Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7581462" data-attributes="member: 5142">I remember playing a bit of 2E in high school. I came in late during the campaign. We encountered a troll, and the other players informed me that trolls in the game were vulnerable to fire and acid. So that's what we used to defeat it. When we started a new campaign in 3E, our new characters were never forced to &quot;relearn&quot; this weakness. It was understood that these were things that our characters as competent adventurers would have sufficient knowledge of. I would also push back against the idea that D&amp;D presents a &quot;zero-to-hero&quot; narrative. The earliest fantasy of D&amp;D, IMHO, never really seemed to care about &quot;heroes.&quot; Or zeroes. It seemed to be about &quot;rags-to-riches&quot;. Or at the very least: the game words may have said one thing or referenced heroes on occasion, but the &quot;meat&quot; that propelled the game said something else entirely. You are not leveling up to become a hero. You are leveling up to gain riches, titles, and property. This point was even brought up earlier in our discussion in another thread of how D&amp;D's fantasy is rooted in a lot of Americanisms (success = accumulation of wealth) rather than Medieval European values whose aesthetic the game supposedly simulates. I don't really think that D&amp;D got into fantasy about &quot;heroes&quot; until Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. Before that, it was rooted more in the Sword &amp; Sorcery genre, which has an incredibly cynical view of heroes. Most of the genre's &quot;heroes&quot; aren't heroes at all, but, instead, selfish bastards. So I don't really see the whole idea that D&amp;D is about playing &quot;zeros to heroes&quot; seems like a later addition to the game representing an alternative approach.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7581462, member: 5142"] I remember playing a bit of 2E in high school. I came in late during the campaign. We encountered a troll, and the other players informed me that trolls in the game were vulnerable to fire and acid. So that's what we used to defeat it. When we started a new campaign in 3E, our new characters were never forced to "relearn" this weakness. It was understood that these were things that our characters as competent adventurers would have sufficient knowledge of. I would also push back against the idea that D&D presents a "zero-to-hero" narrative. The earliest fantasy of D&D, IMHO, never really seemed to care about "heroes." Or zeroes. It seemed to be about "rags-to-riches". Or at the very least: the game words may have said one thing or referenced heroes on occasion, but the "meat" that propelled the game said something else entirely. You are not leveling up to become a hero. You are leveling up to gain riches, titles, and property. This point was even brought up earlier in our discussion in another thread of how D&D's fantasy is rooted in a lot of Americanisms (success = accumulation of wealth) rather than Medieval European values whose aesthetic the game supposedly simulates. I don't really think that D&D got into fantasy about "heroes" until Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. Before that, it was rooted more in the Sword & Sorcery genre, which has an incredibly cynical view of heroes. Most of the genre's "heroes" aren't heroes at all, but, instead, selfish bastards. So I don't really see the whole idea that D&D is about playing "zeros to heroes" seems like a later addition to the game representing an alternative approach. [/QUOTE]

Verification