D&D, etc. Any number of us quickly moved on to Mentzer BECMI, AD&D1, or even different RPGs entirely, but the fact remains that the B/X rules were our introduction to gaming.

The Holmes edition may be closer to the source and more literary; Mentzer's revision may be more comprehensive and coherent. Both men deserve enormous credit for what they built on the foundations laid by Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson et al. But even lesser lights can, on occasion, shine more brightly than we expect or imagine, and I intend for this blog to stand witness that they did in fact do so for a brief period between 1981 and 1983.