Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="T. Foster" data-source="post: 3861462" data-attributes="member: 16574">At the time I began playing D&amp;D (at age 9, in 1984) I too had never heard of the Gray Mouser, Holger Carlson, or Elric. My idea of fantasy, to the extent I had one at all, was pretty much limited to He-Man toys and Disney and Harryhausen movies. And yet I still found D&amp;D appealing and fascinating -- the fact that it was outside of my cultural comfort zone and was introducing me to new and previously unfamiliar styles and genres was a big (perhaps the biggest) part of the appeal. An interest in and knowledge of classic swords &amp; sorcery fiction didn't lead me to or make me interested in D&amp;D, my interest in D&amp;D led me to seek out classic swords &amp; sorcery fiction (most of which was just as out-of-print in 1985 as it is in 2007, and even less accessible because there was no ebay or amazon marketplace -- if the local used-bookstore didn't have it you were SOL).&nbsp;&nbsp; Therefore, I flatly and thoroughly reject the notion that D&amp;D must &quot;update&quot; itself to conform to what kids today like and are familiar with -- that it must reject Howard and Leiber in favor of WoW and Final Fantasy. If I was able to overcome my lack of familiarity with the inspirational material in 1984 and still learn to enjoy and appreciate the game on its own terms, there's no reason a kid today shouldn't be able to do the same (especially since he can acquire the same Gardner Fox or A. Merritt or Fritz Leiber novels with a single mouseclick that I spent years scouring musty used bookstores all over half a dozen states in search of). D&amp;D should be molding, rather than chasing, the tastes of its audience, now just as it did in the 70s and 80s.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="T. Foster, post: 3861462, member: 16574"] At the time I began playing D&D (at age 9, in 1984) I too had never heard of the Gray Mouser, Holger Carlson, or Elric. My idea of fantasy, to the extent I had one at all, was pretty much limited to He-Man toys and Disney and Harryhausen movies. And yet I still found D&D appealing and fascinating -- the fact that it was outside of my cultural comfort zone and was introducing me to new and previously unfamiliar styles and genres was a big (perhaps the biggest) part of the appeal. An interest in and knowledge of classic swords & sorcery fiction didn't lead me to or make me interested in D&D, my interest in D&D led me to seek out classic swords & sorcery fiction (most of which was just as out-of-print in 1985 as it is in 2007, and even less accessible because there was no ebay or amazon marketplace -- if the local used-bookstore didn't have it you were SOL). Therefore, I flatly and thoroughly reject the notion that D&D must "update" itself to conform to what kids today like and are familiar with -- that it must reject Howard and Leiber in favor of WoW and Final Fantasy. If I was able to overcome my lack of familiarity with the inspirational material in 1984 and still learn to enjoy and appreciate the game on its own terms, there's no reason a kid today shouldn't be able to do the same (especially since he can acquire the same Gardner Fox or A. Merritt or Fritz Leiber novels with a single mouseclick that I spent years scouring musty used bookstores all over half a dozen states in search of). D&D should be molding, rather than chasing, the tastes of its audience, now just as it did in the 70s and 80s. [/QUOTE]

Verification