Hidden in Shadows

Last post was a bit of a romp.  This time around I want to point out some of the problems with the story I spun and some of the competing possibilities.

First lets recap some of the strengths of a June date for the popcorn/movie night and week later castle/dungeon game:

-we have a range of data points in broad agreement with a "Spring" 1971 date, and June still mostly counts as Spring.

- we have Arenson saying he was involved in a Napoleonic campaign in Holland while he is working on the Blackmoor area map, and Megarry was running such a campaign in June.

- we have the movies The Black Room and House of Dracula airing at that time.

That's admittedly thin sauce.  Here's the major problems:

- June barely counts as spring, and Arneson was supposed to be leaving for Europe in the middle of the month.

- Megarry's Netherlands campaign could have been in the works for months, and it is also entirely possible Arneson could have been talking about some other Holland campaign.  Since there is a known area map of Blackmoor accompanying a letter that predates June by two months, one of these two possibilities appears to be the case.

- Arneson always presented the Castle/dungeon game as THE debut game of Blackmoor, but we have two instances of what must be Blackmoor games mentioned in CoTT (April 17th and May 22nd) prior to June; the first of which did not involve dungeons and the second unknown.

We can make excuses for each of these and any other objections, but the issues raised certainly can't be dismissed.

I have to thank Hutch Hubbard for pointing out something in the comments that my dense brain completely missed all this time - The Black Moors appears for all the world to be a play on The Black Room - "Moor" being "Room" backwards.  It seems all the more likely to me given Arneson's somewhat juvenile love of just these sort of word plays.  For example, turning Gregg Scott into egg of ott, Randy Hoffa into, Ran of Ah Foo, referring to peasants as "pheasants" and so on.

So it would seem we should consider seriously that Arneson came up with the idea of a place with a castle called the Black Moors sometime when the movie The Black Room was fresh in his mind.  The creation of the name probably wasn't far removed from the time he dreamt up the first dungeon game.

Now here is the thing about The Black Room - the May 29th showing was actually the third one that year.   There were also showings on Saturday, January 16, 1971 and February 20, 1971.

Hutch Hubbard's simple observation regarding the word play of Moor and Room, really set me to thinking that we were on to something with this film link to Blackmoor, but that being the case, we should look for evidence for or against the earlier air dates.

If we continue to follow Arneson's claim that the Castle/dungeon game premiered one week after his monster movie/Conan novel binge, we would be looking at the dates of Jan 23rd or Feb 27th. While we are at it, let's continue to presume House of Dracula had a key influence on the set up, and conveniently, we find that movie also aired earlier in the year, two weeks after the Feb 20 airing of The Black Room on Saturday, March 6, 1971.  

Any of these dates could be our winner.  They are all solidly in a late winter/early spring context and they all pre-date both Arneson's trip to Europe and the first games mentioned in CotT.  If there is any significance to the similarities between Blackmoor castle and House of Dracula, then a game one week after that movie would have taken place on March 13th,  although it is also conceivable that last minute inspiration was taken from that movie on the very day it aired because these KSTP Horror Incorporated movies were shown in the afternoon, and would have been over prior to the evening game session.  We might also look at the Saturday, February 27, 1971 movie The Ghost of Frankenstein, because it also contains (briefly) a spooky castle, a graveyard, and a nearby village.

In the case of any of these dates (Feb 20 - March 13th), it means we, (well, me) need to rethink some of our assumptions about this castle/dungeon game.  Specifically what it involved in nature.
Why?  Because a February to mid March date for the castle/dungeon game likely predates the arrival of CHAINMAIL in Dave Arneson's mailbox.  CHAINMAIL was apparently printed some time in March.

When I think of a Blackmoor dungeon adventure, I think of a trip into a monster filled maze - orcs and spiders and trolls, etc.  The goal of the players is to kill monsters and get treasure.

However, it occurs to me that a castle/dungeon game needn't be like that at all.  If the dungeon game were a "Medieval Braunstein" the dungeon itself may have simply been a creepy obstacle to finding some Mcguffin goal - a prisoner (the lost Baron of the Black Room?), or a treasure (a magic sword?).  Maybe the dungeon was guarded by, well guards, of the human variety, or maybe there was a monster or two like a vampire or werewolf.  Maybe combat, if there was any, was handled simply or arbitrarily.

Some of this sounds rather suspiciously like Greg Svensons remembered first game.  HERE  That's possible, but Greg believes the game he remembers was played during the Christmas break between trimesters.  I suppose there is some possibility his game took place over a different holiday than he remembers (Easter 1971 was Sunday April 11 - a date by which Arneson very likely had CHAINMAIL).  However, the game Greg remembers was much more developed in terms of character advancement and other features, than other early games, such as the Icelandic Cave game as related by other Twin Cities players.  So we need to be cautious regarding the dating of Gregs game, and/or about some of the evolved facets of play he remembers.  This account also seems to conflict with that of Dave Fant, who almost certainly was at Arneson's first castle/dungeon game, because, according to him, he was made the Baron at that game, and led the expedition into the dungeon.  

In any case, if we accept the Black Room/Black Moor connection as likely, then it would seem a better case can be made for a circa March game than a circa June game for the first dungeon delve.

Here is me having a little fun - don't take any of this as gospel, but rather as a speculative investigation.  I'm about to spin a "Just So" story that sounds good, but should only be seen as a possibility.

Arneson told his own story of the birth of his Blackmoor castle, dungeon, and it's immediate surroundings a hundred times.  Always this story involved the same 3 elements: popcorn, horror movies, and Conan.  Here is one early example:

"Some months after Mr. Wesley left, a local TV station had on several old monster movies, which I watched while eating popcorn and reading old Conan novels. It was then that Blackmoor
Dungeon was first conceived."  Wargaming #4 1978, p47

It's a fun story, but hard to pin down.  When asked about the dating of Blackmoor, Arneson almost always offered up 1971 as the year it started.  Here is one more example, this time with a slightly more specific date:

"I was sitting around... with nothing going on except the monster movie,... reading Conan and conceived of the idea for the dungeon. I populated it and the next time the boys showed up for a battle, they had a castle sitting in the middle of the board. That was the spring of 1971."  Game News #5, July 1985. p9

Sometimes he leaves us other little dating clues which might even be more reliable, for example:

"After Don't Give up the Ship I started in on Blackmoor" Knights of the Dinner Table #34, 1994.

Dave Arneson's version of DGutS was finished in the spring of 1971 and published in the IFW Summer of 71.

Here's another general clue:

"We were doing a historical campaign in Holland so my map ended up with a lot of water." Kobold Quaterly 9, Spring 2009 p31.

In Vol. 3 #5 of the Corner of the Table newsletter (the May 1971 issue), we read: 

"From June 11 to June 21, 1971 there will be a series of Napoleonic battles involving the Dutch for the spring of 1802 of the Napoleonic War Simulation.  The exact time and place have not been determined but contact Dave Megarry if you are interested in taking part as a Dutch or a non Dutch sub commander."  

Interestingly, this is the same COTT which, in the previous paragraph, announces "On Saturday May 22, 1971 a Brown Stein-type game set in the Middle ages will be held at Dave Arneson's home after the Napoleonic Campaign meeting is completed.  All those attending the Napoleonic meeting are invited to stay for this game."  This is the same meeting where Dan Nicholoson received his "Spanish Royals" character sheet I 'blogged about previously.

There's more circumstantial evidence for this general time too, coming in the form of Duane Jenkins Old West Brownstone campaign.  All the Twin Cities players - including Arneson - who mention Jenkins Brownstone, point to it being just prior to Blackmoor, and pioneering the novel idea of characters who survive and continue from game to game. 

In the same Vol 3 #5 of the Corner of the Table newsletter quoted above, Arneson relates the glorious and brief career of his "El Pauncho" character in Jenkins Brownstone.  El Pauncho's short life of banditry ran from late June to early August in the game's calendar - just over a month - before he was captured and Jailed by Sheriff Fant.  In real time, it is hard to say how many game sessions were involved - my guess would be anywhere from one to half a dozen, but probably not more.    In fairness, more adventures from El Pauncho were promised for the next COTT: "There will also be the continuing saga of El Pauncho and the start of the "Black Moors" battle reports..."  Presumably an escape was planned, but it isn't clear what this statement is really telling us about the state of these games.  Both of these promised reports could well be referring to things that may not have happened yet but are expected to, and will be reported on as they occur.  As it happened in fact, El Pauncho was never heard from again, but Black Moor certainly was. 

So it appears all these data points fit rather nicely and the signals from Arneson seem to direct us to the same general timeframe for the development of fantasy gaming in Blackmoor and the placement of the Castle/dungeon game - that timeframe being late spring of 1971.  However, there is one sort-of exception. One of the oldest references from Arneson is found in his First Fantasy Campaign publication where he said "The Dungeon was first established in the Winter and Spring of 1970-71."  If we presume he was being general and off-the-cuff, and that he meant "Sometime during" the Winter and Spring of 1970-71, then there really is no contradiction with a late spring date.  Hard to say.

Now here we run into a more significant problem.  Ross Maker, Dave Wesely, and Dan Nicholson have all said two things: First, they were introduced to Blackmoor in a scenario involving a Plane Crash in Iceland where they played versions of themselves, and second, that this game occurred after Arneson's trip to Europe in June/July of 1971.   

There are two ways around this problem.  The simplest is to just assume they are misremembering the timing.  It would be easy enough to be confused on whether you played the game just before or just after Arneson's European Vacation(TM).  

The other possibility is that we are simply looking at different participants in different games.  Dave Megarry says he was not at the May 22nd game.  He also says he was not at the Icelandic Plane Crash game, but that he was at Arneson's first Castle/Dungeon game, to which he arrived late. (Pers Comm 2017)

If Megarry is right, that would rule out the May 22nd date for Arneson's Castle/Dungeon game, but leave open the possibility that it was the date of the Icleandic Plane Crash scenario.  

So, in a couple places, I previously speculated that this May 22nd meeting is a good candidate for Arneson's Castle Dungeon game, one week after a weekend fueled with popcorn, Conan and monster movies.  However, as you can see, that would contradict Megarry, and seemingly be problematic in relation to the Icelandic Plane Crash scenario which appears to be earlier in character and timing.

In fact, if I may spin another Just-so story, placing the Icelandic Plane Crash game as the game played on May 22nd instead fits in a couple or three different ways.  

First, we could easily imagine Arneson being both a bit excited and a bit anxious about an upcoming flight to Europe.  

Second, Perhaps more interestingly, are the anecdotes about combat. The first reported "Black Moors" game isn't the May 22nd game, but an April 17th game with a troll at a troll bridge as found in the previous COTT Vol 3 #4.  This game seems to have had less participants, but Bob Meyer says he was one of them.  Bob Meyer's account of his encounter with the troll leaves little doubt about his disdain for the newly released CHAINMAIL combat system Arneson used for that session, which laid low Bob's hero with a single blow - the first to die in Blackmoor, according to Meyer.  Arneson had repeatedly indicated that the, um, lets say discontent, of the players at their characters easy demise is what led him to create his own combat system.

In David Wesely's account of the Icelandic Plane Crash scenario, he opined that combat consisted of only "arbitrary story telling" made up by the referee, and because they were playing themselves, "that they really can not die"  Wesely suggested that, like Fight in Skies, you take on a personality who gains experience and can be killed. (Pers Comm 2011).

Regardless of exactly when it was, the Icelandic Plane crash scenario seems most likely to fall sometime between the Troll Bridge game and the Castle Dungeon game.  If we accept that the Castle Dungeon game took place in "spring" 1971, and we accept that the Icelandic Plane crash is earlier, then it must also have been in the spring, prior to Arnesons trip.  If that sequence is correct and the Bob Meyer, David Wesely, and Dave Arnesons accounts are roughly accurate, we may be seeing an evolution in combat where Arneson begins with CHAINMAIL Fantasy, scraps that system because it is too deadly, tries (or resorts to) just arbitrary storytelling, scraps that because it is not deadly enough, and then comes up with a Hit Point based combat method. 

Like I said, it is a pretty good "Just So" story, but it does conflict with the report that the Icelandic Cave game came after Arneson's trip, so we will simply suggest that it may have been earlier, perhaps on May 22nd.

Let's consider Arnesons' European Vacation for a moment.  The exact dates for this trip have been elusive.  Generally it is said to be in June-July 1971.   No doubt you are wondering what difference it makes.   The main reason is that we (well I, anyway) generally haven't looked closely at what was going on in June because we assumed Arneson was overseas.  That includes the monster movies that were playing that month.  However, if he was home for most or all of June it means we can look for evidence that Arnesons castle/dungeon game took place in June, preferably on or before the end of Spring on June 21st, as we established above.

Arneson does have a few things to say about his plans for the trip in COTT Vol 3 #5 (May '71).  Right after the paragraph quoted above regading David Megarry's Dutch battles, Arneson writes:

"As the bulk of are officers are making trips to Europe about the middle of June, the time and place of the June Meeting will be difficult to arrange and there is a very good chance that it will be cancelled altoghether."

There is also this:
"The full rules committee will met June 12, 1971 at (fill in the blank) Hrs at (fill in the blank) Home.  Arneson wasn't on the rules committee, but as club Secretary and head referee of the Napoleonic campaign it seems somewhat unlikely he would fail to attend any of these meetings.

And Lastly this:
"The next issue of the paper will be prepared prior to my trip to Europe as well as they July issue so that if I do stay away from this nuthouse for two months there will still be a paper.  This is especially necessary since election results and ballots must be sent out to all the voting members."

My take-away from the above is that Arneson really had no idea exactly when his trip would be or exactly how long it would last when the May issue of COTT was prepared.

We (at least I) have been assuming that Arneson left on his European tour circa June 15 and returned a month or maybe 6 weeks later circa July 20ish.  Maybe that's about right, but maybe not.  Perhaps that information will come to light.  Meanwhile...

If Arneson's parents hadn't solidified their plans by April/May, it is not unreasonable to suppose they may have actually left a little later than "the middle of June".  The end of June or even early July seems at least as likely for their departure, if not more so.

There's tentative support for this idea coming from David Megarry.  I asked him about the Dutch campaign reported above.  He said:

"I seem to recall that very few people (if any) took Arneson up on the offer and I see myself and him being the only players. I think I attacked his forces but Arneson's more experience prevailed (though by 1971, I was getting better..;). I spent most of my time trying (and I think I was successful) to disengage from the battle. Arneson then Table T'd the campaign based on the outcome. Whether these memories were of the Dutch campaign or some other battles I am not sure. I would have just finished being a Junior at the University of Minnesota on those dates."

Arneson himself may have unknowingly provided us a corroborating clue both to his participation in the Dutch game with Megarry, and the creation of Blackmoor generally.  He said " We were doing a historical campaign in Holland so my map ended up with a lot of water." Arneson Kobold Quaterly 9, Spring 2009 p31.
He's talking here about the land map of Blackmoor, with all it's rivers, lakes and bays, as seen in the FFC.  

Nevertheless, and very importantly, this participation in a Dutch campaign (presumably Megarry's) appears to peg Arneson in the Twin Cites up to the 21st of June, working on Blackmoor material.

So, provisionally, lets presume that Arneson didn't go to Europe until no earlier than the last week of June.  Let's also presume that the monster/popcorn/Conan Saturday when Blackmoor dungeon was born was some Spring date after May 22nd as discussed above.  Lastly, let's presume that one of the movies Arneson watched that fateful weekend was inspirational in some way to the Castle and Dungeon mileu.

Before we cull through the candidate movies, lets consider what influences we might actually be looking for.  What are some of the outstanding characteristics of Blackmoor castle?  Here is a partial list:

The Castle:
• Sits high atop a rocky hill
• Overlooks the sea
• Is creepy/haunted
• Has at least one sealed/bricked up room
• Has underground passages/tunnels with monsters
• Has a passage leading to the cliffs above the sea
• Has secret doors/hidden passages
• Has a torture chamber
• Has a laboratory/wizards workshop
• Has a library
• Lies next to a walled village
• Has a graveyard positioned between the castle and village
• Has secret tunnels that lead to various buildings in town and elsewhere

According to The Horror Incorporated Project(TM) website, these are the afternoon movies playing on channel 5 KSTP Minneapolis/Saint Paul:

Saturday May 29, 1971 - Werewolf of London (1935), The Black Room (1935)

Saturday June 5, 1971 - House of Frankenstein(1944), The Boogie Man Will Get You (1942)

Saturday June 12, 1971 - House of Dracula (1945), The Man with Nine Lives

Saturday June 19, 1971 - The Raven (1935),  The Man They Could Not Hang (1939)

Saturday June 26, 1971 - Murders In the Rue Morgue (1932), Behind the Mask (1932)


We can quickly dismiss most of these movies as no castle is involved.  We are left with three candidates:

Saturday May 29, 1971 - The Black Room (1935)

Saturday June 5, 1971 - House of Frankenstein (1944)

Saturday June 12, 1971 - House of Dracula (1945)

Taking each in turn:

The Black Room involves a castle in the Alps ruled by an evil baron with a good twin brother.  This movie has several interesting features:

There is castle, set high on the hill, near to a graveyard:

David Megarry's Dungeon! is fascinating on many levels.  We can trace the origin of this game with an exactness that is rare in game archaeology, to an early weekend in the month of October, 1972.

Dungeon!, or The Dungeons of Pasha Cada, as it was first officially named in early 1973, came about as an attempt to make a referee-less, family version of the Blackmoor game. As Dave Megarry put it, "Playing in Blackmoor is where I get my inspiration" (pers comm., Feb 2017).  

It is tempting to wonder then what rules and methods in Dungeon! were inspired by Blackmoor specifically, or perhaps Twin Cities play in general, including to what extent combat in Dungeon! may have been inspired by the use of Strategos, and CHAINMAIL(TM) in Blackmoor as experienced by Megarry..  

As it was with Blackmoor, CHAINMAIL certainly served as a primary source for Megarry when it came to adding to his list of monsters.  Slightly over half (51%) of his original monster cards are CHAINMAIL monsters while the rest are either leader types (Chieftans) of Blackmoor originals (Green Slime, Grey Pudding and so on).  It is natural then to also look for CHAINMAIL influences in the combat rules. 

In the 1975 printing of the Dungeon rules we are told "...the adventurer rolls two dice.  If the dice roll is equal to or greater than the number listed on the Monster Card, then the monster has been defeated...:  That's the same basic technique as used in the Fantasy Combat table in CM, and although rolling 2d6 verses a target number was common practice in gaming, we can say it was at least consistent with the CM method and perhaps derivative.

However, what is interesting to me, as discussed in previous posts, is the notion in Dungeon! of non-equal combat methods, like we see in D&D but not in CHAINMAIL.  By that I mean, there is one table for players, and a different table for monsters.   Likewise, in Dungeon!, there are two concurrent systems.  The monsters simply die when you beat their "to hit" score, but something much different is done for players.  "If the dice roll is less than the number shown on the Monster card, then the monster has defeated the adventurer.  In such a case, the player must immediately roll 2 dice and refer to the Combat Losing Table"

Tucked in the back of TSR's Supplement II Blackmoor is a curious expansion on the sage NPC.  It's curious because this section contains quite a bit of detailed information about an NPC type who's only function would be as a one off hire to research an answer to some obscure question the PC's might have once or twice in a campaign.  None of the other specialist hirelings are treated this way, and there really is no practical reason any of them should be. 

This detailed expansion of the Sage NPC is unusual, and seems even stranger when you consider that the sage's main function, researching obscure questions, is also well within the purview of Magic-users.  Use of a sage must surely be rare in most campaigns, so why is the sage, and only the sage, singled out for a detailed write-up in the Blackmoor Supplement?

When discussing his work on Supplement II Blackmoor in his Dragonsfoote Q & A forum, editor Tim Kask reveals that he cut sections of the material Arneson had written ("I said to hell with that and threw most of the crap away").  Kask considered the discarded material to be redundant or non-conforming to the rules of D&D.  Some other portions of Arneson's manuscript weren't discarded, but were reworked by Kask for the same reason. In particular, Kask has pointed to the Assassin and the Sage as being reworked in this regard.

Kask thought the Assassin was "more suited to be an NPC, but was overruled."  With the Sage in Supplement II, however, he appears to have not been overruled.

Arneson considered "sage" to be a player character class, not just an NPC, at least in the case of the Special Interests section of the FFC.  Notice the class list Arneson gives in th SI section:

Fighting-Man 
Clerical 
Magic-User 
Ranger 
Paladin 
Assassin 
Merchant 
Sage

This list is particularly interesting regarding the dating of the Special Interests section.  It is abundantly evident from the content throughout the piece that the section was written after the January 1974 publication of D&D, but exactly when is more difficult to ascertain.  The class list however provides some solid ground to reason from.  In addition to the three original classes, the list contains the Paladin from, Supplement I Greyhawk, (January 1975) and the Ranger (Strategic Review #2, Summer 1975).  Tacked on to the end are the 3 "classes" associated with Blackmoor.  

Setting those last 3 aside for the moment and looking specifically at Fighting man to Paladin in the SI list, we find what would be an up to date player character class list for the summer/fall of '75, except that the "Thief" from Supplement I is missing.

In his Corner of the Table newsletter for August of 1975, Arneson informs the readers that he has just completed months of work on Supplement II.  Supplement II, of course contains 2 of the 3 "Blackmoor" classes on the end of the SI list - the Assassin and Sage - so only Merchant is missing from the material TSR published up to that time.

It seems quite probable, therefore, that the section containing the Special Interests piece was originally part of the material Arneson wrote that summer, which Kask subsequently considered unfit for publication in Supplement II.  This isn't so surprising, as the SI section substantially changes the rules for experience points.  Kask may well have thought it too rule-bending to be published as official material.  It's unclear if Arneson had also submitted a piece on the Merchant class, but if so it seems to have likewise fallen victim to Kask's editorial process.  

The fact that Thief is missing from Arneson's SI class list suggest that Arneson may have considered Thieves and Assassins to be equivalents, or perhaps he considered Theives to be a subclass of Assassin (instead of the reverse) or perhaps a replacement. 

Whatever the case with Assassin and Merchant, the reason the Sage gets such oddly detailed treatment in Supplement II would seem to be that Kask took what was intended to be a class and turned it into an NPC because he didn't think it was a suitable class.

That means that, theoretically, one could cut away all the text specifically discussing the details of hiring a Sage, and be left, more or less, with the specifics unique to the class, to a greater or lesser degree as Arneson originally wrote it.

Before we begin this exercise, we should ask why Arneson created a sage class in the first place.  The adventuring "Sage" isn't exactly an obvious  literary archetype, unlike the Assassin (hello Assassins of Gor ) but, just as with the Cleric and the Merchant, we do have a well established character in play in pre D&D Blackmoor who could well have served as the model for a Sage character class.  That character would be David Megarry's Scholaress.  

The "Earl's Scholaress" began life as a pre-D&D character of what we would now think of as the Fighter class, being neither Priest or Wizard and being well armed.  In one particular adventure the "Scholar" character used a magical bracelet to change into a basilisk (female), and much to his chagrin, found himself a herself upon changing back to human.  Thereafter, the Scholaress increasingly researched and used magic.  

At one point after the rules of D&D were available, Dave Arneson had the Scholaress progress as a Magic user for XP purposes, and allowed her use what David Megarry characterized as "non-weapon" spells, as shown in the illustration below from Mr. Megarry's chemistry notebook.