Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Korgoth" data-source="post: 4514098" data-attributes="member: 49613">Sometimes I wonder if WOTC sees D&amp;D too much as a game (which it is, obviously) and not enough as a vehicle for the imagination.Why is it that D&amp;D was like crack to me as a kid, but other games were fun but I could live without them? Because D&amp;D was a vehicle for my imagination. And one of the prime things we liked to imagine were characters.As a kid I had the Moldvay Basic rules and some AD&amp;D books. A friend had Mentzer Basic and some AD&amp;D books. It didn't matter that they all didn't &quot;go together&quot;. The point of the game was evidently to imagine up some cool s*** and just go crazy. Which is what we did. I remember the aforementioned friend showing me the picture of the Fighter in Mentzer (the bearded guy) and saying something like &quot;He's a ranger.&quot; Well, that makes sense: he's Grizzly Adams with a Conan sword. Obviously.Consistency of rules, &quot;tournament mindset&quot;, coloring within the lines. That was pretty meaningless to the folks I played D&amp;D with as a youngster. What captured me about it was that I could make a game... my own game, whatever I wanted, out of all the cool stuff I read in books, saw in movies and cartoons and dreamt up in my own unbridled youthful imagination.*That* is what makes D&amp;D D&amp;D. That is why, though everyone seemed to enjoy the Dungeon boardgame, nobody was a fanatic about it. We were fanatics about D&amp;D because of the imaginative component. Dungeon was a fun board game, but it was just that. D&amp;D was something else entirely.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Korgoth, post: 4514098, member: 49613"] Sometimes I wonder if WOTC sees D&D too much as a game (which it is, obviously) and not enough as a vehicle for the imagination. Why is it that D&D was like crack to me as a kid, but other games were fun but I could live without them? Because D&D was a vehicle for my imagination. And one of the prime things we liked to imagine were characters. As a kid I had the Moldvay Basic rules and some AD&D books. A friend had Mentzer Basic and some AD&D books. It didn't matter that they all didn't "go together". The point of the game was evidently to imagine up some cool s*** and just go crazy. Which is what we did. I remember the aforementioned friend showing me the picture of the Fighter in Mentzer (the bearded guy) and saying something like "He's a ranger." Well, that makes sense: he's Grizzly Adams with a Conan sword. Obviously. Consistency of rules, "tournament mindset", coloring within the lines. That was pretty meaningless to the folks I played D&D with as a youngster. What captured me about it was that I could make a game... my own game, whatever I wanted, out of all the cool stuff I read in books, saw in movies and cartoons and dreamt up in my own unbridled youthful imagination. *That* is what makes D&D D&D. That is why, though everyone seemed to enjoy the Dungeon boardgame, nobody was a fanatic about it. We were fanatics about D&D because of the imaginative component. Dungeon was a fun board game, but it was just that. D&D was something else entirely. [/QUOTE]

Verification