Are lessons learned through D&D?

[barsoomcore]

Our opinions on this subject differ, however, this doesn’t make mine incorrect .

Well, one of us is.

You seem to have two objections to the notion that D&D teaches us anything. One is your use of the definitions of "teach" and "inspire" -- you seem to feel that it's important to illustrate that these are separate concepts. The other is your point that while the social interaction that occurs during D&D may provide learning, this is something quite distinct from the game itself. In your last post you also distinguished the role-playing of D&D from the role-playing of therapy, and asserted that while therapy roleplaying teaches, D&D role-playing does not.

Which I guess makes three objections. Never mind, you're wrong on all counts.

Objection One:

You feel that education and inspiration are the same, and you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

I agree that I'm entitled to any opinion I like, but I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that my definition of teach includes inspiration -- a very different proposition than simple equality. Let's just snag two elements from the definitions you just quoted, shall we:

Teach -- 2 : to guide the studies of

Inspire -- 1c : to spur on : impel, motivate

You don't see that those things are the same? That the definition of teach includes the action of inspiring? Again, Mr. Brown, that's fine. As I said, we are discussing semantics here. You define your words one way and I define them another and that's okay.

According to your definitions D&D does not teach because it does not provide us with factual content. According to my definition it teaches because it guides us in the study of things we otherwise might have overlooked. Which fits Mr. Webster's definitions pretty nicely, says me. Your definition does not seem to encompass all that Mr. Webster's includes.

Objection Two:

Does the social interaction that accompanies playing D&D present an opportunity to learn? Yes, but replace D&D with tabletop WWII miniature game, a football game, going to work, or any number of other things where social interaction takes place, and the same sort learning takes place. You “learn” from the interaction, not from the game.

Okay, so playing soccer teaches us nothing. We learn nothing from playing Monopoly. That's what you're saying.

Which is fine. You're offering a definition that makes those things true. All I'm saying is that if an activity requires a social interaction, and that interaction teaches me things, then I say that the activity teaches me. You don't have to. I won't insist. It's not important, it's just semantics.

Oh, but you don't think so. Let's examine your argument that this is more than just semantics:

Lets say there was a perfect computerized d20 representation of D&D that you can play solo (or those old “solo” adventures TSR put out many moons ago). You are playing D&D, but since you are by yourself, what social skills are you gaining?

No, you're not playing D&D. D&D is not a computer game and it's not a game that can be played by oneself. Is playing PlayStation NFL 2002 "playing football"? Can you play soccer by yourself? Of course not. The very notion is absurd.

I'm not arguing that computer games have any value. I am talking about playing D&D, which requires at least two people and a good deal of imagination.

Objection Three:

Comparing the role-playing that goes on in a classroom or therapist’s office to most D&D sessions is kind of like comparing “The Rise and Fall of the Spartans” on the History Channel to the movie “Clash of the Titians”.

Your use of "most" here is very interesting. Saying that most do not of course implies that it is POSSIBLE that some may. So, yes, D&D CAN teach. The fact that it often does not is in no way evidence that it CAN NOT.

Both may be entertaining, but one is educational, while the other is not.

Why? What is the qualitative difference? What is the magic ingredient that therapy possesses? Saying that it's done by professionals or subject to greater scrutiny only says again that MOST D&D sessions do not perform up to the same standards. Which as I said, indicates that the possibility they could do so exists, just that it is not actualized very often.

The reason that I keep hammering this is simple. Overzealously promoting D&D’s ability to teach and influence one’s thoughts and points of view opens the door for D&D’s overzealous detractors. D&D is game (and a fun one at that), nothing more, and nothing less.

Show me who's being overzealous. Is anyone here claiming that D&D is more or less educational than any other social activity? As a game, it is a educational as any other game. As a role-playing game it offers the same learning opportunities as any other role-playing effort. And who are these overzealous detractors you seem so worried about?

Look, you want to use a definition of teach that puts D&D on the outside of education. Fine, go ahead. You want to put a clear line between a game and the social interaction required to play the game, and that's fine, too. Knock yourself out. If you're going to pretend that "therapy" role-playing is of some qualitatively different nature than D&D, you're going to have to provide some evidence to convince me, just as you are to convince me that the former two points are anything but semantic juggling.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

The only reason I know even a little about Charlemagne, is because in some old issue of Dragon, there was an article about people from myth, legend, and history, and the article mentioned Charlemagne, and put him into stats for AD&D.

I can't remember if this was 1st Edition or 2nd Edition AD&D....

Probably 1st... 2nd featured an entire book on Charlemagne's era.

Now, I completely agree that the game teaches via interaction and inspiration.

That said, I also have to say that, even John Brown's definitions prove him wrong. How so, you all ask? Simple! I've been playing to 21 years now, and I can state for a fact that simple raw knowledge, the sort that Mr. Brown suggests is required for true teaching, has been provided to us. Dragon has always contained information from historical eras and real world mythology. I've read articals and books on Charlamagne, the Byzantine Empire, The myths of Greek, Celtic, Norse, Russian, African and Russian folklore. I've learned about warfare and politics, about weapon and armor smithing. About economics and the logistics of running a kingdom, running a business and even establishing overseas trade.

And this isn't a list of what D&D inspired me to learn. No, no, no... This is all just a sample of what I have learned by simply reading books and magazines written for the game itself. Not history books, not hours of scouring through a library, not veging on the coach watching The History Channel. Nope: All this and more from D&D Books!

And here's the best part: Instead of being a trivial fact with little significance or effect on my life, this information was actually useful in game!!! How about that, folks! Hard, dry facts that I read about in D&D Books that became relevant and useful in D&D Games! Why's this significant? Because I didn't just read the info and shelve it away to be forgotten like last week's gum. It became a part of my experience as a person and was reinforced by its effect in-game.

And that's just the beginning. After all, this information simply inspired me to get more (by assembling a collection of history books, scouring through libraries and veging out with Roger Mudd).

Now, in so far as Mr. Brown's concerns about D&D’s overzealous detractors, all I can say is something really simple:

F-'em! After all this time, the only ones with any real clout have been busted for drugs and hookers. I advise that you stop letting them influence your life and enjoy some good gaming.

 

[barsoomcore]

Dragon has always contained information from historical eras and real world mythology.

Yeah! Throw that bad boy down!

All this and more from D&D Books!

They oughta be charging extra!

And here's the best part: Instead of being a trivial fact with little significance or effect on my life, this information was actually useful in game!!!

How is it that so many seemingly smart people have been down this thread and this is the FIRST time someone's mentioned this? Maybe you guys aren't so smart after all?

Oh wait, that includes me. Never mind!

Now, in so far as Mr. Brown's concerns about D&D’s overzealous detractors, all I can say is something really simple:

F-'em! After all this time, the only ones with any real clout have been busted for drugs and hookers. I advise that you stop letting them influence your life and enjoy some good gaming.

And heck, if you happen to learn a little in the process, well, who's to say? Given that I haven't (yet) been busted for drugs and hookers, I might have some claim to saying I learned MORE than they did. Maybe I learned while I was playing that game they're so zealously detracting.

Don't hide your drugs in your glove compartment. Don't charge the "escort" to your office account. Not sure where I learned those tidbits, but maybe there was a Dragon article on it.

Nice. Very nice indeed.

 

[Bagpuss]

I've seen groups melt down because one player betrayed others "in-character". Even though it is just a game people still would not play with that person. It seems that there are cases of real world morals relating to fantasy.

Uhh, no... that's a case of one player being a jerk and the other players not wanting to assosiate with him because he, as a person, is a jerk. It's not a case of real world morals relating to fantasy.

When does a person instantly become a jerk for acting in-character? Betrayal can be real fun for both sides. Its positively common in Cyberpunk/Shadowrun games and I can think of a few great D&D games where one of the players has been actively working against the parties interests.

Sound more like a case of some players can't tell the difference between IC and OOC actions and motivations. Little to do with morals either way.

 

[Pielorinho]

Well, I can say one thing that I learned from roleplaying: I'm not a pure pacifist.

About ten years ago, I was in a World of Darkness campaign in which we played supernatural versions of ourselves. We were all peaceful-like, being peaceful folk in real life -- until at some point, a bad guy pulled a gun on us. And in the game, I killed her.

It shook me up for days afterward. The game Daniel had killed someone! I reevaluated an important part of who I thought I was, based on that incident.

I've had other experiences like that, only not as intense: game sessions in which I've explored what it means to confront one's mortality, in which I've played with the effect of heroism on one's family, in which I've poked around with the idea of bloody loyalty to an abstraction.

These issues aren't, of course, the main reason I play. Mostly I play for fun. But my favorite gaming sessions have been ones that elicit strong emotions from the players, and complex characters with shades-of-gray ethics and motives tend to be better at doing that.

Daniel

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

While it may have been sufficiently beaten into the ground by now I feel the need to give the perspective of a teacher on the issue of "does inspiration = teaching?"

Hell, yes. Lecturing at someone for 3-5 hours a week can get you no where fast, but inspire them, and that's when they learn. The best feeling I've ever had in a teaching capacity came the first time a student came up to me and said, "You know, I was thinking about what you were saying in section yesterday, so I went to the library and found these papers..."

That student leaned more by reading those papers out of genuine interest than I could have taught her in half a semester. Why? Because she was inspired by the material.

I suppose it's possible that an elementary school teacher would have a different opinion on the subject, but I doubt it. The whole trick to teaching is getting them interested for the sake of the material itself. And that's the same with undergraduates in hard sciences as it was with 2nd-7th graders when I taught Religious Education.

That's a pretty diverse sample, and it's an increasingly large sampled population. I think I can say with reasonable confidence that inspiration is the SOUL of teaching.