Are lessons learned through D&D?
- Thread starter SemperJase
- Start date
I'd like to contribute one perspective on the 'does D&D teach you things' that has not really been touched in this (otherwise fascinating) thread and one which has struck me since I started doing some reading on what they call 'cultural' approaches to various humanities as part of my uni courses.
Basically, the cultural branches of anthropology, history and literary studies have for some time been arguing that their contribution to the general quality of human life is that they develop the capacity to understand people with very different frames of reference to oneself -- arguably an important skill in the multicultural environments most of us live in. The same could be said of a game which puts you in shoes which inevitably aren't exactly like your own.
Now, when I say roleplaying games can 'develop the capacity to understand people', it is important to realize that understanding in this sense does not mean empathy. After all, anthropologists who try to understand cannibalism do not do so by eating people. Similarly, roleplaying who play evil characters do not therefore themselves go out and commit evil acts. An idea can be played with without being accepted as a correct way to behave.
Also, the 'people' part of the above sentence extends to the player himself. A player is distinct from a character and from the way he thinks about the character in order to 'portray' him (how is this person different from me? How does he do things differently from me?) also helps shape self-identity (because those questions are implicitly asking 'what am I like?' and how do I do things?').
Of course, cultural theory is by no means the only way of looking at how people function and, though currently popular in the academy, the whole concept has some holes but it is an interesting idea as to what roleplaying games may be doing for us.
Yours,
Altin
Basically, the cultural branches of anthropology, history and literary studies have for some time been arguing that their contribution to the general quality of human life is that they develop the capacity to understand people with very different frames of reference to oneself -- arguably an important skill in the multicultural environments most of us live in. The same could be said of a game which puts you in shoes which inevitably aren't exactly like your own.
Now, when I say roleplaying games can 'develop the capacity to understand people', it is important to realize that understanding in this sense does not mean empathy. After all, anthropologists who try to understand cannibalism do not do so by eating people. Similarly, roleplaying who play evil characters do not therefore themselves go out and commit evil acts. An idea can be played with without being accepted as a correct way to behave.
Also, the 'people' part of the above sentence extends to the player himself. A player is distinct from a character and from the way he thinks about the character in order to 'portray' him (how is this person different from me? How does he do things differently from me?) also helps shape self-identity (because those questions are implicitly asking 'what am I like?' and how do I do things?').
Of course, cultural theory is by no means the only way of looking at how people function and, though currently popular in the academy, the whole concept has some holes but it is an interesting idea as to what roleplaying games may be doing for us.
Yours,
Altin
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
I did try to stay away, honest. I just can't help myself when I see incorrect statements being bandied about, however.
But the thread (and indeed the thrust of mkletch's argument) is that playing D&D teaches us things. Not that the rulebooks contain a bunch of useful facts about the world.
The act of playing (or the act of prepping, for us DMs) is where the learning takes place in D&D, not in flipping through the rulebooks. When I researched Aztec cultural practices for my Yshakan nation, I learned a great deal. Because of D&D. When I learn something BECAUSE of something else, I say that it taught me a lesson -- regardless of where the information actually resided. If you don't want to say that, fine, you don't have to, but then we're no longer having a discussion, we're just disagreeing on semantics.
But if Space Invaders was important to your development then it must have been important to your learning. Maybe it doesn't contain many facts about the real world but it did inspire you. I have teachers who inspired me. They didn't themselves contain much information, they just pointed me towards what I wanted to know. I say that they TAUGHT me things.
Again, if you want to define "teach" as "delivers facts" then go right ahead. According to that definition D&D does not teach. I find that an unsuitable definition of "teach" and the definition I prefer includes inspiration.
But we don't have to agree.
But it IS learning according to me, and shows me that I can learn things regardless of whether or not any knowledge is being imparted.
And believe me, you might find no end of people travelling foreign countries who appear to be learning absolutely nothing.
Again, the question isn't "Is the D&D the best or only way to learn something?" It's "Does playing D&D teach lessons?" Or even "Can playing D&D teach lessons?"
To which you have already answered yes, and so I leave that discussion as it is.
On to SemperJase:
Hah! You weren't expecting me to agree with you, were you? Caught you off guard with that one, didn't I?
Of course it's effective. Role-playing is a very effective means of helping people overcome their fears, insecurities and anxieties. Here's how it works: situation A causes person B to feel fear. Therapist C concocts Role-play D in which person B confronts situation A in a controlled environment (E) where they know they're safe. Knowing that they are safe allows them to experiment. To try out techniques and strategies in an environment where they are not risking anything.
In a word, to EXPLORE. Sometimes they will try out strategies that prove to be unworkable. Sometimes they will attempt techniques that turn out to put them into even worse situations. Role-playing is all about having a chance to try things out BEFORE having to risk the "real-world" challenge and face all the dangers it poses. They can even try out strategies they KNOW are a bad idea, just to see what will happen. All of these are very powerful and valuable techniques.
Hence playing evil characters is quite possibly a wonderful opportunity for someone to learn hard truths about themselves. Better to learn these things within the relatively safe confines of a gaming table than out wandering the streets.
So you see -- the very fact that, as you insist, role-playing is such an effective behavioural tool, demonstrates the basic indefensibility of your position that role-playing evil characters is always bad.
Nobody's suggesting that D&D is a good source of history, either, so why are you making this argument? I mean, if you're trying to say that D&D doesn't have much in the way of actual facts to learn, then yeah, sure. The only FACTS one learns from D&D are game mechanics.JohnBrown said:
But the thread (and indeed the thrust of mkletch's argument) is that playing D&D teaches us things. Not that the rulebooks contain a bunch of useful facts about the world.
The act of playing (or the act of prepping, for us DMs) is where the learning takes place in D&D, not in flipping through the rulebooks. When I researched Aztec cultural practices for my Yshakan nation, I learned a great deal. Because of D&D. When I learn something BECAUSE of something else, I say that it taught me a lesson -- regardless of where the information actually resided. If you don't want to say that, fine, you don't have to, but then we're no longer having a discussion, we're just disagreeing on semantics.
You are evidently using the term development very differently than I would. To me, human development is all about learning. Unless you're suggesting your puberty was brought on by video games.Did Space Invaders play an important part in my development? Yes, (as embarrassing as that is to admit), but it didn’t actually teach me anything.
But if Space Invaders was important to your development then it must have been important to your learning. Maybe it doesn't contain many facts about the real world but it did inspire you. I have teachers who inspired me. They didn't themselves contain much information, they just pointed me towards what I wanted to know. I say that they TAUGHT me things.Again, if you want to define "teach" as "delivers facts" then go right ahead. According to that definition D&D does not teach. I find that an unsuitable definition of "teach" and the definition I prefer includes inspiration.
But we don't have to agree.
Well, sure, but the point is that D&D provides SOME education, as you have just stated here. That it's some unique, special education unavailable elsewhere has never been discussed, but as you say, there is SOME education taking place. Or at least there can be.
Is learning only about acquiring knowledge? Where does wisdom fit into your notion of learning? Would you call Socrates a teacher? And yet he possessed no knowledge himself -- he merely asked question after question until people were forced to face the truth. Clearly no knowledge has been imparted -- the knowledge already existed in the student's mind, but only through the exercise of Socrates' careful intelligence was it made apparent. Is this learning? Not as you seem to define it, and again, that's fine. Define your terms however you like.
But it IS learning according to me, and shows me that I can learn things regardless of whether or not any knowledge is being imparted.
And believe me, you might find no end of people travelling foreign countries who appear to be learning absolutely nothing.
Again, the question isn't "Is the D&D the best or only way to learn something?" It's "Does playing D&D teach lessons?" Or even "Can playing D&D teach lessons?"
To which you have already answered yes, and so I leave that discussion as it is.
On to SemperJase:
Here is an answer to your point. It is effective.
Hah! You weren't expecting me to agree with you, were you? Caught you off guard with that one, didn't I?
Of course it's effective. Role-playing is a very effective means of helping people overcome their fears, insecurities and anxieties. Here's how it works: situation A causes person B to feel fear. Therapist C concocts Role-play D in which person B confronts situation A in a controlled environment (E) where they know they're safe. Knowing that they are safe allows them to experiment. To try out techniques and strategies in an environment where they are not risking anything.
In a word, to EXPLORE. Sometimes they will try out strategies that prove to be unworkable. Sometimes they will attempt techniques that turn out to put them into even worse situations. Role-playing is all about having a chance to try things out BEFORE having to risk the "real-world" challenge and face all the dangers it poses. They can even try out strategies they KNOW are a bad idea, just to see what will happen. All of these are very powerful and valuable techniques.
Hence playing evil characters is quite possibly a wonderful opportunity for someone to learn hard truths about themselves. Better to learn these things within the relatively safe confines of a gaming table than out wandering the streets.
So you see -- the very fact that, as you insist, role-playing is such an effective behavioural tool, demonstrates the basic indefensibility of your position that role-playing evil characters is always bad.
Barsoomcore,
Our opinions on this subject differ, however, this doesn’t make mine incorrect.
Some people on this thread have made some claims that D&D has taught them a wide variety of things, including, but not limited to: social skills, cultural insight, math skills, literacy, and not to freeze you DMs’ favorite d20 in a block of ice. I would be surprised if I was the first one to touch on history.
Regardless, I mentioned history to illustrate something D&D could inspire one to learn more about (along with cultural differences, math, literature, etc.), but that D&D does not teach. My point is that many people in this thread are equating inspiration with education. Those two things are not the same. As I said before, Star Trek inspired many astronauts and scientists. Star Trek didn’t teach them to do their jobs. I am not sure I can make it any clearer than that.
You feel that education and inspiration are the same, and you are certainly entitled to that opinion. The definition of the word “teach” and the definition of the word “inspire” do not strongly support your point of view, however.
From Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary:
Teach -- 1 a : to cause to know something (taught them a trade) b : to cause to know how (is teaching me to drive) c : to accustom to some action or attitude (teach students to think for themselves) d : to cause to know the disagreeable consequences of some action (I'll teach you to come home late)
2 : to guide the studies of 3 : to impart the knowledge of (teach algebra) 4 a : to instruct by precept, example, or experience b : to make known and accepted (experience teaches us our limitations) 5 : to conduct instruction regularly in (teach school)
Inspire -- 1: to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration: to exert an animating, enlivening, or exalting influence on (was particularly inspired by the Romanticists) c : to spur on : impel, motivate (threats don't necessarily inspire people to work) d : affect (seeing the old room again inspired him with nostalgia) 2: to draw forth or bring out (thoughts inspired by a visit to the cathedral) 3 a :bring about, occasion (the book was inspired by his travels in the Far East) b : incite 4 : to spread by indirect means or through the agency of another (Note: omitted additional definitions relating to breathing, and the supernatural since they are not relevant)
Your points and mkletch's points are better defined by the word “inspire” than the word “teach” (or any of its synonyms: educate, instruct, etc.). Unless you were just feeling argumentative (which is fair enough ), I am not sure why my desire to point out that these two things – while related – are not the same, bothers you so much? Inspiration is very necessary and valuable (as all three of us have already pointed out). To say they are the same cheapens one and over-inflates the other, however.
Many people love playing D&D (I know I do ). It is something that is enjoyable and/or makes them feel good about themselves. It is a natural reaction for all of us to want to embellish positive points about the things we like or love. There is nothing inherently wrong with this – as long as one keeps their perspective. D&D imparts little to no real-world factual information. Little to no real-world wisdom is gained by playing the game. D&D is not a teaching tool. It inspires, but it does not teach.
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.
As much as it may seem like semantics, it isn’t. 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? How are you learning to better interact with people? What new point of view are you experiencing?
It is the social interaction, not the game that teaches.
As far as role-playing in general, yes, it can be an effective tool to teach. It is normally used to teach very specific things, such as how to facilitate a business meeting, deal with unhappy customers, sensitivity training and so on. Television and movies can be an effective teaching tool as well. 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”. Both may be entertaining, but one is educational, while the other is not. Playing a street urchin from the slums of Greyhawk, gives you no true insight on what it is like to be destitute. Playing evil characters in D&D does not provide any meaningful insight into being truly evil or the effects that being evil have in the real world. D&D evil is victimless evil. It is evil done to and by imaginary people, who don’t scream in pain, mourn the loss of loved ones, or cry over their lost freedom. It might serve as nice opportunity to blow off steam after a stressful week at work (where you probably did learn something ), but that is about as beneficial (or harmful) as it gets.
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.
Our opinions on this subject differ, however, this doesn’t make mine incorrect
.Some people on this thread have made some claims that D&D has taught them a wide variety of things, including, but not limited to: social skills, cultural insight, math skills, literacy, and not to freeze you DMs’ favorite d20 in a block of ice.
I would be surprised if I was the first one to touch on history. Regardless, I mentioned history to illustrate something D&D could inspire one to learn more about (along with cultural differences, math, literature, etc.), but that D&D does not teach. My point is that many people in this thread are equating inspiration with education. Those two things are not the same. As I said before, Star Trek inspired many astronauts and scientists. Star Trek didn’t teach them to do their jobs. I am not sure I can make it any clearer than that.
You feel that education and inspiration are the same, and you are certainly entitled to that opinion. The definition of the word “teach” and the definition of the word “inspire” do not strongly support your point of view, however.
From Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary:
Teach -- 1 a : to cause to know something (taught them a trade) b : to cause to know how (is teaching me to drive) c : to accustom to some action or attitude (teach students to think for themselves) d : to cause to know the disagreeable consequences of some action (I'll teach you to come home late)
2 : to guide the studies of 3 : to impart the knowledge of (teach algebra) 4 a : to instruct by precept, example, or experience b : to make known and accepted (experience teaches us our limitations) 5 : to conduct instruction regularly in (teach school)
Inspire -- 1: to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration: to exert an animating, enlivening, or exalting influence on (was particularly inspired by the Romanticists) c : to spur on : impel, motivate (threats don't necessarily inspire people to work) d : affect (seeing the old room again inspired him with nostalgia) 2: to draw forth or bring out (thoughts inspired by a visit to the cathedral) 3 a :bring about, occasion (the book was inspired by his travels in the Far East) b : incite 4 : to spread by indirect means or through the agency of another (Note: omitted additional definitions relating to breathing, and the supernatural since they are not relevant)
Your points and mkletch's points are better defined by the word “inspire” than the word “teach” (or any of its synonyms: educate, instruct, etc.). Unless you were just feeling argumentative (which is fair enough
), I am not sure why my desire to point out that these two things – while related – are not the same, bothers you so much? Inspiration is very necessary and valuable (as all three of us have already pointed out). To say they are the same cheapens one and over-inflates the other, however.Many people love playing D&D (I know I do
). It is something that is enjoyable and/or makes them feel good about themselves. It is a natural reaction for all of us to want to embellish positive points about the things we like or love. There is nothing inherently wrong with this – as long as one keeps their perspective. D&D imparts little to no real-world factual information. Little to no real-world wisdom is gained by playing the game. D&D is not a teaching tool. It inspires, but it does not teach.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.
As much as it may seem like semantics, it isn’t. 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? How are you learning to better interact with people? What new point of view are you experiencing?
It is the social interaction, not the game that teaches.
As far as role-playing in general, yes, it can be an effective tool to teach. It is normally used to teach very specific things, such as how to facilitate a business meeting, deal with unhappy customers, sensitivity training and so on. Television and movies can be an effective teaching tool as well. 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”. Both may be entertaining, but one is educational, while the other is not. Playing a street urchin from the slums of Greyhawk, gives you no true insight on what it is like to be destitute. Playing evil characters in D&D does not provide any meaningful insight into being truly evil or the effects that being evil have in the real world. D&D evil is victimless evil. It is evil done to and by imaginary people, who don’t scream in pain, mourn the loss of loved ones, or cry over their lost freedom. It might serve as nice opportunity to blow off steam after a stressful week at work (where you probably did learn something
), but that is about as beneficial (or harmful) as it gets. 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.
mkletch
First Post
JohnBrown said:Regardless, I mentioned history to illustrate something D&D could inspire one to learn more about (along with cultural differences, math, literature, etc.), but that D&D does not teach. My point is that many people in this thread are equating inspiration with education. Those two things are not the same. As I said before, Star Trek inspired many astronauts and scientists. Star Trek didn’t teach them to do their jobs. I am not sure I can make it any clearer than that.
You feel that education and inspiration are the same, and you are certainly entitled to that opinion. The definition of the word “teach” and the definition of the word “inspire” do not strongly support your point of view, however.
[dictionary definitions trivializing the discussion removed...]
Your points and mkletch's points are better defined by the word “inspire” than the word “teach” (or any of its synonyms: educate, instruct, etc.). Unless you were just feeling argumentative (which is fair enough
You miss the most important point - inspiration teaches you that something is or has the potential to be important, either to you or society as a whole. While Star Trek didn't teach a single Apollo astronaut how to make the space capsule go left, it did teach them that the exploration of space was probably an important thing to consider for their lives.
Inspiration is teaching/learning, perhaps the most important part of such an endeavor. If you are uninspired, even a book containing every known fact on, for example, molecular biology will not do you any good, nor teach you anything. Nor would you learn from it.
JohnBrown said:
Now that is being argumentative for argument's sake.
A teacher usually does not 'teach facts', or at least the good ones don't. They show you what you do not know, and show you where to find it. Then they encourage you to learn it, for learning something on your own (even with a little guidance) is far better than having someone pound fact after fact into your head for future rote recitation. Good teaching, per the Socrates example, or any good teacher that I have had or known, is exactly what you are disequating with inspiration.
JohnBrown said:
The reality of the situation is that miniatures WWII games are a miniscule niche compared to FRPGs. Football can 'teach' a lot, even if it is just because you practice some little used math to crunch some player data. Going to work is largely irrelevant, especially when over half of the working population in the US dislikes their jobs, and I see few off topic threads in the general discussion forum about people who love their job.
JohnBrown said:
And here is where your argument descends into pure folly. D&D is not a pile of books and some dice. D&D is the interaction which is governed by the roll of the dice, the content of the books, and the content and imagination of the players' minds. The interaction, which you so highly praise as being and teaching "everything", and the game which you scorn as a vehicle for learning are the same thing.
JohnBrown said:
As much as I like CRPGs and other forms of 'interactive entertainment', they are not 'gaming' to me, nor is Neverwinter Nights truly D&D. D&D is the experience of sitting around a table with some friends and/or new acquaintences, killing paper monsters and eating rapidly cooling pizza. In a CRPG, all of 'the work' is done for you, the work that is the impetus for learning new things or reinforcing the things you knew but seldom used.
JohnBrown said:
I will repeat, the game IS the interaction:
Game = Interaction
Interaction = Teaching Potential
therefore...
Game = Teaching Potential (Q.E.D.)
JohnBrown said:
But "Clash of the Titans" can teach some basics about Greek mythology to someone who knows nothing, even though later learning/teaching may correct inconsistencies or embellishments. Whether or not a fact is truly 'correct', it can be learned. Learning does not exaclty map to "absolute truth". If that is your benchmark, then nothing teaches!
JohnBrown said:
I'll agree with that. But it might increase one's empathy for the truly destitute, and inspire one to think that doing something to alleviate their plight. Unless one cannot learn such things from a game.
JohnBrown said:
You are assuming that such a brushing, slight contact with the concepts of good and evil is worthless. You do not need to have bloodstains on your floor to realize that a particular act or event, which previously you thought fell into a 'grey area', is actually evil. You trivialize the simple event of encountering something new, or encountering something from a new perspective which may or may not change how you consider that thing. All of these are learning.
Just because something cannot be rendered into a cold, heartless, largely meaningless fact in the form of "On this day in 327 A.D. ..." does not mean it has no learning/educational value. Just because you understand that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 for a right triangle does not mean that you understand all of its implications. Fact and knowledge are two different things, as are fact and wisdom.
JohnBrown said:
It is my unfortunate opinion that those you game with would be better off if you played computer games instead of D&D. That way, someone who can learn from their games would then be able to fill your now-vacant chair. Sorry, but that is how I see it. If you cannot learn from them, they cannot learn from you either. All would be better off if a learning/teaching/inspiring person took your place.
This is like saying that, if you come across a new word in a book, but look that word up in a dictionary to confirm what you interpolated from the context of the passage, the original source did not teach you anything. I would venture to say that almost anyone would agree that the original book did teach you a new word. By analogy, a game is the exact same situation.
And remember, reality is built upon people's perceptions. The overwhelming perception is that people have learned from D&D, and your semantics have not made them unlearn anything. Sometimes, life and truth are inherently democratic like that.
-Fletch!
mkletch
First Post
Before my last reply be judged as too harsh, answer this question: Why do people do anything? My answer is: to learn.
Even if you go to a basketball game as a spectator, you are learning. You observe what happens at the game (aside form any conversation with friends or nearby spectators). But the human brain is more than a squishy file cabinet, and the human mind is more than simply the physical brain. You 'learn' the facts of the game, but also how those facts are associated with each other, and how they associate with other facts you know. You find patterns in the facts, and in the associations. All this from going to a noisy place and doing, effectively, nothing. You learn.
If you actually get together with some friends and play basketball, the same is true, plus you are learning new skills, and learning to improve old skills. Learning is still involved, and it goes beyond the simple act of playing the game. The human mind is not that limited.
Heck, any animal with more than a simple brain stem probably experiences much the same, though to varying and lesser degrees. Your dog gets better at catching the ball, then applies that to catching treats you throw to him.
Most people I know who are or who have been unhappy with their jobs complained that a) it was not challenging, b) the training I wanted or needed was not provided or c) no tuition reimbursement program for masters/doctorate. All of these are also learning related. So yes, it does extend beyond games.
Facts, however trivial, are facts learned and tied to other facts. Life is learning. The only way to learn nothing is to do exactly nothing. If even one of your senses is operating, you are learning something, and tying it to other things you know. Even the subconscious helps out, while you are dreaming.
So, if you learn nothing from playing D&D, you are a physical embodiment of Oblivion. Only the dead cease to learn.
-Fletch!
Even if you go to a basketball game as a spectator, you are learning. You observe what happens at the game (aside form any conversation with friends or nearby spectators). But the human brain is more than a squishy file cabinet, and the human mind is more than simply the physical brain. You 'learn' the facts of the game, but also how those facts are associated with each other, and how they associate with other facts you know. You find patterns in the facts, and in the associations. All this from going to a noisy place and doing, effectively, nothing. You learn.
If you actually get together with some friends and play basketball, the same is true, plus you are learning new skills, and learning to improve old skills. Learning is still involved, and it goes beyond the simple act of playing the game. The human mind is not that limited.
Heck, any animal with more than a simple brain stem probably experiences much the same, though to varying and lesser degrees. Your dog gets better at catching the ball, then applies that to catching treats you throw to him.
Most people I know who are or who have been unhappy with their jobs complained that a) it was not challenging, b) the training I wanted or needed was not provided or c) no tuition reimbursement program for masters/doctorate. All of these are also learning related. So yes, it does extend beyond games.
Facts, however trivial, are facts learned and tied to other facts. Life is learning. The only way to learn nothing is to do exactly nothing. If even one of your senses is operating, you are learning something, and tying it to other things you know. Even the subconscious helps out, while you are dreaming.
So, if you learn nothing from playing D&D, you are a physical embodiment of Oblivion. Only the dead cease to learn.
-Fletch!
Last edited:
Sacrificial Lamb
First Post
Well, believe it or not, D&D helped me pass a sample MCAS test in the newspaper.
There were 20 multiple choice questions (16 of which I got right), and three of those questions were about Charlemagne. 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....
There were 20 multiple choice questions (16 of which I got right), and three of those questions were about Charlemagne. 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....
Similar Threads
