Awhile ago I was talking with my friend John. You might know him from JohnWickPresents.com. Keep in mind that I called him my friend, it’s quasi-important\interesting later. Anyway, John offhandedly mentioned something about the Forefathers of Gaming. We discussed, briefly, who our personal forefathers were before the conversation moved elsewhere. For some strange reason that conversation has been rattling around in my brain for some time. I keep going back to it and thinking about my personal forefathers. Something about my list just didn’t seem right to me.
Over the last few days I’ve grown more and more convinced that defining the elements that make a game a Role-Playing Game are futile at best, distracting at worst, and ultimately contributes nothing to the understanding or advancement of the hobby.
A thought from a shower. A discussion between two people. Various conversations in the last few days. Past notions from my mind grapes. These brought me to my attempt at the philosopher’s stone of role-playing games.
Around a month ago I wrote an article titled Dungeons, Dragons, and Daughter where I discussed running a D&D game for my 7 year old step-daughter. We finally continued our adventures in gaming. Here’s what happened.
Recently, game designer and friend John Wick wrote an article titled Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance in which he discussed what role-playing games are, what rules help enforce that idea, and ranted about weapon lists for a bit. This is my rebuttal.
When my wife asked me to teach my seven year old step-daughter how to play Dungeons and Dragons I knew that I couldn’t plop down a Player’s Handbook in front of her. Here’s what I did.