View Single Post

Default 

July 3rd, 2009, 19:19
I have a few comments about the conclusions made in the introduction. Harris obviously did his homework, and he got a lot right. But he's not quite imagining the original game as it was actually played.

While it's true that the term "role playing" wasn't used in the original books, it was implied and was nearly unavoidable. A lot of us got excited about D&D and talked about it after having played it for the first time. Every recollection was the same: We told stories and described the parts we played in them.

It's true that the narrative wasn't "top down" DM-driven, and it certainly was a simple free-form dungeon crawl. But no one ever would have considered that an adequate description. There was always a story, one that was derived through collaboration. It wasn't created or followed expressly; it was improvised intuitively.

D&D put players into roles like the ones in the science-fiction and fantasy-adventure stories they enjoyed, and even the stiffest, least-imaginative players preferred interesting over dull. Players on the one hand and the DM on the other collaborated and by doing that achieved something unexpected and special.

Oh, I wish I had a river I could skate away on. But it don't snow here. It stays pretty green. I'm going to make a lot of money, then I'm going to quit this crazy scene. — [Joni Mitchell]
Last edited by Squeek; July 3rd, 2009 at 19:30.
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#8

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807