Was D&D the first RPG?

[afreed]

I'm going to quote S. John Ross from the rpg.net forums. Don't know if I agree with him, but he has an interesting point:

"I get a lot of heat at conventions for saying this, but I consider [Tunnels & Trolls] the very first RPG ever published. White-box D&D regarded name and gender as optional embellishments for a character (you played a First Level Fighting Man ... if you wanted to be fruity and name your little lead miniature, well, be fruity) In addition to the name-and-gender optional thing, original D&D suggested that the ideal group size was around 20 players. These details and others reveal original D&D for what it was: a very innovative wargame."

 

[trancejeremy]

Drat. I forgot about him in that thread about whether or not someone's behavior affects purchases. He's about the only guy I won't buy from, in part because of statements like that. (Which are at the very least, projection and hyperbole.)


I mean, in the introduction to the original first book, it says you don't even need miniatures. And that its in the vein of John Carter, Conan, de Camp & Pratt and Fahrd and the Grey Mouser.

 

[WayneLigon]

I'm going to quote S. John Ross from the rpg.net forums. Don't know if I agree with him, but he has an interesting point:

"I get a lot of heat at conventions for saying this, but I consider [Tunnels & Trolls] the very first RPG ever published. White-box D&D regarded name and gender as optional embellishments for a character (you played a First Level Fighting Man ... if you wanted to be fruity and name your little lead miniature, well, be fruity) In addition to the name-and-gender optional thing, original D&D suggested that the ideal group size was around 20 players. These details and others reveal original D&D for what it was: a very innovative wargame."

Men and Magic pg 5:

Number of Players: at least one referee and from four to fifty players can be handled in any single campaign, but the referee to player ratio should be about 1-20 or thereabouts.

I see no mention of name or gender being optional in Men & Magic. It mentions neither. Presumably, they didn't think people needed to be told specifically to add such things. The sample character given in the Determination of Abilities section clearly has a name.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Was D&D the first ever RPG?

First, define "RPG" and then that will give you your technical answer. For all practical purposes it's D&D. Before D&D "RPG" was a completely undefined concept. Only after D&D was "RPG" coined to in turn define D&D which was a "game" without[/I a ]definition. The two go hand in hand.

 

[dcollins]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D&D):

Originally derived from tabletop wargames, this publication is generally regarded as the beginning of modern role-playing games and, by extension, the role-playing game industry.

 

[jdrakeh]

Men and Magic pg 5:

Number of Players: at least one referee and from four to fifty players can be handled in any single campaign, but the referee to player ratio should be about 1-20 or thereabouts.

I see no mention of name or gender being optional in Men & Magic. It mentions neither. Presumably, they didn't think people needed to be told specifically to add such things. The sample character given in the Determination of Abilities section clearly has a name.

Of course, there were what... like six printings of those three books? As I understand it, each printing is slightly different from the preceding printings, so it's possible that what your copy of M&M says, another player's version does not. Note also that the copies in the white box were published in 1977, not 1974 - the first printing books were made available in a brown (i.e., wood-colour) box with white labels affixed to it.

 

[frankthedm]

I have a spoken with a friend's mother who said there were live action role play type groups who used wooden swords and such on college campuses pre 1970s wargame-rooted D&D.

 

[davidschwartznz]

I have a spoken with a friend's mother who said there were live action role play type groups who used wooden swords and such on college campuses pre 1970s wargame-rooted D&D.

Sounds like the SCA, which goes back yonks. Historical reenactment is not roleplaying gaming, even if you do take on a psuedo-historical persona. For one thing, in reenactment you're only as good a swordsman as you actually are.

However, reenactment is certainly an important factor leading up to (and associated with) modern roleplaying.

 

[Umbran]

For one thing, in reenactment you're only as good a swordsman as you actually are.

This in no way precludes it from being a role playing game. Just as some games rely on the player's ability for social skills, some other games rely on the player's ability for fighiting. If you're playing a particular persona, and there are rules (however loose), it's probably a role-playing game.

SCA fighting doesn't qualify because during the fighting, there's no role-assumption to speak of. It's a martial sport, not rpg. However, there are live action RPGs that have the player physically whacking away with a weapon in combat.

 

[CarlZog]

I think you could waste a LOT of time just arguing over the defining characteristics of an RPG.

Then could waste a whole lot more time trying to assess which games met how many of those criteria and when they were published.

In the end, you'll still have a thousand different opinions.

As for my opinion: If you're intent on picking a "first", I'd have to give it to D&D.

Carl