Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6183107" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I think we are actually quite close in our thinking (at least about the nature of rpg play, if not what to call it).I think you're not too far from the mark here, at least as they originally intended.I do not think this is quite true. Having looked at the first rules sets, I think they were pretty clearly writing/reflecting a tactical game that was being played with fantasy trappings (descended from earlier wargames and inheriting some of their mechanics and trappings). It was only later, that it occurred to folks that this might be used as a venue(?) medium(?) platform(?) whatever-it-is-that-an-rpg-might-be that people could use to tell full and rich stories. I think the texts of the early versions bear out the growing recognition of that possibility and by the time 2e arrived it was recognized as a clear goal of play (perhaps the presumed play goal of the 2e books.)Gygax at times ranted that any change in the rules meant that you weren't playing D&D (which may have been motivated by some copyright issues, as I understand it.) His only recommendations for changes seem to reflect the ideas of "fairness" or "challenge". Its only (AFAICT) by the time 2e comes around that we have explicit advice to change/alter/fudge the rules and results of the engine for the sake of story. I think 1e D&D is pretty explicitly not about being the great heroes of prophecy (or whatever) and more about finding out if you are said heroes.  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a>  has pointed out that some of the Basic D&D texts seem to recognize the desire for story in the game, but this occurs mainly in the introduction, and the rules do very little to reflect any presumed protagonism on the part of the PCs.That said, when the idea did plant itself in TSR's collective noggin, they did take the tack that you suggest above. To my eyes, it was fairly explicitly modeled on stage-theatre. The game was the stage, sets, and bit players; the DM was the playwright and sometimes director; and players took the part of the stars (including getting told where to go, and how to perform). The text of 2e took this viewpoint and many subsequent games as far afield as World of Darkness inherited it. Its failure to satisfy many story-oriented gamers (particularly in the WoD games) seems to have been a primary motivator for the advent of the Forge.I am not entirely certain, but I don't think so. The 1e DMG (IIRC) has a random dungeon-generator in the back. I don't think one can claim that the authors of the first rpg were intending story to happen with a random dungeon-generator (except perhaps randomly, as it would in say sports or war). I believe that D&D inadvertently created a third category somewhere in the between "storygame" and "boardgame", where play doesn't necessarily follow a clearly defined story arc or present character theses with well-defined anti-theses and resolutions for them. That third category is what I think a lot of D&D play is, and I have no other word for it than "role-playing game".</blockquote>

Verification